Posted on 03/28/2007 5:01:58 AM PDT by rhema
Most climatologists agree that the earth's temperature has increased about a degree over the last century. The debate is how much of it is due to mankind's activity. Britain's Channel 4 television has just produced "The Great Global Warming Swindle," a documentary that devastates most of the claims made by the environmentalist movement. The scientists interviewed include top climatologists from MIT and other prestigious universities around the world. The documentary hasn't aired in the U.S., but it's available on the Internet. Link is here.
Among the many findings that dispute environmentalists' claims are: Manmade carbon dioxide emissions are roughly 5 percent of the total; the rest are from natural sources such as volcanoes, dying vegetation and animals. Annually, volcanoes alone produce more carbon dioxide than all of mankind's activities. Oceans are responsible for most greenhouse gases. Contrary to environmentalists' claims, the higher the Earth's temperature, the higher the carbon dioxide levels. In other words, carbon dioxide levels are a product of climate change. Some of the documentary's scientists argue that the greatest influence on the Earth's temperature is our sun's sunspot activity. The bottom line is, the bulk of scientific evidence shows that what we've been told by environmentalists is pure bunk.
Throughout the Earth's billions of years there have been countless periods of global warming and cooling. In fact, in the year 1,000 A.D., a time when there were no SUVs, the Earth's climate was much warmer than it is now. Most of this century's warming occurred before 1940. For several decades after WWII, when there was massive worldwide industrialization, there was cooling.
There's a much more important issue that poses an even greater danger to mankind.
(Excerpt) Read more at jewishworldreview.com ...
Nonsense is in the eye of the beholder, just like beauty. Clearly our viewpoints are fundamentally different. But I don't post nonsense about climate change -- ever. It's fine to disagree with it, both scientifically, philosophically, or both. But it's not nonsense, unless you need to think it is.
LOL! Excellent!
Hansen counsels against extreme scenarios, yet clearly notes the potential for unstoppable ice sheet collapse. That should mean something for thinking persons.
Hansen is also noted for moving his claimed goal post when his positions become untenable in the eyes of his employers, OTOH he is also known as well, for his incindiary remarks when pushing his personal views to politicians and the MSM:
http://www.worldclimatereport.com/index.php/2005/04/28/james-hansen-increasingly-insensitive/
You would think that it would be big news when Hansen—the guy who started all this mess with his incendiary 1988 congressional testimony—lowers his estimate for the sensitivity to two-thirds of the value he used back then.
After all, he does get a lot of ink. That’s what happened in October, 2004, when he traveled to hotly contested and environmentally sensitive Iowa the weekend before the election, and publicly berated his Boss’ global warming policy. Talk about insensitive!
Hansen’s most recent figure, just published in Sciencexpress, is that the surface temperature ultimately changes 0.67°C per Watt per square meter (W/m2). In 1988 he said it was a full degree, and in 2001 he lowered it to 0.75.
The lower the climate sensitivity, the less that the global temperature will rise in the future (given the same amount atmospheric carbon dioxide) and the lower the threat of catastrophic climate change.
Outdated, decade-or-more old quotes should be examined for relevance in light of evolving knowledge and increased understanding.
You mean the political agenda and goals of Global Warming Alarmists has changed?
I doubt that very much.
"The urge to save humanity is almost always a false front for the urge to rule."
-- H. L. Mencken"The whole aim of practical politics is to keep the populace alarmed (and hence clamorous to be led to safety) by menacing it with an endless series of hobgoblins, all of them imaginary."
-- H. L. Mencken
"No matter if the science is all phony, there are collateral environmental benefits…. climate change [provides] the greatest chance to bring about justice and equality in the world."
-- Christine Stewart, Canadian Environment Minister, Calgary Herald, December 14, 1998"The answer to global warming is in the abolition of private property and production for human need. A socialist world would place an enormous priority on alternative energy sources. This is what ecologically-minded socialists have been exploring for quite some time now."
-- Louis Proyect, Columbia University"Free Enterprise really means rich people get richer. They have the freedom to exploit and psychologically rape their fellow human beings in the process . . Capitalism is destroying the earth".
-- Helen Caldicott, Union of Concerned Scientists"The trouble with this idea is that planting trees will not lead to the societal changes we want to achieve"
--(Kyoto Delegate, 05 December 1997)"A global climate treaty must be implemented even if there is no scientific evidence to back the [enhanced] greenhouse effect"
(Richard Benedict, US Conservation Foundation)"What we've got to do in energy conservation is try to ride the global warming issue. Even if the theory of global warming is wrong, to have approached global warming as if it is real means energy conservation, so we will be doing the right thing anyway in terms of economic policy and environmental policy."
-- Timothy Wirth, former U.S. Senator (D-Colorado)
It seems strange that the people who spin up the global warming Apocalypse out of speculation and conjecture are unable to accept any responsibility for solving the catastrophic fate that awaits Social Security unless action is taken. There is no doubt that the Social Security debacle will be man-made and the "men" who are making it are the Democrats now in charge of the Congress.
good post
Outdated, decade-or-more old quotes should be examined for relevance in light of evolving knowledge and increased understanding.
Even more importantly any research paper of less than a decade standing should be under the greatest scrutiny and skepticism for lack of adequate critical review and empirical verification through independant research.
Political agendas are long lived and changing mainly means rather than goals of their faithful. OTOH, Research papers offing hypothesis, are a dime a dozen, only the best withstanding critical review of a decade or more to become usable theory.
I try as much as possible not to discuss politics -- and I'm trying harder now compared to earlier years. I think that the majority of climate scientists studying "climate change" have the "agenda" of trying to understand it better in order to understand the driving mechanisms and to make better assessments of the course of climate change in the future.
Astonishing. Criticism of a climate scientist who makes a better estimate after 13 years of research (and probably by using much better computers, better models, better data) -- and also astonishing that said criticism comes from Patrick Michaels. "Astonishing" may not capture it. Astounding -- flabbergasted -- completely confounded that this would come from Patrick Michaels.
Stunningly, I agree with you. However, one must also recognize that in recent history, the amazing pace of technology has enabled research that was almost unthinkable 20 years ago, and at the edge-of-the-envelope 10 years ago. This applies to research in a wide variety of scientific disciplines, not just climate.
So why hasn't this been aired in the US? Isn't there a single network interested in ratings?
What is really at stake here is the whole concept of sovereign nations; to accept the existence of an imminent global threat it is necessary to expect a global response which is impossible under the current world system of governance.
Whoever draws the winning hand in this game will cash in the biggest pot of all time - world dominance.
The Book of Warming, Chapter 1, Verse 2
I try as much as possible not to discuss politics -- and I'm trying harder now compared to earlier years.
You are aware, are you not, this happens to be a political website.
The issues in Global Warming went far beyond science the day it was picked up by the UN/UNEP/IPCC folks and the green environmental movement.
I think that the majority of climate scientists studying "climate change" have the "agenda" of trying to understand it better in order to understand the driving mechanisms and to make better assessments of the course of climate change in the future.
Far too late, the genie was let out of that bottle long ago. Today the political ramifications and impact with regards the growth of power in internation and national politics is the the primary and ultimate concern. That affects us much more, and in a more immediate fashion than any concern over thermodynmics of climate.
However, one must also recognize that in recent history, the amazing pace of technology has enabled research that was almost unthinkable 20 years ago, and at the edge-of-the-envelope 10 years ago. This applies to research in a wide variety of scientific disciplines, not just climate.
Indeed technology has grown immensely, all the more reason to apply it to empirical test of model hypothesis before committing the political mistakes of regulation and all that such entails as regards the political and economic health of this nation.
To grant the political power that goes with the Global Warming activist's agendas is in nowise a move that should be allowed to be logrolled through the political process as is happening today.
Astonishing. Criticism of a climate scientist who makes a better estimate after 13 years of research (and probably by using much better computers, better models, better data) -- and also astonishing that said criticism comes from Patrick Michaels. "Astonishing" may not capture it. Astounding -- flabbergasted -- completely confounded that this would come from Patrick Michaels.
Any so-called "scientist" who chooses to politic, should expect and is indeed deserving of incoming flak for his pronouncements in public forum.
The politician in the scientist's garb is still a politician however you may wish to dress him up to appear otherwise.
This one was a real laugher: Hansen counsels against extreme scenarios, yet clearly notes the potential for unstoppable ice sheet collapse.
Try reversing the phrase to: Hansen clearly notes the potential for unstoppable ice sheet collapse, yet counsels against extreme scenarios. if you don't see the humor.
Despite your protestations that you don't post nonsense 'ever', you have posted nonsense right here and now. Your regurgitated website information states, on the 1940-75 cooling:
But why did the temperature not simply rise in line with the post-war increase in greenhouse gas emissions?
In fact, as is well-known, the absence of a global rise in temperature between 1945-75 is explained by the release of large amounts of industrial pollutants,
This is, in a word, NONSENSE.
The IPCC itself rates the understanding of aerosol forcing 'VERY LOW' so much so that the sign of the overall forcing is not even known. How does this compare to the above assessment 'well-known'?
Back to the comedy, you state Nonsense is in the eye of the beholder, just like beauty.
And this is what really convinces me that you have no idea what you are talking about, but simply parrot others who believe what you would like to believe.
Nonsense is not in the eye of the beholder. We all have access to that universal decoder ring known as LOGIC. Please try to understand that he very basics of climate variability on the time scales of decades to centuries, in a general sense, is simply NOT UNDERSTOOD, no matter how many scientists would like to believe their models and their intuition surely know better.
If the general mechanics are not understood, then the specific theory of greenhouse-forced warming is SPECULATION.
I am totally befuddled how someone who bills himself as a 'cogitator' can actually believe that nonsense is in the eye of the beholder. Are you really so suckered by the relativist mentality pervading modern society? I hope for your sake you are smarter than that.
And that's why I strive to clarify the science of global warming, so that those who are politically-minded can make better-informed decisions. People who think that anthropogenic global warming is a hoax* -- or people who think that one volcano produces more CO2 than all of mankind's activities ever, or even in one year -- are not well-informed on the issue.
* a deliberate subterfuge without any basis in factual reality
Perhaps they should. But Michaels' criticism constitutes saying that the proper conduct of science should be viewed as a bad thing if insight evolves over time. Or that it should be viewed as bad science to improve one's estimates with more research.
Get off your intellectual high-horse, regurgitator - you are riding a chihuahua.
I don't see the humor. Unstoppable, irreversible ice sheet collapse is not an extreme scenario with business-as-usual carbon emissions to the atmosphere. If you might read the link I posted, Hansen defines "Dangerous Anthropogenic Influence" there -- that being an additional radiative forcing such that ice sheet collapse becomes inevitable. The world may not be there yet. It may get there soon.
But why did the temperature not simply rise in line with the post-war increase in greenhouse gas emissions? ... "In fact, as is well-known, the absence of a global rise in temperature between 1945-75 is explained by the release of large amounts of industrial pollutants," ... This is, in a word, NONSENSE. ... The IPCC itself rates the understanding of aerosol forcing 'VERY LOW' so much so that the sign of the overall forcing is not even known. How does this compare to the above assessment 'well-known'?"
The effect of sulfate aerosols by themselves is well-known -- ask Mt. Pinatubo. The IPCC's uncertainty is for the entire range of aerosol types (dust, soot, smoke, aircraft exhaust, a variety of chemical species).
Supporting references:
Senator Inhofe on Climate Change "The current consensus view is that warming in the 1940s was likely a combination of increasing GHG and solar forcing combined with a significant amount of internal variability, particularly associated with the North Atlantic. The subsequent cooling was related to the post-war increase in (mainly) sulphate aerosols."
Combinations of Natural and Anthropogenic Forcings in Twentieth-Century Climate (PDF)
Attribution of twentieth century temperature change to natural and anthropogenic causes
Please try to understand that the very basics of climate variability on the time scales of decades to centuries, in a general sense, is simply NOT UNDERSTOOD, no matter how many scientists would like to believe their models and their intuition surely know better. ... If the general mechanics are not understood, then the specific theory of greenhouse-forced warming is SPECULATION.
I sat pondering this for a considerable amount of time. Ultimately, my opinion of what is understood and what can be understood is vastly different from yours. For that reason, you have the ability to pin a label of "nonsense" or "speculation" on the same scientific knowledge that I determine to be valid. My evaluation process is not relativistic, or spur of the moment, or the whim of the wind.
The distance between the way you and I think about this issue is similar to the distance between adherents of Scientific Creationism and those who understand the facts of conventional geology and biology. No amount of argument from either side will be capable of altering the internal thought processes of the other.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.