More Global Warning Chicken Little Warnings Exposed

[valvano]

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/environment/article6994774.ece

The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) said yesterday that the prediction in its landmark 2007 report was “poorly substantiated” and resulted from a lapse in standards. “In drafting the paragraph in question the clear and well-established standards of evidence, required by the IPCC procedures, were not applied properly,” the panel said. “The chair, vice-chair and co-chairs of the IPCC regret the poor application of IPCC procedures in this instance.”

:eek:

[Echewta]

Now I don't feel guilty throwing my trash out the window when I pass a river.

[yeahwho]

If you read the article, it points out the original journalist (not scientist) came away with the date and theory of these glaciers disappearing by 2035. This occurred during an interview with a single scientist who said, there will be substantial mass loss of the Himalayan Glaciers.

The overall report stands as accurate, the reporting is inaccurate. Chicken Little in this case is the reporter.

What any reasonable adult walks away with after reading that article is we heard some Bad News, wait... it's not as bad as first reported, but guess what? This is still some horrid life threatening news.

[Echewta]

These threads usually end up the same way. Article pointing out something wrong with liberals/greenies/Obama/etc. People point to where original poster is incorrect. Incorrect poster never replies to be wrong or misinformed and moves on to the next new post that will no doubt be wrong.

[DroppinScience]

These threads usually end up the same way. Article pointing out something wrong with liberals/greenies/Obama/etc. People point to where original poster is incorrect. Incorrect poster never replies to be wrong or misinformed and moves on to the next new post that will no doubt be wrong.

100% true. I have yet to hear a mea culpa coming from valvano.

[Bob]

Now I don't feel guilty throwing my trash out the window when I pass a river.

this is what bothers me about the whole "global warming is a myth" thing; suppose for the sake of argument that you're right, there is no such thing as global warming. what are you going to do with that information? take it as a license to pollute more? whatever climate change may or may not be, pollution is still a bad thing, am i wrong?

[yeahwho]

Drill Baby Drill!

[RobMoney$]

this is what bothers me about the whole "global warming is a myth" thing; suppose for the sake of argument that you're right, there is no such thing as global warming. what are you going to do with that information? take it as a license to pollute more? whatever climate change may or may not be, pollution is still a bad thing, am i wrong?

You really don't understand the adverse POV on the issue?

[kaiser soze]

glaciers that took thousands of years to grow always melt in in less than a century, that ALWAYS happens because well, we were there!

global warming isn't about the world getting hot (which it is), it is how the warming of certain areas og the planet affects the overall flow of things.

people who deny climate change only look out their windows to make their up their minds.

[valvano]

If you read the article, it points out the original journalist (not scientist) came away with the date and theory of these glaciers disappearing by 2035. This occurred during an interview with a single scientist who said, there will be substantial mass loss of the Himalayan Glaciers.

The overall report stands as accurate, the reporting is inaccurate. Chicken Little in this case is the reporter.

What any reasonable adult walks away with after reading that article is we heard some Bad News, wait... it's not as bad as first reported, but guess what? This is still some horrid life threatening news.

nice attempt to spin....

"It emerged last week that the prediction was based not on a consensus among climate change experts but on a media interview with a single Indian glaciologist in 1999. That scientist, Syed Hasnain, has now told The Times that he never made such a specific forecast in his interview with the New Scientist magazine."

sounds like the glaciologist made the prediction for a media interview which the UN used to hype global warming, now 10 years later the original source retracts his original statement....sounds to me like the UN is the chicken little...

[Bob]

You really don't understand the adverse POV on the issue?

apparently not?

[yeahwho]

nice attempt to spin....

"It emerged last week that the prediction was based not on a consensus among climate change experts but on a media interview with a single Indian glaciologist in 1999. That scientist, Syed Hasnain, has now told The Times that he never made such a specific forecast in his interview with the New Scientist magazine."

sounds like the glaciologist made the prediction for a media interview which the UN used to hype global warming, now 10 years later the original source retracts his original statement....sounds to me like the UN is the chicken little...

Are you actually that thick? Read the whole article then try and understand, in an adult manner what is being said,

It emerged last week that the prediction was based not on a consensus among climate change experts but on a media interview with a single Indian glaciologist in 1999. That scientist, Syed Hasnain, has now told The Times that he never made such a specific forecast in his interview with the New Scientist magazine.

“I have not made any prediction on date as I am not an astrologer but I did say they were shrinking fast,” he said. “I have never written 2035 in any of my research papers or reports.” Professor Hasnain works for The Energy and Resources Institute (TERI) in Delhi, which is headed by Rajendra Pachauri, head of the climate change panel.

You posted this fucking article, the spin is what?

Continue reading verbatim the actual article you've posted;

Dr Pachauri has defended the panel’s work, while trying to distance himself from Professor Hasnain by saying that the latter was not working at the institute in 1999: “We slipped up on one number, I don’t think it takes anything away from the overwhelming scientific evidence of what’s happening with the climate of this Earth.”

Professor Hasnain confirmed that he had given an interview to Fred Pearce, of New Scientist, when he was still working for Jawaharlal Nehru University in 1999. “I said that small glaciers in the eastern and central Himalaya are declining at an alarming rate and in the next 40-50 years they may lose substantial mass,” he said. “That means they will shrink in area and mass. To which the journalist has assigned a date and reported it in his own way.” Mr Pearce was not immediately available for comment.

Despite the controversy, the IPCC said that it stood by its overall conclusions about glacier loss this century in big mountain ranges including the Himalayas. “This conclusion is robust, appropriate, and entirely consistent with the underlying science and the broader IPCC assessment,” it said.

I'm am reading your link and it is telling me that yes, bad news... this bad news was mis-interpreted (basically by a journalist) and it is now being presented in a factual scientific manner... and guess what? It's still fucking bad news.

[saz]

ahahah nice, *high five*

[RobMoney$]

**sigh**

Yet more inanity from the flat-earthers.

We emerged from an ice age.
15,000 years ago the Great Lakes were an ice cube.
Just because the earth is getting warmer doesn't mean it's the result of CO2 emmissions from man.

Here's an article that claims we're headed for a mini ice-age.
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencetech/article-1242011/DAVID-ROSE-The-mini-ice-age-starts-here.html

Perhaps we should be devoting government resources to studying it and finding ways to reverse or limit that?
Al Gore and his minions have put P.T. Barnum to shame.

I should just accept AGW and get to the point where I delight in the prospect of (1) seeing a huge increase in taxes, and (2) throwing huge amounts of those dollars at AGW and health care, even if they never accomplish anything.

The decrease in my bottom line is a small price to pay to combat what is nothing more than a moral outrage from the tree-hugging left.

[DroppinScience]

this is what bothers me about the whole "global warming is a myth" thing; suppose for the sake of argument that you're right, there is no such thing as global warming. what are you going to do with that information? take it as a license to pollute more? whatever climate change may or may not be, pollution is still a bad thing, am i wrong?

