Global Warming, we are the babe in the woods.

[Whatssnew]

I find it strange how hard it is to find comparisons on human pollution vs. natural pollution (i.e. forest fires, volcanic activity, oceans, plants, tectonic rifts...)

I believe that the people that blame people for global warming, are nieve. In a controlled environment with known variables you can make an accurate scientific hypothosis. However earth has a vast array of variables, and many are unknown so how can you make a accuarate scientific hypothosis? For example, I give you the oceans. They cover much of the planet, yet we are just now starting to realize that the oceans have changed in temp. and chemical compisition frequently throught history. Just one of those two factors would have a significant impact on global climate. So can you realy say difinitively that people really are to blame for global warming? Let alone, to blame for the oceans warming? There is alot we don't know, at this time I feel we can safely say we have an effect. As to how much an effect seems to be more a political issue than a scientificly based argument. Lastly, I feel that of the millions of variables, it is extreemly complex to predict how they all react with eachother, and how the reactions create more counter reactions. ok...please don't base arguments on one or two variables...please.

[PatC]

You forgot to add how refusing to ratify the Kyoto Protocol helps big business.

[LookToTheFuture]

Maybe i am nieve. I would have thought that scientists who study the changes in the climate, ocean temperatures, animal populations, changes in the ozone layer and the like would have enough foresite to take into consideration that the earth itself is a constantly changing entity. I mean, since these same or associated scientific minds would be the folks who through the study of layers of polar ice can theorise that the earth goes through cycles of heating up and cooling down anyway. I do agree however that the scale of the damage that human influence has on the planet is still an extremely inexact science but they will refine it in time.... depending on how much we have weather it be human or natural causes it is changing for the worse.

[Chaossaber314]

Quote by: PatC You forgot to add how refusing to ratify the Kyoto Protocol helps big business.

Much like ratifying it helps Chinese big business since they're exempt.

[Sandy]

Tuesday, March 4, 2008
An Extraordinary Event

By Alan Caruba

For two days, March 2-4 in New York, I and about five hundred other people attended the 2008 International Conference on Climate Change, including some of the world’s leading authorities on climatology, meteorology, economics, energy, and other fields of knowledge.

It was an extraordinary event, held in New York and sponsored by the Heartland Institute, a Chicago-based think tank that has been among those leading the effort to educate and inform the public about the mountain of lies that have led them to believe that the Earth is experiencing a huge increase in heat, a "global warming", that is allegedly the direct result of human activities, primarily from the use of energy that includes coal, natural gas, and oil.

The conference message is simplicity itself: There is no “consensus” on global warming. The science is not “settled.” Indeed, this conference marks a highpoint in the effort to rescue the planet from people who regard their fellow human beings as a cancer afflicting the Earth.

This hoax, generated out of the United Nation’s Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, actually included some IPCC members who have labored long and hard to dispute the IPCC reports on the basis of real science, not the spurious claims based largely on flawed and even deliberately false computer models.

In breakfasts, luncheons, and dinners, some of these now-famed global warming “dissenters” and “deniers” presented talks complete with power-point presentations filled with statistics and charts that disputed the alleged facts of the IPCC. These presentations were then augmented by a series of panels on paleoclimatology, climatology, the impacts of the global warming hoax, its affect on the economics of both developed and developing nations, and how it twists the politics of our nation and others.

What made this event so extraordinary was that it is, to my knowledge, the first time since the global warming hoax was perpetrated back in the 1980s (it had been preceded by a campaign in the 1970s asserting—correctly—that we are closer to the next ice age) that such a gathering has occurred. It has taken three decades to bring together these experts and the reason why is fairly simple.

The forces behind the global warming hoax, the environmental organizations, have been heavily funded by foundations and, as in the United States, by billions of government dollars directed to research on the climate. These groups have garnered more money from membership and the sales of all manner of books, publications, DVDs and other items. Still others have made their money by suing the government and having their legal fees reimbursed along with any other rewards.

The “stars” of the conference were men with impeccable credentials, but largely unknown to the general public because the media has been enthralled with the global warming hoaxers, either deliberately or by virtue of being disinterested in the actual science involved. Too many have failed their commitment to journalism’s high standards and they have failed a public that depends on them to explain these complex issues. By March 4, The Washington Post published a "hit job" on the Conference depicting its speakers and attendees as "flat Earth" loonies.

For decades, the headlines have heralded all manner of crisis to the point of absurdity whereby now blizzards are attributed to warming tends. This passed year has seen significant and unusual blizzard conditions worldwide and this too, the public has been told, results from a dramatic warming that is not occurring.

For me, there was the particular pleasure of actually meeting many of those who have been on the front lines of disputing the hoax, but our work is far from finished.

