|
Cityview magazine Knoxville Tennessee — This piece is poorly structured, but contains a lot of excellent info regarding the Global Warming debate. It attacks the “everyone is in total agreement” argument made by Gore. |
On December 13, 2007, 100 scientists (often referred to as the Bali-100) wrote an open letter to the Secretary-General of the United Nations, His Excellency Ban Li-Moon, in New York, NY. Among other things, the letter made three significant declarations: 1. “[R]ecent observations of phenomena such as glacial retreats, sea-level rise and the migration of temperature-sensitive species are not evidence for abnormal climate change, for none of these changes has been shown to lie outside the bounds of known natural variability. 2. The average rate of warming of 0.1 to 0.2 degrees Celsius per decade recorded by satellites during the late 20th century fall within known natural rates of warming and cooling over the last 10,000 years. 3. Leading scientists, including some senior IPCC representatives, acknowledge that today’s computer models cannot predict climate…
On March 4, at the 2008 International Conference on Climate Change, more than 500 scientists closed the conference with what is referred to as the Manhattan Declaration. In short, they declared that “global climate has always changed and always will, independent of the actions of humans, and that carbon dioxide (CO2) is not a pollutant but rather a necessity for all life. . . There is no convincing evidence that CO2 emissions from modern industrial activity has in the past, is now, or will in the future cause catastrophic climate change. . . Now, therefore, we recommend that world leaders reject the view expressed by the United Nations Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change as well as popular, but misguided, works such as An Inconvenient Truth.” How many of you heard or read about these declarations in the mainstream media?
On April 14, 2008, a group of scientists (Hans Schreuder, Piers Corbyn, Dr. Don Parkes, Svend Hendriksen*), including a former Nobel Peace Prize recipient*, sent a letter to the IPCC. The letter opens with “[W]e are writing to you and others associated with the IPCC position – that man’s CO2 is a driver of global warming and climate change – to ask that you now in view of the evidence retract support from the current IPCC position and admit that there is no observational evidence in measured data going back 22,000 years or even millions of years that CO2 levels (whether from man or nature) have driven or are driving world temperatures or climate change.” They close the letter by asking that the IPCC “and all those whose names are associated with the IPCC policy accept the scientific observations and renounce current IPCC policy.”
Do you still think there is consensus? Try this on: between 1999 and 2001 a petition (commonly referred to as the Oregon Project) was attached to a 12 page paper and circulated within the scientific community. The petition reads, in its entirety: “We urge the United States government to reject the global warming agreement that was written in Kyoto, Japan in December, 1997, and any other similar proposals. The proposed limits on greenhouse gases would harm the environment, hinder the advance of science and technology, and damage the health and welfare of mankind. There is no convincing evidence that human release of carbon dioxide, methane, or other greenhouse gasses is causing, or will, in the foreseeable future, cause catastrophic heating of the Earth’s atmosphere and disruption of the Earth’s climate. Moreover, there is substantial scientific evidence that increases in atmospheric carbon dioxide produce many beneficial effects upon the natural plant and animal environments of the Earth.” This petition was signed by nearly 20,000 scientists. More than 7,000 are PhDs. Of the 263 signatories from Tennessee, more than 53% hold a PhD or MD. While critics of the petition have pointed to fake signatures (e.g., Janet Jackson, Perry Mason, etc.), no doubt put there by those wanting to discredit it, none have attacked the science and evidence cited in the paper.
Yea, I’ve backed off my co2 causes global warming position. What I haven’t seen is any “proof” that 1-2% increases in atmospheric carbon will change the temp we have seen.
“But” as the warming issue has declined in my mind, the turning the ocean into an acid bath has become more strong?
Somewhere, somehow the mass of humanity spewing its waste products is going to bites us. Most often not in the way first predicted, but in some corollary way.
You just can’t fool with mother nature==and she abhors a single species taking over the planet.
John,
For publishing such heresy you must report to the head of the inquisition, Torquemada, oops, I mean A. Gore. He will send you for re-education…
Here’s an interesting twist on the global warming debate: Gaia Loves Global Warming.
Yay for Knoxville, TN!
We have so many SUV’s with Bush/Cheney stickers around here its ridiculous. No one around here buys into global warming because Rush Limbaugh said its BS.
I must be getting older than, well, “God”. I can remember when John supported peer-reviewed science over political shucking-and-jiving.
