 sj |
||
|
||
BS: Where's the Global Warming
|
|
|
Subject: RE: BS: Where's the Global Warming From: Little Hawk Date: 25 May 10 - 11:31 AM Yes, in 1918 they did, Martin. However, we have been subjected to repeated media scares for decades now about the latest flu, SARS, and various other ailments, and the scare always sells a vast amount of vaccine and other costly medications, but it never lives up to its advertising. I can't help but suspect that the major impetus behind it all is the fervent desire of the big pharmaceutical companies to sell product. I don't know for sure about the manmade global warming theory. I have no way of knowing for sure. So I am not absolutely sure about anything when it comes to that. But....I am very skeptical about virtually any major media campaign that we have shoved down our throats these days...whether it be alleged WMDs in Iraq, alleged nuclear weapons programs in Iran, the phony "Tonkin Gulf incident" (which didn't happen), the Iraqi soldiers killing babies by removing them from incubators (which didn't happen), H1N1 flu, manmade global warming and whatever the heck else they are trying to convince us of at any given time. Why am I skeptical? Because we've been misled and lied to so many times already. Because we live in a society which is a vast marketing scheme, and we are deluged daily in disinformation of all kinds, mostly meant to manipulate us either into buying something...or supporting some political iniative...or voting for someone...or supporting a foreign war. We are told so many lies that it's simply incredible. What I have witnessed since I was a boy has been the gradual transformation of my society into something resembling George Orwell's "1984" or Aldous Huxley's "Brave New World"...only not in the guise of dour Stalin-like socialism....but in the guise of conspicuous consumption driven by capitalist corporate marketing. I don't trust the mainstream sources of information in this society any longer. I barely trust them at all. I think they are usually pursuing some hidden agenda that's been passed down from above (sometimes it's not very well hidden), and they are achieving mass conformity and manufacturing "consensus" through controlling the flow of information via the news media (the main media outlets are now owned by a very few major business entities, and that allows centralized control as to what you hear about and how it is "massaged" before you hear it...as well as what you don't hear about). The very fact that they've pushed this manmade global warming thing as hard as they have in the past decade is what makes me so suspicious about it. But like I said, I have no way of being sure about it one way or another. I'm just quite suspicious of it, and that is all. I do think we are experiencing global warming, yes...but I think we're probably being misled as to just how and why it is occuring when it comes to our part in the picture. I might be right. I might be wrong. Time will tell. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Where's the Global Warming From: Little Hawk Date: 25 May 10 - 11:33 AM Sorry, I should have addressed TheSnail in that last post...not Martin. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Where's the Global Warming From: TheSnail Date: 25 May 10 - 11:43 AM Neatly illustrating my point, pdq didn't provide any argument or evidence about abiotic oil. Read and inwardly learn. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Where's the Global Warming From: Little Hawk Date: 25 May 10 - 11:46 AM One more thing...before someone jumps on it. I'm NOT saying that a vast number of people in government and media are in on some "conspiracy". It doesn't work that way in a power system that's set up like a pyramid....meaning that there are just a very few people at the very apex of the power pyramid, right at the top, who start the ball rolling on any false story. They know the real story. The rest of the people below them don't. The story could be the phony story about Saddam's Iraqi soldiers pulling babies in Kuwait out of incubators, for example. Somebody in the USA government, probably someone in the CIA, cooked up that story. They got the daughter of a high Kuwaiti official to bear false witness to it. From that point on the story was disseminated down through all levels of the world media and it was believed by hundreds of millions of people AND by Amnesty International (who later admitted to having been fooled), but the media people themselves were all fooled by the story, so they were NOT co-conspirators. The vast majority of people in a pyramidal power system simply pass a story or an order on down the chain of command without questioning it, and they do so in all innocence. Almost none of them realize if it's a false story or a wrongful command. And that is how it's done...by usually just a handful of well-placed people who start the ball rolling. If the propaganda is efficiently dispensed, then virtually everyone will believe it, and they will NOT consciously be members of a conspiracy at all...but they will unwittingly make that conspiracy go forward anyway. That is how you succeed with propaganda. You only have to fool most of the people most of the time...and it works like a charm. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Where's the Global Warming From: Amos Date: 25 May 10 - 12:00 PM Your fuzzy impression of mass memes is not the issue, though, LH. There is hard data, not marketing, behind most of the scietific assertions on this issue. The only disagreement is on the evaluation of that hard data. Some facts are more important than others, and some factors are weightier than others in assessing a complex syndrome like climate change. Sure, there is some smoke and mirrors being thrown into the mix by corporate mouthpieces, just as there was for example during the huge transition from popular smoking everywhere to no smoking inmost places. But what do you think these scientists have to gain from asserting man-made global warming if the data did not actually support that interpretation? Cui bono? A |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Where's the Global Warming From: pdq Date: 25 May 10 - 12:10 PM Since LaGastropod does not appear capable of finding the article I suggested reading, here is a link: Thomas Gold biography in Wikipedia |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Where's the Global Warming From: TheSnail Date: 25 May 10 - 12:28 PM LH, have you actually read any of the links that Martin or I provided? |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Where's the Global Warming From: TheSnail Date: 25 May 10 - 08:46 PM pdq Since LaGastropod does not appear capable of finding the article I suggested reading, here is a link: My apologies, pdq. I am so used to people on this thread making broad assertions without any backup that I wrongly accused you of doing the same. A fascinating article which I recommend that everybody reads. As an aside, it is said that if you follow the links of "I know somebody who knows somebody..." it only takes six steps to meet everyone in the world. It is delightful to discover that I am only two steps from Thomas Gold. From the article we learn that a total of 80 barrels of (allegedly but disputedly) abiotic oil has been found in Sweden. I'm rather losing track of why you raised the subject. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Where's the Global Warming From: pdq Date: 25 May 10 - 09:54 PM Russia has been operating on the assumption that oil is abiotic (aka abiogenic) since WWII. They are the second largest producers of oil in the world, behind only Saudi Arabia. For somebody who says: "While it's true that at least 99% of Extraordinary Claims are just as crazy as they seem, we cannot dismiss every one of them without any investigation", you seem to have conveniently closed mind. At least you read something I posted. The rest is out of my control. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Where's the Global Warming From: TheSnail Date: 26 May 10 - 06:49 AM pdq you seem to have conveniently closed mind. Oh dear. Just when we were getting on so well. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Where's the Global Warming From: freda underhill Date: 26 May 10 - 07:59 AM Thank you Ebbie, much appreciated. and in the meantime, those pop psychofabulators applying complex pre-emptive psychology to analyse the motives of someone making an argument can in itself be a form of projection. But what the hell. Since 1960 the mean temperature in Australia has increased by about 0.7 °C . The long term trend in temperature is clear, but there is still substantial year to year variability of about plus/minus 0.5 °C. Some areas have experienced a warming of 1.5 to 2 ºC over the last 50 years. Warming has occurred in all seasons, however the strongest warming has occurred in spring (about 0.9 °C) and the weakest in summer (about 0.4 °C). • The number of days with record hot temperatures has increased each decade over the past 50 years • There have been fewer record cold days each decade • 2000 to 2009 was Australia's warmest decade on record - source: The Australian Bureau of Meteorology which has been observing and reporting on weather in Australia for over 100 years, and the CSIRO which has been conducting atmospheric and marine research for over 60 years. all the best, freda |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Where's the Global Warming From: freda underhill Date: 29 May 10 - 01:32 AM ON AN idyllic coral atoll just a two-hour boat ride from Queensland's Gladstone Harbour, out past the endless line of tankers queued to load coal for export, a half-dozen scientists work frantically against the tide. Their objective? To explore the Impact of climate change on reefs, including the consequences of rising atmospheric carbon - on the delicate chemistry of the reef and the creatures living there. The project team, led by the University of Queensland's Global Change Institute, is completing tests on a new underwater laboratory that will expose living corals on the Great Barrier Reef to the more acidic conditions forecast for oceans by the end of the century. A Queensland University researcher tests the Barrier Reef laboratory that will expose corals to the more acidic conditions forcase for oceans by the end of the century. Fathoming the effects of ocean acidification - the ''other'' carbon problem, one that emerged in scientific literature only a decade ago - has become one of the most urgent issues on the science agenda. The potentially diabolical consequences were highlighted in major briefing papers presented last week by the United States National Research Council to the US Congress and by the European Science Foundation to national leaders. The papers appealed to governments to give the issue priority for investigation and action. The Heron Island experiment assumes a future with seawater twice as acidic as today, a more conservative take than published business-as-usual scenarios, which put the increase at 150 per cent by 2100. The question scientists are racing to answer is what a more acidic environment will mean for the tiny shelled zooplankton on which the marine food chain depends, and for the skeletons corals build into reefs. The fear is that the change hits these creatures on two fronts - creating a more corrosive environment, and depleting stocks of building materials. ''If these organisms can't compensate for that … reef growth will slow until the reef superstructure begins to crumble.'' Meanwhile, he says, reefs are struggling with the effects of rising temperatures, which can trigger bleaching - when the stressed coral hosts expel the microscopic algae on which they rely for survival. ''Something as complex and broad a feature as coral reefs is now sickening and dying … This is really giving us a warning sign that maybe the whole basis of our dependence on this planet, the biological and ecological services, will change.'' seaweed for thought.. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Where's the Global Warming From: The Fooles Troupe Date: 29 May 10 - 08:17 AM Thanks for posting that Freda - saw it the other night, but the PC is a bit flaky atm.... |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Where's the Global Warming From: freda underhill Date: 29 May 10 - 10:55 AM thanks Ft :-) |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Where's the Global Warming From: pdq Date: 29 May 10 - 12:31 PM In 1964, "experts" were saying that the Great Barrier Reef was dying. Cause: DDT and other pesticides. Later on, "experts" said the Reef was dying because of air polution and Acid Rain. In the late 1970s, it was Global Cooling (aka coming of a new Ice Age) that would kill the Great Reef. Now the "scientists" predict its demise from Global Warming. Actually, Austrailia's Great Barrier Reef is just fine. It does have some dead spots, mostly caused by old age. Overall, it is in just about the same shape as it was before Europeans arrived. Go swimming and enjoy. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Where's the Global Warming From: Sawzaw Date: 29 May 10 - 03:01 PM From: Amos - PM Date: 20 Mar 10 - 08:08 PM Those histrionic misguided exagerrations wer enot promulgated by scientists. Carl Sagan discussed his involvement in the political nuclear winter debates and his erroneous global cooling prediction for the Gulf War fires in his book. The Cooling World Newsweek, April 28, 1975 Climatologists are pessimistic that political leaders will take any positive action to compensate for the climatic change, or even to allay its effects. They concede that some of the more spectacular solutions proposed, such as melting the Arctic ice cap by covering it with black soot or diverting arctic rivers, might create problems far greater than those they solve. But the scientists see few signs that government leaders anywhere are even prepared to take the simple measures of stockpiling food or of introducing the variables of climatic uncertainty into economic projections of future food supplies. The longer the planners delay, the more difficult will they find it to cope with climatic change once the results become grim reality. If the bees do not recover, or their numbers don't grow and they are in a weakened state, we could see a worst-case scenario," Jeff Pettis, the top bee scientist at the USDA, said." On June 11th 2009 the World Health Organization declared the H1NI flu a pandemic. 15 March 2003 World Health Organization issues emergency travel advisory Severe Acute Respiratory Syndrome (SARS) Spreads Worldwide 15 March 2003 | GENEVA -- During the past week, WHO has received reports of more than 150 new suspected cases of Severe Acute Respiratory Syndrome (SARS), an atypical pneumonia for which cause has not yet been determined. Reports to date have been received from Canada, China, Hong Kong Special Administrative Region of China, Indonesia, Philippines, Singapore, Thailand, and Viet Nam. Early today, an ill passenger and companions who travelled from New York, United States, and who landed in Frankfurt, Germany were removed from their flight and taken to hospital isolation. Due to the spread of SARS to several countries in a short period of time, the World Health Organization today has issued emergency guidance for travellers and airlines. This syndrome, SARS, is now a worldwide health threat, said Dr. Gro Harlem Brundtland. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Where's the Global Warming From: The Fooles Troupe Date: 29 May 10 - 07:00 PM For those who don't live in Australia, they don't care about the Reef. "Australia's Great Barrier Reef is just fine. It does have some dead spots, mostly caused by old age." A remark typical of the "Conservativly Ignorant" - and the concept 'old age' just does not really apply to a 'Gaia-like' structure like the GBR, whose existence is indefinite, till the environment in which it thrives, changes. Many of these alleged disasters were suggested projections based on incomplete data - this has already been discussed in this thread WHY this happens and only those with an agenda to deny problems at any cost cause they are lazy or in the pay of someone else with an agenda to push and stick their heads up their arse keep bringing up this line. As for the increased acidity situation, only the foolishly ignorant and lazy claim that there CAN be no problem. It IS of concern - true it may not happen, just like there may not be a drunken lunatic speeding thru every red light at every intersection that you drive thru, but only the fool would not watch out to see if there is, and be prepared to take avoiding action. We call this in Australia "Defensive Driving". |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Where's the Global Warming From: Amos Date: 29 May 10 - 07:37 PM ""Most of us know about the sun's eleven-year activity cycle. However, relatively few other than scientists (and amateur radio operators) are aware that the current solar minimum has lasted much longer than expected. The last solar cycle, Cycle 24, bottomed out in 2008, and Cycle 25 should be well on its way towards maximum by now, but the sun has remained unusually quiescent with very few sunspots. While solar physicists agree that this is odd, the explanation remains elusive."" (Slashdot) Original story here: "MIAMIÑIn very rough terms, the sun's activity ebbs and flows in an 11-year cycle, with flares, coronal mass ejections and other energetic phenomena peaking