|
|
Post by Cranky on Dec 16, 2006 14:00:27 GMT -5
Here is somthing that econazis don't want you to know. ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ www.tmgnow.com/repository/solar/lassen1.html~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ Solar Activity and Climate Space weather may also in the long term affect the Earth's climate. Solar ultra-violet, visible and heat radiation are the primary factors for the Earth's climate, including global average temperatures, and these energy sources appear to be quite constant. However, many scientists have observed corrrelations between the solar magnetic activity, which is reflected in the sunspot frequency, and climate parameters at the Earth. Sunspots has been recorded through several hundreds of years which makes it possible to compare their variable frequency to climate variations to the extent that reliable climatological records exists. One of the most striking comparisons was published by E. Friis-Christensen og K. Lassen, DMI, in "Science" in 1991. In their work they compared the average temperatureat the northern hemisphere with the average solar activity defined through the interval between successive sunspot maxima. The more active the sun - the shorter the interval: the solar cycle runs more intense. Their results are displayed in the figure below: The red curve illustrates the solar activity, which is generally increasing through an interval of 100 years, since the cycle length has decreased from around 11.5 years to less than 10 years. Within the same interval the Earth's average temperature as indicated by the blue curve has increased by approximately 0.7 degree C. Even the finer structures in the two curves have similar appearances. (Reference: Friis-Christensen, E., and K. Lassen, Length of the solar cycle: An indicator of solar activity closely associated with climate, Science, 254, 698-700, 1991).  MORE.................... Notice the graphs EXACT correlation between rising and dropping tempertures and sun activity. An inconvinient truth indeed....
The only reality is that our eco system has become a political football and instead of concentrating on toxins and bio-hazards, it has become a platform to control society. Is it any suprise that some of the econuts are also die hard "economic and social conscious advocates". They use to be known as socialists. Don't believe me? Ever hear of Jack "Rooster" Layton and his NDP party. The Liberals have stolen Rooster Laytons eco platform and he is now trying to come up with an agreement involving the Conservatives in order to LESSEN the political impact of the "eco voters".
Socialist agenda...
Is it any suprise that the Kyoto Accord tries to TAX Western societies and give it to undeveloped countries? Kyoto advocates wanted Western societies to buy into this crock of sh*t of PAYING for "emissions credits" to third world. Does this have the ring of socialist agendas? What better way to extract money from us then to make our standard of living a sin. It's YOUR FAULT for the standard of living you sinfully enjoy and YOU MUST PAY.
|
|
|
|
Post by Cranky on Jan 6, 2007 1:59:53 GMT -5
Energy & Environment
A Challenge to Journalists Who Cover Global Warming
by Sen. James Inhofe
Posted Oct 24, 2006
Text Size: S M L
printer-friendly
forward to a friend
email the editor
share your comments
digg this story
Texans Want Their Coal Plants
Conservatives Are Losing to the Greens
Environmentalism's Death Toll for 'Nature'
Eco-Misanthropes Want Better Living Through Mass Death
Interior's Energy Inventory: Abundant Domestic Supplies Off-Limits
On September 25, Environment and Public Works Chairman James Inhofe (R.-Okla.) gave a speech on the Senate floor taking to task global-warming alarmists and their enablers in the media. Here are excerpts from his speech.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
“Global warming”—just that term evokes many members in this chamber, the media, Hollywood elites and our pop culture to nod their heads and fret about an impending climate disaster.
Recently, advocates of alarmism have grown increasingly desperate to try to convince the public that global warming is the greatest moral issue of our generation. Just last week, the vice president of London’s Royal Society sent a chilling letter to the media encouraging them to stifle the voices of scientists skeptical of climate alarmism.
During the past year, the American people have witnessed an unprecedented parade of environmental alarmism by the media and entertainment industry, linking every possible weather event to global warming. The year 2006 saw many major organs of the media dismiss any pretense of balance and objectivity on climate change coverage and cross squarely into global-warming advocacy.
'Hockey Stick' Broken
One of the key aspects that the United Nations, environmental groups and the media have promoted as the “smoking gun” of proof of catastrophic global warming is the so-called “hockey stick” temperature graph by climate scientist Michael Mann and his colleagues.
The “hockey stick” purported to show that temperatures in the Northern hemisphere remained relatively stable over 900 years, then spiked upward in the 20th Century, presumably due to human activity. Mann’s “hockey stick” came under severe scrutiny and was completely and thoroughly broken once and for all in 2006. Several years ago, two Canadian researchers tore apart the statistical foundation for the hockey stick. In 2006, both the National Academy of Sciences (NAS) and an independent researcher further refuted the foundation of the “hockey stick.”
The NAS report reaffirmed the existence of the Medieval Warm Period from about 900 AD to 1300 AD and the Little Ice Age from about 1500 AD to 1850 AD. Both of these periods occurred long before the invention of the SUV or human industrial activity could have possibly impacted the Earth’s climate. In fact, scientists believe the Earth was warmer than today during the Medieval Warm Period, when the Vikings grew crops in Greenland.
End of Little Ice Age
The media have missed the big pieces of the puzzle when it comes to the Earth’s temperatures and mankind’s carbon dioxide (CO2) emissions. It is very simplistic to feign horror and say the one degree Fahrenheit temperature increase during the 20th Century means we are all doomed. First of all, the one-degree Fahrenheit rise coincided with the greatest advancement of living standards, life expectancy, food production and human health in the history of our planet. So it is hard to argue that the global warming we experienced in the 20th Century was somehow negative or part of a catastrophic trend.
The climate alarmists and their advocates in the media have continued to ignore the fact that the Little Ice Age, which resulted in harsh winters that froze New York Harbor and caused untold deaths, ended around 1850. So trying to prove man-made global warming by comparing the well-known fact that today’s temperatures are warmer than during the Little Ice Age is akin to comparing summer to winter to show a catastrophic temperature trend.
Alarmists fail to adequately explain why temperatures began warming at the end of the Little Ice Age in about 1850, long before man-made CO2 emissions could have impacted the climate. Then about 1940, just as man-made CO2 emissions rose sharply, the temperatures began a decline that lasted until the 1970s, prompting the media and many scientists to fear a coming ice age.
Kyoto: All Pain, No Gain
I am approached by many in the media and others who ask: “What if you are wrong to doubt the dire global-warming predictions? Will you be able to live with yourself for opposing the Kyoto Protocol?”
My answer is blunt. The history of the modern environmental movement is chock full of predictions of doom that never came true. We have all heard the dire predictions about the threat of overpopulation, resource scarcity, mass starvation and death of our oceans. None of these predictions came true, yet the doomsayers continue to predict a dire environmental future.
It is the global-warming alarmists who should be asked the question: “What if they are correct about man-made catastrophic global warming?” They have come up with no meaningful solution to their supposed climate crisis in the two decades that they have been hyping this issue. If the alarmists truly believe that man-made greenhouse gas emissions are dooming the planet, then they must face up to the fact that symbolism does not solve a supposed climate crisis.
The alarmists freely concede that the Kyoto Protocol, even if fully ratified and complied with, would not have any meaningful impact on global temperatures. Legislation that has been proposed in this chamber would have even less of a temperature effect than Kyoto’s undetectable impact. Global warming alarmists and the media have been praising California for taking action to limit CO2. But this costly feel-good California measure will have no impact on the climate, only the economy.
Symbolism does not solve a climate crisis.
When the history of our era is written, future generations will look back with puzzlement and wonder why we spent so much time and effort on global warming fears and pointless solutions like the Kyoto Protocol.
Climate Change Coverage
Many in the media have taken it upon themselves to drop all pretense of balance on climate change and instead become committed advocates for the issue.
Here is a quote from Newsweek: “There are ominous signs that the Earth’s weather patterns have begun to change dramatically and that these changes may portend a drastic decline in food production—with serious political implications for just about every nation on Earth.”
A headline in the New York Times: “Climate Changes Endanger World’s Food Output.”
Here is a quote from Time magazine: “As they review the bizarre and unpredictable weather pattern of the past several years, a growing number of scientists are beginning to suspect that many seemingly contradictory meteorological fluctuations are actually part of a global climatic upheaval.”
All of this sounds very ominous—until you realize that the three quotes I just read were from articles in 1975 editions of Newsweek and the New York Times, and Time in 1974.
They weren’t referring to global warming—they were warning of a coming ice age.
In addition to global cooling fears, Time has also reported on global warming. Here is an example: “[Those] who claim that winters were harder when they were boys are quite right ... weathermen have no doubt that the world, at least for the time being, is growing warmer.”
Before you think that this is just another example of the media’s promoting Vice President Gore’s movie, An Inconvenient Truth, you need to know that that quote was from Jan. 2, 1939.
Yes, in 1939. Nine years before Vice President Gore was born and more than three decades before Time began hyping a coming ice age and almost five decades before they returned to hyping global warming.
In 1951, Time pointed to receding permafrost in Russia as proof that the planet was warming.
In 1952, the New York Times noted that the “trump card” of global warming “has been the melting glaciers.”
Flip-Flopping Between Scares
There are many more examples of the media’s and scientists’ flip-flopping between warming and cooling scares. Here is a quote from a New York Times report on fears of an approaching ice age: “Geologists Think the World May be Frozen Up Again.” That sentence appeared more than 100 years ago in the Feb. 24, 1895, edition of the New York Times.
A front-page article in the Oct. 7, 1912, New York Times, just a few months after the Titanic struck an iceberg and sank, declared that a prominent professor “Warns Us of an Encroaching Ice Age.”
The very same day in 1912, the Los Angeles Times ran an article warning that the “Human race will have to fight for its existence against cold.” An Aug. 10, 1923, Washington Post article declared: “Ice Age Coming Here.”
By the 1930s, the media took a break from reporting on the coming ice age and instead switched gears to promoting global warming. “America in Longest Warm Spell Since 1776; Temperature Line Records a 25-year Rise” stated an article in the New York Times on March 27, 1933.
The media of yesteryear was also not above injecting large amounts of fear and alarmism into their climate articles.
An Aug. 9, 1923, front-page article in the Chicago Tribune declared: “Scientist Says Arctic Ice Will Wipe Out Canada.” The article quoted a Yale University professor who predicted that large parts of Europe and Asia would be “wiped out” and Switzerland would be “entirely obliterated.”
A Dec. 29, 1974, New York Times article on global cooling reported that climatologists believed “the facts of the present climate change are such that the most optimistic experts would assign near certainty to major crop failure in a decade.”
The article also warned that unless government officials reacted to the coming catastrophe, “mass deaths by starvation and probably in anarchy and violence” would result. In 1975, the New York Times reported that “a major cooling [was] widely considered to be inevitable.” These past predictions of doom have a familiar ring.
Media Coverage in 2006
Has this embarrassing 100-year documented legacy of coverage on what turned out to be trendy climate science theories made the media more skeptical of today’s sensational promoters of global warming?
On Feb. 19, 2006, CBS News’s “60 Minutes” produced a segment on the North Pole. The segment was a completely one-sided report, alleging rapid and unprecedented melting at the polar cap. It even featured correspondent Scott Pelley’s claiming that the ice in Greenland was melting so fast that he barely got off an iceberg before it collapsed into the water. “60 Minutes” failed to inform its viewers of a 2005 study by a scientist named Ola Johannessen and his colleagues showing that the interior of Greenland is gaining ice and mass and that, according to scientists, the Arctic was warmer in the 1930s than today.
On March 19, “60 Minutes” profiled NASA scientist and alarmist James Hansen, who was once again making allegations of being censored by the Bush Administration. In this segment, objectivity and balance were again tossed aside in favor of a one-sided glowing profile of Hansen. The “60 Minutes” segment made no mention of Hansen’s partisan ties to former Vice President Gore or Hansen’s receiving a grant of a quarter of a million dollars from the left-wing Heinz Foundation run by Teresa Heinz Kerry. There was also no mention of Hansen’s subsequent endorsement of her husband John Kerry for President in 2004.
Why would “60 Minutes” ignore the basic tenets of journalism, which call for objectivity and balance in sourcing, and do such one-sided segments? The answer was provided by correspondent Scott Pelley who told the CBS News website that he justified excluding scientists skeptical of global warming alarmism from his segments because he considers skeptics to be the equivalent of “Holocaust deniers.”
In April, Time devoted an issue to global warming alarmism titled “Be Worried, Be Very Worried.” This is the same Time that first warned of a coming ice age in the 1920s before switching to warning about global warming in the 1930s before switching yet again to promoting the 1970s coming ice age scare.
The April 3 global-warming special report of Time was a prime example of the media’s shortcomings, as the magazine cited partisan left-wing environmental groups with a vested financial interest in hyping alarmism. Time did not make the slightest attempt to balance its reporting with any interviews with scientists skeptical of this alleged climate apocalypse.
The American people should be worried—very worried—of such shoddy journalism.
The Al Gore Movie
In May, our nation was exposed to perhaps one of the slickest science propaganda films of all time: former Vice President Gore’s An Inconvenient Truth. In addition to having the backing of Paramount Pictures to market this film, Gore had the full backing of the media, and leading the cheerleading charge was none other than the Associated Press.
On June 27, the AP ran an article by Seth Borenstein that boldly declared “Scientists give two thumbs up to Gore’s movie.” The article quoted only five scientists praising Gore’s science, despite AP’s having contacted more than 100 scientists.
The fact that more than 80% of the scientists contacted by the AP had not even seen the movie or that many scientists have harshly criticized the science presented by Gore did not dissuade the news outlet one bit from its mission to promote Gore’s brand of climate alarmism.
Here is a sampling of some of the errors and misrepresentations made by Gore in An Inconvenient Truth:
• He promoted the now-debunked “hockey stick” temperature chart in an attempt to prove man’s overwhelming impact on the climate.
• He attempted to minimize the significance of the Medieval Warm period and the Little Ice Age.
• He insisted on a link between increased hurricane activity and global warming that most scientists believe does not exist.
• He asserted that today’s Arctic is experiencing unprecedented warmth while ignoring that temperatures in the 1930s were as warm or warmer.
• He claimed the Antarctic was warming and losing ice but failed to note that is true only of a small region and the vast bulk has been cooling and gaining ice.
• He hyped unfounded fears that Greenland’s ice is in danger of disappearing.
• He erroneously claimed that the ice cap on Mt. Kilimanjaro is disappearing due to global warming, even while the region cools and researchers blame the ice loss on local land-use practices.
• He made assertions of a massive future sea-level rise that is way outside any supposed scientific “consensus” and is not supported in even the most alarmist literature.
• He incorrectly implied that a Peruvian glacier’s retreat is due to global warming, while ignoring the fact that the region has been cooling since the 1930s and other glaciers in South America are advancing.
• He blamed global warming for water loss in Africa’s Lake Chad, despite NASA scientists’ concluding that local population and grazing factors are the more likely culprits.
• He inaccurately claimed polar bears are drowning in significant numbers due to melting ice when in fact they are thriving.
• He failed to inform viewers that the 48 scientists who accused President Bush of distorting science were part of a political advocacy group set up to support Democrat presidential candidate John Kerry in 2004
Following the promotion of An Inconvenient Truth, the press did not miss a beat as advocates for global warming fears.
ABC News put forth its best effort to secure its standing as an advocate for climate alarmism when the network put out a call for people to submit their anecdotal global-warming horror stories in June for use in a future news segment.
In July, the Discovery Channel presented a documentary on global warming narrated by former NBC anchor Tom Brokaw. The program presented only those views of scientists promoting the idea that humans are destroying the Earth’s climate. A Bloomberg News TV review noted, “You’ll find more dissent at a North Korean political rally than in this program.”
Engineered 'Consensus'
On July 24, 2006, the Los Angeles Times featured an op-ed by Naomi Oreskes, a social scientist at the University of California San Diego and the author of a 2004 Science magazine study. Oreskes insisted that a review of 928 scientific papers showed there was 100% consensus that global warming was not caused by natural climate variations. This study was also featured in former Vice President Gore’s An Inconvenient Truth.
However, the analysis in Science excluded nearly 11,000 studies (more than 90% of the papers dealing with global warming), according to a critique by British social scientist Benny Peiser.
Peiser also pointed out that less than 2% of the climate studies in the survey actually endorsed the so-called “consensus view” that human activity is driving global warming, and some of the studies actually opposed that view.
But despite this manufactured “consensus,” the media continued to ignore any attempt to question the orthodoxy of climate alarmism.
Alarmism Leads to Skepticism
It is an inconvenient truth that 2006 has been a year in which major segments of the media have given up on any quest for journalistic balance, fairness and objectivity when it comes to climate change. The media have so relentlessly promoted global-warming fears that a British group called the Institute for Public Policy Research—a left-leaning group—issued a report in 2006 accusing media outlets of engaging in what the group termed “climate porn” in order to attract the public’s attention.
The media endlessly hype studies that purportedly show that global warming could increase mosquito populations, malaria, West Nile Virus, heat waves and hurricanes, threaten the oceans, damage coral reefs, boost poison ivy growth, and damage vineyards and global food crops, to name just a few of the global-warming-linked calamities.
Fortunately, the media’s addiction to so-called “climate porn” has failed to seduce many Americans.
According to a July Pew Research Center Poll, the American public is split about evenly between those who say global warming is due to human activity versus those who believe it’s from natural factors or not happening at all.
In addition, an August Los Angeles Times/Bloomberg poll found that most Americans do not attribute the cause of recent severe weather events to global warming, and the portion of Americans who believe global warming is naturally occurring is on the rise.
The American people know when their intelligence is being insulted. They know when they are being used and when they are being duped by the hysterical left.
The American people deserve better from our fourth estate. Breaking the cycles of media hysteria will not be easy since hysteria sells. But I want to challenge the news media to reverse course and report on the objective science of climate change, to stop ignoring legitimate voices in this scientific debate and to stop acting as a vehicle for unsubstantiated hype.
Sen. Inhofe is Chairman of the Senate Environment and Public Works Committee.
|
|
|
|
Post by Cranky on Jan 6, 2007 2:06:16 GMT -5
The hockey stick chart below is brought out by every enviro nut as the definitive PROOF that human activity is causing earths destruction. It intentionaly omits ALL the data that intefere with the hype and BS.
More proof of manufactured enviro nuts BS crisis. ~~~~~~~~~~~~ Sunday, November 05, 2006 The Sun Did It Sir Nicholas Stern, head of Britain's Government Economics Service and adviser to the government on the economics of climate change and development, has produced, with great fanfare, the "Stern Review: The Economics of Climate Change", 700 pages of scary global warming propaganda, complete with tables and charts to make it look authoritative. British Prime Minister, Tony Blair, declares the Stern Review "the final word" on why we must act now to contain the damage we humans are doing to Mother Earth. Stern threatens that if we don't do what he says, bad things will happen. Very bad things. One hundred million people will be flooded out of their homes. A billion people will run out of water due to melting glaciers. Hundreds of millions of "climate refugees" will wander the Earth, looking for a habitable spot. Forty percent of the world's species will die out. Twenty percent of the world economy will be obliterated. However, we can avoid all this if we raise taxes now, a mere 1% of the world's gross domestic product. Of course, most of the world doesn't produce much of the world's GDP, so those higher taxes will fall on productive nations like the USA. Unfortunately, the Stern Report has the ripe smell of a political position, not a well-reasoned position based on irrefutable facts. Bjon Lomborg, the Skeptical Environmentalist, takes apart the report in the Wall Street Journal. Lomborg finds the Stern Review has cherry-picked its facts to support its fear-mongering conclusions. For example, the previous figure for the environmental cost of emitting a ton of carbon dioxide into the air has been placed at $2.50, a figure that has been criticized as too high. Stern places the cost at $85. In some cases, Stern doesn't understand what his numbers represent. Stern claims that the increasing damage from hurricanes in the US is evidence of the effect of global warming. Lomborg points out that there is more damage because there is more to damage. The population of the US has increased, increasing the population of people living in hurricane-prone areas, and exposing more property to harm. Lomborg concludes that Stern's recommendations would harm, rather than help: "Given reasonable inputs, most cost-benefit models show that dramatic and early carbon reductions cost more than the good they do. Mr. Stern's attempt to challenge that understanding is based on a chain of unlikely assumptions." Lomborg believes that money spent to ward off global warming is a poor investment. We would reap a higher return on investment in better health, nutrition, water, sanitation, and education. Hans H.J. Labohm points out in TCS Daily that Stern's fellow economists have strongly criticized his report, claiming his conclusions are far too confident and unqualified given the uncertainty of projecting climate change. For example, Stern projects dire results from the current decade of melting glaciers in Greenland. However, Greenland's glaciers also had a decade of warming in the 1920s. The European glaciers Stern cites as additional evidence began retreating long before carbon dioxide accumulated enough to warm them. The problem is that the models upon which global warming rests can not predict the current climate based on known data, let alone confidently predict the future climate. Simply put, science can not predict the weather two weeks from now, let alone a century from now.  The top portion is what the enviro nuts wants you to believe. The bottom is the REAL historical records. Christopher Monckton writes in the Sunday Telegraph that "the "climate-change" scare is less about saving the planet than, in Jacques Chirac's chilling phrase, "creating world government"." Monckton points how the global warming doomsday cult of politicians, government bureaucrats, and politicized scientists have cooked the evidence to support their political agenda. In other words, they are creating a phony crisis to gain more power for themselves. For example, he shows how the UN rewrote the Medieval Warm Period, the global warming which came and went from 1100 to 1300 AD, out of history to build the famous "hockey stick" which the greenies use to "prove" that the current warming is caused by humans. As one global warming scientist emailed indiscreetly to a colleague: "We have to get rid of the Medieval Warm Period." The facts didn't fit their politics.The current warming trend is probably due to the sun, not anything human. William Herschel, an astronomer, was reading Adam Smith's "Wealth of Nations" two centuries ago when he notice that the grain prices Smith cited fell when the number of sunspots rose. In other words, when the sun flares up, it warms the Earth, more grain grew, and the glut of grain depressed prices. The last fifty years has seen a warmer sun than in the last 11,400 years, according to Sami Solanki, a solar physicist. That accounts for a quarter of the past century's warming. Feedback from the climate amplifies that warming. If you want to know what warmed the Earth, the sun did it.
|
|
|
|
Post by Disgruntled70sHab on Jan 6, 2007 13:03:24 GMT -5
Geeze HA, that's a lot to digest. I've read a bit and when I have more time I'll read the rest mainly because this interests me. Mrs. Dis and I wonder what kind of a world our son and his kids will have in the future.
I had an old high school buddy over to the house just after Christmas. He lives in Yellowknife and his job is to analyze permafrost up north so as to determine how a new airport runway or building can be erected.
However, we had a talk on the effects of global warming while he was here. His opinion is that this process was going to happen anyway and he isn't convinced that we, as humans, had all that much to do with it (though we may have accelerated the process). He went on to say that the northern polar cap is in the process of melting and might be entirely gone in about 30 years or so. Just read recently that polar bears are in danger of extinction because of the melting ice.
However, this isn't the case with the South Pole. I think I skimmed over some of the information you posted and it said something similar.
I might point by buddy here, HA. It would be interesting to hear what he has to say seeing how his work involves the northern topography. He's flying out of Ottawa today as a matter of fact.
More to follow.
Cheers.
|
|
|
|
Post by franko on Jan 6, 2007 14:23:30 GMT -5
Just read recently that polar bears are in danger of extinction because of the melting ice. Debate on that one. Not sure how close this is to fact, but it has been suggested that in the 50s there were 5,000 bears in the acrtic; in 2005 there were 25,000 -- not too much danger of extinction there if true. |
|
|
|
Post by Disgruntled70sHab on Jan 6, 2007 23:46:25 GMT -5
Just read recently that polar bears are in danger of extinction because of the melting ice. Debate on that one. Not sure how close this is to fact, but it has been suggested that in the 50s there were 5,000 bears in the acrtic; in 2005 there were 25,000 -- not too much danger of extinction there if true. Thanks Franko. I looked up those numbers and they reflect a worldwide total, 60% of which belong to Canada. I was pretty sure what CNN had reported that the US is thinking of designating the polar bear as an endangered species. Maybe they were only talking about Alaska. Not sure. Cheers. |
|
|
|
Post by Cranky on Jan 6, 2007 23:54:44 GMT -5
Geeze HA, that's a lot to digest. I've read a bit and when I have more time I'll read the rest mainly because this interests me. Mrs. Dis and I wonder what kind of a world our son and his kids will have in the future. I had an old high school buddy over to the house just after Christmas. He lives in Yellowknife and his job is to analyze permafrost up north so as to determine how a new airport runway or building can be erected. However, we had a talk on the effects of global warming while he was here. His opinion is that this process was going to happen anyway and he isn't convinced that we, as humans, had all that much to do with it (though we may have accelerated the process). He went on to say that the northern polar cap is in the process of melting and might be entirely gone in about 30 years or so. Just read recently that polar bears are in danger of extinction because of the melting ice. However, this isn't the case with the South Pole. I think I skimmed over some of the information you posted and it said something similar. I might point by buddy here, HA. It would be interesting to hear what he has to say seeing how his work involves the northern topography. He's flying out of Ottawa today as a matter of fact. More to follow. Cheers. It's become a media and political frenzy and when that happens, any semblence of balance and truth gets buried. Even our newly minted Liberal power monger has named his dog "Kyoto". Do you expect ANY level headed discussion or policies from him? Dis, do you remeber in the early seventies when "every scientist" declared that we would see the start of another ice age by the year 2000? I was in CEGEP at the time and enviro nuts run around delcaring the "we" started the new ice age and it was going to kill our civilization. 30 year later, "we" started global warming and the end of civilization is upon us. I also remember all the SCREAMING about smog killing us all. What will it be next week? They can't predict the weather two weeks in advance, but they know all about twenty years in the future. Yeah..right... The media NEEDS crisis to get attention and the enviro-nuts need attention. On any given slow news day, why not trot out the next dire prediction about the end of the earth? It will attract a hell of a lot more viewers then a cat in a well. Do we have prooblems? Hell yes. Wehave mutating viruses and bacteria that are starting to be mmune to all anti-bacterials. We have hormones in our food and toxins in our water. We have so many REAL and SERIOUSLY RISING problems that I don't care to hear the yelping of stupid hat wearing mongers screaming about something that we can't do anything about. Enviro-nazis art their best...... "Does all the foregoing mean that Wild Earth and The Wildlands Project advocate the end of industrialized civilization? Most assuredly. Everything civilized must go..." -John Davis, editor of Wild Earth magazine One American burdens the earth much more than twenty Bangladeshis... This is a terrible thing to say. In order to stabilize world populations, we must eliminate 350,000 people per day. It is a horrible thing to say, but it's just as bad not to say it." -Jacques Cousteau, UNESCO Courier, 1991 I met this a$$hole in JFK airport. Awe struck, I went over to shake his hand and he looked at me with what I can generously describe as scorn. So I gave him the finger. "I believe that human overpopulation is the fundamental problem on Earth Today" [and] "We humans have become a disease, the Humanpox." -Dave Foreman, Sierra Club, co founder of Earth First! |
|
|
|
Post by Habs_fan_in_LA on Jan 7, 2007 1:44:54 GMT -5
Global warming, global shwarming.
Yeah, it probably is getting 1 - 2 degrees warmer, but looking at core samples, Europe was at one time covered with glaciers and Antartica was a warm, moist tropical forest at one time; and we can't blame that on Exxon and Suncor and Petrocan and Andarko; incidently on which I took a beating on last week.
Overpopulation is the #1 problem as HA correctly pointed out.
Fortunately the Sheites and Sunnis of the world are hard at work correcting that problem, as are Spanish and Basques, Hammas Briere and Fatah cheese, Indians and Pakis, Democrats and Republicans, lefties and righties, France and the rest of the world..................
A couple of weeks added to the growing season in Ontario and the prairies isn't a bad thing. Lower heating costs in Montreal and Edmonton help. Canada has water and resources to benifit from global warming as would most of Europe.
Phoenix and Florida are not that fortunate.
|
|
|
|
Post by Skilly on Jan 7, 2007 15:14:38 GMT -5
Do we have prooblems? Hell yes. Wehave mutating viruses and bacteria that are starting to be mmune to all anti-bacterials. We have hormones in our food and toxins in our water. We have so many REAL and SERIOUSLY RISING problems that I don't care to hear the yelping of stupid hat wearing mongers screaming about something that we can't do anything about. Enviro-nazis art their best...... I am no Enviro-nazi ... but playing a little devil's advocate. Did they have acid rain, as prevelant as it is today, any other time in Earth's history? Factories=carbons in air=acid rain in our water cycle=toxins in our water=more instances of ecoli=problem that must be corrected (as you pointed out) with solutions that are being suggested for global warming. Unfortunately for us ... all of things on Earth are interconnected. |
|
|
|
Post by Cranky on Jan 7, 2007 19:57:51 GMT -5
I am no Enviro-nazi ... but playing a little devil's advocate. Did they have acid rain, as prevelant as it is today, any other time in Earth's history? Factories=carbons in air=acid rain in our water cycle=toxins in our water=more instances of ecoli=problem that must be corrected (as you pointed out) with solutions that are being suggested for global warming. Unfortunately for us ... all of things on Earth are interconnected. High sulphur coal mixing with water thus acid rain. Scrub the sulphur. We have the technology. Toxins in the water. Serious problem tha must be dealt with at the sources. Global warming? That is a catch all phrase that has incoclusive science behind it. Skilly, you are an engineer as am I. Tell me, would you act on something that has a margin of error many times larger then your source count? If the sea can change the rate of carbon dioxide many times more then your source can, do you cut off the source? Would you even bother to change the source by a 10% if in the end, the change is so small that it is inconsequential AND unverifiable? Thirty years ago, I wanted to buy some machines. Since we were owned by a corporation, I had to cost justify the expenditure. Boy, did I ever get creative. I truly discovered how to make statistics lie...ALOT. When I look at graphs that omit data and only present what colaborates the point of view, I go...umm...hazy. Here is an example........  As you can see, it is taken from a very specific time period. The explanation is that it is the only time period that data is available. Coincidently, it is also the time period where the greatest degree of change can be shown. If that graph went back 2000 years, then the graph would show periods of temperture variations as large as the present one. Of course, that would not suit the author of this selectivly chosen statistical lie. My greatest issue with eco-nazis is that they cream that this flactuation of temperture is causd by humans. The selective science they use and the results they predict are so biased as to insult my intellegence....and the intellegence of any man. For example, how many studies take the reflectivity (thus cooling) of higher cloud concentrations from increased temeperture? Where are the studies of the increase rate of growth of vegetation from increased cabon and humidity in the atmoshpere? Where are the studies of the massive increase in forests from the advancing tree line? How many trees are contained in a 100+ mile belt of around the northern countries? How does a MILLION square miles of trees disappear from eco-nazi calculations? In comparison, the much discussed Amazon is only 2.7 million square miles. What will the worldwide increase in humidity do to the deserts? Have you seen a study for that? Inconvinient truths indeed..... We can't be sheep to the self serving and self deluding hyenas. |
|
|
|
Post by Skilly on Jan 7, 2007 22:26:09 GMT -5
High sulphur coal mixing with water thus acid rain. Scrub the sulphur. We have the technology. Toxins in the water. Serious problem tha must be dealt with at the sources. Acid rain is caused by both sulfates and nitrates. My only point is that the "cure" to alot of "eco-problems" are inter-related. Cut factory emissions and you decrease acid rain. But acid rain is not the catch phrase anymore, we have become desentitized to the phrase. So now "ecologists" find a related problem, but alter some data to suit their arguement. "We need to cut emissions to save the planet from Global warming" ... oooo ahhhh .. and the eco-minions (read celebrities) fall in line, while the ecologists smile saying now we can try and solve a few problems at once. We have the technology for alot of things. The technology is there for electric/hydrogen cars. Imagine driving a car and only needing water to drive it. But the arguement is it is too expensive. Well plasma TV were expensive too a few years ago .... price will go down. |
|
|
|
Post by Disgruntled70sHab on Jan 7, 2007 22:38:44 GMT -5
Geeze HA, that's a lot to digest. I've read a bit and when I have more time I'll read the rest mainly because this interests me. Mrs. Dis and I wonder what kind of a world our son and his kids will have in the future. I had an old high school buddy over to the house just after Christmas. He lives in Yellowknife and his job is to analyze permafrost up north so as to determine how a new airport runway or building can be erected. However, we had a talk on the effects of global warming while he was here. His opinion is that this process was going to happen anyway and he isn't convinced that we, as humans, had all that much to do with it (though we may have accelerated the process). He went on to say that the northern polar cap is in the process of melting and might be entirely gone in about 30 years or so. Just read recently that polar bears are in danger of extinction because of the melting ice. However, this isn't the case with the South Pole. I think I skimmed over some of the information you posted and it said something similar. I might point by buddy here, HA. It would be interesting to hear what he has to say seeing how his work involves the northern topography. He's flying out of Ottawa today as a matter of fact. More to follow. Cheers. It's become a media and political frenzy and when that happens, any semblence of balance and truth gets buried. Even our newly minted Liberal power monger has named his dog "Kyoto". Do you expect ANY level headed discussion or policies from him? Dis, do you remeber in the early seventies when "every scientist" declared that we would see the start of another ice age by the year 2000? I was in CEGEP at the time and enviro nuts run around delcaring the "we" started the new ice age and it was going to kill our civilization. 30 year later, "we" started global warming and the end of civilization is upon us. I also remember all the SCREAMING about smog killing us all. What will it be next week? They can't predict the weather two weeks in advance, but they know all about twenty years in the future. Yeah..right... The media NEEDS crisis to get attention and the enviro-nuts need attention. On any given slow news day, why not trot out the next dire prediction about the end of the earth? It will attract a hell of a lot more viewers then a cat in a well. Do we have prooblems? Hell yes. Wehave mutating viruses and bacteria that are starting to be mmune to all anti-bacterials. We have hormones in our food and toxins in our water. We have so many REAL and SERIOUSLY RISING problems that I don't care to hear the yelping of stupid hat wearing mongers screaming about something that we can't do anything about. Enviro-nazis art their best...... "Does all the foregoing mean that Wild Earth and The Wildlands Project advocate the end of industrialized civilization? Most assuredly. Everything civilized must go..." -John Davis, editor of Wild Earth magazine One American burdens the earth much more than twenty Bangladeshis... This is a terrible thing to say. In order to stabilize world populations, we must eliminate 350,000 people per day. It is a horrible thing to say, but it's just as bad not to say it." -Jacques Cousteau, UNESCO Courier, 1991 I met this a$$hole in JFK airport. Awe struck, I went over to shake his hand and he looked at me with what I can generously describe as scorn. So I gave him the finger. "I believe that human overpopulation is the fundamental problem on Earth Today" [and] "We humans have become a disease, the Humanpox." -Dave Foreman, Sierra Club, co founder of Earth First! I remember a lot of things about the 70's HA. Just off the top of my head: * Oil crisis; we'd be out of crude oil in a few decades. Gas prices shot through the roof; * Losing our rain forests; I think that's still an issue today really. But, we're in a totally different climate and most of us could care less. Nothing really changes here; * How about, "I'd like to buy the world a coke" ... still decades centuries ahead of its time; * Population explosion; there'll be no room for anyone, maybe as soon as when the oil dries up; * Save the seals; and * The Russian Bear!!!!!!!! Yeah, I remember the 70's HA. We were growing as a people and as a nation, and we were as gullible as anyone in history. Two more that have no business being on the list but I remember anyway: * The myth of Canadian hockey supremacy; and * Pablo Emilio Escobar (and they say Gates is rich); Cheers. |
|
|
|
Post by Skilly on Jan 8, 2007 20:48:39 GMT -5
don't get me started Dis,  ... less your name is Heather Mills McCarthy .... Newfoundlanders still say that Paul broke up with her because of the way she acted towards our premier ... ;D .... you're welcome Paul. |
|
|
|
Post by franko on Jan 10, 2007 19:28:18 GMT -5
|
|
|
|
Post by franko on Jan 10, 2007 22:47:21 GMT -5
|
|
|
|
Post by Cranky on Jan 11, 2007 18:08:44 GMT -5
Bingo! Skilly, what's wrong with you? Why aren't you a good little sheep? How dare you question 12 year olds whose pants are around their knees but are already "experts" about global warming? I ask my wife, what do you think about global warming? Her answer is typical of people who ONLY watch the mass media for their information. Mass media is also educating the sheep about the "Hydrogen Economy". Sometimes I wonder, do people really want to kow anything more then the two articles they read last year? Or the two minute tv spot? |
|
|
|
Post by Habs_fan_in_LA on Jan 12, 2007 12:06:27 GMT -5
I'm waiting for George "W" Bush to give the definitive scientific analysis of Global Warming in rebuttal to Al Gore.
"The sun is hot. But it's far away. This is hard work, but the consequences of not being successful are unacceptable to the American people. We need to keep the sun shining, even if the temperature rises because if the temperature falls it will get colder. 21,000 more troops should solve it."
|
|
|
|
Post by Skilly on Jan 12, 2007 14:41:24 GMT -5
I'm waiting for George "W" Bush to give the definitive scientific analysis of Global Warming in rebuttal to Al Gore. "The sun is hot. But it's far away. This is hard work, but the consequences of not being successful are unacceptable to the American people. We need to keep the sun shining, even if the temperature rises because if the temperature falls it will get colder. 21,000 more troops should solve it." Estimates states that is will keep shining for 5 billion more years before it expands, burns the earth, and becomes a dwarf. |
|
|
|
Post by Habs_fan_in_LA on Jan 12, 2007 15:04:46 GMT -5
I'm waiting for George "W" Bush to give the definitive scientific analysis of Global Warming in rebuttal to Al Gore. "The sun is hot. But it's far away. This is hard work, but the consequences of not being successful are unacceptable to the American people. We need to keep the sun shining, even if the temperature rises because if the temperature falls it will get colder. 21,000 more troops should solve it." Estimates states that is will keep shining for 5 billion more years before it expands, burns the earth, and becomes a dwarf. Yes, 5 billion more years, but then what? If we don't act now we're screwed. I don't buy into Gore's alarmist jargon. We will bave unexpected earthquakes, megavolcanoes, comets, asteroids, hemoroids. We can control some of what we do to the planet, but we can't stop hurricanes and tornado's. I'm not certain it would be a good thing if we did stop hurricanes from doing what they do naturally. (Carolina Hurricanes excepted) |
|
|
|
Post by franko on Jan 12, 2007 16:01:10 GMT -5
You aren't allowed to use that word in our PC world. Call it a "little shiner" that turns into a "non-shiner" (that way you avoid using the colour spectrum and antagonizing the PC Police for yet something else). |
|
|
|
Post by Habs_fan_in_LA on Jan 12, 2007 17:10:17 GMT -5
You aren't allowed to use that word in our PC world. Call it a "little shiner" that turns into a "non-shiner" (that way you avoid using the colour spectrum and antagonizing the PC Police for yet something else). Good point Franko. We mustn't call them Dwarfs. They are vertically challenged little people with big heads and bowed legs that waddle when they walk and make us laugh when we throw them in bars. Make sure we don't offend anybody. |
|
|
|
Post by M. Beaux-Eaux on Jan 24, 2007 16:18:08 GMT -5
From Amazon.ca: No hope, just an awareness of what's being done now and what's been done in the past, is what Ronald Wright will permit in A Short History of Progress, his grim, ammoniacal Massey Lectures, the 43rd in the series. In five lucid, meticulously documented essays, Wright traces the rise and plummet of four regional civilizations--those of Sumer, Rome, Easter Island, and the Maya--and judges that most, perhaps all, of humanity is making and will continue to make mistakes equally disastrous as theirs. He gives general reasons first for not reckoning we'll pull back from the brink. Important among them is an anthropological observation. As individuals, we live long lives. We evolve more slowly than we should, given our lack of vision and our aggressive, selfish nature. We seem to lack the collective wisdom and the insight into cause and effect to realize the limits to what Wright calls the "experiment" of civilization. What Wright calls natural "subsidies" underwrite civilizations' successes. The squandering of those gifts presages inevitable failure, but with careful, canny stewardship, a civilization can manage to muddle through eons. Wright cites Egypt's submission to the limits set by the Nile's annual floods and China's windblown "lump-sum deposit" of topsoil, used for hillside paddies instead of being put to the plough. Wright observes with unrelenting eloquence that our planetary civilization lives precariously, far beyond its means. "Hope drives us to invent new fixes for old messes," he acknowledges, neither claiming nor wanting to be a prophet. We certainly have the tools for change and remediation; we also know what our ancestors did wrong and what happened to them. We're faced, our author observes, with two choices: either do nothing--what he calls "one of the biggest mistakes"--or try to effect "the transition from short-term to long-term thinking." His evidence suggests we're taking the first alternative, which will include a swift, final ride into the dark future on the runaway train of progress. Wright's account tempts one to bet on the rats and roaches. --Ted Whittaker - A Short History of Progress* Two things prompted me to write this book. The first was something that happened in May 2005, in a lecture hall in London. I had given a talk about climate change, during which I had argued that there was little chance of preventing runaway warming unless greenhouse gases were cut by 80%[ref]. One of the questions stumped me. “When you get your 80% cut, what will this country look like?”. I hadn’t thought about it. Nor could I think of a good reason why I hadn’t thought about it. But a few rows from the front sat one of the environmentalists I admire and fear most, a man called Mayer Hillman. I admire him because he says what he believes to be true and doesn’t care about the consequences. I fear him because his life is a mirror in which the rest of us see our hypocrisy. “That’s such an easy question I’ll ask Mayer to answer it.” He stood up. He is 75, but looks about 50, perhaps because he goes everywhere by bicycle. He is small and thin and fit-looking, and he throws his chest out and holds his arms back when he speaks, as if standing to attention. He was smiling. I could see he was going to say something outrageous. “A very poor third-world country.” - Heat |
|
|
|
Post by Toronthab on Feb 6, 2007 11:54:59 GMT -5
I'm waiting for George "W" Bush to give the definitive scientific analysis of Global Warming in rebuttal to Al Gore. "The sun is hot. But it's far away. This is hard work, but the consequences of not being successful are unacceptable to the American people. We need to keep the sun shining, even if the temperature rises because if the temperature falls it will get colder. 21,000 more troops should solve it." You so funny for beige guy..  |
|
|
|
Post by ropoflu on Feb 6, 2007 14:50:34 GMT -5
If that is our official climate changes thread, here's an important link: www.ipcc.ch/ |
|
|
|
Post by Cranky on Mar 3, 2007 19:11:28 GMT -5
Here isan article by National Geographic. They say the sun warms the eart. Don't they know they are not suppose to say anythihng against the new religion? The eco-nazis are going to bomb them for their blaspemy. ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2007/02/070228-mars-warming_2.html~~~~~~~~~~~~~ Mars Melt Hints at Solar, Not Human, Cause for Warming, Scientist Says Kate Ravilious for National Geographic News February 28, 2007 Simultaneous warming on Earth and Mars suggests that our planet's recent climate changes have a natural—and not a human- induced—cause, according to one scientist's controversial theory. Earth is currently experiencing rapid warming, which the vast majority of climate scientists says is due to humans pumping huge amounts of greenhouse gases into the atmosphere. (Get an overview: "Global Warming Fast Facts".) Enlarge Photo Email to a Friend RELATED Photo Gallery: Global Warming New Mars Pictures Show Signs of Watery "Aquifers" (February 16, 2007) Climate Change Predictions Not Exaggerated, Analysis Says (February 1, 2007) Mars, too, appears to be enjoying more mild and balmy temperatures. In 2005 data from NASA's Mars Global Surveyor and Odyssey missions revealed that the carbon dioxide "ice caps" near Mars's south pole had been diminishing for three summers in a row. Habibullo Abdussamatov, head of the St. Petersburg's Pulkovo Astronomical Observatory in Russia, says the Mars data is evidence that the current global warming on Earth is being caused by changes in the sun. "The long-term increase in solar irradiance is heating both Earth and Mars," he said. Solar Cycles Abdussamatov believes that changes in the sun's heat output can account for almost all the climate changes we see on both planets. Mars and Earth, for instance, have experienced periodic ice ages throughout their histories. "Man-made greenhouse warming has made a small contribution to the warming seen on Earth in recent years, but it cannot compete with the increase in solar irradiance," Abdussamatov said. By studying fluctuations in the warmth of the sun, Abdussamatov believes he can see a pattern that fits with the ups and downs in climate we see on Earth and Mars. Abdussamatov's work, however, has not been well received by other climate scientists "His views are completely at odds with the mainstream scientific opinion," said Colin Wilson, a planetary physicist at England's Oxford University. "And they contradict the extensive evidence presented in the most recent IPCC [Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change] report." (Related: "Global Warming 'Very Likely' Caused by Humans, World Climate Experts Say" [February 2, 2007] Right on que, an eco-nazi preacher attacks anything that does not fit the religion.Amato Evan, a climate scientist at the University of Wisconsin, Madison, added that "the idea just isn't supported by the theory or by the observations." You see, in the new religion, we take an observation and and stomp it until it fits the religion.Planets' Wobbles The conventional theory is that climate changes on Mars can be explained primarily by small alterations in the planet's orbit and tilt, not by changes in the sun. "Wobbles in the orbit of Mars are the main cause of its climate change in the current era," Oxford's Wilson explained. (Related: "Don't Blame Sun for Global Warming, Study Says" [September 13, 2006].) All planets experience a few wobbles as they make their journey around the sun. Earth's wobbles are known as Milankovitch cycles and occur on time scales of between 20,000 and 100,000 years. These fluctuations change the tilt of Earth's axis and its distance from the sun and are thought to be responsible for the waxing and waning of ice ages on Earth. Mars and Earth wobble in different ways, and most scientists think it is pure coincidence that both planets are between ice ages right now. "Mars has no [large] moon, which makes its wobbles much larger, and hence the swings in climate are greater too," Wilson said. No Greenhouse Perhaps the biggest stumbling block in Abdussamatov's theory is his dismissal of the greenhouse effect, in which atmospheric gases such as carbon dioxide help keep heat trapped near the planet's surface. He claims that carbon dioxide has only a small influence on Earth's climate and virtually no influence on Mars. But "without the greenhouse effect there would be very little, if any, life on Earth, since our planet would pretty much be a big ball of ice," said Evan, of the University of Wisconsin. Most scientists now fear that the massive amount of carbon dioxide humans are pumping into the air will lead to a catastrophic rise in Earth's temperatures, dramatically raising sea levels as glaciers melt and leading to extreme weather worldwide. Abdussamatov remains contrarian, however, suggesting that the sun holds something quite different in store. "The solar irradiance began to drop in the 1990s, and a minimum will be reached by approximately 2040," Abdussamatov said. "It will cause a steep cooling of the climate on Earth in 15 to 20 years." |
|
|
|
Post by ropoflu on Mar 3, 2007 22:56:48 GMT -5
Sure mainstream scientific opinion = eco-nazism  Climate change science is taking into account solar irradiance along with other more significative antropogenic factors.  National Geographic ain't exactly a scientific publication, so until this new theory gets reviewed and approved by climate change scientifics and experts (the last IPCC report had 2500+ reviewers), I'll stick with the nazis. Hail, Gaïa! IPCC repport summary and webcast presentation available here : ipcc-wg1.ucar.edu/ |
|
|
|
Post by Cranky on Mar 3, 2007 23:49:20 GMT -5
National Geographic ain't exactly a scientific publication, so until this new theory gets reviewed and approved by climate change scientifics and experts (the last IPCC report had 2500+ reviewers), I'll stick with the nazis. Don't you see what you are saying is inherently wrong? The scientific community ALWAYS depended on INDEPENDENT peer review. The very basis of scientific thought and process. Now you are expecting the high priests of the new religion, the same scientist who made their reputation on "human caused global warming" to be objective? Seriously? One more thing.... Do you know who the IPCC is? It is UNEP, or United Nations ENVIROMENT Programme, it is the sacred Vatican of envoremtnalists religion. It's the same lobby who has "science members" who have procalimed there are too many humans on earth and that is the main problem (culling can't be far beihind). It is the same lobby that wants MASSIVE. CRIPPLING carbon taxes to be siphoned off to THIRD world countries (also know as banana republics). It is the same lobby that want cars, planes and trains abolished from the planet (we will all benefit from riding 50 miles to our jobs, that is if we have any jobs) . The same lobby that wants the entire Western world to turn into Bolivian farms. It is the same lobby/organization that demands IMMIDIATE social engineering regardless of destroys our entire society. Where do you think Kyoto has it's basis? It FROM IPCC "studies". Do you know how insidious these people are? They are targeting SCHOOL CHILDREN to 'make sure the next generations understands the facts". Guess who also targeted school children with "pure race" propaganda? It couldn't sell it to adults so the most vulnerable and impressionable was the best target. And you want those people to do a fair and objective analysis of non supporting evidence? To tell you the truth, I rather have a nuclear winter then to let IPCC become social engineering dictators. Nazi propaganda to school children....  EcoNazi propagand to school children.......  |
|
|
|
Post by PTH on Mar 4, 2007 0:33:23 GMT -5
Sure mainstream scientific opinion = eco-nazism Pretty much sums up my take on this whole topic as well.... |
|
|
|
Post by MC Habber on Mar 4, 2007 1:00:17 GMT -5
Now you are expecting the high priests of the new religion, the same scientist who made their reputation on "human caused global warming" to be objective? Seriously? As opposed to the so-called scientists who are being paid by oil companies and right-wing organizations to say whatever they have to to create doubts that global warming is real? |
|
|
|
Post by ropoflu on Mar 4, 2007 8:51:42 GMT -5
HA, I respect you, but I think our opinions are way too far apart on that topic to make a constructive debate (plus, sparring in a second language might not be a good idea for me). I just wanted to add another perspective on what I feel is a highly important issue. *** Last February, the IPCC released the first of four volumes of its 2007 report “Climate Change 2007: The Physical Science Basis”. It was produced "by some 600 authors from 40 countries. Over 620 expert reviewers and a large number of government reviewers also participated. Representatives from 113 governments reviewed and revised the Summary line-by-line during the course of this week before adopting it and accepting the underlying report" ( www.ipcc.ch/press/prwg2feb07.htm) There will be 3 other volumes released this year. While the first one was an assessment of current scientific knowledge on climate change, the others will be assessments of the future impacts and adaptation by theme (water, food, human health, etc.) and by regions, and the possible responses to these impacts. For those interested the next volume will be available in the beginning of May. The IPCC is pretty transparent about its mechanisms. If you're interested about its structure and procedures you can find it all here (in many languages): www.ipcc.ch/about/about.htmThe IPCC mandate from their website : Recognizing the problem of potential global climate change, the World Meteorological Organization (WMO) and the United Nations Environment Programme (UNEP) established the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) in 1988. It is open to all members of the UN and WMO.
The role of the IPCC is to assess on a comprehensive, objective, open and transparent basis the scientific, technical and socio-economic information relevant to understanding the scientific basis of risk of human-induced climate change, its potential impacts and options for adaptation and mitigation. The IPCC does not carry out research nor does it monitor climate related data or other relevant parameters. It bases its assessment mainly on peer reviewed and published scientific/technical literature. |
|
... less your name is Heather Mills 
