The Truth about Global Warming

The Truth about Global Warming

by RebelSnake | Published on March 8th, 2007, 2:52 pm | Science

But surely Carter is merely part of what most people regard as a tiny cadre of "climate change skeptics" who disagree with the "vast majority of scientists" Gore cites?

No; Carter is one of hundreds of highly qualified non-governmental, non-industry, non-lobby group climate experts who contest the hypothesis that human emissions of carbon dioxide (CO2) are causing significant global climate change. "Climate experts" is the operative term here. Why? Because what Gore's "majority of scientists" think is immaterial when only a very small fraction of them actually work in the climate field.

Sounds to me like a bunch of scientists trying to get out the truth.

Every wonder why that was the coldest period? Was it because after Global Warming... you have another ICE AGE!!!!

C'mon people.... we all know that the earth has gone through many many different changes in temperature in the last 6000 years. I doubt that any of it was because of the doings of humans. Or was it?

:lol:

The science is not simple and it has not been fully resolved yet.

I see the biggest problem is with clearly identifying what 'global warming' really means. The terms are used as if there were clear agreement on the definitions and consequences.

Greenhouse Effect:Is real, no scientist would disagree that the earth's atmosphere provides a greenhouse effect
Enhanced Greenhouse Effect from anthropogenic CO2: Few scientists would disagree that increases in CO2 will increase the greenhouse effect.
Global Warming: Few scientists would disagree that the world has warmed

But there is a significant proportion of genuine climate experts who do not believe the science shows that catastrophic global warming will inevitably result from an enhanced greenhouse effect solely due to anthropogenic CO2 emissions. CGWFEGEDACO2®

The public and politicians want to deal with certainties and are not good at understanding probabilities and risks and so there is a lot of pressure for unequivocal statements of dire consequences - otherwise the will to take the costly remediation is lacking. Unfortunately we're looking for a weak signal in a noisy data-set with a poor historical record. The dilemma is that if CGWFEGEDACO2® is real we can't afford to wait for all the science to be in, so dissenters are seen as dangerous and irresponsible.

I think that's dangerous and irresponsible too. We need to have the best understanding we can of all the climate mechanisms to make good decisions.

As

Dr Peiser wrote:the stifling of dissent and preoccupation with doomsday scenarios is bringing climate research into disrepute. There is a fear that any doubt will be used by politicians to avoid action, but if political considerations dictate what gets published, it's all over for science."

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jh ... glob01.xml

So has everyone seen the movie????

I know me & Sanj have.... but seriously if you haven't, you really need too....

And while I don't condone stuff like this, especially since the company we keep on this board... but if your refusing to go out and spend 3.95 on a rental, I might suggest watch it online, primarly because it's one of those things that needs to be watched.

You can see it here:
http://movies.peekvid.com/feature/movie ... Truth.html
Last time I checked.

http://www.dnronline.com/opinion_details.php?AID=9246&CHID=36

Global Debate Posted 2007-03-14

First, the good news. The polar ice caps may not melt, coastal cities will not slide into the Atlantic and the human race may not be destined for extinction after all.

Some critics and Hollywood went ga-ga about former Vice President Al Gore’s doomsday predictions in his film "An Inconvenient Truth." This week, though, a New York Times story detailed how many scientists are getting a bit hot under the collar about Mr. Gore’s theory of global warming.

They feel the film’s central points are exaggerated and erroneous. These scientists, it must be pointed out, are not on the ExxonMobil payroll – a charge often directed at those who have expressed doubts about global warming.

The skeptical scientists challenge such views as Mr. Gore’s contention that the Atlantic will rise some 20 feet, engulfing major parts of New York, Florida and other states. Yet a report last month by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, a United Nations body that studies global warming, predicted a rise of ocean levels of 23 inches during this century, a level not threatening to beachfront property, much less to the entire Sunshine State.

The many scientists quoted in the NYT story are not saying the theory of global warming is bogus, but they point out that the Earth has experienced many heating and cooling cycles. They also will not deny man has contributed, to a degree, to this cycle. However, they note this heating cycle is not unique in the geologic history of the Earth.

Another major problem some scientists have with Mr. Gore is the latter’s contention that all unbiased scientists agree with him.

One who doesn’t is Benny J. Peiser, a social anthropologist in Britain who runs the Cambridge-Conference Network, or CCNet, an Internet newsletter on climate change and natural disasters. He has challenged the claim of scientific consensus with examples of pointed disagreement

"Hardly a week goes by," Dr. Peiser said, "without a new research paper that questions part or even some basics of climate change theory," including some reports that offer alternatives to human activity for global warming.

This does not mean that humans shouldn’t seek alternative fuels, pursue ways of saving energy (such as increased miles-per-gallon standards in cars) and take other sensible steps regarding fossil fuels.

It simply means that neither science nor politics should yield to hysteria.

A couple of points here.

Some critics and Hollywood went ga-ga about former Vice President Al Gore’s doomsday predictions in his film "An Inconvenient Truth."

Since when has any politician made any reliable predictions about anything, especially predictions concerning science?

Another major problem some scientists have with Mr. Gore is the latter’s contention that all unbiased scientists agree with him.

So any scientist that disagrees with Gore is automatically biased against him? Don't you just love politicains and their word games? Anyone that disagrees with his stance on global warming is automatically branded as an environmental monster of some kind.

This BBC Channel 4 docmentary 'The Great Global Warming Swindle' March 8, is well worth watching.

<center><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/P6Wr1hcIp2U" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" wmode="transparent" width="425" height="350"></embed></center>

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=P6Wr1hcIp2U

When everyone has had a chance to view it - let's discuss and compare with "An inconvenient truth"

As if stronger storms caused by global warming weren't enough for us to worry about, not it appears that cyclones might end up accelerating the process of warming in the polar regions.

That's just ducky...

But global warming might DECREASE hurricane strength and frequency
I guess we'll find out eventually.

Then again any type of occurance might be coincidental or even devine and the earth is going through the same natural or devine changes that it has for the last 6000 years.

It could be all those UFOs as well. Maybe Hubbard was right and this is all the fault of Xenu.

Or possibly Yuri Geller's incredible brain wave energy is causing the Earth to warm as he bends those keys.

Or as you suggest it might be just due to all the hot air from those fundamentalists in Devine TX.

A Person wrote:...Or possibly Yuri Geller's incredible brain wave energy is causing the Earth to warm as he bends those keys.

Is he bending keys now? When did he quit with the spoons?

A Person wrote:Or as you suggest it might be just due to all the hot air from those fundamentalists in Devine TX.

Um, guys, that is Divine. We shouldn't be taking Andy's name in vain. :twisted:

Uri doesn't do much bending of things any more, he's found it easier and more profitable to bend minds. He now 'explains the unexplained', does mind reading tricks, sells jewelry and for a few thousand pounds you can engage him as a motivational speaker. After all he's living proof that a lifetime of fraud and lying to the gullible pays quite well.

I despise everything he stands for, but to his credit he doesn't pretend to speak for God so he's marginally better than Hubbard and Phelps.

A Person wrote:Uri doesn't do much bending of things any more, he's found it easier and more profitable to bend minds...
I despise everything he stands for, but to his credit he doesn't pretend to speak for God so he's marginally better than Hubbard and Phelps.

Ugh! Him and that john edward guy who says he can speak to the dead. I just about threw up when I accidentally turned him on once and saw him telling a young couple who had lost their baby that he was talking to the baby. Vile stuff.

http://www.channel4.com/science/microsites/G/great_global_warming_swindle/index.html

The Great Global Warming Swindle

Are you green? How many flights have you taken in the last year? Feeling guilty about all those unnecessary car journeys? Well, maybe there's no need to feel bad.

According to a group of scientists brought together by documentary-maker Martin Durkin, if the planet is heating up, it isn't your fault and there's nothing you can do about it.

We've almost begun to take it for granted that climate change is a man-made phenomenon. But just as the environmental lobby think they've got our attention, a group of naysayers have emerged to slay the whole premise of global warming.

An excellent site here. All the science without the political (expletive). The arguements section puts it all together very nicely.

All they need is more followers and they can become a religion then they'll be above criticism, protected by law and tax free.

I've seen it. It's about as fair and balanced as Gore's "An inconvenient Truth" but at the other end of the spectrum. Like Gore's propaganda this one also contains some old science, overstated facts and misleading statements but much that is true. Reality lies somewhere in the middle.

That mug is the kind of misleading propaganda that I find extremely annoying.

The worst case scenario - complete melting of all ice caps - would result in a 10m sea level rise, after taking thermal expansion and melt water into account. That's quite serious - Florida coastline might be submerged as far as Orlando but Florida wouldn't disappear completely. To get the submergence suggested by that mug would take a sea level rise of the order of that experienced since the last Ice Age - over 120m

And there isn't that much water on the planet.

It's this kind of egregious exaggeration and misinformation that worries me. How can people be expected to make reasoned decisions with bad information?

I don't know the number or the science of it, but needless to say, any major water reclamation over land will be very catastrophic, and if indeed we even reach that point, we'd probably already realize the horrible repercussions of our misuse of earth.

Liv wrote:I don't know the number or the science of it, but needless to say, any major water reclamation over land will be very catastrophic, and if indeed we even reach that point, we'd probably already realize the horrible repercussions of our misuse of earth.

That's exactly the attitude that people who peddle this garbage are counting on. The average person doesn't really know enough science to spot the BS and too many people can't be bothered to go and look it up for themselves.

Liv wrote:we'd probably already realize the horrible repercussions of our misuse of earth.

I don't dispute that the world is warming and that this is due partly to anthropogenic CO2.

But the propaganda comes in with the speculation of the impact of this. Imagine yourself in 1900 knowing that the world would warm one degree over the next 100 years. With today's lobby can you imagine the predictions of gloom and disaster. Yet we have a world with a healthier environment, heathier population, more productive agriculture, more forests - and the technology to come up with alternatives.

The mug is a small lie, but it's a lie.

This map can be generated for several sea level rises This one is for the maximum 6m rise (red areas are underwater). Not quite as scary is it? Probably wouldn't sell any mugs either.

I'm sure the producers think it's a justified lie. I've been told that lying about the environmental impact is neccessary to force action but the decisions you would make is you thought your house were burning down are different from those you'd make if a cigarette had burned a hole in the carpet. I'd like to make decisions based on the best information, not scare tactics.

I'm feeling a bit stupid.com

I've just gone to the website and it seems that this mug is a joke :oops:

It shows up with

and the

That'll teach me not to check sources first.

But really, have you seen that documentary with Kevin Costner in it? The one were humans evolve and grow gills? We better just pray BHL is right, and Jesus keeps those great frozen ice-cubes at the north pole nice and chilly.

: black_and_white.jpg (42.54 KiB) Viewed 1595 times

OK... so according to the Discovery Channel, Global warming is:

greenhouse gases->melting ice caps=less white on earth & more blue.

The white that reflected the heat, is replaced by more blue water that absorbs the heat.

So what if we just start painting everything white? Pass a law that we can only have white cars, roof tiles on houses are white, etc so on.

Would it therefore be correct to say, you would be a more environmentally friendly individual if you bought a white vehicle instead of black?

The quick answer is that you're correct, increasing the albedo (reflectivity) of the earth helps reduce warming. Cars especially ought to be white or silver - or at least the roofs ought to be - this keeps the car much cooler inside and reduces the need for air conditioning. Low-E coatings on windows (not blackout) etc.

When you calclate how much of the area of the world is covered by cars it wouldn't have a detectable effect though. Using a white road surfacing compound instead of tarmac would have a bigger effect but would still be insignificant. So not a 'solution' but a tiny step.

Covering roads with cheap, tough solar panels now...