Global Warming is NOT A Crisis

[Z]

Found here

March 9, 2007 ? From the Babylon of Gilgamesh to the post-Eden of Noah, every age has viewed climate change cataclysmically, as retribution for human greed and sinfulness.

In the 1970s, the fear was "global cooling." The Christian Science Monitor then declaimed, "Warning: Earth's climate is changing faster than even experts expect," while The New York Times announced, "A major cooling of the climate is widely considered inevitable." Sound familiar? Global warming represents the latest doom-laden "crisis," one demanding sacrifice to Gaia for our wicked fossil-fuel-driven ways.

But neither history nor science bolsters such an apocalyptic faith.

History and Science

Extreme weather events are ever present, and there is no evidence of systematic increases. Outside the tropics, variability should decrease in a warmer world. If this is a "crisis," then the world is in permanent "crisis," but will be less prone to "crisis" with warming.

Sea levels have been rising since the end of the last ice age, most rapidly about 12,000 years ago. In recent centuries, the average rate has been relatively uniform. The rate was higher during the first half of the 20th century than during the second. At around a couple of millimeters per year, it is a residual of much larger positive and negative changes locally. The risk from global warming is less than that from other factors (primarily geological).

The impact on agriculture is equivocal. India warmed during the second half of the 20th century, yet agricultural output increased markedly. The impact on disease is dubious. Infectious diseases, like malaria, are not so much a matter of temperature as of poverty and public health. Malaria remains endemic in Siberia, and was once so in Michigan and Europe. Exposure to cold is generally more dangerous.

So, does the claim that humans are the primary cause of recent warming imply "crisis"? The impact on temperature per unit CO2 goes down, not up, with increasing CO2. The role of human-induced greenhouse gases does not relate directly to emission rate, nor even to CO2 levels, but rather to the radiative (or greenhouse) impact. Doubling CO2 is a convenient benchmark. It is claimed, on the basis of computer models, that this should lead to 1.1 - 6.4 C warming.

Philip Stott is an Emeritus Professor from the University of London, UK. For the last 18 years he was the editor of the Journal of Biogeography. For more information about the debate series, go to www.iq2us.org

[seeric]

evolution is unstoppable. the course is set. attempting to alter destiny is futile.

[_Richard_]

that's right.. we're supposed to be in a cooling phase. So now, the planent shouldn't be getting hotter, it should be getting colder.

R

[Aneros Josh]

Did you just watch Jesus Camp or something?

[_Richard_]

Extreme weather events are ever present, and there is no evidence of systematic increases

wasn't there a record set last? Didn't massive ice shelfs just break off? wtf?

Sea levels have been rising since the end of the last ice age, most rapidly about 12,000 years ago. In recent centuries, the average rate has been relatively uniform. The rate was higher during the first half of the 20th century than during the second. At around a couple of millimeters per year, it is a residual of much larger positive and negative changes locally. The risk from global warming is less than that from other factors (primarily geological).

this doesn't actually say ANYTHING! so, ie: 'Yes, about the sea levels rising. We're fairly sure that the sea levels have been raising, and falling, the whole time. FACT! (please ignore the real point of this conversation)'

This is the stupidest spin i've read yet. It doesn't deny global warming, but says that most of the problems are from other sources? wasn't there a report just released from a 1000 scientists?

R

[Splum]

See sig.

Also 17k scientists cant be wrong can they?
http://www.oism.org/pproject/s33p357.htm

[BigPinPin]

In the past we had periods what were even warmer than now...but this is no excuse,not to change the current way of live what destroys the nature on our planet....the destruction is a fact !

No one knows what will happen but be sure, if anything bad will happen, 17k scientists will say: We knew it ;)

By the way....all those "scientists" are from the same country....and sorry but it´s exactly THE country, what never liked to reduce anything ;)

Ask some scientists of porsche, if porsche cars blowout too much shit...what do you think they will answere ?

[fetishblog]

According to the National Climatic Data Center, the average temperature in February 2007 was 32.9 F. This was -1.8 F cooler than the 1901-2000 (20th century) average, the 34th coolest February in 113 years.

http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/oa/climate/...h/cag3/na.html

[nico-t]

I never took "global warming" serious. In fact I believe its bullshit.

