Warning: Earth Needs More CO2

[Sinatra]

It further confirms that the effect of continued increases will NOT cause much more rise in temperature. And it further supports the claim that Man is not the main culprit at all.

No, Happer confirms what other scientists have been saying, that CO2 has caused the earth to heat up one degree in the last century. What is remarkable is that the effects of this rise in temperature was greater than even the most pessimistic scientist had predicted. Happer's article came out in 2002, five years before the astonishing melt down of the North Pole in 2007.
Why was the effect so much greater than predicted?

Because of the positive feedback effects of melting of the polar ice cap.

There is no "astonishing meltdown".

Poll and Polar Ice Trends « Watts Up With That?

,,,

 

[elvis]

Happer basically confirms everything that other scientists have said.

That the increase in CO2 has caused the earth to warm about one degree in temperature.

It further confirms that the effect of continued increases will NOT cause much more rise in temperature. And it further supports the claim that Man is not the main culprit at all.

No, Happer confirms what other scientists have been saying, that CO2 has caused the earth to heat up one degree in the last century. What is remarkable is that the effects of this rise in temperature was greater than even the most pessimistic scientist had predicted. Happer's article came out in 2002, five years before the astonishing melt down of the North Pole in 2007.

Why was the effect so much greater than predicted?

Because of the positive feedback effects of melting of the polar ice cap.

yeah d d d d definitely the polar ice cap. fucking feeble-minded moron.

 

[Midnight Marauder]

But what about the frightening consequences of increasing levels of CO2 that we
keep hearing about? In a word, they are wildly exaggerated, just as the purported
benefits of prohibition were wildly exaggerated.

He makes a very good analogy between prohibition and this "Climate Change" science fiction hysteria. Organized crime found its birthplace there, to this day we have never completely recovered from that panic boondoggle. We're making the exact same mistake now, except the convenient "devil" this time is CO2 -- which also happens to be essential for all life on this planet.

 

[elvis]

But what about the frightening consequences of increasing levels of CO2 that we
keep hearing about? In a word, they are wildly exaggerated, just as the purported
benefits of prohibition were wildly exaggerated.

He makes a very good analogy between prohibition and this "Climate Change" science fiction hysteria. Organized crime found its birthplace there, to this day we have never completely recovered from that panic boondoggle. We're making the exact same mistake now, except the convenient "devil" this time is CO2 -- which also happens to be essential for all life on this planet.

Al Gore can be the modern-day Al capone.

 

[HUGGY]

Yes, the George C. Marshall Institute is funded by big oil.
George C. Marshall Institute - SourceWatch
The George C. Marshall Institute (GMI) is a 501(c)(3) non-profit organization founded in 1984. The think tank's mission is to "encourage the use of sound science in making public policy about important issues for which science and technology are major considerations." The "program emphasizes issues in national security and the environment."[1]
According to the Center for Science in the Public Interest: "The Marshall Institute investigates facts concerning global climate change. The Institute also studies the implications of the Kyoto Protocol upon national security. The Institute is partially supported by the Exxon Education Foundation and American Standard Companies."[2]

Contents [hide]
1 Personnel
1.1 Board of Directors
1.1.1 Former Board members
1.2 Staff
2 Funding
2.1 Petro-Dollars
3 SEPP
4 Contact information
5 Articles and Resources
5.1 Sources
5.2 Related SourceWatch Articles
5.3 External Articles

[edit]Personnel
[edit]Board of Directors
William Happer, Chairman of the Board of Directors; also Eugene Higgens Professor of Physics, Princeton University
Frederick Seitz, Chairman Emeritus (GMI); President Emeritus of Rockefeller University
William O'Keefe, CEO (GMI); President, Solutions Consulting, Inc.
Gregory Canavan, Scientific Advisor, Physics Division, Los Alamos National Laboratory
Thomas L. Clancy, Jr., Author
John H. Moore, President, Grove City College
Rodney W. Nichols, Consultant on Science and Technology Policy
Robert Sproull, Emeritus Professor of Physics, University of Rochester

Let's dispense with the big lie that "Big Oil" makes people lie and wants to ruin the planet.

Bulletin: it's BIG GREEN.

Not so? If Big Oil was as powerfull as Big Green why haven't we been drilling in ANWR?

Who has the power to control Congress, and prevent the US from optimizing its energy production? BIG GREEN.

From Dalrymple, in the City Journal:

"The most popular and widest-ranging ideology in the West today is environmentalism, replacing not only Marxism but all the ideologies that intellectuals espoused in the 1920s. Most started life as legitimate complaints, but as political reforms dealt with reasonable demands, the demands transformed themselves into ideologies, thus illustrating a fact of human psychology: rage is not always proportionate to its occasion but can be a powerful reward in itself. Feminists continued to see every human problem as a manifestation of patriarchy, civil rights activists as a manifestation of racism, homosexual-rights activists as a manifestation of homophobia, anti-globalists as a manifestation of globalization, and radical libertarians as a manifestation of state regulation.
But it isn’t difficult to spot in environmentalists’ work something more than mere concern with a practical problem. Their writings often show themselves akin to the calls to repentance of seventeenth-century divines in the face of plague epidemics, but with the patina of rationality that every ideology needs to disguise its true source in existential angst."

Wise up.

What do they put in your water to make you so stupid and dishonest? Normaly I give more respect to women but your words are ignorant lies.
The Oil companies have contributed HOW much to influence congress against science over the last twenty years?
BILLIONS!!!!!
The Greeners have contributed HOW much to support science?
Less than a few million.
At least a thousand to one ration you ignorant twat.
You are a lying dueshbag. And a pretty crappy citizen of the planet.

 

[Midnight Marauder]

What do they put in your water to make you so stupid and dishonest? Normaly I give more respect to women but your words are ignorant lies.
The Oil companies have contributed HOW much to influence congress against science over the last twenty years?
BILLIONS!!!!!
The Greeners have contributed HOW much to support science?
Less than a few million.
At least a thousand to one ration you ignorant twat.
You are a lying dueshbag. And a pretty crappy citizen of the planet.

I suppose you have a credible source for these assertions, that you would be more than happy to post a link to here, for the readers' perusal?

Because it sounds like regurgitated spoonfed environazi bullshit.

 

[belboz]

Someone must own some oil stock....

 

[Midnight Marauder]

Someone must own some oil stock....

Did you take five minutes to read the statement of the Princeton University physics professor?

 

[Chris]

Someone must own some oil stock....

Did you take five minutes to read the statement of the Princeton University physics professor?

Yes, we did.

He agreed with the rest of the scientists that CO2 has increased the earth's temperature by one degree in the last hundred years.

The problem is the effect of the CO2 increase is cumulative and constantly increasing. Combine that with the feedback effects of melting poles, and the effect will become more powerful in the future.

 

[Zoom-boing]

But what about the frightening consequences of increasing levels of CO2 that we
keep hearing about? In a word, they are wildly exaggerated, just as the purported
benefits of prohibition were wildly exaggerated.

He makes a very good analogy between prohibition and this "Climate Change" science fiction hysteria. Organized crime found its birthplace there, to this day we have never completely recovered from that panic boondoggle. We're making the exact same mistake now, except the convenient "devil" this time is CO2 -- which also happens to be essential for all life on this planet.

If I'm reading your post correctly MM, you're saying that alcohol is essential for all life on this planet?

 

[Sinatra]

No, Happer confirms what other scientists have been saying, that CO2 has caused the earth to heat up one degree in the last century. What is remarkable is that the effects of this rise in temperature was greater than even the most pessimistic scientist had predicted. Happer's article came out in 2002, five years before the astonishing melt down of the North Pole in 2007.
Why was the effect so much greater than predicted?

Because of the positive feedback effects of melting of the polar ice cap.

There is no "astonishing meltdown".

Poll and Polar Ice Trends « Watts Up With That?[/QUOT


,,,

,,,

 

[jillian]

Obviously a paid stooge for some big oil company.

well, actually....

Eugene Higgens Professor of Physics, Princeton University
Member, George Marshall Institute Board of Directors

Dr. Happer previously served as Director of Energy Research in the Department of Energy

ExxonSecrets Factsheet: William Happer

In 1989, the Marshall Institute released a report arguing that "cyclical variations in the intensity of the sun would offset any climate change associated with elevated greenhouse gases." Although it was refuted by the IPCC, the report was used by the Bush Sr. Administration to argue for a more lenient climate change policy. GMI has since published numerous reports and articles attacking the Kyoto protocol and undermining the climate science. GMI is a former member of the Cooler Heads Coalition.

ExxonSecrets Factsheet: George C. Marshall Institute

oh...and he's a professor of physics, NOT a meteorologist.

 

[PoliticalChic]

What do they put in your water to make you so stupid and dishonest? Normaly I give more respect to women but your words are ignorant lies.
The Oil companies have contributed HOW much to influence congress against science over the last twenty years?
BILLIONS!!!!!
The Greeners have contributed HOW much to support science?
Less than a few million.
At least a thousand to one ration you ignorant twat.
You are a lying dueshbag. And a pretty crappy citizen of the planet.

I need a quick description: are you a lemming or a shill?

Have your attendant read this to you:
"Take funding for global warming research, for example. Over the past decade, research intended to prove the veracity of man-made global warming has been funded to the tune of $50 billion, while global warming skeptic research has received a comparatively measly $19 million. That’s over 260,000 percent more funding for the alarmists!"
A Really Inconvenient Truth | theTrumpet.com

You probably miss the humor, but to see the term "science" in a post by someone with the spelling ability that you have certainly makes for a giggle.

Now, focus: why haven't we drilled in ANWR, or off shore , or in the southwest, or built nuclear plants, and treated energy policy as other nations have, as a case for national security, if BIG GREEN, and sock puppets like you, weren't more powerful than Big Oil?

Stumped? Go for your most consistent response: "DUHHHH."

 

[Chris]

What do they put in your water to make you so stupid and dishonest? Normaly I give more respect to women but your words are ignorant lies.
The Oil companies have contributed HOW much to influence congress against science over the last twenty years?
BILLIONS!!!!!
The Greeners have contributed HOW much to support science?
Less than a few million.
At least a thousand to one ration you ignorant twat.
You are a lying dueshbag. And a pretty crappy citizen of the planet.

I need a quick description: are you a lemming or a shill?

Have your attendant read this to you:
"Take funding for global warming research, for example. Over the past decade, research intended to prove the veracity of man-made global warming has been funded to the tune of $50 billion, while global warming skeptic research has received a comparatively measly $19 million. That’s over 260,000 percent more funding for the alarmists!"
A Really Inconvenient Truth | theTrumpet.com

You probably miss the humor, but to see the term "science" in a post by someone with the spelling ability that you have certainly makes for a giggle.

Now, focus: why haven't we drilled in ANWR, or off shore , or in the southwest, or built nuclear plants, and treated energy policy as other nations have, as a case for national security, if BIG GREEN, and sock puppets like you, weren't more powerful than Big Oil?

Stumped? Go for your most consistent response: "DUHHHH."

Speaking of shills for Big Oil.....

 

[Sinatra]

Read the Dyson article please - his is the most profound and sensible voice of reason - and in the scientific community, he speaks from a mountain far higher, broader, and more significant than the the pretenders such as Hansen and Gore - a man who shared his formative years of academia just as Einstein was winding down his own. And as Dyson's own career winds down, he finds himself elevated to the very scientific heights where those few figures such as Einstein now reside.

Dyson is a life-long liberal, a political supporter of Obama, a constant critic of the Bush policies, and an adamant opponent to nuclear weapon proliferation. He is also a harsh critic of the global warming hysteria, and likens Al Gore to its "chief propogandist" and Hansen and his Goddard Institute as the real "inconvenient truth". Dyson charges Hansen with consistently exaggerating the the dangers of climate change. Among his harshest deflections of global warming is its overt dependance upon easily manipulated climate data models - describing the entire premise as "lousy science", and feeling it is distracting the world from far more pressing concerns.

Dyson understands that while carbon emissions are in fact rising, the earth remains in a "relatively cool period" - and that any warming experienced is not in fact global, but rather local. (a view also supported by the great French climate scientist Leroux) Dyson goes on to view potential rising carbon as a good thing - that it very well could improve the overall climate. He points to the earth's own historical record when climate levels were far higher than present.

Dyson also comments on how the global warming industry will aggressively work to discredit any scientist who questions the very lack of credible science behind the global warming junta. "According to the global warming people...I'm paid by the oil industry. Of course I'm not, but that's part of their rhetoric. If you doubt it, you're a bad person, a tool of the oil or coal industry...it has become the party line." (emphasis added)

http://www.nytimes.com/2009/03/29/magazine/29Dyson-t.html?_r=1

 

[PoliticalChic]

I need a quick description: are you a lemming or a shill?

Have your attendant read this to you:
"Take funding for global warming research, for example. Over the past decade, research intended to prove the veracity of man-made global warming has been funded to the tune of $50 billion, while global warming skeptic research has received a comparatively measly $19 million. That’s over 260,000 percent more funding for the alarmists!"
A Really Inconvenient Truth | theTrumpet.com

You probably miss the humor, but to see the term "science" in a post by someone with the spelling ability that you have certainly makes for a giggle.

Now, focus: why haven't we drilled in ANWR, or off shore , or in the southwest, or built nuclear plants, and treated energy policy as other nations have, as a case for national security, if BIG GREEN, and sock puppets like you, weren't more powerful than Big Oil?

Stumped? Go for your most consistent response: "DUHHHH."

Speaking of shills for Big Oil.....

I'm sure that in some circles that response is considered clever, but I notice that you haven't tried to respond to my question.

 

[Chris]

Sinatra, I appreciate your civil posts without the silly name calling of some people here.

From the article you posted...

"That is the position of a more moderate expert on climate change, William Chameides, dean of the Nicholas School of the Environment and Earth Sciences at Duke University, who says, “I don’t think it’s time to panic,” but contends that, because of global warming, “more sea-level rise is inevitable and will displace millions; melting high-altitude glaciers will threaten the food supplies for perhaps a billion or more; and ocean acidification could undermine the food supply of another billion or so.” Dyson strongly disagrees with each of these points..."

Here's the problem with these points.....

A very small increase in the sea level will displace millions.

Many of the glaciers referred to above have already melted.

And the influence of CO2 on the climate grows greater each and every day.

Now against that we have the "possiblilty" of a coming ice age. But the effect of CO2 is here now and is already happening. So we have to weight the threat of CO2 caused global warming against the possibilty of a coming ice age. Which seems like the more immediate threat? I would have to say global warming.

 

[PoliticalChic]

Rise of sea levels is ‘the greatest lie ever told’ « UD/RK Samhälls Debatt
Despite fluctuations down as well as up, “the sea is not rising,” he says. “It hasn’t risen in 50 years.” If there is any rise this century it will “not be more than 10cm (four inches), with an uncertainty of plus or minus 10cm”. And quite apart from examining the hard evidence, he says, the elementary laws of physics (latent heat needed to melt ice) tell us that the apocalypse conjured up by Al Gore and Co could not possibly come about.
The reason why Dr Mörner, formerly a Stockholm professor, is so certain that these claims about sea level rise are 100 per cent wrong is that they are all based on computer model predictions, whereas his findings are based on “going into the field to observe what is actually happening in the real world”.

 

[PoliticalChic]

Sinatra, I appreciate your civil posts without the silly name calling of some people here.

I'm feeling ya', buddy.

Don't be afraid to name that guy Huggy! Go ahead, call him out!

I got your back, and I'll hold your coat.

 

[Sinatra]

Sinatra, I appreciate your civil posts without the silly name calling of some people here.

From the article you posted...

"That is the position of a more moderate expert on climate change, William Chameides, dean of the Nicholas School of the Environment and Earth Sciences at Duke University, who says, “I don’t think it’s time to panic,” but contends that, because of global warming, “more sea-level rise is inevitable and will displace millions; melting high-altitude glaciers will threaten the food supplies for perhaps a billion or more; and ocean acidification could undermine the food supply of another billion or so.” Dyson strongly disagrees with each of these points..."

Here's the problem with these points.....

A very small increase in the sea level will displace millions.

Many of the glaciers referred to above have already melted.

And the influence of CO2 on the climate grows greater each and every day.

Now against that we have the "possiblilty" of a coming ice age. But the effect of CO2 is here now and is already happening. So we have to weight the threat of CO2 caused global warming against the possibilty of a coming ice age. Which seems like the more immediate threat? I would have to say global warming.

Dyson refuted all of those points - as well as indicating current CO2 levels are historically low, and that higher Co2 could be of great benefit to the overall climate.

He maintains, and I agree - there are far more pressing concerns for humanity than the speculative outlook regarding global warming.