Emerging Pandemics

[livefree]

Quote by: Disinformant pop-science journals aside: Newsmax.com - 31,000 Scientists Debunk Al Gore and Global Warming there is NO consensus amongst scientists, rest assured.

Actually there is an amazing degree of consensus among actual working climate scientists on the reality and dangers of anthropogenic global warming and the associated climate changes. Of course, denier cultists like you live in the right wing denier echo machine where you've all echoed back and forth between you so many times the lies, propaganda and misinformation put out by the fossil fuel corporations that you actually believe that nonsense and think your crazy beliefs are widespread. You denier cultists are actually a sort of fringe group of scientifically ignorant, ideologically blinded dupes and loonies.

Here's the facts on your phony 'Oregon petition'.

And here's the facts on the actual scientific consensus.


Scientists Agree Human-induced Global Warming Is Real, Survey Says

ScienceDaily (Jan. 21, 2009) — While the harsh winter pounding many areas of North America and Europe seemingly contradicts the fact that global warming continues unabated, a new survey finds consensus among scientists about the reality of climate change and its likely cause.

A group of 3,146 earth scientists surveyed around the world overwhelmingly agree that in the past 200-plus years, mean global temperatures have been rising, and that human activity is a significant contributing factor in changing mean global temperatures.

Peter Doran, University of Illinois at Chicago associate professor of earth and environmental sciences, along with former graduate student Maggie Kendall Zimmerman, conducted the survey late last year.

The findings appear January 19 in the publication Eos, Transactions, American Geophysical Union.

In trying to overcome criticism of earlier attempts to gauge the view of earth scientists on global warming and the human impact factor, Doran and Kendall Zimmerman sought the opinion of the most complete list of earth scientists they could find, contacting more than 10,200 experts around the world listed in the 2007 edition of the American Geological Institute's Directory of Geoscience Departments.

Experts in academia and government research centers were e-mailed invitations to participate in the on-line poll conducted by the website questionpro.com. Only those invited could participate and computer IP addresses of participants were recorded and used to prevent repeat voting. Questions used were reviewed by a polling expert who checked for bias in phrasing, such as suggesting an answer by the way a question was worded. The nine-question survey was short, taking just a few minutes to complete.

Two questions were key: have mean global temperatures risen compared to pre-1800s levels, and has human activity been a significant factor in changing mean global temperatures.

About 90 percent of the scientists agreed with the first question and 82 percent the second.

In analyzing responses by sub-groups, Doran found that climatologists who are active in research showed the strongest consensus on the causes of global warming, with 97 percent agreeing humans play a role. Petroleum geologists and meteorologists were among the biggest doubters, with only 47 and 64 percent respectively believing in human involvement. Doran compared their responses to a recent poll showing only 58 percent of the public thinks human activity contributes to global warming.

"The petroleum geologist response is not too surprising, but the meteorologists' is very interesting," he said. "Most members of the public think meteorologists know climate, but most of them actually study very short-term phenomenon."

He was not surprised, however, by the near-unanimous agreement by climatologists.

"They're the ones who study and publish on climate science. So I guess the take-home message is, the more you know about the field of climate science, the more you're likely to believe in global warming and humankind's contribution to it."

Doran and Kendall Zimmerman conclude that "the debate on the authenticity of global warming and the role played by human activity is largely nonexistent among those who understand the nuances and scientific basis of long-term climate processes." The challenge now, they write, is how to effectively communicate this to policy makers and to a public that continues to mistakenly perceive debate among scientists.

Adapted from materials provided by University of Illinois at Chicago.

Web address:
Scientists Agree Human-induced Global Warming Is Real, Survey Says

Copyright © 1995-2009 ScienceDaily LLC — All rights reserved

(In accordance with Title 17 U.S.C. Section 107, this material is distributed without profit to those who have expressed a prior interest in receiving the included information for research and educational purposes.)

[Bright Garlick]

Here's some worthy reading :

Lindzen on negative climate feedback « Watts Up With That?

The Question of Global Warming - The New York Review of Books

Richard Lindzen at the International Conference on Climate Change in New York « O Insurgente

Top 10 Global Warming Myths « Leatherhead Matters

Richard Lindzen is the Rembrandt of Climatology « Palabre

Amazon.com: Red Hot Lies: How Global Warming Alarmists Use Threats, Fraud, and Deception to Keep You Misinformed: Christopher C. Horner: Your Store

Dr. Roy Spencer on publishing and climate sensitivity « Watts Up With That?

http://www.nytimes.com/2009/03/29/ma...20dyson&st=cse

Heartland Global Warming Conference 2009 « Conservative Thoughts and Profundity

Who makes up the IPCC? « Watts Up With That?


