See other Immigration Articles
Title: How much longer will California remain a part of the United States?
Source:
www.dvorak.org
URL Source: http://www.dvorak.org/blog/2010/06/ ... n-a-part-of-the-united-states/
Published: Jun 6, 2010
Author: Dvorak
Post Date: 2010-06-06 11:50:16 by Mind_Virus
Keywords: None
Views: 2799
Comments: 283
How much longer will California remain a part of the United States? Published on June 6th, 2010 California’s white population has declined since 2000 at an unprecedented rate, hastening the day when Hispanics will be the state’s largest population group, according to newly released state figures. Analysts said the decline can be attributed to two main causes – a natural population decrease as Baby Boomers enter their later years and die at a faster rate than younger whites have children, and a migration from California since 2001 among whites who sought affordable housing as real estate costs soared. The study also confirmed projections that a steadily growing Hispanic population will surpass whites as the state’s largest racial demographic in 2016. Hispanics are expected to become a majority of all Californians in 2042, Heim said. A University of New Mexico Chicano Studies professor predicts a new, sovereign Hispanic nation within the century, taking in the Southwest and several northern states of Mexico. Truxillo, 47, has said the new country should be brought into being “by any means necessary,” but recently said it was unlikely to be formed by civil war. Instead, its creation will be accomplished by the electoral pressure of the future majority Hispanic population in the region, he said.
Post Comment Private Reply Ignore Thread
Top • Page Up • Full Thread • Page Down • Bottom/Latest
Begin Trace Mode for Comment # 238.
#1. To: Mind_Virus (#0)
Just wait until the next two earthquakes flatten the state. They will also be plagued by race riots as soon as the US dollar collapses and debt increases will not buy more free stuff. You cannot project our past to predict our future.
Just wait till the Mexicans take over "Atzlan" (their fictional land). They will turn it into the same kind of $#ithole they are trying to escape.
I've had some recent contacts in the CA food industry, and many crops that were normally grown in the state are started to get imported directly from Mexico. They pay laborers less down in Mexico than growers are obligated legally to pay them here, and I imagine there is less agricultural oversight to have to deal with too.
Where are they getting the water? I actually have been seeing more produce from Mexico too.
Water in CA is being depleted, polluted, and there are also government regulations to try to spread what remains around more equitably. So the agribusinesses are complaining, but generally speaking there has not been much of a focus on getting anybody anywhere to use and conserve wisely.
bullshit
bullshit Mono Lake? Salinas Valley? Sacramento Delta? Bakersfield, Taft? Any reason for running sprinklers in the daylight instead of night, potty mouth?
Environmental kool-aide drinker.
Says the self-styled farmer who can't figure out any benefits running sprinklers at night.....
Just a quick point: farmfriend has consistently updated the water shortage issues in California based upon federal restriction guidelines, particularly in the central valley area which used to be the breadbasket of the world (now just a dustbowl with farming communities dying and where unemployment runs as high as 25%). She knows what she is talking about when the federal government steps in and restricts private farming/ranching productive efforts when the government has some kind of new fish or game to save. BTW, I have always enjoyed your posts (as I do farmfriend's). Please keep doing so on 4um.
I don't believe we have an either/or choice where it's choosing production or saving species. All across the US the entire ecosystem has been trashed in little more than 100 years. When the Great Plains were first cultivated there was over 12-18 inches of topsoil just about everywhere. Then by the 1930's we had the "Dust Bowl," and today the norm for good soil there is about 4 inches. The silt has clearly washed down the Mississippi/Missouri river basin and dozens of miles into the Gulf - where now it gets mixed with oily goo. People back then just didn't care about the future, until big bad government decided to make them care. Not that the government choices thesmelves were always right, but at least it was movement into the right direction. So all this talk about the goodness of private enterprise and the badness of govenment control is really a big joke. Then take Colorado/Nevada/Arizona/Imperial Valley. The same type of waste and trashing of water resources. Added to this the violation of water treaties promising a certain amount of water to go into Mexico they can use for their own agriculture. The US has never delivered on those commitments to Mexico. Then some Americans complain when Mexican farm labor comes north to where the water is. Working west, the misuse of Sierra water for placer mining in the Gold Rush, then the construction of huge inefficient irrigation projects to move San Joaquin Delta water into parts of the Central Valley where lots of it evaporated, and some of the rest leached poisons into toxic cesspools like Kesterson. Even further west, over pumping of Salinas River Valley water causing salt water intrusion into the ground water table. Meanwhile in all these places listed above there has been heavy and sprawling construction activity with a heavy bias to generating sprawling urban and suburban tracts going in all directions. Last but not least, massive sheep and cattle raising in nearly every state which has seriously destroyed ground cover, making both water conservation more difficult, and major flooding easier. All these practices could have and should have been done more carefully and more with an eye to conserving for future generations. They weren't done that way because so-called free market forces were allowed to run rampant. And now we have the consequences of this systematic destruction of what was only 200 years ago was pristine agricultural land from sea to sea. Bottom line is the government is going to step in, and there are some people who are motivated to keeping and even improving what is left, and any people who don't like it are just going to have to get off the train and walk to where they're going. Because the train is not going to stop to please them. All the blather about eco-weenies, smelt-lovers, Gaia worshippers, leftists, property rights, Brave New World, government tyranny, etc. is not going to cut it because the "free market" forces have made a substantial hole in the system in little more than 100 years, and there are enough people wanting to see that hole start to get plugged that it will happen.
Last but not least, massive sheep and cattle raising in nearly every state which has seriously destroyed ground cover, making both water conservation more difficult, and major flooding easier. Why? Because of greedy, tight-fisted local farmers/ranchers or the demands based upon world markets? I grew up in Redding. As any Californian who has ever picked up a fishing rod knows, the region around this small north state city supports some of the best angling in the state. Lake Shasta and Whiskeytown Reservoir are literally in our backyard. The Trinity River, home to fine steelhead fishing, is an hour’s drive to the west. The Upper Sacramento River, Trinity Lake, the small, alpine lakes of the Trinity Alps Wilderness, Lake Shastina, Lake Almanor, the Pit River, the McCloud River and Hat Creek are all nearby, and all afford spectacular trout fishing. But it is the Lower Sacramento River — the portion that begins just north of Redding, below Keswick Dam — that historically has been the biggest draw for sport anglers. For one thing, this section supports a lunker native rainbow trout fishery. Drift boaters come from around the West to float the 30-mile stretch between Redding and Red Bluff, hoping — and usually succeeding — to tie into some of our football-size ‘bows. More to the point, the “Lower Sac” has long been sacred water to salmon fishermen. In 2008 and 2009, California’s salmon season was closed entirely due to low numbers of fish. This year, we’re having a very limited season — salmon numbers have bumped up a little, but not enough to warrant any celebration. Not so long ago, however, hundreds of thousands of big, beautiful, fall-run chinook salmon ran up this river to spawn. There were plenty of fish to sustain the runs, with plenty left over to catch. Each year, the anglers would be there in the thousands to greet the homecoming salmon. I was one of that crowd, both as a fishermen and a professional guide. I’ve always loved fishing for salmon — but more than that, as a guide, the salmon put (so to speak) meat and potatoes on my table. The salmon fishery on the Lower Sac was a recreational fishery, but it wasn’t just about recreation: It was about jobs. And jobs are a deadly serious issue in the north state. High unemployment is a relatively recent development in the San Francisco Bay area and Southern California, but it has been a concern with us for decades. The recreational salmon industry was big business in this area. Further, it was reliable, sustainable business. As long as the fish got what they needed — mainly adequate downstream flows — they returned, giving us what we needed: income. A 1992 University of California at Davis study concluded that each salmon caught in the sport fishery was worth $900 to $1,200 to the local economy. So when I boated a client’s salmon, I wasn’t the only one getting paid. The motel owners, the restaurateurs, the waiters and cooks who worked in those restaurants, the gas station owners — everybody got a cut And that’s just direct expenditures from the clients. The guides who fish this river also put a lot of money into the local economy. I run a $50,000 jet boat. Local mechanics work on that boat. I buy my fuel and tackle locally — and when the salmon are running, believe me, I buy a lot of fuel and tackle. So we can’t just view our salmon as noble, attractive, hard-fighting fish that happen to be incredibly delicious — certainly, they’re all those things. But they’re also something more than all that: They’re revenue multipliers. They generate wealth. Each fish represents life for Redding and all the other towns along the river. When we had full salmon seasons, some full-time guides made $70,000 to $80,000 a year — very good money for this part of the state. Guiding supported my family, and helped support the community. But now, more than 90 percent of my guide business has vanished — gone with the salmon closures. And it’s not just a matter of losing my salmon trips. Guiding is synergistic — I booked many of my trout trips while salmon fishing. The clients would get so excited after hooking into a few big fall-run chinook that they’d want to come back and try for our monster trout. If you don’t have that ongoing face-to-face interaction with your clients, if you don’t constantly cultivate and follow up contacts, if you don’t get that word-of-mouth buzz going, you’re not going to make it as a fishing guide. A fishing closure is like a monkey wrench thrown into a jet engine — everything stops, and it can be impossible to get things going again. It took me 20 years to build up my client base. Even if we eventually go back to full salmon seasons, it’s going to take me a long time to get back to where I was. What am I doing today? Like everybody else in this area, whatever it takes to survive: construction, remodeling, anything. My income, obviously, has fallen dramatically. These are tough times on the river — both for the fish and the fishing industry. Somehow, this debate over water has become characterized as a matter of “fish versus jobs.” The argument is that we can have salmon or we can have farming in the Central Valley, but we can’t have both. I think this is ridiculous. We can have both a healthy salmon fishery and a vigorous agricultural sector — we just have to allocate the water fairly and rationally. We need to change the way water is delivered, we need more habitat restoration, and we need to emphasize crops and technologies that conserve water. We also need to adjust water deliveries to accommodate the basic biological requirements of the fish. Spawning salmon need cold water in the river to successfully reproduce, and the young fish need adequate flows to ensure their successful migration to the sea. These baseline conditions must be met if we want to save our salmon and the jobs they generate. Unlike human beings, salmon are unable to compromise or to adjust: they simply need what they need. And what they need isn’t all that much — we can conserve them without disrupting, or even adversely affecting, state agriculture. Recent agreements on the Klamath River and the San Joaquin River have resulted in true “win-win” situations that accommodate both fisheries and farmers. We can do the same for the Sacramento River and the Delta. For my business, the bottom line is this: If we take care of the salmon, they’ll take care of us. Let’s quit all this bickering and get on with it. Mark Mlcoch is president of the Northern California Guides Association. The fact is, California *IS* running out of water. And the reason is because of the HUGE population increases over the last 60 years, drying up the once MEGA-ECONOMY into one in deadthroes and destined into national shock. Remember the once popular polititical quote by MSM pundits... "where California goes, so does the rest of the nation"????/ The water table has been seriously lowered EVERYWHERE simultaneously with an increasing average temperature while the demands of a swelling, unsustainable population base has eroded our quality life.
Bravo Buckie! I just love the way you slid the disinformation in at the end first by setting up with a sob story and some true information, such as the draining of the aquifer in the Imperial Valley, with the assumption that it is true and therefore what follows logical - even when it is not. Har, har, har, har. Such a humorist you are. With declining average temperatures over the last decade your song remains the same. Declining temperature? Why it's glowbull warming. Every glacier on Mt. Shasta growing? Why it's Glowbull Warming. You're such a card Buckie. And why has the population in Kahlifornyah increased so much? Why, you guessed, massive illegal immigration which the corrupt government not only will not stop but wants in order to disrupt our culture and separate us into groups. All the easier to turn into a totalitarian slave state.
In response to my general comment, Mr. O_I contends: According to NOAA: So, for the last past century the Earth has been generally experiencing increasing temperatures, year after year. Now, the rate of increase of change for temperature increase has flattened somewhat over the past few years, the upward trend is climbing. Single point phenomena doesn't discount the general phenomena just because you have found an almost manic shangri-la to cling to concerning over-all temperature changes. The temperature changes in California are diverse, so let's start off with a recent picture for your viewing pleasure to set the facts: Those changes are in just one year. Now, lets talk about the general changes: | NAVIGATE HOME | |
#3. To: Horse (#1)
Just wait until the next two earthquakes flatten the state.
