Humans blamed for climate change

[Nathan Struth]

Actually Pooeypants, ATP is produced in the thylokoids as well as the chloroplasts. What you're saying is true about the ribulose biphosphate. I base my hypothesis clearly on the graph about the 75,000 year increase in global temperature.

Anyways all I'm saying is that humans never CAUSED GLOBAL WARMING TO BEGIN!

They may supplement it, but they didn't start it...and many people say"humans are the cause of global warming." The temperature's supposed to go up, look at the graph dude. I'm scared about what will happen when it goes down....

We must adapt, this climate change is inevitable, wheather we decrease it or not. Also the Kyoto accord makes no sense because the developing countries aren't being monitered, which WILL be the main cause of carbon-dioxide increase in the future.

I can't believe Al Gore is going to get the Nobel Peace Prize, all he did is raise awareness and present graphs that indicated time went backwards. I don't even think he knows what a function is.

He also shows blatant hypocrisy when he says to cure the Earth, then gets in an SUV after telling people NOT TO BUY SUV's. Then he gets in a jet plane. So go figure man...

Al Gore's a hypocrite, but that's like most politicians. He doesn't deserve the Nobel Prize.

[Nathan Struth]

I think Cows were the main emitters?????

[The_Genius]

I think it's about time we do something about it. I saw on sky news that world's 200 earth scientists produced a report that shows indeed, humans are to blame for climate change. Polar ice is melting by 10% in each decades. We still have time to rectify it but unfortuantely, world leaders have the biggest role to play in it.

[Milton Bradley]

Quote by: The_Genius I think it's about time we do something about it. I saw on sky news that world's 200 earth scientists produced a report that shows indeed, humans are to blame for climate change. Polar ice is melting by 10% in each decades. We still have time to rectify it but unfortuantely, world leaders have the biggest role to play in it.

If climate change predates humans how is it that you plan to affix the blame on us?


What Nathan is saying is that the fluctuations in the climate are older than the human species, so it is impossible for what you are saying to be true.

[The_Genius]

Quote by: Milton Bradley If climate change predates humans how is it that you plan to affix the blame on us? What Nathan is saying is that the fluctuations in the climate are older than the human species, so it is impossible for what you are saying to be true.

We humans are making it much worse. History shows climate is changing more drastically in recent years than past.

[Athena]

Quote by: RickSp

Cute cartoon.

It would be nice if we were discussing facts. instead of having a go no where arguement.

Whatever, this thread helps me feel better, considering I discovered this morning that someone has stolen my truck, and I wouldn't be able to contribute to global warming, nor the cause for war in the mid east, for awhile. The truth no one wants to deal with is, we have to ridicually change how we live if we are seriously going to stop being part of the problem.

[Athena]

True climate change has happened before. Actually our planet has changed a lot throughout history. Eden was surrounded by four rivers. Rivers have dried up and deserts have spread. However, this time it is the speed of change that leads some to believe it is human caused, not the degree of change.

Global Climate Change during the history of the earth, there have been changes in global temperatures similar in size to these changes. However, the past changes occurred at much slower rates, and thus they were spread out over long periods of time. The slow rate of change allowed most species enough time to adapt to the new climate. The current and predicted rates of temperature change, on the other hand, may be harmful to ecosystems. This is because these rates of temperature change are much faster than those of Earth's past. Many species of plants, animals, and microorganisms may not have enough time to adapt to the new climate. These organisms may become extinct.

[rmnunez]

"Climate change is real" is a meaningless phrase used repeatedly by activists to convince the public that a climate catastrophe is looming and humanity is the cause. Neither of these fears is justified. Global climate changes all the time due to natural causes and the human impact still remains impossible to distinguish from this natural "noise." Open Kyoto to debate

Distinguished climatologists disavows the UN’s climate fundies' conclusions at that IPCC and opted out: Chris Landsea: An Open Letter to the Community

Christopher W. Landsea, Ph.D.