If that's no good - have a play in the bath with some bubbles and test the global warming hypothesis for your self. It just doesn't add up.

[Bright Garlick]

Here's some worthy reading :

Lindzen on negative climate feedback « Watts Up With That?

The Question of Global Warming - The New York Review of Books

Richard Lindzen at the International Conference on Climate Change in New York « O Insurgente

Top 10 Global Warming Myths « Leatherhead Matters

Richard Lindzen is the Rembrandt of Climatology « Palabre

Amazon.com: Red Hot Lies: How Global Warming Alarmists Use Threats, Fraud, and Deception to Keep You Misinformed: Christopher C. Horner: Your Store

Dr. Roy Spencer on publishing and climate sensitivity « Watts Up With That?

http://www.nytimes.com/2009/03/29/ma...20dyson&st=cse

Heartland Global Warming Conference 2009 « Conservative Thoughts and Profundity

Who makes up the IPCC? « Watts Up With That?


If that's no good - have a play in the bath with some bubbles and test the global warming hypothesis for your self. It just doesn't add up.

[livefree]

Quote by: Bright Garlick Here's some worthy reading :

No, no, garl, what you have here is some very unworthy reading, a bunch of denier cult misinformation and nonsense. Let's look at one name seen here a lot, Richard Lindzen, and see just how credible he is.

Quote by: Bright Garlick Lindzen on negative climate feedback « Watts Up With That? The Question of Global Warming - The New York Review of Books Richard Lindzen at the International Conference on Climate Change in New York « O Insurgente Top 10 Global Warming Myths « Leatherhead Matters Richard Lindzen is the Rembrandt of Climatology « Palabre Amazon.com: Red Hot Lies: How Global Warming Alarmists Use Threats, Fraud, and Deception to Keep You Misinformed: Christopher C. Horner: Your Store Dr. Roy Spencer on publishing and climate sensitivity « Watts Up With That? http://www.nytimes.com/2009/03/29/ma...20dyson&st=cse Heartland Global Warming Conference 2009 « Conservative Thoughts and Profundity Who makes up the IPCC? « Watts Up With That?

Here's an excellent and very complete rundown on Lindzen with lots of links and references.
Richard Lindzen | Logical Science's skeptic rundown

Here's a few excepts from his Wikipedia entry.

Industry links

According to Ross Gelbspan in a 1995 article in Harper's Magazine, Lindzen "... charges oil and coal interests $2,500 a day for his consulting services; his 1991 trip to testify before a Senate committee was paid for by Western Fuels and a speech he wrote, entitled Global Warming: the Origin and Nature of Alleged Scientific Consensus,[24] was underwritten by OPEC."[25][26]

Views on health risks of smoking

Lindzen has claimed that the risks of smoking, including passive smoking, may be overstated. In 2001,[29] Newsweek journalist Fred Guterl reported, after an interview with Lindzen, "Lindzen clearly relishes the role of naysayer. He'll even expound on how weakly lung cancer is linked to cigarette smoking. He speaks in full, impeccably logical paragraphs, and he punctuates his measured cadences with thoughtful drags on a cigarette."[29]

Quote by: Bright Garlick If that's no good - have a play in the bath with some bubbles and test the global warming hypothesis for your self. It just doesn't add up.

Ah yes, garli, that's soooo reasonable. Refute the conclusions of five decades of research by hundreds of thousands of scientists from a variety of different fields of study, working together worldwide, aided by some of the biggest, fastest super computers in operation. Ignore all of the evidence and data gathered in one of the most intensely researched fields in modern scientific history. Do it all by playing with yourself...er...ah...I mean "bubbles" in your bathtub. Riiiiiight.

[MyApologies]

Global Warming is SUPPORTED BY BIG OIL

Meanwhile Al Gore is an actual oil stooge, helping Occidental Oil triple their reserves, for example, during his Vice Presidency. Al Gore additionally owned half a million dollars worth of that company as he helped secure mining rights for it. He comes from a family who has owned oil companies throughout two generations.
CorpWatch : Al Gore: The Other Oil Candidate
Not to mention the fortune Cap and Trade carbon credits will make Al Gore's company Generation Investment Management. Who else owns GIM? Hank "the Bank" Paulson.
The Money and Connections Behind Al Gore’s Carbon Crusade - HUMAN EVENTS

Seeing as big oil execs are tied in every possible way to Global Warming, have come out in support of Carbon Credits and Carbon Taxes, in support of corrupt environmental legislation by Obama, Gore, etc. Look at T. Boone Pickens.

[livefree]

Quote by: MyApologies Global Warming is SUPPORTED BY BIG OIL Meanwhile Al Gore is an actual oil stooge, helping Occidental Oil triple their reserves, for example, during his Vice Presidency. Al Gore additionally owned half a million dollars worth of that company as he helped secure mining rights for it. He comes from a family who has owned oil companies throughout two generations. CorpWatch : Al Gore: The Other Oil Candidate Not to mention the fortune Cap and Trade carbon credits will make Al Gore's company Generation Investment Management. Who else owns GIM? Hank "the Bank" Paulson. The Money and Connections Behind Al Gore’s Carbon Crusade - HUMAN EVENTS Seeing as big oil execs are tied in every possible way to Global Warming, have come out in support of Carbon Credits and Carbon Taxes, in support of corrupt environmental legislation by Obama, Gore, etc. Look at T. Boone Pickens.

You seem to be really confused on this issue.


Exxon to cut funding to climate change denial groups

David Adam
guardian.co.uk,
28 May 2008

The oil giant ExxonMobil has admitted that its support for lobby groups that question the science of climate change may have hindered action to tackle global warming. In its corporate citizenship report, released last week, ExxonMobil says it intends to cut funds to several groups that "divert attention" from the need to find new sources of clean energy.

The move comes ahead of the firm's annual meeting today in Dallas, at which prominent shareholders including the Rockefeller family will urge ExxonMobil to take the problem of climate change more seriously. Green campaigners accuse the company of funding a "climate denial industry" over the last decade, with $23m (£11.5m) handed over to groups that play down the risks of burning fossil fuels.

The ExxonMobil report says: "In 2008 we will discontinue contributions to several public policy research groups whose position on climate change could divert attention from the important discussion on how the world will secure the energy required for economic growth in an environmentally responsible manner."

Nine groups have reportedly lost the company's support, including the George C Marshall Institute, the Washington DC-based think tank that asserts there is no scientific consensus on climate change, and that changes in the sun, not greenhouse gases, could be responsible for rising temperatures.

A survey carried out by the UK's Royal Society found that in 2005 ExxonMobil distributed $2.9m to 39 groups that the society said "misrepresented the science of climate change by outright denial of the evidence". In 2006 the society wrote to the company to ask them to stop funding such groups.

Kert Davies of Greenpeace said: "The organisations eliminated in this latest rounds of cuts could be called the engine room of the climate sceptic industry, but if Rex Tillerson [head of ExxonMobil] is serious about his company shaking off this shameful legacy, he needs to make a wider sweep."

Greenpeace says ExxonMobil continues to fund over "two dozen other organisations who question the science of global warming or attack policies to solve the crisis."

* guardian.co.uk © Guardian News and Media Limited 2009

(In accordance with Title 17 U.S.C. Section 107, this material is distributed without profit to those who have expressed a prior interest in receiving the included information for research and educational purposes.)

[MyApologies]

ExxonMobil says they won't use their lawyers to attack global warming and I'm wrong? Thats exactly what I said, big oil supports global warming. Have you seen BP commercials? lol

[livefree]

Quote by: MyApologies ExxonMobil says they won't use their lawyers to attack global warming and I'm wrong? Thats exactly what I said, big oil supports global warming. Have you seen BP commercials? lol

Big oil is behind the multi-million dollar propaganda campaign to confuse the public about the reality and extreme danger of global warming and its associated climate changes. Their reason has been to delay government action to add the environmental costs of fossil fuels to their price which would make them more expensive than alternative energy sources and thus decrease oil corp profits.

Because the evidence supporting anthropogenic global warming/climate change has gotten so overwhelming that everyone except lunatic-fringe cultists recognizes the urgency of the problem, the oil corps like Exxon have put on a facade of cooperation while still working covertly to stall any effective and timely action on climate change that would reduce their profit flow.

[MyApologies]

saying it is one thing, proving it is another.

[WindWip]

Quote by: Disinformant pop-science journals aside: Newsmax.com - 31,000 Scientists Debunk Al Gore and Global Warming there is NO consensus amongst scientists, rest assured.

I had a laugh at that one. Here's all you have to do to be one of these 'scientists'.

Make it 31,001 now! I signed the petition as Derick Diggler with a P.h.D. in Chemistry with an emphasis on Carbonic Acid Mainstream Distribution - coke.

[WindWip]

Quote by: MyApologies Global Warming is SUPPORTED BY BIG OIL

Um.... what? You mean support as in adding to it? Or the anti-global warming crowd is supported by big oil? What are you trying to say?

Meanwhile Al Gore is an actual oil stooge, helping Occidental Oil triple their reserves, for example, during his Vice Presidency. Al Gore additionally owned half a million dollars worth of that company as he helped secure mining rights for it. He comes from a family who has owned oil companies throughout two generations.

Ok... Lets assume everything you said is correct for a moment. So what. He's a hypocrite, he's making money off of big oil. Does that magically make global warming a myth? No.

[MyApologies]

It does when all the other people who invented Global Warming has equally shady pasts and current interests, it does when Global Warming will only result in more taxes and nothing else, it does when these people set up dummy institutes to release Global Warming propaganda like the UNDP, or energy councils and the like. Its politics at every level, not science, and certainly not motivated by anything a true environmentalist like myself would support.

There are great man-made threats to our planet, deforestation, poisoning of the air and water, etc. This has nothing to do with Global Warming though, yet its far more important.

[livefree]

Quote by: MyApologies It does when all the other people who invented Global Warming has equally shady pasts and current interests, it does when Global Warming will only result in more taxes and nothing else, it does when these people set up dummy institutes to release Global Warming propaganda like the UNDP, or energy councils and the like. Its politics at every level, not science, and certainly not motivated by anything a true environmentalist like myself would support. There are great man-made threats to our planet, deforestation, poisoning of the air and water, etc. This has nothing to do with Global Warming though, yet its far more important.

That's delusional nonsense. Every scientific organization and society on Earth agrees with the basic tenets of anthropogenic global warming and on the extreme danger facing our world as a result of the abrupt climate changes being created by global warming. Are you really paranoid enough to imagine that tens of thousands of scientists worldwide have "shady pasts" (whatever you fantasize that means) and are in some gigantic conspiracy to lie about global warming?


The Consensus on Global Warming: From Science to Industry & Religion

[Bright Garlick]

I think most people agree, your opening argument was just hollywood hype not science.

I guess swine flu is just a hollywood idea. As are the dozens of other emerging diseases recognised by the CDC and virologists around the world.
Time will tell.

[Pinjas]

Talk about fear mongering. What are you going to bring up next? The possible return of dinosaurs? Maybe Darth vader from another solar system? There are things you can actually concern yourself with that are real rather then worrying about the sun getting hotter or giant rocks coming to smash Earth.

[Dudeldopp]

Quote by: Bright Garlick I think most people agree, your opening argument was just hollywood hype not science. I guess swine flu is just a hollywood idea. As are the dozens of other emerging diseases recognised by the CDC and virologists around the world. Time will tell.

I, for one, didn't find your OP as outrageous as some other posters. I've been reading such articles in journals such as JAMA, International Journal Medical Microbiology, etc., though not in the sense of old microbes becoming new threats as you alluded originally, but as a result of migrations of infectious vectors, and, with it, possible new recombinants. (Sigh! But It doesn't seem to matter since the post got so easily hijacked into another same old global warming discussion.) Without meaning to pile on, so to speak, but as a retired microbiologist myself, I have to ask how you posit the recent swine flu outbreak as a result of climate change? Quite a stretch, I should say. Expectation of a H1N1 outbreak has been hinted about in the abstracts and summaries for over a year, just as the next outbreak in a year or two will most likely be an H5N1 (avian).

[Orangutan]

First of all, global warming caused by rising CO2 levels is pretty much an accepted fact by now. CO2 has been proven to be a greenhouse gas, and it has also been proven that we're kinds pumping a few hundred million tons of the stuff into the atmosphere every year. If you're incapable of putting two and two together, I can't help you.

What percentage of the atmosphere is CO2?

What percentage of that is released by man?

Which is the bigger greenhouse gas, CO2 or water vapor, such as clouds?

Why don't climatolgist's computer models include clouds?



Just asking?


Regarding the poster talking about Greenland being green again.

How did it get the name "Greenland"?


Just asking...?


On a related note, why have there been so few sunspots lately and what effect is that likely to have on our weather?


Just... you know, asking?




O.

[Bright Garlick]

Hey Dudledopp - I agree with you Swine Flu has nothing to do with climate change - or it may. I tend to think in regards to :
though not in the sense of old microbes becoming new threats as you alluded originally, but as a result of migrations of infectious vectors, and, with it, possible new recombinants - that it's likely to be both.