or Connect
AppleInsider › Forums › Other Discussion › AppleOutsider › PoliticalOutsider › Global Warming Hysteria Building
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

Global Warming Hysteria Building

post #1 of 440
Thread Starter 
Less than a year after the release of Gore's propaganda film, An Inconvenient Truth, a democratic Congress is poised to pass new legislation against America's latest Hobgoblin (due to arrive in the 22nd century) 'climate change' caused by humankind.

Those who appreciate the carnival of American politics - as Mencken said "The art of running the zoo from the monkey cage", look for some exciting Senate hearings. The warming evildoers (pick your side) will be on trial, and so called "science" will be buried by polemics, biased experts, and down-right con artists.

Among the high points will be:

The Stern Review and the author, an extremist (and seriously flawed) report on the consequences of warming.

The IPCC Policy Summary, released before the supporting 'facts" are cooked to support its conclusions. The actual report is embargoed till May of 2007, so the message will be "Trust US".

It promises to be great fun as it seems the IPCC may have lost the last bit of pretense of objectivity and gone pathological...


Quote:
"Global warming is destined to have a far more destructive and earlier impact than previously estimated, the most authoritative report yet produced on climate change will warn next week.

A draft copy of the Fourth Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, obtained by The Observer, shows the frequency of devastating storms - like the ones that battered Britain last week - will increase dramatically. Sea levels will rise over the century by around half a metre; snow will disappear from all but the highest mountains; deserts will spread; oceans become acidic, leading to the destruction of coral reefs and atolls; and deadly heat waves will become more prevalent.

The impact will be catastrophic, forcing hundreds of millions of people to flee their devastated homelands, particularly in tropical, low-lying areas, while creating waves of immigrants whose movements will strain the economies of even the most affluent countries.

http://www.zmag.org/content/showarti...6&ItemID=11928

post #2 of 440
Your post doesn't have any content. It goes from speculation to...speculation...
"In a republic, voters may vote for the leaders they want, but they get the leaders they deserve."
Reply
"In a republic, voters may vote for the leaders they want, but they get the leaders they deserve."
Reply
post #3 of 440
If you can't disprove the GW science and it's primary causes, read 'em and weep!
Every eye fixed itself upon him; with parted lips and bated breath the audience hung upon his words, taking no note of time, rapt in the ghastly fascinations of the tale. NOT!
Reply
Every eye fixed itself upon him; with parted lips and bated breath the audience hung upon his words, taking no note of time, rapt in the ghastly fascinations of the tale. NOT!
Reply
post #4 of 440
Stern is not an 'extremist.' Stern is an 'economist.' There is a major difference.
meh
Reply
meh
Reply
post #5 of 440
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Harald View Post

Stern is not an 'extremist.' Stern is an 'economist.' There is a major difference.

One must not take the AGW crowd too seriously, and among the group the Stern Report by Sir Nicholas Stern has been one of the more bemusing. Greeted with sensationalist headlines upon its release, it is one of the more embarrassing works of the catastrophe crowd.
post #6 of 440
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally Posted by franksargent View Post

If you can't disprove the GW science and it's primary causes, read 'em and weep!

GW warming science? Something had to be proved before it can be disproved. As much of climate science is little more than speculative hysterics, and secretive practitioners of modeling divination, just how serious should it be taken?

Of course, given the amount of hysteria one must be cautious; the herd may be spooked and in a stampede towards the cliff of bad public policy, but it is always possible their is some basis to their fears. Deniers go too far, let us say I am a skeptic of it as a significant issue to human well being.
post #7 of 440
We've been down this road many times before...

It's like we're playing Whack-the Mole every time one of these global warming denialists pops up. (I'm sure I stole that metaphor off someone here).

Quote:
Originally Posted by MaxParrish View Post

GW warming science? Something had to be proved before it can be disproved. As much of climate science is little more than speculative hysterics, and secretive practitioners of modeling divination, just how serious should it be taken?

So the consensus among climate change experts on global warming is wrong?

The consensus as represented in peer-reviewed journals is "biased," and you, MaxParrish, internet troglodyte, have superior knowledge?
post #8 of 440
Quote:
Originally Posted by ShawnJ View Post

We've been down this road many times before...

That we have Shawn.

In the late 60's, the world was going to be racked by mass starvation as we supposedly ran out of food.

In the 70's, the earth was cooling way too fast and the impending doom was splashed across every major media, including the cover of Time magazine.

In the 80's, we were going to nuke everybody to death.

Now it's global warming.

What connects all these? A mixture of feel-good activism, significant government spending increases and a fundraising bonanza for non-profits.
The evil that we fight is but the shadow of the evil that we do.
Reply
The evil that we fight is but the shadow of the evil that we do.
Reply
post #9 of 440
Quote:
Originally Posted by Frank777 View Post

That we have Shawn.

In the late 60's, the world was going to be racked by mass starvation as we supposedly ran out of food.

In the 70's, the earth was cooling way too fast and the impending doom was splashed across every major media, including the cover of Time magazine.

In the 80's, we were going to nuke everybody to death.

Now it's global warming.

What connects all these? A mixture of feel-good activism, significant government spending increases and a fundraising bonanza for non-profits.

I see, basically you give yourself away, that its not the issue thats your problem, but how you fear it will hit you in the wallet.

I just read a scary 27 y/o book called Pole Shift by John White. Were all doomed, dooomed!

Infact, the only scary thing about it was now I know where you creationists get all your wacky science from.

I did learn though, that if an animal dies through asphyxiation it gets an erection. Why havn't we seen this fact in Creationist lit. Imagine all those erections during the deluge.
post #10 of 440
Quote:
Originally Posted by Frank777 View Post

That we have Shawn.

In the late 60's, the world was going to be racked by mass starvation as we supposedly ran out of food.

And that is happening as we write, with full stomachs on $2000+ computers, in our our air-conditioned homes, "The world", as you put it, is a lot more than the industrialized societies. There are hundreds of millions of people who either do not get enough to eat, or starve to death each year. Of course, thats "them", and they don't count.

Quote:
In the 70's, the earth was cooling way too fast and the impending doom was splashed across every major media, including the cover of Time magazine.

Oh really? Where did Time magazine get its evidence? Look throught the climatological stats on the 70s and there was zero evidence of a cooling trend.

Quote:
In the 80's, we were going to nuke everybody to death

.

Were we? from what history has told us, the USSR were the ones who were going to nuke everyone, in order to spread their evil totalitarian doctrine across the world. The arms race of the cold war was all about furnishing defense contractors in bith sides with an almost unlimited gravy train of government welfare, furnished byb the taxpayers of both countries. neither side had any intention of "pushing the button": there was too much to lose. History bore that out to be true, as well.

Quote:
Now it's global warming.

Yes. There is global warming. The ones who are doing their best to play down the evidence are those with vested interests in the industries responsible for the human factor in global warming. That is not science.

Quote:
What connects all these? A mixture of feel-good activism, significant government spending increases and a fundraising bonanza for non-profits.

Anything to prevent the sealevel rising by as much as 50 feet in a matter of a few years, if the Ross Ice Shelf breaks up (for one example) will be positive. If the fat wallets of shareholders in the fossil fuel sectors get hit by international regulations, then my heart ain't going to bleed. Greed doesn't pay in the long run.

Is humanity the only species on the planet that deliberately shits in its own living room?
"We've never made the case, or argued the case that somehow Osama bin Laden was directly involved in 9/11. That evidence has never been forthcoming". VP Cheney, 3/29/2006. Interview by Tony Snow
Reply
"We've never made the case, or argued the case that somehow Osama bin Laden was directly involved in 9/11. That evidence has never been forthcoming". VP Cheney, 3/29/2006. Interview by Tony Snow
Reply
post #11 of 440
Quote:
Originally Posted by sammi jo View Post


Is humanity the only species on the planet that deliberately shits in its own living room?

No, I think the religious right does also.
post #12 of 440
Quote:
Originally Posted by sammi jo View Post

And that is happening as we write, with full stomachs on $2000+ computers, in our our air-conditioned homes, "The world", as you put it, is a lot more than the industrialized societies. There are hundreds of millions of people who either do not get enough to eat, or starve to death each year. Of course, thats "them", and they don't count.

As usual, you don't get it.

The idea put forward was that the earth would not be able to cope with the number of people on it and mass starvation would result from the lack of resources.

Of course, that hasn't happened. People starve to death today because of mankind own stupidity, usually revolving around war and government incompetence.

But there is enough food to go around the world several times over.
The evil that we fight is but the shadow of the evil that we do.
Reply
The evil that we fight is but the shadow of the evil that we do.
Reply
post #13 of 440
Quote:
Originally Posted by sammi jo View Post

Oh really? Where did Time magazine get its evidence? Look throught the climatological stats on the 70s and there was zero evidence of a cooling trend.

Here you go.
The evil that we fight is but the shadow of the evil that we do.
Reply
The evil that we fight is but the shadow of the evil that we do.
Reply
post #14 of 440
Quote:
Originally Posted by Frank777 View Post

As usual, you don't get it.
Of course, that hasn't happened. People starve to death today because of mankind own stupidity, usually revolving around war and government incompetence.

And petroleum based fertilizers, insecticides and defoliants...you didn't get that.
post #15 of 440
Quote:
Originally Posted by @_@ Artman View Post

And petroleum based fertilizers, insecticides and defoliants...you didn't get that.

Those would fall under the stupidity part.
The evil that we fight is but the shadow of the evil that we do.
Reply
The evil that we fight is but the shadow of the evil that we do.
Reply
post #16 of 440
Quote:
Originally Posted by Frank777 View Post

Here you go.

Yeah, that one's pretty famous.

There was a slight cooling trend at that time, and given the fact that we are in an interglacial (warm) period, some people assumed that that period was at an end, that the Earth would enter a cooling (glacial period). Of course, the cooling period takes (tens of) thousands of years to complete the peak-to-peak transition.

That didn't happen of course, and I wonder why? GW perhaps! But that doesn't matter, we are clearly in a manmade warming trend, that will only get significantly worse if we continue at current or accelerated trends.

The scientific evidence (and it's primary causes) is overwhelming over the longer period of record that we now have. The current rate of rise in CO2 levels and GW is unpresendented over tha last ~million years.

