E-mail updates
Follow on Twitter
Subscribe to RSSDURBAN -- Ministers fought to save U.N. climate talks from collapse on Saturday, searching to narrow differences between rich and poor nations over how quickly to fight global warming.
Ministerial negotiations in the South African port city of Durban dragged into Saturday afternoon but with many delegates due to head home, there was a strong chance real decisions would be put off until next year.
That would be a major setback for host South Africa and raise the prospect that the Kyoto Protocol, the only global pact that enforces carbon cuts, could expire at the end of next year with no successor treaty in place.
Stephane De Sakutin / AFP - Getty Images
South African Foreign Minister and President of the 17th Conference of the Parties, Maite Nkoana-Mashabane leaves after a meeting during the final discussions of the last day of the UN Framework Convention on Climate Change in Durban, South Africa. UN climate talks entered their second week entangled in a thick mesh of issues with no guarantee that negotiators and their ministers will be able to sort them out. The 194-nation process is facing, for the second time in two years, the prospect of a bustup, even as scientists warn against the mounting threat of disaster-provoking storms, droughts, flood and rising seas made worse by global warming. AFP PHOTO / STEPHANE DE SAKUTIN (Photo credit should read STEPHANE DE SAKUTIN/AFP/Getty Images)
Behind the haggling over technical details, the talks boil down to a tussle between the United States, which wants all polluters to be held to the same legal standard on emissions cuts, and China and India which want to ensure their fast growing economies are not shackled.
"We are just right now discussing how to increase ambition, not only in the long-term but also in the short term," said EU Climate Commissioner Connie Hedegaard.
"I don't give up. We never give up until all the possibilities are exhausted. Some of them are moving. It would be such a pity if the world wasted this opportunity," she said.
Negotiators were arguing over the wording of a range of highly technical sections that make up the broad agreement, which covers a range of topics from greenhouse gas emissions targets to forestry accounting rules, green tech transfers and cash to help poor countries adapt to climate change.
Two weeks of talks between almost 200 states in the South African port of Durban were due to end on Friday. But island nations and developing states under threat from the rising sea-levels and extreme weather linked to global warming, demanded a more ambitious text.
The European Union backed the group, having sought to build a consensus around its roadmap for push all major polluters to accept legally binding cuts in their greenhouse gas emissions.
"They're working. They're working hard. You have to give them time to work," said U.N. climate chief Christiana Figueres.
But Alden Meyer of the Union of Concerned Scientists lobby group said the talks could not drag on forever.
"We are getting to the point where they have to come up quickly with a deal and bring it to the plenary or suspend the discussions and have the secretariat say when they will resume again," he said.
Tickets home
Many delegates from poor nations were packing their bags on Saturday, having booked flights home. That could leave the countries most vulnerable to climate change without a voice when the plenary session reconvenes.
"Developing countries have very small delegations, two to three people... Many of us have already left," said Tosi Mpanu-Mpanu, chairman of the Africa Group. "Many ministers are also gone from our group, so that creates a bit of a problem."
South African Foreign Minister Maite Nkoana-Mashabane has struggled to draft a document that can both advance the fight against climate change and secure a broad consensus.
Changes put forward on Saturday disappointed developing states and the European Union, who complained they contained no reference to how the fight against climate change would be paid for and set no date by when cuts to emissions must be decided.
The discussion document also deferred decisions on cutting emissions from international aviation and shipping to next year.
Frustration
The European Union has tried to rally support for its plan to set a date of 2015 at the latest for a new climate deal that would impose binding cuts on the world's biggest emitters of heat-trapping gases. Any deal could then come into force up to five years later.
Failure to reach a concrete accord in Durban would cast doubt over measures tentatively agreed by delegates. They include measures to protect forests and another to bring to life the Green Climate Fund, designed to help poor nations tackle global warming.
U.N. reports released in the last month show time is running out to restrict global warming to safe limits, generally accepted as within a 2 degree Celsius rise in average global temperatures. A warming planet has already intensified droughts and floods, increased crop failures and sea levels could rise to levels that would submerge several small island nations.
Many of their delegates wanted South Africa to do more to broker a deal that better protects the poor countries it pledged to help, and were disappointed the host did not show more leadership to push through a settlement.
"They have let agreements slip through their fingers. If we do reach any outcome that advances the process, it will not be because of South Africa's leadership. It will be despite South Africa," one envoy said.
Read more content from msnbc.com and NBC News:
- NBC: Pakistan says US drones in its air space will be shot down
- Gingrich to be in spotlight at pivotal GOP debate
- Giant Eurobank accused of gouging US consumers
- Mugabe still thunders at foes, but can he really rule forever?
- Security goes private as US military leaves Iraq
Leave a Comment:
It hardly matters now anyway.
We're already far beyond the tipping point.
.
"the talks boil down to a tussle between the United States, which wants all polluters to be held to the same legal standard on emissions cuts, and China and India which want to ensure their fast growing economies are not shackled"
The only way to take care of any possible human effects on climate change would be across the board equal restrictions. What good does it do for one to not poop in the pond while others are free to do so? All should be equal. It's the only thing that makes sense.
I don't see anyone being able to overcome human greed. People are jackasses. Self destructive just to make a point.
We don't know where the tipping points are, so how can we know if we have reached them yet?
A lot of these so called "enviromentalists" are anti-American socialists who despise our economic system based on capitalism. That's why they're pushing for unilateral restrictions on US industry while the real polluters like China continue on their merry way.
Everyone needs to Google
CLimate Gate II
jock59801, we do know. We know that when the temperature reaches a certain point that all the trillions of tons of trapped hydrocarbons will start to be released from the previously frozen tundras and certain seabeds. And guess what? We are now seeing exactly that type of thing starting to happen. And it is predicted to be an unstoppable positive feedback loop. We are here. It's too late.
Its about money and it is about entitlements and not about a clean breath of fresh air. Those who are in front of the economic club do not want to allow access to those in the rear. Typical! Example. The 'RICH' nations already have cut down their virgin forests and now buy hardwood from the Amazon Rain Forrest. Hmmm!! Where is the real problem, the demand or the supply? Get in under the 'lack of rules' environment and then quickly install and change the rules so that nobody else can get in.
The World MUST BE PROTECTED. I do however feel that the less developed nations should have more time to get into the preservation fold and the richer nations should cut emissions immediately as they started polluting and degrading the environment way before the third World countries.
Well, as the curtain is pulled back, and the truth is revealed, it becomes abundantly clear, that this latest "manufactured disaster" aka "AGW", is about "Global Wealth Redistribution"...Progressives at their most obvious...If there was any real "imminent disaster" processes aimed at removing excess CO2 and Methane would be imminently easier...we all ready have the tech to do it (scrubbers)
jock59801: We've known the tipping point for years and it's 340 ppm of C02. We're at 390.
Nearly all IPPC climate models developed in the 80s to 90s were very conservative about the amount of change we will see now. Now, we realize that the only politics in play was to keep those numbers down and the change we're seeing now is far higher than forecasted.
and KiloByte1339, it's only someone who is anti-AMERICAN and even ANTI-HUMAN who would call someone who loves their country and earth silly names. Shame on you.
The Kyoto Accord was all about redistribution with the US taking it in the shorts. At least now there is some reasoning, the US being made the fall-guy while everyone else goes on their merry way is totally unacceptable. Note the pollution levels in China and India, soon they will have to take measures to deal with their pollution, people dying, plants and animals dying tends to make governments take notice, especially if the populace rises up in protest.
"We've known the tipping point for years and it's 340 ppm of C02. We're at 390."
No, we haven't. Somebody pulled that number out of their backside. Look, I'm as concerned as you, but I stick to actual science, not alarmism.
And "we" had thing to do with it, at least very little. And, there is nothing we can do about it. The human effect on global warming is not significant enough to make a difference, unless we go back to living in caves and hunting mastadons.
don't despair,there is no such thing as man made global warming.we better start worrying about something far worse than that red herring and that is a nuclear armed Iran.
mygirl, I used to think the same way you do until I saw the numbers of pollution produced per capita. No the US is not taking it in the shorts we are taking responsibility as the largest polluter of this Earth and as leaders.
Harry Downs-2517102
Iran is a no show. Preemptive suffering Harry. No need for it.
Funny isn't it?
The world is quick to slap sanctions on Iran, North Korea and Syria for their alleged nuclear proliferation programs but won't even consider the same actions against China for their obvious pollution and humanitarian issues.
If any of you tree-huggers think this is all about the U.N.'s benevolence for the worlds ultimate survival, your delusion is only surpassed by your ignorance. The U.N. has been exposed over and over for their corruption, fraud and bribery throughout their alleged humanitarian concerns. "Oil-for-Food" in Iraq, the disappearance of UN funds earmarked for tsunami relief in Indonesia and the exposure of a transnational network of pedophiliac rape by UN peacekeepers in Africa are just a short list of the criminality of this organization.
Yet many of you still believe that giving them MORE money will somehow create environmental Nirvana in the world.
Why isn't the UN laying down severe sanctions against China for their refusal to reduce their climate change atrocities? Why? because they know China will never agree to subjecting their 1.3 Billion citizens to any outside influences. If the enviro-mental-maniacs propose that radiation from the tsunami destroyed Fukushima plant in Japan will affect the USA, why aren't they demanding the same when China's pollution reaches our shores? It's all about the Benjamen's.
To think the U.N., with its decades of crime and corruption, will in any way become the savior of our global concerns is as irrational as thinking our criminal government can fix the economic and social collapse it has allowed for nearly 100 years right here at home.
Good luck to all you dreamers.
"We don't know where the tipping points are." WTF! Yeah we do. The longer we delay the more severe the emission cuts will have to be until it's completely impossible to avoid an "ice free" world in which ocean levels will rise to 60 meters. Convert a meter to feet and you'll have a pretty good idea of how much land will be left for humans to exist on. By the end of this century Houston and New York will easily be under water along with many other coastal cities. Forget about the fence between the U.S. and Mexico because you'll have to start killing people as they cross if you want to keep them out. Just a one meter rise in sea level will do the trick and that could easily happen by 2050 or much sooner depending on the Greenland Ice Sheet and Western Antarctica. Forget all the extreme weather and severe drought and flooding that will become the norm and has already caused billions of dollars in damage just in the U.S. THIS YEAR. God ain't gonna save our asses so you better get ready for a wild ride.
You'll notice the entire world (with the exception of American conservatives) is talking about how to address this climate disruption, not whether or not it's happening.
That's because it's a FACT that it's happening.
Thel4ugh!ngm@n
Thank you so much for this clue! They have all but affirmed that this hyperbole is nothing but a political ruse to redistribute wealth!!!!!!!!!
Uh oh, global warming loons: here comes Climategate II!
//blogs.telegraph.co.uk/news/jamesdelingpole/100119087/uh-oh-global-warming-loons-here-comes-climategate-ii/
""""In other words, what these emails confirm is that the great man-made global warming scare is not about science but about political activism. This, it seems, is what motivated the whistleblower 'FOIA 2011' (or "thief", as the usual suspects at RealClimate will no doubt prefer to tar him or her) to go public."""""
Climategate II: More Smoking Guns From The Global Warming Establishment
//www.forbes.com/sites/larrybell/2011/11/29/climategate-ii-more-smoking-guns-from-the-global-warming-establishment/
So, what if it is happening! What's the worse that can happen? Life as we understand it is wiped out eventually and something else probably will come forth. That's the beauty of evolution folks. It's not evil or bad just natural.
One dipsh!t:
Two dipsh!ts:
Three dipsh!ts:
Four dipsh!ts:
Is it ignorance? Is it money? Is it selfishness?
Scientists far and wide from different perspectives, all with impeccable credentials, agree that Global Warming is real, it is human driven, CO2 specifically, that it is making our oceans acidic, and that it is escalating beyond even last year's estimates.
Of those that disagree, few are scientists. Those that are scientists are being paid by big money to find holes in the real science. Every one of the scientists that are opposed DO NOT have great credentials and the ones I looked at have very tainted political positions... some are the same that supported original claims that flu shots caused autism.
So, do we believe science and trends and signs that become more obvious by the day, or the non-science that denies what could be our demise? Don't get stupid here... there's only one answer.
We are not party to the negotiations to say what position we should take while the talks are progressing, but at some point we have to take a firm position for what WE are going to do with our contribution to Global Warming and stick with it. To do otherwise is to be exactly like the body that we hate... like the do-nothing 9% popular Congress.
http://www.newsvine.com/_news/2011/12/10/9349410-saving-the-amazon-from-forest-floor-up
A nice article showing positive change.
Drill baby drill, I don't have any grand children but maybe I will be around to watch the ignorant get their pay back.
That's a ticket I don't want to miss.
@LMARCT
It must be nice being a Liberal on Newsvine, knowing that you are not bound by the COH (#1.19)
Over population of the entire world is the root cause for not only excess human created green house gases but eventually the complete depletion of all other resources to live as we do in our modern world.
So where in these climate discussions is a solution for the root cause discussed by any of the representatives from any of the countries? It is not.
Correcting over population as a solution to slowing the pollution of the oceans, and air we breathe is the only cost effective solution, yet is never discussed or even considered, and as long as it is not all the scientific studies conducted will be for not.
The simplest and least expensive solution is to control our human reproductive systems.
If everyone in every country who is giving lip service to our impending doom would wear a rubber, get a vasectomy, tubes tied, or just take the pill the world could reduce these green house gases in a generation, and still drive a car.
So unless you have controlled your own reproductive system and limited your family to one child then get off the high horse, as we will all live together or die together.
I believe its happening, as it has happened over and over for millions of years in the past, if you want to slow it down keep your zippers up, and tell all the Chinese, and Indians, and Pakistanis, and Africans, and Americans, and Europeans to do so as well.
When you politicize anything for personal gain you create a self-serving monster. Note who would benefit handsomely from 'green' energy. GE et al. The propaganda that surrounds a very real problem, plus the profiteering that results from attempting to curtail this problem is the root cause of why nothing of any substance gets done. Is there Global Pollution ( I refuse to use Climate change, global warming, etc. definitions) the problem is pollution and it is easier to deal with something tangible, you can't deny the pollution of air, sea and land, you can deny that it alters the climate since climate is all-encompassing and nebulous at the same time. Bottom line is that we need to quit sh*tting in our nest, refuse to allow profiteering and propaganda to be used to obfuscate and reward those who make an effort to do the right thing by supporting them with our checkbooks and personal support.
Note; there is currently a movement afoot in this country to punish people who want to grow their own food or support those who farm organically. It is legislated on both federal as well as local levels and it goes under the guise of 'Food Safety.' Doing the research it becomes apparent that the lobbyists for Monsanto and Dow and ConAg are getting away with creating a culture that punishes those who seek to do the right thing, essentially because in practicing a more organic approach these people look to cut into the massive profits of the aforementioned companies. Note as well who owns these companies and hold major shares in them, you will find some very powerful, wealthy and well-connected people.
@LMarcT
" ignorance? Is it money? Is it selfishness?"
Nope, we're just sick and tired of libtards trying to destroy the American way of life. If you want to personally make a contribution to the radical enviromentalist agenda; turn off your computer, move out of your home, and live in a cave. You'll be doing your part and the rest of us will have to deal with one less whiney moonbat fear monger. But like a typical libtard, you won't make those changes yourself. You'll just demand that others do it for you. Hypocrite.
Kilo, nobody is demanding any of that from anybody, so get over yourself. This false righteous indignation is getting tiresome.
LetMeExplain, it to you #1.22
China does not need to discuss over-population because they already have unilaterally established in law only one child per family - without crying about the rest of world's not doing anything. This has caused individual couples great distress when their one child dies young. Does the law get violated? Probably on occasion, but it is still the law of the land.
toasty: You make a great point. The rest of the world disagrees with the US. Of course, the rest of the world disagrees with Capitalism too. They also disagree with freedom, personal responsibility, etc. Now, take a look at which country has produced the greatest amount of wealth, the greatest improvements in health care, the greatest improvement in technologies, etc. It sure isn't China, Cuba, Russia, Western Europe, Africa, South America or any of the other places on Earth. So, all in all, I'd say having the rest of the world disagree with the US isn't a bad situation to be in.
Mr.PheaNiques-0000001
No, I am bound by it. I may get banned for a day... but to make the point on this subject is worth it. But, to you, I apologize.
KiloByte1339
We're trying to SAVE your way of life, not destroy it. Did you even read or consider my post? Can you come up with just one scientist with credentials that takes a logical and supportable position against it?
LOL... "whiney moonbat fear monger... libtard... Hypocrite"? Wow. You got a pretty compelling argument there. So maybe us whiney moonbat fear mongering libtard hypocrites are sick and tired of your wholesale blatant ignorant unsupportable and self-destructive denials... all for the sake of politics... a worthy cause to sacrifice your future generations for, right?
I think I see mygirl1's point above in that almost every important issue today has become twisted by some greed influenced under the table agenda driven objective.
The greedy under table agenda gets tangled up into the subject and has nothing to do with accomplishing the good aspects of those attempting to fix or stop the subject issue, and everything about it is designed to line someone's pocket somewhere.
The problem with the greedy power players hidden agenda is that it has a particular odor that can't be covered up even when its mixed in with passion, and diluted to mask its self.
It stinks and for those who have witness the smell even once in the past it is unmistakable, like a dead body, you will not forget it, and someone can just say dead body to you and you remember the smell as if you are next to it.
The smell is all over this issue, so unless the stink is removed from it no one wants to bring it home with them.
It like the smell is dead on arrival.
OK, ALL YOU LIBERAL PROGRESSIVE AND RINO RENEWABLE ENERGY ENVIROMENTALMANIACS, LISTEN UP.
I see it's time to ask my usual questions of you environmental elitists.
Most of you will be on here for hours pretending you have a clue about AGW. You’ll be pulling your little talking points out and ridicule each other for either believing or not believing an unproven science. The debate will grow heated as it always does, insults will fly, vitriol will be furious and in the end NOTHING other than wasted time will be the result. So, with this in mind I’d like to ask all you pretenders to respond after reading this.
I just have a few simple questions.
How many of you have had a home energy audit done by RESNET (Residential Energy Services Network) to determine your homes energy efficiency?
How many of you are driving in the most fuel efficient vehicles available?
How many of you have re-insulated your homes to the maximum R-rating recommendation?
How many of you have had your windows and doors upgraded to the newest NFRC (National Fenestration Ratings Council) standards?
How many of you have replaced your outdated appliances according to the new Energy Star applications? Including your furnace and air conditioner?
How many of you have installed a geothermal, solar or wind turbine system to release yourself from the grip of the utility companies?
How many of you travel to work in car pools?
How many of you travel on vacation by railroad, rather than car or airplane?
Should I go on?
Not many I bet.
Why not?
Because you’re all too lazy, uninformed and so hell bent against fossil fuels you can’t think straight. You all sit here and rail against BP, the oil industry, coal industry, natural gas industry, nuclear energy and any other PROVEN energy sources, yet you all sit in your totally inefficient, drafty, ancient, energy sucking homes and cars and complain! ! !
Don’t even try to excuse yourselves by claiming there’s a scarcity of resources. The AEI (Alternative Energy Institute) was created in 1977, OVER 34 YEARS AGO ! ! !
I had a geothermal system installed over 16 years ago that still works perfectly. I have enough solar collection to power 68% of my home,,,,YEAR ROUND ! ! ! My insulation R-ratings are all at or above the recommendations of the WAP (Weatherization Assistance Program) guidelines. I have updated my appliances over 4 times in the last 23 years using Energy Star recommendations. I do have an inefficient 1999 Ford F-150,,,EXCUSE ME ! ! ! This has come at significant cost outlay on my part but my carbon footprint is 28% of the average American household and my cost savings are double what they would have been otherwise.
And guess what?
I still promote “DRILL BABY, DRILL”!
WHY?
Because we don’t have enough people doing what THEY should be doing and thousands of everyday products are made from coal, oil and natural gas. Most of you talk a big game as far as energy independence, global warming, green this and green that, but your don’t do SQUAT about it.
The problem with you Liberal Progressive/RINO, tree-hugging, Spotted-Owl “believers” is YOU don’t want to do it, you want the government or someone else to do it for you. You’re too busy watching Barrack blowing smoke up your butt or Michael Moore spewing his socialist trash at you while sitting in your La-Z-Boy, sucking down a Bud Light.
Your Messiah, Al “multi-million dollar mansion” Gore, is making fools of you all and you just sit by, uninvolved and uninformed except for your anti-business, anti-rich, anti-American rants. Barrack keeps the temperature cranked up in the White House until you can grow Orchids in there, but Cap & Tax is a must.
Hypocrites! ! !
When I finally see those CLAIMING there’s a crisis acting like there’s a crisis, I’ll believe there’s a crisis.
The Global Warming hype is a political scam. They've already discovered falsified information 2 years ago, but kept it quiet. Now there is new wave of over 5,000 emails that are proving more falsified data. The reasons given were "for political gain". Yes, trillions are riding on this underhanded scam. Franklin Raines, who ran down Fannie Mae and walked away with 90 million, bought the patent to the Cap and Trade formula. Al Gore has formed companies, GIM (in the Isle of Man to avoid U.S. Taxes) and Goldman Sachs own large percentages of these Carbon Tax Companies. They expected the AMerican people to fall for this, then control the flow of money to a foreign world bank. Start reading and researching other medias besides the liberal mainstream to find the facts.
copy and paste the link below.
Uh oh, global warming loons: here comes Climategate II!
//blogs.telegraph.co.uk/news/jamesdelingpole/100119087/uh-oh-global-warming-loons-here-comes-climategate-ii/
""""In other words, what these emails confirm is that the great man-made global warming scare is not about science but about political activism. This, it seems, is what motivated the whistleblower 'FOIA 2011' (or "thief", as the usual suspects at RealClimate will no doubt prefer to tar him or her) to go public."""""
The point is...In some hypothetical universe where "AGW" were not a scam being perpetrated on the population for political gain...No "intelligent" being would believe that the combative tactic would be to try to prevent CO2 emissions...the whole argument is imbecilic, as population on the planet grows, to argue that it will not result in greater and greater and emissions levels...If for a minute, a real "Scientist" weren't ROTFL his "Grant Grabbing" Ass off, He/She would be working on mass producing Technologies to remove and or control levels of CO2 in the Atmosphere...A simple (relatively) filtration system installed in the billions of air handling systems operating daily around the world (aka AC filters)...But that approach would create industry, not destroy economies...and therefore discounted
It is kinda like the Debt Debate...we don't want to stop borrowing money, we just want to reduce the rate of increase of level of borrowing in the future...You can hide under the covers and hope the "Bogey Man" won't find you, or you can open the closet and begin the battle
Is it really your contention that 7 Billion of us are emmitting way to much, and there is a way that when there is 10,12,15 Billion of us that we will not be producing more than we are today...that is not a realistic arguement...
wavesofgrain, that simply isn't true, but I no longer have the energy to explain it. Your lies have won for now. Congratulations.
And last before I lay my head to rest
Wind and Solar Power is not free or unused, forgetting for a moment about the ecological damage being done in pursuit of both as power sources for human needs, Wind and Solar "is" our Environment...every single watt is being used by the natural processes that have created a "Habitable" Planet for every life form...If Humans were to ever devise methods for capturing the energy levels needed now and into the future, It will likely cause ecological damage that would make the discovery of fossil fuels seem like the single most environmentally friendly things humans have ever done...The only two forms of energy we are currently aware of (except "Soul Gems") that are truly "Green" are Fossil (including natural flammable gasses) and Nuclear Power...it is called stored energy for a reason
AMEN, Mr. PheaNiques-0000001
@Freedom,
I agree with much of what you say --- till you get to "Drill Baby Drill." The problem is that CURRENTLY the U.S., Mexico, and Canada produce approximately 120% of the oil consumed by the three countries combined. The cost of production in the U.S. is about $17 a barrel, in Mexico about $22, and in Canada $60 headed towards $50. The oil from the U.S. and Mexico is the sweetest and lightest in the world and is equivalent to about 1.2-1.4 "standard barrels" of Saudi oil. The price of a standard barrel is still hanging at around $100. So why are oil prices in this country based on a Saudi barrel price when it is so cheap to produce locally? Why do we import oil from other countries? The only simple answer to that is oil from Venezuela --- the Chavez government owns Citgo and all its gas stations and refineries, so we really have no say-so there, it just increases the amount we export to around 30%. We only import oil from Africa and then the Middle East so that we can sell American oil to the Japanese and now the Chinese.
North America already produces more oil than it consumes and is predicted to conbtinue to do so for at least the next 60 years. North America has more known oil reserves than all the rest of the world combined and we are only starting to properly explore Canada. Add to that the huge reserves of natural gas that have been discovered in North America and these three countries have 80-100 times the energy reserves of the rest of the world combined. Drill, baby , drill is just oil company jingoism that wants to take more oil ouit of the ground, so they can sell it to other countries for huge profits (which are then also charged to the American consumer as a sort of involuntary pump tax.) It's all about money.
There has been no serious scientific discussion of whether global warming in real or not in forty years. Since the opposite cycle should be occurring naturally (we should be in a cooling cycle) there is little doubt that it is man made. As more and more observations are made and databased and models are tweaked more and more so they can replicate historical data, the predictions become more and more refined and specific. Scientists admit they were wrong with their initial predictions. Everything is happening much, much faster than originally predicted. And the rate of change is accelerating.
There really hasn't been any scientific discussion of tipping points in around 15 years. There is broad consensus that we have reached a point of no return from which things like the Kyoto Accords can not prevent. In fact, the consensus is that global warming is now a virtual certainty and there is really nothing that can be done except to slow its trajectory.
The big fly in the ointment and what is causing current debate and revision of models is the role of methane in global warming. Older models did not factor in methane as a greenhouse warming gas. The impact of methane, a greenhouse gas many times more effective than CO and CO2, is going to be huge with trillions of tons tied up in permafrost and in hydrates in the oceans. Almost all the current debate is about how fast permafrost is thawing and fast methane hydrates are sublimating from the oceans. Most models show incredibly rapid warming --- far faster than even the scientists who designed the models imagined.
I would point out for the sake of the Luddites on here that no science is ever "proven." Every thing you learn ALWAYS creates more questions. That is just the nature of learning --- you can only learn what you know you don't know. And there will never be a specific link between tomorrow's weather at your house and global warming. Weather events may occur more or less frequently or be stronger or weaker, but there is no way to scientifically link weather to climate, despite the protestations of those who do not understand the difference.
The world will not sit up and take notice until a dramatic, and irreversible event, like the failure of the Indian Monsoons for the first time in human history or the failure of the Atlantic Conveyor. The former would kill a billion people outright in the first year and the latter would make Europe into an extension of Siberia and destroy agriculture in Europe and western Asia. It is quite conceivable that the next world war will be fought over fresh water or rice, according to the Pentagon.
GreenTimer
China does not need to discuss over-population because they already have unilaterally established in law only one child per family - without crying about the rest of world's not doing anything. This has caused individual couples great distress when their one child dies young. Does the law get violated? Probably on occasion, but it is still the law of the land.
Not to sound pompous but I already knew this.
So what has Africa, Europe, America, and every other nation that continues to grow its population unchecked done to curb their continual population growth at on the subject?
Nothing, not much?
As far as China goes since it has in its boarder ½ of the world’s population maybe some of their couples should consider not having even one child until their population explosion is reversed.
Unless you believe that you are somehow coming back again as one of your descendents then not having any children at all is on the table.
I would also like to point out that even in the bible the bearing of children was a curse put upon Adam and Eve as they were being kicked out of paradise.
When faced with the destruction of the earth as the ultimate end game of unchecked human population growth, the “stress” of not having your own child put upon the current living population kind of pales in comparison.
Get a pet, find another hobby, adopt, or as I stated above we will all live together or die together as one big getting bigger by the moment family.
Ok just one more
since it was mentioned...On Methane trapped in the Permafrost being released as the Earth Warms...Has it never occurred to no one, why the environuts never try to explain why there is so much methane trapped in the permafrost in the first place...here is the answer...before the current Ice Age (pre human civilization) that we are or are not coming out of, what we now call the Arctic was lush, fertile land capable of sustaining enormous herds of herbivores, and the predators that fed on them..."Global Warming" will likely be the end of "Global Hunger" (If we can manage our Population increase)
MrPhea, why does it matter how it got there? The point is that releasing it rapidly will change the climate rapidly.
Well Jock
The answer to that question goes to the very heart of the fraud that is "AGW"...The Arctic was much, much warmer just a few thousand years ago, during the last "interglacial' period...the warming period not caused by Human Activity...Open your eyes, the truth doesn't hurt much...We are coming out of an Ice Age and It will probably be a good thing except for a few coastal cities...but can you imagine the dive oppurtunities exploring sunken cities
Why do so many people type "boarder" (as in snow boarder), when they mean border? Just wondering.Would your solution be to neuter all males at birth for a couple of generations? If it weren't for our leaking borders, our populations would be basically at a standstill.
Well. truth is with 6 billion and counting, we simply cannot control what others do, regardless of these incessant summits. Do you think China is going to cripple their economic development on purpose? Same for India? America is no different. Nor is any other nation. We operate in our own best interest, not in the interest of some future calamity. Yes this can be short sighted and stupid, but it is the reality of human existence.
That said, we are doing things to slow the growth of pollution. We have cleaner cars every year, and as the old cars fail and are destroyed, we continue to slow the amount of pollution that we contribute to our environment. Certainly more can be done. Getting angry about this is pointless. Doing something about it, even if all we do is eliminate some pollution from our own town, is a good thing. Regardless of whether or not man has any real affect on the natural warming and cooling cycles is almost not the point. Cleaning up our air and water is simply a good thing to do, so why not keep working on that? Why not everyone simply commit to cleaning up their own space? Seems like if we do that, we will be just fine.
Fact is we are not going to stop Ford from making F350's or Chevy from making Corvettes. But the good news is that even these gas guzzlers are no longer making nearly the pollution that they were a decade ago.
South Africa’s pride may be bruised by the lack of progress at the climate fest, but does it really matter? The location of the talks is inconsequential as no agreement would have been reached no matter where they were held. The science of climate change is flawed and has been discredited by the fraudulent statistics and manipulations of the UN and EU. It is a shame that billions of precious $ have been wasted without any benefits to the World. For some quick blatant opportunists however, “climate change” has delivered easy riches and for climate scientists a never ending stream of money they could only dream of.
No wonder they’ll say and do anything to keep their masters happy.
Here are a few email excerpts from the link below about the deceitful manipulation of this Global Warming gang. BTW...the terminology has been changed to CLIMATE CHANGE. You want to know why? Because they cannot find any true "Global Warming".
ClimateGate II copy and paste link below
//blogs.telegraph.co.uk/news/jamesdelingpole/100119087/uh-oh-global-warming-loons-here-comes-climategate-ii/
""""""**********/// The IPCC Process ///
<1939> Thorne/MetO:
Observations do not show rising temperatures throughout the tropical
troposphere unless you accept one single study and approach and discount a
wealth of others. This is just downright dangerous. We need to communicate the
uncertainty and be honest. Phil, hopefully we can find time to discuss these
further if necessary [...]
<3066> Thorne:
I also think the science is being manipulated to put a political spin on it
which for all our sakes might not be too clever in the long run.
Mike, The Figure you sent is very deceptive [...] there have been a number of
dishonest presentations of model results by individual authors and by IPCC
In my experience, global warming freezing is already a bit of a public
relations problem with the media
Kjellen:
I agree with Nick that climate change might be a better labelling than global
warming*******************
Thank God for the Chinese and the Indians who are fighting this monstrous liberal scheme. How ironic that America will be saved AGAIN by the Chinese...saved from the liberals/democrats who wish to see our country go down in flames.....
It's not the static raw measurement, Mr. P, it's the radical accelerating rate of change.
To hell with it. You win. You said in your post, above:
So... your argument is that it's just no use? The world will end, so let's just end it today instead of tomorrow... pretty lame argument. If we get a global agreement, reduce our CO2 emissions, and give us time to work alternative fuels and solutions... CO2 scrubbers, who knows.
Look, there is no way you will be bothered enough to think about what you're saying... just for instance... the permafrost. Plants grew. At the time they were absorbing CO2. The ice age covered them. They died. When the permafrost melts, the dead plants emit mass quantities of CO2 that is combined with our CO2 and other natural occurring CO2 and methane, which causes the atmosphere to hold more heat, which melts more permafrost.... get it? Feedback cycle? In a relatively short time? To spike our temperatures?
Forget it. Just go on pretending it doesn't exist and defending something or someone that doesn't give a rats a$$ about your life, your family's life, or you future generations... just forget it.
BTW
That "logic" absolutely escapes me... and our country going down in flames helps us how? Our economy is already trashed... you did this without any help from us.
What the f#%K a Green Fund to help poor countries deal ????? This is right up Obama's pipline, just what the LIBERALS want , send more of MY tax money to these unaccountable foreign countries !!!! Over my dead body !!!!!!
Chris
The reason we sell North American oil to Japan, China etc.. is because our EPA regulations prohibit most of it to be burned in the USA. That is because of the high sulphur content. So we sell it to Japan who burns it, while the emissions blow over here anyways.
All this ignorance and still.....Not a single Governmental Organization including the DOD, nor any Scientific Agency disagrees that Global Weather Change it here, its real, and its man made.
But if you need to find out just how far ignorance has come....look at all the posts and the deniers.
@lmarct
My point is, whether you believe in it or not, the most logical solution is not reducing emmissions, raising energy costs, while reducing economic output, while we hunt for alternative energy sources that don't do even more damage to the environment than our current energy solutions...we already have the tech, we use it every single day in Subs and Space Craft, if it were scaled up, jobs would be created, economic output geared toward balancing our environmental impact...We have garbage men because we produce garbage...the logical answer isn't to produce less garbage and fire more garbage men...you want a new growth sector, you want jobs, you want a cleaner environment...methods for capturing the "green house gases" already in the atmosphere is the answer, not some Nirvana "Bong Dream" where the world is going cut their feet off, so the pretty flower doesn't get trampled
MrPhea, if you can find a way to take greenhouse gasses out of the atmosphere chepaly enough that woylkd be great, but everything I have seen show it is still cheaper to not put it up there in the first place. Kind of like putting toothpaste back in the tube.
I need the oceans to rise about 11 feet....then I'll have beachfront property.....
All the 7 billion people on the planet can fit in the State of Texas...4 people to a house.....most of the Earth is uninhabited.
Chris-749391
Let me ask you and all the others here this.
If the United States has more natural resources than the rest of the world why aren't we exploiting these massive reserves to eliminate our massive Debts and Unfunded Liabilities? In the meantime promoting free-market incentives to alternative energy sources.
Why don't we nationalize a part of our vast reserves to only be sold on our soil at prices just above cost, so there is an element of profit for further exploration? Saudi Arabia does this, why can't we? Imagine the amount of industry we can attract if they know their energy overhead will be so much lower.
For those who oppose nuclear energy or further exploitation of -- clean coal, natural gas, natural gas-shale, oil, shale-oil -- let me ask you this. How can we develop the technology to send a man to the moon, build a space station that humans can live on for months, build a telescope that can look further into the universe than ever imagined and of course, send Rovers to the Martian surface to explore a different planet, but we can’t benefit from all this energy we stand on? How can we do this and accomplish all the other world changing technologies yet we can't find a safe, efficient and PROFITABLE way to use our available PROVEN energy sources?
Why do we stop drilling in West Texas and Southeast New Mexico for an alleged endangered "Dunes Sagebrush Lizard"? This is in one of the most prolific oil-producing regions of our onshore Permian Basin regions. I would wager we can get a few hundred migrant workers to catch as many of these vital lizards (sarcasm) and relocate them a couple hundred miles away and they'll adapt quite nicely, thank you.
Why do we let hundreds of thousands of acres of premier American agricultural property in the San Joaquin Valley turn into a dust-bowl because of a 3 inch Delta-smelt? How many jobs and how much productivity is the Delta-smelt industry providing us? Can't we divert the water they claim is causing this "atrocity" to the poor smelt so as to benefit our agricultural industry and economy?
This one tops them all.
The U.S. Bureau of Land Management, which is in charge of making sure land is developed for wind, solar and geo-thermal energy development, ordered the construction of a solar plant halted just outside the Mojave National Preserve. Environmentalists complained and federal officials determined, that 162 adult tortoises would have to be moved, and 700 juvenile tortoises would die during construction on a 5.6-acre parcel. The Preserve is 1,534,819 acres big! There is NOWHERE else these turtles can be relocated? Or, nowhere else this solar farm could be relocated? Why didn’t the environmentalists determine the turtles fate BEFORE all the planning and effort was put into this development?
Most of this property has been auctioned off for alternative energy companies to use for developing clean energy such as Goldman Sachs! Yes, that GOLDMAN SACHS!!!! I wonder how many alternative energy projects they have on the drawing board.
To think that we are somehow going to create this wet-dream “Green-Initiative” that Obama so cherishes with this type of collusion is insanity. It will be decades before we even begin to create any type of energy dependence at this rate. In the meantime our personal and industrial costs will continue to soar, just as Obama proudly predicted. Is this the price all of us Americans have to pay for a totally dysfunctional energy policy being driven by special interest groups and environmental lunacy?
We need an All-The-Above energy policy TODAY! There is NO reason why the nation that has given the world more innovation and prosperity in the last 100 years than the rest of the world has for millennia can’t be the leader in energy. We just need a common sense policy and promotion of what we have proved works and then pursue other energy sectors when efficiency and affordability allows.
The UN is about as useless as ---- on a ----.
You fill in the blanks.
FreedomRingsLoud....The only way Obama can make his green energy krap work is if he makes all conventional energy prices " necessarily " skyrocket.....Including Nuclear..... But then we will not have enough money left for food........
We need to strap Harry Reid on the first shipment of spent fuel rods and send him deep into Yucca Mountain for the next 10,000 years....I don't care if we drill right through the head of a Moose in Alaska for oil....if he's too dumb to get out of the way.....oh well.....will make for some nice Moose fillet's, roasted rack of Moose...... for the drilling crew.
The Tock's Island Dam Project on the Delaware River, after years in the development stages.....they moved all the homes...created a nice new community, spent a ton of money for a Hydro-electric plant which would control flooding, create a vast recreation area and all that needs is flowing water.......and then....They found, yes you guess it it....a Darter Snail.....and the whole project came to a screeching halt......some 40 years ago.
@lmarct and others
and in there lies the genious of this newest set of lies, even the smartest, most honest and patriotic Americans can get behind the slogans, "Save the whales", "Save the Rainforest", "Save the Red toed, desert salamander"...But the people at the heart of all of these and more, have never had any concern for the environment or anything in it...It has always been about the destruction of capitalism...it is refered to as "death by a thousand paper cuts"...destruction of the family unit, corruption of the education system, demonizing the Economic Engine of the Planet, with promises of free everything for everyone, forever, until enough of the population is so uterly dependent that enslavement of the entire population of the planet will be welcomed on bended knee...and that may be a tipping point that we have actually passed
How is it then The African Continent the "Cradle of Civilization" according to Evolutionists hasn't crawled far from the cradle while Western Civilization has been to the Moon and back 40 years ago and invented all the inventions that lead up to you being able to type comments on here and have them go around the world at the speed of light......We all started at the same place.....
The Evolutionists claim we are nothing more than animals in the chain.....
Well....when there are too many lions for the amount of prey in a given area.....the weakest ones starve off.....Survival of the fittest....Darwin, Evolution, Natural Selection takes its course and its toll.
I just farted.You farted today,also.We all farted,or will.Seven billion people will fart today.Now,the ONLY way to prevent this natural occurence is to reduce the amount of PEOPLE on the face of the earth.We can do it voluntarily,our,naturally.The first option is the easiest.Excuse me while I eat more beans.(pooot)
Tipping point for what? The release of trapped gases? The warming of the world? What, exactly, is tipping?
The world has warmed, the world has cooled. Millions of species have rose, millions have died.
I find it amusing we think ourselves the end all.
When I need a chuckle.....I play that thought over in my head.
Climate change will always be a difficult subject for governments because it is an argument between large manufacturing and saving the environment.
The United States is more willing to limit carbon emissions these days because we have shipped most of our manufacturing work overseas and exist more on intellectual property. Countries like China and India who are heavy into manufacturing right now don't want to deal with the extra expense of limiting emissions on their factories. Which would limit their growth potential.
When the United States was developing its manufacturing industry we polluted just as bad as India and China are now and when we started choking on our own smog we created the EPA. So we could have clean air to breath and clean water to drink. Though in many places in the country even that is still pretty iffy.
Kent, I believe you've made an accurate assessment of the situation. We no longer have nearly as many pollution creating industries, so we can more easily promote pollution contols on those industries without as much disruption to our economy.
For per capita emission per year of CO2, the US is number 12 generating 17.5 metric tons per person, China is 78th with 5.3 tons per person and India at 145th with 1.4 tons out of 217 nations. Figures are not shown for Russia, Yugoslavia and Czechoslavakia. Highest is Qatar at 53 tons of CO2 generated per peson per year.
Kent, there is very little large manufacturing left in the U.S.
Guys, the US is still the largest manufacturer in the world, about 20% of everything produced (by value, not by volume).
GreenTimer...Even if your numbers are correct.....PER Capita Co2 Emission is a bogus number....They way you state it, it makes it look as if the U.S. is far worse than China....12th vs. 78th....when China (according to your numbers) puts more Co2 into the atmosphere than the U.S. does....
U.S..313 million X 17.5 m.tons = 5.47 Billion/ m.tons
China...1.4 billion X 5.3 m.tons = 7.42 Billion/m.tons
Near collapse ? GOOD!
Control of gas emission in order to set limits must be based in the extensionof the country and not the population. Probably European countries will be in disadvantage because they have small territory , but that is the way it should be.
There is nothing the UN can do about this. Nothing more than wasted time. Bacteria expands its horizons until the resources are spent, and so shall we. This is nothing more than political masturbation
Ahhhhhhh! More idiot-speak from the U.N. Just what the world needs (sarcasm).
on fox they also mention paying climate debts to smaller countries, what good is money going to do for them? also if this global warming is a irreversable effect what is accepted as a safe level? these are some of the reasons why alot of people think its untrue, too many inconsistancys, too many untruths, too much talk about money. money is not going to reverse, change or alter the path we have taken. I personnally dont believe that extreme climates is caused by man alone, but when they mention money it makes me ultra suspicious.
dave101
I'm with you on this one !!!!! Looks like smells like there is big money to be made . Funniest part is who is going to pay for it ????? With every country in the world going broke , where is the money going to come from ??? I do believe it is true we most do something to clean up our air and our water supply . But is it already to late ???? It is never to late to try , something will be better than doing nothing .
bob
No doubt the teabagging influence!!! TP dragging this earth and country down in more ways than one....
dave101sport: " these are some of the reasons why alot of people think its untrue"
But you have not given any reasons to think it is untrue. who is going to pay what has nothing to do with the science. Please try to stick to logic.
Of course people are expoiting the situation to make money. That is what we do. But how would that be different if global warming is happening or not? In fact, people would be MORE likely to try to to exploit the situation if it WERE happening.
Logic people, please.
dave the damage is repairable up to a certain point known as a tipping point. Once that point is reached a positive feedback loop begins to occur that cannot be stopped by our current technology.
This loop accelerates the rate at which the climate changes by a very quick pace. All models have suggested that by 2060ish most islands will be under water and that most of the lower lying coastal cities will be as well.
While this info is not vetted, here is an interesting site I think that will shed some more light on the subject:
http://futuretimeline.net/index.htm
You hit the nail on the head. It's the UN's version of a welfare program. Rich countries sending money to poor ones. AKA redistribution of wealth. AKA socialism. No, socialism is not "just a word", it's a failed social policy that punishes producers and rewards slackers.
Nature is very compassionate, and all living things benefit from that compassion. Is nature compassionate to slackers? No, she is cruel to the weak and unmotivated. That translates into compassion for the whole. You cannot fool mother nature, she created survival of the fittest (the fittest being translated to the most productive) and it works very well if you let it. If we continue trying to subvert her with this phony version of compassion by proxy she will eventually wipe us off the face of the planet.
Google Climategate II.
MOre falsified information is found in over 5,000 emails. They admitted this is not based on science, but on political gain.
This is a scheme to enrich an elite few and contribute to the global bank.
Dave, an interesting concept: "fittest is most productive.
You do realize that one of the longest living spiecies is the cockroach, so I guess they are the most productive. Man has been around for maybe 200,000 years. So the dinosaurs were around for about 2.3 years for every day we've been around. We've got a lot of production to do to catch up to the dinosaurs' survival.
Interesting also to classify tsunamis, hurricanes and earthquakes as just nature being compassionate.
Only a dumb backward uneducated hick or Republican does not believe in Global Warming.
I believe in global warming. The Great Lakes are PROOF. Now, that we've cleared that up. Who's going to pay to make Lake Superior back into a Ice Hockey rink??? To suggest pissing away trillions and trillions of dollars will reverse the earths cycle is disingenuous.
Next thing you know, Earthquakes, Volcano's and Tsunamis are a result of the Bush administration.
Yella, to suggest that anybody has ever suggested that is is disingenuous.
Let's clarify here. We're talking about MANMADE ACCELERATION of climate change. We talking about speeding up processes in tens of years what would normally take thousands or tens of thousands of years.
Man cannot pour tens of trillions of tons of greenhouse gases into the atmosphere and just expect that nothing is going to happen.
.
John - pull your head out of Al Gore's hypocritical fat ass!
Everyone needs to Google
CLimate Gate II
Only a crackpot would commit to spending Trillions of dollars with the lack of proof that anything can be done to significantly affect the trends in the weather. Usually it is a crackpot that has no money in the game.
kemu - pull your head out of GOP's hypocritical fat ass!
"believe in".... We are not talking about the Easter Bunny, Tooth Fairy, Santa Claus, or any of the various Religious figures... To believe in a thing, is to have faith, to accept without evidence or fact. Global Warming is not a tale told by the fireplace or in a religious building handed down through generations. Global Warming is a SCIENTIFIC THEORY which has been proven based upon a large body of evidence - empirical facts and figures. You do not BELIEVE in a scientific theory or fact. You either accept it or you dont. Not believe in it. The correct way to speak about global warming is to say - I accept the theory or I do not accept the theory, or the established facts (and then give reason).
Its like saying "I believe in the existence of the glucose molecule". That just sounds ridiculous.
It is a theory and it certainly has not been proven. If man had detailed records for thousands of years that could be inspected by anyone who wanted to and the trend showed that as CO2 went up then the temperature when up at exactly the same time then you may have proven something, as long as the causal effect is clear. The real data is sparse and has been tweeked based on assumptions, and for some reason many stations have been excluded. Most of the real data is less than 100 years old. The rest of the data is based on hypothesis of the content of ice cores and sparce tree ring data. To say the theory has been proven shows one thing. You are not a scientist and it proves that you know little about what you talk about and repeat only what you believe based on what you have read. Go back to school and learn the scientific method. Then we can talk.
We are killing people all over the world but someone thinks we can agree on global warming but not on global killing
jeff wilson, the prediction of AGW is not about observed temperature trends, but about the pysiochemistry of the greenhouse effect. We would predict future warming even if we had no temperature data at all.
But we DO have the data you suggest we need. It is not 100% absolutely sure, of course, but it doesn't have to be. It is very strong, and there is no longer any reasonable doubt of the problem, only the magnitude.
Hey Jeffy ol' boy - you had me worried that maybe I wasn't really a scientist, and that I actually didn't go to university and earned my degree in natural resource science. So I just went to my office and checked the degrees on my wall, just to make sure it wasn't all a dream, and sure enough, there are those degrees that say I am a Scientist, and my other various papers indicating my affiliation with various scientific associations, and my cluttered book case full of journals. Wow... PHEW! You scared me there for a moment!
So... jeffy... "the rest of the data is based on HYPOTHESIS of the content of ice cores and Sparce(?) tree ring data." ? - Do you mean, SPRUCE tree ring data? and I am assuming, since your grasp on the scientific method is much better than my own, that you mean to say: the hypothesis is based on data derived from the analysis of the content of gas bubbles trapped in polar ice cores and growth ring data from coniferous trees? Its ok - I know how the most brilliant of scientists can be forgetful. Just thought I'd help you out a bit. Because generally, hypothesis is derived from data. Then the hypothesis is tested, in a controlled expermient. Big trouble with global warming, is how do you test that hypothesis? Any suggestions?
It really doesn't matter what you lay people "believe in" or not, there is clear consensus among the experts that man is causing climate change. I am also a scientist with a Ph.D. in chemistry, but that kind of education isn't at all necessary to understand how and why it is happening. If you simply look at the data and possess an inkling of intelligence it will become obvious to that something needs to be done.
It wasn't long ago when people didn't accept the theory of evolution (although I suspect some on this board still refuse to), climate change is just another example of laymen disputing the unbiased evidence produced by scientists because they don't like what they hear.
kemu
John - pull your head out of Al Gore's hypocritical fat ass!
Thel4ugh!ngm@n
Everyone needs to Google
CLimate Gate II
Not a single Governmental Organization including the DOD, nor any Scientific Agency disagrees that Global Weather Change it here, its real, and its man made.
But the sheep have learned to talk, out their rear.
You, sir are a useless waste of of the oxygen on this planet.
Chris D - Youre an Alex Jones fan.. aren't you.
I'm with you Jeff -
I am not a "climate scientist", but I am a retired molecular biologist with formal scientific training in the physical sciences underlying the behavior of biological molecules. So I have a good understanding of the Scientific Method, what constitutes a theory, what constitutes an hypothesis, etc.
A local TV meteorologist has posted charts of climate data over time, satellite photos of the polar ice cap, and other material that appears to contradict the "overwhelming evidence" anthropogenic global warming such as we are told by the media. So I studied up on the subject (as a lay scientist) to see if the "overwhelming evidence" is credible.
Here's some of the things I uncovered:
1. While there are thousands of qualified scientists doing research on the subject, there are something like over 800 top-flight scientists who dispute the findings of those researchers who are insisting we have a critical problem. There are especially questions concerning the computer models used by researchers to predict dire consequences if we don't clean up the greenhouse gas emissions NOW.
2. There is a lot of grant money from governments and foundations to be had by researchers on both sides of the issue, but there is a lot more money available for those researching AGW with an eye towards finding evidence supporting AGW.
Records going back to the 1800s do not show a significant uptick in droughts, hurricanes, and tornadoes. This past year has seen both a record number of tornadoes and a record number of daily high temperatures, but in 1994, another bad year for tornadoes, there were far more EF5 tornadoes, and only slightly fewer tornadoes overall. Moreover, there have been many times over the past century where the number of daily high temperatures in the US has been approached. Same is true for Europe and Russia. As for droughts, there have been other bad years, especially during the dust bowl in the 1930s.
3. After Al Gore's movie, An Inconvenient Truth, came out, several factual errors were found, many quite blatant. For example, Hurricane Katrina WAS NOT caused by global warming. As for drowning polar bears, there were some carcasses found floating in the arctic after a violent storm which was determined to be the cause of drowning. There was plenty of ice. All told, there were 33 errors found in the movie.
Here's a reference: 35 inconvenient truths – debunks Al Gore's movie
4. There was a period a thousand years ago lasting hundreds of years when the world temperatures were much higher than today. It's called the Medieval Warm Period. The data illustrating that period was assembled by Dr. Hubert Lamb, considered the father of modern climatology. Dr. Lamb was the founder of the Climatic Research Unit at the University of East Anglia in the UK back in the early 1970s. The CRU is currently staffed by scientists who are actively pushing the AGW meme. The CRU, by the way, is where Climategate happened.
The temperature chart compiled by Dr. Lamb covering the past millenium was part of the 1990 IPPC Assessment Report. That chart was discontinued in the IPCC literature and replaced by the so-called "hockey stick" chart in the 2001 IPCC Assessment Report.
A further note. A researcher named David Deming was approached by another researcher who suggest that the Medieval Warm Period be "gotten rid of", in other words, to rewrite history. Here's a link: Article by David Deming - the climatologist who received the
email from Jonathan Overpeck proposing the necessity of
getting rid of the Mediaval Warm Period
I could go on, but I'm short of time. I won't even get to read the counter arguments sure to appear on this wall. For what it's worth, I cited over a hundred papers, articles, and video clips on both sides of the issue.
BTW, I hold a worldview much more in line with Progressive ideology on most issues, so please don't confuse me with so called RWNJ or label me as such. I voted for Obama and will vote for him again, even though I don't agree with him on a number of issues, including AGW.
My links didn't show up. I'll try again:
35 inconvenient truths – debunks Al Gore's movie
Article by David Deming - the climatologist who received the
email from Jonathan Overpeck proposing the necessity of
getting rid of the Mediaval Warm Period
Russel , IT doesnt take a scientist to look up over your head and see the usuable atomoshere is only 13 miles high. Seen from space is the thickness of a balloon. Now to think you can pump as much crap in that small space as you want and not make any changes in what happens with weather ect. is nothing more than being a damn fool.
StrengthInNumbers
Chris D - Youre an Alex Jones fan.. aren't you.
Never heard of him.
Anecdotes and pseudo scientists are what we have here.
I don't subscribe to either.
Science is not interpreted by the amateur.
But you cant tell by all the wanna bees here?
Denny, I am just playing the devils advocate here so please bear with me. You mention that we KEEP pumping green house gases into the air. Can we agree that most natural systems function in cycles? If so then lets say our atmospheric contents also cycle. A good example would be the water, to vapor, to rain cycle. These gases would not just stay and build up, they would cycle. CO2, one of the gases most mentioned would dissolve in the oceans. If/when the amount of CO2 hits some level, the algae in the oceans would absorb it and grow. This effectively removes the CO2 and produces Oxygen as a by product. The algae would continue to grow and consume the CO2 until the levels available begin to drop. Once that level is reached the algae begins to shrink back. The Earth is a marvelous place. Can we do better in maaging our resoiurces, SURE but its not going to happen anytime soon and passing laws will not work.
I do agree that there is global warming but feel it is a natural cycle. Like those above, that mention the decomposition of plants produce methane, shows there is a time when it was green. If any of the gases are particularly contributing to global warming it would be methane. The Earth cycles. I also believe that the ultimate outcome will be another ice age. The last thing is that I do believe humans have evolved enough to live through another ice age. If we do anything, it would be more along the lines of trying to prepare for what is coming, man made or not. The governments involvement, I feel is pure politics.
Climate change has been happening from the beginning of time. How do these nitwits stop what happens naturally.
Nobody is suggesting we should stop what happens naturally, so your comment only shows you have no clue what they debate is even about (or you do and you are purposely lying about it).
So, what if it is happening! What's the worse that can happen? Life as we understand it is wiped out eventually and something else probably will come forth. That's the beauty of evolution folks. It's not evil or bad just natural.
Only a gullible idiot brainwashed Liberal or Democrat believes in Global Warming.
I agree with you, wil. Well put!
And here's our friend Phil Jones, apparently trying to stuff the IPCC working groups with scientists favourable to his cause, while shutting out dissenting voices.
Here is what looks like an outrageous case of government – the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs – actually putting pressure on climate "scientists" to talk up their message of doom and gloom in order to help the government justify its swingeing climate policies:
Here is a gloriously revealing string of emails in which activists and global warming research groups discuss how best to manipulate reality so that climate change looks more scary and dangerous than it really is:
Bush believed in Global Warming
http://news.mongabay.com/2008/0530-bush.html
Gingrich said: "The Evidence is Sufficient" on Global Warming
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=upphPTRr_PE
Romney believes in Global Warming:
Wis59 said
I guess he plans to vote for a gullible idiot brainwashed Liberal!
(Note all of these were referring not to natural causes but human caused
It is natural for the earth to go through this, it is not the first time. It doesn't hurt to lower pollution just for the sake of health reasons. But you are not going to stop mother nature.
You may not be able to stop mother nature, it's just that giving her mother's little helpers will make her clean house so much quicker.
HOLY.. sh!t! Can't you even decipher what was being communicated in those messages?!? It frightens me how badly too many of you choose to be like those three "no evil" monkeys! Go ahead and stick your fingers in your ears and yell LA LA LA LA LA!! The greenhouse effect is real, is augmented by human actions, and is perturbing all manner of systems on the planet.
That email exchange does not cover any kind of nefarious deed. It shows a bunch of scientists trying to figure out how to get the message that this is real, through to YOU denier knuckleheads! I can see myself involved in that email exchange, on how do we get these BOZOs to hear us?!?
Its one of the problems scientists deal with. If we could just sit with our test tubes and microscopes, or run about capturing and identfying butterflies without having to deal with getting this info out to YOU guys, our lives would be much more tolerable. The trouble with being a scientist is having to deal with the people who would have us burned at the stake as heretics (which, by the way, would create more greenhouse gases, so I strongly suggest against that)! AAARGH! And they wonder where the term "Mad Scientist" comes from! Its enough to drive anyone mad!
Couch Climatologists, they are soo smart?
The Climate is dynamic, always changing. The question is "Do you blow up our current economy to fix something that might happen in the future? What will you give up ? Not just what you want the other guy to do without. I do think it's noble to try, I'm just not sure reverting back to hunting & gathering is the way to go.
If anybody had ever suggested such a thing, you might have a point. But we don't have to blow up our economy, and it WILL happen in the future, so your cost-benefit anaysis is way off (and probably purposefully).
Jock: Of course it was on purpose, I read a lot of these articles, I do believe that when it gets boiled down it turns into a redistribution plan ( there is a article stating exactly that ) But you fail to answer What are you going to do without?
BC005
I have been doing without extravagances for over 40 years. But it is not just personal decisions. The main solutions involve efficiency of manufacturing on a large scale, how we get our energy in the first place, and how we use the land. A lot of this can be done without any great sacrifices to lifestyle.
People may well have visions of how we can turn this into a more fair distribution of wealth (how dare they want fairness!), but that has nothing to do with the science. Please do not deny the problem just because you don't like some of the proposed solutions. It makes no sense.
Reminds me of the river polluters. A few years ago the fish were not safer to eat in many of our Rivers including the Hudson which I see out my window. IN fact you were advised not to swim in it.
We changed that, made them clean it up, put in new regulations. Now the Hudson is safe as are many other rivers.
You can put a stop to it
You can turn it around
If you try
The kids are counting on it
I don't deny there are problems, just as there are solutions. I take issue with the pronouncements from on high. You must do this, that. or some other thing. Failure results in complete destruction, the Earth stops rotating,(hyperbole) and it's your fault. Just on other thing Who decides "Fairness" some plutocrat that works at an NGO?
BC005O "Failure results in complete destruction, the Earth stops rotating,"
But the scientists are not saying that. Even very few of the alarmists go that far. If you don't like the proposed soultions, then propose better ones. If you want a bottom-up solution, that means YOU.
Well I have in the past recommended an increase in nuclear development but that starts another round of we're all going to die glowing.I once worked with a group that wanted to rehabilitate an old hydro plant . Again Hue & cry, No pleasing all, As for me I moved my shop into a building I had put up that was at the time (1990) state of the art It's close enough that I walk to it or ride my bicycle . I heat my home with a hybrid system trying to take advantage of as many or the least harmful available to me. I have tried them all Some work well others are not worth the money, or just end up being a wash.
Thousands of phd scientists are coming out of the repression and claiming that man made global warming is a total hoax! The sun is so much larger of an effect than us. And the carbon levels they worry about come AFTER temperature rises, historically. We also need o worry about Senator McCain's American arrest without cause internment camp amendment and now Obama saying we need to detain Americans(Prolonged Detention program) before their crimes(minority report?) WTF is going on?
Bruce please provide a list of the thousands or a citation that proves your claim that thousands are now saying it is a hoax.
Or admit you are a liar
Bruce: "Thousands of phd scientists are coming out of the repression and claiming that man made global warming is a total hoax!"
This is an absolute lie.
"The sun is so much larger of an effect than us."
On the temperature, yes; but not on the temperature CHANGE.
How much did they pay you to write this false post?
This may have been what Bruce was referring to.
He may actually have bee right.
Bruce-795882 Thousands of phd scientists are coming out of the repression and claiming that man made global warming is a total hoax!
BULL.
Not a single Governmental Organization including the DOD, nor any Scientific Agency disagrees that Global Weather Change it here, its real, and its man made.
Bruce, My findings are in agreement with you. While the earth may be warming, man is not the cause.
Chris D, you have a strong case;
"BULL.
Not a single Governmental Organization including the DOD, nor any Scientific Agency disagrees that Global Weather Change it here, its real, and its man made."
Chris, please post a link to any credible PHD that has presented any factual material that points to man as the cause. Again Chris, credible. No, Al Gore and Obama will not work. This seems to be a fashionable cause to support today.
Why can't we move past this and focus on important topics like Obama's next vacation. How 5 or 6 jets will be used to transport he and his family, staff, etc. The millions of tax payers dollars spent and OMG, the carbon footprint as a result. Surely if this were true, Obama would not further damage our world for his own pleasure, would he?
What part of All is hard to get?
There are no anecdotes for the couch climatologist to digest or discuss.
The DOD for more than a decade has not discussed if its real but set forth a mandate for WHEN the change finally hits the fan, and how they can protect American Citizens with all the scrambling for safety. We may be the ones scrambling.
Science has long ago given up the debate, they too are studying the long term effects not the guess work of Ohh, maybe its not man made.
Same for every government agency that wants to exist.
Stubborn ones may not want to slow down for economic gain [greed] but they also know and admit if they don’t were all gone, no ifs, no ands, and not buts.
To most countries, it's not about global warming. With the help of the American left, they have simply found a tool with which to slap down the world's successful economies. Misery loves company.
I am not surprised there is no general agreement on this issue. It is one that requires humans to place greater value on the long run than the short run. Humans tend to be poor decision makers when facing such choices. However, that doesn’t make the lack of an effective long run decision on this subject any less tragic.
I accept the science of humans changing the atmospheric chemical composition through globalized industrialization. Much to my frustration and concern for future generations, the political reality is that there are so many ignorant Americans (some by choice, some by circumstance) it will take many years of huge winter snowstorms, violent spring weather, and unusually hot summers before today's ignorant are dead and more informed voters decide to take action. The problem is that so much more pollution will have been added to the atmosphere by then that the train of climate change will have already left the station. What I don't understand is that we buy insurance for our lives, homes, autos, and other valuables but we don't place a value on our planet by paying for insurance just in case the science is correct.
For those of us who don’t like to be ignorant about the science of altering the atmosphere's chemistry, I suggest the following books with a brief quote from each:
I make these suggestions to help frame the science behind the issues associated with human-caused changes in the chemical composition of the atmosphere. Many people seem ignorant of the science behind climate analysis and content to put their heads deeply into the sand. The defining characteristic of humanity, complex intelligence, is enhanced by a broad liberal education. Thomas Jefferson had this to say about higher education including science: “the university [of Virginia] would be ‘now qualified to raise its youth to an order of science unequalled in any other state; and this superiority will be greater from the free range of mind encouraged there, and the restraint imposed at other seminaries by the shackles of a domineering hierarchy and a bigote
Really? I have heard that before, but let's look at the facts. CO2 has a heat capacity of 0.024 BTU/SCF which is basically identical to oxygen and nearly the same as nitrogen. Both of these gases make up 21% and 78% of the atmosphere, respectively, while CO2 composes only 0.04%.
You are telling us uneducated, ignorant lay people that a gas which composes 0.04% of the atmosphere has more effect on the climate than two gas which make up 99% of the atmosphere. Please explain.
Road Warrior
CO2 absorbs way more of the radiation at wavelengths leaving the Earth than either O2 or N2 does. Otherwise we would call oxygen and nitrogen greenhouse gasses, which all scientists know they are not.
I'm not sure what your motivation is for purposely deceiving people, but in the end you will only have to answer to yourself.
Road Warrior I would suggest you go in a room and drop some potassium cyanide (2-3 Tablets will do) in a bucket with a little sulfuric acid and see what a very tiny percent of gas in the area in that room can do to you.
Or simplify it and take about 1/5th of a gram of it into your body (For an average man that is only 0.00002520% of your body weight. Sit down for a few minutes, then call me and tell me what a minute amount of something can do.
If you are still alive which you won't be.
Roadwarrior,
It has to do with the CO2's ability to reflect certain wavelengths of heat back to earth. You should be able to google that and see why it is that CO2 creates a blanket of sorts.
Clarification: That is BTU/SCF per dgreee Fahrenheit.
jock59801,
The deception is the left pushing global warming. You talk about radiation wavelength. That has nothing to do “heat” coming off the earth’s surface. Heat absorption is based on the heat capacity or specific heat of the gas. The molecular weight (molecule size) surely also contributes to the heat capacity. Argon, which has a molecular weight of 40 compared to 44 for CO2, should absorbed just as much heat as CO2. And argon composes 0.93% of the atmosphere, 23 times more than CO2. Why is argon not a problem on the climate? Can it be CO2 is just a more convenient target because it is a byproduct of fossil fuel combustion?
Frankly True, is that how you get your jollies?
Alsophia, googling brings up all sorts of false data. You find what you want to find. For your info, heat does not reflect. It is absorbed on contact with a surface. Some chemicals can absorb more heat than others. All chemicals, and that is what atmospheric gases are, have a heat capacity unique to that chemical.
Warrior,
Reflection of heat waves has a lot to do with how high the earth's temps get. Heat that would be leaving the planet gets reflected back while at the same time more heat is being created. Kinda creates a buildup of heat. I'm beginning to lose faith in your reasoning abilities. Was trying to help you some in seeing what it is that's happening and why.
It has nothing to do with "absorption". You're going down the wrong road on that one and all your arguments will fall flat. It is heat reflection that is the culprit.
Warrior,
You obviously do not understand radiation. Can you explain what, exactly, "heat" is? It doesn't seem so.
Just did some more checking on this subject and was a little off. The CO2 first "absorbs" the heat waves, then "radiates" the heat back. So I guess I wasn't too far off. The heat goes up into the atmosphere and the CO2 sends it back to earth. I can still go with "relfection" although it is a two step process.
Anecdotes, almost worth listening to, except comic books are better.
Ok, that was a good nap. Back for more debate.
Alsophia,
I see your problem. You google, find what you are looking for, things written by others, could be anyone with an agenda, and regurgitates the info. Heat does not reflect. Heat is energy. Heat is transmitted by the energy absorbed by the first layer of molecules, that layer of molecules get bumped and transfers the energy to the next layer, and on and on. Picture putting a flame on a metal body. You do not feel any heat on the other side of the body until there is time for the molecules to transfer the energy from one side to the other. You'd do better to argue that the CO2 molecules absorb heat up to its heat capacity and then act as an insulation to keep heat from escaping. But if that is the case, then argon, oxygen, nitrogen, helium, neon and all the other gases in the atmosphere should be doing the same thing. Can't just lay it all on CO2. As I said before, I believe CO2 is chosen to be the boogie man because it is a byproduct of fossil fuel combustion. And since our economy relies heavily on fossil fuels, what better way to cripple our economy by the other countries than to limit our use of fossil fuels?
Warrior,
That's what I thought. You were using high school chemistry understanding which just doesn't go far enough. An excited atom releases extra energy in radiation of certain wavelengths. The size (chords) of these wavelengths determine how they react with other atoms. It turns out that the wavelengths of the radiation from the earth's surface is just the right size to excite the CO2 molecule, which, after getting excited, reverts to it's preferred state by re-emitting the wavelengths. It is pretty much a reflection of heat from the earth back to earth.
I only used to googling to refresh what I already knew. It's just been so many years since I was studying nuclear physics that I wanted to make sure of what I was remembering.
Stick your hand out in some hot sunlight and feel the heat. Then tell me that heat got there from the sun by one atom bumping into another. Really? If you really get down to it, no atom ever touches another atom. Only their fields of force interact with each other. That is what happens in your heated steel analogy. There is no "thing" that hits another "thing".
But trying to argue science with you will get nowhere. You are bound to stick with your politically motivated arguments. You are more concerned with politics than you are with truth.
Road Warrior: "But if that is the case, then argon, oxygen, nitrogen, helium, neon and all the other gases in the atmosphere should be doing the same thing."
No, those gasses absorb radiation at different wavelengths, and are largely invisible to the wavelengths of energy coming from the Earth. it's called physics.
Alsophia,
It really has been a long time, hasn’t it? I am current, not relying on 30-year old knowledge and having to google to refresh my mind. I currently do contract work with the DOE in their nuclear upgrade division, PE in two states. That is all I can tell you due to security reasons. I did stick my hand out in the sun. What happened was the energy from the sun hitting the cells on my skin. But I did not feel anything until the energy is transferred from one molecule to another until a nerve cell beneath the skin told my brain that it is hot. It’s called heat transfer. The sun rays that travel through space where there is a vacuum does not heat anything up because in a vacuum, there is no matter to hit and transfer the heat. The sun rays only heats something up when it actually contacts matter. Once the rays hit matter, it is absorbed to the extent of the heat capacity of the matter, not reflected. This reflection business is flawed. As I said, you’d better off arguing that the CO2 has absorbed all the energy it could and is acting as an insulator, which I don’t buy because the CO2 concentration in the atmosphere is trace amounts.
OK, Roadie,
What transferred the heat to your hand from the "radiation" from the sun? It was the effects of the wavelengths of the radiation that travelled those millions reacting with the atoms in your skin, exciting the atoms in your skin (made them hot). From there on down the line of your nervous system is a different subject, I would believe. If you understood my posts above you would see that I agreed that the CO2 absorbed the radiation, but then re-emitted it. That's close enough to "reflection" for me. I don't know what kind of contracting you are doing with DOE, but judging from your understanding of physics it could even be janitorial service. You're speaking from a high school chemistry level.
Alsophia,
You are putting words in my mouth. I never said the energy is re-emitted once a CO2 molecule absorbs the energy. That is your argument regarding “reflection” back to the earth’s surface. I said once the energy is absorbed, it is transferred from molecule to molecule until each has max out on its heat capacity. The heat is transferred also to the O2, N2, Ar, Ne and He, but it is not reflected to the earth’s surface as you claimed.
I am doing continued education courses online in between posts tonight to keep my annual registration current. Are you registered in any state in your profession? If so, what tests did you have to take and how many professional development hours do you have to have to meet the annual continued education quota in order to keep your registration active? From one professional to another, I don’t think we will ever come to a “consensus" :)
Roadie,
I used the term "relfection" loosely to indicate that after being absorbed by the CO2 it was "re-emitted". That's close enough. And also very accurate. You just go on thinking that the heat is transferred by one atom bumping into another atom all you want.
You are still stuck on high school chemistry level of seeing how these things work. Your political inclinations drive your logical reasoning. You have missed/avoided the key understanding of how energy is released and absorbed, or even what the nature of this energy we are speaking of is.
As far as my current status, I am retired. Due to security reasons, haha, all I can truthfully say is that the books I was given to study were required to be kept under lock and key. Funny as that might sound, it is the truth. You might be able to figure it out from there.
So any way, whatever "credentials" you come up with does not change the fact that even though you obviously think of yourself as being scientifically educated, your understanding of this issue is high school chemistry level. No, we will never come to a consensus. At least not until you gain an understanding of the issue.
Gotta give you credit for one thing. You're very bullheaded and hate to lose. But you know, if you could prove me wrong I'd have no problem saying, "OK, I was mistaken." After butting heads with you over several issues and reading lots of your other posts, I don't see that happening. But anyway, good luck and hang in there.
Some of the heat radiation absorbed by CO2 and other greenhouse gases is transferred to other molecules, and some is radiated (re-emitted) directly back to the Earth's surface. In either case, it causes warming compared to the heat radiation escaping directly into space. The Earth is over 50 deg F warmer than it would be without greenhouse gases. Physicists have known this for decades. It is predicted by Quantum Mechanics, the most extensively tested theory in the history of physics.
I am not surprised there is no general agreement on this issue. It is one that requires humans to place greater value on the long run than the short run. Humans tend to be poor decision makers when facing such choices. However, that doesn’t make the lack of an effective long run decision on this subject any less tragic.
I accept the science of humans changing the atmospheric chemical composition through globalized industrialization. Much to my frustration and concern for future generations, the political reality is that there are so many ignorant Americans (some by choice, some by circumstance) it will take many years of huge winter snowstorms, violent spring weather, and unusually hot summers before today's ignorant are dead and more informed voters decide to take action. The problem is that so much more pollution will have been added to the atmosphere by then that the train of climate change will have already left the station. What I don't understand is that we buy insurance for our lives, homes, autos, and other valuables but we don't place a value on our planet by paying for insurance just in case the science is correct.
For those of us who don’t like to be ignorant about the science of altering the atmosphere's chemistry, I suggest the following books with a brief quote from each:
I make these suggestions to help frame the science behind the issues associated with human-caused changes in the chemical composition of the atmosphere. Many people seem ignorant of the science behind climate analysis and content to put their heads deeply into the sand. The defining characteristic of humanity, complex intelligence, is enhanced by a broad liberal education. Thomas Jefferson had this to say about higher education including science: “the university [of Virginia] would be ‘now qualified to raise its youth to an order of science unequalled in any other state; and this superiority will be greater from the free range of mind encouraged there, and the restraint imposed at other seminaries by the shackles of a domineering hierarchy and a bigote
Anecdotes, interpreted by couch climatologists, and no one sees a problem with that?
I am not surprised there is no general agreement on this issue. It is one that requires humans to place greater value on the long run than the short run. Humans tend to be poor decision makers when facing such choices. However, that doesn’t make the lack of an effective long run decision on this subject any less tragic.
I accept the science of humans changing the atmospheric chemical composition through globalized industrialization. Much to my frustration and concern for future generations, the political reality is that there are so many ignorant Americans (some by choice, some by circumstance) it will take many years of huge winter snowstorms, violent spring weather, and unusually hot summers before today's ignorant are dead and more informed voters decide to take action. The problem is that so much more pollution will have been added to the atmosphere by then that the train of climate change will have already left the station. What I don't understand is that we buy insurance for our lives, homes, autos, and other valuables but we don't place a value on our planet by paying for insurance just in case the science is correct.