Much damage is being done to America by legislation based on the global warming lies, particularly as regards their impact on the provision of the energy this nation requires to be competitive in the global marketplace and to sustain our lifestyle. Our political candidates all subscribe to the global warming hoax. The leaders in the Senate and House all advocate it as well.

The result is legislation that forces the nation to literally burn its food crops—notably corn—in order to turn it into an efficient fuel additive, ethanol. This in turn is forcing up the cost of food. It is legislation that does not permit for the exploration and extraction of energy reserves such as oil and natural gas along 85% of our nation’s continental shelf, nor in Alaska where billions of barrels of oil remain untapped. It is legislation that grants huge subsidies—a form of hidden tax—to wind and solar energy, the two most inefficient and unreliable forms of energy. It is legislation that bans the future use of incandescent light bulbs.

In short, America is gripped by a form of life-threatening insanity perpetrated by the Greens and legislated by politicians who haven’t a clue about the ways they are wrecking our economy in the name of global warming.

So this extraordinary conference, drawing men and women from as far away as Australia, New Zealand, China, the United Kingdom and Europe, may well be the last best hope to turn away from a future that will be marked by the undermining of America’s and Europe’s economies.

Posted by Alan Caruba at 7:12 AM 0 comments
Labels: energy, environment, global warming, politics

[grandpa]

Quote by: Sandy Tuesday, March 4, 2008 An Extraordinary Event By Alan Caruba For two days, March 2-4 in New York, I and about five hundred other people attended the 2008 International Conference on Climate Change, including some of the world’s leading authorities on climatology, meteorology, economics, energy, and other fields of knowledge. It was an extraordinary event, held in New York and sponsored by the Heartland Institute, a Chicago-based think tank that has been among those leading the effort to educate and inform the public about the mountain of lies that have led them to believe that the Earth is experiencing a huge increase in heat, a "global warming", that is allegedly the direct result of human activities, primarily from the use of energy that includes coal, natural gas, and oil.

Was there no fee for the event? It sounds to me like a fundraising opportunity in its own right. It's also funny this event was held in New York, which everybody knows is a highly polluted city. New Jersey would have perhaps been more ironic, though, or maybe Mexico City. I wonder how many other journalists covered this thing and what their reports (their "knowledge") illustrated. It's certainly possible that journalists and scientists could be used as "devices" either way, but the fact that this event was sponsored by the heartland Institute immediately raises my skepticism level. They and other so-called "think-tanks" typically have an agenda, and sometimes it's easy to find a panel of experts to simultaneously validate whatever the agenda is and pat themselves on the back.
The term "mountain of lies" illustrates as much.

PR also attempts to "educate" people the right way (obviously including the American public), often at great personal cost. A personal example is when I was in high school and a representative from the nuclear industry came to speak with my senior class. Basically, he argued that radiation and nuclear fallout aren't much cause for alarm, particularly due to modern methods. But he was a paid reprsentative. At around the time I was following the debate with Yucca Mountain nuclear storage cite -- an issue which PR representatives no doubt had to tango with delicately, seeing as to how Yucca Mountain apparently has a faultline in it. Such paid representatives may cling to the acceptable view, as debt is a possible result of veering too far off course.

Sure enough, this doesn't sound too crazy. Just look at Heartland's board of directors:

Herbert J. Walberg, Chairman
Joseph L. Bast, President and CEO The Heartland Institute
Rajeev Bal
Robert Buford, President, Planned Realty Group
Paul Fisher, Real Estate Department Chair, McGuireWoods LLC.
James Fitzgerald, Managing Director, BankNote Capital LLC
Dan Hales, Peterson & Ross
William Higginson, President, Chicago Equity Fund Inc.
Biju Kulathakal,
James L. Johnston, Amoco Corporation (retired)
Roy E. Marden, formerly with Philip Morris
David H. Padden, President, Padco Lease Corporation
Frank Resnik, Medline Inc. (retired)
Elizabeth Rose
Thomas Walton, Director of Economic Policy, General Motors Corporation

http://www.heartland.org/FAQArticle.cfm?faqId=3

ExxonSecrets says Heartland has received $561,500 (unadjusted for inflation) from ExxonMobil between 1998 and 2005:
ExxonSecrets Factsheet: Heartland Institute

Also note how PR-savvy heartland's very title is.

Regardless of what such people say, there is every reason to believe our gas guzzling ways are causing global warming and giving us the droughts that cause these huge forest fires out west, along with many other problems.

Grandpa h.

[Roxdog]

Quote by: LookToTheFuture Maybe i am nieve. I would have thought that scientists who study the changes in the climate, ocean temperatures, animal populations, changes in the ozone layer and the like would have enough foresite to take into consideration that the earth itself is a constantly changing entity. I mean, since these same or associated scientific minds would be the folks who through the study of layers of polar ice can theorise that the earth goes through cycles of heating up and cooling down anyway. I do agree however that the scale of the damage that human influence has on the planet is still an extremely inexact science but they will refine it in time.... depending on how much we have weather it be human or natural causes it is changing for the worse.

There are tons of scientists who don't believe in man-made global warming. There is no "consensus" regardless of what Al Gore or the UN would have you believe....

[Sandy]

Well grandpa, I hope you are riding a bicycle and not a car. I hope your home is solar powered and you save your used toilet paper for a second use. You believe people are responsible for global warming; right? Then how can you explain the heating up of the earth 10,000 years before man came out of the ocean? I'm assuming you are bright enough to to believe in evolution. If you don't, you have no legimate position.

[grandpa]

Quote by: Roxdog There are tons of scientists who don't believe in man-made global warming. There is no "consensus" regardless of what Al Gore or the UN would have you believe....

But there is clear evidence of human influences on the climate system. It has nothing in particular to do with Al Gore or the UN.

Grandpa h.

[grandpa]

Quote by: Sandy Well grandpa, I hope you are riding a bicycle and not a car. I hope your home is solar powered and you save your used toilet paper for a second use.

In fact, I never have actually owned a car. I'm fairly glad, too. Gas is quite expensive, as is general m=vehicle maintenance. And I would have to pay more than that environmentally as well. I don't have a solar-powered home, though...I don't own, I rent (for better or worse). People in this country are addicted to cars. They may not be able to remain so for much longer, though, at least without paying for it dearly.

I'm not saying this to sound dramatic or to shame anybody. It simply appears to be true, given both peer-reviewed scientific research and common observation.

The "global warming skeptic" proposals thus far have roughly fallen into
two categories:

1. Engage in dismissive rhetoric and bash Al Gore, the UN and environmentalists.
2. Give money to big oil, nuclear and "clean coal" companies.

Other than that, I have not seen to much.

In contrast, I can recommend a very good book by an author living in the Upper Penninsula of Michigan (where I live). It's called "Divorce Your Car" by Katie Alvord. It goes over the history of the automobile in detail and discussed why we should consider not driving, or at least greatly reducing the amount of driving we do. It goes over new technology and gear as well. It's well-written.

Grandpa h.

[Roxdog]

Quote by: grandpa But there is clear evidence of human influences on the climate system. It has nothing in particular to do with Al Gore or the UN. Grandpa h.

I don't know. I've heard lots on both sides and I don't think the evidence is "clear". I think it's clear we are screwing up the planet, no one can doubt that, but are we driving climate change? I think that is doubtful. And it does have a lots to do with Al Gore and the UN. These people are just the ones with the means to shout the loudest...

1. Engage in dismissive rhetoric and bash Al Gore, the UN and environmentalists.

Al Gore and the UN are very much deserving of being "bashed". Al Gore and his ilk are complete scum, regardless of the truth on this particluar issue.

[xyzer]

Here is a recent article on the imagined crises grandpa...I think it puts the pandemonium in pretty good perspective...
FOXNews.com - Global Warming: Is It Really a Crisis? - Opinion

You will note warming has its advantages? You will note that the evidence indicates that anthropogenic causes are being overcome by natural causes. As CO2 increases the earth has grown cooler in the last decade!!!!! You will note that responsible scientists are questiong the wasteful political patches like carbon credits and auto gas mileage restrictions as unneeded .
Its time we paused and considered climate change scientifically without any political and business interference, is it not?

[grandpa]

Quote by: xyzer Here is a recent article on the imagined crises grandpa... I think it puts the pandemonium in pretty good perspective...

FOX News has plainly encouraged that view from the beginning of this debate. Quite frankly, I wouldn't attribute the term "good perspective" to anything coming from FOX News, just like I hesitate to call global warming an "imagined crisis." Some regions of the worls are already feeling its effects. I just mentioned forest fires, which are certainly on the rise in recent years, for example. There are certainly many others which are increasingly well-known.

Grandpa h.

[Whatssnew]

I would have thought that scientists who study the changes in the climate, ocean temperatures, animal populations, changes in the ozone layer and the like would have enough foresite to take into consideration that the earth itself is a constantly changing entity

I don't intend to discredit any of there findings, just pointing out that the question is too complex and overwelming. We are to global warming like the Lewis and Clark expidition was to the west. We know there are boundries, and we have some understanding of how some things work, but it is going to take alot more work to know exactly what we are dealing with.

Lastly, consider that a weather forcaster can only predict about a week out with any noteworthy accuracy. And even then they are not always right. The problem with global warming is that like wind and rain, it is affected my a endless maze of cause and effects. From the shape of the land, to the varring directions of the wind, the variables are constantly changing, though some stay fairly constant.

[grandpa]

Quote by: Whatssnew I don't intend to discredit any of there findings, just pointing out that the question is too complex and overwelming. We are to global warming like the Lewis and Clark expidition was to the west.

In any case, we should know enough by now to put to bed this false dichotomy that climate change is either totally manmade or 100% "natural." Climate change can have more than
one cause, obviously. Still, as simple as this point is, some seem to pass out when considering such elementary logic.

Grandpa h.

[Sonart]

.

Quote by: Whatssnew I find it strange how hard it is to find comparisons on human pollution vs. natural pollution (i.e. forest fires, volcanic activity, oceans, plants, tectonic rifts...) I believe that the people that blame people for global warming, are nieve. In a controlled environment with known variables you can make an accurate scientific hypothosis. However earth has a vast array of variables, and many are unknown so how can you make a accuarate scientific hypothosis? For example, I give you the oceans.

Who's the naive one?

Forest fires, volcanic activity, oceans, etc. etc. etc. are not variables... they are constants. They have been a part of the global equilibrium for hundreds of millions of years. Any changes to that equilibrium took thousands, if not millions of years. Even the dramatic leaps of 6 to 8 degrees out of the Ice Ages took 10 to 20 thousand years.



What mankind has artificitially contributed is an massive anomoly to the natural variation. Look at the larger chart above. Based on historic natural fluctuation, we should be, right now, on the slope of a cooling trend, heading into the next Ice Age. Just the opposite is happening.



Duh!!


.

[xyzer]

Sonart, surely you jest! Are you suggesting that a chart of ice core temps of low level atmospheric temps in Antarctica is accurate for explaining global temperatures? If so, you must be jesting?

The second graph you post..CO2 is just about as meaningless.

Carbon dioxide concentrations in the atmosphere over both the last 1000 years and the preceding 400,000 years. Over long times, carbon dioxide influences and responds to the ice age cycles

If you get into the true facts warming has historically preceded CO2 increases..ergo, something else triggered warming which in turn increased CO2 levels.As the oceans warm they emit more CO2. The above footnote tells you CO2 responds to cycles does it not?

[Sonart]

.

Because you say it's meaningless doesn't make it so, Xyzer. And the second graph on CO2 shows that among all the CONSTANTS that affect climate fluctuation -- vegetation, fires, volcanoes, solar cycles, sun spots , etc. etc. etc. -- there's only one anomolous variable that explains the current warming trend.

Anthropogenic carbon dioxide forcing.

Quote by: Xyzer If you get into the true facts warming has historically preceded CO2 increases..ergo, something else triggered warming which in turn increased CO2 levels. As the oceans warm they emit more CO2. The above footnote tells you CO2 responds to cycles does it not?

That's almost as stupid as saying that water is the most abundant greenhouse gas in the atmosphere... it amounts to a huge "So what?"

The current warming is an >>ANOMOLY<< to what has historically preceded because of a variable that has never existed before.... 6 billion inustrialized human beings pumping 30 billion tons of greenhouse gases -- ABOVE AND BEYOND WHAT OCCURS NATURALLY -- into the atmosphere every year.

.

[Whatssnew]

The oceans, fires, volcanisim is a constantly changing factor. Therefore there variables. Can you provide charts that show a period of time that are long, in millons of years.

[sparkd]

While I do find it difficult to accept these graphs that scientists come up with to convey information that explain time periods well well before our time, still if we accept this data as given (after all, scientists have the tools to do this type of research), what Sonart says is right.

Consider first the fact that vegetation, fires, volcanoes, and so forth have affected our ecosystem much much longer than humans have. Over the last couple hundred thousands of years, their effects I assume should be fairly unchanging. The data presented here then shows us how temperature over the relevant time range has fluctuated because of these natural occurences. That is, this is the pattern determined by nature. Now, consider the most obvious major change within this last hundred thousand year cycle: the rise of human civilization. As was mentioned earlier, take a look at how the graph changes quite dramatically and no longer follows the original pattern. The conclusion then is that the advent of human civilization (and the technology that comes with it) must also contribute to climate change.

Quote by: Whatssnew The oceans, fires, volcanisim is a constantly changing factor. Therefore there variables. Can you provide charts that show a period of time that are long, in millons of years.

When you start to look that far back, it will be clear that patterns of nature do change as well. Except for say when a huge asteroid strikes the earth or something like that, I assume all changes were still gradual and thus can be factored out.