Comparing that rather brief MSM attention to, what at that time WAS mere speculation (no GCM's existed at that time), to what we now know from the empirical/observational data coupled with current SOTA GSM's leaves little doubt as to what the future GW trends will be like.

Basically that GW will continue for the forseeable future if nothing is done.

So comparing circa 1974 knowledge to circa 2007 knowledge, is like comparing apples to oranges!
Every eye fixed itself upon him; with parted lips and bated breath the audience hung upon his words, taking no note of time, rapt in the ghastly fascinations of the tale. NOT!
Reply
Every eye fixed itself upon him; with parted lips and bated breath the audience hung upon his words, taking no note of time, rapt in the ghastly fascinations of the tale. NOT!
Reply
post #17 of 440
Quote:
Originally Posted by Frank777 View Post

Those would fall under the stupidity part.

Psst.

Frank777 and MaxParrish.

Come here.

Look.

Read.

The only hysterical people here are you two. The sensible ones (scientists and Gore) are the ones that have presented the facts. Action has to come quickly, but gradually. Because that will be the sensible path to the solution. Not hysteria and ignorance.

Peace out.
post #18 of 440
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally Posted by @_@ Artman View Post

Psst.

Frank777 and MaxParrish.

Come here.

Look.

Read.

The only hysterical people here are you two. The sensible ones (scientists and Gore) are the ones that have presented the facts. Action has to come quickly, but gradually. Because that will be the sensible path to the solution. Not hysteria and ignorance.

Peace out.

Nonsense. If consensus means unanimity then we do not have consensuses. The author of your article, whose made a cottage industry out of beating the drum of consensus, makes several obvious mistakes.

1) I IPCC does not represent consensus on AGW, it represents a large number of model builders, researchers, the others who are examining climate change regardless of the cause - on a both a micro and macro level. The synthesis of macro views, by those examining warming on the level of modeling, is that the cause is mostly anthropogenic None the less, their are many specialists who contribute to the report whose personal views on the MACRO causes are not represented (e.g. the TAR3's one or more hurricane specialists).

IPCC represents the mainstream of climate science, and probably 85% of the community, but it does not represent a consensus within the community.

2) The statements by various professional organizations are produced by majoritarian votes of the membership, not by "consensus" within the membership. For example the AMS is strongly divided on the issue, with at least half of its members as skeptics.

3) The author quotes her own study, which is dependent on her own subjective evaluation of those scientific papers. Aside from the dubious ethics quoting one's own off the cuff "study" as evidence, I have examined some of those papers. From what I can tell is that MOST ignore the issue of AGW, and merely examine technical issues around climate measurement. The author need not have indulged in this clumsy rouge - she could have examined ONLY papers that examine the causes of global warming...till then its pretty much junk.

4) A poll by Von Storch, of climate researchers, suggests that nearly 30% are skeptics on AGWarming...I'll see it I can find that link.

Besides, repeated claims of consensus is the kind of defense that is hostile to science that one has to be skeptical of the motives of these "scientists".

LINK FOUND:
http://w3g.gkss.de/G/mitarbeiter/bra...3stats/040.HTM
post #19 of 440
Are we supposed to take a bunch of creationists waiting for the rapture seriously about science and global warming?

I don't think so.
"The selfishness of Ayn Rand capitalism is the equivalent of intellectual masturbation -- satisfying in an ego-stroking way, but an ethical void when it comes to our commonly shared humanity."
Reply
"The selfishness of Ayn Rand capitalism is the equivalent of intellectual masturbation -- satisfying in an ego-stroking way, but an ethical void when it comes to our commonly shared humanity."
Reply
post #20 of 440
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Northgate View Post

Are we supposed to take a bunch of creationists waiting for the rapture seriously about science and global warming?

I don't think so.

As promised, here is a poll that suggests up to 29% of relevant scientists are skeptics:

http://w3g.gkss.de/G/mitarbeiter/bra...3stats/040.HTM

No, we don't need to rely on creationsits. While evolution is actually a consensus, climate science has a mainstream paradigm and a minority of skeptics who don't think we know enough to make such claims.
post #21 of 440
Why is Global Warming such a pet peeve for right-wingers. I really don't understand why this bristles them so.

The only remedy being suggested to combat global warming is conservation. Isn't conservation a good thing? Something we should strive for? Less reliance on fossil fuels. Less poison in our air as a result.

Why exactly is conservation bad?
"The selfishness of Ayn Rand capitalism is the equivalent of intellectual masturbation -- satisfying in an ego-stroking way, but an ethical void when it comes to our commonly shared humanity."
Reply
"The selfishness of Ayn Rand capitalism is the equivalent of intellectual masturbation -- satisfying in an ego-stroking way, but an ethical void when it comes to our commonly shared humanity."
Reply
post #22 of 440
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally Posted by ShawnJ View Post

We've been down this road many times before...

It's like we're playing Whack-the Mole every time one of these global warming denialists pops up. (I'm sure I stole that metaphor off someone here).

So the consensus among climate change experts on global warming is wrong?

The consensus as represented in peer-reviewed journals is "biased," and you, MaxParrish, internet troglodyte, have superior knowledge?

