global warming contributed to Katrina and Rita, says scientists

[Stinger]

Actually, they do. See thats the thing, if you find one that doesnt, its a minority view.

2000 does not make a majority let alone a consensus.

[FONT=arial,helvetica]Marc Morano, CNSNews.com[/FONT]
[FONT=arial,helvetica]Wednesday, May 15, 2002[/FONT]​

WASHINGTON – A team of international scientists says climate models showing global warming are based on a "fairy tale" of computer projections. The scientists met Monday on Capitol Hill to expose what they see as a dearth of scientific evidence about the theory of global warming.
Hartwig Volz, a geophysicist with RWE Research Lab in Germany, questioned the merit of the climate projections coming from the U.N.-sponsored Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC). The IPCC climate projections have fueled worldwide support for the Kyoto Protocol, which aims to restrict the greenhouse gases thought to cause global warming.
Volz noted that IPCC does not even call the climate models "predictions" and instead refers to them as "projections" or "story lines." Volz said the projections might be more aptly termed "fairy tales."
Monday's luncheon was sponsored by Frontiers of Freedom Institute and titled "Whatever Happened to Global Warming? Climate Science Does Not Support the Kyoto Protocol."
S. Fred Singer, an atmospheric physicist with the University of Virginia and the Environmental Policy Project, called IPCC's global warming projections "completely unrealistic."
"Prediction is a very difficult business, particularly about the future," he said.
http://www.newsmax.com/archives/articles/2002/5/14/161152.shtml



Did you know they did not even include the effects of water vapor in thier so called findings?


Try this one on too:

http://www.senate.gov/comm/environment_and_public_works/general/speechitem.cfm?party=rep&id=238162


Here is another paper debunking the IPCC, it has been thorughly debunked you know

Dr. John Zillman, former head of Australia's meteorology bureau and Australia's leading scientific member of the UN Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) argued its processes were as good as you would get and its science sound. Ross McKitrick from the University of Guelph, Ontario, took the conference through the detail of research which demonstrated as unsupportable the analysis which produced the famous "hockey stick" chart. This chart demonstrated the twentieth century is the hottest on record. It was endorsed by the IPCC which headlined it to support the case that human activity was causing global warming. McKitrick's analysis that the modeling was fundamentally flawed and the data unrepresentative is now regarded as correct. The work behind the chart was not checked before the IPCC endorsed and headlined it.

The case made by IPCC also depends on results from several climate models. Professor Garth Paltridge from the University of Tasmania argued the models were skewed to show warming. They depended on artificially constructed inputs which would just as easily produce a negative result. Another former official of the meteorology bureau, Bill Kininmonth, pointed out the models disregarded the transfer of energy between the poles, a major determinant of climate change, and focused solely on radiation in and out of the atmosphere.

Dr. Roger Beale, the former head of the Australian federal environment department, conceded the IPCC numbers for possible increases in global temperature (the notorious range of 1.4 C degrees to 5.8 C degrees by 2100) were numbers from scenarios, not predictions. He contended that a "probabilist" projection of temperature increase was 2 C degrees. He drew this conclusion from a couple of studies. Dr. Brian Flannery, ExxonMobil's chief environment and safety advisor observed in passing that there was little basis for probabilist numbers and observed that there was a great deal more we needed to know about the science. He cited several leading US institutions as sharing that view.

Professor Bob Carter, a geologist from the University of Townsville, then put the discussion over the IPCC climate change science into an Earth science framework. He considered it suspicious that the IPCC work only used the last 1000 years as the frame of reference. He demonstrated that in a million year timescale we were in one of the few interglacial warming periods and the next expected long term development in climate should be a cooling possibly leading to an ice age. He also produced analysis which showed that the historical pattern is that levels of CO2 in the atmosphere rise after temperature increases, not the other way around, as is supposed in the "official" science of greenhouse warming which presumes increases in carbon dioxide are causing global warming. In passing he debunked the conventional claim that most scientists are agreed on the "official" science.
http://www.consumersvoice.org/1051/defensewrapper.jsp?PID=1051-350&CID=1051-041105F


So no there is no consensus nor a majority of climotologist who believe there is an abnormal global warming and that we are just seeing normal trends in climate change.


But we do agree that there is no evidence that current hurricane activity is being affected by this not proven global warming. As far as the discussion of global warming I can post as many experts on my side as you can on yours. Perhaps another day.

 

[AlbqOwl]

Good research, Stinger. There's a ton more stuff like that out there for those who want to take the time to Google it up too.

 

[kmhowe72]

I am not anti envirment. I am just stating the great majority of people I have heard say it's not. We have have had cycles like this before. We have only had two major hurricanes so far this year. Only 17 name storms.

Not everything that happens is evirmental global warming. I am just saying anytime things like this happen of ie elnimo they scream global warming. It is not a proven fact.

I think we should be able drill, if it could be done in a safe manner. It's a poplar consenses there for anyone going to say it to stir up controversy. and if you have not noticed thats what sells.

Galveston in1900 was hit by a hurricann of Cat 5. There was no talk of global warning then.

 

[SKILMATIC]

Arguments can go both ways on this issue.

 

[ALiberalModerate]

Ok, let’s review.

I say that there is no way that one can say either way if the current severe hurricanes are at all related to global warming. On that we agree.

I say that it is the scientific consensus that Global Warming is real, and that human activity has some role in it.

You disagree.

I then provide the following independent sources to back up my claims:

The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change

The Joint Science Academies

The US National Research Council

The American Meteorological Society

The Environmental Protection Agency

Altogether, the sources I have given represent the vast majority of the scientific community.

You then counter with the following sources:

An article on the right wing news source Cybercast News Service about a presentation given for the extremely right wing Frontiers of Freedom Institute.

Some testimony by one meteorologist before the Senate.

And an article from a right wing science publication.

Does anyone honestly believe that those sources carry the same weight as the ones I have given? I hold the position that I hold because it is the scientific concensus. You know either you cast out preconceptions and set aside emotional, ideological, and religious beliefs and accept scientific consensus, or you don’t. If a person is not willing to do so, then there is no point debating science with them.

 

[SKILMATIC]

Ok, let’s review.

I say that there is no way that one can say either way if the current severe hurricanes are at all related to global warming. On that we agree.

I say that it is the scientific consensus that Global Warming is real, and that human activity has some role in it.

You disagree.

I then provide the following independent sources to back up my claims:

The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change

The Joint Science Academies

The US National Research Council

The American Meteorological Society

The Environmental Protection Agency

Altogether, the sources I have given represent the vast majority of the scientific community.

You then counter with the following sources:

An article on the right wing news source Cybercast News Service about a presentation given for the extremely right wing Frontiers of Freedom Institute.

Some testimony by one meteorologist before the Senate.

And an article from a right wing science publication.

Does anyone honestly believe that those sources carry the same weight as the ones I have given? I hold the position that I hold because it is the scientific concensus. You know either you cast out preconceptions and set aside emotional, ideological, and religious beliefs and accept scientific consensus, or you don’t. If a person is not willing to do so, then there is no point debating science with them.

This isnt directed towards me is it?

 

[Stinger]

Ok, let’s review.

I say that there is no way that one can say either way if the current severe hurricanes are at all related to global warming. On that we agree.

I say that it is the scientific consensus that Global Warming is real, and that human activity has some role in it.

You disagree.

I then provide the following independent sources to back up my claims:

ROFL mine are just as "indepentent as yours" and most of your rely on the same debunked study. So does anyone still believe the UN and all it's anti-American interest including the passage of the flawed Kyoto treaty over the several univeristy professors and climotologist I have cited?

Does anyone honestly believe that those sources carry the same weight as the ones I have given? I hold the position that I hold because it is the scientific concensus.

There is no scientific consensus as much as you keep repeating that there is, there is a vast difference of opinion but they basically come down on those who hope there is global warming and those who await true scienitfic inquiery.

And the speech before the senatte was the report from Sen. Inoye's committee on the subject of global warming.

The fact remains there is no consensus there is no majority of the scientist whose field it is to study such things.

 

[ALiberalModerate]

ROFL mine are just as "indepentent as yours" and most of your rely on the same debunked study. So does anyone still believe the UN and all it's anti-American interest including the passage of the flawed Kyoto treaty over the several univeristy professors and climotologist I have cited?





There is no scientific consensus as much as you keep repeating that there is, there is a vast difference of opinion but they basically come down on those who hope there is global warming and those who await true scienitfic inquiery.

And the speech before the senatte was the report from Sen. Inoye's committee on the subject of global warming.

The fact remains there is no consensus there is no majority of the scientist whose field it is to study such things.

The American Academy of Sciences is not an independent source. Mine were independent, non-partisan. Yours were as biased as they could be. There will always be scientists who have a problem with almost any theory. However, in terms of Global Warming, the majority accept it as a reality. I don't see the point of continuing this debate on this subject. If you think the sources I gave hold no more weight than your sources, its pretty much hopeless.

 

[ALiberalModerate]

This isnt directed towards me is it?

No, sorry. :doh

 

[AlbqOwl]

Okay here are some non-rightwing sources for opinions re non-global warming or at least opinions that there is no conclusive evidence for global warming.

I may need two or three posts. All are excerpted from longer articles:

We are gripped by CO2 madness By S. Fred Singer Published: December 31 2004 4:00 | Last Updated: December 31 2004

From Prof S. Fred Singer.

Sir, The essay by Paula Dobriansky, US undersecretary of state for global affairs ("Only new technology can halt climate change", December 1), elicited a great deal of correspondence. Some found her faith in technological efficacy "touching" and pooh-poohed the grand-sounding initiatives promoted by the White House (Profs J. C. Phillips and F. Banks, December 3). Indeed, halting climate change is akin to halting the tides.

Even stopping the ongoing increase of carbon dioxide, a much lesser goal, is out of reach. About the best one can do is to slow the rate of increase - but at a huge cost, through energy rationing and higher energy prices. This is a policy that developing countries such as China and India - soon to become the major emitters - would never countenance.

A more fundamental problem, however, is quite evident from your editorial ("Kiboshing Kyoto", December 3). It painted a horrific picture of future warming - while ignoring the underlying science. Satellite observations still exhibit no significant warming of the atmosphere. The data claiming that the 20th century was the warmest in 1,000 years have been shown as faulty. Climate models projecting strong future warming are unreliable, as are their underlying energy scenarios. Science-based estimates are converging on predicting an average global warming of not much more than half a degree by 2100, with most of the warming occurring during winter nights at high latitudes. To put it bluntly, the great fear of warming translates to Siberia and northern Canada seeing temperatures of -38°̊̊̊ instead of -40°̊̊̊.

I suppose that some years hence we will look back on the global warming episode as an aberration that gripped much of the western world. We should recognise that carbon dioxide is not a pollutant but the essential plant food, and that more CO2 means more growth of crops and forests. The danger is that the huge amounts of money now devoted to all aspects of global warming - better spent on true societal problems - perversely build up constituencies that will keep this madness going. Witness the nearly 200 national delegations that converged on Milan for COP-9 and will continue year after year, not to mention the hundreds of non-governmental organisations plus the United Nations and national bureaucracies.

--S. Fred Singer, Professor Emeritus of Environmental Sciences (University of Virginia), Arlington, VA 22202, US
Source: Financial Times (archived - registration required)

Here's a brief summary from Global Warming or Globalony:

"'Most people who worry about global warming assume that the earth's temperature right now is ecologically ideal and that any significant warming would be harmful if not disastrous. Scientists who take the longer view know otherwise. " wrote Kent Jeffreys of the Competitive Enterprise Institute in the National Center for Policy Analysis' Policy Report #96.

*In the past two to three million years the earth's temperature has gone through at least 17 climate circles, with ice ages typically lasting about 100,000 interrupted by warming periods lasting about 10,000 years.
*Since by some calculations the current warm period is about 13,000 years old, the next ice age is overdue."

"Jeffreys notes the fact that back in the 1970s: 'Many scientists warned of a coming ice age, and with good reason. Although there has been a slight increase in average temperatures during the twentieth century, many regions of the globe have experienced sustained cooling trends.'

••••The record speaks for itself. In the history of the Earth, ice ages are the norm. They occur regularly as clockwork and as such, must be regarded as immutable laws of nature. It would be sheer folly to believe that this law has somehow been repealed.

••••We are now between 10,800 and 13,000 years removed from the end of the last ice age. Is it not prudent to expect the onset of another ice age?
••••Studies have show that when atmospheric levels of Carbon Dioxide (CO2) -- the principal greenhouse gas -- exceeded 290 parts per million (ppm), the last ice age began. The current levels of CO2 exceed 362 ppm and they continue to rise.

Studies of data collected from ocean bottom samples 200 miles off the coast of Ecuador by Nickolas Shackleton and associates at Britain's Cambridge University provided CO2 readings for the past 130,000 years, a period covering the last interglacial, the ice age that followed, and the current interglacial.

"These data confirmed the rise of CO2 levels that preceded the last ice age, and the point at which the process became inevitable."
Finally, ice ages approach slowly. If you live in New York you're in no danger of being buried under a sheet of ice a mile thick, unless you plan to be around 30,000 years from now. But it is going to start getting colder and colder. If, as the evidence shows, the present interglacial period is ending, summers will be progressively shorter and cooler, and winters will get progressively longer and colder.

And despite the arrogance of those socialist King Canutes who will stand in front of the approaching wave of cold and icy weather and demand that it go away, as they have with their global warming fantasy, there's not a damn thing we can do to prevent nature from doing what she wants to do and always has done.
For the full text of Global Warming or Globaloney go to http://www.pvbr.com/Issue_1/global.htm - and remember, it was written in 1997.

http://www.etherzone.com/2001/bren012401.shtml

Continued in next post

 

[AlbqOwl]

EXCERPT from the Financial Post - Canada - June 2000

A survey completed last year by Dr. Murray Mitchell of the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration reveals a drop of half a degree in average ground temperatures in the Northern Hemisphere between 1945 and 1968. According to George Kukla of Columbia University, satellite photos indicated a sudden, large increase in Northern Hemisphere snow cover in the winter of 1971-72. And a study released last month by two NOAA scientists notes that the amount of sunshine reaching the ground in the continental U.S. diminished by 1.3% between 1964 and 1972.

