Human-Induced Global Warming "Greatest Scam in History" - Page 2 - U.S. Politics Online: A Political Discussion Forum

kramer · #16 (**permalink**) 11-09-2007

Quote:

Originally Posted by stwftlt

i guess my point is that whether global warming is true or no we shouldn't be putting shit in the atmosphere

This "shit" that you refer to is also put there by nature. In fact, the vast majority of it (97% to 98%) is from nature. Humans only account for the 2 to 3 percent of it and of this minute amount, Americans are responsible for 0.5% to 0.75% of it. On top of this, CO2 is a minor greenhouse gas. Methane is 21X more potent as a warming gas than CO2 and water vapor is over 700X more potent than CO2.
The UN is also aware of these numbers and percentages. That is why the Kyoto treaty wouldn't have really reduced the total worldwide amount of CO2. In my opinion, Kyoto is more about the fixing the 5%/25% disparity of global CO2 emissions. If you have no clue as to what I'm talking about, then you need to view America as the big rich white wasp conservative with most of the rest of the world's countries as the poor minorities. Once you do this, you should recognize that just like in America liberals work to redistribute wealth and power, there are global liberals trying to do the same on a worldwide scale.

Kramer

daisym · #17 (**permalink**) 11-09-2007

Quote:

Originally Posted by kramer

This "shit" that you refer to is also put there by nature. In fact, the vast majority of it (97% to 98%) is from nature. Humans only account for the 2 to 3 percent of it and of this minute amount, Americans are responsible for 0.5% to 0.75% of it. On top of this, CO2 is a minor greenhouse gas. Methane is 21X more potent as a warming gas than CO2 and water vapor is over 700X more potent than CO2.
The UN is also aware of these numbers and percentages. That is why the Kyoto treaty wouldn't have really reduced the total worldwide amount of CO2. In my opinion, Kyoto is more about the fixing the 5%/25% disparity of global CO2 emissions. If you have no clue as to what I'm talking about, then you need to view America as the big rich white wasp conservative with most of the rest of the world's countries as the poor minorities. Once you do this, you should recognize that just like in America liberals work to redistribute wealth and power, there are global liberals trying to do the same on a worldwide scale.

Kramer

Well it would appear that the majority of those who actually study these things that that there ahs beena massive amount of this 'shit' in the atmosphere due to human activity - and that it is already impacting on the environment.

I don't know if you understand whats happening in the global economy, either.

daisym · #18 (**permalink**) 11-09-2007

re carbon credits being a scam - most likely they are.

I prefer to pay extra for green energy, for example (wind power/solar) to ensure that money is invested in research in these areas, and to rethink activities.

carbon trading in principle may sound good - but in practice .... who knows?

Wlessard · #19 (**permalink**) 11-09-2007

Daisym think about it.

I produce X-Z carbon. You Produce X+Z Carbon. X is Neutral. I sell you a piece of paper that says you can take Z away from your carbon production and now you are carbon neutral.

First of all what the hell is carbon neutral really? IS there a way to measure how much carbon you take out of the system and how much you put back in?

Carbon Credits are a scam.

daisym · #20 (**permalink**) 11-10-2007

Quote:

Originally Posted by Wlessard

Daisym think about it.

I produce X-Z carbon. You Produce X+Z Carbon. X is Neutral. I sell you a piece of paper that says you can take Z away from your carbon production and now you are carbon neutral.

First of all what the hell is carbon neutral really? IS there a way to measure how much carbon you take out of the system and how much you put back in?

Carbon Credits are a scam.

they don't have to be.

Supposing I have native forest on my property. If you pay me credits so that you can emit carbon, then I won't chop down my forest. If I'm poor, and would otherwise sell my timber, thereby losing a valuable carbon 'sink' - thats got to be a plus. you can continue to produce (good for your economy) and I benefit by having a higher standard of living.

so thats got to be good.

unfortunately though, in the real world there's no guarantee that I won't take your carbon credits, and still sell bits of my forest off to the highest bidder - and if I live in a country known for corruption and under the counter bribes to officials, its highly likely thats what will happen.

For me personally though it can work. It so happens I DO have old growth forest on my property, I have no intention of chopping it down, for timber or any other reason - so if I can get someone to pay me carbon credits for leaving trees I was going to leave in any case - I win.

I just think though there are too many holes in carbon credit schemes and there are far better things that can be done. And I'm not alone.

it seems that the majority are prepared to do something - with even green taxes being favoured by the Chinese:

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/in_depth/7075759.stm

Imperator · #21 (**permalink**) 11-10-2007

Its interesting to see how many more scientists are stepping up, saying they disagree with the overall declarations of the ipcc UN report and their takes on the global warming debate being twisted into a monster....the truth as usual, is probably somewhere in the middle...I am all for limiting in a logical thought out manner, pollutants etc. but running around with our hair on fire, doesn't do it for me.

kramer · #22 (**permalink**) 11-10-2007

Quote:

Originally Posted by daisym

Well it would appear that the majority of those who actually study these things that that there ahs beena massive amount of this 'shit' in the atmosphere due to human activity - and that it is already impacting on the environment.

How has it been "impacting on the environment?"

Quote:

Originally Posted by daisym

I don't know if you understand whats happening in the global economy, either.

Why don't you explain it to me.

Kramer

Slartibartfas · #23 (**permalink**) 11-10-2007

Quote:

Originally Posted by Meridious

The guy has more credibility than Algore.

The question is not if he is more credible than the clown Al Gore, the question is if he is more credible than the 2500 scientific expert reviewers, and the 1300 authors of the last IPCC report.

Meridious · #24 (**permalink**) 11-10-2007

Quote:

Originally Posted by Slartibartfas

The question is not if he is more credible than the clown Al Gore, the question is if he is more credible than the 2500 scientific expert reviewers, and the 1300 authors of the last IPCC report.

Actually, it was 19,000, and it turns out that only about 12% KNEW that their names were being attributed to the report.

Get it right.

A union official applied their names to the report without the knowledge of 88% of the members.

Meridious · #25 (**permalink**) 11-10-2007

If you knew what "consensus" means, you'd know that:

1. Science has nothing to do with, nor bases its findings and conclusions on a "consensus of scientists' opinions"

Read about the bogus "consensus" that keeps being pushed by the media and the Algore false-propaganda machine.

Quote:

WASHINGTON, Sept. 12 /PRNewswire-USNewswire/ -- A new analysis of peer-reviewed literature reveals that more than 500 scientists have published evidence refuting at least one element of current man-made global warming scares. More than 300 of the scientists found evidence that

1) a natural moderate 1,500-year climate cycle has produced more than a dozen global warmings similar to ours since the last Ice Age and/or that

2) our Modern Warming is linked strongly to variations in the sun's irradiance.

"This data and the list of scientists make a mockery of recent claims that a scientific consensus blames humans as the primary cause of global temperature increases since 1850," said Hudson Institute Senior Fellow Dennis Avery.

Other researchers found evidence that 3) sea levels are failing to rise importantly; 4) that our storms and droughts are becoming fewer and milder with this warming as they did during previous global warmings; 5) that human deaths will be reduced with warming because cold kills twice as many people as heat; and 6) that corals, trees, birds, mammals, and butterflies are adapting well to the routine reality of changing climate.

Despite being published in such journals such as Science, Nature and Geophysical Review Letters, these scientists have gotten little media attention. "Not all of these researchers would describe themselves as global warming skeptics," said Avery, "but the evidence in their studies is there for all to see."

The names were compiled by Avery and climate physicist S. Fred Singer, the co-authors of the new book Unstoppable Global Warming: Every 1,500 Years, mainly from the peer-reviewed studies cited in their book. The researchers' specialties include tree rings, sea levels, stalagmites, lichens, pollen, plankton, insects, public health, Chinese history and astrophysics.

"We have had a Greenhouse Theory with no evidence to support it-except a moderate warming turned into a scare by computer models whose results have never been verified with real-world events," said co-author Singer. "On the other hand, we have compelling evidence of a real-world climate cycle averaging 1470 years (plus or minus 500) running through the last million years of history. The climate cycle has above all been moderate, and the trees, bears, birds, and humans have quietly adapted."

"Two thousand years of published human histories say that the warm periods were good for people," says Avery. "It was the harsh, unstable Dark Ages and Little Ice Age that brought bigger storms, untimely frost, widespread famine and plagues of disease." "There may have been a consensus of guesses among climate model-builders," says Singer. "However, the models only reflect the warming, not its cause." He noted that about 70 percent of the earth's post-1850 warming came before 1940, and thus was probably not caused by human-emitted greenhouse gases. The net post-1940 warming totals only a tiny 0.2 degrees C.

The historic evidence of the natural cycle includes the 5000-year record of Nile floods, 1st-century Roman wine production in Britain, and thousands of museum paintings that portrayed sunnier skies during the Medieval Warming and more cloudiness during the Little Ice Age. The physical evidence comes from oxygen isotopes, beryllium ions, tiny sea and pollen fossils, and ancient tree rings. The evidence recovered from ice cores, sea and lake sediments, cave stalagmites and glaciers has been analyzed by electron microscopes, satellites, and computers. Temperatures during the Medieval Warming Period on California's Whitewing Mountain must have been 3.2 degrees warmer than today, says Constance Millar of the U.S. Forest Service, based on her study of seven species of relict trees that grew above today's tree line.

Singer emphasized, "Humans have known since the invention of the telescope that the earth's climate variations were linked to the sunspot cycle, but we had not understood how. Recent experiments have demonstrated that more or fewer cosmic rays hitting the earth create more or fewer of the low, cooling clouds that deflect solar heat back into space-amplifying small variations in the intensity of the sun.

Avery and Singer noted that there are hundreds of additional peer-reviewed studies that have found cycle evidence, and that they will publish additional researchers' names and studies. They also noted that their book was funded by Wallace O. Sellers, a Hudson board member, without any corporate contributions.

Unstoppable Global Warming: Every 1500 Years is available from Amazon.com:

Amazon.com: Unstoppable Global Warming: Every 1,500 Years: Books: Dennis T. Avery,S. Fred Singer /ref=pd_bbs_sr_1/102-6773465-0779318?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1189603742&sr=1-1

For more information, please contact Dennis Avery, Hudson Institute Senior Fellow and co-author of Unstoppable Global Warming: Every 1500 Years, at 540-337-6354: Email: cgfi@hughes.net

Hudson Institute

Quote:

Less Than Half of all Published Scientists Endorse Global Warming Theory

Comprehensive survey of published climate research reveals changing viewpoints

In 2004, history professor Naomi Oreskes performed a survey of research papers on climate change. Examining peer-reviewed papers published on the ISI Web of Science database from 1993 to 2003, she found a majority supported the "consensus view," defined as humans were having at least some effect on global climate change. Oreskes' work has been repeatedly cited, but as some of its data is now nearly 15 years old, its conclusions are becoming somewhat dated.

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. The results have been submitted to the journal Energy and Environment, of which DailyTech has obtained a pre-publication copy. The figures are surprising.

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."

The figures are even more shocking when one remembers the watered-down definition of consensus here. Not only does it not require supporting that man is the "primary" cause of warming, but it doesn't require any belief or support for "catastrophic" global warming. 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.

These changing viewpoints represent the advances in climate science over the past decade. While today we are even more certain the earth is warming, we are less certain about the root causes. More importantly, research has shown us that -- whatever the cause may be -- the amount of warming is unlikely to cause any great calamity for mankind or the planet itself.

Schulte's survey contradicts the United Nation IPCC's Fourth Assessment Report (2007), which gave a figure of "90% likely" man was having an impact on world temperatures. But does the IPCC represent a consensus view of world scientists? Despite media claims of "thousands of scientists" involved in the report, the actual text is written by a much smaller number of "lead authors." The introductory "Summary for Policymakers" -- the only portion usually quoted in the media -- is written not by scientists at all, but by politicians, and approved, word-by-word, by political representatives from member nations. By IPCC policy, the individual report chapters -- the only text actually written by scientists -- are edited to "ensure compliance" with the summary, which is typically published months before the actual report itself.

By contrast, the ISI Web of Science database covers 8,700 journals and publications, including every leading scientific journal in the world.

Quote:

Greenland Ice Find Debunks Al Gore’s Global Warming Theories
By Noel Sheppard

Just in time for worldwide concerts to draw attention to the planet’s imminent doom at the hands of anthropogenic global warming, a new find in Greenland suggests that much of the hysteria in Al Gore’s schlockumentary “An Inconvenient Truth” has absolutely no basis in scientific fact.

Even though this study will likely get little to no attention from a media in full fawn mode over Gore and his Live Earth concerts, the findings throw a huge monkey wrench into alarmist warnings of climate-related devastation to the planet and species offered as reasons for developed nations to radically change behavior.

As marvelously reported by the Boston Globe Friday (h/t Benny Peiser, emphasis added throughout):
-------------

An international team of scientists, drilling deep into the ice layers of Greenland, has found DNA from ancient spiders and trees, evidence that suggests the frozen shield covering the immense island survived the earth's last period of global warming.

The findings, published today in the journal Science, indicate Greenland's ice may be less susceptible to the massive meltdown predicted by computer models of climate change, the article's main author said in an interview.

"If our data is correct, and I believe it is, then this means the southern Greenland ice cap is more stable than previously thought," said Eske Willerslev, research leader and professor of evolutionary biology at the University of Copenhagen. "This may have implications for how the ice sheets respond to global warming. They may withstand rising temperatures."

