Who believes in Global Warming?

“Yep. I've heard that theory before.

Some people counter the climate change theories by saying that temperatures have fallen in various places, but when chaotic elements are introduced into the system all sorts of fluctuations occur. They fall in some places and rise in others.”

“Let me get this straight. The water from Greenland flows south along the American coast, then east to Australia, where it warms and flows back to Greenland?

Have you ever looked at a globe?



A 5 degree change in 100 years is nothing. According to ice core samples, the central Greenland temperature rose 8.5 degrees C in fifty years from 1050 to 1100 AD (must have been due to all those Eskimo SUVs). Similar rapid changes have occurred throughout history. Even the worst case scenario now predicted by the IPCC is well within previous natural climate fluctuations.

There's a reason researchers and scientists refer to the Discovery Channel as the 'junk science channel'.”

“Oh, the guys I talked to were atmospheric physicists at Goddard Space Flight Center, Climate and Radiation Branch, Code 913.

('Radiation' being the solar kind)



What do the the guys who count tree rings say, Gordo?”

“Let me get this straight. The water from Greenland flows south along the American coast, then east to Australia, where it warms and flows back to Greenland?

Have you ever looked at a globe?

gordon
10:42:06 AM
06/24/03

Yeah, I saw a globe once, and it didn't show anything relating to deep ocean currents nor surface ocean currents for that matter. I suppose your globe showed those things, which is why you can make such a statement.”

“i remember back in the 70's everyone was yelling...ICE AGE! ICE AGE! then they're like...NO! GLOBAL WARMING! GLOBAL WARMING!....now it's all GLOBAL WARMING ICE AGE! GLOBAL WARMING ICE AGE!


i'm not saying that pollution is good, but it's hard to believe all the doomdayers on this...


the Mt Penatubo(sp?) eruption produced far more 'greenhouse' emmissions than all of mankind in history....it may be out of our hands”

“What do the the guys who count tree rings say, Gordo?"
Tilt
10:55:28 AM
06/24/03

Tree ring data is only good for the last 500 years or so. Before that the sample size is too small for meaningful conclusions.”

“1. If ya read my post, global warming actually causes ice ages.

2. Natural disaters certainly cause global warming....... and if you consider large scale deforestation, and man-made co2 emissions that didn't exist to the scale we have now 100 years ago, wouldn't that be considered a large scale natural disaster, only over a longer period of time?”

“I knew I couldn't stay away. Gordon, the point is that there's more than one of these currents. The Gulfstream being the most well-known one.
It always amazes me how this particular administration believes scientists working for GM food companies when they say there is no problem with genetically modified food, then attempts to force it on the rest of the world. Then chooses to ignore the scientists who say that global warming is a problem which needs to be tackled.

So Gordon, Bush's fuel cell car initiative is a waste of cash then?”

“sp if i put an ice tray in my oven at 350 degrees it will freeze eventually?



hmmm......sorry, i just don't see that theory happening anytime soon”

“They believe GM foods science because those corporations help to finance this regime and don't beleive the atmospheric science because that could cause a decline in their precious petroleum industry.”

“sp if i put an ice tray in my oven at 350 degrees it will freeze eventually?



hmmm......sorry, i just don't see that theory happening anytime soon"
stratdewd
11:53:47 AM
06/24/03

come on strat, you really didn't mean to say something that foolish, did you?”

“Careful, BB, he'll cry or disappear from the thread.”

“screw you phaeddy


BB, no, i was pointing out absurdity by being absurd....presenting logic into the equation...”

“C'mon stratty, be nice!”

“According to the show that I watched, and the evidence present to me by scientists and journalists alike, the theory is that when deep sea ocean currents stop flowing due to freshwater glacial melt caused by global warming, the earth ultimately cools, creating an ice age.

Are you saying the theory is flawed and or false or the facts are flawed and or flase?”

“Since water freezing causes it to expand to make ice, and ice takes up more volume than water, wouldn't the oceans receed rather than flood because of the ice metling and taking up less space as water?”

“G, I thought you timber guys could prove anything you wanted to with tree rings, LOL

Yes... Ice cores yield much more comprehensive datasets, do they not?


Ynami --- I was watching Jack Straw testify before the Foreign Relations Committee this morning on C-SPAN. I don't think he was very happy to be there... he was tap-dancing like a madman, LOL”

“There's a large amount of it which is above water (though the minority of an iceberg), the Ice on Antarctica melting and glacial melt. Strat, you really don't know much about this subject do you.”

“I don't know, but I will make a few points:

1. Ice floats, and maybe the postions that are above the surface of the oceans provide enough water to overcome the volume deficiencies you speak of.