For those of us who don’t like to be ignorant about the science of altering the atmosphere's chemistry, I suggest the following books with a brief quote from each:
I make these suggestions to help frame the science behind the issues associated with human-caused changes in the chemical composition of the atmosphere. Many people seem ignorant of the science behind climate analysis and content to put their heads deeply into the sand. The defining characteristic of humanity, complex intelligence, is enhanced by a broad liberal education. Thomas Jefferson had this to say about higher education including science: “the university [of Virginia] would be ‘now qualified to raise its youth to an order of science unequalled in any other state; and this superiority will be greater from the free range of mind encouraged there, and the restraint imposed at other seminaries by the shackles of a domineering hierarchy and a bigote
The only thing more annoying then someone pasting the same long advertisement they have pasted before, is someone doing it 3 times in a row.
Well Jock on this we agree
Anecdotes, interpreted by couch climatologists, and no one sees a problem with that?
I am not surprised there is no general agreement on this issue. It is one that requires humans to place greater value on the long run than the short run. Humans tend to be poor decision makers when facing such choices. However, that doesn’t make the lack of an effective long run decision on this subject any less tragic.
I accept the science of humans changing the atmospheric chemical composition through globalized industrialization. Much to my frustration and concern for future generations, the political reality is that there are so many ignorant Americans (some by choice, some by circumstance) it will take many years of huge winter snowstorms, violent spring weather, and unusually hot summers before today's ignorant are dead and more informed voters decide to take action. The problem is that so much more pollution will have been added to the atmosphere by then that the train of climate change will have already left the station. What I don't understand is that we buy insurance for our lives, homes, autos, and other valuables but we don't place a value on our planet by paying for insurance just in case the science is correct.
For those of us who don’t like to be ignorant about the science of altering the atmosphere's chemistry, I suggest the following books with a brief quote from each:
I make these suggestions to help frame the science behind the issues associated with human-caused changes in the chemical composition of the atmosphere. Many people seem ignorant of the science behind climate analysis and content to put their heads deeply into the sand. The defining characteristic of humanity, complex intelligence, is enhanced by a broad liberal education. Thomas Jefferson had this to say about higher education including science: “the university [of Virginia] would be ‘now qualified to raise its youth to an order of science unequalled in any other state; and this superiority will be greater from the free range of mind encouraged there, and the restraint imposed at other seminaries by the shackles of a domineering hierarchy and a bigote
Yes, the altered weather patterns have been influenced by human activity. Russia fooling with the ocean currents since the 1970s and the very intense spraying of aluminum oxide into the atmosphere for the last decade by a large flotilla of aircraft are the major culprits, not the accumulated effects of domestic life styles. The US has gutted most of its manufacturing centers and motor vehicles have more advance smog control, so, that's out.
Unfortunately smog control does not reduce carbon dioxide emissions. And what's your reference for aluminum oxide spraying?
Hey, folks, I only intended one entry. If someone is managing this, I would welcome deleting the repetitive entries shown above.
Call it off folks. It is the right thing to do. There is nothing that the best efforts of mankind could do that would significantly make any difference.
Well, there is quite a bit the "best efforts" of mankind could do, it is just not possible for mankind to produce its "best efforts," because that would involve cooperation and compassion and a little sacrifice.
And here's our friend Phil Jones, apparently trying to stuff the IPCC working groups with scientists favourable to his cause, while shutting out dissenting voices.
Here is what looks like an outrageous case of government – the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs – actually putting pressure on climate "scientists" to talk up their message of doom and gloom in order to help the government justify its swingeing climate policies:
Here is a gloriously revealing string of emails in which activists and global warming research groups discuss how best to manipulate reality so that climate change looks more scary and dangerous than it really is:
None of that has anything to do with any kind of fraud. It is all about making the true message more clear, and fighting the disinformation from the denial industry.
Only if you assume that climate change is not true, can you interpret any of that is fraudulent cover-up. But then YOU would be making the unwarranted assumption.
or maybe YOU are just to scared to face the facts that it'sa hoax, and even the scientists are wanting to tell the truth?
Hey Jock, are really THAT dumb?
I know the scientists. I have seen the evidence. The empty insults only amuse me.
jock,
My PhD friends and family will say that over 97% of all scientists accept the reality of global warming, and that those 3% are usually effected by politics or personality disorders.
Lots of hot air, cut the nose off to spite the face, and the usual screw your self to seem important stuff, yet............
Not a single Governmental Organization including the DOD, nor any Scientific Agency disagrees that Global Weather Change it here, its real, and its man made.
If there were really a hoax, don't you think at least some scientists would be making much stronger statements, doing undercover interviews, etc.? In the e-mail fragments above, the only real specific scientific topic is the temperatures in the tropical troposphere, and that has now been resolved in favor of warming, at least according to some new research I read about on the Science Daily website.
The entire concept, and the fact that so many brain-dead suckers ever bought in to it is overwhelming PROOF at how unbelievably GULLIBLE much of society is.
The "arrogance of man" combined with the "ignorance of man" allowed many to believe that mankind actually has the ability to affect the power of Mother Nature.
Charlatans like Al Gore and his ilk have amassed "huge fortunes" in the hundreds of millions of dollars by promoting this scam; flying everywhere around in their private, Carbon dumping jets and driving in their "High Security Caravans of giant SUV's. The "suckers" witnessed these events, yet somehow never connected the dots.
The American taxpayer has been picking up the tab that has allowed much of the world to even exist, especially since World War II, from the "Marshall Plan and NATO" to the "United Nations, the World Bank amd the International Monetary Fund" aka GLOBAL WELFARE... aka NEW WORLD ORDER.
If it were not for the American taxpayers, Europe would have been totally consumed by the Soviet Union by 1960. All of those countries would have had RUSSIAN as their official language if not for the US Taxpayers.
But as if all of those TRILLIONS the USA has spent on GLOBAL WELFARE, propping up the economies of Europe were not enough? Oh no, those helpless, greedy, parasitic fools STILL want more and more and more.
So they come up with this "global warming-climate change scam" for what? Nothing more than just "another way" to SUCK MONEY from American taxpayers to continue our GLOBAL WELFARE programs.
However, for "all those who insist on buying in to that entire Climate Change MYTH"... that's fine. THOSE morons are "more than welcome" to donate THEIR time and THEIR money to support THEIR beliefs, praying at the altar of Albert "son of the Ku Klux Klan" Gore.
peace :-)
What you are saying has nothing to do with science. If you have a scientific argument why CO2 is not a greenhouse gas, then say so. Otherwise you are just ranting about politics, throwing out slander and insults, and pretending that is all OK by ending it with "peace."
Speedy, Palm Harbor, Florida
The entire concept, and the fact that so many brain-dead suckers ever bought in to it is overwhelming PROOF at how unbelievably GULLIBLE much of society is.
The "arrogance of man" combined with the "ignorance of man" allowed many to believe that mankind actually has the ability to affect the power of Mother Nature.
Yep its the"ignorance of man".... Global Weather Change is here, its man made, and it doesn't care about your ignorance.
Some people in Texas are rethinking that myth talk you speak of.
Actually they are just praying harder, and Rick is holding the sermons.
The green Human haters. those nasty humans are ruining everything.
Horse turds are Green
Your acaming is out in the open
it doesn`t really matter if you believe in the global warming theory,can you stomach the cure.ain`t going to happen as every politician knows that,it is the economy stupid,going green does not produce green.
It will in the long run, but humans and markets are not capable of looking that far ahead.
i think i agree with you,but if population is not discussed then it is a waste of time.plus developing nations are going to consume more.
Oh no , call in our Lord and Saviour Obama and bring the crackpot Al Gore with him!! This is truly devastating news.
Yep. Canada is just SOOO happy Obama and the Keystone Pipeline. And worse the number or jobs created is an argument point. JFC! We need jobs period! I mean is Obama even in touch? Or does he believe his own spin doctors?
cliff-567164 there is no saving ignorance.
Guess your a goner then!!!
Well it would be so nice if we actually did do something about the effects of the exploding population. The Untied States can't dictate anything to other countries. We OWE them too much. Sooo.
We need to freaking STOP the EPA BS until we our the power-house Country again and then we CAN leverage ourselves again.
Until then shackling our economy with regulations while China and India and the rest don't is plain STUPID. Al Gore is dangerous.
We can't be the leader from our current position. Duhhh.
Let's state the obvious...men treat this like a pissing contest....this is nothing but egos, stubborness and idiocy....men have screwed up this country and the world enough...violence, war, rape, sexism...enough...WOMEN come to POWER!!!!! Oh that's right, men are threatened by us too and therefore attempt to do the above mentioned things to us.....sad gender if you ask me.
Medication time. WOW!
gee h,i have three sisters that i love,a mother that i visit everyday,well she is a great cook.i would die for my wife and the wealthiest people i see day to day are old woman who raised boys just like me.you must hang with a bad crowd.
The UN "Climate Change" conference is collapsing in failure? Best news of the day. We do need to get the Chicken Little Greenie Weenies some mental health help... they appear to have a problem with reality.
The ignore the greens and listen to the scientist, who overwhelmingly agree that AGW is a problem.
Sorry Jocko, there is not a consensus: 1) that the world is experiencing climate change outside of historical norms (remember the ice ages), 2) that anything mankind is doing is having any measurable effect on climate change, or 3) that anything belng proposed by the greenie weenie scientists will have any effect on climate change. Therefore it is really good news that the UN meeting has failed. Their crazy ideas will wind up where they belong... in a landfill.
Martha; some day you will learn that you are wrong; but it the meantime you do amuse me.
Mean while....Not a single Governmental Organization including the DOD, nor any Scientific Agency disagrees that Global Weather Change it here, its real, and its man made.
Please document what you say Chris.
WHY, so the couch climate scientist can pretend to read and understand it?
Get real.
"Mean while....Not a single Governmental Organization including the DOD, nor any Scientific Agency disagrees that Global Weather Change it here, its real, and its man made."
Chris D, no one can disagree that "the weather changes around the globe", however there are MANY that disagree with the cult of "global warming" and it's goal to redistribute wealth (and misery) on a global basis.
The deniers are becoming more obsolete by the day. Man is starting to address the problem and towing dead weights of ignorant people wont be in the cards.
The ignorant one will get on the band wagon to fix our mistakes or find them selves standing their with their pants around their ankle.
They are irrelevant at present, they can join to fix the problem or go the way of the dinosaur, its that simple.
who is in charge of this
ALUMINUM SKY (chemtrails)
www.youtube.com