The best I've been able to get with global warming deniers is that they believe climate change legislation (especially international treaties) will place undue taxation and burden on industry. I was friends with a real conspiracy theorist (you know, the ones who think Alex Jones is God; he also has embraced Lord Monckton, who called youth environmental activists "Hitler Youth") who believed things like this will be the first step in eroding our rights. Or something. :rolleyes:

[RobMoney$]

Here's another cause for you guys to join.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Flat_Earth_Society


It's as richly steeped in scientific validity as the pro-AGW cause.
You guys ought to love it.

[valvano]

well what do you know, more UN apologies regarding glacier melting drama:

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/environment/article6999051.ece

[kaiser soze]

I wonder what's more profitable - being paid to research climate change or being paid to denounce climate change

Like I said most make up their minds by looking out their windows

Climate Change isn't about our collective weather becoming warmer, it is about extremes it is about abnormalities, it is about reversing patterns - it is about natural and man made causes. If you don't think the Massive Pollution in China doesn't change their weather, or the weather in the Amazon hasn't changed from massive deforestation then you're seriously so far up your polluted ass it isn't even funny. Desertification is happening, massive polar ice shelves are breaking off, coral reefs dying - even if this has little contribution from man shouldn't we try avoiding making it that way?

It is 40 degrees in the Adirondacks today, in January.

[RobMoney$]

I also love how it's gone from "Global Warming" to "Climate Change".

If you don't think the Massive Pollution in China doesn't change their weather, or the weather in the Amazon hasn't changed from massive deforestation then you're seriously so far up your polluted ass it isn't even funny. Desertification is happening, massive polar ice shelves are breaking off, coral reefs dying - even if this has little contribution from man shouldn't we try avoiding making it that way?

Sort of the way the "Great Ice Cubes" have now become the "Great Lakes"?
The world is an ever changing place.

Is it too much to ask for any of this to be scientificly proven beyond just opinion before we committ massive funding to any of it?

Assuming man can actually impact temperatures significantly is not something I'm willing to just put faith in based on theories.

[yeahwho]

Assuming man can actually impact temperatures significantly is not something I'm willing to just put faith in based on theories.

That is where you're coming from? You honestly don't believe overpopulation coupled with industrialization have ever made any impact on our environment.

All of the recent rise in atmospheric CO2 and accelerated species extinction rates are some sort of coincidence?

This is all a trick to raise taxes? It isn't really happening?

[yeahwho]

well what do you know, more UN apologies regarding glacier melting drama:

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/environment/article6999051.ece

With you valvano I think your so entrenched in denial-ism you actually deny any evidence provided by anyone with an IQ higher than yours.

You completely deny all such nonsense of evidence and pounce on whatever minuscule ink the media supplies contrary to truth and cling onto it as if every one is all fucked up but you.

You are the Chicken Little.

Here is an informed adult reasonable view of our current condition on Earth, deny all you want it's just silly.

Global warming is real, and we should be worried (http://www.seattlepi.com/connelly/414555_joel23.html?source=mypi)

[RobMoney$]

That is where you're coming from? You honestly don't believe overpopulation coupled with industrialization have ever made any impact on our environment.

All of the recent rise in atmospheric CO2 and accelerated species extinction rates are some sort of coincidence?

This is all a trick to raise taxes? It isn't really happening?


I'm not denying that the earth is gradually getting warmer (as it has been for over 15,000 years).
I'm just not convinced it's because of anything man is doing or CO2 emmissions.

Of course it's possible, but I'd like some concrete evidence of it before I'm willing to push my chips all in that pot, is all I'm saying.

[valvano]

Here is an informed adult reasonable view of our current condition on Earth, deny all you want it's just silly.

Global warming is real, and we should be worried (http://www.seattlepi.com/connelly/414555_joel23.html?source=mypi)

IS this the same Connelly?

http://www.soundpolitics.com/archives/006013.html

[RobMoney$]

IS this the same Connelly?

http://www.soundpolitics.com/archives/006013.html



ahahah nice, *high five*

[yeahwho]

Are you two guys mentally dis-advantaged? So a journalist reports some facts, he brings up the pertinent information regarding your story and because he is registered to vote on Whidbey Island that is news? That is scandalous?

Do you prefer just the NASA links and actual Himalayan glacier studies?

[Bob]

**sigh**

Yet more inanity from the flat-earthers.

We emerged from an ice age.
15,000 years ago the Great Lakes were an ice cube.
Just because the earth is getting warmer doesn't mean it's the result of CO2 emmissions from man.

Here's an article that claims we're headed for a mini ice-age.
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencetech/article-1242011/DAVID-ROSE-The-mini-ice-age-starts-here.html

Perhaps we should be devoting government resources to studying it and finding ways to reverse or limit that?
Al Gore and his minions have put P.T. Barnum to shame.

I should just accept AGW and get to the point where I delight in the prospect of (1) seeing a huge increase in taxes, and (2) throwing huge amounts of those dollars at AGW and health care, even if they never accomplish anything.

The decrease in my bottom line is a small price to pay to combat what is nothing more than a moral outrage from the tree-hugging left.

right, i get that. my concern is just that people are using global warming denial as an excuse to say "fuck it" to environmental protection in general. like "global warming isn't real therefore we don't need to worry about air pollution." whatever the science on climate change may be, i don't think san francisco was smoggy before humans got there.

[valvano]

right, i get that. my concern is just that people are using global warming denial as an excuse to say "fuck it" to environmental protection in general. like "global warming isn't real therefore we don't need to worry about air pollution." whatever the science on climate change may be, i don't think san francisco was smoggy before humans got there.

thats like saying "i've had a vasectomy so I dont have to worry about getting herpes from this whore"....you miss this point. of course man made pollution is bad. and it needs to be stopped and controlled. but global warming aint man made.

the religion of "global warming / global change" is no different that scientology, etc. there's a basic human need to be a part of something. i know from reading posts here that a lot of people disdain organized religion i.e. Christianity, etc. so they turn to the latest "cause" as a substitute. global warming, veganism, animal rights, new age crap, etc.

[Bob]

are you suggesting that people buy into global warming because they've rejected christ

[HAL 9000]

the religion of "global warming / global change" is no different that scientology, etc. there's a basic human need to be a part of something. i know from reading posts here that a lot of people disdain organized religion i.e. Christianity, etc. so they turn to the latest "cause" as a substitute. global warming, veganism, animal rights, new age crap, etc.

It should be noted that plenty of people who are part of organised religion support global warming, animal rights and new age crap too!

I actually agree that there is a huge part of the environmental movement which is unscientific. Indeed Global Warming is an example where people on both sides of the argument demonstrate this behaviour. The thing I hate about this debate most is that on 'my side' there are loads of shitty politicians trying to score cheap political points with no understanding of evidence (they are on your side too). Usually I find, as a skeptic, that I am on the side of the evidence and the other side is full of ideologues. I think I still have the evidence on my side, but dammit I have many of the ideologues too.

But somewhere in the middle of all this lib vs conservative bullshit is actual data. This data shows it is highly likely that the rise in CO2 is a significant factor in the rising temperature.

