To the Global Warming, Doomsday crowd...

[55CrushEm]

There IS a problem with global warming... it stopped in 1998
By Bob Carter
(Filed: 04/09/2006)

For many years now, human-caused climate change has been viewed as a large and urgent problem. In truth, however, the biggest part of the problem is neither environmental nor scientific, but a self-created political fiasco. Consider the simple fact, drawn from the official temperature records of the Climate Research Unit at the University of East Anglia, that for the years 1998-2005 global average temperature did not increase (there was actually a slight decrease, though not at a rate that differs significantly from zero).

Yes, you did read that right. And also, yes, 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.

In response to these facts, a global warming devotee will chuckle and say "how silly to judge climate change over such a short period". Yet in the next breath, the same person will assure you that the 28-year-long period of warming which occurred between 1970 and 1998 constitutes a dangerous (and man-made) warming. Tosh. Our devotee will also pass by the curious additional facts that a period of similar warming occurred between 1918 and 1940, well prior to the greatest phase of world industrialisation, and that cooling occurred between 1940 and 1965, at precisely the time that human emissions were increasing at their greatest rate.

Does something not strike you as odd here? That industrial carbon dioxide is not the primary cause of earth's recent decadal-scale temperature changes doesn't seem at all odd to many thousands of independent scientists. They have long appreciated - ever since the early 1990s, when the global warming bandwagon first started to roll behind the gravy train of the UN Inter-governmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) - that such short-term climate fluctuations are chiefly of natural origin. Yet the public appears to be largely convinced otherwise. How is this possible?

Two simple graphs provide needed context, and exemplify the dynamic, fluctuating nature of climate change. The first is a temperature curve for the last six million years, which shows a three-million year period when it was several degrees warmer than today, followed by a three-million year cooling trend which was accompanied by an increase in the magnitude of the pervasive, higher frequency, cold and warm climate cycles. During the last three such warm (interglacial) periods, temperatures at high latitudes were as much as 5 degrees warmer than today's. The second graph shows the average global temperature over the last eight years, which has proved to be a period of stasis.

The essence of the issue is this. Climate changes naturally all the time, partly in predictable cycles, and partly in unpredictable shorter rhythms and rapid episodic shifts, some of the causes of which remain unknown. We are fortunate that our modern societies have developed during the last 10,000 years of benignly warm, interglacial climate. But for more than 90 per cent of the last two million years, the climate has been colder, and generally much colder, than today. The reality of the climate record is that a sudden natural cooling is far more to be feared, and will do infinitely more social and economic damage, than the late 20th century phase of gentle warming.

[Rock Chalk]

Why bother? EPA activists will write this off as junk science or propaganda if it doesnt fit into their agenda.

[55CrushEm]

Why bother? EPA activists will write this off as junk science or propaganda if it doesnt fit into their agenda.

I know. I usually don't post articles on message boards.....but I thought this one had some very easy-to-understand, logical points for an issue that is often debated without either side using much factual information.....

[watermock]

I'm not dicounting CO2, it's just that people act like it's the end of the world. The same people are against new, safer nuclear options. I have a solution...

Tell everyone and all cattle to hold their farts.

[Rock Chalk]

I know. I usually don't post articles on message boards.....but I thought this one had some very easy-to-understand, logical points for an issue that is often debated without either side using much factual information.....
Personally, I dont think either side can make a valid argument since the proper data set is far too small.

[55CrushEm]

Personally, I dont think either side can make a valid argument since the proper data set is far too small.

Agreed....

One fact that I found interesting that I pointed out in another thread, is that the Earth itself is a massive polluter.......volcanoes.

[Bronx33]

One world One atmosphere, it's all we have hopefully it doesn't **** up iam just hoping money and auto manufacturers are not putting the world in the balance for profit. (The data alec talks about really needs to be addressed IMO)

[55CrushEm]

Tell everyone and all cattle to hold their farts.

Good point.....come to think of it, in the last 2 days, I've probably contributed to a significant portion of the "global warming".....maybe it was the burrito I ate on Friday....???

[Boobs McGee]

I'm going to drive an extra 10 miles home tonight while shooting an aerosol can and smoking a cigarette in celebration.

Thank you for the article, I now have some decent ammo to argue with my hippie neighbor

[anthonypacino]

Agreed....

One fact that I found interesting that I pointed out in another thread, is that the Earth itself is a massive polluter.......volcanoes.
I have been saying that for year, I believe I read somewhere that ONE volcano blast equals something like 10 years of man made pollution, with all the posion gas and such being released.

[Bronx33]

I have been saying that for year, I believe I read somewhere that ONE volcano blast equals something like 10 years of man made pollution, with all the posion gas and such being released.

So iam going to guess US as in you and me probably shouldn't add too much more to the problem?

[Cito Pelon]

Personally, I dont think either side can make a valid argument since the proper data set is far too small.

Yeah, that's about the size of it.

To me this "global warming" fad is a bit overblown. There's no doubt Mother Nature has made major, periodical climate changes that humans had no impact on. I think the big deal is if the ice caps melt, it puts too much cold, fresh water into the oceans - changes the temp and the salinity, the currents. The oceans regulate the climate pretty much, as far as I know.

Nevertheless, I like clean air, clean water, clean land. So don't get too carried away bashing environmentalists. Without "environmentalists" to make a stand, this country would be a pig-sty right now.

[watermock]

Saddam was a great environmentalist...we should of followed his lead and lit up all the oil wells in Texas and Alaska.

[bronco militia]

http://www.chevyapprentice.com/view.php?country=us&uniqueid=11cb8e54-152a-1029-98eb-0013724ff5a7

:devil:

[GonzoLays]

First of all 55crushEM do you mind providing a link?

And secondly, when your source is the world renowned research institute University of East Anglia you must take all this information with a grain of salt.

"Consider the simple fact, drawn from the official temperature records of the Climate Research Unit at the University of East Anglia"

University of East Anglia? What, was Hoewood Community College not available for the study?

[55CrushEm]

I have been saying that for year, I believe I read somewhere that ONE volcano blast equals something like 10 years of man made pollution, with all the posion gas and such being released.

Exactly.....an example.....

Noxious sulfur dioxide gas and other pollutants emitted from Kilauea Volcano on the Island of Hawai`i react with oxygen and atmospheric moisture to produce volcanic smog (vog) and acid rain. Vog poses a health hazard by aggravating preexisting respiratory ailments, and acid rain damages crops and can leach lead into household water supplies. The U.S. Geological Survey's Hawaiian Volcano Observatory is closely monitoring gas emissions from Kilauea and working with health professionals and local officials to better understand volcanic air pollution and to enhance public awareness of this hazard.

[55CrushEm]

First of all 55crushEM do you mind providing a link?

And secondly, when your source is the world renowned research institute University of East Anglia you must take all this information with a grain of salt.

"Consider the simple fact, drawn from the official temperature records of the Climate Research Unit at the University of East Anglia"

University of East Anglia? What, was Hoewood Community College not available for the study?

Sure, Gonzo.....and btw, not saying that this is the case, but some of the most obscure universities that neither you nor I have heard of, have particular departements that are oftentimes considered the best in the business.......here's your link....

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/opinion/main.jhtml?xml=/opinion/2006/04/09/do0907.xml&sSheet=/news/2006/04/09/ixworld.html

[Billy Clyde Puckett]

Watch out LABF will be here soon saying that Bush is causing a new ice age.

[GonzoLays]

Sure, Gonzo.....and btw, not saying that this is the case, but some of the most obscure universities that neither you nor I have heard of, have particular departements that are oftentimes considered the best in the business.......here's your link....

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/opinion/main.jhtml?xml=/opinion/2006/04/09/do0907.xml&sSheet=/news/2006/04/09/ixworld.html

Ahh yes this came from the "OPINION" section of the newspaper where any joeshmoe can write into the paper and leave his mark on the world. NEXT!

[55CrushEm]

Ahh yes this came from the "OPINION" section of the newspaper where any joeshmoe can write into the paper and leave his mark on the world. NEXT!

Yes, from a geologist engaged in paleoclimate research......not a "joeshmoe" as you indicate......NEXT !!!

And btw, he cites many FACTS in the article (if you happened to read it).....sorry, I know liberals hate facts.

[Rock Chalk]

Ahh yes this came from the "OPINION" section of the newspaper where any joeshmoe can write into the paper and leave his mark on the world. NEXT!
Well guess what Gonzo, here's a newsflash for ya then.
http://science.slashdot.org/science/06/04/07/1540219.shtml

Cleaner air helping to speed up global warming.

Haha, damned if you do, damned if you dont.

[55CrushEm]

http://www.chevyapprentice.com/view.php?country=us&uniqueid=11cb8e54-152a-1029-98eb-0013724ff5a7

:devil:

Militia, that was one of the funniest clips I've seen in a while......LOL.

[bronco militia]

Militia, that was one of the funniest clips I've seen in a while......LOL.


no doubt...

:rofl:

[Ninjafied]

Personally, I dont think either side can make a valid argument since the proper data set is far too small.
And the larger data set indicates that we’re between ice ages.
So the Earth’s temperature is going to change significantly, with or without mankind around to appreciate it.

[Orange_Beard]

I'm not dicounting CO2, it's just that people act like it's the end of the world. The same people are against new, safer nuclear options. I have a solution...

Tell everyone and all cattle to hold their farts.


This is to good of a straight line to pass-up.

for example, "or you could just keep your mouth shut" or something like, maybe "if you would just brush your teeth once in awhaile"

[Bronco_Beerslug]

Anyone who thinks that humans aren't polluting the air, water and soil are purposely ignorant or corporate lackey material. Warming is a by-product of that pollution.

More studies coming out every day showing this....

------------------------------------------------
NASA Scientist: Bush Stifles Global Warming Evidence
By Chuck Schoffner
Associated Press
posted: 27 October 2004
12:53 pm ET

IOWA CITY, Iowa - The Bush administration is trying to stifle scientific evidence of the dangers of global warming in an effort to keep the public uninformed, a NASA scientist said Tuesday night.

"In my more than three decades in government, I have never seen anything approaching the degree to which information flow from scientists to the public has been screened and controlled as it is now," James E. Hansen told a University of Iowa audience.
http://tinyurl.com/hp8jn


Climate Expert Says NASA Tried to Silence Him
By ANDREW C. REVKIN
Published: January 29, 2006

The top climate scientist at NASA says the Bush administration has tried to stop him from speaking out since he gave a lecture last month calling for prompt reductions in emissions of greenhouse gases linked to global warming.

The scientist, James E. Hansen, longtime director of the agency's Goddard Institute for Space Studies, said in an interview that officials at NASA headquarters had ordered the public affairs staff to review his coming lectures, papers, postings on the Goddard Web site and requests for interviews from journalists.

Dr. Hansen said he would ignore the restrictions. "They feel their job is to be this censor of information going out to the public," he said.
http://tinyurl.com/dron4

Juneau studying effects of global warming in southeast Alaska
Associated Press
Article Last Updated: 04/09/2006 3:14 PM AKDT
The mayor of Juneau has appointed a panel of scientists to study the effects global warming will have on the future of the city.

The state's capital has seen a steady rise in annual average temperatures over the past several decades. The panel's work began a few weeks ago. It is expected to last at least six months and result in policy proposals and town meetings.
http://tinyurl.com/jet2s

And a hundred other links available all recent links.

[55CrushEm]

Anyone who thinks that humans aren't polluting the air, water and soil are purposely ignorant

Ummm....I don't recall anyone saying that. If you read the entire thread, the common theme is that humans do no more to pollute the earth, that the earth itself does.....and that climate changes cyclically, ALWAYS HAS.

And we went through warming trends at the BEGINNING of the century.....long before the "dreaded" SUV......

[Crushaholic]

Ummm....I don't recall anyone saying that. If you read the entire thread, the common theme is that humans do no more to pollute the earth, that the earth itself does.....and that climate changes cyclically, ALWAYS HAS.

And we went through warming trends at the BEGINNING of the century.....long before the "dreaded" SUV.....

Yes. The fact that we are no longer in an ice age proves that statement. Blaming everything on businesses is getting a bit tiresome...

[Tredici]

Some parts are a bit Hollywooded up (with an eye towards the screenplay) but this is the subject matter of Creighton's book State of Fear.

Basically warming and cooling are cycles. They tend to happen without regards to humans.

[Cito Pelon]

Ummm....I don't recall anyone saying that. If you read the entire thread, the common theme is that humans do no more to pollute the earth, that the earth itself does.....and that climate changes cyclically, ALWAYS HAS.

And we went through warming trends at the BEGINNING of the century.....long before the "dreaded" SUV......

Well, people have been tryhing to be evenhanded. You're trying to defend an off-center POV. If you think a 4-cylinder is the same as an 8-cylinder, you know nothing.

[Cito Pelon]

Blaming everything on businesses is getting a bit tiresome...

Where do you think water pollutants come from? Richard Nixon was soooo proud to bring the modern EPA into existence. People think Nixon was all Watergate, no sir, he was not. He was a good President. He had a very active administration all over the board. He pushed environmental activity hard, and thank goodness for it. He had the right-wing ear, they actually listened to him, unlike the past 10-15 years, where being an unprincipled, profit-mongering outdoorsman is what has been pushed.

[Kaylore]

Didn't you hear? The Ice Caps are melting, we're overpopulated, everyone has AIDS, there are no trees, the rainforest is gone and big business employs robotic fetuses against their will in Whatever-stan. :-*

[Bronco_Beerslug]

Ummm....I don't recall anyone saying that. If you read the entire thread, the common theme is that humans do no more to pollute the earth, that the earth itself does.....and that climate changes cyclically, ALWAYS HAS.

And we went through warming trends at the BEGINNING of the century.....long before the "dreaded" SUV......

You're kidding right?

[Atlas]

There IS a problem with global warming... it stopped in 1998
By Bob Carter
(Filed: 04/09/2006)

For many years now, human-caused climate change has been viewed as a large and urgent problem. In truth, however, the biggest part of the problem is neither environmental nor scientific, but a self-created political fiasco. Consider the simple fact, drawn from the official temperature records of the Climate Research Unit at the University of East Anglia, that for the years 1998-2005 global average temperature did not increase (there was actually a slight decrease, though not at a rate that differs significantly from zero).

Yes, you did read that right. And also, yes, 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.

In response to these facts, a global warming devotee will chuckle and say "how silly to judge climate change over such a short period". Yet in the next breath, the same person will assure you that the 28-year-long period of warming which occurred between 1970 and 1998 constitutes a dangerous (and man-made) warming. Tosh. Our devotee will also pass by the curious additional facts that a period of similar warming occurred between 1918 and 1940, well prior to the greatest phase of world industrialisation, and that cooling occurred between 1940 and 1965, at precisely the time that human emissions were increasing at their greatest rate.

Does something not strike you as odd here? That industrial carbon dioxide is not the primary cause of earth's recent decadal-scale temperature changes doesn't seem at all odd to many thousands of independent scientists. They have long appreciated - ever since the early 1990s, when the global warming bandwagon first started to roll behind the gravy train of the UN Inter-governmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) - that such short-term climate fluctuations are chiefly of natural origin. Yet the public appears to be largely convinced otherwise. How is this possible?

Two simple graphs provide needed context, and exemplify the dynamic, fluctuating nature of climate change. The first is a temperature curve for the last six million years, which shows a three-million year period when it was several degrees warmer than today, followed by a three-million year cooling trend which was accompanied by an increase in the magnitude of the pervasive, higher frequency, cold and warm climate cycles. During the last three such warm (interglacial) periods, temperatures at high latitudes were as much as 5 degrees warmer than today's. The second graph shows the average global temperature over the last eight years, which has proved to be a period of stasis.

The essence of the issue is this. Climate changes naturally all the time, partly in predictable cycles, and partly in unpredictable shorter rhythms and rapid episodic shifts, some of the causes of which remain unknown. We are fortunate that our modern societies have developed during the last 10,000 years of benignly warm, interglacial climate. But for more than 90 per cent of the last two million years, the climate has been colder, and generally much colder, than today. The reality of the climate record is that a sudden natural cooling is far more to be feared, and will do infinitely more social and economic damage, than the late 20th century phase of gentle warming.

It's not hard finding one crackpot that will post a paper on anything. I'm sure this guy probably got funding for his study from the Bush administration. It's simply redicules but go ahead and put your head in the sand and ignore all the facts.

[Atlas]

Who is Bob Carter and where is your link??

[Atlas]

Try this article on for size.
SoCals link: http://www.mercurynews.com/mld/mercurynews/news/editorial/14306512.htm

Why we need to worry about global warming
WITH CLIMATE-RELATED CHANGES OCCURING FASTER THAN EXPECTED SCIENTISTS SAY WE HAVE 10 YEARS TO SLASH CARBON FUEL USE - OR ELSE
Ross Gelbspan
In 1995, a panel of the world's leading climate scientists declared that unless humanity cuts its use of coal and oil by 70 percent over the next hundred years, the world will suffer significant disruptions from global warming toward the end of this century.

Just six years later, that same body, the U.N.-sponsored Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), declared that warming had ``already affected physical and biological systems'' in many areas of the world. The news that at least some damage was happening faster than predicted was alarming; the United Nations' top environmental official said it ``should sound alarm bells in every national capital.''

Today, all bets are off.

In January, the famed British ecologist James Lovelock declared that we have already passed the ``point of no return.'' Others, including NASA'S James Hansen, one of the world's pre-eminent climate scientists, think we still have about a 10-year grace period in which to make major changes.

Rajendra Pachauri, head of the IPCC, also sees a 10-year timeline and says dramatic cuts in carbon fuel use must be made ``if humanity is to survive.'' And British climate expert Peter Cox says: ``The scientific agenda has moved from improving predictions to thinking about . . . the chances of something awful happening.''

Although the IPCC no longer says exactly when we have to hit a 70 percent reduction of oil and coal to prevent disaster -- those scientists now say as soon as possible -- it's clearly a lot sooner than the end of the century, as they originally thought. To judge how big a change that would be, you need only consider that the current Kyoto Protocol calls for emissions cuts of a mere 8 percent by 2012, and that applies only to industrial countries.

A 70 percent reduction, in practical terms, means for instance that all next-generation cars worldwide would need to be hybrids, and the generation after that would need to run on fuel cells or use other technology. It also means we would need to virtually abandon coal and eventually gas and oil as fuels to produce electricity.

What's truly alarming -- aside from the totally unexpected speed of climate-related changes -- is the fact that most U.S. government and opinion leaders in the press are just beginning to accept the reality of global warming. Most still think we have far more time to begin to wean the world off oil and coal.

Even environmental groups are unwilling to sound the alarm clearly -- in good part because they work in Washington, where most change is a matter of slow negotiation, but also because they're afraid of being marginalized. It is, after all, hard to tell Americans just how much change is needed when they're only now understanding that change is needed at all.

Why the new urgency? Planetary changes that were supposed to occur toward the end of the century, according to scientific computer models, are actually happening today.

For example, the Greenland ice sheet, one of the largest glaciers on the planet, is melting from above and losing its stability as meltwater from the surface trickles down and lubricates the bedrock on which the ice sheet sits. Should that ice sheet slide into the ocean, it would raise sea levels on the order of 20 feet. The rate of sea level rise has already doubled in the past decade as a result of melting glaciers and the thermal expansion of warming oceans.

In addition, the proportion of severely destructive hurricanes that have reached category 4 and 5 intensity has doubled in the past 30 years, fueled by rising surface water temperatures.

And oceans are becoming acidified from the fallout of our fossil-fuel emissions. The pH level of the world's oceans has changed more in the past 100 years than it did in the previous 10,000 years.

Those troubling signals are made all the more disturbing by the fact that climate change does not necessarily follow a linear, incremental trajectory. As the climate system crosses invisible thresholds, it is capable of large-scale, unpredictable leaps.

``The concern is that there are tipping points out there that could be passed before we're halfway through the century,'' said Tim Lenton, an earth-systems modeler at Britain's University of East Anglia.

And then there is the problem of ``feedback loops,'' which means that small changes caused by warming can trigger other, much larger changes.

For example, the Siberian and Alaskan tundras, which for centuries absorbed carbon dioxide and methane, are now thawing and releasing those gases back into the atmosphere. A rapid release of greenhouse gases from these regions could trigger a spike in warming.

Scientists also recently detected a weakening of the flow of ocean currents in the Atlantic basin because of an infusion of freshwater from melting sea ice and glaciers. At a certain point, they say, the change in salinity and water density could change the direction of ocean currents, leading to much more severe winters in northern Europe and North America.

In the face of these changes, the Bush administration has turned its back on the challenge. The environmental movement seems to have gone into hibernation. And the press remains largely in denial. We are, as the British paper the Independent put it, ``sleepwalking into an apocalypse.''

President Bush has long been antagonistic toward the climate issue -- witness his decision to withdraw from the Kyoto talks in 2001 -- but the government's denial of real trouble has continued despite scientists' growing urgency. At the end of 2004, the United States used its diplomatic leverage to prevent delegates at that December's round of Kyoto talks from formulating action plans to drastically speed up changes to reduce carbon emissions.

Recently, the administration tried to silence NASA's Hansen -- and now requires contacts between many government climate scientists and the press to be monitored by government ``minders.'' And although the president in January called for us to overcome our ``addiction to oil,'' he followed up by promoting minimal auto-efficiency standards for certain light trucks and exempting most SUVs and small trucks from stricter standards altogether.

The mainstream press is doing better than it was a few years ago. At that time, the press consistently cast the issue of global warming as a debate -- thanks to the public-relations experts of big coal and big oil who insisted journalists ``balance'' the findings of the IPCC with pronouncements of a handful of dissident researchers, most of whom were on the payroll of the fossil-fuel industry.

Today at least some press titans such as Time magazine and ABC News are taking note of scientists' new urgency. (Time's recent cover on global warming warned: ``Be worried. Be very worried.'')

Still, most of the media seem reluctant to put the true magnitude of the challenge squarely in front of readers and viewers. (It might help if the media made the connection between global warming and the escalating number of floods, droughts and severe storms that occupy ever-larger portions of news budgets.)

By contrast, European media coverage of climate change has been far less qualified. As a result, Tony Blair has committed Britain to cuts of 60 percent in 50 years. Germany has vowed to cut its emissions 50 percent in the next 50 years. And French President Jacques Chirac recently called on the entire industrial world to cut emissions 75 percent in 45 years.

Many large environmental groups in the United States, meanwhile, still tell members they can help by, among other things, buying compact fluorescent bulbs, carpooling more and keeping tires properly inflated. But unlike many other environmental problems, climate change cannot be solved by lifestyle changes. Efficiencies can cut emissions by up to 30 percent -- not the 70 percent reduction required by nature to keep this Earth hospitable to civilization.

Those environmental groups that do promote more large-scale changes -- for instance, capturing carbon dioxide from power plants and burying it underground -- still fail to acknowledge the limitation of those measures.

What is needed -- yesterday -- is a project to transform the world's energy diet from oil and coal to a mix of wind, solar, tidal power, small-scale hydro and, eventually, clean hydrogen fuels.

There are ways to accomplish that, but they require unprecedented global coordination.

One such plan was presented in my book ``Boiling Point'' after it was refined by a group of energy-company executives, economists and energy-policy specialists who met several years ago at Harvard Medical School. It would cut emissions by the 70 percent required by nature while simultaneously creating millions of jobs around the world.



This plan is one model. There may be better approaches. The point is we need to start thinking big, and fast.

Look out the window. Time's up.

[Atlas]

Your article written by some guy named Bob Carter my article written and sourced by a legitimate newspaper and backed by scientific facts. Go Ahead and put that square head of yours back in the sand.

There is always something to fit everyone's agenda.

[Den Smith 49]

Some parts are a bit Hollywooded up (with an eye towards the screenplay) but this is the subject matter of Creighton's book State of Fear.

Basically warming and cooling are cycles. They tend to happen without regards to humans.



Good book. I'd like to hear what all the tree huggers have to say about all the facts that are stated within.

[Tombstone RJ]

There IS a problem with global warming... it stopped in 1998
By Bob Carter
(Filed: 04/09/2006)

For many years now, human-caused climate change has been viewed as a large and urgent problem. In truth, however, the biggest part of the problem is neither environmental nor scientific, but a self-created political fiasco. Consider the simple fact, drawn from the official temperature records of the Climate Research Unit at the University of East Anglia, that for the years 1998-2005 global average temperature did not increase (there was actually a slight decrease, though not at a rate that differs significantly from zero).

Yes, you did read that right. And also, yes, 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.

In response to these facts, a global warming devotee will chuckle and say "how silly to judge climate change over such a short period". Yet in the next breath, the same person will assure you that the 28-year-long period of warming which occurred between 1970 and 1998 constitutes a dangerous (and man-made) warming. Tosh. Our devotee will also pass by the curious additional facts that a period of similar warming occurred between 1918 and 1940, well prior to the greatest phase of world industrialisation, and that cooling occurred between 1940 and 1965, at precisely the time that human emissions were increasing at their greatest rate.

Does something not strike you as odd here? That industrial carbon dioxide is not the primary cause of earth's recent decadal-scale temperature changes doesn't seem at all odd to many thousands of independent scientists. They have long appreciated - ever since the early 1990s, when the global warming bandwagon first started to roll behind the gravy train of the UN Inter-governmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) - that such short-term climate fluctuations are chiefly of natural origin. Yet the public appears to be largely convinced otherwise. How is this possible?

Two simple graphs provide needed context, and exemplify the dynamic, fluctuating nature of climate change. The first is a temperature curve for the last six million years, which shows a three-million year period when it was several degrees warmer than today, followed by a three-million year cooling trend which was accompanied by an increase in the magnitude of the pervasive, higher frequency, cold and warm climate cycles. During the last three such warm (interglacial) periods, temperatures at high latitudes were as much as 5 degrees warmer than today's. The second graph shows the average global temperature over the last eight years, which has proved to be a period of stasis.

The essence of the issue is this. Climate changes naturally all the time, partly in predictable cycles, and partly in unpredictable shorter rhythms and rapid episodic shifts, some of the causes of which remain unknown. We are fortunate that our modern societies have developed during the last 10,000 years of benignly warm, interglacial climate. But for more than 90 per cent of the last two million years, the climate has been colder, and generally much colder, than today. The reality of the climate record is that a sudden natural cooling is far more to be feared, and will do infinitely more social and economic damage, than the late 20th century phase of gentle warming.

My only question is the ozone layer. We know its shrinking in size (or has a large hole over the South pole), but is this also a natural occurance, or is this a real problem?

[Spider]

i dont know , and if I did , I would be the biggest hypocrit around , I drive a 18 wheeler in and out of the oil patch , but some observations from me ..........
I live in Wyoming , perhaps one of the coldest harshes places in North America , Snow waist deep was the norm , opening your car door without gloves on and your hand literaly freezing to the door , happened alot , but the last ten years , texas and Oklahoma have had worse winters then us , now does man have anything to do with this ? I dont know but Idoubt it , but when once blue water is brown from oil and gas drilling killing everything that drinks it , that no doubt is on mans shoulders , when you go up to Ruby Jewl in Colo , and see clearings where trees once stood , that is on man , when you drive up Hiway 72 into coal creek canyon , and see a strip mall ,that is man , the brown cloud over Denver , LA , Houston etc, the draining of the glades , were Osceola made his great stand ..... Is a direct result of man ..........
Do we cause Global warming ? maybe , but 1 thing is clear , we are screwing up this planet at a neck break pace

[Rock Chalk]

I dont think anyone's head is in the sand that humans have polluted the Earth and changes do need to be made, for the sake of the ecology. The ones who are arguing seem to be arguing that humans are not the sole cause for the climate change, and indeed may be just a small part of that.

No one has said we haven't contributed, but to put it all on industry or our meager attempts in just a little over a hundred years of pollution is absurd.

Did it ever occur to anyone that a larger issue of global warming that IS man made may have less to do with industrial pollutants and more to do with the deforestation of the planet, specifically the world's rain forests which provide most of breathable oxygen for the planet? Combined with natural forces and industrial emissions, sure that's going to cause an increase in temperature.

Here's the real kicker. We do not and cannot know when the temperature change would have occured naturally, but we can surmise based on previous age's, that the time is near even in the natural world, for the Earth's cycle to return to an ice age.

We may have sped it up 100, five hundred years, but in the end, it was going to happen and we have already too much invested in the regions that wil be most affected. This was prior to our knowledge of climactic cylces, hell, prior to the industrial age.

As it is, the cycle was inevitable, and since we've known about the cycle's of ice ages and such, we should have already started preparing our civilization around that. Those living up north will have to move south eventually, whether we clean up our act or not.

Probably wont happen in our lifetime. And hopefully we will learn a great deal from this and make future cities "mobile" so they too can adapt to the climate as we can.

[cutthemdown]

I read once where they said the co2 and greenhouse gasses emmitted by the midatlnatic ridge, and the pacific ridge are far greater then what humans can muster. According to this show there are hundreds upon hundreds of these volcanos and vents active right now as we speak spreading the ocean floor. I think humans pollute the air we breath and the water we drink, but that when it comes to global warming we may have less to do with that then many think. We should worry more about using up all the oil, and pollution that dampens our quality of life. I say clean up the air to breath and water to drink but don't count on that reversing the warming trend that earth seems to be under.

[Spider]

I read once where they said the co2 and greenhouse gasses emmitted by the midatlnatic ridge, and the pacific ridge are far greater then what humans can muster. According to this show there are hundreds upon hundreds of these volcanos and vents active right now as we speak spreading the ocean floor. I think humans pollute the air we breath and the water we drink, but that when it comes to global warming we may have less to do with that then many think. We should worry more about using up all the oil, and pollution that dampens our quality of life. I say clean up the air to breath and water to drink but don't count on that reversing the warming trend that earth seems to be under.
well here in Wyoming we have low sulfer coal ,stuff burns clean , to prove my point , Wyoming we use more then 26 tonnes a year for 96% of our electric plants , and we have some of the cleanest air in America , The Powder River basin is loaded ........ Coal bed methane gas drilling is what is killing my great state , but thats our problem , Ranchers are fighting back hard ...... Nuke power and low sulfer coal ....... only way to fly ;D

[Tredici]

Good book. I'd like to hear what all the tree huggers have to say about all the facts that are stated within.


It doesn't matter. The scientific community is split on the issue, there is no way to prove either viewpoint so people are going to believe what they want to.

Geological time marches on. Doing what it does. Yet people continue to think we are significant enough to influence it....

[Atlas]

It doesn't matter. The scientific community is split on the issue, there is no way to prove either viewpoint so people are going to believe what they want to.


Yeah the scientific community is split on it. They are split 85%-15% but yes they are is a split.

[Tombstone RJ]

Can anyone dig up any scientific data on a cyclical nature for the ozone layer, that is, is it a constant density, mass, thickness, etc. Or does it fluctuate also, causing the earth to warm or cool.

I mean, who knows, perhaps the ozone layer is going through a natural process. Since our ability to monitor and measure the ozone layer has only been around for, what, like 60 years or so, how do we know if this hole is natural or not?

[Atlas]

Can anyone dig up any scientific data on a cyclical nature for the ozone layer, that is, is it a constant density, mass, thickness, etc. Or does it fluctuate also, causing the earth to warm or cool.

I mean, who knows, perhaps the ozone layer is going through a natural process. Since our ability to monitor and measure the ozone layer has only been around for, what, like 60 years or so, how do we know if this hole is natural or not?\

Sure you can all sorts of facts are out there. Read the article I just posted above. The problem is if people don't want to face the facts they'll just say that these facts are not from global warming but yet just the natural process of the Earth.

Why the new urgency? Planetary changes that were supposed to occur toward the end of the century, according to scientific computer models, are actually happening today.

For example, the Greenland ice sheet, one of the largest glaciers on the planet, is melting from above and losing its stability as meltwater from the surface trickles down and lubricates the bedrock on which the ice sheet sits. Should that ice sheet slide into the ocean, it would raise sea levels on the order of 20 feet. The rate of sea level rise has already doubled in the past decade as a result of melting glaciers and the thermal expansion of warming oceans.

[SouthStndJunkie]

http://www.cnn.com/2006/TECH/science/03/31/coral.death.ap/index.html

[spdirty]

do you guys know, that when you hear thunder, God is actually farting, and when it rains, he's actually taking a leak?

[Atlas]

http://www.cnn.com/2006/TECH/science/03/31/coral.death.ap/index.html

That's amazing. I wonder if you could find that on FOXNEWS??

Everyone knows that coral is one of the most sensitive living organisms in the ocean. When mass die offs of coral happens that is a precursor of a larger mass extinction event.

Go to every extinction event in the history of the planet and the coral die off always happened first.

I would like to see how coral is doing in other parts of the world.

[watermock]

The ocean level has been rising for 12,000 years.

[Spider]

The ocean level has been rising for 12,000 years.
I wonder how long that is in dog years

[Atlas]

This is dead coral. You can see how white it is. When coral becomes oxidized and turns white it is dead and will never change back.

You see how there are no fish at all. Dead coral offers no benefit for fish at all. They become underwater barron wastelands
http://www.abc.net.au/science/coral/img/deadcoral1.jpg

This is a healthy coral, notice the flowers and color, notice all the fish? Coral is one of the necessary ecological balancing blocks in the oceans.
http://www.oceanservice.noaa.gov/education/kits/corals/media/coral07a_480.jpg

[maven]

Consider the simple fact, drawn from the official temperature records of the Climate Research Unit at the University of East Anglia




Credibility of the article was shot to hell when the author used this reference.

[Atlas]

Credibility of the article was shot to hell when the author used this reference.

LOL... good point. :punched:

[sirhcyennek81]

Read an article stating the last 8 years, Global temperature has either stayed where it is, or dropped. Earth has warmer and cooler cycles. During ww1, one of the earth's periods of heavy industrialization, the global temp dropped. Earth was warmer during ww2, but dropped in the 50's and 60's, rising again in the mid 70's to the mid 90's. Its possible the earth knows more about its climate then we do...

:Broncos:

[Atlas]

Read an article stating the last 8 years, Global temperature has either stayed where it is, or dropped. Earth has warmer and cooler cycles. During ww1, one of the earth's periods of heavy industrialization, the global temp dropped. Earth was warmer during ww2, but dropped in the 50's and 60's, rising again in the mid 70's to the mid 90's. Its possible the earth knows more about its climate then we do...

:Broncos:

That's why Greenland is melting and huge ice sheets could possibly slide right off into the ocean.:ban:

For example, the Greenland ice sheet, one of the largest glaciers on the planet, is melting from above and losing its stability as meltwater from the surface trickles down and lubricates the bedrock on which the ice sheet sits. Should that ice sheet slide into the ocean, it would raise sea levels on the order of 20 feet. The rate of sea level rise has already doubled in the past decade as a

[dnvrbrncos]

There is always something to fit everyone's agenda.

True indeed. Afterall, it only took you one minute to find something to fit yours (according to the time stamps).

[dnvrbrncos]

This is dead coral. You can see how white it is...This is a healthy coral, notice the flowers and color, notice all the fish?

I was kind of hoping for a "this is your brain..."

P.S. Not only did I notice all the fishies, I noticed the scuba diver too. That's how keen my mind is.

[Arkie]

http://i27.photobucket.com/albums/c179/gjbronco/industrial.jpg

[dnvrbrncos]

Credibility of the article was shot to hell when the author used this reference.

http://www1.uea.ac.uk/cm/home/about/Facts+and+Figures

http://www.cru.uea.ac.uk/

While it's not Harvard or Stanford, it's not as shabby as you imply. The second link is particularly amusing in light of the article.

[watermock]

I think there is a big difference between alarmist and concerned. There are many contribuitng factors. Flourocarbons, Methane, CO2 and other factors.

there is no question that the glaciiers continue to slide into the sea, probabably accelerated by some warming. We have good envirmental pokicy for the most part, and the Earth can regulate itself if not overwhelmed. Stop farting!

[Atlas]

I think there is a big difference between alarmist and concerned. There are many contribuitng factors. Flourocarbons, Methane, CO2 and other factors.

there is no question that the glaciiers continue to slide into the sea, probabably accelerated by some warming. We have good envirmental pokicy for the most part, and the Earth can regulate itself if not overwhelmed. Stop farting!

The methane level is getting way to high and I ate Mexican tonight!!

[Atlas]

True indeed. Afterall, it only took you one minute to find something to fit yours (according to the time stamps).

Of course. just type in global warming it's rather easy.

[watermock]

Tag me, I had Lasagna deep in spices....

[Cito Pelon]

Let's see - less humans, less spicy foods, less farts. Grazing animals seek out simple grains, then in turn get consumed by carnivores, like back in dinosaur times, long before there were humans. Mother Nature took a heavy toll on dinosaurs, long before there were humans.

Hell, I guess I'll just have a good time, and let Allah, God, and Jesus sort it all out. Between the three of them - or is it one, two, four, or five of them? - and I forgot Buddha and Krishna - well, they've done a wonderful job so far, so I guess I'll just have a good ol' time imbibing and fornicating, and let them sort it all out. That sure takes a load off my mind.

[chrisp]

Whatever the facts, the most disturbing thing I hear is that the only answer that the environmental lobby seems to have is restraint - use less, do less, otherwise we are all doomed. There are no creative or ingenious solutions being proposed, just restrictions.

I'm not an expert on climate change so I'm not prepared to say what the facts of the matter are, however I am convinced that there is a lot more debate to be had, and it is not such an open-and-shut case as some people would have us believe....

BUT....and here's the big but....even if we ARE facing the prospect of human-induced climate change affecting all of our lives we have never been in a better position to deal with it. Humanity has a fantastic record not only of dealing with changing climates specifically, but in dealing with a whole host of problems that affect our lives. Climate change has been a naturally-occurring fact of life for as long as we have been around and we have never had a better understanding of the natural world than we do today - why do we automatically assume that climate change will destroy civilisation?

You can argue the facts of the matter untill you are blue in the face, but there is a more fundamental issue you need to confront before you look at the science. We all live in a modern society that seems to be suffering from a profound sense of idological exhaustion. Despite the fact that we are living longer, healthier lives than we ever have before, despite the fact that medicine has eliminated all sorts of crippling diseases that used to blight our lives our leaders are bereft of vision and ideas, and an all-pervasive sense of doom and fear follows us everywhere we go. We are crippled by self-loathing and struggle to believe in anything good or positive about humanity.

Looked at in this light, it should come as no surprise that the ideology of environmentalism finds such popularity today - essentially it has more in commmon with religion than science and politics - humanity is scum, and we are all doomed unless we rein in our more 'selfish' behaviours and lead a 'purer' life free of environmental corruption. Whatever the scientific facts of the matter, I for one am troubled by the ideological undercurrents that underpin the debate. I am no friend of George Bush or big business, but i do believe strongly in humanity and progress, and I do feel that today these things are under threat.

[Rock Chalk]

Nice post chrisp.

Atlas, and those like him, would doom and gloom you and tell you to use less polluting goods.

What he doesnt tell you, is that afterall that is said and done, we are still going into an ice age, the oceans will still rise and we are all doomed anyway. Natural cycle be damned!

And he purposefully misled you. Mass extinctions do not happen from climate change. Climate change can cause many animals to go extinct, but when you hear the term "Mass Extinction" they are talking on the order of magnitude of 95-99% of ALL life EVERYWHERE.

A climactic shift to colder weather will kill off permanently, very few species, less than 5% annually, as most species are able to adapt and/or move to better climates. You will find a lot of life does die, but species themselves will survive.

The biggest threat from global warming is not the ocean levels, its the glaciers encroaching into cities in the north.

Think about that. New York city will be covered, London, Paris, Berlin, Oslo, Moscow, St Petersburg, Zurich, Prague, Copenhagen, Dublin, pretty much all of northern Europe, Asia and Canada and the northern US will be englufed in glaciers, uninhabitable regions.

And no matter what we do, we WILL have to move from this places at some point.

[Bronco_Beerslug]

Plenty of evidence out there now about how we humans have accelerated the warming process. In fact, many scientists now believe we are at the tipping point or a non-recoverable point in time (the next few decades).

Scientists are estimating species are becoming extinct at 1000 to 10,000 times the natural rate, from many causes but all because of unsustainable management by humans, of the planet.

For those not old enough to remember, flying in the 60s and early 70s, The skies were clear, bright blue, nothing but haze now, no matter where you fly.

[55CrushEm]

If you think a 4-cylinder is the same as an 8-cylinder, you know nothing.

Did I say that? Stop putting words in peoples' mouths.

But apparently YOU know nothing if you believe the SUV is biggest contributor to pollution......you're a disciple of Earth in the Balance, eh?

[55CrushEm]

You're kidding right?

Ummmm......NO.

[55CrushEm]

Your article written by some guy named Bob Carter my article written and sourced by a legitimate newspaper and backed by scientific facts. Go Ahead and put that square head of yours back in the sand.

There is always something to fit everyone's agenda.

Hey, Atlas.....stick it all right? So typical of a liberal to make personal jabs when someone disagrees with them.

And as far as ignoring the facts....that's apparently what you are doing if you fail to realize that the climate is CYCLICAL....that's all the article was pointing out.....try reading it in its entirety before you call the guy a crackpot. All he's saying is that for morons like you to say that humans and the SUV are entirely to blame for global warming is REDICULOUS....which it is. No one ever said that man-made pollution isn't a contributor.....it is....but there are MANY, MANY other factors that effect the climate changes.

Why don't you try explaing then, why there was a general warming period at the beginning of the century......must have been horse farts, since there weren't to many friggin cars around at that time.....

In summary, why don't YOU trying taking your big pumpkin head out of the sand.....is that more along your lines of communication ?

[55CrushEm]

Good book. I'd like to hear what all the tree huggers have to say about all the facts that are stated within.

Well, as you can see by Atlas's posts, he cleary ignored them......that's what many liberals do....ignore facts that don't fit there arguments.

And contrary to what he wants to say....no one here has denied that humans contribute to pollution.....OBVIOUSLY they do. But to say that man-made pollution is the sole or primary reason for NATURAL, CYCLICAL climate changes.....is quite frankly, very skeptical at best.

[55CrushEm]

Go to every extinction event in the history of the planet and the coral die off always happened first.

I would like to see how coral is doing in other parts of the world.

All right genius....we'll see if that happens then.....supposedly a good size portion of the Great Barrier Reef was killed by the major cyclone that passed through recently....

We better start praying (oh wait, libs don't do that).....the end of the world is coming.....

[sigh]....another predictable, doom-and-gloom liberal.

[watermock]

DAMMIT, STOP FARTING!

Seriously, I don't think there is a question of increasing CO2 raising ambient tempratures, but to what degree and when does that become critical mass? Sea levels have risen 2 inches I think. Anyone with a brain can see receeding ice shelfs at the poles. We keep burning off vegitation and destroying plankton, we will be in trouble. It's not only the production of Carbon Dioxide, it's the depletion of oxygenation.

[watermock]

Source of Half Earth's Oxygen Gets Little Credit
John Roach
for National Geographic News

June 7, 2004
Fish, whales, dolphins, crabs, seabirds, and just about everything else that makes a living in or off of the oceans owe their existence to phytoplankton, one-celled plants that live at the ocean surface.

Phytoplankton are at the base of what scientists refer to as oceanic biological productivity, the ability of a water body to support life such as plants, fish, and wildlife.

Email to a Friend

RELATED
Study Challenges Idea of Seeding Oceans With Iron
Global Warming May Boost Crop Yields
Earth Becomes Greener as Climate Changes
Plankton Declining in Oceans, Study Finds


"A measure of productivity is the net amount of carbon dioxide taken up by phytoplankton," said Jorge Sarmiento, a professor of atmospheric and ocean sciences at Princeton University in New Jersey.

The one-celled plants use energy from the sun to convert carbon dioxide and nutrients into complex organic compounds, which form new plant material. This process, known as photosynthesis, is how phytoplankton grow.

Herbivorous marine creatures eat the phytoplankton. Carnivores, in turn, eat the herbivores, and so on up the food chain to the top predators like killer whales and sharks.

But how does the ocean supply the nutrients that phytoplankton need to survive and to support everything else that makes a living in or off the ocean? Details surrounding that answer are precisely what Sarmiento hopes to learn.

Robert Frouin, a research meteorologist with the Scripps Institution of Oceanography in La Jolla, California, said understanding the process by which phytoplankton obtains ocean nutrients is important to understanding the link between the ocean and global climate.

"Marine biogeochemical processes both respond to and influence climate," Frouin said. "A change in phytoplankton abundance and species may result from changes in the physical processes controlling the supply of nutrients and sunlight availability."

Oxygen Supply

Phytoplankton need two things for photosynthesis and thus their survival: energy from the sun and nutrients from the water. Phytoplankton absorb both across their cell walls.

In the process of photosynthesis, phytoplankton release oxygen into the water. Half of the world's oxygen is produced via phytoplankton photosynthesis. The other half is produced via photosynthesis on land by trees, shrubs, grasses, and other plants. http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2004/06/0607_040607_phytoplankton.html

[watermock]

We kill the ocean plankton, we are all done, no matter what the temperature is.

[watermock]

http://www.fisherycrisis.com/images/whalesh1.jpg

http://www.fisherycrisis.com/plankton.html

[55CrushEm]

Source of Half Earth's Oxygen Gets Little Credit
John Roach
for National Geographic News

June 7, 2004
Fish, whales, dolphins, crabs, seabirds, and just about everything else that makes a living in or off of the oceans owe their existence to phytoplankton, one-celled plants that live at the ocean surface.

Phytoplankton are at the base of what scientists refer to as oceanic biological productivity, the ability of a water body to support life such as plants, fish, and wildlife.


WAIT !!!! Hold the press.....Atlas just told me that CORAL was the most important thing on the planet.....

DAMNIT !!! Someone's lying, and I'm going to get to the bottom of this.....;)

Phytoplankton vs. Coral........hmmmmmm.

[55CrushEm]

http://www1.uea.ac.uk/cm/home/about/Facts+and+Figures

http://www.cru.uea.ac.uk/

While it's not Harvard or Stanford, it's not as shabby as you imply. The second link is particularly amusing in light of the article.

Haha....nice post. Apparently, Atlas thought UEA was just another cowpoke college in East Nowhere.....probably only because HE had never heard of it.

13,000+ students?
3rd highest university satisfaction rating in the UK?

Not too shabby, indeed......

[Spider]

Pretty touchy subject ............I wonder how much effect drianing wet lands causes ?

[watermock]

Oxygen levels have been dropping for thousands of years. Have we gotten a machine designed yet for that?

[Spider]

Maybe we need to send another probe to venus , get some more data ........

[watermock]

Time to introduce the "Master Achitect" argument now that the Bible Thumpers have left us heathens to our wayward ways.

It truely is remarkable how the balances are almost perfect on Earth. I will leave it at that.

[Bronco_Beerslug]

All right genius....

We better start praying (oh wait, libs don't do that).....the end of the world is coming.....

[sigh]....another predictable, doom-and-gloom liberal.

Ignorant!

So typical of a liberal to make personal jabs when someone disagrees with them.


What a hypocrite!

[Mk69]

Open Kyoto to debate
Sixty scientists call on Harper to revisit the science of global warming
Special to the Financial Post
Published: Thursday, April 06, 2006
An open letter to Prime Minister Stephen Harper:

Dear Prime Minister:

As accredited experts in climate and related scientific disciplines, we are writing to propose that balanced, comprehensive public-consultation sessions be held so as to examine the scientific foundation of the federal government's climate-change plans. This would be entirely consistent with your recent commitment to conduct a review of the Kyoto Protocol. Although many of us made the same suggestion to then-prime ministers Martin and Chretien, neither responded, and, to date, no formal, independent climate-science review has been conducted in Canada. Much of the billions of dollars earmarked for implementation of the protocol in Canada will be squandered without a proper assessment of recent developments in climate science.

Observational evidence does not support today's computer climate models, so there is little reason to trust model predictions of the future. Yet this is precisely what the United Nations did in creating and promoting Kyoto and still does in the alarmist forecasts on which Canada's climate policies are based. Even if the climate models were realistic, the environmental impact of Canada delaying implementation of Kyoto or other greenhouse-gas reduction schemes, pending completion of consultations, would be insignificant. Directing your government to convene balanced, open hearings as soon as possible would be a most prudent and responsible course of action.

While the confident pronouncements of scientifically unqualified environmental groups may provide for sensational headlines, they are no basis for mature policy formulation. The study of global climate change is, as you have said, an "emerging science," one that is perhaps the most complex ever tackled. It may be many years yet before we properly understand the Earth's climate system. Nevertheless, significant advances have been made since the 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.

We appreciate the difficulty any government has formulating sensible science-based policy when the loudest voices always seem to be pushing in the opposite direction. However, by convening open, unbiased consultations, Canadians will be permitted to hear from experts on both sides of the debate in the climate-science community. When the public comes to understand that there is no "consensus" among climate scientists about the relative importance of the various causes of global climate change, the government will be in a far better position to develop plans that reflect reality and so benefit both the environment and the economy.

"Climate change is real" is a meaningless phrase used repeatedly by activists to convince the public that a climate catastrophe is looming and humanity is the cause. Neither of these fears is justified. Global climate changes all the time due to natural causes and the human impact still remains impossible to distinguish from this natural "noise." The new Canadian government's commitment to reducing air, land and water pollution is commendable, but allocating funds to "stopping climate change" would be irrational. We need to continue intensive research into the real causes of climate change and help our most vulnerable citizens adapt to whatever nature throws at us next.

We believe the Canadian public and government decision-makers need and deserve to hear the whole story concerning this very complex issue. 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.

We hope that you will examine our proposal carefully and we stand willing and able to furnish you with more information on this crucially important topic.

CC: The Honourable Rona Ambrose, Minister of the Environment, and the Honourable Gary Lunn, Minister of Natural Resources

- - -

Sincerely,

Dr. Ian D. Clark, professor, isotope hydrogeology and paleoclimatology, Dept. of Earth Sciences, University of Ottawa

Dr. Tad Murty, former senior research scientist, Dept. of Fisheries and Oceans, former director of Australia's National Tidal Facility and professor of earth sciences, Flinders University, Adelaide; currently adjunct professor, Departments of Civil Engineering and Earth Sciences, University of Ottawa

Dr. R. Timothy Patterson, professor, Dept. of Earth Sciences (paleoclimatology), Carleton University, Ottawa

Dr. Fred Michel, director, Institute of Environmental Science and associate professor, Dept. of Earth Sciences, Carleton University, Ottawa

Dr. Madhav Khandekar, former research scientist, Environment Canada. Member of editorial board of Climate Research and Natural Hazards

Dr. Paul Copper, FRSC, professor emeritus, Dept. of Earth Sciences, Laurentian University, Sudbury, Ont.

Dr. Ross McKitrick, associate professor, Dept. of Economics, University of Guelph, Ont.

Dr. Tim Ball, former professor of climatology, University of Winnipeg; environmental consultant

Dr. Andreas Prokoph, adjunct professor of earth sciences, University of Ottawa; consultant in statistics and geology

Mr. David Nowell, M.Sc. (Meteorology), fellow of the Royal Meteorological Society, Canadian member and past chairman of the NATO Meteorological Group, Ottawa

Dr. Christopher Essex, professor of applied mathematics and associate director of the Program in Theoretical Physics, University of Western Ontario, London, Ont.

Dr. Gordon E. Swaters, professor of applied mathematics, Dept. of Mathematical Sciences, and member, Geophysical Fluid Dynamics Research Group, University of Alberta

Dr. L. Graham Smith, associate professor, Dept. of Geography, University of Western Ontario, London, Ont.

Dr. G. Cornelis van Kooten, professor and Canada Research Chair in environmental studies and climate change, Dept. of Economics, University of Victoria

Dr. Petr Chylek, adjunct professor, Dept. of Physics and Atmospheric Science, Dalhousie University, Halifax

Dr./Cdr. M. R. Morgan, FRMS, climate consultant, former meteorology advisor to the World Meteorological Organization. Previously research scientist in climatology at University of Exeter, U.K.

Dr. Keith D. Hage, climate consultant and professor emeritus of Meteorology, University of Alberta

Dr. David E. Wojick, P.Eng., energy consultant, Star Tannery, Va., and Sioux Lookout, Ont.

Rob Scagel, M.Sc., forest microclimate specialist, principal consultant, Pacific Phytometric Consultants, Surrey, B.C.

Dr. Douglas Leahey, meteorologist and air-quality consultant, Calgary

Paavo Siitam, M.Sc., agronomist, chemist, Cobourg, Ont.

Dr. Chris de Freitas, climate scientist, associate professor, The University of Auckland, N.Z.

Dr. Richard S. Lindzen, Alfred P. Sloan professor of meteorology, Dept. of Earth, Atmospheric and Planetary Sciences, Massachusetts Institute of Technology

Dr. Freeman J. Dyson, emeritus professor of physics, Institute for Advanced Studies, Princeton, N.J.

Mr. George Taylor, Dept. of Meteorology, Oregon State University; Oregon State climatologist; past president, American Association of State Climatologists

Dr. Ian Plimer, professor of geology, School of Earth and Environmental Sciences, University of Adelaide; emeritus professor of earth sciences, University of Melbourne, Australia

Dr. R.M. Carter, professor, Marine Geophysical Laboratory, James Cook University, Townsville, Australia

Mr. William Kininmonth, Australasian Climate Research, former Head National Climate Centre, Australian Bureau of Meteorology; former Australian delegate to World Meteorological Organization Commission for Climatology, Scientific and Technical Review

Dr. Hendrik Tennekes, former director of research, Royal Netherlands Meteorological Institute

Dr. Gerrit J. van der Lingen, geologist/paleoclimatologist, Climate Change Consultant, Geoscience Research and Investigations, New Zealand

Dr. Patrick J. Michaels, professor of environmental sciences, University of Virginia

Dr. Nils-Axel Morner, emeritus professor of paleogeophysics & geodynamics, Stockholm University, Stockholm, Sweden

Dr. Gary D. Sharp, Center for Climate/Ocean Resources Study, Salinas, Calif.

Dr. Roy W. Spencer, principal research scientist, Earth System Science Center, The University of Alabama, Huntsville

Dr. Al Pekarek, associate professor of geology, Earth and Atmospheric Sciences Dept., St. Cloud State University, St. Cloud, Minn.

Dr. Marcel Leroux, professor emeritus of climatology, University of Lyon, France; former director of Laboratory of Climatology, Risks and Environment, CNRS

Dr. Paul Reiter, professor, Institut Pasteur, Unit of Insects and Infectious Diseases, Paris, France. Expert reviewer, IPCC Working group II, chapter 8 (human health)

Dr. Zbigniew Jaworowski, physicist and chairman, Scientific Council of Central Laboratory for Radiological Protection, Warsaw, Poland

Dr. Sonja Boehmer-Christiansen, reader, Dept. of Geography, University of Hull, U.K.; editor, Energy & Environment

Dr. Hans H.J. Labohm, former advisor to the executive board, Clingendael Institute (The Netherlands Institute of International Relations) and an economist who has focused on climate change

Dr. Lee C. Gerhard, senior scientist emeritus, University of Kansas, past director and state geologist, Kansas Geological Survey

Dr. Asmunn Moene, past head of the Forecasting Centre, Meteorological Institute, Norway

Dr. August H. Auer, past professor of atmospheric science, University of Wyoming; previously chief meteorologist, Meteorological Service (MetService) of New Zealand

Dr. Vincent Gray, expert reviewer for the IPCC and author of The Greenhouse Delusion: A Critique of 'Climate Change 2001,' Wellington, N.Z.

Dr. Howard Hayden, emeritus professor of physics, University of Connecticut

Dr Benny Peiser, professor of social anthropology, Faculty of Science, Liverpool John Moores University, U.K.

Dr. Jack Barrett, chemist and spectroscopist, formerly with Imperial College London, U.K.

Dr. William J.R. Alexander, professor emeritus, Dept. of Civil and Biosystems Engineering, University of Pretoria, South Africa. Member, United Nations Scientific and Technical Committee on Natural Disasters, 1994-2000

Dr. S. Fred Singer, professor emeritus of environmental sciences, University of Virginia; former director, U.S. Weather Satellite Service

Dr. Harry N.A. Priem, emeritus professor of planetary geology and isotope geophysics, Utrecht University; former director of the Netherlands Institute for Isotope Geosciences; past president of the Royal Netherlands Geological & Mining Society

Dr. Robert H. Essenhigh, E.G. Bailey professor of energy conversion, Dept. of Mechanical Engineering, The Ohio State University

Dr. Sallie Baliunas, astrophysicist and climate researcher, Boston, Mass.

Douglas Hoyt, senior scientist at Raytheon (retired) and co-author of the book The Role of the Sun in Climate Change; previously with NCAR, NOAA, and the World Radiation Center, Davos, Switzerland

Dipl.-Ing. Peter Dietze, independent energy advisor and scientific climate and carbon modeller, official IPCC reviewer, Bavaria, Germany

Dr. Boris Winterhalter, senior marine researcher (retired), Geological Survey of Finland, former professor in marine geology, University of Helsinki, Finland

Dr. Wibjorn Karlen, emeritus professor, Dept. of Physical Geography and Quaternary Geology, Stockholm University, Sweden

Dr. Hugh W. Ellsaesser, physicist/meteorologist, previously with the Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory, Calif.; atmospheric consultant.

Dr. Art Robinson, founder, Oregon Institute of Science and Medicine, Cave Junction, Ore.

Dr. Arthur Rorsch, emeritus professor of molecular genetics, Leiden University, The Netherlands; past board member, Netherlands organization for applied research (TNO) in environmental, food and public health

Dr. Alister McFarquhar, Downing College, Cambridge, U.K.; international economist

Dr. Richard S. Courtney, climate and atmospheric science consultant, IPCC expert reviewer, U.K.

http://www.canada.com/nationalpost/financialpost/story.html?id=3711460e-bd5a-475d-a6be-4db87559d605

[watermock]

What do they know...why do think they call them Hollywood Stars!

[Rock Chalk]

Plenty of evidence out there now about how we humans have accelerated the warming process. In fact, many scientists now believe we are at the tipping point or a non-recoverable point in time (the next few decades).

Scientists are estimating species are becoming extinct at 1000 to 10,000 times the natural rate, from many causes but all because of unsustainable management by humans, of the planet.

For those not old enough to remember, flying in the 60s and early 70s, The skies were clear, bright blue, nothing but haze now, no matter where you fly.
Dude you are so full of ****.

There is haze, around big cities, no arguing there. But you said "no matter where you fly" which is ****ing bull**** and you know it.

Ive been 70 miles out of the greater Houston area and not one bit of "haze" in th sky. A see a night time sky that is crystal clear so much so that the milky way is visible quite clearly.

Even a SMALL amount of haze will shroud the milky way from the naked eye.

[TailgateNut]

Plenty of evidence out there now about how we humans have accelerated the warming process. In fact, many scientists now believe we are at the tipping point or a non-recoverable point in time (the next few decades).

Scientists are estimating species are becoming extinct at 1000 to 10,000 times the natural rate, from many causes but all because of unsustainable management by humans, of the planet.

For those not old enough to remember, flying in the 60s and early 70s, The skies were clear, bright blue, nothing but haze now, no matter where you fly.

Not completely true. I remember flying many missions in the late 70s and early 80s. I did'nt fly commercial aircraft, I flew helicopters cross country and I can assure you that the "brown clouds" existed then. The thickness and coverage may have increased, but they existed then. They seemed to be concentrated in areas which are bordered by mountain ranges which do not allow for the natural cleansing (distribution) in no mountainous areas!

[maven]

http://www1.uea.ac.uk/cm/home/about/Facts+and+Figures

http://www.cru.uea.ac.uk/

While it's not Harvard or Stanford, it's not as shabby as you imply.


Thanks for providing links to reiterate my point.

[sirhcyennek81]

That's why Greenland is melting and huge ice sheets could possibly slide right off into the ocean.:ban:


Same token...Baffin Island, IN the artic circle, is colder today then it was during the last iceage. Yeah...end of the world time...good thing I live in colorado, i wont drown...


:Broncos:

[sirhcyennek81]

Dude you are so full of ****.

There is haze, around big cities, no arguing there. But you said "no matter where you fly" which is ****ing bull**** and you know it.

Ive been 70 miles out of the greater Houston area and not one bit of "haze" in th sky. A see a night time sky that is crystal clear so much so that the milky way is visible quite clearly.

Even a SMALL amount of haze will shroud the milky way from the naked eye.


Also discovering new species every day...Only know 30% of the earth's surface. Who the hell knows whats int he ocean...few months back they discovered entirely new plant, animal and bird species in papau new guinea.

:Broncos:

[Atlas]

Whatever the facts, the most disturbing thing I hear is that the only answer that the environmental lobby seems to have is restraint - use less, do less, otherwise we are all doomed. There are no creative or ingenious solutions being proposed, just restrictions.

.

Your not really listening then. The first thing we have to do is get over our dependence on oil. Not only would this be good for the environment but it would also seperate our ties with countries that support terror. Solar, Hydro, Wind, vegetable oil, are all possible alternatives to oil.

Wind energy is the fastest growing alternative energy in Texas. It's cheap and does pollute the environment.

[Atlas]

WAIT !!!! Hold the press.....Atlas just told me that CORAL was the most important thing on the planet.....

DAMNIT !!! Someone's lying, and I'm going to get to the bottom of this.....;)

Phytoplankton vs. Coral........hmmmmmm.

Your an idiot. I said coral is important because a coral die off is one the first indicators of a larger mass extinction to follow. That's basic science sorry no one informed you.

[orange 4 life]

Personally, I dont think either side can make a valid argument since the proper data set is far too small.

i think thats fair to say.

that said, i think its undeniable that we're polluting the crap out of our air.
no one can PRECISELY (or even close) say what affect that will have, but its happening.
regardless of warming trends a close eye should be kept on the environment and our impact on it.
just my .02

[Atlas]

And he purposefully misled you. Mass extinctions do not happen from climate change. Climate change can cause many animals to go extinct, but when you hear the term "Mass Extinction" they are talking on the order of magnitude of 95-99% of ALL life EVERYWHERE.
.

Climate change has had a role in every mass extinction the Earth has had the worst came in the Permian.

Permian extinction is rapid warming and severe climatic fluctuations produced by concurrent glaciation events on the north and south poles. In temperate zones, there is evidence of significant cooling and drying in the sedimentological record, shown by thick sequences of dune sands and evaporites, while in the polar zones, glaciation was prominent. This caused severe climatic fluctuations around the globe, and is found by sediment record to be representative of when the Permian mass extinction occurred.
http://park.org/Canada/Museum/extinction/permass.html

[gunns]

Maybe we need to send another probe to venus , get some more data ........

Maybe that's where the WMD are.

[Atlas]

We kill the ocean plankton, we are all done, no matter what the temperature is.
Those damn whales kill 40 million a gulp!!!

[Den Smith 49]

To those of us trying to explain to the extremists, we have to remember that this was the way they were raised. They were told by their extremist parents that the world is coming to an end because of all the bad things we are doing to the planet. They were indoctrinated to believe we are the sole reason for the decline of the overall welfare of the planet.

Even though facts are being presented in the here and now that state otherwise, these studies and findings were not available to influence their upbringing and they will not believe something that contradicts their core beliefs. And yet the conservatives are the ones that are usually accused of this same mannerism.

[sirhcyennek81]

To those of us trying to explain to the extremists, we have to remember that this was the way they were raised. They were told by their extremist parents that the world is coming to an end because of all the bad things we are doing to the planet. They were indoctrinated to believe we are the sole reason for the decline of the overall welfare of the planet.

Even though facts are being presented in the here and now that state otherwise, these studies and findings were not available to influence their upbringing and they will not believe something that contradicts their core beliefs. And yet the conservatives are the ones that are usually accused of this same mannerism.


Earth is Four billion years old. It has been both warmer, and colder, in the past then it has been at any point in the last 100 years. Its wise to conservem take care of things, no one wants a trashed world, but to say we MUST do it or we all die...thats just rediculous. You cant kill a giant rock in space.

:Broncos:

[Rohirrim]

http://www.spinwatch.org/modules.php?name=News&file=article&sid=287

The only problem for the sceptics is that the vast majority of scientists think they are the ones that are deluded. "There's a better scientific consensus on this than on any issue I know - except maybe Newton's second law of dynamics", Dr James Baker, of the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration in the US, has said.

Secretary Ray Evans describes the 90-odd Lavoisier members as a "dad's army" of mostly retired engineers and scientists from the mining, manufacturing and construction industries.

The Lavoisier Group distributes the work of geologist Bob Carter, Ian Castles, William Kininmonth, Ian Plimer and a few other Australian sceptics. The Institute of Public Affairs, which receives funding from companies such as ExxonMobil, the most sceptical of the world's fossil fuel giants, also engages in the debate, scouring the web and email groups for evidence that climate change is natural.

In the US, key sceptics have admitted to being on the fossil-fuel payroll, but Australians such as Ian Castles, Bob Carter and William Kininmonth say they are not paid for their views. However, earlier this year, before Russia had agreed to sign the Kyoto Protocol, Kininmonth accepted the International Policy Network's offer to fly him to a special climate science meeting in Moscow. The IPN is a right-wing think tank that has received funding from ExxonMobil and which networks with the IPA.


Ooops!

[Bronco_Beerslug]

Dude you are so full of ****.

There is haze, around big cities, no arguing there. But you said "no matter where you fly" which is ****ing bull**** and you know it.

Ive been 70 miles out of the greater Houston area and not one bit of "haze" in th sky. A see a night time sky that is crystal clear so much so that the milky way is visible quite clearly.

Even a SMALL amount of haze will shroud the milky way from the naked eye.
As usual, you're lost in a "lost world" again. I'm not talking about local pollution. When is the last time you flew a commercial airliner 7 miles in the air and DIDN'T see a haze in the sky?

Of course you can see stars at night when you're away from light pollution.

[dnvrbrncos]

Maybe we need to send another probe to venus , get some more data ........

Whew! I wish sure you were going to recommend sending a probe to Uranus. That would have been much too Brokeback.

[dnvrbrncos]

Thanks for providing links to reiterate my point.

You had a point? Nevertheless...happy to be able to assist you in your chores.

[Merlin]

Haha....nice post. Apparently, Atlas thought UEA was just another cowpoke college in East Nowhere.....probably only because HE had never heard of it.

13,000+ students?
3rd highest university satisfaction rating in the UK?

Not too shabby, indeed......
Jeez, did you even bother to look at the second link? It proves the author of your article LIED! According to their own data the planet has been getting warmer, and moreover it states that 2005 was the SECOND WARMEST YEAR ON RECORD. Moreover, they state that the Northern hemisphere is getting warmer over a larger area. They guy does not misuse stats for political ends, HE LIES for political ends. At the very least bother to check your facts before you gloat about the source.

In case you want to revisit the site properly this time:

http://www.cru.uea.ac.uk/

They even provide a nice little chart to facilitate the understanding of those with short attention spans.

[maher_tyler]

I read once where they said the co2 and greenhouse gasses emmitted by the midatlnatic ridge, and the pacific ridge are far greater then what humans can muster. According to this show there are hundreds upon hundreds of these volcanos and vents active right now as we speak spreading the ocean floor. I think humans pollute the air we breath and the water we drink, but that when it comes to global warming we may have less to do with that then many think. We should worry more about using up all the oil, and pollution that dampens our quality of life. I say clean up the air to breath and water to drink but don't count on that reversing the warming trend that earth seems to be under.
Very good point! I totally agree! The earth pollutes its self but throwing trash out the window and all thses oil spills you hear in the news don't help things.

[maher_tyler]

well here in Wyoming we have low sulfer coal ,stuff burns clean , to prove my point , Wyoming we use more then 26 tonnes a year for 96% of our electric plants , and we have some of the cleanest air in America , The Powder River basin is loaded ........ Coal bed methane gas drilling is what is killing my great state , but thats our problem , Ranchers are fighting back hard ...... Nuke power and low sulfer coal ....... only way to fly ;D
I used to live in Gillette Wyoming! Energy Capitol of the world Biotches!

[maher_tyler]

do you guys know, that when you hear thunder, God is actually farting, and when it rains, he's actually taking a leak?
:rofl: LOL i haven't heard that one for a long a$$ time!

[DownRiver Bronco Fan]

Credibility of the article was shot to hell when the author used this reference.


not a flame, but seriously interested, just what in that post shot the credibility of the article? I don't see it.

[Bronco_Beerslug]

Jeez, did you even bother to look at the second link? It proves the author of your article LIED! According to their own data the planet has been getting warmer, and moreover it states that 2005 was the SECOND WARMEST YEAR ON RECORD. Moreover, they state that the Northern hemisphere is getting warmer over a larger area. They guy does not misuse stats for political ends, HE LIES for political ends. At the very least bother to check your facts before you gloat about the source.

In case you want to revisit the site properly this time:

http://www.cru.uea.ac.uk/

They even provide a nice little chart to facilitate the understanding of those with short attention spans.

LOL

I doubt 55 will have much to say about that.

[NaptownChief]

Al Gore will set you all straight on this...Never doubt a man as brilliant as old lock box...:rofl:

[Rock Chalk]

As usual, you're lost in a "lost world" again. I'm not talking about local pollution. When is the last time you flew a commercial airliner 7 miles in the air and DIDN'T see a haze in the sky?

Of course you can see stars at night when you're away from light pollution.
When was the last time YOU flew a commercial airliner 7 miles in the air?

Im not an aviator, Im a amateur astronomer and if you get away from teh cities, all those stars are visible again and HAZE is what obscures them. The faintest stars to the naked eye are visible out in the country, no light pollution, no air pollution (or very little), just a wonderful starry night to look at.

And I dont even need to go but 20-30 miles from here.

[61Vikefan]

Why bother? EPA activists will write this off as junk science or propaganda if it doesnt fit into their agenda.

Exactly, it's all about the MONEY. As Michael Crichton said "Humans cannot affect climate change, humans are apes running for cover for whatever mother nature decides to do, we do not affect mother nature"

[Merlin]

Exactly, it's all about the MONEY. As Michael Crichton said "Humans cannot affect climate change, humans are apes running for cover for whatever mother nature decides to do, we do not affect mother nature"
They don't have to. The author LIED about the data. If you go and visit his source (there is a link stated in a previous post), you find out the university's tracking TOTALLY DISAGREES with his claims. THE GUY IS A LIAR AND YOU GUYS ARE TRYING TO HANG YOUR HAT ON HIM. Good luck with that. :wave:

[maven]

Maybe we need to send another probe to venus , get some more data ........

A European Space Agency probe entered Venus orbit yesterday.

Europe's Venus Express probe entered orbit around Venus early Tuesday to begin a planned 16-month mission to study a planet on which the greenhouse effect has gone to hellish extremes

http://www.space.com/missionlaunches/060411_venusexp_arrival.html

[Bronco_Beerslug]

When was the last time YOU flew a commercial airliner 7 miles in the air?
Two weeks ago (37,000 ft)

Im not an aviator, Im a amateur astronomer and if you get away from teh cities, all those stars are visible again and HAZE is what obscures them. The faintest stars to the naked eye are visible out in the country, no light pollution, no air pollution (or very little), just a wonderful starry night to look at.

And I dont even need to go but 20-30 miles from here.
The haze is easily seen during daylight hours, not night.
Go to a mountain top in Colorado and see what stars really look like :)

[Bronco_Beerslug]

They don't have to. The author LIED about the data. If you go and visit his source (there is a link stated in a previous post), you find out the university's tracking TOTALLY DISAGREES with his claims. THE GUY IS A LIAR AND YOU GUYS ARE TRYING TO HANG YOUR HAT ON HIM. Good luck with that. :wave:
:rofl:
They are fleeing from this thread faster than the Raiders reach the cellar every year.

[61Vikefan]

Just so everyone remembers that the 1980 Mount Saint Helen's volcanic eruption spewed more CFC's and greenhouse gasses into the air than man had up to then, and SINCE in one eruption. It actually opened up a gaping hole in the ozone layer in that part of the globe, but contrary to the doomsayers, the ozone layer REPAIRED ITSELF. Funny eh?

After that the OZONE FEAR kind of lost it's marketability and so the EPA fearmongers found a new one-GLOBAL WARMING. It's much better to have a buzzword when it comes to raising money.

[Bronco_Beerslug]

Just so everyone remembers that the 1980 Mount Saint Helen's volcanic eruption spewed more CFC's and greenhouse gasses into the air than man had up to then, and SINCE in one eruption. It actually opened up a gaping hole in the ozone layer in that part of the globe, but contrary to the doomsayers, the ozone layer REPAIRED ITSELF. Funny eh?

After that the OZONE FEAR kind of lost it's marketability and so the EPA fearmongers found a new one-GLOBAL WARMING. It's much better to have a buzzword when it comes to raising money.
You should do a little research before you post your theories.

-------------------------------------------------
THE INFLUENCE OF VOLCANIC ERUPTIONS ON
THE OZONE, GREENHOUSE, AND HAZE EFFECTS

Volcanic eruptions can enhance all three of these climate effects to variable degrees. They contribute to ozone depletion, as well as to both cooling and warming of the earth's atmosphere. The role of volcanic eruptions on each climate effect is described below.
INFLUENCE ON THE OZONE EFFECT:

The halide acid HCl has been shown to be effective in destroying ozone; however, the latest studies show that most volcanic HCl is confined to the troposphere (below the stratosphere), where it is washed out by rain. Thus, it never has the opportunity to react with ozone. On the other hand, satellite data after the 1991 eruptions of Mt.Pinatubo (the Philippines) and Mt. Hudson (Chile) showed a 15-20% ozone loss at high latitudes, and a greater than 50% loss over the Antarctic! Thus, it appears that volcanic eruptions can play a significant role in reducing ozone levels. However, it is an indirect role, which cannot be directly attributed to volcanic HCl. Eruption-generated particles, or aerosols, appear to provide surfaces upon which chemical reactions take place. The particles themselves do not contribute to ozone destruction, but they interact with chlorine- and bromine-bearing compounds from human-made CFCs. Fortunately, volcanic particles will settle out of the stratosphere in two or three years, so that the effects of volcanic eruptions on ozone depletion are short lived. Although volcanic aerosols provide a catalyst for ozone depletion, the real culprits in destroying ozone are human-generated CFCs. Scientists expect the ozone layer to recover due to restrictions on CFCs and other ozone-depleting chemicals by the United Nations Montreal Protocol on Substances that Deplete the Ozone Layer. However, future volcanic eruptions will cause fluctuations in the recovery process.
INFLUENCE ON THE GREENHOUSE EFFECT:

Volcanic eruptions can enhance global warming by adding CO2 to the atmosphere. However, a far greater amount of CO2 is contributed to the atmosphere by human activities each year than by volcanic eruptions. Volcanoes contribute about 110 million tons/year, whereas other sources contribute about 10 billion tons/year. The small amount of global warming caused by eruption-generated greenhouse gases is offset by the far greater amount of global cooling caused by eruption-generated particles in the stratosphere (the haze effect). Greenhouse warming of the earth has been particularly evident since 1980. Without the cooling influence of such eruptions as El Chichon (1982) and Mt. Pinatubo (1991), described below, greenhouse warming would have been more pronounced.
INFLUENCE ON THE HAZE EFFECT:

Volcanic eruptions enhance the haze effect to a greater extent than the greenhouse effect, and thus they can lower mean global temperatures. It was thought for many years that the greatest volcanic contribution of the haze effect was from the suspended ash particles in the upper atmosphere that would block out solar radiation. However, these ideas changed in the 1982 after the eruption of the Mexican volcano, El Chichon. Although the 1980 eruption of Mt. St. Helens lowered global temperatures by 0.1OC, the much smaller eruption of El Chichon lowered global temperatures three to five times as much. Although the Mt. St. Helens blast emitted a greater amount of ash in the stratosphere, the El Chichon eruption emitted a much greater volume of sulfur-rich gases (40x more). It appears that the volume of pyroclastic debris emitted during a blast is not the best criteria to measure its effects on the atmosphere. The amount of sulfur-rich gases appears to be more important. Sulfur combines with water vapor in the stratosphere to form dense clouds of tiny sulfuric acid droplets. These droplets take several years to settle out and they are capable to decreasing the troposphere temperatures because they absorb solar radiation and scatter it back to space.
EXAMPLES OF GLOBAL COOLING IN THE AFTERMATH OF HISTORIC ERUPTIONS:
(CONTINUED)
http://tinyurl.com/f6xv8

[61Vikefan]

LOL-a POS study financed by the EPA.

[Bronco_Beerslug]

LOL-a POS study financed by the EPA.

Explain why it's a POS study?

[NaptownChief]

Explain why it's a POS study?



My guess would be due to the fact that the vast majority of all studies and stories being pushed out are grossly biased due to millions/billions of dollars at stake on both sides...The EPA and research scientists need to make matters look extreme and urgent to increase and keep federal grant monies flowing in and on the other side you have business' backing studies on the other side because any dramatic laws and changes to standards will cost them millions if not billions to comply. If you think you are going to pull a non-biased quality study out of folks that have millions of dollars of personal vested interest at stake you are crazy.

[Bronco_Beerslug]

My guess would be due to the fact that the vast majority of all studies and stories being pushed out are grossly biased due to millions/billions of dollars at stake on both sides...The EPA and research scientists need to make matters look extreme and urgent to increase and keep federal grant monies flowing in and on the other side you have business' backing studies on the other side because any dramatic laws and changes to standards will cost them millions if not billions to comply. If you think you are going to pull a non-biased quality study out of folks that have millions of dollars of personal vested interest at stake you are crazy.
Almost all studies are funded by someone with some interest in the results. I was interested in the new Viking fan's reasoning for not being able to say exactly why it is flawed but he apparently had enough and went home.

[NaptownChief]

Almost all studies are funded by someone with some interest in the results.


And exactly why they are all close to worthless...

[55CrushEm]

and moreover it states that 2005 was the SECOND WARMEST YEAR ON RECORD.

Her Merlin, why don't YOU try reading more than a headline, you dimwit.....if you read the detail, you would see that it also says the following:

"All the temperature values have uncertainties, which arise mainly from gaps in data coverage. The sizes of the uncertainties are such that....the global average temperature for 2005 is statistically indistinguishable from...the first and eighth warmest year in the record."

And here's the key, you idiot.....

"....note that uncertainties arising from sparse observations or measurement biases make 2005 statistically indistinguishable from 1998, as well as other recent years such as 2002 and 2003."

Gee, sounds like he may NOT have lied after all, huh?

Now, why don't you and Beerslug go hug some more trees......

[55CrushEm]

LOL

I doubt 55 will have much to say about that.

What? Did you say something?

[Drek]

My guess would be due to the fact that the vast majority of all studies and stories being pushed out are grossly biased due to millions/billions of dollars at stake on both sides...The EPA and research scientists need to make matters look extreme and urgent to increase and keep federal grant monies flowing in and on the other side you have business' backing studies on the other side because any dramatic laws and changes to standards will cost them millions if not billions to comply. If you think you are going to pull a non-biased quality study out of folks that have millions of dollars of personal vested interest at stake you are crazy.
Sorry, you're wrong. If a scientist intentionally skews his results to suit his own or another's biases we ostricise them from the academic community.

I won't waste my time commenting on the rest of the bull**** in this thread, just sticking up for my fellow real geoscientists.

[55CrushEm]

They even provide a nice little chart to facilitate the understanding of those with short attention spans.

They even provide a link to a PDF file with more detailed information for those who actually like to READ.....try it. Actually, don't bother, I paraphrased a piece of it in my previous post.......

[NaptownChief]

Sorry, you're wrong. If a scientist intentionally skews his results to suit his own or another's biases we ostricise them from the academic community.

I won't waste my time commenting on the rest of the bull**** in this thread, just sticking up for my fellow real geoscientists.



And if he can't get grant money then he is out of the business all together...only to shuffle over to eat from the corporate trough in which they will now have a vested interest in selling whatever their corporation wants sold.

[NaptownChief]

Sorry, you're wrong. If a scientist intentionally skews his results to suit his own or another's biases we ostricise them from the academic community.





And while I agree any of them worth their salt won't blatantly lie for their cause but you and I know that any topic that doesn't have a definitive answer leaves the door wide open for multiple legitimate possibilities and directions. That being the case you can also honestly push in the direction in which the theory and findings support your desires. It is still completely legit and honest but it is also very biased and the same person could make an equally compelling case for the other side if they chose to do so.

[Bronco_Beerslug]

What? Did you say something?
Apparently, nothing you can comprehend, but you, showing the hypocrite you are in this thread, stated that liberals don't believe in God so why would anyone expect anything related to an educated discussion from you?

--------------------------------------------
<a href="http://tinyurl.com/lzzhz">Current Warming Period Is Longest in 1,200 Years, Study Says</a>
Sara Goudarzi
for National Geographic News
February 9, 2006


<a href="http://tinyurl.com/ark6w">A Global Warning</a>
(Page 1 of 4)
Feb. 19, 2006
The North Pole has been frozen for 100,000 years. But according to scientists, that won't be true by the end of this century. The top of the world is melting.


<a href="http://tinyurl.com/dky54">Frog Extinctions Linked to Global Warming</a>
Brian Handwerk
for National Geographic News
January 12, 2006
Global warming may cause widespread amphibian extinctions by triggering lethal epidemics, a new study reports.


<a href="http://tinyurl.com/qoo59">Rewriting The Science</a>
March 19, 2006
Hansen is arguably the world's leading researcher on global warming. He's the head of NASA's top institute studying the climate. But this imminent scientist tells correspondent Scott Pelley that the Bush administration is restricting who he can talk to and editing what he can say. Politicians, he says, are rewriting the science.


<a href="http://tinyurl.com/7p4h6">Debate on Climate Shifts to Issue of Irreparable Change
Some Experts on Global Warming Foresee 'Tipping Point' When It Is Too Late to Act</a>

By Juliet Eilperin
Washington Post Staff Writer
Sunday, January 29, 2006; Page A01

Now that most scientists agree human activity is causing Earth to warm, the central debate has shifted to whether climate change is progressing so rapidly that, within decades, humans may be helpless to slow or reverse the trend.


<a href="http://tinyurl.com/jan8x">Be worried, be very worried</a>
The climate is crashing, and global warming is to blame
Sunday, March 26, 2006; Posted: 11:27 a.m. EST (16:27 GMT)
Never mind what you've heard about global warming as a slow-motion emergency that would take decades to play out. Suddenly and unexpectedly, the crisis is upon us.

From heat waves to storms to floods to fires to massive glacial melts, the global climate seems to be crashing around us.

The problem -- as scientists suspected but few others appreciated -- is that global climate systems are booby-trapped with tipping points and feedback loops.


<a href="http://tinyurl.com/o6xwe">Polar Ice Caps Are Melting Faster Than Ever</a>... More And More Land Is Being Devastated By Drought... Rising Waters Are Drowning Low-Lying Communities... By Any Measure, Earth Is At ... The Tipping Point
The climate is crashing, and global warming is to blame. Why the crisis hit so soon--and what we can do about it.


<a href="http://tinyurl.com/fk24j">Bush Admin. Censoring Scientists On Global Warming</a>...
Washington Post | Juliet Eilperin | Posted April 5, 2006 11:21 PM
Scientists doing climate research for the federal government say the Bush administration has made it hard for them to speak forthrightly to the public about global warming. The result, the researchers say, is a danger that Americans are not getting the full story on how the climate is changing.

[RhymesayersDU]

They Took Er Jebs!

Chet! Help Yourself To A ****ing Science Book Cuz You're Talking Like A ****ing Retard!

[Drek]

And if he can't get grant money then he is out of the business all together...only to shuffle over to eat from the corporate trough in which they will now have a vested interest in selling whatever their corporation wants sold.
Grant money is more about sounding like you know what you're talking about than producing desired results. Also, while I agree that in many fields the results of studies are heavily tainted, climate analysis isn't nearly as bad. The National Science Foundation and various governmental and non-profit organizations with no vested interest are the leading funders of climate research. Simply put, the U.S. gov't. still fails to regulate our nation's industries heavily enough to make corporations really care, they know they get away with [environmental] murder. The surprisingly large amounts of funding the field does recieve comes with no significant strings attached.

The real problem with climate studies is that its largely open to interpretation still. I'm taking an advanced course in climate analysis (my final class before graduating), the numbers we work with can very easily mislead even the best scientists, which leads to the wide array of responses when trying to then use those numbers on a large enough scale to determine major planetary changes. There are core facts that aren't heavily debated in the field but further expounding on them is still pretty new science, since upper atmosphere research, antarctic and arctic coring, etc., are all fairly new fields and are proving themselves to be amazingly productive.

Most people don't realize just how young the geological sciences are. Plate techtonics, a planetary system tied to nearly all planetary events, was only a weakly developed theory in the 1930's, and only became the excepted standard 20-30 years after that. The field has much to offer, but also its fair share of crackpots who pass themselves off as knowledgable experts. They further cloud the already muddied waters. The internet and traditional media's desire for any and all things involving planetary doom only exacerbate the problem.

The short answer on the topic though? The planet goes through warming and cooling cycles all the time, large and small scale, its going to continue happening, regardless of if we like it or not. We as a society though are leading to environmental degredation with exceptionally high O3 killing CFC amounts post-industrial revolution, severe forest reduction, etc.. Its something that we as a people need to get in order, but the doomsday prognosticators are portraying a false image of how imminent these threats are, not that we should take comfort in that. The old expression "don't **** where you eat" has never had quite as literal a meaning for humanity on a whole.

[55CrushEm]

Apparently, nothing you can comprehend, but you, showing the hypocrite you are in this thread, stated that liberals don't believe in God so why would anyone expect anything related to an educated discussion from you?


Stick to the topic at hand, dimwit. I intelligently replied to yours and Merlin's claim that the guy was a "liar".....clearly he is not.

You also seemed to think I was "running from the thread".

I won't hold my breath for a response to my rebuttal of the "liar" claim.

But, you are a typical liberal....when you are beaten in an argument...or when YOUR argument doesn't hold water....you simply change the subject.

Good day to you.

[Merlin]

Gee, sounds like he may NOT have lied after all, huh?
I originally referred to you as a moron, but edited because I assumed you could just by an ignorant lazy buffoon, sadly the jury is still out on which of the two you are since your analytic abilities could lead to both conclusions. Who knows, maybe you hit the jackpot and got both. Now to break it down for you morons who rather lie, than understand.

Your first statement clearly states that even when the gaps are skewed in your favor 2005 IS STILL AS FVCKING HOT AS THE FIRST AND EIGHT hottest years on record. So my moronic friend how can that lead to the author's conclusion that there was no temperature increase in the 7 yr span he quotes? It can't that is why he does not quote it YOU FVCKING MORON.

Oh wait what about 2002 and 2003? Well like the LYING SACK OF $HIT AUTHOR YOU are ATTEMPTING TO DECEIVE, or this is where your lazy unanalytic a$$ let you down, BECAUSE 2002 and 2003 fall into the top 6 hottest years on record, SO THEY ARE ALSO HOT, which why your author would never quote them. And the site itself clearly states that although it is MOST LIKELY TO BE THE SECOND HOTTEST yr on record, the statistical gaps still group it among the HOTTEST YRS ON RECORD. BTW, you conveniently forgot to mention that the dataset from GISS, which does not suffer from the gaps. ITALSO CONFIRMS it is one of the hottest, not wait THE HOTTEST YR ON RECORD, and the document you quote states this, but again, why deal with the truth WHEN OBFUSCATION BETTER SUITS YOUR NEEDS.

Should we discuss further the document? Should we mention its findings about sea ice in 2005? Why bother you got your A$$ handed to you, so go back under the rock you climbed out of.

PS Only an idiot would use a tiny section in history to support a claim that requires decades of data, sadly, the seven yr span he picked DID NOT SUPPORT HIS CLAIM! In the last decade only one yr does not fall into the grouping of hottest ever recorded, but again, why let the truth interfere with a political agenda based on lying and deception.

Oh BTW, nowhere does that document support his claim, so YES HE DID LIE AFTER ALL

[Merlin]

For those of you who don't know GISS data set comes from NASA, one of the most (the most?) respected sources of information regarding global temperatures. In fact they are so respected, the White House administration tried to limit access to their data. The data for 2005 http://data.giss.nasa.gov/gistemp/2005/

BTW, I obviously gave the author too much credit. I assumed he took data from a 7 yr period to draw his conclusions, which in itself is idiotic. But now it is clear it was worse than that. Since 1998 was the first warmest yr according to the data set he sites (but the second according to GISS), he was arguing that global warming ceased. What the lying excuse of writer did not mention was that the yrs following 1998 continue the upward trend in global warming, and they are warmer than the yrs preceding 1998.

For him to just pick a yr, and to argue from that was happening in a global scale not only captures his POLITICAL AGENDA, but demonstrates HE IS WILLING TO LIE AND RISK LIVES, just to score political points. Yes, that is the type of source you want to bet your life on. To hang your hat on such a despicable attempt at manipulating data speaks as much about your agenda as your credibility. Like the neocons, you assume that if you repeat a lie enough it becomes true. However, history has shown all it does is postpone the revelation of the truth, then everyone wants to distance themselves from them. Again, good luck with that.

[Rock Chalk]

http://www.opinionjournal.com/extra/?id=110008220

The opinion comes from: M. Lindzen is Alfred P. Sloan Professor of Atmospheric Science at MIT.

[61Vikefan]

The arrogance of man is ridiculous. We could POSSIBLY be heading into or are in the midst of a climate shift-and no proof whatsover that it is simply not a pattern that has been occuring for, oh a billion years or so since the planet is close to 5 billion years old!

So what does some idiot scientist do who has way too much time on his hands? INVENTS a theory that this warm up MUST BE MAN'S FAULT RIGHT?

There is ABSOLUTELY NO WAY to prove any of this. We don't even have a reliable way to compare CO2 levels between now and 100 years ago.

What a ridiculous cause for people to waste their lives on.

[Merlin]

He is a respectable scientist, but there are far more scientist that support the other side. Also, he plays with numbers to make questionable claims. Although a lot of money has been invested to study global warming, the money invested is rarely ideologically driven, in fact they arrive at such conclusions despite the money on the other side which attempts to have science defined by ideology. In fact, NASA would have been better served during the Bush administration if they were able to support his side, but when science arrived at contrary conclusions, the white house administration attempted to silence their data and conclusions. Also, here are some interesting facts about him in the past:

"Although warming at Earth's surface has been quite pronounced during the past few decades, satellite measurements beginning in 1979 indicate relatively little warming of air temperature in the troposphere."

The problem was when the satellite data came out later, it contradicted his conclusions, they did show a warming of the troposphere.

Now the question is he a publicity hound. On November 10, Reason magazine reported that Lindzen is "willing to take bets that global average temperatures in 20 years will in fact be lower than they are now." Such a move by a scientist is always driven by a thirst for publicity, only in this case it was painfully transparent. Climatologist James Annan contacted Lindzen to arrange a bet. Moreover Annan offered to pay 2:1 odds in Lindzen's favor if temperatures declined, but he did not take the bet, in fact none of his compatriots is willing to take the bet. So much for their credibility when their wallet is at stake.

PS As to his Iris effect, there has been a lot of credible documentation against it, which I am sure does not please him.

[Merlin]

So what does some idiot scientist do who has way too much time on his hands? INVENTS a theory that this warm up MUST BE MAN'S FAULT RIGHT?
Unlike ignorant people, scientist cannot just rely on developing a pet theory, they actually have to provide facts and develop models that show their theory is supported by the evidence. Something that requires a substantial amount of work and mathematical understanding, but judging by the team you follow, math is not your strength, nor is science, so i can understand your incredulity.

[61Vikefan]

Unlike ignorant people, scientist cannot just rely on developing a pet theory, they actually have to provide facts and develop models that show their theory is supported by the evidence. Something that requires a substantial amount of work and mathematical understanding, but judging by the team you follow, math is not your strength, nor is science, so i can understand your incredulity.


See, your arrogance is showing! You have no evidence because you have no basis for your research. It is all made up BS so you can have a job-haven't you figured it out yet?

What happened to the dire OZONE FEAR EMERGENCY? Absolutely NOTHING because the Ozone is probably in better shape than it was 200 years ago.

You people are a bunch of clowns.

BTW, my brother is a REAL scientist, not some political correct BS shovelor like you. He actually produces something in the world that people need-no need to go into it further but he laughs his ass off at your "science".

[Bronco_Beerslug]

See, your arrogance is showing! You have no evidence because you have no basis for your research. It is all made up BS so you can have a job-haven't you figured it out yet?

What happened to the dire OZONE FEAR EMERGENCY? Absolutely NOTHING because the Ozone is probably in better shape than it was 200 years ago.

You people are a bunch of clowns.

BTW, my brother is a REAL scientist, not some political correct BS shovelor like you. He actually produces something in the world that people need-no need to go into it further but he laughs his ass off at your "science".

Ah, now we know, your brother is a "real" scientist and you are an expert based on big (or little) brother's accomplishments, outstanding!!! Are you going to be a "real" scientist when you grow up too?

So lets have it, just exactly what is a "real" scientist?

And BTW, the subject matter in this thread is about global warming.


But, you are a typical liberal....when you are beaten in an argument...or when YOUR argument doesn't hold water....you simply change the subject.
LOL :rofl: :thanku:

So anyone who disagrees with the dubious (at best) article you linked is a liberal.... Brilliant!!!!!

I linked 8 articles, all this year, on global warming, did you bother to read them?

[Merlin]

See, your arrogance is showing! You have no evidence because you have no basis for your research. It is all made up BS so you can have a job-haven't you figured it out yet?

What happened to the dire OZONE FEAR EMERGENCY? Absolutely NOTHING because the Ozone is probably in better shape than it was 200 years ago.

You people are a bunch of clowns.

BTW, my brother is a REAL scientist, not some political correct BS shovelor like you. He actually produces something in the world that people need-no need to go into it further but he laughs his ass off at your "science".
First it is you who arrogates to know about science and my background yet don't have the faintest understanding of either. As to the ozone, you might want to check your facts before you speak and remove all doubt. The ozone erosion was only abated after major changes were made in the use of CFCs and other harmful chemicals. This is not speculation, it is based on hard science, something you seem to poorly understand. Here are some simple explanations that might help your apparently limited faculties.

"The reduction over time is clear. The pictures corresponding to the graph are below. They show how the ozone hole has grown over the past years. It is thought to continue growing until about 20 years after the complete phasing out of CFC's.

15334


After much research by scientists all over the world governments decided that something had to be done to stop the ozone depletion of the ozone layer. In 1987 24 countries signed a treaty aiming to save the ozone layer. This Montreal Protocol called for a reduction in the production of ozone depleting substances, aiming to reduce CFC's by 50% by the year 2000. Since then alternatives have been found to fulfil the roles of CFC's and the amounts being released to the atmosphere have dramatically reduced. However the ozone hole is still a problem needing to be carefully monitored."

http://www.chm.bris.ac.uk/motm/ozone/high.htm

PS Scientist do not argue that all damage to the Ozone layer is due to human action, but rather that human actions can have a VERY deleterious effect if not monitored and managed.

PPS What kind of scientist is your brother?

[55CrushEm]

I originally referred to you as a moron, but edited because I assumed you could just by an ignorant lazy buffoon, sadly the jury is still out on which of the two you are since your analytic abilities could lead to both conclusions. Who knows, maybe you hit the jackpot and got both. Now to break it down for you morons who rather lie, than understand.

...YOU FVCKING MORON.

... LYING SACK OF $HIT AUTHOR YOU are ATTEMPTING TO DECEIVE, ...lazy unanalytic a$$ ... A$$ handed to you, so go back under the rock you climbed out of.

Only an idiot.....



Wow.....I thought conservatives were supposed to be the mean-spirited ones.....

Try this out....

http://www.apa.org/topics/angersub1.html

And btw, the "official" temperature record dates back to only 1861. This too, is a relatively short amount of time.

So you go on thinking that 2005 was the hottest year in history, dimwit. Should we just ignore the facts from the previous 4 billion years of the Earth's history? According to you, yes.....

If you could get by your anger, you'd see the point that people are trying to make....without hanging your hat on every single word and calling them "liars"......

To reiterate, the guy interpreted the data by saying that 2005 was so insignificantly different from the other years in the study, that we had our warmest year in 1998, i.e. that's really where the true upward trend in temperature stopped in recent years, and hence, his article was headlined as it was......that is all. Get over yourself......you're the one with an agenda, not me.

And in case you missed it.....here's the link again....

http://www.apa.org/topics/angersub1.html

:loser:

[55CrushEm]

I linked 8 articles, all this year, on global warming, did you bother to read them?

No....cause I'm sure it's the same "man is evil" stuff that I hear all the time....unless you have something new to post, I won't, either.

Gotta go fill up my SUV.....

[55CrushEm]

So anyone who disagrees with the dubious (at best) article you linked is a liberal.... Brilliant!!!!!


No, again you're putting words in my mouth......I just said YOU were.

[55CrushEm]

First it is you who arrogates to know about science and my background yet don't have the faintest understanding of either. As to the ozone, you might want to check your facts before you speak and remove all doubt. The ozone erosion was only abated after major changes were made in the use of CFCs and other harmful chemicals. This is not speculation, it is based on hard science, something you seem to poorly understand. Here are some simple explanations that might help your apparently limited faculties.

"The reduction over time is clear. The pictures corresponding to the graph are below. They show how the ozone hole has grown over the past years. It is thought to continue growing until about 20 years after the complete phasing out of CFC's.

15334


After much research by scientists all over the world governments decided that something had to be done to stop the ozone depletion of the ozone layer. In 1987 24 countries signed a treaty aiming to save the ozone layer. This Montreal Protocol called for a reduction in the production of ozone depleting substances, aiming to reduce CFC's by 50% by the year 2000. Since then alternatives have been found to fulfil the roles of CFC's and the amounts being released to the atmosphere have dramatically reduced. However the ozone hole is still a problem needing to be carefully monitored."

http://www.chm.bris.ac.uk/motm/ozone/high.htm

PS Scientist do not argue that all damage to the Ozone layer is due to human action, but rather that human actions can have a VERY deleterious effect if not monitored and managed.

PPS What kind of scientist is your brother?

That's a real pretty graph, Merlin. Why did you stop at 1991, huh? Could it be because the ozone "hole" has actually gotten smaller since then? And that would shoot a hole (no pun intended) in your brilliant theories?

Oh, I will admit that I only remember hearing that somewhere recently.....can't site a source, so don't know if its true or not....and yes, I don't care enough to bother and look it up.....

[Arkie]

Rainforests cover about 6% of the planet and contain more than 50% the planet's plants and animals. Hypothetically speaking, let's say we've lost an area of that forest roughly one third the size of Delaware since this thread was started. (a rate of 4000 football fields per hour)

If this were true, would it concern you?

[Merlin]

That's a real pretty graph, Merlin. Why did you stop at 1991, huh? Could it be because the ozone "hole" has actually gotten smaller since then? And that would shoot a hole (no pun intended) in your brilliant theories?

Oh, I will admit that I only remember hearing that somewhere recently.....can't site a source, so don't know if its true or not....and yes, I don't care enough to bother and look it up.....
Where did I say it had not gotten better. What I clearly stated was that human practices that had contributed to the problem were dramatically changed and if you follow the time lines, you can clearly see that had an effect. BTW, this stuff is not even debatable, it is a fairly well understood phenomenon and how we contribute to it, and how we can diminish our effect. As you usual you try to misrepresent the opposing stance to try and elevate yours. Try using some facts and reading what the person wrote, you will find it helps a lot.

[Merlin]

Wow.....I thought conservatives were supposed to be the mean-spirited ones.....
No, it is clearly apparent that the discursive domain you operate within responds to certain types of frameworks and interactions, so I am just helping you fell comfortable. As I stated, I made sure to edit my initial post and give you a break, but then you post with a series of ad homonyms, so I figured you just needed to be spoken in kind.

Try this out....

http://www.apa.org/topics/angersub1.html

And btw, the "official" temperature record dates back to only 1861. This too, is a relatively short amount of time.

So you go on thinking that 2005 was the hottest year in history, dimwit. Should we just ignore the facts from the previous 4 billion years of the Earth's history? According to you, yes.....

Your reading comprehension is truly pathetic. All my posts have been stated in relation to "on record". But unlike people who attempt to deceive by misrepresenting information to serve personal needs, I was calling the man out for his lying and misrepresentation, which btw, you have not managed to disprove so you are now going for a straw man. Nice try.

To reiterate, the guy interpreted the data by saying that 2005 was so insignificantly different from the other years in the study, that we had our warmest year in 1998, i.e. that's really where the true upward trend in temperature stopped in recent years, and hence, his article was headlined as it was......that is all.
Not only do you lack the reading comprehension to understand slightly complicated text, but you are to ignorant to understand the simplest statistics. You cannot take a single yr from a sample of over a 100 yrs, and then conclude this is what is happening. Anyone with the simplest understanding of science, math and/or statistics would know this. If he does not, then he should refrain writing about subjects that are clearly beyond his grasp, as they are obviously beyond yours. The stats which he chose to use CLEARLY SHOW THE TREND IN TEMPERATURE IS RISING. In fact the past 7 years, which he picks, are the warmest in the past 150 yrs, so much for no upward trend. Also as you note, the trend after 1998 continues to be upwards. Statistically it is totally irrelevant that 1998 is higher than the 6 years that follow. What matters is what is the total trend, and even in his poorly chosen sample it is rising.

You might want to consider taking a few science and statistics courses before you try to comment on areas you clearly don't understand. But then again, that might affect your political agenda, so why bother. Stick with what works, for some ignorance is bliss..

[Bronco_Beerslug]

No, again you're putting words in my mouth......I just said YOU were.
No slick, you seem to not be able to keep up with your mouth....

-----------------------------------------------------

We better start praying (oh wait, libs don't do that)


And btw, he cites many FACTS in the article (if you happened to read it).....sorry, I know liberals hate facts.

Well, as you can see by Atlas's posts, he cleary ignored them......that's what many liberals do....ignore facts that don't fit there arguments.


Hey, Atlas.....stick it all right? So typical of a liberal to make personal jabs when someone disagrees with them.

[55CrushEm]

Your reading comprehension is truly pathetic.

Actually, its not.....just another one of your opinions. They are like a$$holes, you know....everyone's got one, and everyone thinks that everyone else's stinks. My reading comprehension skills are quite transcendent, if you must know.

But unlike people who attempt to deceive by misrepresenting information to serve personal needs, I was calling the man out for his lying and misrepresentation, which btw, you have not managed to disprove so you are now going for a straw man. Nice try.


So we are to believe the guy is a liar because YOU say so? And it is up to us to disprove your statement? Laughable..... If you'd read 2 of my previous posts, you'd see how he made the statement that 1998 was (in essence) the warmest year because the other years' changes were so relatively insignificant.....I believe the word "insignificant" was used....you conveniently keep ignoring this....


Not only do you lack the reading comprehension to understand slightly complicated text, but you are to ignorant to understand the simplest statistics.

Ah, the same opinion.....(sigh).....and I was stellar at statistics. Want me to post my grad school transcript for you? Statistics, trends and analysis are my specialty, chief. I'm a CPA and financial analyst. Clearly you don't know me as well as you think you do.....you're what most call an "elitist".

You might want to consider taking a few science and statistics courses before you try to comment on areas you clearly don't understand.

While I admit I'm no scientist.....that does not mean one can't speak intelligently on a particular topic. I'm not a football player either....but that doesn't mean I don't know anything about the sport.....

In summary, your credibility was shot when you started spewing venom at the author of the herein referenced article, calling him a liar. So the guy has a different opinion on the primary reasons for climate change. That doesn't make him any different from many of us here. But proving to be the liberal you are....you fail to see logic in others' facts/statements, if they disagree in the slightest degree to what your beliefs are.....

[55CrushEm]

No slick, you seem to not be able to keep up with your mouth....

-----------------------------------------------------

Thanks for quoting me so many times.....I'm flattered. I nailed you to a "T", didn't I ?

If the shoe fits.....

[Merlin]

So we are to believe the guy is a liar because YOU say so?
Nope, because it is clear that his article is agenda driven when the data source he uses cannot even support his claim. Statistically there is a clear upward trend and he tries to dismiss it by using only ONE statistical point, despite the fact that the trend continues UPWARD after that yr, and as a grouping (even excluding 1998) it is higher than any other 6 yr period on record. My statement was clear on what it challenged, and like most people relying on obfuscation rather than facts he and you try to use a straw man.

And it is up to us to disprove your statement? Laughable..... If you'd read 2 of my previous posts, you'd see how he made the statement that 1998 was (in essence) the warmest year because the other years' changes were so relatively insignificant.....I believe the word "insignificant" was used....you conveniently keep ignoring this....
And as you can see your poor reading comprehension does not even realize when it is supporting my argument. The data clearly demonstrates upward trend and the last 6 yrs even excluding 1998 are the hottest yrs on record. Yeah, that is insignificant. :rofl:
and I was stellar at statistics. Want me to post my grad school transcript for you? Statistics, trends and analysis are my specialty, chief. I'm a CPA and financial analyst. Clearly you don't know me as well as you think you do.....you're what most call an "elitist".
You might want to ask for your money back because you clearly don't understand why you cannot do what he did statistically to prove a point. Or maybe I should take that back. They probably taught you well, and you choose to deceive by misrepresenting the facts like the author, since you know his conclusion is not statistically supportable. BTW, it is funny how you rely on ad hominems to defend your position when all facts fail, typical strategy of individuals who do not want to be encumbered by facts.

PS Were you the senior accountant for Enron? I seem to remember seeing your type of logic before.
In summary, your credibility was shot when you started spewing venom at the author of the herein referenced article, calling him a liar.
I guess my credibility remains unsullied unlike the author's since I clearly explained how he manipulated (LIED) data to support an agenda driven stance.

PS Is it my turn to call you a greedy self centered neocon who likes to conceal the truth to advance his own political agenda at the expense of innocent lives and the well being of many? Of course not, since that is unlikely to describe you, but it is the strategy you are accustomed to, so I figured you might feel at home.

[55CrushEm]

Merlin, let's start over.....to see the guy's overall point of the article, all you have to do is read the 3rd paragraph and the 2nd sentence of the 4th paragraph....which I doubt you did. You probably stopped after the bolded headline....but really TRY this time....here it is....

"In response to these facts, a global warming devotee will chuckle and say "how silly to judge climate change over such a short period". Yet in the next breath, the same person will assure you that the 28-year-long period of warming which occurred between 1970 and 1998 constitutes a dangerous (and man-made) warming. Tosh. Our devotee will also pass by the curious additional facts that a period of similar warming occurred between 1918 and 1940, well prior to the greatest phase of world industrialisation, and that cooling occurred between 1940 and 1965, at precisely the time that human emissions were increasing at their greatest rate.

Does something not strike you as odd here? That industrial carbon dioxide is not the primary cause of earth's recent decadal-scale temperature changes doesn't seem at all odd to many thousands of independent scientists. They have long appreciated - ever since the early 1990s, when the global warming bandwagon first started to roll behind the gravy train of the UN Inter-governmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) - that such short-term climate fluctuations are chiefly of natural origin. Yet the public appears to be largely convinced otherwise. How is this possible?"

Nowhere did this guy or anyone on this board state or imply that humans are not contributors to pollution or warming or cooling trends.

This guy is simply trying to illustrate that (yes, read it again) man made pollution is not the PRIMARY reason (Did you hear that?...not the PRIMARY reason) for climate changes; rather that they are naturally occurring and cyclical in nature. I, for one, agree with that simple, logical statement.

If that makes me an idiot in your book, well.....quite frankly, I don't care. I think there is more compelling evidence that that IS the case, rather than not. One last time....no one is saying that man made pollution is not a contributor. But there are MANY contributors......most of which are beyond man's control......sure, we will seek to understand what causes climate changes.....and yes, we can do what we can to keep pollution to a minimun. But in the long run, the Earth will do what it does, and man's influence is not as significant as YOUR agenda would like to have everyone think.

There....did you read that? Simple enough for you?

[Merlin]

I can accept a person arguing for different causes for global warming, I can even accept an argument that states global warming as it stands is not critical, as long as said person is able to back their claims with data and models that can be validated.

My problem as you noted was that I was completely against his misuse of stats in the early paragraphs (and you know that was not accidental, it was purely for deception), and the manner he used this to claim no trend in the past 7 yrs. If he would have omitted his strategy of misdirection and deception (yes, it is deception when one purposely presents fact in a manner which they know is not valid), then I would have had no problem with him. The problem is he needed those first paragraphs to validate his later claims, especially with regards to SUVs and the like, but the data did not support him, thus invalidating his later comments

Had he not attempted to misdirect the reader, then I would ignore the whole thread because these arguments could go on forever, even when good data is being used. However, that was not the case, there clearly an attempt at deluding people with obvious poorly stated facts.

BTW, most science laureate prize winners disagree with him, as most researchers specializing in the field. So his take that many people see other factors ignores that by far most agree man at the moment is the main factor. You are entitled to your perspective, but don't for a moment suggest it is not agenda driven when most models, work by NASA, and researchers agree that the common factor is human activity (although it is not limited to it, it is just the most influential factor at this moment). If one goes by science, facts, models, and the majority of the scholars, in the field, then it would be clear that your conclusions are driven by something other than facts.

The above paragraph is just to demonstrate your assumption of agenda is not as clear as you suggest, and in fact if an agenda is to be argued about it would be easier to argue your stance is driven by it.

Peace.

[Spider]

Thanks for quoting me so many times.....I'm flattered. I nailed you to a "T", didn't I ?

If the shoe fits.....
I dont have a dog in this fight , but if you thought you got the better of that exchange , perhaps you should read this thread again .........

[Rock Chalk]

He is a respectable scientist, but there are far more scientist that support the other side. Also, he plays with numbers to make questionable claims. Although a lot of money has been invested to study global warming, the money invested is rarely ideologically driven, in fact they arrive at such conclusions despite the money on the other side which attempts to have science defined by ideology. In fact, NASA would have been better served during the Bush administration if they were able to support his side, but when science arrived at contrary conclusions, the white house administration attempted to silence their data and conclusions. Also, here are some interesting facts about him in the past:

"Although warming at Earth's surface has been quite pronounced during the past few decades, satellite measurements beginning in 1979 indicate relatively little warming of air temperature in the troposphere."

The problem was when the satellite data came out later, it contradicted his conclusions, they did show a warming of the troposphere.

Now the question is he a publicity hound. On November 10, Reason magazine reported that Lindzen is "willing to take bets that global average temperatures in 20 years will in fact be lower than they are now." Such a move by a scientist is always driven by a thirst for publicity, only in this case it was painfully transparent. Climatologist James Annan contacted Lindzen to arrange a bet. Moreover Annan offered to pay 2:1 odds in Lindzen's favor if temperatures declined, but he did not take the bet, in fact none of his compatriots is willing to take the bet. So much for their credibility when their wallet is at stake.

PS As to his Iris effect, there has been a lot of credible documentation against it, which I am sure does not please him.
Lindzen is not necessarily a publicity hound. However, in order to be heard in a sea of chaotic alarmism, he has to say something bold and brash.

I did some research on James Annan and the best I could come up with is that he just makes outrageous bets with skeptics of global warming (which, btw, someone has taken him up on his 10K bet, something a professor at MIT, formerly Harvard and the University of Chicago). Lindzen is the lead author of chapter 7 of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change.

Now, if that doesnt make him a qualified, CREDIBLE expert in his field, despite his support being against the norm, then you are at the very least, as bad as those who say there is NOTHING wrong.

Later in teh Wall Street journal Lindzen writes, "there is no consensus, unanimous or otherwise, about long-term climate trends or what causes them" and "we are not in a position to confidently attribute past climate change to carbon dioxide or to forecast what the climate will be in the future."

wikipedia further states that: "As usual, far too much public attention was paid to the hastily prepared summary rather than to the body of the report. The summary began with a zinger -- that greenhouse gases are accumulating in Earth's atmosphere as a result of human activities, causing surface air temperatures and subsurface ocean temperatures to rise, etc., before following with the necessary qualifications. For example, the full text noted that 20 years was too short a period for estimating long-term trends, but the summary forgot to mention this."


Now, tell me that isnt picking and choosing what to be scientific about? That sounds straight like a media story spun the **** out of this report.


Your statement The problem was when the satellite data came out later, it contradicted his conclusions, they did show a warming of the troposphere. Is also spin as later data showed SLIGHT temperature rise, and no where does it state in the later data that this SLIGHT temperature rise in that period is a result of human activities or a natural part of Earth's climactic cycle.

Now the article I read abuot Lindzen was slightly biased against him but still showed that while not in the mainstream on Global Warming, is highly respected among his peers and credible. To date, no one has refuted his evidence that the models are wrong.

As for the bet, Annan's bet was 10,000 dollars. Not sure what MIT professors make on a yearly basis, but Id bet 10 bucks that 10,000 dollars would hurt them. No matter how much I know about my profession, I wouldnt bet 10K on anything to do with it. Particularly his profession, no way. He has freely admitted like all good scientists SHOULD that the data sample is far too small to make any accurate predictions.

[55CrushEm]

I dont have a dog in this fight , but if you thought you got the better of that exchange , perhaps you should read this thread again .........

I don't recall saying that.....However, since you found it necessary to put in your 2 cents....my comment that you referenced was clearly geared toward taking a "jab" at Beerslug, since all he seemed to do late in the thread was swing from Merlin's nvts, rather than post anything of substance himself.

If that offended you, my apologies go out to you.....

[Spider]

I don't recall saying that.....However, since you found it necessary to put in your 2 cents....my comment that you referenced was clearly geared toward taking a "jab" at Beerslug, since all he seemed to do late in the thread was swing from Merlin's nvts, rather than post anything of substance himself.

If that offended you, my apologies go out to you.....
LOL me offended .......... Hilarious! ajab ? more like a slap ......

[61Vikefan]

Fast forward to 2100-now that "Global Warming" has been proven a complete farce as global temps are now decreasing on average, the new Fear is the magnetic field and how cell phones are eroding it.

YOU ARE ALL GOING TO DIE!!!! Outlaw cellphones!!!!!

[elletrain]

How 'bout those Broncos?!

[Spider]

Fast forward to 2100-now that "Global Warming" has been proven a complete farce as global temps are now decreasing on average, the new Fear is the magnetic field and how cell phones are eroding it.

YOU ARE ALL GOING TO DIE!!!! Outlaw cellphones!!!!!
I guess as a viking fan , you are used to dealing with a fantasy type of outlook on everything .......

[Bronco_Beerslug]

I don't recall saying that.....However, since you found it necessary to put in your 2 cents....my comment that you referenced was clearly geared toward taking a "jab" at Beerslug, since all he seemed to do late in the thread was swing from Merlin's nvts, rather than post anything of substance himself.

If that offended you, my apologies go out to you.....
You've spouted so much crap, stereotyping, etc... in this thread you can't keep up with your own mouth. According to your tripe the "Godless liberals" are conspiring to create a global warming (human caused) where this is none .
I can see why you keep ignoring the links in <a href="http://tinyurl.com/m5sod">post 131</a>.

I guess as a viking fan , you are used to dealing with a fantasy type of outlook on everything .......

I have a feeling this little guy was was kicked off the Viking Love Boat when he asked if he could watch.

[55CrushEm]

You've spouted so much crap, stereotyping, etc... in this thread you can't keep up with your own mouth. According to your tripe the "Godless liberals" are conspiring to create a global warming (human caused) where this is none .
I can see why you keep ignoring the links in <a href="http://tinyurl.com/m5sod">post 131</a>.

I'm not ignoring the links....its the same doom-and-gloom outlook on the world that many of us here are poo-poo'ing. No surprise that the most rediculous headline on that particular post came from the Washington Post....now there's no way that THEY can have an agenda, huh? :spit:

As I tried pointing out in one of my previous posts....there are clearly 2 fundamental schools of thought here....

1. The notion that man is the BIGGEST contributor to climate changes.....which YOU buy into.

2. The notion that man is NOT the biggest contributor to climate changes, rather that climate changes have more to do with nature itself and longer term cycles.....which I buy into.

End of story.......I'm now officially bored with this thread.

[55CrushEm]

Peace.

Back at you......no hard feelings.

[Bronco_Beerslug]

I'm not ignoring the links....its the same doom-and-gloom outlook on the world that many of us here are poo-poo'ing. No surprise that the most rediculous headline on that particular post came from the Washington Post....now there's no way that THEY can have an agenda, huh? :spit:

As I tried pointing out in one of my previous posts....there are clearly 2 fundamental schools of thought here....

1. The notion that man is the BIGGEST contributor to climate changes.....which YOU buy into.

2. The notion that man is NOT the biggest contributor to climate changes, rather that climate changes have more to do with nature itself and longer term cycles.....which I buy into.

End of story.......I'm now officially bored with this thread.

That's fine, debating it by calling people who disagree with the minority scientific opinion "Godless liberals" gains you no credibility in your argument though.

[61Vikefan]

I guess as a viking fan , you are used to dealing with a fantasy type of outlook on everything .......

Yeah, like thinking that little insignificant man can affect global climate :rofl:

That is what is fantasy.

[Bronco_Beerslug]

Yeah, like thinking that little insignificant man can affect global climate :rofl:

That is what is fantasy.
Hey, you still haven't let us in on a what a "real" scientist is.
So what is it?

[Spider]

Yeah, like thinking that little insignificant man can affect global climate :rofl:

That is what is fantasy.
and thinking the vikes will do somthing ........... as for man , I am around drilling rigs alot , have you ever seen the exhaust they put out ? Hell my rig dumps alot of smoke in the air x 's that by 2.5 million ( that how many trucks there is )
if you ever left your mom and dads basement and entered and ventred outside , you will see there are alot of people .........

[55CrushEm]

That's fine, debating it by calling people who disagree with the minority scientific opinion "Godless liberals" gains you no credibility in your argument though.

Touche.....However, you also gain no credibility by calling people "idiots", "morons", "liars", and saying that they can't comprehend data or analyses, either....

Clearly people are very passionate about their views.....no one more than I.

And I still wouldn't call it the "minority scientific opinion".....that climate change has more to do with natural cycles, than man's involvement....but again, that is difference in our points of contention.

[RocBronc]

2 things that I think are important with this whole issue.

1. If you bother to really "look beyond the headlines" at all you soon discover that there are credible people on both sides of this issue and the whole field of "global climatology" is an incredibly complex field with so many significant variables that effect global temperature many of which are not well understood.

2. Whether or not "Global Warming" is happening clearly has political implications. (which is the main reason for the passions displayed on this subject.) Whenever politics are involved, reason/logic (even with a fundamentally scientific subject) can go right out the window.

These 2 facts make me very skeptical about any information that's published about this subject and am more inclined to "wait and see" attitude as I think over time the "truth" about this subject will hopefully come out.

[bendog]

I'm not ignoring the links....its the same doom-and-gloom outlook on the world that many of us here are poo-poo'ing. No surprise that the most rediculous headline on that particular post came from the Washington Post....now there's no way that THEY can have an agenda, huh? :spit:

As I tried pointing out in one of my previous posts....there are clearly 2 fundamental schools of thought here....

1. The notion that man is the BIGGEST contributor to climate changes.....which YOU buy into.

2. The notion that man is NOT the biggest contributor to climate changes, rather that climate changes have more to do with nature itself and longer term cycles.....which I buy into.

End of story.......I'm now officially bored with this thread.

Wash Post was one of the biggest cheerleaders in the run up to bushii's little invasion of Iraq, so I'm not sure what their agenda is - beyond being pro multinationals.

There is a third option that you don't list. It is possible that mans' actions are one contributor to global warming, and there are other naturally occurring factors as well. In that case, it would be logical to minimize mans' impact.

[Mile High Shack]

.........in the end we all die

[55CrushEm]

There is a third option that you don't list. It is possible that mans' actions are one contributor to global warming, and there are other naturally occurring factors as well. In that case, it would be logical to minimize mans' impact.

I imply that in both of my options.....not saying that man in not a contributor AT ALL......

If I wasnt' clear, what I tried to say was that I'm in the camp that believes while man is a contributor, his contribution is very insignicant in relation to the many, many other factors that go into climate changes/trends.

[55CrushEm]

.........in the end we all die

True.

:griese:

[61Vikefan]

and thinking the vikes will do somthing ........... as for man , I am around drilling rigs alot , have you ever seen the exhaust they put out ? Hell my rig dumps alot of smoke in the air x 's that by 2.5 million ( that how many trucks there is )
if you ever left your mom and dads basement and entered and ventred outside , you will see there are alot of people .........

When did I ever say the Vikings were going to do anything?:rofl: I have been a fan longer than I care to admit so I am certainly not in a fantasy world in that regard.

"Your rig" puts out pollution-yes but how does it affect the globe? You don't know, I don't know and these so-called scientist don't know their ass from a hole in the ground regarding this. They are still looking for the hole in the ozone layer that disappeared.:rofl:

One thing about this planet, it is changing CONSTANTLY and no one has a clue how or why. Our lifetime is a tiny fraction of a fraction of the lifetime of this planet-how ridiculous and arrogant it is to think that we can affect the lifecycle of this planet. Even a full blown nuclear war would accomplish one thing, wipe out humanity but the globe would be here 100,000 year later just as healthy and bountiful as ever waiting for the next race of apes to come along.

Don't hate people or have phobias about how we are ruining everything-you only live once.

[Merlin]

I imply that in both of my options.....not saying that man in not a contributor AT ALL......
Both sides recognize that human activity is but one factor, and not the most powerful factor. Where they differ is in their perspective of ramifications. One side (the minority) argues that human's role in this cycle is minimal (i.e. not critical), and that there is no need to rush and address any effects we are presently creating.

The other side (majority) contends that our actions are acting as a catalyst speeding the global warming process in a critical fashion, and this will lead to dramatic and violent changes in weather patterns (thus why it is mentioned in regards to hurricanes, snowfalls, cold and warm waves, etc.).

Although the camps can be clearly broken into a large majority and small minority, there are distinguished scientist on both sides.

[Arkie]

The short answer on the topic though? The planet goes through warming and cooling cycles all the time, large and small scale, its going to continue happening, regardless of if we like it or not. We as a society though are leading to environmental degredation with exceptionally high O3 killing CFC amounts post-industrial revolution, severe forest reduction, etc.. Its something that we as a people need to get in order, but the doomsday prognosticators are portraying a false image of how imminent these threats are, not that we should take comfort in that. The old expression "don't **** where you eat" has never had quite as literal a meaning for humanity on a whole.


This is probably the most accurate paragraph in this entire thread. I'm quoting it for the people who missed this post because there are still some ignorant people embarrassing themselves.

[Arkie]

Even a full blown nuclear war would accomplish one thing, wipe out humanity but the globe would be here 100,000 year later just as healthy and bountiful as ever waiting for the next race of apes to come along.

Don't hate people or have phobias about how we are ruining everything-you only live once.


It's the humanity thing that concerns me. There's no way we can destroy the earth, but the current balance of the ecosystem has been affected by man.

[sirhcyennek81]

Human beings survivied two ice ages. I think we may be able to get past global warming.

:Broncos:

[61Vikefan]

It's the humanity thing that concerns me. There's no way we can destroy the earth, but the current balance of the ecosystem has been affected by man.


What if mother nature intended for us to affect the ecosystem in this way? Would you know? Would anyone? In 1000 years will anyone?

Ridiculous!

[sirhcyennek81]

What if mother nature intended for us to affect the ecosystem in this way? Would you know? Would anyone? In 1000 years will anyone?

Ridiculous!


How do we even know what earth's "normal" temperature is? Only been recording temps since the late 1800's...


:Broncos:

[Rock Chalk]

Human beings survivied two ice ages. I think we may be able to get past global warming.

:Broncos:
A good large portion of the world lives in the areas that will be uninhabitable during ice ages.

Which means, people will have to move south and we will lose a lot of mining and farming land in the process.

We will survive as a species through another ice age, but expect drastic collapses of entire cultures in the process.

[Mile High Shack]

A good large portion of the world lives in the areas that will be uninhabitable during ice ages.

Which means, people will have to move south and we will lose a lot of mining and farming land in the process.

We will survive as a species through another ice age, but expect drastic collapses of entire cultures in the process.

like I said we all die eventually

[Rock Chalk]

like I said we all die eventually
Not me, I am forever.

[Mile High Shack]

Not me, I am forever.

Alec = I am, eh?

LOL

[Rock Chalk]

Alec = I am, eh?

LOL
Naw brother, my spirit is eternal :)

[sirhcyennek81]

A good large portion of the world lives in the areas that will be uninhabitable during ice ages.

Which means, people will have to move south and we will lose a lot of mining and farming land in the process.

We will survive as a species through another ice age, but expect drastic collapses of entire cultures in the process.

Losing some cultures would not be a bad thing.

:Broncos: