Another Scare Amicus?

[DeeZire]

A Case for Global Cooling...

Interesting article, seems not all scientists agree...

You're right. Go to any right wing website and you will find boatloads of scientists who have been paid not to agree. Here is a list of scientists who's agenda is science, not propaganda.

http://www.grist.org/article/global-warming-is-a-hoax

Here is a list of organizations that accept anthropogenic global warming as real and scientifically well-supported:

NASA's Goddard Institute of Space Studies (GISS): http://www.giss.nasa.gov/edu/gwdebate/
National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA): http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/oa/climate/globalwarming.html
Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC): http://www.grida.no/climate/ipcc_tar/wg1/index.htm
National Academy of Sciences (NAS): http://books.nap.edu/collections/global_warming/index.html
State of the Canadian Cryosphere (SOCC) - http://www.socc.ca/permafrost/permafrost_future_e.cfm
Environmental Protection Agency (EPA): http://epa.gov/climatechange/index.html
The Royal Society of the UK (RS) - http://www.royalsoc.ac.uk/page.asp?id=3135
American Geophysical Union (AGU): http://www.agu.org/sci_soc/policy/climate_change_position.html
American Meteorological Society (AMS): http://www.ametsoc.org/policy/climatechangeresearch_2003.html
American Institute of Physics (AIP): http://www.aip.org/gov/policy12.html
National Center for Atmospheric Research (NCAR): http://eo.ucar.edu/basics/cc_1.html
American Meteorological Society (AMS): http://www.ametsoc.org/policy/jointacademies.html
Canadian Meteorological and Oceanographic Society (CMOS): http://www.cmos.ca/climatechangepole.html

Every major scientific institution dealing with climate, ocean, and/or atmosphere agrees that the climate is warming rapidly and the primary cause is human CO2 emissions. In addition to that list, see also this joint statement (PDF) that specifically and unequivocally endorses the work and conclusions of the IPCC Third Assessment report. The statement was issued by:

Academia Brasiliera de Ciencias (Brazil)
Royal Society of Canada
Chinese Academy of Sciences
Academie des Sciences (France)
Deutsche Akademie der Naturforscher Leopoldina (Germany)
Indian National Science Academy
Accademia dei Lincei (Italy)
Science Council of Japan
Russian Academy of Sciences
Royal Society (United Kingdom)
National Academy of Sciences (United States of America)

You can also read this statement [PDF], which includes all the above signatories plus the following:

Australian Academy of Sciences
Royal Flemish Academy of Belgium for Sciences and the Arts
Caribbean Academy of Sciences
Indonesian Academy of Sciences
Royal Irish Academy
Academy of Sciences Malaysia
Academy Council of the Royal Society of New Zealand
Royal Swedish Academy of Sciences

But if scientists are too liberal and politicians too unreliable, perhaps you find the opinion of key industry representatives more convincing:

BP, the largest oil company in the UK and one of the largest in the world, has this opinion:
There is an increasing consensus that climate change is linked to the consumption of carbon based fuels and that action is required now to avoid further increases in carbon emissions as the global demand for energy increases.

Shell Oil (yes, as in oil, the fossil fuel) says:
Shell shares the widespread concern that the emission of greenhouse gases from human activities is leading to changes in the global climate.

Eighteen CEOs of Canada's largest corporations had this to say in an open letter to the Prime Minister of Canada:
Our organizations accept that a strong response is required to the strengthening evidence in the scientific assessments of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC). We accept the IPCC consensus that climate change raises the risk of severe consequences for human health and security and the environment. We note that Canada is particularly vulnerable to the impacts of climate change.

Have the environazis seized the reigns of industrial power, in addition to infiltrating the U.N., the science academies of every developed nation, and the top research institutes of North America? That just doesn't seem very likely.

 

[JackLuis]

Hey guys the Lincoln discussion is great. I don't know if it is just "Revisionist" history, or if you know what you are talking about, but Lincoln was a product of his times so I assume that he had the typical racist attitude of his time.

We can, from your posts conclude that he was a pragmatist and his objective was to save the union and support his party so he could get re-elected. With the asshats he had in charge of the Army in the early going it must have been worrying to see the Confederates camp fires from the Capitol.

Zeb, great article supporting the Global Cooling idea. However, This is not a peer reviewed piece and even the site says it is only the opinion of the author. Slim competition for a report from the Climatologists, or MIT though.

While I would like to cuddle up to Global Cooling and rest my fevered brow on it's chilly chest, I think I'll follow the experts who have allowed peer review of their work.

Yes the report I cited said that the conclusions of the report are based upon many runs of computer models that may or may not represent the results in the future, however they did a lot of runs and adjusted things to come up with their best guess and it seems pretty dismal, unless we do something like convert to carbon neutral fuels.

Considering the cost of imported oil is bound to rise as a consequence of the devaluation of the Dollar, I think we need to press the research and find something to replace the oil we will not be able to afford soon.

I believe we will be burning more coal just to keep the lights on in Washington so our Congress can lead us out of the swamp they have led us into. So where is the clean coal technology?

Now even our best science brains can be wrong, but if they are right, what then? If they are wrong we will have spent a lot of money to clean up our emissions and perhaps we will have spent the money for naught.

I for one, would rather spend the money on Green Fuels rather than a bailout of the inept Insurance companies, or to bail out Wall Street Bankers who should take responsibility for running the greatest Financial System in the world into the ground in their zeal to make more money from the rubes.

PS, DeeZee, great rebuttal!

 

[amicus]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_o...tream_scientific_assessment_of_global_warming

 

[JAMESBJOHNSON]

JACKLUIS

How much money would the scientists and lawyers get if they had a convention and concluded that THINGS ARE LOOKING PRETTY ROSY!

No. The government throws money at them when they race around like Muppets on LSD, screaming MY HAIRS ON FIRE! WE'RE ALL GONNA DIE!

 

[Austin8]

The rising number of fat people was yesterday blamed for global warming.

By Ben Jackson

Scientists warned that the increase in big-eaters means more food production - a major cause of CO2 gas emissions warming the planet.

Overweight people are also more likely to drive, adding to environmental damage.

Dr Phil Edwards, of the London School of Hygiene and Tropical Medicine, said: “Moving about in a heavy body is like driving in a gas guzzler.”

Each fat person is said to be responsible for emitting a ton more of climate-warming carbon dioxide per year than a thin one.

*Burp*

 

[amicus]

Not so humorous when 'obesity' even moderately over-weigh people are being denied health care under already existing 'national health plans', and is under consideration for the coming 'health plan' from the new administration.

Butchering babies is fine, so why not dispose of the aged and the overweight and save some more tax funds?



amicus

 

[JackLuis]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_o...tream_scientific_assessment_of_global_warming

Very Good Amicus. I like the charts.

They shows that the temperature went up 0.7 degrees from 1920 to 2000, approximately. Didn't this happen to be the period when motor fuels became an important, nay necessary, commodity in developed countries?

At the end of the article a few scientists said that increasing CO2 will help plants grow better and increase the productivity of our Agriculture. Plants breath in CO2 and use the carbon and express the O2. The more CO2 they have, up to a point, the better they grow.

Most of the dissenters seemed to believe that the "Natural Cycles" are the reason for the change and not man.

The charts seem to refute that put up by Zeb, but I'm see that it is just the difference in Scales.

What I see is a need to replace fossil fuels with carbon neutral fuels to help reduce CO2, but mostly to cut into the billions of dollars we send to the Islamic world.

 

[JAMESBJOHNSON]

JACK

There are only about a gozillion goddamn things that influence climate.

Allow me to remind everyone that SCIENTISTS have blamed hyperactivity on everything you can imagine, too. SUGAR, FOOD COLORING, PRESERVATIVES, ALCOHOLIC PARENTS, GENES, etc.

When the perfessers run out of places to look for smoking guns, they invent new reasons for the problem. I mean, you can only feed a lab rat so many tons of saccharine before people start to wonder about you.

 

[Austin8]

The rising number of fat people was yesterday blamed for global warming.

By Ben Jackson

Scientists warned that the increase in big-eaters means more food production - a major cause of CO2 gas emissions warming the planet.

Overweight people are also more likely to drive, adding to environmental damage.

Dr Phil Edwards, of the London School of Hygiene and Tropical Medicine, said: “Moving about in a heavy body is like driving in a gas guzzler.”

Each fat person is said to be responsible for emitting a ton more of climate-warming carbon dioxide per year than a thin one.

*Burp*

JACK

There are only about a gozillion goddamn things that influence climate.

Allow me to remind everyone that SCIENTISTS have blamed hyperactivity on everything you can imagine, too. SUGAR, FOOD COLORING, PRESERVATIVES, ALCOHOLIC PARENTS, GENES, etc.

When the perfessers run out of places to look for smoking guns, they invent new reasons for the problem. I mean, you can only feed a lab rat so many tons of saccharine before people start to wonder about you.

☢ ☢ ☢ ☢

My Point, Exactly...

 

[JackLuis]

JACK

There are only about a gozillion goddamn things that influence climate.

Allow me to remind everyone that SCIENTISTS have blamed hyperactivity on everything you can imagine, too. SUGAR, FOOD COLORING, PRESERVATIVES, ALCOHOLIC PARENTS, GENES, etc.

When the perfessers run out of places to look for smoking guns, they invent new reasons for the problem. I mean, you can only feed a lab rat so many tons of saccharine before people start to wonder about you.

JB, that is exactly why I let the pit pickers look into it. It is not worth my time to obsess about problems beyond my control. MIT has the computers to put all of the shit together and I don't.

Hell, I don't know for certain that Anthropogenic CO2 is going to cause War Famine and Pestulence, but I know that we are going to be paying through the nose for imported oil in the future.

 

[amicus]

What I see is a need to replace fossil fuels with carbon neutral fuels to help reduce CO2, but mostly to cut into the billions of dollars we send to the Islamic world.

~~~

Idealism is fine, even 'rose colored glasses' idealism has its' place, I suppose. but get real, please, at least for the sake of an honest discussion.

Solar, Wind, Tidal, will never amount to even a fifth of the energy requirements of the current United States. If you were serious about wanting to move away from fossil fuels, you would have been, as I have, in support of Nuclear Plants to provide electricity. Were you even a little serious about coming energy shortfalls and the billions sent to foreign oil sources, you would support immediate exploitation of every source of fossil fuels within the boundaries of the United States.

The spoken, partial solution is Conservation, using less energy, the unspoken solution is reducing the population and the level of industry that supports our post Industrial society.

Political agenda's are fine, the social network of environmentalists are in full voice about saving the planet, along with the whales (Whale Wars), the Spotted Owl and the Pristine Wilderness, they resist any innovation concerning utilizing available energy sources to meet the needs of the population.

There will come a time, it has perhaps already arrived, when, even beginning now, we will not be able to meet the energy requirements of our society in the near future.

There have already been fictional projections of the disaster eminent when, 'Peak Oil', production has passed, some say it already has.

When and if the deadheads of the left ever take their heads out of their asses and assess the energy situation on a rational basis, it will most likely be too late to prevent the unnecessary deprivation and suffering brought about the Environmental and Global warming Zealots.

When it does happen, and it will, someone remind peeps that, "I told you so...".

Amicus

 

[JAMESBJOHNSON]

JACK

One of these days we may pull our heads from our asses and change how our physical communities are organized, so that cars are about as necessary as horses. You might ride an escalator down to work or up to shop.

I'm reading about farming techniques that use no fertilizer or pesticides and produce about 2x the crops conventional farming does. You actually grow a lot of food on a tiny plot of ground.

Anymore fish farms make it unnecessary to spend fortunes harvesting wild fish. Almost every family could build a fish tank in their yard and eat fish instead of weeners.

Historically, people respond to shortages with new technology and increased efficiency.

 

[amicus]

True, JBJ, but only if people are free to innovate. The Soviet Union, after 75 years of slavery, couldn't even feed themselves...

ami

 

[JAMESBJOHNSON]

AMICUS

Yep. I read the book.

To create the world anew, kill all the bureaucrats,

 

[amicus]

Hmmm...nice to know someone is looking after my 6.

ami

 

[Zeb_Carter]

You're right. Go to any right wing website and you will find boatloads of scientists who have been paid not to agree. Here is a list of scientists who's agenda is science, not propaganda.

http://www.grist.org/article/global-warming-is-a-hoax

Oh you mean all those left-wing scientists paid to agree with the political agenda propaganda that we did it? So do you have proof that the gentleman who wrote that paper was paid by some right-wing organization. Because I can prove that the scientists who write papers and make predictions that global warming is man's fault are paid by a left-wing organization.

 

[DeeZire]

Oh you mean all those left-wing scientists paid to agree with the political agenda propaganda that we did it? So do you have proof that the gentleman who wrote that paper was paid by some right-wing organization. Because I can prove that the scientists who write papers and make predictions that global warming is man's fault are paid by a left-wing organization.

Just because you don't have the capability to pursue the truth without a financial motive does not mean that everyone is afflicted with your lack of integrity. There are people - scientists, historians, politicians - who have pure motives unaffected by the type of paranoia that prohibits you from rational thought.

Because of your fact-challenged mindset, I have relegated you to the "unenlightenable" club, currently populated by Ami, Scouries, DP, BFW, Wormie, and Box. Have fun, ya'll.

 

[amicus]

"...Just because you don't have the capability to pursue the truth without a financial motive does not mean that everyone is afflicted with your lack of integrity. There are people - scientists, historians, politicians - who have pure motives unaffected by the type of paranoia that prohibits you from rational thought..."

