|
- Global Warming? So What? Remember the Ice Age Scare?
wrote Global Warming? So What? Remember the Ice Age Scare of the '70's I do remember; there was ONE very cold winter; Long Island Sound in New York State was frozen over. - But take a look at the sources you quote; Universally journalists. Yep . This is no coincedence. Journalists make a living by getting their work published.. they entertain that's their job. As they say; No one ever gets a story published by saying " nothings going to happen" Yep. And I do NOT remember a "cooling scare." And I was taking Geology at the time. (Climate is HUGE in Geology!) It was a non-issue at the time. Sure, some journalists apperently found some climate stuff to write about, but it was mostly a non-issue, an unknown to people at the time. I never heard of it. On 22 Apr 2007, Cato wrote: And just where were these journalists getting their info from? Are you saying that Science Digest, Science Magazine, The Christian Science Monitor, Newsweek, The New York Times, The Washington Post, Science News, etc. etc. including, yes, teachers in the schools, were all pulling a "fast one" on everybody back then? It was all lies? No, it was a neat little theory without much evidence that nobody paid much attention to. ....a neat little theory -- not an issue. Your attempt (ok, not yours, but global warming denialists') to equate the two is sad at best, but actually it's more a popular years-old propaganda lie used by Big Oil et al. But to be fair, your source is the best researched I've seen in ~15 years. Most only name one or two magazines. You are also the first to claim academia was in on it. Hard core anti-intellectualism, huh? Historically, stuff of genocidal dictators. Anyway, to quote from the George Will article you plagerized: ========= Google results about 108 for "Science Digest (February 1973) reported that "the world’s climatologists are agreed"" ========= "Perhaps the problem is big crusading journalism." --George Will April 3, 2006 Yer ****in up the wrong tree, Cato. At least Geo Will has some intellectual honesty. A conspiracy put together by those publications? Actually it is *YOU* (Geo Will) who patched together a handful of articles over 20? years to make it sound like a grand movement. ...and if false, a conspiracy. Pretty slick, Cato, you get it both ways. Are these publications no better then the Weekly World News rag?? If they were all proved to be liars, then they would have been raked over the coals, their reputations destroyed, and relegated to the level of cheap supermarket tabloids. Liars !? Laugh. Good jounalism often discovers obscure info and presents it to the public. Now you are bordering on shrill. Everybody here knows the difference between a pocket full of magazine articles and actual scientific consensus...thousands of scientists. Don't push yer luck. Never happened. And now we know why, don't we? Do you realize they were getting there info from.. wait for it... scientists? Yes??? Yer point? could it be.... Uhm....individual scientists are human? Make errors? And reporters may overstate or rush the hypothesis? Do you remember this?..... Fortune magazine actually won a "Science Writing Award" from the American Institute of Physics for its own analysis of the danger. "As for the present cooling trend a number of leading climatologists have concluded that it is very bad news indeed,".... Fortune Magazine, February, 1974. "a number??" "a number of leading climatologists" ???? You do understand the concept of "scientific consensus," right? As in it's HUGE, -- and "a number of" is almost meaningless? You do understand that the concept of "scientific consensus" is the backbone of science itself, right? ...the mortar which joins all the difference sciences into; "Science?" That's right..... The American Institute of Physics, (Scientists), awarded Fortune magazine for what?? Uhm...I'm guessing...now just a wild guess mind you, but....uhm...?...GOOD SCIENCE ???? grin Telling us all a lie?? As if they were not better then the Weekly World News rag??? Sounds to me like you need to learn a little philosophy and method of science. Good science does not mean "Word of God," Truth, nor even "scientific consensus." The award may have been for good inquiry, discovery, method, or whatever. Learn up on it. I notice those who distrust science most, understand it least. (Such as Limbaugh or "Creation Scientists.") Next, your words come directly from a technique overused (and invented?) by Rush Limbaugh for 20 years on every "environmental" issue from smoking, to ozone, catalytic converter, to come down the pike. What!? No job loss? Jack booted environmentalists aint gunna steal yer job, yer house, yer wife, yer kids, yer freedom, and increase taxes!? "Environmentalism is funded by the Commies!" -Rush Limbaugh Global warming proponents are accepting a good financial income from the global warming scare and have become global warming propagandists to promote their interests. These include some researchers who obtain research grants and some environmental organisations who need donations. They are making a living by promoting fear of man-made global warming. They have a vested interest in pulling this scam. And not just because of the money involved, but also because many of them have political goals that depend on the Man- Made Global Warming Scare. In other words, "science can not be trusted." Truth is unknowable. (So may as well go for simple feelsgoodisms.) How Mao and Stalin of you guys. Vaclav Klaus, president of the Czech Republic, said in written Vaclav Klaus !!!! LAUGHINGGGGGGG!!!!!! testimony that global warming has turned into a religion that has replaced the ideology of communism and threatens basic freedoms. Mr. Klaus said the push to curb greenhouse gases would hurt poorer nations that can't afford modern technology. He compares radical environmentalists to Marxists, and says initiatives such as the Kyoto Protocol require enormous costs without any realistic prospect for success. Cato Ah, I knew "sky is falling" had to come sooner or later. Does anybody actually BUY this crap yer pitching? -- When one gains a political certainty akin to a loyal sports fan, one has achieved the final tranquility of servitude, a joyous slavery. "If ye love wealth better than liberty, the tranquility of servitude better than the animating contest of freedom, go home from us in peace. We ask not your counsels or arms. Crouch down and lick the hands which feed you. May your chains set lightly upon you, and may posterity forget that ye were our countrymen." - Samuel Adams, August 1, 1776 |
- Global Warming? So What? Remember the Ice Age Scare?
** "Fascism should more properly be called ** corporatism, since it is the merger of state ** and corporate power." - Benito Mussolini. Words mean something, Cato. in rec.radio.shortwave, On Mon, 23 Apr 2007 about: - Global Warming? So What? Remember the Ice Age Scare? Cato wrote: It's All A Lie. The Doomsday Prophets never give up. They will disappear for a while and then come back with something new to scare us with. And they have legions of "True Believers". Some of them on this very list as we can see. I would be really embarrassed to be one of them and shown to be a fool. Truth is the world will warm or cool on its own. And it will be natural, with little or no help from us. ....snip Truth? Try a little scientific consensus: =========== Science 3 December 2004: Vol. 306. no. 5702, p. 1686 DOI: 10.1126/science.1103618Prev | Table of Contents | Next Essays on Science and Society The Scientific Consensus on Climate Change Naomi Oreskes* Policy-makers and the media, particularly in the United States, frequently assert that climate science is highly uncertain. Some have used this as an argument against adopting strong measures to reduce greenhouse gas emissions. For example, while discussing a major U.S. Environmental Protection Agency report on the risks of climate change, then-EPA administrator Christine Whitman argued, "As [the report] went through review, there was less consensus on the science and conclusions on climate change" (1). Some corporations whose revenues might be adversely affected by controls on carbon dioxide emissions have also alleged major uncertainties in the science (2). Such statements suggest that there might be substantive disagreement in the scientific community about the reality of anthropogenic climate change. This is not the case. The scientific consensus is clearly expressed in the reports of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC). Created in 1988 by the World Meteorological Organization and the United Nations Environmental Programme, IPCC's purpose is to evaluate the state of climate science as a basis for informed policy action, primarily on the basis of peer-reviewed and published scientific literature (3). In its most recent assessment, IPCC states unequivocally that the consensus of scientific opinion is that Earth's climate is being affected by human activities: "Human activities .... are modifying the concentration of atmospheric constituents ... that absorb or scatter radiant energy. ... [M]ost of the observed warming over the last 50 years is likely to have been due to the increase in greenhouse gas concentrations" [p. 21 in (4)]. IPCC is not alone in its conclusions. In recent years, all major scientific bodies in the United States whose members' expertise bears directly on the matter have issued similar statements. For example, the National Academy of Sciences report, Climate Change Science: An Analysis of Some Key Questions, begins: "Greenhouse gases are accumulating in Earth's atmosphere as a result of human activities, causing surface air temperatures and subsurface ocean temperatures to rise" [p. 1 in (5)]. The report explicitly asks whether the IPCC assessment is a fair summary of professional scientific thinking, and answers yes: "The IPCC's conclusion that most of the observed warming of the last 50 years is likely to have been due to the increase in greenhouse gas concentrations accurately reflects the current thinking of the scientific community on this issue" [p. 3 in (5)]. Others agree. The American Meteorological Society (6), the American Geophysical Union (7), and the American Association for the Advancement of Science (AAAS) all have issued statements in recent years concluding that the evidence for human modification of climate is compelling (8). The drafting of such reports and statements involves many opportunities for comment, criticism, and revision, and it is not likely that they would diverge greatly from the opinions of the societies' members. Nevertheless, they might downplay legitimate dissenting opinions. That hypothesis was tested by analyzing 928 abstracts, published in refereed scientific journals between 1993 and 2003, and listed in the ISI database with the keywords "climate change" (9). The 928 papers were divided into six categories: explicit endorsement of the consensus position, evaluation of impacts, mitigation proposals, methods, paleoclimate analysis, and rejection of the consensus position. Of all the papers, 75% fell into the first three categories, either explicitly or implicitly accepting the consensus view; 25% dealt with methods or paleoclimate, taking no position on current anthropogenic climate change. Remarkably, none of the papers disagreed with the consensus position. Admittedly, authors evaluating impacts, developing methods, or studying paleoclimatic change might believe that current climate change is natural. However, none of these papers argued that point. This analysis shows that scientists publishing in the peer-reviewed literature agree with IPCC, the National Academy of Sciences, and the public statements of their professional societies. Politicians, economists, journalists, and others may have the impression of confusion, disagreement, or discord among climate scientists, but that impression is incorrect. The scientific consensus might, of course, be wrong. If the history of science teaches anything, it is humility, and no one can be faulted for failing to act on what is not known. But our grandchildren will surely blame us if they find that we understood the reality of anthropogenic climate change and failed to do anything about it. Many details about climate interactions are not well understood, and there are ample grounds for continued research to provide a better basis for understanding climate dynamics. The question of what to do about climate change is also still open. But there is a scientific consensus on the reality of anthropogenic climate change. Climate scientists have repeatedly tried to make this clear. It is time for the rest of us to listen. References and Notes A. C. Revkin, K. Q. Seelye, New York Times, 19 June 2003, A1. S. van den Hove, M. Le Menestrel, H.-C. de Bettignies, Climate Policy 2 (1), 3 (2003). See www.ipcc.ch/about/about.htm. J. J. McCarthy et al., Eds., Climate Change 2001: Impacts, Adaptation, and Vulnerability (Cambridge Univ. Press, Cambridge, 2001). National Academy of Sciences Committee on the Science of Climate Change, Climate Change Science: An Analysis of Some Key Questions (National Academy Press, Washington, DC, 2001). American Meteorological Society, Bull. Am. Meteorol. Soc. 84, 508 (2003). American Geophysical Union, Eos 84 (51), 574 (2003). See www.ourplanet.com/aaas/pages/atmos02.html. The first year for which the database consistently published abstracts was 1993. Some abstracts were deleted from our analysis because, although the authors had put "climate change" in their key words, the paper was not about climate change. This essay is excerpted from the 2004 George Sarton Memorial Lecture, "Consensus in science: How do we know we're not wrong," presented at the AAAS meeting on 13 February 2004. I am grateful to AAAS and the History of Science Society for their support of this lectureship; to my research assistants S. Luis and G. Law; and to D. C. Agnew, K. Belitz, J. R. Fleming, M. T. Greene, H. Leifert, and R. C. J. Somerville for helpful discussions. 10.1126/science.1103618 The author is in the Department of History and Science Studies Program, University of California at San Diego, La Jolla, CA 92093, USA. E-mail: -- When one gains a political certainty akin to a loyal sports fan, one has achieved the final tranquility of servitude, a joyous slavery. "If ye love wealth better than liberty, the tranquility of servitude better than the animating contest of freedom, go home from us in peace. We ask not your counsels or arms. Crouch down and lick the hands which feed you. May your chains set lightly upon you, and may posterity forget that ye were our countrymen." - Samuel Adams, August 1, 1776 |
- Global Warming? So What? Remember the Ice Age Scare?
Here is a link to the latest IPCC findinigs on Global Warming; http://freeinternetpress.com/story.php?sid=11216 "That document - which follows an IPCC study in February that concluded with at least 90 percent certainty that humans are responsible for Earth's recent warming - provides a more detailed look at how emissions from automobiles, industry and other sources are affecting life around the world. " There is also the cheery thought that the folks who gave us " The War In Iraq", based on Cherry picked ( or totally faked) facts; - may have an interest in funding " Global Warming is Hooey Research" In both films on the internet saying " no Such Animal" as Global Warming, Huge truck sized holes are trotted out in the research in the films, like no one will notice.. - and, I do wonder if we are looking at " Forged Documents" or slick editing as we saw four years ago . On Apr 23, 1:37 am, (Doug Bashford) wrote: ** "Fascism should more properly be called ** corporatism, since it is the merger of state ** and corporate power." - Benito Mussolini. Words mean something, Cato. in rec.radio.shortwave, On Mon, 23 Apr 2007 about: - Global Warming? So What? Remember the Ice Age Scare? Cato wrote: It's All A Lie. The Doomsday Prophets never give up. They will disappear for a while and then come back with something new to scare us with. And they have legions of "True Believers". Some of them on this very list as we can see. I would be really embarrassed to be one of them and shown to be a fool. Truth is the world will warm or cool on its own. And it will be natural, with little or no help from us. ...snip Truth? Try a little scientific consensus: =========== Science 3 December 2004: Vol. 306. no. 5702, p. 1686 DOI: 10.1126/science.1103618Prev | Table of Contents | Next Essays on Science and Society The Scientific Consensus on Climate Change Naomi Oreskes* Policy-makers and the media, particularly in the United States, frequently assert that climate science is highly uncertain. Some have used this as an argument against adopting strong measures to reduce greenhouse gas emissions. For example, while discussing a major U.S. Environmental Protection Agency report on the risks of climate change, then-EPA administrator Christine Whitman argued, "As [the report] went through review, there was less consensus on the science and conclusions on climate change" (1). Some corporations whose revenues might be adversely affected by controls on carbon dioxide emissions have also alleged major uncertainties in the science (2). Such statements suggest that there might be substantive disagreement in the scientific community about the reality of anthropogenic climate change. This is not the case. The scientific consensus is clearly expressed in the reports of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC). Created in 1988 by the World Meteorological Organization and the United Nations Environmental Programme, IPCC's purpose is to evaluate the state of climate science as a basis for informed policy action, primarily on the basis of peer-reviewed and published scientific literature (3). In its most recent assessment, IPCC states unequivocally that the consensus of scientific opinion is that Earth's climate is being affected by human activities: "Human activities ... are modifying the concentration of atmospheric constituents ... that absorb or scatter radiant energy. ... [M]ost of the observed warming over the last 50 years is likely to have been due to the increase in greenhouse gas concentrations" [p. 21 in (4)]. IPCC is not alone in its conclusions. In recent years, all major scientific bodies in the United States whose members' expertise bears directly on the matter have issued similar statements. For example, the National Academy of Sciences report, Climate Change Science: An Analysis of Some Key Questions, begins: "Greenhouse gases are accumulating in Earth's atmosphere as a result of human activities, causing surface air temperatures and subsurface ocean temperatures to rise" [p. 1 in (5)]. The report explicitly asks whether the IPCC assessment is a fair summary of professional scientific thinking, and answers yes: "The IPCC's conclusion that most of the observed warming of the last 50 years is likely to have been due to