Daniel And All Others Please Watch This Global Warming Documentry

[LVToothmkr 0]

There was a recent debate, were people put forward the issues and discussed in measured tones the real facts, here is the transcript, it runs 79 pages.http://www.crichton-official.com/GlobalWarmingDebate.pdf

[Skyblue 0]

Let's hope our future isn't in the hands of the good American peoplehttp://www.dailymotion.com/visited/search/...upid-with-subti

[Zeatrix 0]

That video is hilarious Skyblue, but I really don't think you can base anything on it. You could find ignorant uneducated people in any country in the world and make a funny clip. It was double funny for me since I just today had a discussion about American ignorance with an american that work at my company, his point of view was that most americans are ignorant just because they don't know any better and aren't exposed to such things that could broaden their horizon. Still, the clip is comic genius. And LVToothmkr, an impressive amount of text. Unfortunately it was too long for me to bother reading. I did read some of it though and have a few comments."Hardly a week goes by,'' Dr. Peiser said, ''without a new research paper that questions part or even some basics of climate change theory,'' including some reports that offer alternatives to human activity for global warming."Well I've heard this a couple of times and still haven't seen anyone post any link to any remotely reputable source that can verify this. Interesting that you post a link to the NY Times. Mr Gore makes a point in his slideshow that no peer reviewed paper has been published that contradicts the facts of global warming but around 50% of newspaper articles cast doubt on global warming, I guess you found one of them.Now if there were any scientific articles published on the matter the IPCC would surely have taken them into account when concluding that man are responsible for the recent increase in average temperature.

[LVToothmkr 0]

You really haven't looked very far, but when your personal beliefs are being challenged it usually is difficult to search out information and sources that would prove your beliefs to be false.Google link for your review:http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&q=g...G=Google+SearchJust one of the pages from the google search:http://www.global-warming-info.com/Global warming caused by man does NOT stand up to scrutiny. The cycles of the sun are the base cause, co2 is a minor GHG, water vapor is the largest GHG. No model can predict the past let alone predict the future. If the earth were cooling to a previously predicted ice age, circa 1974, we couldn't change the path. Our sister planet, Mars, is warming at the same time as the earth, how could this be? The SUN, our nearest star, a source of unimaginable energy and the largest single influence on global weather, is in a hotter phase of its cycle. This happens with predictable regularity. When it cools we get cold, when it warms-grows hotter- we get warmer. This is NORMAL, well within the predictable behavior of the solar system, not something to get your panties in a twist over, certainly not something that you have to ruin the global economy, reduce humanity to subsistance levels of existance and sentence poverty sticken areas to horrid futures.You are seriously deluded about your impact here on earth. We are insignificant, yes we can have localized impact, but the earth is unimaginably large, we occupy the most insignificant niche in our environment. Our impact is limited in time and space. IF we wanted to decimate, to render completely wasted, unuseable, uninhabitable, sterilized some part of the earth, say the size of a small country, like Sweden. We could do that, but it wouldn't last for very long, soon life would return. It may take years maybe even decades, but life would return. grass would grow, insects would return, and soon it would look just like Normal. We are just so insignificant in the scheme of things. We can't prevent volcanos, earthquakes, hurricanes, wind storms, or even the gentle rains coming in the spring. To think that you can make the planet warmer, when you can't stop a winter snow from falling or even change the location. Volcanos vent more co2 into the atmosphere each year than all of humanity many times over. Insects put out more co2 than man. The environment here on our planet is warming, AGAIN! We did NOT cause it previously and we didn't do it this time either. The earth is just to large, and too complex for us to have any impact beyond our little isolated zones of human habitation. Just to let you know sooner rather than later, the earth will begin to cool, maybe even to a little ice age, just like before. Been there, done that, again and again, over and over. Even when we were not here to CAUSE it.Go ahead and change your lifestyle for what ever reason you want, but leave me and the rest of the world alone to enjoy a prosperous future.

[Zeatrix 0]

Just one of the pages from the google search:http://www.global-warming-info.com/

I said "post any link to any remotely reputable source that can verify this." what you posted is a link to a disreputable source. The site only contains links to a number of articles written by journalists, that is a not a reputable scientific source. You should turn your browser to http://www.ipcc.ch which is a scientific organization sanctioned in part by UN. They job is to monitor the current research and present the facts, not opinion. Opinion is what your link is about, the IPCC is about facts.If I really wanted to I could link to numerous articles written by journalist that present global warming as a fact, but I won't, since I really don't feel journalism can be considered accurate and objective in this world anymore.What this all comes down to is if you have faith in science or not. If you have faith in scientists and the scientific community you realize that global warming is a fact. If you don't have faith in the scientific process you probably don't believe in global warming. I have faith that the scientific community has done a thorough job when it comes to global warming, carefully studied the available data before drawing their conclusions. I guess you don't.

[LVToothmkr 0]

OK, so you want science, did you watch the documentary that started this discussion. I suppose not since it doesn't fit into your predetermined view. It has scientists, and others who have researched the global warming issue and determined yes it is warming, but that it is NORMAL, human beings are not the cause, the cycles of the sun are the cause, we can do nothing to change it, and finally it has happened before and will happen again.We are warming from a cool period, it is well within the normal range of temperatures that the earth has experienced in the past, and it will be likely to have benefits rather than disasterous consequences.That is what all the REAL science says, contrary to the alarmist pseudo science consensus that the global warming nazis scream about. The real scientific content of the the political IPCC, indicates that warming is happening, is not manmade and that it is NOT a crisis and that we can't prevent if if it were. Of course this part has not been released yet, but the political couple of pages not endorsed by scientists has been released and trumpeted to the delight of the followers of the religious left world-wide.Just wait and listen, look around and learn. This is NOT a crisis, nor a disaster. It is NORMAL. Grow up, get a life, raise your kids and by the time that you are holding grandchildren those younger than you will be screaming in your ears about a coming ice age and that we all have to change our ways or the end of the world is coming. This is NORMAL.

