how humans change the climate

[thesuperdude]

i have noticed that many of you dont know or dont want to know about the effect humans have on the climate. if you read this report from The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) (loooooong) on this link: http://www.grida.no/climate/ipcc_tar/wg1/index.htm i think most of you will understand. i guess this topic has been up before but only with reference to bbc and other media.



1.3 Human-induced Climate Variations
1.3.1 Human Influence on the Climate System

Human beings, like other living organisms, have always influenced their environment. It is only since the beginning of the Industrial Revolution, mid-18th century, that the impact of human activities has begun to extend to a much larger scale, continental or even global. Human activities, in particular those involving the combustion of fossil fuels for industrial or domestic usage, and biomass burning, produce greenhouse gases and aerosols which affect the composition of the atmosphere. The emission of chloro-fluorocarbons (CFCs) and other chlorine and bromine compounds has not only an impact on the radiative forcing, but has also led to the depletion of the stratospheric ozone layer. Land-use change, due to urbanisation and human forestry and agricultural practices, affect the physical and biological properties of the Earth’s surface. Such effects change the radiative forcing and have a potential impact on regional and global climate.

Anthropogenic perturbation of the atmospheric composition
For about a thousand years before the Industrial Revolution, the amount of greenhouse gases in the atmosphere remained relatively constant. Since then, the concentration of various greenhouse gases has increased. The amount of carbon dioxide, for example, has increased by more than 30% since pre-industrial times and is still increasing at an unprecedented rate of on average 0.4% per year, mainly due to the combustion of fossil fuels and deforestation. We know that this increase is anthropogenic because the changing isotopic composition of the atmospheric CO2 betrays the fossil origin of the increase. The concentration of other natural radiatively active atmospheric components, such as methane and nitrous oxide, is increasing as well due to agricultural, industrial and other activities. The concentration of the nitrogen oxides (NO and NO2) and of carbon monoxide (CO) are also increasing. Although these gases are not greenhouse gases, they play a role in the atmospheric chemistry and have led to an increase in tropospheric ozone, a greenhouse gas, by 40% since pre-industrial times (Chapter 4). Moreover, NO2 is an important absorber of visible solar radiation.

Chloro-fluorocarbons and some other halogen compounds do not occur naturally in the atmosphere but have been introduced by human activities. Beside their depleting effect on the stratospheric ozone layer, they are strong greenhouse gases. Their greenhouse effect is only partly compensated for by the depletion of the ozone layer which causes a negative forcing of the surface-troposphere system. All these gases, except tropospheric ozone and its precursors, have long to very long atmospheric lifetimes and therefore become well-mixed throughout the atmosphere.

Human industrial, energy related, and land-use activities also increase the amount of aerosol in the atmosphere, in the form of mineral dust, sulphates and nitrates and soot. Their atmospheric lifetime is short because they are removed by rain. As a result their concentrations are highest near their sources and vary substantially regionally, with global consequences. The increases in greenhouse gas concentrations and aerosol content in the atmosphere result in a change in the radiative forcing to which the climate system must act to restore the radiative balance.

The enhanced greenhouse effect
The increased concentration of greenhouse gases in the atmosphere enhances the absorption and emission of infrared radiation. The atmosphere’s opacity increases so that the altitude from which the Earth’s radiation is effectively emitted into space becomes higher. Because the temperature is lower at higher altitudes, less energy is emitted, causing a positive radiative forcing. This effect is called the enhanced greenhouse effect, which is discussed in detail in Chapter 6.

If the amount of carbon dioxide were doubled instantaneously, with everything else remaining the same, the outgoing infrared radiation would be reduced by about 4 Wm-2. In other words, the radiative forcing corresponding to a doubling of the CO2 concentration would be 4 Wm-2. To counteract this imbalance, the temperature of the surface-troposphere system would have to increase by 1.2°C (with an accuracy of ±10%), in the absence of other changes. In reality, due to feedbacks, the response of the climate system is much more complex. It is believed that the overall effect of the feedbacks amplifies the temperature increase to 1.5 to 4.5°C. A significant part of this uncertainty range arises from our limited knowledge of clouds and their interactions with radiation. To appreciate the magnitude of this temperature increase, it should be compared with the global mean temperature difference of perhaps 5 or 6°C from the middle of the last Ice Age to the present interglacial.

The so-called water vapour feedback, caused by an increase in atmospheric water vapour due to a temperature increase, is the most important feedback responsible for the amplification of the temperature increase. Concern has been expressed about the strength of this feedback, in particular in relation to the role of upper tropospheric humidity. Since the SAR, thinking about this feedback has become increasingly sophisticated thanks both to modelling and to observational studies. Feedbacks are discussed and assessed in Chapter 7. In particular, the present state of knowledge of the water vapour feedback is examined in Section 7.2.1.

It has been suggested that the absorption by CO2 is already saturated so that an increase would have no effect. This, however, is not the case. Carbon dioxide absorbs infrared radiation in the middle of its 15 mm band to the extent that radiation in the middle of this band cannot escape unimpeded: this absorption is saturated. This, however, is not the case for the band’s wings. It is because of these effects of partial saturation that the radiative forcing is not proportional to the increase in the carbon dioxide concentration but shows a logarithmic dependence. Every further doubling adds an additional 4 Wm-2 to the radiative forcing.

The other human-made greenhouse gases add to the effect of increased carbon dioxide. Their total effect at the surface is often expressed in terms of the effect of an equivalent increase in carbon dioxide.

The effect of aerosols
The effect of the increasing amount of aerosols on the radiative forcing is complex and not yet well known. The direct effect is the scattering of part of the incoming solar radiation back into space. This causes a negative radiative forcing which may partly, and locally even completely, offset the enhanced greenhouse effect. However, due to their short atmospheric lifetime, the radiative forcing is very inhomogeneous in space and in time. This complicates their effect on the highly non-linear climate system. Some aerosols, such as soot, absorb solar radiation directly, leading to local heating of the atmosphere, or absorb and emit infrared radiation, adding to the enhanced greenhouse effect.

Aerosols may also affect the number, density and size of cloud droplets. This may change the amount and optical properties of clouds, and hence their reflection and absorption. It may also have an impact on the formation of precipitation. As discussed in Chapter 5, these are potentially important indirect effects of aerosols, resulting probably in a negative radiative forcing of as yet very uncertain magnitude.

Land-use change
The term “land-use change” refers to a change in the use or management of land. Such change may result from various human activities such as changes in agriculture and irrigation, deforestation, reforestation and afforestation, but also from urbanisation or traffic. Land-use change results in changing the physical and biological properties of the land surface and thus the climate system.

It is now recognized that land-use change on the present scale may contribute significantly to changing the local, regional or even global climate and moreover has an important impact on the carbon cycle. Physical processes and feedbacks caused by land-use change, that may have an impact on the climate, include changes in albedo and surface roughness, and the exchange between land and atmosphere of water vapour and greenhouse gases. These climatic consequences of land-use change are discussed and evaluated in Section 4 of Chapter 7. Land-use change may also affect the climate system through biological processes and feedbacks involving the terrestrial vegetation, which may lead to changes in the sources and sinks of carbon in its various forms. Chapter 3 reviews the consequences for the carbon cycle. Obviously the combined effect of these physical and biogeochemical processes and feedbacks is complex, but new data sets and models start to shed light on this.

Urbanisation is another kind of land-use change. This may affect the local wind climate through its influence on the surface roughness. It may also create a local climate substantially warmer than the surrounding countryside by the heat released by densely populated human settlements, by changes in evaporation characteristics and by modifying the outgoing long-wave radiation through interception by tall buildings etc. This is known as an “urban heat island”. The influence on the regional climate may be noticeable but small. It may however have a significant influence on long instrumental temperature records from stations affected by expanding urbanisation. The consequences of this urbanisation effect for the global surface temperature record has been the subject of debate. It is discussed in Section 2.2.2 of Chapter 2.

Climate response
The increase in greenhouse gas and aerosol concentrations in the atmosphere and also land-use change produces a radiative forcing or affects processes and feedbacks in the climate system. As discussed in Chapter 7, the response of the climate to these human-induced forcings is complicated by such feedbacks, by the strong non-linearity of many processes and by the fact that the various coupled components of the climate system have very different response times to perturbations. Qualitatively, an increase of atmospheric greenhouse gas concentrations leads to an average increase of the temperature of the surface-troposphere system. The response of the stratosphere is entirely different. The stratosphere is characterised by a radiative balance between absorption of solar radiation, mainly by ozone, and emission of infrared radiation mainly by carbon dioxide. An increase in the carbon dioxide concentration therefore leads to an increase of the emission and thus to a cooling of the stratosphere.

The only means available to quantify the non-linear climate response is by using numerical models of the climate system based on well-established physical, chemical and biological principles, possibly combined with empirical and statistical methods.


http://www.ipcc.ch/

[John Crighton]

Bla Bla Bla....... Same story, different source.

At least my heating bills will go down.

[Weasel]

Bla Bla Bla....... Same story, different source.

At least my heating bills will go down.

But youe IQ drops rapidly. :petting:

[exarmyguard]

Save the planet...Stop Farting!

[evanfitz]

I personnally believe global warming is a very serious threat that will plague us in the future.

[Dakota435]

Do you seriously think you can trust a UN report?

Sorry but the foundation of "man made global warming", upon which the entire edifice depends, is the "Hockey Stick" temperature plot produced by Mann in the 90s. And any medieval historian knows the hockey stick is a lie, because it attempts to deny the Medieval Warm Period and the Mini Ice Age. Other analysts have deconstructed Mann's data to show how he cooked the books to get rid of the major climate fluctuations are are known to have happened over the last 1200 years.

Vikings were farming on Greenland in 1000. What made the climate so warm back then? Europe cooled off really fast in the late medieval period. What caused that? The North American climate started warming up suddenly in the 1950s. Up till then NY harbor used to freeze over every winter.

Fluctuations in climate have been going on since the beginning but all of a sudden THIS fluctuation is because of man's CO2 emissions. What a simplistic view.

The truth is the CO2 greenhouse theory, while technically valid in itself, is just a tiny factor in an unimaginably complex series of interactions and any change accomplished there will be lost in the noise of everthing else. That it is being pushed so hard is pure politics.

The tragedy is the billions that will be wasted that could be put to better use like providing clean water for the third world.

[thesuperdude]

do you really think the UN one day decided that they should wright a report on a complete lie? i study biology at the university of gothenburg and at least one of the professors we had worked on this report and they all seemed very competent. what makes you think they have worse metods in their resurge then lets say a scientist that develops medicin?

[Kaapeli]

Do you seriously think you can trust a UN report?

Any particular reason why we shouldn't? Please enlighten us. Is it a conspiracy perhaps?

And the global warming isn't an UN invention. It has been observed and studied all over the world by countless of independent groups.
There's a hole in the ozone layer larger than Antarctica because of our freon emissions just from the past 100 years or so and you're saying that we can't affect the climate on this planet?

Last month was the warmest ever recorded here in Finland (6-8 degrees celcius higher than average). There are octobers this warm only once in every thousand years. A coincidence? I don't think so.

[evanfitz]

I don't believe anyone is denying that the earth warms then cools, goes through several temperature cycles in its lifetime.

However comparing the earths historical climate changes to the present-day will obviously show an abnormal difference.

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/e/e9/Carbon_Dioxide_400kyr-2.png



Here you can see the Medieval warm period

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/c/c1/2000_Year_Temperature_Comparison.png


Close to our present-day, a natural cycle of earth i'm guessing

But compare the Medieval warmth period to our present day, then compare them to our predicted future.

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/a/aa/Global_Warming_Predictions.png

[Quietscheentchen]

i don't think that the climatic change itself is the big problem for mankind, we already have experienced smaller changes in the past. the problem is the speed and power with which the climate seems to change, we simply need more time to adopt to the new situations all over the world which will occur, especially in an economical sense.

[gilgoul]

Oooops, I farted, did it contribute to global warming?

[Dakota435]

Sorry boys but I remember the media hysteria over CLOBAL COOLING only 30 years ago, big stories in Time and Newsweek, all the experts predicting DISASTER! FAMINE! PESTILENCE! WE'S GONNA FREEZE!

All kinds of charts and data to support the Coming Ice Age. It all petered out over the next 5-10 years, and by the mid 80s was forgotten just like lefties seem to have "forgotten" about the tens of millions killed by socialism/communism/fascism last century.

Remember the pundits in the 70s predicting the world would run out of food by 2000 with mass starvation? Wrong wrong wrong. They were all wrong.

You guys don't seem to understand that these issues take on a life of their own because an "industry" develops where thousands of people build careers and fortunes on sustaining a cause. Especially at the UN where corruption is rampant and thousands have careers built on pumping up the hysteria.

The current environmental hysteria will slowly peter out on its own over the next ten years. Seen it all before.

[Vorian]

Oooops, I farted, did it contribute to global warming?

Very funny. How old are you again?

[evanfitz]

The current environmental hysteria will slowly peter out on its own over the next ten years. Seen it all before.

possibly, only time can tell

[Cedan]

its all a left wing islamist conspiracy :bash:

[Kaapeli]

Sorry boys but I remember the media hysteria over CLOBAL COOLING only 30 years ago, big stories in Time and Newsweek, all the experts predicting DISASTER! FAMINE! PESTILENCE! WE'S GONNA FREEZE!

All kinds of charts and data to support the Coming Ice Age. It all petered out over the next 5-10 years, and by the mid 80s was forgotten just like lefties seem to have "forgotten" about the tens of millions killed by socialism/communism/fascism last century.

Remember the pundits in the 70s predicting the world would run out of food by 2000 with mass starvation? Wrong wrong wrong. They were all wrong.

You guys don't seem to understand that these issues take on a life of their own because an "industry" develops where thousands of people build careers and fortunes on sustaining a cause. Especially at the UN where corruption is rampant and thousands have careers built on pumping up the hysteria.

The current environmental hysteria will slowly peter out on its own over the next ten years. Seen it all before.

