Global warming crowd takes a break

[FishForLunch]

The extreme lows in the mid west seems to have put a damper on the global warming alarmists. It was 4 F this morning in Northern Kentucky brrrr...

-----------------------------------------------------------------------
Global warming or global cooling?Add to Clippings
SWAMINATHAN S ANKLESARIA AIYAR

Almost as soon as the Kyoto Protocol on global warming came into effect on February 15, Kashmir suffered the highest snowfall in three decades with over 150 killed, and Mumbai recorded the lowest temperature in 40 years. Had temperatures been the highest for decades, newspapers would have declared this was proof of global warming. But whenever temperatures drop, the press keeps quiet.

Things were different in 1940-70, when there was global cooling. Every cold winter then was hailed as proof of a coming new Ice Age. But the moment cooling was replaced by warming, a new disaster in the opposite direction was proclaimed.

A recent Washington Post article gave this scientist's quote from 1972. "We simply cannot afford to gamble. We cannot risk inaction. The scientists who disagree are acting irresponsibly. The indications that our climate can soon change for the worse are too strong to be reasonably ignored." The warning was not about global warming (which was not happening): it was about global cooling!

In the media, disaster is news, and its absence is not. This principle has been exploited so skillfully by ecological scare-mongers that it is now regarded as politically incorrect, even unscientific, to denounce global warming hysteria as unproven speculation.

Meteorologists are a standing joke for getting predictions wrong even a few days ahead. The same jokers are being taken seriously when they use computer models to predict the weather 100 years hence.

The models have not been tested for reliability over 100 years, or even 20 years. Different models yield variations in warming of 400%, which means they are statistically meaningless.

Wassily Leontief, Nobel prize winner for modeling, said this about the limits of models. "We move from more or less plausible but really arbitrary assumptions, to elegantly demonstrated but irrelevant conclusions." Exactly. Assume continued warming as in the last three decades, and you get a warming disaster. Assume more episodes of global cooling, and you get a cooling disaster.

In his latest best seller State of Fear, Michael Crichton does a devastating expose of the way ecological groups have tweaked data and facts to create mass hysteria. He points out that we know astonishingly little about the environment. All sides make exaggerated claims.

We know that atmospheric carbon is increasing. We are also in the midst of a natural warming trend that started in 1850 at the end of what is called the Little Ice Age. It is scientifically impossible to prove whether the subsequent warming is natural or man-made.

Greens say, rightly, that the best scientific assessment today is that global warming is occurring. Yet never in history have scientists accurately predicted what will happen 100 years later. A century ago no scientists predicted the internet, microwave ovens, TV, nuclear explosions or antibiotics. It is impossible, even stupid, to predict the distant future.

That scientific truth is rarely mentioned. Why? Because the global warming movement has now become a multi-billion dollar enterprise with thousands of jobs and millions in funding for NGOs and think-tanks, top jobs and prizes for scientists, and huge media coverage for predictions of disaster.

The vested interests in the global warming theory are now as strong, rich and politically influential as the biggest multinationals. It is no co-incidence, says Crichton, that so many scientists sceptical of global warming are retired professors: they have no need to chase research grants and chairs.

I have long been an agnostic on global warming: the evidence is ambiguous. But I almost became a convert when Greenpeace publicised photos showing the disastrously rapid retreat of the Upsala Glacier in Argentina. How disastrous, I thought, if this was the coming fate of all glaciers.

Then last Christmas, I went on vacation to Lake Argentina. The Upsala glacier and six other glaciers descend from the South Andean icefield into the lake. I was astounded to discover that while the Upsala glacier had retreated rapidly, the other glaciers showed little movement, and one had advanced across the lake into the Magellan peninsula. If in the same area some glaciers advance and others retreat, the cause is clearly not global warming but local micro-conditions.

Yet the Greenpeace photos gave the impression that glaciers in general were in rapid retreat. It was a con job, a dishonest effort to mislead. From the same icefield, another major glacier spilling into Chile has grown 60% in volume.

Greenpeace and other ecological groups have well-intentioned people with high ideals. But as crusaders they want to win by any means, honest or not. I do not like being taken for a ride, by idealists or anyone else.

We need impartial research, funded neither by MNCs, governmental groups or NGOs with private agendas. And the media needs to stop highlighting disaster scares and ignoring exposes of the scares.

[Dr.Zoidberg]

At first I have to say that I am an independent civil engineer who among others gives advice to people about optimize tenements regarding to conserve energy and decrease carbon dioxide emission, so I know this subject very good.

This is one of the most stupid commentary I´ve ever read about this topic. Must be dictated right from the US government which, like all governments, compose the things how it´s best for them and blink a fact about this global problem. I was at the end of my tether as the US environment minister is one of the few which don´t see any need for action regarding this problem.

It starts with the statement that in Kashmir they had record snowfalls and in Mumbai they had a temperature low record:

So you have to know that warm air absorbs more dewiness than cold air. In consequence of that the intensity of precipitation will rise with a global warming and not drop. Therefore this is rather a affirmation of the global warming.

About the temperature low: There were always some sporadic phenomena and this is nothing new to us, but you can´t deny that, from a global standpoint, the temperatures mostly going up rather than going down. There are many winter sports regions which exist from tourism and now have problems as there more often is not enough snow.

The argument that the decrease of glaciers is only a fact of micro-conditions is nonsense. From a global point of view the disappearance of the glaciers is gaining ground and the few glaciers which advance, are rare individual cases.

The extreme weather phenomena like hurricanes (New Orleans), Tornado's, snowstorms, rain with floodings, catastrophic droughts, etc are on the rise throughout the world.

That scientific truth is rarely mentioned. Why? Because the global warming movement has now become a multi-billion dollar enterprise with thousands of jobs and millions in funding for NGOs and think-tanks, top jobs and prizes for scientists, and huge media coverage for predictions of disaster.

Also absolute nonsense as it´s very expensive for the government and the industry (especially the air polluting industry like for example coal-fired power stations, indirect the car industry and of course the oil industry) to do something against the pollution of the environment. So it´s not surprising that the environment minister also in sense of the economic doesn´t want to do anything. Sadly that the same is true of most of governments all around the world as the industries mostly have the authority over them. The lobby of this people is much more powerful and has much more billions of money than the ones which want to do something against the global warming.

There I have to say that the pollution from the cars is at the moment less responsible for the global warming than the pollution through the industry and the excessive consumption of energy for e.g. heating houses or air conditions and in this way the massive emission of carbon dioxide, the main cause of the global warming. This (pollution through cars) of course will be a much bigger problem if the Asian developing countries bloom and everyone wants to have a car.

It´s true that no one knows what will happen 100 years from now, but it´s a fact that the the average temperature will rise between 2,8°C at best and 6,4°C at worst case scenario, but only if we will stop to limit the carbon dioxin emission drastically. How scary the situation will be if the temperature rises for about 6,4°C, points out the fact, that between the warm stage and the ice age there was only a temperature difference of 4°C! So nobody can tell us what will happen in the future, because it never happened before to our world.

All in all the government has to do something immediately against the global warming without being narrow-minded and it´s irresponsible to gamble with the future not only of our children but of all humans!

[Pirate]

Nonsense, mr engineer.

You pick at the article, yet your points absolutely ratify exactly what it is telling us. Its message is two-fold: (1) proponents of "a coming global warming calamity" will accept one side of the data, and willingly and abruptly dismiss anything to the contrary as if it never existed, which is not scientific and is more like propganda in a cause, and (2) the global warming crowd jumps to the most dire consequences possible, without ever stopping for a millisecond to consider if a few degrees of warming might ultimately be countermanded by other natural factors in the design of our world. Might there even be POSITIVES with some warming? Might the positives outweigh the negatives? Perish the thought! Don't dare think that.

For example, let's look at warming. There probably is some degree of warming going on. (Man made? Very very dubious science with that part of the claim!)

But even if so, if it does actually occur, what happens? There is less ice and more warm land. There is more sun. There is more evaporation and rain. More fresh water. More wind and pollination. Put all that together, and what do you ultimately get? You get more vegetation. That makes LESS carbon dioxide, and more oxygen. More cloud cover. Wow. A completely natural PENDULUM OF NATURE that will gradually send the climate back the other direction without government mandate and intervention.

Meanwhile the Chicken-Little-Gores of the world are screaming for government minions to stop what is completely a part of the cycle of nature. Micromanage the environment. Control our atmosphere. And so on. Jump on the "PC" bandwagon that demands we see global warming and cede our liberty to the "climate police." Make it harder to make a living with a "protect the climate" rationale.

Pure rubbish.

[TheBlueVan]

all i know is a little regulation of pollution is definitely a good thing. so i think there could definitely be some positives that might come out of a global warming scare

by the way, its time to find alternative fuels and energy sources, and this is a good motivation to do so

[chumdawg]

I am, of course, no scientist--and in this case, that may not be a bad thing--but I've always viewed it as the ultimate pinnacle of human arrogance to think that we can somehow, with our aerosols and burning fossil fuels, dramatically alter the landscape of a celestial object.

In short, my belief is that the earth is a whole lot bigger than we are. And I belief that life--the hardy kind of life that survived all kinds of conditions and got us to where we are now--will continue on.

Do I believe that we should be responsible stewards of the planet, else we bring about our own demise? Not in the least, at least not in the sense that that phrase is understood. I believe that we are, to our planet, the most infinitessimal bearing on its being. In other words, I believe that we could try our damndest to make it unhabitable, and we would never succeed.

Some things are way, way, WAY bigger than we are.

[Mavdog]

so you believe we are incapable of influencing and changing our environment chum? well, those extinct animals, the ponds and lakes that have been turned into dead zones by acid rain, heck even the children who have half the lung capacity they should due to the dirty air in the cities they live in.....yes, we do affect our climate and our world, and we can make it uninhabitable if we do not realize what we do can cause reverberations through our planet.

pirate, the rise and fall in temperatures does occur on a cyclical basis through the eons. the recent rise has been one of the most rapid the scientists have been able to quantify. to say that the rise will bring us wonderful things flies in the face of what is predicted.

the forecasts show less "warm land" as the seas and oceans will rise.

there will not be "more sun", there's the same amount. how would a rising temp affect the sun?

here's the question: IF our activities are accelerating the rise in temps why continue them? IF we can change our activities to decrease the rise in temps, why not do it?

would it not be the best policy to act and stop the contribution to the rising temps even if it is shown that these activities were only partly responsible? in other words, wouldn't it be better to err on the side of caution? absolutely!

[jacktruth]

Originally Posted by Mavdog

so you believe we are incapable of influencing and changing our environment chum? well, those extinct animals, the ponds and lakes that have been turned into dead zones by acid rain, heck even the children who have half the lung capacity they should due to the dirty air in the cities they live in.....yes, we do affect our climate and our world, and we can make it uninhabitable if we do not realize what we do can cause reverberations through our planet.

pirate, the rise and fall in temperatures does occur on a cyclical basis through the eons. the recent rise has been one of the most rapid the scientists have been able to quantify. to say that the rise will bring us wonderful things flies in the face of what is predicted.

the forecasts show less "warm land" as the seas and oceans will rise.

there will not be "more sun", there's the same amount. how would a rising temp affect the sun?

here's the question: IF our activities are accelerating the rise in temps why continue them? IF we can change our activities to decrease the rise in temps, why not do it?

would it not be the best policy to act and stop the contribution to the rising temps even if it is shown that these activities were only partly responsible? in other words, wouldn't it be better to err on the side of caution? absolutely!

IF

The idea that I should react to something just in case it is true is ridiculous, and actually should make born-again Christians out of every person on the planet.

the rise and fall in temperatures does occur on a cyclical basis through the eons. the recent rise has been one of the most rapid the scientists have been able to quantify.

So, this is the most rapid that they HAVE BEEN ABLE TO QUANTIFY, yet you are sure that temperatures have not done the same thing, say 3 eons ago when they could not quantify them?

How long is an eon? Was global warming the cause of the death of all dinosaurs supposedly 85 gazillion years ago or whatever the number is now? I'm sure there is some scientists that say that with no evidence whatsoever, making thier "science" faith based and not fact based. But that is another topic. . .

[mcsluggo]

Originally Posted by chumdawg

I am, of course, no scientist--and in this case, that may not be a bad thing--but I've always viewed it as the ultimate pinnacle of human arrogance to think that we can somehow, with our aerosols and burning fossil fuels, dramatically alter the landscape of a celestial object...

hmmm. How about if we REALLY tried. If we set up a grid pattern for dropping ALL of our nukes with maximum global coverage (rather than just tossing 'emo ncities and such), THEN could we dramatically alter the landscape of this celestial object?

perhaps we are just not trying hard enough

[Dr.Zoidberg]

From Pirate: Nonsense, mr engineer.

You pick at the article, yet your points absolutely ratify exactly what it is telling us. Its message is two-fold: (1) proponents of "a coming global warming calamity" will accept one side of the data, and willingly and abruptly dismiss anything to the contrary as if it never existed, which is not scientific and is more like propganda in a cause,...

Which contrary?

A recent Washington Post article gave this scientist's quote from 1972. "We simply cannot afford to gamble. We cannot risk inaction. The scientists who disagree are acting irresponsibly. The indications that our climate can soon change for the worse are too strong to be reasonably ignored." The warning was not about global warming (which was not happening): it was about global cooling!

The opinion of a individual. There are always a few people with other opinions, but how long does it take for the writer to find an article of someone who plough a lonely furrow with this opinion? Also don´t forget, this quote is from 1972!

Meteorologists are a standing joke for getting predictions wrong even a few days ahead....

I don´t know which weather forecast the writer watches every day but mostly the predictions are right. Maybe in the past the hit ratio was bad. Nowadays the accuracy is about 90%.

...The same jokers are being taken seriously when they use computer models to predict the weather 100 years hence.

Like I said, no one can tell us which climate we will have in the future (the predictions for 100 years widely differing) but every model predicts a global warming!

Here for example a nice article about the big influence of the industry (oil):
http://www.ucsusa.org/news/press_rel...g-tobacco.html

Enough said, to where the big money is and the interests of all persons concerned. Like always, it´s all about the money.

...and (2) the global warming crowd jumps to the most dire consequences possible, without ever stopping for a millisecond to consider if a few degrees of warming might ultimately be countermanded by other natural factors in the design of our world.

This is not true. Here some scientific proven facts:

If we talk about global warming you have to know the coherences of the greenhouse effect!

At first there is a natural greenhouse effect:

The earth is warmed by the sun and at the same time radiates heat to the atmosphere. If solar radiation and irradiation of the earth are balanced than theoretically (i.e. an atmosphere without any CO2 and water vapor) there will be a mathematical global average temperature of –18°C. But as we have water vapor, clouds and CO2 of volcano's the irradiation of the earth is limited and so the mathematical global average is 15°C (a difference of 33°C!).

Now to the man made greenhouse effect:

Beside of water vapor there are some other gases which bottle the thermal radiation up, called greenhouse gases like: CO2, methane, laughing gas and ozone for example. This fact leads to a warmer atmosphere which can absorb more dewiness, which will boost the greenhouse effect even more. You also have to know that CO2 takes effect not until 30 years after emission, has a durability of at least 100 years and has a share of 50% to the greenhouse effect.

In the past we have had many temperature fluctuations because of big volcanic eruptions (e.g. Krakatau) or slowing of the gulf stream (little Ice Age) for example. Essential is the difference of the mathematically global average temperature. Since the start of the weather records the temperature difference before 1900 was 0,5°C lower, after that date we are 0,8°C over the average. 30% of that can be ascribed the increased activity of the sun, but the rest is the result of a man made climatic change, with a verisimilitude of 95%. A lot of the increase of the warming goes direct into the oceans, that is alongside the melting ice of the poles, why we notice an advance of the sea level of 3mm per year.

Also from the weather records you can identify the start of the industrialization. If you will bring the argument that the weather records don´t exist long enough, you can detect the development of the climatic in the stratification of the ice (like the annual rings of a tree) at north pole or antarctic.

But even if so, if it does actually occur, what happens? There is less ice and more warm land. There is more sun. There is more evaporation and rain. More fresh water. More wind and pollination. Put all that together, and what do you ultimately get? You get more vegetation. That makes LESS carbon dioxide, and more oxygen. More cloud cover. Wow. A completely natural PENDULUM OF NATURE that will gradually send the climate back the other direction without government mandate and intervention.

Yes there is more evaporation (about 6% more per degree Celsius). The rain will be more but unequally distributed around the world and the year. There will be more regions with long torrid periods. Otherwise the intensity of precipitations will rise. There will be more rain for example in a shorter period of time, which leads to more floodings.

Otherwise there will be be long period of droughts because of the unequally distribution through the year, and because of that the ground-water level will fall. Freshwater will be more and more valuable like oil nowadays. At the moment there are already more countries with problems in getting freshwater as countries with an excess of freshwater.

Like I said before the biggest amount of the warming goes direct into the oceans. Warmer oceans save more energy (also does a warmer atmosphere with more dewiness) which will lead to a rising number of storms (hurricanes) with bigger intensity and, because water is one of the best heat reservoir, the hurricane season will last longer.

There will not be more vegetation as the natural disasters which destroys vegetation (like storms, wildfires, droughts) will rise. And how long does it last till new trees grow up? Not fast enough. Furthermore the most amount of the CO2 emission is not absorbed by the vegetation but by the oceans again!


Every alien company can affirm you a gain of natural disasters in the last years. The rise of the so called once in a century disasters amass ominous the last few years, all around the world.

[FishForLunch]

Now it seems they are firing guys who have different thesis on global warming (See Oregon).

I did my Masters in Environmental engineering. I have worked with climate models in school, to get them to work is a art, so many assumptions it is mind boggling.

What happened to celebrity causes like AIDS, Land Mines, why don't they go back to them.

[Dr.Zoidberg]

Yes I know, that to bring the climatic models to work is a science in principle, but it´s naive and irresponsible to do nothing and wait for "wondrously self-regulating forces" of nature.

[TheBlueVan]

what i dont understand is why everyone is so against some form of regulation. if global warming IS happening, we can do what we can to stop it. if, by chance, its not, then at the very least we'll have a cleaner, more efficient, and healthier earth. whats the harm in that?

[dude1394]

Originally Posted by TheBlueVan

what i dont understand is why everyone is so against some form of regulation. if global warming IS happening, we can do what we can to stop it. if, by chance, its not, then at the very least we'll have a cleaner, more efficient, and healthier earth. whats the harm in that?

Who's job are you willing to forego to get this cleaner environment? The problem is that it costs dollars to do things cleaner, companies(countries) having to spend dollars to do things cleaner have a tough time competing against companies (countries) who do not.

[FishForLunch]

So you feel if the US and Europe cut down on emissions drastically it will compensate for the emissions that China and India contribute. Why do you think this way, is it because you are naive or is it wishful thinking.

Each of those nations have a billion people to take care of and lift out of poverty, they could give a rats ass about the western governments desire to stop "Man Made" global warming as some with the loudest voices define it.

[Dr.Zoidberg]

Originally Posted by dude1394

Who's job are you willing to forego to get this cleaner environment? The problem is that it costs dollars to do things cleaner, companies(countries) having to spend dollars to do things cleaner have a tough time competing against companies (countries) who do not.

This is exactly the point. Money makes the world go round! And those responsible persons among the politicians and the industry only will do something if they are up to their necks in it!

[dude1394]

Originally Posted by Dr.Zoidberg

This is exactly the point. Money makes the world go round! And those responsible persons among the politicians and the industry only will do something if they are up to their necks in it!

Ah bull-honkey. Driving up the cost of doing business in the long run hurts the worker way more than the entrepanour. Europe has kyoto and their emisssions are going up.

The best way to do this is to work towards alternative energy in a positive, not a punative way.

[Mavdog]

Originally Posted by dude1394

Who's job are you willing to forego to get this cleaner environment? The problem is that it costs dollars to do things cleaner, companies(countries) having to spend dollars to do things cleaner have a tough time competing against companies (countries) who do not.

it won't cost anyone their job. in fact, the initiative will spur job growth as the investments are made in the new technologies.

it is a falacy to believe that countries that do not curb their levels of air pollution won't suffer an economic cost. the health expenses alone are a huge burden.

[dude1394]

Originally Posted by Mavdog

it won't cost anyone their job. in fact, the initiative will spur job growth as the investments are made in the new technologies.

I don't buy it mavie. I can agree that it will create new(read different)jobs as resources are re-allocated. But from what I've read the expectation is that kyoto for example will dampen GDP, I see no way to spin that to "more" economic growth and more jobs. If you double the cost of gasoline for example it WILL effect the economy and jobs.

it is a falacy to believe that countries that do not curb their levels of air pollution won't suffer an economic cost. the health expenses alone are a huge burden.

So somehow the chinese and indian economy's are LIMITING their growth by not complying with cleaner technologies? Bull honkey man. When you can sell a widget cheaper than the next guy, you win.

[Dr.Zoidberg]

Originally Posted by FishForLunch

So you feel if the US and Europe cut down on emissions drastically it will compensate for the emissions that China and India contribute. Why do you think this way, is it because you are naive or is it wishful thinking.

Each of those nations have a billion people to take care of and lift out of poverty, they could give a rats ass about the western governments desire to stop "Man Made" global warming as some with the loudest voices define it.

I see it as a task and challenge for US and Europe to assist the developing countries and to pass our experiences regarding this problem to them, so they don´t make the same mistakes. Probably the cut down on emissions of the developed countries by far wouldn´t be enough to compensate.

If with naive you mean idealistic, you are right.

[purplefrog]

I am honored to post on this forum because we have members that know more about global warming than the following Nobel Laureates who have all agreed that it is real and at least in part a result of human activiity. There is always some dissent in science. So when you say that there is controversy about some issue you must be clear about the extent of that controversy. In this case the clear majority of Nobel Laureates (a little more than 100 out of about 140) were willing to put their names along side this issue. In Gore's film he mentions that a survey of scholarly articles written on global warming revealed that 100% of those reports (over the past 5 years) in scientific journals supported its existence. On the other hand 53% of the MSM articles on the subject questioned the validity of climate change. I can't stand Al Gore. He makes my stomach turn whenever I see him, but if this is even close to being true then there is no controversy. Period. So while there are many respected members of this forum that clearly do not believe in global warming, I will have to side with the majority of Nobel Prize winners(see list below)... at least this one time.

NOBEL LAUREATES
* Philip W. Anderson, USA. Physics 1977
* Kenneth J. Arrow, USA. Economics 1972
* Julius Axelrod, USA. Physiology/Medicine 1970
* David Baltimore, USA. Physiology/Medicine 1975
* Georg J. Bednorz, Switzerland. Physics 1987
* Baruj Benacerraf, USA. Physiology/Medicine 1980
* Hans A. Bethe, USA. Physics 1967
* J. Michael Bishop, USA. Physiology/Medicine 1989
* James W. Black, UK. Physiology/Medicine 1988
* Konrad E. Bloch, USA. Physiology/Medicine 1964
* Nicolaas Bloembergen, USA. Physics 1981
* Thomas R. Cech, USA. Chemistry 1989
* Stanley Cohen, USA. Physiology/Medicine 1986
* Elias James Corey, USA. Chemistry 1990
* John W. Cornforth, UK. Chemistry 1975
* James W. Cronin, USA. Physics 1980
* Paul J. Crutzen, Germany. Chemistry 1995
* Jean Dausset, France. Physiology/Medicine 1980
* Hans G. Dehmelt, USA. Physics 1989
* Johann Deisenhofer, USA. Chemistry 1988
* Peter C. Doherty, USA. Physiology/Medicine 1996
* Renato Dulbecco, USA. Physiology/Medicine 1975
* Christian R. de Duve, Belgium. Physiology/Medicine 1974
* Manfred Eigen, Germany. Chemistry 1967
* Gertrude B. Elion, USA. Physiology/Medicine 1988
* Richard R. Ernst, Switzerland. Chemistry 1991
* Leo Esaki, Japan. Physics 1973
* Edmond H. Fischer, USA. Physiology/Medicine 1992
* Ernst Otto Fischer, Germany. Chemistry 1973
* Val L. Fitch, USA. Physics 1980
* Jerome I. Friedman, USA. Physics 1990
* Donald A. Glaser, USA. Physics 1960
* Sheldon L. Glashow, USA. Physics 1979
* Herbert A. Hauptman, USA. Chemistry 1985
* Dudley Herschbach, USA. Chemistry 1986
* Antony Hewish, UK. Physics 1974
* Roald Hoffmann, USA. Chemistry 1981
* Godfrey Hounsfield, UK. Physiology/Medicine 1979
* David H. Hubel, USA. Physiology/Medicine 1981
* Robert Huber, Germany. Chemistry 1988
* Jerome Karle, USA. Chemistry 1985
* Henry W. Kendall, USA. Physics 1990
* John Kendrew, UK. Chemistry 1962
* Klaus von Klitzing, Germany. Physics 1985
* Aaron Klug, UK. Chemistry 1982
* Arthur Kornberg, USA. Physiology/Medicine 1959
* Edwin G. Krebs, USA. Physiology/Medicine 1992
* Harold Kroto, UK. Chemistry 1996
* Leon M. Lederman, USA. Physics 1988
* David M. Lee, USA. Physics 1996
* Yuan T. Lee, Taiwan. Chemistry 1986
* Jean-Marie Lehn, France. Chemistry 1987
* Wassily Leontief, USA. Economics 1973
* Rita Levi-Montalcini, Italy. Physiology/Medicine 1986
* Edward B. Lewis, USA. Physiology/Medicine 1995
* William N. Lipscomb, USA. Chemistry 1976
* Rudolph A. Marcus, USA. Chemistry 1992
* Simon van der Meer, Switzerland. Physics 1984
* R. Bruce Merrifield, USA. Chemistry 1984
* Hartmut Michel, Germany. Chemistry 1988
* Cesar Milstein, UK. Physiology/Medicine 1984
* Mario J. Molina, USA. Chemistry 1995
* Ben Mottelson, Denmark. Physics 1975
* Joseph E. Murray, USA. Physiology/Medicine 1990
* Daniel Nathans, USA. Physiology/Medicine 1978
* Louis Neel, France. Physics 1970
* Erwin Neher, Germany. Physiology/Medicine 1991
* Marshall W. Nirenberg, USA. Physiology/Medicine 1968
* Christiane Nusslein-Volhard, Germany. Physiology/Medicine 1995
* Douglas D. Osheroff, USA. Physics 1996
* George E. Palade, USA. Physiology/Medicine 1974
* Max F. Perutz, UK. Chemistry 1962
* John Polanyi, Canada. Chemistry 1986
* Ilya Prigogine, Belgium. Chemistry 1977
* Norman F. Ramsey, USA. Physics 1989
* Burton Richter, USA. Physics 1976
* Richard J. Roberts, USA. Physiology/Medicine 1993
* Martin Rodbell, USA. Physiology/Medicine 1994
* Heinrich Rohrer, Switzerland. Physics 1986
* Joseph Rotblat, UK. Peace 1995
* F. Sherwood Rowland, USA. Chemistry 1995
* Bengt Samuelsson, Sweden. Physiology/Medicine 1982
* Frederick Sanger, UK. Chemistry 1958, 1980
* Arthur L. Schawlow, USA. Physics 1981
* Glenn T. Seaborg, USA. Chemistry 1951
* Herbert A. Simon, USA. Economics 1978
* Richard E. Smalley, USA. Chemistry 1996
* Michael Smith, Canada. Chemistry 1993
* Jack Steinberger, Switzerland. Physics 1988
* Henry Taube, USA. Chemistry 1983
* Richard E. Taylor, USA. Physics 1990
* E. Donnall Thomas, USA. Physiology/Medicine 1990
* Samuel C. C. Ting, USA. Physics 1976
* James Tobin, USA. Economics 1981
* Susumu Tonegawa, USA. Physiology/Medicine 1987
* Charles H. Townes, USA. Physics 1964
* Desmond Tutu, South Africa. Peace 1984
* John Vane, UK. Physiology/Medicine 1982
* Thomas H. Weller, USA. Physiology/Medicine 1954
* Torsten N. Wiesel, USA. Physiology/Medicine 1981
* Robert W. Wilson, USA. Physics 1978
* Rolf M. Zinkernagel, Switzerland. Physiology/Medicine 1996

[dude1394]

Okay snarky so what do they reccomend? Getting rid of Gore's jet-setting?

Do they reccomend Nuclear Energy by chance????

Even if there is global warming, the scare-mongering that is going with it makes dealing with it untenable.

[Mavdog]

Originally Posted by dude1394

I don't buy it mavie. I can agree that it will create new(read different)jobs as resources are re-allocated. But from what I've read the expectation is that kyoto for example will dampen GDP, I see no way to spin that to "more" economic growth and more jobs. If you double the cost of gasoline for example it WILL effect the economy and jobs.

the expectation of declining GDP as a result of kyoto is based on industry pulling back on the throttle to reduce the level of emissions mandated. IF there were hard caps on the amount produced, yes, the forecast could be true.

however, there are not any hard caps that will force industry to shut down production. so those forecasts are not based on reality.

it is not an either/or...

So somehow the chinese and indian economy's are LIMITING their growth by not complying with cleaner technologies? Bull honkey man. When you can sell a widget cheaper than the next guy, you win.

uh, no, the point is not that they are "limiting their growth", the point is that they recognize pollution is harming the health of the pop.

we do not want these economies to stop their growth. we're tied at the hip.

[purplefrog]

Originally Posted by dude1394

Okay snarky so what do they reccomend? Getting rid of Gore's jet-setting?

Do they reccomend Nuclear Energy by chance????

Even if there is global warming, the scare-mongering that is going with it makes dealing with it untenable.

Regulate CO2 emissions at the Federal level.

On a side note, I personally oppose Governor Perry's willingness to fast-track the building of the coal plants in Houston/Bryan/College Station area by TXU. While we desperately need the energy that these plants will provide this is an opportunity to force utility companies to think about alternatives when these pressures emerge. These coal plants will significantly increase CO2 in the Metroplex and in Central Texas.

As far as scare-mongering is concerned, you may be assuming there is nothing to be scared about or that the threat is being overstated. If so, I don't agree with that assumption because most of our great scientists support the reality of global warming and the need to do something about it. I would definitely prefer a clear headed debate without emotion but unfortunately that does not typically generate any public interest, nor does it move our legislators. I admit that it is difficult to make a case for global warming without sounding like an alarmist or an extremist. That being said, the issue needs to be addressed in a serious way and I actually think that bipartisan support will put a national plan in place in the near future.

[jacktruth]

Scientific studies build on scientific studies. So if you build on scientific studies that identify human factors, so does yours. If you build on scientific studies that identify human factors in an effort to refute it, you don't get funding.

Don't make the mistake of thinking that scientists have no agenda. Academics is just as biased about propogating preferred theory as Corporate-funded research.

Seriously, try to get a grant to research the affect of a catastrophic global flood (of biblical proportions!) on land and sea animals. You won't get it because you are cleary trying to disprove the 85 gazillion years theory.

As a side note, according to one of my graduate economics professor at UTA that specializes in environmental law, not a single US environmental regulation was based on scientific knowledge. The research, rather, is focused on the economic impacts of the potential environmental law on local constituents (will I lose my job in the next election if this law passes?).

There is an oil-cartell sized deposit of clean buring coal in Montana that we could be using to reduce emissions? Why don't we? Because politicians from dirty coal states make sure the laws don't allow it.

[purplefrog]

Originally Posted by dude1394

Okay snarky so what do they reccomend? Getting rid of Gore's jet-setting?

I wish someone would temper Gore's dog-and-pony show. He is not the right messenger for much of anything, including global warming/climate change. Sit down Al and let someone else make the case.

[capitalcity]

Originally Posted by purplefrog

...let someone else make the case.

Everybody's on somebody's payroll. Where are you gonna find the guy without preconceived notions or a political agenda?

Perhaps global warming will thaw out a caveman who can give us an unbaised opinion on the subject.

[purplefrog]

Originally Posted by capitalcity

Everybody's on somebody's payroll. Where are you gonna find the guy without preconceived notions or a political agenda?

Perhaps global warming will thaw out a caveman who can give us an unbaised opinion on the subject.

I was mostly referring to Gore's overall lack of credibility which makes him a poor messenger regardless of the issue. But your point is well taken... finding someone without an axe to grind is near impossible these days.

[dude1394]

I can't believe that Algore isn't more sensitive about the environment. Oh streisand and the rest of the crowd. Let's make sure we all get down to 9 tons so that the environmental crowd can get a few more frequent flyer miles.

MORE: Some greenhouse perspective:

The typical American is responsible for 10 tons of CO2 emissions annually through their direct energy use of home, cars and air travel, and about 24 tons of CO2 including their purchases, activities and the other services we all share throughout the economy.

By comparison, a Gulf Stream III business jet (10-12 passenger) from New York to Los Angeles will emit around 31 tons of CO2 during the 6 hour flight.

[dallas_esq]

I can't believe that Algore isn't more sensitive about the environment. Oh streisand and the rest of the crowd. Let's make sure we all get down to 9 tons so that the environmental crowd can get a few more frequent flyer miles.

Quote:
MORE: Some greenhouse perspective:

The typical American is responsible for 10 tons of CO2 emissions annually through their direct energy use of home, cars and air travel, and about 24 tons of CO2 including their purchases, activities and the other services we all share throughout the economy.

By comparison, a Gulf Stream III business jet (10-12 passenger) from New York to Los Angeles will emit around 31 tons of CO2 during the 6 hour flight.

__________________

wow

[Rhylan]

dude, can you give me a source on that? I've been saying that for awhile now. Need to use it to needle a guy at work, but he'll demand a source.

[Dr.Zoidberg]

Here a choice of the best links around climate and emissions: http://unfccc.int/ghg_emissions_data...items/3170.php

[dude1394]

Originally Posted by Rhylan

dude, can you give me a source on that? I've been saying that for awhile now. Need to use it to needle a guy at work, but he'll demand a source.

If you are speaking to me rhylan.

http://instapundit.com/archives2/2007/02/post_2314.php

[Arne]

Originally Posted by dude1394

Who's job are you willing to forego to get this cleaner environment? The problem is that it costs dollars to do things cleaner, companies(countries) having to spend dollars to do things cleaner have a tough time competing against companies (countries) who do not.

"How much is the world?"...

[Mavdog]

Originally Posted by dude1394

I can't believe that Algore isn't more sensitive about the environment. Oh streisand and the rest of the crowd.

Let's make sure we all get down to 9 tons so that the environmental crowd can get a few more frequent flyer miles.

interesting stats.
wonder what the amount of co2 a 737 or a 767 spits out when it flies fron new york to la?
wonder how much is emitted from an automobile making the same trip?
or how about a greyhound bus making the same journey?
that would possibly allow the above "comparison" to have some relevance...

unless of course the point of the "comparison" was that people shouldn't be travelling from new york to la.

[Rhylan]

Originally Posted by Mavdog

interesting stats.
wonder what the amount of co2 a 737 or a 767 spits out when it flies fron new york to la?
wonder how much is emitted from an automobile making the same trip?
or how about a greyhound bus making the same journey?
that would possibly allow the above "comparison" to have some relevance...

unless of course the point of the "comparison" was that people shouldn't be travelling from new york to la.

Mavdog, come on... the point is total emissions over a given period of time. 10 in a year, versus 31 in one trip.

How far is it from NY to LA? 3000 miles? Most people are gonna be driving between 6-8 times that far in their personal vehicle each year.

[Mavdog]

Originally Posted by Rhylan

Mavdog, come on... the point is total emissions over a given period of time. 10 in a year, versus 31 in one trip.

How far is it from NY to LA? 3000 miles? Most people are gonna be driving between 6-8 times that far in their personal vehicle each year.

does the 10 in a year include an average use of jets? or an average use of cars without any use of jets? who knows?

my point is if you want to criticize al gore or barbra streisand go ahead, but the suggestion above is they are polluting MORE than everyone else. so, let's really see if they are....compare what flying in a personal jet is to what they would otherwise do to journey cross country.

comparing the emissions of a jet to an average americans amount of emissions doesn't tell us anything.

you gotta give that writer their due, in one single piece they attempted to paint al gore and streisand not only elitist but also hypocritical. a twofer!

[Dr.Zoidberg]

Here a rough calculation of CO2 emission per person in [kg]:

Plane:

Short trip: (Stretch of way in [miles])*0,47

Medium range trip: (Stretch of way in [miles])*0,35

Long haul trip: (Stretch of way in [miles])*0,24

Bus/Train:

(Stretch of way in [miles])*0,10

Cars:

Compact cars (small consumption of gasoline): (Stretch of way in [miles])*0,26

Big cars (high consumption of gasoline): (Stretch of way in [miles])*0,37

[dude1394]

Originally Posted by Mavdog

does the 10 in a year include an average use of jets? or an average use of cars without any use of jets? who knows?

my point is if you want to criticize al gore or barbra streisand go ahead, but the suggestion above is they are polluting MORE than everyone else. so, let's really see if they are....compare what flying in a personal jet is to what they would otherwise do to journey cross country.

comparing the emissions of a jet to an average americans amount of emissions doesn't tell us anything.

you gotta give that writer their due, in one single piece they attempted to paint al gore and streisand not only elitist but also hypocritical. a twofer!

Well honestly they are BOUND to be polluting more than the average person. They have much larger homes, they DO go across country and across continents much more than other folks.

The may not pollute more than other who would have to do the same thing but when I hear streisand talking about hanging laundry...I cry hypocrisy.

[dude1394]

Mr. Steyn...

http://www.suntimes.com/news/steyn/2...teyn11.article

Don't ruin economy over tiny temp rise
February 11, 2007

BY MARK STEYN Sun-Times Columnist

Our Thought For The Week comes from the Boston Globe's Ellen Goodman: "I would like to say we're at a point where global warming is impossible to deny. Let's just say that global warming deniers are now on a par with Holocaust deniers, though one denies the past and the other denies the present and future."

That would be yours truly: the climate holocaust denier. I wrote last week about "global warming," or "cooling," or "climate change," or (the latest term) "climate disruption" -- for those parts of the world where the climate isn't really changing but you get an occasional blip: a warm day in winter or a flurry of snow in late April, or (for British readers) a summer's day where it rockets up to 58 and cloudy instead of being 54 and drizzling. As a result of my climate holocaust denial, I received a ton of letters along the lines of this one:

"Your piece gave most of my students, most of whom are conservative, a laugh. A journalist's word against six years of peer-reviewed research conducted by world authorities on the subject.

"But, as one my student's [sic] put it: 'Steyn's piece could prove valuable: We often run out of toilet paper here.'

"How is it that you can make a living writing what you do is a wonder. But then, the vulgar wish to be deceived, after all.

"Steve Pierson,

Professor of English."

Presumably Professor Pierson signs himself "Professor of English" to establish his credentials for opining on how I can make a living writing. To be honest, I'm flattered to know I'm being discussed at Onondaga Community College in Syracuse, N.Y.: Did I displace Shakespeare? Or Maya Angelou? Or the class where you learn not to put an apostrophe in noun plurals? Has Professor Pierson's judgment of my writing also been peer-reviewed by world authorities?

Not all of us are quite so hung up on credentialization. But, if you are, you might want to read the December issue of the Journal Of Atmospheric And Solar-Terrestrial Physics in which Cornelis de Jager of the Royal Netherlands Institute for Sea Research and Ilya Usoskin of the Sodankyla Geophysical Observatory in Finland test the validity of two current hypotheses on the dependence of climate change on solar energy -- the first being that variations in the tropospheric temperature are caused directly by changes of the solar radiance (total or spectral), the other that cosmic ray fluctuations, caused by the solar/heliospheric modulation, affect the climate via cloud formation. The Finn and the Dutch guy from the A-list institutions with the fancypants monikers writing in the peer-reviewed journal conclude that the former is more likely -- that tropospheric temperatures are more likely affected by variations in the UV radiation flux rather than by those in the CR flux.

Are you thinking maybe it's time to turn over the page to the Anna Nicole Smith "A life in pictures" double spread? Well, that's my point. Most of us aren't reading the science, or even a precis of the science. We're just reading a constant din from the press that "the science is settled," and therefore we no longer need to think about it: The thinking has been done for us. Last week's U.N. IPCC "report," for example, is not the report, but a political summary thereof. As David Warren wrote in the Ottawa Citizen:

"Note that the IPCC report's conclusions were issued first, and the supporting research is now promised for several months from now. What does that tell you?"

Indeed. However, when you do read the actual science, you quickly appreciate that it's not by any means "settled" -- that there all kinds of variables. To quote the Finnish-Dutch big shots:

"There is general agreement that variations in the global (or hemispheric) tropospheric temperature are, at least partly, related to those in solar activity (e.g., Bond et al., 2001; Solanki and Krikova, 2003; Usoskin et al., 2005; Kilcik, 2005)."

Therefore: "Variations of the mean tropospheric temperature must include stratosphere-troposphere interaction." However: "A detailed mechanism effectively transferring stratospheric heating into the troposphere is yet not clear."

Whoa, whoa, come back. There's no point skipping ahead: The illustrated excerpt on page D27 from Roger Ebert's Anthology of Great Lesbian Movie Scenes was swiped by the delivery boy. The thing is there are still huge disagreements about the climate change that's already taken place: in Ellen Goodman Holocaust terms (and remember: This is her analogy, not mine), it's as if we knew a lot of people died but still had no idea who or what killed them. For example: increased monsoon activity off the central west coast of India in the wake of the Sporer and Maunder Minimas. Been following that one?

The record of experts in this field -- or, at any rate, the record of absolutist experts in this field -- is not encouraging. Just to cite Ellen's corporate masters at the New York Times Company, here (from Christopher C. Horner's rollicking new book The Politically Incorrect Guide To Global Warming) is the Times' shifting position on the issue:

"MacMillan Reports Signs Of New Ice Age" (Sept. 18, 1924)

"America In Longest Warm Spell Since 1776: Temperature Line Records A 25-Year Rise" (March 27, 1933)

"Major Cooling Widely Considered To Be Inevitable (May 21, 1975)

"Past Hot Times Hold Few Reasons To Relax About Global Warming" (Dec. 27, 2005)

"Climate change" isn't like predicting Italian coalition politics. There are only two options, so, whichever one predicts, one has a 50 percent chance of being right. The planet will always be either warming or cooling.

By now you're probably scoffing: Oh, come on, Steyn, what kind of sophisticated analysis is that? It doesn't just go up or down, it could sorta more-or-less stay pretty much where it is.

Very true. In the course of the 20th century, the planet's temperature supposedly increased by 0.7 degrees Celsius, which (for those of you who want it to sound scarier) is a smidgeonette over 1 degree Fahrenheit. Is that kinda sorta staying the same or is it a dramatic warming trend?

And is nought-point-seven of an uptick worth wrecking the global economy over? Sure, say John Kerry and Al Gore, suddenly retrospectively hot for Kyoto ratification. But, had America and Australia signed on to Kyoto, and had Canada and Europe complied with it instead of just pretending to, by 2050 the treaty would have reduced global warming by 0.07C: a figure that would be statistically undectectable within annual climate variation. And, in return for this meaningless gesture, American GDP in 2010 would be lower by $97 billion to $397 billion -- and those are the U.S. Energy Information Administration's somewhat optimistic models.

And now Jerry Mahlman of the National Center for Atmospheric Research says "it might take another 30 Kyotos" to halt global warming: 30 x $397 billion is . . . er, too many zeroes for my calculator.

So, faced with a degree rise in temperature, we could destroy the planet's economy, technology, communications and prosperity. And ruin the lives of millions of people.

Or we could do what man does best: adapt.

You do the math.

©Mark Steyn 2007
© Copyright 2007 Sun-Times News Group | User Agreement and Privacy Policy

[dude1394]

Henrik Svensmark is a Danish physicist and climatic researcher.

From 1988 to 1993 Svensmark was at the University OF California, Berkeley, at the Nordic of institutes OF Theoretical Physics and at the Niels bore institute actively, afterwards worked it on Danish meteorological Institut. Between 1998 and 2004 he was leader the Sun climate group at the Danish space Research of institutes (DSRI). Since 2004 he is a director of the Centre for Sun Climate Research of the Danish national space center (DNSC)., a weather scientist at the Danish National Space Centre,

Note: this news is only controversial to the masses of people (with little to know scientific background) who fell for the man made ‘climate change’ propaganda. It is not a surprise to many of us who knew the Global Warming crowd had admitted they had no scientific facts to back up their speculation (they say so themselves). But back to reality:

High levels of cloud cover blankets the Earth and reflects radiated heat from the Sun back out into space, causing the planet to cool.

Henrik Svensmark, a weather scientist at the Danish National Space Centre who led the team behind the research, believes that the planet is experiencing a natural period of low cloud cover due to fewer cosmic rays entering the atmosphere.

This, he says, is responsible for much of the global warming we are experiencing.

He claims carbon dioxide emissions due to human activity are having a smaller impact on climate change than scientists think. If he is correct, it could mean that mankind has more time to reduce our effect on the climate.

Actually, what it means there may be no point in man making adjustments because our portion of the phenomena is minor. It is like saying if we drive slower through a hurricane or tornado we can reduce the relative speed of the wind. Yeah, that is certainly the case, but it is a useless exercise because the winds are so high dropping your car’s speed by five miles an hour won’t slow the winds down. But what is refreshing is this theory is being put to the test to validate it and make it a real fact: