Who believes in Global Warming?

“Revelation: 16:8 The fourth poured out his bowl on the sun, and it was given to him to scorch men with fire. 16:9 People were scorched with great heat, and people blasphemed the name of God who has the power over these plagues. They didn’t repent and give him glory.”

“Uh Oh.”

“US Experiences Record Low Temperatures
AP, December 7, 2005
Bitterly cold air poured southward across the nation's midsection Wednesday, dropping temperatures to record lows from Montana to Illinois. The mercury dived to a record 45 below at West Yellowstone, Mont., the frequently cold spot at the west entrance to Yellowstone National Park, the National Weather Service said. The old record for Dec. 7 was 39 below, set in 1927.

Uncertainties in Climate Trends: Lessons from Upper-Air Temperature Records
American Meteorological Society: Volume 86, No. 10, pp. 1437-1442
We can no longer absolutely conclude whether globally the troposphere is cooling or warming relative to the surface. Clearly, however, the climate system has evolved in one unique way. Hence the challenge to the climate science community is to understand the reasons for the coherent differences between available datasets, and to discern the true climate evolution. The key first step is to understand the likely sources and causes of errors and biases. Only with this knowledge can we hope to truly reconcile the differences and gain a more complete and accurate picture of the true climate system evolution.

Climatologist Rejects Global Warming Explanation for Island Evacuation
CNSNews, December 7, 2005
Patrick J. Michaels, the author of several books on climate change, dismissed a report that an island's evacuation was necessitated by global warming, saying that "it's a shame, quite frankly, that this issue is being played like this at the [U.N.] climate change conference. It demeans the issue when it's so easy to counter a strident assertion with facts."”

“The debat on global warming is just a fog, Stop polluting My air and water. that is the point.Politcos are missing the point and using that for agenda. I do not care a rat arse the political sheet, clean air and clean water,purdey simple ta me Kyoto will do this or do that, Do not really care, clean air, clean water that is important,ya argue kyoto ya lose.”

“Clinton Says Bush Is 'Flat Wrong' on Kyoto By CHARLES J. HANLEY, AP Special Correspondent 57 minutes ago (off yahoo news)

MONTREAL - Former President Clinton told a global audience of diplomats, environmentalists and others Friday that the Bush administration is "flat wrong" in claiming that reducing greenhouse-gas emissions to fight global warming would damage the U.S. economy.

With a "serious disciplined effort" to develop energy-saving technology, he said, "we could meet and surpass the Kyoto targets in a way that would strengthen and not weaken our economies."

Clinton, a champion of the Kyoto Protocol, the existing emissions-controls agreement opposed by the Bush administration, spoke in the final hours of a two-week U.N. climate conference at which Washington has come under heavy criticism for its stand.

Most delegations appeared ready Friday to leave an unwilling United States behind and open a new round of negotiations on future cutbacks in the emissions blamed for global warming.

"There's no longer any serious doubt that climate change is real, accelerating and caused by human activities," said Clinton, whose address was interrupted repeatedly by enthusiastic applause. "We are uncertain about how deep and the time of arrival of the consequences, but we are quite clear they will not be good."

Canadian officials said the U.S. delegation was displeased with the last-minute scheduling of the Clinton speech. But U.S. delegation chief Paula Dobriansky issued a statement saying events like Clinton's appearance "are useful opportunities to hear a wide range of views on global climate change."

The former president spoke between the official morning and afternoon plenary sessions of the conference, representing the William J. Clinton Foundation, which includes a climate-change program in its activities.

In the real work of the conference, delegates from more than 180 countries bargained behind closed doors until 6:30 a.m. Friday, making final adjustments to an agreement to negotiate additional reductions in carbon dioxide and other gases after 2012, when the Kyoto accord expires.

Efforts by host-country Canada and others to draw the United States into the process were failing. The Bush administration says it favors a voluntary approach, not global negotiations, to deal with climate issues.

"It's such a pity the United States is still very much unwilling to join the international community, to have a multilateral effort to deal with climate change," said Kenya's Emily Ojoo Massawa, chair of the African group of nations at the two-week long conference.

Clinton's vice president, Al Gore, was instrumental in final negotiations on the 1997 treaty protocol that was initialed in the Japanese city of Kyoto and mandates cutbacks in 35 industrialized nations of emissions of carbon dioxide and five other gases by 2012.

A broad scientific consensus agrees that these gases accumulating in the atmosphere, byproducts of automobile engines, power plants and other fossil fuel-burning industries, contributed significantly to the past century's global temperature rise of 1 degree Fahrenheit. Continued warming is expected to disrupt the global climate.

In the late 1990s the U.S. Senate balked at ratifying Kyoto, and the incoming President Bush in 2001 formally renounced the accord, saying it would harm the U.S. economy.

The Montreal meeting, attended by almost 10,000 delegates, environmentalists, business representatives and others, was the first annual U.N. climate conference since Kyoto took effect in February.

The protocol's language requires its member nations to begin talks now on emissions controls after 2012, when the Kyoto regime expires. The Canadians and others also saw Montreal as an opportunity to draw the outsider United States into the emission-controls regime, through discussions under the broader 1992 U.N. climate treaty.

But the Americans have repeatedly rejected the idea of rejoining future negotiations to set post-2012 emissions controls. The Canadians continued to press for agreement early Friday, offering the U.S. delegation vague, noncommittal language by which Washington would join only in "exploring" "approaches" to cooperative action.

While rejecting mandatory targets, the Bush administration points to $3 billion-a-year U.S. government spending on research and development of energy-saving technologies as a demonstration of U.S. efforts to combat climate change.”

“Ewker - So it's ok for us to talk about Clinton again?

I thought you guys say he's "old news" and we should stop talking about him b/c we're living in the past.

Hey conservatives ... you can talk about Clinton again, Ewker says it's "ok". ;)
last edited: 12/09/05 3:26:52 PM”

“Now the Pentagon tells Bush: climate change will destroy us

· Secret report warns of rioting and nuclear war
· Britain will be 'Siberian' in less than 20 years
· Threat to the world is greater than terrorism

Mark Townsend and Paul Harris in New York
Sunday February 22, 2004
The Observer


Climate change over the next 20 years could result in a global catastrophe costing millions of lives in wars and natural disasters..
A secret report, suppressed by US defence chiefs and obtained by The Observer, warns that major European cities will be sunk beneath rising seas as Britain is plunged into a 'Siberian' climate by 2020. Nuclear conflict, mega-droughts, famine and widespread rioting will erupt across the world.

The document predicts that abrupt climate change could bring the planet to the edge of anarchy as countries develop a nuclear threat to defend and secure dwindling food, water and energy supplies. The threat to global stability vastly eclipses that of terrorism, say the few experts privy to its contents.


Article continues

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
'Disruption and conflict will be endemic features of life,' concludes the Pentagon analysis. 'Once again, warfare would define human life.'
The findings will prove humiliating to the Bush administration, which has repeatedly denied that climate change even exists. Experts said that they will also make unsettling reading for a President who has insisted national defence is a priority.

The report was commissioned by influential Pentagon defence adviser Andrew Marshall, who has held considerable sway on US military thinking over the past three decades. He was the man behind a sweeping recent review aimed at transforming the American military under Defence Secretary Donald Rumsfeld.

Climate change 'should be elevated beyond a scientific debate to a US national security concern', say the authors, Peter Schwartz, CIA consultant and former head of planning at Royal Dutch/Shell Group, and Doug Randall of the California-based Global Business Network.

An imminent scenario of catastrophic climate change is 'plausible and would challenge United States national security in ways that should be considered immediately', they conclude. As early as next year widespread flooding by a rise in sea levels will create major upheaval for millions.

Last week the Bush administration came under heavy fire from a large body of respected scientists who claimed that it cherry-picked science to suit its policy agenda and suppressed studies that it did not like. Jeremy Symons, a former whistleblower at the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), said that suppression of the report for four months was a further example of the White House trying to bury the threat of climate change.

Senior climatologists, however, believe that their verdicts could prove the catalyst in forcing Bush to accept climate change as a real and happening phenomenon. They also hope it will convince the United States to sign up to global treaties to reduce the rate of climatic change.

A group of eminent UK scientists recently visited the White House to voice their fears over global warming, part of an intensifying drive to get the US to treat the issue seriously. Sources have told The Observer that American officials appeared extremely sensitive about the issue when faced with complaints that America's public stance appeared increasingly out of touch.

One even alleged that the White House had written to complain about some of the comments attributed to Professor Sir David King, Tony Blair's chief scientific adviser, after he branded the President's position on the issue as indefensible.

Among those scientists present at the White House talks were Professor John Schellnhuber, former chief environmental adviser to the German government and head of the UK's leading group of climate scientists at the Tyndall Centre for Climate Change Research. He said that the Pentagon's internal fears should prove the 'tipping point' in persuading Bush to accept climatic change.

Sir John Houghton, former chief executive of the Meteorological Office - and the first senior figure to liken the threat of climate change to that of terrorism - said: 'If the Pentagon is sending out that sort of message, then this is an important document indeed.'

Bob Watson, chief scientist for the World Bank and former chair of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, added that the Pentagon's dire warnings could no longer be ignored.

'Can Bush ignore the Pentagon? It's going be hard to blow off this sort of document. Its hugely embarrassing. After all, Bush's single highest priority is national defence. The Pentagon is no wacko, liberal group, generally speaking it is conservative. If climate change is a threat to national security and the economy, then he has to act. There are two groups the Bush Administration tend to listen to, the oil lobby and the Pentagon,' added Watson.

'You've got a President who says global warming is a hoax, and across the Potomac river you've got a Pentagon preparing for climate wars. It's pretty scary when Bush starts to ignore his own government on this issue,' said Rob Gueterbock of Greenpeace.

Already, according to Randall and Schwartz, the planet is carrying a higher population than it can sustain. By 2020 'catastrophic' shortages of water and energy supply will become increasingly harder to overcome, plunging the planet into war. They warn that 8,200 years ago climatic conditions brought widespread crop failure, famine, disease and mass migration of populations that could soon be repeated.

Randall told The Observer that the potential ramifications of rapid climate change would create global chaos. 'This is depressing stuff,' he said. 'It is a national security threat that is unique because there is no enemy to point your guns at and we have no control over the threat.'

Randall added that it was already possibly too late to prevent a disaster happening. 'We don't know exactly where we are in the process. It could start tomorrow and we would not know for another five years,' he said.

'The consequences for some nations of the climate change are unbelievable. It seems obvious that cutting the use of fossil fuels would be worthwhile.'

So dramatic are the report's scenarios, Watson said, that they may prove vital in the US elections. Democratic frontrunner John Kerry is known to accept climate change as a real problem. Scientists disillusioned with Bush's stance are threatening to make sure Kerry uses the Pentagon report in his campaign.

The fact that Marshall is behind its scathing findings will aid Kerry's cause. Marshall, 82, is a Pentagon legend who heads a secretive think-tank dedicated to weighing risks to national security called the Office of Net Assessment. Dubbed 'Yoda' by Pentagon insiders who respect his vast experience, he is credited with being behind the Department of Defence's push on ballistic-missile defence.

Symons, who left the EPA in protest at political interference, said that the suppression of the report was a further instance of the White House trying to bury evidence of climate change. 'It is yet another example of why this government should stop burying its head in the sand on this issue.'

Symons said the Bush administration's close links to high-powered energy and oil companies was vital in understanding why climate change was received sceptically in the Oval Office. 'This administration is ignoring the evidence in order to placate a handful of large energy and oil companies,' he added.”

“SC - Do you have any more 2 year old articles you could run by us?”

“Its going to happen and soon, but I can't say just what 'it' is.

Best guess, drastic climate change, which each individual had best be preparing for now because:

'Crying won't help, governments won't do you no good.'
last edited: 12/12/05 6:24:24 AM”

“Anyone see the show about the "Little Ice Age" last week? I think it was on Discovery channel. Very interesting stuff.”

“Some say the 'Little Ice-Age' from about 1300 a.d. to about 1850 a.d. was the beginning of the next real ice-age but the effects were temporarily postponed by the rise in coal burning and land clearing in the years leading up to 1850.”

“Good to see the UK is doing their part for global warming...



http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/4517962.stm”

“That explosion was crazy Nigal, it was heard in Northern France.”

“http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/4511556.stm

People living in the Arctic have filed a legal petition against the US government, saying its climate change policies violate human rights.

The Inuit Circumpolar Conference (ICC) claims the US is failing to control emissions of greenhouse gases, damaging livelihoods in the Arctic.”

“The thing that I don't get is why always us? China and some of the other under developed countries have much worse practices.

Andser: blaming and hating America is sexy.”

“I wonder if they have trade restrictions w/ mean old America, or do they contribute to the "problem".”

“Nigal - China was not as obstuctive to trying to do something as America was.
And America is still by far the world's largest economy, and largest polluter, especially if you compare it to population.

It's more about the refusal of this administration to accept that a problem exists and its refusal to do anything that is the problem. Although states and cities are helping to counterbalance the lack of action by this administration.”

“Guess it wasn't an issue before Bush.

Bush is mean.”

“Well Clinton signed up to Kyoto, though getting it through congress was less likely. But at least there was an effort to get something done and not the sell out to big oil and energy - but i guess Dubya had to fund a couple of campaigns somehow.”

“I guess Australia, China and India are funding some oil campaigns too.”

“Former Clinton Aides Now Admit Kyoto Would Be Costly; Kyoto = Millions of Lost Lives; EU Claims Kyoto Will Be Painless; Insurers Not Worried About Global Warming

Cooler Heads Coalition
June 13, 2001




Former Clinton Aides Now Admit Kyoto Would Be Costly





Amidst major criticism from both domestic environmental groups and European officials, President Bush is receiving aid and comfort from an unexpected source – former Clinton Administration officials. Bush has stated that the U.S. will not comply with the Kyoto Protocol because it is "fatally flawed" and would impose undue economic hardships on the country.








Now, according to the June 12 issue of USA Today, "Economists from the Clinton White House now concede that complying with Kyoto’s mandatory reductions in greenhouse gases would be difficult – and more expensive to American consumers than they thought when they were in charge." This change in tune from the Clintonites is part of the reason that Bush decided to reject Kyoto.








The Clinton Administration was overly optimistic about the costs of Kyoto because its economic analysis was based on unrealistic assumptions. It assumed, for instance, that China and India would accept emissions reduction limits and that they would be able to fully participate in an unlimited international emissions trading system. China has made it clear, however, that it will not accept commitments, and the European Union has remained opposed to unlimited emissions trading.








The Clinton Administration also assumed that industry and consumers would rapidly adopt energy efficient technologies without subsidies. Without China’s participation, for instance, costs would double under the Clinton analysis. According to Joseph Aldy, who assisted in developing the Clinton estimates, "We always thought the (emissions) targets were very ambitious. But the thing that made us really uneasy about our analysis…was that if our assumptions didn’t come true, you could come out with costs that were much, much higher."








While in office, however, the Clinton Administration never explicitly stated its assumptions, nor did it express any misgivings during several congressional hearings on the matter.
















Kyoto = Millions of Lost Lives








Dr. Bjorn Lomborg is causing apoplectic fits across Europe with his recent book, The Skeptical Environmentalist. His views on the Kyoto Protocol are particularly heretical.








The Times of London (June 12, 2001) began its story on Lomborg’s views as follows: "The cost of limiting carbon dioxide emissions far outweighs the damage that global warming will eventually do to the world and merely postpones the problem for six years, Bjorn Lomborg, an environmental statistician, has calculated. As a result, he argues, trillions of pounds that might otherwise be spent on fighting poverty and malnutrition and improving infrastructure in developing countries will be wasted."








Lomborg is an associate professor of statistics at the University of Aarhus in Denmark. He is also an environmentalist and a former member of Greenpeace. His book was originally published in Danish, but has been translated into English and will be published by Cambridge University Press in August.








The Times story continues that Lomborg bases his conclusions on a "four-year audit of a massive set of environmental indicators." If the Kyoto Protocol is implemented, "millions of lives will be lost that could otherwise be saved and the eventual impact of climate change on the Third World will be much worse as countries will be less equipped to adapt."
















EU Claims Kyoto Will Be Painless








The European Union can easily meet its Kyoto targets, according to a report by the European Climate Change Programme. The report says that, "There are sufficient potential cost-effective measures to cut emissions of greenhouse gases by twice the target set for the 15 nation EU under Kyoto" (Financial Times, June 12, 2001).








Reuters (June 12, 2001) reported that according to a European Commission official, the total cost to the EU to meet its Kyoto target of reducing greenhouse gas emissions to 8 percent below 1990 levels by 2012 would be 3.7 billion euros per year or about .06 percent of GDP.








It is unclear how the ECCP defines "cost effective." Given that Kyoto would have almost no effect on predicted global temperatures and hence virtually no benefits, any cost would seem to outweigh the potential benefits.








"These results increase our credibility," said Margot Wallstrom, the EU environment commissioner. "I hope they will encourage the European Council to restate its commitment to meeting the Kyoto target even if the US withdraws from the process."








Just before this good news from the EU was released, UPI (NewsMax.com, June 6, 2001) reported that European Union leaders had failed to agree on a EU-wide energy tax. The proposed tax is the main tool to reduce energy consumption and thereby meet the Kyoto targets.
















Insurers Not Worried About Global Warming








Proponents of government policies to fight global warming often cite concerns of the reinsurance industry – companies that insure the insurers – as evidence that catastrophic global warming is real. Indeed, some major reinsurance companies have expressed concern over global warming, but others have pointed out that the upward trend in insurance claims due to natural disasters is almost entirely due to greater economic development in disaster-prone regions, not to global warming.








An article in the May 31 issue of the Palm Beach Post reports that Florida’s property insurers aren’t really concerned about global warming. "At State Farm we do not see global warming as an issue that drives anything," said Tom Hagerty, the company’s Florida spokesman. "We have not changed any of our plans or policies on the basis of global warming information or on the various hurricane activity forecasts." Frank Nutter, president of the Reinsurance Association of American said, "The industry doesn’t treat it as a serious issue. It’s not factored into rating decisions."”

“http://www.staff.livjm.ac.uk/spsbpeis/Op-Ed-Blair%20deserts%20Kyoto.htm

As the UN’s climate convention in Montreal draws to a close, it is becoming apparent that, despite the usual rhetoric, all attempts will fail to extend the Kyoto Treaty beyond its expiration in 2012. No one will be surprised about this outcome. After all, the U.S. administration has insisted time and again that it would not budge.



What is largely overlooked, however, is that - for the first time ever - hardly any pressure was put on the U.S. to yield. It seems that quite the opposite of capitulation looks likely to ensue. In front of our noses, America’s long-standing position that economic considerations should take priority over environmental concerns is being converted into a new international consensus on tackling climate change. In place of the customary press-ganging of the U.S., Montreal is witnessing a momentous turnaround. The driving-force behind this seismic shift of the political landscape is one man and one man only: Tony Blair.”

“Combine global warming with peak oil (and peak NG) and the next 50 years could put us back into hunter-gatherer mode.”

“That's what they said 30 years ago in school, so we got 20 more to go. Break out your clubs.”

“Earth was cooler last year.

It is the second warmest globally since the 1860s, when reliable records began, they say.”

“Wasn't El Nino weather related? I think it was the weather.”

“El Nino is a warming of a sizable part of the pacific ocean which effects weather patterns.”

“But it is weather, right?

That's like saying when it rains, it effects the weather patterns.”

“For those young enough to have hopes of being alive by 2071: Get ready to bake.

Hotter, drier Southwestern summers will become a reality by the late 21st century if human-caused global warming continues, a new study says.

"Dramatic ecological, economic and social consequences" could result from what the study forecasts as an increase in the number of days each year with extreme temperatures and precipitation, the study says...

According to the Purdue University Study, the number of extremely hot summer days — those in the top 5 percent of the 105- to 112-degree range — could jump 560 percent from today. And heat waves would last longer, up to 15 days each from northern Mexico into Nevada and Utah. Summer rainfall — which can cause severe flooding but also nourishes rivers, streams and aquifers that provide water to people and wildlife — would fall...

This paper is one of the first to use really good global and regional computer models together to look at possible climate change during the next 90 years, said Jonathan Overpeck, director of the UA's Institute for the Study of Planet Earth...

The predicted changes are large enough to substantially disrupt the U.S. economy and its roads, bridges and other public infrastructure, said Noah Diffenbaugh, a Purdue assistant professor who headed the research team behind the study...

But another new global warming study predicts that the amount of stream runoff will drop 10 percent to 30 percent in this region by 2050.

In contrast, runoff in Canada and Alaska will increase 10 percent to 40 percent during the same period, according to the second study, from the United States Geological Survey. It was published last month in the journal Nature...
last edited: 12/27/05 3:07:27 PM”

“More propaganda from the tree hugging wackos...

Oh, wait this is from 5 Republicans and one Democrat, must be the liberial press again, huh.


By JOHN HEILPRIN

"WASHINGTON (AP) - Six former heads of the Environmental Protection Agency - five Republicans and one Democrat - accused the Bush administration Wednesday of neglecting global warming and other environmental problems.

"I don't think there's a commitment in this administration," said Bill Ruckelshaus, who was EPA's first administrator when the agency opened its doors in 1970 under President Nixon and headed it again under President Reagan in the 1980s."
Complete story
last edited: 1/18/06 7:46:18 PM”

“that's right, and hurricanes, volcanoes, earthquakes, and my ingrown toenail too.......”

“Didnt read it did ya?”

“He sure as hell isnt helping.”

“I KNEW it! I KNEWit was bush's fault!”

“Actually, I think is was Clinton's fault.”

“great quote:

"To sit back and just push it away and say we'll deal with it sometime down the road is dishonest to the people and self-destructive."[i]”

“just did, words aren't action, though, they're just words....shut up and drive (I ain't talkin to you mtnsteve :)).”

“darn liberal elitist republicans”

“I can't believe the lack of concern from a tree mugger like Schrub.”

“Our grandkids are gonna think we were fools.”

“Global warming is real enough to be sure, but discerning what part of it is (1) human caused and (2) reasonable to humans to be able to DO anything about is the crux of the matter.

From the science I've read, mankind does in fact contribute in some small way but the natural cycles of the planet and the local solar system play so much larger a role that there is really precious little 'we' can hope to do about it.

Sure, rational and environmentally friendly policies would help but the radical edges of either argument are equaly insane - and since it is those people who get the media attention - both left and right - the issue itself gets little real focus.

Both sides use the environment as their basis for certain policy pushes, but the left "owns" the argument (because they marketed their ideas better) and the right is constantly on the defense.

Unfortunately the science itself is twisted and marketed by both sides to their own selfish ends, so we in the moderate middle have to do all our own research and come to our own conclusions. And frankly there just aren't enough people willing to do that and truly make a difference.

(steps off podium, exits stage left, jumps in gas guzzling hummer-limo and is driven back to nice comfy 10,000 sq ft winter home to make sure all the lobbyists checks cleared...)

:-)

...let the flames begin”

“Dear God....

My boat has a small leak...is it OK to drill a few more holes in it? I mean, it wasn't my fault, it's always been like that.

God...Are you stupid or something boy?
last edited: 1/18/06 8:24:43 PM”

“Iran may very well solve our car emisions
problems. What can we do to them?----nothing.
Numbering the days of $3.00+ gasoline will remind many of the hostage numbered days of the past.”

“Paraphrased from a link I read recently, possibly on this site:

The fossil fuel burned in the world each year these days releases an amount of carbon equivalent to the carbon which is incorporated into all land plants and animals in 400 years.

Put another way, if all the energy gain of all the living plants and animals grown in the world this year was converted to biodiesel, 1/4 of 1% of the energy we currently obtain from burning fossil fuel would be obtained.

Adding 400 years worth of carbon to the atmosphere each year, must be insignifigant?
last edited: 1/18/06 8:30:42 PM”

“What, give up cars and electricity?

If not now by choice, then later

without a choice.

No President would suggest such (Carter sort of did and was booed out of office).”

“We are nearing the end times anyway...we are all doomed....one and all....”

“The Weather Channel had a show on the other day about the effects of global warming on Alaska. Melting of the permafrost is a bad thing for the people living there and they showed how changes are taking place. The big question I guess is why is it happening and can anything be done to fix it?”