Global Warming News

[kyspartan]

keeg, i am a democrat that voted for clinton but i did not vote for gore i did not vote for w and did not vote for obama, i also believe in the 2nd amendment, the extreme left scares me as much as the right does.
i also have some common sense and don't take everthing at face value.

there is not a consensus because all the desenting scientist are black balled and forced from the major peer review processes and publications. i urge you to go back and read throught the links that has been posted in this thread.
no one here is advocating cutting the cats off their cars, but turning the u.s. into a third world country and putting us under the boot heel of a nonelected world goverment scares me a helluve a lot more than global warming

please read here where the climategate emails are being released the Air Vent

List of scientists opposing the mainstream scientific assessment of global warming - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Global warming consensus? 31,000 scientists disagree
Global warming 祖onsensus? 31,000 scientists disagree Tad Cronn

Home - Global Warming Petition Project

the only consensus among scientists is the goverment payroll scientists are full of shi7 and makeing up data.

 

[dave1949]

Oh? More extreme than what? Looking at long term cycles, we are no where near extremes. Those that claim we are having extremes are cherry picking the data.



The problem with common sense is that it's not very common

While I agree that something will change (with CO2), it is not clear:
1-- that mankind can have a significant affect on the globe (especially compared to natural processes like volcanoes)
2-- that it is a good or bad change. More CO2 will encourage plant growth (e.g. trees). Is that good or bad?

The one point that screams to me that all of this is a scam is that the proposals will NOT make a difference globally. If the U.S. destroys it's economy, all the dirty industries will move to China, India, etc. where there will be even MORE pollution created! China is adding a coal fired power plant every day, and each one of them is dirtier than the U.S. power plants. How is it helping the global environment to move industries to countries with less controls and restrictions? It doesn't! This is just a scam to destroy the developed economies. Somebody is going to get rich off of this scam, the economic health of the U.S. be damned!

If China, etc. had to meet the same requirements, it would be a different story. But that has never been in the plan. This is nothing more than a redistribution of wealth plan, dressed up in hysteria.

Ken

I guess it comes down to the definition of 'extreme'. I am not talking about catastrophies. I don't think the early climatologists were either. Something like the current cold snap across the US south, the UK, etc. is an extreme. Comparable weather only has been recorded a few times since records began.

Since you ask is more CO2 good or bad, it would be nice to have a definitive answer before having a whole lot more CO2. It is so complex we will never be able to answer the question. We will be good at cataloging the obvious effects as they happen I fear.

If the globe is warming, will the response be ineffectual? Probably. Aside from a few brighter spots such as WHO, there aren't many global cooperation successes to look at. As a species, we don't know how to do it.

Commericial globalization of economic activity as practised by multinational corporations is shifting around the globe wherever feasible like water seeking it own level. Unfortunately for us in the US, we have a lot to loose in that process. I'm not sure it is exactly a zero-sum game, but it could be close.

Standardizing regulations around the globe is about the only way I can think of to prevent this. We don't know how to do that either. Whole cultures would have to change. In at least one-third of the world, the regulations don't matter as long as a good bribe can be paid.
Dave.

 

[EddieWalker]

ISince you ask is more CO2 good or bad, it would be nice to have a definitive answer before having a whole lot more CO2. It is so complex we will never be able to answer the question. We will be good at cataloging the obvious effects as they happen I fear.

If the globe is warming, will the response be ineffectual? .

If CO2 is causing the planet to warm up, then why has the planet been cooling for the past decade? One of the more reveiling emails that came out in the climategate scandal is they one complaining about not understanding why the planet is cooling. They don't have a clue what is going on, and are desperate to keep the hoax going in the hopes that the planet will start warming again. For them, it's a waiting game until their predictions come true. Until then, they will fabricate and change the evidence to support thier theories.

A simple question to ask yourself. If CO2 leads to an increase in global temperatures, and CO2 is a result of human activity, why is the planet cooling while human activity is increasing. The Chinese are doing allot to put out CO2, but the planet isn't warming.

