backtop

Blog: Science Bad News for Global Warming Alarmists
Michael Asher (Blog) - January 30, 2007 12:39 PM
Print E-mail del.icio.us 114 comment(s) - last by Fibbly.. on Feb 2 at 8:06 AM
The Climate Debate turns ugly

It's been a bad year for Global Warming Alarmists.   Researchers are finding more and more evidence of natural warming events in the earth's past, events that were far more rapid and dramatic than first thought.  Several scientists, disgusted with the media's refusal to carry their mesage accurately, have begun writing letters and books.  Even the UN's Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, which has long been the most vocal supporter of climate alarmism, has finished its Fourth Assessment report, which lowers worst case estimates sharply, and cuts in half long-term predictions for sea level rise.  Evidence of the beneficial aspects of continues to mount, with arctic seal populations increasing, longer growing seasons, and less extreme temperature swings.

Is it any wonder environmentalists are getting even more emotional in the debate?  In public, they state they simply want "truth to out," but the reality is a bit different.  Recently, Weather Channel host Heidi Cullen made a strong bid to silence the opposition, calling for the removal of AMS certification for meteorologists who challenged the belief in catastrophic human-induced global warming.   In it, she compared global warming denial to "going on air and saying that hurricanes rotate clockwise," apparently herself unaware that in the southern hemisphere hurricanes do indeed rotate in this direction.  Cullen's statement immediately provoked outrage from meteorologists around the nation, with one of them angrily proclaiming, "I don't know a single meteorologist who buys into the man-made global warming hype."

Heidi Cullen gained earlier fame for hosting environmental writer David Roberts, who openly called for Nuremberg-style war crimes trials (complete with death sentences) for any scientist brave enough to dispute the public hysteria on global warming.  How's that for support of scientific truth and free speech?   In the past, reporters just hung up on scientists who didn't agree with their beliefs ... now they want to lynch them!

Luckily, its not yet illegal to research the true causes of global warming.  Late last year, atmospheric physicist S. Fred Singer released his book, Unstoppable Global Warming (Every 1500 Years), detailing the current warming trend's correspondence with a natural 1500-year cycle.  Singer notes that most of the current warming ocurred before 1940, and thus before the majority of man's CO2 emissions.  He further notes that, since 1940, the earth experienced one 30-year long cooling trend, followed by a 30-year warming trend...both of which were much smaller than the warming right after 1900.  Singer's documenting of 600 past historical events of rapid warming further supports his views.

Also, Danish Physicist Henrik Svensmark has a book coming out next month: The Chilling Stars: A New Theory of Climate Change.  In it, he details his research on cosmic radiation-induced atmospheric cloud formation.   Svensmark points out that already-observed changes in solar flux act to reduce cloud cover, and thus cause the earth to reflect less solar radiation back into space.   This quite obviously causes a moderate degree of warming...just as we've seen.

Is global warming a man-made danger ... or a part of a natural cycle?  More and more scientiests are leaning to the latter.  Will the media be brave enough to report their research, or will public hysteria win the day?

Comments     Threshold


This article is over a month old, voting and posting comments is disabled
Really?
By gonyong on 1/30/2007 3:31:18 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
Even the UN's Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, which has long been the most vocal supporter of climate alarmism, has finished its Fourth Assessment report, which lowers worst case estimates sharply, and cuts in half long-term predictions for sea level rise.


Really? I thought they just convened on Monday and are not displaying their reports until Friday. Where did you get these figures? Also, scientists argue that these reports did not take into account the melting glaciers in Antartica and Greenland; I believe that would be of some concern.




RE: Really?
By pauluskc on 1/30/2007 4:06:00 PM , Rating: 1
Here's a great lesson in basic science for all you "glaciers are melting and will drown us all" people out there.

1) fill a cup halfway up with tap water
2) add ice to fill it to the top (if some ice sticks out above the brim, it's ok)
3) let the ice melt.

OMG! The cup overflowed and made a huge mess!!! Wait. No!! It didn't.


RE: Really?
By masher2 (blog) on 1/30/2007 4:17:28 PM , Rating: 2
Floating ice (e.g. the entire North Pole) can melt without affecting sea levels. Ice on rock shelf (e.g. most glaciers) is a different matter.

The important point here, though, is that the IPCC-- one of the more pessimistic sources-- is now predicting a 17 inch rise over the next 100 years. That's hardly a catastrophe, nor is it the "tens of meters" that some climate alarmists have been proclaiming.

Also rarely noted in the debate is that polar ice has been steadily melting for at least the past 7,000 years. And no acceleration in the trend has yet been seen.


RE: Really?
By pauluskc on 1/30/2007 4:33:00 PM , Rating: 1
true. after I wrote that and looked in my clear cup, I noticed no land masses. which is good, 'twas a nice refreshing cup of h2o. So my next logical question would be if these ice caps have more ice above water or below sea level (I believe the answer is below by a wide margin - wiki says 90% of the volume is below sea level http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iceberg )

Soo.... when all this ice below sea level melts, it will use less volume than the current water level causing the water level to drop. Is there more ice on top of greenland than on the bottom sides of these icebergs/polar ice caps? If not, the overall net effect of melting ice on the planet would be a drop in water level.

And if that's the case, then the cause of water levels rising is more likely involved with tectonics than global warming, although you could argue that those two are related, but in a geothermal natural capacity vs. a human caused method.


RE: Really?
By philly on 1/30/2007 5:00:38 PM , Rating: 3
I forgot to mention imagining all kinds of structures at water level around those upside down bowls, before the ice melts. I'm not saying the world is going to end, we're humans and highly adaptable, but it could cause a lot of people a lot of stress.

Also to mention is the currents in the ocean that have a lot of control over our weather, that may be extremely disruped, and potentially changing the geographic locations of the climates around the world, moving different climates to different locations. Again, something we can adapt to, but potentially very disruptive.

All things that need to be considered, and investigated by reputed scientists, not just ignored because we don't want to believe.


RE: Really?
By Chillin1248 (blog) on 1/30/2007 5:29:40 PM , Rating: 3
As for Antarctic ice, here's a recent article from Geophysical Research Abstracts, Vol. 8 (2006). It demonstrates an overall increase in Antarctic mass balance:

http://www.cosis.net/abstracts/EGU06/08427/EGU06-J

Here's another, from Science, Nov 2005 (reprinted):

quote:
A Norwegian-led team used the ERS data to measure elevation changes in the Greenland Ice Sheet from 1992 to 2003, finding recent growth in the interior sections estimated at around six centimetres per year during the study period


http://www.eurekalert.org/pub_releases/2005-11/esa

Another from Science:


quote:
Satellite radar altimetry measurements indicate that the East Antarctic ice-sheet interior north of 81.6°S increased in mass by 45 ± 7 billion metric tons per year from 1992 to 2003


http://www.sciencemag.org/cgi/content/abstract/308

One from Nature last year, showing growth in the East Antarctic:

http://www.nature.com/news/2005/050516/full/050516

An earlier one, showing similar growth in the West Antarctic:


quote:
The West Antarctic ice sheet has been retreating for several thousand years, so to look now and see that it is growing is staggering to me ," [Professor] Tulaczyk said.


http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2002/01/02013

Another, this one back in 2002:


quote:
We find strong evidence for ice-sheet growth (+26.8 gigatons per year), in contrast to earlier estimates indicating a mass deficit (20.9 gigatons per year).


http://www.sciencemag.org/cgi/content/abstract/295


quote:

The Stern report last week predicted dire economic and social effects of unchecked global warming. In what many will see as a highly controversial polemic, Christopher Monckton disputes the 'facts' of this impending apocalypse and accuses the UN and its scientists of distorting the truth

Excellent read.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml?xml=/ne...



RE: Really?
By pauluskc on 1/30/2007 5:45:01 PM , Rating: 2
Aha! :) Anyone every see Day After Tomorrow? That day is approaching!! Get your sleds....

Chillin1248, you are definitely more in touch with the topic than we are. I appreciate your putting to rest the whole debate about declining ice mass of the world. At least, for this topic.


RE: Really?
By Chillin1248 (blog) on 1/30/2007 6:46:08 PM , Rating: 2
Actually I have to thank Micheal Asher (Masher2)for a lot of my Global Warming knowledge and for first opening my eyes to the validity of Global Warming.

-------
Chillin


RE: Really?
By BBeltrami on 1/31/2007 1:22:03 PM , Rating: 2
Yes, Thanks, Michael.

I, for one, look forward to the day that Human-caused Global Warming joins Piltdown Man in the Museum of Scientific Ignominy.

It is brilliant, though. If the trend continues, alarmists can say, "See? We told you." (kind of like they do every day anyway) If the trend turns or reverses, they'll proclaim victory, having changed the planet over to "green energy, lower emissions, etc." It's a no-lose situation. The media knows it. Al Gore knows it. And they are making millions off it.


RE: Really?
By xeus on 1/31/2007 5:57:09 PM , Rating: 2
The following may be of some surprise for some "good" people:
1. when the north pole does not contain ice then the northern hemisphere will not know snow.
2. when snow and freezing does not show up in winter then the natural equilibrium will become quite messy. Forget the animal and plant reigns say some of us? Then you need to think one single word: FOOD.
3. If Arctic ocean will be refreshing cold (in winter) how summers at lower latitudes will look like?
4. How is possible for someone to believe such "scientists" which assert that "million years old glaciers" were melting and recovering for several times in the past hundreds of years?!!!
5. Concerning old recordings of thermal ambient increase or decrease: is it not obvious they have only local recordings, valid say for one or two countries? If I am wrong someone please to explain in simple terms how they could measure and record temperatures simultaneously around the globe 200 years ago and before?!
No credit for such scientists that discredit even the basic reasoning.
Maybe a nuke war was/is/will not going to be feasible. However a climate war might be. Just wait for the news on first crop catastrophy at a hemispheric scale.


RE: Really?
By Bryf50 on 1/31/2007 7:34:08 PM , Rating: 2
So let me listen to the guy who cant even right a sentence that makes even a little sense.


RE: Really?
By Bryf50 on 1/31/2007 8:43:54 PM , Rating: 2
ugh guess i cant write a sentence. *Write*


RE: Really?
By Indy Stefan on 2/1/2007 4:25:17 AM , Rating: 2
Here is a much more interesting link which, by the way, works - unlike the majority of your links. Browse around and see how many posts regarding global warming dispute the notion that man is contributing in an alarming way. The so-called meteorologist (mentioned in the 'article') who doesn't know any of his fellows who buy the 'hype' must be a lonely man indeed.

http://www.ametsoc.org/

Stefan


RE: Really?
By oTAL (blog) on 1/30/2007 5:00:39 PM , Rating: 1
Dude... you're looking a little dense on this issue.
I will try to explain the previous user point using your glass analogy. Empty the glass and now place a heavy solid filling up part of it (play-doh, plastic, whatever...), without being equally distributed, so that you may pour enough water into the glass in order for the water to cover a part of the solid and not the other. Now you can try the exercise. First put ice floating on the water. When it melts the level remains constant. Now put water on top of the solid part and wait... Oh Oh!!... it went up... DUH!!!

This is the case with Greenland and Antarctica and it could be pretty serious if the worst case scenarios are correct, but that is another issue.
As for the land based and sea based ice, I hope people would stop thinking that all scientists are stupid and haven't figured that water expands when it freezes...
Remember this simple fact: most scientists have a brain!


RE: Really?
By pauluskc on 1/30/2007 5:17:06 PM , Rating: 2
scientists aren't stupid? no way! I love the "dense" pun too.

OK. I like your example best. You get a point for that.

But I think - hypothesize if that word works better - that there is more sea based ice than land based ice. More-so then enough to offset the melting of the land based ice.

And what of my other "hypothesis" that geothermal events like volcanoes and etc. are the cause of the rise in sea level and global warming, more so than my car. Perhaps we are getting closer to the sun in our orbit. Perhaps the sun is growing as it ages. Perhaps the larger sun in boiling our planet like some intergalactic microwave! Perhaps God is just punishing us. Maybe instead of a flood, he's going to cook us to death this time around. Nice slow-roasted human. Tasty!

In the end, I'm kinda tired of hearing about us bad bad humans causing the problem. I'd like to hear some solutions. Global warming - whatever the cause - won't stop just because we turn our cars into solar/wind/water/fart powered vehicles.

Time to start thinking of what planet we can inhabit that is more suited for a longer life-span of humans. Which has been done. But there's a common problem with that whole line of thought as well. If we're having a problem of our sun growing older and bigger and soon destroying our world and we find a new world that's inhabitable, when's the time-line on that world due? Remember, the universe is expanding and accelerating in its expansion.

Phew! That's a lot for y'all to pick through and dissect.


RE: Really?
By Ringold on 1/30/2007 6:31:26 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
And what of my other "hypothesis" that geothermal events like volcanoes and etc. are the cause of the rise in sea level and global warming,


At least in the short term, massive volcanic eruptions lowers the temperature globally. In the long term, perhaps it has a different effect, but I've read more than once of global temps dropping 1ºF or more on average for a short period of time due to large eruptions.


RE: Really?
By fk49 on 1/30/2007 8:45:04 PM , Rating: 1
I believe that's due to the mass of dust and ashes blocking out and reflecting sunlight, causing a bit of cooling.

TomZ also brought up this point, but thirty years ago, similar groups of scientists and media outlets claimed that the Earth would enter uncontrollable freezing because we were polluting the atmosphere to the point of blocking out the sun. Hah.


RE: Really?
By oTAL (blog) on 1/31/2007 9:48:37 AM , Rating: 1
Here's the problem with your assumption... it CAN'T offset!
Why? Because sea-based ice, when melted, doesn't suddenly take less room. While the density increases and volume decreases, the volume occupied above water disappears, and the volume inside water stays the same. That's why a glass with ice melts, the water level remains the same (although TOTAL volume is reduced for not having any volume above water level).
Sea-level variation of ice melting = ~ 0
The only contribution to sea level is thus the land based ice which can be substantial.


RE: Really?
By Sxotty on 1/30/07, Rating: 0
RE: Really?
By pauluskc on 1/30/2007 4:55:16 PM , Rating: 3
OMG! Ice attacks from Space! I can't wait for the movie.


RE: Really?
By oTAL (blog) on 1/30/2007 5:03:55 PM , Rating: 1
This is so... I can't even begin to say how stupid this comment is... I can only hope it's a joke...
I think it's obvious that the other glass means a mountain or something similar (in opposition to floating ice)... it's pretty obvious.... please uprate the smart person who made the comment about the other glass... the only fault on that comment appears to be the high complexity of the metaphor...


RE: Really?
By pauluskc on 1/30/2007 5:19:44 PM , Rating: 2
As much of a joke as getting news from a blog. :)

No sense of humor here (or at least you have the budding tip of one developing perhaps).

It is nice to reap the rewards of frustrating people with a crazy alternative. Your first paragraph is like a giant freezer to my melted ice. Thank you!


RE: Really?
By oTAL (blog) on 1/31/2007 9:53:29 AM , Rating: 2
I'll give you that, being a joke, it was a good one. ;)
What bothered me is that the previous post is downrated although the poster made a good metaphor and rebated a fallacious post from a poster with a little phalo (just trying to shoot for a little humor... with little success)! ;)



RE: Really?
By philly on 1/30/2007 4:50:07 PM , Rating: 1
"A great lesson in science" LOL. Or maybe a more realistic experiment, would be to set a big platter on a table, put a few bowls upside down on the platter with a small amount of water, and a bunch of ice in the middle. Does the water rise up the upside down bowls as the pile of ice melts in the middle of the platter? No one says that the melting ice creates more water, it just spreads out further as seen by a more realistic replication than a glass of water. A glass creates a huge tall barrier, around the ice and water, that contains the effects of gravity.

Unfortunatly our earth doesn't have walls miles high all around the oceans. I'm guessing in your replication, everyone is living on the rim of that glass like your little experiment would replicate?

Posts and experiments like this must be the reason people believed the earth was flat, and refused to acknowledge any evidence otherwise, because rather than look into challenging their own beliefs to make sure they are correct, the intelligent way of actually getting to the truth, they tend to just try to find anything at all, no matter how inaccurate, that will keep their belief system intact, and in large masses, holding society as a whole back immensely. All because of pride, or fear of their world collapsing around them if they're belief system was proven incorrect is my guess.


RE: Really?
By pauluskc on 1/30/2007 5:03:55 PM , Rating: 2
Gosh. I sure hope society doesn't take my little experiment in the different masses of water and ice and run in panic through the streets. Is it possible I have just shaped humanity with my simple "experiment"?

Yes, your "realistic" experiment has some merit for thinking about 2 more seconds before typing. But it is also equally flawed, especially considering that in your experiment, the world is "flat". ha ha! (sorry, couldn't resist the pun chance with that).

So in your experiment, you state that all ice is above a rocky, solid land mass, incapable of absorbing any water whatsoever. Right? Incorrect.

All that what we've discussed back and forth here serves to humanity is proof that neither one of us can design a simple experiment to support our thoughts - hmm.. neither one of us is an expert. Hmm.. I can get a hundred scientists to back my idea if you can get a hundred to back yours..

We won't know until it happens. Just think. 10,000 years ago, the earth was covered in ice. Today, with all that melting, we have exposed land masses. HOLY COW!



My lord...
By Zoneater on 1/30/2007 3:33:44 PM , Rating: 3
It never ceases to amaze me how easily people are swayed with one side or another. If it makes you feel better about dumping tons of toxic waste into our environment, pumping poisonous gas into the air, and chopping down the key source of fresh oxygen by saying that people are "global warming alarmists" for believing we as humans are the contributing factor in the changes, you're far more naive than your post would suggest. Just as many scientists, if not more, subscribe to support global warming as the crack pots (many funded by oil and energy companies...do your research...) who come up with conflicting figures and theories on the subject.

Open your eyes and look at actual data instead of what is spoon fed to you.




RE: My lord...
By ttowntom on 1/30/2007 3:55:55 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
...pumping poisonous gas into the air...
Since when did CO2 become a "poisonous gas"? Its the most important airborne fertilizer, vital for life on earth.

quote:
...the crack pots (many funded by oil and energy companies...
There's a lot more funding coming from environmentalist groups these days than "oil and energy" companies. But getting a fat grant from Greenpeace or the WWF doesn't hurt credibility in your book, now does it?

quote:
...Open your eyes and look at actual data...
I really doubt you've read any actual research papers yourself. But if you want to post some, go ahead. Open up the debate.


RE: My lord...
By thestreetmeat on 1/30/2007 4:30:24 PM , Rating: 1
Greenpeace's objective is to save the environment. They don't benefit from making up problems and then looking like fools after the ruse is exposed. So when it comes to environmental concerns, they are reasonably credible. If they didn't believe that climate change is a problem, they would spend their time working on some other environmental issue.

Oil and gas companies, on the other hand, stand to lose a ton of money if any action is taken on climate change. It's in their best interest to deceive the public, and therefore they shouldn't be trusted.


RE: My lord...
By ttowntom on 1/30/2007 4:38:08 PM , Rating: 3
Greenpeace gets nearly $400 million in donations each year-- donations that depend on people being alarmed by environmental problems. Its executives receive fat salaries and fly around in private jets. They certainly have a benefit to "making up problems", which they've been shown to do many times in the past.


RE: My lord...
By vsmap on 1/30/2007 5:16:37 PM , Rating: 3
400 million is a pretty small revenue stream compared to the oil and gas industry.

BP alone receives 262 Billion USD in revenue every year and made 22.5 billion in profit in 2005. You don't think they could come with more than 400 million to buy off senators and journalists?

That's why the media is actually filled with more global warming scepticism than the scientific journals.


RE: My lord...
By TomZ on 1/30/2007 5:44:31 PM , Rating: 2
The influence of Greenpeace compared to a company like BP is not related to revenue; instead, it is related to their spending in that area. And clearly Greenpeace is spending the majority of their income to influence environmental views, since that is their main purpose. You cannot say that even a significan share of BP's revenue or profit is used for the same purpose. It is apples-and-oranges.

And I also disagree that the media is filled with scepticism. Nearly all mainstream media reports relating to global warming assume and state as fact that global warming is primarily human-induced and will have dire consequences if not addressed soon, at least here in the U.S. (not sure where you live).


RE: My lord...
By Hoser McMoose on 1/30/2007 5:40:18 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
Greenpeace's objective is to save the environment.


Really?! Looking at some of their past endeavors doesn't seem to support that.

quote:
They don't benefit from making up problems and then looking like fools after the ruse is exposed


One would hope that they wouldn't. In fact, that's the exact reason why I would never send Greenpeace any money! Unfortunately their continued existence does tend to indicate that making stuff up and looking like fools at a later date IS very profitable for them.

quote:
So when it comes to environmental concerns, they are reasonably credible.


?!?! "Reasonably credible"?! They have less credibility when it comes to environmental concerns then the big oil companies do! They are often way off base in most of the issues they tackle. At best they present the worst case scenario as being the expected result, eg. the previous IPCC report on climate change estimated a 0.6C rise in average global temperature, Greenpeace claims a 2.0C rise in temp as fact. Worst case? They just make stuff up to suit their needs, eg. their 1964 and 1978 films detailing alleged brutality in seal hunting that turned out to be totally falsified with paid actors committing this "brutality".

Comparing Greenpeace to most other, more responsible, environmental groups shows quite an interesting picture. Where most environmental groups are interested in real science and finding solutions, Greenpeace is more often interested in creating havoc.

The term "Eco-terrorist" was coined specifically for Greenpeace for a reason. They give a bad name to all the scientists, economists and engineers around the world working their butts off to try and find REAL ways to protect the environment.


RE: My lord...
By davemartin7777 on 1/30/2007 4:42:53 PM , Rating: 2
ttowntom, this President did not appoint a "Greenpeace activist" to the Council on Environmental Quality... he appointed a lawyer and former lobbyist for the American Petroleum Institute.

"Fair and balanced", yes?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Philip_Cooney


RE: My lord...
By davemartin7777 on 1/30/2007 5:14:02 PM , Rating: 2
There's more.

Myron Ebell is the Director of Global Warming and International Environmental Policy at the Competitive Enterprise Institute, a harsh critic of the Environmental Protection Agency and was an advisor to Philip Cooney.

"The Competitive Enterprise Institute of which Ebell is the global warming and international policy director has received $1,380,000 in funding from ExxonMobil. Ebell has also sat on a panel that featured William O’Keefe, a former executive at the American Petroleum Institute."

I don't think you'll ever have to worry about a "Greenpeace Activist" having a voice in the Republican party... ya think?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Myron_Ebell




RE: My lord...
By ttowntom on 1/30/2007 5:24:14 PM , Rating: 2
About as fair and balanced as Clinton appointing a former lobbyist for the Sierra Club to the same post. But what's your point? Neither of those two people were cited in this article. Plenty of actual scientists were though.


RE: My lord...
By davemartin7777 on 1/30/2007 5:44:43 PM , Rating: 4
Please provide a link of a Clinton appointee editing a scientific report.

Thanks.

"On 8 June 2005, The New York Times reported that it had obtained internal White House documents which proved that Cooney had unilaterally edited the national climate change reports during 2002 and 2003 to water down its conclusions. While never denying Cooney's editing of the documents, the White House claimed that such changes were part of the normal adjustments in language to government documents and that the documents were passed through multiple agencies while editing the document.

Two days after the article was published, Cooney resigned his position as chief of staff for the White House Council on Environmental Quality, and got a job at ExxonMobil. However, his resignation was planned months before the memo was leaked and he had already accepted the position at ExxonMobil.

Prior to working for the Bush Administration, Cooney was a lawyer and lobbyist for the American Petroleum Institute, an industry lobbying organization which has, since 1997, opposed emissions limits by claiming that there was too much uncertainty in climate science."

http://www.usatoday.com/news/washington/2005-06-08...

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Philip_Cooney

http://www.exxonsecrets.org/html/personfactsheet.p...

Whom do you think would be a better representative of environmental issues, a Sierra Club guy or a bought-and-paid-for shill for the oil industry?

Come on.


RE: My lord...
By TomZ on 1/30/2007 6:01:40 PM , Rating: 2
^- The reason we have elections every couple of years. The 2008 election is coming soon!


RE: My lord...
By Ringold on 1/30/2007 6:37:35 PM , Rating: 1
Too bloody soon.. For christ sake, I just voted and next thing I know everybody is running for the next election. People in office overtly campaign 24-7, people holding current offices campaign overtly half the day and covertly with pathetic meaningless resolutions and votes the rest of the day that are designed more as campaign tools rather than fixing problems.

When the hell do these people do serious work any more?

Wait a second. Woops. I just assumed that they really do ever work.


RE: My lord...
By TomZ on 1/30/2007 7:31:06 PM , Rating: 2
I think that's more perception than reality. The reality is maybe a dozen candidates have announced they are "forming committes to study the option of running for office." The media amplifies the upcoming election quite a bit.


RE: My lord...
By Ringold on 1/30/2007 8:10:00 PM , Rating: 1
The reality was the first "hundred hours" was a slew of bills that was purely targeted to make the Democrats look good, the Republicans look bad, and achieve next to nothing all the while Iraq needs constructive criticism, our public welfare programs are bleeding red ink, the Doha round of talks are stalled, and any of a million other things that would've been much better to focus on rather than giving the 1% of the full time work force currently earning minimum wage (the vast majority of which live in families far above the poverty line -- ie, middle class citizen teenagers) a little meaningless boost. The country is at least partly paralyzed by this run-up to the 08 election and all the resulting propaganda cross fire. I suspect it'll only get worse...


concern?
By timmygilberts on 1/30/2007 5:12:59 PM , Rating: 2
Earth is warming, whether by natural causes and or by human action. The problem is not about who is right, Big Oil or Naturalist. The problem is what do we do as the Earth warms... We need to research new agricultural techiques that will be less affected by the "warming" of earth. We need to learn how to deliver water to places on Earth that are increasingly finding themselves in drought, while also trying to understand the new weather patterns (to avoid disasters). If ocean levels are going rise, whether by 5 inches or by 50 inches, we need to move huge amounts of people and replace them, while also replacing industry in affected areas. "Global Warming" or "Climate Change" is happening, it is real, everyone seems to know that. Also as we continuously burn fossil fuels we will one day run out, which means we must invest into alternative fuels, no matter what. So do I care that it is our fault or Earth's? No, I care about how do I evolve. We can't do this all at once we have to start taking care of the problem now. Over Population + Climate Change + Limited Resources = The End of the Human Race.




RE: concern?
By ttowntom on 1/30/2007 5:20:58 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
If ocean levels are going rise, whether by 5 inches or by 50 inches, we need to move huge amounts of people...
How do you justify this statement? Very few people live on ground only five inches above sea level. There are places below sea level now (such as parts of New Orleans) but adding another five inches of levees there is a lot simpler than moving a whole city.


RE: concern?
By vsmap on 1/30/2007 5:25:09 PM , Rating: 2
Unfortunately, it matters a lot what causes climate change. If it's the composition of the atmosphere (and I strongly believe it is) then we can slow down climate change by limiting our emissions of C02 and methane. Of course, there are a lot of vested interests that don't want to see that happen. You have to be sceptical of the stuff you read in the media.


RE: concern?
By pauluskc on 1/30/2007 5:27:52 PM , Rating: 2
so if we can't seem to limit our co2 emissions, how about we plant more trees!!! Ban paper worldwide, IMHO.


RE: concern?
By timmygilberts on 1/30/2007 5:35:20 PM , Rating: 2
5 inches might not seem like alot but we are talking about 2/3 thirds of the Earth's surface rising 5 inches, and that is an incrediable amount. Your right maybe we could just make new bigger levees but I wouldn't want to be there when it fails.

No, it does not matter who is right, because no matter what happens we are going to mine and burn fossil fuels until they are gone, sadly...


RE: concern?
By masher2 (blog) on 1/30/2007 5:42:58 PM , Rating: 2
The point is that the majority of the world population lives on land that is hundreds, or even thousands of feet above sea level. They're not going to be affected by a five inch rise, levees or not.

Even people living directly on a coast are typically 10+ feet above sea level, just to protect them against tidal variance and storm surge.

A rise of 17 inches over 100 years is a minor annoyance. Not an earth-shaking catastrophe. And its not much larger than the rise we saw in the 19th and 20th centuries. The oceans have been rising slowly since the end of the last ice age.



RE: concern?
By timmygilberts on 1/30/2007 5:53:04 PM , Rating: 2
So they are up 10 feet above the ocean because of storm surges, and tides. Well now it looks like they have to move up 10 feet and 5 inches... My point is not "oh no! 5 inches!". My point is people living on the coast are going to be more likey to be affected by storms and the like. Moving up 200 feet would save lives, industries, and keep insurance cost low. Nobody who lives on the coast is going to move, I understand that. Though I believe there should be no more building on the coast, it is a waste.


RE: concern?
By TomZ on 1/30/2007 6:00:44 PM , Rating: 2
Who are you making that decision for? I would guess the scope of the decision should just be for yourself, and let others decide how to spend their money, where to build their homes, what risks to take, etc.

Anyway, I will tell you you're in the minority. Just compare the costs of oceanfront property compared to inland property, and you will see how people value building homes along the coasts.


RE: concern?
By timmygilberts on 1/30/2007 6:12:11 PM , Rating: 1
"His team had recorded submersion of the world’s first habituated island in Sunderbans in 2006. “There are many more islands heading for a similar fate if the sea level rises at the present rate,” he said." Quoted

http://www.hindustantimes.com/news/181_1915754,000...


Main Point is: Global Warming is happening, we need to take action.


RE: concern?
By TomZ on 1/30/2007 7:27:53 PM , Rating: 2
Global warming is happening, yes. That is a fact. But are we responsible for it? Do we have any ability to stop it? Should we event try to stop it if we could? Or is it a natural process, that started long before us, and will continue long after we are gone? Would global warming affect humans anyway, or would we just adapt to it, just like we have adapted to all other changes for as long as we've been on the planet?

To me, I see no evidence yet indicating the need to take any other action, except to continue to try to understand the problem.


RE: concern?
By timmygilberts on 1/30/2007 8:57:45 PM , Rating: 2
QUOTE: "THE CENTRAL DEBATE in climate change is no longer whether the Earth is warming or whether humans have a hand in it.

The debate is now about impact — and what to do about it."

http://www.insidebayarea.com/trivalleyherald/ci_51...


RE: concern?
By TomZ on 1/30/2007 9:19:43 PM , Rating: 2
As I have said elsewhere here, there is consensus amongst the media and politicians that global warming is human-induced and human-solvable. Quoting a news report as proof is kind of like asking the Pope if he believes in God. I don't see the proof of causality anywhere. I just see statements that we can't wait until we know for sure, that it will be too late. After all, it always makes sense to rush into doing something before you have all the facts, right?


Honestly, Dailytech, honestly...
By THEiNTERNETS on 1/30/2007 5:48:14 PM , Rating: 5
The way this whole thing is written is really suspect of someone who doesn't understand the issues contained within any of the science he cites, only the political controversies created and some snide quotations sniping at one another.

What's really disgusting is that he takes a weather channel host and equates her to the whole of the scientific community supporting man's contribution to global climate change under the phrase "global warming alarmist."

My favorite part is his magnanimous finish:

"Is global warming a man-made danger ... or a part of a natural cycle?"

Perhaps, if people like you wouldn't confound the debate with your plainly incorrect assertions, we might actually be somewhere on this question rather than slinging mud in the faces of scientists who are grappling with one of the most complicated phenomenon on the planet.

"Will public hysteria win the day," as you say? No I suspect not, Mr. Asher, but you seem to have confused yourself as fighting for the "other side" when in fact your blog situates you quite nicely in this "hysteria" category. Maybe when you stop generalizing and throwing around "alarmist" like it's going out of style, maybe when people like you stop demonizing one side of the debate, we can have a healthy constructive discourse.

But don't try and pass yourself off as the conscious mediator between the two. You missed the whole point by the end of your first paragraph.




RE: Honestly, Dailytech, honestly...
By TomZ on 1/30/2007 6:09:06 PM , Rating: 1
I think the point is that only one side of the debate is getting any media or political attention. In fact, the media and politicians treat it as though human-induced global warming is a known fact, and the only question remaining is what to do about it. And nothing could be further from the truth.

I keep all this in context by reminding myself of the dire predictions that the same exact group of scientists made in the 1970's - about the IMPENDING ICE AGE. Google that.

I personally appreciate Mr. Asher's contributions to the "other side," and I am sick of news outlets and politicians hand-picking data in order to try to keep you and I in a constant state of fear about our possible demise from global warming. After all, what is better for news media and politicians than a bunch of citizens that are living in such fear? That is the real story, in my view, and it is classic, and has always been part of the human condition, and probably always will be.


RE: Honestly, Dailytech, honestly...
By THEiNTERNETS on 1/30/2007 6:27:30 PM , Rating: 4
W/e

Downmod me all you want but anyone with half a brain knows that he's playing the exact same game as his so-called alarmists: he's inflating his side of the debate at the expense of the truth and any useful meaning we could derive from it.

And as for hand-picking data, maybe you should take a look at what he's quoted in his article as compared to the thrust of the IPCC report itself.

And by the way, both sides of the debate are getting attention on the issue, especially in the media, which presents both as equals despite the wealth of scientific opinion in favor of one side.

It's stupid to accuse the media of being one-sided and then turn around and praise an article that does the exact same thing for the side you happen to be interested in.


RE: Honestly, Dailytech, honestly...
By TomZ on 1/30/2007 7:12:27 PM , Rating: 2
First, this is not "news media," it is a blog. Also, news media reaches hundreds of millions, this block reaches hundreds.

Second, as a challenge, right now, go onto CNN, Fox News, ABC, or whatever other news site suits you, and read some of the "global warming" articles there. Tell me if you think their coverage is anything even close to "balanced." The articles you will find there, as I stated, all assume that it is a fact that global warming is human-induced and a grave threat. Just go see for yourself.

Also, don't leave out the politicians. When was the last time you heard a politician saying that we should study the problem more before we act, or even more extreme, that they don't agree with the mainstream "conclusion." Go ahead, google that, see if you can find ANY politicians.

Keep telling yourself that both sides are being discussed - it doesn't change the reality.


RE: Honestly, Dailytech, honestly...
By fk49 on 1/30/2007 8:19:48 PM , Rating: 1
Haha..have you read Michael Crichton's State of Fear? Sounds like it. Great book and it really gave me insight into this situation over global warming.


RE: Honestly, Dailytech, honestly...
By TomZ on 1/30/2007 8:56:31 PM , Rating: 2
I haven't read that book, but maybe I should. Thanks for the tip.


By KristopherKubicki (blog) on 1/30/2007 9:59:33 PM , Rating: 2
I actually did not like the book for its plot elements. Crichton has gone a long way from the Andromeda Strain, Sphere and Jurassic Park -- three of my favorite books of all time.

The characters are not believable, the story has holes all over the place and it felt as though the conclusion was written in about 20 minutes.

That being said, some of what is presented in the book is very well written. Crichton has come under fire for skewing the data presented in the book, but it's not to say many of the points he raises are invalid. I have identical feelings for Next, by the way.

Clearly though, the points of these books are not to get you to pick one side or the other. Hopefully they get you stimulated to the point where you do your own research, and perhaps even contribute more knowledge to the subject as well.


Masher talks crap again ...
By idboracle on 1/31/2007 8:33:01 AM , Rating: 5
Masher says ...
" Even the UN's Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, which has long been the most vocal supporter of climate alarmism, has finished its Fourth Assessment report, which lowers worst case estimates sharply, and cuts in half long-term predictions for sea level rise."

http://environment.newscientist.com/article/dn1104...

"I hope this report will shock people and governments into taking more serious action as you really can't get a more authentic and a more credible piece of scientific work. So I hope this will be taken for what it's worth," said the IPCC chairman, R K Pachauri.

Pachauri told Reuters that the report's findings will be "far more serious and much more a matter of concern" than in previous reports.

Masher says ...

"Svensmark points out that already-observed changes in solar flux act to reduce cloud cover, and thus cause the earth to reflect less solar radiation back into space. This quite obviously causes a moderate degree of warming...just as we've seen."

QED ... We can continue to screw the planet


Masher says ...

"Even the UN's Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, which has long been the most vocal supporter of climate alarmism, has finished its Fourth Assessment report, which lowers worst case estimates sharply, and cuts in half long-term predictions for sea level rise. "

Again, we can continue to screw the planet

Masher says ...

"Channel host Heidi Cullen made a strong bid to silence the opposition, calling for the removal of AMS certification for meteorologists who challenged the belief in catastrophic human-induced global warming. In it, she compared global warming denial to "going on air and saying that hurricanes rotate clockwise," apparently herself unaware that in the southern hemisphere hurricanes do indeed rotate in this direction."

Well, golly, if you lived in the Northern Hemisphere and were informing people about the weather in the Northern Hemisphere, is it such a crime to say that "that hurricanes rotate clockwise". If she had said "that hurricanes ONLY rotate clockwise" then you might have a point. But she didnt, so you dont.

Masher says ...

"Is global warming a man-made danger ... or a part of a natural cycle? More and more scientiests are leaning to the latter."

Truly bollox

Masher says ...

"Evidence of the beneficial aspects of continues to mount, with arctic seal populations"

... and getting rid of those pesky polar bears
oh and krill/plankton as well, but we don't eat polar bears or krill. Oh hold on a minute, does krill/plankton not form the basis of the marine foodchain ?

Masher says ...

"Floating ice (e.g. the entire North Pole) can melt without affecting sea levels. Ice on rock shelf (e.g. most glaciers) is a different matter."

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/sci/tech/6310869.stm 29-Jan-2007

"Mountain glaciers are shrinking three times faster than they were in the 1980s, scientists have announced."


Masher, stick to computers as its obvious that your rabid defence of the effects of Big Oil makes no sense whatsoever.




RE: Masher talks crap again ...
By TomZ on 1/31/2007 9:25:05 AM , Rating: 2
quote:
We can continue to screw the planet

If you feel so strongly that is what is happening, then what are you personally prepared to do and sacrifice for it?

- Are you willing to leave your car in the garage and bike everywhere?

- Are you willing to take your home off the energy grid, and switch over to a self-sustaining house in terms of energy and waste?

- Are you willing to raise your own food, and make your own goods, since clearly these are currently provided by polluting industries, in your view?

Wait, that sounds like going back in time a few hundred years. Are you willing to make that sacrifice in order to be true to your beliefs? Please, lead by example, and show us the virtues of living that way. Otherwise, you are being hypocritical.

In my view, we have more important things to worry about than CO2. In a few years, it will be clear that this was much ado about nothing, just as it was in the 1970s when we were all supposed to be afraid of, and take action to prevent, an impending ice age. If you look at the information available on global warming, it is pretty clear that global warming is happening, but what the data doesn't show is that it is human-caused. And it is even more unclear that it can be human-solved. And finally, what I don't see in the data is whether it is a problem that should even be solved. Maybe we should instead focus our efforts on more important problems, e.g., poverty, starvation, global AIDS crisis, etc. These are real problems. Global warming is just a temporary distraction away from what is important.


RE: Masher talks crap again ...
By idboracle on 1/31/2007 12:08:34 PM , Rating: 4
Well I don't own a car, and do grow my own veg, but one of the best things a individual can do is actually very simple. Write to your local representive and tell them of your concerns for your environment and your childrens environment. If everyone did that ...

The world economy needs to shift away from being so dependent on carbon, and the only way that is going to happen is through concerted government action, through subsidies for green activities and dare I say it, taxes for carbon based activities.

As for the ice age talk in the seventies, you're not really suggesting that the vast majority of respected scientists thought we were on the verge of an Ice age in the same way that the vast majority of respected scientists now talk about Global Warming ? I'd like to see the evidence for that one.

"In a few years, it will be clear that this was much ado about nothing"

For feck sake, we have a major report coming out (IPCC) developed by the brightest minds in the field and you come out with statement like that ?

"Wait, that sounds like going back in time a few hundred years. Are you willing to make that sacrifice in order to be true to your beliefs? "

Addressing Global warming doesn't necessarily mean that we have to make huge sacrifices, it means we do things differently, and create incentives to do things in a sustainable way.


"it is pretty clear that global warming is happening, but what the data doesn't show is that it is human-caused."

Well, the IPCC report (which by the way is a lowest common denominator report, so its likely that even this report does not show the true extent of the problem), says that the probability that humans are causing GW is 90%. Thats a 1 in 10 shot that its not caused by us. Does anyone really want to gamble their childrens future with those odds?


"Maybe we should instead focus our efforts on more important problems, e.g., poverty, starvation, global AIDS crisis, etc."

And what will the result of uncheckecd GW be? Yep, poverty, starvation, except on a much larger scale. Bangladesh ... ? gone! Where will those millions go ?

I sometimes think that that Masher guy is just trying to yank peoples chains with his comments on GW, I find it hard to believe that anyone would fall so heavily for Big Oil propaganda.




By masher2 (blog) on 1/31/2007 1:09:08 PM , Rating: 2
> "And what will the result of uncheckecd GW be?...Bangladesh ... ? gone! "

Bangladesh isn't going to vanish from a 17 inch rise in sea level. Only the 0.001% of the country which is already less than 17 inches above sea level.

As for the other effects of global warming, odds are they will be primarily positive. The most recent spate of global warming (The Medieval Warm Period) saw more moderate temperatures, increased growing seasons and, overall, a planet that was generally more habitable.

I recently read an EU report that actually listed one of the "negative effects" of global warming as a "reduced tourism to nations which now depend on it". Why? Because people in northern climes would, by having warmer weather, be less likely to fly south for vacations. This was actually listed as a serious objection!

> "Addressing Global warming doesn't necessarily mean that we have to make huge sacrifices..."

This is a common misconception. The idea that "a little here, a little there" will stop anthropogenic GHG emissions is false. The only way we do that is to revert to a stone age culture.

This is why so many scientists believe Kyoto to be ill-founded. If the GW crowd is incorrect, its unneccesary. But even if they're right, Kyoto won't have any appreciable affect on reducing global warming. The only way we'd do that is to stop driving, stop eating meat, stop using electricity, and reduce the world population overnight from six billion down to a few hundred million.



RE: Masher talks crap again ...
By TomZ on 1/31/2007 7:40:46 PM , Rating: 2
Here's a Time article on the impending ice age, from 1974:

http://www.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,9...

Some excerpts:

Telltale signs are everywhere —from the unexpected persistence and thickness of pack ice in the waters around Iceland to the southward migration of a warmth-loving creature like the armadillo from the Midwest.Since the 1940s the mean global temperature has dropped about 2.7° F. Although that figure is at best an estimate, it is supported by other convincing data.

and

Man, too, may be somewhat responsible for the cooling trend. The University of Wisconsin's Reid A. Bryson and other climatologists suggest that dust and other particles released into the atmosphere as a result of farming and fuel burning may be blocking more and more sunlight from reaching and heating the surface of the earth.

and

Whatever the cause of the cooling trend, its effects could be extremely serious, if not catastrophic. Scientists figure that only a 1% decrease in the amount of sunlight hitting the earth's surface could tip the climatic balance, and cool the planet enough to send it sliding down the road to another ice age within only a few hundred years.

Does any of this sound familiar? You could do a search and replace of "cooling" with "warming," etc., and get an article that you could publish today.


ok
By truthpolice on 1/30/2007 3:28:42 PM , Rating: 3
I'm not sure exactly where you're getting your information since you do not cite any specific evidence here, but a brief survey of today's news stories regarding the most recent IPCC report, which will be released on Feb 1, tells a very different story.

Here is a quote from ABC News:

"ABC News has obtained a preliminary draft of the upcoming report on climate change, which shows a grim outlook on the effects of global warming and emphasizes that scientists are more convinced than ever that humans are causing it.

"'We're hoping that it will convince people, you know, that climate change is real,' said Kenneth Denman, co-author of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) report. " http://www.abcnews.go.com/Technology/GlobalWarming...

Some other stories:

http://www.ctv.ca/servlet/ArticleNews/story/CTVNew...

http://www.kansascity.com/mld/kansascity/news/1657...




RE: ok
By masher2 (blog) on 1/30/07, Rating: 0
RE: ok
By catbobb on 1/30/2007 5:05:29 PM , Rating: 5
From the same article:

quote:

Prof Rick Battarbee, the director of the Environmental Change Research Centre at University College London, warned these masking effects had helped to delay global warming but would lead to larger changes in the future.

He said: "The oceans have been acting like giant storage heaters by trapping heat and carbon dioxide. They might be bit of a time-bomb as they have been masking the real effects of the carbon dioxide we have been releasing into the atmosphere.

"People are very worried about what will happen in 2030 to 2050, as we think that at that point the oceans will no longer be able to absorb the carbon dioxide being emitted. It will be a tipping point and that is why it is now critical to act to counter any acceleration that will occur when this happens."

The report paints a bleak picture for future generations unless greenhouse gas emissions are reduced. It predicts that the climate will warm by 0.2 C a decade for the next two decades if emissions continue at current levels.


It's funny what happens when you selectively choose which information to ignore.

I don't get it... Why are the people listening to science being painted as "environmental alarmists"? Animal species are already dying off because they are not wired to adjust to the warming environment. And the CO2 that the oceans are absorbing is killing off coral reefs. What's wrong with you people who want to continue destroying nature. Do you think we can live when the oceans die?


RE: ok
By pauluskc on 1/30/2007 5:37:58 PM , Rating: 2
do you have a solar powered house? does your computer run on solar energy? how clean-burning is your source of electricity?

What's wrong with you???

OK. now that we're all guilty. What's a solution to the problem?


RE: ok
By TomZ on 1/30/2007 5:55:23 PM , Rating: 2
What problem are you trying to solve, exactly? You have to realize that nature and the earth are not totally under our control. Believe it or not, CO2 levels and temperature fluctuated greatly before humans had internal combustion engines. Dinosaurs were wiped from the face of the earth, along with tons of other species. That is the way of the world.

Also read what you quoted - did you notice the "might be's" and "may be's" mixed in with the predicitions of great calamity? Doesn't it sound alarmist to you?

And listen to you - "killing off coral reefs," "destroying nature," and talking about the oceans dying. Do you understand the definition of "alarmist" at all?

Look, humans, and all life, have the ability to adapt to a changing environment. Earth is not static, nor has it ever been. Just because it is slowly changing doesn't mean we're all going to die, or that humans will become extinct. It just means we will continue to adapt and evolve. So get over it already.


RE: ok
By Ringold on 1/30/2007 8:44:05 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
It just means we will continue to adapt and evolve.


I think alarmists are making too much of a moral issue out of all of this, and I like that you brought up natural selection a bit.

What needs to be realized, IMHO, is that human existence can not peacefully coexist with the rest of nature in any kind of nice harmonious equilibrium. More human population, and more wealth, means more space must be occupied directly by our habitation and more space must be occupied still yet for the resource extraction/generation to fuel the rest of civilization.

The moral question becomes pretty simple. Is it more important for rare species of frog's to have sex and make babies in nice, clean, non-toxic jungle puddles, or is it more important to allow the sort of economic prosperity that will raise 2 BILLION human beings from abject poverty in Asia to relative European-level standards of living over the course of a century or two? Even the Chinese government has no true handle on what its dumping in to the environment. Recently they noticed that they have two to three times more powerplants operating than they'd given permission to be built -- but what can they do about it at that point, especially when the electricity they provide is desperately needed? The sort of sustained, double-digit Chinese growth can't happen any way other than massive industrialization and urbanizing. So again, the moral question; cute bunnies and poverty, or glorious human civilization full of nice zoo's?

I can see how an environmentalist would say I'm creating a false dilemma, but only in the short term. Over the course of a century or two, I'm correct. Humanity either suffers in ways it wouldn't otherwise, or our competition in the natural world suffers.

Once someone reaches the conclusion I have, which is we should look out for ourselves first, the only thing remaining to be watchful over is that we don't damage the environment to the point where we can no longer get out of it any thing that it provides that we can't create ourselves through alternative industrial means.

But once that's technologically no problem... I didn't see any coral reefs on Coruscant.


Warming
By premium on 1/30/2007 4:39:17 PM , Rating: 2
Okay, so if you really believe that there is no global warming which I find remarkable, what is your point? Are you in favor of emissions that are a health hazard in their own right? What purpose would you possibly have for arguing against lessened emissions of poisons into the air we breathe?




RE: Warming
RE: Warming
By ttowntom on 1/30/2007 4:59:11 PM , Rating: 2
If you think the article said there was no global warming, you need to work on your reading comprehension. It said the warming is a natural process. As for "emissions that are a health hazard", last time I checked, CO2 wasn't a dangerous gas. We all emit it ourselves, just by breathing.


RE: Warming
By premium on 1/31/2007 9:14:53 AM , Rating: 2
I am sure I do not understand what you are trying to say. I do believe that there is global warming. As far as co2 not being dangerous I would check your facts. You will die from breathing co2 when it accounts for 7-10% of ambient air.


RE: Warming
By TomZ on 1/31/2007 9:31:02 AM , Rating: 2
Considering the normal concentration of CO2 in the air is 300-600ppm (0.03-0.06%), I think that the toxicity of CO2 is not really a serious concern, and certainly has no relevance in a debate about global warming.


RE: Warming
By premium on 2/1/2007 10:51:17 AM , Rating: 2
I am certain you are correct about the relevancy. However, I was responding to your incorrect assumption about C02. I never specifically bought up c02 in my original argument. The crux of my argument is what motivation would one have for arguing against putting pollutants into the air. It is an illogical argument to suggest that any good can come from it. In other words that are far more things then simply global warming what are also affected by these emissions.


RE: Warming
By TomZ on 2/1/2007 3:33:10 PM , Rating: 2
First, ttowntom != TomZ; you are mis-attributing who-said-what.

Anyway, your original post talked about putting harmful emissions into the air. Since this article is about GW, the other poster brought up CO2 and made the point that it is not a harmful emission. Probably you're right, that no good can come from it, but it's probably also right to say that no harm can come from it, either, right?

Also, I would remind you that emissions serve an important purpose, otherwise they would not exist in the first place. It's not like we create emissions for the fun of it, which is what you seem to imply. Replacement technologies that have less of a certain type of emission usually cost more and usually have some disadvantage of their own, e.g., some other kind of emissions. For example, if we decide to burn less coal to make electricity, and we produce more power by nuclear power, then we have more nuclear waste to deal with. There are no "simple solutions" as most environmentalists would have us believe. Every change comes at some cost, and we just have to decide whether it is worth it.


Crock
By higgo on 1/30/2007 3:34:38 PM , Rating: 5
How is it that a blog posting like this manages to float to the top of google news? As if this is somehow "news", and not just the rambling of a global warming apologist. What are the chances that this would get the headline spot over 585 articles taking the opposite line?

For the record, the news this week is that that global warning predictions are worse that expected, not better. All the other reports from credible sources are reporting this. I suppose this article serves to add balance - to hell with the fact that it is at the expense of accuracy.

The classic quote is "I don't know a single meteorologist who buys into the man-made global warming hype". So quote a source then, if there are so many. Truth is, there isn't one.

This, unfortunately, is the dark side of blogging. The ability to spread misinformation with no accountability to truth.




RE: Crock
By masher2 (blog) on 1/30/2007 3:47:15 PM , Rating: 2
> "The classic quote is "I don't know a single meteorologist who buys into the man-made global warming hype". So quote a source then..."

The source of that quote was given in the article-- James Spann, a practicising meteorologist since 1978.


RE: Crock
By Timbear2020 on 1/30/2007 4:04:49 PM , Rating: 2
The fellow's name is James Span, of Birmingham, Alabama. He was quoted as having said this in the Birmingham News this past weekend. I have it on my desk and responded to it in my blog.

As for your dig at blogs, if the mainstream media hadn't sold themselves out as whores to the state and whoever had the biggest paycheck, perhaps blogs would not have done so well. The media, not the blogs, are the ones who are irrelevant.

Now, I watched Al Gore's An Inconvenient Truth and have to say that I am more inclined to pay attention to the issue. But to say that there is no science going against the idea of human created global warming? Modern day science is nothing more than its own religion cloaked in an air of impartiality.

Sadly, we will probably be arguing the point when the oceans rise or the sky falls, only then we will resort to blame and imprisonment and executions same as always.


CO2=> global warming
By vsmap on 1/30/2007 4:56:18 PM , Rating: 2
The Science article this guy cites doesn't support his argument at all. It shows how a large natural increase in C02 300 million years ago caused a huge increase in average temperatures. What does that say about the large increase in C02 due to human activity in the present time?

From the article:
quote:
Anthropogenic CO2 emissions have increased atmospheric CO2 to concentrations higher than at any time in at least the past 650,000 years and could increase it to more than 2000 parts per million by volume (ppmv) as accessible fossil fuel reservoirs are exhausted (3). The last time such concentrations were seen on Earth was at the onset of our modern icehouse [~40 to 34 million years ago (Ma)], a transition from ice-free to glacial conditions characterized by repeated C cycle perturbation, large magnitude changes in atmospheric pCO2, and major ephemeral warmings (4, 5). As our climate system departs from the well-studied Pleistocene glacial-interglacial cycles, a deep-time perspective of pCO2-climate-glaciation linkages is essential for a fuller understanding of what may be the Earth's most epic deglaciation.




RE: CO2=> global warming
By masher2 (blog) on 1/30/2007 5:06:56 PM , Rating: 1
> "The Science article this guy cites doesn't support his argument at all. It shows how a large natural increase in C02 300 million years ago caused a huge increase in average temperatures."

That supports the argument. It shows a long-standing natural pattern of CO2 increases and temperature rises. Natural increases (and decreases) that occurred rapidly, without human intervention. Obviously if such events can occur naturally, then the argument that mankind "must be" causing the currrent rise is much weaker. Especially when the majority of that rise occurred before 1940, long before the bulk of anthropogenic CO2 emissions occurred.

And while it is true that mankind is adding CO2 to the atmosphere, its also true that, even today, the vast majority (96%+) of CO2 emissions are from natural sources. Sources that have been emitting not just for a few decades, but for countless millions of years.


RE: CO2=> global warming
By vsmap on 1/30/2007 5:41:36 PM , Rating: 3
That's quite misleading. 96% of C02 emission is natural-- fine. But so is 100% of C02 *absorption*. What about the balance in input and output? The 4% that humans contribute is enough to tip the scales dramatically.

An increase in C02 concentration of ~100ppm over 200 years is dramatic no matter how you cut it. And C02 is still rising exponentially.


RE: CO2=> global warming
By pauluskc on 1/30/2007 5:52:14 PM , Rating: 2
true. and one cause is us darn humans breathing. non-stop, we take ordinary O and mix it with other stuff in the atmophere and create CO2. At the beach, on the park bench, riding our bikes, building the wind generator, cleaning the dust off our solar cells, etc. People generate CO2 at exponential rates. The only thing we can do to curb that is to curb the population of people. nearly 1/3 of the earth's population is in china and india..each breathing out CO2 daily, they're creating so much CO2 it's rediculous!!

So who's volunteering to help cut the CO2 production of humans and kill themselves?

:)

I know, I'm rediculous and should be ignored, but what about it, eh? Are cars the only things producing this noxious CO2 gas?


Activism...
By Aikouka on 1/30/2007 2:41:34 PM , Rating: 2
Global warming activists are really starting to show the typical fanaticism side of activism. You know, when the point of showing and trying to prove your message goes beyond (or there's a push to go beyond) education and into forceful mean of propagation.

In other news, Tom Cruise has gone on record saying that in one of his many multi-million dollar scientology awareness sessions that the great spaghetti monster said that only he can stop fores... ahem, global warming. Naturally stemming from such zealotry, Cruise has been reportedly seen with ex-Vice President Al Gore in a crusade against greenhouse gases and the elusive Manbearpig.




RE: Activism...
By davemartin7777 on 1/30/2007 4:13:13 PM , Rating: 3
It Seems to me the folks that are truly fanatical and in a constant state of outrage are the people that want to kill gw science, stem cell research, evolution, etc. just because the science doesn't jive with their ideological views.

Science is slow and deliberate, why not just let scientists be scientists and let the science play out?


RE: Activism...
By Ringold on 1/30/2007 9:01:34 PM , Rating: 2
Your own statement there was pretty heavily biased.

These green peace people have been incensed and waiting for a good excuse to spread their socialist propaganda for decades and global warming has become their battle cry. The word eco-terrorist, as someone else pointed out, exists because of some of these people. These folks hate capitalism and they especially hate the icons of wealth; SUVs and any other large easily identifiable indulgence which is easy to make other people jealous of. Suggesting that only a small (but vocal) wing of the conservative movement that calls in to question the morality of embryonic stem cell research is forgetting entirely the other side of the political spectrum.

Mr. Asher merely pointed out that the science seems contradictory AT BEST. Some are obviously saying its natural; many others are not. The best course for now is patience, and that's all I think anyone has suggested.


Droll