~~~

Ah, we have the typical 'Saintly' Socialist claiming how enlightening it is to slave for nothing.

Therein is exposed the ugly tapeworm that gnaws at the intestines of our, 'usual suspect' effete intellectual cadre.

The Kings and Popes who live off the labor of the people, the Priests that live in splendor and rape little girls by day and little boys by night. Those who do not labor for profit, but coerce and enslave others to work for them and then take most of the food from the starving.

A financial motive, self interest, a profit motive, self interest, a rational motive, to survive by the fruit of ones' efforts; therein lies human dignity and values, ethics and morals.

The motive of the parasites and their spokesman above? Greed, they want most of what you produce so they can remain, 'pure', in their pursuit of pleasure.

I like it when people like Deezire, slip up and show their dirty underwear for all to see and I remind you, all I do is to point it out to you.

Oh, and in the event you want some further explanations:

http://www.crossroad.to/Excerpts/books/revolution/hayek/serfdom-11.htm

Amicus

 

[Zeb_Carter]

Just because you don't have the capability to pursue the truth without a financial motive does not mean that everyone is afflicted with your lack of integrity. There are people - scientists, historians, politicians - who have pure motives unaffected by the type of paranoia that prohibits you from rational thought.

Because of your fact-challenged mindset, I have relegated you to the "unenlightenable" club, currently populated by Ami, Scouries, DP, BFW, Wormie, and Box. Have fun, ya'll.

You might want to put yourself in that club. Everyone is motivated by money! Science is paid for by grants, either government or private organizations. Nobody works for free. And the sooner you learn that the sooner you will see the light at the end of the tunnel...oh wait, it's blocked by global warming. Fool.

 

[Austin8]

You might want to put yourself in that club. Everyone is motivated by money! Science is paid for by grants, either government or private organizations. Nobody works for free. And the sooner you learn that the sooner you will see the light at the end of the tunnel...oh wait, it's blocked by global warming. Fool.

Let’s see now. We must reduce our consumption of CO2 by 50 percent because we are contributing 0.00104 percent of the atmospheric CO2. Can anyone tell me just how much warming will be reduced with a 0.00104% percent reduction in our atmospheric CO2 contribution?
☢ ☢ ☢ ☢
Man, it's gettin' hot in this damn tunnel...

 

[JackLuis]

Ah! bringing out the big guns now are we, Amicus?

The road to serfdom from 1944, how quaint. But kind of out of place in a GW thread, don't you think?

I was taken off guard by the hysteria in the original article. No one has had the guts to point out the obvious but if the GW does make significant shifts in our agricultural productivity that could be a problem particularly if the ocean level raises.

In Bangladesh, just a few meters rise in sea level would be a disaster. It would cause the price of rice to go thru the roof in the entire area. Then India and Pakistan would start squabbling and ... Well that would be bad.

So now we can talk about the consequences of resource depletion , Oil, Minerals, and ineveitably food.

But what if GW is a crock?

 

[DeeZire]

Originally Posted by Zeb_Carter
You might want to put yourself in that club. Everyone is motivated by money! Science is paid for by grants, either government or private organizations. Nobody works for free. And the sooner you learn that the sooner you will see the light at the end of the tunnel...oh wait, it's blocked by global warming. Fool

Really? All those folks who signed up to go to Iraq were motivated by money? Every time that is argued in a discussion, it is countered by people like you who claim that the folks going to Iraq were motivated by patriotism.

Look at all the people posting stories here at LIT. Are they motivated by money? We're not all motivated by money, my friend. Some of us (musicians, artists, farmers, teachers, construction workers) make crappy livings because we're doing what we love. Same goes for all professions. If you're going through your whole life with only money as a motivation, I don't think you're qualified to be calling people with integrity fools. I knew this whole motivation thing would go right over your head.

(I know, I should ignore it when iggy lists idiots are quoted. My fault.)

 

[JAMESBJOHNSON]

Ah! bringing out the big guns now are we, Amicus?

The road to serfdom from 1944, how quaint. But kind of out of place in a GW thread, don't you think?

I was taken off guard by the hysteria in the original article. No one has had the guts to point out the obvious but if the GW does make significant shifts in our agricultural productivity that could be a problem particularly if the ocean level raises.

In Bangladesh, just a few meters rise in sea level would be a disaster. It would cause the price of rice to go thru the roof in the entire area. Then India and Pakistan would start squabbling and ... Well that would be bad.

So now we can talk about the consequences of resource depletion , Oil, Minerals, and ineveitably food.

But what if GW is a crock?

All the Wogs can move to Canada and Greenland if Bangladesh floods. But it floods anyway, every time anyone flushes the toilet.

 

[Zeb_Carter]

Really? All those folks who signed up to go to Iraq were motivated by money? Every time that is argued in a discussion, it is countered by people like you who claim that the folks going to Iraq were motivated by patriotism.

Look at all the people posting stories here at LIT. Are they motivated by money? We're not all motivated by money, my friend. Some of us (musicians, artists, farmers, teachers, construction workers) make crappy livings because we're doing what we love. Same goes for all professions. If you're going through your whole life with only money as a motivation, I don't think you're qualified to be calling people with integrity fools. I knew this whole motivation thing would go right over your head.

(I know, I should ignore it when iggy lists idiots are quoted. My fault.)

I never said my motivation was money, although I make a decent living at what I do. And I was generalizing...as a whole there are some who do what they do for the love of what they do but, that doesn't pay the bills so they do other things that do produce an income as such, to pay for those things they need or want. Or they have a benefactor that provides that income for them. But it is a truism - nobody works for free. Even those soldiers who were sent or volunteered to go to Iraq expect to be paid for what they do, true it is a pittance by everyones standards and they do have other motivations for doing what they do.

So when you say that there are those who do things because they love what they do, that also is a truism but, love of what you do still doesn't pay the bills. That is one reason I have not written much the last six months. Although I have a lot of story lines scribbled on a piece of paper around here somewhere.

So you see everyone is actually motivated by money, it pays the bills. Of course it's always easier to use other peoples money.

 

[Zeb_Carter]

Ah! bringing out the big guns now are we, Amicus?

The road to serfdom from 1944, how quaint. But kind of out of place in a GW thread, don't you think?

I was taken off guard by the hysteria in the original article. No one has had the guts to point out the obvious but if the GW does make significant shifts in our agricultural productivity that could be a problem particularly if the ocean level raises.

In Bangladesh, just a few meters rise in sea level would be a disaster. It would cause the price of rice to go thru the roof in the entire area. Then India and Pakistan would start squabbling and ... Well that would be bad.

So now we can talk about the consequences of resource depletion , Oil, Minerals, and ineveitably food.

But what if GW is a crock?

It is...but then again...what if the Yellowstone super volcano erupts tomorrow? Then we won't have to worry about global warming...forever, as mankind will most likely be wiped off the face of the earth by the ice age that follows.

Over the last 5000 years the earth had warmed and cool so many times that the scientist of our time don't want to deal with all the anomalies that causes in their calculations so they just deal with the last hundred years.

What a crock.