[chrozzo 19]

i think that if we keep arguing over this, the climate will give up on it's tyrannical dream and leave the world alone, leaving us with sunny skies everywhere....forever

[Zeatrix 0]

OK, so you want science, did you watch the documentary that started this discussion. I suppose not since it doesn't fit into your predetermined view. It has scientists, and others who have researched the global warming issue and determined yes it is warming, but that it is NORMAL, human beings are not the cause, the cycles of the sun are the cause, we can do nothing to change it, and finally it has happened before and will happen again.We are warming from a cool period, it is well within the normal range of temperatures that the earth has experienced in the past, and it will be likely to have benefits rather than disasterous consequences.That is what all the REAL science says, contrary to the alarmist pseudo science consensus that the global warming nazis scream about. The real scientific content of the the political IPCC, indicates that warming is happening, is not manmade and that it is NOT a crisis and that we can't prevent if if it were. Of course this part has not been released yet, but the political couple of pages not endorsed by scientists has been released and trumpeted to the delight of the followers of the religious left world-wide.Just wait and listen, look around and learn. This is NOT a crisis, nor a disaster. It is NORMAL. Grow up, get a life, raise your kids and by the time that you are holding grandchildren those younger than you will be screaming in your ears about a coming ice age and that we all have to change our ways or the end of the world is coming. This is NORMAL.

Yes, I watched the "documentary", and I also read the article linked in one of the earlier replies in this thread. You know going out and being alarming about this issue is the only way to go. If you just go out and say, yeah, the average temperature is slowly but steadily increasing, in small words will just go by unnoticed. That's exactly why the organizations behind the "global warming is a myth" movement are also screaming at the top of their lungs. It gets attention. Since you ask me if I watched the film in this thread I ask you, have you watched "An Inconvenient Truth"? Like the "documentary" this film also claims to be based on science. Also, here is another great "documentary" that I ask you, have you seen it? CBC Documentary - The Denial MachineYou fail to see that yes, average temperature increases and decreases are normal, but the current increase isn't. The IPCC is, and I quote "...is the world's leading authority on climate change..." according to Lord Rees of Ludlow, the president of the Royal Society, Britain's most prestigious scientific institute (reference). By the way, VERY interesting article, read it. The facts as presented by IPCC:"Warming of the climate system is unequivocal.""Most of the observed increase in globally averaged temperatures since the mid-20th century is very likely (greater than 90% likely) due to the observed increase in anthropogenic (human) greenhouse gas concentrations""Global atmospheric concentrations of carbon dioxide, methane and nitrous oxide have increased markedly as a result of human activities since 1750 and now far exceed pre-industrial values over the last 650,000 years.""Hotter temperatures and rises in sea level "would continue for centuries" no matter how much humans control their pollution.[9], although the likely amount of temperature and sea level rise varies greatly depending on the fossil intensity of human activity during the next century"And, unlike most contributors that chose not to believe in scientific facts, I provide a reference to a reputable source: IPCC - The Working Group I Summary for Policymakers.

[LVToothmkr 0]

The facts, the science, does not support your "beliefs". Claimed consensus and political publications does not change the basic science. Hysteria and repetition to the point of mantra does not change the truth.Climate change is normal, the earth has been both warmer and cooler in the recent past. Those who are shouting about pending catastrophe are the same groups who were shouting about the same causes thirty years ago when ithe crisis was a coming ice age. They have the same reasons for both changes and are just as wrong now as they were then. We are part of the earth's eco-system. We are not able to have the type of impact that your religion would have you believe. We could NOT change the climate if we wanted to or needed to.I am sorry for you and your fellow travelers. Very soon you will be left puzzled, none of the changes that you say MUST be done, will be done and yet the climate will once again begin to turn and you and yours will start to shout about ice ages and pending doom.As for ALGORE and his slide show of fiction.Gore's Faith Is Bad ScienceBy Michael BaroneAl Gore likes to present himself as a tribune of science, warning the world of imminent danger. But he is more like an Old Testament prophet, calling on us to bewail our wrongful conduct and to go and sin no more.He starts off with the science. The world's climate, he reports, is getting warmer. This accurate report is, however, not set in historic context. World climate has grown warmer and cooler at various times in history. Climate change is not some unique historic event. It is the way the world works.Not this time, Gore says. What's different is that climate change is being driven by human activity -- to wit, increasing carbon dioxide emissions. Which means, he says, that we have to sharply reduce those emissions. But what the scientists tell us is that some proportion of climate change is caused by human activity and some proportion by natural causes -- and that they can only estimate what those proportions are. The estimates they have produced have varied sharply. The climate change models that have been developed don't account for events of the recent past, much less predict with precision events in the future.To which the prophet replies, with religious intensity, that all debate should be over. Those scientists with inconvenient views should be defunded and silenced. We should replace scientific inquiry with faith. We should have faith that climate change -- "global warming" -- is caused primarily by human activity. And we should have faith that the effects will be catastrophic, with rising oceans flooding great cities and pleasant plains and forests broiled by a searing sun.Even The New York Times bridles at this. After Gore won the Academy Award for his film on climate change, the Times printed an article in which respected scientists -- not Republicans, not on oil company payrolls -- charged that Gore has vastly exaggerated the likelihood of catastrophic effects.When you read the fine print of even the scientific reports that Gore likes to cite, you find the same thing. Gore foresees a 20-foot rise in sea level -- 240 inches. The IPCC panel report foresees a maximum of 23 inches. Gore says that "our civilization has never experienced any environmental shift remotely similar to this." Geologist Don Easterbrook says there have been shifts up to "20 times greater than the warming in the past century."Science says that we should learn more about possible bad effects of climate change and calculate rationally how we can mitigate them. As the economic journalist Robert Samuelson points out, there is little that we can feasibly do in the short term to reduce carbon emissions, though over the long term we may be able to develop substitutes for carbon fuels.As the environmentalist Bjorn Lomberg points out, the Kyoto Treaty that Gore helped to write (but which the Clinton administration never asked the Senate to ratify) would produce very little reduction in climate change at very high cost.But religious prophets are not concerned about costs. Gore calls for an immediate cessation of new carbon-burning facilities. In other words, stop economic growth. But stopping economic growth in the developing world means consigning millions to miserable poverty. And we know what stopping economic growth in the developed world can mean.Read the history of the 1930s: fascism, communism, world war. There are worse things than a rise of 1 or 2 degrees Centigrade.The natural human yearning for spirituality has produced in many people educated in secular-minded universities and enveloped in an atmosphere of contempt for traditional religion a faith that we vulgar human beings have a sacred obligation not to inflict damage on Mother Earth. But science tells us that the Earth and its climate have been constantly changing.Gore and his followers seem to assume that the ideal climate was the one they got used to when they were growing up. When temperatures dropped in the 1970s, there were warnings of an impending ice age. When they rose in the 1990s, there were predictions of disastrous global warming. This is just another example of the solipsism of the baby boom generation, the pampered and much-praised age cohort that believes the world revolves around them and that all past history has become irrelevant.We're told in effect that the climate of the late 1950s and early 1960s was, of all those that have ever existed, the best of all possible climates. Not by science. But as a matter of faith.Copyright 2007 Creators Syndicate Inc.I hope that you will stop reading propaganda, and take a look at history. It has really been warmer in the past and also cooler in the past.

[SilentButDeadly3 0]

Gore, when he went before the Senate about Global Warming, refused to sign a pledge that he would reduce his residential energy use to that of the average American household. Old Al currently uses 50x than the average American household. I have a hard time Mr. Gore believes this is "his life's work" to try and prevent global warming when he won't even make the "sacrafices" he claims in his documentary himself.

[Zeatrix 0]

The facts, the science, does not support your "beliefs". Claimed consensus and political publications does not change the basic science. Hysteria and repetition to the point of mantra does not change the truth.Climate change is normal, the earth has been both warmer and cooler in the recent past. Those who are shouting about pending catastrophe are the same groups who were shouting about the same causes thirty years ago when ithe crisis was a coming ice age. They have the same reasons for both changes and are just as wrong now as they were then. We are part of the earth's eco-system. We are not able to have the type of impact that your religion would have you believe. We could NOT change the climate if we wanted to or needed to.I am sorry for you and your fellow travelers. Very soon you will be left puzzled, none of the changes that you say MUST be done, will be done and yet the climate will once again begin to turn and you and yours will start to shout about ice ages and pending doom.As for ALGORE and his slide show of fiction.Gore's Faith Is Bad ScienceBy Michael Barone...

Interesting that you quote an article written by Michael Barone, a journalist. When did journalists become experts on matters of science over scientists? And why do bring up Gore as the main source of global warming information. Anyone who sees his movie realizes that he brings up the worst case scenario. Why? Probably because he feels it makes the deepest impact. The reason why I brought up his film was because you brought up the Channel 4 documentary. Both films are exaggerated, but in opposite direction. Al Gore is not and will never be the definite source of global warming facts, the IPCC on the other hand is. The IPCC reviews ALL available data on the current state of the climate and presents facts about what is happening, and what isn't, at least to the greatest extent possible. Are they 100% correct? No! Because it's impossible to predict the future. But what they are is the MOST well informed entity, and therefore it is they, not oil company execs or journalist we should turn to for facts. Not Al Gore, not Michael Barone. The strange part of Barones article is that he paints people that have faith in science as religious zealots, when all along we know that is real religious organizations that has opposed science throughout history. Just look at Evolution, just look at the earth being round and not in the centre of the solar system, just two examples.What it all comes down to is that I trust the academic world more when it comes to science than the political and corporate world. Remember which side was on which when it came to cigarettes.

[Zeatrix 0]

Gore, when he went before the Senate about Global Warming, refused to sign a pledge that he would reduce his residential energy use to that of the average American household. Old Al currently uses 50x than the average American household. I have a hard time Mr. Gore believes this is "his life's work" to try and prevent global warming when he won't even make the "sacrafices" he claims in his documentary himself.

First of all, the institute who released that press release said 20 times more, that's far from 50. Secondly, Al Gore is not an average American. He's the former vice president and he works out of his home. And somehow, and I have no proof of this, I get a feeling this "press release" is kind of exaggerated, it woulnd't be such a scandal if he only used 5 times as much. But that's just pure speculation with nothuing to back it up with, except my gut (ask Stephen Colbert).Anyways, what does it matter? Al Gore may be a hypocrite but he's done more for informing the general public about this issue than most. He may be exaggerating in his film but he still brings attention to the problem, which is more important.

[LVToothmkr 0]