2. Weather the oceans, seas or lakes rose or fell was of no significance to the theory that I'm discussing. The significnace of the glacial melt had to do with the dilution of heavy salt water as a result of the freshwater glacial melt, thereby disrupting the flow of "heavy" water to the ocean floor off of Greenland.”

“i think it's all based on theories and computer models....



have a great day guys n dolls, i'm gonna run away and cry now”

“2. Natural disaters certainly cause global warming....... and if you consider large scale deforestation...
Buddha Bear
11:48:16 AM
06/24/03

What large scale deforestation? In the industrialized countries forest cover is increasing at 0.2% per year. That's the U.N. FAO 1997 figure. Other sources have a higher number. In third world countries the amount of net forest loss varies. In the U.S. there is approximately the same amount of forest cover now as in 1900 and more now than 1970. Densities are higher now than ever. Overforestation is the real problem, not deforestation. The environmental industry are the ones with their head buried in the sand on that topic.

Productivity in boreal forests is increasing. The cause is unknown, but speculation is global warming.


So Gordon, Bush's fuel cell car initiative is a waste of cash then?"
ynamiynami
11:48:51 AM
06/24/03

No. Its a worthwhile project. It may eventually reduce dependence on foreign oil sources, so I support it. It will never replace oil. It may not even reduce carbon emissions. The total carbon budget and environmental footprint of fuel cells and other 'alternative' energy sources is still being worked out. There is no free lunch.”

“Gordon, the forest of induustrialized nations is not the problem. Either you know this and are seeking to deliberately avoid the issue, or really don't know what you are talking about. All you say about figures for deforestation in other countries is that it "varies". I suggest you do some more research on the matter, try looking at Indonesia. Rather large hole in what you are saying there.”

“http://www.rcfa-cfan.org/english/issues.12-3.html" TARGET="_blank">deforestation


Didn't take long to find. Maybe you need to do a little more research on the matter.”

“Nice quote from the site :"The U.S. State Department estimates that forests four times the size of Switzerland are lost each year because of clearing and degradation."”

“I tell you what Gordon, I think you've just convinced me to join the Sierra Club. The message obviously isn't getting across. too many "heads in the sand" I think.”

“Hellooooo, Gordon, hello????”

“As for the rise in forest in the US, I won't dispute that, however, I know that most of the forests were logged prior to 1920, and we've had nowhere to go but up since then. yanni made some valid points, backed by facts, derived from two legitimate sources that destroy your arguement gordon.”

“ACCORDING TO THE WORLD METEOROLOGICAL ORGANIZATION,
EXTREME WEATHER EVENTS MIGHT INCREASE


Geneva, 2 July 2003 - Record extremes in weather and climate events continue to occur around the world. Recent scientific assessments indicate that, as the global temperatures continue to warm due to climate change, the number and intensity of extreme events might increase, the World Meteorological Organization (WMO) states in a press release issued today.

In June, record high temperatures were recorded across southern France, with maximum temperatures exceeding 40°C in parts of southwest France. This resulted in June average temperatures of 5 to 7°C above the long-term average. In Switzerland, the month of June was the hottest in at least the past 250 years, according to environmental historians. In Geneva, since 29 May, maximum daytime temperatures did not drop below 25°C, making June the hottest June on record for the city.

In the United States, there were 562 tornados during May, which resulted in 41 deaths. This established a record for the number of tornados in any month. The previous monthly record was 399 tornados in June 1992. In the eastern and southeastern part of the US, wet and cold conditions prevailed for well over a month. Weekly negative temperature anomalies of –2°C to
–6°C were experienced in May while precipitation excesses, ranging from 50 mm to 350 mm over a period of more than 12 weeks starting in March 2003, have been recorded.

In India, this year’s pre-monsoon heat wave brought peak temperatures of between 45°C and 49°C which correspond to weekly temperature departures from the normal of +2 to +5°C. At least 1400 people died in India due to the hot weather. In Sri Lanka, heavy rainfalls from Tropical Cyclone 01B exacerbated already wet conditions, resulting in flooding and landslides and killing at least 300 people. The infrastructure and economy of southwestern Sri Lanka was heavily damaged. A reduction of 20-30% is expected for the output of low-grown tea in the next three months.