To the layman, the relatively small changes in temperature and sunshine can be highly misleading. Reid Bryson of the University of Wisconsin points out that the Earth’’s average temperature during the great Ice Ages was only about seven degrees lower than during its warmest eras –– and that the present decline has taken the planet about a sixth of the way toward the Ice Age average. Others regard the cooling as a reversion to the ““little ice age”” conditions that brought bitter winters to much of Europe and northern America between 1600 and 1900 –– years when the Thames used to freeze so solidly that Londoners roasted oxen on the ice and when iceboats sailed the Hudson River almost as far south as New York City.

Just what causes the onset of major and minor ice ages remains a mystery. ““Our knowledge of the mechanisms of climatic change is at least as fragmentary as our data,”” concedes the National Academy of Sciences report. ““Not only are the basic scientific questions largely unanswered, but in many cases we do not yet know enough to pose the key questions.””
Reprinted from Financial Post - Canada, Jun 21, 2000

All Material Subject to Copyright
http://www.globalclimate.org/Newsweek.htm

Accu-Weather
By Norman J. Macdonald, M.S. and Joseph P. Sobel, Ph.D.
March 15, 1995

Executive Summary

Understanding the causes for changes in the weather day to day and year to year can be difficult because the complex systems underlying weather and climate change are not completely understood.
Recent articles in the press have reported that our weather is becoming more and more extreme and more destructive. Hurricane Andrew, devastating floods in California and the Midwest and the brutal winter storms that struck the Northeast last year are cited as the most recent signs that extreme weather events are becoming more intense and more frequent. Some people suggest that the planet is becoming warmer, largely as a result of the increased use of energy and the resulting increase in carbon dioxide and other "greenhouse" gases, and that this warming is causing weather to become more extreme.

But what are the facts? Is our weather becoming more hostile? To find out, the Global Climate Coalition asked Accu-Weather, Inc., to investigate historical weather records to determine if severe weather events are more frequent or more intense today than in the past and to uncover any scientific basis for linking "global warming" to our changing weather.

Accu-Weather examined relevant historical land, water and satellite weather data, conducted numerous personal interviews with scientists active in the field, reviewed pertinent literature on the subject and analyzed global weather data published by various organizations. Accu-Weather concludes that:

No convincing observational evidence has been found to show that hurricanes, violent tornadoes and other extreme events are more common now than they were 50 or 100 years ago. The greater attention now paid to sever weather events may simply reflect three non-weather related facts: (1) more people live in areas that were once sparsely populated or even uninhabited; (2) local media are now able to quickly report severe weather events that are occurring, or have just occurred, in distant parts of the globe; and (3) more sophisticated weather monitoring systems and a more widely distributed population mean that extreme events in remote areas are more likely to be detected.

The number of deaths in the United States caused by extreme weather disasters declined during the latter part of the century, but the values of property damage increased. This reflects both the improvements made in systems for detecting and providing early warning of danger, and the fact that more people are populating areas where severe weather is likely to occur.

Average global temperatures have increased slightly within the past 100 years, but this increase falls within the limits of natural climate variability and does not necessarily signal that greenhouse gases are causing global warming. Much of the temperature increase occurred before 1940, while the majority of greenhouse emissions occurred well after 1940.

Excerpted: Full article at:
http://www.globalwarming.org/article.php?uid=114

And finally to debunk the myth that it is the oil companies that are pooh poohing global warming:

Why Enron Wants Global Warming
by Patrick J. Michaels
Patrick J. Michaels is senior fellow in environmental studies at the Cato Institute and author of "The Satanic Gases."
By now, much to the chagrin of my greener friends, it is common knowledge that Enron Corporation was lobbying the Bush administration for highly profitable policies relating to the Kyoto Protocol on global warming. In fact, the tatters of Enron still want the administration to place a cap on carbon dioxide emissions so the company can broker the trading of "permits" to emit carbon dioxide under that cap.
http://www.cato.org/dailys/02-06-02.html

Oh and as a footnote, this article is instructive too:

The Greening Theory (Excerpted)

At issue is something called the Greening Theory. This is the concept that an increase in CO2 levels will lead to increased plant growth, because CO2 is the food of plants. This growth response is called the greening effect.

The Greening Theory has been pretty well confirmed. In fact the Clinton administration is asking for several hundred million dollars for "sequestration" research next year, much of it by the Department of Agriculture.This research will look at how changes in farming practices might cause plants to remove more CO2 from the air by growing more. The practice of sequestration assumes the truth of the Greening Theory.

But the U.S. government, as well as the United Nations, does not want to admit the beneficial implication of the Greening Theory: It is likely that some part of the world's incredible ability to feed itself over the past few decades, despite enormous population growth, is due to the increase in CO2 in the air. If this is true then it is likely just as true that a continued increase in CO2 will be needed to continue feeding the world, for the population is still growing rapidly.

The United States, and the United Nations, have taken the position that increasing CO2 levels are dangerous and must be stopped. But given the greening theory it might be even more dangerous to do this, because it could lead to mass starvation in the poorer countries of the worlds, where most people live. The U.S. and UN appear to be ducking this incredibly important issue because they have already made up their minds what they want to do.
At issue is something called the Greening Theory. This is the concept that an increase in CO2 levels will lead to increased plant growth, because CO2 is the food of plants. This growth response is called the greening effect.
http://www.bydesign.com/fossilfuels/greening_benefits/

 

[ALiberalModerate]

Ok, those are far better sources.

I still hold to my contention that Global Warming is the general scientific concensus. Are there climate change deniers? Of course. Do they bring up valid points? Yes at times they do. However, there is a lot of missinformation being circulated as well. The following goes into detail on a lot of those misconceptions and missinformation:

A vast majority of climate scientists agree that global warming is happening and that it poses a serious threat to society. They also agree that it is being caused largely by human activities that release greenhouse gases, such as burning fossil fuels in power plants and cars and deforesting the land. These highlights -- and the full full report -- lay out some common myths and misunderstandings regarding climate change.
MYTH: Global warming can't be happening, since winters have been getting colder.
FACT: Winters have been getting warmer. Measurements show that Earth's climate has warmed overall over the past century, in all seasons, and in most regions. The skeptics mislead the public when they bill the winter of 2003-2004 as record cold in the northeastern United States. That winter was only the 33rd coldest in the region since records began in 1896. Furthermore, a single spell of cold weather in one small region is no indication of cooling of the global climate, which refers to a long-term average over the entire planet.

MYTH: Satellite measurements of temperature over the past two decades show a much smaller warming in the atmosphere than is measured by thermometers at the surface. This contradicts global warming predictions based on climate models.
FACT: Recent research has corrected problems that led to underestimates of the warming trend in earlier analyses of satellite data. The new results show an atmospheric warming trend slightly larger than at the surface, exactly as models predict.

MYTH: The global warming over the past century is nothing unusual. For example, the Medieval Warm Period (MWP), roughly from A.D. 1000 to 1400, was warmer than the 20th century. This indicates the global warming we are experiencing now is part of a natural cycle.
FACT: Ten independent scientific studies all have found a large 20th-century warming trend compared to temperature changes over the past millennium or two. Uncertainty exists as to exactly how warm the present is compared to the MWP. Some studies have received valid criticism for possibly underestimating the magnitude of longer-lasting, century-scale temperature changes, such as the warming during the MWP. However, other studies, using different methods, still find no evidence of any period during the last 2,000 years that was warmer than the 1990s. Most importantly, any uncertainty about whether the present is warmer than the MWP has little effect on the finding that humans likely have caused most of the warming over the past 50 years. A separate body of studies has provided the main evidence for this finding. (See the Myth on causes of warming.)

MYTH: Human activities contribute only a small fraction of carbon dioxide (CO2) emissions, far too small to have a significant effect on the concentration of the greenhouse gas in the atmosphere.
FACT: Before the Industrial Revolution, the amount of CO2 emitted from large natural sources closely matched the amount that was removed through natural processes. That balance has now been upset by human activities, which since the Industrial Revolution have put twice as much CO2 into the atmosphere as can be readily removed by the oceans and forests. This has resulted in the accumulation of CO2 to the highest levels in 420,000 years.

MYTH: The Earth's warming is caused by natural factors like increased sunlight and sunspots or decreased cosmic rays, not by greenhouse gases (GHGs).
FACT: Modeling studies indicate that most of the warming over the past several decades was probably caused by the increase in human-produced GHGs. Climate models have difficulty reproducing the observed temperature changes over the past 150 years unless they account for the increase in GHGs as well as natural factors, such as sunlight and volcanic eruptions, and changes in the amount of human-produced sulfate particles, which cool the planet. Satellite measurements of the intensity of sunlight exhibit little or no trend over the past 25 years, when there was rapid warming on Earth. The purported correlations between the amount of cosmic rays and Earth's temperature are the result of flawed analysis methods.

MYTH: The warming observed during the past century was caused by urbanization (urban heat island effect).
FACT: Urbanization does increase temperatures locally, affecting thermometer readings in certain areas. But the temperature data used in trend analyses are adjusted to remove any bias from urbanization. In any case, urbanization has an insignificant effect on global temperature trends.
Read the full report, The Latest Myths and Facts on Global Warming.

Adobe Acrobat required MYTH: Models have trouble predicting the weather a few days in advance. How can we have any confidence in model projections of the climate many years from now?
FACT: Climate prediction is different from weather prediction, just as climate is different from weather. Models are now sophisticated enough to be able to reproduce the observed global average climates over the past century as well as over other periods in the past. Thus, scientists are confident in the models' ability to produce reliable projections of future climate for large regions. Furthermore, climate assessments typically consider the results from a range of models and scenarios for future GHG emissions, in order to identify the most likely range for future climatic change.

MYTH: The science behind the theory of global warming is too uncertain to draw conclusions useful to policy makers.
FACT: The primary scientific debate is about how much and how fast, rather than whether, additional warming will occur as a result of human-produced GHG emissions. While skeptics like to emphasize the lower end of warming projections, uncertainty actually applies to both ends of the spectrum--the climate could change even more dramatically than most models predict. Finally, in matters other than climate change, policy decisions based on uncertain information are made routinely by governments to ensure against undesirable outcomes. In the case of global warming, scientists have given society an early warning on its possibly dangerous, irreversible and widespread impacts.

MYTH: Global warming and increased CO2 would be beneficial, reducing cold-related deaths and increasing plant growth ("greening the Earth").
FACT: If society does not limit further warming, the beneficial effects probably will be heavily outweighed by negative effects. Regarding cold-related deaths, studies have indicated that they might not decrease enough to compensate for a significant increase in heat-related deaths. Even though higher levels of CO2 can act as a plant fertilizer under some conditions, they do not necessarily benefit the planet, since the fertilization effect can diminish after a few years in natural ecosystems as plants acclimate. Furthermore, increased CO2 may benefit undesirable, weedy species more than others.

MYTH: Society can easily adapt to climate change; after all, human civilization has survived through climatic changes in the past.
FACT: While humans as a species have survived through past climatic changes, individual civilizations have collapsed. Unless we limit GHGs in the atmosphere, we will face a warming trend unseen since the beginning of human civilization. Many densely populated areas, such as low-lying coastal zones, are highly vulnerable to climate shifts. A middle-of-the-range projection indicates the homes of 13 to 88 million people would be flooded by the sea each year in the 2080s. Many ecosystems and species already threatened by other human activities may be pushed to the point of extinction.

MYTH: CO2 is removed from the atmosphere fairly quickly, so we can wait to take action until after we start to see dangerous impacts from global warming.
FACT: Global warming cannot be halted quickly. CO2 and other GHGs can remain in the atmosphere for many centuries. Even if emissions were eliminated today, it would take centuries for the heat-trapping GHGs now in the atmosphere to fall to pre-industrial levels. Only by starting to cut emissions now can humanity avoid the increasingly dangerous and irreversible consequences of climate change.

This was put out be the Environmental Defense Fund. That is not a left wing group, but rather it is a non-partisan organization who seeks solutions to environmental issues by working with industries and science.


The full report is here:
http://www.undoit.org/pdfs/mythsvfacts.pdf

 

[AlbqOwl]

A study promoted, funded, and distributed by Undoit.com, one of the most Left of all the leftish environmental activism special interest groups supported by some groups that are borderline or actually left wing wackos.

What else do you have?

 

[ALiberalModerate]

A study promoted, funded, and distributed by Undoit.com, one of the most Left of all the leftish environmental activism special interest groups supported by some groups that are borderline or actually left wing wackos.

What else do you have?

Undoit dot.com only had a link to the original study done be the Environmental Defense Fund which is a non-partisan environmental organization. Their report, which I linked to is fully sourced. There is nothing in the entire report that is refutable, it is simply a report of the scientific concensus. In fact, some of what is in it highlights some of the doubts in the science behind some of the global warming proponets.

Here is the link to the original report:

Moreover, I would hardly consider an organization to be some whako leftist organization when it number one objective on climate change is passage of the McCain-Lieberman Climate Stewardship Act, which would dramatically cut polluting emissions.

 

[kmhowe72]

Well I am not trying to be right. I am just saying that it is not the only answer. some Christians believes god is punishing us for sins. So you can everybody is pointing a figure at everything to explain what is going on. But the main point is we , we better hope it stops. because I don't think this country can take another series of events like in the past four weeks. What have to do is contrait on getting back to where were a month and a half ago.

 

[AlbqOwl]

Well I am not trying to be right. I am just saying that it is not the only answer. some Christians believes god is punishing us for sins. So you can everybody is pointing a figure at everything to explain what is going on. But the main point is we , we better hope it stops. because I don't think this country can take another series of events like in the past four weeks. What have to do is contrait on getting back to where were a month and a half ago.

The thing is, some here are young enough to have lived most of their lives through a relatively calm weather cycle and have not seen the savage storms that older Americans lived through. Many of you were born after Hurricane Camille that seemed like the wrath of God itself. Some of you are even too young to remember Andrew that almost obliterated the southern tip of Florida.

Probably only the news junkies have picked up on the terrible earthquakes, catastrophic volcanic eruptions, deadly tornadoes, massive flash fires, etc. that have done incredible damage to large areas and killed or displaced many thousands of people.

If the levee hadn't broken in New Orleans, and if Rita hadn't followed so closely on the heels of Katrina, Katrina would be a fading memory already other than to those directly affected. The cleanup and restoration efforts would be underway, people would be gradually getting back into their homes, and life goes on. Even now nobody is thinking about Mississippi and Alabama, both of which took terrible hits from Katrina. It's all if...if....if only, and it is all relative. As bad as it has been, it is not as bad as other events have been in our history and there will be worse events yet to come. And we'll get through them all as we have always done.

Whether or not there is in fact an unscheduled global warming--and I frankly do not know and I think nobody knows for sure--it is a virtual certainty that this year's hurricane season is just one more fluke in a long history of weather flukes that happen, and global warming had nothing to do with it.

 

[ALiberalModerate]

The thing is, some here are young enough to have lived most of their lives through a relatively calm weather cycle and have not seen the savage storms that older Americans lived through. Many of you were born after Hurricane Camille that seemed like the wrath of God itself. Some of you are even too young to remember Andrew that almost obliterated the southern tip of Florida.

Probably only the news junkies have picked up on the terrible earthquakes, catastrophic volcanic eruptions, deadly tornadoes, massive flash fires, etc. that have done incredible damage to large areas and killed or displaced many thousands of people.

If the levee hadn't broken in New Orleans, and if Rita hadn't followed so closely on the heels of Katrina, Katrina would be a fading memory already other than to those directly affected. The cleanup and restoration efforts would be underway, people would be gradually getting back into their homes, and life goes on. Even now nobody is thinking about Mississippi and Alabama, both of which took terrible hits from Katrina. It's all if...if....if only, and it is all relative. As bad as it has been, it is not as bad as other events have been in our history and there will be worse events yet to come. And we'll get through them all as we have always done.

Whether or not there is in fact an unscheduled global warming--and I frankly do not know and I think nobody knows for sure--it is a virtual certainty that this year's hurricane season is just one more fluke in a long history of weather flukes that happen, and global warming had nothing to do with it.

That we agree on.

 

[kmhowe72]

Your right. I was born in 1972. And in 1992 when Hurricane andrew was happening I was a young twenty year old who at that time didn't care about the news. But I have seen the pictures. But I bet there is nobody around that is over 105 years old. Who remembered the huricane in Galveston either. Which is to be said to be the worst hurricanne that ever happened. Now these hurricanes could have been worse. If we did not have the Technolgy we do today to warn people. Even in 1969 . Today we have more superior technolgy then both those times. We can spot storms weeks away. Even days away. we have motor Vehicals to carry us away from harm if we wish. we don't live in mud houses anymore. We have cell phones(when they work) we can get help right away. Things are different these days.

 

[C.J.]

I say that it is the scientific consensus that Global Warming is real, and that human activity has some role in it.

In what sense are you using the word "consensus"? Ever heard of the Petition Project? http://www.oism.org/pproject/s33p357.htm

Altogether, the sources I have given represent the vast majority of the scientific community.

Not hardly, they may represent the majority of the politically active of the scientific community though.

 

[Scarecrow Akhbar]

This doesn't get answered, ever, but here's a question:

The mid-Holocene Altitherma period is estimated to have been about 5 degrees warmer than today's current mean. Why is everyone concerned about today's minor global warming?

 

[ALiberalModerate]

This doesn't get answered, ever, but here's a question:

The mid-Holocene Altitherma period is estimated to have been about 5 degrees warmer than today's current mean. Why is everyone concerned about today's minor global warming?

Because the causes of past climatic cycles are well understood by science. The only way to accurately model todays warming is to introduce human activity into the models.

 

[Stinger]

Undoit dot.com only had a link to the original study done be the Environmental Defense Fund which is a non-partisan environmental organization.

:rofl..................................

 

[AlbqOwl]

:rofl..................................

Um yeah. I believe Undoit is a product of EDF if I'm not mistaken.

Don't get me wrong. I have no problem with EDF per se and whatever floats anybody's boat is fine. But EDF and their subsidiary groups have signed onto every leftwing wacko environment nonsense that comes along, and to the best of my knowledge, they have never supported any compromise efforts that allows humans to wisely utilize available resources while still protecting the envirnoment. To listen to advocates of this group, you might think they were all in favor of simply removing all human beings from the planet and thus preserve the environment. Green Peace is conservative by comparison. :smile:

As a staunch conservationist myself, I can appreciate the passion, and it may intend to be nonpartisan, but I do prefer a more balanced approach to problem solving where the environment is concerned.

 

[ALiberalModerate]

Um yeah. I believe Undoit is a product of EDF if I'm not mistaken.