the increase in greenhouse gas concentrations accurately reflects the current thinking of the scientific community on this issue" [p. 3 in (5)]. Others agree. The American Meteorological Society (6), the American Geophysical Union (7), and the American Association for the Advancement of Science (AAAS) all have issued statements in recent years concluding that the evidence for human modification of climate is compelling (8). The drafting of such reports and statements involves many opportunities for comment, criticism, and revision, and it is not likely that they would diverge greatly from the opinions of the societies' members. Nevertheless, they might downplay legitimate dissenting opinions. That hypothesis was tested by analyzing 928 abstracts, published in refereed scientific journals between 1993 and 2003, and listed in the ISI database with the keywords "climate change" (9). The 928 papers were divided into six categories: explicit endorsement of the consensus position, evaluation of impacts, mitigation proposals, methods, paleoclimate analysis, and rejection of the consensus position. Of all the papers, 75% fell into the first three categories, either explicitly or implicitly accepting the consensus view; 25% dealt with methods or paleoclimate, taking no position on current anthropogenic climate change. Remarkably, none of the papers disagreed with the consensus position. Admittedly, authors evaluating impacts, developing methods, or studying paleoclimatic change might believe that current climate change is natural. However, none of these papers argued that point. This analysis shows that scientists publishing in the peer-reviewed literature agree with IPCC, the National Academy of Sciences, and the public statements of their professional societies. Politicians, economists, journalists, and others may have the impression of confusion, disagreement, or discord among climate scientists, but that impression is incorrect. The scientific consensus might, of course, be wrong. If the history of science teaches anything, it is humility, and no one can be faulted for failing to act on what is not known. But our grandchildren will surely blame us if they find that we understood the reality of anthropogenic climate change and failed to do anything about it. Many details about climate interactions are not well understood, and there are ample grounds for continued research to provide a better basis for understanding climate dynamics. The question of what to do about climate change is also still open. But there is a scientific consensus on the reality of anthropogenic climate change. Climate scientists have repeatedly tried to make this clear. It is time for the rest of us to listen. References and Notes A. C. Revkin, K. Q. Seelye, New York Times, 19 June 2003, A1. S. van den Hove, M. Le Menestrel, H.-C. de Bettignies, Climate Policy 2 (1), 3 (2003). Seewww.ipcc.ch/about/about.htm. J. J. McCarthy et al., Eds., Climate Change 2001: Impacts, Adaptation, and Vulnerability (Cambridge Univ. Press, Cambridge, 2001). National Academy of Sciences Committee on the Science of Climate Change, Climate Change Science: An Analysis of Some Key Questions (National Academy Press, Washington, DC, 2001). American Meteorological Society, Bull. Am. Meteorol. Soc. 84, 508 (2003). American Geophysical Union, Eos 84 (51), 574 (2003). Seewww.ourplanet.com/aaas/pages/atmos02.html. The first year for which the database consistently published abstracts was 1993. Some abstracts were deleted from our analysis because, although the authors had put "climate change" in their key words, the paper was not about climate change. This essay is excerpted from the 2004 George Sarton Memorial Lecture, "Consensus in science: How do we know we're not wrong," presented at the AAAS meeting on 13 February 2004. I am grateful to AAAS and the History of Science Society for their support of this lectureship; to my research assistants S. Luis and G. Law; and to D. C. Agnew, K. Belitz, J. R. Fleming, M. T. Greene, H. Leifert, and R. C. J. Somerville for helpful discussions. 10.1126/science.1103618 The author is in the Department of History and Science Studies Program, University of California at San Diego, La Jolla, CA 92093, USA. E-mail: -- When one gains a political certainty akin to a loyal sports fan, one has achieved the final tranquility of servitude, a joyous slavery. "If ye love wealth better than liberty, the tranquility of servitude better than the animating contest of freedom, go home from us in peace. We ask not your counsels or arms. Crouch down and lick the hands which feed you. May your chains set lightly upon you, and may posterity forget that ye were our countrymen." - Samuel Adams, August 1, 1776 |
- Global Warming? So What? Remember the Ice Age Scare?
On Mon, 23 Apr 2007 04:32:03 -0700, K Isham said about: - Global Warming? So What? Remember the Ice Age Scare? wrote: Here is a link to the latest IPCC findinigs on Global Warming; big snip. I read about how Al Gore explained how buying Carbon credits minimized his "Carbon Footprint' when explaining why it takes $20,000 a month to electrify his home. Al Gore supposedly bought extremely clean electricity, possibly solar. Unlike most Carbon credits, this was less "market force", and more green-force driven. That is, that power would not have been on the grid without greenies to pay extra for it. (I am guessing here.) Thus, this was not typical useage of the Carbon credit system, which is mainstream market driven. I'm confused, how does buying a Carbon Credit eliminate air pollution? "Air pollution" here, means CO2. (clue: *carbon* credit) It's a "market solution," it's advantage is flexibility, it's less harsh on big polluters such as coal-fired electric generators than say, inflexible local pollution cap regulations. And it pays generators for being extra clean. Thus, it is less harsh on the industry as a whole. The goal here is *total pollution reduction,* not punishment of bad boys. This theory has some validity since CO2 is not a local problem, it is a global (total output) problem. Roughly, it works like this. An industry such as coal-fired electric generators is given an overall pollution cap. (This is good, since this cap either freezes or reduces total global pollution.) Next, each generator is assigned a fraction of (his share) of the total cap, based on say, amount (his share) of electricity produced. This share is converted into pollution credits. The clean generators are rewarded for being or getting clean, since they can sell their unused pollution credits to the dirty generators that need all the pollution credits they can get to stay legal. Buying expensive pollution credits is punishment for the dirty bad boys. Typically the pollution caps reduce over time. This system has largely failed in the EU because the pollution credits were too cheap. Buying credits became a cost of doing business, rather than encouraging clean-up. The proper *value* assignments are absolutly critical for it to work. Also absolutlely critical is industry hands-off of government in assigning value and in reducing caps. Else, the above failure is likely. Thus, such a system is likly to fail in bribery/fascist ridden nations such as the USA. ...Uhm...I mean lobby-finance ridden. ** "Fascism should more properly be called ** corporatism, since it is the merger of state ** and corporate power." - Benito Mussolini. "The liberty of a democracy is not safe if the people tolerate the growth of private power to a point where it becomes stronger than the democratic state itself. That in it's essence is fascism: ownership of the government by an individual, by a group or any controlling private power." -- Franklin Delano Roosevelt, message to congress. -- When one gains a political certainty akin to a loyal sports fan, one has achieved the final tranquility of servitude, a joyous slavery. "If ye love wealth better than liberty, the tranquility of servitude better than the animating contest of freedom, go home from us in peace. We ask not your counsels or arms. Crouch down and lick the hands which feed you. May your chains set lightly upon you, and may posterity forget that ye were our countrymen." - Samuel Adams, August 1, 1776 |
- Global Warming? So What? Remember the Ice Age Scare?
I have an old Popular Science magazine here which dates back to either
1960 or 1961 or 1962.On the cover of the magazine is a depiction/picture of New York City solidly encapsulated in solid ICE,,,, and there is an article about that in that there magazine too. It's Global Coolin,y'all. cuhulin |
- Global Warming? So What? Remember the Ice Age Scare?
On Apr 22, 10:37 pm, (Doug Bashford) wrote:
** "Fascism should more properly be called ** corporatism, since it is the merger of state ** and corporate power." - Benito Mussolini. Words mean something, Cato. in rec.radio.shortwave, On Mon, 23 Apr 2007 about: - Global Warming? So What? Remember the Ice Age Scare? Cato wrote: It's All A Lie. The Doomsday Prophets never give up. They will disappear for a while and then come back with something new to scare us with. And they have legions of "True Believers". Some of them on this very list as we can see. I would be really embarrassed to be one of them and shown to be a fool. Truth is the world will warm or cool on its own. And it will be natural, with little or no help from us. ...snip Truth? Try a little scientific consensus: =========== Science 3 December 2004: Vol. 306. no. 5702, p. 1686 DOI: 10.1126/science.1103618Prev | Table of Contents | Next Essays on Science and Society The Scientific Consensus on Climate Change Naomi Oreskes* Policy-makers and the media, particularly in the United States, frequently assert that climate science is highly uncertain. Some have used this as an argument against adopting strong measures to reduce greenhouse gas emissions. For example, while discussing a major U.S. Environmental Protection Agency report on the risks of climate change, then-EPA administrator Christine Whitman argued, "As [the report] went through review, there was less consensus on the science and conclusions on climate change" (1). Some corporations whose revenues might be adversely affected by controls on carbon dioxide emissions have also alleged major uncertainties in the science (2). Such statements suggest that there might be substantive disagreement in the scientific community about the reality of anthropogenic climate change. This is not the case. The scientific consensus is clearly expressed in the reports of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC). Created in 1988 by the World Meteorological Organization and the United Nations Environmental Programme, IPCC's purpose is to evaluate the state of climate science as a basis for informed policy action, primarily on the basis of peer-reviewed and published scientific literature (3). In its most recent assessment, IPCC states unequivocally that the consensus of scientific opinion is that Earth's climate is being affected by human activities: "Human activities ... are modifying the concentration of atmospheric constituents ... that absorb or scatter radiant energy. ... [M]ost of the observed warming over the last 50 years is likely to have been due to the increase in greenhouse gas concentrations" [p. 21 in (4)]. IPCC is not alone in its conclusions. In recent years, all major scientific bodies in the United States whose members' expertise bears directly on the matter have issued similar statements. For example, the National Academy of Sciences report, Climate Change Science: An Analysis of Some Key Questions, begins: "Greenhouse gases are accumulating in Earth's atmosphere as a result of human activities, causing surface air temperatures and subsurface ocean temperatures to rise" [p. 1 in (5)]. The report explicitly asks whether the IPCC assessment is a fair summary of professional scientific thinking, and answers yes: "The IPCC's conclusion that most of the observed warming of the last 50 years is likely to have been due to the increase in greenhouse gas concentrations accurately reflects the current thinking of the scientific community on this issue" [p. 3 in (5)]. Others agree. The American Meteorological Society (6), the American Geophysical Union (7), and the American Association for the Advancement of Science (AAAS) all have issued statements in recent years concluding that the evidence for human modification of climate is compelling (8). The drafting of such reports and statements involves many opportunities for comment, criticism, and revision, and it is not likely that they would diverge greatly from the opinions of the societies' members. Nevertheless, they might downplay legitimate dissenting opinions. That hypothesis was tested by analyzing 928 abstracts, published in refereed scientific journals between 1993 and 2003, and listed in the ISI database with the keywords "climate change" (9). The 928 papers were divided into six categories: explicit endorsement of the consensus position, evaluation of impacts, mitigation proposals, methods, paleoclimate analysis, and rejection of the consensus position. Of all the papers, 75% fell into the first three categories, either explicitly or implicitly accepting the consensus view; 25% dealt with methods or paleoclimate, taking no position on current anthropogenic climate change. Remarkably, none of the papers disagreed with the consensus position. Admittedly, authors evaluating impacts, developing methods, or studying paleoclimatic change might believe that current climate change is natural. However, none of these papers argued that point. This analysis shows that scientists publishing in the peer-reviewed literature agree with IPCC, the National Academy of Sciences, and the public statements of their professional societies. Politicians, economists, journalists, and others may have the impression of confusion, disagreement, or discord among climate scientists, but that impression is incorrect. The scientific consensus might, of course, be wrong. If the history of science teaches anything, it is humility, and no one can be faulted for failing to act on what is not known. But our grandchildren will surely blame us if they find that we understood the reality of anthropogenic climate change and failed to do anything about it. Many details about climate interactions are not well understood, and there are ample grounds for continued research to provide a better basis for understanding climate dynamics. The question of what to do about climate change is also still open. But there is a scientific consensus on the reality of anthropogenic climate change. Climate scientists have repeatedly tried to make this clear. It is time for the rest of us to listen. References and Notes A. C. Revkin, K. Q. Seelye, New York Times, 19 June 2003, A1. S. van den Hove, M. Le Menestrel, H.-C. de Bettignies, Climate Policy 2 (1), 3 (2003). Seewww.ipcc.ch/about/about.htm. J. J. McCarthy et al., Eds., Climate Change 2001: Impacts, Adaptation, and Vulnerability (Cambridge Univ. Press, Cambridge, 2001). National Academy of Sciences Committee on the Science of Climate Change, Climate Change Science: An Analysis of Some Key Questions (National Academy Press, Washington, DC, 2001). American Meteorological Society, Bull. Am. Meteorol. Soc. 84, 508 (2003). American Geophysical Union, Eos 84 (51), 574 (2003). Seewww.ourplanet.com/aaas/pages/atmos02.html. The first year for which the database consistently published abstracts was 1993. Some abstracts were deleted from our analysis because, although the authors had put "climate change" in their key words, the paper was not about climate change. This essay is excerpted from the 2004 George Sarton Memorial Lecture, "Consensus in science: How do we know we're not wrong," presented at the AAAS meeting on 13 February 2004. I am grateful to AAAS and the History of Science Society for their support of this lectureship; to my research assistants S. Luis and G. Law; and to D. C. Agnew, K. Belitz, J. R. Fleming, M. T. Greene, H. Leifert, and R. C. J. Somerville for helpful discussions. 10.1126/science.1103618 The author is in the Department of History and Science Studies Program, University of California at San Diego, La Jolla, CA 92093, USA. E-mail: -- When one gains a political certainty akin to a loyal sports fan, one has achieved the final tranquility of servitude, a joyous slavery. "If ye love wealth better than liberty, the tranquility of servitude better than the animating contest of freedom, go home from us in peace. We ask not your counsels or arms. Crouch down and lick the hands which feed you. May your chains set lightly upon you, and may posterity forget that ye were our countrymen." - Samuel Adams, August 1, 1776 Scientific consensus?? Scientific Consensus is NOT a synonym of "Certain Truth". But when the scientific expertise to judge a scientific position is lacking, they're going to rely on the Consensus. Consensus is a collective opinion. "Scientific consensus" can be wrong. It is NOT scientific evidence. Consensus can change. It has in the past. But what happens with these Global Warming Prophets of Doom, is that they are True Believers in this new faith. and that is exactly what it is. They are believing this whole thing on faith, with no solid scientific evidence that mankind, (oops.... humankind), is responsible. Except of course for the ones that know it is all a Big Lie but are using it to further their Socialist political goals. They are grasping at straw, and when people argue against them, they use the weapons of the left, such as name-calling and nitpicking apart the other sides argument. Mud-slinging is a favourite weapon of theirs. Laugh at the opposition, call them a lot of names, do your best to make them look stupid. Take advantage of any mistake they make. Fight dirty if you have to. Consensus is the OPINION of a groups of people. It is not hard evidence of anything. Consensus can change over time. Consensus is not something that I would want to spend hundreds of billions of dollars, or trillions of dollars on over a few degress of warming that has a good chance of being natural, and not man made. You want to bankrupt the western nations? Because that is what it would take. And even then, the way Kyoto is set up, it won't amount to a hill of beans as far as stopping Global Warming. Socialists! God they never quit in their quest to place more and more control over our lives, and gain political control for themselves. They will use anything and everything to further their goals. Cato |
- Global Warming? So What? Remember the Ice Age Scare?
Those ''scientist'' who get U.S.fed govt funding,those ''scientist''
have to kiss up and say what U.S.fed govt TELLS them to say and print.If those ''scientist'' dont,they get Kicked Out.It is similar to the U.S.''news media'' (U.S.''news media'',,, U.S.Ministry of Propaganda) too.Look at what happened to Dan Rather. cuhulin |
- Global Warming? So What? Remember the Ice Age Scare?
|
- Global Warming? So What? Remember the Ice Age Scare?