#6. To: James Deffenbach, Horse, abraxas (#3)
#7. To: AGAviator (#6)
#8. To: abraxas (#7)
Where are they getting the water? I actually have been seeing more produce from Mexico too.
#10. To: AGAviator, abraxas (#8)
Water in CA is being depleted, polluted, and there are also government regulations to try to spread what remains around more equitably. So the agribusinesses are complaining, but generally speaking there has not been much of a focus on getting anybody anywhere to use and conserve wisely.
#12. To: farmfriend (#10)
Water in CA is being depleted, polluted, and there are also government regulations to try to spread what remains around more equitably. So the agribusinesses are complaining, but generally speaking there has not been much of a focus on getting anybody anywhere to use and conserve wisely.
#13. To: AGAviator (#12)
potty mouth?
#14. To: farmfriend (#13)
Environmental kool-aide drinker.
#16. To: AGAviator, farmfriend (#14)
(Edited)
#17. To: buckeroo (#16)
(Edited)
She knows what she is talking about when the federal government steps in and restricts private farming/ranching productive efforts when the government has some kind of new fish or game to save.
#18. To: AGAviator (#17)
Meanwhile in all these places listed above there has been heavy and sprawling construction activity with a heavy bias to generating sprawling urban and suburban tracts going in all directions.
Mark Mlcoch: No water, no fish, no jobs
#20. To: buckeroo, farmfriend, James Deffenbach, AGAviator (#18)
The water table has been seriously lowered EVERYWHERE simultaneously with an increasing average temperature while the demands of a swelling, unsustainable population base has eroded our quality life.
"... with an increasing average temperature ..."
#42. To: Original_Intent, farmfriend, James Deffenbach, AGAviator (#20)
The water table has been seriously lowered EVERYWHERE simultaneously with an increasing average temperature while the demands of a swelling, unsustainable population base has eroded our quality life. -- buckeroo
Bravo Buckie! I just love the way you slid the disinformation in at the end first by setting up with a sob story and some true information, such as the draining of the aquifer in the Imperial Valley, with the assumption that it is true and therefore what follows logical - even when it is not.
Har, har, har, har. Such a humorist you are. With declining average temperatures over the last decade your song remains the same. Declining temperature? Why it's glowbull [sic] warming. Every glacier on Mt. Shasta growing? Why it's Glowbull [sic] Warming. You're such a card Buckie.
Published November 2004 / (updated) October 2005 All Rights Reserved 
California Weather Predictions Show Higher Rainfall Rates, Winter 2004 and 2005 is nothing more than a wet memory for many residents of southern California. Early mountain snowstorms (before Halloween) shattered historical records for celebratory skiers. By the end of its rain season (30 June) Los Angeles recorded 37 and one-quarter inches of rain for the previous 12 months. This amount of rain is more alike New York City's annual average of 44 inches of rain or Dallas' 38 inches, which are typically spread out over a 12 month period. Los Angeles received the bulk of its rain in October 2004, and January, and February 2005. Such a pattern is more common for India during its three-month Monsoon. Eight confirmed tornadoes in the Los Angeles basin also made for an active severe weather period. * Monthly updates to San Juan Capistrano, CA weather may be of interest to readers. In Orange County mountains the rainfall storm total during a four-day period of 7-10 January hit 20 inches, or closer to what Saddleback Mountain range typically records in 12 months. Almost anything goes in California; however, long-range forecast models did predict a wet-winter for the Southwestern United States and indicates that such a year could be more common in decades ahead. The science of long-range weather prediction is an educated guess, but computer models provide information to use for practical purposes and planning rather than alarming residents. In California, the largest economy in the United States, healthy rainfall and snow pack is the greatest challenge for the state as water demand exceeds what nature typically provides. Figure 1 combines model data for rainfall projection increases in California for the next 100 years. Figure 2 combines model data for expected increases in temperatures in California for the next 100 years. Trend Models For the period 2010-2080, the future of water --indeed the state's most valuable resource-- is no sure bet. Canada's department of science for climate change models conflict with worst case drought predictions from the Union of Concerned Scientist, a California-based climate study organization. Canada actually offers California a big break in the long-range forecast, predicting rainfall totals of 150 percent above what has become "average" by year 2080. California governmental agencies are preparing for the drought model. All long-range models conclude that California's temperatures will warm on the average of 3 to 6 degrees. Meaning, a current average temperature of 50 degrees (high and low temperatures averaged together) would warm to between 53 and 56 degrees. That in and of itself means little without folding out data into average high and low temperature plan at the regional level. For a city with an average high and low of 60 and 40, the temperature could change to 76 and 36 in a drier climate or 66 and 46 in a moist environment. Statewide, the greatest increase in temperatures is expected during wintertime months. For sunshine lovers, the prediction of yearlong warm weather is good news -- for skiers however, the snow season across the Golden State maybe left to old photographs and memories. Warmer winters mean less snow, more rainfall, thus more rapid and dirty runoff, and little runoff in dry months. To compare extreme models, we've calculated both possibilities using California's climate study group data, and Canada's research models along with some microclimate data known about California. For the graphics in this story, we've used Canada's data for rainfall estimates and both models for temperature. California has numerous microclimates. Depending upon inland temperatures and cooler Pacific Ocean temperatures, the future of California's onshore flow hangs in the balance. Many of California's microclimates are in place due to existing climate trends and the availability or absence of the onshore flow. As these trends change, the microclimates will evolve accordingly. They could simply disappear. The Pacific Ocean currents are dependent upon salinity levels and temperature, as well as northern latitudinal ice melt. An increase in salinity levels and warmer water temperatures could lead to permanent waning of the onshore flow, warming coastline temperatures, and a increasing the monsoon influence in southern California during summer months. When summertime monsoon flows infiltrate the desert regions, coastal areas from San Diego to Malibu experience less onshore flow and warmer temperatures due to cooler and cloudy weather in the desert regions. After two significant tropical waves in summer 2003 brought heavy July rains to the Sacramento Valley, the infamous onshore flow into the Bay Area subsided for the duration of this event as well. It is conceivable that even northern California summers may experience an increase of tropical weather, thus warming the coastline during these spells. What often dissipates tropical waves at the present time is cooler Pacific Ocean temperatures. As the Pacific water warms however, tropical waves are more likely to hold together and in fact maybe enhanced much in the way they are along the Eastern seaboard with warmer ocean temperatures. Drought? On the other hand, the monsoon flow over Mexico, Arizona, and desert regions of California has its own set of dependencies. Both Arizona and New Mexico are in a cycle of less than robust monsoonal seasons, with only that of 2005 registering close to normal after a decade of weak monsoons. Should climate change cause the opposite effect, and decrease moisture influence from the tropics, the desert southwest's climate would be similar to that of the Persian Gulf and drop average rainfall totals to half of what they are today. Natural desert plant life would vanish and underground wells would run dry. The coastline of California's weather would be more alike that of Baja Mexico's dry, cool winters and long, hot dry summers. Should California experience the worst case drought scenario, technology and resources could make ocean water ready for consumption at the current cost of inland water. Predictions for the Midwestern United States actually fair much worse that California at present time, and conclude that between years 2050-2100, the eastern front range of the Rocky Mountains may become the nation's largest desert region without means to secure consumable water. If the worst case drought predictions prove correct for California --rainfall in Los Angeles (current 30-year average is 16 inches) will fall to an annual average of 12 inches by year 2050 and 9 inches by 2100-- or more like Las Vegas is today. San Francisco's average annual rainfall (currently 21 inches) would drop to 17 inches in 2050 and 13 inches in 2100. San Diego would drop from 11 inches to 7 inches. Warmer In viewing the past 30 years of average temperatures across California and comparing them to the previous block of 30 year cycles going back 90 years, there is no doubt that average temperatures have increased especially during winter months. Predicting future temperatures is easier for Los Angeles and San Diego as they would more reflect those current temperatures along the Baja Mexico Peninsula. San Francisco's temperatures are more dependent upon the tug of air and water currents in the Pacific. But if the eastern Pacific waters warm as some models indicate, water temperatures of 70 degrees are possible in summertime along Northern California and 80 degrees in Southern California -- the onshore flow would diminish a great deal, and could result in coastal city temperature increases of as much as 15 degrees from today's averages. Warmer coastal cities like Santa Cruz would jump from 73 to 83, Long Beach from 81 to 90, and Del Mar from 78 to 87. Warmer ocean temperatures along California are also dependent upon a diminished NW-wind flow. The average July-August high temperatures in Los Angeles could rise from 85 degrees today to 92 degrees in 2100, while San Francisco's average summertime high temperatures could rise from 71 to 77. San Diego could see a rise from 78 degrees to 86 degrees. Western-facing beach cities, Monterey, Oxnard, Santa Monica and Oceanside will warm as well, although not as much as those coastal cities facing southern exposures. Wet If Canada's predictions are correct for rainfall, Los Angeles could see an average annual rainfall total of 23 inches, San Francisco would rise to 32 inches and San Diego would rise to 18 inches in 2050. Due to Los Angeles' and San Diego's proximity to warmer Pacific Ocean waters and the tropical monsoon zone, some of this rainfall could arrive in the form of two or three tropical waves each summer, such a change would be drastic to the current climate in southern California, especially if waters off the coast begin to support hurricane activity, which would pose great threats to residential and commercial property. Northern California's increase in rainfall would primarily be due to more intense Pacific winter storms. For native plant life across all of California, Canada's prediction treats plant life very well. It is unknown whether or not the migration North of tropical waves would impact Mexico with widespread drought. Mexico is heavily dependent upon long periods of tropical rain showers in summertime for both residential consumption of water and for growing crops. Averages are, after all, "average," one year's extreme weather averages out over time. For the past 50 years in Los Angeles the rainfall range is 6 inches to 38 inches. Using the new model of average, a dry year in Los Angeles could be 11 inches and a wet year closer to 50 inches. Fifty inches of rainfall in southern California could prove catastrophic without precautionary measures in place. Contrarily, on the dry models, three decades of rainfall less that 10 inches would wipe out all native species of plant life found in the region today. Live oaks, pine trees, and hillside shrubs would die and expose soil to erosion. Additional and refined research could help long-range preparations for nation's most populous state. While there are no clear answers yet, preparation for climate change is a responsible action when time is on your side. Think & Ask, reproduction of any kind is not permitted without written consent.---
Warmer Temperatures
Warming of the earth's surface creates more extreme weather events as the earth dissipates excess heat. As weather systems spawn and track East the influence upon California weather means:
#45. To: buckeroo, farmfriend, abraxas, James Deffenbach, AGAviator (#42)
Spam. Climate has throughout geologic history been variable. A short window of time, and geologically that could be as much as several thousand years, is barely sufficient to establish a clear trend. Temperartures go up, temperatures go down. Climate is variable and cyclical. And as usual your climate model maps are curiously cut off and the scale contracted to manipulate the data to fit the conclusion. The beginning of your graph is the end of a several century period known as "The Little Ice Age". What happens at the end of an ice age that lets us know it is over? Hands Please!? Correct! It warms up and that is how we know the ice age is over. If we look at a graph of a longer period of time the picture becomes clearer - note that the graph before and after the little ice age is very similar i.e., about the same temperature ranges we experienced throughout much of the 20th century. 
Note: I just love the way your graph cuts out the little ice age and the cooling period we are in now.
#50. To: Original_Intent (#45)
Yeah .... and you neglect to add the HUGH, burgeoning population growth in just past few decades. This same human population base is sucking up the resources while simultaneously aiding global warming phenomena.
Climate has throughout geologic history been variable. A short window of time, and geologically that could be as much as several thousand years, is barely sufficient to establish a clear trend.
#52. To: buckeroo (#50)
Again an ASSertion absent any proof. We know now that the Glowbull Warming propagandists have been falsifying data, excluding data, and Scientists, which provide contradictory confirmation etc., ... Oh, and where's that Nobel Prize winning liar Al Bore these days?