Is it wrong? Well, let us say it has some seriious question marks. And as the peer reviewed process is seriously flawed, and cogent dissenters effectively muted by the paradigm defenders then I have little reason to belive the new religion of global warming.
post #23 of 440
Quote:
Originally Posted by MaxParrish View Post

Is it wrong? Well, let us say it has some seriious question marks. And as the peer reviewed process is seriously flawed, and cogent dissenters effectively muted by the paradigm defenders then I have little reason to belive the new religion of global warming.

There are well over 1,000 peer-reviewed scientific publications in the primary literature confirming the hypothesis Gore is publicizing. This literature includes the most prestigious of journals, such as Science, and Nature. Al Gore has done more to publicize this issue than any public figure.

Every major scientific organization with expertise in climatology has publicly backed the claim that global warming is real, significant, and caused by humans.

Still waiting for any links to evidence to your claims.......................
post #24 of 440
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Northgate View Post

Why is Global Warming such a pet peeve for right-wingers. I really don't understand why this bristles them so.

The only remedy being suggested to combat global warming is conservation. Isn't conservation a good thing? Something we should strive for? Less reliance on fossil fuels. Less poison in our air as a result.

Why exactly is conservation bad?

Because once the boogyman of global warming becomes the new hobgoblin, then it will be used as a trogen horse to limit all sorts of personal liberties. And unlike prior hysterias (e.g. DDT) that cost millions of lives in Malarial areas of the world, this one has NO objective criteria for success...at least not one than can be measured for a few generations.

We've been through the anti-capitalist development assualts for years: the Alaska pipeline would bring "doom"; the treaty of Rome said we were going to run out of resources; Carter's people told us a good portion of the ecosphere would be wiped out in a decade, etc.

It amazes me that so may of the "liberals" who tout their distress over people's well-being miss the most important and essential element: economic prosperity. To the degree that the US, or India, or Chile, or any other nation can prosper, it will create economic security for billions. And to the degree the world GDP is crippled or slowed by 'material denialist' movments people will suffer.

Some of this, I suppose is cultural: the fellow who owns a manufactured or modular home in the flat lands, drives his pickup or SUV to work through winter snows, recreates by hunting or fishing, buys expensive gas for heating, or electricity for summer cooling in the midwest or South, and has three kids does not relate to urban liberals who send their kid to Montasori schools, drives a Prius, recreates in a B&B, and lives in a Marin or Vermont enclave AND tells the conservative that he has to sacrifice his life style.

He does not like preachy, we (you) cannot afford the American dream, arrogant elites who already have their wealth - often from the same sins (Gore Tobacco, Soros currency speculation, Kerry's wife inherited fortune)...
post #25 of 440
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally Posted by @_@ Artman View Post

There are well over 1,000 peer-reviewed scientific publications in the primary literature confirming the hypothesis Gore is publicizing. This literature includes the most prestigious of journals, such as Science, and Nature. Al Gore has done more to publicize this issue than any public figure.

Every major scientific organization with expertise in climatology has publicly backed the claim that global warming is real, significant, and caused by humans.

Still waiting for any links to evidence to your claims.......................

If you read my prior post you would have noted:

a) There are not over 1000...blah blah blah. Your repeating the Gore propaganda based on Orestes claims of her own 'categorization' on global warming. Those who have looked into it (Pieser) disagree ...and I disagree with both. (Quite aside from the fact that her own research has been distorted.

b) Gore is a moron. Even within the current mainstream his claims are absurd: 20 foot ocean level increases, polor bears on the verge of extinction etc.

c) The most prestigious journals are not nature, a magazine that can't decide if it is serious or sensationalist (as they quip in the trade "Just because it was published in Nature does not mean its not true").

EDIT ADD: On Gore and his crackpottery:
http://ff.org/centers/csspp/pdf/20061121_gore.pdf

1) NCPA - List of Publications, Many on Global Warming
http://www.ncpa.org/pub/gwm.html

2) The Truth about An Inconvenient Truth
http://www.ncpa.org/pub/ba/ba561/

3) Hot and Cold Media Spin Cycle, with PDF Link :
http://epw.senate.gov/repwhitepapers...IN%20CYCLE.pdf
http://epw.senate.gov/speechitem.cfm...=rep&id=263759

4) Scientists respond to Gore's warnings of climate catastrophe
http://www.canadafreepress.com/2006/harris061206.htm

5) AP wrongly claims scientists praise Gore's movie
http://www.speroforum.com/site/artic...ub=127&id=4208

6) Don't Believe the Hype
Al Gore is wrong. There's no "consensus" on global warming.
BY RICHARD S. LINDZEN, MIT
http://www.opinionjournal.com/extra/?id=110008597

7) An Inconvenient Truth -
Gore as climate exaggerator
Ronald Bailey | June 16, 2006
http://www.reason.com/news/show/116471.html

8) Inconvenient Truths for Al Gore
Bjørn Lomborg
http://www.project-syndicate.org/com...mborg6/English

9) A Skeptic’s Guide to An Inconvenient Truth
By Marlo Lewis, Jr.*, August 2006
http://ff.org/centers/csspp/pdf/skepticguide.pdf

10) Ask Mr. ScienceThe moral flaws of Al Gore's An Inconvenient Truth. By Gregg Easterbrook
http://www.slate.com/id/2142319/
post #26 of 440
Quote:
Originally Posted by MaxParrish View Post

Because once the boogyman of global warming becomes the new hobgoblin, then it will be used as a trogen horse to limit all sorts of personal liberties. And unlike prior hysterias (e.g. DDT) that cost millions of lives in Malarial areas of the world, this one has NO objective criteria for success...at least not one than can be measured for a few generations.