[valvano]

are you suggesting that people buy into global warming because they've rejected christ

nowhere did i say that. i said people have a need to belong or be a part of something. a cause, a mission, whatever. since they dont want to be a part of a religion, for whatever reason, to meet that need they turn to something else. the cause of global warming feels that need to be a part of something.

all the peace nicks and hippy wannabes, socialist, anti capitalists, anti americans, anarachists,etc have all filled that need through signing up with the church of global warming. its bring them all together and gives them the warm fuzzies because the can be a part of something "for the greater good"

[Bob]

you're more full of it than usual on this one

[RobMoney$]

right, i get that. my concern is just that people are using global warming denial as an excuse to say "fuck it" to environmental protection in general. like "global warming isn't real therefore we don't need to worry about air pollution." whatever the science on climate change may be, i don't think san francisco was smoggy before humans got there.


Pollution is one topic, AGW is another. You seem to be trying to combine the two.

Smog is harmful to humans, but it has not been proven to increase the earth's temperature.

[yeahwho]

Pollution is one topic, AGW is another. You seem to be trying to combine the two.

Smog is harmful to humans, but it has not been proven to increase the earth's temperature.

I have something more than just a casual interest in this topic, for some reason AGW does not compute. What exactly is AGW?

[RobMoney$]

google it.

[yeahwho]

google it.

I found this guy (http://www.nolanchart.com/article805.html), is that you in real life?

[DroppinScience]

AGW = Anthropomorphic (sp?) global warming

[kaiser soze]

A&W?

[RobMoney$]

I found this guy (http://www.nolanchart.com/article805.html), is that you in real life?

^^^That's actually an outstanding link that uses just the right bit of detail to explain why AGW is a myth.



Here (http://www.google.com/search?q=anthropogenic+global+warming&sourceid=ie7&rls=com.microsoft:en-us:IE-SearchBox&ie=&oe=)...don't say I never did any reasearch for you.
Every article that comes up on the google search's first page is one explaining that AGW is a complete myth.

Happy reading, gentleman.

[kaiser soze]

blogs and editorials

and very little scientific proof debunking AGW as a myth

Isn't this what your trying to debunk? Opinions for AGW with opinions against AGW?

I don't believe that Global Warming is 100% man's doing, but we have without a doubt put a major stress on the environment in so many different climates - eventually (if not already...ok already) we will reap what we are sowing.

[yeahwho]

"quote"RobMoney$ google it."


In the beginning of this thread you seemed perturbed that Global Warming had been changed to Climate Change. This even though you actually wanted to call those who understand what increasing amounts of CO2 in the atmosphere means, flat-earthers?

Then during this same thread, even before you get mad for all the name changing you come up with AGW... a completely new term altogether that actually very few people use.

I propose we call it what it is, chainsaw wielding monkey gangs deforesting the planet for more resort style monkey casinos.

[RobMoney$]

Just trying to be as specific as possible.
I'm not denying that the earth may be in a warming trend. (I'm also not supporting it).

I am denying that man is causing global warming.

And I assure you that I did not invent the term "AGW".
Just because it's new to you, doesn't mean it's new.
If were going to discuss the issue, I would expect you guys to have a certain level of understanding of the basic terms.

[HAL 9000]

I am familiar with AGW as a term. Although, much more so in the last few months.

[DroppinScience]

AGW = Anthropomorphic (sp?) global warming

There is also the term anthropogenic global warming. I'm not sure what the difference is between the two terms, but it's highly presumptuous of Rob to throw around acronyms to make it look like he knows what he's talking about and come across as being clear.

[RobMoney$]

There is also the term anthropogenic global warming. I'm not sure what the difference is between the two terms, but it's highly presumptuous of Rob to throw around acronyms to make it look like he knows what he's talking about and come across as being clear.


You never miss an opportunity to be the stereotypical condescending liberal, do you?

I thought you guys were being sarcastic by acting like you didn't know what AGW meant.

[DroppinScience]

You never miss an opportunity to be the stereotypical condescending liberal, do you?

I thought you guys were being sarcastic by acting like you didn't know what AGW meant.

Do you know what other terms fall under the AGW acronym? Take a look:

http://acronyms.thefreedictionary.com/AGW

By context, it was safe to say you meant anthropogenic global warming, but the standard acronym etiquette is to spell out the word in the first reference and then give it an acronym for every reference afterward.

[RobMoney$]

Anthropogenic (http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/anthropogenic) - caused or produced by humans: anthropogenic air pollution.

Global Warming (http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/global+warming) - An increase in the average temperature of the earth's atmosphere, especially a sustained increase sufficient to cause climatic change.


I've already linked a google search (http://www.google.com/search?q=anthropogenic+global+warming&sourceid=ie7&rls=com.microsoft:en-us:IE-SearchBox&ie=&oe=) of articles that show exactly 803,000 articles the contain the term. I'd say that's evidence that it's a fairly commonly used term.


Also, I have no idea what "Anthropomorphic" means.
Nice try though, Librarian Lambert.

[RobMoney$]

Do you know what other terms fall under the AGW acronym? Take a look:

http://acronyms.thefreedictionary.com/AGW

By context, it was safe to say you meant anthropogenic global warming, but the standard acronym etiquette is to spell out the word in the first reference and then give it an acronym for every reference afterward.


Using your own link, which do you think would be the acronym I was referring to?

AGWAnthropogenic Global Warming
AGWAnti-Global Warming
AGWAccess Gateway
AGWAtmospheric Gravity Waves
AGWArt Gallery of Windsor (Ontario, Canada)
AGWAll Going Well
AGWAccelerated Global Warming
AGWActual Gold Weight
AGWApplication Gateway (telecom)
AGWAlt.Games.Warbirds (forum)
AGWA Girl's World (online magazine)
AGWActual Gross Weight
AGWAmerican Wire Gauge
AGWAutomatic Girth Welder
AGWAutonomous Guided Weapon
AGWAllowable Gross Weight
AGWAnganwadi Worker (India)
AGWAccident Generated Water


Do you really think it's possible I was talking about Automatic Girth Welders?
Also, no reference to "Anthropomorphic" at all in there.

[DroppinScience]

Anthropogenic (http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/anthropogenic) - caused or produced by humans: anthropogenic air pollution.

Also, I have no idea what "Anthropomorphic" means.
Nice try though, Librarian Lambert.

If you know what it means, why did you link me a definition for "Anthropogenic" instead? See why I said you should use proper acronym etiquette to avoid any confusion or ambiguity...

You very well could have been saying: "antiglobal warming," "anthropogenic global warming," or "accelerated global warming" as well.

[RobMoney$]

If you know what it means, why did you link me a definition for "Anthropogenic" instead?

Instead of what?

[yeahwho]

Just trying to be as specific as possible.
I'm not denying that the earth may be in a warming trend. (I'm also not supporting it).

I am denying that man is causing global warming.

And I assure you that I did not invent the term "AGW".
Just because it's new to you, doesn't mean it's new.
If were going to discuss the issue, I would expect you guys to have a certain level of understanding of the basic terms.

I'm just saying you are angry at the verbiage used in this thread to describe carbon cycling, such as (Global Warming... Climate Change... ) but during your tizzy you seem to have come up with a complete different term, an acronym you spout out called AGW.

It's funny, ironic, you know, you're a funny guy is all I'm saying.. funny, the way you tell the story and everything, like in goodfellas.

That's a big word, "Anthropogenic". Basic terms call for a complete spelling of the actual condition your going to speak of. AGW (http://acronyms.thefreedictionary.com/AGW)has multiple meanings.