This same human population base is sucking up the resources while simultaneously aiding global warming phenomena.
#54. To: Original_Intent, buckeroo (#52)
This same human population base is sucking up the resources while simultaneously aiding global warming phenomena. Again an ASSertion absent any proof. So you want to ASSert that burning 19 million barrels of oil per day every day year in year out, while deforesting 214,000 acres per day - an area larger than New York City, every day year in year out - have nothing to do with climate change. Or the fact that the ice caps over the North Pole have shrunk so much that polar bears who live on them year round are drowning because they have to swim so far to find food they become exhausted. Just a coincidence with all other human activity, no? Slam Gore and Gaia all you want, most people aren't going to wait until the disasters caused by these factors are undeniable to every denying soul on the planet.
#55. To: AGAviator (#54)
A. We do have environmental problems. B. Antropogenic Glowbull Warming is not one of them. It is a distraction from the real problems - such as toxic pollutants both water borne and atmospheric. Hydrogen Sulfide and Mercury from Coal Fired Power Plants IS real, however Glowbull warming is a distraction and is a stalking horse for other hidden agendas.
#57. To: Original_Intent, buckeroo (#55) (Edited)
Burning millions of barrels of oil every day, which introduces thousands of tons of pollutants into the atmosphere, while at the same time deforesting hundreds of thousands of acres of vegetation, removing the capacity of that vegetation to absorb increased thousands of tons of extra CO2 and other by products, causes additional burdens and pollutants to go into the ecosphere/atmosphere. This increased pollutant load also interferes with radiation of heat into space, besides temperature increases coming from the burning fuel itself.
Antropogenic Glowbull Warming is not one of them. It is a distraction from the real problems - such as toxic pollutants both water borne and atmospheric
#58. To: AGAviator, Original_Intent, buckeroo (#57)
CO2 is not a pollutant. It is necessary for life. BTW, the forests, especially the rain forests, are not the major sink for CO2 anyway. The biggest sink for CO2, also the biggest source of CO2, is by far the oceans. The only deforestation that is taking place is in third world countries thanks to the NGOs that shut down domestic forestry.
Burning millions of barrels of oil every day, which introduces millions of tons of pollutants into the atmosphere, while at the same time deforesting hundreds of thousands of acres of vegetation, removing the capacity of that vegetation to absorb increased millions of tons of extra CO2 and other by products, causes additional burdens and pollutants to go into the ecosphere/atmosphere.
#77. To: farmfriend, buckeroo, Original_Intent (#58)
CO2 is poison. You seem to be confusing it with oxygen. While algae in the oceans does convert CO2 into organic food, some of that algae like the red is poison itself. And when algae levels get too high, either from over fishing or from allowing farming chemicals and by products to slosh into the waterways, the algae mass becomes toxic itself. Lower Ocean Oxygen Levels Predict Catastrophic Change A cascade failure is the progressive collapse of an integral system. Many scientists also call them negative feedback loops, in that unfortunate situations reinforce one another, precipitating eventual and sometimes complete failure. The agricultural practices relate to “factory farming,” in which farmers grow crops using more and more chemical fertilizers, specifically nitrogen and phosphorus, which are the first two ingredients (chemical symbols N and P) listed on any container or bag of fertilizer. The last is potassium, or K. But farmers aren’t the only culprits. Lawn enthusiasts add to the problem with their massive applications of fertilizer designed to maintain a species of plant that doesn’t provide either food or habitat, and is grown merely to add prestige. And groundskeepers at parks and large corporate headquarters are equally guilty. In fact, a whole generation needs to rethink its addiction to lawns. Whoever is guilty of applying the fertilizer, these megadoses are eventually washed off the fields and lawns and into waterways. From there, they migrate to the nearest large bodies of water, where they spark such tremendous and unnatural growth in aquatic plants that the result is eutrophication , or lack of oxygen in the water as bacteria act to reduce the sheer mass of dying organic matter. One of these aquatic growths is algae, or phytoplankton. Moderate algal growth can produce higher fish yields and actually benefit lakes and oceans, but over- stimulation leads to a whole host of problems whose integral relationship to one another threatens not only aquatic but human life. A classic example would be the Baltic Sea, where phytoplankton are raging out of control. The Baltic Sea is, as a result, home to seven out of ten of the world’s largest “dead zones,” aquatic areas where nothing survives. One of the other three is the Gulf of Mexico, where a 2008 dead zone the size of Massachusetts is expected to grow in future years thanks to the U.S. government’s biofuel mandate. Most of the crops for biofuel are grown along the Mississippi River, which drains directly into this dead zone. In the Baltic, as elsewhere, overfishing has exacerbated the problem. Fish feed on smaller aquatic organisms, which themselves feed on the algae. Take the fish out of the equation, and the balance is lost. It’s very much like removing the wolves that keep down the deer population in order to protect the sheep, and it doesn’t work in the ocean any better than it works on land. Absolutely false. Brazil's government personnel attempting to rein in slash burning and cutting of Amazonian rain forest are vastly outnumbered by would-be settlers and often try to stop the madness at the risk of their lives.
CO2 is not a pollutant. It is necessary for life. BTW, the forests, especially the rain forests, are not the major sink for CO2 anyway. The biggest sink for CO2, also the biggest source of CO2, is by far the oceans.
There is a cascade failure going on in the world’s oceans that promises nothing but trouble in the future, and the problem stems in part from agricultural practices developed over the last half-decade aimed at growing more food on the same amount of land to feed rising populations.
The only deforestation that is taking place is in third world countries thanks to the NGOs that shut down domestic forestry.
#79. To: AGAviator, buckeroo, Original_Intent (#77)
Right, that's why greenhouses increase CO2 to 1000 ppmv. It is fertilizer for plants. Currently CO2 is at historic lows for the planet. Mankind even does better at higher CO2 levels because we evolved when levels were higher. Without CO2 we have no forests, no agriculture, no life on this planet. CO2 is poison. You seem to be confusing it with oxygen.
#80. To: farmfriend, buckeroo (#79) (Edited)
CO2 is poison. You seem to be confusing it with oxygen. Right, that's why greenhouses increase CO2 to 1000 ppmv Do I need to amplify by saying CO2 is poison for humans? Are you better off breathing in an environment that has more CO2, or less CO2? How can you accuse anybody else of pseudo science after making a statement like you just did. Flies eat waste. This does not mean waste is food for people. Comprende?
#81. To: AGAviator, buckeroo, Original_Intent (#80)
Are you better off breathing in an environment that has more CO2, or less CO2? Actually according to the US Navy you are better off breathing an atmosphere of around 500 ppmv. That's higher than what we have on the planet. Man evolved at higher CO2 levels and has better brain function at higher levels. Yes if the levels get too high it will kill you but then too much water will kill you as well.
Do I need to amplify by saying CO2 is poison for humans?
#82. To: farmfriend (#81)
Lungs expel CO2 just like kidneys expel urine. People who are sick get pure oxygen to increase their chances of survival. Increasing oxygen capacity and its transport within the human body are the goals of: Athletic training, and health care, and spirituality - all at the same time. Your attempts to rationalize the amount of CO2 to promote some pet theory, and against these empirical facts, don't even rise to the level of junk science.
Actually according to the US Navy you are better off breathing an atmosphere of around 500 ppmv. That's higher than what we have on the planet.
#90. To: AGAviator (#82)
Hey kid - wanna buy a bridge? I'll make you a great deal. You can even pay in Carbon Credits. 
#114. To: Original_Intent, buckeroo (#90) (Edited)
I'll make you a great deal. You can even pay in Carbon Credits Hey kid, wanna wash down your CO2 swig with a piss chaser? After all, if CO2 which your lungs expel from your body is good for you, why not urine which gets ejected from your kidneys? It's unfortunate you've felt the need to use your tactic which so clearly is contradicted by facts a 5 year old can understand to push an antigovenment theory. There's plenty of other positions which are much more criticizable.
Hey kid - wanna buy a bridge?
#115. To: AGAviator, farmfriend, James Deffenbach (#114)
I'll make you a great deal. You can even pay in Carbon Credits Hey kid, wanna wash down your CO2 swig with a piss chaser? After all, if CO2 which your lungs expel from your body is good for you, why not urine which gets ejected from your kidneys? It's unfortunate you've felt the need to use your tactic which so clearly is contradicted by facts a 5 year old can understand to push an antigovenment theory. There's plenty of other positions which are much more criticizable. The first step in being able to sort out the truth of the situation is having the courage to look at the actual data and ask: "What does the data tell me?" Throwing temper tantrums and holding your breath until you turn blue do not change the data set. If one is actually applying the scientific method to the understanding of a problem that also requires a willingness to accept what the data tells us not what we would prefer it tell us e.g., confirming our preconceptions or PsyOps lines which we have been sold, accepted as true, and then only to find out it was not. Accepting or rejecting data based upon ones preconceptions is NOT science. At this point we have a substantial data set which as it continues to build demolishes the "CO2" as a greenhouse gas threat. The chief advocates of the theory have been caught lying, cooking the data to make it fit the theory rather than adjusting the theory to fit the observed phenomena, etc., ... The chief environmental groups supporting the theory (Sierra Club, World Wildlife Federation, etc.,...) are all largely recipients of Historical studies, based on ice core analysis, have shown that CO2 is a lagging indicator in planetary warming and tends to lag increased temperatures. In other words the warming occurs before the increases in atmospheric CO2. While proponents of Glowbull Warming have tried various means to explain away the inconvenient ice core data the data is what the data is. CO2 levels in the paleoclimate record show CO2 as lagging significantly behind increases in global temperatures. As well are the affects of increased CO2 on plant and animal life. Increases in CO2 (and again actual studies using real scientific method approaches have been done). What occurs? Plants grow faster and larger and they absorb a greater volume of CO2 while giving off O2, Oxygen, as a byproduct. So, while CO2 may be a poor greenhouse gas, methane as being released in great volume in the gulf - which the bought off major environmental groups are silent on - is a much more powerful greenhouse gas, it is a great growth stimulant for plants - they love the stuff and when more is available they absorb more and increase the richness of the atmospheric Oxygen content with their respiratory byproduct - oxygen. And then we look at the record of scientific honesty. Over and over and over again the proponents of Glowbull Warming have been caught lying, cheating, and fudging data to force it to fit the model rather than developing a model that accommodates the data. You are welcome to believe in any fairy tale you wish, but do not try to call it science. Anthropogenic Glowbull Warming from human created CO2 is not selling. The science does not support it and the body of data validating that view is growing. Now that the CRU and their attempts to prevent the publication of data injurious to their "pet" theories have been exposed we can see how the climate debate has been manipulated, with contrary data excluded, data cherry picked and perfectly valid data (such as selected continental readings taken in Russia) thrown out because it does not fit the theory. You are welcome to believe in anything you wish, but believing does not make inconvenient facts and observations invalid. In real science it means they have to be accommodated in any theory and the theory revised to accommodate the data - not the data thrown out because it doesn't fit the theory which is bass ackwards as far as true science goes. As for me I believe I'll have another cup of coffee.
Hey kid - wanna buy a bridge?
bribes grants from the people who benefit financially from pushing CO2 as a greenhouse gas and Glowbull Warming from anthropogenic CO2 (which is about 3% of the planetary CO2 production).
#120. To: Original_Intent, buckeroo (#115)
The first piece of actual data you need to look at is that CO2 is a waste product expelled by your lungs, which you then claim to be beneficial even though the body works day and night to get rid of. If you cannot get past this first piece, all subsequent claims are irrelevant. Some projection on your part. I repeat, what rationalization can you possibly come up with justifying consumption of items your body expels as waste? Data is based on observable facts. Observable facts about waste products is the body gets more healthy when they are expelled, and less healthy when they are consumed. Deal with it. Let me know whether you've been "sold" that ingesting CO2 or any other waste product is beneficial for people. Not trees, not algae, but people. You really have a horrible mental/emotional block about physical bodily reality. Try living in the physical world, instead of intellectual/emotional conceptual concepts.
The first step in being able to sort out the truth of the situation is having the courage to look at the actual data and ask: "What does the data tell me?"
Throwing temper tantrums and holding your breath until you turn blue do not change the data set. If one is actually applying the scientific method
Requires a willingness to accept what the data tells us not what we would prefer it tell us e.g., confirming our preconceptions or PsyOps lines
We have been sold, accepted as true, and then only to find out it was not.
#121. To: AGAviator, farmfriend, James Deffenbach, TwentyTwelve, wudidiz, all (#120) (Edited)
I said: The first step in being able to sort out the truth of the situation is having the courage to look at the actual data and ask: "What does the data tell me?" You said: The first piece of actual data you need to look at is that CO2 is a waste product expelled by your lungs, which you then claim to be beneficial Which is hyperbole completely unresponsive to the point. The point is not what do I prefer to believe or how many hissy fits can I throw - along with throwing up irrelevancies. All mammals exhale - they take up Oxygen (O2) and exhale Carbon Dioxide (CO2) as a respiratory byproduct of normal metabolism. All plants take up CO2 and give off O2 as a respiratory byproduct of normal metabolism. In case you hadn't noticed the two are complementary. Kind of neat how that works eh? That is called science. Throwing a hissy fit is NOT science. Your argument is so confused and emotional it is hard to tell what point you are trying to make other than you resent people breathing. Throwing a hissy fit is NOT science. Adhering to a disproved idea is what led the Roman Church to try Galileo for heresy. Nevertheless it still moves - as Galileo is reputed to have said under his breath at his forced recantation. I said: "Throwing temper tantrums and holding your breath until you turn blue do not change the data set. If one is actually applying the scientific method ..." You said: Some projection on your part. I repeat, what rationalization can you possibly come up with justifying consumption of items your body expels as waste? Thus throwing forth a tantrum and a point irrelevant to the scientific question of is anthropogenic carbon dioxide either a greenhouse gas or a problem on the global scale? Needless to say you present nothing supporting your hissy fit, or your "Warmist" position in a factual way. I have to presume from the complete absence of any credible data that you cannot. And please no statistical trickery and b.s. such as the, now infamous, "hockey stick". I said: "... Requires a willingness to accept what the data tells us not what we would prefer it tell us e.g., confirming our preconceptions or PsyOps lines You said: "Data is based on observable facts. Observable facts about waste products is the body gets more healthy when they are expelled, and less healthy when they are consumed. Deal with it." Of which only the first sentence is relevant to the discussion you are trying to avoid. The rest is purely a hissy fit not very well expressed. It has what to do with the scientific validity of anthropogenic global warming caused by CO2 (which is at best a minor greenhouse gas, and of which only 3% is produced by human activity)? The rest of your blather is unworthy of comment as all you are doing is repeating the same tiresome, emotional, and irrelevant point as though repeating an irrelevancy somehow makes it relevant. Yawn. In something around 5 short paragraphs you managed to totally avoid any of the relevant issues while repeating over and over the same mantra that has evidently been programmed into you - the intellectual equivalent of 2+2= 12.1926. So, get back to me when you can actually address the issues without throwing a temper tantrum or stamping your little foot. I think the cow you had just became Roast Beef. even though the body works day and night to get rid of.
#131. To: Original_Intent, buckeroo (#121)
You again and again sidestep the main point which that to anything living above the level of vegetation, CO2 is a poison. More apt descriptions of your "respiratory byproduct" are "waste," and "poison." Look them up if you are unclear of their meanings Yes, good and bad are complementary also. So are health and sickness. You choose the ones that benefit you and minimize those that do not. Prima facie evidence of your own confused, emotional hissy fit. People should not be promoting large scale increases of toxic substances in their environments. And to humans CO2 is toxic. World class weaseling with 50 cent words trying to obfuscate the simple English statement that CO2 is toxic to human beings and even animals. How many times have you repeated your "hissy fit" mantra now while sticking your fingers in your ears and humming loudly to yourself to try to blot out my statement that CO2 is poison? Breathing is not "credible data?" "Hissy fit....hissy fit....hissy fit....hissy fit.....hissy fit.....hissy fit..." "Hissy fit....hissy fit....hissy fit....hissy fit.....hissy fit.....hissy fit..." Hold your breath for 5 short minutes and we'll see how much of a "relevant issue" respiration is, blowhard. Or if you prefer, inhale pure CO2 for the same length of time. Like you've been doing throughout this thread Don't quit your day job.
You said: The first piece of actual data you need to look at is that CO2 is a waste product expelled by your lungs, which you then claim to be beneficial
Which is hyperbole completely unresponsive to the point. The point is not what do I prefer to believe or how many hissy fits can I throw - along with throwing up irrelevancies.
All mammals exhale - they take up Oxygen (O2) and exhale Carbon Dioxide (CO2) as a respiratory byproduct of normal metabolism.
All plants take up CO2 and give off O2 as a respiratory byproduct of normal metabolism.
In case you hadn't noticed the two are complementary. Kind of neat how that works eh? That is called science.
Throwing a hissy fit is NOT science. Your argument is so confused and emotional it is hard to tell what point you are trying to make other than you resent people breathing.
Throwing a hissy fit is NOT science. Adhering to a disproved idea is what led the Roman Church to try Galileo for heresy.
I said: "Throwing temper tantrums and holding your breath until you turn blue do not change the data set. If one is actually applying the scientific method ..."
You said: Some projection on your part. I repeat, what rationalization can you possibly come up with justifying consumption of items your body expels as waste? ..Thus throwing forth a tantrum and a point irrelevant to the scientific question of is anthropogenic carbon dioxide either a greenhouse gas or a problem on the global scale?
Needless to say you present nothing supporting your hissy fit, or your "Warmist" position in a factual way.
I have to presume from the complete absence of any credible data
You said: "Data is based on observable facts. Observable facts about waste products is the body gets more healthy when they are expelled, and less healthy when they are consumed. Deal with it."
Of which only the first sentence is relevant to the discussion you are trying to avoid. The rest is purely a hissy fit not very well expressed.
All you are doing is repeating the same tiresome, emotional, and irrelevant point as though repeating an irrelevancy somehow makes it relevant. Yawn.
In something around 5 short paragraphs you managed to totally avoid any of the relevant issues
So, get back to me when you can actually address the issues without throwing a temper tantrum or stamping your little foot.
I think the cow you had just became Roast Beef.
#133. To: AGAviator, Original_Intent (#131)
Invalid. CO2 is not poison. CO is. Many things are. CO2 is not.
my statement that CO2 is poison
#134. To: wudidiz (#133) (Edited)
CO is. Many things are. CO2 is not. Wrong. CO is more lethal than CO2 because it binds to oxygen-carrying cells, permanently removing their capacity to carry oxygen, while CO2 simply displaces oxygen and prevents those cells from absorbing O2. In either case you will eventually die if either substance prevents enough oxygen from getting through. WILL EXPOSURE TO CARBON DIOXIDE RESULT IN HARMFUL HEALTH EFFECTS? Exposure to CO2 can produce a variety of health effects. These may include headaches, dizziness, restlessness, a tingling or pins or needles feeling, difficulty breathing, sweating, tiredness,
CO2 is not poison.
#179. To: AGAviator (#134)
In any case you will eventually die. True enough. It is also true that you might die today if you drink too much water or take too many aspirins. Your argument that CO2 is some kind of killer gas might have some merit if you meant that breathing only that would kill you. But no one has made any such claim and have made the claim, scientific fact, that CO2 is beneficial to us because plants need it and we need the oxygen they give us in return.
In either case you will eventually die if either substance prevents enough oxygen from getting through.
#183. To: James Deffenbach (#179)
Huh? CO2 is beneficial because it is body waste? We breathe CO2 out because our body rejects it. It is not any more beneficial to us than the expelled products of our bowels and kidneys.
Your argument that CO2 is some kind of killer gas might have some merit if you meant that breathing only that would kill you. But no one has made any such claim and have made the claim, scientific fact, that CO2 is beneficial to us because plants need it and we need the oxygen they give us in return.
#185. To: AGAviator (#183)
We breathe CO2 out because our body rejects it. It is not any more beneficial to us than the expelled products of our bowels and kidneys. Carbon dioxide and health Carbon dioxide is essential for internal respiration in a human body. Internal respiration is a process, by which oxygen is transported to body tissues and carbon dioxide is carried away from them. Carbon dioxide is a guardian of the pH of the blood, which is essential for survival. The buffer system in which carbon dioxide plays an important role is called the carbonate buffer. It is made up of bicarbonate ions and dissolved carbon dioxide, with carbonic acid. The carbonic acid can neutralize hydroxide ions, which would increase the pH of the blood when added. The bicarbonate ion can neutralize hydrogen ions, which would cause a decrease in the pH of the blood when added. Both increasing and decreasing pH is life threatening. Read more: http://www.lenntech.com/carbon-dioxide.htm#ixzz0qdcu2QJL
Huh? CO2 is beneficial because it is body waste?
#187. To: randge (#185)
Unfortunately, the outrageous claims being made here, are not that CO2 should remain at status quo, but that increased CO2 in the world atmosphere, combined with daily reduction of hundreds of thousands of acres of vegetation capable of processing this CO2, combined with this increased CO2 in the oceans destroying coral reefs, is somehow beneficial because of an irrational conspirokook theory about Bilderburgers or similar bogeymen.
The carbonic acid can neutralize hydroxide ions, which would increase the pH of the blood when added. The bicarbonate ion can neutralize hydrogen ions, which would cause a decrease in the pH of the blood when added. Both increasing and decreasing pH is life threatening.
#191. To: AGAviator (#187)
CO2 in the oceans is not destroying coral reefs. You really have to quit buying into these media reports.
combined with this increased CO2 in the oceans destroying coral reefs,
#194. To: farmfriend, buckeroo (#191)
The reports of CO2 destroying coral reefs were originally published in a paper contributed to by the science panels of scientists of 69 countries, you brainless zombie. The media then reported the conclusions of this international scientific conference, which is their job. You shamelessly lie as if this statement of CO2 destroying coral reefs, and the science panel's prediction of marine habitat being irreversibly destroyed by 2050, were invented in some news media office. The rate at which the oceans are turning acidic because of rising carbon dioxide concentrations in the atmosphere is faster than at any other time since the extinction of the dinosaurs 65 million years ago, the scientists said in a joint statement issued today in advance of this week's pre-Copenhagen conference on climate change in Bonn. As carbon dioxide increases in the air above the ocean, more of the gas gets dissolved in the surface water of the sea, creating carbonic acid. Since the start of the industrial revolution, the acidic activity of the oceans has increased by 30 per cent. At current rates, they will become so acidic that few shell-forming organisms and coral reefs will be able to survive by mid-centuryCO2 in the oceans is not destroying coral reefs. You really have to quit buying into these media reports.
Rising acidity in oceans is leading to a global catastrophe that would be unparalleled in tens of millions of years, according to the national science academies of 69 countries which want governments to take the issue more seriously in the run-up to the December climate change conference in Europe.
What a shameless liar you are pretending to be seeking debate and scientific facts, then dismissing scientific facts that rebut your kookblather as "media reports." The only suitable word to describe your intellectual dishonesty is "disgusting."
#195. To: AGAviator (#194) (Edited)
The oceans are not turning acidic. The oceans are base. They have always been base and will always remain base. Ask yourself how the coral reefs survived much higher CO2 levels in the past. Remember, CO2 is at historic lows for the planet. And remember, computer modeling is not science.
The rate at which the oceans are turning acidic
#197. To: farmfriend (#195)
A panel of scientists from 69 countries has stated in its report released at an international conference in Europe that the increased supply of CO2 in the atmosphere - predicted over 100 years ago by John Tyndall and Svante Arrhenius - will irreversibly destroy marine habit and biodiversity by 2050. In your usual manner, you blithely dismiss anything which contradicts your own point of view, while demanding science from others. Hers is the link: Again. The oceans are not turning acidic. The oceans are base
Cut emissions or acidity will kill coral reefs, scientists say: 'Underwater catastrophe' is imminent without action
#198. To: AGAviator (#197)
Repeating the same crap doesn't make it true. From your link: As I said before, computer models are NOT science. The study you are citing is nothing more than computer projects designed to force a political outcome. No reality involved.
"Global atmospheric CO2 concentrations are now at 387 parts per million ... model projections suggest that by mid-century, CO2 concentrations will be more than double pre-industrial levels and the oceans will be more acidic than they have been for tens of millions of years," the panel said.
#201. To: farmfriend, buckeroo (#198) (Edited)
That is your own false cherry picked definition of science. Tens of thousands of real scientists use computer models, including the scientists of 69 countries attending an international conference. False. There is much more in the report than computer projects. There are actual empirical measurements that were reported. Then there are the predictions of Tyndall and Arrhenius done over 100 years ago when computers were not even invented, prize winning scientists, that are being fulfilled although more rapidly than they foresaw. So we have another completely unsupported character assasaination of people who rebut you. Another lie in your endless litany of lies.
As I said before, computer models are NOT science
The study you are citing is nothing more than computer projects designed to force a political outcome. No reality involved.
#209. To: AGAviator (#201)
So you finally bring up some actual scientists. Sadly you miss a lot when you take stuff like this out of context. First, actual measurements of CO2 taken in the late 1800s show CO2 levels that are higher than today. One fact you over look. Man's contribution to atmospheric CO2 is 3%. It is logical that increasing the amount of these gases will cause greater warming, like adding a blanket to the duvet. And since the Industrial Revolution, humanity has dug, squeezed and pumped half a trillion tons of carbon in coal, gas and oil from beneath the surface of the Earth, burnt it, and released it as carbon dioxide in the atmosphere. It is inconceivable that this would not increase the warming effect and, indeed, it has done so. This is incorrect statements on what happens in the atmosphere. Layman's understanding if you will. Take this part for example: "Much of it is reflected back as slow-moving infra-red radiation – and most of this gets absorbed by greenhouse gases". This is just wrong. The photons are absorbed and re-emitted immediately. They don't hang on to them. Not to mention that comparing our atmosphere to a greenhouse is apples and oranges anyway. It is not the CO2 in the greenhouse that makes it get warm. It is the lack of convention. The glass acts as a barrier against radiated heat. No such glass exists in the atmosphere to restrict heat loss to space. Nor do greenhouse gases act like glass stopping the radiation. All the computer models showed the upper atmosphere heating as the GHGs trap the heat. No such heating is taking place. The upper atmosphere is actually cooling. The increase in gasses causes the atmosphere to expand outward causing cooling. As for the heating that has taken place since the 70s. Assuming the temp measurements are correct and there is ample evidence to suggest they are not, we have just come through record setting solar cycles. Solar cycles 22 and 23 produces the highest solar output of any recorded. Remember all those record setting solar flares you heard about in the news? Gosh, you think that could have contributed some? Nah it had to be man's fault. And don't even get me started on ice core and tree ring proxies. We don't have all day to go over the problems with those.
Then there are the predictions of Tyndall and Arrhenius done over 100 years ago when computers were not even invented, prize winning scientists, that are being fulfilled although more rapidly than they foresaw.
Solar radiation passes through the atmosphere, as through glass in a greenhouse, to warm the earth. Much of it is reflected back as slow-moving infra-red radiation – and most of this gets absorbed by greenhouse gases in the atmosphere, principally water and carbon dioxide, heating the world further. If it were not for this aerial duvet, the earth would be 20C colder, making it uninhabitable.
#225. To: farmfriend, buckeroo (#209) (Edited)
Doesn't help you a bit. There are tens of thousands of "actual scientists" across the planet who can rebut you, whom you trash and whose work you reflexively dismiss. no matter where or when they make their statements First of all, your lack of mention of these 2 scientific pioneers - whose work was published in 1861 and the 1890's - shows a profound and deliberate denial of the very scientific work you claim to rely upon. As well as intellectual dishonesty by not starting at the beginning of the issue with the pioneers, and working your way forward. Next you ignore the links I provided showing their 100+ year old forecasts being corroborated by current data by making unsubstantiated opinions about agendas and data manipulation - as if you aren't the main culprit yourself. With your agenda-driven dishonesty, you really don't deserve any scientific evidence before you addess the main issues on which scientific conclusions are based, which are Now of course you can't effectively rebut any of this, so instead you try to muddy the waters with blanket unsubstantiated denials, invective, mantralike repeating of selfmade nonsense phrases, and calls for more "science" similar to shyster lawyers wanting more "evidence" because what's in front of them proves them wrong.
So you finally bring up some actual scientists.
(1) CO2 is a poison as science and English define poison,
(2) The Earth is undergoing a long-predicted temperature increase as the result of increased consumption of carbon-based fuels,
(3) The ability of the Earth to assimimilate and convert these fuels into something better is being hampered by large-scale destruction of vegetation, and
(4) The reliance upon the ocean to reconvert the poison CO2 into more beneficial substances is causing destruction of coral reefs and related habitats which will reach critical levels in another 40 years.
#228. To: AGAviator (#225)
LOL that's funny. Here are the scientists I correspond with personally on a daily basis. "Significant new peer-reviewed research has cast even more doubt on the hypothesis of dangerous human-caused global warming." BALI, Indonesia - The UN climate conference met strong opposition Thursday from a team of over 100 prominent international scientists, who warned the UN, that attempting to control the Earth's climate was "ultimately futile." The scientists, many of whom are current and former UN IPCC (Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change) scientists, sent an open letter to the UN Secretary-General questioning the scientific basis for climate fears and the UN's so-called "solutions." "Attempts to prevent global climate change from occurring are ultimately futile, and constitute a tragic misallocation of resources that would be better spent on humanity's real and pressing problems," the letter signed by the scientists read. The December 13 letter was released to the public late Thursday. (LINK) The letter was signed by renowned scientists such as Dr. Antonio Zichichi, president of the World Federation of Scientists; Dr. Reid Bryson, dubbed the "Father of Meteorology"; Atmospheric pioneer Dr. Hendrik Tennekes, formerly of the Royal Netherlands Meteorological Institute; Award winning physicist Dr. Syun-Ichi Akasofu of the International Arctic Research Center, who has twice named one of the "1000 Most Cited Scientists"; Award winning MIT atmospheric scientist Dr. Richard Lindzen; UN IPCC scientist Dr. Vincent Gray of New Zealand; French climatologist Dr. Marcel Leroux of the University Jean Moulin; World authority on sea level Dr. Nils-Axel Morner of Stockholm University; Physicist Dr. Freeman Dyson of Princeton University; Physicist Dr. Zbigniew Jaworowski, chairman of the Scientific Council of Central Laboratory for Radiological Protection in Poland; Paleoclimatologist Dr. Robert M. Carter of Australia; Former UN IPCC reviewer Geologist/Geochemist Dr. Tom V. Segalstad, head of the Geological Museum in Norway; and Dr. Edward J. Wegman, of the U.S. National Academy of Sciences. "It is not possible to stop climate change, a natural phenomenon that has affected humanity through the ages. Geological, archaeological, oral and written histories all attest to the dramatic challenges posed to past societies from unanticipated changes in temperature, precipitation, winds and other climatic variables," the scientists wrote. "In stark contrast to the often repeated assertion that the science of climate change is ‘settled,' significant new peer-reviewed research has cast even more doubt on the hypothesis of dangerous human-caused global warming," the open letter added. [EPW Blog Note: To read about the latest peer-reviewed research debunking man-made climate fears, see: New Peer-Reviewed Scientific Studies Chill Global Warming Fears - LINK - & New Peer-Reviewed Study Finds: "Warming is naturally caused and shows no human influence." (LINK) - For a detailed analysis of how "consensus" has been promoted, see: Debunking The So-Called "Consensus" On Global Warming - LINK ] The scientists' letter continued: "The United Nations Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) has issued increasingly alarming conclusions about the climatic influences of human-produced carbon dioxide (CO2), a non-polluting gas that is essential to plant photosynthesis. While we understand the evidence that has led them to view CO2 emissions as harmful, the IPCC's conclusions are quite inadequate as justification for implementing policies that will markedly diminish future prosperity. In particular, it is not established that it is possible to significantly alter global climate through cuts in human greenhouse gas emissions." "The IPCC Summaries for Policy Makers are the most widely read IPCC reports amongst politicians and non-scientists and are the basis for most climate change policy formulation. Yet these Summaries are prepared by a relatively small core writing team with the final drafts approved line-by-line by government representatives. The great majority of IPCC contributors and reviewers, and the tens of thousands of other scientists who are qualified to comment on these matters, are not involved in the preparation of these documents. The summaries therefore cannot properly be represented as a consensus view among experts," the letter added. [EPW Note: Only 52 scientists participated in the UN IPCC Summary for Policymakers in April 2007, according to the Associated Press. - LINK - An analysis by Australian climate researcher Dr. John Mclean in 2007 found the UN IPCC peer-review process to be "an illusion." LINK ] # # # Complete Letter with all signatories - As published in Canada's National Post on December 13, 2007: The National Post Dec. 13, 2007 Key Quote from Scientists’ Letter to UN: “Attempts to prevent global climate change from occurring are ultimately futile, and constitute a tragic misallocation of resources that would be better spent on humanity's real and pressing problems.” His Excellency Ban Ki-MoonSecretary-General, United Nations New York, N.Y. Dear Mr. Secretary-General, Re: UN climate conference taking the World in entirely the wrong direction It is not possible to stop climate change, a natural phenomenon that has affected humanity through the ages. Geological, archaeological, oral and written histories all attest to the dramatic challenges posed to past societies from unanticipated changes in temperature, precipitation, winds and other climatic variables. We therefore need to equip nations to become resilient to the full range of these natural phenomena by promoting economic growth and wealth generation. The United Nations Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) has issued increasingly alarming conclusions about the climatic influences of human-produced carbon dioxide (CO2), a non-polluting gas that is essential to plant photosynthesis. While we understand the evidence that has led them to view CO2 emissions as harmful, the IPCC's conclusions are quite inadequate as justification for implementing policies that will markedly diminish future prosperity. In particular, it is not established that it is possible to significantly alter global climate through cuts in human greenhouse gas emissions. On top of which, because attempts to cut emissions will slow development, the current UN approach of CO2 reduction is likely to increase human suffering from future climate change rather than to decrease it. The IPCC Summaries for Policy Makers are the most widely read IPCC reports amongst politicians and non-scientists and are the basis for most climate change policy formulation. Yet these Summaries are prepared by a relatively small core writing team with the final drafts approved line-by-line by government representatives. The great majority of IPCC contributors and reviewers, and the tens of thousands of other scientists who are qualified to comment on these matters, are not involved in the preparation of these documents. The summaries therefore cannot properly be represented as a consensus view among experts. Contrary to the impression left by the IPCC Summary reports: *Recent observations of phenomena such as glacial retreats, sea-level rise and the migration of temperature-sensitive species are not evidence for abnormal climate change, for none of these changes has been shown to lie outside the bounds of known natural variability. *The average rate of warming of 0.1 to 0. 2 degrees Celsius per decade recorded by satellites during the late 20th century falls within known natural rates of warming and cooling over the last 10,000 years. *Leading scientists, including some senior IPCC representatives, acknowledge that today's computer models cannot predict climate. Consistent with this, and despite computer projections of temperature rises, there has been no net global warming since 1998. That the current temperature plateau follows a late 20th-century period of warming is consistent with the continuation today of natural multi-decadal or millennial climate cycling. In stark contrast to the often repeated assertion that the science of climate change is "settled," significant new peer-reviewed research has cast even more doubt on the hypothesis of dangerous human-caused global warming. But because IPCC working groups were generally instructed ( http://ipcc-wg1.ucar.edu/wg1/docs/wg1_time..._2006-08-14.pdf ) to consider work published only through May, 2005, these important findings are not included in their reports; i.e., the IPCC assessment reports are already materially outdated. The UN climate conference in Bali has been planned to take the world along a path of severe CO2 restrictions, ignoring the lessons apparent from the failure of the Kyoto Protocol, the chaotic nature of the European CO2 trading market, and the ineffectiveness of other costly initiatives to curb greenhouse gas emissions. Balanced cost/benefit analyses provide no support for the introduction of global measures to cap and reduce energy consumption for the purpose of restricting CO2 emissions. Furthermore, it is irrational to apply the "precautionary principle" because many scientists recognize that both climatic coolings and warmings are realistic possibilities over the medium-term future. The current UN focus on "fighting climate change," as illustrated in the Nov. 27 UN Development Programme's Human Development Report, is distracting governments from adapting to the threat of inevitable natural climate changes, whatever forms they may take. National and international planning for such changes is needed, with a focus on helping our most vulnerable citizens adapt to conditions that lie ahead. Attempts to prevent global climate change from occurring are ultimately futile, and constitute a tragic misallocation of resources that would be better spent on humanity's real and pressing problems. Yours faithfully, The following are signatories to the Dec. 13th letter to the Ban Ki-moon, Secretary-General of the United Nations on the UN Climate conference in Bali [Link to List of signatories]: Ian D. Clark, PhD, Professor, isotope hydrogeology and paleoclimatology, Dept. of Earth Sciences, University of Ottawa Richard S. Courtney, PhD, climate and atmospheric science consultant, IPCC expert reviewer, U.K. Willem de Lange, PhD, Dept. of Earth and Ocean Sciences, School of Science and Engineering, Waikato University, New Zealand David Deming, PhD (Geophysics), Associate Professor, College of Arts and Sciences, University of Oklahoma Freeman J. Dyson, PhD, Emeritus Professor of Physics, Institute for Advanced Studies, Princeton, N.J. Don J. Easterbrook, PhD, Emeritus Professor of Geology, Western Washington University Lance Endersbee, Emeritus Professor, former dean of Engineering and Pro-Vice Chancellor of Monasy University, Australia Hans Erren, Doctorandus, geophysicist and climate specialist, Sittard, The Netherlands Robert H. Essenhigh, PhD, E.G. Bailey Professor of Energy Conversion, Dept. of Mechanical Engineering, The Ohio State University Christopher Essex, PhD, Professor of Applied Mathematics and Associate Director of the Program in Theoretical Physics, University of Western Ontario David Evans, PhD, mathematician, carbon accountant, computer and electrical engineer and head of 'Science Speak,' Australia William Evans, PhD, editor, American Midland Naturalist; Dept. of Biological Sciences, University of Notre Dame Stewart Franks, PhD, Professor, Hydroclimatologist, University of Newcastle, Australia R. W. Gauldie, PhD, Research Professor, Hawai'i Institute of Geophysics and Planetology, School of Ocean Earth Sciences and Technology, University of Hawai'i at Manoa Lee C. Gerhard, PhD, Senior Scientist Emeritus, University of Kansas; former director and state geologist, Kansas Geological Survey Gerhard Gerlich, Professor for Mathematical and Theoretical Physics, Institut für Mathematische Physik der TU Braunschweig, Germany Albrecht Glatzle, PhD, sc.agr., Agro-Biologist and Gerente ejecutivo, INTTAS, Paraguay Fred Goldberg, PhD, Adjunct Professor, Royal Institute of Technology, Mechanical Engineering, Stockholm, Sweden Vincent Gray, PhD, expert reviewer for the IPCC and author of The Greenhouse Delusion: A Critique of 'Climate Change 2001, Wellington, New Zealand William M. Gray, Professor Emeritus, Dept. of Atmospheric Science, Colorado State University and Head of the Tropical Meteorology Project Howard Hayden, PhD, Emeritus Professor of Physics, University of Connecticut Louis Hissink MSc, M.A.I.G., editor, AIG News, and consulting geologist, Perth, Western Australia Craig D. Idso, PhD, Chairman, Center for the Study of Carbon Dioxide and Global Change, Arizona Sherwood B. Idso, PhD, President, Center for the Study of Carbon Dioxide and Global Change, AZ, USA Andrei Illarionov, PhD, Senior Fellow, Center for Global Liberty and Prosperity; founder and director of the Institute of Economic Analysis Zbigniew Jaworowski, PhD, physicist, Chairman - Scientific Council of Central Laboratory for Radiological Protection, Warsaw, Poland Jon Jenkins, PhD, MD, computer modelling - virology, NSW, Australia Wibjorn Karlen, PhD, Emeritus Professor, Dept. of Physical Geography and Quaternary Geology, Stockholm University, Sweden Olavi Kärner, Ph.D., Research Associate, Dept. of Atmospheric Physics, Institute of Astrophysics and Atmospheric Physics, Toravere, Estonia Joel M. Kauffman, PhD, Emeritus Professor of Chemistry, University of the Sciences in Philadelphia David Kear, PhD, FRSNZ, CMG, geologist, former Director-General of NZ Dept. of Scientific & Industrial Research, New Zealand Madhav Khandekar, PhD, former research scientist, Environment Canada; editor, Climate Research (2003-05); editorial board member, Natural Hazards; IPCC expert reviewer 2007 William Kininmonth M.Sc., M.Admin., former head of Australia's National Climate Centre and a consultant to the World Meteorological organization's Commission for Climatology Jan J.H. Kop, MSc Ceng FICE (Civil Engineer Fellow of the Institution of Civil Engineers), Emeritus Prof. of Public Health Engineering, Technical University Delft, The Netherlands Prof. R.W.J. Kouffeld, Emeritus Professor, Energy Conversion, Delft University of Technology, The Netherlands Salomon Kroonenberg, PhD, Professor, Dept. of Geotechnology, Delft University of Technology, The Netherlands Hans H.J. Labohm, PhD, economist, former advisor to the executive board, Clingendael Institute (The Netherlands Institute of International Relations), The Netherlands The Rt. Hon. Lord Lawson of Blaby, economist; Chairman of the Central Europe Trust; former Chancellor of the Exchequer, U.K. Douglas Leahey, PhD, meteorologist and air-quality consultant, Calgary David R. Legates, PhD, Director, Center for Climatic Research, University of Delaware Marcel Leroux, PhD, Professor Emeritus of Climatology, University of Lyon, France; former director of Laboratory of Climatology, Risks and Environment, CNRS Bryan Leyland, International Climate Science Coalition, consultant and power engineer, Auckland, New Zealand William Lindqvist, PhD, independent consulting geologist, Calif. Richard S. Lindzen, PhD, Alfred P. Sloan Professor of Meteorology, Dept. of Earth, Atmospheric and Planetary Sciences, Massachusetts Institute of Technology A.J. Tom van Loon, PhD, Professor of Geology (Quaternary Geology), Adam Mickiewicz University, Poznan, Poland; former President of the European Association of Science Editors Anthony R. Lupo, PhD, Associate Professor of Atmospheric Science, Dept. of Soil, Environmental, and Atmospheric Science, University of Missouri-Columbia Richard Mackey, PhD, Statistician, Australia Horst Malberg, PhD, Professor for Meteorology and Climatology, Institut für Meteorologie, Berlin, Germany John Maunder, PhD, Climatologist, former President of the Commission for Climatology of the World Meteorological Organization (89-97), New Zealand Alister McFarquhar, PhD, international economy, Downing College, Cambridge, U.K. Ross McKitrick, PhD, Associate Professor, Dept. of Economics, University of Guelph John McLean, PhD, climate data analyst, computer scientist, Australia Owen McShane, PhD, economist, head of the International Climate Science Coalition; Director, Centre for Resource Management Studies, New Zealand Fred Michel, PhD, Director, Institute of Environmental Sciences and Associate Professor of Earth Sciences, Carleton University Frank Milne, PhD, Professor, Dept. of Economics, Queen's University Asmunn Moene, PhD, former head of the Forecasting Centre, Meteorological Institute, Norway Alan Moran, PhD, Energy Economist, Director of the IPA's Deregulation Unit, Australia Nils-Axel Morner, PhD, Emeritus Professor of Paleogeophysics & Geodynamics, Stockholm University, Sweden Lubos Motl, PhD, Physicist, former Harvard string theorist, Charles University, Prague, Czech Republic John Nicol, PhD, Professor Emeritus of Physics, James Cook University, Australia David Nowell, M.Sc., Fellow of the Royal Meteorological Society, former chairman of the NATO Meteorological Group, Ottawa James J. O'Brien, PhD, Professor Emeritus, Meteorology and Oceanography, Florida State University Cliff Ollier, PhD, Professor Emeritus (Geology), Research Fellow, University of Western Australia Garth W. Paltridge, PhD, atmospheric physicist, Emeritus Professor and former Director of the Institute of Antarctic and Southern Ocean Studies, University of Tasmania, Australia R. Timothy Patterson, PhD, Professor, Dept. of Earth Sciences (paleoclimatology), Carleton University Al Pekarek, PhD, Associate Professor of Geology, Earth and Atmospheric Sciences Dept., St. Cloud State University, Minnesota Ian Plimer, PhD, Professor of Geology, School of Earth and Environmental Sciences, University of Adelaide and Emeritus Professor of Earth Sciences, University of Melbourne, Australia Brian Pratt, PhD, Professor of Geology, Sedimentology, University of Saskatchewan Harry N.A. Priem, PhD, Emeritus Professor of Planetary Geology and Isotope Geophysics, Utrecht University; former director of the Netherlands Institute for Isotope Geosciences Alex Robson, PhD, Economics, Australian National University Colonel F.P.M. Rombouts, Branch Chief - Safety, Quality and Environment, Royal Netherland Air Force R.G. Roper, PhD, Professor Emeritus of Atmospheric Sciences, School of Earth and Atmospheric Sciences, Georgia Institute of Technology Arthur Rorsch, PhD, Emeritus Professor, Molecular Genetics, Leiden University, The Netherlands Rob Scagel, M.Sc., forest microclimate specialist, principal consultant, Pacific Phytometric Consultants, B.C. Tom V. Segalstad, PhD, (Geology/Geochemistry), Head of the Geological Museum and Associate Professor of Resource and Environmental Geology, University of Oslo, Norway Gary D. Sharp, PhD, Center for Climate/Ocean Resources Study, Salinas, CA S. Fred Singer, PhD, Professor Emeritus of Environmental Sciences, University of Virginia and former director Weather Satellite Service L. Graham Smith, PhD, Associate Professor, Dept. of Geography, University of Western Ontario Roy W. Spencer, PhD, climatologist, Principal Research Scientist, Earth System Science Center, The University of Alabama, Huntsville Peter Stilbs, TeknD, Professor of Physical Chemistry, Research Leader, School of Chemical Science and Engineering, KTH (Royal Institute of Technology), Stockholm, Sweden Hendrik Tennekes, PhD, former director of research, Royal Netherlands Meteorological Institute Dick Thoenes, PhD, Emeritus Professor of Chemical Engineering, Eindhoven University of Technology, The Netherlands Brian G Valentine, PhD, PE (Chem.), Technology Manager - Industrial Energy Efficiency, Adjunct Associate Professor of Engineering Science, University of Maryland at College Park; Dept of Energy, Washington, DC Gerrit J. van der Lingen, PhD, geologist and paleoclimatologist, climate change consultant, Geoscience Research and Investigations, New Zealand Len Walker, PhD, Power Engineering, Australia Edward J. Wegman, PhD, Department of Computational and Data Sciences, George Mason University, Virginia Stephan Wilksch, PhD, Professor for Innovation and Technology Management, Production Management and Logistics, University of Technolgy and Economics Berlin, Germany Boris Winterhalter, PhD, senior marine researcher (retired), Geological Survey of Finland, former professor in marine geology, University of Helsinki, Finland David E. Wojick, PhD, P.Eng., energy consultant, Virginia Raphael Wust, PhD, Lecturer, Marine Geology/Sedimentology, James Cook University, Australia A. Zichichi, PhD, President of the World Federation of Scientists, Geneva, Switzerland; Emeritus Professor of Advanced Physics, University of Bologna, Italy Senate Report Debunks "Consensus" INTRODUCTION: Over 400 prominent scientists from more than two dozen countries recently voiced significant objections to major aspects of the so-called "consensus" on man-made global warming. These scientists, many of whom are current and former participants in the UN IPCC (Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change), criticized the climate claims made by the UN IPCC and former Vice President Al Gore. The new report issued by the Senate Environment and Public Works Committee’s office of the GOP Ranking Member details the views of the scientists, the overwhelming majority of whom spoke out in 2007. Even some in the establishment media now appear to be taking notice of the growing number of skeptical scientists. In October, the Washington Post Staff Writer Juliet Eilperin conceded the obvious, writing that climate skeptics "appear to be expanding rather than shrinking." Many scientists from around the world have dubbed 2007 as the year man-made global warming fears “bite the dust.” (LINK) In addition, many scientists who are also progressive environmentalists believe climate fear promotion has "co-opted" the green movement. (LINK) This blockbuster Senate report lists the scientists by name, country of residence, and academic/institutional affiliation. It also features their own words, biographies, and weblinks to their peer reviewed studies and original source materials as gathered from public statements, various news outlets, and websites in 2007. This new “consensus busters” report is poised to redefine the debate. Many of the scientists featured in this report consistently stated that numerous colleagues shared their views, but they will not speak out publicly for fear of retribution. Atmospheric scientist Dr. Nathan Paldor, Professor of Dynamical Meteorology and Physical Oceanography at the Hebrew University of Jerusalem, author of almost 70 peer-reviewed studies, explains how many of his fellow scientists have been intimidated. “Many of my colleagues with whom I spoke share these views and report on their inability to publish their skepticism in the scientific or public media,” Paldor wrote. [Note: See also July 2007 Senate report detailing how skeptical scientists have faced threats and intimidation - LINK ] Scientists from Around the World Dissent This new report details how teams of international scientists are dissenting from the UN IPCC’s view of climate science. In such nations as Germany, Brazil, the Netherlands, Russia, New Zealand and France, nations, scientists banded together in 2007 to oppose climate alarmism. In addition, over 100 prominent international scientists sent an open letter in December 2007 to the UN stating attempts to control climate were “futile.” (LINK) Paleoclimatologist Dr. Tim Patterson, professor in the department of Earth Sciences at Carleton University in Ottawa, recently converted from a believer in man-made climate change to a skeptic. Patterson noted that the notion of a “consensus” of scientists aligned with the UN IPCC or former Vice President Al Gore is false. “I was at the Geological Society of America meeting in Philadelphia in the fall and I would say that people with my opinion were probably in the majority.” This new committee report, a first of its kind, comes after the UN IPCC chairman Rajendra Pachauri implied that there were only “about a dozen" skeptical scientists left in the world. (LINK) Former Vice President Gore has claimed that scientists skeptical of climate change are akin to “flat Earth society members” and similar in number to those who “believe the moon landing was actually staged in a movie lot in Arizona.” (LINK) & (LINK) The distinguished scientists featured in this new report are experts in diverse fields, including: climatology; oceanography; geology; biology; glaciology; biogeography; meteorology; oceanography; economics; chemistry; mathematics; environmental sciences; engineering; physics and paleoclimatology. Some of those profiled have won Nobel Prizes for their outstanding contribution to their field of expertise and many shared a portion of the UN IPCC Nobel Peace Prize with Vice President Gore. Additionally, these scientists hail from prestigious institutions worldwide, including: Harvard University; NASA; National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) and the National Center for Atmospheric Research (NCAR); Massachusetts Institute of Technology; the UN IPCC; the Danish National Space Center; U.S. Department of Energy; Princeton University; the Environmental Protection Agency; University of Pennsylvania; Hebrew University of Jerusalem; the International Arctic Research Centre; the Pasteur Institute in Paris; the Belgian Weather Institute; Royal Netherlands Meteorological Institute; the University of Helsinki; the National Academy of Sciences of the U.S., France, and Russia; the University of Pretoria; University of Notre Dame; Stockholm University; University of Melbourne; Columbia University; the World Federation of Scientists; and the University of London. The voices of many of these hundreds of scientists serve as a direct challenge to the often media-hyped “consensus” that the debate is “settled.” A May 2007 Senate report detailed scientists who had recently converted from believers in man-made global warming to skepticism. [See May 15, 2007 report: Climate Momentum Shifting: Prominent Scientists Reverse Belief in Man-made Global Warming - Now Skeptics: Growing Number of Scientists Convert to Skeptics After Reviewing New Research – (LINK) - In addtiion, an August 2007 report detailed how proponents of man-made global warming fears enjoy a monumental funding advantage over skeptical scientists. (LINK) ] This report counters the claims made by the promoters of man-made global warming fears that the number of skeptical scientists is dwindling. Examples of “consensus” claims made by promoters of man-made climate fears: Former Vice President Al Gore (November 5, 2007): “There are still people who believe that the Earth is flat.” (LINK) Gore also compared global warming skeptics to people who 'believe the moon landing was actually staged in a movie lot in Arizona' (June 20, 2006 - LINK) CNN’s Miles O’Brien (July 23, 2007): The scientific debate is over.” “We're done." O’Brien also declared on CNN on February 9, 2006 that scientific skeptics of man-made catastrophic global warming “are bought and paid for by the fossil fuel industry, usually.” (LINK) On July 27, 2006, Associated Press reporter Seth Borenstein described a scientist as “one of the few remaining scientists skeptical of the global warming harm caused by industries that burn fossil fuels.” (LINK) Dr. Rajendra Pachauri, Chairman of the IPCC view on the number of skeptical scientists as quoted on Feb. 20, 2003: “About 300 years ago, a Flat Earth Society was founded by those who did not believe the world was round. That society still exists; it probably has about a dozen members.” (LINK) Agence France-Press (AFP Press) article (December 4, 2007): The article noted that a prominent skeptic “finds himself increasingly alone in his claim that climate change poses no imminent threat to the planet.” Andrew Dessler in the eco-publication Grist Magazine (November 21, 2007): “While some people claim there are lots of skeptical climate scientists out there, if you actually try to find one, you keep turning up the same two dozen or so (e.g., Singer, Lindzen, Michaels, Christy, etc., etc.). These skeptics are endlessly recycled by the denial machine, so someone not paying close attention might think there are lots of them out there -- but that's not the case. (LINK) The Washington Post asserted on May 23, 2006 that there were only “a handful of skeptics” of man-made climate fears. (LINK) UN special climate envoy Dr. Gro Harlem Brundtland on May 10, 2007 declared the climate debate "over" and added “it's completely immoral, even, to question” the UN’s scientific “consensus." (LINK) ABC News Global Warming Reporter Bill Blakemore reported on August 30, 2006: “After extensive searches, ABC News has found no such [scientific] debate” on global warming. (LINK) # # Brief highlights of the report featuring over 400 international scientists: Israel: Dr. Nathan Paldor, Professor of Dynamical Meteorology and Physical Oceanography at the Hebrew University of Jerusalem has authored almost 70 peer-reviewed studies and won several awards. “First, temperature changes, as well as rates of temperature changes (both increase and decrease) of magnitudes similar to that reported by IPCC to have occurred since the Industrial revolution (about 0.8C in 150 years or even 0.4C in the last 35 years) have occurred in Earth's climatic history. There's nothing special about the recent rise!” Russia: Russian scientist Dr. Oleg Sorochtin of the Institute of Oceanology at the Russian Academy of Sciences has authored more than 300 studies, nine books, and a 2006 paper titled “The Evolution and the Prediction of Global Climate Changes on Earth.” “Even if the concentration of ‘greenhouse gases’ double man would not perceive the temperature impact,” Sorochtin wrote. Spain: Anton Uriarte, a professor of Physical Geography at the University of the Basque Country in Spain and author of a book on the paleoclimate, rejected man-made climate fears in 2007. “There's no need to be worried. It's very interesting to study [climate change], but there's no need to be worried,” Uriate wrote. Netherlands: Atmospheric scientist Dr. Hendrik Tennekes, a scientific pioneer in the development of numerical weather prediction and former director of research at The Netherlands' Royal National Meteorological Institute, and an internationally recognized expert in atmospheric boundary layer processes, “I find the Doomsday picture Al Gore is painting – a six-meter sea level rise, fifteen times the IPCC number – entirely without merit,” Tennekes wrote. “I protest vigorously the idea that the climate reacts like a home heating system to a changed setting of the thermostat: just turn the dial, and the desired temperature will soon be reached." Brazil: Chief Meteorologist Eugenio Hackbart of the MetSul Meteorologia Weather Center in Sao Leopoldo – Rio Grande do Sul, Brazil declared himself a skeptic. “The media is promoting an unprecedented hyping related to global warming. The media and many scientists are ignoring very important facts that point to a natural variation in the climate system as the cause of the recent global warming,” Hackbart wrote on May 30, 2007. France: Climatologist Dr. Marcel Leroux, former professor at Université Jean Moulin and director of the Laboratory of Climatology, Risks, and Environment in Lyon, is a climate skeptic. Leroux wrote a 2005 book titled Global Warming – Myth or Reality? - The Erring Ways of Climatology. “Day after day, the same mantra - that ‘the Earth is warming up’ - is churned out in all its forms. As ‘the ice melts’ and ‘sea level rises,’ the Apocalypse looms ever nearer! Without realizing it, or perhaps without wishing to, the average citizen in bamboozled, lobotomized, lulled into mindless acceptance. ... Non-believers in the greenhouse scenario are in the position of those long ago who doubted the existence of God ... fortunately for them, the Inquisition is no longer with us!” Norway: Geologist/Geochemist Dr. Tom V. Segalstad, a professor and head of the Geological Museum at the University of Oslo and formerly an expert reviewer with the UN IPCC: “It is a search for a mythical CO2 sink to explain an immeasurable CO2 lifetime to fit a hypothetical CO2 computer model that purports to show that an impossible amount of fossil fuel burning is heating the atmosphere. It is all a fiction.” Finland: Dr. Boris Winterhalter, retired Senior Marine Researcher of the Geological Survey of Finland and former professor of marine geology at University of Helsinki, criticized the media for what he considered its alarming climate coverage. “The effect of solar winds on cosmic radiation has just recently been established and, furthermore, there seems to be a good correlation between cloudiness and variations in the intensity of cosmic radiation. Here we have a mechanism which is a far better explanation to variations in global climate than the attempts by IPCC to blame it all on anthropogenic input of greenhouse gases. “ Germany: Paleoclimate expert Augusto Mangini of the University of Heidelberg in Germany, criticized the UN IPCC summary. “I consider the part of the IPCC report, which I can really judge as an expert, i.e. the reconstruction of the paleoclimate, wrong,” Mangini noted in an April 5, 2007 article. He added: “The earth will not die.” Canada: IPCC 2007 Expert Reviewer Madhav Khandekar, a Ph.D meteorologist, a scientist with the Natural Resources Stewardship Project who has over 45 years experience in climatology, meteorology and oceanography, and who has published nearly 100 papers, reports, book reviews and a book on Ocean Wave Analysis and Modeling: “To my dismay, IPCC authors ignored all my comments and suggestions for major changes in the FOD (First Order Draft) and sent me the SOD (Second Order Draft) with essentially the same text as the FOD. None of the authors of the chapter bothered to directly communicate with me (or with other expert reviewers with whom I communicate on a regular basis) on many issues that were raised in my review. This is not an acceptable scientific review process.” Czech Republic: Czech-born U.S. climatologist Dr. George Kukla, a research scientist with the Lamont-Doherty Earth Observatory at Columbia University, expressed climate skepticism in 2007. “The only thing to worry about is the damage that can be done by worrying. Why are some scientists worried? Perhaps because they feel that to stop worrying may mean to stop being paid,” Kukla told Gelf Magazine on April 24, 2007. India: One of India's leading geologists, B.P. Radhakrishna, President of the Geological Society of India, expressed climate skepticism in 2007. “We appear to be overplaying this global warming issue as global warming is nothing new. It has happened in the past, not once but several times, giving rise to glacial-interglacial cycles.” USA: Climatologist Robert Durrenberger, past president of the American Association of State Climatologists, and one of the climatologists who gathered at Woods Hole to review the National Climate Program Plan in July, 1979: “Al Gore brought me back to the battle and prompted me to do renewed research in the field of climatology. And because of all the misinformation that Gore and his army have been spreading about climate change I have decided that ‘real’ climatologists should try to help the public understand the nature of the problem.” Italy: Internationally renowned scientist Dr. Antonio Zichichi, president of the World Federation of Scientists and a retired Professor of Advanced Physics at the University of Bologna in Italy, who has published over 800 scientific papers: “Significant new peer-reviewed research has cast even more doubt on the hypothesis of dangerous human-caused global warming." New Zealand: IPCC reviewer and climate researcher Dr. Vincent Gray, an expert reviewer on every single draft of the IPCC reports going back to 1990 and author of The Greenhouse Delusion: A Critique of "Climate Change 2001: “The [IPCC] ‘Summary for Policymakers’ might get a few readers, but the main purpose of the report is to provide a spurious scientific backup for the absurd claims of the worldwide environmentalist lobby that it has been established scientifically that increases in carbon dioxide are harmful to the climate. It just does not matter that this ain't so.” South Africa: Dr. Kelvin Kemm, formerly a scientist at South Africa’s Atomic Energy Corporation who holds degrees in nuclear physics and mathematics: “The global-warming mania continues with more and more hype and less and less thinking. With religious zeal, people look for issues or events to blame on global warming.” Poland: Physicist Dr. Zbigniew Jaworowski, Chairman of the Central Laboratory for the United Nations Scientific Committee on the Effects of Radiological Protection in Warsaw: ““We thus find ourselves in the situation that the entire theory of man-made global warming—with its repercussions in science, and its important consequences for politics and the global economy—is based on ice core studies that provided a false picture of the atmospheric CO2 levels.” Australia: Prize-wining Geologist Dr. Ian Plimer, a professor of Earth and Environmental Sciences at the University of Adelaide in Australia: "There is new work emerging even in the last few weeks that shows we can have a very close correlation between the temperatures of the Earth and supernova and solar radiation.” Britain: Dr. Richard Courtney, a UN IPCC expert reviewer and a UK-based climate and atmospheric science consultant: “To date, no convincing evidence for AGW (anthropogenic global warming) has been discovered. And recent global climate behavior is not consistent with AGW model predictions.” China: Chinese Scientists Say C02 Impact on Warming May Be ‘Excessively Exaggerated’ – Scientists Lin Zhen-Shan’s and Sun Xian’s 2007 study published in the peer-reviewed journal Meteorology and Atmospheric Physics: "Although the CO2 greenhouse effect on global climate change is unsuspicious, it could have been excessively exaggerated." Their study asserted that "it is high time to reconsider the trend of global climate change.” Denmark: Space physicist Dr. Eigil Friis-Christensen is the director of the Danish National Space Centre, a member of the space research advisory committee of the Swedish National Space Board, a member of a NASA working group, and a member of the European Space Agency who has authored or co-authored around 100 peer-reviewed papers and chairs the Institute of Space Physics: “The sun is the source of the energy that causes the motion of the atmosphere and thereby controls weather and climate. Any change in the energy from the sun received at the Earth’s surface will therefore affect climate.” Belgium: Climate scientist Luc Debontridder of the Belgium Weather Institute’s Royal Meteorological Institute (RMI) co-authored a study in August 2007 which dismissed a decisive role of CO2 in global warming: "CO2 is not the big bogeyman of climate change and global warming. “Not CO2, but water vapor is the most important greenhouse gas. It is responsible for at least 75 % of the greenhouse effect. This is a simple scientific fact, but Al Gore's movie has hyped CO2 so much that nobody seems to take note of it.” Sweden: Geologist Dr. Wibjorn Karlen, professor emeritus of the Department of Physical Geography and Quaternary Geology at Stockholm University, critiqued the Associated Press for hyping promoting climate fears in 2007. “Another of these hysterical views of our climate. Newspapers should think about the damage they are doing to many persons, particularly young kids, by spreading the exaggerated views of a human impact on climate.” USA: Dr. David Wojick is a UN IPCC expert reviewer, who earned his PhD in Philosophy of Science and co-founded the Department of Engineering and Public Policy at Carnegie-Mellon University: “In point of fact, the hypothesis that solar variability and not human activity is warming the oceans goes a long way to explain the puzzling idea that the Earth's surface may be warming while the atmosphere is not. The GHG (greenhouse gas) hypothesis does not do this.” Wojick added: “The public is not well served by this constant drumbeat of false alarms fed by computer models manipulated by advocates.” # # # Background: Only 52 Scientists Participated in UN IPCC Summary The over 400 skeptical scientists featured in this new report outnumber by nearly eight times the number of scientists who participated in the 2007 UN IPCC Summary for Policymakers. The notion of “hundreds” or “thousands” of UN scientists agreeing to a scientific statement does not hold up to scrutiny. (See report debunking “consensus” LINK) Recent research by Australian climate data analyst Dr. John McLean revealed that the IPCC’s peer-review process for the Summary for Policymakers leaves much to be desired. (LINK) Proponents of man-made global warming like to note how the National Academy of Sciences (NAS) and the American Meteorological Society (AMS) have issued statements endorsing the so-called "consensus" view that man is driving global warming. But both the NAS and AMS never allowed member scientists to directly vote on these climate statements. Essentially, only two dozen or so members on the governing boards of these institutions produced the "consensus" statements. This report gives a voice to the rank-and-file scientists who were shut out of the process. (LINK) The most recent attempt to imply there was an overwhelming scientific “consensus” in favor of man-made global warming fears came in December 2007 during the UN climate conference in Bali. A letter signed by only 215 scientists urged the UN to mandate deep cuts in carbon dioxide emissions by 2050. But absent from the letter were the signatures of these alleged “thousands” of scientists. (See AP article: - LINK ) UN IPCC chairman Rajendra Pachauri urged the world at the December 2007 UN climate conference in Bali, Indonesia to "Please listen to the voice of science.” The science has continued to grow loud and clear in 2007. In addition to the growing number of scientists expressing skepticism, an abundance of recent peer-reviewed studies have cast considerable doubt about man-made global warming fears. A November 3, 2007 peer-reviewed study found that “solar changes significantly alter climate.” (LINK) A December 2007 peer-reviewed study recalculated and halved the global average surface temperature trend between 1980 – 2002. (LINK) Another new study found the Medieval Warm Period “0.3C warmer than 20th century” (LINK) A peer-reviewed study by a team of scientists found that "warming is naturally caused and shows no human influence." (LINK) – Another November 2007 peer-reviewed study in the journal Physical Geography found “Long-term climate change is driven by solar insolation changes.” (LINK ) These recent studies were in addition to the abundance of peer-reviewed studies earlier in 2007. - See "New Peer-Reviewed Scientific Studies Chill Global Warming Fears" (LINK ) With this new report of profiling 400 skeptical scientists, the world can finally hear the voices of the “silent majority” of scientists. First of all, your lack of mention of these 2 scientific pioneers - whose work was published in 1861 and the 1890's - shows a profound and deliberate denial of the very scientific work you claim to rely upon.
Over 100 Prominent Scientists Warn UN Against 'Futile' Climate Control Efforts
Don't Fight, Adapt; We Should Give Up Futile Attempts to Combat Climate Change
U.S. Senate Report: Over 400 Prominent Scientists Disputed Man-Made Global Warming Claims in 2007
#233. To: farmfriend (#228) (Edited)
And here are their motives: Biased towards making and keeping money rather than doing what it takes to find out the truth: "While we understand the evidence that has led them to view CO2 emissions as harmful, the IPCC's conclusions are quite inadequate as justification for implementing policies that will markedly diminish future prosperity" "Balanced cost/benefit analyses provide no support for the introduction of global measures to cap and reduce energy consumption for the purpose of restricting CO2 emissions."Here are the scientists I correspond with personally on a daily basis.
"We therefore need to equip nations to become resilient to the full range of these natural phenomena by promoting economic growth and wealth generation. "
#238. To: AGAviator, farmfriend, HighLairEon, James Deffenbach, wudidiz, all (#233)
That explains much. You are one of those people who thinks it is a crime for anyone to live well and prosper. Much better to drag everyone down to slave state status living in the equal misery of a socialist dictatorship where everyone is equal - except that some are more equal than others. How is economic prosperity incompatible with a clean environment? How is an ineffectual policy which diminishes the economic, and thus physical welfare of all but the hyper-wealthy, while trying to solve a non-existent problem superior to a set of policies which promote the general welfare while seeking to solve the real environmental problems? And here again we come back to your fixation on dragging the world down into a miserable poverty because you resent some being more able, thus producing more, and having more. So, at long last we arrive at the point where your real reasons for supporting a discredited theory, for which you can provide no credible support, it is not because of your desire to improve the environment but your desire to drag other people down, because you have a neurotic fixation and distaste for anyone doing well while doing good. The two are not incompatible. It is possible to have prosperity AND a clean enviroment. Can you demonstrate in any way how prosperity and the general welfare of the environment are mutually exclusive, and here I am not talking about individual polluters or abuses, but on the "Meta-scale" as a general proposition? Of course you can't and I expect, if you reply, to be treated to more socialist hogwash about how we must all live a hair shirt existence in divine misery because it is just so unfair that the able are more successful than the inable.
"We therefore need to equip nations to become resilient to the full range of these natural phenomena by promoting economic growth and wealth generation. "
"Balanced cost/benefit analyses provide no support for the introduction of global measures to cap and reduce energy consumption for the purpose of restricting CO2 emissions."
Replies to Comment # 238.
#264. To: Original_Intent (#238)
It isn't. All the proof of that you need is to visit some third world hell hole (like Haiti for example, even before the earthquake) and look at the squalor and filth. Then compare it to any upscale neighborhood in the US or any first-world country where they take pride in their homes and communities. All the difference in the world.
Another of your many lies and distortions of anything that does not support your "individual good is supreme good," and your pipe dream that individual thoughts somehow have more substance, than the thoughts of many individuals collaborating and putting something together collectively. Earth calling. You're in and on a planet where you're connected in many different ways with many different people and environmental factors. A simple object you buy at a retail store has likely had its components pass through many different companies, states and countries. You may attempt to block this out in your head, but that does not make it any less true. You have no inherent right to consume 10 times as many resources to promote your existence, than someone born in different conditions has to promote his or hers. Particularly if you use those resources wastefully and inefficiently because of your personal choices. Call it socialism, marxism, whatever name you please, but you will clutch your coin purse on a sinking ship, instead of trying to keep the ship afloat, at your own peril. Oh, and by the way, who was it who originated policies of eliminating population in developing countries? Why, Henry Kissinger's Club of Rome. Contrary to your propaganda, the globalist elitists began in the 1970's trying to cull world population, not benefit it. Only when they belatedly saw that population reduction was not working or workable, did they seek policies to assist people instead of killing them off. So what we're seeing from the globalists now are decisions to do something they have no other choice. Last but not least, when you have two parties with some connections, and one of them has all the advantages and the other has almost nothing, there's often a distinct odor of the one with the advantages taking some or all of them wrongfully, then hiding behind the law, or personal protection allowed by law, to retain them. Like it or lump it, those days are coming to an end. The new order is going to be that the more you give, the more you will receive. Prosperity for whom? As has been pointed out to you repeatedly, population grows at a far greater rate than resources - which are mostly fixed or even decreasing. So prosperity seems to be a code word for you believing some individuals have inherent rights to more than others, and you complain when you believe outside forces like govenment attempt to shift who the individuals are with more of those rights. So you couldn't care less about inequality, only when you believe the inequality is promoted by agencies supposed to be working for the benefit of all. Throughout history, the success of "able" has been principally through use of force and cunning against the "inable," and has never long endured because it was never earned rightfully to begin with. Going forweard either the lesser people will be brought up, or the higher up people will be coming down. Pointing out that some of the higher level people try to preserve their status by claiming to work for the greater good, will not ultimately protect them, as Gore himself is starting to find out.
Top • Page Up • Full Thread • Page Down • Bottom/LatestHow is economic prosperity incompatible with a clean environment?
#283. To: Original_Intent (#238)
You are one of those people who thinks it is a crime for anyone to live well and prosper. Much better to drag everyone down to slave state status living in the equal misery of a socialist dictatorship
How is economic prosperity incompatible with a clean environment?
We must all live a hair shirt existence in divine misery because it is just so unfair that the able are more successful than the inable
End Trace Mode for Comment # 238.