The evidence of global warming Bush tried to hide

topic posted Sun, July 26, 2009 - 7:27 AM by  Jim
Share/Save/Bookmark
Advertisement
posted by:
Jim
offline Jim
Advertisement
Advertisement
  • Nonsense.

    Ice isn't so static that you can expect to have the same amount of it all the time
    Given where we are in the malankovich cycle and the current solar flare energy it's a wonder there is any at all.

    • Baloney.

      While solar output has had a positive effect on global average temperatures, that effect is very small as compared to human-caused increases in greenhouses gases. "[I]n today’s atmosphere, the radiative forcing from human activities is much more important for current and future climate change than the estimated radiative forcing from natural processes." IPCC 4th, Working Group I: The Physical Basis for Climate Change, Summary for Policymakers, FAQ 2.1, available here: ipcc-wg1.ucar.edu/wg1/Repor...pdf#page=8
      • It must be nice to have a president who is stupid enough to believe that moronic horse shit.
        • Yeah. All scientists are morons who should bow to your superior knowledge and intellect -- or at least that of Glenn Beck and Rush Limbaugh.
          • And as it regards your claim about "All scientists" You have not even the smallest clue what you are talking about:



            Posted by Marc Morano – Marc_Morano@EPW.Senate.Gov - 9:14 PM ET - May 15,

            Climate Momentum Shifting: Prominent Scientists
            Reverse Belief in Man-made Global Warming - Now
            Skeptics


            Growing Number of Scientists Convert to Skeptics After Reviewing New Research

            Following the U.S. Senate's vote today on a global warming measure (see today's AP
            article: Senate Defeats Climate Change Measure,) it is an opportune time to examine
            the recent and quite remarkable momentum shift taking place in climate science. Many
            former believers in catastrophic man-made global warming have recently reversed
            themselves and are now climate skeptics. The names included below are just a sampling
            of the prominent scientists who have spoken out recently to oppose former Vice President
            Al Gore, the United Nations and the media driven “consensus” on man-made global
            warming.

            The list below is just the tip of the iceberg. A more detailed and comprehensive sampling
            of scientists who have only recently spoken out against climate hysteria will be
            forthcoming in a soon to be released U.S. Senate report. Please stay tuned to this website,
            as this new government report is set to redefine the current climate debate.

            In the meantime, please review the list of scientists below and ask yourself why the
            media is missing one of the biggest stories in climate of 2007. Feel free to distribute the
            partial list of scientists who recently converted to skeptics to your local schools and
            universities. The voices of rank and file scientists opposing climate doomsayers can serve
            as a counter to the alarmism that children are being exposed to on a daily basis. (See
            Washington Post April 16, 2007 article about kids fearing of a “climactic Armageddon” )
            The media's climate fear factor seemingly grows louder even as the latest science grows
            less and less alarming by the day. (See Der Spiegel May 7, 2007 article: Not the End of
            the World as We Know It ) It is also worth noting that the proponents of climate fears are
            increasingly attempting to suppress dissent by skeptic. (See UPI May 10, 2007 article:

            U.N. official says it's 'completely immoral' to doubt global warming fears )
            Once Believers, Now Skeptics – ( Link to web version

            epw.senate.gov/public/index.cfm
            d_id=927b9303-802a-23ad-494b-dccb00b51a12&Region_id=&Issue_id= )

            Geophysicist Dr. Claude Allegre, a top geophysicist and French Socialist who has
            authored more than 100 scientific articles and written 11 books and received numerous
            scientific awards including the Goldschmidt Medal from the Geochemical Society of the
            United States, converted from climate alarmist to skeptic in 2006. Allegre, who was one
            of the first scientists to sound global warming fears 20 years ago, now says the cause of
            climate change is "unknown" and accused the “prophets of doom of global warming” of


            being motivated by money, noting that "the ecology of helpless protesting has become a
            very lucrative business for some people!" “Glaciers’ chronicles or historical archives
            point to the fact that climate is a capricious phenomena. This fact is confirmed by
            mathematical meteorological theories. So, let us be cautious,” Allegre explained in a
            September 21, 2006 article in the French newspaper L'EXPRESS. The National Post in
            Canada also profiled Allegre on March 2, 2007, noting “Allegre has the highest
            environmental credentials. The author of early environmental books, he fought successful
            battles to protect the ozone layer from CFCs and public health from lead pollution.”
            Allegre now calls fears of a climate disaster "simplistic and obscuring the true dangers”
            mocks "the greenhouse-gas fanatics whose proclamations consist in denouncing man's
            role on the climate without doing anything about it except organizing conferences and
            preparing protocols that become dead letters." Allegre, a member of both the French and

