|
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.
Sorry, there is no way of knowing how many of the 10,000 IPCC scientists agree with the IPCC consensus. The names of peer reviewers and their opinions are kept secret. Also, grant money comes from peer reviewed papers. That is their sole purpose. If any scientist voices disagreement, they are blackballed so the smart thing to do is tow the line. The atmosphere of the IPCC is caustic to dissenters, and that in itself poisons objectivity.
Originally IPCC supporters here were convinced that the oil companies were behind the dissenters. Hahaha, what a laugh. The oil companies are making shit-loads of money BECAUSE of the IPCC. The ‘global warming due to human influence scare’ is good for business.
Bobbo has the right attitude overall.
# 126 Thomas
No pH will fall not rise.
Yes there are other factors but none of them show the ability to affect pH as much. Unless you have evidence of some other process that affects saltwater pH that can be tested for, you are doing nothing more than nay saying and guessing. That is not science!
We know for a fact that CO2 dissolves into saltwater naturally. That without question can change the pH of the water. Anyone who has owned a saltwater tank can tell you a very small change in pH can destroy your tank.
Is it the new motto of the global warming deniers too say that if we don’t know everything then we know nothing? You are trying to say there is too much we don’t know therefore we can’t really be sure. That is like saying there is too much we don’t know about gravity therefore we cant really be sure that a sky scrappers wont just fall over. Asinine!
We know enough to make reasonable conclusions!
#125 – Jim H
>>this is exactly how religious people try to
>>attack evolution, by questioning the honesty
>>of the scientific people.
Dvorak’s Law! Dvorak’s Law!
# 133 pedro
Pedro why do you even post here? You know nothing of global warming or the sciences that study it. You have proven that time and time again.
Please tell me of your infinite wisdom on how CO2 reacts with ocean water and it’s affects on the pH.
You know nothing but that isn’t what makes you stupid. Your inability to realize that you know nothing is what make you stupid.
# 133 pedro
“I still don’t get it. You sure you’re Harry McCool?”
Personification is when you give human quality’s to something that is inanimate like ideas or a block of wood like your head.
Does that explain it better for you?
Scott, this has been covered already on this board many times. I’m pretty sure you participated in the thread about future cooling of the planet, and how all these same scientists say this is just a pause in long-term global warming.
As for the 15% is caused by the sun, I’ve already covered that above and before.
The basic fact is you like the agenda called for in combatting global warming, so you actively support the theory and ignore evidence to the contrary. If the solution were more nuclear power plants, then you would flee.
#127 M—Scott, Under what delusion do you hold that science is not political? Emperical science is a tool that gets used by Polititians to bring their goals to fruition.
Bobbo understand that one side will say 60% with their scientists and leaders, and the other side says 40% with their scientists and leaders.
However, knowing how to handle (ie. What do we do about it?) what you have (60/40) is still a different question all together from the first question. (ie. What do we have?)
The first is empirical, and subject to logic and scientific methods. The second is where the leaders/polits come in, it becomes a management question. Something most scientists do not do well at.
#130 – jim h,
The scientific debate occurred, and it’s over – we have all the certainty we’re going to get.
We certainly have enough certainty to act. We will lose all uncertainty if we do not act and the science is correct … ’cause dead people are not uncertain.
#131 – JimR,
If any scientist voices disagreement, they are blackballed so the smart thing to do is tow the line. The atmosphere of the IPCC is caustic to dissenters, and that in itself poisons objectivity.
Link? Based on what do you make this claim?
Originally IPCC supporters here were convinced that the oil companies were behind the dissenters. Hahaha, what a laugh. The oil companies are making shit-loads of money BECAUSE of the IPCC. The ‘global warming due to human influence scare’ is good for business.
Utter bullshit. If you think your statement is true, provide a link for your reason for thinking so. I think the whites of your eyes were turning brown as you typed that.
#137 – MikeN,
Scott, this has been covered already on this board many times. I’m pretty sure you participated in the thread about future cooling of the planet, and how all these same scientists say this is just a pause in long-term global warming.
As for the 15% is caused by the sun, I’ve already covered that above and before.
Good. That should make it easy for you to find a supporting link.
The basic fact is you like the agenda called for in combatting [sic] global warming, so you actively support the theory and ignore evidence to the contrary. If the solution were more nuclear power plants, then you would flee.
Impressive bit of crap in that statement. First you state that you are making a statement of fact. Then you tell me what I’m thinking. Excellent.
#138 – Thinker,
#127 M—Scott, Under what delusion do you hold that science is not political?
Why not ask me about something I said instead of something I didn’t say? I assume you are badly misquoting this statement of mine:
Not only is the word political not anywhere in either of those sentences, if you read the words carefully, I said “as objective as humans can be.” I stated neither truly objective nor apolitical.
I am merely giving the scientists the benefit of the doubt that they are trying to do their jobs as well as they can and to determine what is known or not about climate change.
The governments that put them there, at least in the four cases I specifically listed, likely picked people known for their skepticism of climate change. That is the bit that is biased. That is the reason that the scientists from these four nations are the ones who regularly raise the most objections to strong wording about climate change and who water down all of the predictions made to the least decisive statement possible. That is why they stated only 90% confidence that warming is real and human caused.
Note that in the following paper, the IPCC is indeed being accused of being political and in deliberately toning down statements to make them seem less well accepted and less catastrophic for political reasons.
So perhaps there is politics involved. Perhaps that’s why the IPCC predictions are always so conservative and have been repeatedly criticized for underestimating the severity of the problem.
The IPCC scientists “Final Draft” on climate change impacts before government editing negotiations
#138, the split on this issue isn’t remotely close to 60/40. At this point it’s something like 95/5 – and the 5% are on Kansas school boards.
As Johnny Cochrane famously said, in reference to OJ’s glove – “if it doesn’t fit, you have to acquit”. With this argument he was able to make fools of a bunch of ordinary people, by confusing them about “reasonable doubt”.
There is no longer any reasonable doubt that greenhouse gases from hydrocarbon combustion are a major contributor to the currently observed planetary warming. From here on out, watch where the big money players put their chips. They don’t care who’s green, who’s liberal, who’s got an axe to grind. They care about what’s going to happen.
Jimh,if the science is settled, why did the hockey stick disappear from the last IPCC report? They’ve changed their minds.
# 139 pedro
That’s because you have the mental capacity of cockroach.
# 139 pedro
Because basic is all little brains like you can understand.
# 145 MikeN
LOL I laugh because you nor anyone else, who lives in denial, that brings up the “Hockey stick” graph actually understand the controversy over it much less the actual graph itself.
#145 – MikeN,
I’m not sure why they removed the hockey stick, probably just because of all of the controversy. Certainly, it is valid and has been vindicated.
Panel Supports a Controversial Report on Global Warming
#146 – Harry McCool,
That’s because you have the mental capacity of cockroach.
Don’t insult cockroaches!
# 151 pedro
Everything I know about denial I learned from observing you.
Lefties are hilarious.
When “Liberals” started becoming shown as a group of radicals with bad ideas, they started calling themselves “progressives”.
Now that “Global warming” is being shown to be a bag ‘o crap, they are changing the nomenclature to “climate change”.
Clearly, the thought process is that when you get proven wrong, just change words a little, update the definition, and keep spewing the same old crap – there’s a sucker born every minute.
145, the science is far from settled. The scientific consensus has changed, evolved, and will no doubt change again. Maybe 500 years from now, all the causes of what is happening to the climate today will be completely understood. And there could be multiple causes. When something really bad happens it’s often because 2 things went wrong at the same time.
We have to act now based on the best information we have, because the risk of not acting is just too high. That’s why the big insurers, and re-insurers, are now on board.
Lloyd’s of London doesn’t work for Al Gore.
#143 Misanthropic Scott,
Well…Not exactly, but somewhat I guess. I was thinking of how so very often scientists are just tools of the leaders. How often in history have leaders of any stripe ignored what scientists have discovered? or turned it to their own ends. Even scientists have, sometimes been guilty of this. It doesn’t change what they found. Just how its applied.
Truth isn’t that popular, at least not unless its presented ‘properly’ given whatever the political climate is at the time.
Whether its the church in power, or a secular government. Nobody likes to look bad. Governments tend to deal in matters of convenience, and the truth usually isn’t.
Looking at history, I thought your statement about an impartial government group was either wishful thinking or nievite.
# 151 pedro
What help do you need? I gave you the definition of personified. I don’t know what else you need to see that the use of “Science” in that post was personification and it was correct.
In general, if you are over 30 or so and have at least a college education you should know that most “theories” change about every 20 years and most scientist don’t agree on much of anything. Just remember the best scientist in the world believed the earth was flat, the center of the universe, and if you went more than 15mph you would suffocate.
# 157 ronhawker
Your entire post is complete nonsense.
Geez guys, you crack me up – as always. Some of you actually argue about scientific fact as if it were etched in stone. Doesn’t take a genius to know we don’t know squat about meteorology. Hell they can’t even get tomorrow’s weather report right. Still, in the absence of solid fact you still have common sense. Current models of resource exploitation are headed in the wrong direction principally because resources are finite and human ambition is not. I’m still hopeful that we can make the needed changes before the consequences make greater sacrifices necessary.
“Lefties are hilarious.” And righties are pathetic. Honestly, both sides drive me crazy.
Here’s the shtick as far as I can see. Petroleum based economies are becoming ridiculously expensive, probably damaging the planet, and leave western economies in danger of losing their own sovereignty to a bunch of misogynist morons who haven’t bathed in the last month.
Clean fuels like ethanol are more harmful than oil. Also, harvesting food to pay for SUV fuel is about as smart as using animal by-products in cattle feed.
Wind is beautiful and will never work.
Solar can work. In a couple of years 20% of Germany’s electricity production will be from solar with really crappy technology (6-10 times more expensive than coal). Current (last 2 years) technologies for solar can produce power for 1.5 times coal. In the next 10 years solar power will be cheap and easy to deploy (think house paint, asphalt, etc.) and will cost a fraction of coal to produce.
Western economies should start moving over to electricity based infrastructures with fast trains (less air travel), hybrid vehicles, and the ability to sell electricity easily onto a grid from anywhere. These sorts of changes will take 1-2 generations to complete so a leadership now will help it.
For example, build nuclear reactors (hey Greenpeace likes it you bunch of tree hugging hippies), give preferential driving treatment to electric hybrid drivers, guarantee a floor price for electricity to small producers can go online (farmers, landowners, factories, large buildings, etc) and finance it, and give incentive tax breaks to companies/organizations tha build infrastructure to support the changes (instead of oil companies).
The economies of the west will shift somewhat, however the jobs and manufacturing opportunities would be fantastic.
Oh, and all you right wingers who complain about the left, do what I do and invest in companies like nanosolar. Oh, and don’t yank your money in 3 weeks. All you left wing morons who want a new taxation system to finance corn for fuel, get your frickin’ priorities (and ethics) straight.
P.S. These types of technologies which will save our butts came out of fundamental research in areas like biotech and high end particle physics which I see a lot of wackos (pick your stripe) opposing on this blog.
You know, I was about to trans-post something I wrote on another forum that would have mashed this argument to bits, but then I realized that you can’t argue with Hippies.
Goddamn Hippies. I HATE Hippies.
God damn, I hate hippies too. Grew up around them and can still smell them…
P.S. Mad_Dog, you may be right (whatever that is) and I’m wrong. Therefore, I hope you actually put your time and/or money where your mouth is. If you do that, we all have a good chance of fixing this mess. If it’s all self congratulatory ego stroking then it’s not worth squat.
I’m also interested in reading your post.
Of course, I’m right and you’re wrong still… 😉