BS: Global warming - the myth

Subject: RE: BS: Global warming - the myth
From: Wolfgang
Date: 05 Apr 07 - 10:26 AM

BB's last article is not a good argument for "global warming skeptics" says this article.

BTW, Stigweard's Using other planets as models for what is happening on the Earth (and vice-versa) is not good science argument gets shot down in that article as well.

The more we learn about Mars, the more intuition it gives us about Earth (Christensen, quoted in Nature's news online, from April 4th, 2007)

Wolfgang

Subject: RE: BS: Global warming - the myth
From: Scoville
Date: 05 Apr 07 - 10:35 AM

Frankly, I don't even think it matters if global warming is a myth or not. Even if it doesn't trap greenhouse gases and didn't exacerbate respiratory problems, there is no good reason for us NOT to work toward reducing pollution. We don't need it in the atmosphere. It's not natural. It should be a given that we work to reduce pollution regardless of what the last word finally is on global warming.

Subject: RE: BS: Global warming - the myth
From: beardedbruce
Date: 05 Apr 07 - 10:41 AM

" It should be a given that we work to reduce pollution regardless of what the last word finally is on global warming. "

I have no arguement with this statement.

MY complaint is that the "global warming enthusiests" have said, repeatedly, that the SOLUTION to global warming is to reduce CO2 emissions. Not ONE word of how they will deal with the real and present consequences of it- for whatever reason it exists. All energy is placed in cutting emissions- NONE in relocating threatened populations, preserving endangered species, or assisting farmers in shifting crops to better fit the new climates.


Reducing emissions MAY help- but not doing the above WILL hurt.

Subject: RE: BS: Global warming - the myth
From: Scoville
Date: 05 Apr 07 - 10:53 AM

I'm not as big a tree-hugger as I sound, really. I mean, I am a tree-hugger, but I'm not a militant, evangelical, tree-hugger.

You're right, though, that focusing on one area won't solve it. It has to be a blanket effort. Of course, not being able to solve it all at once is no excuse to do nothing, but there needs to be an across-the-board effort.

Subject: RE: BS: Global warming - the myth
From: beardedbruce
Date: 05 Apr 07 - 11:09 AM

"Some of the biggest debates expected Thursday in the closed-door negotiating session center on what to include on the charts that summarize "key vulnerabilities" the world faces with global warming.

The charts have been called a "highway to extinction" because they show that with every degree of warming, the condition of much of the world worsens -- with starvation, floods and the disappearance of species.

Those charts "tell us there's a danger in the future," said Belgian delegate Julian Vandeburie, who is in the science policy branch of his government.

.....


The more urgent the IPCC report is, the higher the public expectations are of the politicians, who this year will have to make a very firm decision to start new negotiations, binding negotiations, for further deep reductions in carbon pollution."

NOT in dealing with the consequences.
NOT in trying to do anything OTHER than to cut C02.



http://www.cnn.com/2007/TECH/science/04/05/belgium.climate.ap/index.html

Subject: RE: BS: Global warming - the myth
From: Arne
Date: 05 Apr 07 - 07:02 PM

Richard Bridge:

What was also noticeably missing was any indication of how ocean levels had varied over time.

Yes, it was warmer millions of years ago. And the entire middle of the U.S. was sea-bottom.

Cheers,

Subject: RE: BS: Global warming - the myth
From: Arne
Date: 05 Apr 07 - 07:19 PM

BeardedBruce:

1. Global warming is real.

Glad to see you haven't completely divorced from reality.

2. The probable cause is flutuation in the solar output- Or do you think that the CO2 here on earth is what is changing the Red Spott on Jupiter?

The ol' RW fallacy of "binary thinking" strikes again. "You're either with us or you're with the Terra-ists"....

There is no one "cause" of global climate. The trick is to tease out and identify the contributing factors and relative contributions.

If I have $1005 gross after inventory costs, and if I have $1000 rent and salaries, I make $5. But if my taxes (of all kinds) go from just $3 to $8, I go from a $2 net to a (-)$3 net loss, a -150% change in my balance each month, and a severe change in status. But even a 1% change in that rent and salary swamps even that, as does the same in the gross after inventory. Even little things make a difference, and small canges in big things do too, to the bottom line.

Even if the solar irradiance is changing slightly, if we can reduce heating from CO2 significantly (note: not eliminate it), we can still have a marked effect on the bottom line. And though the bottom line per year may not be alarming on that time frame, if we look at the effect of a continued change in the same direction over many years, we may not like where we're going.

That being said, the contribution to the change in temperature is estimated to be over 50% anthropogenic (and solar irradiance factors are less), and if we can curtail that component (even though we can do less about solar output), we can effect big changes in the end mean teperatures in the middle future.

Cheers,

Subject: RE: BS: Global warming - the myth
From: Arne
Date: 05 Apr 07 - 07:30 PM

FWIW, most of the "scientists" on the Channel 4 show have their arms up to their elbows in the oil industry pocket (and some of these folks aren't climatologists at all, like Dr. Reiter, an entomologist [studies bugs], or even non-scientists, like Paul Driessen, a lawyer and PR guy).

See here for my quick lookup on these guys...

