Skip to main content

* JULY 3, 2009

In Political Ads, Christian Left Mounts Sermonic Campaigns



By STEPHANIE SIMON

Randy Brinson, a conservative political consultant in Alabama, has been fielding anxious calls for weeks from business interests across the South.

Their concern is massive ad blitz on Christian and country-music stations across 10 states. The ads, funded by a left-leaning coalition, urge support for congressional legislation to curb greenhouse-gas emissions -- by framing the issue as an urgent matter of Biblical morality.

"As our seas rise, crops wither and rivers run dry, God's creation cries out for relief," begins one ad, narrated by an evangelical megachurch pastor. Another opens with a reference to the Gospel of John, slams energy interests for fighting the bill, and concludes: "Please join the faithful in speaking out against the powerful."

Dr. Brinson tells his clients they are right to be worried. Such an aggressive political campaign by the religious left is unexpected, he says, and could prove powerful. "This is the first time I've seen a moderate group of evangelicals come together and do a coordinated campaign," said Dr. Brinson. He is warning clients: "You're going to hear a lot more of this."

Emboldened by what they see as a kindred spirit in the White House, progressive and liberal Christians are stepping up their political activism in a big way.

A religious coalition called the American Values Network spent nearly $200,000 placing the global warming ads. Some political analysts credit the campaign with boosting support for the Waxman-Markey climate bill, which narrowly passed the House last week.

The coalition plans to spend an additional $150,000 in the coming months to enlist pastors in Nevada, Arizona and Colorado to rally support in the pews as climate-change legislation moves through the Senate.

Another left-leaning religious coalition will begin airing scripture-citing radio ads in key congressional districts this weekend, calling for legislation to make health insurance more affordable. The coalition -- which includes Faith in Public Life, Sojourners and Catholics in Alliance for the Common Good -- also is distributing an eight-page guide, full of Biblical quotes and health-care statistics, to encourage pastors to raise the issue in sermons.

Democratic lawmakers representing conservative districts say such efforts help them make the case to skeptical constituents that they aren't simply toeing the party line -- or turning into bleeding-heart liberals -- when they support President Barack Obama's calls for health-care and climate-change legislation.

"It's important for people to see that it's not just [Democrats] saying this is important, but people who are coming at it from a moral background," said Rep. Tom Perriello, a freshman Democrat who has come under fire in his rural Virginia district for supporting the climate bill.

The religious right and secular conservatives are taking notice. In recent weeks, key religious-right groups such as Focus on the Family and the Family Research Council have heavily promoted the work of a group called the Cornwall Alliance for the Stewardship of Creation. The Cornwall Alliance dismisses global-warming alarms as hype and argues that forceful action to cut greenhouse-gas emissions could cripple the economy and harm the poor. It is organizing conservative pastors to carry this message to the pews.

The religious left has a long tradition of activism on social issues, including the civil-rights movement. But for the past quarter century, faith-based politicking has been dominated by the religious right, which built a powerful army of activists -- and a formidable fund-raising machine -- on the strength of leaders such as the Rev. Jerry Falwell of the Moral Majority and radio host James Dobson of Focus on the Family.

The religious left's re-emergence as a strong voice -- with the financial backing to make aggressive media buys -- is a "seismic shift," said D. Michael Lindsay, a sociologist at Rice University who studies evangelical politics.

"The religious left is experiencing today what the religious right had in 1981," Mr. Lindsay said. "They've finally found a White House that's not just tolerating but welcoming, affirming, of their involvement."

Left-leaning Christian groups also have started to attract funding from secular donors who share their political goals -- and who see Biblical appeals as a promising way to broaden public support.

Oxfam America has worked with churches for years, but on relatively non-controversial campaigns such as staging fasts to call attention to world hunger. Now, the group is teaming up with the religious left to push for congressional action to cut greenhouse-gas emissions.

E. Calvin Beisner, a spokesman for the conservative Cornwall Alliance, says the right has to respond forcefully to the well-funded campaigns from the religious left, because "they're certainly not being silent."
Original Post

Replies sorted oldest to newest

quote:
Originally posted by interventor1:
Of course, since global warming ended in 1998


That is simply not true and demonstrates a profound ignorance of the factual data.

Yes, the globe is getting warmer. Yes, it has been cooling a little since 1998 or so. Yes, the data indicates that it will cycle back to the warming trend and ratchet higher and higher until something tips the scale back the other way.

Global warming is an amazingly complex and often contradictory theory but there is no denying the factual data.

Image source NASA Link

Attachments

Images (1)
  • temp
Let's ignore global warming for a minute. Take a look around you, even in the big cities. Do we honestly think the amount of CO being released from vehicles has no effect on the environment? Look at our rivers. 30 years ago I would gladly eat any fish from the Tennessee River. Now I wouldn't. We should be good stewards of what we have been given.

Now let's reopen the global warming question. Does the results make a difference? The Earth will eventually purge itself or mutate to accept its existence. The rock may be here.

The good news: I doubt I will be around when the results hit home hard enough to concern the general population. For now we will continue to debate what will happen. Nothing . . . warming . . . cooling . . . natural . . . unnatural, we do know it will change.

The better news: Some crazy nut will probably nuke us off the map or we will grow some crazy virus before any environmental catastrophe. We just may be lucky enough to be part of the culling of the population.
quote:
Originally posted by Cookey:
quote:
Originally posted by interventor1:
Of course, since global warming ended in 1998


That is simply not true and demonstrates a profound ignorance of the factual data.

Yes, the globe is getting warmer. Yes, it has been cooling a little since 1998 or so. Yes, the data indicates that it will cycle back to the warming trend and ratchet higher and higher until something tips the scale back the other way.

Global warming is an amazingly complex and often contradictory theory but there is no denying the factual data.

Image source NASA Link



Yep temps been going up since the last Ice Age, they'll cool down before the next ice age, life is full of cycles.
quote:
Originally posted by AlabamaSon:
Let's ignore global warming for a minute. Take a look around you, even in the big cities. Do we honestly think the amount of CO being released from vehicles has no effect on the environment? Look at our rivers. 30 years ago I would gladly eat any fish from the Tennessee River. Now I wouldn't. We should be good stewards of what we have been given.

Now let's reopen the global warming question. Does the results make a difference? The Earth will eventually purge itself or mutate to accept its existence. The rock may be here.

The good news: I doubt I will be around when the results hit home hard enough to concern the general population. For now we will continue to debate what will happen. Nothing . . . warming . . . cooling . . . natural . . . unnatural, we do know it will change.

The better news: Some crazy nut will probably nuke us off the map or we will grow some crazy virus before any environmental catastrophe. We just may be lucky enough to be part of the culling of the population.


Our rivers are cleaner now than 30 years ago. About 40 years ago, one of Cleveland, Ohio's rivers caught on fire due to pollution.
The hottest year recorded in the US was in 1934, around the time of the dust bowl. 1998 was second, third was 1921.

Link

Link

If the planet has been warming since 1998, then we should have at least broken the record set in 1921. We haven't. Not only have we not broken it, the past few years haven't even come close. For global warming to exist, the temperatures have to actually increase. If they're not, then there is no warming.

Link
Must be all those drivers and coal plants on Mars.
LOL.


Cow Flatulence it’s not.

National Geographic is reporting that Global Warming may have a different cause than Cow Flatulence and all the hot air Al Gore is releasing. Appearantly, the polar ice caps on Mars (yes, that Mars) have been melting significantly over the last three summers.

NASA’s Mars Global Surveyor and Odyssey missions revealed that the carbon dioxide “ice caps” near Mars’s south pole had been diminishing for three summers in a row.

Wow. Scientists actually suggesting that it isn’t caused by what Al would like us to believe? Bet that doesn’t get embraced in the same way as they seem to have embraced Darwin. Of course, that would be because it doesn’t fit their political agenda. Sun Cycles don’t make very good social platforms.

Welcome to the lemming parade…


Link
quote:
Originally posted by NashBama:
The hottest year recorded in the US was in 1934, around the time of the dust bowl. 1998 was second, third was 1921.

Link

Link

If the planet has been warming since 1998, then we should have at least broken the record set in 1921. We haven't. Not only have we not broken it, the past few years haven't even come close. For global warming to exist, the temperatures have to actually increase. If they're not, then there is no warming.

Link


Gore has that covered already Nash. It's called "climate change". Can't be wrong with a name like that.
"That is simply not true and demonstrates a profound ignorance of the factual data.

Yes, the globe is getting warmer. Yes, it has been cooling a little since 1998 or so. Yes, the data indicates that it will cycle back to the warming trend and ratchet higher and higher until something tips the scale back the other way."

No! Do you not see the contradiction of your own statement? No warming in the last eleven years. The same pattern happening on Mars (and Pluto) as on Earth. Yet, CO2 is blamed for the changes on Earth. Such a statement defies scientific principles.
quote:
Originally posted by interventor1:
And, instrumentation vastly improved in the last decade.


Nope. Mercury thermometers today and just as accurate as mercury thermometers 100 years ago. That kind of technology doesn't "advance."

But besides that, there are many other ways to measure temperature.

Folks, there is absolutely no denying the global warming effect yet here we have a representative group of people who are ding just that. You may as well put your fingers in your ears and yell "nah nah nah!"

Personally, I'm not too terribly concenred. I'm not convinced that GW is necessairily a bad thing but there almost certainly will be changes in our climate over the next 100 years that will have an effect. I do beleive it is best to keep a wary eye out for ways we may mitigate this change or manage it to our advantage but there is no denying that your grandchildren will have to deal with this - whether its a good thing or not.

Here is some data from NOAH -you know, a member of the vast conspiracy to send everyone in into a panic?

Human activity has been increasing the concentration of greenhouse gases in the atmosphere (mostly carbon dioxide from combustion of coal, oil, and gas; plus a few other trace gases). There is no scientific debate on this point. Pre-industrial levels of carbon dioxide were about 280 parts per million by volume (ppmv), and current levels are greater than 380 ppmv and increasing at a rate of 1.9 ppm yr-1 since 2000. The global concentration of CO2 in our atmosphere today far exceeds the natural range over the last 650,000 years of 180 to 300 ppmv.

There is no debate on the relationship between CO2 levels and rising temperatures, folks.

Global surface temperatures have increased about 0.74°C (plus or minus 0.18°C) since the late-19th century, and the linear trend for the past 50 years of 0.13°C (plus or minus 0.03°C) per decade is nearly twice that for the past 100 years. The warming has not been globally uniform. Some areas (including parts of the southeastern U.S. and parts of the North Atlantic) have, in fact, cooled slightly over the last century. The recent warmth has been greatest over North America and Eurasia between 40 and 70°N. Lastly, seven of the eight warmest years on record have occurred since 2001 and the 10 warmest years have all occurred since 1995.

Remember, folks, this is called "global" warming. Yes, it's cooler here in the south but there is no debate that the global average is increasing. No debate, people.

There is a wealth of data on the subject in very easy-to-understand language. You evangelical GW-deniers can deny reality all you wish. It matters not to me. The scientific consensus is that global warming is real, is probably man-made and will result in climate change for the better or worse.

Link

(And, yes, Mars goes through cycles just like all the other planets. Mars' warming happens to coincide with our warming at the moment but that is utterly meaningless to this conversation. Mars' C02 levels are quite stable.)
Cookie, read the last link I posted. It was written by a man who has spent his life researching, learning, and reporting the weather. He's not a politician who stands to make tons of money off carbon credits.

Link

The Japaneese are calling BS on it.

Japanese scientists have made a dramatic break with the United Nations’ view on man-made global warming with a report asserting that “this hypothesis has been substituted for truth.”

Link

Europeans are starting to see that it's BS.

The first, on May 21, headed "Climate change threat to Alpine ski resorts" , reported that the entire Alpine "winter sports industry" could soon "grind to a halt for lack of snow". The second, on December 19, headed "The Alps have best snow conditions in a generation" , reported that this winter's Alpine snowfalls "look set to beat all records by New Year's Day".

Link

The Canadians are figuring out that CO2 isn't a pollutant, but a natural and necessary part of nature that is vital for plant growth.

What is your carbon footprint? That is the wrong question to ask. A more meaningful question is--How much carbon dioxide does it take to grow the wheat required to produce a loaf of bread? Or--How much carbon dioxide does it take to grow the corn for the chicken feed required to produce a dozen eggs? Far from being a pollutant, man along with every animal on land, fish in the sea, and bird in the air is totally dependent on atmospheric carbon dioxide for his food supply.


Link

The Australians don't believe it either.

Duffy asked Marohasy: "Is the Earth stillwarming?" She replied: "No, actually, there has been cooling, if you take 1998 as your point of reference. If you take 2002 as your point of reference, then temperatures have plateaued. This is certainly not what you'd expect if carbon dioxide is driving temperature because carbon dioxide levels have been increasing but temperatures have actually been coming down over the last 10 years."

Link

As for a consensus? There is none, there are plenty of scientists who are rejecting the theory.

Link

Link

Climate scientist Noel Keenlyside, leading a team from Germany's Leibniz Institute of Marine Science and the Max Planck Institute of Meteorology, for the first time entered verifiable data on ocean circulation cycles into one of the U. N.'s climate supercomputers, and the machine spit out a projection that there will be no more warming for the foreseeable future.

There is no global warming. The one simple fact proves it, we haven't come close to the record set in 1921, the third hottest year. There are plenty of other facts that also prove it, but that one is the biggest.

Your statements that there is no debate about global warming is a political tactic used to silence opposition. There is a very big debate about it because inflation is about to take a huge jump upward based on a faulty theory.

To say that there is a scientific consensus when clearly there is not is untrue. There are plenty of scientists all over the world who are calling BS on global warming.

It's not happening. We had a brief period with increased sun activity, now it's died down and we're cooling off. It's happened all throughout history. The warm period during medieval times followed by the little ice age. No cars or Al Gore back then, but there was climate change.

It's a BS theory, you can choose to believe it if you want, but we're all about to be paying through the nose for political based science when the cap and trade crap passes. When you're paying $5 per gallon in gas, you can thank yourself for it.
The technology improvements would be in the data aquisition systems. Previously, data collection relied on human beings eyeballing the thermometers and recording it by hand. I can see there being a lot of error with the old method due to human error and laziness.

Another answer for ground level temp. increases would be the urban island heating effect. As we build up and populate geographical areas, the ground level temps increase. This has nothing to do with CO2 and this data is averaged in with all the other temps, which skews the overall result.

Cookies responses have been all boilerplate liberal media/politician fodder. There is absolutely no scientific consensus on the cause of global warming. I believe many of the scientist who agree with global warming, or climate change, do so only because they will lose grant money if they speak the truth. The only consensus over global warming is Hollywood, liberal politicians, and liberal media, none of which comprise the scientific community.
quote:
Originally posted by NashBama:
It's a BS theory, you can choose to believe it if you want,


I find it interesting that there certainly seems to be a correlation between "true believers" and the denial of the facts of global warming. I think perhaps there is some tendency for believers to disregard facts that get in the way of their beliefs.

Me? I willing to be persuaded. I personally am wholly undecided on whether or not GW is good or bad but I'm undecided because the scientific community is undecided.

But the vast, overwhelming majority of the scientific community soundly asserts that global warming is real and is probably man made.

Here is another link to a socialist, anti-god, communistic schemer in the vast global warming conspiracy that has some interesting things to say about the issue, the National Geographic: Link
quote:
Originally posted by Mr. Hooberbloob:
There is absolutely no scientific consensus on the cause of global warming.


Well, other than the American Association for the Advancement of Science,Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, Joint National Academies and American Meteorological Society and every single legitimate, non-biased scientific society in the world. Yes, there have been many organizations specifically formed in order to deny the evidence. Side with them if you want.

You, Hoob, are an excellent example of my assertion that there is a direct correlation between fundamentalism and denial of the facts of global warming. Really, Hoob, your anti-science stance on every topic makes you about as qualified as my dog to comment on the GW topic.

Here is a article concerning a meta study of scientific papers on global warming. A meta study is a study of studies used to gain insight into complicated issues like GW.

It has this to say:
Others agree. The American Meteorological Society (6), the American Geophysical Union (7), and the American Association for the Advancement of Science (AAAS) all have issued statements in recent years concluding that the evidence for human modification of climate is compelling (8).

The drafting of such reports and statements involves many opportunities for comment, criticism, and revision, and it is not likely that they would diverge greatly from the opinions of the societies' members. Nevertheless, they might downplay legitimate dissenting opinions. That hypothesis was tested by analyzing 928 abstracts, published in refereed scientific journals between 1993 and 2003, and listed in the ISI database with the keywords "climate change" (9).

The 928 papers were divided into six categories: explicit endorsement of the consensus position, evaluation of impacts, mitigation proposals, methods, paleoclimate analysis, and rejection of the consensus position. Of all the papers, 75% fell into the first three categories, either explicitly or implicitly accepting the consensus view; 25% dealt with methods or paleoclimate, taking no position on current anthropogenic climate change. Remarkably, none of the papers disagreed with the consensus position.

Admittedly, authors evaluating impacts, developing methods, or studying paleoclimatic change might believe that current climate change is natural. However, none of these papers argued that point.

This analysis shows that scientists publishing in the peer-reviewed literature agree with IPCC, the National Academy of Sciences, and the public statements of their professional societies. Politicians, economists, journalists, and others may have the impression of confusion, disagreement, or discord among climate scientists, but that impression is incorrect.

The scientific consensus might, of course, be wrong. If the history of science teaches anything, it is humility, and no one can be faulted for failing to act on what is not known. But our grandchildren will surely blame us if they find that we understood the reality of anthropogenic climate change and failed to do anything about it.
quote:
Originally posted by Cookey:
quote:
Originally posted by Mr. Hooberbloob:
There is absolutely no scientific consensus on the cause of global warming.


Well, other than the American Association for the Advancement of Science,Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, Joint National Academies and American Meteorological Society and every single legitimate, non-biased scientific society in the world. Yes, there have been many organizations specifically formed in order to deny the evidence. Side with them if you want.

You, Hoob, are an excellent example of my assertion that there is a direct correlation between fundamentalism and denial of the facts of global warming. Really, Hoob, your anti-science stance on every topic makes you about as qualified as my dog to comment on the GW topic.

Here is a article concerning a meta study of scientific papers on global warming. A meta study is a study of studies used to gain insight into complicated issues like GW.

It has this to say:
Others agree. The American Meteorological Society (6), the American Geophysical Union (7), and the American Association for the Advancement of Science (AAAS) all have issued statements in recent years concluding that the evidence for human modification of climate is compelling (8).

The drafting of such reports and statements involves many opportunities for comment, criticism, and revision, and it is not likely that they would diverge greatly from the opinions of the societies' members. Nevertheless, they might downplay legitimate dissenting opinions. That hypothesis was tested by analyzing 928 abstracts, published in refereed scientific journals between 1993 and 2003, and listed in the ISI database with the keywords "climate change" (9).

The 928 papers were divided into six categories: explicit endorsement of the consensus position, evaluation of impacts, mitigation proposals, methods, paleoclimate analysis, and rejection of the consensus position. Of all the papers, 75% fell into the first three categories, either explicitly or implicitly accepting the consensus view; 25% dealt with methods or paleoclimate, taking no position on current anthropogenic climate change. Remarkably, none of the papers disagreed with the consensus position.

Admittedly, authors evaluating impacts, developing methods, or studying paleoclimatic change might believe that current climate change is natural. However, none of these papers argued that point.

This analysis shows that scientists publishing in the peer-reviewed literature agree with IPCC, the National Academy of Sciences, and the public statements of their professional societies. Politicians, economists, journalists, and others may have the impression of confusion, disagreement, or discord among climate scientists, but that impression is incorrect.

The scientific consensus might, of course, be wrong. If the history of science teaches anything, it is humility, and no one can be faulted for failing to act on what is not known. But our grandchildren will surely blame us if they find that we understood the reality of anthropogenic climate change and failed to do anything about it.



So we are the cause of temps rising on mars too. The argument is how much is man made. Right now we are in a cooling period, why do you think the loons of the left renamed Global warming to Climate Change?

Why do the loons cheer on Gore's Climate change tour while he is creating more CO2 by himself than a neighborhood of regular folks. Ah the hypocrisy if it. Gore loves this talk to the tune of a 100 million so far, keep paying his way, he loves you for it.

Everything thing in this world cycles or did man cause cycles too?
quote:
Originally posted by Cookey:
quote:
Originally posted by NashBama:
It's a BS theory, you can choose to believe it if you want,


I find it interesting that there certainly seems to be a correlation between "true believers" and the denial of the facts of global warming. I think perhaps there is some tendency for believers to disregard facts that get in the way of their beliefs.

Me? I willing to be persuaded. I personally am wholly undecided on whether or not GW is good or bad but I'm undecided because the scientific community is undecided.

But the vast, overwhelming majority of the scientific community soundly asserts that global warming is real and is probably man made.

Here is another link to a socialist, anti-god, communistic schemer in the vast global warming conspiracy that has some interesting things to say about the issue, the National Geographic: Link


I provided plenty of evidence against global warming. If you are really willing to be persuaded, check it out.
quote:
Originally posted by Mr. Hooberbloob:
The technology improvements would be in the data aquisition systems. Previously, data collection relied on human beings eyeballing the thermometers and recording it by hand. I can see there being a lot of error with the old method due to human error and laziness.

Another answer for ground level temp. increases would be the urban island heating effect. As we build up and populate geographical areas, the ground level temps increase. This has nothing to do with CO2 and this data is averaged in with all the other temps, which skews the overall result.

Cookies responses have been all boilerplate liberal media/politician fodder. There is absolutely no scientific consensus on the cause of global warming. I believe many of the scientist who agree with global warming, or climate change, do so only because they will lose grant money if they speak the truth. The only consensus over global warming is Hollywood, liberal politicians, and liberal media, none of which comprise the scientific community.


You hit the nail on the head, excellent post.
And, yes, Mars goes through cycles just like all the other planets. Mars' warming happens to coincide with our warming at the moment but that is utterly meaningless to this conversation. Mars' C02 levels are quite stable.)