[stickyfingerz]

Originally Posted by fetishblog

According to the National Climatic Data Center, the average temperature in February 2007 was 32.9 F. This was -1.8 F cooler than the 1901-2000 (20th century) average, the 34th coolest February in 113 years.

http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/oa/climate/...h/cag3/na.html

FACTS wont stop the fact that MANBEARPIG is going to kill us all.

[notabook]

Originally Posted by stickyfingerz

FACTS wont stop the fact that MANBEARPIG is going to kill us all.

JESUS FUCKING CHRIST! Run for your lives!

[Danny_C]

Everything is fine. Just go back to your televisions, you're missing fresh coverage of American Idol.

[Dollarmansteve]

Originally Posted by Mr.Sexbankroll

wasn't there a record set last? Didn't massive ice shelfs just break off? wtf?

Record what? Remember, all of the measures there are for climate and weather are human contructs and subject to the system in which they exist. There is massive systemic bias in climate data and there is no predictive science based on this data, zero.. none. That is why climatologists are unable to predict El Ninos /El ninas / Intensity of storm seasons (remember, hurricane season 2006 was supposed to be the biggest ever.. but it was a dud, sorry), etc.

[Phoenix]

nice to see all the lunatics in one thread
lets argue about the cause and not worry abotu the effect..lol
Z leading the charge..lol

[baddog]

Originally Posted by stickyfingerz

FACTS wont stop the fact that MANBEARPIG is going to kill us all.

That is a different topic for a different thread.

[borked]

Originally Posted by Splum

See sig.

Also 17k scientists cant be wrong can they?
http://www.oism.org/pproject/s33p357.htm

So, there's a website with lots of names on it, all of them ending with Ph.D. and you believe the list is bona fide?

Why not check some names on that list? I did, and guess what, beside the usual Andrew S. Jones or whatever names that are common, I did a quick serach on some names which are a bit strange, and a LOT had never published a scinetific paper in their life. And they have a PhD???


If you don't believe me, go to PubMed, THE literature resource database for scientists and search a few authors, using this format in the search box:

(Zeger SE[Auth])
0 papers

(Sze MCY[Auth])
0 papers

(Zahora EP[Auth])
0 papers

(Milliken SR[Auth)
0 papers

(Dinegar RH[Author])
0 papers

hehe, this is fun - really. All those names are listed as Ph.D's yet, if you pick out some uncommon names and search their publication history on pubmed, they have never published. I fucking E they are not scientists.


Sheep.

[xroach]

http://www.guardian.co.uk/frontpage/...004399,00.html



Scientists and economists have been offered $10,000 each by a lobby group funded by one of the world's largest oil companies to undermine a major climate change report due to be published today.

Letters sent by the American Enterprise Institute (AEI), an ExxonMobil-funded thinktank with close links to the Bush administration, offered the payments for articles that emphasise the shortcomings of a report from the UN's Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC).

Travel expenses and additional payments were also offered.

The UN report was written by international experts and is widely regarded as the most comprehensive review yet of climate change science. It will underpin international negotiations on new emissions targets to succeed the Kyoto agreement, the first phase of which expires in 2012. World governments were given a draft last year and invited to comment.

The AEI has received more than $1.6m from ExxonMobil and more than 20 of its staff have worked as consultants to the Bush administration. Lee Raymond, a former head of ExxonMobil, is the vice-chairman of AEI's board of trustees.

The letters, sent to scientists in Britain, the US and elsewhere, attack the UN's panel as "resistant to reasonable criticism and dissent and prone to summary conclusions that are poorly supported by the analytical work" and ask for essays that "thoughtfully explore the limitations of climate model outputs".

Climate scientists described the move yesterday as an attempt to cast doubt over the "overwhelming scientific evidence" on global warming. "It's a desperate attempt by an organisation who wants to distort science for their own political aims," said David Viner of the Climatic Research Unit at the University of East Anglia.

"The IPCC process is probably the most thorough and open review undertaken in any discipline. This undermines the confidence of the public in the scientific community and the ability of governments to take on sound scientific advice," he said.

The letters were sent by Kenneth Green, a visiting scholar at AEI, who confirmed that the organisation had approached scientists, economists and policy analysts to write articles for an independent review that would highlight the strengths and weaknesses of the IPCC report.

"Right now, the whole debate is polarised," he said. "One group says that anyone with any doubts whatsoever are deniers and the other group is saying that anyone who wants to take action is alarmist. We don't think that approach has a lot of utility for intelligent policy."

