Liberal fantasies & the new global warming report

[ScreamingEagle]

Heh. Rush joke: What do global warming, synthetic fuel, embryonic stem cells, and Hillary for President all have in common?

answer: they are all liberal fantasies.

Re the ongoing (never-ending) and recent global warming hoopla:

No Sign Bush to Vary Greenhouse Gas Tack

By SETH BORENSTEIN
The Associated Press
Thursday, February 1, 2007; 1:40 PM

PARIS -- It was a U.S. government scientist who helped push through the strong language in the upcoming international report on global warming. But that doesn't signal a change in President Bush's policy about greenhouse gas emissions.

The climate change report coming out Friday _ an agreement by officials from 113 governments, including the United States _ is very different from the 1997 Kyoto Protocol that Bush has long opposed.

"I think it's hard to take the U.S. action on this as a signal of them changing policy," said John Reilly, associate director of research at the MIT Joint Program on the Science and Policy of Global Change.

The report by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change is a science document describing what scientists say is now happening and forecasting what will happen. The report recommends no actions to slow global warming.

The 10-year-old Kyoto Protocol, which called for cuts in greenhouse gas emissions, is about reducing fossil fuel use to fight global warming. (The Clinton administration agreed to it, but didn't push for U.S. Senate ratification after clear signals it would be rejected.)

Delegates who have seen the new science report coming out Friday say it will declare that global warming is "very likely" man-made. The wording was largely the result of the leadership of U.S. government scientist Susan Solomon, who heads the panel's working group, several delegates said Thursday.

But Reilly notes that "saying that climate change is almost certainly occurring and it's almost certainly due to human activity is different than saying the impact of climate change is so bad that we need to do something right away."

Reilly, who represented the U.S. Department of Agriculture at IPCC negotiations in 1990 and 1995, said scientists such as Solomon are rarely told what to do by governments, including this administration. It's different for government officials.

However, other nations' delegates noticed a slight change in the official U.S. government delegation to the climate panel between 2001 and now. One non-U.S. delegate, who asked not to be named so as to not cause a diplomatic stir, said this time "the U.S. is very much more constructive."

John Marburger, President Bush's science adviser (whose deputy heads the U.S. delegation in the Paris talks), said the president and his administration have long recognized that global warming is man-made and real.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/02/01/AR2007020100976.html

 

[Bern80]

I know the global warming debate is pretty much split into believers on the left and non-believers on the right. But as a person on the right I have to say I'm a believer. Is the Earth getting warmer. Yes. Naked Science on the National Geographic channel as well as other programs have made for pretty convinceing arguments in my opinion.

The real question at this point is, is it really a bad thing? The program focused on the melting of glaciers and ice in the arctic regions. If all of that ice melts, sea level will rise and there would be significant coastal flooding. I don't think the above is an opinion, it's just what would happen. On the upside we would have longer growing seasons at least.

The other question is what reason is there to make this stuff up? Get rid of fossil fuel use which proportadly puts CO2 into the air which creates a greenhouse effect? Well then logically if it is made up then CO2 is not a problem and thus there is no reason to clean it up. Doesn't make much sense.

 

[Darwins Friend]

Do drowning polar bears believe in Global Warming?

 

[ScreamingEagle]

I know the global warming debate is pretty much split into believers on the left and non-believers on the right. But as a person on the right I have to say I'm a believer. Is the Earth getting warmer. Yes. Naked Science on the National Geographic channel as well as other programs have made for pretty convinceing arguments in my opinion.

The real question at this point is, is it really a bad thing? The program focused on the melting of glaciers and ice in the arctic regions. If all of that ice melts, sea level will rise and there would be significant coastal flooding. I don't think the above is an opinion, it's just what would happen. On the upside we would have longer growing seasons at least.

The other question is what reason is there to make this stuff up? Get rid of fossil fuel use which proportadly puts CO2 into the air which creates a greenhouse effect? Well then logically if it is made up then CO2 is not a problem and thus there is no reason to clean it up. Doesn't make much sense.

The whole thing makes sense but only if you really understand liberals.

First you need to ask yourself how did the Ice Ages end? What made the vast sheets of ice melt? By natural global warming, of course. There weren't any cars back in those days. CO2 (and other gases) and the greenhouse effect were caused naturally. Man and his cars and his factories were not even in existence but the earth still had global warming. The Ice Ages came and went several times. The sea levels have been much higher than today. Ice has covered the earth and ice has melted and receded. We've had global warming (and global freezing) many times in our earth's history. Perhaps we are going through another warming phase now.

Why can't liberals accept that global warming today may also be a natural phenomenon, just as before? Seems highly likely. Instead, liberals will tell you that man-made emissions are causing global warming. They blame it all on the evils of civilization (for which they have the answers, of course). The more honest ones will say that mankind is causing extra warming. Can they tell you how much extra warming, if any? No. Scientists are in total disagreement on the subject. That in itself tells you that there is no definitive proof.

Another key question to ask is how much will it cost us if we follow the Kyoto accords like the liberals want? Why is it liberals wish to hamper the advancement of western civilization? How much will mankind suffer as a result of closing down factories, stop using our cars, turning away from modernization? Al Gore (the high priest of environmental hysteria) and other leftists of the world seem to be just fine with bringing modernization and progress to a screeching halt or at least to the point of suppressing it. How many new rules and regulations and strangleholds on us will be instigated as a result of this? Of course, the Chinese (who produce probably the greatest emissions) are not amenable to following the Kyoto accords, yet the liberals don't seem to have a problem with that. Wonder why not?

This whole hysterical issue of "global warming" is nothing more than a racket and a political trojan horse. If you understand liberals you will realize that anything they do or support (from abortion to homosexuality to higher taxes to protesting nuclear power plants to man-made global warming) is to destroy our advanced civilization and free democratic country and to replace it with their version of socialism/communism.

 

[CTRLALTDEL]

Global Warming is a fact. The main argument basically is, WHO/WHAT IS CAUSING IT.

 

[Bern80]

I'll clarify my position a little and basically it agrees with the above. Is the Earth getting warmer? No doubt about it. Is it bad? Hard to say. The worst I can see is that it's gonna be a major inconvenience for people on the coast in that they'll be under water. How much of it is us? Like you say reports very. I would like to know what percentage of CO2 from all sources is actually man made.

 

[Hamiltonian]

First you need to ask yourself how did the Ice Ages end? What made the vast sheets of ice melt? By natural global warming, of course. There weren't any cars back in those days. CO2 (and other gases) and the greenhouse effect were caused naturally. Man and his cars and his factories were not even in existence but the earth still had global warming. The Ice Ages came and went several times. The sea levels have been much higher than today. Ice has covered the earth and ice has melted and receded. We've had global warming (and global freezing) many times in our earth's history. Perhaps we are going through another warming phase now.


Why can't liberals accept that global warming today may also be a natural phenomenon, just as before? Seems highly likely. Instead, liberals will tell you that man-made emissions are causing global warming. They blame it all on the evils of civilization (for which they have the answers, of course). The more honest ones will say that mankind is causing extra warming. Can they tell you how much extra warming, if any? No. Scientists are in total disagreement on the subject. That in itself tells you that there is no definitive proof.

Global warming and cooling is a natural process. It follows a sinusoidal curve in fact. CO2 emissions also follow a sinusoidal curve, as do man aspects of the planet. The problem is that we're going quite a bit outside the normal curve due to activities caused by man.

Another key question to ask is how much will it cost us if we follow the Kyoto accords like the liberals want? Why is it liberals wish to hamper the advancement of western civilization? How much will mankind suffer as a result of closing down factories, stop using our cars, turning away from modernization? Al Gore (the high priest of environmental hysteria) and other leftists of the world seem to be just fine with bringing modernization and progress to a screeching halt or at least to the point of suppressing it. How many new rules and regulations and strangleholds on us will be instigated as a result of this? Of course, the Chinese (who produce probably the greatest emissions) are not amenable to following the Kyoto accords, yet the liberals don't seem to have a problem with that. Wonder why not?

Release emissions credits, where firms are only allowed to release a certain amount of pollution dependent on how many credits they own. Allow the firms to sell the credits between each other, so that the companies that develop new technologies will profit more since they don't have the added cost of the credits. Fossil fuels are the past, not modernization. Finding new sources of fuel and energy is the future, not the past.

This whole hysterical issue of "global warming" is nothing more than a racket and a political trojan horse. If you understand liberals you will realize that anything they do or support (from abortion to homosexuality to higher taxes to protesting nuclear power plants to man-made global warming) is to destroy our advanced civilization and free democratic country and to replace it with their version of socialism/communism.

Did you infiltrate one of their secret meetings to find this out?

 

[Bullypulpit]

Global warming and cooling is a natural process. It follows a sinusoidal curve in fact. CO2 emissions also follow a sinusoidal curve, as do man aspects of the planet. The problem is that we're going quite a bit outside the normal curve due to activities caused by man.




Release emissions credits, where firms are only allowed to release a certain amount of pollution dependent on how many credits they own. Allow the firms to sell the credits between each other, so that the companies that develop new technologies will profit more since they don't have the added cost of the credits. Fossil fuels are the past, not modernization. Finding new sources of fuel and energy is the future, not the past.



Did you infiltrate one of their secret meetings to find this out?

You can throw facts at this boob (<i>ScreamingEagle</i>) all day, and he will still deny it. There are nearly 1,000 peer-reviewed papers attesting to the influence of human activity and the emission of greenhouse gases on global warming. The UN report is but the latest and most comprehensive of those reports. And golly, Exxon/Mobil is offering a $10,000 bounty to any scientist willing to undermine the UN report.

The Bush administration stands not only accused of, but testimony has been provided before Congress that it did order the works of government scientists redacted and/or edited to minimize the threat of global warming and human influence upon that process. Even in the face of this latest report they still express a desire to stall rather than act. But that's sadly typical of the Bush administration in every area of policy they touch on, not just environmental policy.

 

[red states rule]

Global cooling
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
This article is about the climatological theory of global cooling. For the obsolete geophysical theory about the formation of natural features, see Geophysical Global cooling.
Global cooling in general can refer to a cooling of the Earth; more specifically, it is a theory positing an overall cooling of the Earth's surface and atmosphere along with a posited commencement of glaciation. This theory gained temporary popular attention due to press reporting following a better understanding of ice age cycles and a temporary downward trend of temperatures from the 1940s to the early 1970s. At present, the dominant theory amongst scientists is that Earth as a whole is not cooling, but rather is in a period of global warming attributed to human activity.[1]

Introduction: general awareness and concern
In the 1970s, there was increasing awareness that estimates of global temperatures showed cooling since 1945. The general public had little awareness about carbon dioxide's effects: at the time garbage, chemical disposal, smog, particulate pollution, and acid rain were the focus of public concern, although Paul R. Ehrlich mentions climate change from the greenhouse gases in 1968.[2] Not long after the idea of global cooling reached the public press in the mid-1970s, the temperature trend stopped going down. Even by the early 1970s, there was concern in the climatological community about carbon dioxide's effects,[3] and it was known that both natural and man-made effects caused variations in global climate.

Environmental messages included smog levels, reports of smoke sources and effects, public service messages against littering and poison disposal, and reports of trees damaged by acid rain. Many people had backyard trash burning barrels, and concerns began about the amount of smoke from burning leaves in the fall. Many places instituted burning restrictions in the late 1960s.[4][5]

Currently, there are some concerns about the possible cooling effects of a slowdown or shutdown of the thermohaline circulation, which might be provoked by an increase of fresh water mixing into the North Atlantic due to glacial melting. The probability of this occurring is generally considered to be low, and the IPCC notes, "However, even in models where the THC weakens, there is still a warming over Europe. For example, in all AOGCM integrations where the radiative forcing is increasing, the sign of the temperature change over north-west Europe is positive."[6] However, the idea intrigues the public mind and is often over-hyped; it formed the basis of the scientifically inaccurate film The Day After Tomorrow.


[edit] Physical mechanisms
The cooling period is well reproduced by current (1999 on) Global Climate Models (GCMs) that include the effect of sulphate aerosol cooling, so it (now) seems likely that this was the dominant cause. However, at the time there were two physical mechanisms that were most frequently advanced to cause cooling: aerosols and orbital forcing.


[edit] Aerosols
Human activity &#8212; mostly as a by-product of fossil fuel combustion, partly by land-use changes &#8212; increases the number of tiny particles (aerosols) in the atmosphere. These have a direct effect: they effectively increase the planetary albedo, thus cooling the planet by reducing the sunshine reaching the surface; and an indirect effect: they can affect the properties of clouds by acting as cloud condensation nuclei. In the early 1970s some speculated that this cooling effect might dominate over the warming effect of the CO2 release: see discussion of Rasool and Schneider (1971), below. As a result of observations (aerosol concentrations may have increased, but not enormously) and a switch to cleaner fuel burning, this no longer seems likely; the overwhelming bulk of current scientific work concentrates on the forcing, prediction and understanding of possible global warming. Although the temperature drops foreseen by this mechanism have now been discarded in light of better theory and the observed warming, aerosols are believed to have contributed a cooling tendency (outweighted by increases in greenhouse gases) and also have contributed to "Global Dimming".


[edit] Orbital forcing
The other mechanism was orbital forcing (Milankovitch cycles): slow changes in the tilt of the planets axis and shape of the orbit change the total amount of sunlight reaching the earth by a small amount and the seasonality of the sunshine by rather more. This mechanism is believed to be responsible for the timing of the ice age cycles, and understanding of it happened to be increasing rapidly in the mid-1970s.

The idea that ice ages cycles were predictable appears to have become conflated with the idea that another one was due "soon" - perhaps because much of this study was done by geologists, who use "soon" to refer to periods of centuries to tens of millennia or more. A strict application of the Milankovitch theory does not allow the prediction of a "rapid" ice age (rapid being anything under a century or two) since the fastest orbital period is about 20,000 years. Some creative ways around this were found, notably Nigel Calder's "snowblitz" theory, but these ideas did not gain wide acceptance.


CO2, temperature, and dust concentration measured from Vostok ice core at Antarctica.It is common to see it asserted that the length of the current interglacial temperature peak is similar to the length of the preceding interglacial peak (Sangamon/Eem), and from this conclude that we might be nearing the end of this warm period. However, this conclusion is mistaken. Firstly, because the lengths of previous interglacials were not particularly regular; see appended figure. Petit et al. note that interglacials 5.5 and 9.3 are different from the Holocene, but similar to each other in duration, shape and amplitude.[7] During each of these two events, there is a warm period of 4 kyr followed by a relatively rapid cooling. Secondly, future orbital variations will not closely resemble those of the past.



When will libs libs get thier lies straight?

 

[red states rule]

It will not be long before some crackpot Bush hater in the liberal media, blames Pres Bush's enviro policies for the tornado that destroyed parts of Fl.

 

[dilloduck]

I know the global warming debate is pretty much split into believers on the left and non-believers on the right. But as a person on the right I have to say I'm a believer. Is the Earth getting warmer. Yes. Naked Science on the National Geographic channel as well as other programs have made for pretty convinceing arguments in my opinion.

The real question at this point is, is it really a bad thing? The program focused on the melting of glaciers and ice in the arctic regions. If all of that ice melts, sea level will rise and there would be significant coastal flooding. I don't think the above is an opinion, it's just what would happen. On the upside we would have longer growing seasons at least.

The other question is what reason is there to make this stuff up? Get rid of fossil fuel use which proportadly puts CO2 into the air which creates a greenhouse effect? Well then logically if it is made up then CO2 is not a problem and thus there is no reason to clean it up. Doesn't make much sense.

Why make this stuff up ? For the same reason that politicians and the media do anything. To get elected and make money.

 

[Hamiltonian]

When will libs libs get thier lies straight?

Are all scientists libs? They're more organized than you think, global warming is pretty much a consensus.

Why make this stuff up ? For the same reason that politicians and the media do anything. To get elected and make money.

But this is science not politics. Why would scientists make this stuff up? Supporting global warming doesn't help them make money or get elected.

 

[Annie]

Are all scientists libs? They're more organized than you think, global warming is pretty much a consensus.



But this is science not politics. Why would scientists make this stuff up? Supporting global warming doesn't help them make money or get elected.

Ah, but concensus on fact? That really is the question. I'll admit to being on the fence on this issue, just isn't as immediate a concern to me as WOT, even if there truly is a non-natural phenonema occuring. But I am interested on the spin the media and left give the issue and the recurring warnings from meterorological scientists that the 'scientists' issuing these 'reports' are often from the social sciences.

 

[dilloduck]

Are all scientists libs? They're more organized than you think, global warming is pretty much a consensus.



But this is science not politics. Why would scientists make this stuff up? Supporting global warming doesn't help them make money or get elected.

This isn't a massive appeal by all the scientists in the world to "save" it. Believe it or not, there IS politics in science and what do "intellectuals" want more than anything? Notoriety !!!!!!!!!!!!!

 

[Hamiltonian]

Ah, but concensus on fact? That really is the question. I'll admit to being on the fence on this issue, just isn't as immediate a concern to me as WOT, even if there truly is a non-natural phenonema occuring. But I am interested on the spin the media and left give the issue and the recurring warnings from meterorological scientists that the 'scientists' issuing these 'reports' are often from the social sciences.

Yes, trusting the media is very tough on this issue. If you want the facts go to Science and Nature, as they are trustworthy publications. They are science undistorted by the science of the media, but on the other hand they require a bit of a scientific background, so you might have a difficult time understanding the articles.

Do I believe that it a consensus on fact? Yes, I've gone over quite a bit of the research and believe the conclusions that are drawn are valid. I can't speak for other scientists who believe in global warming, but I would believe that they do the same thing.

The trouble with Global Warming is that there is a bit of time between cause and effect. It would be like driving a car with a 60 second delay between when you pull the steering wheel and when the wheels respond. You can see how that would easily lead to an accident. Global warming won't cause immediate problems, so in the next 10 years the sea level will not have risen 20 feet. However, if we don't cut down on emissions in the next 10 years, then it may cause the sea levels to have risen 20 feet 60 years from now, and we couldn't be able to do anything to stop it. We're turning the wheel right now, and we urgently need to stop or it will inevitably result in an accident in the not so urgent future.

 

[Hamiltonian]

This isn't a massive appeal by all the scientists in the world to "save" it. Believe it or not, there IS politics in science and what do "intellectuals" want more than anything? Notoriety !!!!!!!!!!!!!

Politics certainly is in science, but global warming doesn't hamper your job options. You can work as a professor at MIT and not believe in global warming. There is no monetary advantage to believing in global warming. If you want notoriety, isn't it best to stand out from the consensus rather than join it? There are thousands of scientists who believe in global warming who are never heard from, but there is only a handful that stand out against global warming, and they are frequently quoted in debates. I would say the dissenters are much more notorious.

 

[red states rule]

Politics certainly is in science, but global warming doesn't hamper your job options. You can work as a professor at MIT and not believe in global warming. There is no monetary advantage to believing in global warming. If you want notoriety, isn't it best to stand out from the consensus rather than join it? There are thousands of scientists who believe in global warming who are never heard from, but there is only a handful that stand out against global warming, and they are frequently quoted in debates. I would say the dissenters are much more notorious.

First it was global cooling, now it is global warming

Everyone of the predictions these nuts have made over the last 30 years has not happened

Yet the liberal media keep going to these "experts" who can't even tell us how much snow we will get tomorrow. Yet we are to believe them when they tell us what will happen in 50 years

 

[dilloduck]

Politics certainly is in science, but global warming doesn't hamper your job options. You can work as a professor at MIT and not believe in global warming. There is no monetary advantage to believing in global warming. If you want notoriety, isn't it best to stand out from the consensus rather than join it? There are thousands of scientists who believe in global warming who are never heard from, but there is only a handful that stand out against global warming, and they are frequently quoted in debates. I would say the dissenters are much more notorious.

There are thousands of scientists who believe in global warming who are never heard from

any real scientist would laugh thier ass of at that statement.

 

[CockySOB]

But this is science not politics. Why would scientists make this stuff up? Supporting global warming doesn't help them make money or get elected.

Ahem. Funding of scientific research includes the researchers declaring the urgency of their research as a large part of the funding agent's decision-making (prioritization) process. If a researcher wants funding, they have to "sell" the hypotheses of their research to the bean-counters.

Moreover, the scientific community also relies on the "publish or perish" paradigm of academia. If the researcher doesn't produce results, then they not only lose funding, but they also tend to lose prestige in academia. So how better to gain notoriety for yourself and your work than to coat-tail politically hot topics?

Scientists are human just like the rest of us. They have human frailties just like the rest of us. They have families to feed, and mortgages to pay, just like the rest of us. Don't put them on pedestals.

 

[Hamiltonian]

First it was global cooling, now it is global warming

Everyone of the predictions these nuts have made over the last 30 years has not happened

Yet the liberal media keep going to these "experts" who can't even tell us how much snow we will get tomorrow. Yet we are to believe them when they tell us what will happen in 50 years

First people believed the world was flat, now they believe it was round, who knows what to believe anymore?

Certainly you can't argue with the predictions about CFCs and their effect on the ozone layer.

Forcasting local weather and long term climate models are two completely different beasts. Weather involves the analysis of a nonlinear dynamical system (our atmosphere). Even in well defined systems there can be a certain amount of chaos which makes the weather somewhat unpredictable. Weather models were in fact how chaos theory came to be.

However, climate is the average weather, and since it is made of statistics averaged over 30 years it gets rid of the chaos of forecasting weather.