New Report says Humans cause Global Warming

theHawk

Registered Conservative
Joined
Sep 20, 2005
Messages
32,472
Reaction score
17,511
Points
1,905
Location
Arizona
Well here it is, the newest Gospel for the liberal bible - 21 scientists meeting in France have released a report that temperatures are rising all over the globe and ice is melting and sea levels rising.


http://www.cnn.com/2007/TECH/science/02/02/climate.change.report/index.html


I wonder if they bothered to mention in their report that temperatures have been rising and ice sheets have been melting around the globe since the last ice age.
 

Mr.Conley

Senior Member
Joined
Jan 20, 2006
Messages
1,958
Reaction score
115
Points
48
Location
New Orleans, LA/Cambridge, MA
Actually you're wrong there. Temperatures have remained relatively stable over the past 50,000 years. The only exceptions to this rule being a few somewhat strange events such as the Little Ice Age during the late Medieval period and the aftermath of large climatic events such as a major volcanic eruption.
 

red states rule

Senior Member
Joined
May 30, 2006
Messages
16,011
Reaction score
573
Points
48
From Fox News:

A House subcommittee hearing on climate change and the warming of the planet was called off today — because of the snow and ice storm that hit Washington. In Saint Louis — a scheduled showing of Al Gore's "An Inconvenient Truth" was canceled by Maryville University — because of the harsh winter weather.
 

red states rule

Senior Member
Joined
May 30, 2006
Messages
16,011
Reaction score
573
Points
48
Temperatures in Antarctica Haven’t Climbed as Predicted By Climate Models
Posted by Noel Sheppard on February 15, 2007 - 22:11.
There’s a new study out from Ohio State University that seems destined to be totally ignored by the media and all the global warming alarmists.

As many folks that have been following this debate are well aware, the majority of the hysteria surrounding anthropogenic global warming is based on climate models created by folks responsible for much of the fear generated by this issue.

With that in mind, a new report out of Ohio State University concludes, “the world’s southernmost continent shows that temperatures during the late 20th century did not climb as had been predicted by many global climate models.”

As of 10PM EST, not one major media outlet has bothered to report these findings.

The article continued (emphasis mine throughout):

David Bromwich, professor of geography and researcher with the Byrd Polar Research Center at Ohio State University, reported on this work at the annual meeting of the American Association for the Advancement of Science at San Francisco.

“It’s hard to see a global warming signal from the mainland of Antarctica right now,” he said. “Part of the reason is that there is a lot of variability there. It’s very hard in these polar latitudes to demonstrate a global warming signal. This is in marked contrast to the northern tip of the Antarctic Peninsula that is one of the most rapidly warming parts of the Earth.”

Bromwich says that the problem rises from several complications. The continent is vast, as large as the United States and Mexico combined. Only a small amount of detailed data is available – there are perhaps only 100 weather stations on that continent compared to the thousands spread across the U.S. and Europe. And the records that we have only date back a half-century.

Of course, this has been pointed out by many of the global warming skeptics in the past several years. Unfortunately, people who don’t support the views of non-scientists like Al Gore, Ellen Goodman, and Katie Couric don’t get much attention. Regardless, the article continued:

“The best we can say right now is that the climate models are somewhat inconsistent with the evidence that we have for the last 50 years from continental Antarctica.

“We’re looking for a small signal that represents the impact of human activity and it is hard to find it at the moment,” he said.

Last year, Bromwich’s research group reported in the journal Science that Antarctic snowfall hadn’t increased in the last 50 years. “What we see now is that the temperature regime is broadly similar to what we saw before with snowfall. In the last decade or so, both have gone down,” he said.

Don’t expect to hear or read anything further about Bromwich or his research, for this entire “debate” has become a ridiculous joke as the left and their media minions hide all opposing views from the public.

Be afraid. Be very afraid.

http://newsbusters.org/node/10858
 

bobn

Member
Joined
Apr 13, 2006
Messages
94
Reaction score
13
Points
6
Maybe they could also mention him saying:

"It isn’t surprising that these models are not doing as well in these remote parts of the world. These are global models and shouldn’t be expected to be equally exact for all locations"

From http://www.physorg.com/news90782778.html

It's not an opposing view, neither is this guy a skeptic of global warming, but no doubt he will get added to that list anyway..
 

Annie

Diamond Member
Joined
Nov 22, 2003
Messages
50,848
Reaction score
4,826
Points
1,790
Maybe they could also mention him saying:

"It isn’t surprising that these models are not doing as well in these remote parts of the world. These are global models and shouldn’t be expected to be equally exact for all locations"

From http://www.physorg.com/news90782778.html
Do you or the author realise how this plays? Or means, significantly? :rolleyes:
 

bobn

Member
Joined
Apr 13, 2006
Messages
94
Reaction score
13
Points
6
Do you or the author realise how this plays? Or means, significantly? :rolleyes:
The person I quoted was the scientist, Bromwich, who did this study, and not the author of the article.
 

Annie

Diamond Member
Joined
Nov 22, 2003
Messages
50,848
Reaction score
4,826
Points
1,790
The person I quoted was the scientist, Bromwich, who did this study, and not the author of the article.
and that changes the question how?
 

boedicca

Uppity Water Nymph
Joined
Feb 12, 2007
Messages
55,737
Reaction score
17,914
Points
2,250
Location
The Land of Funk
I just purchased "Unstoppable Global Warming" by S. Fred Singer and Dennis T. Avery.

The earth naturally goes through cycles of cooling and warming - and has done for millions and millions and millions of years. Cratering our economy due to natural phenomena is rather silly.
 

mattskramer

Senior Member
Joined
Apr 11, 2004
Messages
5,852
Reaction score
362
Points
48
Location
Texas
Yeah. Just like the news and other topics, you can find pieces that support your preconceived bias and you can find pieces that dispute your bias. You can find “experts” to say this and “experts” to say that. Attorneys find such experts all the time for insanity cases. You can find and interpret (or misinterpret) things in holy books that supposedly say what you want said. It is all a fun little game.
 

roadhouse158

Member
Joined
Sep 17, 2006
Messages
122
Reaction score
30
Points
16
Location
North Carolina
Global Warming caused by humans...Um...If they want to know why the Polar Ice Caps are melting, then maybe they should look at who's studying it. I am in no way a scientist. But I would think that taking big ole machines to Antarctica so you can drill into the ice would let off a whole bunch of heat. I mean...I know all the machines I am around that run get hot. However I guess this has nothing to do with the ice melting. The ice completely ignores this. Maybe they should only study from afar. Sounds like a good idea.
 

red states rule

Senior Member
Joined
May 30, 2006
Messages
16,011
Reaction score
573
Points
48
New Yorker Editor David Remnick's Uncritical Idol Worship of Al Gore
Posted by P.J. Gladnick on March 20, 2007 - 20:40.
We can get a sneak preview of the MSM worship of Al Gore sure to follow his testimony before Congress tomorrow on the subject of global warming by reading David Remnick's glowing commentary about the former veep in the March 5 edition of the New Yorker. If you suffer at all from tooth decay, I advise you to skip over the rest because Remnick's idolatrous saccharine coated praise for Gore is sure to exacerbate your condition.

Without a trace of ironic awareness that a Saturday Night Live skit is mocking people such as himself who believe that a Gore win in 2000 would have led to an American paradise, Remnick longingly sets up the premise of the show in his You Know Me, Al commentary in the New Yorker:

“Saturday Night Live” is erratic in middle age but rarely cruel. An exception came late last spring, when, at the stroke of eleven-thirty, an NBC announcer gravely told the American people to stand by for a “message from the President of the United States,” and Al Gore, surrounded by Oval Office knickknacks, came into focus to deliver what could best be described as an interim report from a parallel, and happier, galaxy. President Gore reviewed some of his actions and their unintended consequences:

In the last six years we have been able to stop global warming. No one could have predicted the negative results of this. Glaciers that once were melting are now on the attack. As you know, these renegade glaciers have already captured parts of upper Michigan and northern Maine. But I assure you: we will not let the glaciers win.

Nor was this the only problem. Although Social Security had been repaired, the cost had been high: the budget surplus was “down to a perilously low eleven trillion dollars.” The price of gas had dropped to nineteen cents a gallon, and the oil companies were hurting. (“I know that I am partly to blame by insisting that cars run on trash.”) After winning the plaudits of a grateful world—and turning Afghanistan into a premier “spring-break destination”—Americans could no longer risk travelling abroad, for fear of “getting hugged.”


Earth to Remnick: The SNL skit was making FUN of people like YOU who think that an Al Gore win would have led to a perfect world. Instead, Remnick uses that skit as a segue into a What Might Have Been if only America had been worthy enough to have elected the all-wise Gore:

The cruelty here was not to Gore, who probably requires no prompting to brood now and then about what might have been, but to the audience. It is worse than painful to reflect on how much better off the United States and the world would be today if the outcome of the 2000 election had been permitted to correspond with the wishes of the electorate. The attacks of September 11, 2001, would likely not have been avoided, though there is ample evidence, in the 9/11 Commission report and elsewhere, that Gore and his circle were far more alert to the threat of Islamist terrorism than Bush and his. But can anyone seriously doubt that a Gore Administration would have meant, well, an alternate universe, in which, say, American troops were sent on a necessary mission in Afghanistan but not on a mistaken and misbegotten one in Iraq; the fate of the earth, not the fate of oil-company executives, was the priority of the Environmental Protection Agency; civil liberties and diplomacy were subjects of attention rather than of derision; torture found no place or rationale?

For Remnick the Alternate Al Gore Universe is something to pine for. Of course, with a President Al Gore we might still be debating whether to place economic sanctions on the Taliban in Afghanistan. If you think Remnick can't get any more sickenly sweet in the worship of his blessed Goracle, you would be wrong:

On the issue of climate change, of course, he has exercised visionary leadership. With humor and intelligence, and negligible self-pity, he dispensed with the temptations of political martyrdom and became a global Jeremiah. Beginning in the nineteen-eighties, he waged what was at first a fairly lonely campaign to draw attention to the problem; now, as a popularizing propagandist, he has succeeded in registering it as a crisis with nearly everyone, from field-tripping schoolchildren to reality-dubious members of the Administration. With his documentary film, “An Inconvenient Truth,” Gore made the undeniability of the crisis a matter of consensus; thanks largely to him, an environmental issue will be an electoral issue. His secular evangelism has earned him an honored night at the Academy Awards and—almost as glittering—a nomination for the Nobel Peace Prize.

Concensus? Even the liberal New York Times has recently reported that there is something less than a concensus among scientists over Gore's apocalyptic global warming visions. Such skepticism doesn't even register with Remnick who goes on to yearn for the return of Gore in 2008:

While Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama start competing––warily at first, and then, inevitably, taking direct aim at one another’s weaknesses––Gore can stand unbruised, nursing the lingering glamour of his popular margin in 2000 and, perhaps, demanding by quiet inference that we take stock of a distinguished public career that began three decades ago, when Gore was a twenty-eight-year-old Vietnam veteran freshly elected to Congress.

The now extinct Easter Islanders can be forgiven their blind worship of the famous stone idols of their island due to their isolation from the rest of the world. However, what is the excuse of the supposedly sophisticated David Remnick, editor of the even more sophisticated New Yorker, with his uncritical praise for the Goracle? For a funny take in detail on Remnick's Gore idolatry, check out the DUmmie FUnnies.

http://newsbusters.org/node/11547
 

Attachments

red states rule

Senior Member
Joined
May 30, 2006
Messages
16,011
Reaction score
573
Points
48
Global Warming Has Gone Hollywood

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

Libs and Hollywood are partners in pushing the so called global warming agenda


Global Warming Has Gone Hollywood
By Robert Samuelson

"My fellow Americans, people all over the world, we need to solve the climate crisis. It's not a political issue. It's a moral issue. We have everything we need to get started, with the possible exception of the will to act. That's a renewable resource. Let's renew it.''
-- Al Gore, accepting an Oscar for "An Inconvenient Truth''

WASHINGTON -- Global warming has gone Hollywood, literally and figuratively. The script is plain. As Gore says, solutions are at hand. We can switch to renewable fuels and embrace energy-saving technologies, once the dark forces of doubt are defeated. It's smart and caring people against the stupid and selfish. Sooner or later, Americans will discover that this Hollywood version of global warming (largely mirrored in the media) is mostly make-believe.

Most of the many reports on global warming have a different plot. Despite variations, these studies reach similar conclusions. Regardless of how serious the threat, the available technologies promise at best a holding action against greenhouse gas emissions. Even massive gains in renewables (solar, wind, biomass) and more efficient vehicles and appliances would merely stabilize annual emissions near present levels by 2050. The reason: Economic growth, especially in poor countries, will sharply increase energy use and emissions.

The latest report came last week from 12 scientists, engineers and social scientists at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology. Called "The Future of Coal,'' the report was mostly ignored by the media. The report makes some admittedly optimistic assumptions: "carbon capture and storage'' technologies prove commercially feasible; governments around the world adopt a sizable charge (aka, tax) on carbon fuel emissions. Still, annual greenhouse gas emissions in 2050 are roughly at today's levels. Without action, they'd be more than twice as high.

Coal, as the report notes, is essential. It provides about 40 percent of global electricity. It's cheap (about a third the cost of oil) and abundant. It poses no security threats. Especially in poor countries, coal use is expanding dramatically. The United States has the equivalent of more than 500 coal-fired power plants with a capacity of 500 megawatts each. China is building two such plants a week. By 2030, coal use in poor countries is projected to double and would be about twice that of rich countries (mainly the United States, Europe and Japan). Unfortunately, coal also generates almost 40 percent of man-made carbon dioxide (CO2), a prime greenhouse gas.

Unless we can replace coal or neutralize its CO2 emissions, curbing greenhouse gases is probably impossible. Substitution seems unlikely simply because coal use is so massive. Consider a separate study by Wood Mackenzie, a consulting firm. It simulated a fivefold increase in U.S. electricity from renewables by 2026. Despite that, more coal generating capacity would be needed to satisfy growth in demand.

Carbon capture and storage (CCS) is a bright spot: catch the CO2 and put it underground. On this, the MIT study is mildly optimistic. The technologies exist, it says. Similarly, geologic formations -- depleted oil fields, unusable coal seams -- provide adequate storage space, at least in the United States. But two problems loom: First, CCS adds to power costs; and second, its practicality remains suspect until it's demonstrated on a large scale.

No amount of political will can erase these problems. If we want poorer countries to adopt CCS, then the economics will have to be attractive. Right now, they're not. Capturing CO2 and transporting it to storage spaces uses energy and requires costlier plants. Based on present studies, the MIT report says that the most attractive plants with CCS would produce almost 20 percent less electricity than conventional plants and could cost almost 40 percent more. Pay more, get less -- that's not a compelling argument. Moreover, older plants can't easily be retrofitted. Some lack space for additions; for others costs would be prohibitive.

To find cheaper technologies, the MIT study proposes more government research and development. The study's proposal of a stiff charge on carbon fuel -- to be increased 4 percent annually -- is intended to promote energy efficiency and create a price umbrella to make CCS more economically viable. But there are no instant solutions, and a political dilemma dogs most possibilities. What's most popular and acceptable (say, more solar) may be the least consequential in its effects; and what's most consequential in its effects (a hefty energy tax) may be the least popular and acceptable.

The actual politics of global warming defy Hollywood's stereotypes. It's not saints versus sinners. The lifestyles that produce greenhouse gases are deeply ingrained in modern economies and societies. Without major changes in technology, the consequences may be unalterable. Those who believe that addressing global warming is a moral imperative face an equivalent moral imperative to be candid about the costs, difficulties and uncertainties.

(c) 2007, The Washington Post Writers Group

http://www.realclearpolitics.com/art...ne_hollyw.html
 

red states rule

Senior Member
Joined
May 30, 2006
Messages
16,011
Reaction score
573
Points
48
Well here it is, the newest Gospel for the liberal bible - 21 scientists meeting in France have released a report that temperatures are rising all over the globe and ice is melting and sea levels rising.


http://www.cnn.com/2007/TECH/science/02/02/climate.change.report/index.html


I wonder if they bothered to mention in their report that temperatures have been rising and ice sheets have been melting around the globe since the last ice age.


WashPost Wrongly Touts Tiny Protest As 'Largest Demonstration Ever' vs. Global Warming
Posted by Tim Graham on March 21, 2007 - 08:00.
Washington Post reporter David Fahrenthold attempted to highlight a liberal rally against global warming that "drew several hundred people to the west lawn of the U.S. Capitol yesterday," but he seemed unclear on its historic significance:


The event, called a Climate Crisis Action Day, was billed in advance as Washington's largest demonstration ever on global warming. It was unclear whether that turned out to be accurate, but those attending said they sensed a powerful momentum building behind calls to limit greenhouse gas emissions.

Earth to the Post: if you hold a rally against global warming and "several hundred people" show up, it's a little strange to pass that helpfully along as "Washington's largest demonstration ever" and as a sign of "a powerful momentum building" behind the liberal agenda.

It's also not impressive to tout "Organizers said 2,500 T-shirts were picked up by participants in the day's events." Were they handed out to 2,500 people, or just put in the back of some participant's truck? The two color photos splashed along the top of Page A-6 to illustrate the story made the event look very much like a typical, sparsely populated Capitol Hill press conference, even if it featured people dressed as polar bears.

In fact, Fahrenthold and his Post editors are letting the liberals down with an utter lack of research. In 1990, after a pile of liberal-media publicity, an Earth Day rally on the Western edge of the Capitol drew tens of thousands. It featured Hollywood stars, and musicians like Bruce Hornsby and the Indigo Girls. (I was there, as an observer.) Other Earth Day events since then have drawn larger crowds than "several hundred people." These events always tout the global warming theory. They just haven't mobilized the masses as much in this new Inconvenient Truth era.

Typically for the Post, Fahrenthold couldn't find a liberal anywhere at the event, even as he quoted socialist Sen. Bernie Sanders warning that "Either we see this planet go down the tubes, or we reverse it." The event organizers were listed as including "the Alaska Wilderness League, the Episcopal Church, and a committee formed by the indigenous Gwich'in people, who live in northern Alaska and the Yukon Territory."

Fahrenthold also passed along this un-skeptical publicity line from the alleged local grass roots:

"Let's face it, people. We all know polar bears can swim,. But they can't swim forever," said Mollie Passacantando, a Fairfax County third-grader who started a blog focusing on polar bears.

Passacantando is not a typical name, so it's not much of a guess to wonder if young Mollie is related to John Passacantando...the president of Greenpeace USA? On her blog, she writes vaguely about how "My dad's organization" was handing out baseball caps at a congressional hearing, and urging people to use a typical letter to Congress from the Greenpeace website.

Do I have to note that "several hundred people" showing up for Bernie Sanders drew a better page placement than tens of thousands of people at the March for Life? Unlike the March for Life, it also drew a story in advance, which somehow failed to boost that poor attendance. It was also written by Fahrenthold, who used no liberal labels and touted the momentum in advance.

http://newsbusters.org/node/11552
 

New Topics

Most reactions - Past 7 days

Forum List

Top