Global warming
The whole “human caused” global warming is nothing more then an attack by green econuts / media / neo scientists on western culture’s lifestyle and eventually forcing us into using rationed energy while they continue to live extravagantly using purchased “carbon credits".
There is no “consensus” among climatologists that our civilization’s use of fossil fuels are destroying the earth. “Consensus” is totally foreign to the scientific method in that a theory is formed explaining the observed facts, then published for ongoing debate. The Green econuts / media / neo scientists would like you to believe the debate is over but that’s not true.
The planet constantly goes through heating and cooling periods, if you doubt that then you doubt the evidence of past global ice ages or warm periods.
Fact, the earth was warmer during the 1930s then it is today. And far less green house gasses from “human” caused energy emissions.
Fact, the earth went through what is called the little ice age during the 1500s through 1700s.
Fact, the earth was warmer around the year 1000 or else the Vikings couldn’t have settled in Greenland. (later having to leave because the area froze due to the little ice age) Fact, presently only the northern hemisphere is heating up while the southern hemisphere is remaining static in temperature with Antarctica actually cooling down!
Areas of the Earth heating up is due to natural factors beyond our control, such as solar and cosmic radiation and variations in our orbit / axial tilt and no matter what we do will affect it to any measurable extent.
Basically the whole green eco nut crowd wants to do is take away our access to cheap abundant energy while establishing themselves as the new ruling order while the rest of us suffer because of it.
This letter has not been edited.
Thise crazy eco-nuts want to take over the world by making us conserve energy while they get drunk on leaving their lights on and heating their pools. The rest of us will have to use energy conserving light bulbs while they have orgies in over heated well lit jacuzzi's. Laughing at us while sipping super chilled champagne while the rest of us drink luke warm generic beer because we can't afford to keep our brews cold. Oh the humanity of it all, they just want all the energy to themselves so they can heat and cool everything with their windows open!!! This is such a great plan to rule the world, how did Dr. Evil ever come up wth this dastardly plan to take over the world with conservation. Brilliant I tell you, brilliant!!!
Posted by Mike D. on August 1, 2007 01:19 PMHa, ha, excellent post, Mr. D.
Posted by Jeff on August 1, 2007 02:03 PMI just want to know what a "neo scientist" is, and whether econuts come only in green or if there is a variety on offer.
stupid econuts...
Posted by roy on August 1, 2007 03:36 PMThe new eco control movement is just warming up (sorry). Forget about energy, they are going after food shipped more than 100 miles. Here how it will work; if you buy local, the food travels a shorter distance so less carbon footprint. So say good bye to salad and fruit in the winter. So not only is cheap abundant energy bad for us, but cheap abundant food is bad as well. We need to all go back to a life style from before the industrial revolution. What a great time that was. No global warming. What a paradise. Plus people died alot sooner, which is so good for the planet.
Me too Bango. I thought the exact same thing. Makes the letter writer appear to be uniformed on this topic.
I think I would have referred to Dr. Gray's essay in the Wall Street Journal on July 26 titled, "Hurricanes and Hot Air" in which he writes in his second to last, and final paragraph:
"One reason may be that the advocates of warming tend to be climate modelers with little observational experience. Many of the modelers are not fully aware of how the real atmosphere and ocean function. They rely more on theory than on observation."
"The warming theorists - most of whom, no doubt, earnestly believe that human activity has triggered nature's wrath - have the ears of the news media. But there is another plausible explanation, supported by decades of physical observation. The spate of recent destructive hurricanes may have little or nothing to do with greenhouse gases and climate change, and everything to do with the Atlantic Ocean's currents."
This is coming from the eminent expert on hurricanes and has been the Atlantic basin hurricane forecaster for the past 24 years. And what I find most appropriate is the actual PHYSICAL observation and not reliance on models programmed to provide results based on theoretical "cause and effect" instead of observable cause and effect. Oh well, time will tell.
For those that are interested, I am thinking of marketing a bumper sticker
"CITIZENS FOR GLOBAL WARMING"
Posted by Dan2 on August 1, 2007 03:46 PMThe next step will be to reduce our CO2 output that every animal EXHALES!!!
Posted by tj on August 1, 2007 03:53 PMYikes.
Dan2, the only problem with what you are saying is that it isn’t a significant issue from the point of view of any of the science bodies that set the positions or advise on policies.
Now it could well be that Dr.Gray is correct, but you only picked him because you like what he is saying, not because he represents the science bodies or journals (since he doesn’t).
NAS has taken the position that the current warming event is novel, rapid, and significantly driven by human activities.
The AAAS takes a similar position.
The Joint Academies also
The Meteorological Society too.
… and so on and so forth across the globe.
So why is it that you continue to look for alternative views and reasons to disagree?
Isn’t it more rational to take your position from what these bodies are saying, rather than one that meets with your personal preference?
Posted by Bango Skank on August 1, 2007 04:20 PMCome on, Dan2...Are you seriously going to listen to some no-name weather expert when Cameron Diaz, Al Gore, and that dude from "Titanic" are ALL telling you how screwed we are??? I mean, Cameron Diaz is, like, freakin' HOT, yo!
Posted by Kevin on August 1, 2007 04:25 PMWhy do they call themselves conservative when they won't conserve anything??
Posted by Mike D. on August 1, 2007 04:29 PMMike I am a Conservative Libertarian and I will put my house up against yours anytime for being energy conscience. I am NO fan of George W but his house in TX beats the hell out of any of Al Gores houses.
Mike D, lets talk about GW a bit closer to home here since you are a big advocate and the Conservatives are not in your book. WHY do you not promote wedding videos and pictures for something closer to Colorado? or something closer than Maui anyways?
It is OK for your clients to fly across the world for Wedding videos racking up CO2 pounds by the bushel, but blaming it all on the conservatives. It must be ok if you are profiting from it then eh?
Some of us are very aware and very conservation minded, but we choose to walk the walk, not just talk it.
That's right letterwriter. The Earth is flat, never were any dinosaurs and Evolution is a liberal conspiracy.
Posted by Science is bad on August 1, 2007 05:00 PMDan2 - Spot on.
I've referenced Dr Gray several times in these threads and usually it's either ignored or someone tries to debunk him.
One main reason I lean toward his theories is because he had his funding taken away for daring to speak out against the concensus.
He has continued his research using his own funds and he's definitely not someone getting a paycheck for writing about global warming (or the lack there of).
Being the foremost authority on hurricanes and ocean current tells me he knows what he's talking about.
Posted by KW on August 1, 2007 05:02 PMThere is a whole industry built around fighting pollution. They did good things once. We have a cleaner environment because they forced industry to change. Thank you one and all. Now the problem is they don't have enough polluters to fight. So they need to make new polluters by inventing new pollution. After the CO2 problem is fixed there will be another issue. Maybe water vapor will become the next pollution. Americans probably put more water vapor into the air than any other nation. Or noise or visual pollution or EMF pollution. Sorry those are already issues. The point is that if we had a completely natural world, the Sierra Club and other eco mafia would need to find something to fight to keep the donations coming in. The next time you hear about the Sierra Club coming to a settlement with someone, check and see how much "pollution" is actually eliminated. My guess is the settlement will involve a form of green that has nothing to do with the enviroment.
Posted by on August 1, 2007 05:19 PMBango Skank:
"I just want to know what a "neo scientist" is, and whether econuts come only in green or if there is a variety on offer."
I might order one if they came in khaki.
Posted by CL on August 1, 2007 05:38 PMBango,
We have discussed this a lot on this board. I do not philosophically disagree (or politically if you prefer), with anthropogenic global warming. I just think that it is flawed based on physical observations. I think the theory is valid, if the correct negative and positive influences are factored in correctly.
Mr. Hoffman, while crudely explaining the "groups" that promote anthropogenic GW, does offer some very valid facts.
Observable data, does not support anthropogenic global warming. That is where the flaw is, and that is why climatologists that collect and observe physical data do not concur with the modelers and their predictions.
You mention NAS and AAAS. The National Academy of Sciences is a political body. It relies on funding from the Federal Government, and currently there is no bigger issue in the population than the theory of anthropogenic global climate change. It is in their interest to continue to popularize AGW to receive Federal funding from Congress.
The AAAS has no business at all even discussing AGW. Here is why:
-Dr. Gilbert Omenn - PhD. internal medicine & genetics
-Dr. John Holder - Prof. Energy and Envrio science
-Dr. David Baltimore - PhD biology
-Dr. Rosina Bierbaum - PhD Ecology and Evolution
-Dr. John Dowling - MD/PhD neurology
-Dr. Lynn Enquist - PhD molecular biology
-Dr. Susan Fitzpatrick - PhD biology
-Dr. Thomas Pollard - PhD biology
-Dr. Peter Strong - PhD biochemistry
-Dr. Kathryn Sullivan - PhD ecology and astronaut
Hmm... I wonder what is missing from there? Maybe ONE climatologist? I would hardly ask my local weather man to diagnose me for an illness, I sure am not going to ask a biologist to tell me about climate.
As far as the American Meteorological Society, the study of the weather is far different than the study of climate. Meteorologists will be the first to admit that. They offer more credence to the theory of AGW, but their data relies on models, not physically observable data. As we all are aware, they are unable to predict with accuracy what will happen in three hours. Again, I will not rely on them for what will happen in 30 years.
You cite those organizations, but none study or have any relation to climatology. Why do you cite those organizations, and not the International Journal of Climatology? Or the Society for American Climatologists? Because those that study this subject matter do not believe that the evidence supports anthropogenic global climate change theory. It is more political for you, than it is for me.
Posted by Dan2 on August 1, 2007 05:45 PMWhat a bunch of foolish neocons you guys are
Posted by on August 1, 2007 05:48 PMThanks KW. I tend to read what the experts in their field are writing. Anthropogenic climate change is but one theory to describe the heat cycle that we are in right now. As far as weather related data is concerned, regionally, 2007 is cooler than 1939 in Colorado, which flies directly in the face of AGW since there is a greater population now in Denver, and heat islands should be lending to greater surface temperatures year over year.
5:19 also makes a very valid point, that the cleanest energy we can utilize is nuclear energy. Yet the same people that bring us AGW were anti-nukes in the 70's and 80's (you can read all of the above bios from the board of the AAAS and see for yourself the organizations they belonged to).
This is a political issue, with "science" loosely attached to it, to give it 'some' credibility. Those that are either too lazy, or frankly, too unintelligent to do any additional research eat it up like ice cream. It saddens me, and it frustrates me that this issue has become so political, when it is barely a theory that has an legs to stand on.
If CO2 truly causes warming, how does our small and fairly insignificant imprint cause the temperature to rise, so drastically? And if that really is the case, why was the catalytic converter mandated by the EPA to decrease CO and drastically increase CO2? Why do we not target methane and nitrogen, as they have been PROVEN to have an increased observable effect on climate? These are political questions, I know, but appropriate questions in this heated political debate. If this was really about science, we would not even be discussing it, because the data does not fit the models presently. We politically already have the horse in the barn and fed, while the cart is still days away...
Posted by Dan2 on August 1, 2007 05:58 PM5:48
If you label me as a neocon on this topic, that is what I will be in your blind eyes. It is very hard for a partisan to understand facts that contradict your political philosophy. I understand that. There are certain things that I too have a hard time with. This is not one of them. This is science, based on observation and physical collection of data. This is not religion, where we rely on faith. The observable data is inconclusive at best to support anthropogenic (human induced for you benefit) global warming, and in many instances does not support this theory but contradicts it (there is now observable data that demonstrates CO2 is an effect of warming, by as much as 800 years lag).
But please, feel free to bury your head in the sand, as many like to tell those that prefer to adhere to the experts. Or maybe you just throw out the IPCC report. Because that is a body that conducts NO RESEARCH what so ever (if you don't believe me, visit the about page, it's right there for you to read).
Posted by Dan2 on August 1, 2007 06:05 PMHey. I read somewhere that the bigger carbon footprint you have, the more carbon credits you get. So if you have small feet, how do you get a bigger footprint? I need to know soon so I can trade some credits in for a new truck.
Posted by guess who on August 1, 2007 06:15 PMDan,
” Observable data, does not support anthropogenic global warming. That is where the flaw is, and that is why climatologists that collect and observe physical data do not concur with the modelers and their predictions. “
What a complete load of bollocks.
You are running together two different issues as one. Observational evidence overwhelmingly supports the contention that there is a novel warming event underway. End of item one.
Why we are undergoing the event at all is not an observational statement but a theoretical one, and the theoretical model will generate observational predictions.
Causation is determined by Popperian elimination and by coherence with other mature theoretical models. As such we know pretty reliably what isn’t causing the event, and we have support for what might.
All the “normal suspects” have been eliminated and we are left with:
- Human activities
- Some as yet undetermined process or event
So until shown otherwise, Human activities is it.
” You mention NAS and AAAS. The National Academy of Sciences is a political body. It relies on funding from the Federal Government, and currently there is no bigger issue in the population than the theory of anthropogenic global climate change. It is in their interest to continue to popularize AGW to receive Federal funding from Congress.”
At this point you depart the realm of reason and enter the twilight zone of conspiracy theory. If you are prepared to question the motives of the science bodies to this extent then there is no longer any ground to stand on. Once you dismiss these bodies you don’t have any science whatsoever to hang your ideas on and your chosen Dr.Gray also disappears down the same plughole. He gets a salary from the university and also is a member of some of these bodies.
” You cite those organizations, but none study or have any relation to climatology. Why do you cite those organizations, and not the International Journal of Climatology? Or the Society for American Climatologists? Because those that study this subject matter do not believe that the evidence supports anthropogenic global climate change theory. It is more political for you, than it is for me.”
Because they represent the summation of all the sciences.
The warming event is reported and limned by more than climatologists ducky, it is reported and studied by geologists, mycologists, epidemiologists, dendrologists, hydrologists, and hooray.. climatologists, and a whole flotilla more of disciplines in diverse areas of inquiry. There is an interlocking quilt of sources and research projects turning in paper after paper that is at this time shoring up the basic argument that we are seeing a novel warming event in which human activity is the primary and significant cause suspected.
So what do your chosen reference sources have to say?
International Journal of Climatology
As you no doubt know, the IJoC is published by the Royal Meteorological Society who support the findings of the IPCC. So ok, evidently they are referring you back to the body you dismissed and the position you deny.
The Society for American Climatologists
Um … who?
I haven’t heard of them, maybe you are thinking of the American Association of State Climatologists?
Since you obviously know who they are and where to find them, please post their position on the IPCC report and/or their statement about the current warming event.
Posted by Bango Skank on August 1, 2007 06:55 PMHey BWR, I live in a recycled house made of paper and seaweed on the beach. My computer is coconuts and I don't use any electricity at all. Plus all my DVD's are done on recycled bamboo reels. So there!!! Plus most of the people who come to hawaii ride their horses!!!
Posted by Mike D. on August 1, 2007 08:41 PMAlso BWR, how much time do you have that you are investigating me and what I do for a living?
Posted by Mike D. on August 1, 2007 08:59 PMDan2,
I'd like 10 of those bumper stickers.
I saw a bumper sticker on the back of an SUV in Boulder yesterday proclaiming that the use of the vehicle was offset by credits obtained at a website, and then it proudly gave the website address. In the words of that famous poet, Bugs Bunny, "what a maroon !!"
I like what Dennis Miller said the other day....
"My SUV runs on hybrid fuel. It's massive grill sucks little hybrids up into the engine and converts them into fuel pellets."
Posted by skeptical on August 1, 2007 09:29 PMHey Mike D. Took all of maybe 20 seconds to find out what you do and how you do it. Doesnt take a brain surgeon to figure out what you do and by that how hypocritical you are and that you really dont care about GW, nor conservation from your ad and from the sarcastic comments you put forth. Do as you say not as you do. NICE
Posted by bwr on August 1, 2007 09:29 PMBango, Trying to get a proper perspective on your posts. You have stated that you are a visitor to this country. Respectfully asking your country of origin?
Posted by bwr on August 1, 2007 09:32 PMMike D. Do you offer Carbon credits as part of your marketing package for traveling across the world to have their pictures taken? What are carbon credits going for these days there?
Posted by bwr on August 1, 2007 09:46 PMbwr,I believe Bango is really Rage Boy.http://slate.com/id/2169020/
Posted by on August 1, 2007 09:59 PMJoe:
I live in western Montana, this summer has been the hottest on record. Over 11 days in July over 100 degrees, no rain for over 6 weeks. This is not just a heating period it's a disaster for Montana. We are now in year 10 of a drought that has resulted in hundreds of thousands acres of forest burned, not to mention fly fishing gone because of high water temps and rivers and streams drying up. The tempetures in Montana have never been this hot, NEVER. It's time to quit denying that our planet is in big trouble. How many Vikings do you talk to on a daily basis???
Mr Western Montana,
If I were to state that the temps in my region were colder than ever, had as much snow as I have had in a very long time, and then denied GW, I then would be told by many on here that I was completely wrong and that I am only using Regional Climate #s and that it takes the world temps to define GW.
If you are using the Missoulian as your source, it says that it is 8 yrs of drought and that while river cfs flows are low, they do not approach 1930 lows. Temps for your region have not been this high since 1960.
On the other hand in other regions of MT, crops are doing very well. There are reports that say the drought is over in many parts of MT.
Does this all mean everything is OK? No it does not, but to yell disaster based upon regional microclimates is a bit extreme. I do understand the issues you are going through and it does concern me as that is a beautiful part of the state. There are great similarities of the issues W MT are having and that of parts of CO of the very recent past. Few years ago we were begging for rain and in last couple yrs we have been begging for moderation of that rain. But again that is a microclimate.
Posted by bwr on August 2, 2007 08:36 AMSorry bwr you've missed the point. Unusually high temperatures are a sign of GW. Unusually low temperatures are a sign of GW. Higher than normal rainfall is a sign of GW. Lower than normal rainfall is a sign of GW. What you must understand is that we need the issue of GW, so any and every anomaly in the weather is a GW caused event. How else can we justify the economic and social impact that this issue will have the poorest citizens?
Posted by on August 2, 2007 09:16 AMJoe, your letter is right to the point.You did your research to find out the facts.And "science is bad" you are just another victim of liberal propaganda.
Posted by bart on August 2, 2007 11:30 AMDan2 said ” Bango, Trying to get a proper perspective on your posts. You have stated that you are a visitor to this country. Respectfully asking your country of origin?”
Can’t see any reason why that would be relevant Dan.
The “proper perspective” is that the science bodies are the mouthpiece for science and if you disagree with a position then you are free to embark on your own research or meta-research and stake out an argument in the normal way.
However, writing them all off as political stooges is not going to make your argument any stronger and simply makes you look foolish and beholden to some dogmatic agenda.
Do you accept the existence of electrons, quarks, bosons, antimatter or do you also have a Dr.Gray equivalent in subatomic physics that you prefer to believe?
What I accuse you of is picking a position based on what you prefer and what appeals to you and then rating the trustworthiness of sources depending on how well they align with your preferences.
You are arbitrarily selecting and applying ad-hoc reasons to discard the IPCC, and now also the AAAS and NAS, and no doubt also the Joint Academies, and so on.
Bango:
"Observational evidence overwhelmingly supports the contention that there is a novel warming event underway. End of item one."
End of item one? You make a statement and then declare end of discussion? Sounds like the IPCC.
But back to your point, nobody is contesting climate change Bango, just the causes. Warming and cooling are normal cycles. And many disagree with the so called manmade scenario.
End of item one.
(/sarcasm)
Hey BWR, If you are getting married or renewing your vows soon I will give you a deal in Maui. Maybe I will give you some carbon credits along with great photo's and video.... You assume alot, also develop a little sense of humor it really makes life more enjoyable. And my coconuts don't respond as quickly as your computer so bear with me.....
Posted by Mike D. on August 2, 2007 01:16 PMKW said ”End of item one? You make a statement and then declare end of discussion? Sounds like the IPCC.”
Sorry if it offended you.
”But back to your point, nobody is contesting climate change Bango, just the causes. “
Really?
Well I admit that I haven’t seen anything in the journals or press releases, but I see plenty people here denying it. So I guess it depends on whether we count them or dismiss them as “nobody”.
”Warming and cooling are normal cycles.”
Sure, this isn’t thought to be one of them though. It is thought to be novel and unprecedented event rather than a cyclic phenomenon, and also the result of human activities.
”And many disagree with the so called manmade scenario”
No doubt so, especially if we put those “nobody” voices that you dismissed back on the table. Very few scientists disagree though, and I have seen no science body disagree, and nor have I seen the editorial position of any scientific journal disagree.
I haven’t even seen a paper in any scientific journal disagreeing. Granted, I only subscribe to or read a half-dozen or so.
Perhaps you can correct me on this and show a scientific body, editorial of a scientific journal, or paper published in a scientific journal that disagrees?
Hey Mike I do have a sense of humor, bit dry and gets me into trouble. And no not doing any of the marriage, renewal stuff, but when I go to Maui, will send an email and will have a beer. That is if the gateway to your coconuts is not broken.
Posted by bwr on August 2, 2007 01:48 PMBango it was I who asked your country of origin, not Dan. I accept and respect your not wanting to divulge that information. I respectfully disagree however on the fact that it has nothing to do with perspectives, and a point of view in which a person is coming from. Culture and our background contribute greatly to what we believe and percieve about our surroundings, community, and government. This is not only attributed to any country, but also the regions we come from. Yes the technical pieces are greatly at play here talking about GW, but so are the cultural, social, economics of our makeup.
Thanks and have a good day
Posted by bwr on August 2, 2007 01:56 PM” Bango it was I who asked your country of origin, not Dan.”
My apologies to both, I was inattentive.
I am from sub-Saharan Africa, mixed-breed mongrel with several linguistic traditions from Europe and Africa.
Bango thank you for the response and no apologies needed, at least from me and I would make same assumption from Dan. I work with and personal friends that have European linguistic traditions, but are from India. Some of the terms were the same, but did not want to make any assumptions that would not be fair to you. Again thanks and Welcome to this messed up place we call a country.
Posted by bwr on August 2, 2007 02:40 PMWelcome Bango! No wonder posting with you is so pleasant. Even when I totally disagree about manmade global warming.
My totally self-thought position is that this planet is so big and the sun provides so much raw energy that we are not capable of making that much of a difference. At least my ego isn't that big..yet.
Hey BWR, take care, it is enjoyable corresponding with you, I'll see you on another post soon...
Posted by Mike D. on August 2, 2007 03:31 PMThanks Mike D. Enjoy your day, but while you are working it is happy hour over here. Take care
Posted by bwr on August 2, 2007 05:36 PMBWR, Momma, kind of you indeed
Posted by Bango Skank on August 3, 2007 09:01 AMBWR, just curious, what anomalies or oddities are you picking up in my writing?
Posted by Bango Skank on August 3, 2007 10:19 AMHey Bango. Hope all is well. The main areas in which I see terms and words not commonly discussed in America. Your writings and grammar are a heck of a lot better than mine and others on here. Some items off the top of my head are:
1. Term Bloody - You have phrased this term once or twice, but did catch my attention.
2. When referring to diseases that almost all Americans do not reference or maybe even know exist anymore.
3. Your psuedoname for this blog Bango
A few things that have caught my eye. For the past few years, I have worked with many great people from India, China, Singapore, Pakistan, and Russia. Most of those have a definate European influence in their speech and terminology.
Posted by bwr on August 3, 2007 11:08 AMLooks like we just confirmed 50% of the greenhouse gases aren't coming from planes, trains or automobiles. Nor are they coming from the US.
According to this AP report:
BANGKOK, Thailand - Huge haze clouds over the Indian Ocean contribute as much to atmospheric warming in Asia as greenhouse gases and play a significant role in the melting of the Himalayan glaciers, according to a study published Thursday.
Researchers concluded that the pollution — mostly caused by the burning of wood and plant matter for cooking in India and other South Asian countries — enhanced heating of the atmosphere by around 50 percent and contributed to about half of the temperature increases blamed in recent decades for the glacial retreat.Posted by KW on August 3, 2007 04:26 PM
There you go again KW.
Try reading it again. It says about 1/2 the temperature increase, not half the greenhouse gases - its right there in the section you quoted.
Posted by CL on August 4, 2007 08:23 AMYou're right CL!
I should have said the fires contributed "as much" (meaning equal to the same amount) as the greenhouse gases rather than discounting it to only 50%.
Thanks for catching that.
Posted by KW on August 4, 2007 08:55 AMreal climatologist say that the earth will go into a mini ice age by 2020.Enjoy this natural occurance while you can.
Posted by bart on August 4, 2007 10:15 AMSo do they do DNA tests or what to determine who the "real" climatologists are?
Posted by CL on August 4, 2007 11:48 AMIt has taken a long time to convince most people of significance that human endeavors contribute significantly to global warming. Of course, there will always be a cadre of nay sayers. There always is on any kind of dramatic revelation of this sort.
Talk about taking a long time. It certainly has for President Bush. While he is still wobbly on the issue at least we have this:
" WASHINGTON (Reuters) - U.S. President George W. Bush unveiled plans on Friday for global warming talks next month that will bring together the world's biggest polluters to seek agreement on reducing greenhouse gases.
Under pressure for tougher action against climate change, Bush invited the European Union, the United Nations and 11 industrial and developing countries to the September 27-28 meeting in Washington to work toward setting a long-term goal by 2008 to cut emissions.
Bush was following through on his pledge in late May to convene a series of conferences with economic powers responsible for producing most of the greenhouse gases blamed for global warming."
And this from Fox News:
"From "An Inconvenient Truth" to popularizing the Prius, Hollywood has helped lead the way on some environmental issues. One of the latest initiatives: Cool Change, Fox's company-wide program to reduce the network's impact on global warming. As part of that effort, the seventh season of "24" will take steps to reduce and offset the carbon emissions from the show's production, with the goal of having the season finale be entirely carbon-neutral.
It may sound like a publicity stunt, but Fox spokesman Chris Anderson says the network isn't after bigger ratings. "We are publicizing '24's' commitment to climate change for two reasons and two reasons only: to inspire the public to take global warming seriously and hopefully to motivate other studios to make changes to their production practices as well," he says."
And this:
"BEIJING -- China's top meteorological official has blamed global warming for extreme weather in China this year, urging concerned departments to improve emergency responses to reduce possible losses."
It's everywhere. But of course there is that cadre of naysayers. They will always be around.
Posted by Truth on August 4, 2007 05:40 PMSignificantly, my ass. The whole solar system is going through a warming cycle due to elliptical orbiting of the planets.
It seems scientists have noticed recently that quite a few planets in our solar system seem to be heating up a bit, including Pluto. This has led some people, not necessarily scientists, to wonder if Mars and Jupiter, non-signatories to the Kyoto Treaty, are actually inhabited by alien SUV-driving industrialists who run their air-conditioning at 60 degrees and refuse to recycle.
Posted by on August 5, 2007 06:08 PMJust another big, compassionate cause for the feel and do-gooders to wring their collective hands over and cry woe is us. A rallying cause for the weak minded to unify behind as their leaders (Al Gore and ilk) live in their big mansions, jet around the world and make as small fortune selling the snake oil made with "carbon offsets". Shes h, it's as bad and immoral as GW hawking his Iraqi war as something more than the lining the pockets of the military supply and oil industries pocket books. The, left, not wanting to appear in favor of a war found their golden goose in "global warming".
And the gullible pseudo intellectual "have to embrace a righteous cause" fools swallowed it hook, line, sinker and fishing pole.
Posted by on August 5, 2007 06:33 PM06:08 PM:
"Significantly, my ass. The whole solar system is going through a warming cycle due to elliptical orbiting of the planets."
The influence of the earth's oribital variations on global temperatures are well understood and have been for over 30 years. Climatologists are well aware of these variations and have taken them into account.
