TORONTO, Ontario (AP) -- A giant ice shelf the size of 11,000 football fields has snapped free from Canada's Arctic, scientists said.
Warwick Vincent of Laval University, who studies Arctic conditions, traveled to the newly formed ice island and could not believe what he saw.
"This is a dramatic and disturbing event. It shows that we are losing remarkable features of the Canadian North that have been in place for many thousands of years. We are crossing climate thresholds, and these may signal the onset of accelerated change ahead," Vincent said Thursday.
The Ayles Ice Shelf, roughly 66 square kilometers (41 square miles) in area, was one of six major ice shelves remaining in Canada's Arctic.
Scientists say it is the largest event of its kind in Canada in 30 years and point their fingers at climate change as a major contributing factor.
"It is consistent with climate change," Vincent said, adding that the remaining ice shelves are 90 percent smaller than when they were first discovered in 1906.
"We aren't able to connect all of the dots ... but unusually warm temperatures definitely played a major role." - CNN ------------------------------------ So all of my fellow alarmists and I were wrong. We said that our children would see the damage global warming will do to the planet (and our lifestyle). Just in the past few years, we have
realized that we are losing glaciers in every country that has glaciers,
noticed that some Pacific islands are getting smaller, causing inhabitants to re-locate
lost a major ice shelf in Canada
lost a great deal of the ice shelf in Antarctica
realized that Greenland's ice cover is getting both smaller and thinner
and have finally realized that polar bears are in serious trouble as a species.
Isn't it about time that the people making the decisions in this country accept what most of the rest of the world already knows? (Or are they counting on the dinosaurs in Kansas to drink up all the rising water?) ********************************************************** 12-29-06, 03:09 PM Lighteningrodd So just what is it our leaders are suppose to do about this phnomenon??? What is happening is a totally natural cycle of the weather patterns that has been going on for centuries.
It seems the world was all aboard the Kyoto Accord a few short years ago. Thank God that a President Bush kept the U.S. out of that lop-sided agreement.
If Kyoto was such a great agreement why didn't the rest of the world agree to it without U.S. participation??? Or did none of the other countries feel the planet was worth saving??? ********************************************************** 12-29-06, 04:49 PM newnickname Backing for 'hockey stick' graph
The hottest temperatures of 'the last 400 or possibly 1,000 years' conicide with the industrial revolution and the relatively sudden release of millions of years worth of energy and pollutants by burning fossil fuels. It could be just coincidence, but the few scientists saying so are generally in the pay of oil companies.
The US is by far the biggest consumer (waster) of the world's energy resources. If it doesn't participate in a worldwide agreement, there isn't much point in that agreement. ********************************************************** 12-29-06, 05:22 PM hippolips
quote:
Originally posted by newnickname: Backing for 'hockey stick' graph
The hottest temperatures of 'the last 400 or possibly 1,000 years'....
------------------------------------------------
Just curious...did anyone actually keep records of our temperatures 400 years ago??? Or 1,000 years ago???
Who kept these records...or did some tree hugger just dream up these "facts"???
Who really knows what temperatures were 400 years ago???
Just curious.
hippolips ********************************************************** 12-29-06, 05:41 PM DorianGreyed From the link -
Professor Phil Jones, director of the Climatic Research Unit at the University of East Anglia, UK, and a collaborator with Professor Mann, disagreed with this conclusion, but told the BBC News: "I am mostly happy with the report, but there wasn't much need for it amongst palaeoclimatologists. The vast majority believe we are at our warmest temperature levels for at least 1,000 years.
"The report makes one good point. This is that there is a lot more science behind the projected warming expected in the 21st Century than just the palaeo-record of the last few millennia."
Professor John Zillman, president of the Australian Academy of Technological Sciences and Engineering, added: "The conclusions of the National Research Council committee seem entirely plausible and responsible.
"The significance of the so-called hockey stick controversy has been blown out of all proportion since the IPCC's (Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change) Third Assessment Report in 2001.
"Our confidence in the reconstruction of past climates is gradually increasing but it is of the nature of scientific research that our knowledge of past climates has accumulated in fits and starts." ______________________ But LR may be right. It could be just a coincidence that this cycle comes at a time in which even the least developed nations are pouring thousands of tons of greenhouse gasses into the atmosphere every year. And Kansas may be right about the Earth being 6000 years old, too. And Kathasung (or whatever the name was) may also be right that a secret cabal is behind 9/11, contrails, fluorodated water, and the whooping cough. Zip ik may be right about the purity of essence or whatever it was that he was trying to push, too. All this overwhelming evidence is just a coincidence. Yeah, that's it. Not to worry. ********************************************************** 12-29-06, 05:49 PM hippolips Hi dg:
My point was ,and still is,who actually kept records of temperatures 400 years ago???
Where are the actual records???
If none exist ,then all you have is a series of scientific assumptions...No???
hippolips ********************************************************** 12-29-06, 05:58 PM hippolips How about this for a solution???
According to experts in the scientific community, cow farts are one of the main causes of global warming,we first determine how many cows there are in the world,then get one cork for every cow in the world ,and stick it up the butt of every cow in the world and ,voila ,we have solved the problem of global warming!!!
Seems scientifically sound to me.
hippolips ********************************************************** 12-29-06, 06:41 PM DorianGreyed The first thermometer was a thermoscope. Different versions of the thermoscope were invented by several inventors around the same time. The first to put a numerical scale on the thermoscopes was the Italian inventor Santorio Santorio for use in medicine. In 1593, Galileo Galilei invented a rudimentary water thermometer (using the contraction of air to draw water up a tube). He also discovered that liquids of lesser density than water could be suspended within it and that they would float at different heights depending on the temperature; hence Galileo's Thermoscope--Galileo's use of alcohol enclosed in glass spheres floating in a column of water in order to measure their differences in temperature. - Wikipedia
There are also other methods of estimating temperatures, some of which are mentioned in the article.
You ask who actually kept records. You do realize that people could write by then, don't you? Much of the day-to-day knowledge we have of history if from diaries and correspondence. Grafitti in Latin has been read from the walls of buildings in the Roman empire*; records of the Pharoahs have lasted; and we have the Dead Sea Scrolls.
I assume that you believe that dinosaurs existed. If so, who wrote about them? How do we know that the air during the Jurassic Era was richer in oxygen than it is today? How do we know that Phillip of Macedon had one leg shorter than the other? We know a great deal about the past, Hippo, but not all of it is written down in book form for us to rea. Archaeologists, paleologists, historians, and yes, palaeoclimatologists (See! There is even a word for it.) use a great many tools to open up the past. In some ways, they are like detectives. No one saw OJ kill anyone, yet somehow, some detectives (along with a forensic teanm) put forward a pretty convincing case. (Had they not planted some evidence, they may have helped to convict him. But that's another thread.)
If one approaches the "controversy" of global warming with an open mind, it becomes obvious that the overwhelming majority of the world's scientists say about the same thing, and it isn't a good thing, either. I said in a thread well over a year ago that I was going to miss polar bears. I was serious. Read the news today?
*I recall one about someone who had a glove stolen; he wished the thief to lose his eyes. ********************************************************** 12-29-06, 06:47 PM DorianGreyed A n almost 3 year old discussion of global warming on AnswerPool. Read it and remember that it was written in early 2004. Increased hurricane intensity, endangered polar bears, glaciers receding, Alpine areas not getting enough snow, ice shelves breaking off, etc.
If you want more evidence that global warming is a serious concern and that human activity is making it worse, consider the following:
Fritzss (aka DonRant) says nothing is wrong. ********************************************************** 12-29-06, 07:02 PM frankvan "If Kyoto was such a great agreement why didn't the rest of the world agree to it without U.S. participation??? Or did none of the other countries feel the planet was worth saving???" : LR.
I believe that 140 "other countries" ratified the treaty. What were they ? Chopped liver? ********************************************************** 12-29-06, 07:45 PM DorianGreyed Does anyone know which country is the biggest producer of greenhouse gasses? Can some numbers for the first few "leading" countries be found? ********************************************************** 12-29-06, 08:08 PM Sherasi Off the top of my head I think I recall it is China with their production of dirty industrial waste that tops the pollution/global warming list.
Didn't they refuse to sign the agreement?
I didn't look this up.. I might be off-base but I thought that was one of the countries.
I think there were several countries who were the biggest culprits that all refused to sign.. some of the old Eastern Block countries.. Mexico and India, too? ********************************************************** 12-29-06, 08:14 PM Sherasi I was just informed by Sagus that these other countries I listed were exempt entirely from the Agreement.
I think that is bull. All countries who produce these gases should either be held accountable or not. Putting sanctions on specific countries but not others is like trying to hold the tide back using a sieve. ********************************************************** 12-29-06, 08:28 PM newnickname
quote: Just curious...did anyone actually keep records of our temperatures 400 years ago??? Or 1,000 years ago???
Who kept these records...or did some tree hugger just dream up these "facts"???
'To estimate global temperatures before the invention of thermometers, researchers have analysed several types of natural phenomena that are affected by temperature, such as tree rings, polar ice cores and the growth of tropical corals. These are called “proxy indicators” of temperature. The technique involves seeing how proxy indicators match with actual temperature records of the last century or so, and then extrapolating backwards in time based on this relationship. Because the tree rings, polar ice cores and tropical corals are collected from very different geographic regions, researchers are able to combine these indicators to create large-scale reconstructions of past global climate trends. Compared to the reconstructed temperature trends of the past thousand years, the temperature rise over the last century stands out as being highly unusual. Over the last thousand years, there was an episode of regionally variable warming, labelled the “medieval warm” period, and more recently also a cooling period, the so-called “Little Ice Age.” Some argue that the current warming trend could just be another natural variation. But the 2001 IPCC Report concludes that the historical warming and cooling episodes appeared to be regional phenomena, whereas the current temperature rise is being observed simultaneously across many parts of the globe.' www.eco.on.ca ********************************************************** 12-29-06, 08:32 PM newnickname
[QUOTE]According to experts in the scientific community ,cow farts are one of the main causes of global warming
[i]'There are many sources for methane, with livestock production making up a significant fraction of the total methane production from anthropogenic sources. The EPA estimates that, for the U.S., about 25 percent of the total methane generated from anthropogentic sources comes from domesticated livestock and their manure. Here are a couple of good web sites concerning methane production:
Methane only comprises about 13 percent of the 4 greenhouse gases along with water vapor that create the natural greenhouse effect. Carbon dioxide comprises about 76 percent of the total. Here is another link you might find useful:
http://globalwarming.enviroweb.org/ishappening/sources/index.html' www.newton.dep.anl.gov ********************************************************** 12-29-06, 11:07 PM FredPuli I'm worrying about someone lighting a cigarette in a cowshed, igniting all that bovine fart and burning the shed down in a ball of flame. That would be a contribution to global warming indeed ********************************************************** 12-30-06, 04:46 AM Lighteningrodd
quote: Originally posted by frankvan: "If Kyoto was such a great agreement why didn't the rest of the world agree to it without U.S. participation??? Or did none of the other countries feel the planet was worth saving???" : LR.
I believe that 140 "other countries" ratified the treaty. What were they ? Chopped liver?
Chopped liver...yes...good point there Frank.
It goes to show they could not hold together to an agreement. I'd like to know why they didn't go ahead with Kyoto without U.S. participation in it. ********************************************************** 12-30-06, 05:44 AM Lighteningrodd
quote: Originally posted by Sherasi: I was just informed by Sagus that these other countries I listed were exempt entirely from the Agreement.
I think that is bull. All countries who produce these gases should either be held accountable or not. Putting sanctions on specific countries but not others is like trying to hold the tide back using a sieve.
This is the very reason why the Bush Administration refuse to agree to it. It was an agreement more designed to cripple the U.S. economy rather than trying to restrict greenhouse gasses. ********************************************************** 12-30-06, 07:00 AM RoverRoad Lighteningrodd, Wouldn't someone who works on oil rigs for a living be unqualified to debate against global warming? Isn't that kind of like Hostess promoting Ding Dongs as a weight loss aid. ********************************************************** 12-30-06, 07:19 AM Lighteningrodd
quote: Originally posted by RoverRoad: Lighteningrodd, Wouldn't someone who works on oil rigs for a living be unqualified to debate against global warming? Isn't that kind of like Hostess promoting Ding Dongs as a weight loss aid.
A diet can be structured in such a way, yes the Ding Dongs can be worked in Big Grin
This message has been edited. Last edited by: DorianGreyed,
Posts: 17030 | Location: Lincoln Place, Granite City, IL, USA | Registered: 06-03-02
Just something I felt like pointing out. Carry on... ********************************************************** 12-30-06, 07:29 AM Lighteningrodd
quote: Originally posted by DorianGreyed: Does anyone know which country is the biggest producer of greenhouse gasses? Can some numbers for the first few "leading" countries be found?
While the web-site below is not a direct answer to your question, it does givean interesting view.
"China, the world's fourth-largest economy and second biggest energy user, has set a goal to cut energy consumption per unit of national income by 20 percent by 2010.
But with coal-fired stations providing over 80 percent of China's electricity supply, China is on course to overtake the United States by 2009 as the largest emitter of carbon dioxide, one of the main greenhouse gases that warm the planet.
China has resisted calls for a cap even on emissions growth, arguing that most carbon dioxide currently in the atmosphere was produced by developed nations as they industrialised, and they have no right to deny the same economic growth to others." ********************************************************** 12-30-06, 10:55 AM DorianGreyed So the country putting out the most carbon dioxide can say that signing the treaty is unfair to their business interests, but no other country can use that argument. I see your position now, LR. The US has rights that other countries shouldn't have. At least you are consistent. ********************************************************** 12-30-06, 11:26 AM Lighteningrodd
quote: Originally posted by DorianGreyed: So the country putting out the most carbon dioxide can say that signing the treaty is unfair to their business interests, but no other country can use that argument. I see your position now, LR. The US has rights that other countries shouldn't have. At least you are consistent.
Quite to the contrary. All the countries can put out all they want.
But who is to say the U.S. would continue to be the biggest producer of green house gasses. Especially when our country already has the toughest environmental laws on the planet. ********************************************************** 12-30-06, 11:37 AM newnickname
quote: All the countries can put out all they want.
I guess that depends on whether or not you believe the earth's atmosphere is so big (or somehow so self-correcting) that nothing humans do can significantly affect it.
Given that it's the only air we've got, isn't a pause for thought , at least, advisable - rather than a green light for polluters to make as much money as they can without worrying about (or paying for) the consequences?
What makes you say that the US has the toughest environmental laws on the planet? That's a big claim.
'In 20 years, the US has gone from leading the world in wind-energy manufacturing - with at least a dozen enterprising firms - to lagging badly. Companies in Germany, Denmark, Spain, and elsewhere have grabbed the technological lead and now hold roughly 80 percent of a $8 billion market that's growing 25 to 35 percent a year.
The reason? Some experts point to lax clean-air laws in the US. That's right. Weak environmental regulations may hurt, not help, industries by blunting their technological edge. Such contrarian logic, controversial among economists, is about to be put to the test.
By not signing the Kyoto Protocol, the US has set itself apart from most of the industrialized world. So will its companies flourish, thanks to lower environmental costs - or lose out to foreign firms that cut greenhouse gases?..
...Consider air-pollution controls, known as scrubbers. After the 1970 Clean Air Act mandated that about a third of power plants clean up their emissions, the US scrubber industry became a world leader. American companies became the first large exporters of scrubber technology to other nations, industry experts say. But after a fast start, the industry stagnated during the 1980s as many power plants were able to avoid scrubbers. When tougher laws went into effect in the '90s, the industry perked up.
Meanwhile, Germany and Japan implemented strict air-pollution laws that kept getting stricter. Today, Japanese, German, and Danish companies have pioneered technologies while some experts say the US lags in key areas.
Aw, that's just that whacko liberal media talking. ********************************************************** 12-30-06, 12:59 PM Lighteningrodd [QUOTE]Originally posted by newnickname: QUOTE] I guess that depends on whether or not you believe the earth's atmosphere is so big (or somehow so self-correcting) that nothing humans do can significantly affect it.
LR: EXACTLY...I believe there are many things especially concerning the Earth's atmosphere, man has absolutely NO control over...to affect it or correct it.
Given that it's the only air we've got, isn't a pause for thought , at least, advisable - rather than a green light for polluters to make as much money as they can without worrying about (or paying for) the consequences?
LR: I am not saying we should do away with laws concerning pollution. There are areas in the country, (example, California) where smog is an issue. I certainly believe in maintaining our clean water supply. When it comes to global warming, I am not convinced it is because of the green house gasses or anything else man has done.
What makes you say that the US has the toughest environmental laws on the planet? That's a big claim.
LR: A big claim...yes. But I will grant you this. Other countries have been catching up. The U.S. has been the pioneer and standard on environmental regulations from the beginning.
'In 20 years, the US has gone from leading the world in wind-energy manufacturing - with at least a dozen enterprising firms - to lagging badly. Companies in Germany, Denmark, Spain, and elsewhere have grabbed the technological lead and now hold roughly 80 percent of a $8 billion market that's growing 25 to 35 percent a year.
The reason? Some experts point to lax clean-air laws in the US. That's right. Weak environmental regulations may hurt, not help, industries by blunting their technological edge. Such contrarian logic, controversial among economists, is about to be put to the test.
LR: Interesting you should bring up wind energy. After all it is certainly renewable, pollution-free and the technology is there. So why isn't wind energy catching on??? It seems that in areas where wind farms could be set up, people don't want wind mills ruining their beautiful scenery. And then there are complaints by some environmentalists about birds flying into the blades, getting themselves killed. So much for producing clean electricity Roll Eyes
By not signing the Kyoto Protocol, the US has set itself apart from most of the industrialized world. So will its companies flourish, thanks to lower environmental costs - or lose out to foreign firms that cut greenhouse gases?..
LR: The problem was other countries were not bound to the same restrictions, giving them a rather lop-sided advantage. If one country is to be restricted, then shouldn't all countries in the agreement be held to the same standard???
...Consider air-pollution controls, known as scrubbers. After the 1970 Clean Air Act mandated that about a third of power plants clean up their emissions, the US scrubber industry became a world leader. American companies became the first large exporters of scrubber technology to other nations, industry experts say. But after a fast start, the industry stagnated during the 1980s as many power plants were able to avoid scrubbers. When tougher laws went into effect in the '90s, the industry perked up.
LR: You know as well as I do, companies are not going to spend money in areas when they are not required to do so. They will comply to the letter of the law but not beyond.
Meanwhile, Germany and Japan implemented strict air-pollution laws that kept getting stricter. Today, Japanese, German, and Danish companies have pioneered technologies while some experts say the US lags in key areas.
LR: And that may very well be true. After all the whole world certainly offers a big market. And the U.S. certainly is not the only country who would have use for the new developing clean air technology.
quote: And then there are complaints by some environmentalists about birds flying into the blades, getting themselves killed.
Really?
You backed up your assertion that the US has the toughest environmental laws on the planet with just another assertion, that the 'U.S. has been the pioneer and standard on environmental regulations from the beginning'. Any facts, figures, references or evidence?
At one time people thought that there were so many buffalo that you could blaze away at them and not worry about exhausting the resource. The same also with felling trees in Canada or Brazil. Oops. More recently we've realised that we've actually managed to overfish the oceans - a natural system comparable in size to the atmosphere.
It seems a little reckless just to assume we aren't harming the atmosphere. ********************************************************** 12-31-06, 12:35 PM Kendor Global warming is real, and may, or may not be a direct result from human activity. But I know a way we could cool things off.
I don't doubt GW needs to be addressed, I'm just more worried about nuclear proliferation. It is, without a doubt, a result of human activity. ********************************************************** 01-01-07, 03:12 PM Lighteningrodd
quote: Originally posted by newnickname:
quote: And then there are complaints by some environmentalists about birds flying into the blades, getting themselves killed.
Really?
You backed up your assertion that the US has the toughest environmental laws on the planet with just another assertion, that the 'U.S. has been the pioneer and standard on environmental regulations from the beginning'. Any facts, figures, references or evidence?
At one time people thought that there were so many buffalo that you could blaze away at them and not worry about exhausting the resource. The same also with felling trees in Canada or Brazil. Oops. More recently we've realised that we've actually managed to overfish the oceans - a natural system comparable in size to the atmosphere.
It seems a little reckless just to assume we aren't harming the atmosphere.
OK. Here is a discussion concerning the birds being killed by flying into windmills.
Granted the above is a few years old, I thought you might consider it to be from a reputable source.
As for the overfishing of the oceans, I would have to ask...what country or countries are the biggest abusers of overfishing our oceans aquatic resources??? Perhaps there is a need to re-focus on where the real problems are... ********************************************************** 01-01-07, 03:42 PM newnickname From the first article:
"We are not suggesting closing the Altamont wind farms, rather that turbine owners take reasonable measures to reduce bird kills and adequately compensate for impacts to imperiled bird populations."
I guess that's a kind of complaint, but the article doesn't suggest that bird deaths from wind-turbines are seen as a serious environmental issue; 'For example, a single feral cat kills more birds in a week than the average wind turbine kills in over three years.' The worst 'complaints' mentioned in the article are actually in a misleading headline (written by who knows) and from one 'dedicated hawk-watcher'.
There are definately NIMBY types who object to wind farms, and there are serious objections to wind power (for example the UK has just discovered that it's not as windy an island as everyone thought). Bird-strikes, though, are a non-issue.
From the second link, [i]"...some of the toughest environmental laws in the world...". That is not the same as the toughest environmental laws, particularly given the US's non-participation in Kyoto and the roll-back of those laws under Bush.
However, rather than base our judgement on what Clinton implied when asking for funds in 1999, how about an actual study of ' national environmental regulation and performance '? The US comes in at 14, absolute ranking. Not too shabby, but not the best.
In the end, I guess, humans won't "destroy the atmosphere". We could change it, causing much hardship - maybe flooding and famine. What I don't understand is those who stand to gain little from the environmentally unsound practices of the polluters standing up for those polluters and their propaganda. It reminds me of the party-man in '1984' - inexplicably singing the praises of Big Brother even as the party destroys him.
Why not heed the scientific consensus (you don't have to fall for it hook-line-and-sinker), rather than the apologists for corporations which want to be able to pollute without worrying abput the consequences? ********************************************************** 01-03-07, 11:39 AM Fourbrick2 Quote by LR "So just what is it our leaders are suppose to do about this phnomenon??? What is happening is a totally natural cycle of the weather patterns that has been going on for centuries."
The Government scientists, who are paid by the Oil companies, are the only ones who believe that it is a natural phenomonen
"It seems the world was all aboard the Kyoto Accord a few short years ago. Thank God that a President Bush kept the U.S. out of that lop-sided agreement."
Sounds a bit like the people who were cold in the lifeboat, and insisted on burning the boat bit by bit to keep warm. And guess what happened to them.........
It's no good backing patriotic ideas- "Why should we lose jobs!" Our planet is in dior trouble. Everybody should be backing every idea to get Carbon emissions down, otherwise our grandchildren will have a scorched earth to live in.
(p.s. it doesn't matter to me- I'll be long gone, before it happens but I am desperately worried about my grandkids!) ********************************************************** 01-03-07, 11:53 AM aminator2002 China is set to overtake the US as the largest emitter of CO2. How many more billion people live in China than the US?
It seems to me that people are either going to see the reason behind reducing emissions even if it costs us more, or they are going to argue against it until they are blue in the face. I think it is morally wrong to use this issue as a political pawn - but some people just want to be told that everything is fine, the status quo isn't a problem and they'll swallow it no matter what the outcome.
I wonder what it's going to take. ********************************************************** 01-03-07, 02:23 PM DorianGreyed "...until they are blue in the face..."
If they get their way, this is a distinct possibility...for all of us. ********************************************************** 01-06-07, 01:34 AM DorianGreyed Dec. 12 — Exhaustive computer simulations carried out at the National Center for Atmospheric Research in Boulder, Colo., suggest that the Arctic Ocean will be mostly open water in the summer of 2040 — several decades earlier than expected. Scientists attribute the loss of summer ice largely to the buildup of carbon dioxide and other man-made greenhouse gases in the atmosphere.
Dec. 14 — Experts at NASA’s Goddard Institute predict that 2006 will be the fifth-warmest year since modern record-keeping began, continuing a decades-long global warming trend caused, again, by the buildup of man-made carbon dioxide.
Dec. 27 — The Interior Department proposes adding polar bears to the list of threatened species because of the accelerating loss of the Arctic ice that is the bears’ habitat. The department does not take a position on why the ice is melting, but studies supporting the proposed listing identify greenhouse gases as the main culprit, adding that if left unchecked these gases will create ice-free Arctic summers in three decades.
"California’s Barbara Boxer is the new chairwoman of the Senate Environment and Public Works Committee, replacing James Inhofe, the Oklahoma Republican who regards global warming as an elaborate hoax drummed up by environmentalists and scientists in search of money." - New York Times
Maybe Inhofe really thought that it was the dinosaurs in Kansas that was causing all the global warming, but didn't want to advance such a radical idea, so he stuck with the sane and sensible approach of saying the warming is just a hoax, and that we should leasve the poor polluting companies alone to collect their profits any way they can. (After all, those companies have CEOs to pay, and, unlike some politicians, those guys don't come cheap.) ********************************************************** 01-06-07, 02:55 AM FredPuli The year just ended has been the warmest in Britain since.....1659 ! (That really means 'since accurate national records began') Global warming does not worried me.I'm prepared. The fact that I've moved my accommodation from the main house, which is down by the river, to the house on the top of the highest hill in the main county (there is a higher one on the county border which is on the edge of a hill range belonging to the adjacent county), is no coincidence. Wink Only worry now is that the highest hill is just 243 feet above sea level. (Cambridgeshire is so low that parts of it are below sea level ) Big Grin ********************************************************** 01-09-07, 04:48 PM Valor D Ya know, it's all a lot of laughs and snickering for now...but it will be our children, and our children's children who will have to pay the price for making folley of this most serious issue. It is they who will have the task of cleaning up the mess our generation left behind.
For those of you who just don't know a thing about Global Warming (outside of the usual tongue-in-cheek snort and giggles play-down), as many of you have so clearly demonstrated by your lack of respect for the topic, I suggest you check out Al Gore's new documentary, "An Inconvenient Truth", which you can pick up on the New Release shelf at your local video store. That is, only if you want to actually educate yourself on what's happening to our planet currently, and what's yet to come.
How many of you have wondered why most of the world had no winter this year? Or, why there's been so much rain in its stead? Or, why there's been so many hurricanes and tornadoes in the past few years? I know that most of you couldn't care less about the icecaps melting, or Antarctica, or Greenland steadily melting away. Or, the fact that many lakes and rivers in the warmer countries are already dry as a bone. But, perhaps when the thermometer tops 120 Fehrenheit this Summer, many of you will finally stop laughing and actually begin to take this crisis seriously, and recognize that something must CHANGE, and very SOON, if we, the cause of this UNNATURAL ecological change, have any hopes left of reversing this global devastation, before it's TOO LATE! ********************************************************** 03-01-07, 08:46 AM Fourbrick2 For those of you who don't believe in Global warming, please look at this, and weep.
The Arctic ********************************************************** 03-01-07, 09:20 AM coldfuse Is there really a question about whether the globe has warmed or not? I don't think there is a great deal of controversy. Surely we have warmed since the ice age! And facts appear supportive of a general upward trend in temperatures for over a century.
Alarmists will point to a particularly warm week or season as proof of their point. This probably hurts their credibility; this winter's mild weather has also brought record low temperatures to some locations! Record snowfalls and low temperature readings in my area during my lifetime have certainly occurred during an age when theory would have it that temperatures should have been rising.
The question is more one of what impact manmade emissions have had on the phenomenon. To disregard the matter entirely is just as foolish as filling research coffers and demanding radical change based on fear and emotion. There are voices of reason in the scientific community and they should be heard. Listening to those who speak softly can accomplish more than the polarization which seems to accompany much of the global warming dialogue. The sky isn't falling, chicken little. But we need to learn from our mistakes and become better stewards of our environment. ********************************************************** 03-01-07, 10:36 AM DorianGreyed "The question is more one of what impact manmade emissions have had on the phenomenon...There are voices of reason in the scientific community and they should be heard."
Fuse, those voices of reason have been speaking for a while, and every time they speak, their position becomes more and more one that says global warming is being caused more by human activity than by anything else. The question you speak of has been answered. The last time those voices spoke, it was to point out that things have gotten worse and gotten there faster than they had predicted before. (This last report did not take in account some recent developments which would make the outlook even worse than what they currently predict.)
Your cautioning that we need to determine what is causing the warming and to what extent is akin to the captain of the Titanic making certain that it was an iceberg and then doing the math to find out exactly when the ship would sink before ordering any boats to be lowered. (No, my analogy isn't perfect; we can't abandon ship, and we aren't doomed. But effecting change is very similar to changing the course of an ocean liner; corrections take a great deal of time to make a difference.) But we are very definitely facing serious changes in many aspects of our lives. Advocating caution now just serves to delay making what repairs we can and allows the situation to worsen while we debate what is actually happening, the extent it is happening, how bad it will get, and what we should do about it. The overwhelming evidence says that almost every worst case scenario is getting closer. Waiting for the coastlines to change before admitting that the problem exists, is serious, and agreeing that changes need to be made just serves to make the necessary repairs more difficult to accomplish. We can't stop what is happening, but we can slow it down. The best time to act was before; the second-best time to act is now. The worst time to act is after 100% of the experts agree.
In a 21-page report for policymakers, the group of climate experts unanimously linked -- with "90 percent" certainty -- the increase of average global temperatures since the mid-20th century to the increase of manmade greenhouse gases in the atmosphere.
The report found it was "likely" -- "more likely than not" in some cases -- that manmade greenhouse gases have contributed to hotter days and nights, and more of them, more killer heat waves than before, heavier rainfall more often, major droughts in more regions, stronger and more frequent cyclones and "increased incidence" of extremely high sea levels.
The report noted that 11 of the last 12 years have ranked among the 12 warmest years on record with the oceans absorbing more than 80 percent of the heat added to the climate system. ____ In that post, I linked to this CNN article. Below from that link -
Global warming is here and humans are "very likely" the blame, an international group of scientists meeting in Paris, France, announced Friday.
"The evidence for warming having happened on the planet is unequivocal," said U.S. government scientist Susan Solomon, who also is a member of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change.
"We can see that in rising air temperatures, we can see it in changes in snow cover in the Northern Hemisphere. We can see it in global sea rise. It's unequivocal," she said. (Watch scientist Susan Solomon deliver the grim news on global warming Video)
In a 21-page report for policymakers, the group of climate experts unanimously linked -- with "90 percent" certainty -- the increase of average global temperatures since the mid-20th century to the increase of manmade greenhouse gases in the atmosphere.
Defining 'likely' The IPCC was established in 1988 to study climate change information. The group doesn't do independent research but instead reviews scientific literature from around the world.
The United Nations-sanctioned group was formed by the World Meteorological Organization and U.N. Environment Program.
The group's goal is to produce "a balanced reporting of existing viewpoints" on the causes of global warming, according to its Web site.
The panel's reports are influential references for policymakers, scientists and other climate change experts.
Friday's release is the beginning of the panel's first major report since 2001. The rest of the report is due out later this year.
The 2001 report found that the 1990s were "very likely" the warmest decade on record. It also said that most of the observed warming over the last 50 years was "likely due to increases in greenhouse gas concentrations due to human activities."
The authors defined "likely" as between 66 percent to 90 percent probable, and "very likely" as a 90 to 99 percent.
This message has been edited. Last edited by: DorianGreyed,
The worst time to act is after 100% of the experts agree.
"Observational evidence does not support today's computer climate models, so there is little reason to trust model predictions of the future. Yet this is precisely what the United Nations did in creating and promoting Kyoto...."
"If, back in the mid-1990s, we knew what we know today about climate, Kyoto would almost certainly not exist, because we would have concluded it was not necessary."
"'Climate change is real' is a meaningless phrase used repeatedly by activists to convince the public that a climate catastrophe is looming and humanity is the cause. Neither of these fears is justified. Global climate changes all the time due to natural causes and the human impact still remains impossible to distinguish from this natural 'noise'."
"It was only 30 years ago that many of today's global-warming alarmists were telling us that the world was in the midst of a global-cooling catastrophe. But the science continued to evolve, and still does, even though so many choose to ignore it when it does not fit with predetermined political agendas."
Source: Letter from 60 scientists to Stephen Harper dated April 6, 2006. Are these guys wrong, or voices of reason? ************************************************************ 03-01-07, 02:29 PM DorianGreyed I am sure that one can find 60 scientists in the UK who agree with ID as a science, too. I'll stay with the panel that reviewed scientific literature from around the world. It is this "Let's wait and see" attitude that is preventing the necessary changes and is allowing the situation to get worse, as the current literature indicates it has been doing. You are trying to wait until you can actually see ice iceberg in the fog and then plan to swerve around it. (This isn't a bad comparison when one considers the number of ice shelves breaking off the polar regions.)
You seem to want 100% of the scientists to agree that it is 100% certain that global warming in the result of man's activities. You won't see that, and I guess that will serve as proof that it isn't. However, if you insist on proof that you can see in person, that you can feel, I'm sure you'll get it. Unfortunately, so will the rest of us. More and more of the world's scientists agree; fewer and fewer disagree. The main change in attitude, however, has been those who disagree. There are fewer scientist and non-scientists who dispute that the earth is warming; most of those people now try to find ways to say that man isn't the main reason. Eventually, some will be saying that we didn't really need polar bears or that North Dakota always needed a banana crop.
03-01-07, 06:40 PM coldfuse
quote: Listening to those who speak softly can accomplish more than the polarization which seems to accompany much of the global warming dialogue....we need to learn from our mistakes and become better stewards of our environment.
OK, so I'm quoting myself. This is to make it clear that this was my point, rather than what is being made of it.
And why do I favor that position? Because extremists, whether right or wrong (and they always think they are right, on both sides) accomplish little for their causes. What we need are consensus builders.
What is it you propose we do?
03-18-07, 07:57 AM FredPuli Reason, at last! Have you been wondering whether both sides could be right but both sides' arguments are inflated and spoilt by exaggeration and 'bad science' ? Could be so Smile Hollywoodisation of global warming
03-18-07, 09:18 AM Scotty If you are truly interested in hearing both sides, and you have an open mind, maybe you will take the time to look at this program. Global warming?
03-18-07, 10:57 AM frankvan Assuming there really are two sides, and we have no way of knowing which is right, isn't it obvious that one way is potentially calamitous while the other is relatively risk free. If one 'expert's' concern is that the plane's wing is apt to break off and the other's is that it looks safe enough to him, and you are going to fly on it - or stay on the ground where both experts stay, how would you decide????
Hey, I live in Denver, what do I care if New Orleans is submerged and some polar bears are losing their habitat? Roll Eyes
03-18-07, 11:53 AM babthrower 'Course, we can always look on the bright side.
If those who believe global warming (a) exists and (b) can be modified by human actions win out, then humans will simplify their lives and curb their greed and living will become more natural and cleaner and less stressful.
On the other hand, if those who believe global warming either (a)is not happening , or (b) is happening but (i) believe that nothing humans can do can effect it, or (ii) aren't willing to change anything THEN if global warming is happening the human population will crash, AND then we won't have to worry about nuclear war because human technology will crash also and no one will be able to build enough weapons to harm the ecology in an irrecoverable way.
On the other other hand if global warming is not happening then Smile
So Wink
03-18-07, 12:31 PM methos "The Great Global Warming Swindle" - Utter crap, with times that they repeatedly cut off the data so as not to show that their supposed correlations don't hold up. In fact, they even went so far in one case as to fake the time axis to cover it up (after getting caught, they apparently corrected the axis, but the faked one is at 12 minutes in the video Scotty linked to). That site has plenty more information of the misleading and sometimes outright false information in this "documentary." (I expect that Real Climate has plenty of information too, but I haven't checked through it yet).
Oh, and the last picture here shows yet another distortion.
03-18-07, 12:50 PM Scotty Is it not a known fact that climate changes have occurred over time from the beginning? What makes it so different now?
quote: Assuming there really are two sides, and we have no way of knowing which is right
Why do you assume. Of course there are two sides, can you say with assurance who is right? This "my expert is better than your expert" is what is really crap.
03-18-07, 01:18 PM babthrower "My expert is better than your expert" is not crap. If we did not evaluate research by validating data and method, then science would be no different from religion, in which opinion is all that matters, and raw power determines the outcome.
Who do you think would win the struggle over global warming, and ecological issues in general, the military-industrial boys who control the propaganda machines, or those of us who want only to have a livable earth to leave to future generation, if uninformed opinion were all that mattered?
(Yes, the military, Scotty. Because if industrial nations were to get serious about the ecology, then the war toys would be among the first to go. That is why your masters have trained you to think as you do.)
03-18-07, 01:31 PM Scotty
quote: The only inconvenient truth about global warming, contends Colorado State University's Bill Gray, is that a genuine debate has never actually taken place. Hundreds of scientists, many of them prominent in the field, agree.
Gray is perhaps the world's foremost hurricane expert. His Tropical Storm Forecast sets the standard. Yet, his criticism of the global warming "hoax" makes him an outcast.
"They've been brainwashing us for 20 years," Gray says. "Starting with the nuclear winter and now with the global warming. This scare will also run its course. In 15-20 years, we'll look back and see what a hoax this was."
Gray directs me to a 1975 Newsweek article that whipped up a different fear: a coming ice age.
"Climatologists," reads the piece, "are pessimistic that political leaders will take any positive action to compensate for the climatic change. ... The longer the planners delay, the more difficult will they find it to cope with climatic change once the results become grim reality."
Thank God they did nothing. Imagine how warm we'd be?
03-18-07, 01:32 PM methos This "my expert is better than your expert" is what is really crap.
Well, since your experts got caught faking data, I'm inclined to discount what they say by quite a bit.
03-18-07, 01:36 PM Scotty
quote: Al Gore Admits Global Warming Lie [UPDATED x2] I've said it before and I'll say it again, the left practices situational ethics. Their causes are so noble (to them), that any means to achieve success is okay--lying especially. Al Gore gave further support to this claim when he said the folowing:
Nobody is interested in solutions if they don't think there's a problem. Given that starting point, I believe it is appropriate to have an over-representation of factual presentations on how dangerous (global warming) is, as a predicate for opening up the audience to listen to what the solutions are, and how hopeful it is that we are going to solve this crisis.
03-18-07, 02:02 PM methos
quote: Thank God they did nothing. Imagine how warm we'd be?
Actually, they did do something, although the intention was not to battle global cooling.
Let's take a step back, though. There is this myth that climate scientists were somehow scaremongering about global cooling in the seventies. This Newsweek article is a favorite of conservative commentators, but it doesn't match up with the scientific literature of the time. At the time, there was much greater uncertainty about the future of he climate than there is now. Specifically, it was unknown whether aerosols or greenhouse gases would have a stronger effect on the climate. Aerosols reflect light back into space, cooling the atmosphere (and reducing the amount of light for plants). Sulphate aerosols also cause acid rain. For a time, sulphate aerosols somewhat compensated for greenhouse gases, but we have reduced our aerosol output to reduce acid rain. Now, greenhouse gases are in clear control. What's more, earlier records were based on a relatively small portion of the globe, where aerosol concentration happened to be particularly high, making the cooling effect seem larger than we now know it to have been (of course, that documentary shows this flawed data rather than truly global data).
But back to the scientific literature. Today, we have a general agreement that the evidence for anthropogenic global warming is strong and that something must be done about it. Then? Well, here's a quote from a 1975 National Research Council of the U.S. National Academy of Sciences report:
"...we do not have a good quantitative understanding of our climate machine and what determines its course. Without the fundamental understanding, it does not seem possible to predict climate...".
Followed by recommendations, not to do anything to stop change in the climate, but to establish research programs along several lines so that we could make such predictions. Guess what, 32 years later, these research programs have given us the fundamental understanding we need.
03-18-07, 02:05 PM DorianGreyed What facts are being over-represented by Gore?
03-18-07, 02:14 PM methos Ah, out of context quotes, got to love them.
What Gore was saying was that description of the problem needed to receive more attention (greater representation, a greater fraction of the time in the slideshow) than description of the solution. How do I know? Because that was the question he was asked:
Q: There's a lot of debate right now over the best way to communicate about global warming and get people motivated. Do you scare people or give them hope? What's the right mix?
A: I think the answer to that depends on where your audience's head is. In the United States of America, unfortunately we still live in a bubble of unreality. And the Category 5 denial is an enormous obstacle to any discussion of solutions. Nobody is interested in solutions if they don't think there's a problem. Given that starting point, I believe it is appropriate to have an over-representation of factual presentations on how dangerous it is, as a predicate for opening up the audience to listen to what the solutions are, and how hopeful it is that we are going to solve this crisis.
Over time that mix will change. As the country comes to more accept the reality of the crisis, there's going to be much more receptivity to a full-blown discussion of the solutions.
A substantial number of environmental scientists and practitioners disagree with the assertion that human activity is causing or imminently will cause substantial global warming, a November 2006 survey found.
Conducted by the nonpartisan National Registry of Environmental Professionals (NREP), the survey asked 793 environmental scientists and environmental practitioners about human effects on climate variance.
The survey results contradict assertions by environmental activist groups that "the debate is over" and that all or virtually all scientists agree humans are causing a dramatic and harmful change in the Earth's climate.
Survey Results
According to the survey:
34 percent of environmental scientists and practitioners disagree that global warming is a serious problem facing the planet.
41 percent disagree that the planet's recent warmth "can be, in large part, attributed to human activity."
71 percent disagree that recent hurricane activity is significantly attributable to human activity.
33 percent disagree that the U.S. government is not doing enough to address global warming.
47 percent disagree that international agreements such as the Kyoto Protocol provide a solid framework for combating global climate change.
Debate Continues
Clearly, many scientists believe climate variance is an important issue and that humans may be having a significant impact on our climate. But the survey findings also demonstrate many scientists believe the issue is not terribly pressing and that recent warming trends are no more alarming than many other naturally occurring warming trends in our recent past.
"NREP professionals have been dealing with, at the infrastructure level, all the issues that can be reasonably traced to global climate change," noted the executive summary of the survey. "NREP decided in early 2006 that it was time to take stock of our professionals' experience in addressing hurricane recovery, energy shortfalls, massive drought, and extreme seasonal temperature shifts. NREP has assembled and published this survey as part of the attempt to garner what the Nation's environmental practitioners think about recent dynamics witnessed throughout our biosphere."
Encouraging Views Found
The summary noted, "The survey does reveal some encouraging views from our Country's environmental professionals, including [that] 67 percent of the practitioners report the U.S. Government is currently moving in the right direction in implementing public policy that protects our environment."
"These results are absolutely amazing," observed Marlo Lewis, a senior fellow at the Competitive Enterprise Institute. "It just shows you how phony the alleged scientific consensus is that we hear so much about.
"The asserted consensus that global warming is a planetary emergency and that all right-thinking people believe we need to limit our energy use has been exposed, once again, as unsubstantiated myth," said Lewis.
03-18-07, 06:05 PM newnickname The NREP's own website puts the results of its survey a little differently to Scotty's link:
'59% of the Nation’s environmental professionals believe the climactic violence experienced over the last several years can be, in large part, attributed to human activity.
The problems facing our environment, eroding our economic strength, and creating vulnerabilities in our security are vast and they require a vast, comprehensive solution.
76% of environmental professionals consider it very important to include tighter controls on greenhouse gasses such as carbon and methane in U.S. Regulations.
NREP calls upon the President to broaden his approach from just saving a little oil, to building a plan that addresses carbon use as a whole.
The Federal government should also consider a national carbon trading system whereby carbon can be assessed value and be reduced through market forces;
CAFÉ standards should be increased for all categories of vehicles over time as the key is to have more cars using less oil;
Biofuels such as ethanol are important ingredients in diversifying our fuels, but they cannot be depended on to pick-up too much of the slack—there must be federal incentives given to more development of further alternatives;
Concentrate policy on less oil use, not more domestic production by abandoning ANWR drilling and reclaiming off shore oil royalties for alternative fuels.'nrep.org
That 'heartland' website seems to have arrived at its figures by simple subtraction - ignoring the possibility of "don't knows" and all those who might have ticked "in a significant part" or "somewhat important" boxes. It also ignores the NREP's - this nonpartisan body's - actual public stance on global warming and what to do about it.
But, anyway, science is not conducted by polling.
03-18-07, 09:51 PM methos More on that video... I read this a couple days ago, but couldn't find earlier today.
One of the scientist who appears in the film has written a response to the film's distortion of what he said. This is a particularly interesting part:
An example where my own discussion was grossly distorted by context: I am shown explaining that a warming ocean could expel more carbon dioxide than it absorbs -- thus exacerbating the greenhouse gas buildup in the atmosphere and hence worrisome. It was used in the film, through its context, to imply that CO2 is all natural, coming from the ocean, and that therefore the human element is irrelevant. This use of my remarks, which are literally what I said, comes close to fraud.
03-19-07, 12:57 AM DorianGreyed Let's see - fudged graphs, distorted graphs, 'mislabeled' data, quotes out of context, quotes whose original speaker meant something else and call the use of their words "close to fraud"
Yep, fine, upstanding references by some reputable men. Tell me, are they friends of Tom DeLay or Duke Cunningham, or (former) Congressman Ney, or Scooter, or Abramoff, or Safavian, or...?
03-19-07 11:13 AM hippolips Hi dg:
And all over the East Coast airline passengers have been stranded for the last three days...
Global Warming???
hippolips **************************************************** 03-19-07, 12:38 PM Scotty While searching for information on global warming, I came across numerous sites from different Scientists all over the World that disagreed with the findings that man made global warming was a problem. I guess you could go back and say that everyone of these people are distorting facts, mislabeling facts, etc, etc, etc. Isn't this the liberal way of defending their position, by trashing others? I bet if I looked, I could find that some of the supporting Scientists did the same thing. Are you prepared to bet that this was not done?
Don't throw rocks when you live in a glass house.
03-19-07, 01:56 PM Scotty
quote:
The Association of British Drivers Global Warming Theory Questioned --------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Some politicians suggest that the motor car is a major source of CO2 “pollution” that this “pollution” is responsible for “global warming” and that therefore severe restrictions should be placed on the use of private cars. We know that CO2 emissions by road transport as a whole contribute just 0.6% to atmospheric CO2. Now scientists question not only the whole global warming theory, but the motives of its proponents. ABD Chairman, Brian Gregory, reports on a book published in March 1996.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Lies, Damned Lies and Global Warming Theory
A recently published book(¹) by the European Science and Environment Forum challenges the scientific foundation of Global Warming predictions which are now reaching near hysteria levels, and casts doubt on the scientific integrity of many of the theory’s chief proponents.
If you aren’t concerned about the predictions of global environmental mayhem made by the supporters of the now widely-touted Global Warming Theory (GWT), here is a book that should give you serious cause to be so; particularly in respect of the true motives and aims of the individuals behind GWT’s wide, virtually unthinking, acceptance (in the face of an extremely substantial body of totally contrary scientific evidence that is receiving little or no media coverage).
Here are just some of the book’s frightening revelations:
The IPCC (Intergovernmental Panel for Climate Change), the body behind the heavyweight promotion of GWT and the campaign for drastic preventive countermeasures now, is a shadowy body of virtually self-elected bureaucrats and pro-GWT environmentalists whose scientific reputations, and ultimately whose livelihoods, are utterly dependent on the worldwide acceptance of the GWT concept. Indeed, GWT is now essential to the worldwide Environmental Sciences movement to ensure a continuous flow of research funds. It is therefore hardly surprising that the IPCC predictions on the long-term effects of GWT are dire.
More worryingly, however, is that those scientists who legitimately question the IPCC- imposed “consensus” on GWT find themselves subject to marginalisation and withdrawal of funding.
The hard scientific evidence shows that the alleged c.0.5C change in average global temperatures over the last 100 years (based mainly on Northern hemisphere ground-based measuring stations) being used by GWT’s proponents to justify drastic action now can be observed due to random variations over timescales as short as two weeks. To ascribe temperature changes of this magnitude over the course of a century to GWT is therefore highly inadvisable.
Meanwhile, satellite plus ground data evidence shows no evidence of global warming over the period 1914-1993; i.e. over the last 90 years
REF. ************************************************************ 03-19-07, 02:26 PM methos Translation of the post 2 above this:
Scotty can imagine that someone who recognizes the existence of global warming might make something up (although he hasn't yet provided evidence of it) therefore people that recognize the existence of global warming are hypocrites and we shouldn't point out the errors in sources Scotty brings to discussion.
03-19-07, 02:28 PM methos As far as the post 2 above this, it contradicts what little Scotty's previous source actually got right. The video Scotty showed us shows a clear warming trend over the time period when Scotty's new source claims such warming did not take place. But what do you expect from a source that can't subtract 1914 from 1993 accurately? ************************************************************ 03-19-07, 03:37 PM DorianGreyed
quote: European Science and Environment Forum
(One of Scotty's Sources)
The 'European Science and Environment Forum' was formed in 1994 by Roger Bate, Dr John Emsley and Professor Frits Böttcher. [3] They began as an attempt to create a European version of The Advancement of Sound Science Coalition (TASSC), a front group created to assist the Philip Morris tobacco company in its fight against regulation of secondhand cigarette smoke. Like TASSC, it argued that government and safety regulations were not based on "sound science," and attempted to smuggle tobacco advocacy into a larger bundle of "sound science" issues, including the "ban on growth hormone for livestock; ban on [genetically-engineered bovine growth hormone] to improve milk production; pesticide restrictions; ban on indoor smoking; restrictions on use of chlorine; ban on certain pharmaceutical products; restrictions on the use of biotechnology." - SourceWatch.org
Frits Böttcher is in his country a well known skeptic about the greenhouse effect. Böttcher stated during a discussion on televion about the greenhouse effect that there was no carbon dioxide problem. Another member of that discussion asked him after the broadcast was over, "You do know that's incorrect, don't you?" to which Böttcher replied "Yes, but I am against nuclear power energy." [7]
After Frits Böttcher became in 1980 Professor Emeritus of physical chemistry, he changed his focus to the Global Institute for the Study of Natural Resources which he founded in 1976 and of which he is president and chairman of the board. [8] This organization is not as global as the name suggests. It looks all members of the board are Dutch. According to a Dutch newspaper article published on November 26, 1997, this institute received funding from Shell, Bovag (association of car dealers and garages) and RAI (car producers and importers). [9] Frits Böttcher was also a part-time research coordinator at the Royal Dutch Shell Group. [10]
Frits Böttcher founded in 1994 together with Roger Bate and John Emsley the European Science and Environment Forum (ESEF). [11] ESEF's claim that their only income was through the sales of their publications and that they didn't accept outside funding in order to maintain ESEF's independence and impartiality [12] turned out to be a incorrect. In 1996, Roger Bate approached R.J. Reynolds Tobacco Company for a grant of £50,000 to fund a book on risk, containing a chapter on passive smoking [13]. One year later, the ESEF published What Risk? Science, Politics and Public Health, edited by Roger Bate (ISBN 0750638109) which included a chapter on passive smoking. [edit] Science and Environmental Policy Project
Frits Böttcher is a member of the Board of Science Advisors of Science and Environmental Policy Project (SEPP). Like most other members of that board he also signed the Leipzig Declaration on Global Climate Change. That declaration was the result of a conference in Leipzig in 1995 organized by the European Academy for Environmental Affairs and SEPP where Frits Böttcher was one of the speakers. [14] [15] - SourceWatch
You still have that knack for picking sources, Scotty. But hey, at least this one actually has a real college degree. A few of yours awarded themselves a degree.
This message has been edited. Last edited by: DorianGreyed, 03-19-07 03:56 PM ************************************************************ 03-19-07, 04:15 PM Scotty Typical liberal jibberish, they can't seem to take anything that goes against their beliefs no matter who has the best credentials. Only insults and utter nonsense about others will do. Typical. God himself would have a hard time convincing a liberal of anything, it's always my way with them. Roll Eyes
People with better credentials than your own find no problem with the report by the British station. What does that say to you?
BTW, Little Scotty stands 6'3" and weights 272 lbs, I don't know what you call "little".
Some of you can look awful hard to find faults in sources that people provide, try looking at your own, it may surprise you. ************************************************************ 03-19-07, 04:33 PM Scotty
quote: You still have that knack for picking sources, Scotty. But hey, at least this one actually has a real college degree. A few of yours awarded themselves a degree.
Much like the ones that support "global warming" I would think.
quote: The IPCC (Intergovernmental Panel for Climate Change), the body behind the heavyweight promotion of GWT and the campaign for drastic preventive countermeasures now, is a shadowy body of virtually self-elected bureaucrats and pro-GWT environmentalists whose scientific reputations, and ultimately whose livelihoods, are utterly dependent on the worldwide acceptance of the GWT concept. Indeed, GWT is now essential to the worldwide Environmental Sciences movement to ensure a continuous flow of research funds. It is therefore hardly surprising that the IPCC predictions on the long-term effects of GWT are dire.
How many sites do you want to trash? There are so many from around the world that do not agree with GW, are you going to trash all of them? ************************************************************ 03-19-07, 04:41 PM DorianGreyed Scotty, one of your sources (th first and only one I checked)lied in order to support his position, and it is public knowledge. But you don't defend him, you attack the messenger. Why not disprove what has been said? (I realize that it is certainly easier to attack the people who disagree with you than to disprove what they say.) You always seem to start with your position and search for any reference that backs it up. You should look up the facts from reputable sources, then draw conclusions. To check your source, the "European Science and Environment Forum", I merely entered their name in Google and hit Search. The first result that popped up showed them to be liars. I actually put more effort into researching your source than you did, and I spent about a minute finding out that one of its founders has admitted to lying about global warming.
Once again, you blame liberals for finding out that your sources aren't worth the paper you wrote their name on. That makes as much sense as blaming the radiologist because you broke your leg playing football when all he did was to read the Xray. You really should check out your sources before you use them. If nothing else, it will save you from looking foolish. ************************************************************ 03-19-07, 05:14 PM DorianGreyed Below is the result of less than 30 seconds research on Intergovernmental Panel for Climate Change. Reading it will show that Scotty's claims seem to be baseless.
The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) was established in 1988 by two United Nations organizations, the World Meteorological Organization (WMO) and the United Nations Environment Programme (UNEP), to evaluate the risk of climate change brought on by humans, based mainly on peer reviewed and published scientific/technical literature.[1] The Panel is open to all members of the WMO and UNEP.
IPCC reports are widely cited in almost any debate related to climate change.[2][3] National and international responses to climate change generally regard the UN climate panel as authoritative.[4]
The IPCC Panel is composed of representatives appointed by governments and organizations. Participation of delegates with appropriate expertise is encouraged. Plenary sessions of the IPCC and IPCC Working Groups are held at the level of government representatives. Non Governmental and Intergovernmental Organisations may be allowed to attend as observers. Sessions of the IPCC Bureau, workshops, expert and lead authors meetings are by invitation only.[19] Attendance at the 2003 meeting included 350 government officials and climate change experts. After the opening ceremonies, closed plenary sessions were held.[20] The meeting report [21] states there were 322 persons in attendance at Sessions with about seven-eighths of participants being from governmental organizations.[22]
The IPCC is led by government scientists, but also involves several hundred academic scientists and researchers. It synthesises the available information about climate change and global warming, has published four major reports reviewing the latest climate science, as well as more specialized reports.
The IPCC does not carry out research nor does it monitor climate related data or other relevant parameters. It bases its assessment mainly on peer reviewed and published scientific/technical literature.[23] **************************** Self-appointed, Scotty? Unlike your sources, these guys were appointed by various governments and organizations who are recognized world-wide in their fields. Anyone who reads the background of your sources and my sources won't have a problem determining who is self-appointed. Your "European Science and Environment Forum" was formed in 1994 by three guys, Roger Bate, Dr John Emsley and Professor Frits Böttcher. My source was formed by the UN. Your guys have a background of trying to work with tobacco companies to refute extensive cancer studies. My guys include 350 government officials and climate change experts. ***************************** "BTW, Little Scotty stands 6'3" and weights 272 lbs, I don't know what you call "little"."
Scotty, I must have missed your reason for including this information, but feel I should tell you that your Body Mass index is 34. That's not good. ************************************************************ 03-19-07, 05:26 PM Scotty
quote: Center for Media and Democracy
The Center for Media and Democracy (CMD) is a leftist American-based media research group founded in 1993 by environmentalist writer and political activist John Stauber. It publishes PR Watch, a quarterly newsletter edited by Laura A. Miller. Stauber and CMD research director Sheldon Rampton have written five books describing what they call the murky world of public relations. Another CMD project is the SourceWatch website (formerly called Disinfopedia), a Wiki, which CMD describes as "a collaborative project to produce a directory of public relations firms, think tanks, industry-funded organizations and industry-friendly experts that work to influence public opinion and public policy on behalf of corporations, governments and special interests."
CMD has stated that it is not affiliated with a political party, but that it does not pretend to lack opinions or a point of view. It states its opposition to "the barriers and distortions of the modern information environment that stem from government- or corporate-dominated, hierarchical media." In contrast, it favors "grassroots citizen activism that promotes public health, economic justice, ecological sustainability and human rights."
The website ActivistCash.com, operated by industry lobby group the Center for Consumer Freedom, describes the Center for Media & Democracy, the organisation behind SourceWatch, as "a counterculture public relations effort disguised as an independent media organization... it is essentially a two-person operation."[1].
This entry is from Wikipedia, the leading user-contributed encyclopedia. It may not have been reviewed by professional editors
I believe that this was "your source". ************************************************************ 03-19-07, 05:57 PM Scotty
quote: My source was formed by the UN.
Now that is a source that we all can appreciate. Razz No lies or misrepresentation in that organization. I'll stick with the other one.
quote: European Science and Environment Forum From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia Jump to: navigation, search The European Science and Environment Forum (ESEF), now defunct, called itself "an independent, non-profit-making alliance of scientists whose aim is to ensure that scientific debates are properly aired, and that decisions which are taken, and action that is proposed, are founded on sound scientific principles." Typically this manifested itself in questioning the science upon which environmental safety regulations are based.
The Forum was linked, via shared staff (Julian Morris and Roger Bate) and a shared web server, to the International Policy Network and the Sustainable Development Network.
In 1996, Roger Bate approached R.J. Reynolds Tobacco Company for a grant of £50,000 to fund a book on risk, containing a chapter on passive smoking [1], but the grant request was denied and the money was never received. In 1997, the ESEF published What Risk? Science, Politics and Public Health, edited by Roger Bate which included a chapter on passive smoking.
In 1998 the Academic Members of ESEF included Bruce N. Ames, Sallie Baliunas, Robert C. Balling, Jack Barrett, C.J.F. Böttcher, Peter Dietze , Tor Ragnar Gerholm, Gerhard Gerlich, Sherwood Idso, Helmut Metzner, Patrick J. Michaels, William Mitchell, Harry N.A. Priem, Michel Salomon, S. Fred Singer, Willie Soon, Wolfgang Thüne, and Gerd-Rainer Weber, while Richard S. Courtney and Michael Gough were Business Members.
************************************************************ 03-19-07, 06:04 PM DorianGreyed Why, you're right, Scotty, just as you were when I used this source before, However, I note that the article "may not have been reviewed by professional editors", something not included on the entry for the Intergovernmental Panel for Climate Change. It seems that the Center for Media and Democracy is pretty transparent, doesn't it?
http://www.prwatch.org/finances.html - Financial Supporters (Note: The Center does NOT accept corporate, labor union or government grants. Contributions from individuals and non-profit organizations are accepted and may be sent to: Center for Media & Democracy, 520 University Ave., Suite 227, Madison, WI 53703.)
Would you care to list similar information for your sources? (I may be able to save you some time here. Look for energy companies and their "scientific" organizations.)
While you are looking, please find out if they still get tobacco money, would you? (Insert Little Laughing Guy here) ******** Look at what I found!
The Center for Consumer Freedom (CCF), formerly called the Guest Choice Network, is a non-profit tax-exempt 501(c)(3) U.S. lobby group.[1] The Center for Consumer Freedom does not publicly release its funding sources, but the group states that it is “supported by restaurants, food companies and more than 1,000 concerned individuals”.[1]
CCF has campaigned against positions held by the U.S. Centers for Disease Control, Mothers Against Drunk Driving, People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals, and Physicians Committee for Responsible Medicine. It funds a number of websites, such as ActivistCash.com.
The group was created in 1995 as the Guest Choice Network by Richard Berman, executive director of the public affairs firm Berman and Company, with $600,000 from the Philip Morris tobacco company.[2]
Internal documents from Philip Morris reveal that it donated $2,950,000 to the Guest Choice Network between 1995 and 1998.[5]
CCF has argued against smoking bans, for retaining the permissible driving blood-alcohol level at 0.10, and questions the heavily debated dangers of red meat consumption, and pesticides.[10][11][12][13]
In a 1999 interview with the Chain Leader, a trade publication for restaurant chains, Berman said that he attacks activists more aggressively than other lobbyists. "We always have a knife in our teeth", he said. Since activists "drive consumer behavior on meat, alcohol, fat, sugar, tobacco and caffeine", his strategy is "to shoot the messenger ... We've got to attack their credibility as spokespersons."[14]
The Center for Consumer Freedom runs FishScam.com, a website which claims that "our bodies contain harmless amounts of chemicals, including mercury that could be fatal in higher doses." The site contains a mercury calculator which offers the amount of a fish you can eat before getting an unsafe dose of mercury, based on what they claim was the original reference level for the EPA, which the EPA then cut to a tenth before publishing. Thus the amounts are 10 times the amount the EPA would recommend.
The CCF does not disclose the identity of its funders. However, some information is available, as CCF is registered as a tax-exempt nonprofit organization, and accordingly financial information is disclosed via IRS Form 990s.
Initial funding for the Guest Choice Network organisation came from Philip Morris, with the initial donation of $600,000 followed by a $300,000 donation the following year. "As of this writing, PM USA is still the only contributor, though Berman continues to promise others any day now", wrote Philip Morris attorney Marty Barrington in an internal company memorandum dated March 28, 1996.[21]
In subsequent years, GCN acquired more donors, but was still almost solely funded by a few large corporations: the IRS Form 990 for the six-month period from July to December 1999 shows that is income for that period was $111,642, of which $105,000 came from six unnamed donors.
I noticed that Wikipedia include a link to "Front Organizations" at the bottom of the article. Care to tell us what that means, Scotty?
I also note that there was no statement saying that the article on the CCF doesn't say that it "may not have been reviewed by professional editors". I guess that means that it is up to standards in its accuracy.
Energy companies, tobacco companies, founders who lie openly (and get caught), organizations opposing Mothers Against Drunk Driving (I guess they are for it.), etc. A real class act, Scotty. ************************************************************ 03-19-07, 06:11 PM Scotty
quote: Energy companies, tobacco companies, founders who lie openly (and get caught), organizations opposing Mothers Against Drunk Driving (I guess they are for it.), etc. A real class act, Scotty
Stump a liberal and this is what you get. Spin, spin, spin.
If I provide you a list of the sites and organizations that have the same opinion of the ones that have been posted, are you willing to try and debunk all of them?
There are many, many of them. Do they all lie?
Note: All three or four hard core liberals on this site are always right. Amazing isn't it? ************************************************************ 03-19-07, 06:47 PM frankvan
quote: As far as the post 2 above this, it contradicts what little Scotty's previous source actually got right.
"The above sentence from methos is apparently the reason behind the non sequitur: "BTW, Little Scotty stands 6'3" and weights 272 lbs, I don't know what you call "little"." Reading Comprehension. D-
This message has been edited. Last edited by: DorianGreyed,
Posts: 7742 | Location: in the backwoods of North Carolina | Registered: 06-07-02
