Jump to content



Photo

Climate Change


  • This topic is locked This topic is locked
13 replies to this topic

#1 Tor

Tor

    Member

  • Traders-Talk User
  • 7,647 posts

Posted 21 October 2006 - 07:15 AM




Observer

The future is 90% present and 10% vision.

#2 Rogerdodger

Rogerdodger

    Member

  • TT Member*
  • 26,863 posts

Posted 21 October 2006 - 10:23 AM

This topic has been discussed at length at Sanity & Health ...but it has made some insane and others sick. LOL!

Does Youtube ALLOW any differing or opposing views? NOPE.

YouTube's selective censorship is very similar to Google's ability to make alternative opinions go away.
Google recently bought YouTube. Timing is everything.
As for YouTube, an idea that was once pure in intentions has now - obviously - been hijacked by the politically correct.


Edited by Rogerdodger, 21 October 2006 - 10:52 AM.


#3 mss

mss

    I'M WATCHING

  • TT Sponsor
  • 6,182 posts

Posted 21 October 2006 - 12:26 PM

This topic has been discussed at length at Sanity & Health ...but it has made some insane and others sick. LOL!


:( And no where, in the last few years, have I heard or read about the normal 7 year weather cycle, that has history going wwaaaaayyyy back before :buddy_jesus: ;)

:cat:

:ninja: going to see if Ol' Miss can beat Arkansaw & B'ama can whip the Vols.
have to use split screen and TiVo
WOMEN & CATS WILL DO AS THEY PLEASE, AND MEN & DOGS SHOULD GET USED TO THE IDEA.
A DOG ALWAYS OFFERS UNCONDITIONAL LOVE. CATS HAVE TO THINK ABOUT IT!!

#4 *JB*

*JB*

    Member

  • Traders-Talk User
  • 915 posts

Posted 22 October 2006 - 12:42 AM

This topic has been discussed at length at Sanity & Health ...but it has made some insane and others sick. LOL!

Does Youtube ALLOW any differing or opposing views? NOPE.

YouTube's selective censorship is very similar to Google's ability to make alternative opinions go away.
Google recently bought YouTube. Timing is everything.
As for YouTube, an idea that was once pure in intentions has now - obviously - been hijacked by the politically correct.


Roger --

There is NO ability to dissent on Youtube...or most other agenda driven sites...of which they are clearly one.

These two clips are SO misleading, they are virtual lies.

a few facts they do not cover or actually lie about.

Yes the world is warming --
But.....

1 -- the temperature of the earth DIRECTLY tracks various solar activities like periods of solar flares and storms -- NOT "man made" CO2 emissions.

2 -- CO2 increases in the atmosphere FOLLOWING temperature...it does not precede it.

3 -- 95%-98% of ALL Greenhouse gasses are produced by NATURE 2-5% by man.

4 -- Other planets with ice caps -- with few SUVs -- are showing GLOBAL WARMING in line with what is being detected on Earth.

5 -- the vast majority of scientist DO NOT agree with the "man made Global Warming" consensus that ABC claims. There have been two major independent surveys of ACTUAL EARTH SCIENCE PhDs -- and the consensus is VERY far from there.

6 -- The "man made" Global warming agenda is pushed by anti-US organizations that are looking to "level the economic playing field" with the US (this is an actual statement by environmental minister of the European Union) -- OR -- by scientists who make their money by studies funded by these organizations.

AND...the BIG one...THE "strongest" green house gas is WATER VAPOR.
CO2 (the focus of ALL the stop Global Warming "efforts"....is very minor green house gas behind Water Vapor and Methane.

BTW -- for those that may not know it, the efforts by those who want to "stop Global warming" is focused on ONE THING -- CO2...not "pollution". CO2 is what we, and all mammals, exhale.

Also, In every protocol to curb "global Warming", China and India are exempt. Yes the the US is the biggest emmitter of man-made CO2 --however -- China and India combined are about 80% higher than the US -- and -- with POLLUTION is MANY times higher. The top 10 spots for pollution are in China, India, Russia, and parts of Africa. (a couple spots in South America, too) -- NONE in the US.

Edited by *JB*, 22 October 2006 - 12:46 AM.

"Don't think...LOOK!"
Carl Swenlin, founder of Decision Point and original Fearless Forecasters board.

#5 colion

colion

    Member

  • Traders-Talk User
  • 1,169 posts

Posted 22 October 2006 - 08:16 AM

Roger --

There is NO ability to dissent on Youtube...or most other agenda driven sites...of which they are clearly one.

These two clips are SO misleading, they are virtual lies.

a few facts they do not cover or actually lie about.

Yes the world is warming --
But.....

1 -- the temperature of the earth DIRECTLY tracks various solar activities like periods of solar flares and storms -- NOT "man made" CO2 emissions.

2 -- CO2 increases in the atmosphere FOLLOWING temperature...it does not precede it.

3 -- 95%-98% of ALL Greenhouse gasses are produced by NATURE 2-5% by man.

4 -- Other planets with ice caps -- with few SUVs -- are showing GLOBAL WARMING in line with what is being detected on Earth.

5 -- the vast majority of scientist DO NOT agree with the "man made Global Warming" consensus that ABC claims. There have been two major independent surveys of ACTUAL EARTH SCIENCE PhDs -- and the consensus is VERY far from there.

6 -- The "man made" Global warming agenda is pushed by anti-US organizations that are looking to "level the economic playing field" with the US (this is an actual statement by environmental minister of the European Union) -- OR -- by scientists who make their money by studies funded by these organizations.

AND...the BIG one...THE "strongest" green house gas is WATER VAPOR.
CO2 (the focus of ALL the stop Global Warming "efforts"....is very minor green house gas behind Water Vapor and Methane.

BTW -- for those that may not know it, the efforts by those who want to "stop Global warming" is focused on ONE THING -- CO2...not "pollution". CO2 is what we, and all mammals, exhale.

Also, In every protocol to curb "global Warming", China and India are exempt. Yes the the US is the biggest emmitter of man-made CO2 --however -- China and India combined are about 80% higher than the US -- and -- with POLLUTION is MANY times higher. The top 10 spots for pollution are in China, India, Russia, and parts of Africa. (a couple spots in South America, too) -- NONE in the US.





Exactly right. In addition, add that consensus is not part of science (ask Galileo). There is also a "slight" disconnect between theory/models and reality so the % due to human activities is unknown but given the uncertainties in data and models the major effect is due to natural factos. Those are "inconvenient truths" that alarmists ignore. Incidently, what ever happened to the panic du jour of the late seventies that claimed global cooling was "here and now?"

#6 grizzly

grizzly

    Member

  • Traders-Talk User
  • 62 posts

Posted 22 October 2006 - 12:37 PM

Hey JB it is IS FLAT OUT INCORRECT to say, that, " the vast majority of scientist DO NOT agree with the "man made Global Warming" consensus that ABC claims. There have been two major independent surveys of ACTUAL EARTH SCIENCE PhDs -- and the consensus is VERY far from there" -

---In fact, just the opposite is true, the vast majority of reputable scientists believe that man's greenhouse gas emissions are the significant cause of the global warming currently being evidenced.

The vast majority of scientists who make statements to the contrary receive funding from the fossil fuel industry, bringing their objectivity into question.

According to the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration's (NOAA) 2005 State of the Climate Report, and the National Aeronautics and Space Administration's (NASA) 2005 Surface Temperature Analysis)

Since 1900, the average surface temperature has warmed by about 1.2-1.4 ºF.

Since the mid 1970s, the average surface temperature has warmed about 1 ºF.

The Earth’s surface is currently warming at a rate of about 0.32ºF/decade or 3.2 ºF/century.

The five warmest years over last century have likely been: 2005, 1998, 2002, 2003, 2004. The top 10 warmest years have all occurred since 1990.

Additionally, the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) says,

The warming trend is seen in both daily maximum and minimum temperatures, with minimum temperatures increasing at a faster rate than maximum temperatures. Land areas have tended to warm faster than ocean areas and the winter months have warmed faster than summer months. Widespread reductions in the number of days below freezing occurred during the latter half of the 20th century in the United States as well as most land areas of the Northern Hemisphere and areas of the Southern Hemisphere.
United States Surface Temperature Trends

Observations compiled by NOAA’s National Climatic Data Center indicate that most regions of the U.S. have warmed by at least 1ºF (0.6ºC) since 1901 although the Southeast has cooled. Warming in excess of 1.8°F (1°C) has occurred in the West and Alaska.

The last five five-year periods (1999-2003, 1998-2002, 1997-2001, 1996-2000,1995-99) were the warmest for the duration of national records (which began in 1901). The most recent six-year-(1998-2003), seven-year (1997-2003), eight-year (1996-2003), nine-year (1995-2003), and ten-year (1994-2003) periods were also the warmest on record for the United States.

The general scientific consensus is that most of the observed warming in global average surface temperature that has occurred over the past 50 years is likely a result of human activities (IPCC, 200115; NRC, 200115).


Like Sargent Friday said, "Nothing but the facts Maam, Nothing but the facts".


#7 mss

mss

    I'M WATCHING

  • TT Sponsor
  • 6,182 posts

Posted 22 October 2006 - 04:21 PM

.

The general scientific consensus is that most of the observed warming in global average surface temperature that has occurred over the past 50 years is likely a result of human activities (IPCC, 200115; NRC, 200115).

Like Sargent Friday said, "Nothing but the facts Maam, Nothing but the facts".


In line with the TRUTH & FACTS, so far "general scientific consensus" is and has been a very widely used statement-BUT NO ONE-has yet to put names of Research teams, scientists, or Labs to the "consensus opinions". As far as who gets funding--everybody in the scientific world gets funding from somewhere to prove an agenda that will get more funding. Pure research with open mindness is hard to find these days.
mss
WOMEN & CATS WILL DO AS THEY PLEASE, AND MEN & DOGS SHOULD GET USED TO THE IDEA.
A DOG ALWAYS OFFERS UNCONDITIONAL LOVE. CATS HAVE TO THINK ABOUT IT!!

#8 blitty21

blitty21

    Member

  • Traders-Talk User
  • 16 posts

Posted 22 October 2006 - 04:38 PM

.

The general scientific consensus is that most of the observed warming in global average surface temperature that has occurred over the past 50 years is likely a result of human activities (IPCC, 200115; NRC, 200115).

Like Sargent Friday said, "Nothing but the facts Maam, Nothing but the facts".


In line with the TRUTH & FACTS, so far "general scientific consensus" is and has been a very widely used statement-BUT NO ONE-has yet to put names of Research teams, scientists, or Labs to the "consensus opinions". As far as who gets funding--everybody in the scientific world gets funding from somewhere to prove an agenda that will get more funding. Pure research with open mindness is hard to find these days.
mss



Here's a name, Dr. William Schilesinger, the author of this article:

Scientific Consensus
By William H. Schlesinger
Op-Ed, News and Observer (Raleigh, NC), 9/29/06

Consensus n. A collective opinion; general agreement
Official statements from the scientific community, including the American Geophysical Union and the National Academy of Sciences, indicate a scientific consensus that global warming is real and caused by human activities. Yet a small set of politicians continue to argue that there is no consensus, citing the work of a few scientists who criticize a broad array of climate studies.

Absolute scientific consensus never exists on any issue. Indeed, I am sure that with some diligence, one could find a credentialed professional who would claim the world is flat, that smoking cigarettes is not related to lung cancer, and that the use of chlorofluorocarbons has nothing to do with the ozone hole over Antarctica. First, I’d want to look carefully at who is funding the work of each of these minority opinions. Many scientists who doubt the reality of global warming are known to have close ties to the fossil fuel industry.

Most people gave up smoking long before scientific studies put the last nail in the coffin for cigarettes. More than a few brazen souls still smoke today, hoping they will somehow escape the fate that science promises them. But the strong scientific consensus on smoking allowed policy makers to prohibit smoking in public places where it may harm the health of the rest of us. So it should be with the emissions of greenhouse gases that will harm many sectors of society that are least able to afford the impacts of global warming.

At any moment, scientists conducting laboratory and field studies around the world do their best to provide data on important questions that face us. Some studies are esoteric; for example, defining the age of the Universe. Most others are directly related to problems that face humans—our health, our environment, and our safety. Like all fields of endeavor, science is subject to error, incompetence, and fraud, but scientists act as an intellectual police force, checking, validating and rechecking the findings of their colleagues.

For scientists, the excitement and challenges are the unknowns and the uncertainties. New research seeks to move away the barriers of the unknown. The early experiments are reproduced by other scientists and questions are asked and answered in scientific meetings. Along the way, a huge body of consensus accumulates. This is science ready for policy. This is where the science of global climate change rests today, just as science underlay the Surgeon General’s first pronouncement on smoking in 1964.

A vast majority of the scientific community has achieved consensus about global warming, but a small ideological minority persists in disrupting the creation of effective policy—not basing their criticism on science but using an active program of empty rhetoric to confuse the issue. Many of these ideologues have a deep stake in the status quo. With the scientific consensus at hand, the longer we wait to limit the emissions of carbon dioxide into the atmosphere, the less likely it is that we will avoid the large costs and impacts of global warming.

During hearings earlier this year, one member of the NC Legislative Commission on Climate Change decried decisions made on scientific consensus as: “not the way we should do business.” On the contrary, I believe there is no other way.

William H. Schlesinger is Dean of the Nicholas School of the Environment and Earth Sciences at Duke University and a member of the National Academy of Sciences.

#9 *JB*

*JB*

    Member

  • Traders-Talk User
  • 915 posts

Posted 23 October 2006 - 01:01 AM

Decorated Scientist Defects From Belief in Global Warming – Caps Year of Vindication for Skeptics

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
October 17, 2006
Washington DC - One of the most decorated French geophysicists has converted from a believer in manmade catastrophic global warming to a climate skeptic. This latest defector from the global warming camp caps a year in which numerous scientific studies have bolstered the claims of climate skeptics. Scientific studies that debunk the dire predictions of human-caused global warming have continued to accumulate and many believe the new science is shattering the media-promoted scientific “consensus” on climate alarmism.

Claude Allegre, a former government official and an active member of France’s Socialist Party, wrote an editorial on September 21, 2006 in the French newspaper L'Express titled “The Snows of Kilimanjaro” (For English Translation, click here: http://epw.senate.go...y=rep&id=264835 ) detailing his newfound skepticism about manmade global warming.

See: http://www.lexpress.....asp?ida=451670 Allegre wrote that the “cause of climate change remains unknown” and pointed out that Kilimanjaro is not losing snow due to global warming, but to local land use and precipitation changes. Allegre also pointed out that studies show that Antarctic snowfall rate has been stable over the past 30 years and the continent is actually gaining ice.

“Following the month of August experienced by the northern half of France, the prophets of doom of global warming will have a lot on their plate in order to make our fellow countrymen swallow their certitudes,” Allegre wrote. He also accused proponents of manmade catastrophic global warming of being motivated by money, noting that “the ecology of helpless protesting has become a very lucrative business for some people!”

Allegre, a member of both the French and U.S. Academy of Sciences, had previously expressed concern about manmade global warming.

Scientists Debunk Global Warming Fears

Earlier this year, a group of prominent scientists came forward to question the so-called “consensus” that the Earth faces a “climate emergency.” On April 6, 2006, 60 scientists wrote a letter to the Canadian Prime Minister asserting that the science is deteriorating from underneath global warming alarmists.

“Observational evidence does not support today's computer climate models, so there is little reason to trust model predictions of the future…Significant [scientific] advances have been made since the [Kyoto] protocol was created, many of which are taking us away from a concern about increasing greenhouse gases. If, back in the mid-1990s, we knew what we know today about climate, Kyoto would almost certainly not exist, because we would have concluded it was not necessary,” the 60 scientists wrote.

See: http://www.canada.co...be-4db87559d605

“It was only 30 years ago that many of today's global-warming alarmists were telling us that the world was in the midst of a global-cooling catastrophe. But the science continued to evolve, and still does, even though so many choose to ignore it when it does not fit with predetermined political agendas,” the 60 scientists concluded.

In addition, an October 16, 2006 Washington Post article titled “Climate Change is Nothing New” echoed the sentiments of the 60 scientists as it detailed a new study of the earth’s climate history. The Washington Post article by reporter Christopher Lee noted that Indiana University geologist Simon Brassell found climate change occurred during the age of dinosaurs and quoted Brassell questioning the accuracy of computer climate model predictions.

“If there are big, inherent fluctuations in the system, as paleoclimate studies are showing, it could make determining the Earth’s climatic future even harder than it is,” Brassell said.

See: http://www.washingto...6101500672.html

Global Cooling on the Horizon?

In August, Khabibullo Abdusamatov, a scientist who heads the space research sector for the Russian Academy of Sciences, predicted long-term global cooling may be on the horizon due to a projected decrease in the sun’s output.

See: http://en.rian.ru/ru...5/53143686.html

Sun’s Contribution to Warming

There have also been recent findings in peer-reviewed literature over the last few years showing that the Antarctic is getting colder and the ice is growing and a new 2006 study in Geophysical Research Letters found that the sun was responsible for up to 50% of 20th-century warming.

See: http://www.agu.org/p...6GL027142.shtml

“Global Warming” Stopped in 1998

Paleoclimate scientist Bob Carter has noted that there is indeed a problem with global warming – it stopped in 1998. “According to official temperature records of the Climate Research Unit at the University of East Anglia in the UK, the global average temperature did not increase between 1998-2005. “…this eight-year period of temperature stasis did coincide with society's continued power station and SUV-inspired pumping of yet more carbon dioxide into the atmosphere,” noted paleoclimate researcher and geologist Bob Carter of James Cook University in Australia in an April 2006 article titled “There is a problem with global warming... it stopped in 1998.”

See: http://www.telegraph...09/ixworld.html

“Global”? Warming Misnamed - Southern Hemisphere Not Warming

In addition, new NASA satellite tropospheric temperature data reveals that the Southern Hemisphere has not warmed in the past 25 years contrary to “global warming theory” and modeling. This new Southern Hemisphere data raises the specter that the use of the word “global” in “global warming” may not be accurate. A more apt moniker for the past 25 years may be “Northern Hemisphere” warming.

See: http://motls.blogspo...res-global.html

Alaska Cooling

According to data released on July 14, 2006 from the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), the January through June Alaska statewide average temperature was “0.55F (0.30C) cooler than the 1971-2000 average.”

See: http://www.publicaff...noaa06-065.html

Oceans Cooling

Another bombshell to hit the global warming alarmists and their speculative climate modeling came in a September article in the Geophysical Research Letters which found that over 20% of the heat gained in the oceans since the mid-1950s was lost in just two years. The former climatologist for the state of Colorado, Roger Pielke, Sr., noted that the sudden cooling of the oceans “certainly indicates that the multi-decadal global climate models have serious issues with their ability to accurately simulate the response of the climate system to human- and natural-climate forcings.“

See: http://climatesci.at...te.edu/2006/09/

Light Hurricane Season & Early Winter

Despite predictions that 2006 would bring numerous tropical storms, 2006’s surprisingly light hurricane season and the record early start of this year’s winter in many parts of the U.S. have further put a damper on the constant doomsaying of the global warming alarmists and their media allies.

Droughts Less Frequent

Other new studies have debunked many of the dubious claims made by the global warming alarmists. For example, the claim that droughts would be more frequent, severe and wide ranging during global warming, has now being exposed as fallacious. A new paper in Geophysical Research Letters authored by Konstantinos Andreadis and Dennis Lettenmaier finds droughts in the U.S. becoming “shorter, less frequent and cover a small portion of the country over the last century.”
http://www.worldclim...re-the-droughts

Global Warming Will Not Lead to Next Ice Age

Furthermore, recent research has shown that fears that global warming could lead to the next ice age, as promoted in the 2004 Hollywood movie “The Day After Tomorrow” are also unsupportable. A 2005 media hyped study “claimed to have found a 30 percent slowdown in the thermohaline circulation, the results are published in the very prestigious Nature magazine, and the story was carried breathlessly by the media in outlets around the world…Less than a year later, two different research teams present convincing evidence [ in Geophysical Research Letters ] that no slowdown is occurring whatsoever,” according to Virginia State Climatologist Patrick Michaels, editor of the website World Climate Report.

See: http://www.worldclim...ning-ocean-hype

‘Hockey Stick’ Broken in 2006

The “Hockey Stick” temperature graph’s claim that the 1990’s was the hottest decade of the last 1000 years was found to be unsupportable by the National Academy of Sciences and many independent experts in 2006.

See: http://www.epw.senat...a...p&id=257697

Study Shows Greenland’s Ice Growing

A 2005 study by a scientist named Ola Johannessen and his colleagues showed that the interior of Greenland is gaining ice mass.

See: http://www.co2scienc...s/V8/N44/C1.jsp that Also, according to the International Arctic Research Institute, despite all of the media hype, the Arctic was warmer in the 1930’s than today.

Polar Bears Not Going Extinct

Despite Time Magazine and the rest of the media’s unfounded hype, polar bears are not facing a crisis, according to biologist Dr. Mitchell Taylor from the Arctic government of Nunavut. “Of the 13 populations of polar bears in Canada, 11 are stable or increasing in number. They are not going extinct, or even appear to be affected at present,” Taylor wrote on May 1, 2006.

See: http://www.thestar.c...id=970599119419

Media Darling James Hansen Hypes Alarmism

As all of this new data debunking climate alarmism mounts, the mainstream media chooses to ignore it and instead focus on the dire predictions of the number-one global warming media darling, NASA’s James Hansen. The increasingly alarmist Hansen is featured frequently in the media to bolster sky-is-falling climate scare reports. His recent claim that the Earth is nearing its hottest point in one million years has been challenged by many scientists.

See: http://www.co2scienc...9/N39/EDITB.jsp

Hansen’s increasingly frightening climate predictions follow his 2003 concession that the use of “extreme scenarios” was an appropriate tactic to drive the public’s attention to the urgency of global warming.

See: http://naturalscienc...16/ns_jeh6.html

Hansen also received a $250,000 grant form Teresa Heinz’s Foundation and then subsequently endorsed her husband John Kerry for President and worked closely with Al Gore to promote his movie, “An Inconvenient Truth.”

See: http://www.heinzawar....asp?speechID=6 & http://www.columbia....ai_complete.pdf

American People Rejecting Global Warming Alarmism

The global warming alarmists may have significantly overplayed their hand in the climate debate. A Los Angeles Times/Bloomberg poll this August found that most Americans do not attribute the cause of any recent severe weather events to global warming, and the portion of Americans who believe that climate change is due to natural variability has increased over 50% in the last five years.

Senator Inhofe Chastises Media For Unscientific & Unprincipled Climate Reporting

Senator James Inhofe -- Chairman of the Environment and Public Works Committee, commented last week on the media’s unfounded global warming hype and some of the recent scientific research that is shattering the so-called “consensus” that human greenhouse gas emissions have doomed the planet.

“The American people are fed up with media for promoting the idea that former Vice President Al Gore represents the scientific ‘consensus’ that SUV’s and the modern American way of life have somehow created a ‘climate emergency’ that only United Nations bureaucrats and wealthy Hollywood liberals can solve. It is the publicity and grant seeking global warming alarmists and their advocates in the media who have finally realized that the only “emergency” confronting them is their rapidly crumbling credibility, audience and bottom line. The global warming alarmists know their science is speculative at best and their desperation grows each day as it becomes more and more obvious that many of the nations that ratified the woeful Kyoto Protocol are failing to comply,” Senator Inhofe said last week.

See: http://www.epw.senat...a...p&id=264616

“The mainstream media needs to follow the money: The further you get from scientists who conduct these alarmist global warming studies, and the further you get from the financial grants and the institutions that they serve the more the climate alarmism fades and the skepticism grows,” Senator Inhofe explained.

Eco-Doomsayers’ Failed Predictions

In a speech on the Senate floor on September 25, 2006, Senator Inhofe pointed out the abject failure of past predictions of ecological disaster made by environmental alarmists.

“The history of the modern environmental movement is chock-full of predictions of doom that never came true. We have all heard the dire predictions about the threat of overpopulation, resource scarcity, mass starvation, and the projected death of our oceans. None of these predictions came true, yet it never stopped the doomsayers from continuing to predict a dire environmental future. The more the eco-doomsayers’ predictions fail, the more the eco-doomsayers predict,” Senator Inhofe said on September 25th.

See: http://epw.senate.go...y=rep&id=263759

Related Links:

For a comprehensive review of the media’s embarrassing 100-year history of alternating between promoting fears of a coming ice age and global warming, see Environment & Public Works Chairman James Inhofe’s September 25, 2006 Senate floor speech debunking the media and climate alarmism.

Go to: (epw.senate.gov/speechitem.cfm?party=rep&id=263759)
"Don't think...LOOK!"
Carl Swenlin, founder of Decision Point and original Fearless Forecasters board.

#10 grizzly

grizzly

    Member

  • Traders-Talk User
  • 62 posts

Posted 24 October 2006 - 07:42 PM

JB we obviously look at this issue differently. I am an engineer who also has a degree in chemistry. I am no tree hugger. I believe in capitalism, and am an investor, and desire a strong economy. I have no particular agenda to advance. I only want to look at science and the facts. I wish it were not a fact, but it is clearly a fact that global warming is occurring, and that increases in greenhouse gases in earth's atmosphere related to industrial development and man's activities are the primary cause of this global warming (i.e., burning of fossil fuels). I wish this were not true, and that all those paid by the oil and gas industry, coal companies, anti-environment think tanks, etc., were correct, but they are not. It will not be easy to wean modern industrial society from burning of fossil fuels, or to pay for adequate controls on greenhouse gas emissions as such fuels are used. However, in the long run it will do no good to put your head in the sand and ignore reality. I have yet to see a scientific paper that has undergone peer review by credible scientists that does not point the finger at greenhouse gases as being the primary cause of the global warming observed during the last century. As you have noted there are many articles in newspapers, magazines and industrial journals that do not receive scientific peer review that obfuscate the truth and/or promote continued uncertainty in regard to global warming because they do not like the facts and/or are being paid to promote a particular outcome. There are many that do not like the scientific result (including myself), however, in the long run it is an exercise in futility to ignore the facts and/or reject or try to obscure valid science. Every year the scientific evidence gets stronger. The fact is that carbon dioxide levels in our atmosphere have increased from 316 ppm in 1959 to 380 ppm in 2005. Other greenhouse gases such as nitrogen and sulfur oxides and organic gases have also increased. Earth's actual recorded temperatures are tracking predictions of global warming models that input greenhouse gas levels. If the nation's of the world do not recognize reality, and unite to stabilize and reduce levels of greenhouse gases this planet and its societies an economies face dire consequences. In the long run those who attempt to whitewash the facts will only do a disservice to themselves, their children and grandchildren, and our economy and society. They will delay the inevitable, --maybe until it is too late. The long term consequence of global warming will be severe to our economy and society. If we as a society do not listen to our scientists, and come up with scientific engineered solutions that addresses the problem we will pay severely for such foolishness. It will do no good to whitewash the facts. Please look at scientific peer reviewed journals such as American Physical Society Journals, Physical Review Letters, Other APS Research Journals, Nature, the Journal of Atmospheric Chemistry, Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, Science, etc. Scientific peer reviewed journals should provide the major source of information people use to make decisions about this matter. There are many who claim knowledge about this issue, and publish all kinds of claptrap, but they are promoting a particular agenda or being paid to promote a particular outcome. The problem is too serious for that.