|
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.
Regardless of any belief (scientific or religious) in global warming, whether man-made or natural, I put it that:
1. Reducing pollution is good.
2. Increasing energy efficiency is good.
3. Reducing reliance on one energy source (such as oil) is good.
#24, you need to look deeper. These core samples are important in the debate.
Here is the question not yet answered.
Is the observed increase in atmospheric carbon dioxide in these core samples cause global warming or were they caused by global warming?
No one knows for sure, and that is at the heart of the debate.
#32 – Correct.
#30 – try this experiment:
Fill a glass half-full with water.
Add some ice cubes.
Mark the water level after the ice cubes have been added.
When the ice has melted, check the water level.
The water level remains the same.
What is the relevance of the MDs and PhDs? I read the article to see which climatologists agree- I saw many meteorologists mentioned, but this isn’t about short term weather. And the four mentioned who sent the letter to the IPCC- Mr. Hendriksen was awarded a joint Nobel prize for being part of a UN peacekeeping force, and the other three look to be a bit ‘dodgy’. All in all, looks like- a swing and a miss.
#21 – BertDawg,
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…
Pretty light fare, in this case. Yes, the water contracts when it melts. It also flows into the ocean from glaciers that were out on land and 10,000 feet thick.
Also, water is most dense at 4 degrees centigrade. Above that temperature, it expands again. So, as the ocean warms, it too expands, causing further sea level rise.
Got it now?
#23-Ah_Yea,
That is absolutely untrue. While it is impossible to end the world through climate change, accelerating the warming process at high speed could trigger an ice age much faster than the world’s flora and fauna are ready to adapt to.
So yes, the earth has been there before, but it is supposed to take millions of years to get there.
#31, probably as reliable as ex-vice presidents.
#32-chuck,
Good point.
If your front yard is covered in litter and you know that it will never destroy your house, you would still want to get the litter off your yard, right?
#23 Ah_Yea,
Here’s an interesting little article that details the period when there was all that carbon in the atmosphere, 250 million years ago.
Suspending Life
The above article is a shorter read than the more detailed book Under a Green Sky that discusses the same time period and the factors that lead up to it.
Were all that CO2 to be released into the atmosphere today, we would all die. 250 million years ago, when it was all in the air, we had the greatest mass extinction the planet has ever seen.
The ocean became anoxic and mostly lifeless. What life was there was mostly sulfur producing bacteria. When the anoxic layer grew and rose to the surface, the ocean belched forth hydrogen sulfide gas in toxic quantities spreading the death and destruction onto land.
Let’s try to avoid that.
I was taught that Antarctica is a continent because unlike the North Pole’s ice cap there is land underlying the massive ice cap there. Is this not true? I think it is as I haven’t heard of any submarines traversing the South Pole.
Knoxville? They’re so afraid of another scorching summer that they’ll believe anything. Remember folks, the hurricane and drought seasons are starting in the U.S. You combine that with home foreclosures, higher food and gas prices, and the usual witless scores by French judges at the upcoming Olympics, and you can expect some hot tempers this summer.
In other news …
Smoking tobacco does not cause lung cancer.
#44, Hah! DNA mutation causes cancer. Smoking just increases its probability.
Or, something like that…
What the hell do you people have against improved air quality and conservation?
You read one poorly written article about supposed scientific groups doubting global warming and thing Christ has come again.
These lists of scientists are OLD NEWS. Half of them are dead, 95% are not even climatologists.
And Ah_Yeah, Dixie Lee Ray has ben dead for 10 years, please get up to speed on whats really going on in climate science and you will see how every argument you have stated has been disproven. You are just making a fool of yourself.
http://www.realclimate.org
# 31 Misanthropic Scott
I always go to ex-medical doctor/fiction writers for my scientific data on climate change too….
Here is the rest of the story Paul Harvey.
#21 – BertDawg
… all of it (especially the notes).
He is right the notes are very supportive of the story.
28 – Misanthropic Scott – Studies have shown that mankind is responsible for <2% of the overall CO2 production. Things like natural decomposition, and respiration of all animal life produce most of it. Hell, ALGAE is the source of the lion’s share of it.
29 – Noel – Agree with the part about the ice on land (Antarctica only). The ice which is floating (basically the whole north polar ice cap)is displacing the amount of water equivalent to its weight and when it thaws and melts, the net effect is a lessening of its displacement. The ice and snow on Antarctica is not displacing water, and so would increase the water level. I submit the two areas would balance each other out.
37 – Misanthropic Scott – Evidently you think your preconceived notions are all you need to know. Too bad. The fictional part of the book is just there to make the concepts easier for the masses to understand, and also to fend off litigation from prominent figures who dispense the FUD, and might feel that are unfairly represented.
It is the notes, the statistics, the environmental data which formed the genesis of the book (because it contradicts the mantra of the alarmists) which is most relevant. But you wouldn’t know that, because you obviously haven’t read it. Enjoy your closed little dogmatic world. And when the consensus pendulums the other way, my sense is that you will pretend you knew it all along.
#49-BertDawg,
Humans are responsible for clear-cutting trees, so that CO2 does not get recycled. We may not produce most of it, but we make sure it hangs around.
Much of the northern ice cap is above water. Think of Greenland.
#28 Misanthropic Scott, be careful of your math.
Bobbo is talking about absolute co2 levels, not relative.
It makes you sound fanatical when you nitpick on semantics.
That is almost as bad as blaming the mass extinction of the P-T event on carbon dioxide.
Your repeated use the P-T event as proof of the effects of carbon dioxide without even hinting that the P-T extinction was caused by other far more devastating events, shows you are either fanatically biased or horrifically uninformed.
It also undermines your argument.
The extinctions during the P-T event were not caused by co2. Get with the program.
The extinctions were caused by a host of other events.
Do you know about the Emeishan and Siberian Traps eruptions and how they are the primary events of the P-T mass extintions?
The Emeishan and Siberian Traps eruptions happened over HUNDREDS OF THOUSANDS of years, spewing toxic acids and sun choking ash into the atmosphere while covering over 77,000 sq miles in lava, much of it in the ocean. The combination of acid rain, sun blocking ash, and direct contamination of the ocean changed the ocean’s chemistry causing it to release huge amounts of methane hydride, raise it’s acidity, and become severely anoxic. These events are what is responsible for the P-T extinction. And of course similar events occurred on land.
The co2 levels were simply a consequence of these events.
Either you did not know this, or you are being intentionally disingenuous with your answers. I want to make the assumption that you are not intentionally misrepresenting the facts, so:
Let’s repeat this slowly. The- co2- levels- in- the- atmosphere- did- not- cause- mass- extinctions!
For more enlightenment, see:
http://tinyurl.com/3c8gmn
Over 50 posts and no decent left wing replies. Not surprised.
Go back to whining about Iraq. Oh, wait. You already wore that topic out.
What about the Obama Sock Monkey? That should be good for some decent liberal outrage.
#52, you really aren’t any fun at all. Can’t anybody play along with an obviously ironic statement here?
Scott–Ah Yea beat me to it. As knowledgeable as you are, why did you take a cheap shot by arguing “realtive increases” in CO2?
How often have you argued with Mustard that you are open to competing theories?
EVERYTHING ABOUT GLOBAL WARMING is based on modeling. There can be no “proof” as there is no control group.
Common sense tells us if you pump CO2 into the atmosphere that “something” has to happen? But then you find out the ocean captures quite a lot of it. Algae grows and dies sinking to the bottom of the ocean taking huge amounts of CO2 out of the system for 500K years. Its all very complicated and unknown.
Its a great subject as it allows all kinds of bias to be demonstrated.
GO GREEN!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
I despise obviously ironic statements.
To download the full version visit vuze.com
James Hill: maybe McCain, the human turkey crop. I can hear him now, “I don’t like the look of those teenagers. Damn, that’s Congress…”
[Duplicate comment deleted. – ed.]
The only people in the world who
believe that Global Warming is
a “political” issue are American
right-wingers. Why is that, I
wonder?
DBR, because they’ve run out of issues? Newt Gingrich’s rally cry these days: eliminate the census bureau! Wow I’m inspired…
#60 – Trevor
Oh, great. A link to the “documentary” by disgraced anti-science fruitcake Martin Durkin.
I think you’re better off sticking with the Knoxville rag. At least that hasn’t been debunked by the entire scientific community, like that “Swindle” nonsense has been.
#61, well, if governments are involved, it clearly is a political issue.
For cultural reasons, Americans don’t generally like the government telling them how to live their lives. You might start there when looking at the rationale behind the reactions to proposed changes/mandates.