One American scientist turned down the offer, citing fears that the report could easily be misused for political gain. "You wouldn't know if some of the other authors might say nothing's going to happen, that we should ignore it, or that it's not our fault," said Steve Schroeder, a professor at Texas A&M university.

The contents of the IPCC report have been an open secret since the Bush administration posted its draft copy on the internet in April. It says there is a 90% chance that human activity is warming the planet, and that global average temperatures will rise by another 1.5 to 5.8C this century, depending on emissions.

Lord Rees of Ludlow, the president of the Royal Society, Britain's most prestigious scientific institute, said: "The IPCC is the world's leading authority on climate change and its latest report will provide a comprehensive picture of the latest scientific understanding on the issue. It is expected to stress, more convincingly than ever before, that our planet is already warming due to human actions, and that 'business as usual' would lead to unacceptable risks, underscoring the urgent need for concerted international action to reduce the worst impacts of climate change. However, yet again, there will be a vocal minority with their own agendas who will try to suggest otherwise."

Ben Stewart of Greenpeace said: "The AEI is more than just a thinktank, it functions as the Bush administration's intellectual Cosa Nostra. They are White House surrogates in the last throes of their campaign of climate change denial. They lost on the science; they lost on the moral case for action. All they've got left is a suitcase full of cash."

On Monday, another Exxon-funded organisation based in Canada will launch a review in London which casts doubt on the IPCC report. Among its authors are Tad Murty, a former scientist who believes human activity makes no contribution to global warming. Confirmed VIPs attending include Nigel Lawson and David Bellamy, who believes there is no link between burning fossil fuels and global warming.

[xroach]

http://environment.guardian.co.uk/cl...875762,00.html

The denial industry

For years, a network of fake citizens' groups and bogus scientific bodies has been claiming that science of global warming is inconclusive. They set back action on climate change by a decade. But who funded them? Exxon's involvement is well known, but not the strange role of Big Tobacco. In the first of three extracts from his new book, George Monbiot tells a bizarre and shocking new story

Tuesday September 19, 2006
The Guardian

ExxonMobil is the world's most profitable corporation. Its sales now amount to more than $1bn a day. It makes most of this money from oil, and has more to lose than any other company from efforts to tackle climate change. To safeguard its profits, ExxonMobil needs to sow doubt about whether serious action needs to be taken on climate change. But there are difficulties: it must confront a scientific consensus as strong as that which maintains that smoking causes lung cancer or that HIV causes Aids. So what's its strategy?

Article continues
The website Exxonsecrets.org, using data found in the company's official documents, lists 124 organisations that have taken money from the company or work closely with those that have. These organisations take a consistent line on climate change: that the science is contradictory, the scientists are split, environmentalists are charlatans, liars or lunatics, and if governments took action to prevent global warming, they would be endangering the global economy for no good reason. The findings these organisations dislike are labelled "junk science". The findings they welcome are labelled "sound science".

Among the organisations that have been funded by Exxon are such well-known websites and lobby groups as TechCentralStation, the Cato Institute and the Heritage Foundation. Some of those on the list have names that make them look like grassroots citizens' organisations or academic bodies: the Centre for the Study of Carbon Dioxide and Global Change, for example. One or two of them, such as the Congress of Racial Equality, are citizens' organisations or academic bodies, but the line they take on climate change is very much like that of the other sponsored groups. While all these groups are based in America, their publications are read and cited, and their staff are interviewed and quoted, all over the world.

By funding a large number of organisations, Exxon helps to create the impression that doubt about climate change is widespread. For those who do not understand that scientific findings cannot be trusted if they have not appeared in peer-reviewed journals, the names of these institutes help to suggest that serious researchers are challenging the consensus.

This is not to claim that all the science these groups champion is bogus. On the whole, they use selection, not invention. They will find one contradictory study - such as the discovery of tropospheric cooling, which, in a garbled form, has been used by Peter Hitchens in the Mail on Sunday - and promote it relentlessly. They will continue to do so long after it has been disproved by further work. So, for example, John Christy, the author of the troposphere paper, admitted in August 2005 that his figures were incorrect, yet his initial findings are still being circulated and championed by many of these groups, as a quick internet search will show you.

But they do not stop there. The chairman of a group called the Science and Environmental Policy Project is Frederick Seitz. Seitz is a physicist who in the 1960s was president of the US National Academy of Sciences. In 1998, he wrote a document, known as the Oregon Petition, which has been cited by almost every journalist who claims that climate change is a myth.