at what is called solar maximum and bottoming out at solar minimum. Sunspots, markers of magnetic activity on the sun's surface, provide a visual proxy to mark the cycle's evolution, appearing in droves at maximum and all but disappearing at minimum. But the behavior of our host star is not as predictable as all thatÑthe most recent solar minimum was surprisingly deep and long, finally bottoming out around late 2008 or so. Solar physicists here at the semiannual meeting of the American Astronomical Society this week offered a number of mechanisms to shed light on what has been happening on the sun of late, but conceded that the final answerÑor more likely answersÑremains opaque. Beyond scientific understanding, motivations for better solar weather forecasts include hopes to use them to safeguard against electrical grid disruptions, damage to Earth-orbiting satellites and threats to the health of space travelers posed by solar radiation flare-ups." |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Where's the Global Warming From: The Fooles Troupe Date: 29 May 10 - 08:44 PM Exactly Amos - man supposes, nature disposes... |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Where's the Global Warming From: freda underhill Date: 04 Jun 10 - 07:46 AM Climate change making Everest more dangerous: Sherpa SOPHIA TAMOT May 26, 2010 Sydney Morning Herald Climate change is making Mount Everest more dangerous to climb, a Nepalese Sherpa said in Kathmandu Tuesday after breaking his own record by making a 20th ascent of the world's highest peak. Apa Sherpa, who dedicated his latest climb to the impact of global warming on the Himalayas, said he was disturbed by the visible changes on the mountain caused by rising temperatures. "The snow along the slopes had melted, exposing the bare rocks underneath, which made it very difficult for us to walk up the slope as there was no snow to dig our crampons into," he told AFP on Tuesday. "This has made the trail very dangerous for all climbers." Apa, 50, has been nicknamed the "super Sherpa" for the apparent ease with which he climbs Everest, but he was visibly exhausted as he spoke to journalists in the Nepalese capital three days after reaching the summit. He led an expedition aimed at raising awareness of the impact of climate change in the Himalayas and clearing up the tonnes of rubbish left on the mountain by previous expeditions. ..... |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Where's the Global Warming From: Ed T Date: 04 Jun 10 - 12:24 PM PUBLICATION: The Province June 4 -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Arctic-ice loss fastest in thousands of years -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- An international study of Arctic sea ice has concluded that the recent, record-setting retreat is the worst in thousands of years -- a conclusion that challenges skeptics' claims that the meltdown being witnessed in Canada's North is probably just the latest low ebb in a historical cycle of ice loss and regeneration. The new study, involving 18 scientists from five countries and to be published in the journal Quaternary Science Reviews, includes data from two Canadian co-authors who interpret historic levels of ice cover from ancient whalebones found in the polar region. Other evidence marshalled in the bid to reconstruct ancient Arctic climate conditions include patterns of driftwood deposit and chemical signatures in seabed sediments and ice cores. "The current reduction in Arctic ice cover started in the late 19th century, consistent with the rapidly warming climate, and became very pronounced over the last three decades," the study states. "This ice loss appears to be unmatched over at least the last few thousand years and [is] unexplainable by any of the known natural variabilities." The study's lead author, Ohio State University polar researcher Leonid Polyak, said Thursday that predictable, long-term ice-cover changes linked to fluctuations in the Earth's orbit mean "we should expect more rather than less sea ice" at this time in history. "The evidence that we have based on the existing data suggests that the current Arctic warming is probably the strongest since at least the middle Holocene -- that is approximately 5,000 years," Polyak said. The two Canadian scientists involved in the study -- Geological Survey of Canada researcher Arthur Dyke and McGill University archeologist James Savelle -- provided data about the distribution of whalebone deposits to help map the extent of Arctic ice cover over the past 10,000 years. In 2007, the Arctic Ocean ice cover declined from a winter maximum of 14 million square kilometres to an end-of-summer minimum of about four million sq. km-- the biggest retreat of polar sea ice since satellite measurements began about 35 years ago. Despite strong ice regeneration this past winter, experts say the thickness and volume of Arctic ice has continued to decline over the past decade, pointing the way to ice-free summers in a matter of years. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Where's the Global Warming From: pdq Date: 04 Jun 10 - 01:09 PM "...data from two Canadian co-authors who interpret historic levels of ice cover from ancient whalebones found in the polar region." Wow, that sure sounds difinitive. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Where's the Global Warming From: Sawzaw Date: 04 Jun 10 - 09:47 PM From: Amos - PM Date: 20 Mar 10 - 08:08 PM Those histrionic misguided exagerrations wer enot promulgated by scientists. Conflicts of Interest - WHO and the pandemic flu "conspiracies" Key scientists advising the World Health Organization on planning for an influenza pandemic had done paid work for pharmaceutical firms that stood to gain from the guidance they were preparing. These conflicts of interest have never been publicly disclosed by WHO, and WHO has dismissed inquiries into its handling of the A/H1N1 pandemic as "conspiracy theories." The British Medical Journal: Next week marks the first anniversary of the official declaration of the influenza A/H1N1 pandemic. On 11 June 2009 Dr Margaret Chan, the director general of the World Health Organization, announced to the world's media: "I have conferred with leading influenza experts, virologists, and public health officials. In line with procedures set out in the International Health Regulations, I have sought guidance and advice from an Emergency Committee established for this purpose. On the basis of available evidence, and these expert assessments of the evidence, the scientific criteria for an influenza pandemic have been met...The world is now at the start of the 2009 influenza pandemic." It was the culmination of 10 years of pandemic preparedness planning for WHO—years of committee meetings with experts flown in from around the world and reams of draft documents offering guidance to governments. But one year on, governments that took advice from WHO are unwinding their vaccine contracts, and billions of dollars' worth of stockpiled oseltamivir (Tamiflu) and zanamivir (Relenza),bought from health budgets already under tight constraints, lie unused in warehouses around the world. A joint investigation by the BMJ and the Bureau of Investigative Journalism has uncovered evidence that raises troubling questions about how WHO managed conflicts of interest among the scientists who advised its pandemic planning, and about the transparency of the science underlying its advice to governments. Was it appropriate for WHO to take advice from experts who had declarable financial and research ties with pharmaceutical companies producing antivirals and influenza vaccines? Why was key WHO guidance authored by an influenza expert who had received payment for other work from Roche, manufacturers of oseltamivir, and GlaxoSmithKline, manufacturers of zanamivir? And why does the composition of the emergency committee from which Chan sought guidance remain a secret known only to those within WHO? We are left wondering whether major public health organisations are able to effectively manage the conflicts of interest that are inherent in medical science. Already WHO's handling of the pandemic has led to an unprecedented number of reviews and inquiries by organisations including the Council of Europe, European Parliament, and WHO itself, following allegations of industry influence. Dr Chan has dismissed these as "conspiracies," and earlier this year, during a speech at the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention in Atlanta, she said: "WHO anticipated close scrutiny of its decisions, but we did not anticipate that we would be accused, by some European politicians, of having declared a fake pandemic on the advice of experts with ties to the pharmaceutical industry and something personal to gain from increased industry profits." The inquiry by British MP Paul Flynn for the Council of Europe Parliamentary Assembly, due to be published today, will be critical. It will say that decision making around the A/H1N1 crisis has been lacking in transparency. "Some of the outcomes of the pandemic, as illustrated in this report, have been dramatic: distortion of priorities of public health services all over Europe, waste of huge sums of public money, provocation of unjustified fear amongst Europeans, creation of health risks through vaccines and medications which might not have been sufficiently tested before being authorised in fast-track procedures, are all examples of these outcomes. These results need to be critically examined by public health authorities at all levels with a view to rebuilding public confidence in their decisions." The investigation by the BMJ/The Bureau reveals a system struggling to manage the inherent conflict between the pharmaceutical industry, WHO, and the global public health system, which all draw on the same pool of scientific experts. Our investigation has identified key scientists involved in WHO pandemic planning who had declarable interests, some of whom are or have been funded by pharmaceutical firms that stood to gain from the guidance they were drafting. Yet these interests have never been publicly disclosed by WHO and, despite repeated requests from the BMJ/The Bureau, WHO has failed to provide any details about whether such conflicts were declared by the relevant experts and what, if anything, was done about them... |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Where's the Global Warming From: Sawzaw Date: 04 Jun 10 - 10:21 PM The World Health Organization (WHO) Tuesday admitted that the swine flu scare was exaggerated as alleged by several countries, including India. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Where's the Global Warming From: GUEST,Guest from Sanity Date: 04 Jun 10 - 10:24 PM Where's the Global Warming?? Only in our hearts. GfS |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Where's the Global Warming From: Sawzaw Date: 04 Jun 10 - 10:49 PM Greenpeace Leader Admits Arctic Ice Exaggeration Gerd Leipold, the outgoing leader of Greenpeace, admitted that his organization's recent claim that the Arctic Ice will disappear by 2030 was "a mistake." Greenpeace said in a July 15 press release that there will be an ice-free Arctic by 2030 because of global warming. BBC reporter Stephen Sackur on the "Hardtalk" program pressed Leipold until he admitted the claim was wrong. "We, as a pressure group, have to emotionalize issues, and we are not ashamed of emotionalizing issues." |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Where's the Global Warming From: Sawzaw Date: 04 Jun 10 - 10:56 PM Uncertain Science Newsweek: Bickering and defensive, climate researchers have lost the public's