In article 462c999c@kcnews01, K Isham wrote:
wrote: Here is a link to the latest IPCC findinigs on Global Warming; http://freeinternetpress.com/story.php?sid=11216 "That document - which follows an IPCC study in February that concluded with at least 90 percent certainty that humans are responsible for Earth's recent warming - provides a more detailed look at how emissions from automobiles, industry and other sources are affecting life around the world. " There is also the cheery thought that the folks who gave us " The War In Iraq", based on Cherry picked ( or totally faked) facts; - may have an interest in funding " Global Warming is Hooey Research" In both films on the internet saying " no Such Animal" as Global Warming, Huge truck sized holes are trotted out in the research in the films, like no one will notice.. - and, I do wonder if we are looking at " Forged Documents" or slick editing as we saw four years ago . On Apr 23, 1:37 am, (Doug Bashford) wrote: ** "Fascism should more properly be called ** corporatism, since it is the merger of state ** and corporate power." - Benito Mussolini. Words mean something, Cato. in rec.radio.shortwave, On Mon, 23 Apr 2007 about: - Global Warming? So What? Remember the Ice Age Scare? Cato wrote: It's All A Lie. The Doomsday Prophets never give up. They will disappear for a while and then come back with something new to scare us with. And they have legions of "True Believers". Some of them on this very list as we can see. I would be really embarrassed to be one of them and shown to be a fool. Truth is the world will warm or cool on its own. And it will be natural, with little or no help from us. ...snip Truth? Try a little scientific consensus: =========== Science 3 December 2004: Vol. 306. no. 5702, p. 1686 DOI: 10.1126/science.1103618Prev | Table of Contents | Next Essays on Science and Society The Scientific Consensus on Climate Change Naomi Oreskes* Policy-makers and the media, particularly in the United States, frequently assert that climate science is highly uncertain. Some have used this as an argument against adopting strong measures to reduce greenhouse gas emissions. For example, while discussing a major U.S. Environmental Protection Agency report on the risks of climate change, then-EPA administrator Christine Whitman argued, "As [the report] went through review, there was less consensus on the science and conclusions on climate change" (1). Some corporations whose revenues might be adversely affected by controls on carbon dioxide emissions have also alleged major uncertainties in the science (2). Such statements suggest that there might be substantive disagreement in the scientific community about the reality of anthropogenic climate change. This is not the case. The scientific consensus is clearly expressed in the reports of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC). Created in 1988 by the World Meteorological Organization and the United Nations Environmental Programme, IPCC's purpose is to evaluate the state of climate science as a basis for informed policy action, primarily on the basis of peer-reviewed and published scientific literature (3). In its most recent assessment, IPCC states unequivocally that the consensus of scientific opinion is that Earth's climate is being affected by human activities: "Human activities ... are modifying the concentration of atmospheric constituents ... that absorb or scatter radiant energy. ... [M]ost of the observed warming over the last 50 years is likely to have been due to the increase in greenhouse gas concentrations" [p. 21 in (4)]. IPCC is not alone in its conclusions. In recent years, all major scientific bodies in the United States whose members' expertise bears directly on the matter have issued similar statements. For example, the National Academy of Sciences report, Climate Change Science: An Analysis of Some Key Questions, begins: "Greenhouse gases are accumulating in Earth's atmosphere as a result of human activities, causing surface air temperatures and subsurface ocean temperatures to rise" [p. 1 in (5)]. The report explicitly asks whether the IPCC assessment is a fair summary of professional scientific thinking, and answers yes: "The IPCC's conclusion that most of the observed warming of the last 50 years is likely to have been due to the increase in greenhouse gas concentrations accurately reflects the current thinking of the scientific community on this issue" [p. 3 in (5)]. Others agree. The American Meteorological Society (6), the American Geophysical Union (7), and the American Association for the Advancement of Science (AAAS) all have issued statements in recent years concluding that the evidence for human modification of climate is compelling (8). The drafting of such reports and statements involves many opportunities for comment, criticism, and revision, and it is not likely that they would diverge greatly from the opinions of the societies' members. Nevertheless, they might downplay legitimate dissenting opinions. That hypothesis was tested by analyzing 928 abstracts, published in refereed scientific journals between 1993 and 2003, and listed in the ISI database with the keywords "climate change" (9). The 928 papers were divided into six categories: explicit endorsement of the consensus position, evaluation of impacts, mitigation proposals, methods, paleoclimate analysis, and rejection of the consensus position. Of all the papers, 75% fell into the first three categories, either explicitly or implicitly accepting the consensus view; 25% dealt with methods or paleoclimate, taking no position on current anthropogenic climate change. Remarkably, none of the papers disagreed with the consensus position. Admittedly, authors evaluating impacts, developing methods, or studying paleoclimatic change might believe that current climate change is natural. However, none of these papers argued that point. This analysis shows that scientists publishing in the peer-reviewed literature agree with IPCC, the National Academy of Sciences, and the public statements of their professional societies. Politicians, economists, journalists, and others may have the impression of confusion, disagreement, or discord among climate scientists, but that impression is incorrect. The scientific consensus might, of course, be wrong. If the history of science teaches anything, it is humility, and no one can be faulted for failing to act on what is not known. But our grandchildren will surely blame us if they find that we understood the reality of anthropogenic climate change and failed to do anything about it. Many details about climate interactions are not well understood, and there are ample grounds for continued research to provide a better basis for understanding climate dynamics. The question of what to do about climate change is also still open. But there is a scientific consensus on the reality of anthropogenic climate change. Climate scientists have repeatedly tried to make this clear. It is time for the rest of us to listen. References and Notes A. C. Revkin, K. Q. Seelye, New York Times, 19 June 2003, A1. S. van den Hove, M. Le Menestrel, H.-C. de Bettignies, Climate Policy 2 (1), 3 (2003). Seewww.ipcc.ch/about/about.htm. J. J. McCarthy et al., Eds., Climate Change 2001: Impacts, Adaptation, and Vulnerability (Cambridge Univ. Press, Cambridge, 2001). National Academy of Sciences Committee on the Science of Climate Change, Climate Change Science: An Analysis of Some Key Questions (National Academy Press, Washington, DC, 2001). American Meteorological Society, Bull. Am. Meteorol. Soc. 84, 508 (2003). American Geophysical Union, Eos 84 (51), 574 (2003). Seewww.ourplanet.com/aaas/pages/atmos02.html. The first year for which the database consistently published abstracts was 1993. Some abstracts were deleted from our analysis because, although the authors had put "climate change" in their key words, the paper was not about climate change. This essay is excerpted from the 2004 George Sarton Memorial Lecture, "Consensus in science: How do we know we're not wrong," presented at the AAAS meeting on 13 February 2004. I am grateful to AAAS and the History of Science Society for their support of this lectureship; to my research assistants S. Luis and G. Law; and to D. C. Agnew, K. Belitz, J. R. Fleming, M. T. Greene, H. Leifert, and R. C. J. Somerville for helpful discussions. 10.1126/science.1103618 The author is in the Department of History and Science Studies Program, University of California at San Diego, La Jolla, CA 92093, USA. E-mail: -- When one gains a political certainty akin to a loyal sports fan, one has achieved the final tranquility of servitude, a joyous slavery. "If ye love wealth better than liberty, the tranquility of servitude better than the animating contest of freedom, go home from us in peace. We ask not your counsels or arms. Crouch down and lick the hands which feed you. May your chains set lightly upon you, and may posterity forget that ye were our countrymen." - Samuel Adams, August 1, 1776 I'm confused, how does buying a Carbon Credit eliminate air pollution? I read about how Al Gore explained how buying Carbon credits minimized his "Carbon Footprint' when explaining why it takes $20,000 a month to electrify his home. Forget about Big AL, I'll sell you carbon credits at half his price. -- Telamon Ventura, California |
- Global Warming? So What? Remember the Ice Age Scare?
In article ,
(Doug Bashford) wrote: On Mon, 23 Apr 2007 04:32:03 -0700, K Isham said about: - Global Warming? So What? Remember the Ice Age Scare? wrote: Here is a link to the latest IPCC findinigs on Global Warming; big snip. I read about how Al Gore explained how buying Carbon credits minimized his "Carbon Footprint' when explaining why it takes $20,000 a month to electrify his home. Al Gore supposedly bought extremely clean electricity, possibly solar. Snip Sorry, those credits were all used up simultaneously heating and cooling one of his large mansions last month. Well, that and the hot tub. -- Telamon Ventura, California |
Wolfowitz Not Fit for Leadership
http://warrenreports.tpmcafe.com/blo...for_leadership
Wolfowitz Not Fit for Leadership By Michael S. Woodson | bio How long does it take to accept a crystal clear reality: Paul Wolfowitz is not a leader, but someone better suited for a professional data crunching job in which he is not a policymaker, analyst or decision maker. At the Department of Defense and at the World Bank, Mr. Wolfowitz had proven himself to be a bright man but a poor leader with bad judgement. Intellectual gifts are not enough to be a good leader. One has to have personal, emotional, empathic, perceptive, and virtuous attributes. One has to have the ability to regard other people and their best interests, as well as understand oneself in relation to those others. Exercising those qualities to a minimum degree would cause Wolfowitz to execute the most useful and visionary leadership virtue of all: humble himself and resign. Kenny Rogers would be a good advisor to leaders. He'd know when to fold 'em, when to walk away, and when to run. |
Wolfowitz Not Fit for Leadership
In article .com,
Wolfowitz Mass Murder for OIL wrote: http://warrenreports.tpmcafe.com/blo...olfowitz_not_f it_for_leadership Wolfowitz Not Fit for Leadership By Michael S. Woodson | bio Snip Whack job. Plonk -- Telamon Ventura, California |
- Global Warming? So What? Remember the Ice Age Scare?
Doug Bashford wrote:
And I do NOT remember a "cooling scare." And I was taking Geology at the time. (Climate is HUGE in Geology!) Cato responds: I am not sure how you missed all the talk about the Global Cooling back then. Ya, it was in all the major magazines and newspapers. Discussions on radio talk shows etc. Even in my school, teachers raised the issue. They were very concerned. Visions of advancing glaciers wiping out cities. Scarey! But then... I have notice how some people's memories seem to be very selective when their memories don't agree with their present beliefs or political goals. Cato |
(OT) : Global Warming -and- The Limbaugh Gambit
On Apr 22, 10:20 pm, (Doug Bashford) wrote:
wrote Global Warming? So What? Remember the Ice Age Scare of the '70's I do remember; there was ONE very cold winter; Long Island Sound in New York State was frozen over. - But take a look at the sources you quote; Universally journalists. Yep . This is no coincedence. Journalists make a living by getting their work published.. they entertain that's their job. As they say; No one ever gets a story published by saying " nothings going to happen" Yep. And I do NOT remember a "cooling scare." And I was taking Geology at the time. (Climate is HUGE in Geology!) It was a non-issue at the time. Sure, some journalists apperently found some climate stuff to write about, but it was mostly a non-issue, an unknown to people at the time. I never heard of it. On 22 Apr 2007, Cato wrote: And just where were these journalists getting their info from? Are you saying that Science Digest, Science Magazine, The Christian Science Monitor, Newsweek, The New York Times, The Washington Post, Science News, etc. etc. including, yes, teachers in the schools, were all pulling a "fast one" on everybody back then? It was all lies? No, it was a neat little theory without much evidence that nobody paid much attention to. ...a neat little theory -- not an issue. Your attempt (ok, not yours, but global warming denialists') to equate the two is sad at best, but actually it's more a popular years-old propaganda lie used by Big Oil et al. But to be fair, your source is the best researched I've seen in ~15 years. Most only name one or two magazines. You are also the first to claim academia was in on it. Hard core anti-intellectualism, huh? Historically, stuff of genocidal dictators. Anyway, to quote from the George Will article you plagerized: ========= Google results about 108 for "Science Digest (February 1973) reported that "the world's climatologists are agreed"" ========= "Perhaps the problem is big crusading journalism." --George Will April 3, 2006 Yer ****in up the wrong tree, Cato. At least Geo Will has some intellectual honesty. A conspiracy put together by those publications? Actually it is *YOU* (Geo Will) who patched together a handful of articles over 20? years to make it sound like a grand movement. ...and if false, a conspiracy. Pretty slick, Cato, you get it both ways. Are these publications no better then the Weekly World News rag?? If they were all proved to be liars, then they would have been raked over the coals, their reputations destroyed, and relegated to the level of cheap supermarket tabloids. Liars !? Laugh. Good jounalism often discovers obscure info and presents it to the public. Now you are bordering on shrill. Everybody here knows the difference between a pocket full of magazine articles and actual scientific consensus...thousands of scientists. Don't push yer luck. Never happened. And now we know why, don't we? Do you realize they were getting there info from.. wait for it... scientists? Yes??? Yer point? could it be.... Uhm....individual scientists are human? Make errors? And reporters may overstate or rush the hypothesis? Do you remember this?..... Fortune magazine actually won a "Science Writing Award" from the American Institute of Physics for its own analysis of the danger. "As for the present cooling trend a number of leading climatologists have concluded that it is very bad news indeed,".... Fortune Magazine, February, 1974. "a number??" "a number of leading climatologists" ???? You do understand the concept of "scientific consensus," right? As in it's HUGE, -- and "a number of" is almost meaningless? You do understand that the concept of "scientific consensus" is the backbone of science itself, right? ...the mortar which joins all the difference sciences into; "Science?" That's right..... The American Institute of Physics, (Scientists), awarded Fortune magazine for what?? Uhm...I'm guessing...now just a wild guess mind you, but....uhm...?...GOOD SCIENCE ???? grin Telling us all a lie?? As if they were not better then the Weekly World News rag??? Sounds to me like you need to learn a little philosophy and method of science. Good science does not mean "Word of God," Truth, nor even "scientific consensus." The award may have been for good inquiry, discovery, method, or whatever. Learn up on it. I notice those who distrust science most, understand it least. (Such as Limbaugh or "Creation Scientists.") Next, your words come directly from a technique overused (and invented?) by Rush Limbaugh for 20 years on every "environmental" issue from smoking, to ozone, catalytic converter, to come down the pike. What!? No job loss? Jack booted environmentalists aint gunna steal yer job, yer house, yer wife, yer kids, yer freedom, and increase taxes!? "Environmentalism is funded by the Commies!" -Rush Limbaugh Global warming proponents are accepting a good financial income from the global warming scare and have become global warming propagandists to promote their interests. These include some researchers who obtain research grants and some environmental organisations who need donations. They are making a living by promoting fear of man-made global warming. They have a vested interest in pulling this scam. And not just because of the money involved, but also because many of them have political goals that depend on the Man- Made Global Warming Scare. In other words, "science can not be trusted." Truth is unknowable. (So may as well go for simple feelsgoodisms.) How Mao and Stalin of you guys. Vaclav Klaus, president of the Czech Republic, said in written Vaclav Klaus !!!! LAUGHINGGGGGGG!!!!!! testimony that global warming has turned into a religion that has replaced the ideology of communism and threatens basic freedoms. Mr. Klaus said the push to curb greenhouse gases would hurt poorer nations that can't afford modern technology. He compares radical environmentalists to Marxists, and says initiatives such as the Kyoto Protocol require enormous costs without any realistic prospect for success. Cato Ah, I knew "sky is falling" had to come sooner or later. Does anybody actually BUY this crap yer pitching? -- When one gains a political certainty akin to a loyal sports fan, one has achieved the final tranquility of servitude, a joyous slavery. "If ye love wealth better than liberty, the tranquility of servitude better than the animating contest of freedom, go home from us in peace. We ask not your counsels or arms. Crouch down and lick the hands which feed you. May your chains set lightly upon you, and may posterity forget that ye were our countrymen." - Samuel Adams, August 1, 1776 DB, The first one to meantion Rush Limbaugh http://www.rushlimbaugh.com/ {The Big Guy Who Is Full of Hot Air } http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rush_Limbaugh Loses the Debate by Pumping the Debate Full of Hot Air - You Lose ! The Limbaugh Gambit follows Godwin's Law http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Godwin's_Law of OnLine Debating and is an Illogical Assumption and Implies a Rush-to-Judgement {Certitude :o} Next to Al Gore - Rush Limbaugh may be the . . . Second Greatest Human Factor in Global Warming ! http://members.aol.com/trajcom/private/popco2.htm as for me - i will have another samuel adams ~ RHF |
- Global Warming? So What? Remember the Ice Age Scare?
Cato wrote:
Doug Bashford wrote: And I do NOT remember a "cooling scare." And I was taking Geology at the time. (Climate is HUGE in Geology!) Cato responds: I am not sure how you missed all the talk about the Global Cooling back then. Ya, it was in all the major magazines and newspapers. Discussions on radio talk shows etc. Even in my school, teachers raised the issue. They were very concerned. Visions of advancing glaciers wiping out cities. Scarey! I know, the Martians could have invaded any day too. Good thing that one didn't pan out, eh? But then... I have notice how some people's memories seem to be very selective when their memories don't agree with their present beliefs or political goals. Yes, soon scientists will achieve TOTAL WORLD DOMINATION! You will be assimilated. Resistance is futile. -- Get A Free Orbiter Space Flight Simulator : http://orbit.medphys.ucl.ac.uk/orbit.html |
- Global Warming? So What? Remember the Ice Age Scare?
Yeah! And remember how medical science used to advise putting butter on
skin burns? Stupid scientists. |
Effects of global warming being felt in China
http://www.ctv.ca/servlet/ArticleNew...hub=TopStories
Effects of global warming being felt in China Updated Sun. Apr. 22 2007 10:33 PM ET CTV.ca News Staff When it comes to the world's worst polluters, the United States still leads the way, but China is set to soon take over as the largest overall producer of greenhouse gases. Many are wondering if any steps can be taken to ensure the country doesn't repeat the mistakes of the West. With China's growing population with growing wealth and mass industrialization, the effects of global warming are already being felt. At the home of Li Wen Zhang in Langtougou, about 110 kilometres from Beijing, years of warming temperatures have literally brought the desert to Li's doorstep. Dry conditions have turned his village's once-fertile farm fields into a parched wasteland. His livestock live in sand dunes. Li's home is almost covered over. A local river that once ran waist-deep with water is now filled with sand. "Some say I am like the fable of the old foolish man, trying to remove a mountain," he says. The climate in China has changed quickly. Scientists estimate that in the last 50 years, the temperature in the populous country has increased by one degree Celsius. That may not seem like a lot, but it has devastated this region. A local riverbed, for example, once flowed with water waist high; now it flows mostly with sand. Chinese cities are also feeling the stifling effects of global warming. If it's not sand storms choking Beijing and other cities, it's heavy pollution causing problems. Many airports have been forced to close for hours at a time because pilots couldn't see through the soup of haze. The country's growing use of coal for energy has experts predicting that by year's end, China will be the world's largest overall producer of greenhouse gases, surpassing the U.S. -- although the U.S., Canada, Australia and Luxemburg still produce far more greenhouse gases on a per capita basis. With international pressure mounting, China is starting to turn to alternative energy sources. China is building windmill farms that house more than 300,000 turbines. However, it also opens up a new coal- fired power plant every week. The government also plans to have its citizens curb electricity use by 20 per cent. But with a growing middle class consuming more power than ever, few expect targets to be met. "If there's only target without any implementation policy, the target means nothing," said Ai Lun Yang of Greenpeace. Chinese officials are urging the world to be patient, arguing it is still a developing country that is faced with more pressing problems like poverty. In Li's village, the government donates thousands of trees to act as a buffer against the desert. But it will have to do far more to prevent China from becoming the world's largest climate polluter -- and to control the damage that global warming-driven climate change is causing. |
Effects of global warming being felt in China
Check out Dapong,China if you want to see some real polution.Any big
city in China. cuhulin |
Effects of global warming being felt in China
This thread is starting to get as long as some of those Anna Nicole
Smith and Britney Spears threads.Why not start something else? cuhulin |
- Global Warming? So What? Remember the Ice Age Scare?
David wrote:
Science in the '70s was a quite different animal. That being said, an ice age is still in the cards. No, it's not. Atmospheric carbon dioxide concentration at 383 ppm and rising at 2 to 3 ppm/year almost certainly forbids that, at least until the following cycle after things equilibrate in 100,000 years or so. -- Get A Free Orbiter Space Flight Simulator : http://orbit.medphys.ucl.ac.uk/orbit.html |
- Global Warming? So What? Remember the Ice Age Scare?
www.devilfinder.com Volcanoes and Carbon Dioxide
Whatever little bit of carbon dioxide Humans are putting into the Atmosphere is insignificant compared to the Volcanoes.Volcanoes are a happening thingy.There isn't anything Humans can do,or will ever do,that can stop the Volcanoes from doing their Volcanoe thingys. cuhulin |
- Global Warming? So What? Remember the Ice Age Scare?
On Wed, 25 Apr 2007 10:06:14 -0500, kT wrote:
David wrote: Science in the '70s was a quite different animal. That being said, an ice age is still in the cards. No, it's not. Atmospheric carbon dioxide concentration at 383 ppm and rising at 2 to 3 ppm/year almost certainly forbids that, at least until the following cycle after things equilibrate in 100,000 years or so. ''Global warming could plunge North America and Western Europe into a deep freeze, possibly within only a few decades. That's the paradoxical scenario gaining credibility among many climate scientists. The thawing of sea ice covering the Arctic could disturb or even halt large currents in the Atlantic Ocean. Without the vast heat that these ocean currents deliver--comparable to the power generation of a million nuclear power plants--Europe's average temperature would likely drop 5 to 10°C (9 to 18°F), and parts of eastern North America would be chilled somewhat less. Such a dip in temperature would be similar to global average temperatures toward the end of the last ice age roughly 20,000 years ago.'' http://science.nasa.gov/headlines/y2...mar_arctic.htm |
- Global Warming? So What? Remember the Ice Age Scare?
David wrote:
On Wed, 25 Apr 2007 10:06:14 -0500, kT wrote: David wrote: Science in the '70s was a quite different animal. That being said, an ice age is still in the cards. No, it's not. Atmospheric carbon dioxide concentration at 383 ppm and rising at 2 to 3 ppm/year almost certainly forbids that, at least until the following cycle after things equilibrate in 100,000 years or so. ''Global warming could plunge North America and Western Europe into a deep freeze, possibly within only a few decades. And global average temperature would continue to rise. That's the paradoxical scenario gaining credibility among many climate scientists. The thawing of sea ice covering the Arctic could disturb or even halt large currents in the Atlantic Ocean. Without the vast heat that these ocean currents deliver--comparable to the power generation of a million nuclear power plants--Europe's average temperature would likely drop 5 to 10°C (9 to 18°F), and parts of eastern North America would be chilled somewhat less. Such a dip in temperature would be similar to global average temperatures toward the end of the last ice age roughly 20,000 years ago.'' On a local scale. Local is not global. Short of a geological catastrophe is impossible for global average temperature to fall with atmospheric carbon dioxide concentration rising such that it is. So dream on. http://science.nasa.gov/headlines/y2...mar_arctic.htm -- Get A Free Orbiter Space Flight Simulator : http://orbit.medphys.ucl.ac.uk/orbit.html |
- Global Warming? So What? Remember the Ice Age Scare?
On Wed, 25 Apr 2007 21:42:08 -0500, kT wrote:
Such a dip in temperature would be similar to global average temperatures toward the end of the last ice age roughly 20,000 years ago.'' On a local scale. Local is not global. Short of a geological catastrophe is impossible for global average temperature to fall with atmospheric carbon dioxide concentration rising such that it is. So dream on. http://science.nasa.gov/headlines/y2...mar_arctic.htm Whom do I believe, or NASA? |
- Global Warming? So What? Remember the Ice Age Scare?
www.devilfinder.com Weather Forecast Jackson Mississippi
The weather here is cooler (keep in mind,this is the Old Deep South here,Mississippi) this time of year than I ever remember before.High forecasted temperature for next Monday is 80 degrees. Global warming is a bunch of Horse S..t! If anything at all,this old Globe is cooling down.Al least around this neck of the Old Deep South Mississippi,it is. cuhulin |
- Global Warming? So What? Remember the Ice Age Scare?
Kindly go to your local libraries.See if they have back issues of
Popular Mechanics magazines and Popular Science magazines.Look for those magazines whch date back about four or five years.Look on the front covers of those magazines.One of the front covers of those magaines (and the article is in the magazine) says,,,, NASA! YOU ARE BROKEN! cuhulin |
- Global Warming? So What? Remember the Ice Age Scare?
In article ,
David wrote: On Wed, 25 Apr 2007 21:42:08 -0500, kT wrote: Such a dip in temperature would be similar to global average temperatures toward the end of the last ice age roughly 20,000 years ago.'' On a local scale. Local is not global. Short of a geological catastrophe is impossible for global average temperature to fall with atmospheric carbon dioxide concentration rising such that it is. So dream on. http://science.nasa.gov/headlines/y2...mar_arctic.htm Whom do I believe, or NASA? Why the idiot of course. -- Telamon Ventura, California |
- Global Warming? So What? Remember the Ice Age Scare?
"K Isham" wrote I'm confused, how does buying a Carbon Credit eliminate air pollution? You issue credits for the production of x tonnes of Carbon, and then allow the marketplace to decide how to best emit that carbon and maximize economic dollar output at the same time under the new constratint. "K Isham" wrote I read about how Al Gore explained how buying Carbon credits minimized his "Carbon Footprint' when explaining why it takes $20,000 a month to electrify his home. To my knowledge Gore hasn't claimed to have purchased any carbon credits. He has claimed to have purched carbon offsets. These are completely different. Carbon offsets, are basically a contract entered into with another company to engange in activities that will reduce carbon emissions, or sequester the carbon emissions equivalent to some component of your carbon emissions. In Gore's case, the emissions resulting from his home energy use. Oh, and Gore wasn't paying 20,000 a month to electify his home. Where did you get that nonsense number? And his Home isn't a home either, it includes 3 offices, his own, one for his wife, the secret service, and of course rooms for guests, employees and those secret service agents as well. And he has occupied it for less than a year. |
- Global Warming? So What? Remember the Ice Age Scare?
"Cato" wrote Scientific consensus?? Yup... "Cato" wrote Scientific Consensus is NOT a synonym of "Certain Truth". No, it's synonymous of virtually certain truth. Scientific revolution is exceptionally rare "Cato" wrote But when the scientific expertise to judge a scientific position is lacking, they're going to rely on the Consensus. Wrong again. ****Licker. Scientific Consensus applies all the way down to the most base facts such as 1+1=2. The consensus view that 1+1=2 is still not proven in any absolute sense. "Cato" wrote Consensus is a collective opinion. Correct. And collective opinions hold far, far more weight than the vapid assertions of Carbon Industry Shills, paid warming denialists, and uneducated fools. "Cato" wrote "Scientific consensus" can be wrong. It is NOT scientific evidence. No, but the consensus view is based on scientific evidence. And yes it can be wrong, but very rarely so. Now which to believe? The collective wisdom, and best opinion by the vast majority of the worlds scientists? Or the constantly shifting, grasp at any straw, pronouncements of a small band of industry shills? Hmmmm Gee... I wonder.... Science or snake oil. Who knows. Maybe the snake oil really is a cure all. Right? |
- Global Warming? So What? Remember the Ice Age Scare?
"Cato" wrote You want to bankrupt the western nations? Listen to the economic chicken little crying that the sky will fall. In reality, estimates of economic impact show a .2% decline in economic output to solve this problem at worst to a 2% rise in economic output due to increases in fuel consumptive efficiencies. "Cato" wrote Because that is what it would take. And even then, the way Kyoto is set up, it won't amount to a hill of beans as far as stopping Global Warming. Correct, it is the first step of many that are needed to reduce global emissions by around 70% and AmeriKKKan emisions around 85-95% Can't live with that? Too bad. Your choice is live within your constraints, or die. "Cato" wrote Socialists! And now the cocksucker devolves into partisain politics. Science means nothing to pieces of **** like Cato. Their KKKonservative Politics trumps reality every time in their dung filled brains. "Cato" wrote God they never quit in their quest to place more and more control over our lives, and gain political control for themselves. Capitulate or die Cato.. Capitulate or die. |
- Global Warming? So What? Remember the Ice Age Scare?
"Telamon" wrote You need to read up on it then. It was a BIG issue before global cooling came along. Wrong again **** Licker. There was never any issue warning of imminent, dangerous global cooling issued by the scientific community. Why are you reapeating a lie? |
- Global Warming? So What? Remember the Ice Age Scare?
Vendicar Decarian wrote: "Telamon" wrote You need to read up on it then. It was a BIG issue before global cooling came along. Wrong again **** Licker. There was never any issue warning of imminent, dangerous global cooling issued by the scientific community. Why are you reapeating a lie? Damn! I think we got ourselves another mentally ill Canuck here! |
Wolfowitz Not Fit for Leadership
"Wolfowitz Mass Murder for OIL" wrote How long does it take to accept a crystal clear reality: Paul Wolfowitz is not a leader, but someone better suited for a professional data crunching job in which he is not a policymaker, analyst or decision maker. Wolfowitz is a single pustule in a bad case of achne. In any civilized nation he would be unemployeble since he is incapable of learning from his past mistakes and since he is completely corrupt. I wouldn't hire Wolfowitz to flip burgers since I can not trust him to avoid spitting on the grill. |
- Global Warming? So What? Remember the Ice Age Scare?
Vendicar Decarian wrote:
"Telamon" wrote You need to read up on it then. It was a BIG issue before global cooling came along. Wrong again **** Licker. There was never any issue warning of imminent, dangerous global cooling issued by the scientific community. In 1972 it made the NBC, ABC and CBS evening news. And it made radio news as well. Even the BBC was talking about it on the World Service. This was quite a big story. And yes, it came from the scientific community. Why are you reapeating a lie? Because it isn't. |
Wolfowitz Not Fit for Leadership
Vendicar Decarian wrote: "Wolfowitz Mass Murder for OIL" wrote How long does it take to accept a crystal clear reality: Paul Wolfowitz is not a leader, but someone better suited for a professional data crunching job in which he is not a policymaker, analyst or decision maker. Wolfowitz is a single pustule in a bad case of achne. In any civilized nation he would be unemployeble since he is incapable of learning from his past mistakes and since he is completely corrupt. I wouldn't hire Wolfowitz to flip burgers since I can not trust him to avoid spitting on the grill. May must be the time for the hatching of the 'tards up in CanaDuh. I'm LMFAO here! |
- Global Warming? So What? Remember the Ice Age Scare?
"Cato" wrote Cato responds: I am not sure how you missed all the talk about the Global Cooling back then. Ya, it was in all the major magazines and newspapers. I remember Libertarian fools like Lowell Ponte trying to sell the story But you know Libertarians... Completely and perpetually incompetent, ignorant and corrupt to the core. "Cato" wrote Discussions on radio talk shows etc. Wow, there is scientific evidence for you. "Cato" wrote But then... I have notice how some people's memories seem to be very selective when their memories don't agree with their present beliefs or political goals. Ya we notice that about you denialists all the time. Now can you find us three references to peer reviewed journal articles from the period that warned of an imminent onset of an ice age? We have been asking you Lying ****Tards to provide just three references for the last 15 years, and so far you haven't been able to provide one. That makes you a liar, a fool, or both, in my books. |
(OT) : Yes You Too Can Be The First In Your Neighborhood To Have An Al Gore Carbon Credit's Card !
On May 21, 4:36 pm, "Vendicar Decarian"
wrote: "K Isham" wrote I'm confused, how does buying a Carbon Credit eliminate air pollution? You issue credits for the production of x tonnes of Carbon, and then allow the marketplace to decide how to best emit that carbon and maximize economic dollar output at the same time under the new constratint. "K Isham" wrote I read about how Al Gore explained how buying Carbon credits minimized his "Carbon Footprint' when explaining why it takes $20,000 a month to electrify his home. To my knowledge Gore hasn't claimed to have purchased any carbon credits. He has claimed to have purched carbon offsets. These are completely different. Carbon offsets, are basically a contract entered into with another company to engange in activities that will reduce carbon emissions, or sequester the carbon emissions equivalent to some component of your carbon emissions. In Gore's case, the emissions resulting from his home energy use. Oh, and Gore wasn't paying 20,000 a month to electify his home. Where did you get that nonsense number? And his Home isn't a home either, it includes 3 offices, his own, one for his wife, the secret service, and of course rooms for guests, employees and those secret service agents as well. And he has occupied it for less than a year. (OT) : Yes You Too Can Be The First In Your Neighborhood To Have An Al Gore Carbon Credit's Card ! VD - So are you the un-official apologist for Al Gore ? Or actually a Paid Agent of the Democrat Party of the USA ? If you are so keen on Carbon Credits... Then Hold-your-Breath until Al Gore is re-elected to something important. -if- i sound rich and phony - it's cause . . . i am trying to sound just like al gore ~ RHF |
(OT) : Yes You Too Can Be The First In Your Neighborhood To Have AnAl Gore Carbon Credit's Card !
RHF wrote: On May 21, 4:36 pm, "Vendicar Decarian" wrote: "K Isham" wrote I'm confused, how does buying a Carbon Credit eliminate air pollution? You issue credits for the production of x tonnes of Carbon, and then allow the marketplace to decide how to best emit that carbon and maximize economic dollar output at the same time under the new constratint. "K Isham" wrote I read about how Al Gore explained how buying Carbon credits minimized his "Carbon Footprint' when explaining why it takes $20,000 a month to electrify his home. To my knowledge Gore hasn't claimed to have purchased any carbon credits. He has claimed to have purched carbon offsets. These are completely different. Carbon offsets, are basically a contract entered into with another company to engange in activities that will reduce carbon emissions, or sequester the carbon emissions equivalent to some component of your carbon emissions. In Gore's case, the emissions resulting from his home energy use. Oh, and Gore wasn't paying 20,000 a month to electify his home. Where did you get that nonsense number? And his Home isn't a home either, it includes 3 offices, his own, one for his wife, the secret service, and of course rooms for guests, employees and those secret service agents as well. And he has occupied it for less than a year. (OT) : Yes You Too Can Be The First In Your Neighborhood To Have An Al Gore Carbon Credit's Card ! VD - So are you the un-official apologist for Al Gore ? Or actually a Paid Agent of the Democrat Party of the USA ? More than likely just another dumbass Canuck. It's springtime, and the little *******s get to run around for a few weeks. |
(OT) : Yes You Too Can Be The First In Your Neighborhood To HaveAn Al Gore Carbon Credit's Card !
dxAce wrote:
RHF wrote: On May 21, 4:36 pm, "Vendicar Decarian" wrote: "K Isham" wrote I'm confused, how does buying a Carbon Credit eliminate air pollution? You issue credits for the production of x tonnes of Carbon, and then allow the marketplace to decide how to best emit that carbon and maximize economic dollar output at the same time under the new constratint. "K Isham" wrote I read about how Al Gore explained how buying Carbon credits minimized his "Carbon Footprint' when explaining why it takes $20,000 a month to electrify his home. To my knowledge Gore hasn't claimed to have purchased any carbon credits. He has claimed to have purched carbon offsets. These are completely different. Carbon offsets, are basically a contract entered into with another company to engange in activities that will reduce carbon emissions, or sequester the carbon emissions equivalent to some component of your carbon emissions. In Gore's case, the emissions resulting from his home energy use. Oh, and Gore wasn't paying 20,000 a month to electify his home. Where did you get that nonsense number? And his Home isn't a home either, it includes 3 offices, his own, one for his wife, the secret service, and of course rooms for guests, employees and those secret service agents as well. And he has occupied it for less than a year. (OT) : Yes You Too Can Be The First In Your Neighborhood To Have An Al Gore Carbon Credit's Card ! VD - So are you the un-official apologist for Al Gore ? Or actually a Paid Agent of the Democrat Party of the USA ? More than likely just another dumbass Canuck. It's springtime, and the little *******s get to run around for a few weeks. Or as my ex-used to say, "all the little gonads have come out to play." She didn't care for shortwave radio, either. |
| All times are GMT +1. The time now is 12:17 PM. |
Powered by vBulletin® Copyright ©2000 - 2024, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
RadioBanter.com