In summary, careful analysis of global hurricane data shows that, against a background of increasing SST (Sea Surface Temperature), no global trend has yet emerged in the number of tropical storms and hurricanes. Only one region, the North Atlantic, shows a statistically significant increase, which commenced in 1995. However, a simple attribution of the increase in numbers of storms to a warming SST environment is not supported, because of the lack of a comparable correlation in other ocean basins where SST is also increasing. The observation that increases in North Atlantic hurricane characteristics have occurred simultaneously with a statistically significant positive trend in SST has led to the speculation that the changes in both fields are the result of global warming (3). Changes in Tropical Cyclone Number, Duration, and Intensity in a Warming Environment -- Webster et al. 309 (5742): 1844 -- Science

That last sentence gives a big scientific OK to every doomsayer who DOES want to propagate a linkage and predict apocalypse. And the authors know it because they themselves say that the speculation would be based on valid evidence and observations.

[Boetie]

I saw the documentary "An Inconvenient Truth A Global Warning". What I find interesting was there were 980 peer reviewed articles written in scientific journals confirming global warming and 0 articles of rebuttal.

When the issue of Global Warming became part of public discussion, lo and behold rebuttals surfaced and whom where those that were behind the articles of rebuttals? Why none other than affiliates of Giant Oil Companies. A case example of this is Phillip Cooney Philip Cooney - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

While never denying Cooney's editing of the documents, the White House claimed that such changes were part of the normal adjustments in language to government documents and that the documents were passed through multiple agencies while editing the document. Two days after the article was published, Cooney resigned his position as chief of staff for the White House Council on Environmental Quality, and got a job at ExxonMobil. However, his resignation was planned months before the memo was leaked and he had already accepted the position at ExxonMobil. Prior to working for the Bush Administration, Cooney was a lawyer and lobbyist for the American Petroleum Institute, an industry lobbying organization which has, since 1997, opposed emissions limits by claiming that there was too much uncertainty in climate science. Philip Cooney and his role in editing climate change reports were referenced in the documentary, An Inconvenient Truth.

980 scientific peer reviewed articles and 0 rebuttal. The trick of the Oil Companies is to not even try to put up scientific rebuttals the trick is to create doubt via rhetoric.

Science vs rhetoric which should trump which?

[rmnunez]

So far we've documented 3 or 4 high-ranking meterologists or climatologists resigning or being threatened with dismissal over this. I suspect weathermen who want to keep their jobs will keep quiet about their disagreement with the "consensus" that the earth faces catastrophic global warming due to united statian CO2 emissions and Bush's failure to ratify Kyoto. But this doesn't seem very "scientific" to me.

[Boetie]

Quote by: rmnunez So far we've documented 3 or 4 high-ranking meterologists or climatologists resigning or being threatened with dismissal over this. I suspect weathermen who want to keep their jobs will keep quiet about their disagreement with the "consensus" that the earth faces catastrophic global warming due to united statian CO2 emissions and Bush's failure to ratify Kyoto. But this doesn't seem very "scientific" to me.

What scientific data do these meterologists or climatologists have? Did they measure the CO2 emmissions in the atmosphere? How did they measure it? Did they go to the North and South poles and collect data there? Did they spill over into the field of biology and collect data on the shift of the fall and spring and the impact it has on various species?

I could go on and on with the lists of questions regarding your meterologists or climatologists rebuttals but what I suspect is that they have nothing but rhetoric and what I asked is should rhetoric trump science?

[rmnunez]

I don't know what dissenting meteorologists or climatologists premise their disagreement on, but would figure it probably is some of the same stuff you mention (CO2 emmissions, polar data and whatever else would be normally considered by very distinguished scientists specialized in such studies).

In the scientific community, you are as good as your reputation, among meteorologists its the accuracy of your forecasts.