Is it possible that the scientist who disagree with man made global warming might be correct in their theory that CO2 levels follow planet temperatures? Could it be possible that CO2 levels have nothing to do with global tempertures? The answer to both questions is yes. It is possible, and that's just as good a guess as CO2 being responsible. Since nobody knows what the answer is, the only thing left to conclued is the motivation for making the claims without any evidence. Is it for personal gain? Prestige? Power?

Since they don't know what CO2 does, or it's effect, what makes you think that they know how to stop it or change it? Giveing third world countries billions of dollars is the UN's answer, but nobody has been able to explain how that actually cools the planet.

Then there is the question that nobody will answer. What temperature is the right one? the best one? With everything, there is good and bad. Global Warming people have been very outspoken on all the bad that can happen. It might even be their downfall, because I feel that they went too far and became silly in their predictions. Oceans rising 30 feet is pretty absurd.

What are the benifits of a warmer planet? More farmland? Less energy used to heat homes? Longer growing seasons? More rain? Fewer people freezing to death? There has to be a positive side to a warmer planet. Where are the pros and cons to this?

I feel that the sun is what decided what the temperature on the planet will be. There is nothing that we can do to change this. We cannot make it warmer and we cannot make it cooler. All we can do is be good shepards of what we have and leave the planet a better place for our children.

Eddie

 

[buckeyefarmer]

We got another 2" of global warming overnight.

I've heard the claim that global warming will increase the ocean depths, yet I know of places along the England coast that were under water 100 yrs ago, and now are not. Either the land rose or the water level has dropped in the last 100 years. If the water goes back up, I'm sure global warming will get blamed, but it appears there are long term cycles in weather. There was once an ice age, so I'm told, so apparently there has been global warming going on for a long time. Today's global warming "crisis" is just a political game. Tomorrow another crisis will come along to make us forget this one.

 

[buckeyefarmer]

It boggles my mind that there is nothing in it that addresses the reasons for the high costof medical treatment. If you don't fix the problem, then it's not going to get any better. And there is a list of why we should be very afraid of what is going on with health care. They are forced to bribe members of their own party to vote for it. They refuse to share what's actually in the bill, and they are rushing it through like there is some emergancy to pass a bill that won't go into effect until 2011. Since it doesn't do anything until then, why not debate what's in it and make it public so everyone can read it?

AMEN!

 

[EddieWalker]

Sorry, I just noticed that I got the date wrong. The bill goes into effect in 2013.

If it's so important to pass health care, why is it ok to wait until 2013 to put it into effect?

Why couldn't it be debated until 2012, and then pass it and spend a full year getting it into place?

Eddie

 

[kenstrac]

Because by 2013 thats when the country will be bankrupt and SOL.

 

[keegs]

Good try, but in your accusations, you expose yourself.

Debate is what is missing and we are all responsible for learning as much about it as possible. While I agree with you that there are two sides to every issue, there is one side who wants to debate it, and another side that refuses to do so.

I'm on the side that wants to debate global warming.

I'm also of the opinion that we need to debate and analyze what is in the health care bill.

It boggles my mind that there is nothing in it that addresses the reasons for the high costof medical treatment. If you don't fix the problem, then it's not going to get any better. And there is a list of why we should be very afraid of what is going on with health care. They are forced to bribe members of their own party to vote for it. They refuse to share what's actually in the bill, and they are rushing it through like there is some emergancy to pass a bill that won't go into effect until 2011. Since it doesn't do anything until then, why not debate what's in it and make it public so everyone can read it?

Eddie,

To imply there's not been a debate is just incorrect. Public debate on climate change has been underway for at least two decades.

There's enough consensus now on this issue that countries arround the world are committing significant resources to it.

There is also consensus that there are significant consequences to delaying remediation efforts.

As the world's largest emitter of CO2 on a per-capita basis, we need to be part of this effort.

I don't doubt your sincerity in beleiving that more examination is warranted but belief isn't knowledge.

 

[Ken45101]

I guess it comes down to the definition of 'extreme'. I am not talking about catastrophies. I don't think the early climatologists were either. Something like the current cold snap across the US south, the UK, etc. is an extreme. Comparable weather only has been recorded a few times since records began.

"Comparable weather only has been recorded a few times....."????

I remember in the 60's and 70's when we had two weeks that never got above zero (Cincinnati). So far, 8 ABOVE zero is our coldest this winter. In 1937 and 1976, the Ohio River froze at Cincinnati. This is NOT an extreme winter, at least not yet.

It is normal for weather to fluctuate. It's also pretty well known that the forecasters can't forecast two weeks with accuracy. We should believe they can forecast 50 or 100 years?

How can you claim this is one of the coldest winters on record.....and claim that "Global Warming" is a real issue????

Eddie Walker is on target.

Ken

 

[20 20]

They are supposedly related to grizzly bears. Maybe one day we will be seeing pie-bald 'grizzpoles'.
Dave.

Funny you mentioned this, quess what that day is allready here. There was a story about a guy that shot what he thought was a polar bear. Well it wasn't, infact he even got in trouble for shooting an illegal bear. After many brains came together they finally decided it was a cross breed between polar and grizz. The bear was beautifull.

 

[charlz]

I guess it comes down to the definition of 'extreme'. I am not talking about catastrophies. I don't think the early climatologists were either. Something like the current cold snap across the US south, the UK, etc. is an extreme. Comparable weather only has been recorded a few times since records began.

Which is really only what? 150 years or so of instrument recorded temperatures for some parts of the world? Hardly enough to predict climate the next few years much less the next 100 or so.

We know they used to grow wine grapes in England. We know the Thames used to freeze solid enough for them to hold a Winter Carnival on it. Which one is an 'extreme' and which one is 'normal'? Neither happen today... is today's non-warm, non-cold an 'extreme'?

 

[Pilot]

A few comments on previous posts:

Old growth forests: A very politicized issue with lots of lies. I managed timber on a district that was very productive. We had a young biologist visit an area that we planned to log. He came back excited about how great the old growth and owl habitat there was there. Sorry, it wasn稚 old growth葉he trees were about 80 years old. I counted the rings myself. And we had photos from fire lookouts from about the 1920痴 that showed a young stand in the area. We could manage stands to produce old growth conditions in much less than the mandated 200 years, even on poorer sites. But politicians got involved and the committee that was set up to develop an owl management plan excluded those excellent scientists who advocated active management. I, for one, don稚 trust politicians from either side.

There is a group of scientists who are very influential in the climate research arena. They have invested their entire careers investigating the possibility of global warming, then when convinced, they publicized the notion that earth is warming due to man痴 influence. I suspect that given contrary data, they can稚 believe it, they deny it and work to discredit anyone who disagrees with them. After all, their life痴 work may have been wasted. Just my opinion, but it is a fact that some of the people at the heart of Climategate have worked on the question since the ?0痴. Doesn稚 mean they are right. The Brits are investigating the CRU, by the way.

There is no debate in the media because the media folks believe the alarmists. They have not read the 2558 page IPCC report critically, they haven稚 looked at the references to check for validity or whether conflicting data was considered. The reporters you hear and read are not qualified, they got their BA in journalism, so they report what they are spoon fed and write what agrees with their world and political view. This is why they have not taken the skeptics seriously, even though many skeptics have impressive credentials. For example, a recent quarter page article in the Oregonian newspaper about Climategate simply listed the charges that developed from the emails and repeated the answers from the CRU people whose email was hacked. There was no attempt to check those answers. For example, the mention of using 溺ike痴 nature trick to hide the decline was answered by the CRU folks by saying that the word �rick was a common term by scientists to mean something clever and didn稚 indicate deceit and that痴 what was printed But a search of those 1,000 or so emails never turned up the word �rick in that context. The reporter didn稚 check on the assertion, she simply repeated what the CRU said.

Then there are the lists of scientists who support and lists who question global warming. The problem with both lists is the lack of qualifications. I have BS & MS degrees in Forest Science. The criteria allow me to add my name to either listæ‚* haven稚. Those lists mean nothing; they are just attempts to sell one side or the other.