Utterly meaningless? Really? Isn't that the trick of ignoring what doesn't agree with your point of view?
There is NO CONSENSUS of the scientific community,and Obama is wasting tons of money and hurting the economy more because he wants to have a global cause. Let him be the poster child to eradicate global idiocy, starting with himself.
quote:
Really, Hoob, your anti-science stance on every topic makes you about as qualified as my dog to comment on the GW topic.


For a couple of decades I worked around scientific folks who did exhibit one dog-like attribute: the tendency to form packs. I honestly don't know if man-made global warming is real or not, but I do know how human that researchers are and that sometimes these people are capable of selective data presentation to bolster their position and ignoring data that is against their theory. It is an fact that Man's global study of the climate and atmosphere by direct measurement is but a couple of centuries old. We also know that from the past history that the climate has gone through cycles such as the Medieval Warm Period and the Little Ice Age that was a mere 150 years ago. To study the past history of atmospheric gases, ice cores are sampled and it boils down to whose core sample's analyzes one wishes to quote.

quote:
Ice Core Data Unreliable
The ice core data from various polar sites are not consistent
with each another, and there is a discrepancy between these
data and geological climatic evidence.12 One such example is
the discrepancy between the classic Antarctic Byrd and Vostok
ice cores, where an important decrease in the CO2 content in
the air bubbles occurred at the same depth of about 500 meters,
but at which the ice age differed by about 16,000 years.
In an approximately 14,000-year-old part of the Byrd core, a
drop in the CO2 concentration of 50 ppmv was observed, but
in similarly old ice from the Vostok core, an increase of 60
ppmv was found. In about ~6,000-year-old ice from Camp
Century, Greenland, the CO2 concentration in air bubbles was
420 ppmv, but it was 270 ppmv in similarly old ice from Byrd,
Antarctica.
Link
quote:
Originally posted by Cookey:
quote:
Originally posted by Mr. Hooberbloob:
There is absolutely no scientific consensus on the cause of global warming.


Well, other than the American Association for the Advancement of Science,Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, Joint National Academies and American Meteorological Society and every single legitimate, non-biased scientific society in the world. Yes, there have been many organizations specifically formed in order to deny the evidence. Side with them if you want.

You, Hoob, are an excellent example of my assertion that there is a direct correlation between fundamentalism and denial of the facts of global warming. Really, Hoob, your anti-science stance on every topic makes you about as qualified as my dog to comment on the GW topic.

Here is a article concerning a meta study of scientific papers on global warming. A meta study is a study of studies used to gain insight into complicated issues like GW.

It has this to say:
Others agree. The American Meteorological Society (6), the American Geophysical Union (7), and the American Association for the Advancement of Science (AAAS) all have issued statements in recent years concluding that the evidence for human modification of climate is compelling (8).

The drafting of such reports and statements involves many opportunities for comment, criticism, and revision, and it is not likely that they would diverge greatly from the opinions of the societies' members. Nevertheless, they might downplay legitimate dissenting opinions. That hypothesis was tested by analyzing 928 abstracts, published in refereed scientific journals between 1993 and 2003, and listed in the ISI database with the keywords "climate change" (9).

The 928 papers were divided into six categories: explicit endorsement of the consensus position, evaluation of impacts, mitigation proposals, methods, paleoclimate analysis, and rejection of the consensus position. Of all the papers, 75% fell into the first three categories, either explicitly or implicitly accepting the consensus view; 25% dealt with methods or paleoclimate, taking no position on current anthropogenic climate change. Remarkably, none of the papers disagreed with the consensus position.

Admittedly, authors evaluating impacts, developing methods, or studying paleoclimatic change might believe that current climate change is natural. However, none of these papers argued that point.

This analysis shows that scientists publishing in the peer-reviewed literature agree with IPCC, the National Academy of Sciences, and the public statements of their professional societies. Politicians, economists, journalists, and others may have the impression of confusion, disagreement, or discord among climate scientists, but that impression is incorrect.

The scientific consensus might, of course, be wrong. If the history of science teaches anything, it is humility, and no one can be faulted for failing to act on what is not known. But our grandchildren will surely blame us if they find that we understood the reality of anthropogenic climate change and failed to do anything about it.


Science has nothing to do with this issue, it is strictly political. You are the typical liberal alarmist who only relies on what you're told through the liberal media and bought and paid for politicians.

This is the same junk you alarmists have been spouting for decades, only back then it was global cooling. Remember the big nitrogen scare back in the 70's?

Keep on drinking that cool-aid, cookey.
quote:
New Danish research shows that large parts of Greenland were covered by forest. This was discovered by analysing fossil DNA which had been preserved under the kilometre-thick icecap. The DNA-traces are likely close to 450,000 years old, and that means that Greenland was also covered in a large ice sheet 125,000 years ago during the earth's last warm period, Eem. This was while the climate was 5 degrees warmer than the interglacial period we currently live in.
Link

Those cavemen must have driven humongous SUV's and the mastodons must have really been gassy.
Global warming has two parts:

(1) Is the average temperature of the earth increasing?

(2) Are humans the cause of it?

What the politicians have done is taken spotty science and come to the conclusion that these two questions are joined at the hip. I maintain that the truth is irrelevant as long as their conclusion furthers their political agenda.

Yes, Cookie, the mercury thermometer is unchanged from the 19th century. However, the orbital sensing systems are much better. The ability to develop atmospheric models is unsurpassed. However, the models can't even accurately determine PAST temperatures. The models don't match empirical data.

It has been shown that temperature sensing stations are located at areas at which the local ambient temperature is higher...with large asphalt parking areas, in cities, and other locally hot areas. Less than 1% of the earth's surface is served by these sensing stations.

There are 11 year solar cycles that will contribute to warming. Point of fact, the global weather system likely is such a pseudo-random process that will defy the ability of scientists to model it.

Making more efficient cars, saving energy, independence from foreign oil...these are all laudable goals. But I maintain they are nothing to people like Al Gore. He simply wants to be relevant.
“Originally posted by interventor1:
And, instrumentation vastly improved in the last decade.

Nope. Mercury thermometers today and just as accurate as mercury thermometers 100 years ago. That kind of technology doesn't "advance."
Measurements taken by digital instruments have greatly improved from the mercury thermometers of the last two centuries.

“(And, yes, Mars goes through cycles just like all the other planets. Mars' warming happens to coincide with our warming at the moment but that is utterly meaningless to this conversation. Mars' C02 levels are quite stable.)”

Exactly, two planets are experiencing the same phenomenon, but the suspected cause is stabile on one ad not on the other. Simple scientific principles conclude the hypothesized cause (increased CO2) would not be the cause.
“You evangelical GW-deniers can deny reality all you wish. It matters not to me.”

First, I’m not an evangelical. Second, the use of GW denier is a rather nasty, but obvious attempt to equate those who do not accept GW as th equivalent of holocaust deniers. It’s contemptible!
quote:
Originally posted by LMM:
There is NO CONSENSUS of the scientific community,and Obama is wasting tons of money and hurting the economy


Yes, there is consensus.

And I agree about Obama's (or anyone else's) short term plan. I happen to side with many others that there's probably not a **** thing we can do about the very real fact that the globe is getting warmer. Every solution offered up so far has been akin to pissing in the ocean.
quote:
Originally posted by zippadeedoodah:
Global warming has two parts:

(1) Is the average temperature of the earth increasing?

(2) Are humans the cause of it?


And the answers are Yes and probably. Wink

quote:
Yes, Cookie, the mercury thermometer is unchanged from the 19th century. However, the orbital sensing systems are much better.


True, too.

But thermometers aren't the only way we have measured temperature. There are ice cores, tree rings, ocean sediments and glacier melts and a dozen other ways of measuring temperature. They all seem to indicate a long term warming trend.

IN fact, all the measurements indicate that the earth is the warmest it has been in 12,000 years. Link

We are currently in the midst of the largest extinction ever known due to climate change. Link

Just in my adult lifetime, I have had to make adjustments over what plants I can and cannot plant in my zone. I now have a oleander bush that would not live in my zone just a decade ago. I've got a palm tree by my pool. In NORTH ALABAMA! Link

Can anyone in North Alabama remember the last appreciable snowfall? Anyone? There was the big Ice Storm of '94 but prior to that, not much. When I was a kid, I was always envious of North Alabama for getting snow when I didn't (I live in another state).

I tell you what: Can someone here give me a legitimate link to a single comprehensive study or chart or graph that is contrary to the overwhelming data showing a warmer earth?

Can anyone show me a graphs showing a decrease in the amount of CO2 in the atmosphere? Really, the effects of CO2 are widely known. There is absolutely no dissent from the fact that CO2 levels are the highest they have been in TWO MILLION YEARS, folks. Link

Again, I'm not calling for a panic. I'm NOT convinced that a warmer earth is a bad thing for humanity. But climate change is happening, folks. Your denial of it doesn't change the facts.
The answers are no and no.

If the average temperature was rising, then the 88 year old record for third hottest year would have been broken since 1998. It still stands.

Link

In the 70's there was a "consensus" that we were heading for a new ice age. Now it's the opposite problem.

This fictitious problem has become a platform for the government to raise taxes, which is about to happen. There is the motive for the scam. Also keep in mind that NASA is federally funded.
quote:
Originally posted by Cookey:
quote:
Originally posted by zippadeedoodah:
Global warming has two parts:

(1) Is the average temperature of the earth increasing?

(2) Are humans the cause of it?


And the answers are Yes and probably. Wink

quote:
Yes, Cookie, the mercury thermometer is unchanged from the 19th century. However, the orbital sensing systems are much better.


True, too.

But thermometers aren't the only way we have measured temperature. There are ice cores, tree rings, ocean sediments and glacier melts and a dozen other ways of measuring temperature. They all seem to indicate a long term warming trend.

IN fact, all the measurements indicate that the earth is the warmest it has been in 12,000 years. Link

We are currently in the midst of the largest extinction ever known due to climate change. Link

Just in my adult lifetime, I have had to make adjustments over what plants I can and cannot plant in my zone. I now have a oleander bush that would not live in my zone just a decade ago. I've got a palm tree by my pool. In NORTH ALABAMA! Link

Can anyone in North Alabama remember the last appreciable snowfall? Anyone? There was the big Ice Storm of '94 but prior to that, not much. When I was a kid, I was always envious of North Alabama for getting snow when I didn't (I live in another state).

I tell you what: Can someone here give me a legitimate link to a single comprehensive study or chart or graph that is contrary to the overwhelming data showing a warmer earth?

Can anyone show me a graphs showing a decrease in the amount of CO2 in the atmosphere? Really, the effects of CO2 are widely known. There is absolutely no dissent from the fact that CO2 levels are the highest they have been in TWO MILLION YEARS, folks. Link

Again, I'm not calling for a panic. I'm NOT convinced that a warmer earth is a bad thing for humanity. But climate change is happening, folks. Your denial of it doesn't change the facts.




The real question is; what are we going to do about Mars? It's heating up and we need to stop it, what say you as to how?
quote:
Originally posted by NashBama:
The answers are no and no.

If the average temperature was rising, then the 88 year old record for third hottest year would have been broken since 1998. It still stands.


Once again showing your utter ignorance of both statistics and the GW issue.

The globe has only warmed a few tenths of a degree in the past 150 years, Nash. It is a phenomenon that is not predicted to have profound effect until a hundred or more years from now. The most we will see in our lifetimes is a few extra hurricanes, a few more droughts in some dry areas. A few more inches of rain in wet areas. Maybe. I don't think anyone knows for sure. The only thing we do know is that the globe is getting warmer despite the ignorance of a few.

I note that you conveniently ignored my requests to produce some scientific data from a legitimate source that shows the globe either remaining the same temperature or cooling over a long trend.

I challenge you to find a single legitimate source that has factual data to support that CO2 levels are stable to lowering.
quote:
Originally posted by NashBama:

Link


this is from Glenn Beck, Nash, not a scientist. This is the same Glenn Beck who, for the last few months, has been warning us to take cover, horde food and water and cower until the world finishes crumbling during the worst economic disaster in recorded history. On top of all that, he is a Creationist.

Whatever he has to say is interesting but unworthy of scientific merit.
quote:
Originally posted by Cookey:
quote:
Originally posted by NashBama:
The answers are no and no.

If the average temperature was rising, then the 88 year old record for third hottest year would have been broken since 1998. It still stands.


Once again showing your utter ignorance of both statistics and the GW issue.

The globe has only warmed a few tenths of a degree in the past 150 years, Nash. It is a phenomenon that is not predicted to have profound effect until a hundred or more years from now. The most we will see in our lifetimes is a few extra hurricanes, a few more droughts in some dry areas. A few more inches of rain in wet areas. Maybe. I don't think anyone knows for sure. The only thing we do know is that the globe is getting warmer despite the ignorance of a few.

I note that you conveniently ignored my requests to produce some scientific data from a legitimate source that shows the globe either remaining the same temperature or cooling over a long trend.

I challenge you to find a single legitimate source that has factual data to support that CO2 levels are stable to lowering.


Actually Cookie, I've already provided evidence. You have to actually click on the links and read them. I know I posted quite a few, but there is just so much out there that proves GW to be junk science.

We haven't seen an increase in hurricanes. We've actually seen less. What we have seen is snow in places that rarely sees any. We have not seen an influx in global temperature. As I've shown in the links you haven't read, we're actually cooling a bit.

When politicians who stand to get rich of a theory that scientists sign petitions saying it's bunk, why should I believe the politician?
quote:
Originally posted by Cookey:
quote:
Originally posted by NashBama:

Link


this is from Glenn Beck, Nash, not a scientist. This is the same Glenn Beck who, for the last few months, has been warning us to take cover, horde food and water and cower until the world finishes crumbling during the worst economic disaster in recorded history. On top of all that, he is a Creationist.

Whatever he has to say is interesting but unworthy of scientific merit.


Did any scientists appear in the video?
quote:
Originally posted by NashBama:
I provided plenty of evidence against global warming. If you are really willing to be persuaded, check it out.


No, you provided some links to global warming deniers.

Not a single one of them contains a temperature chart that disagrees with the consensus data (and the chart that I initially displayes from NOAA) showing a long-term decrease in global temperatures.

We are nearing the end of a solar minimum, Nash. The 11 year cycle is about ro ramp up again. When it does, temps will increase by a couple of tenths of a degree. It's a "ratcheting" effect, not a steady increase as many of you seem to insist upon in your attempts at denying the facts.
quote:
Originally posted by NashBama:
quote:
Originally posted by Cookey:
I challenge you to find a single legitimate source that has factual data to support that CO2 levels are stable to lowering.


Actually Cookie, I've already provided evidence.


I looked at your "evidence" from fellow GW deniers, Nash. Not a single source you cites was a legitimate scientific source. All of them were either news reports support your stance or blogs from fellow GW deniers.\

Not a single one of them showed a chart or posited factual data that whoed a decrease on the long term temperature or CO2 levels. Go ahead, prove me wrong if you can, Nash. A simple cut-and-paste will solve this issue right now.

I'll make the request for the third time to all of you: Produce some scientific data from a legitimate source that shows the globe either remaining the same temperature or cooling over a long trend. Not just a decade, but long term.

I challenge you to find a single legitimate source that has factual data to support that CO2 levels are stable or lowering.

Prove me wrong, friends. Show me your FACTS.
quote:
Not a single one of them contains a temperature chart that disagrees with the consensus data (and the chart that I initially displayes from NOAA) showing a long-term decrease in global temperatures.


You've got to be kidding me.

This is the first link I gave you.

Link

You're telling me that there isn't a single temperature chart contained in that document? There isn't any scientific data contained in that pdf? Are you going to stand by that statement that the pdf I provided contains no charts or data?

You need some more evidence to ignore? Here you go.

Link

Do you want more? I've got plenty. You also did not answer my question. Yes, the video I provided is from Glenn Beck's show. I don't always agree with his views. However, did any scientists appear in that video?
quote:
Originally posted by Chow:
quote:
Originally posted by Cookey:
I don't think anyone knows for sure.



ding ding ding ding, we have a winner



Absolutely.

I am willing to state emphatically that I am not qualified to evaluate all the seemingly contradictory data on this vast theory. I will proudly states "I don't know!" from the highest mountain.

That is contrasted with the GW deniers who "know" that this is a scam perpetrated by some vast network on conspirators with a motive of destroying modern civilization (at least according to the GW deniers)

No, I am not qualified. Nor are you. Neither is anyone here on this forum. the only rational position is to side with the overwhelming consensus that GW is real and is probably man-made and perhaps/maybe/sorta/kinda begin to ask ourselves if anything can or even should be done about it.
quote:
Originally posted by Cookey:
quote:
Originally posted by Chow:
quote:
Originally posted by Cookey:
I don't think anyone knows for sure.



ding ding ding ding, we have a winner



Absolutely.

I am willing to state emphatically that I am not qualified to evaluate all the seemingly contradictory data on this vast theory. I will proudly states "I don't know!" from the highest mountain.

That is contrasted with the GW deniers who "know" that this is a scam perpetrated by some vast network on conspirators with a motive of destroying modern civilization (at least according to the GW deniers)

No, I am not qualified. Nor are you. Neither is anyone here on this forum. the only rational position is to side with the overwhelming consensus that GW is real and is probably man-made and perhaps/maybe/sorta/kinda begin to ask ourselves if anything can or even should be done about it.


Two things. Do you still stand behind your statement that I did not provide you any charts or scientific data that challenges GW?

Were there any scientists in the video I posted?

There is no consensus on global warming. The following link not only provides a number of links with tons of data challenging the "theory", but it also gives a lengthy list of names of scientists who are skeptical of global warming.

Link

Are every one of those people on that list wrong?
quote:
Originally posted by NashBama:
quote:
Not a single one of them contains a temperature chart that disagrees with the consensus data (and the chart that I initially displayes from NOAA) showing a long-term decrease in global temperatures.


You've got to be kidding me.

This is the first link I gave you.

Link


I read it. It's from some guy. A TV weatherman. So what? He has some interesting data showing his side of the story but you failed miserably in providing data that shows a long-term cooling trend.

quote:


You need some more evidence to ignore? Here you go.

Link


That's a little better, Nash. ScienceDaily is a pretty well respected online magazine. But the article doesn't address the issue. It makes a case that (in a nutshell) measuring global average temperature is impossible. He doesn't refute the existing body of evidence and he doesn't say that we are actually experience global cooling instead.

It is a legitimate critique. If temperature alone were the indicator, I might even side with him. But his assertions do not rule out the evident fact that CO2 levels are dramatically higher than they have been in millions of years, Nash. The relationship between CO2 and temperature is very well understood.

So, again, I request: Show me a chart from a legitimate scientific establishment that shows a long-term cooling, Nash. You've got the whole internet. It shouldn't take you but a minute. Why the resistance? My guess: You can't find it.

quote:
Do you want more? I've got plenty.


Sure!

I especially want that chart that shows a long-term decrease in global temps and CO2 levels -- especially the CO2 levels.

quote:
You also did not answer my question. Yes, the video I provided is from Glenn Beck's show. I don't always agree with his views. However, did any scientists appear in that video?


I can give you a link to hundreds of "scientists" who adhere to Creationism, Nash. I can even give you a list of thousands of names of scientists who deny evolution. A dozen, hundred or thousand scientists do not change the consensus of the vast majority of scientists and independent organizations.

Hell, I'll even admit that you might be right: That all this is all a scam perpetrated by some evildoers.

But until the vast majority of scientists and their respective organizations change their positions statements, I will side with the overwhelming consensus. It's the only rational stance.
quote:
Originally posted by Cookey:
quote:
Originally posted by Chow:
quote:
Originally posted by Cookey:
I don't think anyone knows for sure.



ding ding ding ding, we have a winner



Absolutely.

I am willing to state emphatically that I am not qualified to evaluate all the seemingly contradictory data on this vast theory. I will proudly states "I don't know!" from the highest mountain.

That is contrasted with the GW deniers who "know" that this is a scam perpetrated by some vast network on conspirators with a motive of destroying modern civilization (at least according to the GW deniers)

No, I am not qualified. Nor are you. Neither is anyone here on this forum. the only rational position is to side with the overwhelming consensus that GW is real and is probably man-made and perhaps/maybe/sorta/kinda begin to ask ourselves if anything can or even should be done about it.



Ask yourself ONE question


if Al Gore was so concerned with climate change, why has does he have so much profit wrapped up into his idea?


100 million dollars worth and laughing all the way to the bank

He is such the lier, living in a massive power draining house while jet setting his way around the world. there's a word the demothugs like to use, can you remember that word

his carbon footprint is 20 times the average person yet we are to buy carbon credits from his company

can you not see the truth here, it is so blatantly in front of you
quote:
Originally posted by Cookey:
quote:
Originally posted by NashBama:
[QUOTE]Not a single one of them contains a temperature chart that disagrees with the consensus data (and the chart that I initially displayes from NOAA) showing a long-term decrease in global temperatures.


You've got to be kidding me.

This is the first link I gave you.

Link

I read it. It's from some guy. A TV weatherman. So what? He has some interesting data showing his side of the story but you failed miserably in providing data that shows a long-term cooling trend.

quote:


You need some more evidence to ignore? Here you go.

Link


That's a little better, Nash. ScienceDaily is a pretty well respected online magazine. But the article doesn't address the issue. It makes a case that (in a nutshell) measuring global average temperature is impossible. He doesn't refute the existing body of evidence and he doesn't say that we are actually experience global cooling instead.

It is a legitimate critique. If temperature alone were the indicator, I might even side with him. But his assertions do not rule out the evident fact that CO2 levels are dramatically higher than they have been in millions of years, Nash. The relationship between CO2 and temperature is very well understood.

So, again, I request: Show me a chart from a legitimate scientific establishment that shows a long-term cooling, Nash. You've got the whole internet. It shouldn't take you but a minute. Why the resistance? My guess: You can't find it.

quote:
Do you want more? I've got plenty.


Sure!