The document reads as follows: "We urge the United States government to reject the global warming agreement that was written in Kyoto, Japan, in December 1997, and any other similar proposals. The proposed limits on greenhouse gases would harm the environment, hinder the advance of science and technology, and damage the health and welfare of mankind. There is no convincing scientific evidence that human release of carbon dioxide, methane, or other greenhouse gases is causing or will, in the foreseeable future, cause catastrophic heating of the Earth's atmosphere and disruption of the Earth's climate. Moreover, there is substantial scientific evidence that increases in atmospheric carbon dioxide produce many beneficial effects upon the natural plant and animal environments of the Earth."

Anyone with a degree was entitled to sign it. It was attached to a letter written by Seitz, entitled Research Review of Global Warming Evidence. The lead author of the "review" that followed Seitz's letter is a Christian fundamentalist called Arthur B Robinson. He is not a professional climate scientist. It was co-published by Robinson's organisation - the Oregon Institute of Science and Medicine - and an outfit called the George C Marshall Institute, which has received $630,000 from ExxonMobil since 1998. The other authors were Robinson's 22-year-old son and two employees of the George C Marshall Institute. The chairman of the George C Marshall Institute was Frederick Seitz.

The paper maintained that: "We are living in an increasingly lush environment of plants and animals as a result of the carbon dioxide increase. Our children will enjoy an Earth with far more plant and animal life than that with which we now are blessed. This is a wonderful and unexpected gift from the Industrial Revolution."

It was printed in the font and format of the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences: the journal of the organisation of which Seitz - as he had just reminded his correspondents - was once president.

Soon after the petition was published, the National Academy of Sciences released this statement: "The NAS Council would like to make it clear that this petition has nothing to do with the National Academy of Sciences and that the manuscript was not published in the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences or in any other peer-reviewed journal. The petition does not reflect the conclusions of expert reports of the Academy."

But it was too late. Seitz, the Oregon Institute and the George C Marshall Institute had already circulated tens of thousands of copies, and the petition had established a major presence on the internet. Some 17,000 graduates signed it, the majority of whom had no background in climate science. It has been repeatedly cited - by global-warming sceptics such as David Bellamy, Melanie Phillips and others - as a petition by climate scientists. It is promoted by the Exxon-sponsored sites as evidence that there is no scientific consensus on climate change.

All this is now well known to climate scientists and environmentalists. But what I have discovered while researching this issue is that the corporate funding of lobby groups denying that manmade climate change is taking place was initiated not by Exxon, or by any other firm directly involved in the fossil fuel industry. It was started by the tobacco company Philip Morris.

continued in next post

[xroach]

In December 1992, the US Environmental Protection Agency published a 500-page report called Respiratory Health Effects of Passive Smoking. It found that "the widespread exposure to environmental tobacco smoke (ETS) in the United States presents a serious and substantial public health impact. In adults: ETS is a human lung carcinogen, responsible for approximately 3,000 lung cancer deaths annually in US non-smokers. In children: ETS exposure is causally associated with an increased risk of lower respiratory tract infections such as bronchitis and pneumonia. This report estimates that 150,000 to 300,000 cases annually in infants and young children up to 18 months of age are attributable to ETS."

Had it not been for the settlement of a major class action against the tobacco companies in the US, we would never have been able to see what happened next. But in 1998 they were forced to publish their internal documents and post them on the internet.

Within two months of its publication, Philip Morris, the world's biggest tobacco firm, had devised a strategy for dealing with the passive-smoking report. In February 1993 Ellen Merlo, its senior vice-president of corporate affairs, sent a letter to William I Campbell, Philip Morris's chief executive officer and president, explaining her intentions: "Our overriding objective is to discredit the EPA report ... Concurrently, it is our objective to prevent states and cities, as well as businesses, from passive-smoking bans."

To this end, she had hired a public relations company called APCO. She had attached the advice it had given her. APCO warned that: "No matter how strong the arguments, industry spokespeople are, in and of themselves, not always credible or appropriate messengers."