We've been through the anti-capitalist development assualts for years: the Alaska pipeline would bring "doom"; the treaty of Rome said we were going to run out of resources; Carter's people told us a good portion of the ecosphere would be wiped out in a decade, etc.

It amazes me that so may of the "liberals" who tout their distress over people's well-being miss the most important and essential element: economic prosperity. To the degree that the US, or India, or Chile, or any other nation can prosper, it will create economic security for billions. And to the degree the world GDP is crippled or slowed by 'material denialist' movments people will suffer.

Some of this, I suppose is cultural: the fellow who owns a manufactured or modular home in the flat lands, drives his pickup or SUV to work through winter snows, recreates by hunting or fishing, buys expensive gas for heating, or electricity for summer cooling in the midwest or South, and has three kids does not relate to urban liberals who send their kid to Montasori schools, drives a Prius, recreates in a B&B, and lives in a Marin or Vermont enclave AND tells the conservative that he has to sacrifice his life style.

He does not like preachy, we (you) cannot afford the American dream, arrogant elites who already have their wealth - often from the same sins (Gore Tobacco, Soros currency speculation, Kerry's wife inherited fortune)...

Nice rant. I'm sure you enjoyed getting your "liberal elitist" digs in there.

But none of that takes into account the new industries and jobs created by researching and engineering alternative fuels and better conservation methods. Not to mention all the new sub-industries and boutique business that would flourish by delivering or processing these new technologies.
"The selfishness of Ayn Rand capitalism is the equivalent of intellectual masturbation -- satisfying in an ego-stroking way, but an ethical void when it comes to our commonly shared humanity."
Reply
"The selfishness of Ayn Rand capitalism is the equivalent of intellectual masturbation -- satisfying in an ego-stroking way, but an ethical void when it comes to our commonly shared humanity."
Reply
post #27 of 440
Now DDT was a hysteria? You've gone off the reservation..............

I mean, you could at least pick something that actually was a hysteria, like silicone breast implants or something.
A good brain ain't diddly if you don't have the facts
Reply
A good brain ain't diddly if you don't have the facts
Reply
post #28 of 440
The response to DDT was not hysteria, everyone was woefully abusing it, and it caused a large amount of well established negative effects in all animals including humans.

The current state of full bans in a large number of malaria infested areas is ignoring a significant solution to a 1 Billion person problem...

This fact may be what is causing MaxPerish to jump to the conclusion that it was a hysterical overesponse to cut back on its use in the first place.
"In a republic, voters may vote for the leaders they want, but they get the leaders they deserve."
Reply
"In a republic, voters may vote for the leaders they want, but they get the leaders they deserve."
Reply
post #29 of 440
Quote:
Originally Posted by hardeeharhar View Post

The response to DDT was not hysteria, everyone was woefully abusing it, and it caused a large amount of well established negative effects in all animals including humans.

The current state of full bans in a large number of malaria infested areas is ignoring a significant solution to a 1 Billion person problem...

This fact may be what is causing MaxPerish to jump to the conclusion that it was a hysterical overesponse to cut back on its use in the first place.


Yeah, that is what I was referring to. I can handle that explanation.
A good brain ain't diddly if you don't have the facts
Reply
A good brain ain't diddly if you don't have the facts
Reply
post #30 of 440
I am beginning to see something of a correlation...

Believes in God
Believes in Terrorists
Doesn't Believe in Global Warming

---

Doens't believe in God
Doesn't believe in Terrorists
"Believes" in Global Warming (as in there is evidence to support it)
post #31 of 440
Well, it seems that this will become a salvo upon salvo of links to the contrary. You have your information. I have mine. Nothing changes my beliefs or yours. But here's two more...emphasis on dates...

Fossil fuels are to blame, world scientists conclude - January 30th 2007

"The gold-standard Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) report represents 'a real convergence happening here, a consensus that this is a total global no-brainer,' says U.S. climate scientist Jerry Mahlman, former director of the federal government's Geophysical Fluid Dynamics Laboratory in New Jersey.

'The big message that will come out is the strength of the attribution of the warming to human activities,' says researcher Claudia Tebaldi of the National Center for Atmospheric Research (NCAR) in Boulder, Colo. "

Climate report gets last-minute edit in Paris - Februrary 1st 2007

"Bureaucrats, scientists work in secrecy to pull together major environmental study

Experts are falling behind in their task of reaching consensus on the wording of a key environmental report that says humans have already caused so much damage that the effects of global warming will last for more than a millennium.

'We are at 30 per cent (complete) and we have used 60 per cent of our time,' said Arthur Petersen, who represents the Dutch Environment Ministry.

