World leaders told to act on climate before it's too late
Recent observations of climatic trends showed that the worst-case trajectories highlighted by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change in 2007 were being followed or exceeded on a range of measurements
Lewis Smith, Environment Reporter, in Copenhagen
The world is on the brink of dangerous climate change and immediate action is needed to avert it, scientists said yesterday, issuing one of the bleakest assessments yet of the state of the planet.
A strongly worded communiqué marking the end of a specially convened conference in Copenhagen concluded that climate change and its impacts match or exceed the worst fears expressed by the Nobel prize-winning Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change two years ago.
The statement, issued on behalf of 2,500 scientists from 80 countries, will be passed to world leaders in the coming months. Their summary of what global warming is doing to the planet warned policymakers: “There is no excuse for inaction.â€
The demands and alerts contained in the statement were described as a defining moment in scientists’ relations with political leaders, representing a shift away from their traditional role of merely offering advice to telling politicians to act.
Professor Katherine Richardson, of the University of Copenhagen, who organised the conference, said: “We need the politicians to realise what a risk they are taking on behalf of their constituents, the world and, even more importantly, future generations.
“All of the signals from the Earth system and the climate system show us that we are on a path that will have enormous and unacceptable consequences.â€
Findings from this week’s conference, designed to identify changes in scientific understanding of climate change, will be presented to world leaders and policymakers who will converge on the Danish capital in December to try to agree an international deal on bringing greenhouse gas emissions under control.
Recent observations of climatic trends, the new statement said, showed that the worst-case trajectories highlighted by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change in 2007 were being followed or exceeded on a range of measurements.
“There is a significant risk that many of the trends will accelerate, leading to an increasing risk of abrupt or irreversible climatic shifts,†it said.
Scientists called for rapid, sustained and effective mitigation programmes to bring down greenhouse gas emissions.
They were particularly concerned that any significant delay in reducing emissions would lead to a range of tipping points being reached that would make it significantly more difficult to reduce greenhouse gas levels.
There was also a warning for politicians involved in negotiations over targets designed to reduce emissions. It was an implicit rebuff to Silvio Berlusconi and other European leaders who attempted last year to reduce the EU commitment to cutting emissions.
Despite the gloom, the scientists said that the tools to beat climate change already existed and if vigorously and widely implemented they would enable governments to bring about low-carbon economies across the world.
Just in case you thought Climate Change had gone away
Just in case you thought Climate Change had gone away
"We are never so happy, never so unhappy, as we imagine"
Le Rochefoucauld.
"A smack in the face settles all arguments, then you can move on kid."
My dad 1986.
Le Rochefoucauld.
"A smack in the face settles all arguments, then you can move on kid."
My dad 1986.
Just in case you thought Climate Change had gone away
This is the actual text of the statement signed and approved by 2,500 of the world's leading scientists. Please read key message number one, thats the most important one, and reread it, and think about it and what it implies. This is what is already happening, all the trends show that this process is accelerating way beyond the most pessimistic forecasts of even 5 years ago, essentially we are now in uncharted territory, and its only 2009. Wait until 2020, or 2030 and its too late to change anything. Wait until 2100 and you won't recognize the planet, even remotely.
If you give a damn about the future of the planet as you currently recognize it, you should read this, please, with an open mind; this is the real problem the human race faces, not issues that are mostly related to paper money. I have been posting about this issue so vociferously since I joined FG because I trained in environmental chemistry and I know what's happening, since I started posting in 2005, things have gotten measureably worse, in just 4 years. We lived for years in denial about what was happening with global capital markets and credit until it was too late, we are doing the same thing with the climate, all because of human vanity and self-regard, if we are to have any chance as a species to get through the next few centuries we need to face up to the reality outside of our human concerns. We simply cannot go on as we have been doing, we only have one planet.
They key point to be understood from the text below is that we are looking at what is increasingly turning into a worst-case scenario for the human race, with global average mean temperature looking like they are going to start getting into the 5 to 7 degrees celcius range, (temperatures last seen on Planet Earth about 50 to 100 million years ago) essentially climatic armageddon. I will make that point again, climatic armageddon.
The polar ice caps will melt, all glaciers will be gone in 100 years, sea acidity and temperature will increase killing much marine life, the rainforests are predicted to be mostly gone within 50 years, sea levels will rise by 5 to 8 meters, ocean currents will destabilize, the arctic tundra will thaw out, agriculture will become impossible in many parts of the world, and if we allow this situation to go unchecked that its certain that we face a very bleak and very short future as a species.
Key Messages from the Congress
12 March 2009
Copenhagen, Denmark: Following a successful International Scientific Congress Climate Change: Global Risks, Challenges & Decisions attended by more than 2,500 delegates from nearly 80 countries, preliminary messages from the findings were delivered by the Congress? Scientific Writing Team. The conclusions will be published into a full synthesis report June 2009. The conclusions were handed over to the Danish Prime Minister Mr. Anders Fogh Rasmussen today. The Danish Government will host the UN Climate Change Conference in December 2009 and will hand over the conclusions to the decision makers ahead of the Conference.
The six preliminary key messages are:
Key Message 1: Climatic Trends
Recent observations confirm that, given high rates of observed emissions, the worst-case IPCC scenario trajectories (or even worse) are being realised. For many key parameters, the climate system is already moving beyond the patterns of natural variability within which our society and economy have developed and thrived. These parameters include global mean surface temperature, sea-level rise, ocean and ice sheet dynamics, ocean acidification, and extreme climatic events. There is a significant risk that many of the trends will accelerate, leading to an increasing risk of abrupt or irreversible climatic shifts.
Key Message 2: Social disruption
The research community is providing much more information to support discussions on ?dangerous climate change?. Recent observations show that societies are highly vulnerable to even modest levels of climate change, with poor nations and communities particularly at risk. Temperature rises above 2oC will be very difficult for contemporary societies to cope with, and will increase the level of climate disruption through the rest of the century.
Key Message 3: Long-Term Strategy
Rapid, sustained, and effective mitigation based on coordinated global and regional action is required to avoid ?dangerous climate change? regardless of how it is defined. Weaker targets for 2020 increase the risk of crossing tipping points and make the task of meeting 2050 targets more difficult. Delay in initiating effective mitigation actions increases significantly the long-term social and economic costs of both adaptation and mitigation.
Key Message 4 - Equity Dimensions
Climate change is having, and will have, strongly differential effects on people within and between countries and regions, on this generation and future generations, and on human societies and the natural world. An effective, well-funded adaptation safety net is required for those people least capable of coping with climate change impacts, and a common but differentiated mitigation strategy is needed to protect the poor and most vulnerable.
Key Message 5: Inaction is Inexcusable
There is no excuse for inaction. We already have many tools and approaches ? economic, technological, behavioural, management ? to deal effectively with the climate change challenge. But they must be vigorously and widely implemented to achieve the societal transformation required to decarbonise economies. A wide range of benefits will flow from a concerted effort to alter our energy economy now, including sustainable energy job growth, reductions in the health and economic costs of climate change, and the restoration of ecosystems and revitalisation of ecosystem services.
Key Message 6: Meeting the Challenge
To achieve the societal transformation required to meet the climate change challenge, we must overcome a number of significant constraints and seize critical opportunities. These include reducing inertia in social and economic systems; building on a growing public desire for governments to act on climate change; removing implicit and explicit subsidies; reducing the influence of vested interests that increase emissions and reduce resilience; enabling the shifts from ineffective governance and weak institutions to innovative leadership in government, the private sector and civil society; and engaging society in the transition to norms and practices that foster sustainability.
If you give a damn about the future of the planet as you currently recognize it, you should read this, please, with an open mind; this is the real problem the human race faces, not issues that are mostly related to paper money. I have been posting about this issue so vociferously since I joined FG because I trained in environmental chemistry and I know what's happening, since I started posting in 2005, things have gotten measureably worse, in just 4 years. We lived for years in denial about what was happening with global capital markets and credit until it was too late, we are doing the same thing with the climate, all because of human vanity and self-regard, if we are to have any chance as a species to get through the next few centuries we need to face up to the reality outside of our human concerns. We simply cannot go on as we have been doing, we only have one planet.
They key point to be understood from the text below is that we are looking at what is increasingly turning into a worst-case scenario for the human race, with global average mean temperature looking like they are going to start getting into the 5 to 7 degrees celcius range, (temperatures last seen on Planet Earth about 50 to 100 million years ago) essentially climatic armageddon. I will make that point again, climatic armageddon.
The polar ice caps will melt, all glaciers will be gone in 100 years, sea acidity and temperature will increase killing much marine life, the rainforests are predicted to be mostly gone within 50 years, sea levels will rise by 5 to 8 meters, ocean currents will destabilize, the arctic tundra will thaw out, agriculture will become impossible in many parts of the world, and if we allow this situation to go unchecked that its certain that we face a very bleak and very short future as a species.
Key Messages from the Congress
12 March 2009
Copenhagen, Denmark: Following a successful International Scientific Congress Climate Change: Global Risks, Challenges & Decisions attended by more than 2,500 delegates from nearly 80 countries, preliminary messages from the findings were delivered by the Congress? Scientific Writing Team. The conclusions will be published into a full synthesis report June 2009. The conclusions were handed over to the Danish Prime Minister Mr. Anders Fogh Rasmussen today. The Danish Government will host the UN Climate Change Conference in December 2009 and will hand over the conclusions to the decision makers ahead of the Conference.
The six preliminary key messages are:
Key Message 1: Climatic Trends
Recent observations confirm that, given high rates of observed emissions, the worst-case IPCC scenario trajectories (or even worse) are being realised. For many key parameters, the climate system is already moving beyond the patterns of natural variability within which our society and economy have developed and thrived. These parameters include global mean surface temperature, sea-level rise, ocean and ice sheet dynamics, ocean acidification, and extreme climatic events. There is a significant risk that many of the trends will accelerate, leading to an increasing risk of abrupt or irreversible climatic shifts.
Key Message 2: Social disruption
The research community is providing much more information to support discussions on ?dangerous climate change?. Recent observations show that societies are highly vulnerable to even modest levels of climate change, with poor nations and communities particularly at risk. Temperature rises above 2oC will be very difficult for contemporary societies to cope with, and will increase the level of climate disruption through the rest of the century.
Key Message 3: Long-Term Strategy
Rapid, sustained, and effective mitigation based on coordinated global and regional action is required to avoid ?dangerous climate change? regardless of how it is defined. Weaker targets for 2020 increase the risk of crossing tipping points and make the task of meeting 2050 targets more difficult. Delay in initiating effective mitigation actions increases significantly the long-term social and economic costs of both adaptation and mitigation.
Key Message 4 - Equity Dimensions
Climate change is having, and will have, strongly differential effects on people within and between countries and regions, on this generation and future generations, and on human societies and the natural world. An effective, well-funded adaptation safety net is required for those people least capable of coping with climate change impacts, and a common but differentiated mitigation strategy is needed to protect the poor and most vulnerable.
Key Message 5: Inaction is Inexcusable
There is no excuse for inaction. We already have many tools and approaches ? economic, technological, behavioural, management ? to deal effectively with the climate change challenge. But they must be vigorously and widely implemented to achieve the societal transformation required to decarbonise economies. A wide range of benefits will flow from a concerted effort to alter our energy economy now, including sustainable energy job growth, reductions in the health and economic costs of climate change, and the restoration of ecosystems and revitalisation of ecosystem services.
Key Message 6: Meeting the Challenge
To achieve the societal transformation required to meet the climate change challenge, we must overcome a number of significant constraints and seize critical opportunities. These include reducing inertia in social and economic systems; building on a growing public desire for governments to act on climate change; removing implicit and explicit subsidies; reducing the influence of vested interests that increase emissions and reduce resilience; enabling the shifts from ineffective governance and weak institutions to innovative leadership in government, the private sector and civil society; and engaging society in the transition to norms and practices that foster sustainability.
"We are never so happy, never so unhappy, as we imagine"
Le Rochefoucauld.
"A smack in the face settles all arguments, then you can move on kid."
My dad 1986.
Le Rochefoucauld.
"A smack in the face settles all arguments, then you can move on kid."
My dad 1986.
Just in case you thought Climate Change had gone away
Galbally;1156924 wrote: This is the actual text of the statement signed and approved by 2,500 of the world's leading scientists. Please read key message number one, thats the most important one, and reread it, and think about it and what it implies. This is what is already happening, all the trends show that this process is accelerating way beyond the most pessimistic forecasts of even 5 years ago, essentially we are now in uncharted territory, and its only 2009. Wait until 2020, or 2030 and its too late to change anything. Wait until 2100 and you won't recognize the planet, even remotely.
If you give a damn about the future of the planet as you currently recognize it, you should read this, please, with an open mind; this is the real problem the human race faces, not issues that are mostly related to paper money. I have been posting about this issue so vociferously since I joined FG because I trained in environmental chemistry and I know what's happening, since I started posting in 2005, things have gotten measureably worse, in just 4 years. We lived for years in denial about what was happening with global capital markets and credit until it was too late, we are doing the same thing with the climate, all because of human vanity and self-regard, if we are to have any chance as a species to get through the next few centuries we need to face up to the reality outside of our human concerns. We simply cannot go on as we have been doing, we only have one planet.
They key point to be understood from the text below is that we are looking at what is increasingly turning into a worst-case scenario for the human race, with global average mean temperature looking like they are going to start getting into the 5 to 7 degrees celcius range, (temperatures last seen on Planet Earth about 50 to 100 million years ago) essentially climatic armageddon. I will make that point again, climatic armageddon.
The polar ice caps will melt, all glaciers will be gone in 100 years, sea acidity and temperature will increase killing much marine life, the rainforests are predicted to be mostly gone within 50 years, sea levels will rise by 5 to 8 meters, ocean currents will destabilize, the arctic tundra will thaw out, agriculture will become impossible in many parts of the world, and if we allow this situation to go unchecked that its certain that we face a very bleak and very short future as a species.
Key Messages from the Congress
12 March 2009
Copenhagen, Denmark: Following a successful International Scientific Congress Climate Change: Global Risks, Challenges & Decisions attended by more than 2,500 delegates from nearly 80 countries, preliminary messages from the findings were delivered by the Congress? Scientific Writing Team. The conclusions will be published into a full synthesis report June 2009. The conclusions were handed over to the Danish Prime Minister Mr. Anders Fogh Rasmussen today. The Danish Government will host the UN Climate Change Conference in December 2009 and will hand over the conclusions to the decision makers ahead of the Conference.
The six preliminary key messages are:
Key Message 1: Climatic Trends
Recent observations confirm that, given high rates of observed emissions, the worst-case IPCC scenario trajectories (or even worse) are being realised. For many key parameters, the climate system is already moving beyond the patterns of natural variability within which our society and economy have developed and thrived. These parameters include global mean surface temperature, sea-level rise, ocean and ice sheet dynamics, ocean acidification, and extreme climatic events. There is a significant risk that many of the trends will accelerate, leading to an increasing risk of abrupt or irreversible climatic shifts.
Key Message 2: Social disruption
The research community is providing much more information to support discussions on ?dangerous climate change?. Recent observations show that societies are highly vulnerable to even modest levels of climate change, with poor nations and communities particularly at risk. Temperature rises above 2oC will be very difficult for contemporary societies to cope with, and will increase the level of climate disruption through the rest of the century.
Key Message 3: Long-Term Strategy
Rapid, sustained, and effective mitigation based on coordinated global and regional action is required to avoid ?dangerous climate change? regardless of how it is defined. Weaker targets for 2020 increase the risk of crossing tipping points and make the task of meeting 2050 targets more difficult. Delay in initiating effective mitigation actions increases significantly the long-term social and economic costs of both adaptation and mitigation.
Key Message 4 - Equity Dimensions
Climate change is having, and will have, strongly differential effects on people within and between countries and regions, on this generation and future generations, and on human societies and the natural world. An effective, well-funded adaptation safety net is required for those people least capable of coping with climate change impacts, and a common but differentiated mitigation strategy is needed to protect the poor and most vulnerable.
Key Message 5: Inaction is Inexcusable
There is no excuse for inaction. We already have many tools and approaches ? economic, technological, behavioural, management ? to deal effectively with the climate change challenge. But they must be vigorously and widely implemented to achieve the societal transformation required to decarbonise economies. A wide range of benefits will flow from a concerted effort to alter our energy economy now, including sustainable energy job growth, reductions in the health and economic costs of climate change, and the restoration of ecosystems and revitalisation of ecosystem services.
Key Message 6: Meeting the Challenge
To achieve the societal transformation required to meet the climate change challenge, we must overcome a number of significant constraints and seize critical opportunities. These include reducing inertia in social and economic systems; building on a growing public desire for governments to act on climate change; removing implicit and explicit subsidies; reducing the influence of vested interests that increase emissions and reduce resilience; enabling the shifts from ineffective governance and weak institutions to innovative leadership in government, the private sector and civil society; and engaging society in the transition to norms and practices that foster sustainability.
OK, but what about the economy???
If you give a damn about the future of the planet as you currently recognize it, you should read this, please, with an open mind; this is the real problem the human race faces, not issues that are mostly related to paper money. I have been posting about this issue so vociferously since I joined FG because I trained in environmental chemistry and I know what's happening, since I started posting in 2005, things have gotten measureably worse, in just 4 years. We lived for years in denial about what was happening with global capital markets and credit until it was too late, we are doing the same thing with the climate, all because of human vanity and self-regard, if we are to have any chance as a species to get through the next few centuries we need to face up to the reality outside of our human concerns. We simply cannot go on as we have been doing, we only have one planet.