Wow, where to start. I guess I just need to re-iterate the facts and then let you go on your merry way. Obviously this is an exercise in futility. You want to believe and no amount of evidence will persuade you that this is not a crisis, not caused by man and nothing that we can do anything about. What we are going through is a part of the cycles that is life on this planet.The planet Earth is warming, again. It has been much warmer than now and also much cooler, this is a NORMAL cycle. This warming trend is well within the temperature range that the planet has experienced in the past. Most of the warming experienced and pointed to with great alarm happened before WWII, before the worldwide use of fossil fuels that the alarmists shout about. Following WWII, we experienced a period of cooling that ran through the early 70’s. The cooling period was greeted with alarm and significant gnashing of teeth. The causes cited for this period were curiously the same as now for our current warming period.The causes always are basically the same, Western civilization, in the form of pollution, development, prosperity. In the 70s the howl was about pollution causing cooling, now it is pollution causing heating. So we cleaned up production, reduced pollution, cleaned up the water and still we are chastised that we are still causing warming now. Maybe we should begin to pollute dirtier again?Mars our nearest sister planet is showing signs of warming, shrinking ice caps. Since the emissions of our planet have no way of impacting the environment on Mars we have to look for another cause. People-humans beings, NO none live there yet. Wanton consumption of fossil fuels, NO. Western civilizations, NO. The only source for this warming possible is the SUN. Same probable reason for warming here. The sun goes through a cycle of hundreds of years were it gets hotter and cooler. We can’t change that no matter how hard we scream and point fingers at ourselves. The sun controls our climate, period.Human beings here on earth are not even a contributory factor in the global warming. The biggest GHG is water vapor, it keeps the earth warmer than Mars and provides the required shade, clouds, to keep us from getting hot like Venus. Water vapor increases when it get warmer, creating more clouds, providing more shade and reflecting solar energy, sunshine back into space. CO2 is a minor GHG, less than 25% of the cause that the earth stays comfortably warm so that we can live here. Humans are responsible for less than 25% of the co2 in the atmosphere. Co2 is required to grow plants, more co2 more vegetation, if it gets warmer, then again more vegetation. This is a self correcting process, like a giant aquarium. Not one model used to project global warming accounts for water vapor, can predict the past, has enough variables to correctly reflect reality and has only been used to create worst case scenarios used to further stoke the fire of the alarmists.The rate of warming has been higher and lower in the past, this is NORMAL. The average temperature has been higher and lower, this is NORMAL. When the earth gets warmer, we have longer growing period, more fertile lands, greater crop production, milder winters, and fewer deaths due to cold. Nothing terrible, so why the alarm? Sea levels may rise as much as 20 INCHES, this is a little more than the tides in most costal areas, and well within the normal fluctuations of sea levels over long spans of time.I copied information from various sources that in most cases made it easier to put the information in front of you. Your vaunted IPCC and the U.N. are NOT scientific arguments, just political propaganda. The reports that you have referenced are written by bureaucrats, not scientists. They carry no weight except to those who already believe. The science clearly states that warming is happening and that it is normal and even if we caused it we couldn’t stop it. Full and complete implementation of the much desired KYOTO, would not have any impact beyond impoverishing the habitants of much of the planet. Science is NOT determined by a vote, so this claim of consensus is nothing more than a call to those who disagree to shut up and fall inline with the rest of the lemmings and you to will get your funding. Science looks for facts, evidence, proof and repeatable results. None of that is used by your side to defend your position. There are NO scientific facts to back up the alarmism about global warming, no evidence that humans are causing this, nothing that can even hint at our ability to turn the warming trend around, it is just the new religion of the Secular Progressives. Global Warming is being used to grow government, decrease prosperity, and condemn those who are not favored to futures of poverty and despair. You and your green brethren hate people, hate western civilization, hate prosperity and have nothing better to do with their lives. This is terribly sad. If you notice the only place that gets harsh treatment, is western Europe and the United States. We are the producers of most of the wealth on this planet. The disproportionate sources of pollution are India and China, yet they are left alone due to western guilt and hate. Developing countries i.e. Africa, are forgotten. The greatest polluters in history, the communist countries, Eastern Europe and USSR were cleaned-up by Western Europe and our technology. Yet those who are leading the alarmism are communists and socialists. Most of Western Europe is dieing off, breeding below the replacement rate and afraid to protect their own civilization from outside forces or internal rot. Global warming provides a salve to the self inflicted wounds and a way to self flagellate. I hope that you and those like you will open your eyes and do some real research about the facts associated with Global Warming. If not there is really nothing that I can do to change your mind. I am done with attempting to enlighten you and save you from your head long rush to a crippled future.

[Zeatrix 0]

Wow, where to start. I guess I just need to re-iterate the facts and then let you go on your merry way. Obviously this is an exercise in futility. You want to believe and no amount of evidence will persuade you that this is not a crisis, not caused by man and nothing that we can do anything about. What we are going through is a part of the cycles that is life on this planet....Human beings here on earth are not even a contributory factor in the global warming. The biggest GHG is water vapor, it keeps the earth warmer than Mars and provides the required shade, clouds, to keep us from getting hot like Venus. Water vapor increases when it get warmer, creating more clouds, providing more shade and reflecting solar energy, sunshine back into space. CO2 is a minor GHG, less than 25% of the cause that the earth stays comfortably warm so that we can live here. Humans are responsible for less than 25% of the co2 in the atmosphere. Co2 is required to grow plants, more co2 more vegetation, if it gets warmer, then again more vegetation. This is a self correcting process, like a giant aquarium. Not one model used to project global warming accounts for water vapor, can predict the past, has enough variables to correctly reflect reality and has only been used to create worst case scenarios used to further stoke the fire of the alarmists....You and your green brethren hate people, hate western civilization, hate prosperity and have nothing better to do with their lives. This is terribly sad. If you notice the only place that gets harsh treatment, is western Europe and the United States. We are the producers of most of the wealth on this planet. The disproportionate sources of pollution are India and China, yet they are left alone due to western guilt and hate. Developing countries i.e. Africa, are forgotten. The greatest polluters in history, the communist countries, Eastern Europe and USSR were cleaned-up by Western Europe and our technology. Yet those who are leading the alarmism are communists and socialists. Most of Western Europe is dieing off, breeding below the replacement rate and afraid to protect their own civilization from outside forces or internal rot. Global warming provides a salve to the self inflicted wounds and a way to self flagellate. I hope that you and those like you will open your eyes and do some real research about the facts associated with Global Warming. If not there is really nothing that I can do to change your mind. I am done with attempting to enlighten you and save you from your head long rush to a crippled future.

You do bring up a lot of good points and facts, but you fail in others. The IPCC is a collection of scientists, not "just political propaganda." And the report I reference might be "written by bureaucrats", I just don't know, and I doubt you do either, but the facts are based on empirical knowledge collected by scientists.You are right that the temperatures right now aren't that high in a historical point of view, but the CO2 levels are very high. The levels we see today are far above any seen in the last 650,000 years. Interesting part is that you yourself say that CO2 humans are responsible for is just 25%. That means we are responsible for an increase. And yes, water vapour is the most important greenhouse gas, that in no way implies it is the ONLY important gas. It's jut naive to think we can add CO2 to the atmosphere and it having no effect at all on the ecosystem. Look at this graph:You can clearly see what we agree on, the current temperatures aren't unheard of. But you can also see two other things. The levels of CO2 are correlated to the average temperature, and the current levels of CO2 are way above any previous levels. You say the climate changes in cycles and you are right, but you ail to realize that it is very possible that we currently are in a warmer period that also is boosted by our CO2 emissions.The notion that we need to try to lower CO2 produced by humans is not to see short term effects but to stop it from having long term effects. We don't know exactly what the future holds, but that is no reason to try to minimize the effect we have on our ecosystem. You should get your facts straight, and while your at it, try to produce empirical evidence of your opinion. But maybe you believe respectable scientific journals are run by bureaucrats too. In that case, what in your opinion is the source of scientific facts? Because your beliefs isn't supported by the scientific community.And by the way, you loose all credibility when you write stuff like that paragraph I put in italic. What's that mumbo jumbo about? At least I try to keep the discussion on a mature level but that crap doesn't even belong in a kindergarten sandbox. For example, who are these communists that are "leading the alarmism". And why do you put socialists in the same category? You obviously are too ignorant to see the difference, maybe you should broaden your horizon and learn a little about the world. Also, Al Gore is probably the most well known "alarmist" as you put it, and he is neither communist or socialist, actually far from it. And thinking a person is evil just because he or she is a communist is just naive, the underlying ideas behind communism is in no way evil, it just happens that man is easily corrupted by power, and therefore communism will ultimately fail. And where am I in all of this? You probably think I'm some left wing socialist. Not even close, I've always believed capitalism is the better system and I have always voted for the liberal alternative in elections. In Europe we've mostly realized conservatism is an outdated narrow-minded approach. I think you'll wake up one day too.

[LVToothmkr 0]

A Scientist discounts global warming hysteria. Richard S. Lindzen is the Alfred P. Sloan Professor of Meteorology at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology. His research has always been funded exclusively by the U.S. government. He receives no funding from any energy companies.This can be found in the latest issue of Newsweek.http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/17997788/site/newsweek/Why So Gloomy? By Richard S. LindzenNewsweek InternationalApril 16, 2007 issue - Judging from the media in recent months, the debate over global warming is now over. There has been a net warming of the earth over the last century and a half, and our greenhouse gas emissions are contributing at some level. Both of these statements are almost certainly true. What of it? Recently many people have said that the earth is facing a crisis requiring urgent action. This statement has nothing to do with science. There is no compelling evidence that the warming trend we've seen will amount to anything close to catastrophe. What most commentators—and many scientists—seem to miss is that the only thing we can say with certainly about climate is that it changes. The earth is always warming or cooling by as much as a few tenths of a degree a year; periods of constant average temperatures are rare. Looking back on the earth's climate history, it's apparent that there's no such thing as an optimal temperature—a climate at which everything is just right. The current alarm rests on the false assumption not only that we live in a perfect world, temperaturewise, but also that our warming forecasts for the year 2040 are somehow more reliable than the weatherman's forecast for next week.Story continues below ↓advertisementA warmer climate could prove to be more beneficial than the one we have now. Much of the alarm over climate change is based on ignorance of what is normal for weather and climate. There is no evidence, for instance, that extreme weather events are increasing in any systematic way, according to scientists at the U.S. National Hurricane Center, the World Meteorological Organization and the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (which released the second part of this year's report earlier this month). Indeed, meteorological theory holds that, outside the tropics, weather in a warming world should be less variable, which might be a good thing.In many other respects, the ill effects of warming are overblown. Sea levels, for example, have been increasing since the end of the last ice age. When you look at recent centuries in perspective, ignoring short-term fluctuations, the rate of sea-level rise has been relatively uniform (less than a couple of millimeters a year). There's even some evidence that the rate was higher in the first half of the twentieth century than in the second half. Overall, the risk of sea-level rise from global warming is less at almost any given location than that from other causes, such as tectonic motions of the earth's surface.Many of the most alarming studies rely on long-range predictions using inherently untrustworthy climate models, similar to those that cannot accurately forecast the weather a week from now. Interpretations of these studies rarely consider that the impact of carbon on temperature goes down—not up—the more carbon accumulates in the atmosphere. Even if emissions were the sole cause of the recent temperature rise—a dubious proposition—future increases wouldn't be as steep as the climb in emissions.Indeed, one overlooked mystery is why temperatures are not already higher. Various models predict that a doubling of CO2 in the atmosphere will raise the world's average temperature by as little as 1.5 degrees Celsius or as much as 4.5 degrees. The important thing about doubled CO2 (or any other greenhouse gas) is its "forcing"—its contribution to warming. At present, the greenhouse forcing is already about three-quarters of what one would get from a doubling of CO2. But average temperatures rose only about 0.6 degrees since the beginning of the industrial era, and the change hasn't been uniform—warming has largely occurred during the periods from 1919 to 1940 and from 1976 to 1998, with cooling in between. Researchers have been unable to explain this discrepancy.Modelers claim to have simulated the warming and cooling that occurred before 1976 by choosing among various guesses as to what effect poorly observed volcanoes and unmeasured output from the sun have had. These factors, they claim, don't explain the warming of about 0.4 degrees C between 1976 and 1998. Climate modelers assume the cause must be greenhouse-gas emissions because they have no other explanation. This is a poor substitute for evidence, and simulation hardly constitutes explanation. Ten years ago climate modelers also couldn't account for the warming that occurred from about 1050 to 1300. They tried to expunge the medieval warm period from the observational record—an effort that is now generally discredited. The models have also severely underestimated short-term variability El Niño and the Intraseasonal Oscillation. Such phenomena illustrate the ability of the complex and turbulent climate system to vary significantly with no external cause whatever, and to do so over many years, even centuries.Is there any point in pretending that CO2 increases will be catastrophic? Or could they be modest and on balance beneficial? India has warmed during the second half of the 20th century, and agricultural output has increased greatly. Infectious diseases like malaria are a matter not so much of temperature as poverty and public-health policies (like eliminating DDT). Exposure to cold is generally found to be both more dangerous and less comfortable.Moreover, actions taken thus far to reduce emissions have already had negative consequences without improving our ability to adapt to climate change. An emphasis on ethanol, for instance, has led to angry protests against corn-price increases in Mexico, and forest clearing and habitat destruction in Southeast Asia. Carbon caps are likely to lead to increased prices, as well as corruption associated with permit trading. (Enron was a leading lobbyist for Kyoto because it had hoped to capitalize on emissions trading.) The alleged solutions have more potential for catastrophe than the putative problem. The conclusion of the late climate scientist Roger Revelle—Al Gore's supposed mentor—is worth pondering: the evidence for global warming thus far doesn't warrant any action unless it is justifiable on grounds that have nothing to do with climate.Lindzen is the Alfred P. Sloan Professor of Meteorology at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology. His research has always been funded exclusively by the U.S. government. He receives no funding from any energy companies.© 2007 Newsweek, Inc.