I especially want that chart that shows a long-term decrease in global temps and CO2 levels -- especially the CO2 levels.

quote:
You also did not answer my question. Yes, the video I provided is from Glenn Beck's show. I don't always agree with his views. However, did any scientists appear in that video?


I can give you a link to hundreds of "scientists" who adhere to Creationism, Nash. I can even give you a list of thousands of names of scientists who deny evolution. A dozen, hundred or thousand scientists do not change the consensus of the vast majority of scientists and independent organizations.

Hell, I'll even admit that you might be right: That all this is all a scam perpetrated by some evildoers.

But until the vast majority of scientists and their respective organizations change their positions statements, I will side with the overwhelming consensus. It's the only rational stance.



sheeple comes to mind
quote:
I especially want that chart that shows a long-term decrease in global temps and CO2 levels -- especially the CO2 levels.


Here's some more. It only works if you click the link.

Link

You also skipped my question. Do you stand by your statement that I did not provide any source that contained temperature charts or data? Just because he is on TV doesn't automatically discredit his data.


If the scientists in Beck's video are incorrect, what evidence do you have that proves them wrong?
quote:
Originally posted by NashBama:
Two things. Do you still stand behind your statement that I did not provide you any charts or scientific data that challenges GW?


I stand by my assertion that you have provided no data from legitimate scientist organizations that refute the GW theory. You cites plenty of individuals just as I can cite a lot of scientific creationists.

Shall I cite a flat earth scientist for you, too? Does his opinion change the fact that the world is a sphere?

Let me make this easy: Please provide refutive data from NOAA or the National Meteorological Society or any other mainstream scientific organization. That means something more than "some guy" on the internet, Nash.

Heck, I'll settle from a source we both agree on: ScienceDaily.com.

quote:
There is no consensus on global warming.


Realty denier: Link
quote:
Originally posted by Chow:
if Al Gore was so concerned with climate change, why has does he have so much profit wrapped up into his idea?


Al Gore is a nutcase in general and especially on this issue (for the record, I am a registered Republican and an ardent support of "W."). Gore represents the extreme opposite of what you represent.

Gore dealt the whole issue a serious blow with his hyperbole and misrepresentation of facts and talks of doom and gloom for all of us unless we go back to horse and buggies.

It was a stupid, irrational rant undeserving of the honors his presentation brought to him. It tarnished the Nobel Prize for years to come.

Fair 'nuff?

But none of that changes the fact that global warming is real and is probably man-made. so sayeth the consensus.
quote:
I stand by my assertion that you have provided no data from legitimate scientist organizations that refute the GW theory. You cites plenty of individuals just as I can cite a lot of scientific creationists.


You're twisting your statements, you commonly do this when cornered. You said that I provided no temperature charts or data. Was that statement true?

quote:
Let me make this easy: Please provide refutive data from NOAA or the National Meteorological Society or any other mainstream scientific organization. That means something more than "some guy" on the internet, Nash.


See the video I provided. Here it is again.

Link
You couldn't have watched all of those videos or read all of those articles I've linked in such a short ammount of time.

You're avoiding the evidence I provide then claim I'm not providing any. That's completly irrational.

Either go through those articles I've linked, read them from start to finish, watch the videos from start to finish (they're only 10 min each), then respond. You're spending more time trying to dodge evidence than trying to actually learn something.
Skep, did you not see this from Flatus? Greenland had FORESTS 450,000 years ago. Duh, talk about picking and choosing data.



Oldest DNA Ever Recovered Suggests Earth Was Warmer
July 5th, 2007 Reconstruction of Ancient Greenland

New Danish research shows that large parts of Greenland were covered by forest. This was discovered by analysing fossil DNA which had been preserved under the kilometre-thick icecap. The DNA-traces are likely close to 450,000 years old, and that means that Greenland was also covered in a large ice sheet 125,000 years ago during the earth's last warm period, Eem. This was while the climate was 5 degrees warmer than the interglacial period we currently live in.
quote:
Originally posted by NashBama:
[QUOTE]I stand by my assertion that you have provided no data from legitimate (scientific) organizations that refute the GW theory. You cites plenty of individuals just as I can cite a lot of scientific creationists.


You're twisting your statements, you commonly do this when cornered. You said that I provided no temperature charts or data. Was that statement true?

Nash, you are the one who is twisting the data, I asked for temperature data from a legitimate scientific source. You keep claiming that this random guy on the internet has some data. I read it but it DOES NOT contain data that those the globe is actually cooling. It DOES NOT have a chart showing a decrease in CO2 levels.

So, yes, I still stand by my assertion.

It would eb really easy to refute me right now Nash. Simply post a link to a NOAA or other legitimate source of news on climate. Again, not just "some guy" but a legitimate source. You know how to post a chart, Nash. Post it. A big-ass picture that I cannot deny. Be done with it. Be sure you cite your source.



quote:

See the video I provided. Here it is again.
Link


It is, again, "some guy" on the internet, Nash. Your Youtube video is not a legitimate source of factual data. The producer clearly a video with an agenda of denying GW. Hardly a source for unbiased data.

And that is NOT how science works. In science, you must refute using factual data from reliable sources.

I'm sure you'll note my restraint in not pulling the moron card yet. Please, Nash, remember this phrase: "Legitimate source of factual data." That means NOT some random GW denier.
quote:
Originally posted by LMM:
Skep, did you not see this from Flatus? Greenland had FORESTS 450,000 years ago. Duh, talk about picking and choosing data.


Antarctica was once a lush tropical continent, too. Yes, this earth has seen many periods of warmth followed by ice ages. This current GW threat is just one single volcanic eruption away from a swing in the opposite direction.

That does not change the fact that, right now, the consensus is that the globe is warming, will continue to do so and the cause is likely man-made.

I've not once stated that GW is a "bad" thing precisely because of this kind of data.

I'm not sure what your point in posting this is, bud.
quote:
Originally posted by Cookey:
quote:
Originally posted by Chow:
if Al Gore was so concerned with climate change, why has does he have so much profit wrapped up into his idea?


Al Gore is a nutcase in general and especially on this issue (for the record, I am a registered Republican and an ardent support of "W."). Gore represents the extreme opposite of what you represent.

Gore dealt the whole issue a serious blow with his hyperbole and misrepresentation of facts and talks of doom and gloom for all of us unless we go back to horse and buggies.

It was a stupid, irrational rant undeserving of the honors his presentation brought to him. It tarnished the Nobel Prize for years to come.

Fair 'nuff?

But none of that changes the fact that global warming is real and is probably man-made. so sayeth the consensus.



What exactly was MAN doing when Iceland was lush and green?

those dang camp fires really put out the CO2 or was it dinosaur poots?


If all these policies WORKED that you are so fond of, let's once again look towards California.
They have the highest requirements for pollution control, yet they are KNOWN for smog.

OK I'm just average we'll say, that tells me nothing you do is going to help!

Link


Carbon for forests will help Aceh recover from war, tsunami
mongabay.com
September 18, 2007


Aceh Governor Irwandi Jusuf, a former rebel who was one of only 40 survivors after the December 2004 tsunami struck the prison where he was incarcerated, is now one of Indonesia's leading supporters of forest conservation funded through carbon credits.
Last edited by Chow
Link


Indonesia could more than double its tax revenue by protecting forests and selling the resulting carbon emission credits instead of timber and palm oil, a University of Michigan researcher told Bloomberg.

Gabriel Thoumi, a consultant and fellow at the Erb Institute for Global Sustainable Enterprise at the University of Michigan in Ann Arbor, estimates that carbon credits would generate $515 million a year in tax revenue starting in 2013 for the Indonesian government. By comparison, tax revenue from logging and palm oil is presently around $258 million a year.

Thoumi's calculations are based on the assumption that Indonesia could sell 750 million metric tons of credits annually at a price of $8 per ton. United Nations-certified emission reduction credits for delivery in 2008 currently trade at nearly $21 per ton.


The $8.6 billion in annual revenue from carbon offsets would come in addition to the $5.4 billion in timber exports and the $4.4 billion in palm oil exports Indonesia presently earns.

Carbon offsets through avoided deforestation are seen as an promising mechanism to offset greenhouse gas emissions. In 2006 deforestation and other land-use change accounted for 1.5 billion tons of carbon emissions, or around 15 percent of total anthropogenic emissions, according to a study published last week in the journal Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences. Scientists and environmentalists say that avoided deforestation will delivery ancillary benefits beyond carbon sequestration, including watershed conservation and biodiversity preservation. Some argue that avoided deforestation could be a sustainable way to improve the lives of rural poor.

To date more than a dozen tropical countries have expressed interest in a $200 million forestry fund launched by the World Bank earlier this month. The fund will launch in December at the UN climate conference in Bali, Indonesia.
Follow the money



Link

This past June, World Bank published a report warning that climate change presents serious risks to Indonesia, including the possibility of losing 2,000 islands as sea levels rise. While this scenario is dire, proposed mechanisms for addressing climate change, notably carbon credits through avoided deforestation, offer a unique opportunity for Indonesia to strengthen its economy while demonstrating worldwide innovative political and environmental leadership.

In a July 29th editorial we argued that in some cases, preserving ecosystems for carbon credits could be more valuable than conversion for oil palm plantations (known as sawit kelapa in Indonesia), providing higher tax revenue for the Indonesian treasury while at the same time offering attractive economic returns for investors.


Forest cover versus palm oil production in Indonesia. To review, avoided deforestation is the process by which owners, be them governments, communities, or landholders, sell the carbon rights to a given area to private investors. The private investor then sells the carbon credits on international markets to companies looking to offset their emissions. Avoided deforestation is currently only recognized as a voluntary emission reduction (VER) scheme, but it is expected that the concept will be embraced at the December U.N. climate (COP-13) meetings in Bali, especially if proof-of-concept projects are showing signs of success.

Indonesia, thanks to its nearly 20 million hectares of peatland swamps, is well-positioned to capitalize on the growth of carbon credit mechanisms in the future. In fact, conversion, draining, and burning of these peatlands (often for the establishment of sawit kelapa) is presently estimated by Wetlands International, a Dutch NGO, to release some 2 billion tons of carbon into the atmosphere each year. This equates to 8 percent of human global carbon emissions and is why Indonesia is the world's third largest emitter of carbon after China and the US. While conventional wisdom says that converting these peatlands for sawit kelapa is the best economic use of the land, our analysis shows that carbon credits could prove a better long-term investment for Indonesian businesses and the government. In fact, not only would slowing deforestation and protecting carbon-rich ecosystems allow Indonesia to potentially earn billions of dollars a year from carbon markets, it would also reduce national exposure to price fluctuations of sawit kelapa, as well as the potential risk of European backlash against sawit kelapa as a biofuel.

Here we will take a closer look at these possibilities, using a specific example from the peatlands of Central Kalimantan.

Central Kalimantan

Few places are more suitable for carbon finance projects than Central Kalimantan, which has 3 million hectares of peatlands that store 6.3 gigatons carbon. To illustrate the economic potential of carbon credits versus oil-palm, we compared the net present value (NPV) of a standard 1,000-hectare sawit kelapa plantation to a 1,000-hectare peat swamp preserved for its carbon value.

Sawit kelapa plantation assumptions:
$2,700 per hectare cost for new plantation development, financed at 10% (published figures)
Average yield of 4.8 tons of sawit per ha over 25 years (IOPRI/ICRAF)
Sawit price of $750 per metric ton (current price)
Net income of 30% (published figures)
7% tax rate, discount rate of 16%
Peatland preserved for carbon credits assumptions:
10% management cost
Avoided carbon emissions relative to sawit kelapa: 100 tons per ha for initial forest clearing; 27 tons per year thereafter
Carbon credits, based on real-world market values averaged for 2006:
EU ETS Trading Scheme ($22.12)
Secondary Clean Development Mechanism ($17.76)
The State of the Voluntary Markets report released last month by Ecosystem Marketplace and New Carbon Finance ($14.00)
7% tax rate
Results for business

Our results show that preserving land for its carbon value is worth more than sawit kelapa at present prices for carbon in legally binding markets: $9.99 million for the EU ETS Trading Scheme, $8.02 million for the Secondary Clean Development Mechanism, and $6.32 million for State of the Voluntary Markets report. This compares with $6.58 million in net income over a 25-year period for sawit kelapa plantations. Even if sawit prices were to go to $1,000 per metric ton, net income would still be less than current ETS prices.

Results for government

Carbon credits could also provide the Indonesian treasury with greater tax revenues than sawit kelapa, especially given the recent report that 90% of the country's plantations had underpaid their taxes (Jakarta Post 14 Aug). At a 7 percent tax rate for carbon, the present value of tax revenue for the Indonesian government ranges from $476,000 to $752,000, whereas the oil palm plantation generates $495,000. In fact, the model suggests that at some carbon prices the Indonesian government could actually charge a slightly higher tax rate for carbon credits than sawit kelapa, and still leave Indonesian businesses better off financially than if they were to rely on sawit kelapa.



Net present value (NPV) of 1000-ha (2500-acre) peat swamp vs oil palm plantation. Chart shows the effect of palm oil at various prices and various carbon trading schemes. Assumptions: 15% discount/10% interest rate; Year 1: 100 tons of C/ha, 27 tons of C/ha (=100 tCO2e/ha) in years thereafter; medium average palm oil yield of 5.3 tons per hectare per year over the 25 year period.

Calculations and charts by Rhett A. Butler.



These results show that carbon credits offer a great deal of economic potential for central Kalimantan at a low investment cost. Furthermore, carbon offsets are applicable to virtually any part of Indonesia that has intact forests and peatlands. Such a development could make conservation profitable in Indonesia, an important step to protecting the environment and biodiversity.

Given the immense possibility for carbon markets in the future land owners should give serious consideration to carbon values in making land use decisions. While sawit kelapa can and will continue to play an important role in the economy, carbon offsets offer a mechanism to bolster and diversify Indonesia's financial exposure while at the same time minimizing their negative environmental footprint.
I've given you plenty of scientific charts, graphs, and data that refutes global warming. I've given you an extensive list of scientists that are skeptical about it.

The first link may have been written by a television meteorologist, but he gave extensive citations on where he got his data. He didn't pull those facts out of his butt, they are proven scientifically.

Don't ask for evidence if you don't have the balls to accept the fact you are wrong. When it comes to this bogus scam, you are. This isn't a religious debate where I respect your opinion to believe or disbelieve in whatever you want. This is a serious political and scientific hoax and it has serious consequences for falling for it.

With our government about to pass the cap and trade fiasco, we're going to be paying a lot more at the pump, a lot more for our utilities, and a lot more at the grocery store. All of that for a non existent problem that many scientists are trying to say is a scam, but too many people are gullible enough to think we're all going to die unless we allow the politicians to save us.

You're too stubborn to open your eyes and look at what's been given to you, you are too afraid of looking bad and being proved wrong so you ignore all the data and whine about no one having any evidence. You've been given ample amounts of data that shows man made global warming is false. Your stubborn ego overrides any logic you may claim to have and it's obvious to everyone but you.

When you're paying $100 to fill up your car, don't whine about it, blame yourself. You're the one who bought a politician's lies instead of using your mind to see past them.

Rant over, I feel better now.
quote:
Originally posted by Chow:
If all these policies WORKED that you are so fond of,


Whoa, whoa, whoa. I'm have not stated my opinion of any policy that addresses the GW issue. In fact, I'd generally be in NON-favor of draconian measures to halt the production of CO2 as is generally bandied about by the left.

My ONLY beef with you folks is your assertion that this whole thing is a manufactured scam. That is ludicrous and on the same level as Hillary's "Vast right wing Conspiracy." It's crazy talk, friends.

My ONLY assertions are:

1. There IS a scientific concensus on this issue.

2. None of us are qualified to weigh all the contradictory evidence

3. Siding with the consensus view is the only rational stance until contrary evidence sways major organizations to change their position statements.

Unlike you guys, I am claiming that I am NOT qualified to weigh in on this matter. I am qualified to research the consensus, though.
quote:
Originally posted by NashBama:
I've given you plenty of scientific charts, graphs, and data that refutes global warming. I've given you an extensive list of scientists that are skeptical about it.


Nope. You've posted the opinions of global warming deniers.

You spent, what, a half hour writing deatils of why you refuse to post a legitimate refutation. Why not simply post a graph from a legitimate scientific organization (not "some guy") like this Nash?

Below is an interesting one from Link

It shows the relationship between CO2 levels and temperature. What is not really known with 100% certainty is if CO2 levels cause temp increase or of temp increase causes higher CO2 levels (thus my hesitancy of supporting Obama's meddling).

All that is known (with great historical certainty) is that CO2 levels and temperature are very closely related.

You can clearly see that for the past 450,000 years, the CO2 level has not exceeded 340 or so parts per million (ppm). What is not shown here is the fact that the current level is off the chart at nearly 400ppm. Link Again, it's at a level not seen in 2 MILLION years.

That is a sobering fact, Nash. Or it should be to anyone that can grasp the meaning.

Again, Nash, give me a link to a legitimate source of info that contradicts that CO2 levels are lower than they ever have been.

Post the graph right here so I cannot deny seeing it. I think this makes the 4th request?

Attachments

Images (1)
  • co2_temp
quote:
Originally posted by Cookey:
quote:
Originally posted by Chow:
If all these policies WORKED that you are so fond of,


Whoa, whoa, whoa. I'm have not stated my opinion of any policy that addresses the GW issue. In fact, I'd generally be in NON-favor of draconian measures to halt the production of CO2 as is generally bandied about by the left.

My ONLY beef with you folks is your assertion that this whole thing is a manufactured scam. That is ludicrous and on the same level as Hillary's "Vast right wing Conspiracy." It's crazy talk, friends.

My ONLY assertions are:

1. There IS a scientific concensus on this issue.

2. None of us are qualified to weigh all the contradictory evidence

3. Siding with the consensus view is the only rational stance until contrary evidence sways major organizations to change their position statements.

Unlike you guys, I am claiming that I am NOT qualified to weigh in on this matter. I am qualified to research the consensus, though.



you keep pushing and pushing so what should one believe?

I keep showing the money connection, there is a tremendous amount of money at stake. Remove that and you might convince me a little easier but I doubt it.

california is the only proof I need, so far they have proved the socialist pacifist approach will drain the state financially. The Cap n trade approach has also failed, otherwise California would be admired for their clean air.

They are proving that by raising taxes on the wealthy will not work.
quote:
John Christy, professor of atmospheric science and director of the Earth System Science Center at the University of Alabama in Huntsville, contributor to several IPCC reports: "I'm sure the majority (but not all) of my IPCC colleagues cringe when I say this, but I see neither the developing catastrophe nor the smoking gun proving that human activity is to blame for most of the warming we see. Rather, I see a reliance on climate models (useful but never "proof") and the coincidence that changes in carbon dioxide and global temperatures have loose similarity over time."
Link

I heard Christy speak a decade or so ago and I believe he has no agenda. The link is from a wikipedia article listing other scientists who don't buy into the global warming cult.
Cookey, you haven't read any of the links. I've provided tons of evidence from many educated scientists who say it's all BS. If you would take the time to actually look at what I link instead of pretending it's not there, you would see that.

Since you won't do it on your own, I'll do it for you. Here is a list of organizations who question global warming.

Abundant Wildlife Society of North America. USA
AccuWeather, USA
Advancement of Sound Science Center, USA
Air Quality Standards Coalition, USA
American Council on Science and Health, USA
American Enterprise Institute, USA
American Land Rights Association, USA
American Policy Center, USA
Annapolis Center for Science-Based Public Policy, USA
Australian APEC Study Centre, Australia
Argentinean Foundation for a Scientific Ecology (FAEC), Argentina
Arizona State University Office of Cimatology, USA
Association of British Drivers, UK
Cato Institute, USA
Center for the Study of Carbon Dioxide and Global Change, USA
Center for Science and Public Policy, USA
Citizens for the Environment and CFE Action Fund, USA
Clean Water Industry Coalition, USA
CO2 Science, USA
Committee for a Constructive Tomorrow, USA
Committee for Economic Development, USA
Competitive Enterprise Institute, USA
Cooler Heads Coalition, USA
DCI Group, USA
Environmental Conservation Organization (ECO), USA
Federalist Society for Law and Public Policy Studies, USA
Foundation for Research on Economics and the Environment (FREE), USA
Fraser Institute, Canada
Free Enterprise Education Institute, USA
Friends of Science, Canada
Frontier Centre for Public Policy (FCPP), Canada
Frontiers of Freedom Institute, USA
George C. Marshall Institute, USA
Global Climate Coalition, USA
Greening Earth Society, USA
Heartland Institute, USA
Heritage Foundation, USA
High Park Group, Canada
Hoover Institution, USA
Hudson Institute, USA
Independent Institute, USA
Institute for Canadian Values, Canada
Institute for Energy Research, USA
Institute for Trade, Standards and Sustainable Development, USA
Institute of Economic Affairs, UK
Institute of Public Affairs, Australia
Interfaith Stewardship Alliance, USA
International Climate and Environmental Change Assessment Project, USA
International Policy Network, UK
Lavoisier Group, Australia
Maine Heritage Policy Center, USA
Media Research Center, USA
National Center for Policy Analysis, USA
National Center for Public Policy Research, USA
National Motorists Association, USA
Natural Resources Stewardship Project, Canada
New Hope Environmental Services, USA
New Zealand Climate Science Coalition, New Zealand
Oregon Institute of Science and Medicine, USA
Pacific Research Institute, USA
Property and Environment Research Center (PERC), USA
Reason Foundation, USA
Reason Public Policy Institute, USA
Science & Environmental Policy Project, USA
Science & Public Policy Institute, USA
Scientific Alliance, UK
Sustainable Development Network, UK
Thoreau Institute, USA
Tropical Meteorology Project, USA
TSAugust, USA
Weidenbaum Center on the Economy, Government, and Public Policy, USA

Not much of a consensus there.

Here are some surveys among the scientific community on global warming.

68% of Alberta Earth Scientists and Engineers Do Not Believe the Science is Settled on Climate Change (Edmonton Journal)
Copenhagen Consensus 2004 (Copenhagen Consensus)
"A panel of economic experts, comprising eight of the world’s most distinguished economists [...] looked at three proposals, including the Kyoto Protocol, for dealing with climate change by reducing emissions of carbon. The expert panel regarded all three proposals as having costs that were likely to exceed the benefits."
First-Ever Survey of IPCC Scientists Undermines Alleged 'Consensus' on Global Warming (PR Newswire)
"Sixty-one percent said that there is no such thing as an ideal climate. [...] 20% of those surveyed said that human activity is the principal driver of climate change."
RE: “The scientific consensus on climate change” (Benny Peiser, The letter Science Magazine refused to publish)
"Oreskes claims to have analysed 928 abstracts she found listed on the ISI database using the keywords "climate change". However, a search on the ISI database using the keywords "climate change" for the years 1993 - 2003 reveals that almost 12,000 papers were published during the decade in question. [...] ...she admitted that there was indeed a serious mistake in her Science essay. According to Oreskes, her study was not based on the keywords "climate change," but on "global climate change" [yet her paper is clearly titled: The scientific consensus on "climate change" not "global climate change"] Her use of three keywords instead of two reduced the list of peer reviewed publications by one order of magnitude (on the UK's ISI databank the keyword search "global climate change" comes up with 1247 documents) [...] The results of my analysis contradict Oreskes' findings and essentially falsify her study: Of all 1117 abstracts, only 13 (1%) explicitly endorse the 'consensus view'. [...] 34 abstracts reject or doubt the view that human activities are the main drivers of the "the observed warming over the last 50 years". 44 abstracts focus on natural factors of global climate change."

Scientific Consensus on Global Warming (PDF) (The Heartland Institute)
"A survey of 530 climate scientists from 27 different countries determined there is no consensus regarding the causes of the modern warming period, how reliable predictions of future temperatures can be, and whether future global warming would be harmful or beneficial. Assertions that “the debate is over” are certainly not supported by the survey results. Two-thirds of the scientists surveyed (65.9 percent) disagreed rising CO2 is causing climate change and 72.6% did not agree we could predict what the climate will do 100 years from now."
Survey: Less Than Half of all Published Scientists Endorse Global Warming Theory (DailyTech)
"Medical researcher Dr. Klaus-Martin Schulte recently updated this research. Using the same database and search terms as Oreskes, he examined all papers published from 2004 to February 2007. [...] Of 528 total papers on climate change, only 38 (7%) gave an explicit endorsement of the consensus. If one considers "implicit" endorsement (accepting the consensus without explicit statement), the figure rises to 45%. However, while only 32 papers (6%) reject the consensus outright, the largest category (48%) are neutral papers, refusing to either accept or reject the hypothesis. This is no "consensus." In fact of all papers published in this period (2004 to February 2007), only a single one makes any reference to climate change leading to catastrophic results."
Survey of State Climate Experts Casts Doubt on Link Between Human Activity and Global Warming (National Center for Policy Analysis)


All of that came from just one link that I've already given you. This one.

Link

If you looked at all of the other information I've posted and all of the videos, it's overwhelming how much evidence there is that completely debunks everything you're saying. To say that you haven't been given any evidence puts you in the same intellectual dishonesty realm as your buddy Bill.
quote:
Originally posted by Chow:
you keep pushing and pushing so what should one believe?

I keep showing the money connection, there is a tremendous amount of money at stake.


The policy issue is really beyond my pay grade. I'm a (fiscally) conservative Republican. I side with all y'all on the policy for the most part.

It's the profound denial of valid scientific data that is the burr under my saddle. The CO2 data alone should be enough to persuade anyone with half a brain that there might be something to this whole thing after all.

Again and again and again: Provide some legitimate data showing that the CO2 levels are different from the consensus and I'll give you a cookie.

A COOKIE, Chow. That's big of me man.
quote:
Originally posted by Flatus the Ancient:
quote:
John Christy, professor of atmospheric science and director of the Earth System Science Center at the University of Alabama in Huntsville, contributor to several IPCC reports: "I'm sure the majority (but not all) of my IPCC colleagues cringe when I say this, but I see neither the developing catastrophe nor the smoking gun proving that human activity is to blame for most of the warming we see. Rather, I see a reliance on climate models (useful but never "proof") and the coincidence that changes in carbon dioxide and global temperatures have loose similarity over time."
Link

I heard Christy speak a decade or so ago and I believe he has no agenda. The link is from a wikipedia article listing other scientists who don't buy into the global warming cult.


That's not exactly a resounding critique of the data, Faatus, and, agian, it's just "some guy."

In his OPINION the scientists rely on the "climate models"? Do you know what that means? He dismisses the computer models. Supercomputer models. You know, the ones he gets his entire forecast from. Wink

He also states "the coincidence that changes in carbon dioxide and global temperatures have loose similarity over time."

Loose similarity? That's kind of like saying there is a loose similarity between Flatulence and smell. There is a profound link between CO2 levels and temperature as the graph I posted clearly reveals.

What is not clear is if CO2 is a cause or a result of temperature change.
quote:
Originally posted by NashBama:
Cookey, you haven't read any of the links. I've provided tons of evidence from many educated scientists who say it's all BS. If you would take the time to actually look at what I link instead of pretending it's not there, you would see that.


Nash, it would take less time to post a link to a graph showing global cooling or CO2 decrease.

You have made it abundantly clear that there are plenty of individuals who refute the consensus. That does nothing to refute my chart.

(I'll take a stab or two at your list in a minute)

Attachments

Images (1)
  • co2_temp
quote:
Originally posted by Cookey:
quote:
Originally posted by Chow:
you keep pushing and pushing so what should one believe?

I keep showing the money connection, there is a tremendous amount of money at stake.


The policy issue is really beyond my pay grade. I'm a (fiscally) conservative Republican. I side with all y'all on the policy for the most part.

It's the profound denial of valid scientific data that is the burr under my saddle. The CO2 data alone should be enough to persuade anyone with half a brain that there might be something to this whole thing after all.

Again and again and again: Provide some legitimate data showing that the CO2 levels are different from the consensus and I'll give you a cookie.

A COOKIE, Chow. That's big of me man.



Volcanos cause more climate change than man

The last little ice age was volcano induced

Volcanos produce more CO2 than man


Man has not made any volcanos except that one time on the brady bunch

no cookies from you, it's the thought that counts
Following are a few of your "legitimate" picks, Nash. I'm picking them out at random.


From Wiki:
The Advancement of Sound Science Center (TASSC), formerly the Advancement of Sound Science Coalition, is an industry-funded lobby group which promotes the idea that environmental science on issues including smoking, pesticides and global warming is "junk science", which should be replaced by "sound science". It is operated by Steven Milloy from his home in Potomac, Maryland.

In other words, it's a organization formed to deny GW. BRRRrrrrrrrrrrrraaaap.

The Annapolis Center for Science-Based Public Policy in your list is another lobby group formed to attack GW. Exxon recelty donated $183,500 to them. Link Perhaps just a little biased, Nash?

The Greening Earth Society, now defunct, was a public relations organization which promoted the idea that there is considerable scientific doubt about the effects of climate change and increased levels of carbon dioxide. Link

Hey, now this one sounds pretty legitimate: New Zealand Climate Science Coalition. Link says "The New Zealand Climate Science Coalition was launched in May 2006 with the aim of "refuting what it believes are unfounded claims about anthropogenic (man-made) global warming.""

Oops. Another front for lobbyists.

Nash, I swear to god, I jsut picked these at random and got 100% hit on de-legitimizing them.

Come on, I dare ya, pick two or three more, find out why they exist. If they are a scientific organization whose "bias" is science, then you get a cookie. If they are formed to give Big Oil a voice, then what dos that tell you?

Come on, Nash. Put on your thinking cap.

I'm still waiting on that graph that shows a decrease in temperatures and CO2 levels, Nash. It sure seems to me that it could easy to psot the pic so I can quite denying I've seen it.

Why haven't you posted it?
quote:
Originally posted by Cookey:
quote:
Originally posted by Chow:

Volcanos cause more climate change than man

The last little ice age was volcano induced

Volcanos produce more CO2 than man


Yup.

But we have not have a major eruption in the past 50 years so how do you explain the highest levels of CO2 in two million years?


Mt ST Helens not major? all those that died might argue with you if they could

plenty of volcano activity every day in Hawaii, plenty around the world add it it all together and wallah enough for a major eruption every day.
quote:
Originally posted by NashBama:
If you looked at all of the other information I've posted and all of the videos, it's overwhelming how much evidence there is that completely debunks everything you're saying.


Yet you utterly refuse to post a link showing a decrease in global temps or a decrease in CO2?

One simple chart, Nash. I think this makes the 6th time you've ignored this simple plea. Every single item you have posted so far has been from biased GW deniers whose sole purpose is to deny GW. Not a single post from a legitimate scientific source. Not a single one . . . Unless oyu consider Youtube a legitimate souce.

I'll save you the trouble: You won't post a graphs because IT DOES NOT EXIST. I've looked.

Prove me wrong?
quote:
Originally posted by zippadeedoodah:
Mt Pinatubo in the PI


I guess I was thinking more along the lines of the supervolcanoes that supposedly sent the earth into a global ice ages. Pinatubo was major to us but a minor blip for major eruptions.

In any case, do ya think Pinatubo explains why we have the highest levels of CO2 in two million years?
Pretty little charts at site. BUD! The great skeptical denier.


Link


Don Easterbrook
29 12 2008
Abstracts of American Geophysical Union annual meeting, San Francisco Dec., 2008

Solar Influence on Recurring Global, Decadal, Climate Cycles Recorded by Glacial Fluctuations, Ice Cores, Sea Surface Temperatures, and Historic Measurements Over the Past Millennium

Easterbrook, Don J., Dept. of Geology, Western Washington University, Bellingham, WA 98225,

Global, cyclic, decadal, climate patterns can be traced over the past millennium in glacier fluctuations, oxygen isotope ratios in ice cores, sea surface temperatures, and historic observations. The recurring climate cycles clearly show that natural climatic warming and cooling have occurred many times, long before increases in anthropogenic atmospheric CO2 levels. The Medieval Warm Period and Little Ice Age are well known examples of such climate changes, but in addition, at least 23 periods of climatic warming and cooling have occurred in the past 500 years. Each period of warming or cooling lasted about 25-30 years (average 27 years). Two cycles of global warming and two of global cooling have occurred during the past century, and the global cooling that has occurred since 1998 is exactly in phase with the long term pattern. Global cooling occurred from 1880 to ~1915; global warming occurred from ~1915 to ~1945; global cooling occurred from ~1945-1977;, global warming occurred from 1977 to 1998; and global cooling has occurred since 1998. All of these global climate changes show exceptionally good correlation with solar variation since the Little Ice Age 400 years ago.

The IPCC predicted global warming of 0.6° C (1° F) by 2011 and 1.2° C (2° F) by 2038, whereas Easterbrook (2001) predicted the beginning of global cooling by 2007 (± 3-5 yrs) and cooling of about 0.3-0.5° C until ~2035. The predicted cooling seems to have already begun. Recent measurements of global temperatures suggest a gradual cooling trend since 1998 and 2007-2008 was a year of sharp global cooling. The cooling trend will likely continue as the sun enters a cycle of lower irradiance and the Pacific Ocean changed from its warm mode to its cool mode.

Comparisons of historic global climate warming and cooling, glacial fluctuations, changes in warm/cool mode of the Pacific Decadal Oscillation (PDO) and the Atlantic Multidecadal Oscillation (AMO), and sun spot activity over the past century show strong correlations and provide a solid data base for future climate change projections. The announcement by NASA that the Pacific Decadal Oscillation (PDO) had shifted to its cool phase is right on schedule as predicted by past climate and PDO changes (Easterbrook, 2001, 2006, 2007) and coincides with recent solar variations. The PDO typically lasts 25-30 years, virtually assuring several decades of global cooling. The IPCC predictions of global temperatures 1° F warmer by 2011, 2° F warmer by 2038, and 10° F by 2100 stand little chance of being correct. “Global warming” (i.e., the warming since 1977) is over!

The real question now is not trying to reduce atmospheric CO2 as a means of stopping global warming, but rather (1) how can we best prepare to cope with the 30 years of global cooling that is coming, (2) how cold will it get, and (3) how can we cope with the cooling during a time of exponential population increase? In 1998 when I first predicted a 30-year cooling trend during the first part of this century, I used a very conservative estimate for the depth of cooling, i.e., the 30-years of global cooling that we experienced from ~1945 to 1977. However, also likely are several other possibilities (1) the much deeper cooling that occurred during the 1880 to ~1915 cool period, (2) the still deeper cooling that took place from about 1790 to 1820 during the Dalton sunspot minimum, and (3) the drastic cooling that occurred from 1650 to 1700 during the Maunder sunspot minimum. Figure 2 shows an estimate of what each of these might look like on a projected global climate curve. The top curve is based on the 1945-1977 cool period and the 1977-1998 warm period. The curve beneath is based on the 1890-1915 cool period and 1915-1945 warm period. The bottom curve is what we might expect from a Dalton or Maunder cool period. Only time will tell where we’re headed, but any of the curves are plausible. The sun’s recent behavior suggests we are likely heading for a deeper global cooling than the 1945-1977 cool period and ought to be looking ahead to cope with it.

The good news is that global warming (i.e., the 1977-1998 warming) is over and atmospheric CO2 is not a vital issue. The bad news is that cold conditions kill more people than warm conditions, so we are in for bigger problems than we might have experienced if global warming had continued. Mortality data from 1979-2002 death certificate records show twice as many deaths directly from extreme cold than for deaths from extreme heat, 8 times as many deaths as those from floods, and 30 times as many as from hurricanes. The number of deaths indirectly related to cold is many times worse.

Link
Atmospheric composition of earth's atmosphere:

Nitrogen N2 78.08%
Oxygen O2 20.95%
*Water H2O 0 to 4%
Argon Ar 0.93%
Carbon Dioxide CO2 0.0360%
Neon Ne 0.0018%
Helium He 0.0005%
Methane CH4 0.00017%
Hydrogen H2 0.00005%
Nitrous Oxide N2O 0.00003%
Ozone O3 0.000004%

Years ago, the ozone layer was being depleted. Now the CO2 level is increasing. Atmospheric CO2 filters UV radiation, so a significant reduction (from 0.0360%!) may result in an increased rate of skin cancer.

Atmospheric CO2 can (theoretically) be reduced by "salting" large areas of the ocean with powdered iron filings, resulting in massive algae blooms. Algae, which are the biggest contributors of oxygen on the planet, rely of CO2. Of course, a massive algae bloom can change the chemical mix of the ocean, with massive fish die-offs.

In short, the atmosphere is a meta-stable mix of gases that have locally larger concentrations. It is not homogeneous by any stretch.

The chart shows the purported CO2 increase over the last 350 years. The lower band is from ice cores; the red band shows levels taken at Mauna Loa, which is currently erupting.

The so-called 35% increase in the last 350 years (allegedly 0.0240% to 0.0360%) is based on widely separated measurements (tropical and polar) taken from different media (ice and atmosphere) and assumed to cause a 1 degree mean temperature increase (without scientific correlation) and is the basis for completely turning our economy on its ear. And the scientific models used? They haven't even been able to predict the temperatures from the past, even when they are known.

But, as Obama's hatchet man says, never let a crisis go to waste. And if you don't have one, manufacture one. Global warming may be real, due to natural solar variations, but man-made global warming is a hideous example of pseudo-science being used to drive political change.

Attachments

Images (1)
  • co2_atmosphere
quote:
Originally posted by Cookey:
quote:
Originally posted by NashBama:
If you looked at all of the other information I've posted and all of the videos, it's overwhelming how much evidence there is that completely debunks everything you're saying.


Yet you utterly refuse to post a link showing a decrease in global temps or a decrease in CO2?

One simple chart, Nash. I think this makes the 6th time you've ignored this simple plea. Every single item you have posted so far has been from biased GW deniers whose sole purpose is to deny GW. Not a single post from a legitimate scientific source. Not a single one . . . Unless oyu consider Youtube a legitimate souce.

I'll save you the trouble: You won't post a graphs because IT DOES NOT EXIST. I've looked.

Prove me wrong?


Intensionally saying something that isn't true is a lie. You and I along with everyone else on this thread knows that what you just said is a total lie.

Since you demand to be spoon fed, here are your graphs.

Here are more graphs, animated with voice over explaining for you exactly what they mean. Scientists commentary included.

Link

By the way, every graph I've posted has already been given to you multiple times.

Attachments

Images (1)
  • gw_graph_1
Here is one more simple one for you. It shows exactly what I've been saying all along. Since 1998, we've been cooling. You can see a spike upwards, then a drop back down to around average.

As you've seen in your other pictures, sun activity can dramatically change temperature. The sun was more active in 1998, then went back to normal. It has nothing to do with CO2.

Attachments

Images (1)
  • uah_august2008
quote:
Originally posted by Chow:
Mt ST Helens not major? all those that died might argue with you if they could.


Its effect on climate was negligible. On a huma scale is was a Very Big Deal, of course.[/quote]

[/quote]plenty of volcano activity every day in Hawaii, plenty around the world add it it all together and wallah enough for a major eruption every day.[/QUOTE]

I'm not really even sure what y'all are trying to claim with the volcanic references. The data seems to be clear that volcanoes and GW are unrelated in recent history. Long range history certainly has a different tale to tell.

I've already stated that we are, in fact, one single major eruption away from a cataclysmic global cooling making my whole point mute and making you all geniuses.

We simply haven't had one in recorded history. Yet.
quote:
Originally posted by NashBama:
quote:
Originally posted by Cookey:
quote:
Originally posted by NashBama:
If you looked at all of the other information I've posted and all of the videos, it's overwhelming how much evidence there is that completely debunks everything you're saying.


Yet you utterly refuse to post a link showing a decrease in global temps or a decrease in CO2?

One simple chart, Nash. I think this makes the 6th time you've ignored this simple plea. Every single item you have posted so far has been from biased GW deniers whose sole purpose is to deny GW. Not a single post from a legitimate scientific source. Not a single one . . . Unless oyu consider Youtube a legitimate souce.

I'll save you the trouble: You won't post a graphs because IT DOES NOT EXIST. I've looked.

Prove me wrong?


Intensionally saying something that isn't true is a lie.


Nash, your chart is pretty and shows some interesting data but is not referenced and DOES NOT show a decrease in global temps or CO2 levels.
quote:
Nash, your chart is pretty and shows some interesting data but is not referenced and DOES NOT show a decrease in global temps or CO2 levels.


The one above this post does.

By the way, I'm glad you think that data is interesting. Why did I have to give it to you several times before you bothered to even look at it?
quote:
Originally posted by NashBama:
One more.

Do you need any others that prove the sun controls the temperature and not CO2 or do you need colorful pictures?


Yes, Nash, I need you to provide a chart that backs up your assertion that the globe is NOT getting warming. I need a chart that refutes the rising CO2 levels.

This is not a very difficult question and I've asked, what, 8 or 9 times? You are at least delivering the charts charts, they just don't back up your claims that GW doesn't exist.
quote:
Originally posted by NashBama:
Last one was too big, let's try this one.

By the way, if you would actually read the links I give you, none of this would be necessary.


No, if you'd read your own chart, you wouldn't post it to begin with.

This "big" chart shows a very short range temperature range that does, in fact, show a tenth or two more degrees HOTTER that in 1979. It does NOT show a overall decrease in global temperatures LONG TERM.

"Long Term" Nash.

How 'bout one on CO2 levels. Got anything there?
quote:
Originally posted by Cookey:
quote:
Originally posted by NashBama:
One more.

Do you need any others that prove the sun controls the temperature and not CO2 or do you need colorful pictures?


Yes, Nash, I need you to provide a chart that backs up your assertion that the globe is NOT getting warming. I need a chart that refutes the rising CO2 levels.

This is not a very difficult question and I've asked, what, 8 or 9 times? You are at least delivering the charts charts, they just don't back up your claims that GW doesn't exist.


Here it is again. Temperature drops from 1998.

Attachments

Images (1)
  • uah_august2008
Sea Ice Lowest in 800 Years




A reconstruction of sea ice reveals the lowest levels in 800 years, according to new research published in the journal Climate Dynamics.

Researchers modeled sea ice levels between Greenland and Svalbard, an archipelago in the Arctic Ocean north of Europe, from the 13th century to present using data from a natural climate "archive" and from historic human records.

"We have combined information about the climate found in ice cores from an ice cap on Svalbard and from the annual growth rings of trees in Finland and this gave us a curve of the past climate," Aslak Grinsted said in a press release. Grinsted is a geophysicist with the Centre for Ice and Climate at the Niels Bohr Institute at the University of Copenhagen in Denmark. "We see that the sea ice is shrinking to a level which has not been seen in more than 800 years."
Global Warming (source NASA)

May 11, 2007

Over the last five years, 600 scientists from the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change sifted through thousands of studies about global warming published in forums ranging from scientific journals to industry publications and distilled the world’s accumulated knowledge into this conclusion: “Warming of the climate system is unequivocal.”



The effects of global warming are already being felt worldwide. The Larsen-B Ice Shelf on the Antarctic Peninsula collapsed over 35 days in early 2002, prompted by 3°C of warming since the 1940s. (NASA image by Jesse Allen, based on MODIS data.)
I'm not 100% sure about global warming, tho it seems to me that there is much more data to support it than refute it.

It begs the quality of data and its source credibility.

Most of the data that I've consumed indicates a change in the climate happens naturally(approx 150,000 year cycles), however it isn't clear to me how much of that is man-made and/or if we are speeding up the process.

I'm actually much more concerned with pollution. We (me anyway) can see it and recently having local drinking water tested the results came back pretty scary.
Pop Sci had a pretty good article some months back. One thing in particular that I read a month or so ago was about endocrine disruptors. Nasty stuff they be.

I was lectured at length on xenoestrogens a few years ago too(which got me thinking about the cr@p we ingest). They aren't good for us either.

Something to ponder....

Regards

Add Reply

Post

Untitled Document
×
×
×
×
Link copied to your clipboard.
×