Don't get me wrong. I have no problem with EDF per se and whatever floats anybody's boat is fine. But EDF and their subsidiary groups have signed onto every leftwing wacko environment nonsense that comes along, and to the best of my knowledge, they have never supported any compromise efforts that allows humans to wisely utilize available resources while still protecting the envirnoment. To listen to advocates of this group, you might think they were all in favor of simply removing all human beings from the planet and thus preserve the environment. Green Peace is conservative by comparison. :smile:

As a staunch conservationist myself, I can appreciate the passion, and it may intend to be nonpartisan, but I do prefer a more balanced approach to problem solving where the environment is concerned.

First off, Green Peace is a liberal organization. It is an organization that supports liberal to socialist ideals along with an environmentalist’s agenda.

Where you are wrong though in your entire premise is that you seem to believe that environmentalism / conservation, is a liberal ideal. Its not, it is not a liberal nor conservative ideal. For example, communist nations notoriously have horrible environmental records. In environmentalism, there are basically two different camps:

Preservationists and Conservationists.

Preservationists are those groups like the Sierra Club who place a higher priority on the preservation of natural environments in an untouched state over industry or even in some cases scientific concerns.

Conservationists are groups like the Environmental Defense Fund and the Nature Conservancy who place a higher priority on science than industry concerns or in some cases preservation.

Now, some oil, timber, and extraction industries and their supporters have an ideology that they refer to as the “Wise Use Movement”. Basically, the Wise Use Movement places industry concerns over science and preservation.

The vast majority of Americans either fall into the Preservationist camp or the Conservationists camp. I myself fall into the Conservationist camp, although as an avid backpacker, fisherman, and someone who likes to canoe, I see the preservationist value of federal wilderness areas and other preserved lands.

If the Environmental Defense Fund takes a position on an issue, they are not taking a left wing position, but rather they are taking a Conservationist position. If a politician takes an opposing position, they are not taking a right wing or conservative position, but rather, they are taking a pro-industry position. There are Democrats with horrible environmental records and there are Republicans with great environmental records. Like I say, environmentalism is not an partisan issue.

As a conservationist organization, the Environmental Defense Fund will always take a pro-conservation / science position over industry concerns. You may in some cases argue that economic concerns should trump conservationist concerns, but that does not mean that you are taking a conservative position, but rather it means that you are taking a pro-industry position. Moreover, the Environmental Defense Fund unlike some other environmental organizations tries to find solutions that work with businesses.

 

[AlbqOwl]

First off, Green Peace is a liberal organization. It is an organization that supports liberal to socialist ideals along with an environmentalist’s agenda.

Where you are wrong though in your entire premise is that you seem to believe that environmentalism / conservation, is a liberal ideal. Its not, it is not a liberal nor conservative ideal. For example, communist nations notoriously have horrible environmental records. In environmentalism, there are basically two different camps:

Preservationists and Conservationists.

Preservationists are those groups like the Sierra Club who place a higher priority on the preservation of natural environments in an untouched state over industry or even in some cases scientific concerns.

Conservationists are groups like the Environmental Defense Fund and the Nature Conservancy who place a higher priority on science than industry concerns or in some cases preservation.

Now, some oil, timber, and extraction industries and their supporters have an ideology that they refer to as the “Wise Use Movement”. Basically, the Wise Use Movement places industry concerns over science and preservation.

The vast majority of Americans either fall into the Preservationist camp or the Conservationists camp. I myself fall into the Conservationist camp, although as an avid backpacker, fisherman, and someone who likes to canoe, I see the preservationist value of federal wilderness areas and other preserved lands.

If the Environmental Defense Fund takes a position on an issue, they are not taking a left wing position, but rather they are taking a Conservationist position. If a politician takes an opposing position, they are not taking a right wing or conservative position, but rather, they are taking a pro-industry position. There are Democrats with horrible environmental records and there are Republicans with great environmental records. Like I say, environmentalism is not an partisan issue.

As a conservationist organization, the Environmental Defense Fund will always take a pro-conservation / science position over industry concerns. You may in some cases argue that economic concerns should trump conservationist concerns, but that does not mean that you are taking a conservative position, but rather it means that you are taking a pro-industry position. Moreover, the Environmental Defense Fund unlike some other environmental organizations tries to find solutions that work with businesses.

I didn't say that environmental concerns are a liberal agenda at all. I know it's hard to believe, but I am pretty darn sure that conservatives, even Bush-supporting Republicans, actually want clean air, clean water, lots of wildlife, unpolluted food sources, and the unsullied beauty of nature for themselves and their children. I am no liberal by modern definitions, but I am about as pro-environment as it gets.

The difference I most often see between 'liberal' environmentalism and 'conservative' environmentalism is that liberals usually want to exclude economic development as a solution to environmental issues while conservatives usually want to find environmentally friendly ways to achieve economic development. EDF most often sides with the liberals in this regard, and Undoit is a group imbedded within EDF that is actively trying to extricate economic development from the environment period.