Leaked drafts of Friday's report, widely quoted in the media in recent weeks, say the evidence of climate warming is 'unequivocal.' The change is visible in the air, oceans and melting ice and largely driven by ever-increasing human emissions of greenhouse gases.

The report on the state of Earth's climate, to be released Friday, is one of the most scrutinized, heavily edited and carefully coded documents ever written, and all the governments involved must agree on its final wording.

Climatologists hope it also will have the power to change the world, and what humans are doing to it.

In a draft of the much-anticipated report, obtained by the Globe and Mail, some 2,000 of the world's leading scientists say that the planet will see an increase in extreme weather -- including storms, droughts and heat waves.

The report says temperatures observed during the past 50 years have been the hottest in at least the past 1,300 years.

And 11 of the past 12 years rank among the warmest since humans began taking accurate temperature measurements in the 1850s.

'Warming of the climate system is unequivocal, as is now evident from increases in global average air and ocean temperatures, melting of snow and ice, and rising sea level,' said the draft. "

These two reports alone blow all yours away. Wake up and get the suntan lotion, losers.
post #32 of 440
Quote:
Originally Posted by MaxParrish View Post

If you read my prior post you would have noted:

a) There are not over 1000...blah blah blah. Your repeating the Gore propaganda based on Orestes claims of her own 'categorization' on global warming. Those who have looked into it (Pieser) disagree ...and I disagree with both. (Quite aside from the fact that her own research has been distorted.

b) Gore is a moron. Even within the current mainstream his claims are absurd: 20 foot ocean level increases, polor bears on the verge of extinction etc.

c) The most prestigious journals are not nature, a magazine that can't decide if it is serious or sensationalist (as they quip in the trade "Just because it was published in Nature does not mean its not true").

EDIT ADD: On Gore and his crackpottery:
http://ff.org/centers/csspp/pdf/20061121_gore.pdf

1) NCPA - List of Publications, Many on Global Warming
http://www.ncpa.org/pub/gwm.html

2) The Truth about An Inconvenient Truth
http://www.ncpa.org/pub/ba/ba561/

3) Hot and Cold Media Spin Cycle, with PDF Link :
http://epw.senate.gov/repwhitepapers...IN%20CYCLE.pdf
http://epw.senate.gov/speechitem.cfm...=rep&id=263759

4) Scientists respond to Gore's warnings of climate catastrophe
http://www.canadafreepress.com/2006/harris061206.htm

5) AP wrongly claims scientists praise Gore's movie
http://www.speroforum.com/site/artic...ub=127&id=4208

6) Don't Believe the Hype
Al Gore is wrong. There's no "consensus" on global warming.
BY RICHARD S. LINDZEN, MIT
http://www.opinionjournal.com/extra/?id=110008597

7) An Inconvenient Truth -
Gore as climate exaggerator
Ronald Bailey | June 16, 2006
http://www.reason.com/news/show/116471.html

8) Inconvenient Truths for Al Gore
Bjørn Lomborg
http://www.project-syndicate.org/com...mborg6/English

9) A Skeptic’s Guide to An Inconvenient Truth
By Marlo Lewis, Jr.*, August 2006
http://ff.org/centers/csspp/pdf/skepticguide.pdf

10) Ask Mr. ScienceThe moral flaws of Al Gore's An Inconvenient Truth. By Gregg Easterbrook
http://www.slate.com/id/2142319/

And each of those has been trashed BIGTIME at RealClimate! Just about all your links single out Gore's AIT, obviously YOU don't like the guy! I doubt you've even seen AIT.

You aren't able to see (or willing to see) the implicit time scales necessary to cause significant sea level rise (SSR), anyone who understands the science, understands that near term SSR will be predominantly due to thermal expansion, and only after that time will SSR due to melting START to become significant, it will take a couple of hundred years (hopefully) before we see a melt off similar to Meltwater Pulse 1a (14K YBP, ~20mm/yr (~8 inches/yr)) at current rates of CO2 buildup, less time if the buildup is accelerated (which it has been). It also takes hunderds of years for the Earth to reabsorb excess CO2 as we are currently adding to it's atmosphere. It takes hundreds of years for the oceans to warm, once warmed where does the excess heat go to? The Ice caps! And once they start to melt, watch out, megatsunami's may become an annual event!

So that in 50 to 100 years from now with the "stay the course" mindset you aspire to, it will be to late to stop the 900 lb GW gorilla!

Why don't you list a few hundred of the GW skeptic sites, there are plenty of them, many by "so called" GW scientists, yet none of them present sound recent documented science in the peer reviewed literature to back up their BELIEFS! It's pretty easy to go to Wikipedia, or RealClimate, or ExxonSecrets to "out" your "so called" GW scientific skeptics!

Where are their studies showing conclusively that anthropogenic forcing has little to no impact (i. e. less than 10%) on current GW?

The answer is they don't have any to offer, for if it were sound science it would get published, irregardless of what YOU might think!