They key point to be understood from the text below is that we are looking at what is increasingly turning into a worst-case scenario for the human race, with global average mean temperature looking like they are going to start getting into the 5 to 7 degrees celcius range, (temperatures last seen on Planet Earth about 50 to 100 million years ago) essentially climatic armageddon. I will make that point again, climatic armageddon.
The polar ice caps will melt, all glaciers will be gone in 100 years, sea acidity and temperature will increase killing much marine life, the rainforests are predicted to be mostly gone within 50 years, sea levels will rise by 5 to 8 meters, ocean currents will destabilize, the arctic tundra will thaw out, agriculture will become impossible in many parts of the world, and if we allow this situation to go unchecked that its certain that we face a very bleak and very short future as a species.
Key Messages from the Congress
12 March 2009
Copenhagen, Denmark: Following a successful International Scientific Congress Climate Change: Global Risks, Challenges & Decisions attended by more than 2,500 delegates from nearly 80 countries, preliminary messages from the findings were delivered by the Congress? Scientific Writing Team. The conclusions will be published into a full synthesis report June 2009. The conclusions were handed over to the Danish Prime Minister Mr. Anders Fogh Rasmussen today. The Danish Government will host the UN Climate Change Conference in December 2009 and will hand over the conclusions to the decision makers ahead of the Conference.
The six preliminary key messages are:
Key Message 1: Climatic Trends
Recent observations confirm that, given high rates of observed emissions, the worst-case IPCC scenario trajectories (or even worse) are being realised. For many key parameters, the climate system is already moving beyond the patterns of natural variability within which our society and economy have developed and thrived. These parameters include global mean surface temperature, sea-level rise, ocean and ice sheet dynamics, ocean acidification, and extreme climatic events. There is a significant risk that many of the trends will accelerate, leading to an increasing risk of abrupt or irreversible climatic shifts.
Key Message 2: Social disruption
The research community is providing much more information to support discussions on ?dangerous climate change?. Recent observations show that societies are highly vulnerable to even modest levels of climate change, with poor nations and communities particularly at risk. Temperature rises above 2oC will be very difficult for contemporary societies to cope with, and will increase the level of climate disruption through the rest of the century.
Key Message 3: Long-Term Strategy
Rapid, sustained, and effective mitigation based on coordinated global and regional action is required to avoid ?dangerous climate change? regardless of how it is defined. Weaker targets for 2020 increase the risk of crossing tipping points and make the task of meeting 2050 targets more difficult. Delay in initiating effective mitigation actions increases significantly the long-term social and economic costs of both adaptation and mitigation.
Key Message 4 - Equity Dimensions
Climate change is having, and will have, strongly differential effects on people within and between countries and regions, on this generation and future generations, and on human societies and the natural world. An effective, well-funded adaptation safety net is required for those people least capable of coping with climate change impacts, and a common but differentiated mitigation strategy is needed to protect the poor and most vulnerable.
Key Message 5: Inaction is Inexcusable
There is no excuse for inaction. We already have many tools and approaches ? economic, technological, behavioural, management ? to deal effectively with the climate change challenge. But they must be vigorously and widely implemented to achieve the societal transformation required to decarbonise economies. A wide range of benefits will flow from a concerted effort to alter our energy economy now, including sustainable energy job growth, reductions in the health and economic costs of climate change, and the restoration of ecosystems and revitalisation of ecosystem services.
Key Message 6: Meeting the Challenge
To achieve the societal transformation required to meet the climate change challenge, we must overcome a number of significant constraints and seize critical opportunities. These include reducing inertia in social and economic systems; building on a growing public desire for governments to act on climate change; removing implicit and explicit subsidies; reducing the influence of vested interests that increase emissions and reduce resilience; enabling the shifts from ineffective governance and weak institutions to innovative leadership in government, the private sector and civil society; and engaging society in the transition to norms and practices that foster sustainability.
OK, but what about the economy???
Just in case you thought Climate Change had gone away
So how does one explain away these facts???
TOTAL Global Sea Ice
1980 Southern Hemisphere = 4.7 million sq km
1980 Northern Hemisphere = 15.0 million sq km
Total = 19.7 million sq km
2009 Southern Hemisphere = 5.8 million sq km
2009 Northern Hemisphere = 14.1 million sq km
Total = 19.9 million sq km
January in the year 2009 showed 200,000 sq km more sea ice than 1980.
From the National Snow and Ice Data Center, University of Colorado
Antarctic sea ice extent and concentration for January 2009 were up significantly over 1997, 34.8% for ice extent & 22% for ice concentration. Jan 2009 sea ice was also up 23% over 1980. This continues a long trend of increases and before long the penguins will be able to walk to Brazil!
From the National Snow and Ice Data Center, University of Colorado
Walking to Brazil means no whales to eat us! So where is the news media on this? Antarctica sea ice extent is up 35% over 1997 and 23% over 1980 (the first full year of Satellite measurements), imagine if this was a decrease in ice rather than an increase. If this keeps up the penguins will be able to walk to Brazil!
TOTAL Global Sea Ice
1980 Southern Hemisphere = 4.7 million sq km
1980 Northern Hemisphere = 15.0 million sq km
Total = 19.7 million sq km
2009 Southern Hemisphere = 5.8 million sq km
2009 Northern Hemisphere = 14.1 million sq km
Total = 19.9 million sq km
January in the year 2009 showed 200,000 sq km more sea ice than 1980.
From the National Snow and Ice Data Center, University of Colorado
Antarctic sea ice extent and concentration for January 2009 were up significantly over 1997, 34.8% for ice extent & 22% for ice concentration. Jan 2009 sea ice was also up 23% over 1980. This continues a long trend of increases and before long the penguins will be able to walk to Brazil!
From the National Snow and Ice Data Center, University of Colorado
Walking to Brazil means no whales to eat us! So where is the news media on this? Antarctica sea ice extent is up 35% over 1997 and 23% over 1980 (the first full year of Satellite measurements), imagine if this was a decrease in ice rather than an increase. If this keeps up the penguins will be able to walk to Brazil!
"If America Was A Tree, The Left Would Root For The Termites...Greg Gutfeld."
Just in case you thought Climate Change had gone away
mikeinie;1157009 wrote: OK, but what about the economy???
Milkennie, understand this, you cannot eat money, and you cannot argue with the ocean, it doesn't care about the human economy, neither does the soil or the water or the air.
I am not an economist, I don't know what to do about the economy, but I do know that if we don't wake up very soon indeed now, economics won't matter anymore.
What is the economy anyway? Its a just an academic measure of how we use the resources we have to feed, clothe, and house ourselves, its based on what we have and what we do with what we have. But what's the single most important resource we have? Land and water to grow food, always has been, always will be, if we screw with that we are gone, and we are screwing with it mightily now.
We have a short window of opportunity to start thinking about what we value, our standard of living, or our biological future as a species, its that simple.
Milkennie, understand this, you cannot eat money, and you cannot argue with the ocean, it doesn't care about the human economy, neither does the soil or the water or the air.
I am not an economist, I don't know what to do about the economy, but I do know that if we don't wake up very soon indeed now, economics won't matter anymore.
What is the economy anyway? Its a just an academic measure of how we use the resources we have to feed, clothe, and house ourselves, its based on what we have and what we do with what we have. But what's the single most important resource we have? Land and water to grow food, always has been, always will be, if we screw with that we are gone, and we are screwing with it mightily now.
We have a short window of opportunity to start thinking about what we value, our standard of living, or our biological future as a species, its that simple.
"We are never so happy, never so unhappy, as we imagine"
Le Rochefoucauld.
"A smack in the face settles all arguments, then you can move on kid."
My dad 1986.
Le Rochefoucauld.
"A smack in the face settles all arguments, then you can move on kid."
My dad 1986.
Just in case you thought Climate Change had gone away
BTS;1157011 wrote: So how does one explain away these facts???
TOTAL Global Sea Ice
1980 Southern Hemisphere = 4.7 million sq km
1980 Northern Hemisphere = 15.0 million sq km
Total = 19.7 million sq km
2009 Southern Hemisphere = 5.8 million sq km
2009 Northern Hemisphere = 14.1 million sq km
Total = 19.9 million sq km
January in the year 2009 showed 200,000 sq km more sea ice than 1980.
Walking to Brazil means no whales to eat us! So where is the news media on this? Antarctica sea ice extent is up 35% over 1997 and 23% over 1980 (the first full year of Satellite measurements), imagine if this was a decrease in ice rather than an increase. If this keeps up the penguins will be able to walk to Brazil!
BTS, do you think that the entire global scientific community is lying?
Do you think that all the world's climate scientists are in on some mass conspiracy?
Why would 2,500 independent scientists from 80 countries make this stuff up?
You have to understand that this is real, its not going to go away or be argued away by some clever semantics, we are altering our climate irreversibly, I am not going to go chapter and verse through the evidence, there is 40 years worth of it. This isn't a political campaign by green activists, this is the professional scientific community saying that something is very wrong, and getting worse, and you need to pay attention to it before its too late. I have made this point endlessly, yet it just doesn't sink in.
I just urge you to go onto the International Panel on Climate Change, its the world body charged by the world's governments (including the US government) with assessing the risks being posed by what is happening, go onto the US Army Corp's of Engineers website and check their assessment of the impact and risks of climate change, or the CIA risk assessments on climate change.
BTS, this is as real as it gets, seriously.
TOTAL Global Sea Ice
1980 Southern Hemisphere = 4.7 million sq km
1980 Northern Hemisphere = 15.0 million sq km
Total = 19.7 million sq km
2009 Southern Hemisphere = 5.8 million sq km
2009 Northern Hemisphere = 14.1 million sq km
Total = 19.9 million sq km
January in the year 2009 showed 200,000 sq km more sea ice than 1980.
Walking to Brazil means no whales to eat us! So where is the news media on this? Antarctica sea ice extent is up 35% over 1997 and 23% over 1980 (the first full year of Satellite measurements), imagine if this was a decrease in ice rather than an increase. If this keeps up the penguins will be able to walk to Brazil!
BTS, do you think that the entire global scientific community is lying?
Do you think that all the world's climate scientists are in on some mass conspiracy?
Why would 2,500 independent scientists from 80 countries make this stuff up?
You have to understand that this is real, its not going to go away or be argued away by some clever semantics, we are altering our climate irreversibly, I am not going to go chapter and verse through the evidence, there is 40 years worth of it. This isn't a political campaign by green activists, this is the professional scientific community saying that something is very wrong, and getting worse, and you need to pay attention to it before its too late. I have made this point endlessly, yet it just doesn't sink in.
I just urge you to go onto the International Panel on Climate Change, its the world body charged by the world's governments (including the US government) with assessing the risks being posed by what is happening, go onto the US Army Corp's of Engineers website and check their assessment of the impact and risks of climate change, or the CIA risk assessments on climate change.
BTS, this is as real as it gets, seriously.
"We are never so happy, never so unhappy, as we imagine"
Le Rochefoucauld.
"A smack in the face settles all arguments, then you can move on kid."
My dad 1986.
Le Rochefoucauld.
"A smack in the face settles all arguments, then you can move on kid."
My dad 1986.
Just in case you thought Climate Change had gone away
Galbally;1157106 wrote: BTS, do you think that the entire global scientific community is lying?
Do you think that all the world's climate scientists are in on some mass conspiracy?
Why would 2,500 independent scientists from 80 countries make this stuff up?
You have to understand that this is real, its not going to go away or be argued away by some clever semantics, we are altering our climate irreversibly, I am not going to go chapter and verse through the evidence, there is 40 years worth of it. This isn't a political campaign by green activists, this is the professional scientific community saying that something is very wrong, and getting worse, and you need to pay attention to it before its too late. I have made this point endlessly, yet it just doesn't sink in.
I just urge you to go onto the International Panel on Climate Change, its the world body charged by the world's governments (including the US government) with assessing the risks being posed by what is happening, go onto the US Army Corp's of Engineers website and check their assessment of the impact and risks of climate change, or the CIA risk assessments on climate change.
BTS, this is as real as it gets, seriously.
Galbally,
No doubt you believe it is mans fault but I just don't. In my opinion it is all just weather. Now a very small portion may be caused by man but not enough that it is going to alter nature.
Also, not ALL scientist agree on this as you suppose. How do we jump to a remedy when we don't have proof of the cause?
Nature is a tricky thing.
Do you think that all the world's climate scientists are in on some mass conspiracy?
Why would 2,500 independent scientists from 80 countries make this stuff up?
You have to understand that this is real, its not going to go away or be argued away by some clever semantics, we are altering our climate irreversibly, I am not going to go chapter and verse through the evidence, there is 40 years worth of it. This isn't a political campaign by green activists, this is the professional scientific community saying that something is very wrong, and getting worse, and you need to pay attention to it before its too late. I have made this point endlessly, yet it just doesn't sink in.
I just urge you to go onto the International Panel on Climate Change, its the world body charged by the world's governments (including the US government) with assessing the risks being posed by what is happening, go onto the US Army Corp's of Engineers website and check their assessment of the impact and risks of climate change, or the CIA risk assessments on climate change.
BTS, this is as real as it gets, seriously.
Galbally,
No doubt you believe it is mans fault but I just don't. In my opinion it is all just weather. Now a very small portion may be caused by man but not enough that it is going to alter nature.
Also, not ALL scientist agree on this as you suppose. How do we jump to a remedy when we don't have proof of the cause?
Nature is a tricky thing.
"If America Was A Tree, The Left Would Root For The Termites...Greg Gutfeld."
Just in case you thought Climate Change had gone away
BTS;1157113 wrote: Galbally,
No doubt you believe it is mans fault but I just don't. In my opinion it is all just weather. Now a very small portion may be caused by man but not enough that it is going to alter nature.
Also, not ALL scientist agree on this as you suppose. How do we jump to a remedy when we don't have proof of the cause?
Nature is a tricky thing.
Its not the weather, its not a natural cycle, its CO2 emissions. I want to be catagorical about that.
No credible scientists disagree with that prognosis. There is no debate in the scientific community, just like there is no scientific debate about whether DNA and natural selection are the processes by which the life all around you is formed, just like there is no scientific controversy about Newton.
Non-scientists, and a handful of bought-off mostly discredited scientists working for oil companies are essentially spouting misinformation in an effort to muddy the waters enough so that it can remain business as usual, as people are afraid about their profits. There are also a few scientific mavericks as their always are (about everything) saying its all bunk, but they are a tiny, tiny minority, in the same way that there are some Americans who want a communist system in the US, but they are not representative of general American opinion.
What you have with climate change is the scientific community saying its happening, and the economists and industrial people saying, yeah, but.......
And unfortunately politically science and scientists have no clout, politicians don't listen to them, they listen to big business, religious conservatives, and economists, and all these people are spouting nonsense.
There has been a convention in science for centuries, that scientists are professionals that just study and advise, but don't get involved directly in political debates, I think that concensus has changed amoung scientists now that on this issue, (which is about the future of the human race) we can no longer be passive, we have to tackle the misinformation head on, and outline the truth very clearly to people, above the heads of economists and politicans as its too serious to play the usual parlour games with this issue.
I wish there was a way I could make you understand this problem for what it is, but I know no matter what I say, your not going to accept this until you realize it for yourself, and by then it will be too late, thats the real tragedy of this, its avoidable, it really is, but we are going to conciously destroy ourselves for greed and vanity, perhaps its a fitting end to the species.
No doubt you believe it is mans fault but I just don't. In my opinion it is all just weather. Now a very small portion may be caused by man but not enough that it is going to alter nature.
Also, not ALL scientist agree on this as you suppose. How do we jump to a remedy when we don't have proof of the cause?
Nature is a tricky thing.
Its not the weather, its not a natural cycle, its CO2 emissions. I want to be catagorical about that.
No credible scientists disagree with that prognosis. There is no debate in the scientific community, just like there is no scientific debate about whether DNA and natural selection are the processes by which the life all around you is formed, just like there is no scientific controversy about Newton.
Non-scientists, and a handful of bought-off mostly discredited scientists working for oil companies are essentially spouting misinformation in an effort to muddy the waters enough so that it can remain business as usual, as people are afraid about their profits. There are also a few scientific mavericks as their always are (about everything) saying its all bunk, but they are a tiny, tiny minority, in the same way that there are some Americans who want a communist system in the US, but they are not representative of general American opinion.
What you have with climate change is the scientific community saying its happening, and the economists and industrial people saying, yeah, but.......
And unfortunately politically science and scientists have no clout, politicians don't listen to them, they listen to big business, religious conservatives, and economists, and all these people are spouting nonsense.
There has been a convention in science for centuries, that scientists are professionals that just study and advise, but don't get involved directly in political debates, I think that concensus has changed amoung scientists now that on this issue, (which is about the future of the human race) we can no longer be passive, we have to tackle the misinformation head on, and outline the truth very clearly to people, above the heads of economists and politicans as its too serious to play the usual parlour games with this issue.
I wish there was a way I could make you understand this problem for what it is, but I know no matter what I say, your not going to accept this until you realize it for yourself, and by then it will be too late, thats the real tragedy of this, its avoidable, it really is, but we are going to conciously destroy ourselves for greed and vanity, perhaps its a fitting end to the species.
"We are never so happy, never so unhappy, as we imagine"
Le Rochefoucauld.
"A smack in the face settles all arguments, then you can move on kid."
My dad 1986.
Le Rochefoucauld.
"A smack in the face settles all arguments, then you can move on kid."
My dad 1986.
Just in case you thought Climate Change had gone away
mikeinie;1157009 wrote: OK, but what about the economy???
So start a thread about it - OK?
So start a thread about it - OK?
Just in case you thought Climate Change had gone away
BTS;1157011 wrote: So how does one explain away these facts???
TOTAL Global Sea Ice
1980 Southern Hemisphere = 4.7 million sq km
1980 Northern Hemisphere = 15.0 million sq km
Total = 19.7 million sq km
2009 Southern Hemisphere = 5.8 million sq km
2009 Northern Hemisphere = 14.1 million sq km
Total = 19.9 million sq km
January in the year 2009 showed 200,000 sq km more sea ice than 1980.
From the National Snow and Ice Data Center, University of Colorado
Antarctic sea ice extent and concentration for January 2009 were up significantly over 1997, 34.8% for ice extent & 22% for ice concentration. Jan 2009 sea ice was also up 23% over 1980. This continues a long trend of increases and before long the penguins will be able to walk to Brazil!
From the National Snow and Ice Data Center, University of Colorado
Walking to Brazil means no whales to eat us! So where is the news media on this? Antarctica sea ice extent is up 35% over 1997 and 23% over 1980 (the first full year of Satellite measurements), imagine if this was a decrease in ice rather than an increase. If this keeps up the penguins will be able to walk to Brazil!
Can you explain the significance of your *extremely* selective figures on sea ice areas without any reference to the thickness of the ice involved?
Can you explain why you quote maximum extents (which could well involve ice a few centimetres thick) when every reputable scientist quote minimum extents where the edges are of known thickness?
Each winter the area of ice builds up as the sea freezes - look at your local lake to see how the edges freeze depending on the temperature on the day in question.
Each summer the ice melts back to the core. The amount of thickness lost depends on the average temperature over the whole cycle, not on the temperature on any particular day. The core area depends on the global conditions over the past several cycles rather than on the local conditions on that day.
Stop trying to pull the wool over our eyes - we're not blind *or* stupid.
TOTAL Global Sea Ice
1980 Southern Hemisphere = 4.7 million sq km
1980 Northern Hemisphere = 15.0 million sq km
Total = 19.7 million sq km
2009 Southern Hemisphere = 5.8 million sq km
2009 Northern Hemisphere = 14.1 million sq km
Total = 19.9 million sq km
January in the year 2009 showed 200,000 sq km more sea ice than 1980.
From the National Snow and Ice Data Center, University of Colorado
Antarctic sea ice extent and concentration for January 2009 were up significantly over 1997, 34.8% for ice extent & 22% for ice concentration. Jan 2009 sea ice was also up 23% over 1980. This continues a long trend of increases and before long the penguins will be able to walk to Brazil!
From the National Snow and Ice Data Center, University of Colorado
Walking to Brazil means no whales to eat us! So where is the news media on this? Antarctica sea ice extent is up 35% over 1997 and 23% over 1980 (the first full year of Satellite measurements), imagine if this was a decrease in ice rather than an increase. If this keeps up the penguins will be able to walk to Brazil!
Can you explain the significance of your *extremely* selective figures on sea ice areas without any reference to the thickness of the ice involved?
Can you explain why you quote maximum extents (which could well involve ice a few centimetres thick) when every reputable scientist quote minimum extents where the edges are of known thickness?
Each winter the area of ice builds up as the sea freezes - look at your local lake to see how the edges freeze depending on the temperature on the day in question.
Each summer the ice melts back to the core. The amount of thickness lost depends on the average temperature over the whole cycle, not on the temperature on any particular day. The core area depends on the global conditions over the past several cycles rather than on the local conditions on that day.
Stop trying to pull the wool over our eyes - we're not blind *or* stupid.
Just in case you thought Climate Change had gone away
Originally Posted by mikeinie
OK, but what about the economy???
Bryn Mawr;1157223 wrote: So start a thread about it - OK?
Mite testy aren't we?
That's a legitimate question. OK?
What are the costs of taking on global warming as all the naysayers suppose we have do or die?
OK, but what about the economy???
Bryn Mawr;1157223 wrote: So start a thread about it - OK?
Mite testy aren't we?
That's a legitimate question. OK?
What are the costs of taking on global warming as all the naysayers suppose we have do or die?
"If America Was A Tree, The Left Would Root For The Termites...Greg Gutfeld."
Just in case you thought Climate Change had gone away
Bryn Mawr;1157230 wrote: Can you explain the significance of your *extremely* selective figures on sea ice areas without any reference to the thickness of the ice involved?
Can you explain why you quote maximum extents (which could well involve ice a few centimetres thick) when every reputable scientist quote minimum extents where the edges are of known thickness?
Each winter the area of ice builds up as the sea freezes - look at your local lake to see how the edges freeze depending on the temperature on the day in question.
Each summer the ice melts back to the core. The amount of thickness lost depends on the average temperature over the whole cycle, not on the temperature on any particular day. The core area depends on the global conditions over the past several cycles rather than on the local conditions on that day.
Stop trying to pull the wool over our eyes - we're not blind *or* stupid.
They are all from:
From the National Snow and Ice Data Center, University of Colorado.
Quite reputable site.
So why don't you post a pic that shows what you want to see and prove me all wrong..............Eh?
Can you explain why you quote maximum extents (which could well involve ice a few centimetres thick) when every reputable scientist quote minimum extents where the edges are of known thickness?
Each winter the area of ice builds up as the sea freezes - look at your local lake to see how the edges freeze depending on the temperature on the day in question.
Each summer the ice melts back to the core. The amount of thickness lost depends on the average temperature over the whole cycle, not on the temperature on any particular day. The core area depends on the global conditions over the past several cycles rather than on the local conditions on that day.
Stop trying to pull the wool over our eyes - we're not blind *or* stupid.
They are all from:
From the National Snow and Ice Data Center, University of Colorado.
Quite reputable site.
So why don't you post a pic that shows what you want to see and prove me all wrong..............Eh?
"If America Was A Tree, The Left Would Root For The Termites...Greg Gutfeld."
Just in case you thought Climate Change had gone away
BTS;1157294 wrote: Originally Posted by mikeinie
OK, but what about the economy???
Mite testy aren't we?
That's a legitimate question. OK?
What are the costs of taking on global warming as all the naysayers suppose we have do or die?
The question as originally phrased was off topic to the discussion.
The question you have put is different and relevant.
One needs its own thread, the other is part of this one.
Not testy at all, just trying to keep to the subject at hand.
OK, but what about the economy???
Mite testy aren't we?
That's a legitimate question. OK?
What are the costs of taking on global warming as all the naysayers suppose we have do or die?
The question as originally phrased was off topic to the discussion.
The question you have put is different and relevant.
One needs its own thread, the other is part of this one.
Not testy at all, just trying to keep to the subject at hand.
Just in case you thought Climate Change had gone away
BTS;1157304 wrote: They are all from:
From the National Snow and Ice Data Center, University of Colorado.
Quite reputable site.
So why don't you post a pic that shows what you want to see and prove me all wrong..............Eh?
Regardless of where the fact come from, if they are being used to "prove" a statement on which they have no relevance then they are spurious.
So why don't you address the points I made :-
Can you explain the significance of your *extremely* selective figures on sea ice areas without any reference to the thickness of the ice involved?
Can you explain why you quote maximum extents (which could well involve ice a few centimetres thick) when every reputable scientist quote minimum extents where the edges are of known thickness?
The same site was showing throughout the summer that the sea ice levels were at record lows - that is the relevant datum that you fail to report.
From the National Snow and Ice Data Center, University of Colorado.
Quite reputable site.
So why don't you post a pic that shows what you want to see and prove me all wrong..............Eh?
Regardless of where the fact come from, if they are being used to "prove" a statement on which they have no relevance then they are spurious.
So why don't you address the points I made :-
Can you explain the significance of your *extremely* selective figures on sea ice areas without any reference to the thickness of the ice involved?
Can you explain why you quote maximum extents (which could well involve ice a few centimetres thick) when every reputable scientist quote minimum extents where the edges are of known thickness?
The same site was showing throughout the summer that the sea ice levels were at record lows - that is the relevant datum that you fail to report.
Just in case you thought Climate Change had gone away
Bryn Mawr;1157388 wrote: Regardless of where the fact come from, if they are being used to "prove" a statement on which they have no relevance then they are spurious.
So why don't you address the points I made :-
The same site was showing throughout the summer that the sea ice levels were at record lows - that is the relevant datum that you fail to report.
My post speeks for itself, anyways you want to look at is your derogative.
Ok mr. wizzard, then can you tell us what all these people have in common?
Dr. John Christy, Professor of Atmospheric Science and Director of the Earth System Science Center at the University of Alabama * Dr. Philip Stott, Emeritus Professor of Biogeography, University of London * Dr. Paul Reiter, IPCC & Pasteur Instititue, Paris * Dr. Roy Spencer, Principle Research Scientist University of Alabama * Dr. Patrick Michaels, Department of Environmental Science, University of Virginia * Dr. Syun-lchi Akasofu, Director, International Arctic Research Center * Dr. Fredrick Singer, First Director, U.S. National Weather Satellite Service * Dr. Richard Lindzen, IPCC & Massachusetts Institute of Technology (M.I.T.) * Dr. Tim Ball, Former Professor of Climatology, University of Winnepeg * Dr. Niz Shaviv, Professor of Physics, Hebrew University of Jerusalem * Dr. Ian Clark, Professor Department of Earth Sciences, Univertisy of Ottawa * Dr. Patrick Moore, co-founder of Green Peace * Dr. Paul Driessen, author of Eco-Imperalism: Green Power Black Death
PSSSSSTTT
Here's a hint, they're hiding her:
Another perspective to Global Warming
So why don't you address the points I made :-
The same site was showing throughout the summer that the sea ice levels were at record lows - that is the relevant datum that you fail to report.
My post speeks for itself, anyways you want to look at is your derogative.
Ok mr. wizzard, then can you tell us what all these people have in common?
Dr. John Christy, Professor of Atmospheric Science and Director of the Earth System Science Center at the University of Alabama * Dr. Philip Stott, Emeritus Professor of Biogeography, University of London * Dr. Paul Reiter, IPCC & Pasteur Instititue, Paris * Dr. Roy Spencer, Principle Research Scientist University of Alabama * Dr. Patrick Michaels, Department of Environmental Science, University of Virginia * Dr. Syun-lchi Akasofu, Director, International Arctic Research Center * Dr. Fredrick Singer, First Director, U.S. National Weather Satellite Service * Dr. Richard Lindzen, IPCC & Massachusetts Institute of Technology (M.I.T.) * Dr. Tim Ball, Former Professor of Climatology, University of Winnepeg * Dr. Niz Shaviv, Professor of Physics, Hebrew University of Jerusalem * Dr. Ian Clark, Professor Department of Earth Sciences, Univertisy of Ottawa * Dr. Patrick Moore, co-founder of Green Peace * Dr. Paul Driessen, author of Eco-Imperalism: Green Power Black Death
PSSSSSTTT
Here's a hint, they're hiding her:
Another perspective to Global Warming
"If America Was A Tree, The Left Would Root For The Termites...Greg Gutfeld."
Just in case you thought Climate Change had gone away
BTS;1159232 wrote: My post speeks for itself, anyways you want to look at is your derogative.
Ok mr. wizzard, then can you tell us what all these people have in common?
Dr. John Christy, Professor of Atmospheric Science and Director of the Earth System Science Center at the University of Alabama * Dr. Philip Stott, Emeritus Professor of Biogeography, University of London * Dr. Paul Reiter, IPCC & Pasteur Instititue, Paris * Dr. Roy Spencer, Principle Research Scientist University of Alabama * Dr. Patrick Michaels, Department of Environmental Science, University of Virginia * Dr. Syun-lchi Akasofu, Director, International Arctic Research Center * Dr. Fredrick Singer, First Director, U.S. National Weather Satellite Service * Dr. Richard Lindzen, IPCC & Massachusetts Institute of Technology (M.I.T.) * Dr. Tim Ball, Former Professor of Climatology, University of Winnepeg * Dr. Niz Shaviv, Professor of Physics, Hebrew University of Jerusalem * Dr. Ian Clark, Professor Department of Earth Sciences, Univertisy of Ottawa * Dr. Patrick Moore, co-founder of Green Peace * Dr. Paul Driessen, author of Eco-Imperalism: Green Power Black Death
PSSSSSTTT
Here's a hint, they're hiding her:
Another perspective to Global Warming
First off, would you care to show me where my post is derogatory?
Second up, would you care to answer the points I've raised?
Once you've dealt with the subject at hand I'll respond to your non-sequitur.
Ok mr. wizzard, then can you tell us what all these people have in common?
Dr. John Christy, Professor of Atmospheric Science and Director of the Earth System Science Center at the University of Alabama * Dr. Philip Stott, Emeritus Professor of Biogeography, University of London * Dr. Paul Reiter, IPCC & Pasteur Instititue, Paris * Dr. Roy Spencer, Principle Research Scientist University of Alabama * Dr. Patrick Michaels, Department of Environmental Science, University of Virginia * Dr. Syun-lchi Akasofu, Director, International Arctic Research Center * Dr. Fredrick Singer, First Director, U.S. National Weather Satellite Service * Dr. Richard Lindzen, IPCC & Massachusetts Institute of Technology (M.I.T.) * Dr. Tim Ball, Former Professor of Climatology, University of Winnepeg * Dr. Niz Shaviv, Professor of Physics, Hebrew University of Jerusalem * Dr. Ian Clark, Professor Department of Earth Sciences, Univertisy of Ottawa * Dr. Patrick Moore, co-founder of Green Peace * Dr. Paul Driessen, author of Eco-Imperalism: Green Power Black Death
PSSSSSTTT
Here's a hint, they're hiding her:
Another perspective to Global Warming
First off, would you care to show me where my post is derogatory?
Second up, would you care to answer the points I've raised?
Once you've dealt with the subject at hand I'll respond to your non-sequitur.
Just in case you thought Climate Change had gone away
Galbally;1157101 wrote: Milkennie, understand this, you cannot eat money, and you cannot argue with the ocean, it doesn't care about the human economy, neither does the soil or the water or the air.
I am not an economist, I don't know what to do about the economy, but I do know that if we don't wake up very soon indeed now, economics won't matter anymore.
What is the economy anyway? Its a just an academic measure of how we use the resources we have to feed, clothe, and house ourselves, its based on what we have and what we do with what we have. But what's the single most important resource we have? Land and water to grow food, always has been, always will be, if we screw with that we are gone, and we are screwing with it mightily now.
We have a short window of opportunity to start thinking about what we value, our standard of living, or our biological future as a species, its that simple.
That was supposed to be sarcasm….
I think that this economic situation is a great foundation for our leaders who actually have vision to take us in a new direction if they have the political will. All of this recapitalization and hand outs of money to banks and corporations should be with the governance that the money is used to further develop and implement new renewable energy.
I am not an economist, I don't know what to do about the economy, but I do know that if we don't wake up very soon indeed now, economics won't matter anymore.
What is the economy anyway? Its a just an academic measure of how we use the resources we have to feed, clothe, and house ourselves, its based on what we have and what we do with what we have. But what's the single most important resource we have? Land and water to grow food, always has been, always will be, if we screw with that we are gone, and we are screwing with it mightily now.
We have a short window of opportunity to start thinking about what we value, our standard of living, or our biological future as a species, its that simple.
That was supposed to be sarcasm….
I think that this economic situation is a great foundation for our leaders who actually have vision to take us in a new direction if they have the political will. All of this recapitalization and hand outs of money to banks and corporations should be with the governance that the money is used to further develop and implement new renewable energy.
Just in case you thought Climate Change had gone away
Bryn Mawr;1157223 wrote: So start a thread about it - OK?
It was sarcasm.
It was sarcasm.
Just in case you thought Climate Change had gone away
mikeinie;1159365 wrote: It was sarcasm.
Then I apologise for not recognising it
Seriously, there are too many people who try to derail any discussion about the climate with such irrelevances that I reacted to just another sidetrack. I'll think a little longer before replying in future.
Then I apologise for not recognising it
Seriously, there are too many people who try to derail any discussion about the climate with such irrelevances that I reacted to just another sidetrack. I'll think a little longer before replying in future.
-
Clodhopper
- Posts: 5115
- Joined: Mon Feb 25, 2008 5:11 pm
Just in case you thought Climate Change had gone away
Thankyou for posting this, Galbally - terrifying though it is.
I for one take this very, very seriously. I think one reason so many people are refusing to accept the evidence is that it is so utterly scary. Billions dead...
BTS: What is your agenda? Why are you posting unconvincing and misleading data on an issue that decides the life or death of your children or grandchildren? Climate change is real, and the most serious emergency the species has faced in all recorded history.
I for one take this very, very seriously. I think one reason so many people are refusing to accept the evidence is that it is so utterly scary. Billions dead...
BTS: What is your agenda? Why are you posting unconvincing and misleading data on an issue that decides the life or death of your children or grandchildren? Climate change is real, and the most serious emergency the species has faced in all recorded history.
The crowd: "Yes! We are all individuals!"
Lone voice: "I'm not."
Lone voice: "I'm not."
Just in case you thought Climate Change had gone away
Clodhopper;1159564 wrote: Thankyou for posting this, Galbally - terrifying though it is.
I for one take this very, very seriously. I think one reason so many people are refusing to accept the evidence is that it is so utterly scary. Billions dead...
BTS: What is your agenda? Why are you posting unconvincing and misleading data on an issue that decides the life or death of your children or grandchildren? Climate change is real, and the most serious emergency the species has faced in all recorded history.
Quiet in here, ain't it?
I for one take this very, very seriously. I think one reason so many people are refusing to accept the evidence is that it is so utterly scary. Billions dead...
BTS: What is your agenda? Why are you posting unconvincing and misleading data on an issue that decides the life or death of your children or grandchildren? Climate change is real, and the most serious emergency the species has faced in all recorded history.
Quiet in here, ain't it?
-
Clodhopper
- Posts: 5115
- Joined: Mon Feb 25, 2008 5:11 pm
Just in case you thought Climate Change had gone away
Quiet in here, ain't it?
Yeah.
Partly, I think, because we have no experience of this sort of thing. Our parents and grandparents faced World Wars, but we have faced no truly serious crisis in my lifetime and complacency is a part of it, but mostly I think it is that we just don't know how to react or what to do.
I am a bit concerned about what the panic will be like when it finally sinks in that this is REAL, and not some conspiracy by the scientists to get funding, but the important thing is that it DOES sink in.
Yeah.
Partly, I think, because we have no experience of this sort of thing. Our parents and grandparents faced World Wars, but we have faced no truly serious crisis in my lifetime and complacency is a part of it, but mostly I think it is that we just don't know how to react or what to do.
I am a bit concerned about what the panic will be like when it finally sinks in that this is REAL, and not some conspiracy by the scientists to get funding, but the important thing is that it DOES sink in.
The crowd: "Yes! We are all individuals!"
Lone voice: "I'm not."
Lone voice: "I'm not."
-
TruthBringer
- Posts: 3567
- Joined: Sat Feb 11, 2006 5:39 pm
Just in case you thought Climate Change had gone away
Many scientists have also started to look into the possibility that the Sun may be going through one of it's many different cycles and that in turn it is also causing the warming of the planet at the same time.
This is a theory that should not be discounted. Carbon tax on the people of the World will only infuriate us even further and put extra strain on our lives even more. Not coming up with alternative solutions and alternative energy sources will only cause us to be even more skeptical of the motives behind the global warming scam...I mean theory.
I'll try to look into some of this further so I can at least present another theory that seems to be gaining more ground as to what may be causing the rapid climate change that we are experiencing. I don't see how a carbon tax will solve the problems anyways. It doesn't remove the problems behind the theory, it only attempts (the key word is attempts) to reduce their effects. And someone, some group of entities, MUST be seeking to get rich off of all the revenue that carbon taxes would generate.
To find out who is the group seeking to profit once again off of all of us, we would only have to follow the money trail. The money trail always leads to the source who has created it.
Look folks even if you don't believe that some organization wishes to make an enormous profit off of carbon taxes on the World, the fact of the matter is that there is no denying that some organization definately will. And so therefore the only question left for all of us to ask ourselves, is just who would that organization be?
This is a theory that should not be discounted. Carbon tax on the people of the World will only infuriate us even further and put extra strain on our lives even more. Not coming up with alternative solutions and alternative energy sources will only cause us to be even more skeptical of the motives behind the global warming scam...I mean theory.
I'll try to look into some of this further so I can at least present another theory that seems to be gaining more ground as to what may be causing the rapid climate change that we are experiencing. I don't see how a carbon tax will solve the problems anyways. It doesn't remove the problems behind the theory, it only attempts (the key word is attempts) to reduce their effects. And someone, some group of entities, MUST be seeking to get rich off of all the revenue that carbon taxes would generate.
To find out who is the group seeking to profit once again off of all of us, we would only have to follow the money trail. The money trail always leads to the source who has created it.
Look folks even if you don't believe that some organization wishes to make an enormous profit off of carbon taxes on the World, the fact of the matter is that there is no denying that some organization definately will. And so therefore the only question left for all of us to ask ourselves, is just who would that organization be?
Link removed by moderator
-
Clodhopper
- Posts: 5115
- Joined: Mon Feb 25, 2008 5:11 pm
Just in case you thought Climate Change had gone away
Truthbringer: This seems to me to be the problem: you are so cynical that you can only see a conspiracy theory. There is no conspiracy - it is the considered opinion, backed up by 40 years research, of at least 2500 scientists from over 80 countries (at Copenhagen).
It is very simple: Climate Change is real and getting worse. If we don't act the planet WILL become uninhabitable by most life, including humans.
I believe the scientists. It is simply too dangerous not to.
It is very simple: Climate Change is real and getting worse. If we don't act the planet WILL become uninhabitable by most life, including humans.
I believe the scientists. It is simply too dangerous not to.
The crowd: "Yes! We are all individuals!"
Lone voice: "I'm not."
Lone voice: "I'm not."
Just in case you thought Climate Change had gone away
TruthBringer;1159784 wrote: Many scientists have also started to look into the possibility that the Sun may be going through one of it's many different cycles and that in turn it is also causing the warming of the planet at the same time.
This is a theory that should not be discounted. Carbon tax on the people of the World will only infuriate us even further and put extra strain on our lives even more. Not coming up with alternative solutions and alternative energy sources will only cause us to be even more skeptical of the motives behind the global warming scam...I mean theory.
I'll try to look into some of this further so I can at least present another theory that seems to be gaining more ground as to what may be causing the rapid climate change that we are experiencing. I don't see how a carbon tax will solve the problems anyways. It doesn't remove the problems behind the theory, it only attempts (the key word is attempts) to reduce their effects. And someone, some group of entities, MUST be seeking to get rich off of all the revenue that carbon taxes would generate.
To find out who is the group seeking to profit once again off of all of us, we would only have to follow the money trail. The money trail always leads to the source who has created it.
Look folks even if you don't believe that some organization wishes to make an enormous profit off of carbon taxes on the World, the fact of the matter is that there is no denying that some organization definately will. And so therefore the only question left for all of us to ask ourselves, is just who would that organization be?
The fact that the sun is, and will remain the single greatest influence on all life on planet earth is not something that has been overlooked. It has been looked at and discounted as the driver behind whats happening with CO2 levels (which are clearly the result of human-sourced emssions) and the rises in global average temperatures (which are cleary the result of these CO2 levels, read the Arhennius equation, he was the first guy who worked out the link between CO2 and the greenhouse effect in 1906), thats the actual scientific fact. Neither has the fact that massive climate disruption (leading to a new climatic equilibrium) has occurred at many times in the past gone unnoticed by scientists (whose job it is to think about these things). Those arguments are about 20 years out of date, we had them in science in the 1980s.
Almost invariably these climate disruption events lead to a completely different planet, and a subsequent mass extinctions of all large land and sea animals adapted to the older climatic equilibrium, as they are usually the least capable of adapting to abrupt changes. In case your wondering, we are a large land mammals, we inhabit the top of the food chain across all continents now (excluding antartica) and we are utterly dependent on the current climate to maintain the very comfortable civilization we enjoy, as well as course as the massive population of human beings on the planet now.
The position is simple, human civilization has produced enormous quantities of CO2 in the past 150 years and put it up into the atmosphere, at the same time the measured levels of CO2 in the atmosphere have gone from 270ppm to about 390ppm and probably higher now as emissions of CO2 are actually increasing every year as China and India etc industrialize and the world "economy" grows, we are projected to go over the 450 ppm now by 2020 or 2025 and I was taught years ago that this was the point of no return, now its being called "The best case scenario".
It looks to me from the evidence of the past 5-8 years that we are already into a very serious and rapidly accelerating destabilizaion of the climate, and our ability to make any useful assessment of what is going to happen next (other than its going to be unpleasant and dramatic) is becomming less and less useful every year. Anyone with a scientific education will realize that once things start moving so rapidly that you cannot make any clear risk assessment, let alone mitigation policy, then you are already in the crisis, not hovering before it.
It is a frightening thought that we may not have very long left now before this stuff really starts to kick in, and kicks in in ways that will probably not be what we are expecting or prepared for. Still, that is where we are, its the reality, and for better or worse if your under 40 then your probably personally going to find out what the result of this big uncontrolled climate experiment is going to lead to for humanity.
This is a theory that should not be discounted. Carbon tax on the people of the World will only infuriate us even further and put extra strain on our lives even more. Not coming up with alternative solutions and alternative energy sources will only cause us to be even more skeptical of the motives behind the global warming scam...I mean theory.
I'll try to look into some of this further so I can at least present another theory that seems to be gaining more ground as to what may be causing the rapid climate change that we are experiencing. I don't see how a carbon tax will solve the problems anyways. It doesn't remove the problems behind the theory, it only attempts (the key word is attempts) to reduce their effects. And someone, some group of entities, MUST be seeking to get rich off of all the revenue that carbon taxes would generate.
To find out who is the group seeking to profit once again off of all of us, we would only have to follow the money trail. The money trail always leads to the source who has created it.
Look folks even if you don't believe that some organization wishes to make an enormous profit off of carbon taxes on the World, the fact of the matter is that there is no denying that some organization definately will. And so therefore the only question left for all of us to ask ourselves, is just who would that organization be?
The fact that the sun is, and will remain the single greatest influence on all life on planet earth is not something that has been overlooked. It has been looked at and discounted as the driver behind whats happening with CO2 levels (which are clearly the result of human-sourced emssions) and the rises in global average temperatures (which are cleary the result of these CO2 levels, read the Arhennius equation, he was the first guy who worked out the link between CO2 and the greenhouse effect in 1906), thats the actual scientific fact. Neither has the fact that massive climate disruption (leading to a new climatic equilibrium) has occurred at many times in the past gone unnoticed by scientists (whose job it is to think about these things). Those arguments are about 20 years out of date, we had them in science in the 1980s.
Almost invariably these climate disruption events lead to a completely different planet, and a subsequent mass extinctions of all large land and sea animals adapted to the older climatic equilibrium, as they are usually the least capable of adapting to abrupt changes. In case your wondering, we are a large land mammals, we inhabit the top of the food chain across all continents now (excluding antartica) and we are utterly dependent on the current climate to maintain the very comfortable civilization we enjoy, as well as course as the massive population of human beings on the planet now.
The position is simple, human civilization has produced enormous quantities of CO2 in the past 150 years and put it up into the atmosphere, at the same time the measured levels of CO2 in the atmosphere have gone from 270ppm to about 390ppm and probably higher now as emissions of CO2 are actually increasing every year as China and India etc industrialize and the world "economy" grows, we are projected to go over the 450 ppm now by 2020 or 2025 and I was taught years ago that this was the point of no return, now its being called "The best case scenario".
It looks to me from the evidence of the past 5-8 years that we are already into a very serious and rapidly accelerating destabilizaion of the climate, and our ability to make any useful assessment of what is going to happen next (other than its going to be unpleasant and dramatic) is becomming less and less useful every year. Anyone with a scientific education will realize that once things start moving so rapidly that you cannot make any clear risk assessment, let alone mitigation policy, then you are already in the crisis, not hovering before it.
It is a frightening thought that we may not have very long left now before this stuff really starts to kick in, and kicks in in ways that will probably not be what we are expecting or prepared for. Still, that is where we are, its the reality, and for better or worse if your under 40 then your probably personally going to find out what the result of this big uncontrolled climate experiment is going to lead to for humanity.
"We are never so happy, never so unhappy, as we imagine"
Le Rochefoucauld.
"A smack in the face settles all arguments, then you can move on kid."
My dad 1986.
Le Rochefoucauld.
"A smack in the face settles all arguments, then you can move on kid."
My dad 1986.
-
TruthBringer
- Posts: 3567
- Joined: Sat Feb 11, 2006 5:39 pm
Just in case you thought Climate Change had gone away
Clodhopper;1159801 wrote: Truthbringer: This seems to me to be the problem: you are so cynical that you can only see a conspiracy theory. There is no conspiracy - it is the considered opinion, backed up by 40 years research, of at least 2500 scientists from over 80 countries (at Copenhagen).
It is very simple: Climate Change is real and getting worse. If we don't act the planet WILL become uninhabitable by most life, including humans.
I believe the scientists. It is simply too dangerous not to.
I don't deny that Climate Change is happening. I deny that Global Warming is the cause.
I believe it is the Sun that is causing these problems. And the conspiracy part of this problem creates itself when the point of taxing the world with a carbon tax is for someone to get rich off of all those taxes.
It is very simple: Climate Change is real and getting worse. If we don't act the planet WILL become uninhabitable by most life, including humans.
I believe the scientists. It is simply too dangerous not to.
I don't deny that Climate Change is happening. I deny that Global Warming is the cause.
I believe it is the Sun that is causing these problems. And the conspiracy part of this problem creates itself when the point of taxing the world with a carbon tax is for someone to get rich off of all those taxes.
Link removed by moderator
-
TruthBringer
- Posts: 3567
- Joined: Sat Feb 11, 2006 5:39 pm
Just in case you thought Climate Change had gone away
Army: Sun, Not Man, Is Causing Climate Change
By Noah Shachtman June 03, 2008
The Army is weighing in on the global warming debate, claiming that climate change is not entirely man-made. Instead, Dr. Bruce West, with the Army Research Office, argues that "changes in the earth’s average surface temperature are directly linked to ... the short-term statistical fluctuations in the Sun’s irradiance and the longer-term solar cycles."
In an advisory to bloggers entitled "Global Warming: Fact of Fiction [sic]," an Army public affairs official promoted a conference call with West about "the causes of global warming, and how it may not be caused by the common indicates [sic] some scientists and the media are indicating."
In the March, 2008 issue of Physics Today, West, the chief scientist of the Army Research Office's mathematical and information science directorate, wrote that "the Sun’s turbulent dynamics" are linked with the Earth's complex ecosystem. These connections are what is heating up the planet. "The Sun could account for as much as 69 percent of the increase in Earth’s average temperature," West noted.
It's a position that puts West at odds with nearly every major scientific organization on the planet. "The American Meteorological Society, the American Geophysical Union, and the American Association for the Advancement of Science all have issued statements in recent years concluding that the evidence for human modification of climate is compelling," Science magazine observes. So has the United Nations' Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), which shared the 2007 Nobel Peace Prize with Al Gore, for their work on global warming. [UPDATE: West himself said during a Thursday conference call that global warming is at least partially man-made -- and maybe as much as 70 percent due to human intervention.]
West faults the IPCC and other scientific groups have "conclude[d] that the contribution of solar variability to global warming is negligible." He argues that these groups have done a poor job modeling the Sun's impact, however, and that's why they have "significantly over-estimated" the "anthropogenic contribution to global warming."
In recent days, the science and politics of climate change have once again taken center stage. NASA's Inspector General just issued a report, acknowledging that political appointees "reduced, marginalized or mischaracterized climate change science made available to the general public." Yesterday, the Senate began debating a bill that would cap carbon dioxide emissions -- considered one of the leading causes of man-made global warming.
UPDATE: "The Army does not have a position on global warming. Dr. West is an Army chief scientist, and is presenting one alternative theory to the cause of global warming," Army spokesperson Lindy Dinklage tells Danger Room. "This research is just some amongst thousands of studies being conducted by Army Scientists across the globe."
Okay. But the Army's Office of the Chief of Public Affairs chose to promote just this one study. And when Army public affairs rolls out research from an Army chief scientist -- with no clarifications that these are just his private views -- I think it's fair to call that an official endorsement.
After the jump: the Army's full press release.
Army: Sun, Not Man, Is Causing Climate Change (Updated) | Danger Room from Wired.com
By Noah Shachtman June 03, 2008
The Army is weighing in on the global warming debate, claiming that climate change is not entirely man-made. Instead, Dr. Bruce West, with the Army Research Office, argues that "changes in the earth’s average surface temperature are directly linked to ... the short-term statistical fluctuations in the Sun’s irradiance and the longer-term solar cycles."
In an advisory to bloggers entitled "Global Warming: Fact of Fiction [sic]," an Army public affairs official promoted a conference call with West about "the causes of global warming, and how it may not be caused by the common indicates [sic] some scientists and the media are indicating."
In the March, 2008 issue of Physics Today, West, the chief scientist of the Army Research Office's mathematical and information science directorate, wrote that "the Sun’s turbulent dynamics" are linked with the Earth's complex ecosystem. These connections are what is heating up the planet. "The Sun could account for as much as 69 percent of the increase in Earth’s average temperature," West noted.
It's a position that puts West at odds with nearly every major scientific organization on the planet. "The American Meteorological Society, the American Geophysical Union, and the American Association for the Advancement of Science all have issued statements in recent years concluding that the evidence for human modification of climate is compelling," Science magazine observes. So has the United Nations' Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), which shared the 2007 Nobel Peace Prize with Al Gore, for their work on global warming. [UPDATE: West himself said during a Thursday conference call that global warming is at least partially man-made -- and maybe as much as 70 percent due to human intervention.]
West faults the IPCC and other scientific groups have "conclude[d] that the contribution of solar variability to global warming is negligible." He argues that these groups have done a poor job modeling the Sun's impact, however, and that's why they have "significantly over-estimated" the "anthropogenic contribution to global warming."
In recent days, the science and politics of climate change have once again taken center stage. NASA's Inspector General just issued a report, acknowledging that political appointees "reduced, marginalized or mischaracterized climate change science made available to the general public." Yesterday, the Senate began debating a bill that would cap carbon dioxide emissions -- considered one of the leading causes of man-made global warming.
UPDATE: "The Army does not have a position on global warming. Dr. West is an Army chief scientist, and is presenting one alternative theory to the cause of global warming," Army spokesperson Lindy Dinklage tells Danger Room. "This research is just some amongst thousands of studies being conducted by Army Scientists across the globe."
Okay. But the Army's Office of the Chief of Public Affairs chose to promote just this one study. And when Army public affairs rolls out research from an Army chief scientist -- with no clarifications that these are just his private views -- I think it's fair to call that an official endorsement.
After the jump: the Army's full press release.
Army: Sun, Not Man, Is Causing Climate Change (Updated) | Danger Room from Wired.com
Link removed by moderator
-
TruthBringer
- Posts: 3567
- Joined: Sat Feb 11, 2006 5:39 pm
Just in case you thought Climate Change had gone away
Canadian climatologist says sun causing global warming
By Dennis T. Avery
web posted July 9, 2007
Another scientist has added his voice to the Global Warming debate. Canadian climatologist Tim Patterson says the sun drives the earth's climate changes—and Earth's current global warming is a direct result of a long, moderate 1,500-year cycle in the sun's irradiance.
Patterson says he learned of the 1,500-year climate cycle while studying cycles in fish numbers on Canada's West Coast. Since the Canadian West had no long-term written fishery records, Patterson's research team drilled sediment cores in the deep local fjords to get 5,000-year climate profiles from the mud. The mud showed the past climate conditions: Warm summers left layers thick with one-celled fossils and fish scales. Cold, wet periods showed dark sediments, mostly dirt washed from the surrounding land.
Patterson's fishing profiles clearly revealed the sun's 87 and 210-year solar cycles—and the longer, 1500-year Dansgaard-Oeschger cycles found since the 1980s in ice cores, tree rings, and fossil pollen.
"Our finding of a direct correlation between variations in the brightness of the sun and earthly climate indicators is not unique," says the climatologist from Carleton University. "Hundreds of other studies, using proxies from tree rings in Russia's Kola Peninsula to water levels of the Nile, show exactly the same thing: The sun appears to drive climate change."
But there was a problem. By themselves, the variations in solar irradiation were too small to account for the big variations his research team found in the Canadian fish catches.
"Even though the sun is brighter now than at any time in the past 8,000 years, the increase in direct solar input is not calculated to be sufficient to cause the past century's modest warming on its own. There had to be an amplifier of some sort for the sun to be a primary driver of climate changes. Indeed, that is precisely what has been discovered," says Patterson.
"In a series of groundbreaking scientific papers starting in 2000, Vizer, Shaviv, Carslaw and most recently Svensmark et al., have collectively demonstrated that as the output of the sun varies . . . varying amounts of galactic cosmic rays from deep space are able to enter our solar system. . . . These cosmic rays enhance cloud formation, which, overall, has a cooling effect on the planet."
"When the sun is less bright, more cosmic rays are able to get through to Earth's atmosphere, more clouds form and the planet cools. . . . This is precisely what happened from the middle of the 17th century into the early 18th century, when the solar energy input to our atmosphere . . . was at a minimum and the planet was stuck in the Little Ice Age."
The Canadian expert concludes, "CO2 variations show little correlation with our planet's climate on long, medium and even short time scales." Instead, Earth's sea surface temperatures show a massive 95 percent lagged correlation with the sunspot index.
Patterson says climate change is the most complex field we've ever studied. He notes that a 2003 German poll of 530 scientists from 27 countries found two-thirds of the respondents doubted that "the current state of scientific knowledge is developed well enough to allow for a reasonable assessment of the effects of greenhouse gases."
Attempting to stop global warming with the Kyoto Protocol, he warns, could be as useless as King Canute commanding the tides to cease. ESR
Dennis T. Avery was a senior policy analyst for the U.S. State Department, where he won the National Intelligence Medal of Achievement. He is the co-author, with atmospheric physicist Fred Singer, of the book, Unstoppable Global Warming—Every 1500 Years, available from Rowman & Littlefield. Readers may write him at the Center for Global Food Issues Post Office Box 202, Churchville, VA 24421.
http://www.enterstageright.com/archive/ ... 7sungw.htm
By Dennis T. Avery
web posted July 9, 2007
Another scientist has added his voice to the Global Warming debate. Canadian climatologist Tim Patterson says the sun drives the earth's climate changes—and Earth's current global warming is a direct result of a long, moderate 1,500-year cycle in the sun's irradiance.
Patterson says he learned of the 1,500-year climate cycle while studying cycles in fish numbers on Canada's West Coast. Since the Canadian West had no long-term written fishery records, Patterson's research team drilled sediment cores in the deep local fjords to get 5,000-year climate profiles from the mud. The mud showed the past climate conditions: Warm summers left layers thick with one-celled fossils and fish scales. Cold, wet periods showed dark sediments, mostly dirt washed from the surrounding land.
Patterson's fishing profiles clearly revealed the sun's 87 and 210-year solar cycles—and the longer, 1500-year Dansgaard-Oeschger cycles found since the 1980s in ice cores, tree rings, and fossil pollen.
"Our finding of a direct correlation between variations in the brightness of the sun and earthly climate indicators is not unique," says the climatologist from Carleton University. "Hundreds of other studies, using proxies from tree rings in Russia's Kola Peninsula to water levels of the Nile, show exactly the same thing: The sun appears to drive climate change."
But there was a problem. By themselves, the variations in solar irradiation were too small to account for the big variations his research team found in the Canadian fish catches.
"Even though the sun is brighter now than at any time in the past 8,000 years, the increase in direct solar input is not calculated to be sufficient to cause the past century's modest warming on its own. There had to be an amplifier of some sort for the sun to be a primary driver of climate changes. Indeed, that is precisely what has been discovered," says Patterson.
"In a series of groundbreaking scientific papers starting in 2000, Vizer, Shaviv, Carslaw and most recently Svensmark et al., have collectively demonstrated that as the output of the sun varies . . . varying amounts of galactic cosmic rays from deep space are able to enter our solar system. . . . These cosmic rays enhance cloud formation, which, overall, has a cooling effect on the planet."
"When the sun is less bright, more cosmic rays are able to get through to Earth's atmosphere, more clouds form and the planet cools. . . . This is precisely what happened from the middle of the 17th century into the early 18th century, when the solar energy input to our atmosphere . . . was at a minimum and the planet was stuck in the Little Ice Age."
The Canadian expert concludes, "CO2 variations show little correlation with our planet's climate on long, medium and even short time scales." Instead, Earth's sea surface temperatures show a massive 95 percent lagged correlation with the sunspot index.
Patterson says climate change is the most complex field we've ever studied. He notes that a 2003 German poll of 530 scientists from 27 countries found two-thirds of the respondents doubted that "the current state of scientific knowledge is developed well enough to allow for a reasonable assessment of the effects of greenhouse gases."
Attempting to stop global warming with the Kyoto Protocol, he warns, could be as useless as King Canute commanding the tides to cease. ESR
Dennis T. Avery was a senior policy analyst for the U.S. State Department, where he won the National Intelligence Medal of Achievement. He is the co-author, with atmospheric physicist Fred Singer, of the book, Unstoppable Global Warming—Every 1500 Years, available from Rowman & Littlefield. Readers may write him at the Center for Global Food Issues Post Office Box 202, Churchville, VA 24421.
http://www.enterstageright.com/archive/ ... 7sungw.htm
Link removed by moderator
-
TruthBringer
- Posts: 3567
- Joined: Sat Feb 11, 2006 5:39 pm
Just in case you thought Climate Change had gone away
Is The Sun Causing Global Warming?
Recently, a documentary aired on the UK's Channel 4, entitled 'The Great Global Warming Swindle', which challenged the prevailing political understanding that global warming is caused by man-made activity.
The movie argues that it is in fact the sun that is responsible for the current changes in the Earth's temperature and the film is riddled with the testimony of many scientists and climate experts, furthering a growing dissent to the man-made theory. After all, that's all it is, a theory. As soon as people start to state that 'the debate is over', beware, because the fundamental basis of all sciences is that debate is never over, that questions must be asked and answered and issues raised in order for the science to be accurate.
So what exactly are the arguments behind the Sun being the main cause of global warming?
First off, it is very important to address the fact that Earth is not the only planet to be experiencing climate change in our solar system currently. In fact, many astronomers have announced that Pluto has been experiencing global warming, and suggested that it is a seasonal event, just like how Earth's seasons change as the various hemispheres alter their inclination to the Sun. We must remember that it is the Sun that determines our seasons, and thusly has a greater impact upon the climate than we could ever even try to achieve.
In May of 2006, a report came forward revealing that a massive hurricane-like storm that occurred on Jupiter may be caused by climate change occurring on the planet, which is expected to raise its temperatures by 10 degrees. National Geographic News reported that a simultaneous rising in temperature on both Mars and Earth suggest that climate change is indeed a natural phenomenon as opposed to being man-made.
The report further explains how NASA has reported that Mars' carbon dioxide ice caps have been melting for a few years now. Sound familiar? An astronomical observatory in Russia declared that, 'the Mars data is evidence that the current global warming on Earth is being caused by changes in the sun'. They further point out that both Mars and Earth have, throughout their histories, experienced periodic ice ages as climate changes in a continuous fashion. NASA has also been observing massive storms on Saturn, which indicate a climate change occurring on that planet as well.
NASA's Hubble Space Telescope has also been recording massive climate changes on Neptune's largest moon, Triton. Triton, whose surface was once made up of frozen nitrogen, is now turning into gas. The Associated Press has reported that satellites that measure the temperature of sunlight have been recording an increase in the sun's temperature, meaning that the sun itself is warming up.
Even the London Telegraph reported in 2004 that global warming was due to the sun being hotter than it has ever been in the past 1,000 years. They cited this information from research conducted by German and Swiss scientists who claim that it is increasing radiation from the sun that is resulting in our current climate change.
Olivier Chenet, a leading French scientist, who was among the first scientists to try to warn people of the dangers of global warming 20 years ago, now believes that 'increasing evidence indicates that most of the warming comes of natural phenomena'. Allegre said, "There is no basis for saying, as most do, that the "science is settled."
He is convinced that global warming is a natural change and sees the threat of the 'great dangers' that it supposedly poses as being bloated and highly exaggerated. Also recently, the President of the Czech Republic, Vaclav Klaus said, when discussing the recent ruling by the UN Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), that global warming is man-made, '"Global warming is a false myth and every serious person and scientist says so".
It is not fair to refer to the U.N. panel. IPCC is not a scientific institution: it's a political body, a sort of non-government organization of green flavor. It's neither a forum of neutral scientists nor a balanced group of scientists. These people are politicized scientists who arrive there with a one-sided opinion and a one-sided assignment. And if you are about to ask why no politicians here seem to be saying this, Klaus offered up an answer, "Other top-level politicians do not express their global warming doubts because a whip of political correctness strangles their voice".
Rob Browne, the former editor of New Scientist, wrote an article in the UK Sunday Times, in which he stated, "When politicians and journalists declare that the science of global warming is settled, they show a regrettable ignorance about how science works." He further stated that, "Twenty years ago, climate research became politicised in favour of one particular hypothesis".
And in reference to how the media is representing those who dissent from the man-made theory he stated, 'they often imagine that anyone who doubts the hypothesis of man-made global warming must be in the pay of the oil companies', which is exactly what I believed up until I did my research. He also wrote, "Enthusiasm for the global-warming scare also ensures that heatwaves make headlines, while contrary symptoms, such as this winter's billion-dollar loss of Californian crops to unusual frost, are relegated to the business pages".
http://www.articlesbase.com/environment ... 99199.html
Recently, a documentary aired on the UK's Channel 4, entitled 'The Great Global Warming Swindle', which challenged the prevailing political understanding that global warming is caused by man-made activity.
The movie argues that it is in fact the sun that is responsible for the current changes in the Earth's temperature and the film is riddled with the testimony of many scientists and climate experts, furthering a growing dissent to the man-made theory. After all, that's all it is, a theory. As soon as people start to state that 'the debate is over', beware, because the fundamental basis of all sciences is that debate is never over, that questions must be asked and answered and issues raised in order for the science to be accurate.
So what exactly are the arguments behind the Sun being the main cause of global warming?
First off, it is very important to address the fact that Earth is not the only planet to be experiencing climate change in our solar system currently. In fact, many astronomers have announced that Pluto has been experiencing global warming, and suggested that it is a seasonal event, just like how Earth's seasons change as the various hemispheres alter their inclination to the Sun. We must remember that it is the Sun that determines our seasons, and thusly has a greater impact upon the climate than we could ever even try to achieve.
In May of 2006, a report came forward revealing that a massive hurricane-like storm that occurred on Jupiter may be caused by climate change occurring on the planet, which is expected to raise its temperatures by 10 degrees. National Geographic News reported that a simultaneous rising in temperature on both Mars and Earth suggest that climate change is indeed a natural phenomenon as opposed to being man-made.
The report further explains how NASA has reported that Mars' carbon dioxide ice caps have been melting for a few years now. Sound familiar? An astronomical observatory in Russia declared that, 'the Mars data is evidence that the current global warming on Earth is being caused by changes in the sun'. They further point out that both Mars and Earth have, throughout their histories, experienced periodic ice ages as climate changes in a continuous fashion. NASA has also been observing massive storms on Saturn, which indicate a climate change occurring on that planet as well.
NASA's Hubble Space Telescope has also been recording massive climate changes on Neptune's largest moon, Triton. Triton, whose surface was once made up of frozen nitrogen, is now turning into gas. The Associated Press has reported that satellites that measure the temperature of sunlight have been recording an increase in the sun's temperature, meaning that the sun itself is warming up.
Even the London Telegraph reported in 2004 that global warming was due to the sun being hotter than it has ever been in the past 1,000 years. They cited this information from research conducted by German and Swiss scientists who claim that it is increasing radiation from the sun that is resulting in our current climate change.
Olivier Chenet, a leading French scientist, who was among the first scientists to try to warn people of the dangers of global warming 20 years ago, now believes that 'increasing evidence indicates that most of the warming comes of natural phenomena'. Allegre said, "There is no basis for saying, as most do, that the "science is settled."
He is convinced that global warming is a natural change and sees the threat of the 'great dangers' that it supposedly poses as being bloated and highly exaggerated. Also recently, the President of the Czech Republic, Vaclav Klaus said, when discussing the recent ruling by the UN Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), that global warming is man-made, '"Global warming is a false myth and every serious person and scientist says so".
It is not fair to refer to the U.N. panel. IPCC is not a scientific institution: it's a political body, a sort of non-government organization of green flavor. It's neither a forum of neutral scientists nor a balanced group of scientists. These people are politicized scientists who arrive there with a one-sided opinion and a one-sided assignment. And if you are about to ask why no politicians here seem to be saying this, Klaus offered up an answer, "Other top-level politicians do not express their global warming doubts because a whip of political correctness strangles their voice".
Rob Browne, the former editor of New Scientist, wrote an article in the UK Sunday Times, in which he stated, "When politicians and journalists declare that the science of global warming is settled, they show a regrettable ignorance about how science works." He further stated that, "Twenty years ago, climate research became politicised in favour of one particular hypothesis".
And in reference to how the media is representing those who dissent from the man-made theory he stated, 'they often imagine that anyone who doubts the hypothesis of man-made global warming must be in the pay of the oil companies', which is exactly what I believed up until I did my research. He also wrote, "Enthusiasm for the global-warming scare also ensures that heatwaves make headlines, while contrary symptoms, such as this winter's billion-dollar loss of Californian crops to unusual frost, are relegated to the business pages".
http://www.articlesbase.com/environment ... 99199.html
Link removed by moderator
-
Clodhopper
- Posts: 5115
- Joined: Mon Feb 25, 2008 5:11 pm
Just in case you thought Climate Change had gone away
Thought this was a fascinating programme: An episode of Horizon.
http://http://www.bbc.co.uk/iplayer/epi ... _on_Earth/
Whether it is mainly the sun or not (and I don't deny that the sun may be involved) we still need a clean power source - and soon. Without it we're in trouble anyway. There is hope.
http://http://www.bbc.co.uk/iplayer/epi ... _on_Earth/
Whether it is mainly the sun or not (and I don't deny that the sun may be involved) we still need a clean power source - and soon. Without it we're in trouble anyway. There is hope.
The crowd: "Yes! We are all individuals!"
Lone voice: "I'm not."
Lone voice: "I'm not."
-
TruthBringer
- Posts: 3567
- Joined: Sat Feb 11, 2006 5:39 pm
Just in case you thought Climate Change had gone away
Sun Responsible for Global Warming
Monday, March 5, 2007 11:46 a.m. EST
Two new reports cast doubt on the manmade global warming theory and instead point to another cause for the recent warming of Earth — changes in the sun.
One report from National Geographic News asserts, "Simultaneous warming on Earth and Mars suggests that our planet’s recent climate changes have a natural — and not a human-induced — cause, according to one scientist’s controversial theory.â€
Data from NASA’s Mars Global Surveyor and Odyssey mission in 2005 disclosed that the carbon dioxide "ice caps†near Mars’ south pole had been shrinking for three consecutive summers.
Habibullo Abdussamatov, head of the Pulkovo Astronomical Observatory in Russia, says the shrinking provides evidence that the current warming on Earth is being caused by changes in the sun, according to the National Geographic article.
"The long-term increase in solar irradiance is heating both Earth and Mars,†he said. "Manmade greenhouse warming has made a small contribution to the warming seen on Earth in recent years but it cannot compete with the increase in solar irradiance.â€
The other report offers a mechanism behind the changes in the sun — variations in its magnetic field.
Compiled by scientists at the Danish National Space Center, it maintains that the Earth’s climate is strongly influenced by cosmic rays from exploded stars.
The cosmic rays help make ordinary clouds, and high levels of rays and cloudiness cool the planet, while lower levels of radiation lead to milder temperatures, according to the Danish report, which is cited by Marc Morano, communications director for the U.S. Senate Committee on Environment & Public Works, on the committee’s Web site.
"Cosmic ray intensities — and therefore cloudiness — keep changing because the sun’s magnetic field varies in its ability to repel cosmic rays coming from the galaxy before they reach the Earth,†the Danish report by Henrik Svensmark, head of the Space Center, explains.
Whenever the sun’s magnetic field was weak, cosmic ray intensities were high and the climate cooled, most recently in the little ice age that climaxed 300 years ago.
Several scientists cited in the report believe that changes in the Earth’s climate are linked to "the journey of the sun and the Earth through the Milky Way Galaxy. They blame the icehouse episodes on encounters with bright spiral arms, where cosmic rays are most intense.â€
Sun Responsible for Global Warming
Monday, March 5, 2007 11:46 a.m. EST
Two new reports cast doubt on the manmade global warming theory and instead point to another cause for the recent warming of Earth — changes in the sun.
One report from National Geographic News asserts, "Simultaneous warming on Earth and Mars suggests that our planet’s recent climate changes have a natural — and not a human-induced — cause, according to one scientist’s controversial theory.â€
Data from NASA’s Mars Global Surveyor and Odyssey mission in 2005 disclosed that the carbon dioxide "ice caps†near Mars’ south pole had been shrinking for three consecutive summers.
Habibullo Abdussamatov, head of the Pulkovo Astronomical Observatory in Russia, says the shrinking provides evidence that the current warming on Earth is being caused by changes in the sun, according to the National Geographic article.
"The long-term increase in solar irradiance is heating both Earth and Mars,†he said. "Manmade greenhouse warming has made a small contribution to the warming seen on Earth in recent years but it cannot compete with the increase in solar irradiance.â€
The other report offers a mechanism behind the changes in the sun — variations in its magnetic field.
Compiled by scientists at the Danish National Space Center, it maintains that the Earth’s climate is strongly influenced by cosmic rays from exploded stars.
The cosmic rays help make ordinary clouds, and high levels of rays and cloudiness cool the planet, while lower levels of radiation lead to milder temperatures, according to the Danish report, which is cited by Marc Morano, communications director for the U.S. Senate Committee on Environment & Public Works, on the committee’s Web site.
"Cosmic ray intensities — and therefore cloudiness — keep changing because the sun’s magnetic field varies in its ability to repel cosmic rays coming from the galaxy before they reach the Earth,†the Danish report by Henrik Svensmark, head of the Space Center, explains.
Whenever the sun’s magnetic field was weak, cosmic ray intensities were high and the climate cooled, most recently in the little ice age that climaxed 300 years ago.
Several scientists cited in the report believe that changes in the Earth’s climate are linked to "the journey of the sun and the Earth through the Milky Way Galaxy. They blame the icehouse episodes on encounters with bright spiral arms, where cosmic rays are most intense.â€
Sun Responsible for Global Warming
Link removed by moderator
-
TruthBringer
- Posts: 3567
- Joined: Sat Feb 11, 2006 5:39 pm
Just in case you thought Climate Change had gone away
Clodhopper;1160150 wrote: Thought this was a fascinating programme: An episode of Horizon.
http://http://www.bbc.co.uk/iplayer/epi ... _on_Earth/
Whether it is mainly the sun or not (and I don't deny that the sun may be involved) we still need a clean power source - and soon. Without it we're in trouble anyway. There is hope.
Agreed.
http://http://www.bbc.co.uk/iplayer/epi ... _on_Earth/
Whether it is mainly the sun or not (and I don't deny that the sun may be involved) we still need a clean power source - and soon. Without it we're in trouble anyway. There is hope.
Agreed.
Link removed by moderator
-
TruthBringer
- Posts: 3567
- Joined: Sat Feb 11, 2006 5:39 pm
Just in case you thought Climate Change had gone away
For those who saw Al Gore’s “documentaryâ€, it was very convincing of its hypothesis that global warming is a man-made phenomenon that has the potential to kill us all and end humanity. After all, the film was filled with graphs and charts, so it must be true. Let’s just get something straight here, Al Gore is not a climatologist, meteorologist, astronomer, or scientist of any kind; he is a politician. And as we all know, politicians always tell the truth. However, as Al Gore’s popularity grows and with his recent winning of an Academy Award for his movie, the issue has spiraled into massive push for quick action and stifled debate, forcing many scientists to speak out and challenge the political status quo. A group of scientists recently stated that the research behind Al Gore’s film and in fact, the concept of greenhouse gases causing global warming, is "a sham". They claim that in fact, there is very little evidence to prove that theory, and that the evidence actually points to an increase in solar activity being the cause of climate change. In Gore’s movie, he presented evidence that was found in the research done on ice core samples from Antarctica, which he claimed is proof for the theory of CO2 being the cause of rising temperatures. However, this group of scientists state that “warmer periods of the Earth's history came around 800 years before rises in carbon dioxide levelsâ€, meaning that a rise in Carbon Dioxide follows a rise in temperature, rather than increasing temperature following rising CO2 emissions. And not only that, but it follows behind the rise in temperature by about 800 years. The group also mentions that, “after the Second World War, there was a huge surge in carbon dioxide emissions, yet global temperatures fell for four decades after 1940.†They also claim that the report given by the UN, which said it was backed by over 2,000 of the worlds leading scientists, “was a ‘sham’ given that this list included the names of scientists who disagreed with its findings.â€
Timothy Ball, one of the first Canadian doctors in climatology, recently wrote an article addressing the issue of why no one seems to be listening to scientists who claim that global warming is NOT man-made. He starts by writing, “Believe it or not, Global Warming is not due to human contribution of Carbon Dioxide (CO2). This in fact is the greatest deception in the history of scienceâ€. He continues, “We are wasting time, energy and trillions of dollars while creating unnecessary fear and consternation over an issue with no scientific justification.†Then he mentions how Environment Canada is spending billions upon billions of dollars on “propaganda†which defends an “indefensible scientific position while at the same time closing weather stations and failing to meet legislated pollution targets.†Then Dr. Ball brings up a very interesting point that everyone should take into consideration, citing that 30 years ago, in the 1970s everyone was talking about “global cooling†and how it was the defining issue of our lives, our species, that our very survival depended on what we did it about it. Interesting, sounds like every Canadian politician. Ball continues to explain that climate change is occurring, but that it is because it is always occurring, it is a natural change that is a result of the changes in the Sun’s temperature. He explains that we are currently leaving what was known as a Little Ice Age and that the history of Earth is riddles with changes in the climate. That’s what climate does and is always doing, changing. Dr. Ball claims that “there is nothing unusual going on,†and that he “was as opposed to the threats of impending doom global cooling engendered as [he was] to the threats made about Global Warming.â€
Dr. Timothy Ball later wrote, in commenting on the problems that arise for scientists who speak out, that, “Sadly, my experience is that universities are the most dogmatic and oppressive places in our society. This becomes progressively worse as they receive more and more funding from governments that demand a particular viewpoint.†He also mentions how he “was accused by Canadian environmentalist David Suzuki of being paid by oil companies.†He concludes in referencing others who have and continue to speak out against the prevailing myth of man-made global warming, such as author Michael Crichton, who’s book, ‘State of Fear’, explains the inaccurate science behind the man-made myth. Another prominent name is that of Richard Lindzen, an atmospheric physicist and a professor of meteorology at MIT, who often speaks out against the man-made theory, yet no one seems to be listening to him.
An article in the February 12th Washington Times discussed how skeptics of global warming are “treated like a pariahâ€. The article begins, “Scientists skeptical of climate-change theories say they are increasingly coming under attack -- treatment that may make other analysts less likely to present contrarian views about global warming.†He cites an example of this by mentioning how a climatologist in Oregon might be stripped of his position by the governor for speaking out against the origins of climate change. Most skeptics don’t claim that climate change is not occurring, they just disagree with what is causing it, and yet they are treated like traitors. A NASA funded study in 2003 found that, “Changes in the solar cycle -- and solar output -- are known to cause short-term climate change on Earth.â€
Timothy Ball, one of the first Canadian doctors in climatology, recently wrote an article addressing the issue of why no one seems to be listening to scientists who claim that global warming is NOT man-made. He starts by writing, “Believe it or not, Global Warming is not due to human contribution of Carbon Dioxide (CO2). This in fact is the greatest deception in the history of scienceâ€. He continues, “We are wasting time, energy and trillions of dollars while creating unnecessary fear and consternation over an issue with no scientific justification.†Then he mentions how Environment Canada is spending billions upon billions of dollars on “propaganda†which defends an “indefensible scientific position while at the same time closing weather stations and failing to meet legislated pollution targets.†Then Dr. Ball brings up a very interesting point that everyone should take into consideration, citing that 30 years ago, in the 1970s everyone was talking about “global cooling†and how it was the defining issue of our lives, our species, that our very survival depended on what we did it about it. Interesting, sounds like every Canadian politician. Ball continues to explain that climate change is occurring, but that it is because it is always occurring, it is a natural change that is a result of the changes in the Sun’s temperature. He explains that we are currently leaving what was known as a Little Ice Age and that the history of Earth is riddles with changes in the climate. That’s what climate does and is always doing, changing. Dr. Ball claims that “there is nothing unusual going on,†and that he “was as opposed to the threats of impending doom global cooling engendered as [he was] to the threats made about Global Warming.â€
Dr. Timothy Ball later wrote, in commenting on the problems that arise for scientists who speak out, that, “Sadly, my experience is that universities are the most dogmatic and oppressive places in our society. This becomes progressively worse as they receive more and more funding from governments that demand a particular viewpoint.†He also mentions how he “was accused by Canadian environmentalist David Suzuki of being paid by oil companies.†He concludes in referencing others who have and continue to speak out against the prevailing myth of man-made global warming, such as author Michael Crichton, who’s book, ‘State of Fear’, explains the inaccurate science behind the man-made myth. Another prominent name is that of Richard Lindzen, an atmospheric physicist and a professor of meteorology at MIT, who often speaks out against the man-made theory, yet no one seems to be listening to him.
An article in the February 12th Washington Times discussed how skeptics of global warming are “treated like a pariahâ€. The article begins, “Scientists skeptical of climate-change theories say they are increasingly coming under attack -- treatment that may make other analysts less likely to present contrarian views about global warming.†He cites an example of this by mentioning how a climatologist in Oregon might be stripped of his position by the governor for speaking out against the origins of climate change. Most skeptics don’t claim that climate change is not occurring, they just disagree with what is causing it, and yet they are treated like traitors. A NASA funded study in 2003 found that, “Changes in the solar cycle -- and solar output -- are known to cause short-term climate change on Earth.â€
Link removed by moderator
-
TruthBringer
- Posts: 3567
- Joined: Sat Feb 11, 2006 5:39 pm
Just in case you thought Climate Change had gone away
In a storm of scientists speaking out against Al Gore’s movie, an Australian professor of the Marine Geophysical Laboratory has publicly stated, "Gore's circumstantial arguments are so weak that they are pathetic. It is simply incredible that they, and his film, are commanding public attention." In response to the use of images in Gore’s movie of glaciers breaking off, Dr. Boris Winterhalter, a professor on marine geology and former marine researcher at the Geological Survey of Finland, said that, “The breaking glacier wall is a normally occurring phenomenon which is due to the normal advance of a glacier.” Makes sense, especially since history tells us that glaciers move, after all, that’s what helped form our valleys and reshaped mountain ranges at the end of the last ice age about 10,000 years ago. Maybe my memory isn’t very good, but I don’t think people were driving SUVs 10,000 years ago. Another clever use of images to manipulate facts that Gore has in his movie is that of a polar bear seemingly stranded on a piece of a broken off ice berg, stating that polar bears are becoming extinct because of global warming. However, there are a few things wrong with this assessment, first of all, that according to a paper published by University of Alaska professor Igor Polyakov, “the region of the Arctic where rising temperature is supposedly endangering polar bears showed fluctuations since 1940 but no overall temperature rise.” Secondly, if the polar bear is in such danger according to Al Gore, then why does a recent government survey in Canada show that they are not declining, but rather rising in numbers? Thirdly, the very idea of a polar bear “stranded” on a small block of ice is in itself misleading for Gore’s argument, as polar bears are excellent swimmers and according to Sea World, “They can swim for several hours at a time over long distances [and] they've been tracked swimming continuously for 100 km (62 mi.)” Professor Carter, speaking about Gore and his personal crusade, said, “The man is an embarrassment to US science and its many fine practitioners, a lot of whom know (but feel unable to state publicly) that his propaganda crusade is mostly based on junk science.” Even if Al Gore was telling the truth about the causes of global warming, or climate change, which most evidence points to the fact that he is not, but even if he was, he would still be a hypocrite. It was recently revealed that Al Gore doesn’t exactly practice what he preaches, such as what he said in his Academy Award acceptance speech, “People all over the world, we need to solve the climate crisis. It's not a political issue; it's a moral issue.” Well, in that case, why is it that a recent study by the Tennessee Center for Policy Research found that one of Al Gore’s mansions uses 20 times the amount of electricity that the average American does. It was also reported that Al Gore consumes twice as much the electricity in one month that the average American consumes in one year.
In examining that there is more evidence to prove the basis for a conclusion that changes in climate are more related to an increase in the temperature of the Sun rather than influence of people, we must examine why efforts to expose this myth are stifled and those who speak out are attacked. In fact, there are reported cases of scientists who speak out against the man-made theory as having received death threats. There has even been talk of relating those who speak out against the currently held theory on global warming as being equal to those who deny the Holocaust. In a recent op-ed piece in the Boston Globe commenting on the report issued by the UN, Ellen Goodman wrote "Let's just say that global warming deniers are now on a par with Holocaust deniers, though one denies the past and the other denies the present and future.” This is a very disturbing comment, not only because there is reason to scientifically doubt the man-made theory, but also because this is a scathing attack on freedom of speech, the most vital and important of all rights and freedoms.
With the UN Panel’s judgment in, western politicians are quick to declare that the debate is over, and action must be taken immediately. What is this action that they are planning on taking? The Chancellor of the Exchequer in the UK, Gordon Brown, soon expected to be the next Prime Minister after Tony Blair steps down, has publicly called for a “new world order” to combat the threat of climate change. So let’s have a look at this New World Order that’s being implemented to combat the threat of global warming. One major thing being pushed through with little, cancel that, NO debate, is a UN recommendation that we impose “a global tax on greenhouse gas emissions”. Most people will hear this and think, “Good, polluters need to be taxed”. Well, this means people who drive cars will be taxed, because according to Al Gore, when you drive your car, you’re causing global warming. This is no joke, as an article in the UK’s Guardian Newspaper reported that, “The government is throwing its weight behind a revolutionary plan that would force motorists to pay £1.30 a mile to drive on Britain's busiest roads". That is approximately $3.00 per mile. A study conducted by an expert in transportation and infrastructure found that, “a Birmingham commuter might end up paying about £1,500 a year for driving 19,000 miles.” That’s equal to about $3,000 per year. I don’t know about you, but I don’t know many people who can afford that. In the European Union, plans are being made to impose an increase of taxes on diesel. The European Commission recently proposed to “raise the minimum tax on commercial diesel fuel by nearly 20% over the next seven years”. This, they claim, is to help protect the environment because it will act as a deterrent for people to drive. This is just excellent news, because as anyone who has driven in the past two years knows, gas prices are just too low. Another concern arising out of the concept of taxing people for how far they drive is how it is done. According to the Transport Secretary in the UK, “Every vehicle would have a black box to allow a satellite system to track their journey”. This has been raising concerns in the UK of an increase in Big Brother technology and government programs. Proposals currently being made in Canada recommend that, “Canadians would pay an extra 10 cents per litre at the gas pumps”, mirroring plans in the European Union. Another important recent news item is that Toronto “Mayor David Miller said yesterday he would support ‘region-wide’ road tolls”, to combat climate change.
The European Union is also imposing a ban on conventional light bulbs, replacing them with energy-saving bulbs. That ban would fully be in effect within two years, forcing all 490 million citizens of the EU’s member states to switch from the current conventional lights they now have. However, some problems of this plan have been raised considering that the supposed energy-efficient light bulbs “have to be left on all the time, they're made from banned toxins and they won't work in half your household fittings. Yet Europe (and Gordon Brown) says 'green' lightbulbs must replace all our old ones.” They also are “up to 20 times more expensive” than conventional light bulbs. They also give off a much harsher light and do not produce a steady stream of light but rather just flicker 50 times a second. These special “efficient” light bulbs also need more ventilation than conventional bulbs, which means that they cannot be in an enclosed light fitting. I’m sure that this won’t inconvenience any of the 490 million who are being forced to switch. In Canada, talk is taking place of having a ban on conventional light bulbs being included in Stephen Harper’s clean air act. This discussion was recently brought about by the act of Australia taking moves to ban conventional light bulbs by the year 2010. As well as that, a lawmaker in California has introduced a bill to ban the selling of conventional bulbs by 2012, with a similar bill also being introduced in New Jersey. Royal Phillips Electronics, one of the leading corporations in producing light fixtures announced that they would stop selling conventional bulbs by 2016. This will result in a massive cost to the consumer, who is losing their free will in where they spend their money and how they choose to help the environment. Hoping to get by without buying new bulbs and sneak it by the government? Good luck. As a recent report pointed out in the UK, the government has very intrusive plans to make the UK the world’s first green economy. Part of this plan is that every home in the UK is to be ‘carbon neutral’ within 10 years, making every house updated to “green” standards. The government said they would provide the renovators, which has led many to fear that it is a method of spying on homeowners to make sure they go green. Blair Gibbs, a member of the Taxpayer’s Alliance and critic of the plan stated, “It's bad enough that politicians want to take so much of our money away in tax. For them also to intrude into our homes in order to have the ability to penalise us even further is simply unacceptable.”
In examining that there is more evidence to prove the basis for a conclusion that changes in climate are more related to an increase in the temperature of the Sun rather than influence of people, we must examine why efforts to expose this myth are stifled and those who speak out are attacked. In fact, there are reported cases of scientists who speak out against the man-made theory as having received death threats. There has even been talk of relating those who speak out against the currently held theory on global warming as being equal to those who deny the Holocaust. In a recent op-ed piece in the Boston Globe commenting on the report issued by the UN, Ellen Goodman wrote "Let's just say that global warming deniers are now on a par with Holocaust deniers, though one denies the past and the other denies the present and future.” This is a very disturbing comment, not only because there is reason to scientifically doubt the man-made theory, but also because this is a scathing attack on freedom of speech, the most vital and important of all rights and freedoms.
With the UN Panel’s judgment in, western politicians are quick to declare that the debate is over, and action must be taken immediately. What is this action that they are planning on taking? The Chancellor of the Exchequer in the UK, Gordon Brown, soon expected to be the next Prime Minister after Tony Blair steps down, has publicly called for a “new world order” to combat the threat of climate change. So let’s have a look at this New World Order that’s being implemented to combat the threat of global warming. One major thing being pushed through with little, cancel that, NO debate, is a UN recommendation that we impose “a global tax on greenhouse gas emissions”. Most people will hear this and think, “Good, polluters need to be taxed”. Well, this means people who drive cars will be taxed, because according to Al Gore, when you drive your car, you’re causing global warming. This is no joke, as an article in the UK’s Guardian Newspaper reported that, “The government is throwing its weight behind a revolutionary plan that would force motorists to pay £1.30 a mile to drive on Britain's busiest roads". That is approximately $3.00 per mile. A study conducted by an expert in transportation and infrastructure found that, “a Birmingham commuter might end up paying about £1,500 a year for driving 19,000 miles.” That’s equal to about $3,000 per year. I don’t know about you, but I don’t know many people who can afford that. In the European Union, plans are being made to impose an increase of taxes on diesel. The European Commission recently proposed to “raise the minimum tax on commercial diesel fuel by nearly 20% over the next seven years”. This, they claim, is to help protect the environment because it will act as a deterrent for people to drive. This is just excellent news, because as anyone who has driven in the past two years knows, gas prices are just too low. Another concern arising out of the concept of taxing people for how far they drive is how it is done. According to the Transport Secretary in the UK, “Every vehicle would have a black box to allow a satellite system to track their journey”. This has been raising concerns in the UK of an increase in Big Brother technology and government programs. Proposals currently being made in Canada recommend that, “Canadians would pay an extra 10 cents per litre at the gas pumps”, mirroring plans in the European Union. Another important recent news item is that Toronto “Mayor David Miller said yesterday he would support ‘region-wide’ road tolls”, to combat climate change.
The European Union is also imposing a ban on conventional light bulbs, replacing them with energy-saving bulbs. That ban would fully be in effect within two years, forcing all 490 million citizens of the EU’s member states to switch from the current conventional lights they now have. However, some problems of this plan have been raised considering that the supposed energy-efficient light bulbs “have to be left on all the time, they're made from banned toxins and they won't work in half your household fittings. Yet Europe (and Gordon Brown) says 'green' lightbulbs must replace all our old ones.” They also are “up to 20 times more expensive” than conventional light bulbs. They also give off a much harsher light and do not produce a steady stream of light but rather just flicker 50 times a second. These special “efficient” light bulbs also need more ventilation than conventional bulbs, which means that they cannot be in an enclosed light fitting. I’m sure that this won’t inconvenience any of the 490 million who are being forced to switch. In Canada, talk is taking place of having a ban on conventional light bulbs being included in Stephen Harper’s clean air act. This discussion was recently brought about by the act of Australia taking moves to ban conventional light bulbs by the year 2010. As well as that, a lawmaker in California has introduced a bill to ban the selling of conventional bulbs by 2012, with a similar bill also being introduced in New Jersey. Royal Phillips Electronics, one of the leading corporations in producing light fixtures announced that they would stop selling conventional bulbs by 2016. This will result in a massive cost to the consumer, who is losing their free will in where they spend their money and how they choose to help the environment. Hoping to get by without buying new bulbs and sneak it by the government? Good luck. As a recent report pointed out in the UK, the government has very intrusive plans to make the UK the world’s first green economy. Part of this plan is that every home in the UK is to be ‘carbon neutral’ within 10 years, making every house updated to “green” standards. The government said they would provide the renovators, which has led many to fear that it is a method of spying on homeowners to make sure they go green. Blair Gibbs, a member of the Taxpayer’s Alliance and critic of the plan stated, “It's bad enough that politicians want to take so much of our money away in tax. For them also to intrude into our homes in order to have the ability to penalise us even further is simply unacceptable.”
Link removed by moderator
-
TruthBringer
- Posts: 3567
- Joined: Sat Feb 11, 2006 5:39 pm
Just in case you thought Climate Change had gone away
I am not saying that it isn’t a good idea to take action to help the environment, but I ask you to consider this:
If the majority of scientific data points to the fact that global warming is caused by the Sun, then how will a tax on carbon emissions help to stop it?
How does us driving cars cause climate change on Mars, Jupiter, Saturn, Pluto, Neptune and Triton? Can Al Gore please fill me in on this? If CO2 increases as a RESULT of temperature increases, then how can we hope to accomplish anything by taxing emissions? That’s like saying we will prevent the process of humans ageing by dying their grey hairs. It’s not grey hair that causes people to age; it’s ageing that causes grey hair. And nothing that you do to your hair will have any affect on how long you live. Especially since ageing is a natural process that cannot be stopped and has always occurred and will always occur. Just like climate change.
It seems worrisome that politicians are all too eager to grab onto this man-made myth of global warming in order to make us afraid and guilty. Guilty enough to want to change it, and afraid enough to give up our freedoms and undergo massive financial expenses in order to do so. So this lie, being pushed by big money and big governments, is a convenient lie for those who want to exert control and collect money. However, it’s inconvenient for the mass amount of people who are already experiencing the problems of a widening wage-gap and fading middle class.
If the problems we are being presented are based on lies, then how do we expect to find any true solution to helping the environment? A Global Tax won’t clean up the oil spilled by the Exxon Valdez, which is still polluting waters in Alaska nearly 18 years after the spill occurred. A Global Tax won’t stop Shell from making the Niger Delta the most endangered Delta in the whole world. No, we have to first be realistic, mature, and have debate about the problems we are facing, and then, and only then, can we even hope to achieve any sort of solution.
http://www.thepeoplesvoice.org/cgi-bin/ ... ade_activi
If the majority of scientific data points to the fact that global warming is caused by the Sun, then how will a tax on carbon emissions help to stop it?
How does us driving cars cause climate change on Mars, Jupiter, Saturn, Pluto, Neptune and Triton? Can Al Gore please fill me in on this? If CO2 increases as a RESULT of temperature increases, then how can we hope to accomplish anything by taxing emissions? That’s like saying we will prevent the process of humans ageing by dying their grey hairs. It’s not grey hair that causes people to age; it’s ageing that causes grey hair. And nothing that you do to your hair will have any affect on how long you live. Especially since ageing is a natural process that cannot be stopped and has always occurred and will always occur. Just like climate change.
It seems worrisome that politicians are all too eager to grab onto this man-made myth of global warming in order to make us afraid and guilty. Guilty enough to want to change it, and afraid enough to give up our freedoms and undergo massive financial expenses in order to do so. So this lie, being pushed by big money and big governments, is a convenient lie for those who want to exert control and collect money. However, it’s inconvenient for the mass amount of people who are already experiencing the problems of a widening wage-gap and fading middle class.
If the problems we are being presented are based on lies, then how do we expect to find any true solution to helping the environment? A Global Tax won’t clean up the oil spilled by the Exxon Valdez, which is still polluting waters in Alaska nearly 18 years after the spill occurred. A Global Tax won’t stop Shell from making the Niger Delta the most endangered Delta in the whole world. No, we have to first be realistic, mature, and have debate about the problems we are facing, and then, and only then, can we even hope to achieve any sort of solution.
http://www.thepeoplesvoice.org/cgi-bin/ ... ade_activi
Link removed by moderator
-
Clodhopper
- Posts: 5115
- Joined: Mon Feb 25, 2008 5:11 pm
Just in case you thought Climate Change had gone away
Tb: I certainly have heard that the Sun has its cycles and does affect climate (of course it does - take the Sun away as happens in an eclipse and it immediately gets much, much colder) but it seems unbelievable that you can increase CO2 levels in the atmosphere by a third and expect no effect (270-390ppm assuming Galbally is correct, and since it's his job he probably is). I think I'm right in saying we are at or near a solar low point - so I'd argue that it seems likely at present we are on the receiving end of a double whammy - increased solar output AND and greenhouse effect.
But of course no-one really knows what will happen - we might end up with unexpected cooling, even, if say cloud cover went to a permanent 10/10ths for some reason. But the crucial point is the climate is destabilising and our civilisation depends on it remaining very similar to the way it has been for the last 200 or so years so we can grow crops and find fish in the sea. It only takes a few degrees change either way to have a desperately traumatic effect on our ability to grow food and cause mass extinctions.
In short, it is the fact of change that is so dangerous - the causes are, in a way, a secondary issue - and none of the serious scientists are saying there will be no change...
And I just don't buy this theory that the IPCC is a bunch of con artists trying to get their snouts in the trough - which seems to be what you are hinting at?
But of course no-one really knows what will happen - we might end up with unexpected cooling, even, if say cloud cover went to a permanent 10/10ths for some reason. But the crucial point is the climate is destabilising and our civilisation depends on it remaining very similar to the way it has been for the last 200 or so years so we can grow crops and find fish in the sea. It only takes a few degrees change either way to have a desperately traumatic effect on our ability to grow food and cause mass extinctions.
In short, it is the fact of change that is so dangerous - the causes are, in a way, a secondary issue - and none of the serious scientists are saying there will be no change...
And I just don't buy this theory that the IPCC is a bunch of con artists trying to get their snouts in the trough - which seems to be what you are hinting at?
The crowd: "Yes! We are all individuals!"
Lone voice: "I'm not."
Lone voice: "I'm not."
-
TruthBringer
- Posts: 3567
- Joined: Sat Feb 11, 2006 5:39 pm
Just in case you thought Climate Change had gone away
Clodhopper;1160183 wrote: Tb: I certainly have heard that the Sun has its cycles and does affect climate (of course it does - take the Sun away as happens in an eclipse and it immediately gets much, much colder) but it seems unbelievable that you can increase CO2 levels in the atmosphere by a third and expect no effect (270-390ppm assuming Galbally is correct, and since it's his job he probably is). I think I'm right in saying we are at or near a solar low point - so I'd argue that it seems likely at present we are on the receiving end of a double whammy - increased solar output AND and greenhouse effect.
But of course no-one really knows what will happen - we might end up with unexpected cooling, even, if say cloud cover went to a permanent 10/10ths for some reason. But the crucial point is the climate is destabilising and our civilisation depends on it remaining very similar to the way it has been for the last 200 or so years so we can grow crops and find fish in the sea. It only takes a few degrees change either way to have a desperately traumatic effect on our ability to grow food and cause mass extinctions.
In short, it is the fact of change that is so dangerous - the causes are, in a way, a secondary issue - and none of the serious scientists are saying there will be no change...
And I just don't buy this theory that the IPCC is a bunch of con artists trying to get their snouts in the trough - which seems to be what you are hinting at?
Well both of us agree for the need of alternative energy sources then. Which is a good thing. Anyone who doesn't agree for safer, cleaner, more efficient forms of energy for the planet and for the people living on it in my opinion doesn't make sense at all.
However, it is a Global Wide Carbon Tax that I am against. That is nothing more than a profit scam in my opinion. A profit scam that would generate the bulk of it's revenue from only one source - from you and me and all of the other citizens of the World who work everyday to pay their bills and who would (if it were to be made law) have to pay even more to someone or some company or some organization who would only seek to benefit from our labor. To become wealthy at the expense of all of us. And if not for people telling the truth about this scam many of the people around the World wouldn't even know what hit them. All they would know is that all of the sudden someone would be demanding yet once again that they MUST cough up more of their money.
And for what? Is it going to solve global warming? No. Is it going to stop man made contributions to the energy crisis? No. Of course not.
The only way to stop the mad-made problem of energy abuse/non-conservation is for better alternative energy sources to be developed. And thats it. There's just about nothing else we can do. Because I can tell you right now, a global carbon tax on the citizens of the World is not going to be the solution.
But of course no-one really knows what will happen - we might end up with unexpected cooling, even, if say cloud cover went to a permanent 10/10ths for some reason. But the crucial point is the climate is destabilising and our civilisation depends on it remaining very similar to the way it has been for the last 200 or so years so we can grow crops and find fish in the sea. It only takes a few degrees change either way to have a desperately traumatic effect on our ability to grow food and cause mass extinctions.
In short, it is the fact of change that is so dangerous - the causes are, in a way, a secondary issue - and none of the serious scientists are saying there will be no change...
And I just don't buy this theory that the IPCC is a bunch of con artists trying to get their snouts in the trough - which seems to be what you are hinting at?
Well both of us agree for the need of alternative energy sources then. Which is a good thing. Anyone who doesn't agree for safer, cleaner, more efficient forms of energy for the planet and for the people living on it in my opinion doesn't make sense at all.
However, it is a Global Wide Carbon Tax that I am against. That is nothing more than a profit scam in my opinion. A profit scam that would generate the bulk of it's revenue from only one source - from you and me and all of the other citizens of the World who work everyday to pay their bills and who would (if it were to be made law) have to pay even more to someone or some company or some organization who would only seek to benefit from our labor. To become wealthy at the expense of all of us. And if not for people telling the truth about this scam many of the people around the World wouldn't even know what hit them. All they would know is that all of the sudden someone would be demanding yet once again that they MUST cough up more of their money.
And for what? Is it going to solve global warming? No. Is it going to stop man made contributions to the energy crisis? No. Of course not.
The only way to stop the mad-made problem of energy abuse/non-conservation is for better alternative energy sources to be developed. And thats it. There's just about nothing else we can do. Because I can tell you right now, a global carbon tax on the citizens of the World is not going to be the solution.
Link removed by moderator
-
Clodhopper
- Posts: 5115
- Joined: Mon Feb 25, 2008 5:11 pm
Just in case you thought Climate Change had gone away
Tb: So in your opinion, man made global warming is a con designed by the governments of the world (who have never agreed on anything) to enslave us all?
And this you find easier to believe than that the vast majority of reputable scientists might be honestly presenting the results of their research?
Why?
And this you find easier to believe than that the vast majority of reputable scientists might be honestly presenting the results of their research?
Why?
The crowd: "Yes! We are all individuals!"
Lone voice: "I'm not."
Lone voice: "I'm not."
-
TruthBringer
- Posts: 3567
- Joined: Sat Feb 11, 2006 5:39 pm
Just in case you thought Climate Change had gone away
Clodhopper;1160216 wrote: Tb: So in your opinion, man made global warming is a con designed by the governments of the world (who have never agreed on anything) to enslave us all?
And this you find easier to believe than that the vast majority of reputable scientists might be honestly presenting the results of their research?
Why?
Do I believe that man-made global warming is a con? No. I believe that indeed there may be a small percentage of the current warming of the Earth's temperature that may be directly related to global warming. A small percentage. I believe that the majority of global warming is directly related to the Sun and it's current cycle of activity.
However, do I believe that the proposed global tax on greenhouse gas emissions for the entire World civilization is a con? Absolutely. And it's one of the biggest cons ever to be conceived.
This is just a warning folks, but it is very important for people to understand this. If the Global Carbon Tax is passed into a law for all citizens of the World, it would be to my current knowledge not only the biggest tax scam ever conducted in Human History (because it would be World-Wide in scale), but after it was all over, and after the facts showed that it had very little effect in reducing the rising temperature of the Earth, it would then be too late for people to get upset about it and attempt to reverse it, because it would be so far reaching that at that point in time it would almost be Irreversible - aka - Impossible to reverse.
Therefore, if we expect to stop this disaster from happening we can not wait until after they make the Global Carbon Tax a law, we must stop it now before they ever get the chance to do so. Because as I said, there will be very little we can do after it is enacted than compared to the enormous amount of things we can do now to make sure that it never becomes a reality.
So you may say, what is the solution then? What would I propose? Simple. The same thing that most anyone who has thought about this would probably propose for what we currently have with the problem of supply/demand for energy and the abuse/neglect for our Earth. WE NEED ALTERNATIVE ENERGY SOURCES. And we need them quickly. Because yes, it is turning into a major problem, and no, not enough is being done to develop them. If it was the case that enough was already being done, then we would already be watching the solutions (new sources) in action. This is not the case, because we are still discussing this problem today. And if all our supposed "leaders" have to offer us is a World Carbon Tax then we can all expect to be talking about these problems for decades to come, because nothing will have been done to stop them. The proof is in the pudding.
And this you find easier to believe than that the vast majority of reputable scientists might be honestly presenting the results of their research?
Why?
Do I believe that man-made global warming is a con? No. I believe that indeed there may be a small percentage of the current warming of the Earth's temperature that may be directly related to global warming. A small percentage. I believe that the majority of global warming is directly related to the Sun and it's current cycle of activity.
However, do I believe that the proposed global tax on greenhouse gas emissions for the entire World civilization is a con? Absolutely. And it's one of the biggest cons ever to be conceived.
This is just a warning folks, but it is very important for people to understand this. If the Global Carbon Tax is passed into a law for all citizens of the World, it would be to my current knowledge not only the biggest tax scam ever conducted in Human History (because it would be World-Wide in scale), but after it was all over, and after the facts showed that it had very little effect in reducing the rising temperature of the Earth, it would then be too late for people to get upset about it and attempt to reverse it, because it would be so far reaching that at that point in time it would almost be Irreversible - aka - Impossible to reverse.
Therefore, if we expect to stop this disaster from happening we can not wait until after they make the Global Carbon Tax a law, we must stop it now before they ever get the chance to do so. Because as I said, there will be very little we can do after it is enacted than compared to the enormous amount of things we can do now to make sure that it never becomes a reality.