[Kwest4chipz 0]

Well hopefully this global warming will melt all the ice and make my neck of the woods coastal property, that way i don't have to travel 1k plus miles to enjoy a little surfing or deep sea fishing. I win either way!

[Ward 0]

I dunno about global warming you hippy but the grizly man now thats a documentary.

[Zeatrix 0]

A Scientist discounts global warming hysteria. Richard S. Lindzen is the Alfred P. Sloan Professor of Meteorology at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology. His research has always been funded exclusively by the U.S. government. He receives no funding from any energy companies.This can be found in the latest issue of Newsweek.http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/17997788/site/newsweek/Why So Gloomy? By Richard S. LindzenNewsweek International...

Yeah I read that article, it was posted in the "Let's be sensible please" thread. I congratulated the guy posting it since it was basically the first link to a article written by a scientist that don't fully agree that I've seen posted in this debate. And it might surprise you but I found some of what he writes sensible and I read it with an open mind. His main point is that we don't know for sure what even higher amounts of CO2 will result in and in essence I'd agree. I still haven't seen a scientific report that states what the outcome of global warming will be with a 100% accuracy, simply because it's impossible.The latest summary report released by the IPCC on the 6th or April just lines out what has happened today that we basically can attribute to the recent temperature increases and what is likely to happen in the future. Notice the word 'likely', which means we are fairly sure, but could be wrong. That's the nature of science (hey that's two scientific journals in one sentence).What I think downplays the significance of the article is two things.1) It wasn't published in a peer review scientific journal. Some might call this nitpicking, but what this means is that the material hasn't been verified by experts in the field to be scientifically sound. Anyone can write an article about anything and publish it. What makes this article a little more trustworthy though is that it was published in Newsweek, they probably wouldn't print any crap.2) Lack of references. Mr Lindzen makes a lot of claims in the article, among others that sea levels have been increasing since the last ice age. This might very well be true, but he provides no references at all. Where does he get this information? There is no way we can check up on his claims.Also I hope you realize that this in no way contradicts anything I've been saying. He acknowledges that human caused temperature increases are real ("There has been a net warming of the earth over the last century and a half, and our greenhouse gas emissions are contributing at some level. Both of these statements are almost certainly true.") but he disagrees that the results will be catastrophic. I've always said that there is scientific consensus that our CO2 emissions are causing higher temperatures but that what this will result in is still not 100% agreed on. The majority of scientists tend to believe it will have at least big noticeable effects, but some disagree. This is natural since science can't predict the future, just make forecasts based on complex simulations and extrapolation of current trends, which still in the end, no matter how complex, still have a level of uncertainty.I just find it very hard to believe that considering the changes to the climate and nature we see today that the future won't present us with graver changes if we continue to increase carbon dioxide emissions.

[dingas 0]

I think it is very obvious that LVToothmikr is the only intelligent person posting in this thread. I would like to send kudos to him, as often people of superior intelligence consider it to be beneath their dignity to try to argue with dimwits who will never understand the truth anyway, but I still believe that it is important to provide proper counterarguments to socialist BS in any public forum, so as to reach those who have yet to be brainwashed by the freedom- and prosperity-hating scientific community.

[Zeatrix 0]

I think it is very obvious that LVToothmikr is the only intelligent person posting in this thread. I would like to send kudos to him, as often people of superior intelligence consider it to be beneath their dignity to try to argue with dimwits who will never understand the truth anyway, but I still believe that it is important to provide proper counterarguments to socialist BS in any public forum, so as to reach those who have yet to be brainwashed by the freedom- and prosperity-hating scientific community.

What the heck has science done to you? So much hate for a big group of people who dedicate their lives to improve the knowledge humanity as a whole posses. Where would we be without research and the scientific process? We'd be living in mud huts and still believe the earth was flat, god made the earth in 7 days 4k years ago and the sun revolved around us. Shame on science for discovering that smoking causes lung cancer. Man, those prosperity-hating scientists really put a dent in the tobacco companies profits, how dare they!Are you really that ignorant that you don't even recognize that science and the progress it result in is vital for economic growth. Take a simple example as television sets. We've had cathode ray tube TVs for decades and what made people buy new ones was if their old one broke down. Now LCD and Plasma TVs sell like butter and people are throwing out their old still working TVs so they can get the new ones. The groundwork for these new technologies were made in labs by scientists!I could go on and on but I think you can think up your own examples, you being so intelligent!There's been a lot of talk about what combating global warming will cost. What you fail to see is what opportunities for business will emerge. New technology to sell will result in new jobs and new profits. I suspect you are too arrogant to care about what Swedish businessmen think about these new opportunities but I'll enlighten you anyways. Just yesterday one of Sweden's most influential business leaders wrote an article for Sweden's largest daily newspaper, Dagens Nyheter. Per G Gyllenhammar once ran Volvo and has since held some very heavy posts in big international Swedish companies. In this article he, among other things, called upon Swedish businesses to start investing in energy efficient and environmentally sound technology so that Sweden can become the world leader. He recognizes the immense value there is in getting a head start in our global economy. He's as hard core a capitalist as one can be, so if it BS, then it sure is capitalistic BS.I'd also like to know why people think environmental issues is socialistic issues at heart? Why all the hate towards socialism? Heck, if I were to label myself anything it'd be a capitalist but I still don't understand it. Do you confuse socialism with communism? They have some similarities, but many more differences. Did you even know that socialism is built upon capitalism? You probably didn't considering your comment.At least LVToothmikr tries to have a civil discussion with each side posting arguments that support their beliefs. End of rant, now I need to go back figuring out how the heck I managed to get a master's degree in computer science with my low intelligence...

[dingas 0]

Yah, sorry dude, my last post was not a very good attempt at sarcasm against the attitudes of many conservatives here in North America. Anything that disagrees with their worldview is dismissed as leftist propaganda, and anything that supports it is considered to be pure truth, no matter who the source. Nevermind that among those who have studied the scientific data in depth, there is around 99% support that man-made global warming is a real threat. Even if you look at it from your own experience, I think most people are worried. I remember that it was around 15 years ago that they first started talking about global warming and the greenhouse effect - since then temperatures have risen significantly, winters have become shorter - it seems like every year, new heat records are being set. This is pretty strong evidence. And it agrees with what was predicted!! It was predicted that sea-levels would rise and cause flooding to coastal areas - look at what happened to New Orleans last year. You may dismiss that as a freak occurence, and you may be right - but what will you say when we have more of these "freak" events over the next 50 years? So comparing it to predictions from the 1970s about the beginning of an ice age is ridiculous. First of all, that was never based on a scientific consensus, like there is for man-made global warming. Secondly, these predictions were not confirmed by what actually happened and nobody claims today that an ice-age is beginning. Predictions of global warming made 15 years ago have corresponded to actual events!! The scientific community has recognized that we have increased CO2 atmospheric levels drastically - they have a theoretical model that predicts that this will lead to climate change - particularly increased temperature. If you want to claim that global warming is not a real threat, you need to provide evidence that this model is not correct, that increasing CO2 will not have the effect of elevating the temperature of the earth. You can't just claim "It has been hotter than this in the past, so therefore it is just a natural process." Would those who deny the reality of man-made global warming like to provide the names of scientific articles arguing that increasing CO2 will not have the efffect of increasing temperature?Anyway, the main point is not global warming - in fact there are other equally or even more significant environmental problems facing the world today. The fact is that our economic system is based on constant growth, and the world is finite - common logic will tell us that this model is not sustainable. Many societies throughout history have collapsed because they expended their natural resources and destroyed their environment - that can and will happen on the world level too, if we do not make changes. It may not happen in 5 years, or even 50 years, but it is absolutely inevitable unless we move to a sustainable economic model. Those who support responsible environmental policies are not trying to force people to live a worse standard of life - our goal is to ensure that mankind can RETAIN A HIGH STANDARD OF LIFE, despite the necessity to abandon many of our wasteful and destructive practices.

[Zeatrix 0]

Wow, I feel like an ass now. :(Well written post. I agree with basically everything you write except hurricane Katrina and New Orleans. Science doesn't exactly know why hurricanes are formed, but they do know what they draw energy from. So you can't say for sure that we'll have more hurricanes, but you can say that the power of these hurricanes will be stronger since higher temperatures will lead to higher water temperatures and the temperature of the ocean beneath the hurricane is what dictates it's power. That's why hurricanes fade once they hit land.

[Scanner313 0]

Daniel keep your cars and even if you desire add another one, preferably a bigger SUV if you want.The whole Global Warming issue is not real, but a liberal religion that seeks to dupe you into living a lower standard of living.Please Daniel don't be a bigger fool and follow this totally bogus idea about global warming, only 30 years ago they were claiming to see a coming ice age.Open your eyes to the real truth. There is NOTHING real or factual about the ALGORE movie. It is all pure and unadulterated BULLSHIT.

I love guys like you who completely dismiss the possibility, just the possibility, that we humans are in fact causing global warming. I'm not standing completely behind Gore in this, as there are other theories as to what is causing it, but the fact is that it is happening.I love your assessment that GW is a "liberal religion" that only wants you to lower your standard of living. That's great stuff!Maybe you didn't realize it, but you coming here and stating as fact that GW isn't real reaks of all the arrogance you seem to feel Al Gore is displaying by taking the opposite side of the argument. That's why nobody is going to take you seriously. Had you been even remotely humble and said that you disagreed with Gore and presented a video that offered a differing viewpiont, and asked people to watch it so they could see a possible alternative, that would have been fine. But the mere fact that you attack this "liberal religion" shows you're nothing but another closed minded conservative who thinks everything liberal is somehow wrong.

[Zeatrix 0]

And it's not even liberal, it's scientific.

[LVToothmkr 0]

That is a very good question, is Global Warming a science? I present for your consideration this argument that it is not and that Climatology is immature and therefore not a complete science. When everything that is held up to prove the existance of Man-made global warming, so called extreme weather, one must approach these claims and those that put them forward with considerable skepticism. Man in no way causes nor can he prevent global scale changes, volcanoes, earthquakes, weather systems like huricanes or tornados, and certainly not Global Warming. We are too insignificant to have that kind of impact. When the coldest day or the hottest day is blamed on global warming all that you can do is laugh. Yes, we are in a warming period, about, .5 degrees C, it began about one hundred years ago, most of the warming took place before the real industialization of the economy, 1945, there was a significant cooling period 1945 to the mid 1970's, at the end of which your people were hollaring about a coming ice age, and now we have basicly recovered from the cooling period and are still warming, from the previous high point. Now as then we are being blamed for something that we couldn't do if we wanted to, and the source or cause, is said to be the same thing man-made pollution.This Climate change is a real recuring cycle of change, predictable and repeatable. We have nothing to do with when it happens, which way it swings nor when it changes. We are along for the ride, just like any other animal walking the face of the earth. The most likely cause is the SUN, but nobody who is a true believer in the GW religion wants to think that there are forces outside of themselves that can impact the planet as much as then can.All the solutions put forward by the alarmists involve more government, control, taxes, power and interference in our daily lives, the socialist agenda.The link to the article reproduced in full below.http://www.realclearpolitics.com/articles/..._a_science.htmlApril 12, 2007Is Climatology a Science?By Robert TracinskiI was very surprised to wake up a few days ago to discover three inches of snow on the ground -- in Virginia, in April, while our lilacs were blooming.Must be that global warming.It was a perfect concretization of a wisecrack that's been going around for years: we're supposed to believe that climatologists can predict the weather for the whole globe a century from now -- when they still can't predict the local weather for tomorrow.Behind that wisecrack is a more serious and profound point about the status of climatology as a science. Last year, for example, advertisements for Al Gore's An Inconvenient Truth featured a hurricane emerging from an industrial smokestack. It was an attempt to cash in on predictions of an unusually heavy hurricane season, allegedly caused by global warming. Yet last summer, hurricane activity precipitously dropped, and not a single hurricane made landfall in the United States.Given that we're being asked to rely on this kind of climate prediction as the basis for massive new regulations that will overturn the whole basis of our economy, we need to ask a crucial, fundamental question.Is climatology a science?I don't mean to ask whether the climate is being studied using scientific methods and theories. Here's what I mean: is climatology a complete, developed, mature science? Is it the kind of science that is capable of making accurate, reliable predictions? Is the field of climatology, in its current state, capable of producing "settled science" on any broad conclusion?I was reminded of this a few weeks ago when the New York Times reported that some scientists were balking at Gore's exaggerations of the scientific certainty of climatology, with one of them commenting that "Hardly a week goes by without a new research paper that questions part or even some basics of climate change theory." If the basics of climatology are still up for debate, how can we rely on the kind of complex predictions -- not only about continued global warming, but about its effect on the weather of specific regions -- that are still being pumped out by the United Nations?Writing in Newsweek recently, MIT Professor of Meteorology Richard Lindzen detailed the uncertainties and the enormous gaps in the evidence for claims about human-caused global warming and concluded, "Climate modelers assume the cause must be greenhouse-gas emissions because they have no other explanation. This is a poor substitute for evidence."Those who claim the authority of science for speculations about human-caused, catastrophic global warming are abusing the reputation earned by established, mature sciences. They are attempting to steal that reputation on behalf of a premature hypothesis put forward by practitioners of a science still in its infancy.There are many historical examples of the difference between a science in its infancy and a mature science. Before Darwin and Mendel, biology lacked an overarching theory to explain the relationship of species to one another and to extinct species from earlier eras. In physics, Maxwell's equations brought order and clarity to the study of electricity and magnetism. Probably the most important historical example is Sir Isaac Newton's role in establishing the fundamental laws of physics.Before Newton, astronomers had compiled an enormous number of observations of the motions of the planets, and Johannes Kepler had used those observations to describe the orbits of the planets around the sun. Galileo had made crucial observations with his telescopes and performed experiments on the nature of motion and gravity. His most famous experiment proved that heavier objects do not fall faster than lighter objects, which means that all objects react equally to the pull of gravity.Starting from this long history of observations, experiments, and previous discoveries, Newton induced the basic laws of motion and developed the basic mathematical tool, the Calculus, needed to apply those laws. The resulting theory explained everything from the fall of an apple on earth, to the orbit of the moon, to the motion of the planets. Newton's theory could also be used to make reliable predictions (Newton's friend Edmond Halley used it to predict the reappearance of his famous comet) and to solve practical problems: one of the astronauts in the Apollo program once quipped that the real pilot of his spacecraft was Sir Isaac Newton.This is a reminder that science is about more than statistical correlations, computer models, or speculative hypotheses. A mature, fully developed science is based on a long series of observations and discoveries which result in the induction of a few fundamental laws and methods that can be used to explain and predict a vast range of phenomena -- and to achieve a practical result, like putting a man on the moon.But this is a high achievement. Before they reach this stage, most sciences go through a long period of immaturity, when it is too early to settle on a grand unifying theory.In the late 17th and early 18th centuries, in the early years of the science of chemistry, many serious scientists accepted phlogiston theory. This was an attempt to explain the chemical processes of combustion, oxidation, and metabolism by inferring the existence of a substance call "phlogiston." This theory was wrong, but it was not a totally crazy invention; it simply came too early, before scientists had sufficient evidence to prove a theory of combustion. Phlogiston was only superseded when the great chemist Lavoisier identified oxygen as the substance that is actually responsible for combustion, a discovery that helped pave the way for the development of modern chemistry.But imagine: what would have happened if the government had come along and pumped the equivalent of billions of dollars into phlogiston research? What if phlogiston had become a social cause, promoted by political leaders, touted by famous actors, defended by the culture's best writers? What if those who raised objections to the theory were vilified as "phlogiston deniers" and had to worry about losing funding for their research?Yet that is precisely how today's scientific, political, and cultural establishment is approaching the nascent science of climatology.During the Reign of Terror, the French government sent Lavoisier to the guillotine because of his connections to the old aristocratic regime. That is one of history's great crimes against science -- but it probably did less damage than our government has caused by killing climatology with the false kindness of politically motivated research funding.Runaway greenhouse warming caused by human emissions of carbon dioxide is just one theory about what drives the global climate -- and it is not the most plausible theory. The main competing theory claims, quite sensibly, that the climate is driven by the sun and that fluctuations in global climate can be explained by variations in the strength of solar radiation. Fred Singer and Dennis Avery have argued this in their book Unstoppable Global Warming: Every 1,500 Years, and another variant of this view is put forward by Danish physicist Henrik Svensmark in The Chilling Stars. Svensmark argues that strong solar radiation blocks out cosmic rays from deep space. Since cosmic rays encourage cloud formation -- Svensmark's key discovery -- fewer cosmic rays means fewer clouds to block out heat from the sun. The result: global warming which has nothing to do with the mileage of your SUV.Which of these three theories, if any, is true? I don't know. But what I do know is that one of these theories has the backing of billions in federal funding and a "politically correct" consensus (and now $100 million in privately funded PR). That gives the theory of human-caused, carbon-dioxide-driven global warming an advantage far greater than it can earn on the basis of scientific evidence alone.Before we take any theory from the field of climatology and make it -- as Al Gore is telling us -- the central organizing principle of our civilization, we had better ask a few big questions.Does climatology have a well-developed, thoroughly proven theoretical framework, derived from decades of observations and earlier discoveries? Does it have a proven set of laws to explain what factors drive the global climate on a scale of centuries? Does climatology have an established track record of being able to predict next week's weather, much less the next century's weather?Or is Al Gore flogging the 21st-century equivalent of phlogiston?Robert Tracinski writes daily commentary at TIADaily.com. He is the editor of The Intellectual Activist and TIADaily.com.