I'm glad to hear that your not denying the earth is going through a warming period. I'm curious as how you plan to not support that though. Are you conscientiously cooling things on your own?

[Documad]

Somehow I don't see Rob having a beer with his buddies and casually throwing "anthropogenic" into the conversation.

I don't intend to make fun Rob -- I don't believe I've ever heard ANYONE say that word. But this whole discussion has gotten silly.

[RobMoney$]

Somehow I don't see Rob having a beer with his buddies and casually throwing "anthropogenic" into the conversation.


But I didn't throw "Anthropegenic" around, I threw "AGW" around.
Most of my friends and co-workers hold at least a BS, with most holding a Masters.
Many of my co-workers have a chemistry degree.
I'd say the average intelligence among them would rival the collective intelligence of this forum with ease.
I work in a field that deals with the purification of gases that exist in the atmosphere.




Screw you all for the subtle suggestions that I'm too stupid to know something that perhaps you didn't.

[Documad]

Jeez Rob. I don't have a science degree. I nearly failed physics. I was thinking of sociology rather than hard science, so I guess that shows how far off the mark I was. Anyhow, if you want to have a discussion with us non-science types, can't you use phrases like "man-made" or "man-caused" or something? :o

I know some really old environmental acronyms, like MMSW (mixed municipal solid waste) but none of the new fangled ones. I hate acronyms. :(

[RobMoney$]

What a complete waste of time.

At least you've all exposed yourselves as knowing absolutely nothing about the issue at hand other than what your partisan tree-hugging media tells you about it.

[Documad]

What a complete waste of time.

At least you've all exposed yourselves as knowing absolutely nothing about the issue at hand other than what your partisan tree-hugging media tells you about it.
I hope you're not talking to me. I never weighed in on the substance of the issue. :o

I hate to admit it, but I can't get worked up about it. I don't think it matters whether man contributes to global warming or not. Even if it's manmade, we don't have the discipline to turn it around in my lifetime. So I'll do little things that don't interfere with my lifestyle but I won't make any major changes unless someone makes me. And I don't trust any of the industries that try to pretend they're green.

I do worry about pollution, clean air and water, etc. I'm fine with those regulations. I've seen positive changes in quality of life since I was a kid as a result of environmental legislation.

[kaiser soze]

What a complete waste of time.

At least you've all exposed yourselves as knowing absolutely nothing about the issue at hand other than what your partisan tree-hugging media tells you about it.

descending into insults....again

and you know evvvvvvvverything on the opposite side of the spectrum :rolleyes:

Not once did you provide Scientific Proof without a doubt that the rate of Global Warming/Climate Change is a complete natural occurrence. Your argument could equally be blamed as credulous.

If you are convinced that we are getting our information from High Times, please provide a link that isn't a blog or editorial....maybe from the EPA or the WHO or preferably a new source that has rock solid research debunking man's contribution to Global Warming.

you might be older than everyone here, but you are not the wiser

[RobMoney$]

So now I'm supposed to prove something doesn't exist?

Like I said, you guys are a complete waste of my time.



Also, I didn't insult anyone. I pointed out the collective ignorance about Global Warming.
THAT has been proven to be a fact.

[RobMoney$]

Here's some FACTS that I'll offer to you as strong evidence that CO2 emmissions are NOT causing the Global Warming.

The earth's atmosphere is comprised of approximately:
19.5% - 21.5% Oxygen
76% - 78% Nitrogen
1% Argon
.038% CO2
and the balance is comprised of a multitude of various rare gases such as
Neon, Krypton, Xenon, Helium, Hydrogen, CO, N20, ect.

.038% of the atmosphere is not significantly affecting ANYTHING.
This is a fact.

And the left would have the US committ $400 billion a year to .038% of the atmosphere?
For what? So maybe we could decrease it to .036%???
.002% contamination is about as pure as you're going to get.
In my line of work, .002% impruities is considered outstanding purity.

Hell, every pure molecule my company sells has approx. that much impurity.

People don't have a clue about exactly what it is they're advocating for.

[RobMoney$]

Also, I used some abreviations in my last post.
Please allow me to explain what thy mean as to avoid any further misunderstandings.

CO2 - Carbon Dioxide
CO - Carbon Monoxide
N2O - Nitrous Oxide

I hope you all are able to keep up with the conversation.
I apologize if any of this is going over your heads. :rolleyes:


Also, kaiser.
Asking me for a link from the EPA that disproves Global Warming is like asking me to show you a pic of Chuck Norris getting his ass kicked.
Neither will ever exist.

[yeahwho]

Welcome to the global warming games. (This is no snow job) (http://www.vancouversun.com/opinion/Welcome+global+warming+games+This+snow/2475721/story.html)

[HAL 9000]

Here's some FACTS that I'll offer to you as strong evidence that CO2 emmissions are NOT causing the Global Warming.

The earth's atmosphere is comprised of approximately:
19.5% - 21.5% Oxygen
76% - 78% Nitrogen
1% Argon
.038% CO2
and the balance is comprised of a multitude of various rare gases such as
Neon, Krypton, Xenon, Helium, Hydrogen, CO, N20, ect.

.038% of the atmosphere is not significantly affecting ANYTHING.
This is a fact.

And the left would have the US committ $400 billion a year to .038% of the atmosphere?
For what? So maybe we could decrease it to .036%???
.002% contamination is about as pure as you're going to get.
In my line of work, .002% impruities is considered outstanding purity.

Hell, every pure molecule my company sells has approx. that much impurity.

People don't have a clue about exactly what it is they're advocating for.


Rob,

You have identified the key issue. Do you have any data or studies to support the statement that “0.38% of the atmosphere is not significantly affecting anything”?

If you are correct, then it seems the argument is won from your point of view. However, if CO2 does have a significant Greenhouse effect, and it is also a fact that the CO2 in the atmosphere has increased by 50% over the last couple of hundred years, then the argument (from your point of view) is lost.

I have seen data showing that CO2 contributes around 25% of the Greenhouse effect (http://www.atmo.arizona.edu/students/courselinks/spring04/atmo451b/pdf/RadiationBudget.pdf (http://www.atmo.arizona.edu/students/courselinks/spring04/atmo451b/pdf/RadiationBudget.pdf)) (page 7) which itself adds around 40 Kelvin to the Earths average temperature. I have not seen any studies showing the opposite is true but I would be grateful for a link because that would certainly be interesting.

[valvano]

more calling out BS on global warming

http://www.vancouversun.com/technology/Scientists+using+selective+temperature+data+skepti cs/2468634/story.html

and its from a canadian paper, so you know it has to be true...

[Randetica]

did you hear that thousands camels are getting killed in australia because of the global warming?

till that news i didnt know camels lived in australia


i wonder what animals are on the list next

[Echewta]

more calling out BS on global warming

http://www.vancouversun.com/technology/Scientists+using+selective+temperature+data+skepti cs/2468634/story.html

and its from a canadian paper, so you know it has to be true...

A meteorologist and a computer programmer.

[RobMoney$]

So I came here to add a link pertaining to the absudity that is AGW and had to laugh at the massive editing that the mods have done to this thread.
Guess they didn't think anyone would notice 75% of the thread has been deleted, along with tons of facts that I posted to disprove AGW.