[edit: comments guide]
BTW – that “Oregon Project”. I signed it as “John C. Dvorak”.
AWESOME. I am tired of the leftist FUD that is spread about the environment. I have never been completely convinced that human endeavors are causing the changes in global climate. Just like the predicting the weather or predicting earthquakes, we lack both the knowledge and necessary information to adequately model these type of systems. There are simply too many variables to account for, many of which we are either ignorant or lack enough information to interpret correctly. Of course one of those many factors is what impact do humans have in this equation. If the human race lives long enough we might actually figure that out.
Da! I’ve been waiting for the more long term view about this. While I never fell in the the ‘Green Global Warming’ Manking (Human Kind) is a bad pox on the planet crowd.
I would champion responsible stewardship of what we have. Using resources responsively.
We should be careful how we foul our nest. We will have no choice but to sleep in our own bed.
Hey wait a minute. Since when do crazy neocons believe what scientists have to say?
I’m getting on in years. I don’t live anywhere near the sea coast. I’m more worried about what happens as the oil runs out, pollution to all sources of water, garbage, etc. The kids may have it rough and my old age may not be golden years.
Hydrogen is not an energy source when you have to use a lot more energy to get hydrogen than you get by burning it.
Warmer weather means lower heating bills.
By the way have you noticed that cooling climate is supposed to mean drought and a warming climate is supposed to cause drought? Cooling slows down the water cycle and heating speeds it up but beyond that…
This is a typical situation where the things we don’t know outweigh the things we do. However, it’s a no brainer that human activity on this planet is having an environmental impact on a global scale. To think it’s not is simply denial. It’s just as obvious that, if population continues to grow and more importantly a much larger portion of which is experiencing economic growth and begins to consume more resource, that sooner or later a limit will be reached. We need to begin to practice sustainable growth and the sooner the better, or we’re all gonna be up to our armpits in residue. That is if the planet will tolerate us that long.
Wow, what a shitty, poorly written article. James Hill can write consistently better drivel. Nice to see how this appeared in such a well-respected, peer-reviewed journal such as the Knoxville Cityview.
This guy does a good job of spreading FUD and personal attacks, but little else.
I love you John, but you are wrong on this one.
Scientists not under an agenda agree global warming is real.
The oil giant ExxonMobil has admitted that its support for lobby groups that question the science of climate change may have hindered action to tackle global warming. In its corporate citizenship report, released last week, ExxonMobil says it intends to cut funds to several groups that “divert attention” from the need to find new sources of clean energy.
Just keep believing that global warming isn’t real. ExxonMobil thanks you. Why must people wait until it is too late to act? Besides, doing all the things necessary to curb global warming is economically beneficial to everyone. Easier to be a naysayer than examine the facts (without payment from big oil) and come to a logical conclusion. Start using your brain.
As I have been saying and proving on this blog for quite a while now, the models for global warming (climate change?) are not yet complete. They don’t adequately take into account water vapor or the sun’s radiant energy.
Don’t use what not ready. The models are not ready! It is entirely possible that when they are, they will show that the effects of humanity on the environment is negligible.
I only believe things that affirm my dislike of do-gooders, so therefore global warming is clearly false.
#9: Easy – whenever the scientists agree with their agenda, they listen to the scientists.
This argument is, of course, quite obviously specious at best. Let’s look at this a bit differently:
People have been dying for millenia, at various ages and for various reasons. Your Honor, my client may have killed those people, but I ask you: what difference does it make? They would have eventually died on their own anyway! Motion to dismiss.
Here’s the question I have about Carbon in the atmosphere. Where has that Carbon come from? Well, oil and coal of course. But where did oil and coal come from. Oil from the Dinosaurs, and Coal from plants during the age of the Dinosaurs. Ok, fine. So the carbon that I put into the air today was originally in the air a couple million years ago. We’re not putting new carbon into the atmosphere. We’re not creating carbon. We’re putting carbon back into the atmosphere which was taken out millions of years ago. The planet had plenty of animals living on it back then, so how exactly are we hurting the environment?
#9 – Jules
>>Hey wait a minute. Since when do crazy
>>neocons believe what scientists have to say?
They’ll believe anything anyone says, as long as it’s in agreement with their preconceived notions.
“18
…Well… you see…hmmmm…
Well, Never mind!
If there are people out there who still don’t understand the relationship between fools and their money, read “State Of Fear” by Michael Crichton – all of it (especially the notes).
When the dust settles and the Global Warming opportunists are exposed for the scam artists they are, there will most likely be some new doom on the horizon. Perhaps runaway AI, or nanobiology run amok.
In the meantime, let’s hope that Obama has sense enough to tell our most prominent fraud and Nobel-winner, Al Gore, thanks but no thanks.
Food for thought: if water expands as it freezes, why wouldn’t the water released from the melting of the polar ice caps contract and take up LESS space and actually LOWER the sea level? I’m just saying…
#12 – “Nice to see how this appeared in such a well-respected, peer-reviewed journal such as the Knoxville Cityview.”
From the article, “none have attacked the science and evidence cited in the paper.”
Well, the paper is there to be refuted. Let me know when the “peers” have done so. Somehow I don’t think it will be….
And here is another thought.
About atmospheric CO2.
1. Current belief states that all fossil fuels (coal, natural gas, petroleum, shale, etc.) came from the decay of living animals.
2.Either through photosynthesis or through the food chain, all these animals got their carbon from the atmosphere.
3.Therefore, at some time in the past, all the carbon still locked up in coal, natural gas, petroleum, shale, etc. was free in the atmosphere.
4.When all this carbon was free in the atmosphere, the earth not only did not have a runaway greenhouse effect, but life grew, multiplied, and flourished.
Did you follow the logic above? If you did, you will now understand that even if humanity burnt every ounce of carbon locked up in the planet, we still would not – could not – trigger any runaway greenhouse effect or kill the oceans. Why?
Because the Earth has already been there, at least once!
(That being said, now reread #11 amodedoma)
It is absolutely true that computer models cannot predict global warming, and that we have no good evidence that we are currently causing warming. There’s too much variation in climate.
But what you’re ignoring is one fundamental fact. Deep ice core samples that measure carbon levels in trapped air bubbles finds that periods of high atmospheric carbon always corresponds to warmer climates. And human beings are raising atmospheric carbon levels. We can’t measure it yet, but that does not mean it isn’t real.
And, yes, most credible scientists who study the issue agree that global warming is real. Just because someone has a PH.D. and signs a petition doesn’t mean he knows what he’s talking about.
What a lengthy heaping steaming mound of dung. This is a long article on a scientific subject and does not have a single citation for any of its statements.
It’s not worth the paper it’s not printed on.
It’ll take a while to refute all of its many stupid unfounded claims. For example, N scientists said blah. And do you have a link to blah? Do you have the list of scientists? N% are PhDs or MDs? So fucking what?
* What are their degrees in?
* What field are they currently working in?
* What makes you think a medical doctor knows more about climatology than a fry clerk in McD’s?
* What papers have they published in peer reviewed publications that support their positions?
* Where did you get the idea that 5 of the warmest years on record were before WWII? (The 1934 bit is true, this bit is false.)
* Why should we listen to meteorologists about climatology? They too know no more about it than fry clerks. Meteorology is not related to climate science at all. We’re just too stupid to know that.
* An IPCC scientist says that putting food in competition with fuel is a bad idea. I agree. What does this say about climate change? Not a fucking thing.
What a load of crap!! I’ll be back later.
Rats, #18, Cranky, beat me to it.
#18-Cranky Dad,
Because it took millions of years of evolution for animals to adapt to a climate without all that carbon. If we put it back quickly, there won’t be time for things to adapt.
#2 – bobbo,
Yea, I’ve backed off my co2 causes global warming position. What I haven’t seen is any “proof” that 1-2% increases in atmospheric carbon will change the temp we have seen.
280ppm -> 380ppm is not 1-2%. It’s actually 36%
#21-BertDawg,
It is not the ice that is in the water that raises water levels, if that melted the water level would go down. It is that ice that is on land or above water that adds to the sea level.
#21
I’m not sure whether or not mankind is causing Global Warming.
But to address one of your points, if you fill a glass with ice cubes at the start there will be no water, only ice in the glass. As the ice melts there will be an increase in the water level in the glass.
#21 – BertDawg,
… read “State Of Fear” by Michael Crichton
I always go to ex-medical doctor/fiction writers for my scientific data on climate change too … right … sure I do.