So you may say, what is the solution then? What would I propose? Simple. The same thing that most anyone who has thought about this would probably propose for what we currently have with the problem of supply/demand for energy and the abuse/neglect for our Earth. WE NEED ALTERNATIVE ENERGY SOURCES. And we need them quickly. Because yes, it is turning into a major problem, and no, not enough is being done to develop them. If it was the case that enough was already being done, then we would already be watching the solutions (new sources) in action. This is not the case, because we are still discussing this problem today. And if all our supposed "leaders" have to offer us is a World Carbon Tax then we can all expect to be talking about these problems for decades to come, because nothing will have been done to stop them. The proof is in the pudding.
Link removed by moderator
Just in case you thought Climate Change had gone away
ARGGGHHHHHHHH!
Truthbringer, there is no global consensus on anything there isn't going to be a global response, there is no world government, and they won't be a global "cabon tax". The G20 are meeting in London in April to discuss the credit crunch, and even among this group of 20 nations, who all have a vested interest in economically cooperating, the snot and hair is already flying over trying to just institute new banking laws and a monetary regultary system.
And you think this is a nascent world government and that climate change is the stalking horse? I wish human beings had the ability to be wise enough to do something like that, but they don't; instead they have spent the last 20 years arguing back on forth on minutiae while the climate of the planet deteriorates year on year, meanwhile the general population switches back to the football or ER, thats the reality.
If you think that the institutions or governments are going to get us out of this, they won't, they are all lawyers and economists (how many politicans in western countries are scientists or engineers?), they don't get the science, and that's why its almost impossible to convince them that this is such a critical problem now, its all so depressing.
Truthbringer, there is no global consensus on anything there isn't going to be a global response, there is no world government, and they won't be a global "cabon tax". The G20 are meeting in London in April to discuss the credit crunch, and even among this group of 20 nations, who all have a vested interest in economically cooperating, the snot and hair is already flying over trying to just institute new banking laws and a monetary regultary system.
And you think this is a nascent world government and that climate change is the stalking horse? I wish human beings had the ability to be wise enough to do something like that, but they don't; instead they have spent the last 20 years arguing back on forth on minutiae while the climate of the planet deteriorates year on year, meanwhile the general population switches back to the football or ER, thats the reality.
If you think that the institutions or governments are going to get us out of this, they won't, they are all lawyers and economists (how many politicans in western countries are scientists or engineers?), they don't get the science, and that's why its almost impossible to convince them that this is such a critical problem now, its all so depressing.
"We are never so happy, never so unhappy, as we imagine"
Le Rochefoucauld.
"A smack in the face settles all arguments, then you can move on kid."
My dad 1986.
Le Rochefoucauld.
"A smack in the face settles all arguments, then you can move on kid."
My dad 1986.
Just in case you thought Climate Change had gone away
Also truthbringer, in that litany of climate change denial you quote there was one salient passage.
It's a position that puts West at odds with nearly every major scientific organization on the planet. "The American Meteorological Society, the American Geophysical Union, and the American Association for the Advancement of Science all have issued statements in recent years concluding that the evidence for human modification of climate is compelling," Science magazine observes. So has the United Nations' Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), which shared the 2007 Nobel Peace Prize with Al Gore, for their work on global warming. [UPDATE: West himself said during a Thursday conference call that global warming is at least partially man-made -- and maybe as much as 70 percent due to human intervention.]
Yes, all the time you get individuals and small groups who have contrary views on things in science, including evolutionary biology, Relativity, or the big bang, but that doesn't mean that the science is wrong, just that people are intellectually free to dissent from the general view of the evidence.
You see you are just cherry picking these examples that suit your own view, which isn't motivated by the science but by your conspiracy theory beliefs, your worried about a one world government, not climate change. Cherry picking things to suit your view is the antithesis of science, climate change deniers do it all the time, they take one piece of evidence which seems to suggest that perhaps climate change is not happening, but to do that they have to ignore the room full of evidence open beside them which says it is, creationists do the same thing, as do conspiracy theorists its funny how they tend to be the same people a lot of the time.
It's a position that puts West at odds with nearly every major scientific organization on the planet. "The American Meteorological Society, the American Geophysical Union, and the American Association for the Advancement of Science all have issued statements in recent years concluding that the evidence for human modification of climate is compelling," Science magazine observes. So has the United Nations' Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), which shared the 2007 Nobel Peace Prize with Al Gore, for their work on global warming. [UPDATE: West himself said during a Thursday conference call that global warming is at least partially man-made -- and maybe as much as 70 percent due to human intervention.]
Yes, all the time you get individuals and small groups who have contrary views on things in science, including evolutionary biology, Relativity, or the big bang, but that doesn't mean that the science is wrong, just that people are intellectually free to dissent from the general view of the evidence.
You see you are just cherry picking these examples that suit your own view, which isn't motivated by the science but by your conspiracy theory beliefs, your worried about a one world government, not climate change. Cherry picking things to suit your view is the antithesis of science, climate change deniers do it all the time, they take one piece of evidence which seems to suggest that perhaps climate change is not happening, but to do that they have to ignore the room full of evidence open beside them which says it is, creationists do the same thing, as do conspiracy theorists its funny how they tend to be the same people a lot of the time.
"We are never so happy, never so unhappy, as we imagine"
Le Rochefoucauld.
"A smack in the face settles all arguments, then you can move on kid."
My dad 1986.
Le Rochefoucauld.
"A smack in the face settles all arguments, then you can move on kid."
My dad 1986.
-
TruthBringer
- Posts: 3567
- Joined: Sat Feb 11, 2006 5:39 pm
Just in case you thought Climate Change had gone away
Galbally;1160277 wrote: Also truthbringer, in that litany of climate change denial you quote there was one salient passage.
It's a position that puts West at odds with nearly every major scientific organization on the planet. "The American Meteorological Society, the American Geophysical Union, and the American Association for the Advancement of Science all have issued statements in recent years concluding that the evidence for human modification of climate is compelling," Science magazine observes. So has the United Nations' Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), which shared the 2007 Nobel Peace Prize with Al Gore, for their work on global warming. [UPDATE: West himself said during a Thursday conference call that global warming is at least partially man-made -- and maybe as much as 70 percent due to human intervention.]
Yes, all the time you get individuals and small groups who have contrary views on things in science, including evolutionary biology, Relativity, or the big bang, but that doesn't mean that the science is wrong, just that people are intellectually free to dissent from the general view of the evidence.
You see you are just cherry picking these examples that suit your own view, which isn't motivated by the science but by your conspiracy theory beliefs, your worried about a one world government, not climate change. Cherry picking things to suit your view is the antithesis of science, climate change deniers do it all the time, they take one piece of evidence which seems to suggest that perhaps climate change is not happening, but to do that they have to ignore the room full of evidence open beside them which says it is, creationists do the same thing, as do conspiracy theorists its funny how they tend to be the same people a lot of the time.
Yes Gallbally many scientists out there are buying into the lie that we Human beings are soley responsible for the temperature increase of the planet that is causing alot of the climate change of today. This is a farce. A fraud. It is mainly the Sun. It will be proven. I believe this.
In the meantime, we will have to listen to the "world is flat" scientists of today who attack any other person who comes up with an alternative theory. The numbers of scientists who band together on a single issue mean nothing to me if there is no substance to what they say.
The evidence I posted was based upon science, not my opinion. If it had been my opinion, I would have written it. I didn't, so it's not based on my opinion. One was a theory from the army, the others were theories from scientists and researchers. Why is it so hard for you to accept that there are other "smart" people out there who have a different theory as to what is responsible for the current temperature increase of the planet? Why are you so defensive?
You at least appear to be basing your entire arguement on the quantity of scientists. Quantity means nothing to me. I am interested in quality.
It's a position that puts West at odds with nearly every major scientific organization on the planet. "The American Meteorological Society, the American Geophysical Union, and the American Association for the Advancement of Science all have issued statements in recent years concluding that the evidence for human modification of climate is compelling," Science magazine observes. So has the United Nations' Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), which shared the 2007 Nobel Peace Prize with Al Gore, for their work on global warming. [UPDATE: West himself said during a Thursday conference call that global warming is at least partially man-made -- and maybe as much as 70 percent due to human intervention.]
Yes, all the time you get individuals and small groups who have contrary views on things in science, including evolutionary biology, Relativity, or the big bang, but that doesn't mean that the science is wrong, just that people are intellectually free to dissent from the general view of the evidence.
You see you are just cherry picking these examples that suit your own view, which isn't motivated by the science but by your conspiracy theory beliefs, your worried about a one world government, not climate change. Cherry picking things to suit your view is the antithesis of science, climate change deniers do it all the time, they take one piece of evidence which seems to suggest that perhaps climate change is not happening, but to do that they have to ignore the room full of evidence open beside them which says it is, creationists do the same thing, as do conspiracy theorists its funny how they tend to be the same people a lot of the time.
Yes Gallbally many scientists out there are buying into the lie that we Human beings are soley responsible for the temperature increase of the planet that is causing alot of the climate change of today. This is a farce. A fraud. It is mainly the Sun. It will be proven. I believe this.
In the meantime, we will have to listen to the "world is flat" scientists of today who attack any other person who comes up with an alternative theory. The numbers of scientists who band together on a single issue mean nothing to me if there is no substance to what they say.
The evidence I posted was based upon science, not my opinion. If it had been my opinion, I would have written it. I didn't, so it's not based on my opinion. One was a theory from the army, the others were theories from scientists and researchers. Why is it so hard for you to accept that there are other "smart" people out there who have a different theory as to what is responsible for the current temperature increase of the planet? Why are you so defensive?
You at least appear to be basing your entire arguement on the quantity of scientists. Quantity means nothing to me. I am interested in quality.
Link removed by moderator
-
TruthBringer
- Posts: 3567
- Joined: Sat Feb 11, 2006 5:39 pm
Just in case you thought Climate Change had gone away
Galbally;1160276 wrote: ARGGGHHHHHHHH!
Truthbringer, there is no global consensus on anything there isn't going to be a global response, there is no world government, and they won't be a global "cabon tax".
I literally pray that you are right. The unfortunate part is that I don't believe you are. I believe that there are people working on one right now....and that it is only a matter of time before they try to stick it on us.
Truthbringer, there is no global consensus on anything there isn't going to be a global response, there is no world government, and they won't be a global "cabon tax".
I literally pray that you are right. The unfortunate part is that I don't believe you are. I believe that there are people working on one right now....and that it is only a matter of time before they try to stick it on us.
Link removed by moderator
-
Clodhopper
- Posts: 5115
- Joined: Mon Feb 25, 2008 5:11 pm
Just in case you thought Climate Change had gone away
Tb: Could you answer my question please? You've just used it as an excuse to have another half page rant. I have rephrased the question below:
Why do you believe that all scientists who present research showing that climate change is human driven are at best fools and at worst in a conspiracy with world governments to enslave us via a carbon tax??
At the moment you just come across as another loopy conspiracy theorist who is a major part of the problem.
Why do you believe that all scientists who present research showing that climate change is human driven are at best fools and at worst in a conspiracy with world governments to enslave us via a carbon tax??
At the moment you just come across as another loopy conspiracy theorist who is a major part of the problem.
The crowd: "Yes! We are all individuals!"
Lone voice: "I'm not."
Lone voice: "I'm not."
-
TruthBringer
- Posts: 3567
- Joined: Sat Feb 11, 2006 5:39 pm
Just in case you thought Climate Change had gone away
Clodhopper;1160306 wrote: Tb: Could you answer my question please? You've just used it as an excuse to have another half page rant. I have rephrased the question below:
At the moment you just come across as another loopy conspiracy theorist who is a major part of the problem.
Look I'm not interested in your opinion of me. You don't speak for me and thats all that matters to me.
As far as "enslaving us under a global carbon tax" I never used the word "enslaving". You threw that in there for whatever reason you wanted it. And my guess is because you are trying to paint me into a corner and slap the very label on me that you said I was above "a loopy conspiracy theorist".
Look bro, I'm always on the lookout for the truth. Sometimes the truth is not too pretty. Sometimes you don't want to look at it for what it is. I can't explain things to you any further than I have because I don't intend to change your mind, you are not the person I am posting all this for. I am posting it for those who have an open mind and who are willing to at least CONSIDER another theory as to what may be causing the warming of our planet. I have already realized that you will not give an inch as far as what you are willing to believe, and so it would be no use for me to try and convince you to change your mind.
A carbon tax would not necessarily "enslave us" as you put it. That could be the very reason I never used that term. What it would do is RAPE our pocketbooks even further then they already have been. Ok? Are you still with me.....? Ok....an extra tax = extra money that we would have to pay someone. And yes....there would be someone who would be on the other end of the equation who would be getting the better part of the deal......still with me? Ok so....more of OUR money....would be given to somebody else.....with very little return on our investment. "Enslavement" wouldn't be the right term for what I am describing here. Scam, Fraud, Theft, Deceit, those are better words for what I'm writing about.
At the moment you just come across as another loopy conspiracy theorist who is a major part of the problem.
Look I'm not interested in your opinion of me. You don't speak for me and thats all that matters to me.
As far as "enslaving us under a global carbon tax" I never used the word "enslaving". You threw that in there for whatever reason you wanted it. And my guess is because you are trying to paint me into a corner and slap the very label on me that you said I was above "a loopy conspiracy theorist".
Look bro, I'm always on the lookout for the truth. Sometimes the truth is not too pretty. Sometimes you don't want to look at it for what it is. I can't explain things to you any further than I have because I don't intend to change your mind, you are not the person I am posting all this for. I am posting it for those who have an open mind and who are willing to at least CONSIDER another theory as to what may be causing the warming of our planet. I have already realized that you will not give an inch as far as what you are willing to believe, and so it would be no use for me to try and convince you to change your mind.
A carbon tax would not necessarily "enslave us" as you put it. That could be the very reason I never used that term. What it would do is RAPE our pocketbooks even further then they already have been. Ok? Are you still with me.....? Ok....an extra tax = extra money that we would have to pay someone. And yes....there would be someone who would be on the other end of the equation who would be getting the better part of the deal......still with me? Ok so....more of OUR money....would be given to somebody else.....with very little return on our investment. "Enslavement" wouldn't be the right term for what I am describing here. Scam, Fraud, Theft, Deceit, those are better words for what I'm writing about.
Link removed by moderator
-
Clodhopper
- Posts: 5115
- Joined: Mon Feb 25, 2008 5:11 pm
Just in case you thought Climate Change had gone away
Loopy conspiracy theorist who worries about a tax when the planet is GOING TO BURN as a result - according to the vast bulk of the scientists - of human driven climate change.
Gods, I'm glad I don't have children.
Gods, I'm glad I don't have children.
The crowd: "Yes! We are all individuals!"
Lone voice: "I'm not."
Lone voice: "I'm not."
-
TruthBringer
- Posts: 3567
- Joined: Sat Feb 11, 2006 5:39 pm
Just in case you thought Climate Change had gone away
Clodhopper;1160313 wrote: when the planet is GOING TO BURN
Ok.....now who sounds like the "loopy" one?
I gotta admit...I did get a kick out of it though.
Now when you say that the planet is going to "burn", do you mean like burn to crisp? All at once? Like popcorn thats been in the microwave for too long? Or....are you at least knowledgable of the fact that Mother Nature always counter-balances Earth altering situations when they get too far out of hand?
Now look, this is coming from a guy who believes that we are about to experience a Polar-Shift that will cause mass destruction Worldwide. Never once though....have I ever considered the possibility that the whole World will be on fire all at once. At least not from something that we Humans have caused...short of an all out Nuclear Holocaust, which by the way probably then wouldn't even have the power to cause that to happen.
Ok.....now who sounds like the "loopy" one?
I gotta admit...I did get a kick out of it though.
Now when you say that the planet is going to "burn", do you mean like burn to crisp? All at once? Like popcorn thats been in the microwave for too long? Or....are you at least knowledgable of the fact that Mother Nature always counter-balances Earth altering situations when they get too far out of hand?
Now look, this is coming from a guy who believes that we are about to experience a Polar-Shift that will cause mass destruction Worldwide. Never once though....have I ever considered the possibility that the whole World will be on fire all at once. At least not from something that we Humans have caused...short of an all out Nuclear Holocaust, which by the way probably then wouldn't even have the power to cause that to happen.
Link removed by moderator
-
Clodhopper
- Posts: 5115
- Joined: Mon Feb 25, 2008 5:11 pm
Just in case you thought Climate Change had gone away
lol. I gotta admit...I did get a kick out of it though.
Out of what?
You find climate change funny?
Whether human driven or entirely sun driven the consequences for life on this planet are catastrophic.
And you think it's funny?
Out of what?
You find climate change funny?
Whether human driven or entirely sun driven the consequences for life on this planet are catastrophic.
And you think it's funny?
The crowd: "Yes! We are all individuals!"
Lone voice: "I'm not."
Lone voice: "I'm not."
-
TruthBringer
- Posts: 3567
- Joined: Sat Feb 11, 2006 5:39 pm
Just in case you thought Climate Change had gone away
Clodhopper;1160316 wrote: Out of what?
You find climate change funny?
Whether human driven or entirely sun driven the consequences for life on this planet are catastrophic.
And you think it's funny?
What I find funny is that you throw a sentence out there like "THE PLANET IS GOING TO BURN!" And then you expect me not to laugh at it.
You find climate change funny?
Whether human driven or entirely sun driven the consequences for life on this planet are catastrophic.
And you think it's funny?
What I find funny is that you throw a sentence out there like "THE PLANET IS GOING TO BURN!" And then you expect me not to laugh at it.
Link removed by moderator