Who believes in Global Warming?

“I wish it would hurry up. These heating costs are crazy!”

“Mother Nature won't care about your debate. If it kills you with a storm the likes of which haven't been seen in 100,000 years, you will certainly be dead. That's why it will pay us to find out the truth of the matter, and stop debating it. Might not hurt to use less fossil fuels, for a whole host of reasons.”

“Same goes for if the aliens are about to launch a preemptive attack. Let's find out the truth now and stop wasting time debating!!”

“goat the troll - nothing better to do

LMAO! It's no wonder!!

[cue the banjos]


last edited: 3/28/06 5:34:38 AM”

“not bush”

“This summer's hurricane season maybe very telling.

But, even if the storms start early, are very numerous and destructive beyond imagination

many will continue to consider it a normal trend.

Besides, the damage is already of such a sufficient amount, that I think there is no human way to undo the inevitable climate instability and at some point soon, the bizarre will commence.
last edited: 3/28/06 6:17:55 AM”

“

And you have room to talk.

Sarge may be the greatest troll ever, btw.

kudos”

“There was a one hour show on Discovery- Times channel this evening concerning the coming Arctic Rush, that is all the economic activity going on to take advantage of the open Artic waterways and resources that are expected soon.

There was also a lot of discussion of all the buildings in Alaska, Canada, Norway and Russia that are crumbling from the melting permafrost.

As well, the northern natives are having to learn the names of the birds like robins which are showing up in places where they have not been known.”

“It's ok, Sarge says it's nothing to worry about.”

“^^ y2 making it about me again ^^”

“I read an article a few weeks ago that said the effects of global warming are happening right now in Canada. The pine bark beetle that used to be killed by winter cold is now surviving the warmer winters in Canada and is destroying the forests there.”

“Thanks LS, I'll record that starting in 20min.”

““Temperatures below 20 degrees were not seen here this winter in the NC foothills, normally there are several days in the single digits and many with lows in the teens although it is not to late yet.

Today is starting off like mid-May.
last edited: 3/02/06 6:30:27 AM”
lonesurveyor
6:25:26 AM
3/02/06
ignore this user


“Y2 argues that proves nothing.”
Sarge
6:44:32 AM
3/02/06

In response to what someone else had posted.

Seems like I'm not the only one huh Sargy baby.”

“http://jewishworldreview.com/cols/will1.asp

Let cooler heads prevail: The media heat up over global warming


http://www.NewsAndOpinion.com | So, "the debate is over." Time magazine says so. Last week's cover story exhorted readers to "Be Worried. Be Very Worried," and ABC News concurred in several stories. So did Montana's governor, speaking on ABC. And there was polling about global warming, gathered by Time and ABC in collaboration.


Eighty-five percent of Americans say warming is probably happening, and 62 percent say it threatens them personally. The National Academy of Sciences says the rise in the Earth's surface temperature has been about one degree Fahrenheit in the past century. Did 85 percent of Americans notice? Of course not. They got their anxiety from journalism calculated to produce it. Never mind that one degree might be the margin of error when measuring the planet's temperature. To take a person's temperature, you put a thermometer in an orifice or under an arm. Taking the temperature of our churning planet, with its tectonic plates sliding around over a molten core, involves limited precision.


Why have Americans been dilatory about becoming as worried — as very worried — as Time and ABC think proper? An article on ABC's Web site wonders ominously, "Was Confusion Over Global Warming a Con Job?"


It suggests there has been a misinformation campaign implying that scientists might not be unanimous, a campaign by — how did you guess? — big oil. And the coal industry. But speaking of coal . . .


Recently, Montana Gov. Brian Schweitzer flew with ABC's George Stephanopoulos over Glacier National Park's receding glaciers. But Schweitzer offered hope: Everyone, buy Montana coal. New technologies can, he said, burn it while removing carbon causes of global warming.


Stephanopoulos noted that such technologies are at least four years away and "all the scientists" say something must be done "right now." Schweitzer, quickly recovering from hopefulness and returning to the "be worried, be very worried" message, said "it's even more critical than that" because China and India are going to "put more carbon dioxide in the atmosphere with conventional coal-fired generators than all of the rest of the planet has during the last 150 years."


Every weekday JewishWorldReview.com publishes what many in in the media and Washington consider "must-reading". HUNDREDS of columnists and cartoonists regularly appear. Sign up for the daily JWR update. It's free. Just click here.

That is one reason why the Clinton administration never submitted the Kyoto accord on global warming for Senate ratification. In 1997 the Senate voted 95 to 0 that the accord would disproportionately burden America while being too permissive toward major polluters that are America's trade competitors.


While worrying about Montana's receding glaciers, Schweitzer, who is 50, should also worry about the fact that when he was 20 he was told to be worried, very worried, about global cooling. Science magazine (Dec. 10, 1976) warned of "extensive Northern Hemisphere glaciation." Science Digest (February 1973) reported that "the world's climatologists are agreed" that we must "prepare for the next ice age." The Christian Science Monitor ("Warning: Earth's Climate is Changing Faster Than Even Experts Expect," Aug. 27, 1974) reported that glaciers "have begun to advance," "growing seasons in England and Scandinavia are getting shorter" and "the North Atlantic is cooling down about as fast as an ocean can cool." Newsweek agreed ("The Cooling World," April 28, 1975) that meteorologists "are almost unanimous" that catastrophic famines might result from the global cooling that the New York Times (Sept. 14, 1975) said "may mark the return to another ice age." The Times (May 21, 1975) also said "a major cooling of the climate is widely considered inevitable" now that it is "well established" that the Northern Hemisphere's climate "has been getting cooler since about 1950."


In fact, the Earth is always experiencing either warming or cooling. But suppose the scientists and their journalistic conduits, who today say they were so spectacularly wrong so recently, are now correct. Suppose the Earth is warming and suppose the warming is caused by human activity. Are we sure there will be proportionate benefits from whatever climate change can be purchased at the cost of slowing economic growth and spending trillions? Are we sure the consequences of climate change — remember, a thick sheet of ice once covered the Midwest — must be bad? Or has the science-journalism complex decided that debate about these questions, too, is "over"?


About the mystery that vexes ABC — Why have Americans been slow to get in lock step concerning global warming? — perhaps the "problem" is not big oil or big coal, both of which have discovered there is big money to be made from tax breaks and other subsidies justified in the name of combating carbon.


Perhaps the problem is big crusading journalism.”

“Yet, that same Montana Governor is calling for massive coal gasification (with Montana coal) which would release prodigious amounts of CO2, much more, about double, the CO2 than is released with a comparable amount of energy from oil.

So, oil is running out and coal is twice as bad.”

“I think it is foolish to be dismissive of the evidence for Global Climate Change. The evidence that there has been warming is pretty overwhelming. Even more overwhelming is the evidence that carbon dioxide levels in the atmosphere have soared and continue to soar. Less overwhelming - as far as I can see - but still important is the evidence that the two are highly connected.

I don't think anyone can know for sure what has caused the warming to date or what processes might be in place that will counteract it. It's definitely worth educating ourselves about and following developments closely.”

“Another clearly measurable fact that has been oft reported is that plants bloom an average of 10 days earlier in the Northern Hemisphere than they did 30 years ago.”

“I am with you Sarge. If I remember correctly...the massive increase in temperature during the last 25 years that the media loves to hype up is .9 degrees. The decrease in the temperature for the 25 years prior to that was .7 degrees. You are right about the Global Cooling scare of the 70's...funny how the media wants us to forget about all that...”

“When you sleep in your bag and tent your body warms both. YOU cause global WARMING. Stop eating -Problem solved.”

“Salebored. Technically, I think what you described would be considered "bag warming" or even "tent warming". The title of this thread was about Global Warming.”

“The lights of Lost Wages send more heat into the spring night each night than the whole human race did globally 200 years ago.”

“Lost Wages, that took a second to decipher, good term.”

“Air trends 'amplifying' warming
By Richard Black
Environment Correspondent, BBC News website, in Vienna



Only when solar dimming disappeared could we really see what is going on in terms of the greenhouse effect
-Martin Wild

Reduced air pollution and increased water evaporation appear to be adding to man-made global warming.
Research presented at a major European science meeting adds to other evidence that cleaner air is letting more solar energy through to the Earth's surface.

Other studies show that increased water vapour in the atmosphere is reinforcing the impact of man-made greenhouse gas emissions.

Scientists suggest both trends may push temperatures higher than believed.

But they say there is an urgent need for further research, particularly at sea.

Dimming no more

Between the 1950s and 1980s, the amount of solar energy penetrating through the atmosphere to the Earth's surface appeared to be declining, by about 2% per decade.

This trend received some publicity under the term "global dimming".

But in the 1980s, it appears to have reversed, according to two papers published last year in the journal Science.
The decline in Soviet industry and clean air laws in western countries apparently reduced concentrations of aerosols, tiny particles, in the atmosphere.

These aerosols may block solar radiation directly, or help clouds to form which in turn constitute a barrier; or both effects may occur.

The lead researcher on one of those Science papers was Martin Wild from the Institute for Atmospheric and Climate Science (IACETH) in Zurich, and this week he has been discussing the implications of those findings at the European Geosciences Union (EGU) annual meeting in Vienna.

Correlations and causality

The reversal of "global dimming" has been proposed in some circles as an alternative explanation for climatic change, removing the need to invoke human emissions of greenhouse gases.

Dr Wild dismissed this picture. His analysis suggests that "global dimming" and the man-made greenhouse effect may have cancelled each other out until the early 1980s, but now "global brightening" is adding to the impact of human greenhouse emissions.

"There is always this argument that maybe the whole temperature rise wasn't due to greenhouse warming but due to solar variations," he told the BBC News website.

"During the solar dimming we had really no temperature rise. And only when the solar dimming disappeared could we really see what is going on in terms of the greenhouse effect, and that is only starting in the 1980s."
Analyses of global temperature indicate that a sharp upward trend commenced in the early 1980s.

But, said Dr Wild, there are strong regional variations in the "solar brightening" trend.

"In Eastern Europe, we see a very strong recovery [in solar radiation] - almost back to what it was before dimming began," he said.

"But India continues with the dimming - that's very much thought to be due to increasing air pollution.

"The general position is that air pollution is still increasing in the tropics, but decreasing outside the tropics; so probably that will amplify warming a little bit outside the tropics but not inside."

Data deficit

There are, Dr Wild admitted, holes in the picture of change.

"The term 'global dimming' is a bit dangerous," he said. "I usually call it 'solar dimming' not 'global dimming' because we really only know about this where we have measurements; and we don't have measurements at many places, for example over the oceans, or land in the tropics."

More research facilities are needed, he said, in tropical regions, particularly sub-Saharan Africa, and especially the oceans.

As well as extending measurements of solar energy reaching the Earth's surface, he urged more research on aerosol concentrations in the atmosphere and on trends in cloud cover.

Rolf Philipona from the World Radiation Center in Davos, Switzerland, is attempting to improve aerosol measurements in northern Europe.
"We're trying to put a paper together which shows the aerosol depth and the amount of aerosol in the air column from about six to eight stations in Europe," he told the BBC News website.

"In Germany and Switzerland we would have stations very high up, extending all the way to the North Sea."

Last year Dr Philipona released research indicating that European warming is largely driven by increases in humidity.

The mechanism is that rising levels of what are conventionally called "greenhouse gases", such as carbon dioxide and methane, cause more evaporation of water, which in the atmosphere is itself a greenhouse gas.

He believes this is having more impact than changes to the transmission of solar energy through the atmosphere.

"From my results I believe it's the greenhouse warming and in particular the water vapour feedback," he said.

"Studies and papers are also coming now which are looking more closely at what water vapour is doing in other regions; and there are several pieces of work showing water vapour is increasing over land areas like the United States."

Satellites and ships

A further implication of "global brightening" is that the temperature difference between night and day may reduce.
The "blanket" of greenhouse gases in the atmosphere has a net heating effect during day and night, whereas changes in solar energy reaching the surface are felt only in daytime.

Disproportionately higher night-time temperatures have already been noted in many parts of the world, and research in the Philippines has linked this trend to a reduction in rice yield.

The conclusions presented here present two major challenges to the research community.

One is to find ways of extending experimental investigations into the oceans and the developing world.

The second is to integrate them into computer models of climate, something which is only just beginning to happen.”

“The population of the planet has been recording temperatures for about 150 years or so. Global warming is happening. Global cooling will happen again. Then global cooling. I really don't think humans have all that much to do with it. The earth will go through changes whether we like it or not and our interference isn't going to make all that much difference.”

“I think human activities have plenty to do with the apparent climate-change.”

“Epidemiology should stick to high tension power lines and bird flu.”

“Yeah there is global warming...I noticed it when it was 20 in January and now it is 70...Hey did anyone notice that there are a lot more loony envirowackos in the past 40 years....and note that global warming has become a problem in the last 40 years...I THINK IT IS THE ENVIORWAKOS causing the warming.”

“No one seems to think of the direct affect of burning fuels. Fly over your house on a winter night and point an infra-red sensor at your house, a moving car ,factories and the things that create heat. Then, come back and make jokes about global warming that point out who the WHACKOS ARE.”

“I believe it's real. Have you all seen those glacier pics? Have you not seen the analysis of those artic ice cores?

The earth does have natural cycles but this is way off.

Everything seeks a balance in nature and survival of the fittest. If we keep putting out so much stuff that it threatens the whole ecosystem the earth will wipe us out one way or the other.

First obviously would be the increased heat leading to various diseases, then drought leading to starvation or possibly war both great population reducers. AIDS, a disease related to reproduction has already killed millions worldwide. Natures way of protecting itself. Next will be flooding as the oceans rise and then maybe more war as more and more people have to move inland.”

“The vocal minority sceptical of the threat of global warming are now targeting the UK, writes Conal Walsh

Sunday March 6, 2005
The Observer


"Worried about global warming, but not too worried? Quietly sceptical about the scientists' most apocalyptic claims? Then you've been duped, say environmentalists and political campaigners.

Keeping you in doubt has become an international, multimillion-dollar industry, they claim - and now that industry is focusing its efforts on the UK"

"...The affair is faintly reminiscent of what happened when US President George Bush pulled America, the world's biggest polluter, out of the Kyoto protocol on climate change. That decision was encouraged by lobbying and PR campaigns financed by the polluting industries, which made large donations to Senators and Congressmen and sponsored neoliberal think tanks and contrarian scientific research. ExxonMobil, the oil major, has been accused by Friends of the Earth and others of giving millions of dollars to a long list of think-tanks and lobbyists opposed to Kyoto."

Robert May, president of the Royal Society, has warned that the UK will be the next ideological battleground for the doomsayers and the gainsayers. Connections have already been established between some British sceptical organisations and their US cousins. The UK-based Scientific Alliance, which organised the meeting of sceptics in London last month, recently published a joint report with America's George C Marshall Institute, a think-tank which has received donations from Exxon.

The report claimed to undermine the ories of climate change. Exxon has also contributed $50,000 to the International Policy Network (IPN), headquartered in London. Key personnel at the IPN have connections with the Institute of Economic Affairs, Britain's leading conservative think-tank, as well as the Competitive Enterprise Institute in the US, whose global warming expert is Myron Ebell, President Bush's climate adviser. The IPN gets much of its funding from America. Last year, it released a report claiming that climate change was 'a myth'. All the think-tanks strongly deny that their research findings are influenced by corporate donors.

http://observer.guardian.co.uk/business/story/0,6903,1431306,00.html”

“Global Schlomal....If the activist's AND the politicians would just SHUT UP, the average global temp would drop 5 degrees in DAYS!

all these conspiracy woes...just so much HOT AIR!

(I'm gonna go bleed the R12 from all my AC unit's and let the Cars (4) idle in the driveway for a few hours....see ya!)

this IS FUEGO ain't it?...ya knew some jerk was gonna take it there...or you should have...

(Dang...now how do I get this Bull #&%!$e off my pot strirring paddle....hmmmmmm......)”

“The world's biggest PRODUCER.

We produce more so we pollute more.”

“So it's OK? What if we are really inefficient but don't give a damn?

"The growing levels of pollution from Exxon come on the back of annual profits of $17bn (£9.4bn), the largest ever in the corporate world.

The company's emissions are more than 50% higher than those of rival Britain's BP despite the US firm's oil and gas production being only slightly larger.

BP produced 83.3m tonnes of greenhouse gases last year on the back of 3.8m barrels of oil and gas output a day.

Exxon's output was 4.4m barrels a day in 2003 with much of the pollution coming from its refineries and chemical plants.

And at least one consultancy - Climate Mitigation Services in Colorado - believes Exxon has hugely underestimated its own figures. Its estimates, including power used for Exxon to run its own petrol stations and tankers, would be closer to 379m tonnes.

While BP, under chief executive Lord Browne, has tackled the concerns of climate change quite openly, Exxon has been more equivocal."

http://business.guardian.co.uk/story/0,3604,1321223,00.html”

“all these conspiracy woes...just so much HOT AIR!..... hmmmm,
I see the ones who go against all the vast weight of scientific opinion as being the wacko conspiracy theorists. You're in the minority now you know.

Face it, the deniers are the crazy conspiracy theorists.
last edited: 4/12/06 4:09:17 PM”

“White man speak with forked tongue.Window dressing is all the oil Co's have done.May the great thunderbird land one through the front door of his tent.”

“Funny how the heads-in-the-sand crowd always seems to forget the ice cores that have been dated to 150,000 years or more... The baseline for the data is MUCH longer than 150 years.

I see that coalmining interests have begun a new PR campaign to delay the inevitable... [sheesh].


Oh what the hell --- they'll all be dead before it gets really bad.... Or will they?”

“Hollowdweller are you almost 30?”

“USA 2005 GDP = 11.75 Trillion dollars
USA 2005 Carbon Emissions = 15.7 Million tons

India 2005 GDP = 3.32 Trillion dollars
India 2005 Carbon Emissions = 4.9 Million tons

USA: 1.34 Million tons / Trillion dollars GDP
India: 1.48 Million tons / Trillion dollars GDP

Inefficient? India certainly is. They pollute 10% more to produce the same amount of GDP as the United States.

Of course India would be exempt from the Kyoto Accords because they are a "developing nation" and we should have to pay for their inefficient and polluting industry.”

“I'm glad you see it's hardly fair to compare a 1st world country to 3rd world. Got the same info for US vs. UK?”

“I thought you didn't want to compare the US to 3rd world countries?”

“I watched the show on global dimming last night - there were some pretty stark warnings that global dimming has masked the true effects of global warming.

It's time to stop the whining and finger pointing while doing nothing and for each country to commit itself to trying to find solutions.”

“I mean, where does pointing at other countires and saying "they pollute more than us" and doing nothing actually get you.

And btw - I was interested that most of those interviewed concluded there was a 'strong consensus' that human-induced warming is taking place and is increasing.”

“Are you talking about the Nova on last night?”

“Yep.”

“There's some stuff about it higher up on the thread.”

“Do something?

Like what?”

“Lone - there's plenty of information out there about what can be done on a national, corporate, local and individual level to cut emissions and use energy more efficiently. We all know what they are. And if the free-market isn't solving the problem, start giving them a little legislative and regulatory help.”