---------------

How can that be? After all, soon-to-be-Dr. Al Gore – who has had absolutely no training in the relevant areas of science despite the media belief that he is indeed the foremost expert on the subject – says Greenland is going to thaw in the near future with devastating repercussions. Surely he can’t be wrong:

A painstaking analysis of surviving genetic fragments locked in the ice of southern Greenland shows that somewhere between 450,000 and 800,000 years ago, the world's largest island had a climate much like that of Northern New England, the researchers said. Butterflies fluttered over lush meadows interspersed with stands of pine, spruce, and alder.

Greenland really was green, before Ice Age glaciers enshrouded vast swaths of the Northern Hemisphere.

Wait. Isn’t the debate over and the science settled on this issue? It appears not:

More controversially -- and as an example of how research in one realm of science can unexpectedly affect assumptions in another -- the discovery of microscopic bits of organic matter retrieved from ice 1.2 miles beneath the surface indicates that the ice fields of southern Greenland may be more resilient to rising global temperatures than has been forecast. The DNA could have been preserved only if the ice layers remained largely intact.

A scenario often raised by global warming specialists is that Greenland's ice trove will turn liquid in the rising temperatures of coming decades, with hundreds of trillions of gallons of water spilling into the Atlantic. This could cause ocean levels worldwide to rise anywhere from 3 to 20 feet, according to computer projections -- bad news for seaport cities like Boston.

But the discovery of organic matter in ice dating from half-a-million years ago offers evidence that the Greenland ice shield remained frozen even during the earth's last "interglacial period" -- some 120,000 years ago -- when average temperatures were 9 degrees Fahrenheit warmer than they are now. That's slightly higher than the average temperatures foreseen by most scientists for the end of this century, although some environmentalists warn it might get even hotter.

Incredible. And, as many scientists have been claiming regardless of such falling on deaf press ears, this indicates just how nonsensical and worthless climate models proclaiming imminent planetary doom are:

Researchers from the Danish-led team said the unanticipated findings appear to fly in the face of prevailing scientific views about the likely fate of Greenland's thickly-layered ice, although Willerslev stressed that the findings do not contradict the basic premise that the earth's temperature is rising to worrisome levels, with gases emitted by industry, cars, and other human activity playing a big role.

"But it suggests a problem with the [computer] models" that predict melting ice from Greenland could drown cities and destroy civilizations, according to Willerslev.

Think this will be headline news during Live Earth weekend?

No. Neither do I. Regardless, it certainly makes watching the concerts more comical!

daisym · #26 (**permalink**) 11-11-2007

Quote:

Originally Posted by kramer

How has it been "impacting on the environment?"

Why don't you explain it to me.

Kramer

If you don't know by now, there's no way anything I point you to will be comprehensible to you.

MattLarson · #27 (**permalink**) 11-11-2007

Quote:

Originally Posted by Wlessard

Daisym think about it.

I produce X-Z carbon. You Produce X+Z Carbon. X is Neutral. I sell you a piece of paper that says you can take Z away from your carbon production and now you are carbon neutral.

First of all what the hell is carbon neutral really? IS there a way to measure how much carbon you take out of the system and how much you put back in?

Carbon Credits are a scam.

Not only are they a scam, but they are inherently selfish.

If you distill it down, the whole "carbon credit" deal amounts to paying poor people to stay poor so you can continue your present lifestyle.

Matt

pramjockey · #28 (**permalink**) 11-11-2007

Quote:

Originally Posted by iamwhatiseem

The earth is warming, that is an indisputable fact....what is causing it is the question of course.
Going along with the good dr. - I certainly buy that human activity could be exacerbating an already existing climate change. Now, what iscritical is this activity only slightly speeding the warming age up without increasing severity, or is it affecting the severity and we could see some level of possible calamity.

I would rather operate on the safe side myself. Humanity has a nasty habit of ignoring problems until they become catastrophes. Plus the benefit of seeking alternative fuels etc. has it's own benefits that make it more than worthwhile irregardless if global warming is human affected or not.

Damn. How did I miss this post?

Well said!

Kijana · #29 (**permalink**) 11-11-2007

The following video was made by a colleague of mine (it's goofy, but good). I think he presents a pretty good reason for acting on this issue, because he frames it as a risk management problem (which is how I think people should look at it). See what you think:

YouTube - How It All Ends

Slartibartfas · #30 (**permalink**) 11-11-2007

Quote:

Originally Posted by Meridious

Actually, it was 19,000, and it turns out that only about 12% KNEW that their names were being attributed to the report.

Get it right.

A union official applied their names to the report without the knowledge of 88% of the members.

I am not talking about 19.000 any who, I am talking about 450 lead authors 850 contributory authors and 2500 reviewers.

If thats not correct, please correct it at Wikipedia with an appropriate source.