Tilted Forum Project Discussion Community  

Go Back   Tilted Forum Project Discussion Community > The Academy > Tilted Paranoia


 
 
LinkBack Thread Tools
Old 11-07-2007, 09:32 PM   #1 (permalink)
let me be clear
 
ottopilot's Avatar
 
Location: Waddy Peytona
Global Warming ‘Greatest Scam in History’?

Weather Channel Founder: Global Warming ‘Greatest Scam in History’ ...Here we go again
I'm posting this in Tilted Paranoia because of all the PARANOIA that usually follows from these types of articles (on both sides of the debate).

Joking aside, It's an interesting new bit of fuel for the controversy and I thought it might be somewhat provocative. The article is from the website of ICECAP* (International Climate and Environmental Change Assessment Project) http://icecap.us/index.php. They seem to be more biased toward the "non-man-made" reasons for GW.
...enjoy

Quote:
ICECAP - International Climate and Environmental Change Assessment Project
Wednesday, November 07, 2007
Comments About Global Warming

I was privileged to work with John Coleman, the founder of The Weather Channel in the year before it became a reality and then for the first of the 6 years I was fortunate to be the Director of Meteorology. No one worked harder than John to make The Weather Channel a reality and to make sure the staffing, the information and technology was the very best possible at that time. John currently works with KUSI in San Diego. He posts regularly. I am very pleased to present his latest insightful post.

By John Coleman

It is the greatest scam in history. I am amazed, appalled and highly offended by it. Global Warming; It is a SCAM. Some dastardly scientists with environmental and political motives manipulated long term scientific data to create in allusion of rapid global warming. Other scientists of the same environmental whacko type jumped into the circle to support and broaden the “research” to further enhance the totally slanted, bogus global warming claims. Their friends in government steered huge research grants their way to keep the movement going. Soon they claimed to be a consensus.

Environmental extremists, notable politicians among them, then teamed up with movie, media and other liberal, environmentalist journalists to create this wild “scientific” scenario of the civilization threatening environmental consequences from Global Warming unless we adhere to their radical agenda. Now their ridiculous manipulated science has been accepted as fact and become a cornerstone issue for CNN, CBS, NBC, the Democratic Political Party, the Governor of California, school teachers and, in many cases, well informed but very gullible environmental conscientious citizens. Only one reporter at ABC has been allowed to counter the Global Warming frenzy with one 15 minutes documentary segment.

I do not oppose environmentalism. I do not oppose the political positions of either party. However, Global Warming, ie Climate Change, is not about environmentalism or politics. It is not a religion. It is not something you “believe in.” It is science; the science of meteorology. This is my field of life-long expertise. And I am telling you Global Warming is a non-event, a manufactured crisis and a total scam. I say this knowing you probably won’t believe a me, a mere TV weatherman, challenging a Nobel Prize, Academy Award and Emmy Award winning former Vice President of United States. So be it.

I have read dozens of scientific papers. I have talked with numerous scientists. I have studied. I have thought about it. I know I am correct. There is no run away climate change. The impact of humans on climate is not catastrophic. Our planet is not in peril. I am incensed by the incredible media glamour, the politically correct silliness and rude dismissal of counter arguments by the high priest of Global Warming.

In time, a decade or two, the outrageous scam will be obvious. As the temperature rises, polar ice cap melting, coastal flooding and super storm pattern all fail to occur as predicted everyone will come to realize we have been duped. The sky is not falling. And, natural cycles and drifts in climate are as much if not more responsible for any climate changes underway. I strongly believe that the next twenty years are equally as likely to see a cooling trend as they are to see a warming trend.
Posted on 11/07 at 10:56 AM
* FYI: some info on ICECAP http://icecap.us/index.php

Quote:
ICECAP, International Climate and Environmental Change Assessment Project, is the portal to all things climate for elected officials and staffers, journalists, scientists, educators and the public. It provides access to a new and growing global society of respected scientists and journalists that are not deniers that our climate is dynamic (the only constant in nature is change) and that man plays a role in climate change through urbanization, land use changes and the introduction of greenhouse gases and aerosols, but who also believe that natural cycles such as those in the sun and oceans are also important contributors to the global changes in our climate and weather. We worry the sole focus on greenhouse gases and the unwise reliance on imperfect climate models while ignoring real data may leave civilization unprepared for a sudden climate shift that history tells us will occur again, very possibly soon.

Through ICECAP you will have rapid access to our experts here in the United States and to experts and partner organizations worldwide, many of whom maintain popular web sites or insightful blogs or newsletters, write and present papers, have authored books and offer interviews to the media on climate issues. We spotlight new findings in papers and reports and rapidly respond to fallacies or exaggerations in papers, stories or programs and any misinformation efforts by the media, politicians and advocacy groups.

Included is a section called All About Climate where users are able to interactively access all the latest thinking on climate topics along with lists of references, stories, links and experts (with contact information).

ICECAP is not funded by large corporations that might benefit from the status quo but by private investors who believe in the need for free exchange of ideas on this and other important issues of the day. Our working group is comprised of members from all ends of the political spectrum. This is not about politics but about science.

We are an open society that welcomes your membership and appreciates your endorsement and support. Please click here to make your most generous contribution to ICECAP.
ottopilot is offline  
Old 11-07-2007, 11:08 PM   #2 (permalink)
Psycho
 
Location: way out west
Unfortunate that stuff like this does get seen as "paranoia" nowadays.
It's as if somebody is trying to find out if you really can fool all the people all the time.
fastom is offline  
Old 11-08-2007, 07:12 AM   #3 (permalink)
Pissing in the cornflakes
 
Ustwo's Avatar
 
As someone who has never been on the human caused global warming bandwaggon, even before it became political rather than scientific, I'm always looking for new potential sources of information, so thanks for the link. Never heard of these guys before.

Edit:The server went down as I was looking at it
__________________
Agents of the enemies who hold office in our own government, who attempt to eliminate our "freedoms" and our "right to know" are posting among us, I fear.....on this very forum. - host

Obama - Know a Man by the friends he keeps.

Last edited by Ustwo; 11-08-2007 at 07:37 AM..
Ustwo is offline  
Old 11-08-2007, 08:31 AM   #4 (permalink)
Born Against
 
raveneye's Avatar
 
Quote:
Some dastardly scientists with environmental and political motives manipulated long term scientific data to create an allusion of rapid global warming.


This guy is hilarious. Perfect spokesman for the denialists. Captures just the right whiff of dramatic flourish and batty paranoia.

Thanks for the laugh, keep them coming.
raveneye is offline  
Old 11-08-2007, 09:32 AM   #5 (permalink)
Junkie
 
filtherton's Avatar
 
Location: In the land of ice and snow.
"Those dastardly scientists with environmental and political motives have manipulated long term scientific data to indirectly imply rapid climate change."
filtherton is offline  
Old 11-08-2007, 10:03 AM   #6 (permalink)
let me be clear
 
ottopilot's Avatar
 
Location: Waddy Peytona
but are they evil-doers?
ottopilot is offline  
Old 11-08-2007, 10:06 AM   #7 (permalink)
Junkie
 
filtherton's Avatar
 
Location: In the land of ice and snow.
I don't know. If only captain planet were here. He always knows what to do.

filtherton is offline  
Old 11-08-2007, 10:18 AM   #8 (permalink)
will always be an Alyson Hanniganite
 
Bill O'Rights's Avatar
 
Location: In the dust of the archives
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ustwo
The server went down as I was looking at it
It's a conspiracy!!
__________________
"I distrust those people who know so well what God wants them to do because I notice it always coincides with their own desires." - Susan B. Anthony

"Hedonism with rules isn't hedonism at all, it's the Republican party." - JumpinJesus

It is indisputable that true beauty lies within...but a nice rack sure doesn't hurt.
Bill O'Rights is offline  
Old 11-08-2007, 10:26 AM   #9 (permalink)
Pissing in the cornflakes
 
Ustwo's Avatar
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Bill O'Rights
It's a conspiracy!!
I'm thinking the real 9/11 terrorists, you know, the Jews and their Zionist Christian supporters.
__________________
Agents of the enemies who hold office in our own government, who attempt to eliminate our "freedoms" and our "right to know" are posting among us, I fear.....on this very forum. - host

Obama - Know a Man by the friends he keeps.
Ustwo is offline  
Old 11-12-2007, 10:59 AM   #10 (permalink)
Insane
 
ScottKuma's Avatar
 
Location: Maineville, OH
I take all of this talk of Global Warming with a HUGE grain of salt. Simply put, I do not believe that we have a long enough and accurate enough scientific view to look at this with any sort of objectivity.

My wife and I heard a story the other day on the radio about 7000 year-old tree stumps that were being exposed by retreating glaciers in Alaska (I believe). My wife immediately turned to me and said, "Wait, 7000 years? and there were trees under there? That seems awfully cyclical, doesn't it?" And she's right. We can study ice cores, tree rings, etc. to get a glimpse at these conditions in the past, but we're performing extrapolations on this kind of data and declaring them to be verified and accurate scientific evidence. We certainly might be able to say that the Earth's temperature is trending upwards...but what leads us to believe that we are at the root cause of the problem?

I think that there is currently a LOT of money being made on the Global Warming bandwagon...and that much of that money is going to the very people screaming that we have to change our ways.

NOT THAT CHANGING OUR WAYS IS A BAD THING!!

I personally believe that better technologies out there for transportation, lighting, energy use, etc. have been overlooked because the tried and true existing tech is just that: tried and true. I am looking at a hybrid car - not because I necessarily wish to change the planet, but more for the dollar-and-cent fuel savings that it offers me at the pump. I am using CFL lighting in my home, especially for outdoor lighting & places where the lights are under heavy usage - and I've noticed a drop in my electric bill. I'm using an HE clothes washer in my laundry room, and I do see a water savings. Are these things more expensive in initial cost? Yes...so I do understand the allure of older, cheaper tech. But I am seeing a monthly change in my utility bills that, given time, will equalize the cost.

So I'm not against "reducing our footprint" - in fact I think it's our DUTY to do so now that technology has started to allow it. However, I do NOT want to be snookered or scared into lifestyle changes for an unprovable "the sky is falling" scenario.
__________________
A government big enough to give you everything you want is big enough to take from you everything you have.
-Gerald R. Ford

GoogleMap Me
ScottKuma is offline  
Old 11-12-2007, 01:10 PM   #11 (permalink)
Playing With Fire
 
DaveOrion's Avatar
 
Location: Disaster Area
Debunking Urban Legends

Legend 1: Solar Variations
Climate change is happening but is caused by solar variations beyond human control.
Frances Moore, Research Associate, The Climate InstituteApril 24, 2007The most apparent variations in solar intensity are linked to the 11-year sunspot cycle. Satellite observations indicate that solar intensity only varies by around 0.1% or about 0.24 W/m˛ over one cycle. As a result, the timing and amount of change in solar radiation are unable to account for the large and steady increase in temperature since 1970.

It has also been hypothesized that the sun varies on longer timescales than the 11-year sunspot cycle. However, reconstructions of the long-term variations in solar activity over the last 400 years are only able to explain a small fraction of the warming observed in the industrial period.



Figure 1. This diagram shows how the modeled effects of natural phenomena such as variations in solar intensity or volcanic emissions (shown by the blue band — a mean of multiple model simulations) are unable to explain the steady rise in temperature over the last forty years (shown by the black curve). Adding in the effects of anthropogenic emissions of greenhouse gases and aerosols to the models (red band) provides a very good reproduction of the observed temperature changes over the 20th century. (Meehl et al., 2004).

The cooling of the stratosphere (the part of the atmosphere between 10 and 20 km from the surface) that has accompanied the recent warming of the surface is a 'fingerprint' of the effects of an increase in greenhouse gas concentrations. If warming were caused by an increase in solar radiation, warming of both the stratosphere as well as the lower atmosphere and surface would be expected, which is not what has been observed.

Legend 2: Plants Emission
Plants emit more carbon dioxide than humans, so why aren't we blaming them?
By Frances Moore, Research Associate, The Climate InstituteApril 24, 2007
It's true that the trees, plants, and animals (collectively called the biosphere) emit about ten times more CO2 every year than humans. This happens through respiration when biomass is converted into carbon dioxide and water, releasing the energy that powers life in the process. However, all that CO2 is taken up by plants when they create biomass during photosynthesis, leaving no net change in the atmosphere.

There tends to be a strong seasonal signal to this process because a lot of respiration happens during the fall when leaves fall off trees and decay, releasing CO2 into the atmosphere. But again, all that CO2 is taken back up by forests when the leaves re-grow in the spring, again leaving no net change in the atmosphere.

What is really relevant to climate change is the net emissions of CO2 (sources minus sinks) over an extended period. In equilibrium, all natural sources of CO2 will be balanced by natural sinks that remove CO2, meaning they do not increase the amount of CO2 in the atmosphere. Anthropogenic emissions from fossil fuel combustion are not completely balanced by a sink and so represent a net source of CO2 to the atmosphere that increases greenhouse gas concentration and warms the planet.

Legend 3: CO2 Cause-Effect
Ice-core records show that increases in temperature precede increases in atmospheric CO2 during inter-glacials (the time between ice ages), so changing CO2 concentration doesn't affect temperature, rather temperature affects CO2.
By Frances Moore, Research Associate, The Climate InstituteApril 24, 2007
Paleoclimatic records such as ice cores and ocean sediments indicate that the cycling of ice ages over the past several million years has been controlled by changes in the intensity of sunlight in the Northern Hemisphere summer due to variations over tens of thousands of years in the orbit of the Earth around the sun (the so-called Milankovitch cycles).

Positive feedback mechanisms related to the release of greenhouse gasses such as CO2 and methane amplify the effect of the orbital cycles and lead to large changes in Earth's climate. CO2 increased during interglacials because a warmer ocean doesn't hold as much carbon dioxide as a cold ocean and so oceans released some back into the atmosphere as the planet warmed. This increase in atmospheric CO2 then further warmed the planet leading to the release of even more carbon dioxide. Given this understanding of the ice ages, we would expect increases in greenhouse gasses to lag increases in temperature at the end of a glacial period, which is just what we see in the geologic record.

Just because carbon dioxide was not the factor driving climate change during the ice ages, does not mean that it is not today. Anthropogenic emissions of greenhouse gases are initiating the cycle of warming through a different mechanism then what happened previously during inter-glacials, but the warming effect of CO2 is the same in both cases.

There is also plenty of evidence in the longer geological record that greenhouse gases have had a major influence on planetary temperature in the past. Examples are the Palecoene-Eocene boundary (55 million years ago) and the late Cretaceous (around 80 million years ago).

Legend 4: Natural Variability
Global warming is all part of natural variability; the climate is always changing.
By Frances Moore, Research Associate, The Climate InstituteApril 24, 2007
The only way to assess whether the recently observed warming fits with a pattern of natural variability is to look at how temperature has varied in the past. This can be done using paleoclimatic evidence from tree rings, glaciers, corals, and other geologic records. Figure 2 shows several different reconstructions of temperature for the past two thousand years with the instrumental record shown in black. It is clear that the magnitude and rate of change over the past century far exceeds any natural variation that occurred in the past two millennia.

While there have been large variations in climate over the course of Earth history, paleoclimatic evidence can often tie these to specific changes in climate forcings, such as variations in Earth orbit or changes in atmospheric composition. Once variations resulting from known external forcings are removed, the magnitude of natural fluctuations from the chaotic variability inherent to the climate system appears to be significantly smaller than changes in global average temperature over the past century, suggesting that this change is a response to forcing from increased greenhouse gas concentrations caused by humans rather than a simple internal oscillation.



Figure 2. Several temperature reconstructions for the past two thousand years using various paleoclimatic proxies, with the instrumental record shown in black. Older reconstructions are shown in blue and those published more recently are shown in yellow or red. Image from the Global Warming Art Project.

Legend 5: Can't be CO2
CO2 makes up a tiny fraction of the atmosphere so how can it be important?
By Frances Moore, Research Associate, The Climate InstituteApril 24, 2007
The climatic influence of a given atmospheric gas depends both on its concentration in the atmosphere and its effectiveness at absorbing outgoing radiation. For example, although nitrogen makes up about 80% of our atmosphere, it can not absorb visible or infrared radiation and so has no effect on climate. In contrast, the molecular structures of greenhouse gases make them effective absorbers of outgoing infrared radiation so even a small amount can have a large influence over the climate.

We know that even the relatively small concentrations of greenhouse gases in our atmosphere at the moment have a large effect on climate because without them, given our distance from the sun, our planet would be about 30#C cooler than it actually is - cold enough to freeze the oceans. The warming caused by greenhouse gases is what allows liquid water to exist, which in turn is essential for supporting life on our planet.

Legend 6: Blame Water Vapor
Water vapor accounts for more greenhouse warming than carbon dioxide, so that must be causing climate change.
By Frances Moore, Research Associate, The Climate InstituteApril 24, 2007Water vapor is indeed the most abundant greenhouse gas, but its concentration is closely controlled by the temperature of the atmosphere and oceans with little influence from external forcing mechanisms. In other words, water vapor tends to act as an amplifier of an existing warming trend, rather than as a driver of changes in climate. The warming caused by increases in the concentration of CO2 and other greenhouse gases has allowed more water vapor to be held in the atmosphere (since warmer air can hold more water) which in turn causes further warming. In this way, water vapor acts as an important positive feedback mechanism, but is not the primary driver of climate change.

Legend 7: Data Inaccurate
Satellite temperature data of warming in the mid- to low-troposphere (0 to 10 km above the surface) does not support global warming.
By Frances Moore, Research Associate, The Climate InstituteApril 24, 2007
This claim is based on very early, and now outdated, versions of the satellite estimates of tropospheric temperature. Satellites can not directly measure atmospheric temperature but instead measure atmospheric radiance from which temperature can be derived using complicated models and calculations. This process ultimately gives estimates for the temperature change only of thick layers of the atmosphere. feedback mechanism, but is not the primary driver of climate change.


While early data sets showed little or no tropospheric warming, problems were later found in how the data had been processed, in the calibration of instruments from one satellite to the next, and in the observations from weather balloons that were used to calibrate the satellite estimates of temperature change. Correcting these problems yields results that greatly reduce the apparent inconsistency between warming in the troposphere and on the surface and shows that the troposphere has warmed significantly. Continuing study is underway on remaining difference between surface and tropospheric data sets. This report from the U.S. Climate Change Science Program has more information.



Figure 3. The colored marks show model predictions of temperature change at the surface and troposphere (the part of the atmosphere below 10km) over 1979-1999. The black square represents the most recent analysis of satellite data, which shows that the troposphere has warmed significantly in recent decades and now corresponds (within error limits) with model predictions. (Santer et al., 2005).

Legend 8: Warming is Good
Climate change is happening but it will be good for us.
By Frances Moore, Research Associate, The Climate InstituteApril 24, 2007
In general, societies around the world have adapted to the present climate - growers know when to plant their crops, houses are built to be cool where it is hot and warm where it is cold. Because of the effort and resources devoted over time to this adaptation, changes to the climate will require adjustments to behavior and infrastructure that are likely to be very costly. (As a small example, over 180 villages in coastal Alaska will have to be relocated because of increased coastal erosion since the retreat of the sea ice. Each move will cost approximately $180 million.) Any benefits from climate change (and some, such as a longer growing season in Russia and Canada, do exist) are likely to be localized and insignificant compared to the more numerous negative impacts.

An important prediction of almost all climate models is that global warming will result in increasing weather variability. Such a change would be very likely to have only negative consequences because large swings in weather are damaging to crop production and human health, and make adaptation much more difficult.

Another very significant aspect of climate change, sea level rise, will only have negative effects because of the inundation of coastal land. A recent World Bank study estimated that a minimum of 57 million people would be affected by a sea level rise of 1 meter.

Crucial to this question is how fast changes to the climate occur. If changes were happening very slowly and gradually, it could be that adaptation would be less expensive and that positive effects would partly offset negative ones. However, changes over the next century are likely to happen very rapidly, making it difficult and expensive to take advantage of changes in a positive way. The recently released report from Working Group 2 of the IPCC details the best scientific estimates of the expected impacts from climate change, which include disruptions to ecosystems and the hydrological cycle, damage from increasingly severe extreme weather events, changes to patterns of infectious disease, and lower crop yields.

Legend 9: Warming Not Fair
Worrying about climate change is unfair to the developing world.
By Frances Moore, Research Associate, The Climate InstituteApril 24, 2007
This statement ignores the fact that the primary emphasis of the current climate change movement is on the reduction of emissions in developed countries. Because they are wealthier, and because their per capita emissions are so large, the onus is on developed countries to find new, carbon-free technologies that can be transferred to developing countries once they are well established.

The crux of the climate problem lies in the huge per-capita carbon footprint of the Western lifestyle, not in the provision of energy to the poorest people in developing nations. Were enough electricity and cooking fuel for basic human needs provided to everyone on the planet, global CO2 emissions would only increase by 3%. See the calculations by Robert Socolow here.

In fact, not worrying about climate change would be unfair to the developing world. Developing countries, which are the most vulnerable, stand to suffer the worst impacts from climate change and yet are least responsible for the problem because their emissions are so low. Lowering carbon emissions is crucial for ensuring that the imbalance between first and third world nations is not made worse as a result of climate change.

Many people in the developing world do not have access to electricity because importing traditional fossil fuels is expensive. Environmental and development NGOs are working to build cheaper renewable energy systems which have the win-win effect of increasing the availability of electricity and putting countries on a clean energy development pathway. An example is the Climate Institute's own Global Sustainable Energy Islands Initiative and the work that the Government of Iceland has been doing in promoting geothermal energy production from the Rift Valley in East Africa.

http://climate.weather.com/science/u...nds/index.html
__________________
Syriana...have you ever tried liquid MDMA?....Liquid MDMA? No....Arash, when you wanna do this?.....After prayer...
DaveOrion is offline  
Old 11-12-2007, 05:02 PM   #12 (permalink)
immoral minority
 
ASU2003's Avatar
 
Location: Back in Ohio
Quote:
Originally Posted by DaveMatrix
Legend 2: Plants Emission
Plants emit more carbon dioxide than humans, so why aren't we blaming them?
By Frances Moore, Research Associate, The Climate InstituteApril 24, 2007
It's true that the trees, plants, and animals (collectively called the biosphere) emit about ten times more CO2 every year than humans. This happens through respiration when biomass is converted into carbon dioxide and water, releasing the energy that powers life in the process. However, all that CO2 is taken up by plants when they create biomass during photosynthesis, leaving no net change in the atmosphere.

There tends to be a strong seasonal signal to this process because a lot of respiration happens during the fall when leaves fall off trees and decay, releasing CO2 into the atmosphere. But again, all that CO2 is taken back up by forests when the leaves re-grow in the spring, again leaving no net change in the atmosphere.

What is really relevant to climate change is the net emissions of CO2 (sources minus sinks) over an extended period. In equilibrium, all natural sources of CO2 will be balanced by natural sinks that remove CO2, meaning they do not increase the amount of CO2 in the atmosphere. Anthropogenic emissions from fossil fuel combustion are not completely balanced by a sink and so represent a net source of CO2 to the atmosphere that increases greenhouse gas concentration and warms the planet.
Last time I checked, plants and trees took in C02 and used the carbon and H20 to make cellulose and the solid parts of the tree/plant. They put out the extra 02 they didn't use. In the fall, the process might stop, but the tree/plant shouldn't put off more C02 (unless you burn it). The solid carbon in plant biomass would fall to the ground and eventually compost into the soil. I'm not sure what gasses are released during that phase.

But the reason it probably spikes in the fall would be the fact that trees/plants don't grow as much and don’t need as much C02 during that part of the year. If that is correct, you should see C02 levels continue to increase through the winter (factoring in how much C02 is produced during each time period).


Quote:
Originally Posted by DaveMatrix
Legend 8: Warming is Good
Climate change is happening but it will be good for us.
By Frances Moore, Research Associate, The Climate InstituteApril 24, 2007
In general, societies around the world have adapted to the present climate - growers know when to plant their crops, houses are built to be cool where it is hot and warm where it is cold. Because of the effort and resources devoted over time to this adaptation, changes to the climate will require adjustments to behavior and infrastructure that are likely to be very costly. (As a small example, over 180 villages in coastal Alaska will have to be relocated because of increased coastal erosion since the retreat of the sea ice. Each move will cost approximately $180 million.) Any benefits from climate change (and some, such as a longer growing season in Russia and Canada, do exist) are likely to be localized and insignificant compared to the more numerous negative impacts.

An important prediction of almost all climate models is that global warming will result in increasing weather variability. Such a change would be very likely to have only negative consequences because large swings in weather are damaging to crop production and human health, and make adaptation much more difficult.

Another very significant aspect of climate change, sea level rise, will only have negative effects because of the inundation of coastal land. A recent World Bank study estimated that a minimum of 57 million people would be affected by a sea level rise of 1 meter.

Crucial to this question is how fast changes to the climate occur. If changes were happening very slowly and gradually, it could be that adaptation would be less expensive and that positive effects would partly offset negative ones. However, changes over the next century are likely to happen very rapidly, making it difficult and expensive to take advantage of changes in a positive way. The recently released report from Working Group 2 of the IPCC details the best scientific estimates of the expected impacts from climate change, which include disruptions to ecosystems and the hydrological cycle, damage from increasingly severe extreme weather events, changes to patterns of infectious disease, and lower crop yields.
I worry about what might happen if water levels go up 5 meters (1 meter is livable, though wouldn't be ideal). Once snow and ice start melting, it generally happens pretty fast. At least in Michigan and Ohio in the spring time, I'm not sure what happens in northern Canada, Greenland, the north pole(wouldn't necessary cause height increase, but would warm water everywhere else) and Antarctica.

But, I would not be affected by the raising sea at all. If anything, my home price would go up because of the millions of people who need to move.

I hope they don't try to save coastal cities Netherlands style and charge taxpayers the cost of it. It would be a mess and throw the economy for a loop for all of the people to lose their homes and businesses, but might cause my home price to go up.


Quote:
Originally Posted by DaveMatrix
Legend 9: Warming Not Fair
Worrying about climate change is unfair to the developing world.
By Frances Moore, Research Associate, The Climate InstituteApril 24, 2007
This statement ignores the fact that the primary emphasis of the current climate change movement is on the reduction of emissions in developed countries. Because they are wealthier, and because their per capita emissions are so large, the onus is on developed countries to find new, carbon-free technologies that can be transferred to developing countries once they are well established.

The crux of the climate problem lies in the huge per-capita carbon footprint of the Western lifestyle, not in the provision of energy to the poorest people in developing nations. Were enough electricity and cooking fuel for basic human needs provided to everyone on the planet, global CO2 emissions would only increase by 3%. See the calculations by Robert Socolow here.

In fact, not worrying about climate change would be unfair to the developing world. Developing countries, which are the most vulnerable, stand to suffer the worst impacts from climate change and yet are least responsible for the problem because their emissions are so low. Lowering carbon emissions is crucial for ensuring that the imbalance between first and third world nations is not made worse as a result of climate change.

Many people in the developing world do not have access to electricity because importing traditional fossil fuels is expensive. Environmental and development NGOs are working to build cheaper renewable energy systems which have the win-win effect of increasing the availability of electricity and putting countries on a clean energy development pathway. An example is the Climate Institute's own Global Sustainable Energy Islands Initiative and the work that the Government of Iceland has been doing in promoting geothermal energy production from the Rift Valley in East Africa.

http://climate.weather.com/science/u...nds/index.html
The people in developing countries could move inland much easier than a Tampa, Honolulu, Sydney, Santa Monica, San Diego, Cancun or any other number of developed cities right at sea level currently.

Developing countries basically use our cheapest and easiest ways of doing things anyway. With computers they might be able to use recent technology (5 years old), but they aren't using solar panels or an other expensive and advanced ways of producing power. The could use more water turbines, wind turbines and ocean turbines to generate power without emissions.


And I don't care all that much about what is causing global warming. Or even if it is happening at all. But we need a energy policy that benefits renewable energy efficient technologies and makes the air cleaner.
ASU2003 is offline  
Old 11-12-2007, 05:28 PM   #13 (permalink)
Getting it.
 
Charlatan's Avatar
 
Super Moderator
Location: Lion City
Quote:
Some dastardly scientists with environmental and political motives manipulated long term scientific data to create an allusion of rapid global warming.
It's one thing to suggest this... but can someone explain why a "dastardly scientist" would do this? And given that science is subjected to peer review, how the dastardly scientists, could collude with some many of their peers to reach the same conclusions?
__________________
"My hands are on fire. Hands are on fire. Ain't got no more time for all you charlatans and liars."
- Old Man Luedecke
Charlatan is offline  
Old 11-12-2007, 05:33 PM   #14 (permalink)
I Confess a Shiver
 
Plan9's Avatar
 
TWO, TWO dastardly scientists!

__________________
Whatever you can carry.

"You should not drink... and bake."
Plan9 is offline  
Old 11-13-2007, 09:48 AM   #15 (permalink)
Pissing in the cornflakes
 
Ustwo's Avatar
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Charlatan
It's one thing to suggest this... but can someone explain why a "dastardly scientist" would do this? And given that science is subjected to peer review, how the dastardly scientists, could collude with some many of their peers to reach the same conclusions?
This unfortunately is hard to describe unless you have been involved with the environmental side of the sciences. Its what made me make up my mind to get out of the lab and go onto dental school. Science was giving up to political goals since the late 80's. Dr. Patrick Moore, perhaps said it best,

Quote:
Extremist groups share a common perception about the world, Moore said. They are anti-science, anti-technology, anti-trade, anti-globalization - not just free trade, but all trade. He said people who embrace extremist views and philosophies believe all large machines are inherently evil, and - worse - science is used to justify positions "that actually have nothing to do with science." Moore believes these viewpoints are naive, including the oft-stated wish to return to a "Garden of Eden." How ironic, he said, that these same people use cell phones, laptops and jet planes as the main tools of their trade.

This new language, media hype, political correctness and distorted or inaccurate facts are perceived by the public to be 'science,' he said, and this pseudo-science will eventually affect our daily lives by wasting billions of dollars of taxpayers' money and corporate, financial and industrial capital.

Also I need to point out that 'peer' review is over hyped. Its more of an after affect, and many of these papers are questioned by peer review only the review is rather esoteric in nature and doesn't make a good sound byte.

We are talking public perception, politics, and science, with science being the least important of the three.
__________________
Agents of the enemies who hold office in our own government, who attempt to eliminate our "freedoms" and our "right to know" are posting among us, I fear.....on this very forum. - host

Obama - Know a Man by the friends he keeps.
Ustwo is offline  
Old 11-13-2007, 10:16 AM   #16 (permalink)
Playing With Fire
 
DaveOrion's Avatar
 
Location: Disaster Area
Quote:
Originally Posted by ASU2003
Last time I checked, plants and trees took in C02 and used the carbon and H20 to make cellulose and the solid parts of the tree/plant. They put out the extra 02 they didn't use. In the fall, the process might stop, but the tree/plant shouldn't put off more C02 (unless you burn it). The solid carbon in plant biomass would fall to the ground and eventually compost into the soil. I'm not sure what gasses are released during that phase.

But the reason it probably spikes in the fall would be the fact that trees/plants don't grow as much and don’t need as much C02 during that part of the year. If that is correct, you should see C02 levels continue to increase through the winter (factoring in how much C02 is produced during each time period).
There tends to be a strong seasonal signal to this process because a lot of respiration happens during the fall when leaves fall off trees and decay, releasing CO2 into the atmosphere. But again, all that CO2 is taken back up by forests when the leaves re-grow in the spring, again leaving no net change in the atmosphere.http://climate.weather.com/science/u...nds/index.html

Quote:
Originally Posted by ASU2003
I worry about what might happen if water levels go up 5 meters (1 meter is livable, though wouldn't be ideal). Once snow and ice start melting, it generally happens pretty fast. At least in Michigan and Ohio in the spring time, I'm not sure what happens in northern Canada, Greenland, the north pole(wouldn't necessary cause height increase, but would warm water everywhere else) and Antarctica.

But, I would not be affected by the raising sea at all. If anything, my home price would go up because of the millions of people who need to move.

I hope they don't try to save coastal cities Netherlands style and charge taxpayers the cost of it. It would be a mess and throw the economy for a loop for all of the people to lose their homes and businesses, but might cause my home price to go up.
Wow, you think that millions of people being displaced by rising sea levels will increase you're homes value???

Quote:
Originally Posted by ASU2003
The people in developing countries could move inland much easier than a Tampa, Honolulu, Sydney, Santa Monica, San Diego, Cancun or any other number of developed cities right at sea level currently.

Developing countries basically use our cheapest and easiest ways of doing things anyway. With computers they might be able to use recent technology (5 years old), but they aren't using solar panels or an other expensive and advanced ways of producing power. The could use more water turbines, wind turbines and ocean turbines to generate power without emissions.

And I don't care all that much about what is causing global warming. Or even if it is happening at all. But we need a energy policy that benefits renewable energy efficient technologies and makes the air cleaner.
Third world countries don't have the luxury of being as wasteful as Americans....

Quote:
In Cairo and much of the developing world, recycling is a necessity _ not a new fad
By ANNA JOHNSON Associated Press Writer
Thursday, November 8, 2007
In Cairo and much of the developing world, recycling is a necessity _ not a new fad

CAIRO, Egypt (AP) — In advanced countries, someone whose cell phone breaks down or becomes outdated usually tosses it and gets a new, fancier model. Ditto for the DVD player, Sony PlayStation, and even radios and watches.

Not so in the developing world. Here in Cairo, whole side streets and alleys are packed with electronics repairmen laboriously fixing circuits, keypads and compact disc lenses — charging around $5 for a standard repair.

As recycling has become the craze across the West, Egyptians have continued to reuse almost everything, recycling not as a fad but as a necessity.

Tiny repair shops are not unique to Cairo — they are a way of life for cities in Africa, Asia and elsewhere where people cannot afford to buy a new electronics device every time something breaks down.

But even Egypt is slowly transforming into a disposable goods society as cheap electronics arrive from China, causing some Cairo repairmen to fear their generations-old shops — and the informal recycling industry they support — won't be around forever.

"The next generation won't take over because China is flooding the market with cheap stuff," said repairman Osama Farouk. "They will buy new instead of getting it repaired, even if it is poor quality."

El-Attar Street in downtown Cairo, where Farouk works, is probably the most famous repair area in this sprawling city of nearly 20 million people. The two-block street is crammed with workers fixing almost everything — from blenders to boom boxes, cell phones, video game players, and even antique phones and radios.

Stereos blast Arabic pop music, and scooters swerve past the repairmen whose shops consist of a chair, tools, spare parts and sometimes a small wooden or glass stand set along the street.

Farouk works in front of a wall full of used circuit boards at the north entrance of El-Attar. The 35-year-old, second-generation repairman prefers Japanese brands and charges about $9 for the typical DVD lens repair. The quality of his work keeps customers coming back, he says.

On Fridays he heads to the nearby Souk el-Gomaa, a haven for small electronic parts and stolen goods. Often, the repairmen buy not just parts but the entire product — only to disassemble it for its components.

"We buy everything old. So if you have a cassette player you don't want, you can bring it here and we'll buy it," Farouk said.

Farther down El-Attar Street, Hassan el-Turki sits in front of shelves packed with various telephones, from current office sets to old rotary phones — even a 1920s Ericsson black model.

"I love the old phones. The new ones are not as well made and won't be working 80 years from now," the second-generation repairman said.

But when asked if they feel they are helping Egypt's environment by reusing electronic parts, Farouk and the other repairmen seem confused by the question. For them, their business is all about money — not cutting back on landfill waste.

Salah el Haggar, a mechanical engineer at the American University in Cairo, said poverty drives the developing world's repair industry. In Egypt, for example, more than 20 percent of the country's 76.5 million people live under the poverty line, according to the World Bank.

"Egypt is one of the best recyclers in the world because of the need," el Haggar said.

But he complained the repair work is uneven because it's not regulated by any government body.

Still, El-Attar Street's reputation is such that Tarek Galal, on vacation in Egypt from Toronto, immediately headed here when his cell phone stopped ringing.

"Everybody in Egypt knows about this street," Galal said. "The labor is too expensive in Canada, but here it is cheaper."
http://climate.weather.com/articles/cairo110807.html
__________________
Syriana...have you ever tried liquid MDMA?....Liquid MDMA? No....Arash, when you wanna do this?.....After prayer...
DaveOrion is offline  
Old 11-13-2007, 11:36 PM   #17 (permalink)
Born Against
 
raveneye's Avatar
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Charlatan
It's one thing to suggest this... but can someone explain why a "dastardly scientist" would do this? And given that science is subjected to peer review, how the dastardly scientists, could collude with some many of their peers to reach the same conclusions?

The usual talking point is that environmentalists are left-wing extremists who distort the science. Then at some point in the rant the term "environmentalist" gets replaced by "scientist".

Why that little switcheroo happens is a question for clinical psychologists.
raveneye is offline  
Old 11-14-2007, 12:09 AM   #18 (permalink)
Pissing in the cornflakes
 
Ustwo's Avatar
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by raveneye
The usual talking point is that environmentalists are left-wing extremists who distort the science. Then at some point in the rant the term "environmentalist" gets replaced by "scientist".

Why that little switcheroo happens is a question for clinical psychologists.
No, the point is that left wing extremists have taken up the environmentalist mantel.

Most environmentalists are not scientists. I'm sure those idiots climbing on the coal ship thought of themselves as environmentalists, but I rather doubt any where scientists. The two are really mutually exclusive.

That being said, its not exactly difficult to get a degree in environmental sciences, and get the scientist label as well. I went to school for it myself, it actually had the lowest requirements to get in and pretty much anyone can get a masters or PhD and get the scientist label.

While some of the work was very good, I still got a laugh out of some of the masters thesises I read in the seminar room waiting for my night seminar to start. I think my favorite was on 'why birds hit plate glass windows'. Now this to me could have some value but his experimental design was, well comical.

I thought it might be about the avian eye, how to make windows more visible to birds etc, but no.

He put a piece of plate glass out in the middle of meadow and counted bird strikes. He then put various things behind it like a stuffed owl to see if they hit the window less.

That was pretty much it. That man, is a 'scientist' somewhere right now. In biology is sadly not that hard to be a 'scientist'.

But I mean, hey if the founder of Greenpeace thinks what I'm been saying all along is true, but Raveneye, internet guy thinks its for clinical psychologists, who am I to call you wrong?
__________________
Agents of the enemies who hold office in our own government, who attempt to eliminate our "freedoms" and our "right to know" are posting among us, I fear.....on this very forum. - host

Obama - Know a Man by the friends he keeps.
Ustwo is offline  
Old 11-14-2007, 12:30 AM   #19 (permalink)
Born Against
 
raveneye's Avatar
 
Quote:
But I mean, hey if the founder of Greenpeace thinks what I'm been saying all along is true, but Raveneye, internet guy thinks its for clinical psychologists, who am I to call you wrong?
Who are you? A conspiracy theorist, of course.

That's because your view commits you to the position that all the science academies of the world, the UN International Panel on Climate Change, the US National Science Foundation, several hundred scholarly journals, and the science funding agencies of 100 countries have all been corrupted in the exact same direction, in lockstep, for at least the last 30 years, as if they all succumbed together to a bloodless coup by Al Gore on the 10-year anniversary of Woodstock.

We could call it the “global goose-stepping for Gore” view of modern science.

It is rather hilarious, although the folks propounding it appear, as far as I can tell, to be dead serious.
raveneye is offline  
 

Tags
and#8216greatest, global, historyand#8217, scam, warming

Thread Tools

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are On
Pingbacks are On
Refbacks are On



All times are GMT -8. The time now is 07:07 AM.

Tilted Forum Project

Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.7
Copyright ©2000 - 2021, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.
Search Engine Optimization by vBSEO 3.6.0 PL2
© 2002-2012 Tilted Forum Project

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 51 52 53 54 55 56 57 58 59 60 61 62 63 64 65 66 67 68 69 70 71 72 73 74 75 76 77 78 79 80 81 82 83 84 85 86 87 88 89 90 91 92 93 94 95 96 97 98 99 100 101 102 103 104 105 106 107 108 109 110 111 112 113 114 115 116 117 118 119 120 121 122 123 124 125 126 127 128 129 130 131 132 133 134 135 136 137 138 139 140 141 142 143 144 145 146 147 148 149 150 151 152 153 154 155 156 157 158 159 160 161 162 163 164 165 166 167 168 169 170 171 172 173 174 175 176 177 178 179 180 181 182 183 184 185 186 187 188 189 190 191 192 193 194 195 196 197 198 199 200 201 202 203 204 205 206 207 208 209 210 211 212 213 214 215 216 217 218 219 220 221 222 223 224 225 226 227 228 229 230 231 232 233 234 235 236 237 238 239 240 241 242 243 244 245 246 247 248 249 250 251 252 253 254 255 256 257 258 259 260 261 262 263 264 265 266 267 268 269 270 271 272 273 274 275 276 277 278 279 280 281 282 283 284 285 286 287 288 289 290 291 292 293 294 295 296 297 298 299 300 301 302 303 304 305 306 307 308 309 310 311 312 313 314 315 316 317 318 319 320 321 322 323 324 325 326 327 328 329 330 331 332 333 334 335 336 337 338 339 340 341 342 343 344 345 346 347 348 349 350 351 352 353 354 355 356 357 358 359 360