trust. Blame economic worries, another freezing winter, or the cascade of scandals emerging from the world's leading climate-research body, the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC). But concern over global warming has cooled down dramatically. In über-green Germany, only 42 percent of citizens worry about global warming now, down from 62 percent in 2006. In Britain, just 26 percent believe climate change is man-made, down from 41 percent as recently as November 2009. And Americans rank global warming dead last in a list of 21 problems that concern them, according to a January Pew poll. The shift has left many once celebrated climate researchers feeling like the used-car salesmen of the science world. In Britain, one leading scientist told an interviewer he is taking anti-anxiety pills and considered suicide following the leak of thousands of IPCC-related e-mails and documents suggesting that researchers cherry-picked data and suppressed rival studies to play up global warming. In the U.S., another researcher is under investigation for allegedly using exaggerated climate data to obtain public funds. In an open letter published in the May issue of Science magazine, 255 American climate researchers decry "political assaults" on their work by "deniers" and followers of "dogma" and "special interests." This is no dispute between objective scientists and crazed flat-earthers. The lines cut through the profession itself. Very few scientists dispute a link between man-made CO2 and global warming. Where it gets fuzzy is the extent and time frame of the effect. One crucial point of contention is climate "sensitivity", the mathematical formula that translates changes in CO2 production to changes in temperature. In addition, scientists are not sure how to explain a slowdown in the rise of global temperatures that began about a decade ago. The backlash against climate science is also about the way in which leading scientists allied themselves with politicians and activists to promote their cause. Some of the IPCC's most-quoted data and recommendations were taken straight out of unchecked activist brochures, newspaper articles, and corporate reports, including claims of plummeting crop yields in Africa and the rising costs of warming-related natural disasters, both of which have been refuted by academic studies. Just as damaging, many climate scientists have responded to critiques by questioning the integrity of their critics, rather than by supplying data and reasoned arguments. When other researchers aired doubt about the IPCC's prediction that Himalayan glaciers will melt by 2035, the IPCC's powerful chief, Rajendra Pachauri, trashed their work as "voodoo science." Even today, after dozens of IPCC exaggerations have surfaced, leading climate officials like U.N. Environment Program chief Achim Steiner and Potsdam Institute for Climate Impact Research head Joachim Schellnhuber continue to tar-brush critics as "anti-Enlightenment" and engaging in "witch hunts." None of this means we should burn fossil fuels with abandon. There are excellent reasons to limit emissions and switch to cleaner fuels, including an estimated 750,000 annual pollution deaths in China, the potential to create jobs at home instead of enriching nasty regimes sitting on oil wells, the need to provide cheap sources of power to the world's poorest regions, and the still-probable threat that global warming is underway. At the moment, however, certainty about how fast, and how much, global warming changes the earth's climate does not appear to be one of those reasons. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Where's the Global Warming From: TheSnail Date: 05 Jun 10 - 04:44 AM Newsweek: Bickering and defensive, climate researchers have lost the public's trust. Blame economic worries, another freezing winter, or the cascade of scandals emerging from the world's leading climate-research body, the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC). But concern over global warming has cooled down dramatically. In über-green Germany, only 42 percent of citizens worry about global warming now, down from 62 percent in 2006. In Britain, just 26 percent believe climate change is man-made, down from 41 percent as recently as November 2009. And Americans rank global warming dead last in a list of 21 problems that concern them, according to a January Pew poll. The shift has left many once celebrated climate researchers feeling like the used-car salesmen of the science world. In Britain, one leading scientist told an interviewer he is taking anti-anxiety pills and considered suicide following the leak of thousands of IPCC-related e-mails and documents suggesting that researchers cherry-picked data and suppressed rival studies to play up global warming. In the U.S., another researcher is under investigation for allegedly using exaggerated climate data to obtain public funds. In an open letter published in the May issue of Science magazine, 255 American climate researchers decry "political assaults" on their work by "deniers" and followers of "dogma" and "special interests." This is no dispute between objective scientists and crazed flat-earthers. The lines cut through the profession itself. Very few scientists dispute a link between man-made CO2 and global warming. Where it gets fuzzy is the extent and time frame of the effect. One crucial point of contention is climate "sensitivity", the mathematical formula that translates changes in CO2 production to changes in temperature. In addition, scientists are not sure how to explain a slowdown in the rise of global temperatures that began about a decade ago. The backlash against climate science is also about the way in which leading scientists allied themselves with politicians and activists to promote their cause. Some of the IPCC's most-quoted data and recommendations were taken straight out of unchecked activist brochures, newspaper articles, and corporate reports, including claims of plummeting crop yields in Africa and the rising costs of warming-related natural disasters, both of which have been refuted by academic studies. Just as damaging, many climate scientists have responded to critiques by questioning the integrity of their critics, rather than by supplying data and reasoned arguments. When other researchers aired doubt about the IPCC's prediction that Himalayan glaciers will melt by 2035, the IPCC's powerful chief, Rajendra Pachauri, trashed their work as "voodoo science." Even today, after dozens of IPCC exaggerations have surfaced, leading climate officials like U.N. Environment Program chief Achim Steiner and Potsdam Institute for Climate Impact Research head Joachim Schellnhuber continue to tar-brush critics as "anti-Enlightenment" and engaging in "witch hunts." None of this means we should burn fossil fuels with abandon. There are excellent reasons to limit emissions and switch to cleaner fuels, including an estimated 750,000 annual pollution deaths in China, the potential to create jobs at home instead of enriching nasty regimes sitting on oil wells, the need to provide cheap sources of power to the world's poorest regions, and the still-probable threat that global warming is underway. At the moment, however, certainty about how fast, and how much, global warming changes the earth's climate does not appear to be one of those reasons. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Where's the Global Warming From: Ed T Date: 05 Jun 10 - 08:42 AM Whoever believes Greenpeace claims on anything. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Where's the Global Warming From: Sawzaw Date: 05 Jun 10 - 09:45 PM "None of this means we should burn fossil fuels with abandon. There are excellent reasons to limit emissions and switch to cleaner fuels, including an estimated 750,000 annual pollution deaths in China, the potential to create jobs at home instead of enriching nasty regimes sitting on oil wells, the need to provide cheap sources of power to the world's poorest regions, and the still-probable threat that global warming is underway. At the moment, however, certainty about how fast, and how much, global warming changes the earth's climate does not appear to be one of those reasons." I agree 100% What I disagree with is that the methods promoted by Gore, Pachauri and company, the global warming fat cats will be effective in making any significant difference. We should do everything that is economically feasible to reduce energy use and pollution, regardless of the issue of global warming. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Where's the Global Warming From: TheSnail Date: 06 Jun 10 - 04:53 AM So, Sawzaw, you agree that global warming is happening but think that we should disregard it? What are the reasons and supporting evidence for your 100% aggreement with - "At the moment, however, certainty about how fast, and how much, global warming changes the earth's climate does not appear to be one of those reasons." I particularly like - "Just as damaging, many climate scientists have responded to critiques by questioning the integrity of their critics, rather than by supplying data and reasoned arguments." I mean, the deniers would never do anything like that would they? |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Where's the Global Warming From: Sawzaw Date: 06 Jun 10 - 11:21 PM I said there is some global warming that may have been caused by man. I regard global warming and pollution and energy conservation as different issues. Now you want to argue about what we agree on. The way civilization works is when people find common ground. The way it does not work is when people find differences to fight over. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Where's the Global Warming From: TheSnail Date: 07 Jun 10 - 05:28 AM Sawzaw I said there is some global warming that may have been caused by man. Curious then, that you keep producing odd, isolated little charts that appear to try and prove otherwise. I regard global warming and pollution and energy conservation as different issues. I would have thought they were intimately linked. I'll try again - Please supply data and reasoned arguments to support your contention that global warming can be disregarded. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Where's the Global Warming From: beardedbruce Date: 07 Jun 10 - 11:50 AM Snail, Saws:"said there is some global warming that MAY have been caused by man." Snail:"Curious then, that you keep producing odd, isolated little charts that appear to try and prove otherwise." The present faith that all significant GW is caused by man-made soudes is what is in question: Since that is what is being presented by Goreistas et Al. Saws:"I regard global warming and pollution and energy conservation as different issues." Snail:"I would have thought they were intimately linked." Many issues are related. Your thoughts are your own concern: YOU may have chosen to ignore all GW that is NOT caused by man, but that does not make it disappear. Snail:"Please supply data and reasoned arguments to support your contention that global warming can be disregarded. " Straw man arguement: the contention is that MAN-MADE sources of GW are less significant than natural ones, as far as can be seen, and the man-made sources can be ignored as being in the noise. Care to show me ANY Goreista efforts to ADAPT to, or accomadate, GW? ALL that has been presented is a promise to stop it if we just act the way he wants- giving him power and control, as well as money. If we adjust to GW, we are safer regardless of the causes. If we do not adjust, we are certainly worse off if the causes are NOT man-made, and probably worse off if we give that control and power to Goreistas in an effort to stop what seems to be a natural shift in climate. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Where's the Global Warming From: TheSnail Date: 07 Jun 10 - 05:04 PM I started working on a reasoned response to BB but, all things considered, I can't be bothered. Intelligent readers can work it out for themselves. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Where's the Global Warming From: pdq Date: 07 Jun 10 - 05:37 PM "Intelligent readers can work it out for themselves." ~ LaGastropod Yep, I think we need a box of Bugetta. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Where's the Global Warming From: The Fooles Troupe Date: 07 Jun 10 - 06:33 PM "the contention is that MAN-MADE sources of GW are less significant than natural ones, as far as can be seen, and the man-made sources can be ignored as being in the noise." What this line ignores is that the man-made effects are increasing - obvious, because the number of people is increasing, irrespective of whether the output per individual is or not (and it is). |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Where's the Global Warming From: Sawzaw Date: 08 Jun 10 - 01:48 PM "Snail:"Please supply data and reasoned arguments to support your contention that global warming can be disregarded. "" Please supply data and reasoned arguments proving where I said such a thing? |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Where's the Global Warming From: TheSnail Date: 08 Jun 10 - 02:54 PM Sawzaw - PM Date: 05 Jun 10 - 09:45 PM We should do everything that is economically feasible to reduce energy use and pollution, regardless of the issue of global warming. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Where's the Global Warming From: beardedbruce Date: 08 Jun 10 - 03:36 PM Snail, reread what you quoted: "We should do everything that is economically feasible to reduce energy use and pollution, regardless of the issue of global warming." The fact that we should "do everything that is economically feasible to reduce energy use and pollution," is NOT dependent on Global warning- it is a GOOD thing to do "regardless of the issue of global warming" NOT "that global warming can be disregarded. " |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Where's the Global Warming From: TheSnail Date: 08 Jun 10 - 08:57 PM Not regarding something is not the same as disregarding something. Well! You learn something new every day. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Where's the Global Warming From: Ebbie Date: 08 Jun 10 - 11:45 PM I was wondering about that myself, Snail. Let's see: "We should do everything that is economically feasible to reduce energy use and pollution, regardless of the issue of global warming." Could one change the wording somewhat and still have the same message? "Aside from the issue of global warming..." "Notwithstanding the issue of global warming..." "Regardless of the issue of global warming..." "Regardless of global warming..." Nope. Didn't say that. Like you said, I think he is saying "Never mind the issue of global warming..." |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Where's the Global Warming From: freda underhill Date: 09 Jun 10 - 04:33 AM The implications of global warming are so challenging, it's is understandable that people may not want to believe it's true. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Where's the Global Warming From: beardedbruce Date: 09 Jun 10 - 11:27 AM Ebbie: How about "We should do everything that is economically feasible to reduce energy use and pollution." Wether is is related to Global warming or not, it is a good idea. THAT seem to be the intent- are you saying you disagree?????? |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Where's the Global Warming From: Ebbie Date: 09 Jun 10 - 12:43 PM Frankly, Bruce, I would prefer that Sawzaw come back and tell us what he meant. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Where's the Global Warming From: Ebbie Date: 09 Jun 10 - 01:15 PM Keep in mind, Bruce, that Sawz is on record as not believing in global warming at all. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Where's the Global Warming From: beardedbruce Date: 09 Jun 10 - 01:28 PM ok, so how does hat negate "We should do everything that is economically feasible to reduce energy use and pollution." Whether is is related to Global warming or not, it is a good idea. If I did not think that man-made sources were the major cause of GW ( as I tend to think based on the evidence) I would still agree with the first statement- IT HAS LITTLE to do with GW causes. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Where's the Global Warming From: Ebbie Date: 09 Jun 10 - 05:31 PM And I agree totally with you on that point = and with Sawzaw. Thing is, down the road he will have a different take on it. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Where's the Global Warming From: TheSnail Date: 10 Jun 10 - 03:50 AM freda underhill The implications of global warming are so challenging, it's is understandable that people may not want to believe it's true. I think you have hit the point. I would count myself amongst those who would desperately like to find that it wasn't true because the consequences are so appalling but I have to listen to all the arguments for and against. Paradoxically, what most convinces me that it must be true is the weakness of the arguments of the sceptics. There seems to have been a recent shift, at least on this thread, to a point of view that it is happening but we should take no notice of it. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Where's the Global Warming From: Leadfingers Date: 10 Jun 10 - 06:11 AM 1400 - and still depressed by the way it is just talked about , but SO little actually done |