            U.S. Academy of Sciences, had previously expressed concern about manmade global
            warming. "By burning fossil fuels, man enhanced the concentration of carbon dioxide in
            the atmosphere which has raised the global mean temperature by half a degree in the last
            century," Allegre wrote 20 years ago. In addition, Allegre was one of 1500 scientists who
            signed a November 18, 1992 letter titled “World Scientists' Warning to Humanity” in
            which the scientists warned that global warming’s “potential risks are very great.”
            Geologist Bruno Wiskel of the University of Alberta recently reversed his view of
            man-made climate change and instead became a global warming skeptic. Wiskel was
            once such a big believer in man-made global warming that he set out to build a “Kyoto
            house” in honor of the UN sanctioned Kyoto Protocol which was signed in 1997. Wiskel
            wanted to prove that the Kyoto Protocol’s goals were achievable by people making small
            changes in their lives. But after further examining the science behind Kyoto, Wiskel
            reversed his scientific views completely and became such a strong skeptic that he
            recently wrote a book titled “The Emperor's New Climate: Debunking the Myth of
            Global Warming.” A November 15, 2006 Edmonton Sun article explains Wiskel’s
            conversion while building his “Kyoto house”: “Instead, he said he realized global
            warming theory was full of holes and ‘red flags,’ and became convinced that humans are
            not responsible for rising temperatures.” Wiskel now says “the truth has to start
            somewhere.” Noting that the Earth has been warming for 18,000 years, Wiskel told the
            Canadian newspaper, “If this happened once and we were the cause of it, that would be
            cause for concern. But glaciers have been coming and going for billions of years."
            Wiskel also said that global warming has gone "from a science to a religion” and noted
            that research money is being funneled into promoting climate alarmism instead of
            funding areas he considers more worthy. "If you funnel money into things that can't be
            changed, the money is not going into the places that it is needed,” he said.

            Astrophysicist Dr. Nir Shaviv, one of Israel's top young award winning scientists,

            recanted his belief that manmade emissions were driving climate change. ""Like many
            others, I was personally sure that CO2 is the bad culprit in the story of global warming.
            But after carefully digging into the evidence, I realized that things are far more
            complicated than the story sold to us by many climate scientists or the stories regurgitated
            by the media. In fact, there is much more than meets the eye,” Shaviv said in February 2,
            2007 Canadian National Post article. According to Shaviv, the C02 temperature link is


            only “incriminating circumstantial evidence.” "Solar activity can explain a large part of
            the 20th-century global warming" and "it is unlikely that [the solar climate link] does not
            exist,” Shaviv noted pointing to the impact cosmic- rays have on the atmosphere.
            According to the National Post, Shaviv believes that even a doubling of CO2 in the
            atmosphere by 2100 "will not dramatically increase the global temperature." “Even if we
            halved the CO2 output, and the CO2 increase by 2100 would be, say, a 50% increase
            relative to today instead of a doubled amount, the expected reduction in the rise of global
            temperature would be less than 0.5C. This is not significant,” Shaviv explained. Shaviv
            also wrote on August 18, 2006 that a colleague of his believed that “CO2 should have a
            large effect on climate” so “he set out to reconstruct the phanerozoic temperature. He
            wanted to find the CO2 signature in the data, but since there was none, he slowly had to
            change his views.” Shaviv believes there will be more scientists converting to man-made
            global warming skepticism as they discover the dearth of evidence. “I think this is
            common to many of the scientists who think like us (that is, that CO2 is a secondary
            climate driver). Each one of us was working in his or her own niche. While working
            there, each one of us realized that things just don't add up to support the AGW
            (Anthropogenic Global Warming) picture. So many had to change their views,” he wrote.

            Mathematician & engineer Dr. David Evans, who did carbon accounting for the
            Australian Government, recently detailed his conversion to a skeptic. “I devoted six
            years to carbon accounting, building models for the Australian government to estimate
            carbon emissions from land use change and forestry. When I started that job in 1999 the
            evidence that carbon emissions caused global warming seemed pretty conclusive, but
            since then new evidence has weakened the case that carbon emissions are the main cause.
            I am now skeptical,” Evans wrote in an April 30, 2007 blog. “But after 2000 the evidence
            for carbon emissions gradually got weaker -- better temperature data for the last century,
            more detailed ice core data, then laboratory evidence that cosmic rays precipitate low
            clouds,” Evans wrote. “As Lord Keynes famously said, ‘When the facts change, I change
            my mind. What do you do, sir?’” he added. Evans noted how he benefited from man-
            made climate fears as a scientist. “And the political realm in turn fed money back into the
            scientific community. By the late 1990's, lots of jobs depended on the idea that carbon
            emissions caused global warming. Many of them were bureaucratic, but there were a lot
            of science jobs created too. I was on that gravy train, making a high wage in a science job
            that would not have existed if we didn't believe carbon emissions caused global warming.
            And so were lots of people around me; and there were international conferences full of
            such people. And we had political support, the ear of government, big budgets, and we
            felt fairly important and useful (well, I did anyway). It was great. We were working to
            save the planet! But starting in about 2000, the last three of the four pieces of evidence
            outlined above fell away or reversed,” Evans wrote. “The pre-2000 ice core data was the
            central evidence for believing that atmospheric carbon caused temperature increases. The
            new ice core data shows that past warmings were *not* initially caused by rises in
            atmospheric carbon, and says nothing about the strength of any amplification. This piece
            of evidence casts reasonable doubt that atmospheric carbon had any role in past
            warmings, while still allowing the possibility that it had a supporting role,” he added.
            “Unfortunately politics and science have become even more entangled. The science of
            global warming has become a partisan political issue, so positions become more


            entrenched. Politicians and the public prefer simple and less-nuanced messages. At the
            moment the political climate strongly supports carbon emissions as the cause of global
            warming, to the point of sometimes rubbishing or silencing critics,” he concluded. (Evans
            bio link )

            Climate researcher Dr. Tad Murty, former Senior Research Scientist for Fisheries
            and Oceans in Canada, also reversed himself from believer in man-made climate
            change to a skeptic. “I stated with a firm belief about global warming, until I started
            working on it myself,” Murty explained on August 17, 2006. “I switched to the other
            side in the early 1990's when Fisheries and Oceans Canada asked me to prepare a
            position paper and I started to look into the problem seriously,” Murty explained. Murty
            was one of the 60 scientists who wrote an April 6, 2006 letter urging withdrawal of
            Kyoto to Canadian prime minister Stephen Harper which stated in part, "If, back in the
            mid-1990s, we knew what we know today about climate, Kyoto would almost certainly
            not exist, because we would have concluded it was not necessary.”

            Botanist Dr. David Bellamy, a famed UK environmental campaigner, former
            lecturer at Durham University and host of a popular UK TV series on wildlife,
            recently converted into a skeptic after reviewing the science and now calls global
            warming fears "poppycock." According to a May 15, 2005 article in the UK Sunday
            Times, Bellamy said “global warming is largely a natural phenomenon. The world is
            wasting stupendous amounts of money on trying to fix something that can’t be fixed.”
            “The climate-change people have no proof for their claims. They have computer models
            which do not prove anything,” Bellamy added. Bellamy’s conversion on global warming
            did not come without a sacrifice as several environmental groups have ended their
            association with him because of his views on climate change. The severing of relations
            came despite Bellamy’s long activism for green campaigns. The UK Times reported
            Bellamy “won respect from hardline environmentalists with his campaigns to save
            Britain’s peat bogs and other endangered habitats. In Tasmania he was arrested when he
            tried to prevent loggers cutting down a rainforest.”

            Climate scientist Dr. Chris de Freitas of The University of Auckland, N.Z., also
            converted from a believer in man-made global warming to a skeptic. “At first I accepted
            that increases in human caused additions of carbon dioxide and methane in the
            atmosphere would trigger changes in water vapor etc. and lead to dangerous ‘global
            warming,’ But with time and with the results of research, I formed the view that, although
            it makes for a good story, it is unlikely that the man-made changes are drivers of
            significant climate variation.” de Freitas wrote on August 17, 2006. “I accept there may
            be small changes. But I see the risk of anything serious to be minute,” he added. “One
            could reasonably argue that lack of evidence is not a good reason for complacency. But I
            believe the billions of dollars committed to GW research and lobbying for GW and for
            Kyoto treaties etc could be better spent on uncontroversial and very real environmental
            problems (such as air pollution, poor sanitation, provision of clean water and improved
            health services) that we know affect tens of millions of people,” de Freitas concluded. de
            Freitas was one of the 60 scientists who wrote an April 6, 2006 letter urging withdrawal
            of Kyoto to Canadian prime minister Stephen Harper which stated in part, “Significant


            [scientific] advances have been made since the [Kyoto] protocol was created, many of
            which are taking us away from a concern about increasing greenhouse gases.”

            Meteorologist Dr. Reid Bryson, the founding chairman of the Department of
            Meteorology at University of Wisconsin (now the Department of Oceanic and
            Atmospheric Sciences, was pivotal in promoting the coming ice age scare of the 1970’s
            ( See Time Magazine’s 1974 article “Another Ice Age” citing Bryson: & see Newsweek’s
            1975 article “The Cooling World” citing Bryson) has now converted into a leading global
            warming skeptic. In February 8, 2007 Bryson dismissed what he terms "sky is falling"
            man-made global warming fears. Bryson, was on the United Nations Global 500 Roll of
            Honor and was identified by the British Institute of Geographers as the most frequently
            cited climatologist in the world. “Before there were enough people to make any
            difference at all, two million years ago, nobody was changing the climate, yet the climate
            was changing, okay?” Bryson told the May 2007 issue of Energy Cooperative News. “All
            this argument is the temperature going up or not, it’s absurd. Of course it’s going up. It
            has gone up since the early 1800s, before the Industrial Revolution, because we’re
            coming out of the Little Ice Age, not because we’re putting more carbon dioxide into the
            air,” Bryson said. “You can go outside and spit and have the same effect as doubling
            carbon dioxide,” he added. “We cannot say what part of that warming was due to
            mankind's addition of ‘greenhouse gases’ until we consider the other possible factors,
            such as aerosols. The aerosol content of the atmosphere was measured during the past
            century, but to my knowledge this data was never used. We can say that the question of
            anthropogenic modification of the climate is an important question -- too important to
            ignore. However, it has now become a media free-for-all and a political issue more than a
            scientific problem,” Bryson explained in 2005.

            Global warming author and economist Hans H.J. Labohm started out as a man-made
            global warming believer but he later switched his view after conducting climate research.

            Labohm wrote on August 19, 2006, “I started as a anthropogenic global warming
            believer, then I read the [UN’s IPCC] Summary for Policymakers and the research of
            prominent skeptics.” “After that, I changed my mind,” Labohn explained. Labohn coauthored
            the 2004 book “Man-Made Global Warming: Unraveling a Dogma,” with
            chemical engineer Dick Thoenes who was the former chairman of the Royal
            Netherlands Chemical Society. Labohm was one of the 60 scientists who wrote an April
            6, 2006 letter urging withdrawal of Kyoto to Canadian prime minister Stephen Harper
            which stated in part, “’Climate change is real’ is a meaningless phrase used repeatedly by
            activists to convince the public that a climate catastrophe is looming and humanity is the
            cause. Neither of these fears is justified. Global climate changes all the time due to
            natural causes and the human impact still remains impossible to distinguish from this
            natural ‘noise.’”

            Paleoclimatologist Tim Patterson, of Carlton University in Ottawa converted from
            believer in C02 driving the climate change to a skeptic. “I taught my students that CO2
            was the prime driver of climate change,” Patterson wrote on April 30, 2007. Patterson
            said his “conversion” happened following his research on “the nature of paleocommercial
            fish populations in the NE Pacific.” “[My conversion from believer to


            climate skeptic] came about approximately 5-6 years ago when results began to come in
            from a major NSERC (Natural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of Canada)
            Strategic Project Grant where I was PI (principle investigator),” Patterson explained.
            “Over the course of about a year, I switched allegiances,” he wrote. “As the proxy results
            began to come in, we were astounded to find that paleoclimatic and paleoproductivity
            records were full of cycles that corresponded to various sun-spot cycles. About that time,
            [geochemist] Jan Veizer and others began to publish reasonable hypotheses as to how
            solar signals could be amplified and control climate,” Patterson noted. Patterson says his
            conversion “probably cost me a lot of grant money. However, as a scientist I go where
            the science takes me and not were activists want me to go.” Patterson now asserts that
            more and more scientists are converting to climate skeptics. "When I go to a scientific
            meeting, there's lots of opinion out there, there's lots of discussion (about climate
            change). I was at the Geological Society of America meeting in Philadelphia in the fall
            and I would say that people with my opinion were probably in the majority,” Patterson
            told the Winnipeg Sun on February 13, 2007. Patterson, who believes the sun is
            responsible for the recent warm up of the Earth, ridiculed the environmentalists and the
            media for not reporting the truth. "But if you listen to [Canadian environmental activist
            David] Suzuki and the media, it's like a tiger chasing its tail. They try to outdo each other
            and all the while proclaiming that the debate is over but it isn't -- come out to a scientific
            meeting sometime,” Patterson said. In a separate interview on April 26, 2007 with a
            Canadian newspaper, Patterson explained that the scientific proof favors skeptics. “I
            think the proof in the pudding, based on what (media and governments) are saying, (is)
            we're about three quarters of the way (to disaster) with the doubling of CO2 in the
            atmosphere," he said. “The world should be heating up like crazy by now, and it's not.
            The temperatures match very closely with the solar cycles."

            Physicist Dr. Zbigniew Jaworowski, chairman of the Central Laboratory for the
            United Nations Scientific Committee on the Effects of Radiological Protection in
            Warsaw, took a scientific journey from a believer of man-made climate change in the
            form of global cooling in the 1970’s all the way to converting to a skeptic of current
            predictions of catastrophic man-made global warming. “At the beginning of the 1970s I
            believed in man-made climate cooling, and therefore I started a study on the effects of
            industrial pollution on the global atmosphere, using glaciers as a history book on this
            pollution,” Dr. Jaworowski, wrote on August 17, 2006. “With the advent of man-made
            warming political correctness in the beginning of 1980s, I already had a lot of experience
            with polar and high altitude ice, and I have serious problems in accepting the reliability of
            ice core CO2 studies,” Jaworowski added. Jaworowski, who has published many papers
            on climate with a focus on CO2 measurements in ice cores, also dismissed the UN IPCC
            summary and questioned what the actual level of C02 was in the atmosphere in a March
            16, 2007 report in EIR science entitled “CO2: The Greatest Scientific Scandal of Our
            Time.” “We thus find ourselves in the situation that the entire theory of man-made global
            warming—with its repercussions in science, and its important consequences for politics
            and the global economy—is based on ice core studies that provided a false picture of the
            atmospheric CO2 levels,” Jaworowski wrote. “For the past three decades, these well-
            known direct CO2 measurements, recently compiled and analyzed by Ernst-Georg Beck
            (Beck 2006a, Beck 2006b, Beck 2007), were completely ignored by climatologists—and


            not because they were wrong. Indeed, these measurements were made by several Nobel
            Prize winners, using the techniques that are standard textbook procedures in chemistry,
            biochemistry, botany, hygiene, medicine, nutrition, and ecology. The only reason for
            rejection was that these measurements did not fit the hypothesis of anthropogenic
            climatic warming. I regard this as perhaps the greatest scientific scandal of our time,”
            Jaworowski wrote. “The hypothesis, in vogue in the 1970s, stating that emissions of
            industrial dust will soon induce the new Ice Age, seem now to be a conceited
            anthropocentric exaggeration, bringing into discredit the science of that time. The same
            fate awaits the present,” he added. Jaworowski believes that cosmic rays and solar
            activity are major drivers of the Earth’s climate. Jaworowski was one of the 60 scientists
            who wrote an April 6, 2006 letter urging withdrawal of Kyoto to Canadian prime minister
            Stephen Harper which stated in part: "It may be many years yet before we properly
            understand the Earth's climate system. Nevertheless, significant advances have been
            made since the protocol was created, many of which are taking us away from a concern
            about increasing greenhouse gases."

            Paleoclimatologist Dr. Ian D. Clark, professor of the Department of Earth Sciences
            at University of Ottawa, reversed his views on man-made climate change after further
            examining the evidence. “I used to agree with these dramatic warnings of climate
            disaster. I taught my students that most of the increase in temperature of the past century
            was due to human contribution of C02. The association seemed so clear and simple.
            Increases of greenhouse gases were driving us towards a climate catastrophe,” Clark said
            in a 2005 documentary "Climate Catastrophe Cancelled: What You're Not Being
            Told About the Science of Climate Change.” “However, a few years ago, I decided to
            look more closely at the science and it astonished me. In fact there is no evidence of
            humans being the cause. There is, however, overwhelming evidence of natural causes
            such as changes in the output of the sun. This has completely reversed my views on the
            Kyoto protocol,” Clark explained. “Actually, many other leading climate researchers also
            have serious concerns about the science underlying the [Kyoto] Protocol,” he added.

            Environmental geochemist Dr. Jan Veizer, professor emeritus of University of
            Ottawa, converted from believer to skeptic after conducting scientific studies of climate
            history. “I simply accepted the (global warming) theory as given,” Veizer wrote on April
            30, 2007 about predictions that increasing C02 in the atmosphere was leading to a climate
            catastrophe. “The final conversion came when I realized that the solar/cosmic ray
            connection gave far more consistent picture with climate, over many time scales, than did
            the CO2 scenario,” Veizer wrote. “It was the results of my work on past records, on
            geological time scales, that led me to realize the discrepancies with empirical
            observations. Trying to understand the background issues of modeling led to realization
            of the assumptions and uncertainties involved,” Veizer explained. “The past record
            strongly favors the solar/cosmic alternative as the principal climate driver,” he added.
            Veizer acknowledgez the Earth has been warming and he believes in the scientific value
            of climate modeling. “The major point where I diverge from the IPCC scenario is my
            belief that it underestimates the role of natural variability by proclaiming CO2 to be the
            only reasonable source of additional energy in the planetary balance. Such additional
            energy is needed to drive the climate. The point is that most of the temperature, in both


            nature and models, arises from the greenhouse of water vapor (model language ‘positive
            water vapor feedback’,) Veizer wrote. “Thus to get more temperature, more water vapor
            is needed. This is achieved by speeding up the water cycle by inputting more energy into
            the system,” he continued. “Note that it is not CO2 that is in the models but its presumed
            energy equivalent (model language ‘prescribed CO2’). Yet, the models (and climate)
            would generate a more or less similar outcome regardless where this additional energy is
            coming from. This is why the solar/cosmic connection is so strongly opposed, because it
            can influence the global energy budget which, in turn, diminishes the need for an energy
            input from the CO2 greenhouse,” he wrote.

            More to follow…

            Related Links:

            Senator Inhofe declares climate momentum shifting away from Gore (The Politico op ed)

            Scientific Smackdown: Skeptics Voted The Clear Winners Against Global Warming
            Believers in Heated NYC Debate

            Global Warming on Mars & Cosmic Ray Research Are Shattering Media Driven
            "Consensus’

            Global Warming: The Momentum has Shifted to Climate Skeptics

            Prominent French Scientist Reverses Belief in Global Warming - Now a Skeptic

            Top Israeli Astrophysicist Recants His Belief in Manmade Global Warming - Now Says
            Sun Biggest Factor in Warming

            Warming On Jupiter, Mars, Pluto, Neptune's Moon & Earth Linked to Increased Solar
            Activity, Scientists Say

            Panel of Broadcast Meteorologists Reject Man-Made Global Warming Fears- Claim 95%
            of Weathermen Skeptical

            MIT Climate Scientist Calls Fears of Global Warming 'Silly' - Equates Concerns to
            ‘Little Kids’ Attempting to "Scare Each Other"

            Weather Channel TV Host Goes 'Political'-Stars in Global Warming Film Accusing U.S.
            Government of ‘Criminal Neglect’

            Weather Channel Climate Expert Calls for Decertifying Global Warming Skeptics

            ABC-TV Meteorologist: I Don't Know A Single Weatherman Who Believes 'Man-Made
            Global Warming Hype'


            The Weather Channel Climate Expert Refuses to Retract Call for Decertification for
            Global Warming Skeptics

            Senator Inhofe Announces Public Release Of "Skeptic’s Guide To Debunking Global
            Warming"

            # # #

          • Hubristic arrogant warmers are liars

            Tue, July 28, 2009 - 12:35 PM
            • That's harsh man!

              Wed, July 29, 2009 - 8:49 AM
              So you think that no one should care about climate change just because there are other things that may also cause it?

              What if you are wrong what if pollution is the problem ?

              Surely you can not argue that pollution is not a problem can you?
              • Re: That's harsh man!

                Wed, July 29, 2009 - 11:07 AM

                Zippy is just plain dead wrong. Human caused global warming is a fact beyond debate. The evidence is irrefutable. The catastrophe it causes may well wipe out the human species. The oil companies and their corporate media stooges have had us arguing over something so obvious, meanwhile the real question is what to do about it and whether or not we will do it before it is too late.
                • Re: That's harsh man!

                  Wed, July 29, 2009 - 2:33 PM
                  Even if there is a debate Steven, Even if there's good cause for debate there is no harm in capping carbon emmissions.

                  What's the worst that can happen?
                  I mean the absolute worst?
                  We'll spend some money capturing and eliminating carbon emissions.
                  That is the worst.

                  And meanwhile what is the Anti Anthropogenic Climate Change argument wins then so what? At least we will have fought to good fight and done what we believed was the right thing. And meanwhile learned a hell of a lot about technologies that we might not have been looking into. Just like the Space program all these efforts will yield tangential results that will spin off into other areas.

                  Take Algae and sewerage conversion to bio diesel. They are both carbon neutral and both offer meaningful ways to decouple ourselves from petroleum oil. Will Zippy complain that these technologies are a waste?

                  There would never have been any effort to explore these technologies if people were not worried about Climate change - man made climate change.

                  What about electric batteries for vehicular transportation? You think Zippy that all the progrtess into electric vehicles would have arisin if no one cared about Anthroipogenic climate change?
                  If the attitude was "Oh well. It's the sun that's doing it so there's nothing we can do. Lets just giive up and give all our monty to people who don't like us for more petroleum."
                  What about that Zippy?
                  You think that these progressive strides in science and technology are all for nothing?
                  You willing to blanket the coasts and the land with oil derricks?

                  Is that your idea of a beautiful nation?
    • I had to look up the malankovich cycle and
      I came across this video of Richard Alley explaning Milankovitch cycles, carbon dioxide, and global warming.


      Let's face it. Climate science is complicated. Warming of the global climate is unequivocal, but it's also been only a couple of degrees since the mid-1800s. It's hard to get people excited about that.

      Unless you're Richard Alley.

      In this short video, explains why the relatively small changes we've seen so far should make our grandchildren very worried about the world they'll inherit from us. He also points out that an economical analysis tells us that the more uncertain we are about how bad things will be, the more we ought to invest now to avoid the potential catastrophe.

      He doesn't recommend a particular target for atmospheric carbon dioxide or a particular mechanism for reaching it. One of the strengths of his presentation is that he makes it clear while the natural sciences provide the data and models that allow us to project what will happen, the socials sciences and our own values are inextricably part of telling how we ought to respond.

Recent topics in "! * Environmental Protection * !"