Here's a short article that does a pretty good job of explaining it:
http://green.yahoo.com/index.php?q=node/659
"Scientists have made a study of the history of climate change (the field is called "paleoclimatology"), so we know quite a bit about past shifts in global temperature and what caused them. Carbon concentrations and temperatures can be tracked back hundreds of thousands of years by looking at ice cores, and millions of years using other proxies."So your little gripe is so much BS. The real concern is explained in the article:
"The graph below, which is based on ice core data, shows CO2 concentrations and temperature from 400,000 years ago to the present. You can't see the 1°F to 3°F differences in global temperature that we are concerned with today because the temperature estimates shown in this graph are local for Antarctica, which has experienced less warming than the global average. Still, it shows that temperature has varied greatly over time, and this variation is strongly correlated with CO2 concentrations."(emphasis mine)
And what we are currently seeing:
Now look at CO2 and temperature in the recent past - the far right of the graph. See how CO2 is rocketing up, and higher today than it's been in the last 400,000 years? Actually, CO2 concentrations are higher today than they've been in the last 650,000 years - this graph just doesn't go back that far.
So you see, we know from ice core data that CO2 levels and temperatures have been tightly coupled going back as far as we have data. We also know that CO2 levels are the highest in 650,000 years (going through several ice age cyles). It doesn't take much to figure out the what the temperature is expected to do (and is doing).
And the orbits of the other planets hasn't got a thing to do with it.
Then it must be all those SUV's and air conditioners that are warming up our neighboring planets! Wow, I'm glad that you clarified the mystery of UNIVERSAL warming so clearly.
Posted by on August 6, 2007 09:04 AMI've been asleep since the 70's. Did we ever fix that global cooling that was suppose to destroy our planet?
Posted by KW on August 6, 2007 09:32 AMKW -
Ask Cw your question. While he's on his prayer mat 5 times a day genuflecting toward the "global Warming God" in Tennessee, he can take time out from trying to figure how he's going to pay for those vital carbon credits and ask his holiness for clarification.
Posted by on August 6, 2007 09:52 AMI'm sorry, I meant ask Cl your question. I get so darned flustered when in the presence of intellectual giants such as him!
Posted by on August 6, 2007 09:54 AM09:04 -
There is no mystery.
It is well known that the orbital variations of the planets influences their temperatures. For example, Pluto recently made it's closest approach to the sun in it's 249 year orbit - guess what that will do to the temperature on Pluto??
The affect of earth's orbital variations and other external influences (such as variations in the sun's output) are very well known and understood going back hundreds of thousands of years.
After climatologists take these external influences into account, it is obvious that the current situation doesn't match any pattern in the long historical record - so the question is: what's different now?
Do you have a better explanation other than asinine comments about SUVs or air conditioners on other planets?
09:54/09:52 & KW -
Your lack of rebuttal to the facts laid out is duly noted.
Simply amazing.
So every science body on the planet underwrites the claim that the planet is experiencing a novel warming event and that the significant causal factor is human activity, but somehow this is ignored or rejected in favour of simplistic and irrelevant objections.
06:08 objects that ” The whole solar system is going through a warming cycle due to elliptical orbiting of the planets”
As though no researcher or science body had thought of this. The faith that somehow he has spotted an obvious cause that nobody else did or was willing to admit. KW reckons it’s because they are all corrupt political stooges, 06:08 perhaps thinks that on the whole scientists are just plain stupid.
06:33 (perhaps the same person) ” Just another big, compassionate cause for the feel and do-gooders to wring their collective hands over and cry woe is us.”
As if this would make any difference to whether the claim was true or reasonable or not. His argument is basically that if somebody wrings their hands over something it is less likely to be true.
KW chips in with ” I've been asleep since the 70's. Did we ever fix that global cooling that was suppose to destroy our planet?”
Now KW has admitted previously to post here just to have fun and cause a ruckus, so he thinks this is just a clever way to spoil the discussion.
However, look at the reasoning – some popular news magazines drummed up circulation with a bit of a scare back in the 70’s about cooling, and now science is saying there is heating, so in KW’s view that means the scientists must be wrong now.
Hmmm.
But let’s say it was actually the scientists back then who were convinced that we were headed for cooling.
- They could have been right but a stronger mechanism came into play that drove the direction towards warming
- They could have changed position based on newer information and results of research and improved models and computational power.
Basically the answer is “so what, that was then, this is now”.
If you prefer to wait for the final word, then you will wait forever and in the mean time run a high risk of being impacted to a worse extent due to a failure to plan.
If KW wants to reject any science that doesn’t agree with what he prefers to believe then he has stepped out of science and into a form of superstition.
Posted by Bango Skink on August 6, 2007 11:41 AM