[rmnunez]

The focus on predicting climate change so that we can stop it (which is why long-term climate change is now defined as anthropogenic and short-term weather is ignored) is like a modernized King Canute ordering the tides around. Course, we've even lost the original point of that story -which was that he ordered the tides to obey to show sycophants of power that there are limits to the human power to change things. "Think something and it will be" may work at a Tony Robbins lecture -but there ARE limits.

This link Climate Change is to a rather long article which provides a reasonably clear overview of the climate change question and covers both the geological, long term, frame and weather, short term, frame rather well as I see it. Its not overly technical and does a reasonbly good job of highlighting the difficulties of both projection and adaption.

[Pooeypants]

Quote by: Nathan Struth Actually Pooeypants, ATP is produced in the thylokoids as well as the chloroplasts.

Minute portions are production relative to respiration. But my point was, photosynthesis is about anabolism and not energy generation.

Quote by: Nathan Struth What you're saying is true about the ribulose biphosphate. I base my hypothesis clearly on the graph about the 75,000 year increase in global temperature.

First of all, your graph's hyper link is not working. Second of all, how are you going to test that hypothesis? Give me a brief overview of your experiments, including the controls you'll include.

Quote by: Nathan Struth Anyways all I'm saying is that humans never CAUSED GLOBAL WARMING TO BEGIN! They may supplement it, but they didn't start it...and many people say"humans are the cause of global warming." The temperature's supposed to go up, look at the graph dude. I'm scared about what will happen when it goes down....

Why would you been scared? Those temperature changes usually take far longer than what we're seeing now.

Quote by: Nathan Struth We must adapt, this climate change is inevitable, wheather we decrease it or not.

But not at the rate we're seeing if humans hadn't intervened. That's the whole point of the IPCC report.
QUOTE=Nathan Struth;339499]Also the Kyoto accord makes no sense because the developing countries aren't being monitered, which WILL be the main cause of carbon-dioxide increase in the future.[/quote]The developing countries haven't had the decades of technology that we've enjoyed. Are you going to be a hypocrite and deny them this revolution?

Quote by: Nathan Struth I can't believe Al Gore is going to get the Nobel Peace Prize, all he did is raise awareness and present graphs that indicated time went backwards. I don't even think he knows what a function is.

I don't care about Al Gore, he's just another Politician. Please drop the case about the time going backwards, it's getting really tired and most importantly, NO ONE CARES.

Quote by: Nathan Struth He also shows blatant hypocrisy when he says to cure the Earth, then gets in an SUV after telling people NOT TO BUY SUV's. Then he gets in a jet plane. So go figure man... Al Gore's a hypocrite, but that's like most politicians. He doesn't deserve the Nobel Prize.

Agreed, I've never endorsed Al Gore so this point is moot.

[sevendogs]

I do not do global warming too much, but I believe it is eminent, no matter what we can or cannot do. This is global and this is beyond our control. We can control many things, but we are helpless to control growth of our own population. Politicians compete with each other helping raise more children, growth of economy, more jobs, etc. Nations compete for resources, globalization accelerates changes on the whole planet. Just watch. Future generations will witness mass extinction of many species, including our own species. May be a few survivors wil remain and, if they would learn something from history, a new and a wise civilization will regrow....

[rmnunez]

Global warming is a false myth and every serious person and scientist says so. It is not fair to refer to the U.N. panel. IPCC is not a scientific institution: it's a political body, a sort of non-government organization of green flavor. It's neither a forum of neutral scientists nor a balanced group of scientists. These people are politicized scientists who arrive there with a one-sided opinion and a one-sided assignment. Also, it's an undignified slapstick that people don't wait for the full report in May 2007 but instead respond, in such a serious way, to the summary for policymakers where all the "but's" are scratched, removed, and replaced by oversimplified theses.

I think he means with conditions, considerations or provisos removed, rather than posteriors.

This is clearly such an incredible failure of so many people, from journalists to politicians. If the European Commission is instantly going to buy such a trick, we have another very good reason to think that the countries themselves, not the Commission, should be deciding about similar issues.

Do remember this is the head of state of an EU member, this are very serious considerations that have impact. The EU appears incompetent (in capacity and in practice) in this area.

Q: How do you explain that there is no other comparably senior statesman in Europe who would advocate this viewpoint? No one else has such strong opinions... A: My opinions about this issue simply are strong. Other top-level politicians do not express their global warming doubts because a whip of political correctness strangles their voice. Q: But you're not a climate scientist. Do you have a sufficient knowledge and enough information? A: Environmentalism as a metaphysical ideology and as a worldview has absolutely nothing to do with natural sciences or with the climate. Sadly, it has nothing to do with social sciences either. Still, it is becoming fashionable and this fact scares me. The second part of the sentence should be: we also have lots of reports, studies, and books of climatologists whose conclusions are diametrally opposite. Indeed, I never measure the thickness of ice in Antarctica. I really don't know how to do it and don't plan to learn it. However, as a scientifically oriented person, I know how to read science reports about these questions, for example about ice in Antarctica. I don't have to be a climate scientist myself to read them. And inside the papers I have read, the conclusions we may see in the media simply don't appear. But let me promise you something: this topic troubles me which is why I started to write an article about it last Christmas. The article expanded and became a book. In a couple of months, it will be published. One chapter out of seven will organize my opinions about the climate change.• Environmentalism and green ideology is something very different from climate science. Various findings and screams of scientists are abused by this ideology.• Q: How do you explain that conservative media are skeptical while the left-wing media view the global warming as a done deal?• A: It is not quite exactly divided to the left-wingers and right-wingers. Nevertheless it's obvious that environmentalism is a new incarnation of modern leftism. Q: If you look at all these things, even if you were right ...• A: ...I am right...• Q: Isn't there enough empirical evidence and facts we can see with our eyes that imply that Man is demolishing the planet and himself?• A: It's such a nonsense that I have probably not heard a bigger nonsense yet. Q: Don't you believe that we're ruining our planet? A: I will pretend that I haven't heard you. Perhaps only Mr Al Gore may be saying something along these lines: a sane person can't. I don't see any ruining of the planet, I have never seen it, and I don't think that a reasonable and serious person could say such a thing. Look: you represent the economic media so I expect a certain economical erudition from you. My book will answer these questions. For example, we know that there exists a huge correlation between the care we give to the environment on one side and the wealth and technological prowess on the other side. It's clear that the poorer the society is, the more brutally it behaves with respect to Nature, and vice versa. It's also true that there exist social systems that are damaging Nature - by eliminating private ownership and similar things - much more than the freer societies. These tendencies become important in the long run. They unambiguously imply that today, on February 8th, 2007, Nature is protected uncomparably more than on February 8th ten years ago or fifty years ago or one hundred years ago. That's why I ask: how can you pronounce the sentence you said? Perhaps if you're unconscious? Or did you mean it as a provocation only? And maybe I am just too naive and I allowed you to provoke me to give you all these answers, am I not? It is more likely that you actually believe what you say. DRUDGE REPORT FLASH 2007®

Twenty years ago, climate research became politicised in favour of one particular hypothesis, which redefined the subject as the study of the effect of greenhouse gases. As a result, the rebellious spirits essential for innovative and trustworthy science are greeted with impediments to their research careers. And while the media usually finds mavericks at least entertaining, in this case they often imagine that anyone who doubts the hypothesis of man-made global warming must be in the pay of the oil companies. As a result, some key discoveries in climate research go almost unreported.

Enthusiasm for the global-warming scare also ensures that heatwaves make headlines, while contrary symptoms, such as this winter’s billion-dollar loss of Californian crops to unusual frost, are relegated to the business pages. The early arrival of migrant birds in spring provides colourful evidence for a recent warming of the northern lands. But did anyone tell you that in east Antarctica the Adélie penguins and Cape petrels are turning up at their spring nesting sites around nine days later than they did 50 years ago? While sea-ice has diminished in the Arctic since 1978, it has grown by 8% in the Southern Ocean. An experiment that hints we are wrong on climate change-News-UK-TimesOnline

[Apeman81]

Quote by: Pooeypants Source So, is 90% certainty enough for you skeptics or do we need to wait even longer?

so what caused all the previous cooling and warming periods?

Just how much affect do you believe man can have, given that they occupy such a minute percentage of the surface of the planet, which is surrounded by a miles deep atmosphere?

[rmnunez]

You shouldn't collectivize the harm as caused by "man" its the united statians and their greedy multinationals refusing to abide by those Kyoto accords which are causing the greatest damage.

A US study suggests two of Greenland's largest glaciers are melting at variable rates and not at an increasing trend. The study, led by Ian Howat, a researcher with the University of Colorado's National Snow and Ice Data Center and the University of Washington's Applied Physics Laboratory, shows the glaciers shrank dramatically and dumped twice as much ice into the sea during a period of less than a year between 2004 and 2005. But then, fewer than two years later, they returned to near their previous rates of discharge. Howat says such variability during such a short time underlines the problem in assuming glacial melting and sea level rise will necessarily occur at a steady upward trajectory. "Our main point is that the behavior of these glaciers can change a lot from year to year, so we can't assume to know the future behavior from short records of recent changes," he said. "Future warming may lead to rapid pulses of retreat and increased discharge rather than a long, steady drawdown." BREITBART.COM - Study: Glacier melting can be variable

So now we need to recalculate how fast those sea levels are going to rise, apparently its not as simple as calculating how many tons of ice there are and figuring how much its melting would raise those levels.

Some experts have questioned the alarmists theory on global warming leading to shrinkage of Himalayan glaciers. VK Raina, a leading glaciologist and former ADG of GSI is one among them. He feels that the research on Indian glaciers is negligible. Nothing but the remote sensing data forms the basis of these alarmists observations and not on the spot research. Raina told the Hindustan Times that out of 9,575 glaciers in India, till date, research has been conducted only on about 50. Nearly 200 years data has shown that nothing abnormal has occurred in any of these glaciers. It is simple. The issue of glacial retreat is being sensationalised by a few individuals, the septuagenarian Raina claimed. Throwing a gauntlet to the alarmist, he said the issue should be debated threadbare before drawing a conclusion. Experts question theory on global warming : HindustanTimes.com

I suspect the next thing we read from Mr. VK Raina is that he has been fired for disputing the UN weathermen's 'consensus'.

[iHu]

Long-term, we need to try and understand what the scientific data is trying to say. The information and sources seem quite sound to me, whether or not you like Al Gore is unimportant.

We are positioned in a warming trend, and this could get tough on humankind. We know we are a part of it. A little sense of commitment to the other instead of our individual selves would go a long way. We can really go after (our portion of) global warming, but too many in power cannot tackle it without motivation. Some of them will never be motivated, they have clear goals and any admitted knowledge of global warming would harm their other goals. Humans have an amazing ability to afford themselves an enorumous bubble of protection when the intelligence does not suit the dream.

[rmnunez]

The Democrats in the US Congress, concerned over the recent UN finding by a High Panel of thousands of distinguished international climatologists, published weather scientists, and meteorologists of world renown, that global warming was caused by human activity, convened a Special Session of Congress to discuss the matter, canceled:

HOUSE HEARING ON 'WARMING OF THE PLANET' CANCELED AFTER ICE STORM HEARING NOTICE Tue Feb 13 2007 19:31:25 ET The Subcommittee on Energy and Air Quality hearing scheduled for Wednesday, February 14, 2007, at 10:00 a.m. in room 2123 Rayburn House Office Building has been postponed due to inclement weather. The hearing is entitled “Climate Change: Are Greenhouse Gas Emissions from Human Activities Contributing to a Warming of the Planet?” DRUDGE REPORT FLASH 2007®