So the fight against a ban on passive smoking had to be associated with other people and other issues. Philip Morris, APCO said, needed to create the impression of a "grassroots" movement - one that had been formed spontaneously by concerned citizens to fight "overregulation". It should portray the danger of tobacco smoke as just one "unfounded fear" among others, such as concerns about pesticides and cellphones. APCO proposed to set up "a national coalition intended to educate the media, public officials and the public about the dangers of 'junk science'. Coalition will address credibility of government's scientific studies, risk-assessment techniques and misuse of tax dollars ... Upon formation of Coalition, key leaders will begin media outreach, eg editorial board tours, opinion articles, and brief elected officials in selected states."

APCO would found the coalition, write its mission statements, and "prepare and place opinion articles in key markets". For this it required $150,000 for its own fees and $75,000 for the coalition's costs.

By May 1993, as another memo from APCO to Philip Morris shows, the fake citizens' group had a name: the Advancement of Sound Science Coalition. It was important, further letters stated, "to ensure that TASSC has a diverse group of contributors"; to "link the tobacco issue with other more 'politically correct' products"; and to associate scientific studies that cast smoking in a bad light with "broader questions about government research and regulations" - such as "global warming", "nuclear waste disposal" and "biotechnology". APCO would engage in the "intensive recruitment of high-profile representatives from business and industry, scientists, public officials, and other individuals interested in promoting the use of sound science".

By September 1993, APCO had produced a "Plan for the Public Launching of TASSC". The media launch would not take place in "Washington, DC or the top media markets of the country. Rather, we suggest creating a series of aggressive, decentralised launches in several targeted local and regional markets across the country. This approach ... avoids cynical reporters from major media: less reviewing/challenging of TASSC messages."

The media coverage, the public relations company hoped, would enable TASSC to "establish an image of a national grassroots coalition". In case the media asked hostile questions, APCO circulated a sheet of answers, drafted by Philip Morris. The first question was:

"Isn't it true that Philip Morris created TASSC to act as a front group for it?

"A: No, not at all. As a large corporation, PM belongs to many national, regional, and state business, public policy, and legislative organisations. PM has contributed to TASSC, as we have with various groups and corporations across the country."

There are clear similarities between the language used and the approaches adopted by Philip Morris and by the organisations funded by Exxon. The two lobbies use the same terms, which appear to have been invented by Philip Morris's consultants. "Junk science" meant peer-reviewed studies showing that smoking was linked to cancer and other diseases. "Sound science" meant studies sponsored by the tobacco industry suggesting that the link was inconclusive. Both lobbies recognised that their best chance of avoiding regulation was to challenge the scientific consensus. As a memo from the tobacco company Brown and Williamson noted, "Doubt is our product since it is the best means of competing with the 'body of fact' that exists in the mind of the general public. It is also the means of establishing a controversy." Both industries also sought to distance themselves from their own campaigns, creating the impression that they were spontaneous movements of professionals or ordinary citizens: the "grassroots".

But the connection goes further than that. TASSC, the "coalition" created by Philip Morris, was the first and most important of the corporate-funded organisations denying that climate change is taking place. It has done more damage to the campaign to halt it than any other body.

TASSC did as its founders at APCO suggested, and sought funding from other sources. Between 2000 and 2002 it received $30,000 from Exxon. The website it has financed - JunkScience.com - has been the main entrepot for almost every kind of climate-change denial that has found its way into the mainstream press. It equates environmentalists with Nazis, communists and terrorists. It flings at us the accusations that could justifably be levelled against itself: the website claims, for example, that it is campaigning against "faulty scientific data and analysis used to advance special and, often, hidden agendas". I have lost count of the number of correspondents who, while questioning manmade global warming, have pointed me there.

The man who runs it is called Steve Milloy. In 1992, he started working for APCO - Philip Morris's consultants. While there, he set up the JunkScience site. In March 1997, the documents show, he was appointed TASSC's executive director. By 1998, as he explained in a memo to TASSC board members, his JunkScience website was was being funded by TASSC. Both he and the "coalition" continued to receive money from Philip Morris. An internal document dated February 1998 reveals that TASSC took $200,000 from the tobacco company in 1997. Philip Morris's 2001 budget document records a payment to Steven Milloy of $90,000. Altria, Philip Morris's parent company, admits that Milloy was under contract to the tobacco firm until at least the end of 2005.

He has done well. You can find his name attached to letters and articles seeking to discredit passive-smoking studies all over the internet and in the academic databases. He has even managed to reach the British Medical Journal: I found a letter from him there which claimed that the studies it had reported "do not bear out the hypothesis that maternal smoking/ passive smoking increases cancer risk among infants". TASSC paid him $126,000 in 2004 for 15 hours' work a week. Two other organisations are registered at his address: the Free Enterprise Education Institute and the Free Enterprise Action Institute. They have received $10,000 and $50,000 respectively from Exxon. The secretary of the Free Enterprise Action Institute is Thomas Borelli. Borelli was the Philip Morris executive who oversaw the payments to TASSC.

Milloy also writes a weekly Junk Science column for the Fox News website. Without declaring his interests, he has used this column to pour scorn on studies documenting the medical effects of second-hand tobacco smoke and showing that climate change is taking place. Even after Fox News was told about the money he had been receiving from Philip Morris and Exxon, it continued to employ him, without informing its readers about his interests.

continued again in next post

[xroach]

TASSC's headed notepaper names an advisory board of eight people. Three of them are listed by Exxonsecrets.org as working for organisations taking money from Exxon. One of them is Frederick Seitz, the man who wrote the Oregon Petition, and who chairs the Science and Environmental Policy Project. In 1979, Seitz became a permanent consultant to the tobacco company RJ Reynolds. He worked for the firm until at least 1987, for an annual fee of $65,000. He was in charge of deciding which medical research projects the company should fund, and handed out millions of dollars a year to American universities. The purpose of this funding, a memo from the chairman of RJ Reynolds shows, was to "refute the criticisms against cigarettes". An undated note in the Philip Morris archive shows that it was planning a "Seitz symposium" with the help of TASSC, in which Frederick Seitz would speak to "40-60 regulators".

The president of Seitz's Science and Environmental Policy Project is a maverick environmental scientist called S Fred Singer. He has spent the past few years refuting evidence for manmade climate change. It was he, for example, who published the misleading claim that most of the world's glaciers are advancing, which landed David Bellamy in so much trouble when he repeated it last year. He also had connections with the tobacco industry. In March 1993, APCO sent a memo to Ellen Merlo, the vice-president of Philip Morris, who had just commissioned it to fight the Environmental Protection Agency: "As you know, we have been working with Dr Fred Singer and Dr Dwight Lee, who have authored articles on junk science and indoor air quality (IAQ) respectively ..."

Singer's article, entitled Junk Science at the EPA, claimed that "the latest 'crisis' - environmental tobacco smoke - has been widely criticised as the most shocking distortion of scientific evidence yet". He alleged that the Environmental Protection Agency had had to "rig the numbers" in its report on passive smoking. This was the report that Philip Morris and APCO had set out to discredit a month before Singer wrote his article.


I have no evidence that Fred Singer or his organisation have taken money from Philip Morris. But many of the other bodies that have been sponsored by Exxon and have sought to repudiate climate change were also funded by the tobacco company. Among them are some of the world's best-known "thinktanks": the Competitive Enterprise Institute, the Cato Institute, the Heritage Foundation, the Hudson Institute, the Frontiers of Freedom Institute, the Reason Foundation and the Independent Institute, as well as George Mason University's Law and Economics Centre. I can't help wondering whether there is any aspect of conservative thought in the United States that has not been formed and funded by the corporations.

Until I came across this material, I believed that the accusations, the insults and the taunts such people had slung at us environmentalists were personal: that they really did hate us, and had found someone who would pay to help them express those feelings. Now I realise that they have simply transferred their skills.

While they have been most effective in the United States, the impacts of the climate-change deniers sponsored by Exxon and Philip Morris have been felt all over the world. I have seen their arguments endlessly repeated in Australia, Canada, India, Russia and the UK. By dominating the media debate on climate change during seven or eight critical years in which urgent international talks should have been taking place, by constantly seeding doubt about the science just as it should have been most persuasive, they have justified the money their sponsors have spent on them many times over. It is fair to say that the professional denial industry has delayed effective global action on climate change by years, just as it helped to delay action against the tobacco companies.

[NinjaSteve]

I think Al Gore is correct in everything he says.
http://www.climatecrisis.net/

[stickyfingerz]

Originally Posted by baddog

That is a different topic for a different thread.

Actually its the same topic. Southpark just named Global warming "manbearpig" cause there is about the same amount of truth in the Manbearpig myth as the global warming myth.

[xroach]

Originally Posted by NinjaSteve

I think Al Gore is correct in everything he says.
http://www.climatecrisis.net/

gore is nothing more than a bandwagon jumper

[xroach]

Originally Posted by stickyfingerz

Actually its the same topic. Southpark just named Global warming "manbearpig" cause there is about the same amount of truth in the Manbearpig myth as the global warming myth.

southpark, though fucking hilarious, is a partisan propaganda machine. sad in this day and age the most poignant political tool you can have is a good 'zinger'

[kane]

All the arguing aside the fact remains that we are in a warming cycle and the earth is getting warmer. The question is: " Is what we are doing on the planet IE pollution, fossil fuels etc. causing this warming cycle to be greater than is would normally be?"

What I mean is this. Say the earth was naturally going to warm itself and increase its average overall temperature by 1%. It would have some effect on the planet that may or may not be harmful to us. But what if the things we have been doing to the planet cause that average temp to instead go up by 3%? It's not a huge jump, but when looked at on a global scale it could be a major deal.

Both sites of the argument have an agenda. The pro-environmental people want to prove their point and the anti-environmental people want the same. My thought is that, when in doubt, err on the side of the environment. In the end this planet is our home and I have always gone with the theory that you don't shit in your own living room. I would rather be safe than sorry.

[Mr Steele]

I hope to be dead before it really goes down.. wishful thinking

[FetishTom]

...the bit that narks me is the world has been chugging along nicely with higher average temperatures than today (balmy tropics everywhere), lower average temperatures (ice sheets covering most of the globe); mini warm periods with vine yards in England and mini ice ages with winter fairs held on a frozen Thames river...

...and all this fluctuation was done without mankind present of if he was before a car or plane or heavy industry was invented...

...but this time global warming is all down to mankind. Nothing else but you and me driving around and leaving a few lights on. Boy I just love the egotistical thinking behind this premise!

Thing is I remember the scare stories in the media and from the 'scientific community' that we are heading for a new ice age. 100% certain they were. So what happened to that? Did we have it and I missed it? But then I guess the boffins who have their noses in the grants trough never got anywhere peddling the line 'World OK. Nothing to worry about'.

[Splum]

I like ice cream pie.

[Nysus]

Hmmm.. People forget the Main Factor of what causes warming --- our pollution. If we stayed at the current level of pollution then it will get worse, and the fact is as the world grows the amount of pollution will grow enormously without checks and controls. Cutting back the CFCs (I believe they were) from being released into the atmosphere has already had a large effect on letting the ozone repair; if that check wasn't put in there it would be much worse, and the Earth would be warming up more already.

If Global Warming was at the 'crisis level' that seems to need to exist to get anyone off of their ass then shit would already be hitting the fan and it would be too late before a lot of life died.

[stickyfingerz]

Originally Posted by Nysus

Hmmm.. People forget the Main Factor of what causes warming --- our pollution. If we stayed at the current level of pollution then it will get worse, and the fact is as the world grows the amount of pollution will grow enormously without checks and controls. Cutting back the CFCs (I believe they were) from being released into the atmosphere has already had a large effect on letting the ozone repair; if that check wasn't put in there it would be much worse, and the Earth would be warming up more already.

If Global Warming was at the 'crisis level' that seems to need to exist to get anyone off of their ass then shit would already be hitting the fan and it would be too late before a lot of life died.

Pollution is more of a factor than sunflares and solar activity? haha

Watch this movie see if your views change

http://video.google.com/videoplay?do...11497638&hl=en

[stickyfingerz]

Originally Posted by FetishTom

...the bit that narks me is the world has been chugging along nicely with higher average temperatures than today (balmy tropics everywhere), lower average temperatures (ice sheets covering most of the globe); mini warm periods with vine yards in England and mini ice ages with winter fairs held on a frozen Thames river...

...and all this fluctuation was done without mankind present of if he was before a car or plane or heavy industry was invented...

...but this time global warming is all down to mankind. Nothing else but you and me driving around and leaving a few lights on. Boy I just love the egotistical thinking behind this premise!

Thing is I remember the scare stories in the media and from the 'scientific community' that we are heading for a new ice age. 100% certain they were. So what happened to that? Did we have it and I missed it? But then I guess the boffins who have their noses in the grants trough never got anywhere peddling the line 'World OK. Nothing to worry about'.

NAIL ON HEAD.

[Michaelious]

Originally Posted by stickyfingerz

FACTS wont stop the fact that MANBEARPIG is going to kill us all.

It's heading straight for us! Bang!

[Sly]

Today my bedroom was hit with manbearpig. Damn its hot in here!

[thaifan99]

Its all about mvoing people away from oil before the price gets too crazy and countries go bankrupt- and stopping the russians & arabs having too much power when the wests oil runs out. expect lots of new fuels and nuclear power stations etc

[baddog]

Originally Posted by Splum

I like ice cream pie.

I hate ice cream pie . . . what a rip off

[xroach]

cycles are normal, yes. the current rate of change is far from normal.
ice age comes after the warming period. did only canadian schools teach this shit ?

[stickyfingerz]

Originally Posted by xroach

cycles are normal, yes. the current rate of change is far from normal.
ice age comes after the warming period. did only canadian schools teach this shit ?

So if an Ice age comes after a warming period you are saying its a normal cycle right? Maybe since Mars is getting hotter... maybe JUST maybe its due to some kind of solar activity...

[Scott McD]

Originally Posted by stickyfingerz

Maybe since Mars is getting hotter... maybe JUST maybe its due to some kind of solar activity...

That's because there is life on Mars, and they are driving around in huge ass cars...

[stickyfingerz]

Originally Posted by Scott McD

That's because there is life on Mars, and they are driving around in huge ass cars...

I think Hummer just put a factory up there.

[xroach]

Originally Posted by stickyfingerz

So if an Ice age comes after a warming period you are saying its a normal cycle right? Maybe since Mars is getting hotter... maybe JUST maybe its due to some kind of solar activity...

holy fuck, you couldn't comprehend 2 sentences coherently.

[stickyfingerz]

Originally Posted by xroach

holy fuck, you couldn't comprehend 2 sentences coherently.

Yes Im really stupid. I should automatically believe in all that Al Gore, and the nutso lefty environazis spooge out their traps to us. lol

[Linkster]

New Rules for Scientists travelling abroad:
"Polar bears, sea ice and global warming are taboo subjects, at least in public, for some U.S. scientists attending meetings abroad, environmental groups and a top federal wildlife official said on Thursday. ....
The matter came to light in e-mails from the Fish and Wildlife Service that were distributed by the Natural Resources Defense Council and the Center for Biological Diversity, both environmental groups.

Listed as a "new requirement" for foreign travelers on U.S. government business, the memo says that requests for foreign travel "involving or potentially involving climate change, sea ice, and/or polar bears" require special handling, including notice of who will be the official spokesman for the trip.

The Fish and Wildlife Service top officials need assurance that the spokesman, "the one responding to questions on these issues, particularly polar bears" understands the administration's position on these topics.

Two accompanying memos were offered as examples of these kinds of assurance. Both included the line that the traveler "understands the administration's position on climate change, polar bears, and sea ice and will not be speaking on or responding to these issues."

[Nysus]

Originally Posted by stickyfingerz

Pollution is more of a factor than sunflares and solar activity? haha

Watch this movie see if your views change

http://video.google.com/videoplay?do...11497638&hl=en

Do you understand the concept of amplification? What happens if there's a hole in a protective layer and with solar flares sending radiation at Earth?

[xroach]

Originally Posted by stickyfingerz

Yes Im really stupid. I should automatically believe in all that Al Gore, and the nutso lefty environazis spooge out their traps to us. lol

never seen the gore shit, he's a bandwagon jumper (as previously stated)
he's the first to talk about climate change just like he invented the internet
learned all this shit in the early 90's
maybe if i add some
that'll add some credibility, zinger zing zing zing

[stickyfingerz]

Originally Posted by xroach

never seen the gore shit, he's a bandwagon jumper (as previously stated)
he's the first to talk about climate change just like he invented the internet
learned all this shit in the early 90's
maybe if i add some
that'll add some credibility, zinger zing zing zing

Well guess we'll find out in about 20 years huh? Im not really too worried though lol.

[spunkmaster]

Originally Posted by Nysus

Hmmm.. People forget the Main Factor of what causes warming --- our pollution.

Bullshit !

Pollution was much worst back in the 70's and we had global cooling !

[2012]

Car exhaust has nothing on good ole fashioned turd fumes ...

According to the United Nations, the meat industry ?emerges as one of the top two or three most significant contributors to the most serious environmental problems, at every scale from local to global.?
http://goveg.com/environment-globalwarming.asp