Anyway, here's something all the Global Warming advocates can be proud of...
http://hotair.com/archives/2010/10/01/video-the-dumbest-most-self-defeating-ad-campaign-ever/

[kaiser soze]

oh snap he dropped the neener neener poo poo on us!

really rob....you coming back with a blog as your trump card? I honestly thought you were sharper than this.

regardless if you believe humans do contribute to Global Warming or do not, we can all agree that Global Warming/Climate Change, whatever people want to call it is happening...we may very well have the intellect, compassion, and power to slow it down, reverse the damage, or start preparing to live in a swiftly changing world.

...and if people can not, do not, or refuse to believe that turning centuries old rain forests into deserts, spewing tons upon tons of atmospheric poison into the air and ocean, and ravaging our mountains doesn't affect our climate - then so be it. They won't be alive to see the results, and pray their children and grandchildren will not as well.

[yeahwho]

So I came here to add a link pertaining to the absudity that is AGW and had to laugh at the massive editing that the mods have done to this thread.
Guess they didn't think anyone would notice 75% of the thread has been deleted, along with tons of facts that I posted to disprove AGW.


Have you ever heard of the word pathological? How about paranoia? Nothing discussed on this site pertaining to anything makes a difference to anybody. The BBMB is not the preeminent journal for scientific, political or religious discourse.

Get over yourself and show some humility. Nobody cares what we say here, it's just a white boy hip hop message board with a section for other topics.

To think that someone would bother to edit this page is delusional. Just as delusional as your obsession that human activities have 0 effect on global warming.

I'll stick with what the mainstream consensus has been, continues to be and will most certainly always be. How about this stupid USA Today article a few months ago Report: 97 percent of scientists say man-made climate change is real (http://content.usatoday.com/communities/sciencefair/post/2010/06/scientists-overwhelmingly-believe-in-man-made-climate-change/1)

[RobMoney$]

really rob....you coming back with a blog as your trump card? I honestly thought you were sharper than this.


Nah son, this shit ain't supposed to be some sort of Trump card, just a link to show the Pro-AGW people are just as kooky as anyone.

I shared so many links and info explaining my position in this thread that I blew all you pro-global warming kooks out of the water. And it appears to have all been deleted. Thus making me look like I bowed out of the debate after HAL9000 challenged me to provide proof to the contrary that man made CO2 causing Global Warming.

[RobMoney$]

regardless if you believe humans do contribute to Global Warming or do not, we can all agree that Global Warming/Climate Change, whatever people want to call it is happening...we may very well have the intellect, compassion, and power to slow it down, reverse the damage, or start preparing to live in a swiftly changing world.


Of course the planet is an ever changing place. That's sort of my point. Even if we controlled every molecule of man-made CO2 emmission that was released into the atmosphere, oceans would still eventually turn to deserts, regardless BECAUSE the earth is ever changing.
And you know what, There's not a god damned thing man can do about it.
We are an insignificant speck of sand when it comes to the earth, it's rotation, and the sun.

[RobMoney$]

To think that someone would bother to edit this page is delusional. Just as delusional as your obsession that human activities have 0 effect on global warming.


You have no idea about my history here and the mods opinions of me, do you?
This thread turned into a pissing match (surprise) and it went on for pages and pages.
But I had tons of info supporting my argument that has since been deleted.
I think this was the one where Lambert's girl insulted my autistic son, if memory serves me correct...

[milleson]

Of course the planet is an ever changing place. That's sort of my point. Even if we controlled every molecule of man-made CO2 emmission that was released into the atmosphere, oceans would still eventually turn to deserts , regardless BECAUSE the earth is ever changing.
And you know what, There's not a god damned thing man can do about it.
We are an insignificant speck of sand when it comes to the earth, it's rotation, and the sun.

WTF? Where did that one come from? Are you implying that the oceans are going to dry out, then turn to desert? If so, that's a bit preposterous.

I don't really care to read this thread thoroughly, but are you trying to argue that there has been no increase in atmospheric CO2 concentration due anthropogenic effects over the last ~200 years? Or that increased atmospheric CO2 concentration (pCO2) does not contribute to changes in temperature, changes in atmospheric circulation, changes in the amount and distribution of precipitation, ocean chemistry, and primary productivity (ocean and terrestrial).

You do realize most of the American diet is based on plants that prefer low pCO2, right? Corn and sugar, specifically. Presently, the global atmospheric CO2 concentration is ~386ppm. Above ~500ppm, C4 photosynthesis (the photosynthetic pathway preferred by corn and sugar) begins to lose efficiency, and C3 photosynthesizing plants (think rice and potatoes) have a metabolic advantage. At the rate that CO2 is entering the atmosphere, we are going to cross that threshold sooner rather than later. Note that I'm not saying that we are going enter some sort of food crisis as pCO2 continues to rise at some of the highest rates in history. I'm just pointing out that there are other things to be concerned about besides global temperature changes.

Vegetation changes are just the first example of the consequences of increased pCO2 that came to mind. There are others, but I can't be arsed to recount them unless you are going to grade me.

tl;dr It's not just about global temperature. And they don't call it the global carbon cycle for nothing.

[travesty]

I'm with Rob on this one. I seem to remember there being A LOT more to this thread as well.
Interesting. Conspiracy? Censorship?

[Dorothy Wood]

you guys sure it wasn't another global warming thread? there are several.

[yeahwho]

You have no idea about my history here and the mods opinions of me, do you?
This thread turned into a pissing match (surprise) and it went on for pages and pages.
But I had tons of info supporting my argument that has since been deleted.
I think this was the one where Lambert's girl insulted my autistic son, if memory serves me correct...

This is the thread you had a blowout in with DS and QA, Glenn Beck is a complete fucking hypocrit (http://bbs.beastieboys.com/showthread.php?t=92375&highlight=Glenn+Beck+is+a+complete+fucking+hypocri t) In that thread I noticed a post removed and tagged, so you know it was removed, I'm not seeing anything like that in this thread nor does the tone seem as vicious here.

scroll down to 135-136 to see what I mean (http://bbs.beastieboys.com/showthread.php?t=92375&highlight=Glenn+Beck+is+a+complete+fucking+hypocri t&page=5)

This is the best you had here, the links you've thrown up are the best you could at the time.

[travesty]

I'm not sure of anything anymore:eek:

[Bob]

the mods are clearly deeply in the pockets of big global warming

rob, maybe you're thinking of this thread? you have a lot of links and numbers in that one

http://bbs.beastieboys.com/showthread.php?t=94100&highlight=global+warming

[Sir SkratchaLot]

This is just more proof that these anti-global warming people are dillusional. They believe in message board conspiracies and weapons of mass destruction, and think Obama was born in Africa but they refuse to acknowledge that we should do anything about the possiblity of man made global warming. :confused:

[Echewta]

Lets have a teaparty

[RobMoney$]

This is just more proof that these anti-global warming people are dillusional. They believe in message board conspiracies and weapons of mass destruction, and think Obama was born in Africa but they refuse to acknowledge that we should do anything about the possiblity of man made global warming. :confused:


Mods delete posts. It's what they do.
I've probably had more deleted than anyone.
I don't really think you can call that a conspiricy.

I have no opinion on where Obama was born. He's a failure no matter what his birthplace is.

Nice attempt at stereotyping someone who disagrees with you about something tho.

[yeahwho]

Remember ACE42? He was a smart guy, often witty and very astute at driving home his take on any topic. Then one day he had an disagreement, I think that was with droppin science too, maybe even queen adraock I'm not sure.

He was a genius level "no compromise" type of poster that stayed on point and debated tenaciously, yet his ego would not let him continue to post here anymore because a few people did not agree with all of his world view. His ego propelled him to start a "Should I stay or should I go" thread complete with poll.

I think at that point I realized he may of been only 12 years old.

This really doesn't pertain too much to this deal here outside of ACE42 was feuding with DS & ADQ too. And I'm curious if anybody else might start a "Should I stay or should I go" thread.

[RobMoney$]

And I'm curious if anybody else might start a "Should I stay or should I go" thread.


Yeah, threads like that are pretty much the height of attention whoring.
Asking people to beg you not to leave...lol.

[Turchinator]

yo, Rob. no one edited your posts.

not in this thread, anyway.

carry on.

[Bob]

Mods delete posts. It's what they do.
I've probably had more deleted than anyone.
I don't really think you can call that a conspiricy.


were the posts you were thinking of in the other thread though? it's this one (http://bbs.beastieboys.com/showthread.php?t=94100&highlight=global+warming) in case you didn't see my post. you debated hal in that one too and i don't think anyone has the energy to blow pro-global warming kooks out of the water in two threads at once

i mean how do you debate someone who's in favor of global warming, it's exhausting. you do it once and you rest your case. you probably just got confused. either that or the mods are out to get you i guess that's plausible too

[RobMoney$]

Nah Bob, there was a lot more to this debate in this thread than what is currently here.
Not sure why this is causing such a stir and why it's so hard for people to believe that this thread may have been edited?
It's not really important anyway. It was just an observation.
It's interesting that people are getting so offended and want to debate my contention that posts have been removed (a throwaway observation) rather than the link or the topic at hand.
The things that people latch on to...

[yeahwho]

geez rob, you are the only guy I can remember ever claiming to have links or information purposely deleted here.

As a courtesy I thought I would help out. If you have some sort of definitive statement that's going to change the minds of the scientific community and regular joe's such as myself please put it back up here and I'll make sure it doesn't get deleted by quoting it.

I am not as important or threatening as you, they never delete my posts.

[Bob]

Nah Bob, there was a lot more to this debate in this thread than what is currently here.
Not sure why this is causing such a stir and why it's so hard for people to believe that this thread may have been edited?
It's not really important anyway. It was just an observation.
It's interesting that people are getting so offended and want to debate my contention that posts have been removed (a throwaway observation) rather than the link or the topic at hand.
The things that people latch on to...

i guess it's hard to believe because it's sort of unprecedented for mods to completely remove posts without a trace for no reason (even the one where you called queenadrock a cunt (i assume) just had a "this post removed" thing), and it's super unprecedented of them to remove a post with pertinent information just because they disagree with the point it's making. you're positive it wasn't the other thread? you were mistaken about which thread you called queenadrock a cunt in, maybe you're mistaken about this too

anyway the reason nobody's debating you on the global warming issue is probably just because they know you're gonna blow them out of the water again and they're afraid. you probably just won, is all, no need to gloat

[yeahwho]

I'm licking my wounds as I post this out in my giant PU truck with the stereo full blast listening to Ted Nugent eating a double buffalo cheeseburger and revving my engine with the AC cranked and shit.

Fucking got my American flags up in the bed and the whole bitchin' 9 yards.

[kaiser soze]

THIS THREAD IS CAUSING GLOBAL WARMING!

try to delete that! ;)

[RobMoney$]

i guess it's hard to believe because it's sort of unprecedented for mods to completely remove posts without a trace for no reason (even the one where you called queenadrock a cunt (i assume) just had a "this post removed" thing), and it's super unprecedented of them to remove a post with pertinent information just because they disagree with the point it's making. you're positive it wasn't the other thread? you were mistaken about which thread you called queenadrock a cunt in, maybe you're mistaken about this too

anyway the reason nobody's debating you on the global warming issue is probably just because they know you're gonna blow them out of the water again and they're afraid. you probably just won, is all, no need to gloat

Sure, it's possible I'm mistaken. Unfortunately, I don't have a photographic memory so I am forced to rely on what I can recall (which is damaged, I admit), and I seem to remember there being a lot more to this debate. If anyone feels the need to debate that, then clearly they don't have enough going on in life and should probably find a hobby or perhaps a friend.
I've called QA a cunt probably more than once, so there are more than likely several threads with that in it.

Whatever.

[Sir SkratchaLot]

and I seem to remember there being a lot more to this debate. If anyone feels the need to debate that, then clearly they don't have enough going on in life and should probably find a hobby or perhaps a friend.

With 748 posts since July of 2003 I'm pretty sure I can debate whatever I want and beat all of you on the "having a life" debate.

Man made global warming aside, the larger issue is, should we stop polluting the hell out of our planet, despite the fact that there's not as much money in it? Of course people with a finacial stake in polluting don't want to admit that it's bad. But they're biased. As someone who isn't making money off of pissing in my neighbor's pool, I tend to think pollution is a bad thing. It's ugly, it kills our food sources, and it makes assholes rich.

[Turchinator]

LOLOLOLOL Whatever LOLOLOLOL

[Bob]

If anyone feels the need to debate that, then clearly they don't have enough going on in life and should probably find a hobby or perhaps a friend.

DAMMIT, you won again. you're good at this, rob

[Dorothy Wood]

Polluting the Earth is a right given to us by God. So all you tree huggers, shut it!

[Sir SkratchaLot]

Polluting the Earth is a right given to us by God. So all you tree huggers, shut it!

What proof do you have that God isn't some crazy theory dreamed up by liberal scientists?

[M|X|Y]

You guys are gonna drive poor Rob Money insane.

[HAL 9000]

I shared so many links and info explaining my position in this thread that I blew all you pro-global warming kooks out of the water. And it appears to have all been deleted. Thus making me look like I bowed out of the debate after HAL9000 challenged me to provide proof to the contrary that man made CO2 causing Global Warming.

I don't know if posts have been deleted or not, but if they have been, it must have happened quickly, because I thought at the time you had walked away from this one.

And for the record, the claim you made in this thread was that CO2 (man-made or otherwise) has no effect on anything. I posted a link showing you a quantification of the greenhouse effect and asked you to produce evidence supporting your position (above) that the greenhouse effect did not exist. I do not recall ever seeing that evidence

If you do have any evidence showing no link between CO2 in the atmostphere and Earth surface temperature, perhaps you can find it again now, I would be very interested to read it.

You have posted figures in other theads as well, perhaps you were thinking of those? I do not recall being blown out of the water though, I do recall you writing that no amount of evidence would convince you that global warming was man-made at which point I think the discussion was pretty much over.

There was a thread where you posted some numbers showing that CO2 and temperature have varied in the past but then some people pointed out to you that climates are multi-variable systems and I presumed you had realised your error.

[RobMoney$]

If you do have any evidence showing no link between CO2 in the atmostphere and Earth surface temperature, perhaps you can find it again now, I would be very interested to read it.


Sure...
Here's an article written by Tim Patterson. He's been suggesting this stuff for years.
It's not PROOF that no link exists, but it offers plausible alternate explanations for warming and cooling trends that should at the least give everyone reason to desire more data before coming to a decision and committing millions of dollars.



The mud at the bottom of B.C. fjords reveals that solar output drives climate change - and that we should prepare now for dangerous global cooling

R. TIMOTHY PATTERSON, Financial Post
Published: Wednesday, June 20, 2007

Politicians and environmentalists these days convey the impression that climate-change research is an exceptionally dull field with little left to discover. We are assured by everyone from David Suzuki to Al Gore to Prime Minister Stephen Harper that "the science is settled." At the recent G8 summit, German Chancellor Angela Merkel even attempted to convince world leaders to play God by restricting carbon-dioxide emissions to a level that would magically limit the rise in world temperatures to 2C.

The fact that science is many years away from properly understanding global climate doesn't seem to bother our leaders at all. Inviting testimony only from those who don't question political orthodoxy on the issue, parliamentarians are charging ahead with the impossible and expensive goal of "stopping global climate change." Liberal MP Ralph Goodale's June 11 House of Commons assertion that Parliament should have "a real good discussion about the potential for carbon capture and sequestration in dealing with carbon dioxide, which has tremendous potential for improving the climate, not only here in Canada but around the world," would be humorous were he, and even the current government, not deadly serious about devoting vast resources to this hopeless crusade.

Climate stability has never been a feature of planet Earth. The only constant about climate is change; it changes continually and, at times, quite rapidly. Many times in the past, temperatures were far higher than today, and occasionally, temperatures were colder. As recently as 6,000 years ago, it was about 3C warmer than now. Ten thousand years ago, while the world was coming out of the thou-sand-year-long "Younger Dryas" cold episode, temperatures rose as much as 6C in a decade -- 100 times faster than the past century's 0.6C warming that has so upset environmentalists.

Climate-change research is now literally exploding with new findings. Since the 1997 Kyoto Protocol, the field has had more research than in all previous years combined and the discoveries are completely shattering the myths. For example, I and the first-class scientists I work with are consistently finding excellent correlations between the regular fluctuations in the brightness of the sun and earthly climate. This is not surprising. The sun and the stars are the ultimate source of all energy on the planet.

My interest in the current climate-change debate was triggered in 1998, when I was funded by a Natural Sciences and Engineering Research Council strategic project grant to determine if there were regular cycles in West Coast fish productivity. As a result of wide swings in the populations of anchovies, herring and other commercially important West Coast fish stock, fisheries managers were having a very difficult time establishing appropriate fishing quotas. One season there would be abundant stock and broad harvesting would be acceptable; the very next year the fisheries would collapse. No one really knew why or how to predict the future health of this crucially important resource.


Although climate was suspected to play a significant role in marine productivity, only since the beginning of the 20th century have accurate fishing and temperature records been kept in this region of the northeast Pacific. We needed indicators of fish productivity over thousands of years to see whether there were recurring cycles in populations and what phenomena may be driving the changes.

My research team began to collect and analyze core samples from the bottom of deep Western Canadian fjords. The regions in which we chose to conduct our research, Effingham Inlet on the West Coast of Vancouver Island, and in 2001, sounds in the Belize-Seymour Inlet complex on the mainland coast of British Columbia, were perfect for this sort of work. The topography of these fjords is such that they contain deep basins that are subject to little water transfer from the open ocean and so water near the bottom is relatively stagnant and very low in oxygen content. As a consequence, the floors of these basins are mostly lifeless and sediment layers build up year after year, undisturbed over millennia.

Using various coring technologies, we have been able to collect more than 5,000 years' worth of mud in these basins, with the oldest layers coming from a depth of about 11 metres below the fjord floor. Clearly visible in our mud cores are annual changes that record the different seasons: corresponding to the cool, rainy winter seasons, we see dark layers composed mostly of dirt washed into the fjord from the land; in the warm summer months we see abundant fossilized fish scales and diatoms (the most common form of phytoplankton, or single-celled ocean plants) that have fallen to the fjord floor from nutrient-rich surface waters. In years when warm summers dominated climate in the region, we clearly see far thicker layers of diatoms and fish scales than we do in cooler years. Ours is one of the highest-quality climate records available anywhere today and in it we see obvious confirmation that natural climate change can be dramatic. For example, in the middle of a 62-year slice of the record at about 4,400 years ago, there was a shift in climate in only a couple of seasons from warm, dry and sunny conditions to one that was mostly cold and rainy for several decades.

Using computers to conduct what is referred to as a "time series analysis" on the colouration and thickness of the annual layers, we have discovered repeated cycles in marine productivity in this, a region larger than Europe. Specifically, we find a very strong and consistent 11-year cycle throughout the whole record in the sediments and diatom remains. This correlates closely to the well-known 11-year "Schwabe" sunspot cycle, during which the output of the sun varies by about 0.1%. Sunspots, violent storms on the surface of the sun, have the effect of increasing solar output, so, by counting the spots visible on the surface of our star, we have an indirect measure of its varying brightness. Such records have been kept for many centuries and match very well with the changes in marine productivity we are observing.


In the sediment, diatom and fish-scale records, we also see longer period cycles, all correlating closely with other well-known regular solar variations. In particular, we see marine productivity cycles that match well with the sun's 75-90-year "Gleissberg Cycle," the 200-500-year "Suess Cycle" and the 1,100-1,500-year "Bond Cycle." The strength of these cycles is seen to vary over time, fading in and out over the millennia. The variation in the sun's brightness over these longer cycles may be many times greater in magnitude than that measured over the short Schwabe cycle and so are seen to impact marine productivity even more significantly.

Our finding of a direct correlation between variations in the brightness of the sun and earthly climate indicators (called "proxies") is not unique. 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.

However, there was a problem. Despite this clear and repeated correlation, the measured variations in incoming solar energy were, on their own, not sufficient to cause the climate changes we have observed in our proxies. In addition, 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 change.

Indeed, that is precisely what has been discovered. In a series of groundbreaking scientific papers starting in 2002, Veizer, Shaviv, Carslaw, and most recently Svensmark et al., have collectively demonstrated that as the output of the sun varies, and with it, our star's protective solar wind, varying amounts of galactic cosmic rays from deep space are able to enter our solar system and penetrate the Earth's atmosphere. These cosmic rays enhance cloud formation which, overall, has a cooling effect on the planet. When the sun's energy output is greater, not only does the Earth warm slightly due to direct solar heating, but the stronger solar wind generated during these "high sun" periods blocks many of the cosmic rays from entering our atmosphere. Cloud cover decreases and the Earth warms still more.

The opposite occurs 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 more than would otherwise be the case due to direct solar effects alone. 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, as indicated by the number of sunspots, was at a minimum and the planet was stuck in the Little Ice Age. These new findings suggest that changes in the output of the sun caused the most recent climate change. By comparison, CO2 variations show little correlation with our planet's climate on long, medium and even short time scales.


In some fields the science is indeed "settled." For example, plate tectonics, once highly controversial, is now so well-established that we rarely see papers on the subject at all. But the science of global climate change is still in its infancy, with many thousands of papers published every year. In a 2003 poll conducted by German environmental researchers Dennis Bray and Hans von Storch, two-thirds of more than 530 climate scientists from 27 countries surveyed did not believe that "the current state of scientific knowledge is developed well enough to allow for a reasonable assessment of the effects of greenhouse gases." About half of those polled stated that the science of climate change was not sufficiently settled to pass the issue over to policymakers at all.

Solar scientists predict that, by 2020, the sun will be starting into its weakest Schwabe solar cycle of the past two centuries, likely leading to unusually cool conditions on Earth. Beginning to plan for adaptation to such a cool period, one which may continue well beyond one 11-year cycle, as did the Little Ice Age, should be a priority for governments. It is global cooling, not warming, that is the major climate threat to the world, especially Canada. As a country at the northern limit to agriculture in the world, it would take very little cooling to destroy much of our food crops, while a warming would only require that we adopt farming techniques practiced to the south of us.

Meantime, we need to continue research into this, the most complex field of science ever tackled, and immediately halt wasted expenditures on the King Canute-like task of "stopping climate change."


R. Timothy Patterson is professor and director of the Ottawa-Carleton Geoscience Centre, Department of Earth Sciences, Carleton University.

[ericg]

what the fuck are you going on about rob. of course man has a direct impact on the world. how can you be so out of it. come on. that's the one thing that detracts from my opinion of ron paul.

this is as simple as it gets.

Earth's orbit around the sun has sustained life on earth for billions of years. As the sun's energy hits the earth, a dynamic climate is borne. One effect of this dynamic is known as the Greenhouse Effect. The Greenhouse Effect is caused by solar radiation that is absorbed by the earth's geo and aqua-thermal surfaces. This absorbed energy generates surface heat that in turn emits long-wave infrared radiation back into the atmosphere. Greenhouse gases such as water vapor, dihydrogen monoxide, carbon dioxide, ozone, methane, and nitrous oxide absorb and reflect this radiation thus heating the atmosphere. The concentration of greenhouse gasses in the atmosphere determines the temperature on earth. One of the most prevalent Greenhouse gasses, besides water vapor and dihydrogen monoxide (DHMO), is carbon dioxide (CO2). The galactic center, nature of the sun, the earth's axis around the sun, the Thermohaline Circulation, volcanic activity, and changes to earth's ecological composition ie structure of ecosystems, industry practices, pollution, livestock etc are also determining factors of climate change. It has been stated that irrigation practices have also increased the amount of water vapor in the atmosphere causing rapid acceleration of global warming. In any case, paleoclimatic research indicates that abrupt changes to the earth's climate can precipitate in a mere matter of decades, and even seasons. It is a highly variable system. The micro amount of time it took for humans to "evolve" in all the eons of time alone is dramatic. Even more dramatic is the human population's rate of increase. Around 1800, the human population reached one billion. During this same time period, the Industrial Revolution began. The Industrial Revolution relied heavily upon the use of fossil fuels such as coal, oil, and natural gas. When burned, fossil fuels release CO2 into the atmosphere. Deforestation also began to occur at an unprecedented rate during this time period. Deforestation contributes to an increase of CO2 as foliage captures CO2 and releases oxygen. For more than a thousand years the natural, average concentration of CO2 in the atmosphere was 280 parts per million. Today it is about 360 ppm and is still rising sharply. This is higher than at any time in the past 400,000 years. The earth's average temperature rose about 1 degree Fahrenheit over the 20th century yielding some of the hottest temperatures on record. The rate at which this increase is occurring is utterly catastrophic. Scientists predict devastation like we've never seen this century if our current course does not change. Already, we have witnessed strengthened and more frequent hurricanes, longer droughts, more wildfires, flooding, the spread of diseases, rapidly melting glaciers, a rise in sea level, and the disruption of most ecosystems."One of the greatest forces responsible for the planets energy transport is the Thermohaline Circulation (THC), also known as the "great conveyor belt". Driven by temperature and salt concentrations, the Thermohaline Circulation brings warm, fresh water north on the surface while cold, salty water travels below it to the equator. This is caused when the North Atlantic water turns to ice leaving behind its salt content. The remaining water is then more saline and therefore more dense. Since the 1970's, fresh Arctic waters have been spilling into the North Atlantic threatening to shut down the system by blocking this flow. This is due to global warming melting the ice. If the ocean's heat pump stops, it could cause the next ice age." - PBSIn 1997, delegates from over 150 nations proposed to limit Greenhouse Gas emissions at a UN summit in Kyoto, Japan. This is known as the Kyoto treaty." (Almanac) America along side other countries have ignored this proposal. In fact, "America" has wrought and still leads a war directly against the very grounds this treaty is based. If terminal interests continue to underwrite the economy, society, and the planet as a whole, life on earth will not last very long. Not to mention the global warming report the World Bank commissioned while all its interest is in polluting industry, war, etc… as well as the CIA report on future socio-economic and ecological devastation like we've never seen… gridlocked mockups."Entropy: A measure of the unavailable energy in a closed thermodynamic system that is also usually considered to be a measure of the system's disorder, that is a property of the system's state, and that varies directly with any reversible change in heat in the system and inversely with the temperature of the system; broadly : the degree of disorder or uncertainty in a system: The degradation of the matter and energy in the universe to an ultimate state of inert uniformity: A process of degradation or running down or a trend to disorder: Chaos, disorganization, randomness."


Read more: http://www.myspace.com/ericguinn/blog?page=2#ixzz11tJFqM2i

[ericg]

Today there is currently more than six billion people in the world. At this rate, the world estimates a billion people every ten years and this gap is closing fast. "Currently the world uses 14.4 trillion watts. This is expected to double in the years ahead at a minimum. We need to account for 10 terawatts right now." (Nobelity) There is plenty of space and technology. However, without a government mandate, citizens of wherewithal must stock benign/ free energy thereby collapsing this unholy empire/ liquidate polluting industry and reconstitute America's values and agenda. A myriad of applications exist regarding benign energy that should be constructed into formal grids in every city now. Free (0-point) energy systems, oceanic/ water/ salt, magnetic, solar, bio-fuels, and many more exist and need to be utilized. "Farming only six percent of continental US acreage with hemp could end America's dependence on fossil fuels. This could return billions of dollars worth of natural resource potential back to farmers and bring millions of jobs back to America's heartland. The production of paper and other hemp products would dramatically decrease deforestation."' (Hempfarm.org) The solutions are very simple once people get in gear. Conversion and production of benign vehicles must be mandated now as they account for much of the CO2 in the atmosphere.

[valvano]

we all know that scientist and politicians dont make mistakes when justifying environmental laws :rolleyes:

http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2010/10/07/BAOF1FDMRV.DTL#ixzz11iqEfuN9

[Sir SkratchaLot]

we all know that scientist and politicians dont make mistakes when justifying environmental laws :rolleyes:

Yeah, except it's usually the sort of "mistake" that allows industry to make billions and trillions of dollars without any accountability for destroying the environment. :rolleyes: