Remember Global Cooling?

[soulxtc]

Oct. 23, 2006 - In April, 1975, in an issue mostly taken up with stories about the collapse of the American-backed government of South Vietnam, NEWSWEEK published a small back-page article about a very different kind of disaster. Citing "ominous signs that the earth's weather patterns have begun to change dramatically," the magazine warned of an impending "drastic decline in food production." Political disruptions stemming from food shortages could affect "just about every nation on earth." Scientists urged governments to consider emergency action to head off the terrible threat of . . . well, if you had been following the climate-change debates at the time, you'd have known that the threat was: global cooling.


More than 30 years later, that little story is still being quoted regularly—as recently as last month on the floor of the Senate by Republican Sen. James Inhofe, chair of the Environment and Public Works Committee and the self-proclaimed scourge of climate alarmists. The article's appeal to Inhofe, of course, is not its prescience, but the fact that it was so spectacularly wrong about the near-term future. Even by the time it appeared, a decades-long trend toward slightly cooler temperatures in the Northern hemisphere had already begun to reverse itself—although that wouldn't be apparent in the data for a few years yet—leading to today's widespread consensus among scientists that the real threat is actually human-caused global warming. In fact, as Inhofe pointed out, for more than 100 years journalists have quoted scientists predicting the destruction of civilization by, in alternation, either runaway heat or a new Ice Age. The implication he draws is that if you're not worried about being trampled by a stampede of woolly mammoths through downtown Chicago, you don't have to believe what the media is saying about global warming, either.


But is that the right lesson to draw? How did NEWSWEEK—or for that matter, Time magazine, which also ran a story on the subject in the mid-1970s—get things so wrong? In fact, the story wasn't "wrong" in the journalistic sense of "inaccurate." Some scientists indeed thought the Earth might be cooling in the 1970s, and some laymen—even one as sophisticated and well-educated as Isaac Asimov—saw potentially dire implications for climate and food production. After all, Ice Ages were common in Earth's history; if anything, the warm "interglacial" period in which human civilization evolved, and still exists, is the exception. The cause of these periodic climatic shifts is still being studied and debated, but many scientists believe they are influenced by small changes in the Earth's orbit around the Sun (including its "eccentricity," or the extent to which it deviates from a perfect circle) and the tilt of its rotation. As calculated by the mathematician Milutin Milankovitch in the 1920s, these factors vary on interlocking cycles of around 20,000, 40,000 and 100,000 years, and if nothing else changed they would be certain to bring on a new Ice Age at some time. In the 1970s, there were scientists who thought this shift might be imminent; more recent data, according to William Connolley, a climate scientist at the British Antarctic Survey who has made a hobby of studying Ice Age predictions, suggest that it might be much farther off.


But in any case, climatologists now are mostly agreed that human impacts will swamp the effects of the Milankovitch cycles. The question has been, which specific impacts? In the mid-1970s, scientists were focusing on an increase of dust and "aerosols" (suspended droplets of liquid, mostly sulfuric acid) in the atmosphere. These, the result of increased agriculture and burning of coal in power plants, lower the Earth's temperature by reflecting sunlight back into space. Ironically, clean-air laws in North America and Europe had the effect of reducing aerosols (which cause acid rain), so the predominant influence on climate now is the buildup of carbon dioxide—which traps the Earth's heat in the lower atmosphere and contributes to global warming.


http://msnbc.msn.com/id/15391426/site/newsweek/page/2/

[Unsueable Davey Brown]

It was on the news last night. In the Canadian Province of British Columbia snow packs are greater this year than ever before. This story was followed by another story blaming the radical weather for the province on fine dust particles in the air blowing in from China's industrial emissions.

So on the one hand they're telling us industrial emissions are making the weather warm, then on the other hand they're telling us industrial emissions are making the weather cool.

My opinion - Anthropogenic (human caused) global warming is a load of politically charged, media propogated, hidden agenda, horse hooey.

It isn't just me who thinks so either. The truth is starting to leak out.

If you check out this link -

http://www.canada.com/nationalpost/story.html?id=edae9952-3c3e-47ba-913f-7359a5c7f723&k=0

you'll find further links to a series of articles concerning reputable scientists who are skeptical about this anthropogenic global warming nonsense. And no, they're not funded by the oil industry, although if you'd like I can show you where one of the loudest voices on the side of AGW does receive funding from energy producers.

I'm telling you Global Warming is the largest mass con ever perpetrated on the world's population, and no, Exxon didn't pay me to say that.

[DigitalJunkie]

Sorry, I disagree with your opinion on global warming, because we've "seen" the evidence at the North with large chucks of ice broke-off or disappear. No matter what, what we did or doing will not be good for future generations to come!

[Unsueable Davey Brown]

You have to understand the skeptic's argument though. They aren't saying there's no such thing as climate change. The fact is they're saying there is climate change, and it's been going on naturally since the dawn of time. More specifically what they're saying is the factors involved in climate change are multitude and complex. The precise contribution of human causes in this dance of climate changing factors is unknown, but there is reason to believe it may be minimal.

You also have to understand the enviro-nazi shell game. They're showing you one thing, but depriving you of other information.

They're showing you melting in the north, but not telling you this has happened before through natural causes and is part of a natural climate cycle. They're showing you melting on the coast of Greenland, but not telling you about the added snow inland. They're not telling you about the earth's natural checks and balances. For example something similar to what you describe is also happening in the antartic, but as the melting occurs on the coast the snow pack inland is increasing. Some scientists believe this effect may cause an increase in coast lines world wide rather than the decrease Al Gore and his fellow politically motivated, chicken little, alarmists are predicting.

Here you go. This guy describes the melting in the north phenomena better.

The main forcing function for hurricane formation is the Atlantic Multidecadal Oscillation (AMO). Every 25 to 40 years, the warm Gulf waters and the Caribbean currents oscillate northward or southward to or from the upper Atlantic Ocean. Sure enough, observed hurricane activity and intensity since 1850 have increased and decreased in tandem with this oscillation. In contrast, recent studies show that increased sea surface temperatures have only added to storm intensity by a couple of percentage points.

Or take Mr. Gore's prediction that sea levels will rise 20 feet by the end of this century. For the last few thousand years, the sea level has risen at a steady rate of 1.5 mm per year. The 6 inch increase in sea level during the last century is consistent with that rate. In addition, Greenland ice levels have been constant over the last few decades as well. While it's true that ice cleaving and ice flow rates at the coast have increased in recent years, these shifts are due to the AMO - and will abate once the AMO oscillates southward. What the global warming theorists fail to mention in their findings is that the increased ice and snow pack on Greenland is balancing out the coastal melting. And what's creating the increased ice and snow pack? Warmer sea surface temperatures: The increased temperatures create moisture, which in turn causes additional snowfall.

Similar observations have been made in the Antarctic. Although proponents of the global warming theory refer to a study showing reduced ice content at the tip of one peninsula, they ignore the snowfall data from several Antarctic continental stations showing increasing ice packs from the extra sea moisture.

http://www.ecoworld.com/home/articles2.cfm?tid=407

[DigitalJunkie]

Sorry, but even International communities has began to realized Global Warming is a huge economic concern the could get worst if nothing is done. Even Pres. Bush, that has reversed a lot of environmental regulations in the first few years he took office, now try to act like he is going green!

The global warming affects a lot more than just ice melting I mentioned. It has created stronger hurricane storms in U.S.A. for the south. Drought in other parts of the world, such as Australia which has also changed their position on global warming.

It doesn't really matter you think it's man made or not. Denial maybe blissful for now, but changes is coming!

[Andrew110]

Have any of you seen An Inconvenient Truth? I'm not much for Al Gore but his film does prove some interesting and scary points about global warming. Check it out!!!

[mountain_rage]

Really, in the end is not whether or not global warming is happening, its whether we can afford to be wrong about it. If we were to say that its not happening and we were wrong the consequences would be dire.

If we chose not to do a damn thing and all the predictions by scientist were right the effects would be as followed. You will start to have fresh water sources turn salty from the increase flow of sea water into the natural reservoirs (its already happening), City's built beside waterways and on the ocean front will start to flood (also happening already), more extreme weather patterns, less land to grow crops, increase in co2 from natural sources, the melting glaciers are releasing co2 along with the higher water levels.(which would only compound the problem), large economic downfall etc...

Now what are the harms to dealing with it? Possible negative effect on the economy, which to this point I have seen no backing to support, in fact studies are showing the contrary. Thats it, there are no other consequences, or can someone think of some.

The benefit of trying to lower greenhouse gases are as followed, less pollution in the air causing better health and a more sustainable resource use, creation of new industries and innovations which would help offset the cost of implementing changes to lower greenhouse gas emissions, lower dependencies on middle eastern oil. So tell me, why are you against these advantages?

As you can see I make no effort to hide the fact that I support the effort to lower greenhouse gases. There is no harm in trying to do so in my opinion. Now if you want to ignore the research done by thousands of scientists over a few decades which looks at weather patterns since we started measuring weather, the weather patterns based on ice samples dating thousands of years, current environmental changes and numerous research spanning multiple fields go right ahead, I am not willing to support that game of Russian roulette.

Also this research from the 1970's was based on a single hypothesis on the rotation of the earth. This research may even be what prompted further research into the subject of global temperature changes. Which may have very well have led to the discovery of global warming. The current research taking place is using information from many different fields to build an accurate model to back up the theory of global warming. Yes its just a theory because science at its heart is not 100% fault proof. Science is the use of information to build an accurate model of a system. If the model can recreate current data then it is said to be a good model, that is valid in explaining the environment. The counter research currently going on is important to take into consideration for such a model but the information gathered for it doesn't compare to the information gathered to prove global warming, it just shows that either global warming is not solely caused by humans or that we might be seeing a cooling of the world in the future (but physical evidence disproves that for the current reality). Hell knowing humanity we will push our luck too far and then everyone will be clamoring that the government did nothing to stop it as we all peril in our mess.

[Unsueable Davey Brown]

No need to continue apologizing DJ, researching the challenges posed by differing opinions is one of the ways I learn stuff.

For example on the subject of hurricanes and Global Warming, have you heard this one -

IPCC Hurrican Expert Has Data Stifled (http://www.canada.com/nationalpost/story.html?id=ae9b984d-4a1c-45c0-af24-031a1380121a&k=0)

It concerns the story of Christopher Landsea, one of the foremost scientific authorities on hurricanes and how he got screwed over by the IPCC. The IPCC is the UN based organization which produced the much ballyhooed recent report stating Climate change was pretty much all human caused, and all scientists were pretty much in agreement on this.

So anyway, Landsea is hired by the IPCC to produce data showing what the scientific consensus is on hurricanes. He walks into the hotel lobby one morning, and discovers the UN policy maker guys are holding a press conference. To his dismay it concerns hurricanes, and not only hasn't he been invited, but his report is largely being ignored. The policy maker guys are telling the media Global Warming is reponsible for the recent rise in hurricane activity (I believe this took place on the heels of Katrina), and the coming 2006 hurricane season will also be ferocious, again due to global warming.

Landsea didn't sign off on any of this. His opinion was the causes of hurricanes were varied and complex.

The Media of course ate it up, and all we heard was global warming was causing hurricanes.

As it turned out the hurricane season of 2006 was a slow season. You never heard an explanation of why that was from the IPCC policy maker guys, but the below offers some possible explanations.

The 2006 Atlantic hurricane season was an event in the annual cycle of tropical cyclone formation. This season was unusual in that no hurricanes made landfall in the United States of America...

Following the intense activity of the 2005 season, forecasts predicted the 2006 season would be very active, though not as active as 2005. However, in 2006, a rapidly-forming El Niño event, combined with the pervasive presence of the Saharan Air Layer over the tropical Atlantic and a steady presence of a robust secondary high related to the Azores high centered around Bermuda, contributed to a slow season and all tropical cyclone activity ceasing after October 2.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2006_Atlantic_hurricane_season

Andrew, yes we skeptics have heard of Al Gore and his Inconvenient truth.

Click to discover another inconvenient truth (http://wizbangblog.com/2007/02/26/al-gores-own-inconvenient-truth.php)

The problem with the movie is it's based on bad science, and outright fabrications. Believe it, or not buried beneath the hooplah and the headlines of Gore's Oscar victory you will find many challenges to the veracity of his allegations.

Click here (http://www.cei.org/pdf/5539.pdf) for one of the best examples. The challenges are massive, but here's a collection of my favorites.

• Implies that the United States is an environmental laggard because China has adopted more stringent fuel economy standards, glossing over China’s horrendous air quality problems.

• Never explains why anyone should be alarmed about the current Arctic warming, considering that our stone-age ancestors survived—and likely benefited from—the much stronger and longer Arctic warming known as the Holocene Climate Optimum.

• Portrays the cracking of the Ward Hunt ice shelf in 2002 as a portent of doom, even though the shelf was merely a remnant of a much larger Arctic ice formation that had already lost 90 percent of its area during 1906-1982.

• Claims that global warming is creating “ecological niches” for “invasive alien species,” never mentioning other, more important factors such as increases in trade, tourism, and urban heat islands. For example, due to population growth, Berlin warmed twice as much during 1886-1898 as the United Nations Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) estimates the entire world warmed during the 20th century.

• Blames global warming for recent floods in China’s Sichuan and Shandong provinces, even though far more damaging floods struck those areas in the 19th and early 20th centuries.

• Claims that global warming is drying out soils all over the world, whereas pan evaporation studies ( which measure the rate of evaporation from open pans of water) indicate that, in general, the Earth’s surface is becoming wetter.

• Warns of a positive feedback whereby carbon-induced warming melts tundra, releasing more CO2 locked up in frozen soils. An alternative scenario is also plausible: The range of carbon-storing vegetation expands as tundra thaws.

• Warns of “significant and alarming structural changes” in the submarine base of West Antarctic Ice Sheet (WAIS), but does not tell us what those changes are or why they are “significant and alarming.” The melting and retreat of the WAIS “grounding line” has been going on since the early Holocene. At the rate of retreat observed in the late 1990s, the WAIS should disappear in about 7,000 years.

• Warns that vertical water tunnels (“moulins”) are lubricating the Greenland Ice Sheet, increasing the risk that it will “slide” into the sea. Summertime glacier flow acceleration associated with moulins is tiny. Moulins in numbers equal to or surpassing those observed today probably occurred in the first half of the 20th century, when Greenland was as warm as or warmer than the past decade, with no major loss of grounded ice.

• Claims that glaciologist Lonnie Thompson’s reconstruction of climate history proves the Medieval Warm Period as “tiny” compared to the arming observed in recent decades. It doesn’t. Four of Thompson’s six ice cores indicate the Medieval Warm Period was as warm as or warmer than any recent decade.

• Calls carbon dioxide the “most important greenhouse gas.” Water vapor is the leading contributor to the greenhouse effect.

• Claims that scientists have validated the “hockey stick” reconstruction of Northern Hemisphere temperature history, according to which the 1990s were ikely the warmest decade of the past millennium and 1998 the warmest year. It is now widely acknowledged that the hockey stick was built on a flawed methodology and inappropriate data. Scientists continue to debate whether the Medieval Warm period was warmer than recent decades.

• Claims that the rate of global warming is accelerating, whereas the rate has been constant for the past 30 years—roughly 0.17°C per decade.

• Accuses ExxonMobil of running a “disinformation campaign” designed to “reposition global warming as theory, rather than fact,” even though two clicks of the mouse reveal that ExxonMobil acknowledges global warming as a fact.

• Claims that the European Union’s emission trading system (ETS) is working “effectively.” In fact, the ETS is not reducing emissions, will transfer an estimated £1.5 billion from British firms to competitors in countries with weaker controls, has enabled oil companies to profit at the expense of hospitals and schools, and has been an administrative nightmare for small firms.

Mountain Rage. Yes pollution is bad, and at first think it does make a kind of sense that any method used to convince governments to deal with it should be a useful thing. However there are problems with politicizing bad science.

Bestselling author Michael Crichton lays it out better than I ever could.

Michael Crichton explains the dangers of politicizing bad science. (http://www.crichton-official.com/fear/)

Here a couple more quotes from others, in case you don't like Crichton.

Thanks to the anti-CO2 juggernaut we are already seeing the acceleration of deforestation everywhere in the world, especially in the tropics. We can fret all we like about the West Antarctic Ice Sheet sliding into the South Atlantic (unlikely to say the least), or Greenland's Ice Cap melting away (virtually impossible), but meanwhile the tropical forests of the world are about to dissolve before our eyes. Why? To grow biofuel crops so western oil companies, adhering to environmentalist-influenced government mandates, can earn their "carbon credits."

Don't underestimate the potential of biofuel as a cash crop to decimate the world's forests, and in the bargain drive up food prices in places where food is already way too expensive for the urban poor. The process has already begun. From Cassava in Nigeria to Sugar Cane in Brazil, to Jatropha in India, biofuel crops are on the march, and forests are the victims. There are 18 million square miles of forest left on earth, and less than one third of those are in the tropics, where forest canopy is green and growing all year around. Tropical forests are crucial regulators of global climate, and they also are the best places to grow biofuel - at least until their fragile topsoil is destroyed due to the absence of forest canopy overhead. Biofuel can augment world energy supplies at best, but should only be grown in regions where these crops are not replacing farms or forests.

If you believe atmospheric CO2 needs to be reduced, then also be aware that the most imminent manifestation of the movement to fight global warming on earth, right now, is deforestation to grow biofuel. What if forests bring rain, and deforesting causes drought? What if forests regulate global temperatures, and deforestation is a greater cause of global warming than anthropogenic CO2?

http://www.ecoworld.com/home/articles2.cfm?tid=407

The scientific mainstream, however, refuses to concede that it could be wrong. It insists we must act now to decarbonise our economy, whatever the consequences. If the science were as certain as suggested, it would have a point. But it isn't and, in the meantime, we are being forced down a single policy direction that may be ineffectual and takes resources away from the real and present problems in the world.

Increasing food security, providing access to clean water and basic education, building defences against the floods that inevitably hit low-lying regions: these are the sort of initiatives that have to take second place to the drive to reduce carbon emissions.

In any case, there is little likelihood that a global carbon reduction regime can be made to work. Most EU member states will not meet their commitments under the Kyoto protocol. How likely is it, then, that China and other expanding economies will compromise their growth to meet much more demanding targets?

To shut down debate is unscientific. Science progresses by observation and deduction, by setting up hypotheses and testing them. Allowing one view to be pushed forward with no dissent sets a precedent that will stifle innovative thinking. Whatever Al Gore may believe, there is an even more inconvenient truth: he could be wrong.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/opinion/main.jhtml?xml=/opinion/2007/03/01/do0102.xml

[DigitalJunkie]

Personally, I don't give too much worth to scientific reports from so called "experts"! Science on many fields, they could changed over time as we gain more understanding. My opinion is from what I see. We've been using earth's resources at faster rate than before, we can't even dispose of many waste properly. U.S. still "consume" most of the resources. I can remember, Pres. Reagan's adm. even paid so called "expert" to write a report on environment to favor their own policies. Since then, I believe we should do something, at least to slow down. If we do nothing at all, that would be sad since I see others like European countries are trying! Even though I'm consuming oil & other resources myself like many others, but I don't like it. :(

[Unsueable Davey Brown]

Just as long as you don't stick your fingers in your ears, and chant, "La La La. Human caused Global Warming is destroying the earth. La la la la..."

Yeah, what can be wrong about controlling pollution, if it's done in an intelligent manner, for the right reasons.

What's mentioned above in the reply to Mountain Rage however does not qualify.

Kyoto was definitely the precisely wrong way to go. Bush was a flipping genius for passing on it. I wish Canada had been as smart.

[DigitalJunkie]

As far as I'm concern, we could be causing global warming too. There are many conflicting science reports on many things, we just started. You may have misunderstand what I think of current science!

[bobhss]

We can't predict the weather more than a couple days out accurately, what strong evidence do we have that we are going to cause the average temperature to raise a degree over the next 100 years? Seems like a bunch of nonsense to me.

[mountain_rage]

Davy Brown, your counter argument had nothing to do with the point I was putting across. No where in my argument did I mention that deforestation for creating biofuels was good, neither did I mention that shifting money from other environmental projects was a good thing. My argument was purely on the basis that reducing greenhouse gases is good, lowering our consumption of fossil fuels is good and that theirs allot of good science to back it up. The miss guided efforts that attempt to lower carbon emissions, or the efforts that try to give the impression of lowering carbon emissions are bad. Personally I quite agree with you in that respect. That problem does need to be dealt with. That doesn't however change my mind that greenhouse gases have to be lowered, it just has to be done in an intelligent manner and some people simply are not going to do that.

Quite frankly I don't even believe biofuels are the way to go, the only major advantage I see for it is lowering dependencies on middle eastern oil, the environmental benefit is not that significant, in fact as you point out it may even be devastating in some respects. We should be focusing on producing more efficient gas and electric motors, better batteries, and ways to produce electricity without the use of fossil fuels such as nuclear energy which is much safer and cleaner then most people think.

The scientific mainstream, however, refuses to concede that it could be wrong. It insists we must act now to decarbonise our economy, whatever the consequences. If the science were as certain as suggested, it would have a point. But it isn't and, in the meantime, we are being forced down a single policy direction that may be ineffectual and takes resources away from the real and present problems in the world.
Your above quote is not a valid argument and commits some common argumentative fallacies.

premise 1: Science insists we must act now to decarbonise our economy, whatever the consequences.
Premise 2: If the science were as certain as suggested, it would have a point.
Premise 3: But science isn't certain.
Conclusion: People are being forced down a single policy direction that may be ineffectual and takes resources away from the real and present problems in the world.

First it commits a slippery slope fallacy, in which if one event happens another will happen even though it may not be the case. He does this by claiming that funding for other projects will get the boot, while offering no evidence to support this. The same line also falls into a red herring or ignoratio elenchi fallacy, which is the use of unrelated or vaguely related statements to make a point. His paragraph had nothing to do with whether or not the efforts of scientists were removing funds from other areas.

[mountain_rage]

We can't predict the weather more than a couple days out accurately, what strong evidence do we have that we are going to cause the average temperature to raise a degree over the next 100 years? Seems like a bunch of nonsense to me.

Those are two very different qualities that they are measuring and based on very different science. Measuring temperature on a day to day basis is done by looking at pressure shifts, air currents, etc all in real time in order to guess what direction its going to take. For global warming they are measuring a change in temperature and checking past trends. With this they are figuring out if currently the world is warming up faster then in years prior to the industrial revolution.

[bobhss]

mountain_rage: They are not the exact same. I just don't like the conclusion that everyone seems to jump to about global warming must be man's fault. It couldn't be anything natural that the earth does on it's own.

Tom Smykowski: It was a "Jump to Conclusions" mat. You see, it would be this mat that you would put on the floor... and would have different CONCLUSIONS written on it that you could JUMP TO.
Michael Bolton: That's the worst idea I've ever heard in my life, Tom.
Samir: Yes, this is horrible, this idea.

[Unsueable Davey Brown]

I guess I could have connected the dots a bit better. M R. Specifically I was responding to this.

Now what are the harms to dealing with it?

My general response was there's a danger in politicizing bad science. I posted the link to the Michael Crichton opinion piece where he compared the AGW (Anthropogenic Global Warming) theory to the Eugenics theory which can be followed to a conclusion it inspired the purges of Nazi Germany.

What I didn't do however is make a clear connection to why a) I believe AGW is being politicized, and b) why I believe it's bad science. Without that the other information I posted doesn't appear to connect.

I think I get your point though. You're saying you believe CO2 is bad. Laboratory models show how it could alter weather. You say we can't afford to be wrong about the possible damage it could cause so anything we do to control carbon emissions is a good thing.

You mention studies showing how there could be more damage done in doing nothing. (debatable btw)

The problem is the scientific evidence showing the weather altering effects of CO2 is not as rock solid, beyond dispute as the media is leading us to believe.

The AGW side points to the warm spurt we just went through, and tells us this proves CO2 is causing global warming. This is not true. It proves no such thing.

If we look at the weather record, extended periods of warming and cooling are common, and to be expected. A more likely causal culprit for such trends may be the sun.

Check out the graph at the bottom of This Page (http://www.friendsofscience.org/) you'll see CO2 appears to have nothing to do with global weather trends. Sunspot activity however appears to follow the weather cycle like a hungry hound dog on the trail of a fat bunny.

If you look at the research of Dr. Henrik Svensmark (http://www.canada.com/nationalpost/story.html?id=fee9a01f-3627-4b01-9222-bf60aa332f1f&k=0) it offers an explanation of the possible causal link of the sun's magnetic field on the weather phenomena AGW activists want you to believe is all CO2 related.

Even when confronted with the data however AGW alarmists think it's OK to fudge the figures, because there's some data showing CO2 may have some effect on weather.

Here's Al Gore on that one.

"Nobody is interested in solutions if they don't think there's a problem. Given that starting point, I believe it is appropriate to have an over-representation of factual presentations on how dangerous (global warming) is, as a predicate for opening up the audience to listen to what the solutions are, and how hopeful it is that we are going to solve this crisis," said Gore in a May 2006 interview with Grist Magazine."

http://calgarysun.canoe.ca/NewsStand/News/Columnists/Corbella_Licia/2007/02/11/3587074-sun.html

Translation - "It's OK to lie". (Did everybody forget this is the guy who claimed he created the internet?)

OK, so if AGW science is as I allege bad science, is it also being politicized? First of all let's look at Kyoto. That's the accord drawn up between some countries (not the US. Yay Bush) to control greenhouse gas emissions. I'm not an expert on this, but as I understand it, it goes something like this. If you're considered what they call a developed country such as Canada you're seen as the creator of the problem. It therefore falls upon you to lead the way in reforms. These reforms take shape in the form of economic consequences. I've heard estimates which suggest if Canada were to follow the economic guidelines of Kyoto the economic consequence could be an anuall tax increase of over 600 dollars per citizen.

Interestingly enough countries such as India, China, and Brazil (remember them - the raping of the rain forest guys) are exempt on the grounds they are considered "developing countries". So while a country such as Canada is required to labour under massive economic restrictions, the economies of countries such as India, and China are allowed to boom.

Then there's the business of credits. Apparently it goes something like if you're a developing country you can acquire credits by doing stuff like cutting down the rain forest to produce ethanol. You can then sell those credits to countries which are considered developed such as Canada. That's what the guy was talking about in the article you suggested had nothing to do with your argument, when he said the rain forest is being pillaged to create ethanol for "credits".

Do you get the connection now? Do you understand what I mean by the dangers of politicizing bad science?

Oh, and by the way, I agree with Bob. So did Professor Henk Tennekes, and so do those scientists influenced by his work to this day.

In a paper presented in 2003, a team of European scientists detailed advances in modelling science. "Since the day, almost 20 years ago, in which Henk Tennekes stated … that 'no forecast is complete without a forecast of the forecast skill,' the demand for numerical forecasting tools ... has been ever increasing," they said, explaining efforts to make modelling reliable beyond a three- to four-day period. Thanks to the intense efforts of a new generation of climate modellers, modelling capability has advanced in some instances by 12 to 36 hours, in others by several days. To extend the bounds further, the paper announced a major new research initiative, designed to bring the forecasting discipline to the 120-hour range.

Climate modelling is the basis of forecasts of climate change. Yet this modelling, Tennekes believes, has little utility, and "there is no chance at all that the physical sciences can produce a universally accepted scientific basis for policy measures concerning climate change." Moreover, he states: "There exists no sound theoretical framework for climate predictability studies."

http://www.canada.com/nationalpost/story.html?id=9bc9a7c6-2729-4d07-9629-807f1dee479f&k=0

[tackdaddy]

if cooling or warming is real or not what is the harm in trying to improve the enviroment?

[DigitalJunkie]

I think Unsueable is saying it's political & we are using bad science that may actually causes more harm. But, I think most of us have enough common sense to notice that we are using a lot of resources without recourse is just asking for troubles.

He needs to know what corporations (oil, chemical & many other products from corporations) has already done to our environment. Then, maybe he would think twice!

[Unsueable Davey Brown]

if cooling or warming is real or not what is the harm in trying to improve the enviroment?

There's nothing wrong with it. Let's do that, but what makes you think the environment will get cleaner if the economies of India and China decimate the environment and flourish while the western economies are brown-shirted into the 3rd world. This is the direction Global Warming alarmists want to take us in.

Are you willing to pay triple price on gas to live in the enviro-nazi utopia. There will still be pollution. The rain forest will still disappear (although a little faster). It will just be a different group of people in charge who are doing it.

And again stuff like Kyoto isn't really about cleaning up the environment. It's about controlling CO2 emissions when a lot of really smart people are pretty sure CO2 isn't the problem. (OK, yes there are other so-called greenhouse gases included, but CO2 is the one they're demonizing most.)

[Unsueable Davey Brown]

I'll tell you what. Some of you have seen the Al Gore movie. In the interest of being aware of both sides of the issue click the link below to check this one out from the BBC.

The Great Global Warming Swindle (http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=9005566792811497638&q=The+Great+Global+Warming+Swindle&hl=en)

Damn, Google appears to have pulled this documentary. Not to worry you can still see it Here (TGWS at Veoh) (http://www.veoh.com/videos/v291101Y8Pqys52;jsessionid=87BADBF9A90E92DF052C064 4BDF528A0), or Here (TGWS at YouTube), (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=u6IPHmJWmDk)at this time.

[gerb49]

Just been reading this thread and found it very entertaining -- but, Soulxtc, your really are a naughty boy - just how big is your wooden spoon!!!

[soulxtc]

ggfhgfghjhgjgh

[gerb49]

Exactly ---- I just watched the news announce that Blair has stated that 'we' are pushing on to a 60% reduction in carbon footprint --- meaning roughly that by the year 2037 all housing should be sellf-sufficient in energy - transport will be running on hydrogen and private cars will be electric --- electricity will be mostly from nuclear and any carbon produced elsewhere will be stored ----- we'll see!!!!!!!!

[mountain_rage]

I'll tell you what. Some of you have seen the Al Gore movie. In the interest of being aware of both sides of the issue click the link below to check this one out from the BBC.

The Great Global Warming Swindle (http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=9005566792811497638&q=The+Great+Global+Warming+Swindle&hl=en)

Damn, Google appears to have pulled this documentary. Not to worry you can still see it Here (TGWS at Veoh) (http://www.veoh.com/videos/v291101Y8Pqys52;jsessionid=87BADBF9A90E92DF052C064 4BDF528A0), or Here (TGWS at YouTube), (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=u6IPHmJWmDk)at this time.

Not the work of the most credible person you will ever meet. Martin Durking has been highly criticized for using misleading facts in his documentaries, as well as distorting the interviewees view. If the people you interview are not willing to stand behind your editing of their views then I would also be skeptical of the information.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/Columnists/Column/0,,184160,00.html
http://www.guardian.co.uk/Archive/Article/0,4273,3976877,00.html

A complain given about his first environmental documentary. The review was handled by Ofcom an independent regulator and competition authority for the UK communications industries
http://www.ofcom.org.uk/static/archive/itc/itc_publications/complaints_reports/programme_complaints/show_complaint.asp-prog_complaint_id=40.html

I am also surprised by the presence of a professor from the University of Winnipeg, since they are more of an arts university then one with a strong Science background. Although I may just not have realized since I didn't even know they had a department of climatology. Which upon further review appears also a little false, they don't have a climatology department, they do however have a geography department in which some climate courses are offered.

[Unsueable Davey Brown]

Absolutely, all these one-sided propagandized shockumentaries from this one to Al Gore's, or Michael Moore's have to be taken with a grain of salt, and the facts have to analyzed, but as far as the scientists who he's interviewing goes I recognized at least three of them, and I've heard them stating stuff pretty much exactly word for word the same as the opinions you hear in that show. I can give you links if you'd like.

There is stuff there I've never heard of, but for the most part I'd say true, or not, it is, for the most part, an accurate representation of the majority of the skeptic's argument.

Edit

I am also surprised by the presence of a professor from the University of Winnipeg, since they are more of an arts university then one with a strong Science background. Although I may just not have realized since I didn't even know they had a department of climatology. Which upon further review appears also a little false, they don't have a climatology department, they do however have a geography department in which some climate courses are offered.

Oh, you're going to love this. I think I know what you're talking about, and it will give you lots of fuel for your side of the debate. OK I could be wrong about the facts here. I haven't double-checked, but there's this well known global warming skeptic. I think his name is Tom Ball. He gets a lot of critique, as most on the skeptic side do. One of the things he claims is he is the first professor of climatology at some university, or got the first degree in the discipline, or something like that. But the interesting thing about that is I think the university he's talking about is the one in Winnipeg. The GW advocates of course claim he's lying. He a sued a paper recently to make them retract an article where they made such claims. They did retract it.

[mountain_rage]

Well I don't know the specifics about Tom Ball, I am just from Winnipeg and his inclusion was what first raised my skepticism of the credibility of the film. So I was curious to see if their was a climatology program at the university which I did not find. Which led me to check the credibility of the documentary's creator.

Quite frankly it seems theirs something to be said for both sides of the argument on climate change. Mainly my support is based on fact that I see no harm in trying to properly clean up our environment, and shrinking our footprint when we have the technology to successfully accomplish these goals.

[Unsueable Davey Brown]

I'm all for cleaning up the environment too, but what do carbon footprints have to do with that? Where the AGW guys lose me is this demonization of CO2. CO2 occurs naturally. Men make a little more of it. So what? The absolute proof the alarmists claim for CO2 as the cause of climate change just doesn't exist, and what they want to do in the name of this fallacious claim is scary.

[mountain_rage]

It hasn't been proven false that co2 has an effect, it is debatable however. And yes co2 is created naturally, but yet so is asbestos, uranium, poison ivy, etc... Doesn't mean its automatically good (asbestos may not be one of the better examples as some of it isn't harmful but whatever). Its also true that we don't produce as much co2 as nature, but what may be happening is that our addition to the carbon cycle may be too much for the earth to process and that could cause the effect of carbon coming in faster then the earth can remove it. Adding that fact to the amount of deforestation going on it gets quite scary.

I also don't wanna appear to only care about the carbon dioxide problem. I happen to find that their are allot of environmental problems that are not getting the proper limelight, global warming has however brought some attention to them. The ones I find most pertinent are freshwater pollution, deforestation, exploitation of wildlife preserves, and over fishing. If anything humanity needs to learn to use less resources all together while replacing what we use to keep a proper cycle. I would also like to mention that their is no such thing as absolute proof when it comes to science.

[Unsueable Davey Brown]

It hasn't been proven false that co2 has an effect, it is debatable however.

So why isn't it being debated then? Here's a link to a radio interview with a well-known Canadian Global warming advocate.

Suzuki refuses to address argument (http://www.640toronto.com/john_oakley/john_oakley_audio.cfm?rem=64671&jor=64671#video)

He talks a good game, but there are good counter-arguments to everything he says. If you were to click on that link you would discover Suzuki becomes irate when the interviewer brings up the subject of dissenting arguments, and suggests he had some kind of prearranged telephone pact with the interviewer not to discuss the subject of scientists, and authors who disagree with his claims.

I don't have a link for this one but I heard Al Gore refused to appear on the Larry King show if a well known scientist skeptic appeared on the same show.

Weather Channel climatologist Heidi Cullen wants TV weather people silenced if they say anything critical of the CO2 caused global warming theory.

http://www.moonbattery.com/archives/2007/01/weather_channel.html

The United Nations IPCC report was altered to edit out anything critical of the hypothesis CO2 causes global warming. The opinion scientists were all in agreement CO2 was causing global warming was presented to the media as a universal consensus among scientists, in spite of the fact the scientists with the most impressive credentials who were working on the report have since come out publicly denying this claim.

And yes co2 is created naturally, but yet so is asbestos, uranium, poison ivy, etc...

But asbestos, uranium, and poison ivy are not a naturally occurring gas which in their present, or projected amounts are really nothing more than plant fertilizer.

Here's some facts about CO2

* Of the 186 billion tons of CO2 that enter earth's atmosphere each year from all sources, only 6 billion tons are from human activity. Approximately 90 billion tons come from biologic activity in earth's oceans and another 90 billion tons from such sources as volcanoes and decaying land plants.

* At 368 parts per million CO2 is a minor constituent of earth's atmosphere-- less than 4/100ths of 1% of all gases present. Compared to former geologic times, earth's current atmosphere is CO2- impoverished.

* CO2 is odorless, colorless, and tasteless. Plants absorb CO2 and emit oxygen as a waste product. Humans and animals breathe oxygen and emit CO2 as a waste product. Carbon dioxide is a nutrient, not a pollutant, and all life-- plants and animals alike-- benefit from more of it. All life on earth is carbon-based and CO2 is an essential ingredient. When plant-growers want to stimulate plant growth, they introduce more carbon dioxide.

* CO2 that goes into the atmosphere does not stay there but is continually recycled by terrestrial plant life and earth's oceans-- the great retirement home for most terrestrial carbon dioxide.

http://www.clearlight.com/~mhieb/WVFossils/ice_ages.html

The CO2 as pollution argument seems to be based on laboratory models using inflated doses of CO2, beyond projected amounts. Laboratory models have been proven unreliable. Results can be shown to be adjusted to fit the hypothesis.

The problem with carbon dioxide is it has the name carbon in it. One can think of carbon as soot, or black smoke. That's pollution, and yeah something should be done about that, but that isn't what carbon dioxide is.

At one time the AGW advocates were saying there's a proven correlation between added CO2, and the historical weather record, but that's been proven false. There have been extended periods of warming equal to, or beyond the recent spurt of warm weather. These happened at a time when there was no man-made CO2 in the atmospere, and can be shown to be more affected by sun-spot activity. The graphs showing a connection between warming trends and CO2 are deceptive. It can be shown warming causes CO2 hundreds of years after the event as a result of slow ocean warming, but there is no graphic evidence the CO2 causes the warming.

[mountain_rage]

* CO2 that goes into the atmosphere does not stay there but is continually recycled by terrestrial plant life and earth's oceans-- the great retirement home for most terrestrial carbon dioxide.

That true, but the Carbon cycle can only handle so much processing before their is more carbon coming in then is being processed, creating a sort of continuing growth of carbon dioxide. This is one of the biggest fears with the environment, that we might throw off one of the natural cycles to the point where they earth can no longer compensate, sending it into a self destructive path.

Carbon is essential to life but is still not a good thing in excess. Not everything essential to life is good in excess, in fact very little in excess is good. Heres an example of something essential to life being dangerous, very few people would think water is a bad thing, but if you drink too much it actually becomes toxic for the body and it can kill you.

[Unsueable Davey Brown]

I don't think even the global warming activists are claiming we're going to choke down on projected human CO2 contributions are they? Those contributions are pretty small in relationship to other gases as I understand it.

In fact as I understand it the only real criticism of the CO2 we're creating is it's possible contribution as a greenhouse gas.

Is it that an incorrect assumption? If so link me.

[DigitalJunkie]

We'll need to address lots of problems, it's not just about CO2 anymore. We are loosing rain forests, creating chemical compounds that never degrades, polluting oceans with our waste & list of many others I did not mentioned. Earth is going to becomes a waste land, if we don't do a better job at managing the resources!

[Unsueable Davey Brown]

It never has been about CO2. CO2 isn't a pollutant. It never was. It's what you breath out.

You've been sold a bill of goods by people with political agendas.

But by all means let's save the rain forest. Wanna know what's threatening the rain forest right now. Clear-cutting to make way for the planting of sugar and such for ethanol. Apparently burning ethanol will save us from the demon CO2.

[DigitalJunkie]

We been losing rain forests for a long time now, not just for ethanol production! When I'm talking about rain forests, I'm talking about eco system for this planet we all lived in.

BTW, the way I feel about the political agendas is we can't do it all but every little bit helps. It doesn't matter how much, it's doing something rather been "too late" or doing "nothing" at all!

[Unsueable Davey Brown]

Yeah, but you still don't seem to get what I'm proposing.

I'm putting forward the suggestion man-made CO2 is not a pollutant, and the global warming it is supposed to have caused never happened. If that proposal is correct, how will investing the sometimes spoken of estimation of trillions of dollars to finance controlling CO2 help the environment? Wouldn't that money be better spent on the actual, real environmental issues you spoke of rather than the CO2 Boogeyman.

As I said before the environmental insanity of controlling an imaginary threat of CO2 while ignoring genuine environmental threats can best be seen with the Kyoto accord. China and India get a pass. They don't have to do anything as a result of Kyoto. You've seen the photos (http://www.worldviewofglobalwarming.org/images/4ChinaInMon.jpg) of the black smoke (http://edition.cnn.com/TECH/computing/9905/28/t_t/china.environment/pollution.large.jpg) over Chinese cities (http://www.beloit.edu/~biology/emgdis/papers/utsikt2.jpg), right? You've heard the stories of the environmental death of the Ganges. Doesn't matter. It's not a CO2 thing, or something. Canada on the other hand, which overall smells pretty sweet, is seen as a CO2 villain, and will be paying through it's teeth. Apparently there's carbon dioxide in them thar hills. Someone must be breathing, or something.

Then there's Brazil. You remember Brazil, right? They're the raping of the rain forest guys. They get a pass at Kyoto too. In fact they can get CO2 credits by raping more rain forest, and planting crops for ethanol on the ravaged topsoil. They can then turn around, and sell those credits to CO2 villiains like Canada.

And yeah, I know I'm repeating myself here, but as I said, I have to, because you just don't seem to get my point. Just tell me you understand what I'm saying and I'll stop trying to say it more clearly.

[DigitalJunkie]

I know that some believes their use of credit system is the right way to control pollutions. I don't agree with it, but forcing a lot of countries & companies with politicians in their pockets to control pollutions is a tough sell.

Personally, I wish those political leaders will tell it straight instead of play politics for power or anything to get elected. Ask for international supports & set an example to start. Using common sense to sell, start small & build on it!

You may think it's my wishful thinking, but reality may force us to do exactly what we must! How? When no one will accept wastes from each other anymore! Even the oil we import today produces waste.

[Unsueable Davey Brown]

(Ok let's keep trying then). It's not pollution they're trying to control. It's CO2.

Oh wait...I think I know how to explain this to you.

Did you know one of the things the CO2 brownshirts would like to control is livestock? They don't want you eating beef.

http://www.un.org/apps/news/story.asp?NewsID=20772&Cr=global&Cr1=environment

And one more time. China is not seen as a problem by the Kyoto accord to control CO2, and other so-called greenhouse gases. They get a pass from Kyoto.

A total of 16 out of the top 20 most polluted cities are in China. #1 on the list is Linfen City in Shanxi Province, China. "The whole city smells and is covered in smoke."

http://www.impactlab.com/modules.php?name=News&file=article&sid=8462

[DigitalJunkie]

I agree with you about them playing politics, but I'm trying not focus on them. But talk common sense.

[DigitalJunkie]

That livestock story is funny, but they do eat a lot & produce waste. Even Agriculture Dept. at U.N. want to be famous for 15 mins., I guess!

[soulxtc]

Sorry, I disagree with your opinion on global warming, because we've "seen" the evidence at the North with large chucks of ice broke-off or disappear. No matter what, what we did or doing will not be good for future generations to come!

The way I see it it's like this, first of all let the scientists debate it, research it, etc and not the rest if us who lack the appropriate credentials, education and training.

Secondly, is thereglobal warming who know, ice is disappearing in some places (kilamnajaro) and increasing rapidly in others (greenland) , but the bottom line is that there are JUST TOO MANY DAM PEOPLE AND CARS on this planet of ours spewing a bunch of crap into the air, and thats not only what we can all agree on hopefully but also address together. Am I right?

[DigitalJunkie]

There are scientists on both side, the way I see it is we only started recording the rest is debatable as to their theories. However, you don't have to be a scientist to see some problems. But, we do need scientists to solve some of them problems so more researches are needed!

As you can see I'm not a extremist in anything. But, I do believe doing something to prepare is better than doing nothing with "excuses" at all!

Don't worry, I'm not about to start a revolution in the name of for "us" all, and not that we lived in true "democracy" neither.