These record extreme events (high temperatures, low temperatures and high rainfall amounts and droughts) all go into calculating the monthly and annual averages which, for temperatures, have been gradually increasing over the past 100 years. New record extreme events occur every year somewhere in the globe, but in recent years the number of such extremes have been increasing. According to recent climate change scientific assessment reports of the joint WMO/UNEP Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), the global average surface
temperature has increased since 1861. Over the 20th century the increase has been around 0.6°C. This value is about 0.15°C larger than that estimated by the previous reports. New
-2-

analyses of proxy data for the Northern Hemisphere indicate that the increase in temperature in the 20th century is likely to have been the largest in any century during the past 1000 years. It is also likely that, in the Northern Hemisphere, the 1990s were the warmest decade and 1998 the warmest year. While the trend towards warmer globally averaged surface temperatures has been uneven over the course of the last century, the trend for the period since 1976 is roughly three times that for the past 100 years as a whole. Global average land and sea surface temperatures in May 2003 were the second highest since records began in 1880. Considering land temperatures only, last May was the warmest on record.

The influence of El Niño and La Niña on these extreme events is in general undefined. The World Meteorological Organization (WMO) and its Members, the National Meteorological and Hydrological Services along with various research institutes, will continue to organize research and document the influence of El Niño and other large scale climate phenomena on climate extreme events.”

“"There is no global warming. Period."

"Anyone who tells you that scientific research shows warming trends -- be they teachers, newscasters, Congressmen, Senators, Vice Presidents, or Presidents -- is wrong," writes Tom DeWeese of the American Policy Center in a recent issue of his DeWeese Report. "There is," he insists, "no global warming."

DeWeese calls global warming "the greatest hoax ever perpetrated on the people of the world, bar none. Those who have been fighting against the green agenda have been warning that modern-day environmentalism has nothing whatsoever to do with protecting the environment," he observes. "Rather, it is a political movement led by those who seek to control the world economies, dictate development, and redistribute the world's wealth."

DeWeese describes the relentless propaganda campaign that has been waged over the past couple of decades. "The American people have been assaulted from all directions by rabid environmentalists," he contends. "School children have been told that recycling is a matter of life and death. Businesses have been shut down. Valuable products like freon have been removed from the market. Chemicals and pesticides that helped to make this nation the safest and healthiest in the world are targeted for extinction."

DeWeese warns that the Climate Change Protocol is "a legally binding international treaty through which signing nations agree to cut back their energy emissions to 15 percent below 1990 levels." He insists that "it doesn't matter" if the final version is somewhat modified. "Such a massive disruption in the American economy, particularly since it has nothing to do with protecting the environment, will devastate this nation," DeWeese predicts. "To meet such drastically reduced energy standards will, in the short run, cost the United States over one million jobs."

DeWeese emphasizes that "only developed industrial nations will be bound by the treaty. Undeveloped Third World nations will be free to produce whatever they want. These will include China, India, Brazil, and Mexico," he observes, noting that "eighty-two percent of the projected emissions growth in coming years is from these countries." That fact alone proves that the Climate Change Treaty is not designed to protect the environment. "The truth, of course," says DeWeese, "is that the treaty is really about redistribution of wealth," from America to the rest of the world.

Remember when we were supposed to be frightened because the world was getting colder? When that fraud was exposed, we then were told to beware of global warming. More and more people are now recognizing that this too is nonsense. So, what dread prospect will the conjurors of calamity con us with next? Will they try to stampede us into global governance by warning that the temperature will remain constant? No, that's not scary enough. Probably, what they will do is try to convince us that the earth is getting colder and warmer, simultaneously. After all, some of us might like it colder, some might like it hotter, but nobody likes it both ways at the same time.”

“Tom DeWeese has no idea what he's talking about. Global Warming exists, and it's effects will launch us into another Ice Age, it's almost unavoidable.”

“And of course he does little more than say "They're all a bunch of lefties, if we're gonna do anything, it's gonna cost us."”

“Where did this clown get his degree in atmospheric physics?

He doesn't have the slightest clue about climate studies; he's just a Beltway PR flake.”

“What BB said.”

“Hmmm lets see do I believe in Global warming?

Well being from one of the most weather sensitive biological balances of nature (kodiak Island, Alaska)..I have seen the Ice bridge disappear, the food chain all F*cked up, The red tides grow to the point of the shell fish dying off from new bacteria by the boat loads (my last check for tanner crab was 1200.00 which use to be upwards around 20,000 for that season), the government step in and stop commercial fishing of certain crustacians and clams due to their disappearing in record number and in record time spans, The fleet moved so far north you need atleast a 300 foot crabber to get to those parts of the bering sea where you will battle russia, canada, and Japan for whats not yet dead, village kids dying off by the handfuls from contaminated clam digs after red tides, record highs across alaska that are catastrophic in change, the bear's and other wildlife roaming into the cities because there isn't enough salmon swimming back up stream, and an Island that about ten years ago would go through the motions of the "freeze and thaw" become almost completely tropical.

I never noticed anything when I lived in the cities though.

Yes and Buddah is right. Even up there the summers are getting hotter and the brief winters are getting colder. She will heal herself like any other lliving thing and weather is what she uses to do so.”

“The earth has had both warmer and cooler periods then our current one. The cycle is more likely related to changes in the suns output then anything we did.

None of this should be used as an excuse to pollute our atmosphere or destroy the ozone layer.”

“BELIEVE??? Who has to believe when ther's so much proof out there?”

“Yes, the Earth will 'heal itself'... after we kill ourselves off, LOL

They've been looking at solar radiation in this context for decades (after all, it's the primary driver of physical processes on the planet), and there have been no long term fluctuations in solar output on which to pin these changes in climate.

One must be wary of the financial interests and their PR. I remember the fight over CFCs and freon AFTER it was demonstrated how stratospheric ozone was being affected.

Energy companies argued for years that CO₂ levels weren't rising to completely unprecedented levels until they were proven dead wrong. Now their PR line is 'Lots of carbon dioxide will be GREAT for Plants!'

I dunno... the climate guys at Goddard said that the data were in. The only remaining question was 'how bad is it going to be?' (and this was in 1995). They were concerned (and the ones I remain in contact with still are) that by waiting for some proof that even the financial interests can no longer deny, we're only digging a deeper hole for ourselves.

Meanwhile, tell your children to invest in Canadian farmland...”

“I grew up near one of the 5 biggest coal burning power plants in the country, just south of the auto industry near Detroit.

Almost every day there was a brown streak across the sky above Lake Erie for miles and miles. There still is. My understanding is that every day it emits several tons of sulfur dioxide. It also pumps out mercury and lots of other really bad stuff.

This plant and others have polluted the bottom muck underneath the lake so badly that when the shipping channels are dredged they have to create capped "contaminated disposal facilities" so that no one comes into contact with it.

This pollution has worked itself up the food chain, making fish like the Blue Pike extinct. Those that survive can only be consumed in small quantities.

Since people in my area eat fish from this lake, drink water taken from this lake and breath air that mixes with this pollution, it is a safe assumption that there are some difficult to quantify health effects that result.

My response: Who the HELL cares about global warming? It is a red herring for those who wish to do nothing about environmental problems. There are enough easily observed impacts out there to necessitate action.”

“If the effects of global climate change are at the worse end of the spectrum, everyone is going to care... but then it may be too late.”

“"Live fast, die young and leave a good looking corpse"”

“The above mentioned plant puts 12.4 million pounds of chemicals into the environment each year according to its web site. This includes about 900 pounds of Mercury.

http://www.monroenews.com/articles/2003/07/12/news/news01.txt

That is one plant.”

“This is an interesting site... just type the name of your city or town into the search box near the top and see what pops out.”

“250 years, Wow that's a significant chunck of time...


As I've said before, I believe in the theories of Global Cooling and Global Warming...I just don't think 250 years is a significant enough amount of time to draw conclusions about either of those theories

To quote Phil, In God we trust all others bring data (lots of it)
(OK, partially paraphrased)”

“Now, let's get to work doing something about it!

The thing that most upsets me is that very nice laws are in place; our forefathers fought for and created them in the 60's in 70's...beautiful pieces of legistation, like the Clean Air Act and the Clean Water Act....but government agencies FAIL TO ENFORCE THESE laws. Why? Because companies cry that they can't stay in business if they comply, it is too expensive, everyone else is doing it, and they blame it on a poor economy, or they simply violate the law and pay the fines (afterall, they have to get caught!) The slickest move yet might be to move their businesses to third world countries...or threaten to do so if they don't get their way!

One of the first things the Bush administration did when they got into power was to waive the requirements for companies to comply with EXISTING air quality standards. OW, what a major setback. The EPA must feel pretty damed helpless right now.”

“Christy Whitman is jumping ship...

One thing that bothers me are these "credits" whereby a company builds a cleaner up-to-date plant (or cleans up an older one) and then sells these credits to a company with a dirtier plant. Overall, the atmosphere may be improved, but the people downwind of the dirtier plant are screwed.

Whassup wit dat noise?”

“I didn't know that.”

“I believe it's supposed to give the people financing the cleaner plant an incentive, but like I said, I sure wouldn't want to be near the Other one...”

“One of the first things the Bush administration did when they got into power was to waive the requirements for companies to comply with EXISTING air quality standards. OW, what a major setback. The EPA must feel pretty damed helpless right now."
biz


not exactly......let's see the evidence of this claim....i remember we had a discussion on herer about that.....which i won, of corse...



i think the CFC hoax was construed by the refridgerant companies so they could make billions on new formulas....”