Global Warming Article

POSTED BY: Amiton
UPDATED: Saturday, June 17, 2006 03:35
VIEWED: 2749
PAGE 1 of 2

1 2 NEXT PAGE LAST PAGE

AMITON

Wednesday, June 14, 2006 12:54 PM

I cannot verify the veracity of this article at all, but I thought it was an interesting read. I figured that if nothing else, it could serve as a new reference for our master researchers around here (like Citizen, Rue, and SygnyM, for example).

To be taken with a grain of salt, as is just about any science article written for non-scientific people =p Especially with no specific references cited.

Amiton.

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
A bit of a long read

From Canada Free Press -
http://www.canadafreepress.com/2006/harris061206.htm

Scientists respond to Gore's warnings of climate catastrophe
"The Inconvenient Truth" is indeed inconvenient to alarmists
By Tom Harris
Monday, June 12, 2006

"Scientists have an independent obligation to respect and present the truth as they see it," Al Gore sensibly asserts in his film "An Inconvenient Truth", showing at Cumberland 4 Cinemas in Toronto since Jun 2. With that outlook in mind, what do world climate experts actually think about the science of his movie?

Professor Bob Carter of the Marine Geophysical Laboratory at James Cook University, in Australia gives what, for many Canadians, is a surprising assessment: "Gore's circumstantial arguments are so weak that they are pathetic. It is simply incredible that they, and his film, are commanding public attention."

But surely Carter is merely part of what most people regard as a tiny cadre of "climate change skeptics" who disagree with the "vast majority of scientists" Gore cites?

No; Carter is one of hundreds of highly qualified non-governmental, non-industry, non-lobby group climate experts who contest the hypothesis that human emissions of carbon dioxide (CO2) are causing significant global climate change. "Climate experts" is the operative term here. Why? Because what Gore's "majority of scientists" think is immaterial when only a very small fraction of them actually work in the climate field.

Even among that fraction, many focus their studies on the impacts of climate change; biologists, for example, who study everything from insects to polar bears to poison ivy. "While many are highly skilled researchers, they generally do not have special knowledge about the causes of global climate change," explains former University of Winnipeg climatology professor Dr. Tim Ball. "They usually can tell us only about the effects of changes in the local environment where they conduct their studies."

This is highly valuable knowledge, but doesn't make them climate change cause experts, only climate impact experts.

So we have a smaller fraction.

But it becomes smaller still. Among experts who actually examine the causes of change on a global scale, many concentrate their research on designing and enhancing computer models of hypothetical futures. "These models have been consistently wrong in all their scenarios," asserts Ball. "Since modelers concede computer outputs are not "predictions" but are in fact merely scenarios, they are negligent in letting policy-makers and the public think they are actually making forecasts."

We should listen most to scientists who use real data to try to understand what nature is actually telling us about the causes and extent of global climate change. In this relatively small community, there is no consensus, despite what Gore and others would suggest.

Here is a small sample of the side of the debate we almost never hear:

Appearing before the Commons Committee on Environment and Sustainable Development last year, Carleton University paleoclimatologist Professor Tim Patterson testified, "There is no meaningful correlation between CO2 levels and Earth's temperature over this [geologic] time frame. In fact, when CO2 levels were over ten times higher than they are now, about 450 million years ago, the planet was in the depths of the absolute coldest period in the last half billion years." Patterson asked the committee, "On the basis of this evidence, how could anyone still believe that the recent relatively small increase in CO2 levels would be the

PDCHARLES

Wednesday, June 14, 2006 3:34 PM

Haven't seen that movie yet... but watch "Too Hot Not to Handle"... http://www.hbo.com/docs/programs/toohot/index.html
See if those scientists have the credentials. I hope so...

Lobbying… lobbying… lobbying... either oil/synthetic producers are lobbying or new green co.s lobbying. Meanwhile, it’s still getting warmer. We DO know that. I am looking out the window at a June Tropical depression with flood watches all around...and
Precious money won't make a lot of difference if this keeps up.

