Global warming?

[xoxoxoBruce]

Geez, you've really lost it, haven't you.

[TheMercenary]

What about the worms? Think about the worms already.

[Aliantha]

I'm more worried about the gnats. no-one ever thinks about the gnats!

Its not too late to submit your "credientials" and join the wave of 30,000+ credible scientists to speak out against the global warming myth!

http://www.petitionproject.org/GW_Petition.pdf

Global Warming Petition Project

Hmmmmm....I wonder if a PhD in Cellar Science is acceptable......hell, why not? They dont ask for any documentation of one's credentials.

[TheMercenary]

Originally Posted by Redux

Hmmmmm....I wonder if PhD in cellar science is acceptable......hell, why not? They dont ask for any documentation of one's credentials.

You're right about that, hell they let you in here. Any simpleton should be awarded entry.

Originally Posted by TheMercenary

You're right about that, hell they let you in here. Any simpleton should be awarded entry.

Only simpleton's would take this petition seriously...yet it keeps resurfacing whenever the government hints at addressing the issue of GHG emissions.

[classicman]

Here ya go Redux. I'm sorry if one of my previous links was "out of date."
These are more current - say within the last month.

"Ian Plimer's stated view of climate science is that a vast number of extremely well respected scientists and a whole range of specialist disciplines have fallen prey to delusional self interest and become nothing more than unthinking ideologues," he says.

"Plausible to conspiracy theorists, perhaps, but hardly a sane world view – and insulting to all those genuinely committed to real science."

An overwhelming majority of the world's climate scientists are convinced the planet is now warming as a result of human activity, mainly the burning of fossil fuels such as coal and gas.

Most of these scientists are concerned with recent changes to the Earth's atmosphere and how the planet can be expected to respond to rising levels of carbon dioxide and other greenhouse gases such as methane.

Professor Plimer believes the IPCC has neglected historical evidence of past climate changes, which are recorded in the rocks.

"When we look at the history of climate changes, not one has been driven by carbon dioxide," he says.

"Climate always changes, as do sea levels, as does life (on Earth) and we are living in times that are not extraordinary. The only way you can have the view that humans change climate is if you ignore history."

“Start with science,” Plimer says. “Ignore faith. Science is evidence, not belief.” And then he starts with his history of the planet, beginning at the beginning and ending far into the future.

“The world’s climate has always changed and always will,” he says. “The speed and amount of modern climate change is neither unprecedented nor dangerous. The temperature range observed in the 20th century is in the range of normal variability.”

This sounds heretical. Don’t the world’s eminent scientists agree that humans are burning fossil fuels at an unprecedented rate, that this combustion is releasing carbon dioxide at a similarly unprecedented rate, and that carbon dioxide is a greenhouse gas? Won’t human-made global warming cause wild and unpredictable weather, melt polar icecaps and fry polar bears? Aren’t Pacific Islanders going to be flooded out of house and home? Won’t there be malarial mosquitoes up and down the high latitudes? Aren’t we doomed?

Plimer weaves the Mercedes through the traffic on the way to his next appointment. “Methane is the most potent greenhouse gas,” he says before answering. “The effect of driving a diesel car 10,000 kilometres is equivalent to the amount of methane a cow produces in a day.”

Interview Here

Professor Plimer challenges concepts as fundamental as carbon dioxide causing climate change, saying they are overly simplistic.

IAN PLIMER: Especially as the carbon dioxide content now is at the lowest point it's been since the beginning of time. The planet really has a very low carbon dioxide content.

And the only logical conclusion you can make is that carbon dioxide has nothing to do with climate change; it will follow climate change, especially a warming, but it does not drive it.

NANCE HAXTON: Well, you're certainly standing up in the face of what seems like a mountain of scientific evidence. How do you contradict that?

IAN PLIMER: What's the evidence? There is a hypothesis that human emissions of carbon dioxide create global warming.

And I've tested that hypothesis about 80 times. It is wrong. And every time you test it is wrong.

What I have done is to try to open people's minds in this book by looking at how the earth works, how the ice sheets work, how the oceans work, how the atmosphere works, how the solar system works, how the sun works.

Passion for global warming cools in the face of evidence

Plimer does not dispute the dramatic flux of climate change but he fundamentally disputes most of the assumptions and projections being made about the current causes, mostly led by atmospheric scientists.

"To reduce modern climate change to one variable, CO2, or a small proportion of one variable - human-induced CO2 - is not science. To try to predict the future based on just one variable (CO2) in extraordinarily complex natural systems is folly. Yet when astronomers have the temerity to show that climate is driven by solar activities rather than CO2 emissions, they are dismissed as dinosaurs undertaking the methods of old-fashioned science."

(He argues that) the hypothesis that human activity can create global warming is extraordinary because it is contrary to validated knowledge from solar physics, astronomy, history, archeology and geology.

"But evidence no longer matters. And any contrary work published in peer-reviewed journals is just ignored. We are told that the science on human-induced global warming is settled. Yet the claim by some scientists that the threat of human-induced global warming is 90 per cent certain (or even 99 per cent) is a figure of speech. It has no mathematical or evidential basis."

Heaven and Earth is an evidence-based attack on conformity and orthodoxy, including my own, and a reminder to respect informed dissent and beware of ideology subverting evidence.

And one from the other side

Over climate change, citizens face an apparently acute dilemma. The question of the impact of greenhouse gas emissions on the Earth's future is by far the most important issue our generation faces. Yet those of us who are not trained scientists are in no position to make independent judgments on the fundamental scientific issues for ourselves.

This dilemma is relatively easy to resolve. In regard to the science of climate change, as Clive Hamilton has put it, the only decision citizens have to make is not what to believe but who. We can place our trust either in the tens of thousands of climate scientists whose work has been published in the relevant scientific journals and summarised by the IPCC, or in the few dozen pseudo-sceptics who dismiss mainstream climate science as a politically correct, rent-seeking hoax.

Originally Posted by classicman

Here ya go Redux. I'm sorry if one of my previous links was "out of date."
..

I dont share the position that anthropogenic GHG emissions CAUSE global warming.

I am convinced that such GHG emissions from human activities CONTRIBUTE to the degradation of the atmosphere and, as a result, adversely impacts the environment as a whole.

And I share the opinion of 10-15 National Academies of Sciences of the industrial nations around the world that anthropogenic GHG emissions can and should be reduced in an economically sustainable manner.

[tw]

Originally Posted by classicman

Here ya go Redux.

Meanwhile numbers from so many sources (including the famous Vostok ice cores) all confirm and agree: what has happened in only 100 years took (at fastest) tens of thousands of years to happen previously. Which should we believe? A source cited by extremists with a poltical agenda - or well proven and published data from all over the world?

No time in hundreds of thousands of years have both greenhouse gases and earth's temperature climbed so much so fast. Not even close anytime in history. And yet your 'scientist' disuptes well published facts from vast numbers of responsible sources.

Lying is the nature of poltical extremism. Lying about the speed and amount of climate change comes from outright, intentional, and blatant lying. Extremism. Lying. Is there a connection?

Maybe torture also was not promoted by the same extremists? Maybe Saddam did conspire with bin Laden?

Meanwhile classicman has dug long and deep to find someone who will deny what reams of data show. Nothing comes even close to the speed and increase of temperature and greenhouse gases in the past 100 years. Nothing except the rare exception found by classicman. But then view the source. Extremism and intentional lying are still alive and well.

This is not about global warming. This is about what extremist routinely do for a poltical agenda - lie. Eliminate those lies and nobody disputes the problem called global warming.

[classicman]

Originally Posted by tw

Which should we believe? A source cited by my extremist poltical agenda?

Lying is my nature. Lying about the speed and amount of climate change comes from outright, intentional, and blatant lying. Extremism. Lying. Is there a connection?

Maybe torture also was not promoted by the same extremists? Maybe Saddam did conspire with bin Laden & I? My extremism and intentional lying are still alive and well.

This is not about global warming. This is about what my extremist poltical agenda - lie. Eliminate those lies and nobody disputes the problem called global warming.

Originally Posted by tw

Meanwhile classicman has dug long and deep to find someone who will deny what reams of data show.

Didn't have to dig at all -
First hits on a google search. ""Global warming" hoax. Try it yourself

Oh and please don't confuse climate change with global warming and mans possible causal relationship.

[tw]

Originally Posted by classicman

Didn't have to dig at all -
First hits on a google search. ""Global warming" hoax. Try it yourself

I did. I enterd "global warming" and "wacko extremism" and got the exact same citations.

[sugarpop]

I already posted that someone told me they heard the particles from burning coal were slowing the effect.

I saw on the news tonight, a research team from the artic has discovered the water temperature underneath the ice is much higher than they expected it to be, and the ozone is worse as well. That is NOT good news.

And then there's this... http://www.iarc.uaf.edu/highlights/2008/ISSS-08/ SUMMARY: Continuing climate changes in the Arctic have received renewed scientific attention during the International Polar Year that began in early 2007. This briefing presents early results from a range of studies conducted during IPY based on climate models and new observations taken from sea, land, and space. Findings include the discovery of new seeps of the greenhouse gas methane along the East Siberian Arctic Shelf, a lengthening snowmelt season and a second year of ice mass loss in Greenland, and evidence that the predicted amplification of Arctic warming due to decreasing sea ice has already begun.

http://www.earthsky.org/radioshows/5...sea-level-rise Robert Bindschadler: I think that it’s important to emphasize that the changes are happening faster and faster, and even we experts are surprised at how rapid the changes are taking place, and we’re still trying to come up with a deeper understanding so that we can predict what’s going to happen.

[sugarpop]

How anyone can think we are not at least partially responsible is beyond me.

[xoxoxoBruce]

How anyone can think we are totally responsible is beyond me.

[tw]

Originally Posted by xoxoxoBruce

How anyone can think we are totally responsible is beyond me.

Even their own scientists said the facts are irrefutible. And they still challenged gobal warming by only trying to confuse the issue. Confused issues work especially well on those who know only because they are told how to think. Meanwhile the consenus is almost unanamous. Global warning is created by man. Only question left is how much and how destructive. Extremists fear such questions. It threatens a political agenda which include doing anything necessary (even torture) to protect *OUR* oil.