What we all need to do is take names of those who deny the obvious, carved them in stone, so that Earth's future people will know who were the one's who should be faulted the most!
Every eye fixed itself upon him; with parted lips and bated breath the audience hung upon his words, taking no note of time, rapt in the ghastly fascinations of the tale. NOT!
Reply
Every eye fixed itself upon him; with parted lips and bated breath the audience hung upon his words, taking no note of time, rapt in the ghastly fascinations of the tale. NOT!
Reply
post #33 of 440
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Northgate View Post

Nice rant. I'm sure you enjoyed getting your "liberal elitist" digs in there.

But none of that takes into account the new industries and jobs created by researching and engineering alternative fuels and better conservation methods. Not to mention all the new sub-industries and boutique business that would flourish by delivering or processing these new technologies.

You asked: "Why is Global Warming such a pet peeve for right-wingers. I really don't understand why this bristles them so." You got an answer you didn't like - but maybe you NOW understand why its a "pet peeve" to many on the right.

Nothing wrong with noting that when an input to the economic system is made artificially expensive, and is restricted in use, that it will mean that current resources used for consumptioin will have to be used to find alternative solutions. However, as any student of Econ 101 will tell you, it also means that the the economic well being of the economy will fall - no matter how many "make work" projects are touted.

Given any two equal economies, one with inexpensive energy and one with expensive energy - the first will out-perform the later.
post #34 of 440
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally Posted by hardeeharhar View Post

The response to DDT was not hysteria, everyone was woefully abusing it, and it caused a large amount of well established negative effects in all animals including humans.

The current state of full bans in a large number of malaria infested areas is ignoring a significant solution to a 1 Billion person problem...

This fact may be what is causing MaxPerish to jump to the conclusion that it was a hysterical overesponse to cut back on its use in the first place.

Really ? http://www.townhall.com/columnists/J...aving_comeback

Quote:
Who says there's never any good news? After more than 30 years and tens of millions dead -- mostly children -- the World Health Organization (WHO) has ended its ban on DDT. DDT is the most effective anti-mosquito, anti-malaria pesticide known. But thanks to the worldwide environmental movement and politically correct bureaucrats in the United States and at the United Nations, the use of this benign chemical has been discouraged in Africa and elsewhere, permitting killer mosquitoes to spread death.

I don't expect any apologies from the people who permitted this to happen. But I am thankful this nightmare is ending

When you'alls myths get debunked, you need to keep up. Has anyone told y'all the Rosenburg's were guilty and Hiss was a communist? Still frightend about the Alaska pipeline? Think Erlich was right about all the resources running out a couple of decades ago?
post #35 of 440
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally Posted by @_@ Artman View Post

Well, it seems that this will become a salvo upon salvo of links to the contrary. You have your information. I have mine. Nothing changes my beliefs or yours. But here's two more...emphasis on dates...

Fossil fuels are to blame, world scientists conclude - January 30th 2007

"The gold-standard Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) report represents 'a real convergence happening here, a consensus that this is a total global no-brainier,' says U.S. climate scientist Jerry Mailman, former director of the federal government's Geophysical Fluid Dynamics Laboratory in New Jersey.

'The big message that will come out is the strength of the attribution of the warming to human activities,' says researcher Claudia Tebaldi of the National Center for Atmospheric Research (NCAR) in Boulder, Colo. "

Climate report gets last-minute edit in Paris - Februrary 1st 2007

"Bureaucrats, scientists work in secrecy to pull together major environmental study. Experts are falling behind in their task of reaching consensus on the wording of a key environmental report that says humans have already caused so much damage that the effects of global warming will last for more than a millennium.

'We are at 30 per cent (complete) and we have used 60 per cent of our time,' said Arthur Petersen, who represents the Dutch Environment Ministry.

Leaked drafts of Friday's report, widely quoted in the media in recent weeks, say the evidence of climate warming is 'unequivocal.' The change is visible in the air, oceans and melting ice and largely driven by ever-increasing human emissions of greenhouse gases.

The report on the state of Earth's climate, to be released Friday, is one of the most scrutinized, heavily edited and carefully coded documents ever written, and all the governments involved must agree on its final wording.

Climatologists hope it also will have the power to change the world, and what humans are doing to it.

In a draft of the much-anticipated report, obtained by the Globe and Mail, some 2,000 of the world's leading scientists say that the planet will see an increase in extreme weather -- including storms, droughts and heat waves.

The report says temperatures observed during the past 50 years have been the hottest in at least the past 1,300 years.

And 11 of the past 12 years rank among the warmest since humans began taking accurate temperature measurements in the 1850s.

'Warming of the climate system is unequivocal, as is now evident from increases in global average air and ocean temperatures, melting of snow and ice, and rising sea level,' said the draft. "

These two reports alone blow all yours away. Wake up and get the suntan lotion, losers.

Sorry those dogs don't hunt for the prey at hand. You lionized Gore's propaganda portions which may or may not agree with tomorrow's release of the ICPP document. The links I provide are direct examinations his claims with evidence that his filim, he even for the global warming crowd, gave gross and unwarranted representations of the state of the science.

Now we are not really sure what the report will say until 3:30 AM Eastern Time (12:30 tonight) but given its legacy and clearly duplicitous generation it only confirms that it is interned as a propaganda document.

You KNOW they EMBARGOED the supporting report don't you? YOU KNOW that they have to FIX or COOK the draft so it will match their recommendations DON"T YOU?

EVEN AFTER HIDING THE NEWER DRAFT we find that Friday's policy summary is still not ready: " Bureaucrats, scientists work in secrecy to pull together major environmental study.Experts are falling behind in their task of reaching consensus on the wording of a key environmental report that says humans have already caused so much damage..."

'We are at 30 per cent (complete) and we have used 60 per cent of our time,' said Arthur Petersen, who represents the Dutch Environment Ministry."


LOL.....what a gullible group.

PS For a laugher repeat:

"And 11 of the past 12 years rank among the warmest since humans began taking accurate temperature measurements in the 1850s.

BUT "The report says temperatures observed during the past 50 years have been the hottest in at least the past 1,300 years." ... all the more absurd given that the NAS found no such thing and cautioned against any projection of more than 400 years prior.
post #36 of 440
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally Posted by franksargent View Post

And each of those has been trashed BIGTIME at RealClimate!

Why don't you list a few hundred of the GW skeptic sites, there are plenty of them, many by "so called" scientists, yet none of then present sound recent documented science to back up their BELIEFS!

Where are their studies showing conclusively that anthropogenic forcing has little to no impact (i. e. less than 10%) on current GW?

The answer is they don't have any to offer, for if it were sound science it would get published, irregardless of what YOU might think!

Each artilce has been trashed? Wow...that's working overtime for the scammers at RealClimate...

Got a link?
post #37 of 440


News you can use and you toss it. CONCLUSIVE research within hours and you won't relent. Ok.

One last attempt.

But this is all about making money I guess. Look at all the money we can make in the mean time. A new record! To fund the liars! Who get paid with the profits!
post #38 of 440
Quote:
Originally Posted by MaxParrish View Post

Really ? http://www.townhall.com/columnists/J...aving_comeback



When you'alls myths get debunked, you need to keep up. Has anyone told y'all the Rosenburg's were guilty and Hiss was a communist? Still frightend about the Alaska pipeline? Think Erlich was right about all the resources running out a couple of decades ago?

MaxPerrish,

Note I did not say that ddt was not an effective mosquito killer. In fact I implied the exact opposite.

dtt is, however, hardly benign. for one, anything that kills a mosquito can kill you. it is just a fact of biology. you can read the msds of dtt if you had the mind to do so, but you don't. and as pointed out by your chosen link and my own post, it was the VOLUME of dtt use that was the problem... god you are an illiterate dolt.

(the alaska pipeline that leaked just a few hundred thousand gallons under the snow or the one that filled the exon valdez? that alaskan pipeline, oh yeah, that's harmless)

btw, what's with the communist propaganda? how is that even relevant to the discussion at hand...

(on a completely unrelated note... this MaxParrish is a self-described racist, so you out of hand know you are dealing with an idiot)
"In a republic, voters may vote for the leaders they want, but they get the leaders they deserve."
Reply
"In a republic, voters may vote for the leaders they want, but they get the leaders they deserve."
Reply
post #39 of 440
post #40 of 440
Quote:
Originally Posted by MaxParrish View Post

Each artilce has been trashed? Wow...that's working overtime for the scammers at RealClimate...

Got a link?

I do, but not for you, since you can't deal with the TRUTH!

Quote:
You aren't able to see (or willing to see) the implicit time scales necessary to cause significant sea level rise (SSR), anyone who understands the science, understands that near term SSR will be predominantly due to thermal expansion, and only after that time will SSR due to melting START to become significant, it will take a couple of hundred years (hopefully) before we see a melt off similar to Meltwater Pulse 1a (14K YBP, ~20mm/yr (~8 inches/yr)) at current rates of CO2 buildup, less time if the buildup is accelerated (which it has been). It also takes hunderds of years for the Earth to reabsorb excess CO2 as we are currently adding to it's atmosphere. It takes hundreds of years for the oceans to warm, once warmed where does the excess heat go to? The ice caps! And once they start to melt, watch out, megatsunami's may become an annual event!

So that in 50 to 100 years from now with the "stay the course" mindset you aspire to, it will be too late to stop the 900 lb GW gorilla!

Why don't you list a few hundred of the GW skeptic sites, there are plenty of them, many by "so called" GW scientists, yet none of them present sound recent documented science in the peer reviewed literature to back up their BELIEFS! It's pretty easy to go to Wikipedia, or RealClimate, or ExxonSecrets to "out" your "so called" GW scientific skeptics!

Where are their studies showing conclusively that anthropogenic forcing has little to no impact (i. e. less than 10%) on current GW?

The answer is they don't have any to offer, for if it were sound science it would get published, irregardless of what YOU might think!

What we all need to do is take names of those who deny the obvious, carved them in stone, so that Earth's future people will know who were the one's who should be faulted the most!
Every eye fixed itself upon him; with parted lips and bated breath the audience hung upon his words, taking no note of time, rapt in the ghastly fascinations of the tale. NOT!
Reply
Every eye fixed itself upon him; with parted lips and bated breath the audience hung upon his words, taking no note of time, rapt in the ghastly fascinations of the tale. NOT!
Reply
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: PoliticalOutsider
AppleInsider › Forums › Other Discussion › AppleOutsider › PoliticalOutsider › Global Warming Hysteria Building