Cheers,

Subject: RE: BS: Global warming - the myth
From: beardedbruce
Date: 06 Apr 07 - 07:20 AM

Tools: Save | Print | E-mail | Most Popular
Study: Climate change could bring new U.S. Dust Bowl
POSTED: 4:01 a.m. EDT, April 6, 2007
Story Highlights• Bottom line: "Better start planning" for parched Southwest, says researcher
• Study, published in journal Science, yields "scary results," scientist says
• Computer models show transition to drier conditions due to climate change
Adjust font size:
WASHINGTON (AP) -- Changing climate will mean increasing drought in the southwestern United States, where water already is in short supply, according to a new study.

"The bottom line message for the average person and also for the states and federal government is that they'd better start planning for a Southwest region in which the water resources are increasingly stretched," said Richard Seager of Columbia University's Lamont Doherty Earth Observatory.

Seager is lead author of the study published online Thursday by the journal Science.

Researchers studied 19 computer models of the climate, using data dating back to 1860 and projecting into the future. The same models were used in preparing the reports of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. (Watch how the latest panel report is different )

The consensus of the models was that climate in the southwestern United States and parts of northern Mexico began a transition to drier conditions late in the 20th century and is continuing the trend in this century, as climate change alters the movement of storms and moisture in the atmosphere.

The reduction in rainfall could reach levels of the 1930s Dust Bowl that ranged throughout the Midwestern United States, Seager said in a telephone interview.

That does not mean there would be dust storms like those of the 1930s, Seager said, because conditions at that time were complicated by poor agricultural practices. But he said the reduction in rainfall could be equivalent to those times when thousands of farmers abandoned their parched land and moved away in search of jobs. (Watch drought hit Australian farmers hard )

Currently, most water in the Southwest is used in agriculture, but the urban population of the region is growing and so the water needs of people are growing as well, he explained.

"So, in a case where there is a reduced water supply, there will have to be some reallocation between the users," Seager said. "The water available is already fully allocated."

He said he feels that adjustments can be made to deal with the change, perhaps by withdrawing some land from production and by conserving water in urban areas.

"But it's something that needs to be planned for," Seager said. "It's time to start thinking how to deal with that."

Jonathan T. Overpeck, director of the Institute for the Study of Planet Earth at the University of Arizona, said the finding "agrees with what is already happening in the Southwest, and will be further complicated by the already declining spring snowpack due to warming."

"These are scary results, but scary in part because they are results of well thought-out scientific work by a large number of strong scientists," said Overpeck, who was not part of the research team. (Watch a worst-case scenario for coastal U.S. cities )

In other reports in this week's issue of Science:

• Researchers led by Alan Gange of the University of London reported that as a result of warming temperatures some species of mushrooms and toadstools in southern England have begun to fruit twice a year rather than once.

They found that some species that previously only fruited in October now also fruit in April. In addition, the length of the fruiting period has grown over time and in the last decade alone it has more than doubled, they found.

• Deep waters in the North Atlantic some 125,000 years ago were warmer than they are now and may have helped melt the Antarctic ice sheets, according to researchers led by Jean-Claude Duplessy of the Laboratory of Climate and the Environment of Institute Pierre Simon Laplace outside Paris.

Deep North Atlantic water flows south, then rises to the surface near Antarctica. The researchers said current warming climate trends indicate similar conditions to that period could occur in the next couple of centuries.

Subject: RE: BS: Global warming - the myth
From: beardedbruce
Date: 06 Apr 07 - 07:27 AM

Anger over global warming report
POSTED: 4:34 a.m. EDT, April 6, 2007

Story Highlights• Scientists, diplomats argue over wording of landmark global warming report
• Disagreement centers on confidence scientists have in their findings
• China and Saudi Arabia insist confidence level be reduced to "high"
• Delegates are also struggling to make the report easy to understand

BRUSSELS, Belgium (AP) -- An authoritative international global warming conference, way past the deadline for finishing its report, lapsed into an unprecedented showdown between scientists and diplomats over authors' concerns that governments were watering down their warnings.

Last-minute negotiations over language continued behind closed doors Friday, less than one hour before a scheduled release of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change report in Brussels.

A dispute between the scientific authors and the diplomatic editors of the report erupted over the sixth paragraph in the 21-page summary that sets out how much confidence the scientists have in their findings about the effects global warming is already having.

The sentence originally said scientists had "very high confidence" -- which means more than 90 percent chance of accuracy -- in the statement that many natural systems around the globe "are being affected by regional climate changes, particularly temperature increases."

After days of intensive negotiations over this section, delegates from China and Saudi Arabia on Friday insisted that the confidence level be reduced to "high" -- which means more than 80 percent accuracy.

Three top scientific authors formally objected to the change by the diplomats, saying it was an unprecedented weakening of the scientific confidence that the issue was not raised when the report was circulated months ago.

In the hurry to get the report finished before a 10 a.m. (0800GMT) release and news conference, diplomats forced the last-minute removal and altering of parts of the iconic table, which shows the ill-effects of warming with each 1-degree Celsius (1.8-degree Fahrenheit) increase in temperature, scientists and other delegates told The Associated Press.

Participants in the marathon negotiations said government delegates have already weakened the original language in the report.

A final draft of the report -- written by scientists before government officials edit it -- says "roughly 20-30 percent of species are likely to be at high risk of irreversible extinction" if global average temperature rises by 1.5 to 2.5 degrees Celsius (2.7 to 4.5 degrees Fahrenheit). (Watch a worst-case scenario for U.S. cities )

That part has been "diluted," said retired scientist Ian Burton attending the session on behalf of the Stockholm Environment Institute.

Another delegate said the amended version hedged on the sweep of the original text, inserting a reference to species "assessed so far."

Guy Midgley of the National Botanical Institute in South Africa, a lead author of the chapter on ecosystems that includes extinctions, said the changes will be "commensurate with the science."

Another prolonged tussle emerged over whether to include estimated costs of damage from climate change -- calculated per ton of carbon dioxide emissions, said the delegates on condition of anonymity because they were not authorized to speak to the media.

A main issue at the Brussels conference is how the report will say what it has to say in the most effective possible way -- that 120 nations' negotiators can accept.

The key is making it easily understandable, said Oyvind Christophersen, who heads the Norwegian delegation as a senior adviser for climate and energy. "The challenge is how to summarize a big, big report."

The entire final draft report, obtained last week by The Associated Press, has 20 chapters, supplements, two summaries and totals 1,572 pages. This week's wrangling is just over the 21-page summary for policymakers.

It is the second of four reports from the IPCC this year; the first report in February laid out the scientific case for how global warming is happening. This second report is the "so what" report, explaining what the effects of global warming will be. (Watch how this report differs from earlier statements )

Some of the biggest debates in the closed-door negotiating session centered on what to include on the charts that summarize "key vulnerabilities" the world faces with global warming.

The charts have been called a "highway to extinction" because they show that with every degree of warming, the condition of much of the world worsens -- with starvation, floods and the disappearance of species.

Those charts "tell us there's a danger in the future," said Belgian delegate Julian Vandeburie, who is in the science policy branch of his government.

Vandeburie compared the world's current situation to the Munich peace conference in 1938, when Britain and France had a choice between confronting Hitler and appeasing him: "We are at the same moment. We have to decide on doing something or not."

Subject: RE: BS: Global warming - the myth
From: Bill D
Date: 06 Apr 07 - 11:26 AM

Of course the bureaucrats are disputing the scientists over exact wording! If a really serious report were released, they might have to actually DO something! (or stop doing some things)

Subject: RE: BS: Global warming - the myth
From: beardedbruce
Date: 06 Apr 07 - 11:59 AM

Scientists: Lake Superior warming rapidly
POSTED: 7:55 a.m. EDT, April 6, 2007

Story Highlights• Surface temperatures on Lake Superior up 4.5 degrees since 1979
• Warmer winters mean less ice cover which mean more warming
• Levels dropping as Superior loses water to winter evaporation

DULUTH, Minnesota (AP) -- Lake Superior has been warming even faster than the climate around it since the late 1970s because of reduced ice cover, according to a study by professors at the University of Minnesota Duluth.

Summer surface temperatures on the famously cold lake have increased about 4.5 degrees since 1979, compared with about a 2.7-degree increase in the region's annual average air temperature, the researchers found. The lake's "summer season" is now beginning about two weeks earlier than it did 27 years ago.

"It's a remarkably rapid rate of change," Jay Austin, an assistant professor with the university's Large Lakes Observatory and Department of Physics, told the Star Tribune newspaper. Austin co-authored the study with geology professor Steve Colman.

The study is based on data collected by National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration buoys on the lake and on 102 years' worth of daily temperature readings at a hydroelectric plant near Sault Ste. Marie, Michigan.

Austin said the surface temperature increase is not only "a symptom of climate change," but also could reinforce itself. A trend toward warmer winters would mean less winter ice cover, which would allow more solar radiation of the lake and continued warming, he said.

Lake Superior freezes over completely about once every 20 years, according to the Minnesota DNR's climatology office. If trends continue, it could be routinely ice-free by about 2040, the study found. This would cause water levels to continue to drop because the lake loses more water to evaporation in a winter without ice cover than it does during the summer. In recent months, the lake's level has been lower than at any equivalent time since 1926.

The study was first published by the American Geophysical Union on March 23.

Subject: RE: BS: Global warming - the myth
From: pdq
Date: 06 Apr 07 - 12:39 PM

"In recent months, the lake's level has been lower than at any equivalent time since 1926"

What caused it to be so low back about 80 years ago?

Subject: RE: BS: Global warming - the myth
From: Don(Wyziwyg)T
Date: 06 Apr 07 - 02:42 PM

"It is Big Oil which is pricing you off the road, not the greens. Vehicles with better fuel economies, sensible alternate fuels (ethanol is a sham, IMO, as it is just as unfriendly to produce in the long run), more dependence on wind power, solar arrays, decentralization so jobs will be in more communities, not just in gigantic urban centres, good public transit, etc., are things more likely to be effective."

I've not looked at this thread for some time, so apologies to Bee for the delay in answering.

NO! It isn't big oil in the UK, Bee, nor is it the greens. It is in fact a government policy which has been ongoing for ten years or more, to annually add tax onto the price of fuel to discourage use of cars, and this accumulative increase is now a very significant proportion of what we pay (about three times as much as it costs in the USA). Their latest stunt now, is to increase the cost of our road fund license by 100%, if we drive large cars.

Not only do these increases hit the individual motorist, but they have a knock on effect on prices in general.

Now, who do we think might be hardest hit by this? YES! The poorest people in the country become even poorer. Many of us will be starving to death long before global warming takes serious effect.

The rich will simply move into those areas with the best resources and lock the gates to keep us out.

Don T. (Whose newest car in the last twenty years was eight years old when he bought it....Might be able to afford a second hand hybrid by about 2020).

Subject: RE: BS: Global warming - the myth
From: beardedbruce
Date: 12 Apr 07 - 04:26 PM

Fuzzy Climate Math

By George F. Will
Thursday, April 12, 2007; Page A27

In a campaign without peacetime precedent, the media-entertainment-environmental complex is warning about global warming. Never, other than during the two world wars, has there been such a concerted effort by opinion-forming institutions to indoctrinate Americans, 83 percent of whom now call global warming a " serious problem." Indoctrination is supposed to be a predicate for action commensurate with professions of seriousness.

For example, Democrats could demand that the president send the Kyoto Protocol to the Senate so they can embrace it. In 1997, the Senate voted95 to 0 in opposition to any agreement that would, like the protocol, require significant reduction of greenhouse gas emissions in America and some other developed nations but that would involve no "specific scheduled commitments" for 129 "developing" countries, including the second-, fourth-, 10th-, 11th-, 13th- and 15th-largest economies (China, India, Brazil, South Korea, Mexico and Indonesia). Forty-two of the senators serving in 1997 are gone. Let's find out if the new senators disagree with the 1997 vote.

Do they also disagree with Bjorn Lomborg, author of "The Skeptical Environmentalist"? He says: Compliance with Kyoto would reduce global warming by an amount too small to measure. But the cost of compliance just to the United States would be higher than the cost of providing the entire world with clean drinking water and sanitation, which would prevent 2 million deaths (from diseases such as infant diarrhea) a year and prevent half a billion people from becoming seriously ill each year.

Nature designed us as carnivores, but what does nature know about nature? Meat has been designated a menace. Among the 51 exhortations in Time magazine's " Global Warming Survival Guide" (April 9), No. 22 says a BMW is less responsible than a Big Mac for "climate change," that conveniently imprecise name for our peril. This is because the world meat industry produces 18 percent of the world's greenhouse gas emissions, more than transportation produces. Nitrous oxide in manure (warming effect: 296 times greater than that of carbon) and methane from animal flatulence (23 times greater) mean that "a 16-oz. T-bone is like a Hummer on a plate."

Ben & Jerry's ice cream might be even more sinister: A gallon of it requires electricity-guzzling refrigeration and four gallons of milk produced by cows that simultaneously produce eight gallons of manure and flatulence with eight gallons of methane. The cows do this while consuming lots of grain and hay, which are cultivated by using tractor fuel, chemical fertilizers, herbicides and insecticides, and transported by fuel-consuming trains and trucks.

Newsweek says most food travels at least 1,200 miles to get to Americans' plates, so buying local food will save fuel. Do not order halibut in Omaha.

Speaking of Hummers, perhaps it is environmentally responsible to buy one and squash a Prius with it. The Prius hybrid is, of course, fuel-efficient. There are, however, environmental costs to mining and smelting (in Canada) 1,000 tons a year of zinc for the battery-powered second motor, and the shipping of the zinc 10,000 miles -- trailing a cloud of carbon dioxide -- to Wales for refining and then to China for turning it into the component that is then sent to a battery factory in Japan.

Opinions differ as to whether acid rain from the Canadian mining and smelting operation is killing vegetation that once absorbed carbon dioxide. But a report from CNW Marketing Research ("Dust to Dust: The Energy Cost of New Vehicles from Concept to Disposal") concludes that in "dollars per lifetime mile," a Prius (expected life: 109,000 miles) costs $3.25, compared with $1.95 for a Hummer H3 (expected life: 207,000 miles).

The CNW report states that a hybrid makes economic and environmental sense for a purchaser living in the Los Angeles basin, where fuel costs are high and smog is worrisome. But environmental costs of the hybrid are exported from the basin.

We are urged to "think globally and act locally," as Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger has done with proposals to reduce California's carbon dioxide emissions 25 percent by 2020. If California improbably achieves this, at a cost not yet computed, it will have reduced global greenhouse gas emissions 0.3 percent. The question is:

Suppose the costs over a decade of trying to achieve a local goal are significant. And suppose the positive impact on the globe's temperature is insignificant -- and much less than, say, the negative impact of one year's increase in the number of vehicles in one country (e.g., India). If so, are people who recommend such things thinking globally but not clearly?

[e-mail]

Subject: RE: BS: Global warming - the myth
From: Wolfgang
Date: 18 Apr 07 - 04:09 PM

Warming May Keep Hurricanes From Forming

Wolfgang

Subject: RE: BS: Global warming - the myth
From: MMario
Date: 18 Apr 07 - 04:39 PM

wow - I don't know who this George F. Will is - but have to seriously consider what qualifications if any he has when his article contains such items as:

"Ben & Jerry's ice cream . . .: A gallon of it requires electricity-guzzling refrigeration and four gallons of milk"

Ice cream yields are normally significantly larger then the fluid input.

"most food travels at least 1,200 miles to get to Americans' plates"

most implies more then half. Not true in a lot of areas.

Subject: RE: BS: Global warming - the myth
From: TIA
Date: 18 Apr 07 - 04:41 PM

With all due respect, I must add follow-on quotations from one of the authors of the study that Wolfgang cites above. wolfgang's article truncates before getting to these important statements (by the author remember)...

"On the other hand, warm water provides the energy that drives hurricanes, so warmer conditions should make the storms stronger.

"We don't know whether the change in shear will cancel out the increased potential from warming oceans, but the shear increase would tend to make the Atlantic and East Pacific less favorable to hurricanes," said Vecchi, of NOAA's Geophysical Fluid Dynamics Laboratory in Princeton, N.J.

"Which one of the two — warming oceans or increasing shear — will be the dominant factor? Will they cancel out? We and others are currently exploring those very questions, and we hope to have a better grasp on that answer in the near future," Vecchi said.

"What we can say is that the magnitude of the shear change is large enough that it cannot be ignored," he added.

********Any decrease in strength or frequency of storms caused by shear would apply only if all else was equal******, Vecchi said..."

(emphasis by TIA)

Subject: RE: BS: Global warming - the myth
From: Amos
Date: 20 Apr 07 - 12:15 PM

Obviously som efolks will be mor eintelligent about the data on global warming than others.

This lady, for example, seems to have noticed something the others have overlooked.


A

Subject: RE: BS: Global warming - the myth
From: Don Firth
Date: 20 Apr 07 - 12:42 PM

Yeah, Amos. Unfortunately, that's about the level of thinking that determines our leaders these days.

Don Firth

Subject: RE: BS: Global warming - the myth
From: Wolfgang
Date: 02 May 07 - 10:04 AM

Arctic sea ice decline: Faster than forecast?

the models still underestimate observed ice loss...the Arctic could be seasonally free of sea ice earlier than the IPCC projections

Wolfgang

Subject: RE: BS: Global warming - the myth
From: tarheel
Date: 02 May 07 - 04:46 PM

Its the biggest HOAX ever pulled on the whole WORLD!
Tar...

Subject: RE: BS: Global warming - the myth
From: Don Firth
Date: 02 May 07 - 08:04 PM

Yeah, yeah, yeah. . . .

Don Firth

Subject: RE: BS: Global warming - the myth
From: Dickey
Date: 02 May 07 - 09:44 PM

I am not thoughly convinced that it is man made but never say never. I would not invest in any tidal waterfront.

I have noticed the weather is getting more extreme and unpredictable. It seems we have had a drought every summer since 1996.

Subject: RE: BS: Global warming - the myth
From: Wolfgang
Date: 03 May 07 - 09:59 AM

EMOTIONALIZING CLIMATE CHANGE

(a four part article)

Part I: Is the IPCC Doing Harm to Science? (roughly: how politicians try to influence what the IPCC report should tell and scientists don't know how to fight back)
Part II: Like a Major Terrorist Attack    (roughly: the consequences of climate change; outlines the majority opinion)
Part III: The Leading Critic of Climate Change Theories   (roughly: the minority position in person of Lindzen)
Part IV: Al Gore, Scaremongerer?    (roughly: arguments for and against emotionalisation of a scientific debate)

Wolfgang

Subject: RE: BS: Global warming - the myth
From: Amos
Date: 03 May 07 - 10:32 AM

Arctic Sea Ice Melting Faster, a Study Finds
               
By ANDREW C. REVKIN
Published: May 1, 2007

Climate scientists may have significantly underestimated the power of global warming from human-generated heat-trapping gases to shrink the cap of sea ice floating on the Arctic Ocean, according to a new study of polar trends.

The study, published online today in Geophysical Research Letters, concluded that an open-water Arctic in summers could be more likely in this century than had been estimated in the latest international review of climate research released in February by the United Nations Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change.

"There are huge changes going on," said Julienne Stroeve, a lead author of the new study and a researcher at the National Snow and Ice Data Center in Boulder, Colo. "Just with warm waters entering the Arctic, combined with warming air temperatures, this is wreaking havoc on the sea ice, really."

The intergovernmental panel concluded that if emissions of heat-trapping gases like carbon dioxide were not significantly reduced, the region could end up bereft of floating ice in summers sometime between 2050 and the early decades of the next century.

...

Subject: RE: BS: Global warming - the myth
From: freda underhill
Date: 03 May 07 - 10:56 AM

The Zugspitze glacier (the largest one in Germany) is melting. it was 80 metres thick in 1910, now it is 45 metres thick .

we live in an era when politicians and business moguls deride scientists and academics. their decisions are all about getting back in in the next election and appeasing interest groups.

maybe global warming will force the world to listen to scientists - and maybe the intelligensia might have to rise up and move into positions of political power.

because if they don't, we are going down the gurgler like that German glacier, led by a bunch of bumbling politicians with their heads in the sand and their hands in the till.

Subject: RE: BS: Global warming - the myth
From: Bee
Date: 03 May 07 - 11:09 AM

I would not put my faith in the 'intelligentsia' - very few of those politicians and moguls and CEOs who are intent on leading us further into destruction are stupid.

It's more important to make sure the ordinary person is well informed and able to distinguish between propaganda and reality, and you needn't hold a doctorate for that.

I did hear a few Canadian premiers make some sane statements this week, and one admitted that his children are so concerned about the future that he feels he must be proactive. 'Won't someone think of the children' has been a mocked buzzphrase, but I fear for the future my neices and nephews might face, and a majority of Canadians must have similar fears, since even the Harper government is starting to pay attention, albeit not enough.

Subject: RE: BS: Global warming - the myth
From: GUEST,Jim Martin
Date: 03 May 07 - 11:16 AM

Well said, Freda!

Are you UK ,cos the same applies here in Ireland.

Subject: RE: BS: Global warming - the myth
From: freda underhill
Date: 03 May 07 - 11:29 AM

thanks Jim, I'm an aussie (sydney).

Bee, I know academics can be a vague lot, ivory towers and all. but we have an international trend of decisions being made for financial reasons only. and managers without specific skills are popped into positions of power specifically because they don't understand what the hell is going on in their particular area - and so won't rock the boat and oppose blatantly poor decisions with appalling consequences.

there, enough said, soapbox has been tucked away & I'm off to sleep. 'night all.

freda zz

Subject: RE: BS: Global warming - the myth
From: Amos
Date: 05 May 07 - 11:22 AM

The Warming Challenge


Published: May 5, 2007   Full article here

Yesterday's report on global warming from the world's most authoritative voice on climate change asserts that significant progress toward stabilizing and reducing global warming emissions can be achieved at a relatively low cost using known technologies. This is a hugely important message to policy makers everywhere, not least those in the United States Congress. Many of them have been paralyzed by fears — assiduously cultivated by the Bush administration — that a full-scale attack on climate change could cripple the economy.

The report was the third this year from the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. The first report, in February, blamed humans for rising atmospheric concentrations of carbon dioxide and other greenhouse gases. A second report last month warned of famine, floods and other ecological disasters unless emissions were brought under control.

The new report deals with remedies. It warns that over the course of this century, major investments in new and essentially carbon-free energy sources will be required. But it stresses that we can and must begin to address the problem now, using off-the-shelf technologies to make our cars, buildings and appliances far more efficient, while investing in alternative fuels, like cellulosic ethanol, that show near-term promise.

The report also made clear the risks of delay, noting that emissions of greenhouse gases have risen 70 percent since 1970 and could nearly double from current levels by 2030 if nothing is done. For that reason, it said, it is vital for policy makers to discourage older technologies — coal-fired power plants with no capacity to store carbon emissions, for instance — so as not to lock in further increases in emissions, which would make the task much harder and more expensive down the road. ...

Subject: RE: BS: Global warming - the myth
From: Dickey
Date: 05 May 07 - 12:16 PM

Amos:

Do you have any ideas other than yeah, what that guy said?

Are you capble of indepenant thinking or just a robot programmed to echo whetever you percieve as the most popular ideas at any given time?

It seems to me you have no heart and soul and are afraid to go out on a limb and differ from wht you believe is the norm because you may be wrong.

What have you done to fight global warming other than rebroadcast the background noise?

Subject: RE: BS: Global warming - the myth
From: Amos
Date: 05 May 07 - 12:26 PM

Seems to me, Good Dick, that you have your head coming up on your tonsils from below.

The "norm". when I started marshaling rebuttals to Bush's fascism, was strongly in support of him. Insanity was at an all time high in the country buying into his arguments for war.

You are so far off base on your assertions that I can only assume you are resorting to personal assault out of cognitive desperation.

A

Subject: RE: BS: Global warming - the myth
From: Dickey
Date: 06 May 07 - 01:12 AM

I see no objection to Bush's actions here:
Subject: RE: BS: Admirable Qualities of GWBush
From: Amos - PM
Date: 05 Nov 03 - 10:39 PM

Yes, that's true -- by tracking down and arresting the troublesome parts. It is important that Iraq be unified, and force works as well as anything else he's got.


What have you done to fight global warming other than rebroadcast the background noise?

Subject: RE: BS: Global warming - the myth
From: Wolfgang
Date: 08 May 07 - 07:13 AM

GLOBAL WARMING: It's Not the End of the World as We Know It (Four part article in DER SPIEGEL)

An in my mind very level headed article based on interviews with German climate scientists. This is not the there's-nothing-to-worry-about crop of scientists. For them, global warming is real and (largely) man made. But they argue that newer and better simulations show that the consequences are not as bad as the repent-or-die alarmists of the 90s wanted to make us believe.

The newer models show an increase of antarctic ice, rather a decrease of both severity and frequancy of tropical storm (has someone told Al Gore yet?), a smaller increase of sea level than the old models, more rain in the Sahel zone, less rain in the south of the USA, Australia and the Mediterranean Europe, and the Greenland ice sheet melting in millenia if at all.

I also recommend reading about the problems of modeling the future. All models predict more clouds, but whether that leads to cooling or warming is far from sure.

German climate researcher von Storch: "Unfortunately many scientists see themselves too much as priests whose job it is to preach moralistic sermons to people."

Wolfgang

Subject: RE: BS: Global warming - the myth
From: Wolfgang
Date: 08 May 07 - 11:35 AM

Interview with a German biologist about the impact of global warming on biodiversity

Many species are certainly threatened, but not by climate change. The true danger comes from the destruction of habitats, such as the rampant deforestation of species-rich tropical forests. Particularly as a conservationist, I believe that focusing on the greenhouse effect is very dangerous. The climate is increasingly being turned into a scapegoat, to deflect attention from other environmental crimes.

Wolfgang

Subject: RE: BS: Global warming - the myth
From: TIA
Date: 08 May 07 - 10:49 PM

Yes. I agree. In terms of acute (as opposed to chronic) environmental threats, global warming probably does not even crack the top ten. But I get very suspicious of people who claim that it is NOT a threat. And just because it may not be in the top ten, does this mean we should not do what we can to alleviate the threat? (While working on the other ten as well of course).

It's like the guy who punches you and breaks your jaw and says "hey, just be glad I didn't shoot you between the eyes."

A person who claims that it is not the worst thing we face gets my attention.

A person who claims it is a "hoax" or "myth", and not a problem at all loses all credibility.

Subject: RE: BS: Global warming - the myth
From: Amos
Date: 24 Jun 07 - 12:29 PM

From Sunday's NY Times:

When you watch a baby being born, after a difficult pregnancy, it is so painful and bloody for the mother it is always hard to tell the truth and say, "Gosh, that baby is really ugly." But that's how I feel about the energy legislation passed (and not passed) by the Senate last week.


Fred R. Conrad/The New York Times
Thomas Friedman.
Related
Q. & A. With Thomas L. Friedman
The columnist answered readers' questions.
Columnist Page »
Podcasts
Audio Versions of Op-Ed Columns
TimesSelect subscribers can listen to a reading of the day's Op-Ed columns.

The whole Senate energy effort only reinforced my feelings that we're in a green bubble — a festival of hot air by the news media, corporate America and presidential candidates about green this and green that, but, when it comes to actually doing something hard to bring about a green revolution at scale — and if you don't have scale on this you have nothing — we wimp out. Climate change is not a hoax. The hoax is that we are really doing something about it.

No question, it's great news that the Democrat-led Senate finally stood up to the automakers, and to the Michigan senators, and said, "No more — no more assisted suicide of the U.S. auto industry by the U.S. Congress. We're passing the first bill since 1975 that mandates an increase in fuel economy." If the Senate bill, which now has to go through the House, becomes law, automakers will have to boost the average mileage of new cars and light trucks to 35 miles per gallon by 2020, compared with about 25 miles per gallon today.

But before you celebrate, pay attention to some fine print in the Senate bill. If the Transportation Department determines that the fuel economy goal for any given year is not "cost-effective" — that is, too expensive for the car companies to meet — it can ease the standard. That loophole has to be tightened by the House, which takes up this legislation next week.

But even this new mileage standard is not exactly world leading. The European Union is today where we want to be in 2020, around 35 miles per gallon, and it is committed to going well over 40 m.p.g. by 2012. Ditto Japan.

There are other things that make the Senate energy effort ugly. Senate Republicans killed a proposed national renewable electricity mandate that would have required utilities to produce 15 percent of their power from wind, solar, biomass and other clean-energy sources by 2020. Twenty-three states already have such mandates. No matter. Making it national was too much for the Republicans.

And the Senate, thanks again to the Republicans, also squashed a Democratic proposal to boost taxes on oil and gas companies that would have raised some $32 billion for alternative fuel projects.

Despite all the new research on climate change, the Senate didn't even touch the idea of either a cap-and-trade system or a carbon tax to limit carbon dioxide emissions. An effort by Senator Amy Klobuchar of Minnesota to legislate a national reporting ("carbon counter") system to simply measure all sources of greenhouse gas emissions, which would enable a cap-and-trade system to work if we ever passed one, also got killed by Republicans. We can't cap and trade something we can't measure.

Here is the truth: the core of our energy crisis is in Washington. We have all the technology we need right now to make huge inroads in becoming more energy efficient and energy independent, with drastically lower emissions. We have all the capital we need as well. But because of the unique nature of the energy and climate-change issues — which require incentives and regulations to build alternatives to dirty, but cheap, fossil fuels — you need public policy to connect the energy and capital the right way. That is what has been missing.

Subject: RE: BS: Global warming - the myth
From: Ebbie
Date: 24 Jun 07 - 02:02 PM

Rather belatedly, I'd like to point out to beardedbruce that Al Gore (Saint Al, to some.:) is not implying what bb says. The one crucial element to countering someone's argument is to become familiar with the argument. Ergo, as many have suggested in the past, go see the film, 'An Inconvenient Truth'. You'll note that at the end Gore lists a number of things that can be done *now* at fairly low cost and inconvenience to start mitigating the early effects of global change.

In Juneau Alaska, in addition to the rapid changing of our landscape - in a few years our largest glacier will have GONE out of sight- but anomalies in flora, fauna and fish are being increasingly reported.

For some years now I have been exhorting my Juneau neighbors: Buy land! Plant bananas!

Subject: RE: BS: Global warming - the myth
From: Don Firth
Date: 24 Jun 07 - 05:52 PM

Ah, yes! Good old "Yankee Ingenuity!"

Where, oh, where has it gone?

There are a few entrepreneurs out there with a brain—who do not write off the overwhelming scientific evidence for global warming, and that global warming is primarily caused by human beings using the eco-sphere as a garbage dump and septic tank—who are going to be the real money-makers in the near future by accepting what is and coming up with eco-friendly, energy-efficient, non-polluting products. There are fortunes to be made by facing reality and adapting to it.

For example:   the tip of the only iceberg on the planet that is increasing in size instead of melting is the success Toyota has had with the Prius. They can't make them fast enough to meet the demand. In the meantime, look at the sad condition of the American automobile industry.

A little foresight and the willingness to be flexible and innovative.

Species tend to become extinct when they haven't the intelligence, ability, or willingness to adapt to new conditions.

Don Firth

Subject: RE: BS: Global warming - the myth
From: Stringsinger
Date: 25 Jun 07 - 01:06 PM

If global warming was a myth, the top scientists of the world would not be getting together to solve the problem.

The myth is the propaganda offered by the corporate entities who profit financially from their disinformation.

Frank

Subject: RE: BS: Global warming - the myth
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 25 Jun 07 - 02:26 PM

We should remember that despite all the Kyoto rhetoric, European CO2 emissions have increased, and USA has been cutting CO2 emissions.

Subject: RE: BS: Global warming - the myth
From: Wolfgang
Date: 03 Jul 07 - 01:14 PM

Environmentalism: the new death cult? (comment in THE GUARDIAN)

Environmentalism is by far the most influential death cult in existence today. It is inculcating in the masses the idea that the end of the world is nigh; that we shall we punished for our sins; that penance is our earthly duty; and that anyone who says or thinks otherwise is a "heretic" or a "denier" who should be held up to public ridicule.

I agree with nearly nothing in that comment, but I find the idea amusing.

Wolfgang

Subject: RE: BS: Global warming - the myth
From: Bill D
Date: 03 Jul 07 - 05:33 PM

From some standpoints, anything that might cause some corporations to *gasp* alter their "full speed ahead" business practices is to be denied and rejected.

As several have noted, even IF it's not quite as bad as the worst case projections, people with a finite planet need to err on the side of caution! We need some wiggle room...we do NOT need to climb out as far on various limbs as we 'think' we can get away with.

Doesn't anyone remember DDT and how it was supposed to be a boon?

Whether it gets a lot warmer, OR a lot colder, we need to be careful what we commit to.

Subject: RE: BS: Global warming - the myth
From: Kipp
Date: 04 Jul 07 - 12:10 PM

Wolfgang
   I agree with that point if you listen to Al Gore his message is very similar to that of the fundimental christains, either change your behavior or the end of the world is coming. Although his idea of what is bad behavior is different yet he has taken from their favorite book of the bible the book of revelation.
Kipp

Subject: RE: BS: Global warming - the myth
From: MaineDog
Date: 04 Jul 07 - 03:17 PM

Re: the Prius

In 1992 I bought a Honda Civic VX which got about 60 mpg commuting. No electric motors, no big battery, just a clever engine design with 3 valves per cylinder, and a pre-combustion chamber that burned rich, with a main charge that was able to burn lean via this arrangement. It also would shut down one cylinder when coasting. This was better mileage than the Prius, with not nearly so much to go wrong, and you didn't need an instrument to tell you how to drive it. I lived in Massachusetts then.
In 2002, the state effectively outlawed these cars by defining them to be uninspectable. The 3-cylinder ploy crashed their inspection computers, so they could neither pass nor fail this car, and there was no way except via bribery to get the required inspection sticker. So much for progress. Just one of may reasons why I now live in Maine.
MD

Subject: RE: BS: Global warming - the myth
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 04 Jul 07 - 05:20 PM

either change your behavior or the end of the world is coming.

The point is, it seems pretty certain that something not too far short of that is actually true. An inconvenient truth.

Subject: RE: BS: Global warming - the myth
From: Leadfingers
Date: 04 Jul 07 - 06:47 PM

If we are having Global Warming , how come South London had INCHES of
ICE on the ground yesterday ? And its not exactly warm tonight !

Subject: RE: BS: Global warming - the myth
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 04 Jul 07 - 08:04 PM

"Global warming" doesn't mean it gets warmer everywhere. What it means is more disturbed and extreme weather patterns - crazy weather even. And our current weather certainly fits into that.

Subject: RE: BS: Global warming - the myth
From: John Hardly
Date: 04 Jul 07 - 09:15 PM

That's the story, anyway. I'm still waiting for that disclaimer to come out when we're in the midst of a heat wave and everyone is saying "See? ...I told you we were having global warming!"

Just once. That all. Just once.