Yes we caused the warming..............................

[JohnnyWalkerBlackLabel]

Warming 'very likely' human-made
By Richard Black
Environment correspondent, BBC News website, Paris

Residents in New Orleans' 9th Ward in September 2005
The IPCC is likely to back a link from warming to stronger storms
Climatic changes seen around the world are "very likely" to have a human cause, the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) will conclude.

By "very likely", the IPCC means greater than 90% probability.

This is a stronger position than the global organisation took in its last major report in 2001.

IPCC scientists have yet to finalise other elements - including forecasts of sea level rise - in their report due to be published on Friday.

Experts have been divided on whether to go with a conservative forecast in the order of half a metre increase over the coming century, based on computer models which exclude the melting of icecaps, or whether to include estimates of how much water the Greenland and West Antarctic sheets are likely to contribute.

The exact wording on projections of global temperature increase have also yet to be finalised, though the agency is likely to say that by the end of the century temperatures will rise by between about 2C and about 4.5C.

Stormy waters

This week's deliberations in the French capital, Paris, will lead to a summary of the current state of climate science, drawing on the work of thousands of researchers.

CO2 chart
Carbon dioxide concentrations have risen steadily in recent years
The full climate science report will be released later in the year, as will other IPCC chapters looking at the probable impacts, options for adapting to those impacts, and possible routes to reducing emissions of greenhouse gases.

But the climate science summary is attracting a huge amount of interest from politicians, other scientists, and environment groups because the IPCC's mandate is to state the definitive scientific position.

Speaking in Nairobi, United Nations Environment Programme (Unep) executive director Achim Steiner told reporters the findings should be "the full stop behind any arguments over what was causing global warming".

The IPCC is likely to give some backing to a theory which has proved highly controversial in recent years by concluding that it is likely - meaning a greater probability than 66% - that rising temperatures have contributed to the development of more powerful tropical storms in some areas of the world.

I remember back in the early 80's how my science instructors always warned us of the use of aerosol cans, and other pollutants and how they would effect the environment....................so I can't say I didn't see this coming

[Smog Boy]

Heh, at the end of the sci-fi flick, The Day After Tomorrow, there's a scene where Dennis Quaid sees Lady Liberty half buried in ice and snow and I yelled "Damn you!! You melted it all!" to my TV.

[White_Male_Canada]

[i]
Warming 'very likely' human-made
By Richard Black
Environment correspondent, BBC News website, Paris

Residents in New Orleans' 9th Ward in September 2005
The IPCC is likely to back a link from warming to stronger storms
Climatic changes seen around the world are "very likely" to have a human cause, the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) will conclude.

By "very likely", the IPCC means greater than 90% probability.



I remember back in the early 80's how my science instructors always warned us of the use of aerosol cans, and other pollutants and how they would effect the environment....................so I can't say I didn't see this coming

"Very likely " Possibly maybe,so we all better do exactly whatever the U.N. says ?

1. What percentage of total greenhouse gases are natural?

2. What amount,in percentage, of total greenhouse gases are caused by water vapor?

3. What total percentage of greenhouse gases are man made?

4. If Kyoto were adhered to, what total reduction of temperature would reuslt ?

Anyone ?

[North_of_60]

[i]
Warming 'very likely' human-made
By Richard Black
Environment correspondent, BBC News website, Paris

Residents in New Orleans' 9th Ward in September 2005
The IPCC is likely to back a link from warming to stronger storms
Climatic changes seen around the world are "very likely" to have a human cause, the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) will conclude.

By "very likely", the IPCC means greater than 90% probability.



I remember back in the early 80's how my science instructors always warned us of the use of aerosol cans, and other pollutants and how they would effect the environment....................so I can't say I didn't see this coming

"Very likely " Possibly maybe,so we all better do exactly whatever the U.N. says ?

1. What percentage of total greenhouse gases are natural?

2. What amount,in percentage, of total greenhouse gases are caused by water vapor?

3. What total percentage of greenhouse gases are man made?

4. If Kyoto were adhered to, what total reduction of temperature would reuslt ?

Anyone ?

You can't miss any, you finished neocon...

What we've saw, these last days, is a consensus going on the fact that global warming is man made. Of course there's a few lunatics like yourself and that M.I.T scientist who was on Anderson Cooper's 360 last night trying to argue that global warming and Kyoto are a socialist plot againt the rich countries. Luckily, we're hearing less and less of those pathetic arguements.

Even W is changing his views on that issue.
Good for the world.
But of course, you're still here...

[White_Male_Canada]

[i]
Warming 'very likely' human-made
By Richard Black
Environment correspondent, BBC News website, Paris

Residents in New Orleans' 9th Ward in September 2005
The IPCC is likely to back a link from warming to stronger storms
Climatic changes seen around the world are "very likely" to have a human cause, the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) will conclude.

By "very likely", the IPCC means greater than 90% probability.



I remember back in the early 80's how my science instructors always warned us of the use of aerosol cans, and other pollutants and how they would effect the environment....................so I can't say I didn't see this coming

"Very likely " Possibly maybe,so we all better do exactly whatever the U.N. says ?

1. What percentage of total greenhouse gases are natural?

2. What amount,in percentage, of total greenhouse gases are caused by water vapor?

3. What total percentage of greenhouse gases are man made?

4. If Kyoto were adhered to, what total reduction of temperature would reuslt ?

Anyone ?

You can't miss any, you finished neocon...

What we've saw, these last days, is a consensus going on the fact that global warming is man made. Of course there's a few lunatics like yourself and that M.I.T scientist who was on Anderson Cooper's 360 last night trying to argue that global warming and Kyoto are a socialist plot againt the rich countries. Luckily, we're hearing less and less of those pathetic arguements.

Even W is changing is vue on that issue.
Good for the world.
But of course, you're still here...

You failed to answer any of the four questions.

In regards to Kyoto, what would you call "carbon trading" ? It`s merely Orwellian code word for wealth redistribution. And please, it`s too obvious,everyone knows it.

PS: Science has NEVER been run on consensus.

[North_of_60]

Maybe you'd like to quantify happiness, or lust. Sorry, but your questions are irrelevant for that scientific matter. And, talking in you're own words : there cant be any consensus in science, or in whatever so ever. We know that. That's why majority rules.

And now, we see more and more people accepting the fact that global warming is man made. It is getting such a consensus, that even W and his constituancy are accepting it ; even though they've tried to hide it from the US residents for years by interfering with the work of government climate scientists.

Read this, interresting...

http://www.iht.com/articles/2007/01/31/america/web.0131science.php

[White_Male_Canada]

Maybe you'd like to quantify happiness, or lust. Sorry, but your questions are irrelevant for that scientific matter. And, talking in you're own words : there cant be any consensus in science, or in whatever so ever. We know that. That's why majority rules.

And now, we see more and more people accepting the fact that global warming is man made. It is getting such a consensus, that even W and his constituancy are accepting it ; even though they've tried to hide it from the US residents for years by interfering with the work of government climate scientists.

Read this, interresting...

http://www.iht.com/articles/2007/01/31/america/web.0131science.php

The left re-enforcing their leftist ideals. That is Waxman,a bigger socialist i`ve never met. That is the UCS. The biggest leftist "scientist" group around.

The Union of Concerned Scientists (UCS) censure free market organizations for accepting donations from ExxonMobil. According to Greenwatch the UCS has a long financial association with elements that have a "partisan view of science."

ActivistCash.com agrees,stating the UCS would be "more aptly named the Union of Pro-Regulation, Anti-Business Scientists."

So called man-made global warming is merely a trojan horse for the marxist left. Warming, through its primary antidote of withdrawing carbon from production and consumption, is capable of realizing the marxist utopian dream,through environmentalism, of an egalitarian society based on rejection of economic growth in favor of a smaller population's eating lower on the food chain, consuming a lot less, and sharing a much lower level of resources much more equally(aka, carbon trading).

Now,care to answer any of the 4 questions ?

1. What percentage of total greenhouse gases are natural?

2. What amount,in percentage, of total greenhouse gases are caused by water vapor?

3. What total percentage of greenhouse gases are man made?

4. If Kyoto were adhered to, what total reduction of temperature would result ?

[chefmike]

[i]
Warming 'very likely' human-made
By Richard Black
Environment correspondent, BBC News website, Paris

Residents in New Orleans' 9th Ward in September 2005
The IPCC is likely to back a link from warming to stronger storms
Climatic changes seen around the world are "very likely" to have a human cause, the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) will conclude.

By "very likely", the IPCC means greater than 90% probability.



I remember back in the early 80's how my science instructors always warned us of the use of aerosol cans, and other pollutants and how they would effect the environment....................so I can't say I didn't see this coming

"Very likely " Possibly maybe,so we all better do exactly whatever the U.N. says ?

1. What percentage of total greenhouse gases are natural?

2. What amount,in percentage, of total greenhouse gases are caused by water vapor?

3. What total percentage of greenhouse gases are man made?

4. If Kyoto were adhered to, what total reduction of temperature would reuslt ?

Anyone ?

You can't miss any, you finished neocon...

What we've saw, these last days, is a consensus going on the fact that global warming is man made. Of course there's a few lunatics like yourself and that M.I.T scientist who was on Anderson Cooper's 360 last night trying to argue that global warming and Kyoto are a socialist plot againt the rich countries. Luckily, we're hearing less and less of those pathetic arguements.

Even W is changing his views on that issue.
Good for the world.
But of course, you're still here...

Trust me No60, there is only one way to handle a right-winger as rabid and deluded as WMC...

[White_Male_Canada]

[i]
Warming 'very likely' human-made
By Richard Black
Environment correspondent, BBC News website, Paris

Residents in New Orleans' 9th Ward in September 2005
The IPCC is likely to back a link from warming to stronger storms
Climatic changes seen around the world are "very likely" to have a human cause, the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) will conclude.

By "very likely", the IPCC means greater than 90% probability.



I remember back in the early 80's how my science instructors always warned us of the use of aerosol cans, and other pollutants and how they would effect the environment....................so I can't say I didn't see this coming

"Very likely " Possibly maybe,so we all better do exactly whatever the U.N. says ?

1. What percentage of total greenhouse gases are natural?

2. What amount,in percentage, of total greenhouse gases are caused by water vapor?

3. What total percentage of greenhouse gases are man made?

4. If Kyoto were adhered to, what total reduction of temperature would reuslt ?

Anyone ?

You can't miss any, you finished neocon...

What we've saw, these last days, is a consensus going on the fact that global warming is man made. Of course there's a few lunatics like yourself and that M.I.T scientist who was on Anderson Cooper's 360 last night trying to argue that global warming and Kyoto are a socialist plot againt the rich countries. Luckily, we're hearing less and less of those pathetic arguements.

Even W is changing his views on that issue.
Good for the world.
But of course, you're still here...

Trust me No60, there is only one way to handle a right-winger as rabid and deluded as WMC...

You`re brilliant retort has left me speechless/sarc off

This is a political thread but needless to say it isn`t a "socialist plot" ,some sort of conspiracy if they readily admit it:

Last week, Gordon Brown and his chief economist both said global warming was the worst "market failure" ever. That loaded soundbite suggests that the "climate-change" scare is less about saving the planet than, in Jacques Chirac's chilling phrase, "creating world government".

Now cooky, take a stab at it :

1. What percentage of total greenhouse gases are natural?

2. What amount,in percentage, of total greenhouse gases are caused by water vapor?

3. What total percentage of greenhouse gases are man made?

4. If Kyoto were adhered to, what total reduction of temperature would result ?

[North_of_60]

Please, calm down, lad. You don't need to write so big. We've read you.

activistcash.com from the Center for Consumer Freedom...
Now, are you getting all your nice rethorics from those people ?
http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=ActivistCash
Shame on you.

[suckseed]

I once read (so feel free to fact-check) that we've altered 50% of the world's land surface. Look up how much of the Costa Rican rainforest has been cut.
WMC, I don't have the stats you want. But...here's a question for you.

Politics aside...would you be willing to acknowledge that it's possible that our activities could be having an effect on climate change?

Ya know....the Gore film addressed the naysayers who claim that temps have always fluctuated. Have you seen it? Do you really think it's all that farfetched that CO2 levels rose dramatically as the Industrial revolution got going?

You would at least acknowledge that pollution exists in some form, I'm sure.

My view is this.
We do not need more people, particularly people involved in activities that are detrimental to the rest of the life on this planet.
"Be fruitful and multiply" was a great idea when we were a wandering tribe in the wilderness. Guess what! We suckseeded! "Mission Accomplished!"
More people = more strain on nonrenewable resources (even nuclear and theoretical fusion fuels are a finite resource) = more traffic = more Walmarts = no parking at the state park = more competition for jobs and goods = more and uglier wars = more people doing little more than surviving, not trying to define new levels of human potential = Hondarobot writing more whackass posts. Whoops. There's a scientific proof to all this, well actually to me it's just common sense.
What's our ultimate goal? Megacities? Megahighways? Space travel, so the rich can go see what trees are? The only big animals in zoos? Ikea for all? Fertility drugs for women nature selected to not have offspring? ADD, ADHD, some cancers, and autism on the rise?
What the fuck? I'm a socialist? Are you kidding? I'm often disgusted by the underclass - I damn sure don't want to give away what I've worked hard for. People need to be pushed towards independence and responsibility, not pop out another kid who can go to the 7-11 and get Daddy a 40 and some generic smokes.

Carbon trading does sound like wealth distribution. Just build more efficient power plants, or spend eternity in a special circle of Heck just for industrial shitheads, where the first thing that happens is the guy with the horns and pitchfork comes up to you with a giant turd, sticks it in your mouth, smiles, and says..."Have a light...smoke up!"

[White_Male_Canada]

Please, calm down, lad. You don't need to write so big. We've read you.

activistcash.com from the Center for Consumer Freedom...
Now, are you getting all your nice rethorics from those people ?
http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=ActivistCash
Shame on you.

Shame on who ?

SourceWatch has a generally liberal and left-wing outlook on issues, and most of the project's investigative and critical articles are aimed and directed at what SourceWatch perceives to be prominent conservatives, those that are right-of center and Republican Party organizations and individuals.

http://www.search.com/reference/SourceWatch

Now,care to take a crack at it ?

1. What percentage of total greenhouse gases are natural?

2. What amount,in percentage, of total greenhouse gases are caused by water vapor?

3. What total percentage of greenhouse gases are man made?

4. If Kyoto were adhered to, what total reduction of temperature would result ?

[White_Male_Canada]

Politics aside...would you be willing to acknowledge that it's possible that our activities could be having an effect on climate change?

To what extent? And right now,it`s mostly politics and junk science or science by omission. The answer lies in the details. Our activities have minimal impact on overall temperature change. Sun spots and water vapor account for the majority.

The 2001 UN IPCC report used a study by U. of V. student M.Mann .The "hockey chart" temperature graph exluded the Medieval Warming period to help bolster their conclusions. The Vikings colonized Greenland in 982 A.D. and stayed until 1425 A.D., when the cold weather and permafrost drove them out. They called it Greenland for a reason.We all know the hockey chart has been debunked as junk-science long ago.

Now,did man cause the Medieval global warming,or the global cooling/little ice age which followed.The earth warms and cools, that is beyond the control of man for a simple reason. It is water vapor that accounts for the majority of Earth's greenhouse effect. Human activity does not.



Ya know....the Gore film addressed the naysayers who claim that temps have always fluctuated. Have you seen it? Do you really think it's all that farfetched that CO2 levels rose dramatically as the Industrial revolution got going?

Al Gore`s movie ? That was shredded much like M.Moore`s F.911 was.


Carbon trading does sound like wealth distribution. Just build more efficient power plants, or spend eternity in a special circle of Heck just for industrial shitheads, where the first thing that happens is the guy with the horns and pitchfork comes up to you with a giant turd, sticks it in your mouth, smiles, and says..."Have a light...smoke up!

Nuclear power is clean. Try build one. Wind energy ? NIMBY, Nantucket and the Kennedys. The leftists won`t even allow their own country to weene themselves off of foreign oil by searching for sources on their own soil.

There exists a thread on this issue already :

http://www.hungangels.com/board/viewtopic.php?t=14548

[suckseed]

I've heard the arguments that even if we were to implement all the proposals, it would result in something like a 6% reduction. That was disappointing. Let's assume for a moment that's true, and while we're at it that climate change from greenhouse gases is also a reality. Okay...what's your solution, WMC? do nothing? Build a big old dome over each city?

What undermines anyone's credibility, including, to my mind, WMC's is dogmatic adherence to the party line. It's hardly surprising that you're a conservative Republican, an ardent Bush supporter (ya know, there are conservatives that think Bush isn't the greatest president), support the war and think global warming's a crock of shit. Do you have any opinions that wouldn't be received warmly by Rush Limbaugh?

But go ahead and ignore me and repost those four questions. Whoowee, it's fun making those liberals look like Chicken Little, isn't it? I'm glad doing something about chloroflourocarbons wasn't up to people like you. The very idea that some little aerosol cans could affect something as big as the ozone layer of the entire planet! What stuff!

[suckseed]

I stand corrected - you did address my questions, with an intelligent argument. I respect that. Well done.

[White_Male_Canada]

I've heard the arguments that even if we were to implement all the proposals, it would result in something like a 6% reduction. That was disappointing. Let's assume for a moment that's true, and while we're at it that climate change from greenhouse gases is also a reality. Okay...what's your solution, WMC? do nothing? Build a big old dome over each city?

The Kyoto Protocol, which President Bush has rejected, would limit U.S. emissions of greenhouse gases to 7 percent below their 1990 levels by 2012. Given the current trajectory of energy and economic growth, meeting that target means the United States would have to cut energy consumption by as much as 30 to 35 percent below what Americans are now expected to be using in 2012. Some economists estimate that it would cost 3 percent of U.S. gross national product per year to achieve that lower level of emissions. How much would Kyoto-mandated emissions cutbacks benefit the global environment? Climatologists estimate that implementing the Kyoto Protocol would, by 2100, avoid only 0.14 degrees C of temperature rise. That means projected man-made greenhouse warming that might have been 3 degrees C by 2100 would instead be 2.86 degrees C.

http://www.reason.com/news/show/34824.html

alGore had 60 or so scientists put their heads together and asked them what would happen if Kyoto was implemented. They came back with about the same answer.

[LG]

WMC,

I tried to reply to a related post of yours in the politics discussion but my computer crashed and I then decided I couldn't be bothered because I had had enough of you.

Talking about water vapour the way you do, it just goes to show how a little knowledge is a dangerous thing. You have failed, it seems, to grasp the positive feedback mechanism. Water vapour may still be the most significant of the greenhouse gases, but CO2 and other gases can have a significant effect on temperatures and, by extension, on water vapour levels. Nobody knows to what extent this will happen but it is safe to assume that higher CO2 levels will lead to higher temperatures which will lead to an increase in water vapour concentrations (a basic concept) which will increase temperatures further. By adding more CO2 you excarbate the problem.

Thus, while we cannot directly control water vapour concentrations, we can limit its increase by limiting CO2 emissions.

It is not junk science, and more and more scientists are agreeing with the consensus each day. Yes, there are uncertainties, but there are also accepted theories. You have failed to debunk a single one of them. All you spout is rhetoric. Limbaugh-lite, you could call it.

Do you realise what the risks of doing nothing are. Maybe not for you and for your kids but for their kids and for the people who live in the world's less developed nations.

Who pays you to say all this crap, man?

[suckseed]

Just thought I should add this - last night while listening to the BBC I heard that a new radio station called Radio Salaam Shalom went on the air today.
It's hosted by British muslims and jews, and its aim is to promote intelligent discourse and iterate that we've got more in common that we often demonstrate.
I am human and fail at this myself sometimes - i have a temper like anyone - but I am going to do my damndest to leave name calling out of any future posts, particularly on the political threads. I reserve the right to get upset at people that want to see gaping rectums. :moon

[White_Male_Canada]

Talking about water vapour the way you do, it just goes to show how a little knowledge is a dangerous thing. You have failed, it seems, to grasp the positive feedback mechanism. Water vapour may still be the most significant of the greenhouse gases, but CO2 and other gases can have a significant effect on temperatures and, by extension, on water vapour levels. Nobody knows to what extent this will happen but it is safe to assume that higher CO2 levels will lead to higher temperatures which will lead to an increase in water vapour concentrations (a basic concept) which will increase temperatures further. By adding more CO2 you excarbate the problem.

Thus, while we cannot directly control water vapour concentrations, we can limit its increase by limiting CO2 emissions.

Take a crack at it :

3. What total percentage of greenhouse gases are man made?
More importantly,what percentage of CO2 is man-made ? What percentge of CH4 and N2O are man made? Should we ban cows?

4. If Kyoto were adhered to, what total reduction of temperature would result ?

PWNT.

Still no answers from fear-driven liberals and environmental-socialists alike.

4 questions. No answers. Just insults from the children.

You dumbed the test down for the children. Now only 2 questions remain.

Study hard, kids! You'll be all growed up soon!

[suckseed]

not exactly the response i was hoping for....

[chefmike]

Do you realise what the risks of doing nothing are. Maybe not for you and for your kids but for their kids and for the people who live in the world's less developed nations.

Who pays you to say all this crap, man?

WMC breeding?

Now that is disturbing.

But not to worry...

Palefaces of his ilk never realize that they are outnumbered until it's too late.

Just ask Custer.

Or Bush.

[LG]

Nuclear power is clean.

I agree. Shame nuclear waste remains lethal for centuries and nuclear accidents tend to kill thousands.

Clean? Tell that to the people of the former USSR and Eastern Europe who are still suffering from the Chernobyl disaster.

Thoughts need to be given to wind generators, tidal and hydroelectric power, solar energy (more research is needed to improve solar cell efficiencies), and- in the opinion of many scientists- the production of electricity and CHP from waste incineration (better than burying the stuff and, in some cases, environmentally preferable even to recycling).


The leftists won`t even allow their own country to weene themselves off of foreign oil by searching for sources on their own soil.


Improved fuel efficiency (such as with tighter regulations on America's notoriously gas-guzzling saloon cars and SUVs), and higher fuel prices (it is much cheaper to fill your gas tank in the states than in Europe) could also help to wean the States off of foreign oil. Americans use more energy and produce more CO2 than any other citizens on earth, bar those in some of the oil-rich Arab states. That is something that needs to be looked at before the wildife refuges are irrepairably damaged, as the US Fish and Wildlife Servce has said they will be if plans for drilling in the nature reserves go ahead.

I think the US Geological Survey have also predicted that relatively little oil (10 billion barrels in total) could be extracted and that the cost of extraction will be higher than usual. Meanwhile, would you want the wildlife reserves to turn into another Prudhoe Bay?

It's a tricky subject, but I'm not convinced that the decision to drill is the right one.

[White_Male_Canada]

Nuclear power is clean.

I agree. Shame nuclear waste remains lethal for centuries and nuclear accidents tend to kill thousands.

Clean? Tell that to the people of the former USSR and Eastern Europe who are still suffering from the Chernobyl disaster.

Thoughts need to be given to wind generators, tidal and hydroelectric power, solar energy (more research is needed to improve solar cell efficiencies), and- in the opinion of many scientists- the production of electricity and CHP from waste incineration (better than burying the stuff and, in some cases, environmentally preferable even to recycling).


The leftists won`t even allow their own country to weene themselves off of foreign oil by searching for sources on their own soil.


Improved fuel efficiency (such as with tighter regulations on America's notoriously gas-guzzling saloon cars and SUVs), and higher fuel prices (it is much cheaper to fill your gas tank in the states than in Europe) could also help to wean the States off of foreign oil. Americans use more energy and produce more CO2 than any other citizens on earth, bar those in some of the oil-rich Arab states. That is something that needs to be looked at before the wildife refuges are irrepairably damaged, as the US Fish and Wildlife Servce has said they will be if plans for drilling in the nature reserves go ahead.

I think the US Geological Survey have also predicted that relatively little oil (10 billion barrels in total) could be extracted and that the cost of extraction will be higher than usual. Meanwhile, would you want the wildlife reserves to turn into another Prudhoe Bay?

It's a tricky subject, but I'm not convinced that the decision to drill is the right one.

Raising taxes and bigger government is your answer,not innovation of free enterprise.

Chernobyl ? Come on, corrugated tin roof as containment :wink: . RBMK reactors are fundamentally flawed. France derives 75% of its electricity from nuclear energy. Safe when done right.

ANWR is so big that drilling would leave a very small footprint. ANWR potential is small compared to the Gulf of Mexico, which according to scientists at Cornell,say could contain billions of barrells.Cuba,China and India plan on it,just 60 miles form the US. The United States Geological Survey estimates the Cuban deal involves 4.6 billion barrels of oil and 9.8 trillion cubic feet of natural gas !



Take a crack at it :

3. What total percentage of greenhouse gases are man made?
More importantly,what percentage of CO2 is man-made ? Also what percentge of CH4 and N2O are man made? Ban cows now?

4. If Kyoto were adhered to, what total reduction of temperature would result ?

Simple solution. The "CONSENSUS" is that humans breath oxygen and exhale carbon dioxide and water vapor. Since it's cackling Liberals heavy-heaving constantly about neocons and global warming, I think it makes sense for you libs to stop breathing all together.

And because it's relaxed Conservative Republicans who consume less oxygen and exhale less water vapor, we need legislation which will encourage them to have children and build families.

Link: Calm down, heavy-heaver Libs! (http://www.clearlight.com/~mhieb/WVFossils/greenhouse_data.html)

I encourage both Cons and Libs to contact your US Senator for such legislation.

http://www.senate.gov/general/contact_information/senators_cfm.cfm

[LG]

Actually TFan, I think much of what we breathe out is nitrogen gas. Which is not a greenhouse gas.

However, methane is also a greenhouse gas and is released when material decomposes, when cows fart, and when windbags like you exhale.

The consensus here being: stop talking out of your ass.

And "Robin Hood" is written as two words, not one.


WMC, notice I mentioned "more research is needed". Research leads to innovation, buddy. Read my posts carefully.


Suckseed, what's wrong with gaping rectums?
:D

Actually TFan, I think much of what we breathe out is nitrogen gas. Which is not a greenhouse gas.

No, the vast majority is carbon dioxide then there's the water vapor.


However, methane is also a greenhouse gas and is released when material decomposes, when cows fart, and when windbags like you exhale.

That's not a material fact. When I exhale it's carbon dioxide and water vapor.


The consensus here being: stop talking out of your ass.

You can't deny it. Liberals are sucking up WAY too much air and exhale WAY too much water vapor. If libs would simply stop breathing we could save the fishies and doggies from sure destruction.


And "Robin Hood" is written as two words, not one.

I say it as one. Less energy spent on a bitch ass liberal.

[chefmike]

TFool gives gaping rectums a bad name.

[chefmike]

And let's keep in mind that most of the wingnuts who are global warming deniers are also the true believers who talk about "the rapture"... and claim that "creationism" is a science...

[Oli]

http://www.ace.mmu.ac.uk/eae/Atmosphere/Older/Atmospheric_Gases.html

There are a number of atmospheric gases which make up air. The main gases are nitrogen and oxygen, which make up 78% and 21% of the volume of air respectively. Oxygen is utilised primarily by animals, including humans, but also to a small degree by plants, in the process of respiration (the metabolism of food products to generate energy).

The remaining 1% of the atmospheric gases is made up of trace gases. These include the noble gases, very inert or unreactive gases, of which the most abundant is argon. Other noble gases include neon, helium, krypton and xenon. Hydrogen is also present in trace quantities in the atmosphere, but because it is so light, over time much of it has escaped Earth's gravitational pull to space.

The remaining trace gases include the greenhouse gases, carbon dioxide, methane, nitrous oxide, water vapour and ozone, so-called because they are involved in the Earth natural greenhouse effect which keeps the planet warmer than it would be without an atmosphere.

[tubgirl]

And let's keep in mind that most of the wingnuts who are global warming deniers are also the true believers who talk about "the rapture"... and claim that "creationism" is a science...

you do nothing to help your own cause...


as for the questions posed:

1. What percentage of total greenhouse gases are natural? 98%

2. What amount,in percentage, of total greenhouse gases are caused by water vapor? i have no idea, but if i had to hazard a guess, i would believe it would be around 60%

3. What total percentage of greenhouse gases are man made? 2%

4. If Kyoto were adhered to, what total reduction of temperature would reuslt ? once again, i have no idea, but i am man enough to admit that

[White_Male_Canada]

Talking about water vapour the way you do, it just goes to show how a little knowledge is a dangerous thing. You have failed, it seems, to grasp the positive feedback mechanism.

Oh that nonsense. Lots of talk about + feedback to boost numbers but no talk of - feedback. The bottom line is that climate models are programmed to overstate potential warming response to enhanced greenhouse forcing by a huge margin. Let`s crank it up by a factor of 2.5 boys. http://darwin.nap.edu/.html




WMC, notice I mentioned "more research is needed". Research leads to innovation, buddy. Read my posts carefully.

You specifically avoided my questions, and specifically said:



solar energy (more research is needed to improve solar cell efficiencies),


EVERYONE knows solar cells are whoefully inefficient. It`s headline news when a cell breaks through the 40% barrier. Last time I asked, at about a grand a kilowatt you could set up a system for your house here in Canada for about 25 to 40,000 thousand dollars.Personaly,love to get off the grid.




Improved fuel efficiency (such as with tighter regulations on America's notoriously gas-guzzling saloon cars and SUVs), and higher fuel prices (it is much cheaper to fill your gas tank in the states than in Europe) could also help to wean the States off of foreign oil. Americans use more energy and produce more CO2 than any other citizens on earth,

That`s great,tax more. The US was just grumbling because of high oil prices.

The USA uses more energy and produce more Co2 because ?

Because they produce more. :smh

3. What total percentage of greenhouse gases are man made?
More importantly,what percentage of CO2 is man-made ? Also what percentge of CH4 and N2O are man made? Ban cows now?

4. If Kyoto were adhered to, what total reduction of temperature would result ?

[North_of_60]

And the story goes...
http://www.guardian.co.uk/frontpage/story/0,,2004399,00.html

When Bush and his constituancy will be out, we'll see less involvement of the oil consortium in Washington.

Hopefully we'll hear more of companies like GE and their wind turbine generator, solar panels, etc.

You don't need to go to war if you want some sun or wind to help you mow your lawn, ride your car, or take a hot bath.

[guyone]

Could you really be that naive?

[trish]

Before the industrial revolution (1800) there were about 280 part per million of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere. Today the amount is 380 ppm. For over a billion years living organisms soaked up carbon from all sources and took it with them to their graves in layer of sediment that attest to eons of carbon sequestering. Geologically speaking the sudden current release of that carbon is explosive. We know that climate is sensitive to small variations in solar constant, the Earth’s tilt, the chemistry of the atomosphere and a hundred other parameters. The rate of carbon release is as important a factor as the amount in creating climate change and increasing climate instability.
Water vapor is also a greenhouse gas, but condensed water in the form of clouds reflects heat outward increasing the Earth’s albedo. For the climate to remain relatively constant there must, among other factors, be a balance between the energy captured by the green house gasses (including water vapor) and condensed water vapor in the in the form of clouds. The capacity of the atmosphere to hold water in its vaporous form increases with atmospheric temperature. Beyond the equilibrium point, as the atmosphere warms, it holds more water vapor and thereby warms more. It makes little difference where that water comes from. We can presume the oceans are the primary source.

[LG]

No, the vast majority is carbon dioxide then there's the water vapor.

Shows how much you know. Which is not much. The concentration of CO2 in exhaled air is many, many times that of inhaled air. But the percentage of nitrogen is much, much greater- something like 15 to 20 times more than the amount of CO2. Go read a book, buddy.


Quote:

However, methane is also a greenhouse gas and is released when material decomposes, when cows fart, and when windbags like you exhale.


That's not a material fact. When I exhale it's carbon dioxide and water vapor.

No sense of humour, these Republicans. Farts do contain methane, you see, and since your seem to talk out of your ass, I would imagine that you release a great deal of methane when you talk.


Quote:

The consensus here being: stop talking out of your ass.

You can't deny it.


I'm not. It's a fact: you talk out of your ass. And make about as much sense as a fart.

Exhaled air is saturated with water vapour. But the total percentage of water vapour (which varies with atmospheric pressure, temperature, etc) is actually not that great. I have read various numbers from 1% to 2% but, admittedly, I cannot remember the precise number from college.

As for:


You can't deny it. Liberals are sucking up WAY too much air and exhale WAY too much water vapor. If libs would simply stop breathing we could save the fishies and doggies from sure destruction.

Are we supposed to laugh?
:roll:

I hope Al Gore wins the Nobel Prize just so all you tedious rightwingers can shut the hell up.

[LG]

WMC:

4. If Kyoto were adhered to, what total reduction of temperature would reuslt ?

Admittedly, only a very small one (less than a degree by most estimates) because Kyoto was only ever meant to be a first step. Unfortunately, Kyoto finds itself dead in the water, partly thanks to US intransigence, and not even that first step will be made.



EVERYONE knows solar cells are whoefully inefficient. It`s headline news when a cell breaks through the 40% barrier. Last time I asked, at about a grand a kilowatt you could set up a system for your house here in Canada for about 25 to 40,000 thousand dollars.Personaly,love to get off the grid.

That's why more research and innovation is needed. You seem to agree with me on this but simply just don't want to say so, just to be contrary. Why? I think you just do it to piss us all off.

[White_Male_Canada]

4. If Kyoto were adhered to, what total reduction of temperature would reuslt ?


Admittedly, only a very small one (less than a degree by most estimates) because Kyoto was only ever meant to be a first step. Unfortunately, Kyoto finds itself dead in the water, partly thanks to US intransigence, and not even that first step will be made.

Finally! It`s like pulling teeth around here. One down three to go lg. Of course it`s only a first step to more and more regulation. Kyoto is a treaty, it had to have been ratified by the US Senate. It was rejected with not a single vote in favor of it. China and India were exempt form kyoto yet stand to make millions if not billions from "carbon credits" . As I`ve stated , Kyoto is a massive wealth redistribution scheme by a wannabe world government, the U.N.


EVERYONE knows solar cells are whoefully inefficient. It`s headline news when a cell breaks through the 40% barrier. Last time I asked, at about a grand a kilowatt you could set up a system for your house here in Canada for about 25 to 40,000 thousand dollars.Personaly,love to get off the grid.


That's why more research and innovation is needed. You seem to agree with me on this but simply just don't want to say so, just to be contrary. Why? I think you just do it to piss us all off.

I`d love to get off the grid and thumb my nose at the power company. But you and the radical left prefer massive government intrusion into virtually ever facet of a person`s life. I on the other hand prefer innovation. Do you think for one second if a guy could manufacture solar cells that are say, 80% efficient, he wouldn`t ? If GE or Exxon could they would. Because it would be worth billions. Ditto for wind or water current energy. The problem is, it`s just not that efficient. We`ll keep using oil because it gives us the biggest BTU bang for the buck. Until something better comes along.

And this is interesting. The Assessment Report 4, Summary for Policymakers was released today. But, the actual report itself is being held back 3 months for editing,to fit the summary:

Changes (other than grammatical or minor editorial changes) made after acceptance by the Working Group or the Panel shall be those necessary to ensure consistency with the Summary for Policymakers or the Overview Chapter (Appendix A to the Principles Governing IPCC Work, p4/15)

Incredible considering the massive outrage of the alleged altering in some US climate reports !!! Something smells fishy,in fact, it stinks.

[guyone]

If you want to stop 'global warming' move the earth further away from the sun. I don't think if we all went back to being cavenmen anything would change.

[White_Male_Canada]

If you want to stop 'global warming' move the earth further away from the sun. I don't think if we all went back to being cavenmen anything would change.

Yup, the earth was much hotter than it is today. And in the future after getting warmer, it will get colder again.

To argue that man can control the earth`s thermostat,CO2 and everything in between is the absolute height of arrogance.
And those who do expose themselves as proponents of the new evironmentalist religion.

[LG]

But you and the radical left prefer massive government intrusion into virtually ever facet of a person`s life. I on the other hand prefer innovation.

We've been through that. What part of the phrase "more research and innovation is needed" do you not understand, dweeb?

Kyoto was an initial step to reductions in emissions and slowing down the warming (not a "reduction in temperature" per se, but rather a lessening of the impact, but it is easier to simplify here).

The US does not want Kyoto because it is believed it will impose limits to economic growth, but agreeing to the protocol could help an increase in innovation. And, even you seem to agree, it can make a small difference, temperature-wise which could make a big difference as far as the impacts of climate change are concerned.

I am keen to hear of your negative feedback theories. The weblink you added doesn't seem to work. You seem keen to dismiss all my points (which are scientifically valid and the result of serious study) as "nonsense". I wonder where you get your arguments from.

As for Exxon making solar cells, I doubt they would want to, but it is true that 80% efficiency is not possible yet. More research is needed and this will also need to be funded by national governments. Some day drilling for oil will become too difficult and expensive and we might all realise the folly of not investing in alternative energy.

There is a lot of money to be made from oil and it has been the cause of a lot of trouble in the world: in the Middle East, for example, and the Niger Delta. The oil companies are only too happy to drill for it as long as we are only too happy to pay for it and to use it. It is up to all of us to reduce our dependecy on oil (whether this comes from Saudi Arabia or Alaska) and become more efficient and/or move to cleaner sources of energy.

Failure to realise this is just plain stupid. Ignoring science just so you can carry on with business as usual is even worse.

Have a good night. I'm off to bed.

[guyone]

Global warming can be directly linked to this guy's farts.

[White_Male_Canada]

The US does not want Kyoto because it is believed it will impose limits to economic growth...

It will,that`s part of the reason why the Senate rejected it 97-0



There is a lot of money to be made from oil

That`s because it gives us the biggest BTU bang for the buck.


Ignoring science just so you can carry on with business as usual is even worse.

Consensus never was and never will be considered science. And it is not being ignored,it`s being debunked.




... but agreeing to the protocol could help an increase in innovation. And, even you seem to agree, it can make a small difference, temperature-wise which could make a big difference as far as the impacts of climate change are concerned.

Speculation and opinion.

More regulation can only force the use of inefficient modes of energy production,thereby driving up costs and hamstringing economies. Spending billions if not trillions to redistribute wealth and creating a precursor to a command and control economy only to reduce the earth`s temperature by about 0.003055225 °C by the year 2050 or so, is just not worth it.






I am keen to hear of your negative feedback theories. The weblink you added doesn't seem to work. You seem keen to dismiss all my points (which are scientifically valid and the result of serious study) as "nonsense". I wonder where you get your arguments from.

It`s common sense. Nature's processes are negative feedbacks for the most part, push a pendulum,nature forces it back. Water vapor does more than just absorb, it means more cloud cover. More cloud cover could reflect energy back into space and retard temperature growth. Empirically, + feedback loops haven`t been proven. And using them to backcheck ? They do a terrible job of modeling the last 100 years. In fact they are way off.So what makes them so good at predicting the future. The problem is,they really don`t know but makes for good politics,"do as we say or the world will end."

Can you point to other natural + feedbacks and are they more common than - feedbacks ?

[White_Male_Canada]

Global warming can be directly linked to this guy's farts.

chefmike is gonna be so pissed you used his pic without his consent. 8)

[LG]

It`s common sense. Nature's processes are negative feedbacks for the most part, push a pendulum,nature forces it back. Water vapor does more than just absorb, it means more cloud cover. More cloud cover could reflect energy back into space and retard temperature growth. Empirically, + feedback loops haven`t been proven. And using them to backcheck ? They do a terrible job of modeling the last 100 years. In fact they are way off.So what makes them so good at predicting the future. The problem is,they really don`t know but makes for good politics,"do as we say or the world will end."

Can you point to other natural + feedbacks and are they more common than - feedbacks ?

If we're going to talk about the albedo of cloud cover then we need to also mention the albedo of ice. Ice also has a reflective effect which is far higher than water vapour. When it melts due to higher temperatures, the effect is lessened and thus temperatures may rise even further (another, less direct, example of positive feedback).

Your arguments are like those of a statistician up to his knees in a bucket of ice who has placed his head in an oven and says "On average I am just fine." You think that the effects will average out. What makes you Nostradamus. The thing is that most people don't know. That's why we have scenaria and models and most of these predict some pretty bad things might happen.

And on your previous point: we are not reducing temperatures, only reducing the rise in temperatures. The number you give seems very random to me and it is exceedingly small- the numbers I have for Kyoto are about 0.5 Celsius. Why do you claim that all my arguments are "speculation and opinion" and yours are all gospel. How can you have the nerve to think that only you and a tiny group of people are right whereas everyone else, including over 9 out of 10 experts are wrong?

[White_Male_Canada]

If we're going to talk about the albedo of cloud cover then we need to also mention the albedo of ice. Ice also has a reflective effect which is far higher than water vapour. When it melts due to higher temperatures, the effect is lessened and thus temperatures may rise even further (another, less direct, example of positive feedback).

And perpetual motion machines are another great example of +feedback.

You are most likely regurgitating the ACIA reports,which if read carefully point to natural causes like PDO,OA and NAO in the arctic.Next we`ll see you argue all the polar bears are dying.

But average temperatures in Greenland have fallen by over 2C since `87.So again we see nature`s -feedback at work.

The Antarctic is even more troubling. The dogmatists refer to all the ice loss at the Antarctic Peninsula while ignoring the rest of the continent.The decline in ice occured during the 60`s and 70`s. Today sea ice around Antarctica reveal an overall increase in the southern hemisphere ice . So once again -feedback at work as PDO,OA and NAO shift in one direction,the opposite takes place in the other directions.



Your arguments are like those of a statistician up to his knees in a bucket of ice who has placed his head in an oven and says "On average I am just fine." You think that the effects will average out. What makes you Nostradamus. The thing is that most people don't know. That's why we have scenaria and models and most of these predict some pretty bad things might happen.

What makes the flawed models of government funded scientists Nostradamsus` when their very own models ,empirically, (+ feedback loops) haven`t been proven. And using them to backcheck ? They do a terrible job of modeling the last 100 years. In fact they are way off.So what makes them so good at predicting the future ! ? If an economist stated he had a computer model which could predict the market value of the NYSE composite index 100 years from now,would anyone believe him?

The fact that over 17,000 scientists have signed petitions stating that the science of global warming is flawed is lost on enviroreligionists such as yourself.

National Center for Atmospheric Research (NOAA) climate researcher and global warming action promoter, Steven Schneider:

"We have to offer up scary scenarios, make simplified, dramatic statements, and make little mention of any doubts we have. Each of us has to decide what the right balance is between being effective and being honest."



Your arguements are easily debunked for they are the arguements of a follower praying at the altar of enviroreligionism. The Earth was cold before and warmed,it warmed and became cold. It will do so in the future regardless of the arrogance in your belief you can control the Earth`s thermostat.

[LG]

Here is how you debunk a myth, WMC. Read on...


The fact that over 17,000 scientists have signed petitions stating that the science of global warming is flawed is lost on enviroreligionists such as yourself.

I thought that this might be another figure you had randomly pulled out of your ass, but I eventually realised that you meant the Oregon Petition. This was spearheaded by a conservative-leaning scientist and his 22 year old soon plus two other scientists who worked at a conservative thinktank. None of them were climatologists or environmental scientists.

Please note that the petition actually says that

There is no convincing scientific evidence that human release of carbon dioxide, methane, or other greenhouse gasses is causing or will, in the foreseeable future, cause catastrophic heating of the Earth’s atmosphere and disruption of the Earth’s climate.

It does not say that the science is flawed, it merely looks at evidence for the "foreseeable future".

The petition was accompanied by a paper purporting to be from the official proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, but actually unpublished, which highlighted the contributors views and findings (which were flawed and have been poo-pooed by far more knowledgable men than you or me). Out of the names on the petition, there are some that are repeat, some people who don't even seem to exist plus a great many who may not have degrees in the sciences after all. Even the people responsible for the petition admitted that only a fraction were climatologists or meteorologists.

Here is what the NAS had to say about it:

The NAS Council would like to make it clear that this petition has nothing to do with the National Academy of Sciences and that the manuscript was not published in the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences or in any other peer-reviewed journal. The petition does not reflect the conclusions of expert reports of the Academy.

And from the Seattle Times:

WASHINGTON - It was touted as a collection of thousands of scientists debunking global warming. So was that Perry Mason on the list? And John Grisham? What about that Spice Girl?

The petition with 15,000 signatures surfaced shortly before the April 22 Earth Day and quickly became music to global warming's critics. They highlighted it in news releases, at congressional hearings, even on the Senate floor.

The work of a chemist at a small research institute in Oregon, the petition of scientists - and some nonscientists, it turned out - has become the center of the latest furor in a contentious debate over whether human activity is changing the earth's climate.

Arthur Robinson, a physical chemist from Cave Junction, Ore., who circulated the petition by mail among scientists, said questionable names were added to the petition by pranksters.

The petition urges rejection of the accord signed last year in Kyoto, Japan, which sets procedures for dramatically lowering carbon dioxide emissions - the principal greenhouse gas. The petition maintains the growth of carbon-dioxide emissions, in fact, may be beneficial to plants and humans.

While the petition has been portrayed by global-warming skeptics as authoritative evidence that many scientists reject the catastrophic scenario of global climate change, Robinson acknowledged that little attempt was done to verify credentials of those who responded.

Several environmental groups questioned dozens of the names: "Perry S. Mason" (the fictitious lawyer?), "Michael J. Fox" (the actor?), "Robert C. Byrd" (the senator?), "John C. Grisham" (the lawyer-author?). And then there's the Spice Girl, a k a. Geraldine Halliwell: The petition listed "Dr. Geri Halliwell" and "Dr. Halliwell."

Asked about the pop singer, Robinson said he was duped. The returned petition, one of thousands of mailings he sent out, identified her as having a degree in microbiology and living in Boston. "It's fake," he said.

"When we're getting thousands of signatures there's no way of filtering out a fake," Robinson, 56, said in a telephone interview from Oregon.

Robinson, who acknowledges he has done no direct research into global warming, said the petition includes thousands of people "qualified to speak on this subject" including biochemists, geophysicists and climatologists.

Apparently it was a huge mailing. There are millions of scientists and engineers in the US and, apparently, 1/2 million with PhDs. So the number of 17,000 if true, is not that great a proportion of them all.

From the Scientific American:

SKEPTICISM ABOUT SKEPTICS

Many conservatives regard the "scientific consensus" about global warming as a media concoction. After all, didn't 17,100 skeptical scientists sign a petition circulated in 1998 by the Oregon Institute of Science and Medicine? (See www.oism.org/pproject and www.prwatch.org/improp/oism.html on the World Wide Web.)

Scientific American took a random sample of 30 of the 1,400 signatories claiming to hold a Ph.D. in a climate-related science. Of the 26 we were able to identify in various databases, 11 said they still agreed with the petition—one was an active climate researcher, two others had relevant expertise, and eight signed based on an informal evaluation. Six said they would not sign the petition today, three did not remember any such petition, one had died, and five did not answer repeated messages. Crudely extrapolating, the petition supporters include a core of about 200 climate researchers--a respectable number, though rather a small fraction of the climatological community.


And the petiition's initiator Arthur Robinson even admitted that "We're not specialists in climate change".

So allow me to pay more attention to the specialists, such as the scientists at the Tyndall Centre of the UEA in England, or the Climate Change Centre at McGill rather Arthur Robinson or your good self.

Why don't you take your blinkers off and have a look at the evidence for a change.

[White_Male_Canada]

. None of them were climatologists or environmental scientists.

I see, so only climatologists who agree with global warming have the right to speak.


And from the Seattle Times:
WASHINGTON - It was touted as a collection of thousands of scientists debunking global warming. So was that Perry Mason on the list? And John Grisham? What about that Spice Girl?

Several environmental groups questioned dozens of the names: "Perry S. Mason" (the fictitious lawyer?), "Michael J. Fox" (the actor?), "Robert C. Byrd" (the senator?), "John C. Grisham" (the lawyer-author?). And then there's the Spice Girl, a k a. Geraldine Halliwell: The petition listed "Dr. Geri Halliwell" and "Dr. Halliwell."

The EnviroGestapo obviously send in bogus forms and then criticize their own fraud. How juvenile.

Perry Mason Ph.D. http://www.lcu.edu/LCU/faculty/p.mason/

Michael R. Fox, Ph.D. http://www.heartland.org/Article.cfm?artId=20163



Scientific American took a random sample of 30 of the 1,400 signatories claiming to hold a Ph.D. in a climate-related science.

30 out of 1,400 ! ? I`ll wait until they contact each signer.



So allow me to pay more attention to the specialists, such as the scientists at the Tyndall Centre of the UEA in England, or the Climate Change Centre at McGill rather Arthur Robinson or your good self.

Be my guest,as I will remain skeptical which includes 60 prominent Canadian scientists who made their feeling known to the P.M. :

“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.... limate 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 occur all the time due to natural causes and the human impact still remains impossible to distinguish from this natural ‘noise.’”

And also in my list would be Scientists like MIT’s Richard
Lindzen, former Colorado State climatologist Roger Pielke, Sr., the University of Alabama’s Roy Spencer and John Christy, Virginia State Climatologist Patrick Michaels,Colorado State University’s William Gray, atmospheric physicist S. Fred Singer, WillieSoon of the Harvard-Smithsonian Center for Astrophysics, Oregon State climatologist
George Taylor and astrophysicist Sallie Baliunas, to name a few.


Why don't you take your blinkers off and have a look at the evidence for a change.

Already have. You have failed to provide any convincing evidence that man-made CO2 causes the majority of natural warming or cooling cycles. Have failed to prove Medieval warming was caused by man, failed to prove the Little Ice age was caused by man.
The Copenhagen Consensus 2004 expert panel of world-leading economists had listed Kyoto and carbon taxes last of challenges confronting the globe.
Damn,that`s alot of blind people walking around./sarc off



PS: How do you like your EnviroGestapo:

" Kyoto represents the first component of an authentic global governance."
Jacques Chirac at The Hauge 2000

Governor Plans To Fire Oregon Climatologist for Skeptical View of Warming http://www.kgw.com/news-local/stories/kgw_020607_news_taylor_title.59f5d04a.html

Delaware State Climatologist David R. Legates - criticized for accepting anything other than government funds http://www.delmarvanow.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20070206/NEWS01/70206001/1002

[North_of_60]

Positive proof...

[LG]

Here is what I found out about your "scientists", WMC. Let's dissect, boys and girls:

Fred Singer has, as, during his time at the National Center for Policy Research and the conservative thinktank The Cato Institute, received a great deal of funding from Exxon and others. In a sworn affidavit he has admitted to doing paid work for Exxon, Shell and Texaco. One of his claims is that most glaciers are advancing (now proven as a pile of rubbish), citing an apparently non-existent article in Science.

Singer has also disputed the effects of passive smoking attacking the EPA and calling a study of theirs "junk science" but a memo sent to Philip Morris shows his "research" was part of a concerted effort to discredit the valid findings of proper scientists.

Willie Soon and Sallie Baliunas are senior scientists at the Marshall Institute, conveniently funded by the Exxon Education Foundation. They are NOT climatologists but astrophysicists.

Richard Lindzen is a well known skeptic who according to one article charged "oil and coal interests $2,500 a day for his consulting services"

Roger Pielke is adamant he is not a skeptic, but merely differes in opinion form the consensus. You will be displease to know that he said "the evidence of a human fingerprint on the global and regional climate is incontrovertible as clearly illustrated in the National Research Council report and in our research papers". The guy merely argues that things ain't as simple as some others might think. But he has not claimed that climate change is a myth.

John Christy also disagrees in part with the consensus. He drafted the Geophysical Union's position which notes:"Human activities are increasingly altering Earth's climate, and that natural influences alone cannot explain the rapid increase in surface temperatures observed during the second half of the 20th century."

As for the Canada 60, they were not even all Canadian, nor were the majority climatologists or meteorologists. The familiar names of Singer, Baliunas and McKitrick pop up again. There are engineers from South Africa, economists from England and so on. What is more, the letter itself contains untruths. Apparently one of the scientists denounced the letter.

http://www.cbc.ca/news/background/harper_conservatives/pdf/lettertoharper2.pdf

I would put more faith in the 90 scientists, all climatologists and all of them Canadian or based in Canada, who sent an open letter to the Canadian government urging them to act more urgently:

http://www.cbc.ca/health/story/2006/04/19/climate-change060419.html

I've had enough of your arguments and tedious repetition of words like "EnviroGestapo". I am sorry that you have not yet realised that you do not know what you are talking about.

I am taking a break. Think it over.

PS:
As for Legates, I'm not sure what you're trying to argue. I for own do not think it is right for companies like Exxon to fund skeptical reseachers to produce reports that challenge the consensus. It is a little like tobacco giants funding scientists to produce reports that say that smoking isn't bad for you.

Whenever funding comes from corporations there is a chance of conflicting interests.

[White_Male_Canada]

Here is what I found out about your "scientists", WMC. Let's dissect, boys and girls:

You`ve delfected the issue from the data and facts down to the level
of " well, if they are not government funded then their science doesn`t
count" . That is the difference between thinkers and socialists. You will forever dogmatically repeat what they state. I prefer to read , research , and think.

The facts are you have failed to provide any convincing evidence that man-made CO2 causes the majority of natural warming or cooling cycles. Have failed to prove Medieval warming was caused by man, failed to prove the Little Ice age was caused by man.

I`ve proven that man-made CO2 does not play a major factor in warming, that adhereing to kyoto is futile, that the U.N. temperature charts were falsified, that solar irradiance plays a much larger part in warming and cooling, that empirically, + feedback loop modeling haven`t been proven. And using them to backcheck, they do a terrible job of modeling the last 100 years. In fact they are way off so it makes them of very little use at predicting the future. And that Kyoto is just a socialist trojan horse.

" Kyoto represents the first component of an authentic global governance."
Jacques Chirac at The Hauge 2000

So called man-made global warming is merely a trojan horse for the marxist left. Warming, through its primary antidote of withdrawing carbon from production and consumption, is capable of realizing the marxist utopian dream,through environmentalism, of an egalitarian society based on rejection of economic growth in favor of a smaller population's eating lower on the food chain, consuming a lot less, and sharing a much lower level of resources much more equally(aka, carbon trading).

[White_Male_Canada]

"I`ve proven that man-made CO2 does not play a major factor in warming, ..."


I've proven!!! Calm down fella, there is no such thing as proven in science, only theories, some with good evidence to support them and others with little to support them.

So the man is destroying the Earth with man-made CO2 is just an unproven theory?Thanks for the clarification since it`s generally agreed CO2 levels follow temperature changes and not vice versa.
A thanks to Dr. Gray also,research scientist and reviewer with the IPCC, " “The effects of aerosols, and their uncertainties, are such as to nullify completely the reliability of any of the climate models.”



P.S. The amount of times the terms commie/marxist/bolshevik is banded about on this forum is astounding. Everybody who doesn't agree with your standpoint doesn't have to be one of the above.

Already proved that:

" Kyoto represents the first component of an authentic global governance."
Jacques Chirac at The Hauge 2000



http://www.grist.org/news/muck/2004/02/25/pentagoners/
http://observer.guardian.co.uk/international/story/0,6903,1153513,00.htm

Those articles are hilarious. Reminds me of the chicken little stories of yesteryear:

[White_Male_Canada]

“The effects of aerosols, and their uncertainties, are such as to nullify completely the reliability of any of the climate models.” White_Male_Canada

I was hoping you would have picked up on that the first time I posted about global dimming:

http://www.carbon-info.org/carboninfo_028.htm

"Climate models incorporating global dimming data, predict that the earth will be 10°C hotter by 2100 - a doubling of the previously predicted increase this century."

You are not paying attention.

Dr. Gray stated , " This temperature record is quite incompatable with the computer climate models(which are now the only place in which warming exists), so why should we believe their pessimistic forecasts for the future? ... The only actual warming in the 20th century actually occured between 1978 to 1998 and was only 0.53C...Finally, there has been no warming since 1998."

[White_Male_Canada]

Please explain the following then:

The 6 Hottest Years on Record:

Rank Year
1 2005
1 1998

Dubious. There are very few regular temperature measurements taken at sea, which accounts for 71% of the Earth’s surface area. There is also a scarcity of recordings almost everywhere in the Southern Hemisphere added to that the number of weather-stations have fallen from 5,000 to 2,000. Added to all that the heat sink factor. Minus the heat sink factor it would be :

1. 1998
2. 1955
3. 1921
4. 2006
5. 1953
6. 2002
7. 1949
8. 2001
9. 2005
10. 1952

[guyone]

and here are the coldest:

1 1962
2 1924
3 1963
4 1972
5 1982
6 1937
7 1949
8 1972
9 1957
10 1937

Funny...these records are all in the twentieth century...?

[LG]

I_love_Cristina_Bianchini said:


P.S. The amount of times the terms commie/marxist/bolshevik is banded about on this forum is astounding. Everybody who doesn't agree with your standpoint doesn't have to be one of the above. There are other political hues don't you know. Do you actually know what the terms mean? I doubt there is one commie/marxist/bolshevik on this forum, or has ever visited it! We don't go about calling you a nazi/faschist/neanderthal. But then what should we expect from simple minds!

Very well noted, mate. My sentiments exactly. I am sick and tired of having WMC dismiss everything and everyone he disagrees with as communist propaganda or as a marxist. It is wrong and it is also getting very tedious.

And guyone said:

Funny...these records are all in the twentieth century...?


Possibly cause they don't have any records from previous centuries, guyone. Ever thought of that? Your little list and stupid drawing prove nothing.

As for WMC, he said:


You`ve delfected the issue from the data and facts down to the level
of " well, if they are not government funded then their science doesn`t
count" . That is the difference between thinkers and socialists. You will forever dogmatically repeat what they state. I prefer to read , research , and think.

Bullshit. What I said was that the scientists you mentioned received a great deal of funding from one or more companies that are known to have opposed the consensus because, for them, listening to the vast majority of experts will affect their profits.

A scientist funded by Shell or Exxon cannot be expected to be fair and balanced when it comes to researching and coming up with recommendations on climate change becuase he will not bite the hand that feeds him.

If you think that I am socialist and you are a thinker then fair enough. If your observations are what passes for thinking in your parts then good for you.

As a scientist myself, I do not have time for biased scientists. They give all of us a bad reputation. You should broaden your horizons and read a few from a few more sources. It might help you. You think you've done research, but all you have done is read up on what a few people have said- those few people who seem to reinforce your viewpoint- and regurgitate all their findings. That's not research, that's propaganda. And then you have the nerve to put labels on the rest of us.

In any case, you failed to answer my points. You are the one deflecting the issue, not I.


I`ve proven that man-made CO2 does not play a major factor in warming, that adhereing to kyoto is futile, that the U.N. temperature charts were falsified, that solar irradiance plays a much larger part in warming and cooling, that empirically, + feedback loop modeling haven`t been proven. And using them to backcheck, they do a terrible job of modeling the last 100 years. In fact they are way off so it makes them of very little use at predicting the future. And that Kyoto is just a socialist trojan horse.

So now you think you're a scientist. You have proven shit. Man made CO2 does play a major factor, perhaps not always directly; Kyoto is not futile because it was supposed to be a first step which means that (get this!) more action should be taken' the UN temperature charts may have been simplified but they were never falsified (that implies dishonsesty on behalf of the scientists); positive feedback loops do exist everywhere in nature.

Environmental scientists do not have a marxist agenda WMC and they know a hell of lot more than you do. I suggest you open your mind a little and pay more attention to what they have to say.


Those articles are hilarious. Reminds me of the chicken little stories of yesteryear:

The global warming scenario was just a hypothesis but it was hyped up by the media. Anyway, the keywords here are "climate change" rather than "global warming", because there are unpredictabilities and some parts of the globe may be affected differently to other parts. What we do know is that there has been a warming trend, but I don't think we can take 5 years or even twenty as a good sample. We need to look at the last 100, and admittedly the hockey stick chart is imperfect. But there is enough evidence to show a change plus a lot of circumstantial evidence (natural disasters etc), which may or may not also prove that the climate is changing.

There are many uncertainties and too many complexities to cover here- the albedo effect, feedback loops, global dimming, cloud cover and water vapour, natural climate shifts, carbon sinks, algal blooms, etc. Anyone familiar with the precautionary principle will advocate prudence when faced with these facts because even if the scientists are not 100% correct there is a very strong likelihood that they are partly correct. Spewing more greenhouse gases into the atmosphere will excacerbate the problem. Business as usual is not an option.

We need to look at clean energy sources and try to limit our fossil fuel use. We need to halt deforestation because forest loss can only make the problem worse. And we need to act now.

It is no longer a political issue and may not be an economical one either, if some reports stating that the medium to longterm benefits of limiting climate change will exceed the costs. I think it is stupid to ignore the majority of independent scientists just because we don't like what they say.

And, if you want to know, Chirac's precise words were:

Humanity is for the first time instituting a genuine instrument of global governance ... By acting together, by building this unprecedented instrument, the first component of an authentic global governance, we are working for dialogue and peace. We are demonstrating our capacity to assert control over our fate in a spirit of solidarity, to organize our collective sovereignty over this planet, our common heritage.

What he was arguing for was an instrument for global dialogue, fairness and peace. I think it is fair to say that you have misquoted him by using his words to prove your bigoted arguments.

You can read the full speech here:
http://www.sovereignty.net/center/chirac.html

I suggest you do. It might open your mind up a little. Then again, I doubt it. Not even someone armed with need an oyster knife could do that.

[guyone]

And guyone said:


Funny...these records are all in the twentieth century...?


Possibly cause they don't have any records from previous centuries, guyone. Ever thought of that? Your little list and stupid drawing prove nothing.

Exactly! They don't know because they do not have enough data. If there is global warming or cooling what can we do about it? Adapt or die off. That's it...

[White_Male_Canada]

Bullshit. What I said was that the scientists you mentioned received a great deal of funding from one or more companies that are known to have opposed the consensus because, for them, listening to the vast majority of experts will affect their profits. A scientist funded by Shell or Exxon cannot be expected to be fair and balanced when it comes to researching and coming up with recommendations on climate change becuase he will not bite the hand that feeds him.

The pot calling the kettle black. The fact is that :

- Climate change related projects accounted for over 25% of the 3-year total reported grants and contributions received by 10 of the top-20 institutions. For 6 organizations, climate change grants accounted for 50% of their reported grants and contributions received.

-Of the list of recipients of those private funds reveals that the vast majority are spent by groups favoring restrictions on carbon dioxide emissions and believe that climate change requires dramatic government action.

-The U.S. federal government spent nearly $2 billion to support climate change science programs in 2004.

Global alarmists are dependant upon these funds and must continue to produce doomsday scenarios.




Man made CO2 does play a major factor, perhaps not always directly;

False. Total CO2 only accounts for 0.038% of the atmosphere. Of that amount man-made CO2 is only responsible for emitting about 3.4% of total CO2. http://www.grida.no/climate/ipcc_tar/wg1/fig3-1.htm


Kyoto is not futile because it was supposed to be a first step

Kyoto is futile because even if followed and trillions of dollars are spent and lost the potential temperature saving by the year 2050 will only be 0.003C.




And, if you want to know, Chirac's precise words were:
Humanity is for the first time instituting a genuine instrument of global governance ... By acting together, by building this unprecedented instrument, the first component of an authentic global governance,

Even to the those not versed in left-wing double-speak would come to the obvious conclusion of exactly what Chirac admitted, "global governance".


more action should be taken' the UN temperature charts may have been simplified but they were never falsified

False. The U.N.`s hockey chart was the the emblem,the flag waived, for the climate change intelligentsia. It was false and omitted historical data for political purposes. LOOK DOWN.


(that implies dishonsesty on behalf of the scientists)

Last year the National Academies convened a committee and asked scientists to model temperatures from a thousand years ago to within 0.5 °C (0.9 °F). None claimed they could, except for Mr. "hockey stick" himself, Mike Mann. And we all know his "hockey stick" temp. chart has been debunked long ago,regardless of "peer review" aka, fellow travellers. http://www8.nationalacademies.org/cp/projectview.aspx?key=350


Anyone familiar with the precautionary principle will advocate prudence when faced with these facts because even if the scientists are not 100% correct there is a very strong likelihood that they are partly correct. Spewing more greenhouse gases into the atmosphere will excacerbate the problem. Business as usual is not an option.

We need to look at clean energy sources and try to limit our fossil fuel use. We need to halt deforestation because forest loss can only make the problem worse. And we need to act now.

A former leftist could not have stated it any better,

"...part of growing up, a significant part of maturity, lies in the ability to resist the siren call of hysteria. You take certain steps in resisting hysteria by identifying it for what it is.


FIRST, RESIST URGENCY. If someone agitates for your attention right now, claims that some issue or other is the paramount crisis of our times, you may properly respond, "Cool your jets." Snake-oil salesmen and demagogues of every stripe seek first to create a clamor. Like a child's tantrum, the demagogue's message doesn't matter. If a movement can create enough of a fuss, it has made a start. If a persuader can make you rush, he can make you forget your senses. "Hurry, hurry, hurry!" calls the carnie barker.

Second, remember that apocalypses don't happen very often. I remember several that have been proclaimed -- Paul Ehrlich's population bomb, the coming ice age celebrated in news magazines in the 1970s, the Y2K disaster -- but none that have actually happened. The be-robed figure carrying a sign saying, "Repent! The End of the World Is at Hand!" appears in cartoons. That's where he belongs.

Third, be mindful of the mechanism of propagating panic, and the personages who do it. Beware of journalists, "activists," admen, PR flacks, and salesmen. "You can't bulls--t a bulls--tter," goes the old nostrum, but, in fact, the opposite is true. People in the persuasion business will swallow just about anything. So when the persuaders start whooping it up, back off.

Finally, keep your hand on your wallet. Proclaimers of catastrophe almost always call for expensive government studies, programs, even entire departments, to address their complaints. Government began way back in the Primatene mists when somebody threw a barrier across a road and demanded a bribe for passage. Governance, a necessary evil, starts with extortion. Resist any demand to make that extortion any worse than it has to be."

[North_of_60]

Yet, another high spirited reflexion of Guyone...


If there is global warming or cooling what can we do about it? Adapt or die off. That's it...

[guyone]

Politicizing it does nothing really but breed contempt for either side of the issue. I generally walk anywhere I have to go or use public transportation even though I own a car. I'll tell you this I see many SUVs driving all over the city with 'Vote for Kerry' or 'Bush Lied' stickers on their bumpers and these folks ain't carpenters (meaning that there is very little use for someone to have an SUV in a city being that the terrain is pretty flat...AND THERE IS SO MUCH PUBLIC TRANSPORATION!!!).



LEFT=HYPOCRISY

[ezed]

I've been freezing my balls off on Cape Cod for the past month. But I really pitty the poor fucks in Oswego, NY and in Denver, CO.

Better off to preach global warming in August.

[LG]

guyone said:

there is very little use for someone to have an SUV in a city being that the terrain is pretty flat...AND THERE IS SO MUCH PUBLIC TRANSPORATION!!!

I will concede that point. I have a compact crossover SUV but the vast majority of my work takes me onto dirt tracks and on hills- it's been useful, I would have destroyed a normal car by now. Actually the fuel consumption is a little more than a hatchback and lower than a sedan because it's not one of those big monsters like a Range Rover, Land Cruiser or a Mitsubishi Montero (interestingly called a Pajero in most of Europe, but Pajero is apparently a dirty slang word in Spanish). I don't drive much in town.

I'd love a sports car but they tend to be gas guzzlers and fuel prices in Europe are pretty steep (higher than the states) so it would be unaffordable as well as environmentally damaging. There are some nice looking hybrids out there so I think I might be looking at them for my next car in a few years time.

What do you drive?

[guyone]

Whenever I do get to drive...