And yes, even though 877 snow depth records were set across the country last month, this means nothing in terms of the debate. Even if warming is happening, there will be year to year variations, with some unusually cold years.

Global warming is a very important issue. No one knows whether it is happening or not. The question is very complex and the models are crude with many unfounded assumptions. Before we spend $ trillions, we need to get the science right.

 

[keegs]

pilot....is the implication here that the lumber industry and those employed by the lumber industry are disinterested parties in how the resource is exploited?

Again, to my mind, the notion that countries around the world have somehow been hoodwinked into committing scarce resources into remediation efforts unnecessarily is questionable.

 

[IH3444]

"To imply there's not been a debate is just incorrect. Public debate on climate change has been underway for at least two decades."
Cite sources please. Where? When? Who?

Al Gore has never debated anyone who has asked him. He has self appointed himself to this throne. But unwilling to pit his facts against anyone who has offer to debate him in open public forum.

"There's enough consensus now on this issue that countries arround the world are committing significant resources to it."
France just exempeted many businesses, especially power generation from any carbon taxes and CO2 limits. Many Euro countries are trying to get there carbon, and CO2 limits raised.

"There is also consensus that there are significant consequences to delaying remediation efforts."
What consequences? Millions of years ago, when the dinos roamed the earth, the earth was hotter than now. By as much as 7 degrees. Much hotter that even the most "Pie-in-the-sky" computer models predict now. Life flourished. It was a time of the greatest variation of plant life ever, as well as most abundance. Will a warmer earth bring back the dinosaurs?
That could be real trouble, and also an oppertunity for great Bar-Be_queing.
Dinoburger anyone?

"As the world's largest emitter of CO2 on a per-capita basis, we need to be part of this effort."
Ummmmm......I have read that China is now king of that hill. The per-capita ploy is another twist to say we emit the most.

We use a lot of energy in the United States, and we are most efficent at using energy.

And Eddie gave out the biggest hint. IT'S THE SUN THAT HEATS THE PLANET.

 

[dave1949]

"Comparable weather only has been recorded a few times....."????

I remember in the 60's and 70's when we had two weeks that never got above zero (Cincinnati). So far, 8 ABOVE zero is our coldest this winter. In 1937 and 1976, the Ohio River froze at Cincinnati. This is NOT an extreme winter, at least not yet.

It is normal for weather to fluctuate. It's also pretty well known that the forecasters can't forecast two weeks with accuracy. We should believe they can forecast 50 or 100 years?

How can you claim this is one of the coldest winters on record.....and claim that "Global Warming" is a real issue????

Eddie Walker is on target.

Ken

Well, how far from normal would you consider extreme? Again, it is a matter of definition. You mention four cold events in Cinn. Out of 150 years or so of weather records, four events would be extremes I think.

Ken, I never said this is one of the coldest winters on record. Some locations are having a pretty good cold snap. That isn't the same thing. You would have to combine the winter temps from many locations around the globe and compare that to an average to say it is a cold winter. Locally, some people are seeing some extreme cold this winter.

I am not convinced the ability to forecast, in detail, the weather for a given location 3-5 days out has anything to do with the ability to decide what global conditions will be in the future. I would suspect anyone's science credentials who makes such a statement.

When the local/regional weather forecast is given, all of the inputs to that forecast already exist. Low/high pressure fronts, location of the jet stream, approaching weather systems, current temps in many locations, current wind speeds, etc.

If forecasting the global conditions 50-100 years in advance, a whole set of other data would be needed, some of which doesn't exist yet. It's a cheap and meaningless shot in my opinion. The two problems don't have a lot in common.
Dave.

 

[EddieWalker]

Eddie,

To imply there's not been a debate is just incorrect. Public debate on climate change has been underway for at least two decades.

There's enough consensus now on this issue that countries arround the world are committing significant resources to it.

One of the biggest challenges that exist in the global warming issue is that none of them will debate. NOT ONE of them. Even when Al Gore has testified in front of congress, no questions are allowed. It's so one sided that it's become a big reason that so many people have started to question what they have to hide.

You say that there has been public debate for 20 years. That would indicate that finding proof or evidence of those debates would be easy. I'd love to read about those debates. I'd find it interesting.

A concensous is not science. Only provable and repeatable facts are science. Your so called concensous is a minority of scientists who have been discredited as liars and fabricators. They don't have any science or proof to back up their claims, and they have now gone so far as to destroy their documentation. Doesn't that raise any red flags? Destroying all the original data with the excuse that it took up too much room. I don't know what is worse, the fact that they lied about it, or that's the limit of how smart they are in making up a lie.

When you say countries around the world are commiting significant resourse, you really mean those countries want the US to commit significant resourses towards their pockets so the leaders of those countries can get rich off of US taxpayers.

Lets have the debate and openly share the science. The day that happens, all doubt and suspision will be removed. That day has never happened, and it never wil. There is a reason for it, and it's not because of all the requests from the deniers to have a debate. One side really wants to debate, the other side just says the debate is over without actualy debating anybody.

What am I missing?

Eddie

 

[dave1949]

Funny you mentioned this, quess what that day is allready here. There was a story about a guy that shot what he thought was a polar bear. Well it wasn't, infact he even got in trouble for shooting an illegal bear. After many brains came together they finally decided it was a cross breed between polar and grizz. The bear was beautifull.

Well, there you go. I think the polar bears will make it. The number of garbage dumps and their proximity to the north pole is directly proportional to the increase in Arctic temperatures. Sad, but sort of ironic too.
Dave.

 

[keegs]

Eddie,

If you haven't been tuned into the climate change debate then you can certainly research it. I recommend you start at wikipedia.

And efforts have been underway in many if not most developed countries for decades now. I know of significant examples in Germany, the UK, Denmark, Sweden and Japan. I'm sure if you cared to do the research you'd find plenty of examples and additional information about these and other countries as well.

Remediation will be much more difficult if not impossible without the cooperation of the world's major contributors which include the US.

I think your characterizations of the climate science community is incorrect Eddie and it seems to me that you've taken a very partisan political position here.

Again, there's no global warming conspiracy. Your choice in acceptting that fact is certainly yours to make.

 

[IH3444]

Now that's an endangered species....a Polarizzly.

 

[EddieWalker]

Eddie,

If you haven't been tuned into the climate change debate then you can certainly research it. I recommend you start at wikipedia.

And efforts have been underway in many if not most developed countries for decades now. I know of significant examples in Germany, the UK, Denmark, Sweden and Japan. I'm sure if you cared to do the research you'd find plenty of examples and additional information about these and other countries as well.

Remediation will be much more difficult if not impossible without the cooperation of the world's major contributors which include the US.

I think your characterizations of the climate science community is incorrect Eddie and it seems to me that you've taken a very partisan political position here.

Again, there's no global warming conspiracy. Your choice in acceptting that fact is certainly yours to make.

My reason for replying to your posts is that I hope it gives others that might be curios about the debate some ideas of what both sides feel. I realize that we will never change each others minds. It is what it is, and I'm fine with that. The bigger pictures is that the tide has turned and the truth is coming out. The emails were HUGE and pretty much put an end to the argument. A few years ago when this topic came up, it was a much differet debate. Now there are a few of you who still believe, but that number is shrinking.

Wikipedia is OK for basic information, but it's extremly liberal on politics. I looked up the Hockey Stick on there and they actually have Michael Mann's graph and site him as an expert. He's one of the main guys who's been discredited and proven to be a liar. His efforst to eliminate the Medival Warming Period are too much for even those who used to defend him. He's now an outcast and will soon disapear completely.

Your reply failed to mention any debates, but instead sites the countries that are pushing for global warming. Even though they failed to meet their own emission and carbon goals, they feel that they can tell us what to do. Why just the US and not India, China and Russia? Could it be because those countries just laughed at them and don't even pretend like it's something they will do?

For a debate to take place, you need experts from both sides of the isle. When you have meetings with just those how support global warming, regardless of what country it's in, it's not a debate.

The reason you can't site a single debate is that it's never happened.

Thank you for your reply, it was what I had hoped for.

Eddie