Global warming?

[classicman]

Originally Posted by sugarpop

I posted an article in response to the claim that global warming isn't real.

You didn't read the post you were responding to then. Try this:

There is enough evidence to reference as much as either of us wants. There is no clear answer.
You choose to believe that "evil mankind" is as fault. I choose to be open to other possibilities.

[sugarpop]

I don't think climate change is all due to "evil mankind" classic, but I DO think we play a pretty big part in what is going on.

That is not my only reason for wanting to change things though. In fact, it isn't even the most important one. I'm probably not going to be alive in 40 or 50 years, and I don't have any kids to worry about, so the state of the planet isn't going to affect me so much. I am much more concerned about the health issues we're facing by our irresponsible actions. It's a matter of quality of life. You can't deny that we are having a very serious impact on the quality of the environment because of pollution and overpopulation, and that in turn is affecting our health. There is no denying that.

[TheMercenary]

Demoncratically controlled Congress, open and transparent... not.

Washington, DC -- UK's Lord Christopher Monckton, a former science advisor to Prime Minister Margaret Thatcher, claimed House Democrats have refused to allow him to appear alongside former Vice President Al Gore at a high profile global warming hearing on Friday April 24, 2009 at 10am in Washington. Monckton told Climate Depot that the Democrats rescinded his scheduled joint appearance at the House Energy and Commerce hearing on Friday. Monckton said he was informed that he would not be allowed to testify alongside Gore when his plane landed from England Thursday afternoon.

“The House Democrats don't want Gore humiliated, so they slammed the door of the Capitol in my face,” Monckton told Climate Depot in an exclusive interview. “They are cowards.”

http://www.climatedepot.com/a/429/Re...sional-Hearing

[classicman]

Update: 59 Additional Scientists Join Senate Report...More Than 700 International Scientists Dissent Over Man-Made Global Warming Claims

Update: More Than 700 International Scientists Dissent Over Man-Made Global Warming Claims

Outpouring of Skeptical Scientists Continues as 59 Scientists Added to Senate Report

‘The *science has, quite simply, gone awry’

Washington, DC: Fifty-nine additional scientists from around the world have been added to the U.S. Senate Minority Report of dissenting scientists, pushing the total to over 700 skeptical international scientists – a dramatic increase from the original 650 scientists featured in the initial December 11, 2008 release. The 59 additional scientists added to the 255-page Senate Minority report since the initial release 13 ½ weeks ago represents an average of over four skeptical scientists a week. This updated report – which includes yet another former UN IPCC scientist – represents an additional 300 (and growing) scientists and climate researchers since the initial report’s release in December 2007.

The over 700 dissenting scientists are now more than 13 times the number of UN scientists (52) who authored the media-hyped IPCC 2007 Summary for Policymakers. The 59 additional scientists hail from all over the world, including Japan, Italy, UK, Czech Republic, Canada, Netherlands, the U.S. and many are affiliated with prestigious institutions including, NASA, U.S. Navy, U.S. Defense Department, Energy Department, U.S. Air Force, the Philosophical Society of Washington (the oldest scientific society in Washington), Princeton University, Tulane University, American University, Oregon State University, U.S. Naval Academy and EPA.

The explosion of skeptical scientific voices is accelerating unabated in 2009. A March 14, 2009 article in the Australian revealed that Japanese scientists are now at the forefront of rejecting man-made climate fears prompted by the UN IPCC.

Prominent Japanese Geologist Dr. Shigenori Maruyama, a professor at the Tokyo Institute of Technology’s Department of Earth and Planetary Sciences who has authored more than 125 scientific publications, said in March 2009 that “there was widespread skepticism among his colleagues about the IPCC's fourth and latest assessment report that most of the observed global temperature increase since the mid-20th century ‘is very likely due to the observed increase in anthropogenic greenhouse gas concentrations.” Maruyama noted that when this question was raised at a Japan Geoscience Union symposium last year, ‘the result showed 90 per cent of the participants do not believe the IPCC report.” [Also See: The prestigious International Geological Congress, dubbed the geologists' equivalent of the Olympic Games, was held in Norway in August 2008 and prominently featured the voices of scientists skeptical of man-made global warming fears. [ See: Skeptical scientists overwhelm conference: '2/3 of presenters and question-askers were hostile to, even dismissive of, the UN IPCC' & see full reports here & here –More analyses of recent developments see report’s introduction here. ]

“I do not find the supposed scientific consensus among my colleagues,” noted Earth Scientist Dr. Javier Cuadros on March 3, 2009. Cuadros, of the UK Natural History Museum, specializes in Clay Mineralogy and has published more than 30 scientific papers.

Award-Winning Princeton University Physicist Dr. Robert H. Austin, who has published 170 scientific papers and was elected a member of the U.S. National Academy of Sciences, lamented the current fears over global warming.

“Unfortunately, Climate Science has become Political Science…It is tragic that some perhaps well-meaning but politically motivated scientists who should know better have whipped up a global frenzy about a phenomena which is statistically questionable at best,” Austin told the minority staff on the Environment and Public Works Committee on March 2, 2009.

[classicman]

Excerpt: Morano couldn’t help laughing at Romm’s unrelentingly silly exaggerations. Indeed, after coming out hurling pejoratives and 41 words of utter nonsense early in the opening round, you’d expect Romm to drop the hyperbole and smug manner and put up his intellectual dukes once Morano began scoring point after rational point. But while Marc calmly cited contrarian scientists and the perils of fraudulently inspired policy, Joe continued to make extraordinary claims, including that wind power produces more new jobs than coal mining, as though oblivious that they fuel 2 versus 50 percent of America’s energy, respectively. And so it went -- virtually every cogent point made by Morano was met not with reasoned retort but rather polemical blather and name calling. And from Dr. Joseph J. Romm -- one the alarmists’ most revered minds. Watching them squabble, it’s impossible to ignore just how many times Romm put his hysterical size 10 in his mouth as Morano calmly cleaned his clock. But let’s give the guy kudos for showing up – for that alone distinguishes him as unique to his breed. […] Perhaps he actually meant that one-third of dry land will be reduced to desert by 2100. Of course, that would still be horrible news because ……. Wait a minute, according to the US Geological Survey, approximately one-third of the Earth's land surface already is desert. So Romm is either predicting no change whatsoever or a complete Terradeformation in a time-span even Star-Trek engineers would be proud of. Unless, of course, he hasn’t given it much thought at all but hopes the media and most citizens will continue to ignore what truth hides beneath the shocking imagery.

[xoxoxoBruce]

There's pretty good evidence the world has been warming up for at least 12,000 years when we had our last "Ice Age".
We don't know how much people have contributed, although it's a fair assumption we have.
We don't know how warm it will get or all of the consequences, either.

What we do know is that the public will respond to nothing less than panic mode to change their thinking.
Of course being Americans means we'll probably go whole hog stupid in what ever directions we choose.
Fortunately most of those directions will be harmless.

I'm all in favor of doing things in a logical manner to develop alternative energy.
Even if they find out the earth is producing more oil at a rapid clip, weaning our dependence on the foreign teat can only be a good thing.
Save oil for applications where it's most valuable, which is not home heating or producing electricity.

Except for government mandates, everyone will have to use their own brain to figure out how much they buy into the "Green" frenzy.
But that said, be happy the frenzy exists or we'd get nowhere.

[classicman]

I think tying the green energy into the global warming may be a stretch for the extremists. The earth has always had climate change and always will.

Developing more options for alternative energy and becoming less dependent upon foreign providers is a great thing, I am all for it. That has little to do with global warming/cooling/climate change.

[xoxoxoBruce]

That's true, but like the 9-11/Saddam connection, it doesn't have to be true to gather public support.
After years, decades, of trying to get alternative energy to gain momentum with little success, rolling it into the green frenzy appears to have a shot at gathering support for it.

I don't know the truth, but I know what I believe.

[tw]

Originally Posted by sugarpop

I don't think climate change is all due to "evil mankind" classic, but I DO think we play a pretty big part in what is going on.

The smoking gun was reported just a few years ago. Most every responsible scientist who had doubts (the few that still remained) were convinced by that ocean temperature data. Even the George Jr administration softened its denial - which says how overwhelming the smoking gun really was.

Every so often, some researcher is discovered by Fox News as dissenting. Then wackos preach that dissent as if all scientists disagree.

No doubt exists that mankind has created a significant climate change (when intelligence replaces a political agenda). What remains is how much and which means are doing the most damage. For example, Nitrogen oxides are now suspected to be even more destructive than carbon oxides by a factor of three. But no responsible scientist is disputing man's destructive effects to climate. The only debate is how destructive - how fast the damage will occur.

Notice who is in denial - classicman. He says "The earth has always had climate change and always will." Being an extremist, he must avoid numbers. The earth has never seen a spike of these gases so quickly. The earth has never seen temperatures spike anywhere near so quickly. What once took tens of thousands of years occured in only 100 years. Extremists must ignore numbers to believe what Rush Limbaugh and their political handlers tell them to think. Wacko extremism is alive and well. No wonder they also attack Obama on everything. Their politics tell them global warming does not exist. Same logic used by the Brown Shirts to believe what Hitler told them.

Eliminate Wingnut News reports and those global cooling myth disappear. It tells you where people like classicman get their information. Notice where his citations come from. The extremist fringe of the Republican party - not from any responsible science publication - Science, Nature, Cell, Scientific American, etc. He knows only because he read extremist politician propaganda.

Global warming is a fact. The evidence is being hardened every years by people whose history was not to subvert science. classicman knows global warming does not exist because his source are the same people who openly advocate the destruction of science to promote their political agendas. No way around where those global warming claims come from. Same people who also said Saddam and bin Laden conspired to attack the WTC. Same people who found professors such as Behe of Leigh Universiry who said Darwinism is wrong.

They will find and promote anyone for a political agenda - science be damned. Wacko extremism is alive and well. The only remaining question is how fast and how destructive global warming will be.

[xoxoxoBruce]

Destructive? The Earth is a living ecosystem is a constant state of change. What's being destroyed?... not the Earth. Our ability to control the Earth and it's climate has always been a unfulfilled dream. The Earth will not adapt to mankind, we will always have to adapt to nature.

You claim that increases in ocean temps is a smoking gun. Of what? Of global warming? Well duh, it's been warming for 12k years, a well documented fact.
It appears to be increasing in tempo but there is still plenty of debate as to why. Just calling scientists that don't buy your view wacko extremists doesn't prove a thing, except you're politicizing your views.

One thing I can say with absolute confidence, the question of global warming, it's cause and effect, will not be solved in this forum. Nope, not never, nohow, noway. The future of the planet does not depend on us here, so there's really no reason to be an asshat.

[tw]

Originally Posted by xoxoxoBruce

Destructive?

Only an asshat would dipute the facts. Meanwhile, back to reality: From the NY Times of 23 Apr 2009:

Industry Ignored Its Scientists on Climate
For more than a decade the Global Climate Coalition, a group representing industries with profits tied to fossil fuels, led an aggressive lobbying and public relations campaign against the idea that emissions of heat-trapping gases could lead to global warming. ...

But a document filed in a federal lawsuit demonstrates that even as the coalition worked to sway opinion, its own scientific and technical experts were advising that the science backing the role of greenhouse gases in global warming could not be refuted.

“The scientific basis for the Greenhouse Effect and the potential impact of human emissions of greenhouse gases such as CO2 on climate is well established and cannot be denied,” the experts wrote in an internal report compiled for the coalition in 1995.

But politics is more important than reality. Any good extremist knows that lying is acceptable.

Throughout the 1990s, when the coalition conducted a multimillion-dollar advertising campaign challenging the merits of an international agreement, policy makers and pundits were fiercely debating whether humans could dangerously warm the planet. Today, with general agreement on the basics of warming, the debate has largely moved on to the question of how extensively to respond to rising temperatures.

“They didn’t have to win the argument to succeed,” Mr. Monbiot said, “only to cause as much confusion as possible.”

If being an asshat is being honest (a threat to wacko extremist who routinely lie) then so be it. Feel free to use a term that wackos extremists use. Meanwhile, even scientists in the "Global Warming does not exist" coalition said the problem was real. To keep people ignorant, wackos hype confusion. That means false accusations, hyping the myth purveryors as responsible scientists, ignoring what science really says, and … anything to create confusion. To promote a political agenda for the destruction of mankind. ‘Saddam has WMDs’ comes from the same people using the same logic that says global warming does not exist. Even their own scientists say it is irrefutable. And still some would instead believe Rush Limbaugh and Wingnut News.

[xoxoxoBruce]

Those damn robber barrons trying to protect their vested interests, disgusting.
The research scientists would never lie to obtain project funding for the hot button topic of the week.

Off hand, I can't think of any group I'd trust not to consider their own vested interests. Even peer review is fraught with problems, like who's reviews are accepted/published and what their vested interests are.

[classicman]

I have posted numerous links and quoted many scientists who do not believe in the correlation. More and more are realizing how faulty the data taken is as wad repeatedly posted here in the cellar for those who choose to read instead of simply argue name-call and criticize. No one KNOWS - that is a fact.

[classicman]

Originally Posted by tw

I'm only an asshat But politics is more important than reality. Any good extremist, like me, knows that lying is acceptable. If being an asshat is being honest (a threat to wacko extremists, like me, who routinely lie) then thank you classic. To keep people ignorant, wackos like me hype confusion,
To promote my political agenda for the destruction of mankind. And still I would instead believe Wingnut News.

You're welcome.

[classicman]

Link 1

The latest findings, from a study of Antarctica by the British Antarctic Survey and Nasa, reveal that pollution is saving the planet from global warming. Wal, who'd ha' thunk it? Unfortunately, interfering environmentalist busybodies, by banning CFCs and other pollutants, are hastening the advance of global warming. Eventually the hole in the ozone layer will close and the Antarctic will heat up. Simultaneously, according to a study in Nature, the atmosphere will clear, reducing plants' capacity to absorb carbon dioxide. This would appear to be what is vulgarly known as an own goal.

Link 2

Without any supporting evidence, Walsh pronounces the "scientific case is clear" and then proceeds to a conclusion. What is the "scientific case" Walsh believes is "clear"? Does Walsh realize there are more than 31,000 US scientists (over 9,000 with PhD's), including preeminent physicists and atmospheric scientists, who, based on their scientific expertise in disciplines related to climate and climate change science strongly disagree with climate alarmists' claims upon which the EPA relies?