Global warming has nothing to do with leftism, the UN, communist conspiracies, corruption etc.

The global cooling was based on a theory about ice age cycles and they didn't have the global long time temperature data (from satellites) and prediction methods we have now. And the greenhouse effect was almost unknown. If there actually was any danger of global cooling and coming of a new ice age, we have propably already reversed it.

Global warming is a fact and even the most stubborn denier, the Bush administration, has finally admitted it officially.

[dangerclose]

Why is Greenland called Greenland? There was global warming long before the SUV.

It's called cycles that human beings could not affect if they tried.

[Dakota435]

Global warming has nothing to do with leftism, the UN, communist conspiracies, corruption etc.

The global cooling was based on a theory about ice age cycles and they didn't have the global long time temperature data (from satellites) and prediction methods we have now. And the greenhouse effect was almost unknown. If there actually was any danger of global cooling and coming of a new ice age, we have propably already reversed it.

Global warming is a fact and even the most stubborn denier, the Bush administration, has finally admitted it officially.

Ahh yes the "We didn't know what we were doing then but now we do, honest." line LOL

The Bush administration is going along for political reasons. This has gone way beyond "science" and is mostly politics now. There are thousands of people with careers built on keeping this going.

I'm not saying that the climate isn't warming up, I'm saying that the theory that it's man made is dubious, ignores contradictory data, and in any case the Kyoto treatywill have almost no practical effect and is therefore a tragic waste.

There was a report the other week that a Russian institute is now predicting a cool down. They can't predict the day to day weather beyond a week and you expect me to believe a prediction that goes out 100 years!

The biggest Big Lie is that the debate is over and there is universal consensus. Total bullsh*t.. This was an open letter sent to the Prime Minister of Canada by 60 scientists who aren't members of the GW religion. It was published in the National Post newspaper in Canada:

http://www.canada.com/nationalpost/financialpost/story.html?id=3711460e-bd5a-475d-a6be-4db87559d605

One of the signatories below, Dr. Hendrik Tennekes, former director of research, Royal Netherlands Meteorological Institute, was removed from his job at the RNMI for daring to "speak truth to power" and offending the GW High Priests in the Dutch Government. Most of the scientists listed below will tell you that they are generally ignored by the media because their views violate the template. Most are sanguine about it because they know it will peter out on its own as the truth becomes too obvious to ignore EXACTLY like the global cooling scare, or the high tension lines cause cancer scare, or a gazillion other media inflated scares.



Special to the Financial Post
Published: Thursday, April 06, 2006

An open letter to Prime Minister Stephen Harper:

Dear Prime Minister:

As accredited experts in climate and related scientific disciplines, we are writing to propose that balanced, comprehensive public-consultation sessions be held so as to examine the scientific foundation of the federal government's climate-change plans. This would be entirely consistent with your recent commitment to conduct a review of the Kyoto Protocol. Although many of us made the same suggestion to then-prime ministers Martin and Chretien, neither responded, and, to date, no formal, independent climate-science review has been conducted in Canada. Much of the billions of dollars earmarked for implementation of the protocol in Canada will be squandered without a proper assessment of recent developments in climate science.

Observational evidence does not support today's computer climate models, so there is little reason to trust model predictions of the future. Yet this is precisely what the United Nations did in creating and promoting Kyoto and still does in the alarmist forecasts on which Canada's climate policies are based. Even if the climate models were realistic, the environmental impact of Canada delaying implementation of Kyoto or other greenhouse-gas reduction schemes, pending completion of consultations, would be insignificant. Directing your government to convene balanced, open hearings as soon as possible would be a most prudent and responsible course of action.

While the confident ****ouncements of scientifically unqualified environmental groups may provide for sensational

headlines, they are no basis for mature policy

formulation. The study of global climate change is, as you have said, an "emerging science," one that is perhaps the most complex ever tackled. It may be many years yet before we properly understand the Earth's climate system. Nevertheless, significant advances have been made since the protocol was created, many of which are taking us away from a concern about increasing greenhouse gases. If, back in the mid-1990s, we knew what we know today about climate, Kyoto would almost certainly not exist, because we would have concluded it was not necessary.

We appreciate the difficulty any government has formulating sensible science-based policy when the loudest voices always seem to be pushing in the opposite direction. However, by convening open, unbiased consultations, Canadians will be permitted to hear from experts on both sides of the debate in the climate-science community. When the public comes to understand that there is no "consensus" among climate scientists about the relative importance of the various causes of global climate change, the government will be in a far better position to develop plans that reflect reality and so benefit both the environment and the economy.

"Climate change is real" is a meaningless phrase used repeatedly by activists to convince the public that a climate catastrophe is looming and humanity is the cause. Neither of these fears is justified. Global climate changes all the time due to natural causes and the human impact still remains impossible to distinguish from this natural "noise." The new Canadian government's commitment to reducing air, land and water pollution is commendable, but allocating funds to "stopping climate change" would be irrational. We need to continue intensive research into the real causes of climate change and help our most vulnerable citizens adapt to whatever nature throws at us next.

We believe the Canadian public and government decision-makers need and deserve to hear the whole story concerning this very complex issue. It was only 30 years ago that many of today's global-warming alarmists were telling us that the world was in the midst of a global-cooling catastrophe. But the science continued to evolve, and still does, even though so many choose to ignore it when it does not fit with predetermined political agendas.

We hope that you will examine our proposal carefully and we stand willing and able to furnish you with more information on this crucially important topic.

CC: The Honourable Rona Ambrose, Minister of the Environment, and the Honourable Gary Lunn, Minister of Natural Resources

- - -

Sincerely,

Dr. Ian D. Clark, professor, isotope hydrogeology and paleoclimatology, Dept. of Earth Sciences, University of Ottawa

Dr. Tad Murty, former senior research scientist, Dept. of Fisheries and Oceans, former director of Australia's National Tidal Facility and professor of earth sciences, Flinders University, Adelaide; currently adjunct professor, Departments of Civil Engineering and Earth Sciences, University of Ottawa

Dr. R. Timothy Patterson, professor, Dept. of Earth Sciences (paleoclimatology), Carleton University, Ottawa

Dr. Fred Michel, director, Institute of Environmental Science and associate professor, Dept. of Earth Sciences, Carleton University, Ottawa

Dr. Madhav Khandekar, former research scientist, Environment Canada. Member of editorial board of Climate Research and Natural Hazards

Dr. Paul Copper, FRSC, professor emeritus, Dept. of Earth Sciences, Laurentian University, Sudbury, Ont.

Dr. Ross McKitrick, associate professor, Dept. of Economics, University of Guelph, Ont.

Dr. Tim Ball, former professor of climatology, University of Winnipeg; environmental consultant

Dr. Andreas Prokoph, adjunct professor of earth sciences, University of Ottawa; consultant in statistics and geology

Mr. David Nowell, M.Sc. (Meteorology), fellow of the Royal Meteorological Society, Canadian member and past chairman of the NATO Meteorological Group, Ottawa

Dr. Christopher Essex, professor of applied mathematics and associate director of the Program in Theoretical Physics, University of Western Ontario, London, Ont.

Dr. Gordon E. Swaters, professor of applied mathematics, Dept. of Mathematical Sciences, and member, Geophysical Fluid Dynamics Research Group, University of Alberta

Dr. L. Graham Smith, associate professor, Dept. of Geography, University of Western Ontario, London, Ont.

Dr. G. Cornelis van Kooten, professor and Canada Research Chair in environmental studies and climate change, Dept. of Economics, University of Victoria

Dr. Petr Chylek, adjunct professor, Dept. of Physics and Atmospheric Science, Dalhousie University, Halifax

Dr./Cdr. M. R. Morgan, FRMS, climate consultant, former meteorology advisor to the World Meteorological Organization. Previously research scientist in climatology at University of Exeter, U.K.

Dr. Keith D. Hage, climate consultant and professor emeritus of Meteorology, University of Alberta

Dr. David E. Wojick, P.Eng., energy consultant, Star Tannery, Va., and Sioux Lookout, Ont.

Rob Scagel, M.Sc., forest microclimate specialist, principal consultant, Pacific Phytometric Consultants, Surrey, B.C.

Dr. Douglas Leahey, meteorologist and air-quality consultant, Calgary

Paavo Siitam, M.Sc., agronomist, chemist, Cobourg, Ont.

Dr. Chris de Freitas, climate scientist, associate professor, The University of Auckland, N.Z.

Dr. Richard S. Lindzen, Alfred P. Sloan professor of meteorology, Dept. of Earth, Atmospheric and Planetary Sciences, Massachusetts Institute of Technology

Dr. Freeman J. Dyson, emeritus professor of physics, Institute for Advanced Studies, Princeton, N.J.

Mr. George Taylor, Dept. of Meteorology, Oregon State University; Oregon State climatologist; past president, American Association of State Climatologists

Dr. Ian Plimer, professor of geology, School of Earth and Environmental Sciences, University of Adelaide; emeritus professor of earth sciences, University of Melbourne, Australia

Dr. R.M. Carter, professor, Marine Geophysical Laboratory, James Cook University, Townsville, Australia

Mr. William Kininmonth, Australasian Climate Research, former Head National Climate Centre, Australian Bureau of Meteorology; former Australian delegate to World Meteorological Organization Commission for Climatology, Scientific and Technical Review

Dr. Hendrik Tennekes, former director of research, Royal Netherlands Meteorological Institute

Dr. Gerrit J. van der Lingen, geologist/paleoclimatologist, Climate Change Consultant, Geoscience Research and Investigations, New Zealand

Dr. Patrick J. Michaels, professor of environmental sciences, University of Virginia

Dr. Nils-Axel Morner, emeritus professor of paleogeophysics & geodynamics, Stockholm University, Stockholm, Sweden

Dr. Gary D. Sharp, Center for Climate/Ocean Resources Study, Salinas, Calif.

Dr. Roy W. Spencer, principal research scientist, Earth System Science Center, The University of Alabama, Huntsville

Dr. Al Pekarek, associate professor of geology, Earth and Atmospheric Sciences Dept., St. Cloud State University, St. Cloud, Minn.

Dr. Marcel Leroux, professor emeritus of climatology, University of Lyon, France; former director of Laboratory of Climatology, Risks and Environment, CNRS

Dr. Paul Reiter, professor, Institut Pasteur, Unit of Insects and Infectious Diseases, Paris, France. Expert reviewer, IPCC Working group II, chapter 8 (human health)

Dr. Zbigniew Jaworowski, physicist and chairman, Scientific Council of Central Laboratory for Radiological Protection, Warsaw, Poland

Dr. Sonja Boehmer-Christiansen, reader, Dept. of Geography, University of Hull, U.K.; editor, Energy & Environment

Dr. Hans H.J. Labohm, former advisor to the executive board, Clingendael Institute (The Netherlands Institute of International Relations) and an economist who has focused on climate change

Dr. Lee C. Gerhard, senior scientist emeritus, University of Kansas, past director and state geologist, Kansas Geological Survey

Dr. Asmunn Moene, past head of the Forecasting Centre, Meteorological Institute, Norway

Dr. August H. Auer, past professor of atmospheric science, University of Wyoming; previously chief meteorologist, Meteorological Service (MetService) of New Zealand

Dr. Vincent Gray, expert reviewer for the IPCC and author of The Greenhouse Delusion: A Critique of 'Climate Change 2001,' Wellington, N.Z.

Dr. Howard Hayden, emeritus professor of physics, University of Connecticut

Dr Benny Peiser, professor of social anthropology, Faculty of Science, Liverpool John Moores University, U.K.

Dr. Jack Barrett, chemist and spectroscopist, formerly with Imperial College London, U.K.

Dr. William J.R. Alexander, professor emeritus, Dept. of Civil and Biosystems Engineering, University of Pretoria, South Africa. Member, United Nations Scientific and Technical Committee on Natural Disasters, 1994-2000

Dr. S. Fred Singer, professor emeritus of environmental sciences, University of Virginia; former director, U.S. Weather Satellite Service

Dr. Harry N.A. Priem, emeritus professor of planetary geology and isotope geophysics, Utrecht University; former director of the Netherlands Institute for Isotope Geosciences; past president of the Royal Netherlands Geological & Mining Society

Dr. Robert H. Essenhigh, E.G. Bailey professor of energy conversion, Dept. of Mechanical Engineering, The Ohio State University

Dr. Sallie Baliunas, astrophysicist and climate researcher, Boston, Mass.

Douglas Hoyt, senior scientist at Raytheon (retired) and co-author of the book The Role of the Sun in Climate Change; previously with NCAR, NOAA, and the World Radiation Center, Davos, Switzerland

Dipl.-Ing. Peter Dietze, independent energy advisor and scientific climate and carbon modeller, official IPCC reviewer, Bavaria, Germany

Dr. Boris Winterhalter, senior marine researcher (retired), Geological Survey of Finland, former professor in marine geology, University of Helsinki, Finland

Dr. Wibjorn Karlen, emeritus professor, Dept. of Physical Geography and Quaternary Geology, Stockholm University, Sweden

Dr. Hugh W. Ellsaesser, physicist/meteorologist, previously with the Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory, Calif.; atmospheric consultant.

Dr. Art Robinson, founder, Oregon Institute of Science and Medicine, Cave Junction, Ore.

Dr. Arthur Rorsch, emeritus professor of molecular genetics, Leiden University, The Netherlands; past board member, Netherlands organization for applied research (TNO) in environmental, food and public health

Dr. Alister McFarquhar, Downing College, Cambridge, U.K.; international economist

Dr. Richard S. Courtney, climate and atmospheric science consultant, IPCC expert reviewer, U.K.

[dangerclose]

The biggest Big Lie is that the debate is over and there is universal consensus.


And even if there was since when does scientific fact depend on consensus?

[Weasel]

Why is Greenland called Greenland? There was global warming long before the SUV.

It's called cycles that human beings could not affect if they tried.

Simply wrong. I don´t think that lots of planes burnt millions of tons of kerosene in sensible regions of the atmosphere in the last thousand years.

[Kaapeli]

Ahh yes the "We didn't know what we were doing then but now we do, honest." line LOL

It's called research and development.
Not so long ago people though the earth was flat and stars were holes in the sky. Can you see these theories coming back anytime soon due to new contradicting data?


The Bush administration is going along for political reasons. This has gone way beyond "science" and is mostly politics now. There are thousands of people with careers built on keeping this going.

Bush administration was trying to swim upstream against the facts because of politics (agreements like Kyoto will hurt the economy and voters like that even less than global warming. Though they'll be even more pissed in the future when cities like New Orleans go underwater PERMANENTLY).


I'm not saying that the climate isn't warming up, I'm saying that the theory that it's man made is dubious, ignores contradictory data, and in any case the Kyoto treatywill have almost no practical effect and is therefore a tragic waste.

And where can I view this contradictory data about greenhouse gass emissions?

I agree that Kyoto isn't enough. That's why we need even more radical changes and Kyoto is just the beginning.


They can't predict the day to day weather beyond a week and you expect me to believe a prediction that goes out 100 years!

If you know anything about science then yes. Sure we can't predict where individual raindrops will fall exactly but we can definately say it's raining when we're soaked.


The biggest Big Lie is that the debate is over and there is universal consensus. Total bullsh*t.. This was an open letter sent to the Prime Minister of Canada by 60 scientists who aren't members of the GW religion. It was published in the National Post newspaper in Canada:

Charming rant letter. I think I'll save this in the same folder with the Young Earth Creationist appeals for teaching the "controversy".

[tsuri]

It's called cycles that human beings could not affect if they tried.

Correct. This is why we should not cut back on pollution. Trying is the first step towards failing and pollution is very healthy anyways. I dont think those leftist fags appreciate our smog filled cities and polluted rivers enough.

The mere idea that we would want to cut down pollution by laughably easy means is an insult to any good economist.

If you find satire you can keep it.



Man made climate change is a theory. There is only one way to disprove it. We have to cut back on CO2 emissions and restore them to a normal level. If Earth continues to get warmer at the same levels, then it was wrong. But can we afford to hope that the theory is wrong and not do anything?

[John Crighton]

Simply wrong. I don´t think that lots of planes burnt millions of tons of kerosene in sensible regions of the atmosphere in the last thousand years.


So everyone is wrong based your opinion.....and my IQ is going down for not caring about something that can not be proved either way.

HHHHHAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA!

[sir-chimp]

Today I ate a chili dog - there goes another 2.5 cubic inches of artic ice :-(

[Dakota435]

Charming rant letter. I think I'll save this in the same folder with the Young Earth Creationist appeals for teaching the "controversy".

This answer tells us everything we need to know. Your mind is closed. You won't even admit that, as that open letter showed, the issue is hotly contested in the climate science business and is NOT a universally accepted fact. The scientists who signed that letter aren't real scientists. That's it!!! Heretics!!!! Burn them! Burn them!

[Dakota435]

Today I ate a chili dog - there goes another 2.5 cubic inches of artic ice :-(

You can eat more chili dogs as long as you stop exhaling when you breathe to compensate.

[thesuperdude]

i just want to know one thing dakota. what makes your team of scientists more credible then mine?

[sir-chimp]

I blame Bush not signing the Kyoto Treaty

[Kaapeli]

This answer tells us everything we need to know. Your mind is closed. You won't even admit that, as that open letter showed, the issue is hotly contested in the climate science business and is NOT a universally accepted fact. The scientists who signed that letter aren't real scientists. That's it!!! Heretics!!!! Burn them! Burn them!

There isn't a single fact in the world that isn't contested.
I can show you similar Creationist letters signed by even more impressive number of scientists or "scientists".
Anyway I totally encourage these people to continue their research and prove that the mainstream science is wrong if they can. And if this succeeds then I'll happily review my opinion on the subject. But at the moment most scientists are siding heavily with the theory that global warming is either caused or atleast accelerated by pollution.

[DaGreatRV]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Global_warming

A nice read, no it's not leftist!!!CommyPropagandaz it's pretty neutral. Much about the past can be learnt from studying soil and ice.


http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/c/c1/2000_Year_Temperature_Comparison.png


http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/e/e9/Carbon_Dioxide_400kyr-2.png

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/f/f4/Instrumental_Temperature_Record.png


http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/thumb/6/63/Co2-temperature-plot.svg/800px-Co2-temperature-plot.svg.png

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/0/0d/Solar-cycle-data.png


http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/e/e5/Glacier_Mass_Balance.png



http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/2/2e/World_energy_consumption%2C_1970-2025%2C_EIA.png

[Thor]

I have joined the critics of the enhanced global warming effect advocates. I'm not saying that we shouldn't be bothered about cutting down on all kinds of pollution but the current hysteria is just not healthy. What the world needs is a long term plan for the next 50 or 100 years.

Like I said in some other thread, 3000 years ago we had present day mediterranean climate up here. Then the climate changed very rapidly and people changed their living patterns. Same with the years following the last ice age, things changed very rapdily and people started moving along the declining ice sheet to break new grounds. Changes in climate do come naturally.

[Dakota435]

i just want to know one thing dakota. what makes your team of scientists more credible then mine?

I can tell you went down that list of PhDs and it gave you pause a bit didn't it. My boss, who thinks the same way you do, looked at the article and came up to me later and said the Dutch guy I mentioned was his university professor back in Holland! He was stunned to find that there were dissenters because to hear the media tell it there aren't any. Now he's starting to wonder just how much he ISN'T being told by the media.

Anyway, I'm not saying that one team is more credible than another because it agrees with my position. I'm saying that the key issue is, and you must admit this if you any intellectual honesty, that there is in fact a hotly contested debate in the climate science world about man made GW, and that it is NOT, as many media and politicos claim, a universally accepted fact. That open letter proves it and if you want to discard them as "Creationists" to avoid facing contrary opinion, it doesn't change anything.

So the reality is that it is in fact a debate with two sides, and people like you and I scan the arguments and come down on one side or the other. I'm in my 50s and seen so many of these sorts of things come and go since I started paying attention in the 70s, so I am a natural skeptic and on this issue. I've spent a lot of time seeking out contrary information to counterbalance the media chorus because that chorus is so one sided, and made my mind up based on that.

If you are like most people and have been immersed in GW propaganda for years with little counter argument (certainly not from the media) I can understand where you're coming from. Most of the people I know who get their world view from the local paper think the same way.

So you can advocate the GW position all you want, just don't say that it's a universally accepted fact. It ain't.

Cheers

[Dakota435]

I have joined the critics of the enhanced global warming effect advocates. I'm not saying that we shouldn't be bothered about cutting down on all kinds of pollution but the current hysteria is just not healthy.

What the world needs is a long term plan for the next 50 or 100 years.

The march of technology will deal with the problem by itself eventually.

[Dakota435]

I blame Bush not signing the Kyoto Treaty

That's what's forcing you to eat chili dogs?

[sir-chimp]

That's what's forcing you to eat chili dogs?

Its a Haliburton plot against me

[Thor]

The march of technology will deal with the problem by itself eventually.
Everything comes with a price. Among other things the developing world needs incitements to get more environmentally friendly.

[Dakota435]

Everything comes with a price. Among other things the developing world needs incitements to get more environmentally friendly.

Environmental friendliness comes naturally when a devoloping country starts to build a large middle class with a vested interest in good governement and pleasant surroundings. This is why globalization and free trade are in the long run the best for improving the environment in the third world.

[tsuri]

This is why globalization and free trade are in the long run the best for improving the environment in the third world
Did not work in the first World and is not working in the former second. Why should it work in the third?

[Thor]

I agree with Tsuri.

LOL

[RECON DOC]

That's what's forcing you to eat chili dogs?


Its a Haliburton plot against me

And the gruesome result.

http://www.youtube.com/v/OGbCU4Zfpc8

[Dakota435]

Did not work in the first World and is not working in the former second. Why should it work in the third?

Only a 22 year old could say that...

[Dakota435]

And the gruesome result.



I am never riding in an elevator again...

[name already taken]

Did not work in the first World and is not working in the former second. Why should it work in the third?
It's better not to argue about religious matters.

[name already taken]

I can tell you went down that list of PhDs and it gave you pause a bit didn't it.
The pose they give me is that it's not a scientific paper they've signed there but a political one.

And outside their respective research fields the opinions of those PhDs are about as good as anyone else's.

[exarmyguard]

Today I ate a chili dog - there goes another 2.5 cubic inches of artic ice :-(

Trying lighting a match when you fart. Helps burn off the bad gases.

[sir-chimp]

Every time you eat a chili dog Al Gore cries

Please do your part

[Violet Fashion by Mindy]

Environmental friendliness comes naturally when a devoloping country starts to build a large middle class with a vested interest in good governement and pleasant surroundings. This is why globalization and free trade are in the long run the best for improving the environment in the third world.

Get out.

Globalisation is the major cause of the worlds problems. Always has been always will be.

[Thor]

Globalisation is the major cause of the worlds problems. Always has been always will be.
Numpty.

Globalisation is the reason the world is enjoying a tremendous economic growth.

[11 Bravo]

[QUOTE=thesuperdude;2209387] many of you dont know or dont want to know about the effect humans have on the climate.



Superdude...ahem...this is to put it nicely POPPYCOCK !. Global baloney is a damned goofey thingy from whackos that have no insight or care to about our planets geological histroy.If they did they would see this kind of cyclical cataclysm is par for the course.
All in all it's just some arse farkers making much noise about something they have no real grasp of.

[Violet Fashion by Mindy]

Numpty.

Globalisation is the reason the world is enjoying a tremendous economic growth.

That's why there is increased tension between the have and have nots.

Today's society is no different to a feudal system. Only difference now is that the Lords are paying the Serfs to keep them in line.

[sir-chimp]

That's why there is increased tension between the have and have nots.

Today's society is no different to a feudal system. Only difference now is that the Lords are paying the Serfs to keep them in line.

preach on brotha


f_uck the man

[Thor]

That's why there is increased tension between the have and have nots.

Today's society is no different to a feudal system. Only difference now is that the Lords are paying the Serfs to keep them in line.
The Lords are doing a bad job then because China is being very naughty!

[LRPV]

Anyone know about global dimming? Not the dumbing-down of education type, the pollutants in the air type? There are now vast tracts of atmosphere that hold cloud-like volumes of particles. The area over south-west India is easy to see on satellite coverage. Over the last 30 years this area has come to the point where 20% of natural sunlight is blocked. This effects crops, rain-cycles etc. Global dimming is quantifiable and confirmable but it doesn't seem to attract the popular attention like global warming which cannot definitely be attributed to man.

[ShotOver]

That's why there is increased tension between the have and have nots.

Today's society is no different to a feudal system. Only difference now is that the Lords are paying the Serfs to keep them in line.

Mate, stop using so many middle age references in your posts. This isnt Rome: Total War.

[Dakota435]

Anyone know about global dimming? Not the dumbing-down of education type, the pollutants in the air type? There are now vast tracts of atmosphere that hold cloud-like volumes of particles. The area over south-west India is easy to see on satellite coverage. Over the last 30 years this area has come to the point where 20% of natural sunlight is blocked. This effects crops, rain-cycles etc. Global dimming is quantifiable and confirmable but it doesn't seem to attract the popular attention like global warming which cannot definitely be attributed to man.

But isn't global dimming gonna cause global cooling? Gall dang it, what the hell is someone to think?!

More CO2 to counteract global cooling from dimming! Plus more street lights.

[Dakota435]

preach on brotha


f_uck the man

Isn't that what your avatar is doing??

[alexz]

Get out.

Globalisation is the major cause of the worlds problems. Always has been always will be.

What are you talking about?

[dangerclose]

That's why there is increased tension between the have and have nots.

Today's society is no different to a feudal system. Only difference now is that the Lords are paying the Serfs to keep them in line.


Mate, stop using so many middle age references in your posts. This isnt Rome: Total War.



Bloody peasants.

http://www.youtube.com/v/mgsG_nbU8j0

[John Crighton]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Global_warming

A nice read, no it's not leftist!!!CommyPropagandaz it's pretty neutral. Much about the past can be learnt from studying soil and ice.


http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/c/c1/2000_Year_Temperature_Comparison.png


http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/e/e9/Carbon_Dioxide_400kyr-2.png

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/f/f4/Instrumental_Temperature_Record.png


http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/thumb/6/63/Co2-temperature-plot.svg/800px-Co2-temperature-plot.svg.png

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/0/0d/Solar-cycle-data.png


http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/e/e5/Glacier_Mass_Balance.png



http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/2/2e/World_energy_consumption%2C_1970-2025%2C_EIA.png

Take a look at volcanic activity and compare it to your charts. Volcanos produce more greenhouse gasses than the industrial world combined.

Just take a look. Notice the volcanic cycles and your charts??????

[thesuperdude]

Take a look at volcanic activity and compare it to your charts. Volcanos produce more greenhouse gasses than the industrial world combined.

Just take a look. Notice the volcanic cycles and your charts??????

here you have the carbon cycle. with vulcanoes and everything and as far as i know 2<5.

the numbers are in billions of metric tons (10^15 g)
http://img70.imageshack.us/img70/366/carboncyclehf5.jpg (http://imageshack.us)

and the sulfur cycle just for fun
http://img82.imageshack.us/img82/9555/sulfurcyclebj0.jpg (http://imageshack.us)

[thesuperdude]

Superdude...ahem...this is to put it nicely POPPYCOCK !. Global baloney is a damned goofey thingy from whackos that have no insight or care to about our planets geological histroy.If they did they would see this kind of cyclical cataclysm is par for the course.
All in all it's just some arse farkers making much noise about something they have no real grasp of.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Milankovitch_cycles

[DaGreatRV]

Take a look at volcanic activity and compare it to your charts. Volcanos produce more greenhouse gasses than the industrial world combined.

Just take a look. Notice the volcanic cycles and your charts??????


Volcanic activity releases about 130 to 230 teragrams (145 million to 255 million short tons) of carbon dioxide each year.

Around 24,000 million tonnes of CO2 are released per year worldwide.
see ---> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_carbon_dioxide_emissions

[Kaapeli]

Volcanic activity releases about 130 to 230 teragrams (145 million to 255 million short tons) of carbon dioxide each year.

Around 24,000 million tonnes of CO2 are released per year worldwide.
see ---> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_carbon_dioxide_emissions

The chart doesn't say if it's all of the greenhouse gasses converted into CO2 or just pure CO2 emissions.
For example methane is a 23x more powerful greenhouse gas than CO2.

[John Crighton]

The chart doesn't say if it's all of the greenhouse gasses converted into CO2 or just pure CO2 emissions.
For example methane is a 23x more powerful greenhouse gas than CO2.

That would also be an average. Check major eruptions.

Ban volcanoes!!!!!

[Loki77]

That would also be an average. Check major eruptions.

Ban volcanoes!!!!!
My country is one of the most eruptive places on Earth!!:)

[Liptow]

Kyoto is a nonsense. It says by 2008 - 2012 its signatars should decrease their CO2 emissions to 95% of the 1990 level. First, none of these countries actually decreased their CO2 emissions even the deadline is almost here. Yes they are trading their emissions with 3rd world countries which is not a big help. However, even if they really manage to reach their CO2 emission targets, the result should be that the CO2 acummulation should be only slightly slower - some calculation say the CO2 level which should be reached in 96 years without any countermeasures will be reached in 100 years, if world economy invests 300 billions of USD every year into CO2 emission cutting program.
Small part of these money will make the hydrogen fusion reactor a reality, which, even more important nowadays, will make us rather independent of arabic/russian crude. There is such a combined USA-UK-France-Japan-S.Korea pilot plant being constructed in France. THIS is the way to go.

Btw can you imagine if CO2/temperatures will drop then? Inhabited areas will get covered by ice, vegetation growth will drop globally (higher CO2 levels improves the plant growth remarkably), vegetation period in middle climate will get shorter, all that resulting in population migration, starvation climate changes, local conflicts and do not forget those pesky icebergs which sunk Titanic - they will be here again.

[Herrmannek]

> how humans change the climate
There is that dial knob on the wall, you turn it clockwise you get greenhouse effect, you turn it counterclockwise you get an ice age... We usually keep it in the middle of the scale....

[Mr. JOSHUA]

So what humans caused the Ice Age to end?

[Lau]

Why is Greenland called Greenland? There was global warming long before the SUV.

It's called cycles that human beings could not affect if they tried.

ROFL!!! rofl The amount of stupidity is overwhelming..

'Erik the Red' called it Greenland to convince his fellow countrymen that is was an excellent place to live....
Geeze, what do they teach you in school? Nothing I guess...

As for the rest.. Global warming is not a matter of faith or believing in it. Its a fact.. If you believe in science that is. Religious nuts has no place in science.

[nagant_m44]

ROFL!!! rofl The amount of stupidity is overwhelming..

'Erik the Red' called it Greenland to convince his fellow countrymen that is was an excellent place to live....
Geeze, what do they teach you in school? Nothing I guess...

As for the rest.. Global warming is not a matter of faith or believing in it. Its a fact.. If you believe in science that is. Religious nuts has no place in science.

yes, o brilliant one. Science is never, EVER, wrong. Anything that disagrees with almighty science is stupid. Get off your high horse.

[Jobu]

Get back to me when our global climate models are more accurate and dependable.

Right now this human-induced global warming hysteria is just good for a laugh and I'm not about to lose $1 of business because of it.

[Liptow]

'Erik the Red' called it Greenland to convince his fellow countrymen that is was an excellent place to live....


This is true, however, it does not change the fact that the Greenland population peaked at some 4000 and those colonies existed there for 500 years till the Small Ice period come.
In our region, there were wineyards around Prague at those times.

[Lau]

yes, o brilliant one. Science is never, EVER, wrong. Anything that disagrees with almighty science is stupid. Get off your high horse.

Ofcourse science can be wrong.

But people dont go around claiming the world is flat... Well some might, as there are people claiming there is no global warming caused by man.. p-)

[sir-chimp]

Today I ate TWO chili dogs


feel my rath Al Gore.

[Dakota435]

Today I ate TWO chili dogs


feel my rath Al Gore.

But did you f*ck the man?

[gilgoul]

Climate chaos? Don't believe it

By Christopher Monckton, Sunday Telegraph
Last Updated: 12:14am GMT 05/11/2006

Download Christopher Monckton's references and detailed calculations [pdf]

The Stern report last week predicted dire economic and social effects of unchecked global warming. In what many will see as a highly controversial polemic, Christopher Monckton disputes the 'facts' of this impending apocalypse and accuses the UN and its scientists of distorting the truth

Biblical droughts, floods, plagues and extinctions?

Last week, Gordon Brown and his chief economist both said global warming was the worst "market failure" ever. That loaded soundbite suggests that the "climate-change" scare is less about saving the planet than, in Jacques Chirac's chilling phrase, "creating world government". This week and next, I'll reveal how politicians, scientists and bureaucrats contrived a threat of Biblical floods, droughts, plagues, and extinctions worthier of St John the Divine than of science.

Sir Nicholas Stern's report on the economics of climate change, which was published last week, says that the debate is over. It isn't. There are more greenhouse gases in the air than there were, so the world should warm a bit, but that's as far as the "consensus" goes. After the recent hysteria, you may not find the truth easy to believe. So you can find all my references and detailed calculations here.

The Royal Society says there's a worldwide scientific consensus. It brands Apocalypse-deniers as paid lackeys of coal and oil corporations. I declare my interest: I once took the taxpayer's shilling and advised Margaret Thatcher, FRS, on scientific scams and scares. Alas, not a red cent from Exxon.

In 1988, James Hansen, a climatologist, told the US Congress that temperature would rise 0.3C by the end of the century (it rose 0.1C), and that sea level would rise several feet (no, one inch). The UN set up a transnational bureaucracy, the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC). The UK taxpayer unwittingly meets the entire cost of its scientific team, which, in 2001, produced the Third Assessment Report, a Bible-length document presenting apocalyptic conclusions well beyond previous reports.
advertisement

This week, I'll show how the UN undervalued the sun's effects on historical and contemporary climate, slashed the natural greenhouse effect, overstated the past century's temperature increase, repealed a fundamental law of physics and tripled the man-made greenhouse effect.

Next week, I'll demonstrate the atrocious economic, political and environmental cost of the high-tax, zero-freedom, bureaucratic centralism implicit in Stern's report; I'll compare the global-warming scare with previous sci-fi alarums; and I'll show how the environmentalists' "precautionary principle" (get the state to interfere now, just in case) is killing people.

So to the scare. First, the UN implies that carbon dioxide ended the last four ice ages. It displays two 450,000-year graphs: a sawtooth curve of temperature and a sawtooth of airborne CO2 that's scaled to look similar. Usually, similar curves are superimposed for comparison. The UN didn't do that. If it had, the truth would have shown: the changes in temperature preceded the changes in CO2 levels.

Next, the UN abolished the medieval warm period (the global warming at the end of the First Millennium AD). In 1995, David Deming, a geoscientist at the University of Oklahoma, had written an article reconstructing 150 years of North American temperatures from borehole data. He later wrote: "With the publication of the article in Science, I gained significant credibility in the community of scientists working on climate change. They thought I was one of them, someone who would pervert science in the service of social and political causes. One of them let his guard down. A major person working in the area of climate change and global warming sent me an astonishing email that said: 'We have to get rid of the Medieval Warm Period.' "

So they did. The UN's second assessment report, in 1996, showed a 1,000-year graph demonstrating that temperature in the Middle Ages was warmer than today. But the 2001 report contained a new graph showing no medieval warm period. It wrongly concluded that the 20th century was the warmest for 1,000 years. The graph looked like an ice hockey-stick. The wrongly flat AD1000-AD1900 temperature line was the shaft: the uptick from 1900 to 2000 was the blade. Here's how they did it:

• They gave one technique for reconstructing pre-thermometer temperature 390 times more weight than any other (but didn't say so).

• The technique they overweighted was one which the UN's 1996 report had said was unsafe: measurement of tree-rings from bristlecone pines. Tree-rings are wider in warmer years, but pine-rings are also wider when there's more carbon dioxide in the air: it's plant food. This carbon dioxide fertilisation distorts the calculations.

• They said they had included 24 data sets going back to 1400. Without saying so, they left out the set showing the medieval warm period, tucking it into a folder marked "Censored Data".

• They used a computer model to draw the graph from the data, but scientists later found that the model almost always drew hockey-sticks even if they fed in random, electronic "red noise".


The large, full-colour "hockey-stick" was the key graph in the UN's 2001 report, and the only one to appear six times. The Canadian Government copied it to every household. Four years passed before a leading scientific journal would publish the truth about the graph. Did the UN or the Canadian government apologise? Of course not. The UN still uses the graph in its publications.

Even after the "hockey stick" graph was exposed, scientific papers apparently confirming its abolition of the medieval warm period appeared. The US Senate asked independent statisticians to investigate. They found that the graph was meretricious, and that known associates of the scientists who had compiled it had written many of the papers supporting its conclusion.

The UN, echoed by Stern, says the graph isn't important. It is. Scores of scientific papers show that the medieval warm period was real, global and up to 3C warmer than now. Then, there were no glaciers in the tropical Andes: today they're there. There were Viking farms in Greenland: now they're under permafrost. There was little ice at the North Pole: a Chinese naval squadron sailed right round the Arctic in 1421 and found none.

The Antarctic, which holds 90 per cent of the world's ice and nearly all its 160,000 glaciers, has cooled and gained ice-mass in the past 30 years, reversing a 6,000-year melting trend. Data from 6,000 boreholes worldwide show global temperatures were higher in the Middle Ages than now. And the snows of Kilimanjaro are vanishing not because summit temperature is rising (it isn't) but because post-colonial deforestation has dried the air. Al Gore please note.

In some places it was also warmer than now in the Bronze Age and in Roman times. It wasn't CO2 that caused those warm periods. It was the sun. So the UN adjusted the maths and all but extinguished the sun's role in today's warming. Here's how:

• The UN dated its list of "forcings" (influences on temperature) from 1750, when the sun, and consequently air temperature, was almost as warm as now. But its start-date for the increase in world temperature was 1900, when the sun, and temperature, were much cooler.

• Every "forcing" produces "climate feedbacks" making temperature rise faster. For instance, as temperature rises in response to a forcing, the air carries more water vapour, the most important greenhouse gas; and polar ice melts, increasing heat absorption. Up goes the temperature again. The UN more than doubled the base forcings from greenhouse gases to allow for climate feedbacks. It didn't do the same for the base solar forcing.

Two centuries ago, the astronomer William Herschel was reading Adam Smith's Wealth of Nations when he noticed that quoted grain prices fell when the number of sunspots rose. Gales of laughter ensued, but he was right. At solar maxima, when the sun was at its hottest and sunspots showed, temperature was warmer, grain grew faster and prices fell. Such observations show that even small solar changes affect climate detectably. But recent solar changes have been big.

Sami Solanki, a solar physicist, says that in the past half-century the sun has been warmer, for longer, than at any time in at least the past 11,400 years, contributing a base forcing equivalent to a quarter of the past century's warming. That's before adding climate feedbacks.

The UN expresses its heat-energy forcings in watts per square metre per second. It estimates that the sun caused just 0.3 watts of forcing since 1750. Begin in 1900 to match the temperature start-date, and the base solar forcing more than doubles to 0.7 watts. Multiply by 2.7, which the Royal Society suggests is the UN's current factor for climate feedbacks, and you get 1.9 watts – more than six times the UN's figure.

The entire 20th-century warming from all sources was below 2 watts. The sun could have caused just about all of it.

Next, the UN slashed the natural greenhouse effect by 40 per cent from 33C in the climate-physics textbooks to 20C, making the man-made additions appear bigger.

Then the UN chose the biggest 20th-century temperature increase it could find. Stern says: "As anticipated by scientists, global mean surface temperatures have risen over the past century." As anticipated? Only 30 years ago, scientists were anticipating a new Ice Age and writing books called The Cooling.

In the US, where weather records have been more reliable than elsewhere, 20th-century temperature went up by only 0.3C. AccuWeather, a worldwide meteorological service, reckons world temperature rose by 0.45C. The US National Climate Data Centre says 0.5C. Any advance on 0.5? The UN went for 0.6C, probably distorted by urban growth near many of the world's fast-disappearing temperature stations.

The number of temperature stations round the world peaked at 6,000 in 1970. It's fallen by two-thirds to 2,000 now: a real "hockey-stick" curve, and an instance of the UN's growing reliance on computer guesswork rather than facts.

Even a 0.6C temperature rise wasn't enough. So the UN repealed a fundamental physical law. Buried in a sub-chapter in its 2001 report is a short but revealing section discussing "lambda": the crucial factor converting forcings to temperature. The UN said its climate models had found lambda near-invariant at 0.5C per watt of forcing.

You don't need computer models to "find" lambda. Its value is given by a century-old law, derived experimentally by a Slovenian professor and proved by his Austrian student (who later committed suicide when his scientific compatriots refused to believe in atoms). The Stefan-Boltzmann law, not mentioned once in the UN's 2001 report, is as central to the thermodynamics of climate as Einstein's later equation is to astrophysics. Like Einstein's, it relates energy to the square of the speed of light, but by reference to temperature rather than mass.

The bigger the value of lambda, the bigger the temperature increase the UN could predict. Using poor Ludwig Boltzmann's law, lambda's true value is just 0.22-0.3C per watt. In 2001, the UN effectively repealed the law, doubling lambda to 0.5C per watt. A recent paper by James Hansen says lambda should be 0.67, 0.75 or 1C: take your pick. Sir John Houghton, who chaired the UN's scientific assessment working group until recently, tells me it now puts lambda at 0.8C: that's 3C for a 3.7-watt doubling of airborne CO2. Most of the UN's computer models have used 1C. Stern implies 1.9C.

On the UN's figures, the entire greenhouse-gas forcing in the 20th century was 2 watts. Multiplying by the correct value of lambda gives a temperature increase of 0.44 to 0.6C, in line with observation. But using Stern's 1.9C per watt gives 3.8C. Where did 85 per cent of his imagined 20th-century warming go? As Professor **** Lindzen of MIT pointed out in The Sunday Telegraph last week, the UK's Hadley Centre had the same problem, and solved it by dividing its modelled output by three to "predict" 20th-century temperature correctly.

A spate of recent scientific papers, gearing up for the UN's fourth report next year, gives a different reason for the failure of reality to keep up with prediction. The oceans, we're now told, are acting as a giant heat-sink. In these papers the well-known, central flaw (not mentioned by Stern) is that the computer models' "predictions" of past ocean temperature changes only approach reality if they are averaged over a depth of at least a mile and a quarter.

Deep-ocean temperature hasn't changed at all, it's barely above freezing. The models tend to over-predict the warming of the climate-relevant surface layer up to threefold. A recent paper by John Lyman, of the US National Oceanic and Atmospheric Association, reports that the oceans have cooled sharply in the past two years. The computers didn't predict this. Sea level is scarcely rising faster today than a century ago: an inch every 15 years. Hansen now says that the oceanic "flywheel effect" gives us extra time to act, so Stern's alarmism is misplaced.

Finally, the UN's predictions are founded not only on an exaggerated forcing-to-temperature conversion factor justified neither by observation nor by physical law, but also on an excessive rate of increase in airborne carbon dioxide. The true rate is 0.38 per cent year on year since records began in 1958. The models assume 1 per cent per annum, more than two and a half times too high. In 2001, the UN used these and other adjustments to predict a 21st-century temperature increase of 1.5 to 6C. Stern suggests up to 10C.

**** Lindzen emailed me last week to say that constant repetition of wrong numbers doesn't make them right. Removing the UN's solecisms, and using reasonable data and assumptions, a simple global model shows that temperature will rise by just 0.1 to 1.4C in the coming century, with a best estimate of 0.6C, well within the medieval temperature range and only a fifth of the UN's new, central projection.

Why haven't air or sea temperatures turned out as the UN's models predicted? Because the science is bad, the "consensus" is wrong, and Herr Professor Ludwig Boltzmann, FRS, was as right about energy-to-temperature as he was about atoms.


the article here:
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml?xml=/news/2006/11/05/nosplit/nwarm05.xml

Some good pieces of info, since the debate on warming have been politicized, it's going to be hard to find the REAL facts, those are politicized too, but they offer a good counter point.

[IraGlacialis]

Oh nooo! The zionist have yet come up with another plot to take over the world: GLOBAL WARMING!

Sure, Global Warming may just be another part of a natural cycle that has been going on for millions of years (although I personally believe the humans are escallating the situation faster than the earth is used to). But just because of that, should we lay off finding alternative sources, allow unrestricted cutting down of rainforests, and not care about pollution and other ecological problems humans has been causing? If so, I will not look forward to your vision of the future.


The march of technology will deal with the problem by itself eventually.
WTF?!

[name already taken]

Climate chaos? Don't believe it

By Christopher Monckton, Sunday Telegraph
Last Updated: 12:14am GMT 05/11/2006


http://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forums/viewtopic.php?t=1324

Most scientists get their research money from where the money is.

So, some scientists do have vested interests. And you'll will get all kinds of papers defending the status quo.

And you won't tell me the average person have the scientific background necessary to evaluate their arguments properly.

There are people in this forum who are pesenting large lists of PhDs and large articles, and who pretend this is a qualification to present scientific arguments.

When it's only smoke and mirrors.

Kool aid prepared by oil corporations.

[IraGlacialis]

^^^^ http://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forums/viewtopic.php?t=1324

Most scientists get their research money from where the money is.

So, some scientists do have vested interests. And you'll will get all kinds of papers defending the status quo.
Yes, that is true. For every good cause there are many people who like to capitalize upon it. That's why I will not go see that hippy fest that Gore came out with. I also think it is amusing with all those Green Peace people doing their protests at oil rigs and so on and so forth. What do those boats that the protesters run on? Aren't they contributing to emmisions? If they were so pure, they would use a row or sailboat.
However there are many scientists whose intentions are honorable and are truly concerned about the enviroment.

[name already taken]

Yes, that is true. For every good cause there are many people who like to capitalize upon it. That's why I will not go see that hippy fest that Gore came out with. I also think it is amusing with all those Green Peace people doing their protests at oil rigs and so on and so forth. What do those boats that the protesters run on? Aren't they contributing to emmisions? If they were so pure, they would use a row or sailboat.
However there are many scientists whose intentions are honorable and are truly concerned about the enviroment.
The "don't worry, science have everything in control" kool aid propaganda broadcasted by big money interests does not appear to me as being very scientific.

The scientific method demands to be skeptic about what happens and if maybe there is a doubt about something, this possibility should be seriously investigated by science.

Why this has not been done more seriously, is dependent on big money's perceived interests.

Why did the oil industry invade the White House ? Because there is more money to be made by big oil inside the White House than outside the White House ?

If it was the tobacco industry who invaded the White House everybody would understand.

Let's remember that big money did not create the universe, and let's listen to opinions from outside of big money once in a while.

[sir-chimp]

I still cant believe Bush didn't sign the Kyoto Treaty


I bet he eats chili dogs, the heartless turd.

[Loki77]

An extensive analysis at http://www.aip.org/history/climate/index.html







........The future of earth is in the wrong hands.

[VetsandVettes]

I still cant believe Bush didn't sign the Kyoto Treaty


I bet he eats chili dogs, the heartless turd.


Niether did China or India (among many) so it's pointless. It's like putting a table of cigar smokers next to a non-smoking table in a diner. Do you think it makes any difference in total air quality for the non-smokers? We all live on the same planet, people.
Kyoto is a scam that only retards would back. Pay Africa so we can heat our homes? Nice try. In Canada, Kyoto is being used as a political ploy.
Besides, as The Church of the Flying Spagetti Monster has clearly established below, global warming is caused by the decline in the population of Pirates...

[VetsandVettes]

This has as much scientific validity as anything else...

http://www.militaryphotos.net/forums/attachment.php?attachmentid=20439&d=1168452926

[silveykyle]

I wasn’t to big on global warming until I went to go skiing last weekend and they had 10 of 87 trails open and it was raining in January

[VetsandVettes]

I wasn’t to big on global warming until I went to go skiing last weekend and they had 10 of 87 trails open and it was raining in January

I'm not saying it's not happening, just that the reasons being shoved down our throats are flawed. For example, in Canada the spineless NDP party is making Kyoto a huge issue for an upcoming election soley because the PC's will have a real problem meeting the goals and can be portrayed as oil hungry failures. The niave Canadain tree huggers swallow the whole thing...

[Jobu]

Responsibility for global warming can be summed up thusly:



IT'S THE SUN, STUPID! :bash:

[Superking]

When the credits start rolling on this "global warming/cooling" debacle is when i take a stand.

Until then, drink/screw/spend more.

[Weasel]

I still cant believe Bush didn't sign the Kyoto Treaty


I bet he eats chili dogs, the heartless turd.

How many "chili dogs" groaners you still wanne tell us? :roll:

[dangerclose]

Responsibility for global warming can be summed up thusly:



IT'S THE SUN, STUPID! :bash:


Yeah but it's America's fault the sun is getting hotter.

[Litti]

They measured new records in temperature yesterday over here in Finland. Over 8celcius in Turku and it´s January.

Oh well, future generations will probably look back on our leaders with disbelief. People who had the chance to stop the chain-reaction but were too busy to spend billions and billions for chasing fundamentalists in some desert.

Atleast the chances are that I´m not going to be a witness when **** really hits the fan. Now I can just see how people continue arguing

"There is no proof of global warming or human influence to it, these things go in cycles. That´s what the man from the oil company said in tv and I´m too bored to read through any scientific articles which offer substance to these conversations - they are made by tree huggers anyway"

[Jobu]

Finland is warmer than usual, India is colder than usual.

Oh noes! Save us Kyoto!

[dangerclose]

They measured new records in temperature yesterday over here in Finland. Over 8celcius in Turku and it´s January.

Oh well, future generations will probably look back on our leaders and think that they were just as bad as Hitler. People who had the chance to stop the chain-reaction but were too busy to spend billions and billions for chasing fundamentalists in some desert.

Atleast the chances are that I´m not going to be a witness when **** really hits the fan. Now I can just see how people continue arguing

"There is no proof of global warming or human influence to it, these things go in cycles. That´s what the man said from the oil company said in tv and I´m too bored to read through any scientific articles which offer substance to these conversations"


The Romans had vineyards in Britain.

Where I live we're having one of the most brutal winters in memory.


What ended the last ice age? Global warming.

[dangerclose]

It's the height of arrogance and naivete to think that humans can in any way affect global climate.

[Lau]

It's the height of arrogance and naivete to think that humans can in any way affect global climate.

We can kill all life on earth, chop down all the trees, hell, lets throw a few nukes while we are at it. "We humans cant effect global climate".... My god that was stupid!!

Some people just dont get it.. Its really not worth debating.
Let us all make a 'fart joke'... It so funny. He he.. fart.. :roll:

[Litti]

It would be refreshing to see some scientific articles from these wisecrackers.

Please, educate me and save me from my ignorance.

[Jobu]

Some people just dont get it.. Its really not worth debating.

Let us all make a 'fart joke'... It so funny. He he.. fart.. :roll:

Farting releases methane which contributes to.....global warming!

[Weasel]

It's the height of arrogance and naivete to think that humans can in any way affect global climate.

Same arrogance as thinking that men will ever fly, that a human building can be seen from the moon or natural resources could be used up. :roll:

[Weasel]

Farting releases methane which contributes to.....global warming!

You fail. Go back to school.

[dangerclose]

Farting releases methane which contributes to.....global warming!


A scientific study found that trees contribute to global warming. Forget saving the amazon rainforest ... raze it to the ground!

[Litti]

It´s like arguing for evolution against creationists. Others use concepts like balance of evidence and others gather their proof from reliable sources - like horoscopes.

[dangerclose]

It´s like arguing for evolution against creationists. Others use concepts like balance of evidence and others gather their proof from reliable sources - like horoscopes.

And the evidence that humans are causing global warming would be?

Again ... there was an ice age ... something ended it. What was it?


And as far as evolution goes - produce any evidence of a transitional lifeform.

[Litti]

Global warming sceptic in evolution denial shock.

I´m out of here, see you guys soon.

[Weasel]

A scientific study found that trees contribute to global warming. Forget saving the amazon rainforest ... raze it to the ground!

Are you ironic or really that dumb? :)

[superbuzzmetal]

There's no such thing as irony in the internet!

[VetsandVettes]

We can kill all life on earth, chop down all the trees, hell, lets throw a few nukes while we are at it. "We humans cant effect global climate".... My god that was stupid!!

Some people just dont get it.. Its really not worth debating.
Let us all make a 'fart joke'... It so funny. He he.. fart.. :roll:

If the US, China and India (to name a few) refuse to jeopardize their economies, particularly coal burning developing countries, by doing the Kyoto thing, what's the point? Canada doesn't even contribute 2% of greenhouse gas so why should we kill our economy to support a Liberal farce?

[Jobu]

If the US, China and India (to name a few) refuse to jeopardize their economies, particularly coal burning developing countries, by doing the Kyoto thing, what's the point? Canada doesn't even contribute 2% of greenhouse gas so why should we kill our economy to support a Liberal farce?

So you can feel good about yourselves and act snooty towards everyone else.

;)

[JKD]

Again ... there was an ice age ... something ended it. What was it?

Greenhouse gasses from volcanos. The same sorts of gasses human activity is spewing into the atmosphere.

Honestly, I've never understood how the environment has become a partisan or ideological issue. We all live on the same planet and we've only got one of 'em. We all have an interest in taking care of that planet. Teddy Roosevelt's got to be rolling over in his grave.

Is it that modern day conservatives don't want to be seen as being on the same side of an issue, any issue, as their liberal opponents?

Is it the economics of it?

Is it just basic human shortsightedness? Too gradual of a process to cause alarm for many people.

[dangerclose]

Greenhouse gasses from volcanos. The same sorts of gasses human activity is spewing into the atmosphere.

Honestly, I've never understood how the environment has become a partisan or ideological issue. We all live on the same planet and we've only got one of 'em. We all have an interest in taking care of that planet. Teddy Roosevelt's got to be rolling over in his grave.





It's a good thing volcanoes are not spewing greenhouse gasses anymore.

When Mt. Pinatubo erupted in 1991 it actually had a cooling effect on the earth.

And Teddy Roosevelt was a conservationist not a left-wing eco-nut.

[VetsandVettes]

So you can feel good about yourselves and act snooty towards everyone else.

;)

You have us mixed up with somebody else. Although there IS a faction of Canadians (just don't call them that) that have the reputation as described....

[Weasel]

There's no such thing as irony in the internet!


You are right. Now the answer is obvious.

[JKD]

Teddy Roosevelt was a conservationist not a left-wing eco-nut.

I don't know, he seemed to be on to something
"Forests are the lungs of our land, purifying the air and giving fresh strength to our people."

So is that the reason? Politics? Don't want to be seen on the same side as the "left wing eco-nuts"

[JKD]

It's a good thing volcanoes are not spewing greenhouse gasses anymore.
They are. We're adding to it.


When Mt. Pinatubo erupted in 1991 it actually had a cooling effect on the earth.

That would be the ash it threw into the air blocking sunlight. Greenhouse gasses are colorless and over time add up and create a greehouse effect

[Kaapeli]

We are btw. destroying those "lungs", forests at a very fast rate too. The rainforests in particular that are some of the most important CO2 sinks.

Let's not do anything about that either.


If the US, China and India (to name a few) refuse to jeopardize their economies, particularly coal burning developing countries, by doing the Kyoto thing, what's the point? Canada doesn't even contribute 2% of greenhouse gas so why should we kill our economy to support a Liberal farce

"Kill"? You're exaggerating a lot there. Returning emissions to a level they were 5-10 years ago is hardly going to kill any nations economy.
And why do it when not everyone does? Because a deadlock will never open if someone doesn't take the first step. Peer pressure will eventually cause even the most stubborn and selfish bastards to join in.
Nice attitude though "no one else is doing nothing so I won't either, let's all go to hell together".

[Amerikosskiy_xyu]

So is that the reason? Politics? Don't want to be seen on the same side as the "left wing eco-nuts"


lol thats funny, so when one ideological side chooses a doomsday scenario and other ideological side chooses a humane scenario; and just becuase majority consists of doomsday ideologists who say taht humanists are not right kind of people, you would decide to stay awayfrom humanists, so not to look out of place, even though you agree with their view of the world?

[Amerikosskiy_xyu]

We are btw. destroying those "lungs", forests at a very fast rate too. The rainforests in particular that are some of the most important CO2 sinks.

Let's not do anything about that either.



"Kill"? You're exaggerating a lot there. Returning emissions to a level they were 5-10 years ago is hardly going to kill any nations economy.
And why do it when not everyone does? Because a deadlock will never open if someone doesn't take the first step. Peer pressure will eventually cause even the most stubborn and selfish bastards to join in.
Nice attitude though "no one else is doing nothing so I won't either, let's all go to hell together".

NO! slowing down the economy will wreak havoc on minds of consumer societies, oh what will they do in their spare time, if there arent enough stores to shop around?

[JKD]

lol thats funny, so when one ideological side chooses a doomsday scenario and other ideological side chooses a humane scenario; and just becuase majority consists of doomsday ideologists who say taht humanists are not right kind of people, you would decide to stay awayfrom humanists, so not to look out of place, even though you agree with their view of the world?

Not that they agree with their view of the world but that they are closed off to even considering it. It's much simpler to just dismiss them as "left wing eco-nuts".(even though I'm not particularly liberal)

[Lau]

If the US, China and India (to name a few) refuse to jeopardize their economies, particularly coal burning developing countries, by doing the Kyoto thing, what's the point? Canada doesn't even contribute 2% of greenhouse gas so why should we kill our economy to support a Liberal farce?

If all the other dumb kids jumped off a cliff......?

[Amerikosskiy_xyu]

.............................delete

[Amerikosskiy_xyu]

Not that they agree with their view of the world but that they are closed off to even considering it. It's much simpler to just dismiss them as "left wing eco-nuts".(even though I'm not particularly liberal)

left wingers do care about environmet, while right wingers see it as a nuesance in a booming economy.

[dangerclose]

left wingers do care about environmet, while right wingers see it as a nuesance in a booming economy.


Thank you comrade. The environmentalist movement is a haven for former communists.

[Lau]

Thank you comrade. The environmentalist movement is a haven for former communists.

So if you care about the evironment, you are a communist?!? :cantbeli:

Someone give that man an award!!! rofl

[Superking]

Famous "global warming" advocates are generally more condescending, unemployed and smelly (see chart).

http://img169.imageshack.us/img169/2231/smellaj0.jpg

Independent study by MAF (http://globalwarming.isthe****.net/) to convince everyone of the tangible threat.

[dangerclose]

So if you care about the evironment, you are a communist?!? :cantbeli:

Someone give that man an award!!! rofl


I care about the environment and animal rights as much as the next guy. In fact, the other day I beat the crap out of my cat for wearing fur.


Yes, environmentalists have become the new home for the socialist/communist movement since the soviet union collapsed.

[JKD]

Thank you comrade. The environmentalist movement is a haven for former communists.
...*psst* Money can be made with environmentally friendly industries and practices.

Also I am no communist. I am a gun owning, freedom loving, red blooded, American capitalist. I know many people who care about the environment and none of them are commies. Some are republicans some are democrats, a few libertarians. They just happen to care about the environment we all live in and our children will live in.

[VetsandVettes]

We are btw. destroying those "lungs", forests at a very fast rate too. The rainforests in particular that are some of the most important CO2 sinks.

Let's not do anything about that either.



"Kill"? You're exaggerating a lot there. Returning emissions to a level they were 5-10 years ago is hardly going to kill any nations economy.
And why do it when not everyone does? Because a deadlock will never open if someone doesn't take the first step. Peer pressure will eventually cause even the most stubborn and selfish bastards to join in.
Nice attitude though "no one else is doing nothing so I won't either, let's all go to hell together".

If you think you're going to "convince" or shame China or India (2 of the worst offenders) to slow their booming economies by cutting down on the burning of coal or anything else construed to contribute to greenhouse gas production you're nuts. North Korea and Cuba will tell you where to go too. Just being my unpopular, realistic self. Good luck in la-la land...

[Lau]

I care about the environment and animal rights as much as the next guy. In fact, the other day I beat the crap out of my cat for wearing fur.


Yes, environmentalists have become the new home for the socialist/communist movement since the soviet union collapsed.

Im not a communist, but I am a environmentalist. You will find a lot of my kind in Europe, and in the US to, alltho' in the US they tend to hide for some reason.. Maybe its due to Igorence from people like you.. :roll:

If you care about your kids, you should care about the eviroment, its as simple as that.

[VetsandVettes]

If all the other dumb kids jumped off a cliff......?

I wouldn't follow Denmark off it, that's for sure...

[Kaapeli]

If you think you're going to "convince" or shame China or India (2 of the worst offenders) to slow their booming economies by cutting down on the burning of coal or anything else construed to contribute to greenhouse gas production you're nuts. North Korea and Cuba will tell you where to go too. Just being my unpopular, realistic self. Good luck in la-la land...

At the moment China is already under pressure to do somethinga about it's enviromental problems. China, India etc. are already members of multitude of international agreements that have hurt their economies and changed their way of doing things, including enviromental treaties. And for example many foreign investors and corporations already boycott projects that don't adhere to certain standards of environmentalism and human rights. For example stuff manufactured by child labour becoming exceedingly difficult to export and sell because of awareness in the western world. So don't say that even big nations like China and India can just ignore the rest of the world.

AND even if India and China don't participate it still doesn't make the problem go away by just ignoring it entirely. I still don't understand the logic that we all should just f*** our planet up because someone else doesn't care.

[VetsandVettes]

At the moment China is already under pressure to do somethinga about it's enviromental problems. China, India etc. are already members of multitude of international agreements that have hurt their economies and changed their way of doing things, including enviromental treaties. And for example many foreign investors and corporations already boycott projects that don't adhere to certain standards of environmentalism and human rights. For example stuff manufactured by child labour becoming exceedingly difficult to export and sell because of awareness in the western world. So don't say that even big nations like China and India can just ignore the rest of the world.

AND even if India and China don't participate it still doesn't make the problem go away by just ignoring it entirely. I still don't understand the logic that we all should just f*** our planet up because someone else doesn't care.

Sorry, it's not that I don't care, that's for sure. My point is that the countries with huge populations and old technology like coal fired generators and even coal fired trains can't afford to stop using that fuel and wait to catch up with the G8, and know it. So, if I spend big bucks to switch my oil furnace to a solar array with storage batteries or whatever alternative energy source, all I do is spend money which benefits nobody in any REALISTIC sense. It would literally be a microlitre in a swimming pool compared to what these countries pump out every day.
I find the Liberal tree-huggers funny up here because they are SO out of touch with reality. They have huggy-kissy feel-good plans they jump on the bandwagon with because they can afford to. If it came down to living in their cars eating fast-food condiment packets to stay alive in order to pay for their grand save-the-planet schemes I wonder how many would persevere? None.
Most save-the-planet schemes you see on TV, all these foundations, are there to sucker niave people into sending in their money in faith thay are bettering the world. About as much chance as sending your money to Jim Baker and taking it as gospel you will go to heaven.
Bottom line: Unless the USA, China, Russia, India and all the other polluters buck up and stop, Canada's insignificant contribution is just that: insignificant.
Don't be fooled by the enormous outflux of talented actors, musicians, scientists and athletes that come out of Canada. There is still not enough of us (in a country bigger than the US) to fill L.A. and New York. My point is, reletively speaking, we leave a light environmantal footprint.
Haven't heard much from this Canuck chick lately, though...

[VetsandVettes]

Curses! Wonder how much oil by-products were wasted on that damn rubber suit? Environmental criminal...

http://www.militaryphotos.net/forums/attachment.php?attachmentid=20504&d=1168522166

[Lau]

Curses! Wonder how much oil by-products were wasted on that damn rubber suit? Environmental criminal...



Try to debate like an adult.. Or do you have a fart joke you feel the need for us to here? :roll:

[VetsandVettes]

Try to debate like an adult.. Or do you have a fart joke you feel the need for us to here? :roll:

You mean with all that debatable material in the post above, all you can challenge is the light humor contained below? Regardless, Shania Twain has my support in any future rubber suit inclinations she may have.

When did I make a fart joke? Christ, how did you guys make it first to the South Pole anyway...

[Loki77]

Over 4.5 Billion people could die from Global Warming-related causes by 2012


A recent scientific theory called the "hydrate hypothesis" says that historical global warming cycles have been caused by a feedback loop, where melting permafrost methane clathrates (also known as "hydrates") spur local global warming, leading to further melting of clathrates and bacterial growth. In other words, like western Siberia, the 400 billion tons of methane in permafrost hydrate will gradually melt, and the released methane will speed the melting. The effect of even a couple of billion tons of methane being emitted into the atmosphere each year would be catastrophic.

The "hydrate hypothesis" (if validated) spells the rapid onset of runaway catastrophic global warming. In fact, you should remember this moment when you learned about this feedback loop-it is an existencial turning point in your life. By the way, the "hydrate hypothesis" is a weeks old scientific theory, and is only now being discussed by global warming scientists. I suggest you Google the term. Now that most scientists agree human activity is causing the Earth to warm, the central debate has shifted to when we will pass the tipping point and be helpless to stop the runaway Global Warming.
LINK (http://www.agoracosmopolitan.com/home/Frontpage/2007/01/08/01291.html)
Interesting....

[Mastermind]

Well, my little background in statistics and probability tell me to take those charts above and a big grain of salt and use them for snail bait. Nothing I have read or seen gives any indication we are more or less responsible for global warming than five of the largest volcanic eruptions over the last ten years. Actually, following the solar cycles gives a much better correlation to recently (last ten years) recorded data than all the other crap combined.

However, there is one way we may actually be influencing global warming....Al Gore's hot air and the hot air from all his little parrots who want to get on the "latest craze" band wagon....If folks really were all that concerned, we would all be eating tofu and birth control pills at every meal.MM

[VetsandVettes]

As well, as the ice caps melt and relect ever lesser amounts of sunshine back out into space, the warming accelerates exponentially.

[name already taken]

As well, as the ice caps melt and relect ever lesser amounts of sunshine back out into space, the warming accelerates exponentially.
And most of the permafrost areas contain peat which will release large quantities of methane which have 20 times the green house effect of CO2.

This will further compound the acceleration of the warming induced by the reduction of the albedo of the ice caps.

[Satellite Weapon]

Kyoto is a nonsense. It says by 2008 - 2012 its signatars should decrease their CO2 emissions to 95% of the 1990 level. First, none of these countries actually decreased their CO2 emissions even the deadline is almost here. Yes they are trading their emissions with 3rd world countries which is not a big help. However, even if they really manage to reach their CO2 emission targets, the result should be that the CO2 acummulation should be only slightly slower - some calculation say the CO2 level which should be reached in 96 years without any countermeasures will be reached in 100 years, if world economy invests 300 billions of USD every year into CO2 emission cutting program. Small part of these money will make the hydrogen fusion reactor a reality, which, even more important nowadays, will make us rather independent of arabic/russian crude. There is such a combined USA-UK-France-Japan-S.Korea pilot plant being constructed in France. THIS is the way to go. Btw can you imagine if CO2/temperatures will drop then? Inhabited areas will get covered by ice, vegetation growth will drop globally (higher CO2 levels improves the plant growth remarkably), vegetation period in middle climate will get shorter, all that resulting in population migration, starvation climate changes, local conflicts and do not forget those pesky icebergs which sunk Titanic - they will be here again. Yeah its true the USA produces a lot of CO2 but it has a large economy and India and China will soon pass out the USA and become the world's number one polluters

[name already taken]

Yeah its true the USA produces a lot of CO2 but it has a large economy and India and China will soon pass out the USA and become the world's number one polluters
This argument was being used 25 years ago. And since then things have been worsening steadily.

It's time to look for another argument.

[IraGlacialis]

Yeah its true the USA produces a lot of CO2 but it has a large economy and India and China will soon pass out the USA and become the world's number one polluters
Yeah, I can see the US, as well as the rest of the world, passing out from all this pollution that we are creating, a lot of it avoidable without any economic problems.

[sir-chimp]

I gave up chili dogs and moved on to burritos with extra hot sauce

feel the burn tree huggers

[name already taken]

Yeah, I can see the US, as well as the rest of the world, passing out from all this pollution that we are creating, a lot of it avoidable without any economic problems.
But since it's not in the immediate interests of the happy few at Exxon, BP & al, their propaganda machine says this is laughable.

:cantbeli:

[Lau]

But since it's not in the immediate interests of the happy few at Exxon, BP & al, their propaganda machine says this is laughable.

:cantbeli:

Yea, capitalism when it really rocks! :roll:

And before everybody calls me a commi... please realize that you can mix Capitalism and Socialism into somthing... and that something is not communism.... NOT<<<<<Communism.. :)

[budgie]

I gave up chili dogs and moved on to burritos with extra hot sauce

feel the burn tree huggers

Yes that's right: don't worry. Global warming is just a myth perpetuated by damn Godless hippies. Bush says so and he's got Jesus on his side right?

[Jobu]

No, I say so. I'm bigger than Jesus.

[sir-chimp]

Yes that's right: don't worry. Global warming is just a myth perpetuated by damn Godless hippies. Bush says so and he's got Jesus on his side right?




http://www.youtube.com/v/AhAjrIAFiJ0

can I offer you a burrito?

[Lau]

can I offer you a burrito?

Why are you even here? There has to be another thread for people with your intellect around here... Try "Off Topic and Humor" or maybe "Airsoft and Paintball", yea, you seem like the type, go spam burrito jokes in the airsoft forum!

You dont contibute to this discussion one bit, all you do is troll and annoy people.. :roll:

[sir-chimp]

Why are you even here? There has to be another thread for people with your intellect around here... Try "Off Topic and Humor" or maybe "Airsoft and Paintball", yea, you seem like the type, go spam burrito jokes in the airsoft forum!

You dont contibute to this discussion one bit, all you do is troll and annoy people.. :roll:

because i care about mother earth

shave the whales

[VetsandVettes]

I say you're BOTH wrong. Read...


Problem is, if you take the doomsday forecasts at face value, then the situation is hopeless. Producing only 2% of the world's manufactured greenhouse gases, all of Canada can revert to the Stone Age, burn nothing into the atmosphere except wood smoke and a little pot, and the outcome will be the same. The "developing" nations will wipe out the planet supplying goods to a shopping mall near you.
That's the reality behind the hysteria of global warming.

[Mastermind]

Right now, it's 22 degrees outside here in Las Vegas....I'm just hoping the "Global Warming" thingy hurries along. I can hardly wait for that hot ball thingy in the sky to get on with it. It seems a bit warmer when that is up at mid day, and somewhat colder when it is gone for the night. Brrrrrr! MM

[name already taken]

Right now, it's 22 degrees outside here in Las Vegas....I'm just hoping the "Global Warming" thingy hurries along. I can hardly wait for that hot ball thingy in the sky to get on with it. It seems a bit warmer when that is up at mid day, and somewhat colder when it is gone for the night. Brrrrrr! MM
Would you prefer something like hurricane Katrina or something slower like desertification ?

[Mastermind]

What ever it takes. I suppose the folks in the 1933 dust bowl days had their desires for normalization. I wonder how folks today would take the dust bowl days...they are so hyped up about the "Global Warming" dooms day rumors, there would be mass panic. Good thing the dust bowl weather patterns happened to a much more stable society.

Also, I though the "Global Warming" doom sayers had predicted massive hurricanes in huge quanities..yet seems last season was quite placid. Hmmmm. MM

[name already taken]

What ever it takes. I suppose the folks in the 1933 dust bowl days had their desires for normalization. I wonder how folks today would take the dust bowl days...they are so hyped up about the "Global Warming" dooms day rumors, there would be mass panic. Good thing the dust bowl weather patterns happened to a much more stable society.

Also, I though the "Global Warming" doom sayers had predicted massive hurricanes in huge quanities..yet seems last season was quite placid. Hmmmm. MM
Must understand that the dust bowl area, the central great plains are a desert, and it was first colonized without knowing so by those who suffered the dust bowl.

If you notice, there are no trees in the central plains. The settlers didn't have to cut any trees to settle there.

This desert characteristic has been partially corrected by the agricultural methods used throughout most of the area.

Yes humans can improve climate and have done so for thousand of years.

But there still are today regular dust winds during which top soil is lost, because of the variations of dryness in the central plains area.

Global warming will gradually make this much worse. And this even with the beneficial agricultural methods used.

[gilgoul]

I have a solution against global warming, nuclear winter.
It would solve both the problem of over population and of a globalized economic growth.
Then, when all is said and done, in 50 years, we'll do it all again, or not.

[name already taken]

I have a solution against global warming, nuclear winter.
It would solve both the problem of over population and of a globalized economic growth.
Then, when all is said and done, in 50 years, we'll do it all again, or not.
And being replaced by another species after life recovers. Getting rid of the human species might be a good solution after all.

[Mastermind]

And being replaced by another species after life recovers. Getting rid of the human species might be a good solution after all.
Well, so long as "me and mine" are not part of that "good solution", eh?:roll:

[name already taken]

Well, so long as "me and mine" are not part of that "good solution", eh?:roll:
I don't know. But if the human species disappeared, the insects wouldn't even notice.

[name already taken]

Political controls à la Lyssenko exerted on science by a White House appointee now back working for EXXON.

scientific reports on climate changes doctored for years by White House appointee, who was a a former lobbyist for the petroleum industry (http://www.guardian.co.uk/usa/story/0,,2002484,00.html)

Federal scientists been pressured for years by the White House to play down global warming (http://www.guardian.co.uk/worldlatest/story/0,,-6382475,00.html?gusrc=ticker-103704)


Scientific truth property of those who can pay.

[Kaapeli]

Political controls à la Lyssenko exerted on science by a White House appointee now back working for EXXON.

scientific reports on climate changes doctored for years by White House appointee, who was a a former lobbyist for the petroleum industry (http://www.guardian.co.uk/usa/story/0,,2002484,00.html)

Federal scientists been pressured for years by the White House to play down global warming (http://www.guardian.co.uk/worldlatest/story/0,,-6382475,00.html?gusrc=ticker-103704)


Scientific truth property of those who can pay.

This news is ironic because Dakota435 here has been trying to convince us that it's actually the Global Warming critics that have been pressured and silenced. Looks like the opposite has happened there.

[name already taken]

This news is ironic because Dakota435 here has been trying to convince us that it's actually the Global Warming critics that have been pressured and silenced. Looks like the opposite has happened there.

Global Warming critics supposedly having been pressured and silenced is an intelligence war strategy called "poisoning the well".

This strategy aims at mining the credibility of legitimate sources by adding to their credit some questionable informations and facts with which one can dismiss the whole as being as much doubtful and questionable as the few facts added by the ennemy source, which are purposefully doubtful.

This information war strategy has been used over and over by this current administration to promote private corporate interests at the expense of public interests.

[Mastermind]

Global warming proponents vs Global cooling proponents....let the decade pass and the groups just change advantage like in a tennis match. Honestly, no one is going to do a damn thing about either problem...if either really is a problem. Nothing can be done...what are we supposed to do...kill off 90% of the human beings on the planet? That really is the lowest denominator solution, isn't it?

So...our choices (providing either group is right and we are all going to fry/freeze in fifty years)...kill off the population voluntarily before it's too late (as if it isn't already if either side is right)...or just go on and let the planet do it for us. Well, I'm not volunteering to take that step off the planet for now...and it's really funny, I don't see any of the so-called "Global Warming" experts volunteering, either...Al Gore should be first in line, shouldn't he?

So, for now, I'm simply going to go on heating and cooling my house, driving my big old gas guzzling SUV, enjoying a big old fat juicy steak (from a very flatulent cow, by the way) about once a week and having a grand time in general anyway.

Whata ya wanna bet, all those Global Warming experts do exactly the same durn thing? Perhaps they will do it a little more extravagantly than me...after all, they have all that "Study the Global Warming Problem" grant money form the gvt.

MM

[name already taken]

Global warming proponents vs Global cooling proponents....let the decade pass and the groups just change advantage like in a tennis match. Honestly, no one is going to do a damn thing about either problem...if either really is a problem. Nothing can be done...what are we supposed to do...kill off 90% of the human beings on the planet? That really is the lowest denominator solution, isn't it?

So...our choices (providing either group is right and we are all going to fry/freeze in fifty years)...kill off the population voluntarily before it's too late (as if it isn't already if either side is right)...or just go on and let the planet do it for us. Well, I'm not volunteering to take that step off the planet for now...and it's really funny, I don't see any of the so-called "Global Warming" experts volunteering, either...Al Gore should be first in line, shouldn't he?

So, for now, I'm simply going to go on heating and cooling my house, driving my big old gas guzzling SUV, enjoying a big old fat juicy steak (from a very flatulent cow, by the way) about once a week and having a grand time in general anyway.

Whata ya wanna bet, all those Global Warming experts do exactly the same durn thing? Perhaps they will do it a little more extravagantly than me...after all, they have all that "Study the Global Warming Problem" grant money form the gvt.

MM
I'd prefer to try a few of those presently "silly" ideas before starting to kill 90% of the people on the planet or some other desperate action:


http://img143.imageshack.us/img143/3514/airbornewindmillsig7.th.jpg (http://img143.imageshack.us/my.php?image=airbornewindmillsig7.jpg)


http://www.worldchanging.com/archives/004052.html


http://img143.imageshack.us/img143/5591/kitegen1flm9.th.jpg (http://img143.imageshack.us/my.php?image=kitegen1flm9.jpg)


http://www.wired.com/news/technology/0,71908-0.html


And there are many others of those "silly" ideas around.

Of course this is absolutely silly, but them being silly profits to some interests, just follow the money.

When something wrong happens it's not necessarily destroying the world that's the best solution, but instead risking on new silly ideas like true entrepreneurs are supposed to do.

Except if there are strong interests against, of course.

[Jobu]

I'm unloading a can of hair spray into the air right now in hopes of reversing this global cooling trend.

[WARPIG]

This is just more political leverage. There is something to be said about how we are affecting our environment..but, the exaggeration is completely moronic. There are too many factors that contribute to climate change. Humans being a minor part of that. This just doesn't wash. But, liberal politics can't survive unless the sky is falling.

Maybe Obama or Clinton will get elected and outlaw cars. Cool, then Obama can implement his socialist ideals and every home in america will have a donkey and a cart provided to them by the government. I am sure that will solve the global warming problem.

Better yet, maybe some warmongering Neo-con will get elected as president and continue to go to war with Iraq, Iran, North Korea, etc. and simply kill off enough humans to reduce the global population enough to stop global warming.

[sir-chimp]

This just doesn't wash. But, liberal politics can't survive unless the sky is falling.



Its past the point of science, it has now become a religion.

[WARPIG]

Its past the point of science, it has now become a religion.

Interesting comment. My kids school system has chosen to require Gore's global warning film in their History class. I am tempted to forbid my kids to watch it. It isn't part of the History curriculum. I find if funny that the it isn't being used in their science program, but is featured in their social studies program instead. Politics forced in public school.

[JKD]

Greenhouse gasses let light in but limit how much infrared(heat) escapes. There's no arguing that. It's proven fact.

Use of fossil fuels realeses greenhouse gasses.

I still truly do not understand how this is a partisan/ideological issue.

[name already taken]

Scientists offered cash to dispute climate study (http://environment.guardian.co.uk/climatechange/story/0,,2004397,00.html)

The cash supplied by the American Enterprise Institute (AEI), an ExxonMobil-
funded thinktank with close links to the Bush administration.

Strong interests of the rich few at work for you p-)

[signatory]

I'd like to hear how China and Venezuela plan to help reduce Global Warming.

...

[Weasel]

Why is it that all people refer to China and other unliked countries when it comes to own negative points? :roll:

[Mr. JOSHUA]

Why is it that all people refer to China and other unliked countries when it comes to own negative points? :roll:


Its a double edged sword.

[signatory]

Why is it that all people refer to China and other unliked countries when it comes to own negative points? :roll:

Since I come from Sweden (one of the two countries that can actually meet kyoto levels) I would like to hear how these big arsehole states plan on helping out. Got a problem with that?

[Liptow]

Why is it that all people refer to China and other unliked countries when it comes to own negative points? :roll:

Weasel, as far as I know my and your country are at present arguing with European comission about what? About that we want to produce more CO2
than EC´s limit says. Our prime minister says "because it would threaten our economical growth". Lol.

If the issue touches your money, you will not buy electricity for triple price looking at brown coal powerplants in China. You start bitching around and at the end, start to believe that maybe it is not such an issue. US is not playing this theater at least.

[Akon]

The alarmists also enjoy a huge financial advantage over the skeptics with numerous foundations funding climate research, University research money and the United Nations endless promotion of the cause.

Just how much money do the climate alarmists have at their disposal? There was a $3 billion donation to the global warming cause from Virgin Air’s Richard Branson alone. The well-heeled environmental lobbying groups have massive operating budgets compared to groups that express global warming skepticism. The Sierra Club Foundation 2004 budget was $91 million and the Natural Resources Defense Council had a $57 million budget for the same year. Compare that to the often media derided Competitive Enterprise Institute’s small $3.6 million annual budget.


source: http://epw.senate.gov/public/index.cfm?FuseAction=PressRoom.Blogs&ContentRecord_id=32abc0b0-802a-23ad-440a-88824bb8e528

[sir-chimp]

source: http://epw.senate.gov/public/index.cfm?FuseAction=PressRoom.Blogs&ContentRecord_id=32abc0b0-802a-23ad-440a-88824bb8e528

Its only wrong when their payed to prove it doest exist, but not prove it does exist.


silly

[Weasel]

Since I come from Sweden (one of the two countries that can actually meet kyoto levels) I would like to hear how these big arsehole states plan on helping out. Got a problem with that?

No problem, just wondering.

[darth massacre]

I'd like to hear how China and Venezuela plan to help reduce Global Warming.

...
Probably not gonna happen for a looooong time.

The problem in China is that people are getting modernised at too fast a rate. Before the red tape gets cut to allow the students to be taught the dangers of a consumer based economy - they grow up to become consumers without that knowledge. All they're doing right now is take take take because their new found wealth allows them things they've never had before just decades ago. Its going to take a few generations of Chinese to finally figure out what westerners know now - but don't forget western nations also had to go through the gauntlet to figure out what we know today - everyone will get it in the end - the question is will the end come before we get it.

[EsoognomEhT]

Yes that's right: don't worry. Global warming is just a myth perpetuated by damn Godless hippies. Bush says so and he's got Jesus on his side right?


Amen brother!

[Mr. JOSHUA]

Yes that's right: don't worry. Global warming is just a myth perpetuated by damn Godless hippies. Bush says so and he's got Jesus on his side right?


budgie = closet Bush Bot

[WARPIG]

budgie = closet Bush Bot

Yeah.. I'll second that. The anti-Bush comments are to the point of borderline spam. On the off instance that Budgie has anything credible or slightly interesting to say, no one is listening anymore. Blind bias has a way of killing credibility.

[Jobu]

Its past the point of science, it has now become a religion.

Did you read that Michael Crichton piece too?

The parallels he mentions are ridiculously accurate.
http://cdfe.org/religion.htm

[dangerclose]

Yeah.. I'll second that. The anti-Bush comments are to the point of borderline spam. On the off instance that Budgie has anything credible or slightly interesting to say, no one is listening anymore. Blind bias has a way of killing credibility.

Or sheer stupidity.

[Loki77]

I'd like to hear how China and Venezuela plan to help reduce Global Warming.

...
Good point!
China's economic boom is dramatically changing environmental landscape, polluting, air, water, desertifying the land and diminishing the country's natural resources. There are parts of China that have some of the worst air pollution on the planet!!

...This is dark side of China's economic miracle. Really, really sad... But, China have no incentive or politics to reduce issues such as pollution.

Very interesting article...
http://www.spiegel.de/international/spiegel/0,1518,461828,00.html


Photos of river pollution in China...
http://www.stephenvoss.com/stories/ChinaRiverPollution/index.html

[Elmo]

Lol. Washington Post frontpage says: "Humans Blamed for Warming"

That's pretty funny in a way. If you want to cynically deconstruct the message.
It kind of puts the reader in a distanced position, doesn't it?

Damn humans at it again!

[sir-chimp]

Did you read that Michael Crichton piece too?

The parallels he mentions are ridiculously accurate.
http://cdfe.org/religion.htm

No, but thanks for the link.

Sadly comparison between them is painfully easy to draw.

[Calanen]

Good point!
China's economic boom is dramatically changing environmental landscape, polluting, air, water, desertifying the land and diminishing the country's natural resources. There are parts of China that have some of the worst air pollution on the planet!!

...This is dark side of China's economic miracle. Really, really sad... But, China have no incentive or politics to reduce issues such as pollution.

Very interesting article...
http://www.spiegel.de/international/spiegel/0,1518,461828,00.html


Photos of river pollution in China...
http://www.stephenvoss.com/stories/ChinaRiverPollution/index.html


That's the reason, or one of the reasons why Australia will not sign Kyoto. Because it wont matter a hill of beans what 20 mil Australians do (other than destroy our biggest industry, coal) unless India and China sign on board.

[Weasel]

That's the reason, or one of the reasons why Australia will not sign Kyoto. Because it wont matter a hill of beans what 20 mil Australians do (other than destroy our biggest industry, coal) unless India and China sign on board.

Why is Australia a member of the UNO? I mean, it wont matter a hill of beans what 20 mil Australians do. http://www.cheesebuerger.de/images/smilie/konfus/a050.gif

[sir-chimp]

Why is Australia a member of the UNO? I mean, it wont matter a hill of beans what 20 mil Australians do. http://www.cheesebuerger.de/images/smilie/konfus/a050.gif

Listen you little hotzi totzi nazi euro wussy dont use American euphemisms.


You dont see me using german ones like "der sausage is kaput mein fuhrer" in my post do you?

[DaGreatRV]

Australia is responsible for 1.5% of the worlds CO2 emissions. That is something.


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_carbon_dioxide_emissions

[hughdotoh]

Mind if I add to the controversy? Of course you all won't!

The price of sensations about the global warming and the global Ice Age

"a global reduction of temperatures would hit planet Earth in the middle of the 21st century because of receding solar radiation. Mr. Abdusamatov told Pravda.Ru that the new Ice Age will start very slowly. According to the scientist, the process will gather pace in 2050-55. "

from Pravda (http://english.pravda.ru/science/earth/75628-0/)

Warming or cooling, either way, I'm past caring.

[Dakota435]

Mind if I add to the controversy? Of course you all won't!

The price of sensations about the global warming and the global Ice Age

"a global reduction of temperatures would hit planet Earth in the middle of the 21st century because of receding solar radiation. Mr. Abdusamatov told Pravda.Ru that the new Ice Age will start very slowly. According to the scientist, the process will gather pace in 2050-55. "

from Pravda (http://english.pravda.ru/science/earth/75628-0/)

Warming or cooling, either way, I'm past caring.

Should be dead by then.. wohooooooooooo!

[name already taken]

Its only wrong when their payed to prove it doest exist, but not prove it does exist.


silly
What about this ? http://www.militaryphotos.net/forums/showpost.php?p=2279197&postcount=168

[sir-chimp]

What about this ? http://www.militaryphotos.net/forums/showpost.php?p=2279197&postcount=168

um thats exactly what i was saying - thank you please drive through Uncle Chester

[Loki77]

http://youtube.com/watch?v=0lgzz-L7GFg

Global Warming, it's not newly known. The scientists have known for over two generations about this danger.

[11 Bravo]

Yeah.. I'll second that. The anti-Bush comments are to the point of borderline spam. On the off instance that Budgie has anything credible or slightly interesting to say, no one is listening anymore. Blind bias has a way of killing credibility.

Ah yes , Onward march the sullied theatrics of global balogna-ism , aka "globalwarmingreligionitas". Lets all lock arms comrades and goose step to the new intolerant religionistas of global balogna !!. And while they are at it the requisite bush bashing , for god almighty what's global bolognaism without some anti right hate ?
On another note , I've noticed it's one of the coldest winters in some time in my region...guess it's so warm I must be imagining that too.

[Hollis]

Well all I can say, is to ask everyone to Never Fart again.

I wonder if the EPA will require a Fart converted device attacked to our Hillery so we do not add hydrocarbons to the atmosphere, CH4.

[name already taken]

source: http://epw.senate.gov/public/index.cfm?FuseAction=PressRoom.Blogs&ContentRecord_id=32abc0b0-802a-23ad-440a-88824bb8e528
I don't know why you have to worry about the Senate when Exxon is taking care of this (http://environment.guardian.co.uk/climatechange/story/0,,2004397,00.html).

[getl0st]

Global Warming is all bullsh!t

What you have to work out is what are the motives of the people who come up with this sh1t.

All these people have an agenda:

- The UN doesn't want countries having wars with each other.

- The scientists need to come up with whatever to keep getting funding.

- The Environmentalists have to keep spouting their sh1t to get funding.

- The Politicians need something to talk about because thats what they do, talk.

- The media needs something/anything to write about.

- The Neoconservatives need you be scared about something, anything...

One good thing about it though, is that contries and industry are looking at ways to make cleaner, more environmentally friendly forms of energy.

What I think is really going on, is that the governments/UN are really worried about the long term sustainability of non-renewable energy reserves.

Now, for the world governements and UN to state publicly that they are worried about energy reserves could have all sorts of negative socially and political implications.

So instead they make a big issue about Global Warming which they say is caused by the use of fossil fuels, etc, then the public, industry, media etc then push for the development of renewable energy.

The issue isn't global warming, the issue is the finite supply of fossil/renewable energy and the devolpment of alternatives.

What better way to increase the development and implementation of Renewable Energy technology than...

"Global Warming"

[name already taken]

Global Warming is all bullsh!t

What you have to work out is what are the motives of the people who come up with this sh1t.

All these people have an agenda:

- The UN doesn't want countries having wars with each other.

- The scientists need to come up with whatever to keep getting funding.

- The Environmentalists have to keep spouting their sh1t to get funding.

- The Politicians need something to talk about because thats what they do, talk.

- The media needs something/anything to write about.

- The Neoconservatives need you be scared about something, anything...

One good thing about it though, is that contries and industry are looking at ways to make cleaner, more environmentally friendly forms of energy.

What I think is really going on, is that the governments/UN are really worried about the long term sustainability of non-renewable energy reserves.

Now, for the world governements and UN to state publicly that they are worried about energy reserves could have all sorts of negative socially and political implications.

So instead they make a big issue about Global Warming which they say is caused by the use of fossil fuels, etc, then the public, industry, media etc then push for the development of renewable energy.

The issue isn't global warming, the issue is the finite supply of fossil/renewable energy and the devolpment of alternatives.

What better way to increase the development and implementation of Renewable Energy technology than...

"Global Warming"
Exxon Mobil (http://environment.guardian.co.uk/climatechange/story/0,,2004397,00.html), with a recent posting of the largest annual profit ever by a U.S. company (nearly $40 billion) is taking care of that. So, no need to get excited.

Its profit-gouging, like the disparity in annual income of American CEOs vs. workers, is an international disgrace, especially in a “time of war.” And, were these more peaceful times, it would merely be an affront to human decency. But that's not very important.

The seven sisters have been telling us fairy tales since the beginning of the seventies and their work on the information about global warming is a part of their tremendous effort in influencing our opinions on every subject.

Remember steam engines ? Big oil is beginning to follow their path in the memories of history.

Those who follow them will go the same way.

[Hollis]

Exxon Mobil (http://environment.guardian.co.uk/climatechange/story/0,,2004397,00.html), with a recent posting of the largest annual profit ever by a U.S. company (nearly $40 billion) is taking care of that. So, no need to get excited.

Its profit-gouging, like the disparity in annual income of American CEOs vs. workers, is an international disgrace, especially in a “time of war.” And, were these more peaceful times, it would merely be an affront to human decency. But that's not very important.

The seven sisters have been telling us fairy tales since the beginning of the seventies and their work on the information about global warming is a part of their tremendous effort in influencing our opinions on every subject.

Remember steam engines ? Big oil is beginning to follow their path in the memories of history.

Those who follow them will go the same way.


That is completely non germain, what the heck does this have to do with anything. Basically a ad hominem argument.

Look Mom, he is a corporate Boss, he is greedy?

Ok you hate corporations, is about all you are saying. But they are not the cause of all evil. Maybe read some of the discussion why no new refineries have been built. Figure out what a "cash cow" is. Put 2 + 2 together and you have a understanding of the high profits, and add to that Exxon sells oil on the international market, Alaska oil is being sold at what price?

I doubt very seriously if you had a item that you bought for $10.00 and people are more than willing to pay you $100.00 for it, that you would sell it for $20.00.

[name already taken]

That is completely non germain, what the heck does this have to do with anything. Basically a ad hominem argument.

Look Mom, he is a corporate Boss, he is greedy?

Ok you hate corporations, is about all you are saying. But they are not the cause of all evil. Maybe read some of the discussion why no new refineries have been built. Figure out what a "cash cow" is. Put 2 + 2 together and you have a understanding of the high profits, and add to that Exxon sells oil on the international market, Alaska oil is being sold at what price?

I doubt very seriously if you had a item that you bought for $10.00 and people are more than willing to pay you $100.00 for it, that you would sell it for $20.00.
I don't hate corporations, I am educated in business administration. What I am saying, is that EXXON MOBIL and it's sisters are very active on the subject of global warming and that should send a signal that these well funded interests don't like at all global warming news spreading out.

With all their money and power, they ought to find something better to do than gloating about global warming if it wasn't directly against their interest.

And this behaviour of corporations is something very recent. You won't tell me Western Civilisation could've reached its present level with perpetual war alone. If so, there would be no civilisation at all. The logic is simple enough for anybody to understand.

The behaviour of CEO's pocketing indecent income while telling everybody that's only business as usual, while it's obviously not, is very suspect. And should be looked at very closely.

What they claim is that they are doing this for your interests. Pocketing, and not investing.

That looks more like running out with the cash to me. But that's supposed to belong to 1930's mob movies for most people.

Not so.

At the rate it's going, when these CEO's will have finished pocketing the economy, there will be no more economy to spend their money in. But still, they must do as good as the next CEO... This logic about money goes also about purchasing power. When those CEO's will have finished pocketing all the purchasing power in the economy, there will be no producing assets left and they will be left with all that nice fancy wallpaper in their pockets. And nothing else.

It's not that I hate corporations, it's corporations hating us by developing only the top 1% of the society at the expense of everybody else and with all the bias such a decision introduces in this society.

It has always been important for those holding power to hide the source of their power to the average people. Right now, this is done by hiding from the general population what really is going on. By not permitting any other opinion than their own to prevail.

In this, there's democracy, but only for them.

[Hollis]

Name, I see you point but I don't know how you came to that conclusion. I have not seen any reports on what Exxon is doing with the profits.

In the US, pulling money out of the business world is not the best of choices because of taxes. Re-investing reduces the tax obligations. I would think Exxon is doing something to re-invest. One of the reason for not developing new refineries, was investment capital was not there, especially the cost to build new ones that where more ecologically friendly.

I forgot the name of the financial report that corporations file. It is a mix of P&L, Balance and Cash flow statement. I don't know if all that money is going to dividends.

But to your comments about corporate responsibilities, I agree.

[name already taken]

Name, I see you point but I don't know how you came to that conclusion. I have not seen any reports on what Exxon is doing with the profits.

In the US, pulling money out of the business world is not the best of choices because of taxes. Re-investing reduces the tax obligations. I would think Exxon is doing something to re-invest. One of the reason for not developing new refineries, was investment capital was not there, especially the cost to build new ones that where more ecologically friendly.

I forgot the name of the financial report that corporations file. It is a mix of P&L, Balance and Cash flow statement. I don't know if all that money is going to dividends.

But to your comments about corporate responsibilities, I agree.
The current trend of corporate behaviour started in the beginning of the 1990's, before, the government was more present in corporate affairs.

As to reinvestment, I think the tax cuts for the rich do funnel much of this profit money into dividends. The cost of new eco-freindly refineries is not a great preoccupation given the faraminous amount of profits generated. I think the reason for not increasing refining capacities, and in the oil industry rationalization of oil companies buying each other, has more to do with oil sourcing than investment costs.

In the current state of affairs, Bush privatizing government agencies as much as he can, a private corporation will have to look into the regulatory behaviour of other corporations. And everyone knows, except those lobbyists in Washington maybe, how much more a private corporation is easy to buy for a price than a government agency.

What's presently going on in Washington's economic policy is total lunacy to any economist worthy of his name.

There's lots of unusual activity.