I do not care (am interested though) how living conditions were 450 million years ago.
So, this was before even fish existed and the oceanic gyres we know today that regulate the earths temp were not in place. He got a one-to one correlation of CO2 levels from what I see here. How bout all the other factors that must exist (like today) that are involved. If the Gyres and other currents go down we will be in an ice age. (Regardless of CO2) That’s cooler. It has been researched time and time again that in the past swift climate change has happened without human involvement.
One example: http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/nova/warnings/stories/nojs.html ... bout middle

[Ridiculousness]
So maybe sea levels don’t rise and CO2 emissions have nothing to do with increased severe weather. Bet they can agree on the affects of increased CO2 on vegetation. Super ragweed, great. More resistant to herbacides great. We are dependent on this affect for our crops. (Cotton especially) Which means more dirty water runoff.
[/ridiculousness]

Where is the human element (the important part) in this article. So, a simple thing for a test... put your mouth over a car tailpipe and see if you live.

Even if we can’t change the natural cycle. We CAN burn greener fuel, its here. or would we prefer making oil nations richer. Hey there's a financial reason. ..and u know what, This gets Neo-Cons attention. Spend less or no money protecting oil from there to here.

So, this seems to be a direct attack on Gore’s “mission”. So, do the studies. Take a chance and be reactionary like everything else, but no reaction can reverse the effects after a certain point.

PS: my bio fuel co-op “meet and greet” is the same day as the Raleigh screening... AHHHHHHHH. Fuel it is.

GO CANES!!!

AMITON

Wednesday, June 14, 2006 8:50 PM

I actually don't have an opinion one way or the other. It's not that I don't care, though. It's because I don't believe that I have the access to the information to empiracally know the truth at the end of the day. I'm not a scientist, and I never seriously considered becoming one.

I do think it's a good idea to burn cleaner in general. I think it's good idea to protect (and expand) as much vegetation as possible. Even if it's not for reducing CO2 levels significantly, it gives us more O2 to breathe via transpiration, right?

I don't know how much we can affect global warming, much less stop it, or even if it is a real concern for us. I wanted to contribute information for the debate so the people that do know better than me can keep me on the straight and narrow path =p

Amiton.

CHRISISALL

Wednesday, June 14, 2006 8:56 PM

Oh my, more Chicken Little.
Global Warming.
And the Plutoxin Virus is gonna kill you in less than ten hours.

Propaganda, baby.

The Polar Ice caps are submerging, not melting- the ice is getting heavier, that's all.

Dumb tree-huggers

Chrisisall, Arctic Specialist

AMITON

Wednesday, June 14, 2006 9:08 PM

ROFL!

You kill me. Well, you might if all of the rest of it doesn't first

Amiton.

PDCHARLES

Wednesday, June 14, 2006 9:53 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by Amiton:
I actually don't have an opinion one way or the other. It's not that I don't care, though. It's because I don't believe that I have the access to the information to empiracally know the truth at the end of the day. I'm not a scientist, and I never seriously considered becoming one.

I do think it's a good idea to burn cleaner in general. I think it's good idea to protect (and expand) as much vegetation as possible. Even if it's not for reducing CO2 levels significantly, it gives us more O2 to breathe via transpiration, right?

I don't know how much we can affect global warming, much less stop it, or even if it is a real concern for us. I wanted to contribute information for the debate so the people that do know better than me can keep me on the straight and narrow path =p

Amiton.

Yeah, I was only trying to present what lil I do know. not a lot

Just think since burning cleaner has proven itself why not go for it. ...and a lil more incentive from up top would be nice.

I think it has been discovered that a lot of atmoshperic O2 is actually produced by the oceans. But, since we currently don't have an O2 shortage, I'll pick the "less weed killers" route.

or maybe we do...
http://geoweb.princeton.edu/people/faculty/bender/lab/research_o2n2.ht
ml

Quote:
Originally posted by chrisisall:
Oh my, more Chicken Little.

That happened earlier when Alberto handled my "limb problem"

GO CANES!!!

SASSALICIOUS

Wednesday, June 14, 2006 10:26 PM

I haven't seen the movie, but I'll probably rent it. And I actually saw this posted on livejournal earlier today.

My quick and dirty, nonresearched thoughts: If you talk to the Inuit that live up near Barrow, AK they'll tell you that a lot is changing. Ice freezes later and melts earlier, making it harder to do the whale harvest. Also makes it more difficult for polar bear and the like to feed. There are other examples of warming up from around the world.

I'm fairly certain everyone can agree that temperature is in fact going up. There are multiple factors that are most likely contributing to this, earth's position relative to the sun, human activities, changing solar output, etc etc. However, given that the CO2 increase has been exponential since the industrial revolution and that is directly caused by human activity (factories, burning fuel, deforestration), it stands to reason that we are in some way, shape, or form contributing to the climate change.

If people could just change small things about daily lives, we could alter OUR contribution to climate change and possibly make it less severe. Eventually we'll have to change our lifestyles when cheap and easy fuel is gone. I think it's ridiculous that anyone would stand there and say "well since I'm not the SOLE CAUSE of climate change, I don't have to change my ways". We're all contributing in some way. Even the bushman in Africa that burns wood for a fire to cook his dinner.

I also think it's highly suspect that the U.S. government is telling officials at NASA to not talk about global warming if they want to keep their jobs.

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
I am on The List. We are The Forsaken and we aim to burn!
"We don't fear the reaper"
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

CHRISTHECYNIC

Wednesday, June 14, 2006 10:27 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by chrisisall:
Oh my, more Chicken Little.
Global Warming.
And the Plutoxin Virus is gonna kill you in less than ten hours.

Propaganda, baby.

Yeah Snake, that's right.

-

The thing is I don't care whether or not we are responsible for it, I care about how it effects us.

I mean imagine for a moment that it is a totally natural process that has nothing to do with people. Isn't it our duty as living things to fight that natural process with all of our strength in order to preserve the species?

I like nature as much as anyone, but there comes a point where I have to look at things and say, "Self preservation is natural too," and fight the natural processes that would leave us dead. Human beings aren't evolving anymore, we've cut natural selection of out the equation and that means we need things to remain as they are here and now, however unnatural that might be.

The least we can do is try not to speed it up in the least.

-

Then again one wonders about dimming as well, after September 11th we grounded every plane over the US (no small task) and kept them that way for a bit, it was 1 C warmer, sunnier, and clearer while that happened.

So maybe the cooling polluting is doing is balancing out the warming it is doing.

RUE

Wednesday, June 14, 2006 11:08 PM

It was a hasty search, but this is what I found:

Bob Carter is a member of the Friends of Science Society, and the New Zealand Climate Science Coalition

Dr Tim Ball is a former professor (now a private consultant) belonging to the Friends of Science Society, the Frontier Centre for Public Policy, and Envirotruth.

Tim Patterson is a member of the Friends of Science Society, and Envirotruth.

Dr. Boris Winterhalter is a member of the Friends of Science Society, and Envirotruth.

Dr. Dick Morgan (this is his nickname, you will not find information under it) is a member of the Friends of Science Society, and The Science & Environmental Project dedicated to opposing the concept of global warming.

Friends of Science Society is a Canadian non-profit group "made up of active and retired engineers, earth scientists and other professionals, as well as many concerned Canadians, who believe the science behind the Kyoto Protocol is questionable." [1] ( http://www.friendsofscience.org/index.php?ide=2)
Centre for Public Policy is a "neo-liberal" organization http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=Frontier_Centre_for_Public_
Policy
Envirotruth is a project of the National Center for Public Policy Research, which in 2003, was underwritten to the tune of $30,000 from Exxon Mobil. [1] ( http://www.exxonmobil.com/Corporate/files/corporate/giving_report.pdf)

CITIZEN

Thursday, June 15, 2006 1:13 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by chrisisall:
Oh my, more Chicken Little.
Global Warming.
And the Plutoxin Virus is gonna kill you in less than ten hours.

Propaganda, baby.

The Polar Ice caps are submerging, not melting- the ice is getting heavier, that's all.

Dumb tree-huggers

Chrisisall, Arctic Specialist

You're an idiot and a Terrorist. I bet you’re a member of friends of the ice you pro-freezist!

George Bush is encouraging the use of Fossil fuels and unnecessarily inefficient Cars as part of his war on Ice. For too long water has been locked frigid in its icy cells in the North and South poles, or axis of icicles.

The ice is not 'melting' or 'getting heavier', the water is being liberated.

More insane ramblings by the people who brought you beeeer milkshakes!
"I had a rose named after me and I was very flattered. But I was not pleased to read the description in the catalog: 'No good in a bed, but fine against a wall'." -- Eleanor Roosevelt.

1 2 NEXT PAGE LAST PAGE