Global Warming Rope-a-Dope
Jan 12, 2014 12:32:33 #
KatieScott
Loc: santa cruz, CA
Really - the rest of the world is freezing in their cars?
Now that is something that I did not know.....
(smile)
Now that is something that I did not know.....
(smile)
bvm wrote:
Dupont can't make much at a $1.00 / pound for R-12.
Dupont admitted there was nothing wrong with R-12.
The rest of the world still uses R-12 and they're freezing in their cars while we put up with this B.S. and lies!
Dupont admitted there was nothing wrong with R-12.
The rest of the world still uses R-12 and they're freezing in their cars while we put up with this B.S. and lies!
Jan 12, 2014 12:33:01 #
KatieScott wrote:
It's the rate of change that is different here. V... (show quote)
I don't think that you can compare the way that we treat our environment with the way that the Chinese utterly destroy their environment. As you pointed out earlier much progress has been made since Richard Nixon instituted the EPA in this country.
The argument that you point to is that we do not need to cripple economic growth on with Carbon Taxes and by frustrating cost effective energy development that will help us have an economic advantage in the worlds market place as we try to bring jobs back to America.... NO ONE is suggesting that we destroy our environment, no one is suggesting that we dump heavy metals into our rivers and streams or release toxins into our air... The suggestion is that we not cripple our economic recovery with a lot of carbon taxes etc especially when all the predictions of doom and gloom are falling way short and the scientists are scrambling to explain the shortcomings of their dire predictions. Yes, we should be concerned about our environment now and into the future, we should also be concerned about our economy, the engine that provides for some 350, million people in this country... Right now the left is crying about income disparity, about poverty, about the ills of capitalism as they continue to promote policy that frustrates prosperity and the reemergence of the little guy... Believe me, GE, GM, 3M, John Deere and the rest will survive whatever the government throws at them, heck if the government becomes overly oppressive they can just offshore a few million more jobs... It is the little guy on who communities all over the country rely on to produce jobs and economic activity in their communities who won't survive the onslaught of democratic overreach.
Jan 12, 2014 12:52:34 #
KatieScott
Loc: santa cruz, CA
Yes - that is the question.
For those of you who are skeptics - take for one moment the premise that Climate Change is real and that humans are big contributors to it.
It is a global problem - and we are all in it together. What China et all does has a huge affect on us.
We believe in the free market - and we are unlikely to stop buying cheap goods from those countries. I try as much as possible to shop locally - buy american cars etc - but most of my clothes are made elsewhere. My electronics are made elsewhere. Like it or not - we live in a global economy.
I do not have those answers. I am not educated in economics and admire those who can speak intelligently to that subject.
Oh - and yes, I can compare how we used to treat our environment to the way that China does now. For example - the San Francisco Bay is still suffering from what happened during the gold rush. All the mercury in the environment from those days is still killing the birds and making fish so polluted it cannot be eaten - and it is so pervasive that we have no solution to cleaning it up. We hope it gets buried so deep that the worms and clams can't dredge it up.
(sigh)
For those of you who are skeptics - take for one moment the premise that Climate Change is real and that humans are big contributors to it.
It is a global problem - and we are all in it together. What China et all does has a huge affect on us.
We believe in the free market - and we are unlikely to stop buying cheap goods from those countries. I try as much as possible to shop locally - buy american cars etc - but most of my clothes are made elsewhere. My electronics are made elsewhere. Like it or not - we live in a global economy.
I do not have those answers. I am not educated in economics and admire those who can speak intelligently to that subject.
Oh - and yes, I can compare how we used to treat our environment to the way that China does now. For example - the San Francisco Bay is still suffering from what happened during the gold rush. All the mercury in the environment from those days is still killing the birds and making fish so polluted it cannot be eaten - and it is so pervasive that we have no solution to cleaning it up. We hope it gets buried so deep that the worms and clams can't dredge it up.
(sigh)
Blurryeyed wrote:
I don't think that you can compare the way that we... (show quote)
Jan 12, 2014 14:30:10 #
stbg1951
Loc: Lewes, DE
Do some research on population growth and compare the rates to the climate "changes". And read this article from the Guardian. http://www.theguardian.com/environment/2013/jun/30/stephen-emmott-ten-billion
We have seen the problem and it's us. Mother earth only has resources for so many. It's a balancing act and the see-saw is tipped.
We have seen the problem and it's us. Mother earth only has resources for so many. It's a balancing act and the see-saw is tipped.
Jan 12, 2014 15:22:15 #
Jan 12, 2014 15:48:48 #
venturer9
Loc: Newton, Il.
You might note that the shorter (all I could find in this short time) list has Possibly ONE scientist who is qualified to pontificate on the subject...
Scientists questioning the accuracy of IPCC climate projections
Scientists in this section have made comments that it is not possible to project global climate accurately enough to justify the ranges projected for temperature and sea-level rise over the next century. They may not conclude specifically that the current IPCC projections are either too high or too low, but that the projections are likely to be inaccurate due to inadequacies of current global climate modeling.
Freeman Dyson, professor emeritus of the School of Natural Sciences, Institute for Advanced Study; Fellow of the Royal Society [10]
Richard Lindzen, Alfred P. Sloan professor of atmospheric science at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology and member of the National Academy of Sciences[11][12][13]
Nils-Axel Mörner, retired head of the Paleogeophysics and Geodynamics department at Stockholm University, former chairman of the INQUA Commission on Sea Level Changes and Coastal Evolution (19992003).[14]
Garth Paltridge, retired chief research scientist, CSIRO Division of Atmospheric Research and retired director of the Institute of the Antarctic Cooperative Research Centre, visiting fellow ANU[15]
Philip Stott, professor emeritus of biogeography at the University of London[16]
Hendrik Tennekes, retired director of research, Royal Netherlands Meteorological Institute [17]
Scientists arguing that global warming is primarily caused by natural processes
Graph showing the ability with which a global climate model is able to reconstruct the historical temperature record, and the degree to which those temperature changes can be decomposed into various forcing factors. It shows the effects of five forcing factors: greenhouse gases, man-made sulfate emissions, solar variability, ozone changes, and volcanic emissions.[18]
Scientists in this section have made comments that the observed warming is more likely attributable to natural causes than to human activities. Their views on climate change are usually described in more detail in their biographical articles.
Khabibullo Abdusamatov, mathematician and astronomer at Pulkovo Observatory of the Russian Academy of Sciences[19]
Sallie Baliunas, astronomer, Harvard-Smithsonian Center for Astrophysics[20][21]
Ian Clark, hydrogeologist, professor, Department of Earth Sciences, University of Ottawa[22]
Chris de Freitas, associate professor, School of Geography, Geology and Environmental Science, University of Auckland[23]
David Douglass, solid-state physicist, professor, Department of Physics and Astronomy, University of Rochester[24]
Don Easterbrook, emeritus professor of geology, Western Washington University[25]
William M. Gray, professor emeritus and head of the Tropical Meteorology Project, Department of Atmospheric Science, Colorado State University[26]
William Happer, physicist specializing in optics and spectroscopy, Princeton University[27]
Ole Humlum, professor of geology at the University of Oslo[28]
William Kininmonth, meteorologist, former Australian delegate to World Meteorological Organization Commission for Climatology[29]
David Legates, associate professor of geography and director of the Center for Climatic Research, University of Delaware[30]
Tad Murty, oceanographer; adjunct professor, Departments of Civil Engineering and Earth Sciences, University of Ottawa[31]
Tim Patterson, paleoclimatologist and professor of geology at Carleton University in Canada.[32][33]
Ian Plimer, professor emeritus of Mining Geology, the University of Adelaide.[34]
Nicola Scafetta, research scientist in the physics department at Duke University[35][36]
Tom Segalstad, head of the Geology Museum at the University of Oslo[37]
Fred Singer, professor emeritus of environmental sciences at the University of Virginia[38][39][40]
Willie Soon, astrophysicist, Harvard-Smithsonian Center for Astrophysics[41]
Roy Spencer, principal research scientist, University of Alabama in Huntsville[42]
Henrik Svensmark, Danish National Space Center[43]
Jan Veizer, environmental geochemist, professor emeritus from University of Ottawa[44]
Scientists arguing that the cause of global warming is unknown
Scientists in this section have made comments that no principal cause can be ascribed to the observed rising temperatures, whether man-made or natural. Their views on climate change are usually described in more detail in their biographical articles.
Syun-Ichi Akasofu, retired professor of geophysics and founding director of the International Arctic Research Center of the University of Alaska Fairbanks.[45]
Claude Allègre, politician; geochemist, emeritus professor at Institute of Geophysics (Paris).[46]
Robert C. Balling, Jr., a professor of geography at Arizona State University.[47]
John Christy, professor of atmospheric science and director of the Earth System Science Center at the University of Alabama in Huntsville, contributor to several IPCC.[48][49]
Petr Chylek, space and remote sensing sciences researcher, Los Alamos National Laboratory.[50]
David Deming, geology professor at the University of Oklahoma.[51]
Ivar Giaever, professor emeritus at the Rensselaer Polytechnic Institute.[52]
Antonino Zichichi, emeritus professor of nuclear physics at the University of Bologna and president of the World Federation of Scientists.[53]
Scientists arguing that global warming will have few negative consequences
Scientists in this section have made comments that projected rising temperatures will be of little impact or a net positive for human society and/or the Earth's environment. Their views on climate change are usually described in more detail in their biographical articles.
Craig D. Idso, faculty researcher, Office of Climatology, Arizona State University and founder of the Center for the Study of Carbon Dioxide and Global Change [54]
Sherwood Idso, former research physicist, USDA Water Conservation Laboratory, and adjunct professor, Arizona State University[55]
Patrick Michaels, senior fellow at the Cato Institute and retired research professor of environmental science at the University of Virginia[56]
Following is a list of those scientists that AGREE that Man Made Global Warming exists....
Statement on climate change from 18 scientific associations
"Observations throughout the world make it clear that climate change is occurring, and rigorous scientific research demonstrates that the greenhouse gases emitted by human activities are the primary driver." (2009)2
AAAS emblem
American Association for the Advancement of Science
"The scientific evidence is clear: global climate change caused by human activities is occurring now, and it is a growing threat to society." (2006)3
ACS emblem
American Chemical Society
"Comprehensive scientific assessments of our current and potential future climates clearly indicate that climate change is real, largely attributable to emissions from human activities, and potentially a very serious problem." (2004)4
AGU emblem
American Geophysical Union
"Human‐induced climate change requires urgent action. Humanity is the major influence on the global climate change observed over the past 50 years. Rapid societal responses can significantly lessen negative outcomes." (Adopted 2003, revised and reaffirmed 2007, 2012, 2013)5
AMA emblem
American Medical Association
"Our AMA ... supports the findings of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Changes fourth assessment report and concurs with the scientific consensus that the Earth is undergoing adverse global climate change and that anthropogenic contributions are significant." (2013)6
AMS emblem
American Meteorological Society
"It is clear from extensive scientific evidence that the dominant cause of the rapid change in climate of the past half century is human-induced increases in the amount of atmospheric greenhouse gases, including carbon dioxide (CO2), chlorofluorocarbons, methane, and nitrous oxide." (2012)7
APS emblem
American Physical Society
"The evidence is incontrovertible: Global warming is occurring. If no mitigating actions are taken, significant disruptions in the Earths physical and ecological systems, social systems, security and human health are likely to occur. We must reduce emissions of greenhouse gases beginning now." (2007)8
GSA emblem
The Geological Society of America
"The Geological Society of America (GSA) concurs with assessments by the National Academies of Science (2005), the National Research Council (2006), and the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC, 2007) that global climate has warmed and that human activities (mainly greenhouse‐gas emissions) account for most of the warming since the middle 1900s." (2006; revised 2010)9
Mike
Scientists questioning the accuracy of IPCC climate projections
Scientists in this section have made comments that it is not possible to project global climate accurately enough to justify the ranges projected for temperature and sea-level rise over the next century. They may not conclude specifically that the current IPCC projections are either too high or too low, but that the projections are likely to be inaccurate due to inadequacies of current global climate modeling.
Freeman Dyson, professor emeritus of the School of Natural Sciences, Institute for Advanced Study; Fellow of the Royal Society [10]
Richard Lindzen, Alfred P. Sloan professor of atmospheric science at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology and member of the National Academy of Sciences[11][12][13]
Nils-Axel Mörner, retired head of the Paleogeophysics and Geodynamics department at Stockholm University, former chairman of the INQUA Commission on Sea Level Changes and Coastal Evolution (19992003).[14]
Garth Paltridge, retired chief research scientist, CSIRO Division of Atmospheric Research and retired director of the Institute of the Antarctic Cooperative Research Centre, visiting fellow ANU[15]
Philip Stott, professor emeritus of biogeography at the University of London[16]
Hendrik Tennekes, retired director of research, Royal Netherlands Meteorological Institute [17]
Scientists arguing that global warming is primarily caused by natural processes
Graph showing the ability with which a global climate model is able to reconstruct the historical temperature record, and the degree to which those temperature changes can be decomposed into various forcing factors. It shows the effects of five forcing factors: greenhouse gases, man-made sulfate emissions, solar variability, ozone changes, and volcanic emissions.[18]
Scientists in this section have made comments that the observed warming is more likely attributable to natural causes than to human activities. Their views on climate change are usually described in more detail in their biographical articles.
Khabibullo Abdusamatov, mathematician and astronomer at Pulkovo Observatory of the Russian Academy of Sciences[19]
Sallie Baliunas, astronomer, Harvard-Smithsonian Center for Astrophysics[20][21]
Ian Clark, hydrogeologist, professor, Department of Earth Sciences, University of Ottawa[22]
Chris de Freitas, associate professor, School of Geography, Geology and Environmental Science, University of Auckland[23]
David Douglass, solid-state physicist, professor, Department of Physics and Astronomy, University of Rochester[24]
Don Easterbrook, emeritus professor of geology, Western Washington University[25]
William M. Gray, professor emeritus and head of the Tropical Meteorology Project, Department of Atmospheric Science, Colorado State University[26]
William Happer, physicist specializing in optics and spectroscopy, Princeton University[27]
Ole Humlum, professor of geology at the University of Oslo[28]
William Kininmonth, meteorologist, former Australian delegate to World Meteorological Organization Commission for Climatology[29]
David Legates, associate professor of geography and director of the Center for Climatic Research, University of Delaware[30]
Tad Murty, oceanographer; adjunct professor, Departments of Civil Engineering and Earth Sciences, University of Ottawa[31]
Tim Patterson, paleoclimatologist and professor of geology at Carleton University in Canada.[32][33]
Ian Plimer, professor emeritus of Mining Geology, the University of Adelaide.[34]
Nicola Scafetta, research scientist in the physics department at Duke University[35][36]
Tom Segalstad, head of the Geology Museum at the University of Oslo[37]
Fred Singer, professor emeritus of environmental sciences at the University of Virginia[38][39][40]
Willie Soon, astrophysicist, Harvard-Smithsonian Center for Astrophysics[41]
Roy Spencer, principal research scientist, University of Alabama in Huntsville[42]
Henrik Svensmark, Danish National Space Center[43]
Jan Veizer, environmental geochemist, professor emeritus from University of Ottawa[44]
Scientists arguing that the cause of global warming is unknown
Scientists in this section have made comments that no principal cause can be ascribed to the observed rising temperatures, whether man-made or natural. Their views on climate change are usually described in more detail in their biographical articles.
Syun-Ichi Akasofu, retired professor of geophysics and founding director of the International Arctic Research Center of the University of Alaska Fairbanks.[45]
Claude Allègre, politician; geochemist, emeritus professor at Institute of Geophysics (Paris).[46]
Robert C. Balling, Jr., a professor of geography at Arizona State University.[47]
John Christy, professor of atmospheric science and director of the Earth System Science Center at the University of Alabama in Huntsville, contributor to several IPCC.[48][49]
Petr Chylek, space and remote sensing sciences researcher, Los Alamos National Laboratory.[50]
David Deming, geology professor at the University of Oklahoma.[51]
Ivar Giaever, professor emeritus at the Rensselaer Polytechnic Institute.[52]
Antonino Zichichi, emeritus professor of nuclear physics at the University of Bologna and president of the World Federation of Scientists.[53]
Scientists arguing that global warming will have few negative consequences
Scientists in this section have made comments that projected rising temperatures will be of little impact or a net positive for human society and/or the Earth's environment. Their views on climate change are usually described in more detail in their biographical articles.
Craig D. Idso, faculty researcher, Office of Climatology, Arizona State University and founder of the Center for the Study of Carbon Dioxide and Global Change [54]
Sherwood Idso, former research physicist, USDA Water Conservation Laboratory, and adjunct professor, Arizona State University[55]
Patrick Michaels, senior fellow at the Cato Institute and retired research professor of environmental science at the University of Virginia[56]
Following is a list of those scientists that AGREE that Man Made Global Warming exists....
Statement on climate change from 18 scientific associations
"Observations throughout the world make it clear that climate change is occurring, and rigorous scientific research demonstrates that the greenhouse gases emitted by human activities are the primary driver." (2009)2
AAAS emblem
American Association for the Advancement of Science
"The scientific evidence is clear: global climate change caused by human activities is occurring now, and it is a growing threat to society." (2006)3
ACS emblem
American Chemical Society
"Comprehensive scientific assessments of our current and potential future climates clearly indicate that climate change is real, largely attributable to emissions from human activities, and potentially a very serious problem." (2004)4
AGU emblem
American Geophysical Union
"Human‐induced climate change requires urgent action. Humanity is the major influence on the global climate change observed over the past 50 years. Rapid societal responses can significantly lessen negative outcomes." (Adopted 2003, revised and reaffirmed 2007, 2012, 2013)5
AMA emblem
American Medical Association
"Our AMA ... supports the findings of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Changes fourth assessment report and concurs with the scientific consensus that the Earth is undergoing adverse global climate change and that anthropogenic contributions are significant." (2013)6
AMS emblem
American Meteorological Society
"It is clear from extensive scientific evidence that the dominant cause of the rapid change in climate of the past half century is human-induced increases in the amount of atmospheric greenhouse gases, including carbon dioxide (CO2), chlorofluorocarbons, methane, and nitrous oxide." (2012)7
APS emblem
American Physical Society
"The evidence is incontrovertible: Global warming is occurring. If no mitigating actions are taken, significant disruptions in the Earths physical and ecological systems, social systems, security and human health are likely to occur. We must reduce emissions of greenhouse gases beginning now." (2007)8
GSA emblem
The Geological Society of America
"The Geological Society of America (GSA) concurs with assessments by the National Academies of Science (2005), the National Research Council (2006), and the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC, 2007) that global climate has warmed and that human activities (mainly greenhouse‐gas emissions) account for most of the warming since the middle 1900s." (2006; revised 2010)9
Mike
Jan 12, 2014 16:08:49 #
venturer9
Loc: Newton, Il.
jkm757 wrote:
We pollute our air. We pollute our water. We pollute our soil. Then we deny that all this pollution has an adverse effect on the environment. Even if the current climate change is part of a natural cycle, why wouldn't you want a cleaner environment to live in? Hell, even a dog knows not to shit where it sleeps.
But that is not the subject of this particular debate is it... I have a daughter who lives in Mesa Az. who lives in a neighborhood of 1.5 to 3.0 million dollar homes.... TWO of them are total TRASH DUMPS.... why? who knows, but our world is always going to be that way....
Mike
Jan 12, 2014 16:39:31 #
rhadams824
Loc: Arkansas
This to no one in particular. Name calling gets no one anywhere. Before the industrial revolution the atmospheric CO2 was @ 280 ppm, now it is @ 400 ppm. Methane has about 30 times the heat retention capacity of CO2. Other materials have more or less the heat retention capacity of CO2. Many of the atmospheric contents have increased due to mankind. However the effects of these increases are hard to measure. Is the science of these effects exactly know or based on models from assumptions about the the supposed effects? So far the predicative value of these models appear to not confirm the prediction of those that use them to regulate our economy. CO2 is used by plants to produce the organic material we use daily. Increasing CO2 has been shown to increase plant production thus has the potential to increase food production which we are going to need to feed the current and future increase in population of the world.
As for non-renewable fossil fuel production, logic would tell you that this will eventually be used up no matter the extraction technology.
The easy extracted sources of the elements we use on a daily basis have been expended and it is becoming more expensive (more energy required) to extract the increasing amount required for our civilization.
As for green energy, to utilize these sources require an energy source which is most often fossil fuels. Proponents of "green energy" do not list the amount and cost of these fossil fuels required to develop and produce energy from these sources. This is deception at its worse.
If you want the biggest deception perpetrated on the America people look at ethanol. More energy to produce it than it adds to our fuel supply. Drives up the price of most food and feed grains with increased food and feed cost so that every consumer pays more, a form of taxation that doesn't show up a a cost on our tax returns. Was subsidized using money we don't have to spend or could be spent on more productive pursuits. Ruins small gas and older engines. Gets less gas mileage resulting in little reduction in pollution.
Enough rambling and please no name calling, provide some real, productive discussion.
As for non-renewable fossil fuel production, logic would tell you that this will eventually be used up no matter the extraction technology.
The easy extracted sources of the elements we use on a daily basis have been expended and it is becoming more expensive (more energy required) to extract the increasing amount required for our civilization.
As for green energy, to utilize these sources require an energy source which is most often fossil fuels. Proponents of "green energy" do not list the amount and cost of these fossil fuels required to develop and produce energy from these sources. This is deception at its worse.
If you want the biggest deception perpetrated on the America people look at ethanol. More energy to produce it than it adds to our fuel supply. Drives up the price of most food and feed grains with increased food and feed cost so that every consumer pays more, a form of taxation that doesn't show up a a cost on our tax returns. Was subsidized using money we don't have to spend or could be spent on more productive pursuits. Ruins small gas and older engines. Gets less gas mileage resulting in little reduction in pollution.
Enough rambling and please no name calling, provide some real, productive discussion.
Jan 12, 2014 16:47:39 #
I may be wrong isn't the site voluntary. It is also where you bring up subjects not related to photography. Throw out the ball again, I don't feel guilty about being here.
Dan
Dan
Jan 12, 2014 16:51:05 #
Dakota Boreas wrote:
If you believe that a degree is required to make an observation, what degree do you possess that gives you license to make observations about Walter Williams?
Big"THUMBS UP"!!!
Jan 12, 2014 17:03:17 #
danrx1 wrote:
I may be wrong isn't the site voluntary. It is also where you bring up subjects not related to photography. Throw out the ball again, I don't feel guilty about being here.
Dan
Dan
I see that you are a new user, welcome.
When you are responding to a comment, if you click the "Quote Respond" under that post everyone will know which post you are commenting on.
Jan 12, 2014 17:05:41 #
Dakota Boreas wrote:
I see that you are a new user, welcome.
When you are responding to a comment, if you click the "Quote Respond" under that post everyone will know which post you are commenting on.
When you are responding to a comment, if you click the "Quote Respond" under that post everyone will know which post you are commenting on.
Jan 12, 2014 17:06:55 #
Dakota Boreas wrote:
okI see that you are a new user, welcome.
When you are responding to a comment, if you click the "Quote Respond" under that post everyone will know which post you are commenting on.
When you are responding to a comment, if you click the "Quote Respond" under that post everyone will know which post you are commenting on.
Jan 12, 2014 17:16:34 #
Jan 12, 2014 18:16:56 #
Gitzo wrote:
For all of you trolls who constantly call me "... (show quote)
British scientists have already been outed for supplying false data to support global warming. A number of scientists are starting to look at cyclic changes that happens through the eons without help from man, that idiot Al Bore (Gore for the uninitiated) being an exception. Talk about plagiarism of faulty science! :-D
If you want to reply, then register here. Registration is free and your account is created instantly, so you can post right away.