# Global Warming --AVOID discussing politics and religion



## Barliman Butterbur

Global warming is beyond politics and religion. It is science. It is a planetary emergency that effects all of us. If you wish to discuss it, this is the place, if The Powers That Be do not consider it a forbidden topic.

Global warming effects all of us, no matter our country, politics or religion. If anyone wants to discuss it privately with me or get on an action list that I have organized, PM me or send email to [email protected].

I am _very_ concerned about global warming. The next ten years should tell the tale. I recommend that all concerned get a start by seeing Al Gore's new movie, _An Inconvenient Truth_ and purchasing his book by the same name.

Here are some links to a few reputable American GW websites:

http://allianceforclimateprotection.org/
www.stopglobalwarming.org
www.kicktheoilhabit.org
www.realclimate.org

These are all good sites. I invite all of you to submit sites that represent the GW concerns of your particular countries. 

Barley


----------



## Barliman Butterbur

*Re: Global Warming*

I did an online search to see how this thread was coming along (it isn't), and the search came up with this page:

http://www.thetolkienforum.com/search.php?searchid=149539

Ah, for the way things used to be around here... 

Barley


----------



## Wolfshead

*Re: Global Warming*

I've heard it's all natural and we only contribute a very small amount to the heating of the earth. I know I should be finding sources and whatnot, but I really should be studying...

Assuming you've read the same in your investigations into global warming, what say you, Barley?


----------



## Barliman Butterbur

*Re: Global Warming*



Wolfshead said:


> I've heard it's all natural and we only contribute a very small amount to the heating of the earth. I know I should be finding sources and whatnot, but I really should be studying...
> 
> Assuming you've read the same in your investigations into global warming, what say you, Barley?



The short answer: cars and industrial smokestacks are polluting the atmosphere with CO2 causing a greenhouse effect (and the cattle and pork industries are polluting not only the air with methane from flatulence, but also the ground and the water tables with fecal output) at a rate that is forcing the earth's ecosystem to slide into a new equilibrium, one that ultimately may not support human life. It's like a kaleidoscope: You probably did this experiment as a kid: You look through the kaleidoscope and rotate it ever so slowly to see how long the pattern will last under the influence of gravity. Eventually there is a sudden shift to a new pattern, and the former pattern is lost forever. 

Unless we do something about the pollutants we put into the air, the equilibrium that is good for humans may suddenly be lost forever. There are certain "tipping points" which, once gone beyond, bring about permanent nonreversable changes. Several scientific sources say that we have a window of about ten years (see the links in Post #1). Despite the easy denial of so many, _the crisis is upon us._

One easy (albeit oblique) way to prove the truth of this is simply to witness the intensity and expense that Big Oil and Big Coal are going to in releasing ads to the contrary. They want their short-term profits, and damn the consequences. That's the short answer. For the long answer, examine the URLs (and all the others that they lead to) that I provided in Post #1. 

Al Gore's _An Inconvenient Truth_ (some early reviews of which can be read here) opens tonight, at least in Hollywood, and I'm sure many other places across the country. You watch what's going to happen: sensible people will see the cold truth of the non-partisan/non-religious science and be educated and moved to pressure the government and big oil and coal for changes (to say nothing of joining grassroots efforts), and government and big oil will attempt to poo-poo the science and denigrate Al Gore.

Anyone in the US who wants to get in on this can PM me.

Barley


----------



## YayGollum

*Re: Global Warming*

Hm? How were things different, Barliman Butterbur person? You did some online search thing, which ended up making you unhappy, for some reason? To see how the thread thing is coming along, wouldn't you just come to the actual thread? What information about it could you be looking for that couldn't be found here? oh well. In days past, what were you able to do that you can't do now? If there is some problem, why toss a long sort of suffering sigh and yet another observation that things change, instead of asking for some help? Mayhaps I was a bit confused.


----------



## Barliman Butterbur

*Re: Global Warming*



YayGollum said:


> ...Mayhaps I was a bit confused.



Mayhaps indeed. But more important is the fact that global warming is taking place — even faster than anticipated, on which there is worldwide scientific consensus. The debate is over.

A major article well worth reading on global warming, the new Gore movie and the official government/big oil reaction to the whole thing is featured at the website of the Center for American Progress.

The challenge here (TTF) will be in discussing global warming as a scientific, and not a political subject.

Barley


----------



## YayGollum

*Re: Global Warming*

Hm? Well, was I confused, or not? I definitely am, at this point. Were you not pointing out some inconvenience, Barliman Butterbur person? I would think so, or else you'd just be spouting random and irrelevant information, yes? Merely attempting to assist. Anyways, sure, I would admit that some large, deadly, and impossible for me to fix type of thing probably has a bit more importance than the inconvenience that you mentioned. No need to ignore what you can fix, though, yes?  Am not attempting to offend by way of ignoring the main point of the thread. The Barliman Butterbur person brought up a subject that mattered to myself, so I jumped in.


----------



## Eriol

*Re: Global Warming*



Barliman Butterbur said:


> Mayhaps indeed. But more important is the fact that global warming is taking place — even faster than anticipated, on which there is worldwide scientific consensus. The debate is over.



Er... no it isn't. Far from it. This is my field of work; I'm taking an active role in a major Brazilian project which is estimating the carbon emissions from hydropower reservoirs, so I do not say these words lightly. This is my field of work, and the debate is far from over. It was very recently that an article appeared on Nature indicating that there can be huge amounts of methane being produced naturally under oxygenated conditions in forests (which would tip the balance of majore sources of methane away from anthropogenic contributions). The estimates of anthropogenic contributions are very, very sloppy, while the credibility of the Max Planck Institute (responsible for the aforementioned research) is beyond dispute. And this is just one example. 



> The challenge here (TTF) will be in discussing global warming as a scientific, and not a political subject.



Good -- then we should realize that the debate is not over. "The debate is over" is a political statement. To quote the final paragraph of the news report at the end of this post, 

_The study highlights, however, the extreme complexity of the relationship between the biological processes of the Earth and the chemistry of our atmosphere - and how much there is yet to discover. _

Anyway -- I'll be taking part of a scientific meeting in the beginning of June and this will be discussed at length there. So I can bring some reports by mid-June . 

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/sci/tech/4604332.stm


----------



## Barliman Butterbur

*Re: Global Warming*



Eriol said:


> ...the debate is far from over....I'll be taking part of a scientific meeting in the beginning of June and this will be discussed at length there. So I can bring some reports by mid-June



First: thanks for that fascinating article! Who knew that plants can produce methane in significant quanitities?! I will be looking forward to your reports. Will you be allowed to share anything — primary sources, quotes, etc.?

Meantime — above all the pros and all the cons — GW _is_ going on apace regardless of our arguments, and I think you will agree that (1) it's speeded up in the last decade or two, and (2) you and I will not want to sit on our hands (especially one with your credentials) once even more facts are in. But we can't just sit around waiting for more facts. That's fiddling while Rome burns.

I think it would be lovely if we were all wrong about GW. For me, I err, if erring it is, on the side of caution. I'm for anything and everything that will reduce pollution. Let's hear it for non-coal/non-oil fuels: biofuels, solar, wind and water energy, and re-forestation. For the moment I retract my "debate is over" assertion — but I will continue to do what I can about GW. That goes on despite what we say about it.

Barley


----------



## Barliman Butterbur

*Re: Global Warming*

SOME EARLY RETURNS (I have tried to provide roses as well as brickbats) on Al Gore’s _An Inconvenient Truth_:

[Gore is] persuasively passionate on the issue -- so much so, the film made me want to rush out and buy a hybrid and then shoot my old car, so no one else could drive it. The audience I saw it with seemed to feel the same way. In fact, it's the only film I've seen in ages where not a soul got up during the credits because they were riveted, believe it or not, by an environmental "to do" list. Don't let this one get by you in theaters. You'll want to talk about it on the way out.

Source

•••

If there are any doubts that global warming is a serious worldwide problem with potentially devastating effects, they'll quickly be laid to rest after watching this documentary, which captures for posterity former Vice President Al Gore's touring lecture and slide show on the subject.

Writing this movie off as "the Al Gore documentary" would be a bit of a misnomer since it's not really about the former Vice President, as much as about the various ways that Global Warming is slowly destroying our earth, some of the worst case scenarios involving destruction on the scale of Roland Emmerich's _The Day After Tomorrow._ For many years, Gore spent time with various scientists and geologists researching this phenomenon after first learning about the problem from his college professor. Since then, it's been a key concern for Gore during his political days, as he presented the information he compiled to worldwide audiences using a slide show comprised of pictures, charts and animated graphics.

Source

•••

Overall, it appears that Easterbrook buys into the basic premise of the film, but not entirely. Two interesting passages caught our eye:

"[T]he film flirts with double standards. Laurie David, doyenne of Rodeo Drive environs, is one of the producers. As Eric Alterman noted in The Atlantic, David "reviles owners of SUVs as terrorist enablers, yet gives herself a pass when it comes to chartering one of the most wasteful uses of fossil-based fuels imaginable, a private jet." For David to fly in a private jet from Los Angeles to Washington would burn about as much petroleum as driving a Hummer for a year; if she flew back in the private jet, that's two Hummer-years. Gore's movie takes shots at Republicans and the oil industry, but by the most amazing coincidence says nothing about the poor example set by conspicuous consumers among the Hollywood elite."
And this, on the "morality" of the issue:

"This raises the troubling fault of _An Inconvenient Truth:_ its carelessness about moral argument. Gore says accumulation of greenhouse gases "is a moral issue, it is deeply unethical."... But the last century's headlong consumption of oil, coal, and gas has raised living standards throughout the world; driven malnourishment to an all-time low, according to the latest U.N. estimates; doubled global life expectancy; pushed most rates of disease into decline; and made possible Gore's airline seat and MacBook, which he doesn't seem to find unethical."

Double standards? Misplaced morality? Doesn't sound like the Al Gore we know....

Source

•••

Quite apart from its environmental agenda, the film is a reminder that there's no space for substance in political discourse: A 30-second soundbite on global warming could easily be brushed off as tree-hugging rhetoric, but after 100 minutes of level-headed elaboration, it's chillingly undeniable. 
_Scott Tobias, The Onion_

As unsettling as it can be, it is also intellectually exhilarating, and, like any good piece of pedagogy, whets the appetite for further study. 
_A.O. Scott, The New York Times_

As long as Guggenheim keeps his cameras trained on Gore's presentation, An Inconvenient Truth is an engaging film. Less successful are the scenes where Gore is seen off-stage, traveling around the world and visiting his childhood home. 
_Ethan Alter, Premiere_

A straightforward record of the lecture Gore has toured for years, juiced by elaborate graphics. An excellent educational tool, [the] picture may prove an awkward fit for theatrical distribution. 
_Dennis Harvey, Variety_

_An Inconvenient Truth_ is something you rarely see in movies today: a blatant intellectual fraud. Shame on all of the people involved in this travesty. 
_Phil Hall, Film Threat_

Source

•••

_An Inconvenient Truth_

If Al Gore had mumbled, “I’ll be back,” after he was terminated by hanging chads, not even Michael Moore could have imagined that he would triumph by way of the documentary equivalent of Global Warming and Me.

Posted on Friday,*May*26, 2006 at 1:00 PM 

By Brett Buckalew

A career trajectory that takes you from losing a hotly contested presidential race to emerging as the unexpected action hero of the summer movie season has to be unprecedented.

Making this bit of joint cinematic and political history even more anomalous by nature is that the man in question has been widely derided as a snooze-inducing public speaker, and in his Memorial Day weekend-released film debut, all he does is talk. The closest he comes to pulling a physical stunt on par with Tom Cruise or the X-Men is climbing into a crane that rises high above the ground, so that he can point out a particularly damning statistic on a projected graph.

So, skeptical readers will just have to trust me when I assert that in the excellent global-warming documentary _An Inconvenient Truth,_ former Vice President Al Gore does away with the robotic monotone that pundits have endlessly skewered and instead evinces the charisma, easygoing humor and larger-than-life passion of a real movie star. And the film itself, which devotes roughly 75% of its running time to a lecture given by Gore, makes the viewer angry, shocked, edge-of-your-seat nervous, saddened to the point of tears, and, finally, inspired.

http://www.filmstew.com/Content/Article.asp?Pg=1&ContentID=14188

•••

Well, enough of film reviews, which are essentially subjective opinions and impressions not particularly informed by scientific knowledge. It will not be any one of them, but all of them _over time_ combined with crass box office sales which will point in the general direction of the worth of the film. Meantime:

If you want more of the “hard stuff” on global warming, I recommend as a starting place the websites I sited in earlier posts above, and now that Eriol’s into this, perhaps he can recommend others as well. Are there sites that you know of, Eriol, by which interested readers can learn the science of global warming? 

For myself, I take away the following thoughts from the material above: (1)All of us need to know more of the objective truth of the matter. (2) It's far too serious a subject to brush off lightly.

Barley

PS: There is an excellent way to stay "net-savvy" on this topic, and that is through the use of Google Alerts. Bring up the Google website and click on NEWS. The left-hand margin instructs you in how to set up a Google Alert on "global warming" or indeed any other topic by keyword. You will receive a daily email from Google on everything that appeared on the net on that topic that day.


----------



## Barliman Butterbur

*Re: Global Warming*

*Lilacs enlisted to test global warming theory*

Phenology ''is the science of periodic biological events in the animal and plant world as influenced by the environment, especially weather and climate,'' according to the USA National Phenology Network, based at the University of Wisconsin-Milwaukee. Although other species are also observed, lilacs are the big dogs of ''bio-indicator'' plants.

Annual events in the lives of lilacs - including the opening of leaf buds and first flowering - have been tracked by researchers and citizen helpers for decades.

Lilacs make dandy ''weather stations,'' said Dr. Mark Schwartz, a University of Wisconsin-Milwaukee geography professor, climatologist and director of the USA National Phenology Network, because they are hardy, resist heat and drought, and because their annual cycle is well-defined and easy to observe.

While the study of phenology is now fancied up with Ph.D.s and reams of computer data, it was once just plain common sense, a way to interpret and utilize the yearly signposts of nature. And it wasn't just lilacs that people were watching. According to Plantwatch, a phenological publication of the University Alberta in Canada:

''Native peoples recognized that natural events always happened in a certain order, even if they didn't always happen at the same time each year. For example, when Samuel de Champlain arrived at Cape Cod in 1605 the Wampanoag people told him that the best time to plant corn was when the white oak leaf was the same size as the footprint of a red squirrel.''

''In Montana, alfalfa is usually ready for its first cut one month after common purple lilac start to flower,'' according to Plantwatch. ''In Southern Alberta, the saying is, 'Be ready to cut hay 40 days after the lilacs flower.' ''
In the realm of climate science, evidence produced by ''lilac-looking,'' supports the sneaking suspicion of a worldwide warming trend.

A long-term study (from 1965 to 2001) of genetically identical lilac plants at 72 locations in the Northeast indicated an average advance in spring bloom of about four to eight days during the latter half of the 20th century, according to a report released last year by the Climate Change Research Center at the University of New Hampshire.

Full article

===============================

Barley


----------



## Barliman Butterbur

*Re: Global Warming*

*Something for global-warming skeptics*
More studies link temperature, CO{-2}
May*27, 2006. 01:00*AM
JAY INGRAM

Good old global warming — it just keeps getting more and more interesting. Let's see now: Environment Minister Rona Ambrose has serious reservations about Kyoto and suggests maybe it would be better if Canada signed on to the Asia Pacific Partnership, where voluntary curbs on greenhouse gases take the place of mandated reductions.

Hard on the heels of those thoughts, the American Geophysical Union produces two news releases detailing about-to-be-published studies, one from Europe, one from the U.S.

The European study by scientists in the Netherlands, the U.K. and Germany argues that their research plays a new card in the climate-change scenario: that while greenhouse gases contribute to increases in global temperature, the reverse is also true, that higher temperatures exacerbate the release of greenhouse gases.

The team focused on what's known as the Little Ice Age, the period from the mid-1500s to the mid-1800s when temperatures in Europe — and around the world — were significantly cooler. At the same time, the levels of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere fell. Taking these data as the basis for a link between temperature and CO{-2} release, the scientists then try to guess how much the effect of temperature on gas release would be.

It wasn't encouraging. They claim that this positive feedback, the connection between warming and gas release, will raise the stakes significantly. Where previous models of future warming might have predicted an increase of x degrees, they now think it will be x + ?

Full article here

===============================

Jay Ingram hosts _Daily Planet_ on Discovery Channel.

Barley


----------



## Barliman Butterbur

*Re: Global Warming*

Polar bear hunting has gotten caught up in the larger debate over global warming. Scientists and environmentalists are pushing for measures to protect the animal, whose most immediate threat, they say, is not hunters, but loss of habitat.

Global warming and over-hunting could diminish the polar bear population by at least 30 percent in coming decades, the International Union for Conservation of Nature and Natural Resources, a network of 10,000 scientists, predicted in May.

"Given what the climate models predict for continuing warming and melting of sea ice, the whole thing leads to an extinction curve," said Peter Ewins, director of the World Wildlife Fund Canada's Arctic Conservation Program. "And it's not a question of if, it's a clear question of when."

Those experts tick off a list of stresses on the polar bear: Global warming is melting the bear's icy migration routes, critical for breeding and catching seals for food, around Hudson Bay and Alaska. Poaching is threatening populations in Russia. Pollution is causing deformities and reproductive failures in Norway.

In Canada, a committee of scientists recommended in 2003 that the government list the polar bear as a species of "special concern," which would require federal monitoring. But the environment minister sent the recommendation back, under pressure from Nunavut officials, who complained that traditional Inuit knowledge had been ignored.

"The bears are getting smaller, their reproduction is getting less effective, and I have heard about data that show their survival is in decline," said Marco Festa-Bianchet, a biology professor at the University of Sherbrooke in Quebec who recently stepped down as chairman of the committee.

Full article here

===============================

Barley


----------



## Varokhâr

*Re: Global Warming*



Wolfshead said:


> I've heard it's all natural and we only contribute a very small amount to the heating of the earth. I know I should be finding sources and whatnot, but I really should be studying...



In all honesty, that is how I see the issue of global warming, too. I don't have loads of sources at my fingertips, just an opinion gleaned after observing bits and pieces reported by folks who study the issue. 

I recall seeing a show about how the average temperature during a point in the Middle Ages was higher than normal, and humans weren't doing much to affect climate change. Of course, actual numbers and meterological data weren't available nor even possible from that time period, but other records that refer to overall weather have indicated a general rise in average temperature. Scientists went on to posit that the entire planet goes on cycles of warm and cool, much like the seasons cycle from warm months to cool ones.

All our pollution, I have always thought, just affects us, mostly. It crumbles our buildings, infects our bodies, and likely has an impact on the animal population around us, but that's about it. Otherwise, the earth is going to warm and cool as nature dictates, and as always, we're all along for the ride whether we like it or not.

I do find it a bit paranoid (and sometimes a bit arrogant) to suggest that we little humans are able to affect the grandiose machine of nature like some alarmists say we do. Sure, we have to curtail pollution and live cleaner - we'll kill or at least deform ourselves if we don't. But I don't think the earth itself is in any danger from us - as recent natural disasters have shown, it's the other way around.


----------



## Barliman Butterbur

*Re: Global Warming*



Varokhâr said:


> All our pollution, I have always thought, just affects us, mostly. It crumbles our buildings, infects our bodies, and likely has an impact on the animal population around us, but that's about it. Otherwise, the earth is going to warm and cool as nature dictates, and as always, we're all along for the ride whether we like it or not.
> 
> I do find it a bit paranoid (and sometimes a bit arrogant) to suggest that we little humans are able to affect the grandiose machine of nature like some alarmists say we do.



We are a part of nature, not separate from it. You suggest that we are to nature as a mosquito is to an elephant. You suggest "Nature the Vast Machine, Unaffected by Tiny Weak Humans," and that isn't how it is at all. 

I'm not here to argue, only to present the issue, especially my side. My take: our technology and animal husbandry have generated CO2, methane, and other pollutants into the atmosphere (mainly during the time of the Industrial Revolution and onward) in amounts where a tipping point may soon be reached wherein the earth will slide into a new equilibrium, one which may not support human life.

There are supporters both pro and con. I say it's here, it's happening, and we ignore it at our peril.

This site — http://www.stopglobalwarming.org/sgw_headlines.asp — offers evidence, if you will accept it as such.

Barley


----------



## Barliman Butterbur

*Re: Global Warming*

One man who has influenced my thinking over the years is Michael Shirmer, a scientist and logician who is one of the monthly columnists for _Scientific American,_ and a brilliant and popular regular lecturer at Cal Tech and UCLA whose frequent topic is logical belief systems vs. illogical belief systems. He is also a long-established columnist for the venerable and respected _Scientific American._ I think his recent article on global warming merits sufficient importance to include here in its entirety:

*The Flipping Point*

by: Michael Shermer 22 May 2006

How the evidence for anthropogenic global warming has converged to cause this environmental skeptic to make a cognitive flip

In 2001 Cambridge University Press published Bjørn Lomborg's book _The Skeptical Environmentalist,_ which I thought was a perfect debate topic for the Skeptics Society public lecture series at the California Institute of Technology. The problem was that all the top environmental organizations refused to participate. "There is no debate," one spokesperson told me. "We don't want to dignify that book," another said. One leading environmentalist warned me that my reputation would be irreparably harmed if I went through with it. So of course I did.

My experience is symptomatic of deep problems that have long plagued the environmental movement. Activists who vandalize Hummer dealerships and destroy logging equipment are criminal ecoterrorists. Environmental groups who cry doom and gloom to keep donations flowing only hurt their credibility. As an undergraduate in the 1970s, I learned (and believed) that by the 1990s overpopulation would lead to worldwide starvation and the exhaustion of key minerals, metals and oil, predictions that failed utterly. Politics polluted the science and made me an environmental skeptic.

Nevertheless, data trump politics, and a convergence of evidence from numerous sources has led me to make a cognitive switch on the subject of anthropogenic global warming. My attention was piqued on February 8 when 86 leading evangelical Christians--the last cohort I expected to get on the environmental bandwagon--issued the Evangelical Climate Initiative calling for "national legislation requiring sufficient economy-wide reductions" in carbon emissions.

Then I attended the TED (Technology, Entertainment, Design) conference in Monterey, Calif., where former vice president Al Gore delivered the single finest summation of the evidence for global warming I have ever heard, based on the recent documentary film about his work in this area, _An Inconvenient Truth._ The striking before-and-after photographs showing the disappearance of glaciers around the world shocked me out of my doubting stance.

Reducing our CO2 emissions by 70 percent by 2050 will not be enough.

Four books eventually brought me to the flipping point. Archaeologist Brian Fagan's _The Long Summer_ (Basic, 2004) explicates how civilization is the gift of a temporary period of mild climate. Geographer Jared Diamond's _Collapse_ (Penguin Group, 2005) demonstrates how natural and human-caused environmental catastrophes led to the collapse of civilizations. Journalist Elizabeth Kolbert's _Field Notes from a Catastrophe_ (Bloomsbury Publishing, 2006) is a page-turning account of her journeys around the world with environmental scientists who are documenting species extinction and climate change unmistakably linked to human action. And biologist Tim Flannery's _The Weather Makers_ (Atlantic Monthly Press, 2006) reveals how he went from being a skeptical environmentalist to a believing activist as incontrovertible data linking the increase of carbon dioxide to global warming accumulated in the past decade.

It is a matter of the Goldilocks phenomenon. In the last ice age, CO2 levels were 180 parts per million (ppm)--too cold. Between the agricultural revolution and the industrial revolution, levels rose to 280 ppm--just right. Today levels are at 380 ppm and are projected to reach 450 to 550 by the end of the century--too warm. Like a kettle of water that transforms from liquid to steam when it changes from 99 to 100 degrees Celsius, the environment itself is about to make a CO2-driven flip.

According to Flannery, even if we reduce our carbon dioxide emissions by 70 percent by 2050, average global temperatures will increase between two and nine degrees by 2100. This rise could lead to the melting of the Greenland Ice Sheet, which the March 24 issue of _Science_ reports is already shrinking at a rate of 224 ±41 cubic kilometers a year, double the rate measured in 1996 (Los Angeles uses one cubic kilometer of water a year). If it and the West Antarctic Ice Sheet melt, sea levels will rise five to 10 meters, displacing half a billion inhabitants. 

Because of the complexity of the problem, environmental skepticism was once tenable. No longer. It is time to flip from skepticism to activism.

source

===============================

Barley


----------



## Barliman Butterbur

*Re: Global Warming*

"Buying a Stairway to Heaven?": Enter the global warming con artists...?

I hadn't thought of it until I received email about it — but come to think of it why not, and why am I not surprised? 

_Enter the con men_ — (and women, let's not leave _them_ out for heaven's sakes) are into everything, and now global warming. You can read about it at http://www.realclimate.org/index.php?p=313 .  

Of course, this _could_ be _legit,_ and simply a matter of me, doddering old codger that I am, being simply too brain-weary and world-weary to figure it out properly...

Barley


----------



## Eriol

-- Some _absolutely non-controversial_ statements about global warming:

1. CO2 concentrations have risen dramatically in the last centuries
2. This rise is driven by human activity

-- Some _fairly non-controversial_ statements about global warming:

3. The incidence of extreme weather events, _to the extent that our databases are reliable_ (that's a caveat, by the way ), has increased in the last few years
4. Most* data indicate a slight increase in the average global temperature in the last few decades

(from 3 and 4)

5. Global warming is taking place. 

*_There are satellite data which do not exhibit the same trend, and some people attach far more weight to this source of data than to terrestrially based weather stations_

-- Some _quite disputed_** statements about global warming:

6. The rise in the average global temperature is a result of the increase in CO2 (and other greenhouse gases) concentration in the atmosphere

7. There will be generalized catastrophes due to global warming in the next century

** These statements are "quite disputed" because, with all due respect, our models of the atmosphere are _completely unreliable_ for more than a few days (as the weather channel shows), and very little tinkering with the initial conditions shows extremely different results. Atmosphere modelling is the archetype of a chaotic situation (butterflies in Japan changing the weather in NY...). In other words -- _we don't know_. Which is a good reason to err on the side of caution, by the way . But nevertheless, it must be clear that we don't know what are the likely results of global warming, and that all predictions are supposed to exhibit _trends_ rather than to be quantitatively accurate. We can expect "more hurricanes", for example, but we can't say how much more, where, etc. 

-- Some _almost ridiculous_ statements on global warming

8. the Kyoto protocol can help 

(there is absolutely no model -- none, zero -- in which full Kyoto implementation can reduce more by more than a few percent the global warming effects).

***

Finally, let me call your attention to (6). It is, as I put it, "quite disputed" that greenhouse gas concentration is the main forcing input to the weather system. (It is not my field, but) some data indicate that the sun's activity has increased in the same period -- and this is BY FAR more important than any GHG concentration.

In other words -- and I'm trying to report what is "the scientific consensus" about this subject:

1. Global warming is taking place.
2. It is possible that this is a result of increased GHG concentration. 
3. There is nothing we can do about it now to slow down the process in the next 100 years. No country will be able to fulfill Kyoto (which calls for emissions _lower than 1990 levels_). And if it were possible to fulfill it, it wouldn't matter much. 

This was your regular Brazilian report on global warning .


----------



## Barliman Butterbur

Re: your Post #18:

What leaps out at me on the first reading: (a) computer models are at this point unreliable for more than a few days, and it is very easy to get radically different results from the same data by tickling them differently. (b) Global warming is largely out of our control. Is that a correct understanding? If so, I grieve for us all. (c) CO2 isn't the culprit it is named as being. 

Makes me wonder when (or if) we will ever be able to develop accurate predictions from computer models. But it appears as if many sincere people worldwide are working very hard to come to grips with the phenomenon. Is it indeed caused by man this time, or are we in a "warming period" that would have come anyway?

What does GHG stand for, and what is its importance?

Barley


----------



## Eriol

*Re: Global Warming*



Barliman Butterbur said:


> Re: your Post #18:
> 
> What leaps out at me on the first reading: (a) computer models are at this point unreliable for more than a few days, and it is very easy to get radically different results from the same data by tickling them differently. (b) Global warming is largely out of our control. Is that a correct understanding? If so, I grieve for us all. (c) CO2 isn't the culprit it is named as being.



(a) and (b) are largely uncontroversial, (c) is a strong hypothesis. Or, to put it differently, there is little evidence that CO2 is the culprit it is named as being. Pretty much all we have is (a) a correlation between CO2 rise and global warming and (b) theoretical (laboratory) observations of CO2 acting as a greenhouse gas. This is good enough for a hypothesis, but it is not good enough to state inequivocally that there is a causal link between the two.



> Makes me wonder when (or if) we will ever be able to develop accurate predictions from computer models. But it appears as if many sincere people worldwide are working very hard to come to grips with the phenomenon. Is it indeed caused by man this time, or are we in a "warming period" that would have come anyway?



We don't know . And in spite of the massive research efforts in this field, it is likely that we will be kept in the dark for quite a while. There are too many variables to take into account. 



> What does GHG stand for, and what is its importance?



GHG=greenhouse gas. It is used instead of plain "CO2" because there are plenty of other gases (including water vapor) which behave as greenhouse gases. These other gases (most important would be methane (CH4) and N2O) can be converted to "CO2 equivalent" (e.g., 1 molecule of methane is supposed to be the equivalent, in greenhouse effect, to 21 molecules of CO2), but these equivalences, being based on the half-life of each gas in the atmosphere, are not quite precise yet. There are some fierce "backstage controversies" which do not reach the press about these values. 

It is because I've seen too many top scientists on this field call other top scientists "morons" (always very politely ) that I can say that we certainly don't know what is going on in any accurate fashion. You don't have raging controversies when the data are clear, after all.


----------



## Eledhwen

*Re: Global Warming*

We don't know what's going on; and yet we know exactly what's going on... Ice shelves are collapsing into the sea. El Niño has become an annual nightmare. Cities are finding themselves underwater. Talk about Nero fiddling while Rome burns!

What is it that happens in every disaster film? The guy who discovers the worst nightmare problem takes it to the folks in charge, and they tell him to wind his neck in because accepting there's a problem will upset the shareholders. 

Eriol's explanatory post was very informative - nicely organised too! But I would argue that the very possibility that greenhouse gasses are a culprit should be enough to force us to reduce them. At least then, when everything has been done, we can say that we did everything we could. We would also, through practice, be a lot better at sacrificing comforts for the global good.


----------



## Eriol

*Re: Global Warming*



Eledhwen said:


> But I would argue that the very possibility that greenhouse gasses are a culprit should be enough to force us to reduce them.



The problem is in the word "force". I'm all for voluntary reduction of GHG emissions. In my never-published musings about environmental policy , that's the gist of my conclusions. And there are ways to persuade (e.g. consumer pressure) that do not involve the use of force. But when we speak of state programs and of international protocols (like Kyoto), we must remember that they have a _cost_, not only in money, but in development and better living conditions, particularly in underdeveloped nations. It's easy to abstain from GHG emission if you have the technology to do so, but most people around the world don't. They have to burn fuel. And the poorer the person, the more pressing is the need. The spread of alternative technologies, and investment in these technologies, are all ways to reach a less hostile energetic matrix. State programs that force reductions and international protocols are not. 

The problem with Kyoto (and with the more extremist views of global warming) is that they are sold to the public as if they could be implemented/solved by vigorous state intervention. They can't. It is unlike the disaster movies in this way; the "heroes" don't have the solution. If we dropped our emissions to 1990 levels by a touch of magic, it wouldn't make any noticeable dent in the warming trend. And therefore Kyoto & Co. fail in their expressed goal, while being very harmful in two other dimensions:

1) They will curtail development around the world
2) They will reinforce the idea of the State as Savior

Both are quite obnoxious to my mind.


----------



## Barliman Butterbur

I just received my copy of the book _An Inconvenient Truth_ by Al Gore, and I will soon begin reading it. At the moment I'm thinking of posting salient quotes and their page numbers, so that Eriol and others can have at them. At first glance, I must say that the book is very persuasive (and evidently I'm not the only one who's been persuaded), but I intend to keep an open mind here. I am a _skeptic_ not a _cynic_. That is, I will hold my beliefs until better ones (for me) come along, or my beliefs change because of incontrovertible evidence that demands I change them. Just for the record: so far I believe that global warming has increased exponentially over the past decade or so, due mainly to human actions. We are not so tiny and weak that we have no effect on the earth; indeed, as Gore says, our very numbers combined with our technology have made us a force of nature.

Comparing it to my hazy memory of having read his _Earth in the Balance_ back in the early 90s, I can see that he has spent the intervening time refining his views, included the latest discoveries, and has spent a great deal of time clarifying complex concepts for the lay reader.

I have a question for the mods: Eventually the book discusses the Bush administration's (along with other entities) activities around the issue of global warming. Will that be able to be brought up here? I do not intend to rail against the administration, but, for the sake of the ongoing discussion of the reality of the situation, the forces _set against the dissemination of the knowledge of global warming to the general public_ — such as the energy industry and its supporters — _must_ be at least _mentioned._ Will that be allowed? It is an essential part of the whole thing.

Barley


----------



## Varokhâr

*Re: Global Warming*



Eriol said:


> The problem is in the word "force". I'm all for voluntary reduction of GHG emissions. In my never-published musings about environmental policy , that's the gist of my conclusions. And there are ways to persuade (e.g. consumer pressure) that do not involve the use of force. But when we speak of state programs and of international protocols (like Kyoto), we must remember that they have a _cost_, not only in money, but in development and better living conditions, particularly in underdeveloped nations. It's easy to abstain from GHG emission if you have the technology to do so, but most people around the world don't. They have to burn fuel. And the poorer the person, the more pressing is the need. The spread of alternative technologies, and investment in these technologies, are all ways to reach a less hostile energetic matrix. State programs that force reductions and international protocols are not.
> 
> The problem with Kyoto (and with the more extremist views of global warming) is that they are sold to the public as if they could be implemented/solved by vigorous state intervention. They can't. It is unlike the disaster movies in this way; the "heroes" don't have the solution. If we dropped our emissions to 1990 levels by a touch of magic, it wouldn't make any noticeable dent in the warming trend. And therefore Kyoto & Co. fail in their expressed goal, while being very harmful in two other dimensions:
> 
> 1) They will curtail development around the world
> 2) They will reinforce the idea of the State as Savior
> 
> Both are quite obnoxious to my mind.



I cannot agree more; nothing rattles me more than people thinking the government has all the answers, especially here. where none have ever been given by any government. Implementing laws and restrictions never changes much of anything, only innovation and progress can. New technology, alternative fuel sources, and the like are the solution - and the problem only affects humans in the short term, as I believe the Earth itself is quite safe from most if not all of what we are doing now. If implementing the Kyoto standards will do nothing to affect pollution levels, it only further reinforces the case that humans contribute very little to global warming, especially in comparison to meterological trends and other forces of nature.


----------



## Barliman Butterbur

*Re: Global Warming*



Varokhâr said:


> ...I believe the Earth itself is quite safe from most if not all of what we are doing now.



I agree with you about governments: they are only as good as they serve the needs of the people (and by extension the planet). But one thought from my early readings of AIT jumped out at me already: human beings in their numbers and in their technology have indeed become a force of nature that is affecting the planet.

Barley


----------



## Daranavo

*Re: Global Warming*

1 degree a century is a significant amount, however more troubling is the amount of land that the earth loses a year.


----------



## Ithrynluin

*Admin comment*

This thread was allowed only on the proviso that it remain within the scope of a scientific discussion. Topics on politics and religion are still banned on TTF. If this thread is to continue, participants are asked to keep any commentary of that kind at an absolute minimum.

Thank you.


----------



## Barliman Butterbur

*Re: Admin comment*



Ithrynluin said:


> This thread was allowed only on the proviso that it remain within the scope of a scientific discussion. Topics on politics and religion are still banned on TTF. If this thread is to continue, participants are asked to keep any commentary of that kind at an absolute minimum.
> 
> Thank you.



Of course. But if a certain body DID something — if there was an _action taken_ by, say General Electric, or Exxon or the White House or Al Gore — cannot that action be mentioned simply terms of its effect _vis a vis_ global warming? I do not intend to go into any political ramifications, only to discuss how what was _done_ pertains to and effects global warming. Is that OK?

Barley


----------



## Ithrynluin

*Re: Global Warming*

I should think so. However, the poster needs to take great care so as not to get too sucked into the forbidden topics.


----------



## Shireman D

*Re: Global Warming*

If have read the views here correctly, there is agreement that global warming is happening but some feel it may be a natural process. May I say that the view on this side of the Atlantic is noticeably different, for example all our national governments are committed to carbon emission reduction although the UK is not likely to hit its targets for the time being, it is significant that we have targets at all. There is virtually no support for the view that humanity can ignore the situation and European political parties are in competition to show their green credentials – not least because they are aware of the danger of losing votes, especially to the various national Green Parties.

Unfortunately, the well known views of the US administration tend to reinforce the view ‘over here’ that Americans are not concerned about their impact on the rest of the world. In a complex and regrettable way, ‘adventurism’ in Iraq, logging in Alaska, gas-guzzling motor vehicles and perceived lack of Federal Government concern for the environment are rolled together into a dangerous cocktail of antipathy. 

The last figures that I took in suggested that carbon emissions per US citizen are about 20 tonnes of CO2 annually, each UK subject of HMQ produces about 10 tonnes and each citizen of India about one ton. You can see how bad this looks alongside a we’re not worried outlook. That amount of CO2 emission per year in total, is very much more that the gaseous materials ejected in the once-off event of the eruption of that recent volcano – was it Mt. Washington (silly me, I can remember the numbers but not the name, a bit like telephone numbers) – and no one is arguing about the impact that eruption had on world climate. So saying that all those millions of tons of human engineered emissions cannot be having an impact is facile.

I am very keenly aware of the subtle ways that my garden is changing and has changed over the last ten years. In 2005 I was not able to stop cutting the grass until St. Nicholas Day (Dec 6th) and had to begin again after only eight weeks at the start of Lent. Also, the lawns are deteriorating through increasingly non-temperate weather patterns, I am starting to remove the least stable areas and replace them with plants that I instinctively think of as having a Mediterranean habit. I am also going to change one area over to the style of a Dutch water garden, only without the water as we are under drought conditions in Kent now and have been for two months. Recent heavy rainfall has mostly run off without recharging the subsurface aquifers and most of my plants are exhibiting signs of water stress which is very difficult to alleviate as we are under a hose-pipe ban. "Life ... don't talk to me about life." Marvyn the Parnoid Android thou should livest at this potting shed.


----------



## Barliman Butterbur

*Re: Global Warming*



Shireman D said:


> If have read the views here correctly, there is agreement that global warming is happening but some feel it may be a natural process. May I say that the view on this side of the Atlantic is noticeably different, for example all our national governments are committed to carbon emission reduction although the UK is not likely to hit its targets for the time being, it is significant that we have targets at all. There is virtually no support for the view that humanity can ignore the situation and European political parties are in competition to show their green credentials – not least because they are aware of the danger of losing votes, especially to the various national Green Parties.



Thank God for the European mindset on this thing! 



> Unfortunately, the well known views of the US administration tend to reinforce the view ‘over here’ that Americans are not concerned about their impact on the rest of the world.



I'm glad you said it's the administration. The American people, who evidently have appropriate common sense and fear on this matter, have a far different view than the government (what else is new), and there are grassroots movements building right now. How effective they will be remains to be seen.



> In a complex and regrettable way, ‘adventurism’ in Iraq, logging in Alaska, gas-guzzling motor vehicles and perceived lack of Federal Government concern for the environment are rolled together into a dangerous cocktail of antipathy.



Well, it seems to be money, as always: large corporations simply want to keep on making as much money as possible no matter what the consequences. 'Twas ever thus. So the energy industry in general wants to keep the public from knowing anything about the situation, and has released the first salvo of TV ads which say that "CO2 is life." Well, so is oxygen, but if there's too much of either...but they don't go into any of _that._



> The last figures that I took in suggested that carbon emissions per US citizen are about 20 tonnes of CO2 annually, each UK subject of HMQ produces about 10 tonnes and each citizen of India about one ton. You can see how bad this looks alongside a we’re not worried outlook.



I am embarrasingly aware of how it looks, but fewer and fewer Americans (save the ones for whom money is simply not an issue) are blithely unaware of their contribution to GW.



> That amount of CO2 emission per year in total, is very much more that the gaseous materials ejected in the once-off event of the eruption of that recent volcano – was it Mt. Washington (silly me, I can remember the numbers but not the name, a bit like telephone numbers)



Perhaps Mt. St. Helens? 



> – and no one is arguing about the impact that eruption had on world climate. So saying that all those millions of tons of human engineered emissions cannot be having an impact is facile.



Absolutely. The easiest thing to do when something doesn't make sense to an individual is simply to deny it, to poo-poo it.



> I am very keenly aware of the subtle ways that my garden is changing and has changed over the last ten years. In 2005 I was not able to stop cutting the grass until St. Nicholas Day (Dec 6th) and had to begin again after only eight weeks at the start of Lent. Also, the lawns are deteriorating through increasingly non-temperate weather patterns, I am starting to remove the least stable areas and replace them with plants that I instinctively think of as having a Mediterranean habit. I am also going to change one area over to the style of a Dutch water garden, only without the water as we are under drought conditions in Kent now and have been for two months. Recent heavy rainfall has mostly run off without recharging the subsurface aquifers and most of my plants are exhibiting signs of water stress which is very difficult to alleviate as we are under a hose-pipe ban. "Life ... don't talk to me about life." Marvyn the Parnoid Android thou should livest at this potting shed



That is quite frightening, my friend, that such fundamental changes are taking place so fast in your garden.

~~~

I've begun reading Gore's _An Inconvenient Truth_ (which I shall, for convenience, refer to from now on as AIT), and here as promised are some tidbits from it as far as I've gotten:

p.8: The underlying reality is that we are colliding with the planet's ecological system, and its most vulnerable components are crumbling as a result. ... Not only does human-caused global warming exist, but it is growing more and more dangerous, and at a pace that has now made it a planetary emergency. ... I discovered firsthand [as vice president] how fiercely Congress would resist the changes we were urging them to make... 

...entertainment values have transformed what we used to call news, and individuals with independent voices are routinely shut out of public discourse.

Soon after the election, it became clear that the ...administration was determined to black any policies designed to help limit global-warming solutions. They launched an all-out effort 

p. 9: to roll back, weaken, and — wherever possible — completely eliminate existing laws and regulations.

...I started Current TV, a news and information cable and satellite network for young people in their twenties, based on an idea that is, in our present-day society revolutionary: that viewers themselves can make the programs and in the process participate in the public forum of American Democracy.

~~~

Those wishing to explore this new network may do so at http://www.current.tv/.

Barley


----------



## Shireman D

*Re: Global Warming*



Barliman Butterbur said:


> Perhaps Mt. St. Helens?
> 
> 
> Barley


 
Yes, that's right I'm sure, thanks.

I was interested to hear of one Mid-West State government aiming to power a lot of road vehicles from bio-mass product left over from the cereal crops. That seems very positive and sound common sense as well.


----------



## Uminya

I didn't read any of the other posts in this thread. Sue me.

Anyhow. Global Warming. It's clear that humans are having an impact on the planet. The Earth naturally goes through drastic cycles of warming and cooling as time passes. Humans are not capable of turning the Earth into another Venus, because of the amount of water that regulates the atmosphere. Heating cycles like what we are experiencing cause glaciers to melt. Melting glaciers raise the sea level, while at the same time the heat causes more clouds to form. Water-surfaces act like mirrors and throw heat back into space, and clouds will start blocking sunlight from reaching the surface. This is where we suddenly reach a cooling cycle.

Reduced light causes dropping temperatures as well as the loss of plant life, which leads to a loss of animal life. Now comes the big question. With human technology, how will we be able to react to this change? In the Dark Ages during the Black Plague, Europe entered what is called the "Little Ice Age" when temperatures dropped slightly, but enough to make a big difference. The cause of this was that the deaths of all those peasant farmers meant that fields once used for crops would go fallow and unkempt, and so the fluctuation in surface reflectivity and gas output led to a cooling effect. If Dark Ages humanity could have such an effect, how can we deny Information/Post-Industrial/Atomic humanity having an effect?

The question is not "if" we have an effect, but "how" we are affecting. As temperatures rise to that point where nature begins to cool, will human technology be powerful enough to throw nature out of balance and continue an unstoppable cycle of heating that will make the Earth another Venus, or will nature prevail and begin dumping off the world's heat, sending us into another ice age.

Another question is one of ethics. If the Earth begins another natural ice age, should humans try to warm the planet again, if possible?

Aside from the issue of global warming, there is also the issue of geomagnetism. The Earth's core is due to reverse at any time now. How will this effect the world of humans? Scientists believe that Mars lost its atmosphere because of core stagnation (where the core cools and stops rotating, weakening the magnetosphere, which lead to solar winds stripping away the atmosphere). Could this happen to the Earth as well?


----------



## Eriol

Ciryaher said:


> I didn't read any of the other posts in this thread. Sue me.
> 
> Anyhow. Global Warming. It's clear that humans are having an impact on the planet. The Earth naturally goes through drastic cycles of warming and cooling as time passes. Humans are not capable of turning the Earth into another Venus, because of the amount of water that regulates the atmosphere. Heating cycles like what we are experiencing cause glaciers to melt. Melting glaciers raise the sea level, while at the same time the heat causes more clouds to form. Water-surfaces act like mirrors and throw heat back into space, and clouds will start blocking sunlight from reaching the surface. This is where we suddenly reach a cooling cycle.



Unfortunately, it's not anything as simple as that. The albedo of clouds is counterbalanced by their greenhouse factor (as our ordinary experience of cloudy nights being warmer than starlit nights shows). If it were not, then Venus (100% cloud cover, as much albedo as anyone would like) wouldn't be hot. 

Your account does not take into account solar activity, ocean currents, geothermic activity, just to mention the first that come to mind. 

Excessively simplified explanations lead to poor policies. That's the main problem in the global warming debate right now. People WANT to implement policies regardless of what theory says or does not say, and then are surprised when later research proves their policies to be misguided. (I phrased this in just the right way as to embrace all political views ).


----------



## Barliman Butterbur

Eriol said:


> Excessively simplified explanations lead to poor policies. That's the main problem in the global warming debate right now. People WANT to implement policies regardless of what theory says or does not say, and then are surprised when later research proves their policies to be misguided. (I phrased this in just the right way as to embrace all political views ).



HAR HAR! An admirable accomplishment!  Thing is: _Unabridged_ full-bore post-doc scientific explanations go way past the point of the average layman's ability to understand, and I have an idea that there is so MUCH information in the mix that it's almost impossible for the average interested person to take it all in. So I believe that _some_ simplification is justified, even necessary, for understanding.

And — WELCOME, CIRYAHER! Wonderful to have you back! See if you can get Vandaley to join us as well! 



Shireman D said:


> I was interested to hear of one Mid-West State government aiming to power a lot of road vehicles from bio-mass product left over from the cereal crops. That seems very positive and sound common sense as well.



Actually, biofuel can evidently be made from anything containing enough _starch._ So any grain will do; and, Brazil, I understand, has almost retooled its enitre fuel manufacturing industry around sugarcane husks. My hope is that here in the US, instead of paying farmers NOT to grow their crops, they'll get 'em growing corn crops for fuel, and any other crops from which biofuel can be made. Why should we keep on with a 60% dependency on Middle Eastern countries? The only reason we're doing it is because the fuel industry doesn't feel like spending the money to re-tool, sez I! That would cost them some of their bloody _profits,_ and we can't have _that!_

Barley


----------



## Barliman Butterbur

*Selections from AIT:*

===============================

p. 9: I decided...to start giving my slide show on global warming again. I had first put it together at the same time I began writing _Earth in the Balance,_ and over the years I have added to it and steadily improved it to the point where I think it makes a compelling case, at least for most audiences, that humans are the cause of most of the global warming that is taking place, and that unless we take quick action the consequences for our planetary home could become irreversible.
~~~
If I wanted to reach the maximum number of people quickly, and not just continue talking to a few hundred people a night, a movie was the way to do it.

p.10: The climate crisis is...a true planetary emergency. Two thousand scientists, in a hundred countries, working for more than 20 years in the most elaborate and well-organized scientific collaboration in the history of mankind, have forged an exceptionally strong consensus that all the nations on Earth must work together to solve the crisis of global warming.
~~~
We are melting the North Polar ice cap and virtually all of the mountain glaciers in the world. We are destabilizing the massive mound of ice on Greenland and the equally enormous mass of ice propped up on top of islands in West Antarctica, threatening a worldwide increase in sea levels of as much as 20 feet.
~~~
We are dumping so much carbon dioxide into the Earth's environment that we have literally changed the relationship between the Earth and the Sun.
~~~ [Early warnings about Hurricane Katrina were ignored.]
~~~Today, we are hearing and seeing dire warnings of the worst potential catastrophe in the history of human civilization: a global climate crisis that is deepening and rapidly becoming more dangerous than anything we have ever faced.

And yet these clear warnings are also being met with a "blinding lack of situational awareness" — in this case by the Congress as well as the president.

===============================

And not just the governmental Powers That Be. Here is something I came across just this morning:

===============================

"How overwhelming is the scientific consensus? A University of California at San Diego scientist, Dr. Naomi Oreskes, published a massive study of every peer-reviewed scientific journal on global warming over the last decade. Out of 928 randomly selected articles, not one disagreed with the consensus view of global warming. Again, not one.

"But the industry effort to "reposition global warming as theory rather than fact" continues – much like the tobacco industry’s earlier disinformation campaign to obscure the health effects of smoking.

"Just yesterday, Rupert Murdock's NY Post said this in their review:

_There is wide disagreement about whether humans are causing global warming.…. and about whether we should be worried about the trends._

"There really is no legitimate scientific disagreement -- only an industry funded effort to dilute the urgency of one of the greatest challenges we've ever faced.

"In a way, ExxonMobil’s new multi-million dollar campaign (through the industry backed Competitive Enterprise Institute) is a testament to how convincing and overwhelming Gore’s case really is. Here's an example of what I'm talking about: a heartwarming 60 second spot funded by the oil and gas industry that, in part, touts the benefits -- yes, you read that correctly -- of carbon dioxide. 

Source: http://www.blueoregon.com/

===============================

Barley


----------



## Uminya

Eriol said:


> Unfortunately, it's not anything as simple as that. The albedo of clouds is counterbalanced by their greenhouse factor (as our ordinary experience of cloudy nights being warmer than starlit nights shows). If it were not, then Venus (100% cloud cover, as much albedo as anyone would like) wouldn't be hot.
> 
> Your account does not take into account solar activity, ocean currents, geothermic activity, just to mention the first that come to mind.
> 
> Excessively simplified explanations lead to poor policies. That's the main problem in the global warming debate right now. People WANT to implement policies regardless of what theory says or does not say, and then are surprised when later research proves their policies to be misguided. (I phrased this in just the right way as to embrace all political views ).



Oh yes. I know that. But consider Venus' atmospheric composition--Carbon dioxide (96%), nitrogen (3%), sulfur dioxide, argon, helium etc. (1%)--as compared to the Earth's atmospheric composition--nitrogen (77%), oxygen (21%), other (2%). Venus and Earth can be compared on some levels, such as size, but not really on any other aspects for that very reason. Not to mention its a retrograde planet, and you know what that means. Highly dodgy.

But in all seriousness, again, you are correct that cloud cover has much more to do with the global phenomenon. But as you begin to include more and more in a meteorological examination of "what does what", you're going to quickly boil down to chaos because there's just too much to factor in. It's entirely possible that man has absolutely no effect on the climate and that the changes we observe are simply coincidental. I don't believe so, but there you have it.

For that reason, I will stick with clouds. Depending on the density and nature of cloud cover, here on Earth it almost universally leads to cooler temperatures. There are some instances where the angle of sunlight will bounce heat up under the clouds which will act like a blanket...but falling preciptation will suck heat right out anyhow (like a giant "swamp-cooler" type air-conditioner). Over time, the heat trapped by the clouds would disappate and cool anyhow.

Those dropped temperatures and increased clouds would lead to increased snowfall. Snow reflects sunlight, which leads to further cooling.

I don't care to argue policy. The only effective solution would be to halt agriculture and every aspect of technology in existence. It's complicated and boring. I'd rather talk about the actual science of the phenomenon, rather than how people are going to argue with eachother about dealing with it.


----------



## Barliman Butterbur

*As Planet Heats Up, Deserts Face Drier Future*

_New Report Warns of Increasing Threat to World's Deserts Due to Global Warming_

By Danica Kirka

LONDON Jun 5, 2006 (AP)— The world's deserts are under threat as never before, with global warming making lack of water an even bigger problem for the parched regions, a U.N. report released Monday said.

The first comprehensive look at deserts around the world said these areas, their wildlife and, most of all, their scarce water supplies are facing dramatic changes.

Full Article

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

*Widening tropics 'will drive deserts into Europe'*

_Alarming new satellite evidence of the effects of global warming comes as forecasters predict more severe hurricanes_

By Geoffrey Lean, Environment Editor
Published: June 4 2006

The world's tropical zones are growing, threatening to drive the world's great deserts into southern Europe and other heavily populated areas, alarming new research suggests.

The study - based on satellite measurements over the past quarter of a century - shows that the tropics have widened by 140 miles since 1979. Scientists suspect that global warming is to blame.

Up to now the most startling evidence that the world is heating up has come from the poles where ice sheets have disintegrated, sea ice shrunk, and glaciers started racing towards the sea. But new research published in the journal _Science_ suggests that equally dramatic changes are under way in the hottest parts of the planet.

Full Article

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

*Why deserts will inherit the Earth*

"Few places on Earth are less hospitable, less suited to human life than the Sahara desert. Yet as global warming accelerates and the prospect of profound climate change looms large, we must face the fact that vast areas of our planet will be rendered equally barren. In his powerful new book, Fred Pearce explains how nature can turn paradise into wilderness"

Full (long and detailed) Article

===============================

Barley


----------



## Barliman Butterbur

*Animals evolve to keep pace with global warming*
By Mark Henderson, Science Editor

_The Canadian red squirrel has begun breeding earlier in the year (Max Planck)_

GLOBAL warming is already influencing the evolution of some animals, according to research that attributes genetic changes to rising temperatures.

Scientists have identified heritable genetic changes among squirrels, birds and insects that appear to be evolved adaptations to a warmer world.

As average temperatures have increased, the researchers say, so have the lengths of the warmer spring and autumn seasons. This has given a substantial advantage to animals with the genetic ability to vary their behaviour accordingly, influencing the course of evolution.

The evolutionary adaptations observed to date, however, are all related to changing season length, rather than building tolerance to higher temperatures or altered climatic conditions. This means that species are likely to remain vulnerable to extinction as global warming progresses.

In a review published today in the journal _Science,_ William Bradshaw and Christina Holzapfel, of the University of Oregon, highlight several examples of animal species evolving in response to global warming.

The animals are migrating, breeding or developing earlier in the spring, and research has established that this goes beyond normal variation and is influenced by genetic change.

“Over the past 40 years, animal species have been extending their range toward the poles and populations have been migrating, developing or reproducing earlier,” Dr Bradshaw says. “These expansions and changes have often been attributed to ‘phenotypic plasticity’, or the ability of individuals to modify their behaviour, morphology or physiology in response to altered environmental conditions.

“However, phenotypic plasticity is not the whole story. Recent studies show that over the period of recent decades, climate change has led to heritable, genetic changes in populations of animals as diverse as birds, squirrels and mosquitoes.”

Canadian red squirrels are breeding earlier in the year, allowing them to take advantage of earlier availability of the spruce cones on which they feed.

Blackcap birds in central Europe are increasingly migrating to spend the winter in Britain, rather than the Iberian peninsula, and a genetically distinct sub-population that favours this strategy is becoming larger as a result.

Among European great tits, rising temperatures have created selective pressure because the caterpillars on which their chicks feed are maturing earlier in the spring. Tits that can lay their eggs earlier — a trait that is determined genetically — have an advantage, as their chicks can still eat these caterpillars.

In fruit flies, genetic characteristics that are typical of southern, warm-climate insects are becoming more common in northern latitudes.

In mosquitoes living in water caught in the leaves of North American carnivorous pitcher plants, a genetic shift has changed the time at which larvae become dormant in anticipation of winter.

Global warming could be returning the world to the way it was four million years ago, when sea levels were 80ft (25m) higher than they are today, scientists led by Dr Alexey Fedorov, of Yale University, report in _Science._

Source

===============================

Barley


----------



## Eriol

Yes, about that report from the conference. All of the papers related to global warming were similar to the one you just quoted, Barley -- description and prediction of changes that will result from global warming. There were none (NONE) that I saw about stopping the phenomenon. There were very few (among them, the one that my project presented) about Kyoto. It's simply an irrelevant issue for science -- albeit an enormously important subject for world politics and for economics, since Kyoto WILL have tangible results in both arenas. But everybody (at that meeting) seemed to be convinced -- in my appraisal  -- that there's nothing we can do about global warming. 

The major concern was the state of the world's fisheries -- because THAT's an area in which there is room for decisive and effective action. Unlike the world's climate.


----------



## Barliman Butterbur

Eriol said:


> ...But everybody (at that meeting) seemed to be convinced -- in my appraisal  -- that there's nothing we can do about global warming.



Has this group put up a website with their findings? I'd like to take a look at their stuff. 

I agree that "mere individuals" can do little, but I still can't bring myself to believe that coal-burning/fossil fuel burning entities can't be switched over — eventually — to a clean power source. I just can't imagine that mankind can't switch to clean power sources. I still believe it's a matter of "won't," driven by short-term profits. The only thing lacking is the will. Historically, Man never moves off his ass until dire circumstances light a fire under it. 

So I think we will be waiting until the planetary ecosystem has irreversibly tipped into a new equilibrium that threatens our lives and people start dying in the streets. By then it would probably be too late.

So I must stay with the "Gore" side of the equation, because that's much more optimistic and hopeful.

Barley


----------



## Uminya

Fissile nuclear power is actually a feasible short-term solution until the ITER/TOKOMAK projects start to yield fusile nuclear power. The technology that the US and Russia (among others) have developed makes it extremely safe to implement, and there are storage methods available that need only be utilized to make waste storage safe and reliable. For instance, there is a device I don't know the technical name of, but it involves placing waste in sand between two giant solenoids, then doing what amounts to firing a bolt of lightning between them to encase the waste in glass.

(Fissile) Nuclear power is held back by ideologic fearmongering, when the technology could be used to wean us off of coal, oil, and natural gas until fusion and space-based solar power can be developed.

EDIT:

Here is another bit on the effects of Mankind on the environment; perhaps the most devastating and terrible display of our ability to completely obliterate the environment: the Aral sea. Once the fourth largest in the world, the largest remaining parts of it have been deemed a lost cause, and efforts now simply focus to save the northern part of the sea from.

http://earthobservatory.nasa.gov/Newsroom/NewImages/images.php3?img_id=16277


----------



## Eriol

Barliman Butterbur said:


> Has this group put up a website with their findings? I'd like to take a look at their stuff.



It would be like a headline that says "Dog bites man". I've never seen any scientific opinion to the contrary, Barley -- not one. (I mean, an opinion that says that we can do something relevant to control global warming). If you want to check for yourself, the group is the American Society of Limnology and Oceanography (ASLO). 

Of course we should, in the medium-to-long run, switch the energy sources. For many more reasons than global warming. The problem with focusing on global warming is that it misdirects preciously scarce resources to action that won't bring results. Gore would be much more useful if he published a book about the fisheries of the world -- this is a SERIOUS problem. Just one little fact to blow you away -- 25% of the continental shelf is upheaved annually by fishing trawls. Try to imagine a number of this magnitude! And this is just one problem. There are others, like sanitation, eutrophication, desertification (as Ciryaher just alluded to), which are pressing and need our attention. 

(Actually, I think that big movements led by big names are very inefficient. Air quality and acid rains have become a minor problem compared to 20 years ago without any such thing. The best way to deal with the environment is locally).


----------



## Barliman Butterbur

Whatever else your posts do, Eriol, they send me running to my unabridged dictionary! _Eutrification_ — that is a chilling concept — "_too much_ nutrition" kills...

Barley

PS: This morning at least, I have the sinking feeling that Al Gore's movie is going to fade away, leaving all of us careening headlong toward a self-created extinction. Ah well, if one considers mankind as the planet's cancer, then all is well because all diseases are self-limiting. Man will become extinct, like the dinosaurs and they archeopteryx — just another inconsequential blip on the evolutionary radar, and the earth will be left to heal herself — the Gaia Hypothethis in full force.


----------



## Uminya

I don't think mankind could go extinct. I think that at the worst, an environmental collapse would be the pin to prick the population bubble. Third world countries without self-sustaining agricultures would be the first to go, with heavily industrialized nations with advanced environmental modification techniques being the last to collapse. But mankind, for better or worse, is here to stay. Man alone of all the creatures has the ability to both willingly destroy and willingly repair the environment he is in.

And if nothing else, a seriously looming catastrophe will spurn some sort of emergency research. Depending on the nature of the upcoming disaster, we could do anything from extensive cloud-seeding to force rainfall or just pour our resources into space exploration to find a new planet, or somehow take resources from a world in the solar system and macroengineer its resources back to earth.


----------



## Barliman Butterbur

*Gore to train 1,000 to spread word about climate*

Mon Jun 12, 2006 

By Timothy Gardner

NEW YORK (Reuters) - Al Gore hopes to train 1,000 messengers he hopes will spread out across the country and present a slide show about global warming that captures the essence of his Hollywood documentary and book.

The former vice president...said on Monday that by the end of the summer he would start a bipartisan education campaign to train 1,000 people to give a version of his slide show on global warming featured in the film "An Inconvenient Truth" and book of the same name.

"This moment cannot be allowed to pass," Gore told reporters in New York. "I have seen and heard times before when the awareness of the climate crisis has peaked and then a few months later it's gone. I think this time is different, but I have to say I'm not certain of that."

Full article

===============================

His worry is my worry: that the crisis will come upon us, and it will be too late to do anything about it.

Barley


----------



## Uminya

I remember when I was much younger, during the early 90's, that there was a very strong environmental campaign that was promoting the "Three R's" of Recycling, Reducing, and Reusing. There were lots of commercials on television, children's books, and cartoons (such as "Captain Planet") that promoted environmentalism.

But I suppose like any other populist fad, interest in it all died out. Or maybe those in power lost interest in promoting it, and so people lost interest in following along with it.

When I lived in Indiana, the town that I lived in had implemented water sanitation controls (stopping the dumping of raw sewage into the Ohio River), a recycling program, and public land cleanup. Residents were charged for "garbage-bag waste" with a tag that had to be affixed to bags, each costing 75c. Recyclables were sorted into small bins, but were free of charge, and the city even provided a set of bins to each household. Once a year, people could put out unwanted items from boxes of knicknacks all the way up to steel dryers, televisions, and water heaters, and the city would remove them free of charge to be recycled. Work crews would also make regular sweeps of public areas to remove litter.

Granted, this was a city of 10,000, and so this sort of program is relatively easy to implement. But I think that starting at the "bottom" level will work its way up.

But Eriol makes very good point in that we have, over all, done a lot to improve our land and air pollution problems. Water pollution and aquatic environment degredation/destruction remains a very strong problem. I think that the problems revolving around trawling could be attacked if the nations controlling those trawled waters are shown that--like forestry and logging--a well-maintained hydrosphere will be far more profitable if it's not lost in a short time. A healthily-harvested forest involves taking only some trees, not clear cutting; a healthily-harvested ocean involves taking only some fish, not all.


----------



## Eriol

Ciryaher said:


> I think that the problems revolving around trawling could be attacked if the nations controlling those trawled waters are shown that--like forestry and logging--a well-maintained hydrosphere will be far more profitable if it's not lost in a short time. A healthily-harvested forest involves taking only some trees, not clear cutting; a healthily-harvested ocean involves taking only some fish, not all.



Yes, that's the way to go, but it is hard to implement property rules in international waters. No one controls those trawled waters. While no one controls them, it is in the "best interest" of everybody involved to take as much as they can, for "the long run" does not matter if you can't capitalize on it. 

Cf. "The Tragedy of the Commons", article by Garrett Hardin (published in the mid-60's, I believe)


----------



## Alcuin

This post concerns the Ad Hoc Committee Report on the ‘Hockey Stick’ Global Climate Reconstruction.” The committee was composed of statisticians who were asked to review the methodology and statistical analyses used by Michael E. Mann, Raymond E. Bradley, and Malcolm K. Hughes, in their 1998 publication, “Global-scale temperature patterns and climate forcing over the past six centuries,” published in _Nature_, 392, 779-787, and their follow-on publications; and the critique of this published by Stephen McIntyre and Ross McKitrick in _Energy and Environment_ and _ Geophysical Research Letters_. The statisticians asked to review the material were Edward J. Wegman of George Mason University, David W. Scott of Rice University, and Yasmin H. Said at The Johns Hopkins University. Dr. Wegman is also the chair of the National Academy of Sciences’ Committee on Applied and Theoretical Statistics and a board member of the American Statistical Association. All three statisticians agreed to independently assess the methodology of analysis of the data on a pro bono basis. 

From the report, pp 3-4 (emphasis mine):


> It is important to note the isolation of the paleoclimate community; even though they rely heavily on statistical methods they do not seem to be interacting with the statistical community. ... we judge that the sharing of research materials, data and results was haphazardly and grudgingly done. ... there was too much reliance on peer review, which was not necessarily independent. Moreover, the work has been sufficiently politicized that *this community can hardly reassess their public positions without losing credibility.* ... our committee believes that Mann’s assessments that the decade of the 1990s was the hottest decade of the millennium and that 1998 was the hottest year of the millennium cannot be supported by his analysis.


 In plain English, *Mann, Bradley, and Hughes appear to have misapplied statistical analysis, they are (understandably) reluctant to permit others to check their work, but they continue to insist that they are correct nonetheless.* This is what their critics have claimed all along.

From pp 51-52 (again all emphasis mine), 


> 7. CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS
> 
> Conclusion 1. The politicization of academic scholarly work leads to confusing public debates. ... In the present example *there was too much reliance on peer review, which seemed not to be sufficiently independent*.
> 
> Recommendation 1. Especially when massive amounts of public monies and human lives are at stake, academic work should have a more intense level of scrutiny and review. ... *authors of policy-related documents like the IPCC report, Climate Change 2001: The Scientific Basis, should not be the same people as those that constructed the academic papers.*
> 
> Conclusion 2. Sharing of research materials, data, and results is haphazard and often grudgingly done. We were especially struck by Dr. Mann’s insistence that the code he developed was his intellectual property and that he could legally hold it personally without disclosing it to peers. ... thus *independent verification is impossible*.
> 
> Recommendation 2. ... work including code should be made available to other researchers upon reasonable request, especially if the intellectual property has no commercial value. ... data collected under federal support should be made publicly available. (As federal agencies such as NASA do routinely.)
> 
> Conclusion 3. ...*The public policy implications of this debate are financially staggering and yet apparently no independent statistical expertise was sought or used.*
> 
> Recommendation 3. With clinical trials for drugs and devices to be approved for human use by the FDA, review and consultation with statisticians is expected. Indeed, it is standard practice...
> 
> Conclusion 4. *While the paleoclimate reconstruction has gathered much publicity because it reinforces a policy agenda, it does not provide insight and understanding of the physical mechanisms of climate change*...
> 
> Recommendation 4. Emphasis should be placed on the Federal funding of research related to fundamental understanding of the mechanisms of climate change. Funding should focus on interdisciplinary teams and avoid narrowly focused discipline research.


I have a degree in mathematics. I regularly use statistics in my work. In college (admittedly a long time ago now), I was 7 hours (2 classes and one more - _gag!_ - lab) short of a triple-major in chemistry, chemical engineering, and molecular biology. (I do _not_ recommend that any of you youngsters ever attempt such a stupid stunt. It’s a miserable way to spend college, and difficult to focus to do anything well.) 

Barley, with all due respect, and bearing in mind that I like you as well, I think this is bogus science. Scientists who refuse to provide their data and methodology (assuming that it isn’t protected under issues of national security) are normally considered to be under a cloud of suspicion. In fact, I have never heard of such incidents unless there was scientific fraud involved. (Cf. incidents in the laboratory of Dr. David Baltimore exposed as a result of Congressional investigation by Rep. John Dingell, D-MI, in 1991.) Scientists are usually eager to prove they are right by waving around their data and lab results, daring anyone to replicate their experiments, much like posters on TTF waving around their Tolkien quotes. Perhaps there is a perfectly innocent explanation for concealing data and methods; but at this stage, nothing can be verified, because the researchers who are claiming that global warming is due to carbon dioxide are refusing to cooperate in replication of their experiments by researchers outside their clique.

In large physical systems such as the coupled ocean-atmosphere system in which earth’s weather exists, it is not reasonable, in my opinion, to suspect that chemical agents are responsible for large shifts in heating. It is more reasonable to first investigate the heat source that drives the oceanic-atmospheric engine: the sun. Small changes in solar output over even intermediate periods should cause very large changes in temperature as a result of heating. If our sun _is_ warming, that may be _far_ more alarming than some simple question of pollution. Wasting investigative resources on chemical processes that are insignificant compared to solar heating is absurd!

Eriol can reach his own informed conclusions, and I hope he will continue to share them with us. But as far as I am concerned, this is _not science_. It is _alchemy_, and I believe it as about as reliable as medieval alchemists’ claims to have produced gold from lead and urine.


----------



## Barliman Butterbur

Alcuin said:


> Barley, with all due respect, and bearing in mind that I like you as well, I think this is bogus science. Scientists who refuse to provide their data and methodology ...



Whoa, whoa, whoa there! Am I missing something? Since when have I supported questionable science or scientists??? Please clarify how you think I fit into all this.

I am absolutely convinced of the reality of global warming, and what convinces me is not only the reading of Gore's book (and the book he wrote back in '93) _and checking the sources,_, but the before/after pictures of suchlike as melted glaciers and brown mountains that were once buried under permanent snow.

I get a daily Google Alert on global warming and read just about everything that comes down the pike as well as checking in often with several hard-science climatological websites. As far as I'm concerned, the vast majority of the climatology world are in agreement that the phenomenon not only exists, but that the process is accelerating toward a point of no return. 

I read about the secondary phenomena as well — acceleration of animal/insect migration and extinction patterns, deserts spreading out wider, more extreme weather, the Amazon rain forest trees being replaced by drought-resistant foliage that will actually drive the rain _away_ from the area. 

There may indeed be a dodgy scientist or two, but that's irrelevant. Much worse are the nay-sayers: those of small vision who — for whatever reasons — just can't accept the truth, and the damn fools who are paid to disseminate disinformation, such as the oil and coal industries and those who stand to profit from the status quo.

Balrey


----------



## Barliman Butterbur

GLOBAL WARMING COMES TO WEST HOLLYWOOD:

2005 was the hottest year _by many ticks_ in the history of recording such data; 2006 has so far been hotter than 2005. 100 for Hollywood is fairly rare; heat indexes of 107+ for the Hollywood Hills is virtually unheard of — a manifestation which will likely grow much more common, I fear, especially while the coal and oil industries and political forces tied in to them continue to throw out disinformation and other roadblocks to progress.

Barley


----------



## Alcuin

Barliman Butterbur said:


> 2005 was the hottest year by many ticks in the history of recording such data …


This claim that you’re reciting – forgive me, but I doubt you did this work yourself – is one of the claims the statisticians question in their report. It is also a claim that many professional climatologists reject. This is one reason the debate is not over. 



Barliman Butterbur said:


> Whoa, whoa, whoa there! Am I missing something? Since when have I supported questionable science or scientists??? Please clarify how you think I fit into all this.
> 
> I am absolutely convinced of the reality of global warming…


Barley, this is your thread, and you’ve said very clearly that it’s near and dear to your heart. I’m not out to offend you or enrage you. This isn’t about you, and it isn’t personal. I know this is important to you. But this is bogus science. 

The global warming crowd would have us believe that this period is warmer than the Medieval Warm Period, roughly A.D. 800 – A.D. 1400. Until this new interpretation in the late 1990s, that was not the consensus. (Read the statisticians’ report.) Now we have a group of people who are doing research and claiming that the warming that we’re seeing is due carbon dioxide in the atmosphere, and that if we don’t take some _really drastic_ steps *right now *, disaster is going to overtake us. Fine. But before we do anything really drastic, let us see the data and all the methods, so that we can double-check the calculations: it might be worse, there might be other things we need to take into account. But oh no! Those who are not true believers, those not foresworn to uphold that set of beliefs cannot have the data, they cannot have the calculations: they are the intellectual property of the high priest of global warming. The unwashed and the unbelievers might contaminate them: they might abuse the information, or divulge the secret sauce.

Well, that’s just bogus! If there’s nothing to hide, show the rest of us the data, the methods, and the computer code. All of it. Don’t hide it. Reveal it. That is what is being demanded of these guys. And that is what they are refusing to do. It appears from the information that is publicly available that they misapplied statistics to reach their conclusions. If that’s the case, then their conclusion that global warming is due primarily to human activity is false. I recall a few cases of scientific fraud over the years. I suspect they know it, and they’re hiding it. Call me suspicious. 

It’s as if we all lived in a medieval village, some strangers came to town, and suddenly people and animals get sick and some die. The strangers aren’t sick, but some people in the village says that it must be their fault. They’re getting up a lynch mob to hang the travelers for witchcraft. They have all kinds of explanations for how it works, but the rest of us may not see this secret and very dangerous proof of the perfidy of the sojourners, and we just have to trust these wise guys that these poor souls really and truly are witches, or at the very least, the sickness is their fault. 

It is that simple. Some parts of the earth are warming. (Some, such as central Antarctica, are apparently colder.) There are bunch of bright guys who claim that they know and can prove that this all due to carbon dioxide and human activity. Ok. Prove it. Prove it and show us the proof, not just the results, the whole thing. That’s all. Let us see and discuss all the data, all the methodology, and all the computer code. Don’t hide it, don’t make impossible to check, don’t slander the people who doubt it. Just show us the work. 

(And Barley, I didn’t just accuse you of slander: but you and I both know that the public discussion is so heated that many of the global-warming adherents have accused the dissidents of being in the back pockets of, how did you put it, “the coal and oil industries and political forces tied in to them continue to throw out disinformation and other roadblocks to progress.”) 

That obviously isn’t your responsibility, Barley. This is what the global-warming climatologists have to do. Until they do, their work is under a cloud. It appears that there may be serious errors in their statistical interpretations of the data. The doubters – and there are many, many well-informed professional doubters, such as the director of the National Hurricane Center – suspect that there may be other errors in the methodology and research. But nobody can check on that because the paleoclimatologists who are making these claims won’t let them. That is a problem. I leaves me with a deep suspicion of the work, and it won’t go away until all the data, all the methodology, and all the computer code is posted on the internet. The global-warming crowd claims they’re right, and they demand a solution that is an absolute economic disaster. Another group of climatologists at least as expert and respectable claims they are wrong. The dissenters share their data, methods, and computer code. Why won’t the claimants? Tell me. I want to know.


----------



## Barliman Butterbur

Alcuin — I am not going to dispute you or argue with you. There have always been naysayers to every assertion and always will be. And if you are relying on statistics as your gold standard and benchmark, I say: statistics can be spun in any direction.

For me, what I've been reading is totally convincing. But I do wonder: exactly WHO are the _specific_ people you say are not revealing their research? I've been on the web reading a whole helluva lot of research. You seem to use "they" a whole lot... On the other hand, if you (and any other TTFer questing for the truth) really do want to take a look at the methodology, you can start here and/or here.

And wasn't it Mark Twain who said "There are lies, damned lies and statistics..."  

Barley


----------



## Alcuin

Barliman Butterbur said:


> ...I do wonder: exactly WHO are the _specific_ people you say are not revealing their research? I've been on the web reading a whole helluva lot of research. You seem to use "they" a whole lot...


 Richard Lindzen, Alfred P. Sloan Professor of Atmospheric Science, MIT


> Climate of Fear
> Global-warming alarmists intimidate dissenting scientists into silence.
> ...
> In Europe, Henk Tennekes was dismissed as research director of the Royal Dutch Meteorological Society after questioning the scientific underpinnings of global warming. Aksel Winn-Nielsen, former director of the U.N.'s World Meteorological Organization, was tarred by Bert Bolin, first head of the IPCC, as a tool of the coal industry for questioning climate alarmism. Respected Italian professors Alfonso Sutera and Antonio Speranza disappeared from the debate in 1991, *apparently losing climate-research funding for raising questions.*
> 
> And then there are the peculiar standards in place in scientific journals for articles submitted by those who raise questions about accepted climate wisdom. At Science and Nature, such *papers are commonly refused without review as being without interest. *However, *even when such papers are published, standards shift. *When I, with some colleagues at NASA, attempted to determine how clouds behave under varying temperatures, we discovered what we called an "Iris Effect," wherein upper-level cirrus clouds contracted with increased temperature, providing a very strong negative climate feedback sufficient to greatly reduce the response to increasing CO2. Normally, criticism of papers appears in the form of letters to the journal to which the original authors can respond immediately. However, in this case (and others) a flurry of hastily prepared papers appeared, claiming errors in our study, with our responses delayed months and longer. The delay permitted our paper to be commonly referred to as "discredited." Indeed, there is a strange reluctance to actually find out how climate really behaves. In 2003, when the draft of the U.S. National Climate Plan urged a high priority for improving our knowledge of climate sensitivity, the National Research Council instead urged support to look at the impacts of the warming--not whether it would actually happen.
> 
> * Alarm rather than genuine scientific curiosity, it appears, is essential to maintaining funding. *And only the most senior scientists today can stand up against this alarmist gale, and defy the iron triangle of climate scientists, advocates and policymakers.



JPL, the Jet Propulsion Laboratory (they make the deep space satellites and robots for NASA)


> ...for three Mars summers in a row, deposits of frozen carbon dioxide near Mars' south pole have shrunk from the previous year's size, suggesting a climate change in progress.


 Must be the fault of ... oops, no politics...


Dr Frederick Seitz, former head of the United States National Academy of Sciences, in the Wall Street Journal (1996 June 12;section A:16(col 3)


> “In more than sixty years as a member of the American scientific community ... *I have never witnessed a more disturbing corruption of the peer-review process* than the events that led to this IPCC report.”


 Dr. Seitz runs the Global Petition Project. More 17,100 basic and applied American scientists, two-thirds with advanced degrees, have signed the petition, including 2,660 physicists, geophysicists, climatologists, meteorologists, oceanographers, and environmental scientists and 5,017 scientists whose fields of specialization in chemistry, biochemistry, biology, and other life sciences.

Global Petition Project


> A review of the research literature concerning the environmental consequences of increased levels of atmospheric carbon dioxide leads to the conclusion that increases during the 20th Century have produced no deleterious effects upon global weather, climate, or temperature. Increased carbon dioxide has, however, markedly increased plant growth rates. Predictions of harmful climatic effects due to future increases in minor greenhouse gases like CO2 are in error and do not conform to current experimental knowledge.


Don’t bother with the Wikipedia article. The founder of Wikipedia has been very straightforward: its own site says.



> …, there has been controversy over Wikipedia’s reliability and accuracy, with the site receiving criticism for its susceptibility to vandalism, uneven quality and inconsistency, systemic bias, and preference for consensus or popularity over credentials.


Or, as 
Andrew Orlowski quoted one succinct user in _The Register_,


> I'm relieved to see other people are also wary of information that they get from a source whose organizing principle appears to be that twenty jacka**es make an expert.


 (That might be said of other sites as well.  Smile, everyone!) 

You might also consider the Wikipedia article accusing John Seigenthaler Sr., publisher of the Nashville _Tennessean_, with conspiring to assassinate his friend, Robert Kennedy. (Wikipedia’s writeup. A less sensitive one.) 

Wikipedia founder Jimmy Wales’ admission that 


> I would say that the Wikipedia community is slightly more liberal than the U.S. population on average


is probably still a little shy of the mark. 

It’s a very hot topic, shall we say. Let me add that I believe researchers who say that Science has rejected out-of-hand not only papers but even letters to the editor that doubt global warming. This is an unconscionable practice. 

Eventually, the truth will become publicly known. Now, when that happens, are we all going to be five feet under water, or will we have 3 dozen scientists and a score of journal editors sitting in front of a hostile Congressional committee asking them why they tried to bamboozle the public? 

Before you answer, bear in mind that years ago, the same kind of scare-mongers told us that industrial activity was about to plunge the planet into another ice age. (The _Newsweek_ article is very hard to find: I can’t imagine why...) I guess, since there’s no ice age, we must be facing global warming. Or does global warming cause the ice age? Hey, claim everything! Cover all your bases: something is bound to happen! And then you’ll be right!

Science is transparent. It may be controversial, but it’s accessible. Trained people outside your field should be able to analyze and understand your arguments. If it’s closed, if the information is kept secret, if it’s some special and esoteric gnosticism available only to the Elect or the Initiated, then it isn’t science: it’s alchemy. 

I’ll bet this ends as a major scandal. I think paleoclimatology is going to end up with a bad reputation as a result. 

Unfortunately, it looks like it’s going to be justly earned.


----------



## Alcuin

Here are some names in a recent letter to the new Canadian Prime Minister. Count them yourself.

An open letter to Prime Minister Stephen Harper


> We believe the Canadian public and government decision-makers need and deserve to hear the whole story concerning this very complex issue. It *was only 30 years ago that many of today's global-warming alarmists were telling us that the world was in the midst of a global-cooling catastrophe.* But the science continued to evolve, and still does, even though so *many choose to ignore it when it does not fit with predetermined political agendas.
> 
> *...
> 
> Dr. Ian D. Clark, professor, isotope hydrogeology and paleoclimatology, Dept. of Earth Sciences, University of Ottawa
> Dr. Tad Murty, former senior research scientist, Dept. of Fisheries and Oceans, former director of Australia's National Tidal Facility and professor of earth sciences, Flinders University, Adelaide; currently adjunct professor, Departments of Civil Engineering and Earth Sciences, University of Ottawa
> Dr. R. Timothy Patterson, professor, Dept. of Earth Sciences (paleoclimatology), Carleton University, Ottawa
> Dr. Fred Michel, director, Institute of Environmental Science and associate professor, Dept. of Earth Sciences, Carleton University, Ottawa
> Dr. Madhav Khandekar, former research scientist, Environment Canada. Member of editorial board of Climate Research and Natural Hazards
> Dr. Paul Copper, FRSC, professor emeritus, Dept. of Earth Sciences, Laurentian University, Sudbury, Ont.
> Dr. Ross McKitrick, associate professor, Dept. of Economics, University of Guelph, Ont.
> Dr. Tim Ball, former professor of climatology, University of Winnipeg; environmental consultant
> Dr. Andreas Prokoph, adjunct professor of earth sciences, University of Ottawa; consultant in statistics and geology
> Mr. David Nowell, M.Sc. (Meteorology), fellow of the Royal Meteorological Society, Canadian member and past chairman of the NATO Meteorological Group, Ottawa
> Dr. Christopher Essex, professor of applied mathematics and associate director of the Program in Theoretical Physics, University of Western Ontario, London, Ont.
> Dr. Gordon E. Swaters, professor of applied mathematics, Dept. of Mathematical Sciences, and member, Geophysical Fluid Dynamics Research Group, University of Alberta
> Dr. L. Graham Smith, associate professor, Dept. of Geography, University of Western Ontario, London, Ont.
> Dr. G. Cornelis van Kooten, professor and Canada Research Chair in environmental studies and climate change, Dept. of Economics, University of Victoria
> Dr. Petr Chylek, adjunct professor, Dept. of Physics and Atmospheric Science, Dalhousie University, Halifax
> Dr./Cdr. M. R. Morgan, FRMS, climate consultant, former meteorology advisor to the World Meteorological Organization. Previously research scientist in climatology at University of Exeter, U.K.
> Dr. Keith D. Hage, climate consultant and professor emeritus of Meteorology, University of Alberta
> Dr. David E. Wojick, P.Eng., energy consultant, Star Tannery, Va., and Sioux Lookout, Ont.
> Rob Scagel, M.Sc., forest microclimate specialist, principal consultant, Pacific Phytometric Consultants, Surrey, B.C.
> Dr. Douglas Leahey, meteorologist and air-quality consultant, Calgary
> Paavo Siitam, M.Sc., agronomist, chemist, Cobourg, Ont.
> Dr. Chris de Freitas, climate scientist, associate professor, The University of Auckland, N.Z.
> Dr. Richard S. Lindzen, Alfred P. Sloan professor of meteorology, Dept. of Earth, Atmospheric and Planetary Sciences, Massachusetts Institute of Technology
> Dr. Freeman J. Dyson, emeritus professor of physics, Institute for Advanced Studies, Princeton, N.J.
> Mr. George Taylor, Dept. of Meteorology, Oregon State University; Oregon State climatologist; past president, American Association of State Climatologists
> Dr. Ian Plimer, professor of geology, School of Earth and Environmental Sciences, University of Adelaide; emeritus professor of earth sciences, University of Melbourne, Australia
> Dr. R.M. Carter, professor, Marine Geophysical Laboratory, James Cook University, Townsville, Australia
> Mr. William Kininmonth, Australasian Climate Research, former Head National Climate Centre, Australian Bureau of Meteorology; former Australian delegate to World Meteorological Organization Commission for Climatology, Scientific and Technical Review
> Dr. Hendrik Tennekes, former director of research, Royal Netherlands Meteorological Institute
> Dr. Gerrit J. van der Lingen, geologist/paleoclimatologist, Climate Change Consultant, Geoscience Research and Investigations, New Zealand
> Dr. Patrick J. Michaels, professor of environmental sciences, University of Virginia
> Dr. Nils-Axel Morner, emeritus professor of paleogeophysics & geodynamics, Stockholm University, Stockholm, Sweden
> Dr. Gary D. Sharp, Center for Climate/Ocean Resources Study, Salinas, Calif.
> Dr. Roy W. Spencer, principal research scientist, Earth System Science Center, The University of Alabama, Huntsville
> Dr. Al Pekarek, associate professor of geology, Earth and Atmospheric Sciences Dept., St. Cloud State University, St. Cloud, Minn.
> Dr. Marcel Leroux, professor emeritus of climatology, University of Lyon, France; former director of Laboratory of Climatology, Risks and Environment, CNRS
> Dr. Paul Reiter, professor, Institut Pasteur, Unit of Insects and Infectious Diseases, Paris, France. Expert reviewer, IPCC Working group II, chapter 8 (human health)
> Dr. Zbigniew Jaworowski, physicist and chairman, Scientific Council of Central Laboratory for Radiological Protection, Warsaw, Poland
> Dr. Sonja Boehmer-Christiansen, reader, Dept. of Geography, University of Hull, U.K.; editor, Energy & Environment
> Dr. Hans H.J. Labohm, former advisor to the executive board, Clingendael Institute (The Netherlands Institute of International Relations) and an economist who has focused on climate change
> Dr. Lee C. Gerhard, senior scientist emeritus, University of Kansas, past director and state geologist, Kansas Geological Survey
> Dr. Asmunn Moene, past head of the Forecasting Centre, Meteorological Institute, Norway
> Dr. August H. Auer, past professor of atmospheric science, University of Wyoming; previously chief meteorologist, Meteorological Service (MetService) of New Zealand
> Dr. Vincent Gray, expert reviewer for the IPCC and author of The Greenhouse Delusion: A Critique of 'Climate Change 2001,' Wellington, N.Z.
> Dr. Howard Hayden, emeritus professor of physics, University of Connecticut
> Dr Benny Peiser, professor of social anthropology, Faculty of Science, Liverpool John Moores University, U.K.
> Dr. Jack Barrett, chemist and spectroscopist, formerly with Imperial College London, U.K.
> Dr. William J.R. Alexander, professor emeritus, Dept. of Civil and Biosystems Engineering, University of Pretoria, South Africa. Member, United Nations Scientific and Technical Committee on Natural Disasters, 1994-2000
> Dr. S. Fred Singer, professor emeritus of environmental sciences, University of Virginia; former director, U.S. Weather Satellite Service
> Dr. Harry N.A. Priem, emeritus professor of planetary geology and isotope geophysics, Utrecht University; former director of the Netherlands Institute for Isotope Geosciences; past president of the Royal Netherlands Geological & Mining Society
> Dr. Robert H. Essenhigh, E.G. Bailey professor of energy conversion, Dept. of Mechanical Engineering, The Ohio State University
> Dr. Sallie Baliunas, astrophysicist and climate researcher, Boston, Mass.
> Douglas Hoyt, senior scientist at Raytheon (retired) and co-author of the book The Role of the Sun in Climate Change; previously with NCAR, NOAA, and the World Radiation Center, Davos, Switzerland
> Dipl.-Ing. Peter Dietze, independent energy advisor and scientific climate and carbon modeller, official IPCC reviewer, Bavaria, Germany
> Dr. Boris Winterhalter, senior marine researcher (retired), Geological Survey of Finland, former professor in marine geology, University of Helsinki, Finland
> Dr. Wibjorn Karlen, emeritus professor, Dept. of Physical Geography and Quaternary Geology, Stockholm University, Sweden
> Dr. Hugh W. Ellsaesser, physicist/meteorologist, previously with the Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory, Calif.; atmospheric consultant.
> Dr. Art Robinson, founder, Oregon Institute of Science and Medicine, Cave Junction, Ore.
> Dr. Arthur Rorsch, emeritus professor of molecular genetics, Leiden University, The Netherlands; past board member, Netherlands organization for applied research (TNO) in environmental, food and public health
> Dr. Alister McFarquhar, Downing College, Cambridge, U.K.; international economist
> Dr. Richard S. Courtney, climate and atmospheric science consultant, IPCC expert reviewer, U.K.


----------



## Alcuin

More names. Come on Barley, even you cannot believe all these people have been “bought off.” 

The Leipzig Declaration On Global Climate Change


> * we cannot subscribe to the politically inspired world view that envisages climate catastrophes and calls for hasty actions*. For this reason, we consider the drastic emission control policies deriving from the Kyoto conference -- *lacking credible support from the underlying science* -- to be ill-advised and premature.


 Signatories To The Leipzig Declaration (partial listing)


> Dr. John Apel, oceanographer, Global Oceans Associates, formerly with Johns Hopkins University Applied Physics Laboratory.
> Dr. David Aubrey, Senior Scientist, Marine Policy Center, Woods Hole Oceanographic Institute, Massachusetts
> Dr. Duwayne M. Anderson,Professor, Texas A&M University
> Dr. Robert Balling, Professor and Director of the Office of Climatology, Arizona State University; more than 80 research articles published in scientific journals; author of The Heated Debate: Greenhouse Predictions vs. Climate Reality (1992); coauthor, Interactions of Desertifications and Climate, a report for the UN Environmental Program and the World Meteorological Organization; contributor/reviewer, IPCC.
> Dr. Jack Barrett, Imperial College, London, UK
> Dr. Warren Berning, atmospheric physicist, New Mexico State University
> Dr. Jiri Blumel, Institute Sozialokon. Forschg. Usti nad Labem, Czech Republic
> Bruce Boe, atmospheric scientist and Director of the North Dakota Atmospheric Resources Board; member, American Meteorological Society; former chairman, AMS Committee on Planned and Inadvertent Weather Modification.
> Dr. C.J.F. Böttcher, Chairman of the Board, The Global Institute for the Study of Natural Resources, The Hague, The Netherlands; Professor Emeritus of physical chemistry, Leiden University; past President of the Science Policy Council of The Netherlands; former member, Scientific Council for Government Policy; former head of the Netherlands Delegation to the OECD Committee for Science and Technology; author, The Science and Fiction of the Greenhouse Effect and Carbon Dioxide; founding member of The Club of Rome.
> Dr. Arthur Bourne, Professor, University of London, UK
> Larry H. Brace, physicist, former director of the Planetary Atmospheres Branch, NASA Goddard Space Flight Center; recipient NASA Medal for Exceptional Scientific Achievement.
> Dr. Norman M.D. Brown, FRSC, Professor, University of Ulster.
> Dr. R.A.D. Byron-Scott, meteorologist, formerly senior lecturer in meteorology, Flinders Institute for Atmospheric and Marine Science, Flinders University, Adelaide, Australia
> Dr. Joseph Cain, Professor of planetary physics and geophysics, Geophysical Fluid Dynamics Institute, Florida State University; elected Fellow, American Geophysical Union; formerly with NASA Goddard Space Flight Center (scientific satellites) and the U.S. Geological Survey.
> Dr. Gabriel T. Csanady, meteorologist, Eminent Professor, Old Dominion University, Norfolk, Virginia.
> Robert Cunningham, consulting meteorologist, Fellow, American Meteorological Society
> Dr. Fred W. Decker, Professor of meteorology, Oregon State University, Corvalis, Oregon; elected Fellow, AAAS; member, RMS, NWA, AWA, AMS.
> Lee W. Eddington, meteorologist, Naval Air Warfare Center
> Dr. Hugh Ellsaesser, atmospheric scientist, Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory (1963-1986); Participating Guest Scientist, Lawrence Livermore Natl. Lab. (1986-1996), more than 40 refereed research papers and major reports in the scientific literature.
> Dr. John Emsley, Imperial College, London, UK
> Dr. Otto Franzle, Professor, University of Kiel, Germany
> Dr. C.R. de Freitas, climate scientist, University of Auckland, New Zealand, Editor of the international journal Climate Research
> Dr. John E. Gaynor, Senior Meteorologist, Environmental Technology Laboratory, National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, Boulder, Colorado
> Dr. Tor Ragnar Gerholm, Professor Emeritus of Physics, University of Stockholm, member of Nobel Prize selection committee for physics; member, Royal Swedish Academy of Sciences and Royal Swedish Academy of Engineering Sciences, author of several books on science and technology.
> Dr. Gerhard Gerlich, Professor, Technical University of Braunschweig.
> Dr. Thomas Gold, Professor of astrophysics, Cornell University, Ithaca, New York
> Dr. H.G. Goodell, Professor, University of Virginia, Charlottesville
> James D. Goodridge, climatologist, formerly with California Dept. of Water Resources.
> Dr. Adrian Gordon, meteorologist, University of South Australia.
> Prof. Dr. Eckhard Grimmel, Professor, University Hamburg, Germany.
> Dr. Nathaniel B. Guttman, Research Physical Scientist, National Climatic Data Center, Asheville, North Carolina; former Professor of atmospheric sciences/climatology; former Chairman, AMS Committee on Applied Climatology.
> Dr. Paul Handler, Professor of chemistry, University of Illinois.
> Dr. Vern Harnapp, Professor, University of Akron, Ohio
> Dr. Howard C. Hayden, Professor of physics, University of Connecticut
> Dr. Michael J. Higatsberger, Professor and former Director, Institute for Experimental Physics, University of Vienna, Austria; former Director, Seibersdorf Research Center of the Austrian Atomic Energy Agency; former President, Austrian Physical Society.
> Dr. Austin W. Hogan, meteorologist, co-editor of the journal Atmospheric Research.
> Dr. William Hubbard, Professor, University of Arizona, Dept. of Planetary Sciences; elected Fellow of the American Geophysical Union.
> Dr. Heinz Hug, lecturer, Wiesbaden, Germany
> Dr. Zbigniew Jaworski, University of Warsaw, Poland
> Dr. Kelvin Kemm, nuclear physicist, Director, Technology Strategy Consultants, Pretoria, South Africa; columnist, Engineering News; author, Techtrack: A Winding Path of South African Development.
> Dr. Robert L. Kovach, Professor of geophysics, Stanford University, Palo Alto, California
> Dr. David R. Legates, Professor of meteorology, University of Oklahoma
> Dr. Heinz H. Lettau, geophysicist, Increase A. Lapham Professor Emeritus, University of Wisconsin
> Dr. Henry R. Linden, Max McGraw Professor of Energy and Power Engineering and Management, Director, Energy and Power Center, Illinois Institute of Technology; elected Fellow, American Institute of Chemical Engineers; former member, Energy Engineering Board of the National Research Council; member, Green Technology Committee, National Academy of Engineering.
> Dr. Richard S. Lindzen, Sloane Professor of Meteorology, Center for Meteorology and Physical Meteorology, Massachusetts Institute of Technology, Cambridge, Massachusetts.
> Dr. J. P. Lodge, atmospheric chemist, Boulder, Colorado
> Dr. Anthony R. Lupo, atmospheric scientist, Professor, University of Missouri at Columbia, reviewer/contributing author, IPCC.
> Dr. George E. McVehil, meteorologist, Englewood, Colorado
> Dr. Helmut Metzner, Professor, Tubingen, Germany
> Dr. Patrick J. Michaels, Professor and Director of the State Office of Climatology, University of Virginia; more than 50 research articles published in scientific journals; past President, American Association of State Climatologists; author, Sound and Fury: The Science and Politics of Global Warming (1992); reviewer/contributing author, IPCC.
> Sir William Mitchell, physicist, University of Oxford, U.K.
> Dr. Asmunn Moene, former chief of Meteorology, Oslo, Norway.
> Laim Nagle, energy/engineering specialist, Cornfield University, UK
> Robert A. Neff, former U.S. Air Force meteorologist: member, AMS, AAAS.
> Dr. William A. Nierenberg, Director Emeritus, Scripps Institute of Oceanography, La Jolla, California; Professor Emeritus of oceanography, University of California at San Diego; former member, Council of the U.S. National Academy of Science; former Chairman, National Research Council's Carbon Dioxide Assessment Committee; former member, U.S. EPA Global Climate Change Committee; former Assistant Secretary General of NATO for scientific affairs; former Chairman, National Advisory Committee on Oceans and Atmospheres.
> Dr. William Porch, atmospheric physicist, Los Alamos National Laboratory, New Mexico.
> Dr. Harry Priem, Professor of geology, University of Utrecht
> Dr. William E. Reifsnyder, Professor Emeritus of biometeorology, Yale University; elected Fellow, American Association for the Advancement of Science; former Chairman, National Academy of Science/National Research Council Committee on Climatology; AMS Award for Outstanding Achievement in Biometeorology.
> Dr. Alexander Robertson, meteorologist, Adjunct Professor, Memorial University of Newfoundland, Canada; author of more than 200 scientific and technical publications in biometeorology and climatology, forestry, forest ecology, urban environmental forestry, and engineering technology.
> Dr. Thomas Schmidlin, CCM, Professor of meteorology/climatology, Kent State University, Ohio; editor, Ohio Journal of Science, elected Fellow, Ohio Academy of Science; member, AMS.
> Dr. Frederick Seitz, physicist, former President, Rockefeller University, former President, U.S. National Academy of Sciences; former member, President's Science Advisory Committee; recipient, U.S. National Medal of Science.
> ...


ran over the maximum 10,000 characters...


----------



## Alcuin

Barliman Butterbur said:


> On the other hand, if you (and any other TTFer questing for the truth) really do want to take a look at the methodology, you can start here and/or here.


Details, Barley, details! Complete data set and how it was constructed, and complete computer code. I checked your references. No code. I want the computer code. So do the statisticians and the “nay-sayers.” No code, no consensus, no “science.” 

If it’s gotta be secret, it’s gotta be alchemy.


----------



## Barliman Butterbur

Alcuin said:


> Details, Barley, details! Complete data set and how it was constructed, and complete computer code. I checked your references. No code. I want the computer code. So do the statisticians and the “nay-sayers.” No code, no consensus, no “science.”
> 
> If it’s gotta be secret, it’s gotta be alchemy.



I cannot for the life of me figure out what the average person, such as myself, is going to do with _computer code._ I'm more than happy to check the usual bibliographical sources using traditional research methods (which I've known how to do since grad school), which I have done and am doing, and find them to be more than satisfactory.

As for the signatories to the Leipzig Declaration: Of course I accept that these men and women sincerely disbelieve, and, that more than a few of them have some sort of axe to grind. 'Twas ever thus. I have no quarrel with that, except that it holds back the process of doing something about the problem. Credentials and qualifications are certainly no guarantee of rectitude, and most certainly not just because there are a whole list of them. Sheer numbers alone do not lend credence. 

Once upon a time all of humankind believed the earth to be flat, and all of humankind was wrong. Galileo had to actually recant his position on the structure of the solar system in order to stay alive, even though he was right and the church had a vested interest in defending their own doctrine even though it was wrong. To paraphrase William James: Truth is independent of human thought. 

In the meantime, human contribution to global warming continues to speed up the process despite all the naysayers, from the man in the street to the postdocs. Again — believe as you wish, I will never make an attempt to dissuade you, that's useless. But please consider paying less attention to computer codes and statistics and start looking at the before/after pictures, read the sites which concern themselves with animal migration, desertification, glacial melting, and the timelines in which the processes occur — but especially the photographs, both from space and on-site.

Barley


----------



## Alcuin

Barliman Butterbur said:


> I cannot for the life of me figure out what the average person, such as myself, is going to do with _computer code_...


Well, what about the other experts, Barley? They want the code! I can probably read the code. How is anybody gonna check without the code? without the complete dataset? without the assumptions and methods of preparation to the dataset? 

What are they hiding? Their reputations? Their jobs? Their power over others in their professional field? 

When someone on TTF says, “Tolkien wrote thus-and-such,” the rest of us want to see the quote. Gee, this is just a hobby. The global-warming argument is dead serious. The professionals involved want to see all the work. People who won’t produce their work cannot be trusted. 

And I think that’s all there is to this.


----------



## Eriol

I have some funny stories (and some not so funny ones) about the IPCC. Most of them related to my field, of course (emissions from reservoirs). None of them is quite publishable . The IPCC is as beset by politics as any UN organ is bound to be. 

The hockey stick graph was doubtful from the beginning, precisely because it didn't show the Medieval Warm Period (or the Little Ice Age that followed it). The response from the paleoclimatologists defending the hockey stick was to scorn the historical records of those climatic events as "anecdotal evidence". 

Yeah, the colonization of Greenland (complete with crops and animals) is "anecdotal evidence", unworthy of being compared with the detailed... tree rings which were assumed to follow a linear trend of development! Not only this is biologically false (and everybody knows that), since tree rings reflect the growth of the tree (a sick tree would show rings similar to a colder climate, and we'd never know the difference), but it is also quite stupid. I'd trust "anecdotal evidence" over this kind of _baseless premise_ any day of the week.

And this does not even begin to touch the statistics, please note -- it's all biology.


----------



## Barliman Butterbur

Alcuin said:


> Well, what about the other experts, Barley? They want the code! I can probably read the code. How is anybody gonna check without the code? without the complete dataset? without the assumptions and methods of preparation to the dataset?
> 
> What are they hiding? Their reputations? Their jobs? Their power over others in their professional field?



What about them? I go with the experts who are in agreement on global warming and trying to get the world to do something about it, not the experts who scream for computer code and stay in denial.

And Eriol's post moves me to say that, yes, accurate anecdotal reporting (which _is_ an indispensable part of science) on plant and animal biology's reactions to climate change over time trumps computer code any day of the week.

I have a feeling, Alcuin, that when all the area around your house has become part of an in-creeping desert complete with flash floods, when your coastline has retreated because of rising ocean levels to the point that the waves are lapping at your doorstep, when power outages in your neighborhood are the norm, and the average temperature of your winter is 20 degrees below and your summer is 110, when "Glacier National Park" has become a misnomer (I could go on but I won't), you will still be sputtering and spluttering "Where's the &^%$??!! _computer code?_ Until I see _computer code,_ it's ALL BOGUS!"  

Methinks your computer code, good sir, will not be forthcoming any time soon. You may have to go to other areas to find what you're looking for.  This reminds me of the story of the drunk who, one night, was searching for his keys beneath a street light. "What are you doing?" asked a passer-by. "I'm looking fer my keyzh, shtupid!" said the drunk. "Where'd you lose them?" said the passer-by. " I losht 'em over there in that dark alley!" said the drunk. "Then why are you looking for them over here???" asked the passer-by. "Becaushe the light'sh better over here!" said the drunk, _very_ indignantly.

Barley


----------



## Barliman Butterbur

Published on Monday, July 24, 2006 

*Earth 'on Verge of Major Biodiversity Crisis'*
by Haider Rizvi

NEW YORK - Mindful that life on Earth is seriously threatened by the continued loss of thousands of plant and animal species, an international group of scientists is calling for the creation of a global forum to help officials craft plans to preserve biodiversity on the planet.

"There is an urgent need to bridge the gap between science and policy to take action," says a statement from the 19-member group that cautions against the possibility of a "major biodiversity crisis" facing the Earth.

If governments fail to take appropriate actions in due course of time, the group says it is quite likely that before the end of this century a large number of plant and animal species will have completely disappeared.

The protection of biological diversity is a must for the health of the planet's ecosystems that take care of all forms of life. The ecosystems, which include forests, flowers, coral reefs, and waterways, are currently under assault as never before.

Full article

WARNING: This article contains no computer codes. 

Barley


----------



## Barliman Butterbur

Global warming comes to Los Angeles and elsewhere. It's been hell here lately — literally — and all without computer codes...

Barley


----------



## Barliman Butterbur

*GLOBAL WARMING 

Taxpayer-Funded Propaganda Against Global Warming*

Corporations from a variety of industries are funding a coordinated, multi-faceted propaganda blitz attacking global warming science. Some of the details were revealed in a memo by the Intermountain Rural Electric Association (IREA), a small electric cooperative in Colorado that purchases electricity from coal-based power plants, distributed "to the more than 900 fellow members of the National Rural Electric Cooperative Association." The memo, written by IREA general manager Stanley Lewandowski, expresses fear that government action on global warming could impact the profitability of coal-based power generation. In response, Lewandowski says it is necessary to “support the scientific community that is willing to stand up against the alarmists.” (The term "alarmist" refers to people who believe that global warming is a problem. Such people are also referred to in the memo as those "whose true motivation is to stop growth, develop renewable resources [and] discontinue the use of fossil fuels, especially coal.") One problem: there is no "scientific community" that disputes the basic science on global warming. The memo acknowledges that almost all the doubters have no "involvement in climatology." Their solution is to lavish money on the one climatologist who they are confident will do their bidding: Pat Michaels. The memo reveals that the small Colorado cooperative has paid Michaels $100,000 this year and is aggressively seeking more donations for Michaels from other electric cooperatives. The effort to fund Michaels is described in the memo as part of a larger effort to distort global warming science that involves several Fortune 500 corporations, a think tank, misleading advertisements, lobbying, and a propaganda film. 

WHO IS PAT MICHAELS?: Pat Michaels is a climate scientist based at the University of Virgina. John P. Holdren, a Harvard scientist, told the Senate Republican Policy Committee that Michaels has “published little if anything of distinction in the professional literature, being noted rather for his shrill op-ed pieces and indiscriminate denunciations of virtually every finding of mainstream climate science.” In 2003, Michaels famously “proved” that global warming was mostly hype by mixing up degrees and radians. In 2004, Michaels told Business Week, “We know how much the planet is going to warm. It is a small amount, and we can’t do anything about it.” This year, Michaels completely misrepresented a study by University of Missouri Professor Curt Davis to falsely claim that Antarctica has been gaining ice in recent years. Michaels' views about climate change are at odds with the conclusion of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, a rigorously peer-reviewed report that involved thousands of scientists from over 100 countries, which concluded, "There is new and stronger evidence that most of the warming observed over the last 50 years is attributable to human activities" and that, absent aggressive mitigation efforts, future warming will be significant and dangerous. (For a plan on how to move forward, see the recommendations of the International Climate Change Task Force.)

SUBSIDIZING PROPAGANDA: Your tax dollars are paying for propaganda attacking global warming science. The Intermountain Rural Electric Association, like all electric cooperatives, is federally-subsidized. So when the IREA gives $100,000 to Pat Michaels, some of that comes from federal taxpayers. The group that is being exploited the most is the IREA's 130,000 "members," who finance the cooperative -- and Michaels' $100,000 payday -- with their electricity bills. Lewandowski admitted he did not inform his members, who he supposedly represents, before paying Michaels. Ron Binz, the former Colorado state utility consumer advocate called the payment to Michaels "outrageous. It's an abuse of authority." Binz explained, "Intermountain is a rural electric cooperative. The customers are member-owners. Stan Lewandowski is basically spending other people's money."

THE BROADER CONSPIRACY: In the memo, Lewandowski also described larger efforts to distort global warming science. According to Lewandowski, "Koch Industries is working with other large corporations including AEP and the Southern Company on possibly financing a film that would counteract An Inconvenient Truth." (An Inconvenient Truth, Al Gore's movie on the dangers of global warming, is currently the fourth highest grossing documentary of all time.) According to the memo, Koch Industries will also finance a coalition attacking global warming science "administered by the National Association of Manufactures." The memo also stresses the importance of the Competitive Enterprise Institute (CEI), an anti-global warming science "think tank" heavily funded by Exxon Mobil and other corporations, in these efforts. Lewandowski notes that Michaels, CEI, and Koch meet regularly to "discuss their activities."

Click here to read the article with all the links that lead to other details.

===============================

This article, simply by virtue of its _existence_ is proof positive to me that global warming very much exists. 

This point is this: There is a _concerted effort_ by the fossil fuel industry to downplay/deny the FACT of global warming, and they are going to keep on disseminating disinformation (read that "lies") until they can squeeze out every last penny of shortsighted _profit_ that they can before we all go to hell in a handbasket. Anyone who cries "bogus" needs to re-examine their beliefs and take another look at their sources _and who's funding them._

Barley


----------



## Barliman Butterbur

*Global warming: Signed, sealed and delivered*

BY NAOMI ORESKES
07/30/2006

An op-ed article in The Wall Street Journal a month ago claimed that a published study affirming the existence of a scientific consensus on the reality of global warming had been refuted. This charge was repeated again in a hearing of the House Committee on Energy and Commerce.

I am the author of that study, which appeared two years ago in the journal Science, and I'm here to tell you that the consensus stands. The argument put forward in the Wall Street Journal was based on an Internet posting; it has not appeared in a peer-reviewed journal -- the normal way to challenge an academic finding. (The Wall Street Journal didn't even get my name right!)

My study demonstrated that there is no significant disagreement within the scientific community that the Earth is warming and that human activities are the principal cause.

Full article here.

Barley


----------



## Uminya

The more articles I read on the matter and the more I'm beginning to believe that no matter how tough you are on industrial/transport pollution, the Earth is still going to warm up. The amounts of greenhouse gasses that our food production yields (i.e. livestock and rice paddies) are tremendous. It may be that whatever progress we make on reducing emissions from factories and automobiles, it won't change enough because we're producing too much elsewhere. There are too many people to feed.

The unfortunate part is that I am confident that nature will balance itself out by freezing the world again, which will result in the loss of most of the problem (which is the human population). The problems of overpopulation and global warming go hand-in-hand.


----------



## Barliman Butterbur

Ciryaher said:


> The more articles I read on the matter and the more I'm beginning to believe that no matter how tough you are on industrial/transport pollution, the Earth is still going to warm up. The amounts of greenhouse gasses that our food production yields (i.e. livestock and rice paddies) are tremendous. It may be that whatever progress we make on reducing emissions from factories and automobiles, it won't change enough because we're producing too much elsewhere. There are too many people to feed.
> 
> The unfortunate part is that I am confident that nature will balance itself out by freezing the world again, which will result in the loss of most of the problem (which is the human population). The problems of overpopulation and global warming go hand-in-hand.



You are right. No matter what measures we take, we've set a warming trend going. Even if we stopped everything we're doing RIGHT NOW, and replant the Amazon, the earth would still go on warming. And you're right again: the earth is always seeking homeostasis. The unfortunate part is that earthly equilibrium, once reached, may be fine for the planet, but be — as you say — disastrous for mankind. If we see Man as the cancer of the planet, we must remind ourselves that all diseases are self-limiting...

Barley


----------



## Ermundo

Barliman Butterbur said:


> You are right. No matter what measures we take, we've set a warming trend going. Even if we stopped everything we're doing RIGHT NOW, and replant the Amazon, the earth would still go on warming. And you're right again: the earth is always seeking homeostasis. The unfortunate part is that earthly equilibrium, once reached, may be fine for the planet, but be — as you say — disastrous for mankind. If we see Man as the cancer of the planet, we must remind ourselves that all diseases are self-limiting...
> 
> Barley




It seems to me now that the question is not whether Global Warming is a baseless theory or a potential catastorphe, but what we can do about it to slow it down. There's no doubt now that Global Warming isn't an issue; there are simply to many effects that compute with it for there to be any doubt. If we, man, are the cancer of the Planet, than what can we do to cure it. 

Anyone in the U.S right now know's about the Heatwave going on. Heck, I heard LA hit record high's recently. In fact, all of the Continental U.S has been at least 90 North, but it's not as bad here as it's in Europe. Countries such as France and others are becoming hotter than Turkey or the Middle-East during the summers, to the point that people are dying of the heat. If this keeps up, than in twenty years scientists are saying that major cities in Europe may be to hot to live in.

Just thought I'd share a bit of what I'm hearing.




Morgoththe1


----------



## Uminya

I don't think it's so much that Europe is becoming hotter than the middle east (which it isn't, since the high 30's and occaisional 40 here are nothing compared to the 50's of Baghdad), it's that Europeans are not used to the heat. But the fact remains that temperatures are soaring.

The best way for man to be less of a cancer would involve there being less cancer. But then we delve into the realms of fancy (space colonization, contraceptives) or terror (population reduction).


----------



## Shireman D

Ciryaher said:


> I don't think it's so much that Europe is becoming hotter than the middle east (which it isn't, since the high 30's and occaisional 40 here are nothing compared to the 50's of Baghdad), it's that Europeans are not used to the heat. But the fact remains that temperatures are soaring.


 
The corner of the Shire that I live in now has less rainfall than anywhere in the Middle East or North Africa.


----------



## Barliman Butterbur

Ciryaher said:


> I don't think it's so much that Europe is becoming hotter than the middle east (which it isn't, since the high 30's and occaisional 40 here are nothing compared to the 50's of Baghdad), it's that Europeans are not used to the heat. But the fact remains that temperatures are soaring.



How is it that your Lebanese flag avatar looks so much like the Oregon license plate?  

And Shireman: What farthing do you live in? We're still getting plenty of rain in Bree.

Barley


----------



## Shireman D

Barliman Butterbur said:


> And Shireman: What farthing do you live in? We're still getting plenty of rain in Bree.
> 
> Barley


 
Down in the deep south-east: rain, I remember rain, we had some ten days ago, half an inch in twenty minutes; nothing since though.

This causes enormous seasonal confusion for us down in the corner blokes because - I should explain to those in other parts of the world - in England we used to be able to tell it was summer because the rain got warmer but if there is no rain how is one to tell it is summer?


----------



## Barliman Butterbur

Published on Friday, August 11, 2006

*Greenland's Ice Cap is Melting at a Frighteningly Fast Rate*

by David Perlman

The vast ice cap that covers Greenland nearly three miles thick is melting faster than ever before on record, and the pace is speeding year by year, according to global climate watchers gathering data from twin satellites that probe the effects of warming on the huge northern island.

The consequence is already evident in a small but ominous rise in sea levels around the world, a pace that is also accelerating, the scientists say.

According to the scientists' data, Greenland's ice is melting at a rate three times faster than it was only five years ago. The estimate of the melting trend that has been observed for nearly a decade comes from a University of Texas team monitoring a satellite mission that measures changes in the Earth's gravity over the entire Greenland ice cap as the ice melts and the water flows down into the Arctic ocean.

"We have only been watching the ice cap melt during a relatively short period," physicist Jianli Chen said Thursday, "but we are seeing the strongest evidence of it yet, and in the near future the pace of melting will accelerate even more."

The same satellites tracking Greenland's ice cap also are monitoring the melt rate of Antarctica's ice cover, and there too the melting is adding to the global rise in sea level, according to another team of scientists.

Next to Antarctica, Greenland, a self-governing Danish territory, is the largest reservoir of fresh water on Earth and holds about 10 percent of the world's supply. The increasing flow of fresh water -- most of it from glaciers melting on Greenland's eastern coast -- is already beginning to change the composition of the ocean's salt water currents flowing past Northwestern Europe, the scientists say.

The result could be a critical change in the composition of the main ocean current that flows past Europe's northern edge, blocking off warmer waters that normally flow there and -- ironically -- making Northern Europe's weather colder than normal, at least temporarily, while the rest of the globe continues warming.

The report on Greenland is being published today in the on-line edition of the journal Science by the University of Texas scientists at Austin, including Chen, aerospace engineer Byron Tapley and geologist Clark Wilson.

According to the researchers, surface melting of Greenland's ice cap reached 57 cubic miles a year between April of 2002 and November of 2005, compared to about 19 cubic miles a year between 1997 and 2003.

"The sobering thing is to see that the whole process of glacial melting is stepping up much more rapidly than before," said Tapley in a statement.

If the Greenland ice cap ever melted completely -- a highly unlikely event, at least in the foreseeable future -- the scientists estimate it would raise world's sea level by an average of 6.5 meters, or about 21 feet, more than enough to drown all the world's low-lying islands and even some entire nations, like Holland.

The possibility of future sea level rises becomes even more evident when Antarctica's huge ice sheets are considered.

Only last March two University of Colorado physicists used the same satellite system to measure melting of ice on the Antarctic continent. Although earlier evidence using other techniques appeared to show that the East Antarctica ice sheet was actually thickening, satellite data gathered by Isabella Velicogna and John Wahr at Boulder found that melting -- primarily from the West Antarctic Ice Sheet -- had turned at least 36 cubic miles of ice to fresh water each year from 2002 to 2005.

A recent report from the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change -- known as the IPCC -- estimated that during all of the past century worldwide melting ice from global warming had raised sea levels by only two-tenths of a millimeter a year, or about 20 inches for the entire century.

But, according to Chen and his Texas team, the melting of Greenland's ice cap is already raising global sea levels by six-tenths of a millimeter each year, and the Colorado group estimates that melting of the West Antarctic Ice Sheet alone is adding up to four-tenths of a millimeter of fresh water to sea levels each year. In other words, the global sea level, due to melting of the ice in Greenland and Antarctica combined, is already rising 10 times faster than the IPPC's tentative estimates, the two analyses indicate.

Both the Texas and Colorado groups have been obtaining their data from two satellites known as GRACE, the Gravity Recovery and Climate Experiment, which fly in orbit 137 miles apart and determine with extraordinary accuracy just how the mass of even small regions of the Earth change as ice melts and flows away from the land to the sea.

The GRACE satellite mission is due to end next year, but the Texas team is awaiting NASA approval for a new and improved satellite system to continue the work, using laser beams rather than microwaves to measure ice cap melting, Chen said.

In a recent summary of the ice cap melting problem and its effect on sea levels reported by Richard Kerr in Science, geoscientist Michael Oppenheimer of Princeton said, "The time scale for future loss of most of an ice sheet may not be millennia," as glacier models have suggested, "but centuries."

Source: http://www.sfgate.com/

===============================

Barley


----------



## Shireman D

Have you seen the new study published this weekend showing that Spring is coming more than a week earlier now across the whole of Europe. Autumn is ending later as well.

Blamey nuisance 'tis too: I was still cutting the grass in November last year and had to restart before the middle of March this year: that's barely three months off when I would have expected four or a bit more in the past.


----------



## Alcuin

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/england/tyne/5283278.stm


> Researchers at Newcastle University looked at temperature trends in the western Himalaya over the past century.
> 
> They found warmer winters and cooler summers, combined with more snow and rainfall, could be causing some mountain glaciers to increase in size.


What an extraordinary theory! Next week: "New Ice Age Proves Global Warming"


----------



## Barliman Butterbur

Alcuin said:


> http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/england/tyne/5283278.stm
> What an extraordinary theory! Next week: "New Ice Age Proves Global Warming"


Well, just who the _double diddley dickens_ are the people at Newcastle, and what's their rung on the climate science validity ladder anyway? One of the things I've learned from the dispatches that come to me via Google Alert/global warming is that there is a loopy coterie of people out there hellbent on disproving global warming for any number of reasons. I put them in the same category as those who still insist that the earth is flat, that the whole 1969 moon trip was faked, and that Elvis Presley was spotted just last week in an Albanian hayloft.

Barley


----------



## Ermundo

Barliman Butterbur said:


> Well, just who the _double diddley dickens_ are the people at Newcastle, and what's their rung on the climate science validity ladder anyway? One of the things I've learned from the dispatches that come to me via Google Alert/global warming is that there is a loopy coterie of people out there hellbent on disproving global warming for any number of reasons. I put them in the same category as those who still insist that the earth is flat, that the whole 1969 moon trip was faked, and that Elvis Presley was spotted just last week in an Albanian hayloft.
> 
> Barley




Amen Barley! Spoken like a true man.


----------



## Gandalf White

Barliman Butterbur said:


> Well, just who the _double diddley dickens_ are the people at Newcastle, and what's their rung on the climate science validity ladder anyway? One of the things I've learned from the dispatches that come to me via Google Alert/global warming is that there is a loopy coterie of people out there hellbent on disproving global warming for any number of reasons. I put them in the same category as those who still insist that the earth is flat, that the whole 1969 moon trip was faked, and that Elvis Presley was spotted just last week in an Albanian hayloft.
> 
> Barley



You put everybody who disagrees with you in that category. 

The article in question was not disputing global warming. Rather, it accepted global warming as a "fact," and stated that it was (strangely enough) causing certain glaciers to grow. Perhaps you should try reading articles that others post before dismissing them with your (rather humorous) condescending airs. 

Anyway...

Can anyone tell me how much pollution volcanoes put into the air in a single eruption?

How about forest fires?

So global warming is taking place. I don't like the panic associated with it. Nor do I like the "blame those damn humans" aspect of it. The earth warms and cools naturally. Maybe humans sped it along, maybe not. 

What does everyone think of the Ice Age that happened millions (or billions?) of years ago, and covered North America? Certainly, we can't blame that on humankind. Nor can we blame humankind for the end of that particular Ice Age. 

I'm rambling, though. Thoughts anyone?


----------



## Barliman Butterbur

Gandalf White said:


> You put everybody who disagrees with you in that category.



Oh, piffle. 



> The article in question was not disputing global warming. Rather, it accepted global warming as a "fact," and stated that it was (strangely enough) causing certain glaciers to grow. Perhaps you should try reading articles that others post before dismissing them with your (rather humorous) condescending airs.



I did read it. And making glaciers grow wasn't even mentioned. What I read appeared to be some very important discoveries about how global warming is destroying coral reefs. Perhaps we read different things. Assuming _you_ read a Newcastle U. article on growing glaciers, how does that work? How does global warming make glaciers grow? And how does that factor in to the fact that glaciers are warming and melting faster than ever? Somehow I can't see both things happening at once. You wanted "thoughts" — those are them!

•••

Aha! We did read different articles. I found the one you were talking about (at least I think I did), and here's some of the offending text:

"New research into climate change in the Western Himalaya and the surrounding Karakoram and Hindu Kush mountains could explain why many glaciers there are growing and not melting.

"The findings suggest this area, known as the Upper Indus Basin, could be reacting differently to global warming, the phenomenon blamed for causing glaciers in the Eastern Himalaya, Nepal and India, to melt and shrink.

"Researchers from Newcastle University, UK, who publish their findings in the American Meteorological Society's Journal of Climate, looked at temperature trends in the Upper Indus Basin over the last century.

"They found a recent increase in winter temperatures and a cooling of summer temperatures. These trends, combined with an increase in snow and rainfall - a finding from earlier in their research - could be causing glaciers to grow, at least in the higher mountain regions."

Well well wellawell. They are _very_ careful to couch their assertions in appropriately tentative phraseology such as "_could_ explain;" "The findings _suggest_"; "_could_ be causing"; etc. Furthermore, they were not discussing a general worldwide trend, but a very specific (and damn cold!) area: the Himalyas! So what they are saying is that _maybe_ global warming's extremes _could_ make cold places _at high altitudes_ colder (which _could/might/maybe_ account for _possible_ glacier growth in that _specific_ locale). But that does not negate the measured and indisputable _fact_ of the current melting of the Greenland ice cap and the poles.

Okay — so — it appears that in some places glaciers grow and in others they melt. And one will not make up for the other, either. I expect glacial melting to outpace glacial freezing much faster by far, and we are in for serious trouble. (By the way, at Mt. Kilamanjaro in Tanzania, a place with similar altitude I believe, the snows are melting so fast that it appears likely that in 10 years there will _be no more_ "Snows of Kilimanjaro." A photograph taken in 2005 is startling, showing a dull brown mountain with just a few snow patches, never mind a glacier!)

Barley


----------



## Gandalf White

Gandalf White said:


> Can anyone tell me how much pollution volcanoes put into the air in a single eruption?
> 
> How about forest fires?
> 
> So global warming is taking place. I don't like the panic associated with it. Nor do I like the "blame those damn humans" aspect of it. The earth warms and cools naturally. Maybe humans sped it along, maybe not.
> 
> What does everyone think of the Ice Age that happened millions (or billions?) of years ago, and covered North America? Certainly, we can't blame that on humankind. Nor can we blame humankind for the end of that particular Ice Age.



I'm restating my previous post, because this was the portion that I wanted comments/thoughts on. 

Anyone?


----------



## Shireman D

Gandalf White said:


> I'm restating my previous post, because this was the portion that I wanted comments/thoughts on.
> 
> Anyone?


 
Volcanoes seem to have mixed effects: there is some evidence that really big eruptions disrupt the weather system causing cold and damp conditions by wallopping so much sulphurous mix into the upper atmosphere that the sun's rays do not get through as well as usual. As it happens there was a programme on BBC2 last night that described the results of an 1815 eruption in Indonesia that caused so much disruption that 1816 was known as the 'year with no summer' in UK. Apparently it is the same effect as the theoretical 'nuclear winter'.

Another incident was concerned with a dormant volcano in the Cameroon that has a large lake in its caldera where CO2 builds up. When the lake is disturbed this gas is burped up causing a low cloud of noxious gas to spread across surrounding fields with significant loss of human and animal life by suffocation. Now that they have figured out what happened there is a venting system in place so that the gasses cannot build up in the same way. That amount of CO2 must be quite large (there was no reliable data on how much came up in the last fatal burp) but must also be part of the background gas that plant life deals with, surely?


----------



## Barliman Butterbur

"Fatal burps" — good lord, what a concept! Reminds me of some of my old drinking buddies in the Air Force Band...  

Barley


----------



## Gandalf White

Interesting facts on volcanoes.  

For some reason, global warming is becoming rather interesting. Perhaps I just wish to avoid my more mandatory studies.

So, more questions: Are we losing ice at both poles? How much has been lost so far?

I apologize if these questions have been addressed in previous pages, but I'm off to read Billy Budd.

I hate Herman Melville...


----------



## Barliman Butterbur

Published on Thursday, September 14, 2006 by Reuters
*World has 10-Year Window to Act on Climate Warming - NASA Expert*
by Mary Milliken

SACRAMENTO, California - A leading U.S. climate researcher said on Wednesday the world has a 10-year window of opportunity to take decisive action on global warming and avert a weather catastrophe.

NASA scientist James Hansen, widely considered the doyen of American climate researchers, said governments must adopt an alternative scenario to keep carbon dioxide emission growth in check and limit the increase in global temperatures to 1 degree Celsius (1.8 degrees Fahrenheit).

"I think we have a very brief window of opportunity to deal with climate change ... no longer than a decade, at the most," Hansen said at the Climate Change Research Conference in California's state capital.

If the world continues with a "business as usual" scenario, Hansen said temperatures will rise by 2 to 3 degrees Celsius (3.6 to 7.2 degrees F) and "we will be producing a different planet".

On that warmer planet, ice sheets would melt quickly, causing a rise in sea levels that would put most of Manhattan under water. The world would see more prolonged droughts and heat waves, powerful hurricanes in new areas and the likely extinction of 50 percent of species.

Hansen, who heads NASA's Goddard Institute for Space Studies, has made waves before by saying that U.S. President George W. Bush's administration tried to silence him and heavily edited his and other scientists' findings on a warmer world.

He reiterated that the United States "has passed up the opportunity" to influence the world on global warming.

The United States is the largest emitter of greenhouse gases, most notably carbon dioxide. But Bush pulled the country out of the 160-nation Kyoto Protocol in 2001, arguing that the treaty's mandatory curbs on emissions would harm the economy.

Hansen praised California for taking the "courageous" step of passing legislation on global warming last month that will make it the first U.S. state to place caps on greenhouse gas emissions.

He said the alternative scenario he advocates involves promoting energy efficiency and reducing dependence on carbon burning fuels.

"We cannot burn off all the fossil fuels that are readily available without causing dramatic climate change," Hansen said. "This is not something that is a theory. We understand the carbon cycle well enough to say that."

Copyright © 2006 Reuters Ltd

Source

FAIR USE NOTICE -- This dispatch contains copyrighted material the use of which has not always been specifically authorized by the copyright owner. We are making such material available in our efforts to advance understanding of environmental, political, human rights, economic, democracy, scientific, and social justice issues, etc. We believe this constitutes a 'fair use' of any such copyrighted material as provided for in section 107 of the US Copyright Law. In accordance with Title 17 U.S.C. Section 107, the material of this dispatch is distributed without profit to those who have expressed a prior interest in receiving the included information for research and educational purposes. For more information go to: http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/17/107.shtml. If you wish to use copyrighted material from this dispatch for purposes of your own that go beyond 'fair use', you must obtain permission from the copyright owner.

###

Barley


----------



## Barliman Butterbur

Published on Thursday, September 14, 2006 by the San Francisco Chronicle
*Even in Winter, Arctic Ice Melting
Alarmed Scientists Warn that Polar Thawing Threatens Wildlife and is 'Strongest Evidence Yet of Global Warming' in Region*
by Jane Kay

The vast expanses of ice floating in the Arctic Sea are melting in winter as well as in the summer, likely because of global warming, NASA scientists said Wednesday.

"This is the strongest evidence yet of global warming in the Arctic,'' said Josefino Comiso, a research scientist at NASA's Goddard Space Flight Center in Greenbelt, Md.

And if the ice continued to melt at the current rate, Comiso said, it could have profound effects on all life in the Arctic and other consequences around the world.

Particularly hard hit would be the polar bears, which live on the ice, he said. Sea ice also provides oxygen-rich cold water needed for the growth of phytoplankton. A decline in the number of the tiny plants could have a cascading effect on the food supply of fish and crustaceans, seals and the other marine mammals.

The size of this summer's Arctic ice won't be known for a few weeks because it usually reaches its smallest size the third week of September. Last year, scientists found that polar ice twice the size of Texas had melted since NASA started compiling satellite data 27 years ago. Scientists said there could be no ice left in the Arctic in the summer by the end of the century.

Until 2005, the wintertime sea ice -- which is thick and multilayered -- had been relatively stable. In the summer, the ice is thinner, more mobile and melts at the edges every spring before freezing up again in the autumn.

In the last two winters -- 2005 and 2006 -- the size of the sea ice was 6 percent smaller than average, the data show. The sea ice in the Northern Hemisphere covers nearly 10 million square miles in the winter. The melting -- most of it occurring in the eastern Arctic near the North Pole -- correlates with a rise in the ocean's surface water temperature.

The melting period is growing by 15 days each decade, meaning less time for ice to grow back, experts said.

When Comiso saw the decline of winter sea ice in 2005, he said, "it was only one year, and I didn't think it was so serious.''

However, based on NASA data, his computer simulations and two years of melting ice, "this has a very large chance of continuing," he said.

Already a greater number of polar bears have been showing up in Inuit communities in the Arctic, apparently searching for food, said NASA researcher Claire Parkinson.

The bears use the sea ice to hunt seals and other marine mammals. "When the ice retreats, they have to come on the land. Normally, when they're on the land, they're not eating,'' she said.

The bears come on land more often now, she said, because they're probably hungrier and afraid of being stranded on a retreating floe, she said.

Parkinson and Ian Stirling, a biologist in the Canadian Wildlife Service, published a study in the journal Arctic this month showing that the polar bear population is shrinking, even though there have been more sightings. Instead, the Hudson Bay population has declined from 1,200 bears in 1989 to 950 bears in 2004, and the weight of adult females has dropped. None of the 18 other populations in the Arctic has grown, either, she said.

It's not impossible that the sea ice could recover in coming years, Parkinson said.

"The possibility is there that the Arctic will recover, but that is not as likely as that it will continue to decrease,'' she said.

The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service is considering listing the polar bear as a threatened species under the Endangered Species Act and is conducting studies in the North Slope of Alaska and elsewhere in the Arctic.

The loss of Arctic sea ice has global effects, scientists say.

Sea ice is made of frozen ocean water, and when it melts, it doesn't raise the ocean's level as do melting glaciers and ice sheets. But less sea ice means a smaller area of ice to reflect radiation away from Earth, and the dark, open water absorbs heat. Both phenomena could accelerate the world's warming, scientists say.

"We're seeing an overall pattern of global warming,'' said Mark Serreze, senior research scientist at the National Snow and Ice Data Center in Boulder, Colo., which joined NASA scientists in a telephone news conference Wednesday.

Ice core borings in Antarctica have produced a record of historic carbon dioxide concentrations over the last 600,000 years. The borings show that the levels of carbon dioxide, a greenhouse gas, are at their highest ever because of the burning of fossil fuels, Serreze said.

Serreze said he was surprised to see a new lake, or polynya, the size of Maryland, opening up in the sea ice north of the Beaufort Sea.

In 20 years of looking at sea ice, he has never seen anything like it.

"If you asked me five years ago if it was human activity (causing global warming) versus natural variability, I was a fence-sitter,'' Serreze said.

"The magnitude of the changes is starting to rise above the noise of natural variability. There is a continuing trend. What we see in the Arctic is part of a much larger picture. We hate to say, 'We told you so.' But we told you so.''

Copyright © 2006 San Francisco Chronicle

Source

FAIR USE NOTICE -- This dispatch contains copyrighted material the use of which has not always been specifically authorized by the copyright owner. We are making such material available in our efforts to advance understanding of environmental, political, human rights, economic, democracy, scientific, and social justice issues, etc. We believe this constitutes a 'fair use' of any such copyrighted material as provided for in section 107 of the US Copyright Law. In accordance with Title 17 U.S.C. Section 107, the material of this dispatch is distributed without profit to those who have expressed a prior interest in receiving the included information for research and educational purposes. For more information go to: http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/17/107.shtml. If you wish to use copyrighted material from this dispatch for purposes of your own that go beyond 'fair use', you must obtain permission from the copyright owner.

###

Barley


----------



## Barliman Butterbur

*Da Sun Ain't Got Nuttin' ta Do Wid It*

A story appearing in today's CNN says that the sun's energy output has barely varied over the past 1,000 years. Ergo, global warming has much more to do with human rather than celestial shenanigans.

Researchers from Germany, Switzerland and the United States found that the sun's brightness varied by only 0.07 percent over 11-year sunspot cycles. The Industrial Revolution is the more likely culprit for global warming.

Full story here

Barley


----------



## Gandalf White

> And global Ice Ages, like the last one which ended about 10,000 years ago, seem linked to cyclical shifts in the earth's orbit around the sun rather than to changes in solar output.



It would be linked to warming too, I would imagine. 



> Still, the report also said there could be other, more subtle solar effects on the climate, such as from cosmic rays or ultraviolet radiation. It said they would be hard to detect.


----------



## Barliman Butterbur

*Aspen sunflower warns of global warming*

MOUNT HOOD, Ore., Sept. 19 (UPI) -- A U.S. biologist says the Aspen sunflower of the Rocky Mountains could be a "canary in the mine," warning of the consequences of global warming.

University of Maryland Biology Professor David Inouye says the buds of aspen sunflowers have been killed by frost in each of the past seven years, meaning they aren't producing flowers, and, therefore, not producing seeds.

Full story here.

Barley


----------



## Barliman Butterbur

*Pentagon and British Scientists: Global warming will destroy us unless something's done fast:*

http://observer.guardian.co.uk/international/story/0,6903,1153513,00.html

Barley


----------



## greypilgrim

The so called global warming scare reminds me of the 1970's, when they were telling us there was going to be another ice age soon. I think alot of the big phenomenon global warming has become... is just a ruse to get the sheeple's, I mean the people's, minds of of more important things....but since politics are forbidden, can't discuss those.

I believe the earth is heating up, because evidence exists it is happening. What I reject is the notion humans are responsible, the notion that the planet is in a state of dire emergency, etc. Scare tactics, in my opinion.

Alternate forms of energy have been available for decades, why have not they been used more. A car that runs on water is a reality, has been for decades. So why aren't you driving one?


----------



## Barliman Butterbur

greypilgrim said:


> The so called global warming scare reminds me of the 1970's, when they were telling us there was going to be another ice age soon. I think alot of the big phenomenon global warming has become... is just a ruse to get the sheeple's, I mean the people's, minds of of more important things....but since politics are forbidden, can't discuss those.
> 
> I believe the earth is heating up, because evidence exists it is happening. What I reject is the notion humans are responsible, the notion that the planet is in a state of dire emergency, etc. Scare tactics, in my opinion.
> 
> Alternate forms of energy have been available for decades, why have not they been used more. A car that runs on water is a reality, has been for decades. So why aren't you driving one?



You certainly have the right to your beliefs, and I'm not going to try to change them. I think that over time, the sheer evidentiary pressure of the mounting facts will force a change as they are finally overwhelmed by not only scientific assertion, but by what you continue to read in the news, and as you personally experience the climate change in your own area. You will find your views changing willy nilly as climate change continues apace, finally affecting you personally. 

And if your opinion is only that, it holds no weight. If you have investigated reliable sources that show beyond all doubt that it is happening, then I submit you have a vested interest in denial — which is also your right.

Barley


----------



## greypilgrim

Barliman Butterbur said:


> I think that over time, the sheer evidentiary pressure of the mounting facts will force a change as they are finally overwhelmed by not only scientific assertion, but by what you continue to read in the news, and as you personally experience the climate change in your own area.


17,900 (and that number is growing) American scientists disagree with you. http://www.oism.org/pproject/s33p357.htm

The climate change I experinced in my own area is this: Winter lasts longer, summers are hotter. It's funny that when you bring up the fact that some areas are cooler for a longer period of time than previously, the global warmists refute that one effect of global warming is cooler temperatures. How convienent! 



Barliman Butterbur said:


> And if your opinion is only that, it holds no weight. If you have investigated reliable sources that show beyond all doubt that it is happening, then I submit you have a vested interest in denial — which is also your right.
> 
> Barley


I deny the official party line that humans and our technology is responsible. I also deny the planet is in a state of emergency. Since Fat Al's AGW scam has nothing to do with science, and everything to do with him and his cronies making more money, (the tax on thin air i.e. carbon tax says it all), I empathically deny it. They know that the sun is causing global warming and they're twisting it every which way to convince everyone that sending them yet even more money through taxes will keep the cows from farting in the field. (one of the absurd reasons they gave as a contributing factor in global warming).

I'm not buying it.


----------



## greypilgrim

A vid presenting a rational viewpoint on the political (not environmental) movement of global warming. 

http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=2332531355859226455&q=great+global+warming+swindle


----------



## Barliman Butterbur

greypilgrim said:


> I'm not buying it.



I'm not trying to convince you. And the sheer number of people who also are not buying it (and it would be interesting to see who's funding the scientist nay-sayers) does not move me to change my beliefs either. Human-caused global warming will — in time — be either proven or disproven to the satisfaction and/or consternation of one and all.

Since you have offered a con-global warming website, here is a pro-global warming website from Pew Research: http://www.pewclimate.org/global-warming-basics/. Let all our good TTFers examine and explore both sites and come to their own conclusions. 

Barley
• Wow, they have the Internet on computers now! —_Homer Simpson_


----------



## Barliman Butterbur

Alas, today, November 17th is the day that the IPCC issued their Fourth Assessment Report, and it is quite dire. Global warming is under way, and is proceeding at a much faster rate than anyone could have predicted. Many markers have gone past the "red line." I haven't read the full reports (there are three parts), but I downloaded and printed out the summary, and it is grim indeed. On the other hand if the world's powers can put aside their differences; if big business can let go of immediate profit as the prime directive and shift over into mediative approaches, we can deal with this thing. We MUST. 

You can also read a report on the report from today's Washington Post:

I'm reminded of a fable told by a spiritual leader from India:

The mouse was blindly terrified by the cat, who blindly hated the mouse and wanted to destroy her at all costs. One day the cat had the mouse cornered, and just as he was about to pounce and eat, they were _both_ seized by a python! Yet so great was the cat's hate and so great was the mouse's fear that even though both of them were seconds away from death, the mouse spent its last moments in blind fear of the cat, and the cat in blind hatred of the mouse. The cat died trying to get to mouse and the mouse died trying to get away from the cat.

We humans are the cats and mice; global warming is the python. We need to stop going at each other and deal with the thing that will surely overtake and destroy us all if we go on as we are. Those who are still in denial have their heads in the sand.

Barley


----------



## Mike

> We humans are the cats and mice; global warming is the python. We need to stop going at each other and deal with the thing that will surely overtake and destroy us all if we go on as we are. Those who are still in denial have their heads in the sand.


 
Quite true. In the scientific world, in fact, there is very little disagreement behind the causes and effects of global warming. There is, however, a campaign by naysayers to confuse most people by exploiting the media's attempts to present "unbiased" reporting by presenting both sides of an issue. The thing is, there is no real "controversy" on the matter. Climate is changing. Whitehorse weather is getting more erratic -- winters warmer, summers cooler. And no, I'm not really hapy about warmer winters in the Yukon if the summers aren't as hot, because I'm only in Whitehorse for the summer and Christmas until 2010.

As for the causes: imagine how much humans have been exploiting nature since the industrial revolution. Don't deny it. Don't resort to Gaia theory. We ruined Earth. Now we'd better fix it before New York is under water and people are sailing over Toronto.

There's too much old positivist and "modernist" thought going around for our own good -- close your eyes, let the higher-ups do the thinking, and eventually everything will get better. It won't. Science is neutral, it has done as much to screw up the planet and human society as it has done to help. 

All the issue has around it now is a mass of confusion. Which means I'm not very confident in my generation in righting the mistakes of he past. That's the usual way of things, isn't it? The hopeful new generation end up in the same cycle as the old.

*Sigh*

Sorry for the ramblings. It's a contentious issue that I don't believe should actually be contentious. Sometimes I just feel powerless against anything.


----------



## Eledhwen

Powerless ... I know what you mean. We can ride a bicycle to work, but China is building a new coal fired power station every week.

I never believed the "50 years from now" and "150 years from now" predictions that were being bandied about until quite recently. Why not? I'm no scientist, but I remember from school that this sort of thing tends to be _precipitous_ not gradual. It also occurred to me that there is no computer model based on actual historical events that can be called on ... just educated guesswork.

When a huge ice shelf parted company with Antarctica, anyone who melted an ice cube at school would have known that the rest of the Antarctic was melting too. Scientists predicted rising sea levels. What we have got is sudden tidal surges wiping out thousands of lives at once.

There is real evil at the heart of a leadership that fails to act; maybe lulled by the thought that they have sufficient wealth to ride whatever storm is ahead. It would take a tsunami at the stock exchange to wake them up, and that isn't going to happen ... yet.

We're Toast


----------



## Barliman Butterbur

Eledhwen said:


> ...I remember from school that this sort of thing tends to be _precipitous_ not gradual.



Precisely. The naysayers talk about gradual. What they don't understand is that "gradual" always ends in _sudden change._ There are so many examples: landslides, for instance. You drive a car and all is delightful — until you run out of gas, and then the whole thing becomes a pile of junk. A balloon only expands so much before it explodes. The body chugs along just fine until the weakest organ gives out. And so forth.

I call this "the kaleidoscope effect." What I mean by that is: you watch the pattern in a kaleidoscope as you very slowly turn the tube. The pattern only holds so long, until gravity finally overcomes the particles and they suddenly and always irreversibly give way and fall into another pattern — until the next time. The sudden shift, the tipping point _always happens._ "Gradual" is simply the buildup to the point where conditions as they are can no longer remain stable. The ecosystem looks more and more likely to tip into another equilibrium that will no longer support human life. Get your heads out of the sand, people.

Barley


----------



## Barliman Butterbur

*Scientific American: 6-part report*

Here is a six-part Special Report on climate change from Scientific American.

Barley


----------



## Eledhwen

*Re: Scientific American: 6-part report*



Barliman Butterbur said:


> Here is a six-part Special Report on climate change from Scientific American.
> 
> Barley


The interactive map is depressing!


----------



## Gandalf White

What interested me most was the comment that Mars is also warming up. Can't be bothered to verify it now though.


----------



## Eledhwen

Gandalf White said:


> What interested me most was the comment that Mars is also warming up. Can't be bothered to verify it now though.


Difficult to ascertain. Temperatures on Earth have been measured for hundreds of years, but the first Mars landing was 1976; I don't know if Viking took temperature measurements.

How much of earth's global warming is due to man, and how much is due to our still being in a declining ice age, is contended. However, we only have control over one of those inputs; and surely we have a duty to do what we can to limit the damage. Maybe we will fail; but at least we should have tried.


----------



## Barliman Butterbur

Eledhwen said:


> How much of earth's global warming is due to man, and how much is due to our still being in a declining ice age, is contended. However, we only have control over one of those inputs; and surely we have a duty to do what we can to limit the damage. Maybe we will fail; but at least we should have tried.



If you look into this report, you'll see that it is contended no more; it's a settled issue. Man has been an influence on global warming beginning about 1750 and has been an ever-increasing influence ever since. If we expect to help the earth maintain an ecosystem in which man can still live, it's now or never.

Barley


----------



## Gandalf White

Barliman Butterbur said:


> If you look into this report, you'll see that it is contended no more; it's a settled issue. Man has been an influence on global warming beginning about 1750 and has been an ever-increasing influence ever since. If we expect to help the earth maintain an ecosystem in which man can still live, it's now or never.
> 
> Barley



Good god Barley, you certainly read what you want to see and not what's actually there. 



> Climate change is "unequivocal" and it is 90 percent certain that the "net effect of human activities since 1750 has been one of warming."



And of course humans have had some effect on our world. Most people just give them too much credit.


----------



## Barliman Butterbur

Gandalf White said:


> Good god Barley, you certainly read what you want to see and not what's actually there.



You evidently live simply to be contentious. What's the point?

Barley


----------



## Gandalf White

While I do enjoy being contentious, I am only so in specific situations. And, thank god, my life has much more worth than just playing devil's advocate. 

My point? 

My point is you stretch the truth to suit your viewpoint, when it is the truth that should be shaping your viewpoint. Admittedly, every human being gives in to this tendency on a frequent basis. 

But to say that the source of global warming is "contended no more; it's a settled issue" and then preach doom and gloom, when all the article said is that the IPCC is "90% certain that the net effect of human activities since 1750 has been one of warming" is pretentious, to say the least.


----------



## Barliman Butterbur

Gandalf White said:


> ...thank god, my life has much more worth than just playing devil's advocate.



Well thank goodness for that.



> ...you stretch the truth to suit your viewpoint, when it is the truth that should be shaping your viewpoint...to say that the source of global warming is "contended no more; it's a settled issue" and then preach doom and gloom, when all the article said is that the IPCC is "90% certain that the net effect of human activities since 1750 has been one of warming" is pretentious, to say the least.



If you read the article _in full_, you will see that the source of global warming is indeed "contended no more; it's a settled issue". And what you call gloom and doom is simply a recitation of the facts as cited in the article: quite literally _gloom and doom_ if we continue our present course.

And talk about pretentious: you ride your high horse indeed to say that truth alone ought to shape my viewpoint. Who can do that?! You perhaps? Not only are you gratuitously contentious (as you have been all along), you are also equally pretentious as well.

Barley


----------



## Gandalf White

Barliman Butterbur said:


> Well thank goodness for that.



Your concern is touching. 



> If you read the article in full, you will see that the source of global warming is indeed "contended no more; it's a settled issue". And what you call gloom and doom is simply a recitation of the facts as cited in the article: quite literally gloom and doom if we continue our present course.
> 
> And talk about pretentious: you ride your high horse indeed to say that truth alone ought to shape my viewpoint. Who can do that?! You perhaps? Not only are you gratuitously contentious (as you have been all along), you are also equally pretentious as well.



Am I pretentious? You better believe it. But at least I'm able to look at myself truthfully and admit it.

I simply cannot find those words you're quoting with so much pomp. All I see is that the IPCC is "90% certain that the net effect of human activities since 1750 has been one of warming." Then follows a lengthy list of possible and probable effects of global warming, of which there is a 90% chance that man has at least aided in.

As to that high-handed truth quote: it was simply an overstatement of my wish that you would deal with what was actually in the article instead of what you wanted to find in the article. I understand you want to convince everyone that your position is right, but exaggerating your own source is not going to help.


----------



## Eledhwen

Let's hope and pray for the other 10% then... especially after the pictures I saw on the news this morning of the razing of so much of the Sumatran rain forest (One bit looks like being saved: environmentalists used trip cameras to prove that several highly endangered species roamed a forest earmarked for felling, on the grounds that it had no environmental sensitivity apart from being trees).

It will be an interesting experiment (and possibly globally fatal) to see how well the earth copes without the rain forests. Luckily someone's on to the job.

Also on the news, was the declaration that American car manufacturers might have to curb their cars' emissions by the year 2020 (_might!!! 2020!!!_)


----------



## Barliman Butterbur

Here is the latest article (12/5/07) from Scientific American on the consequences of global warming for the U.S.:

Thunder, Hail, Fire: What Does Climate Change Mean for the U.S.?

It behooves to read the whole thing, especially our more sensitive readers...  

Barley


----------



## Barliman Butterbur

Gandalf White said:


> Am I pretentious? ...at least I'm able to look at myself truthfully and admit it.



The next step is to do something about it, young whelp... 

Barley


----------



## Gandalf White

Barliman Butterbur said:


> Here is the latest article (12/5/07) from Scientific American on the consequences of global warming for the U.S.:
> 
> Thunder, Hail, Fire: What Does Climate Change Mean for the U.S.?



I guess we'll see how much of that actually takes place soon enough. I rather suppose it's natural for a warming cycle. 




> The next step is to do something about it, young whelp...



I figure if so many people have lived their while lives ignoring their pretentiousness,, I'll be perfectly able (and better equipped) to live with mine. It's almost Socratic.


----------



## Barliman Butterbur

From the Union of Concerned Scientists: The scientist conclave on global warming in Bali.

Barley


----------



## Firawyn

I've recently become interested in this topic, so I did a search on TTF to see if there was a discussion going about it...I was not surprised at all to see you, Barley, as the backbone of it! Tsk, tsk! You're becoming predictable. 

Anyway, It seems I've got alot of back reading to do here...unless you'd care to summarize 8 pages of bantering? 

So from the research I've already done...I suppose my opinion is simply: I believe that we are more likely, in our lifetimes, to experience catastrophic results of Global Warming than we are to see the return of Christ.

We don't need demons to attack and destroy the Earth...we're doing a fantastic job already.


----------



## Barliman Butterbur

Firawyn said:


> ...from the research I've already done...I suppose my opinion is simply: I believe that we are more likely, in our lifetimes, to experience catastrophic results of Global Warming than we are to see the return of Christ.



I would have to say — that your assessment of the situation is the very quintessence of accuracy.

Barley


----------



## Gandalf White

...Except for the fact that the assessment makes several errors. First, it immediately assumes that global warming is going to destroy the earth. Second, it places the blame solely on mankind.

With regards to the first: the earth heats and warms naturally, it's scientific fact. Maybe the earth is returning to the tropical state it was in during the dinosaurs lifetime. Maybe it's just a longer heat increase then we've seen in our recorded history, and will reverse in a matter of time. 

With regards to the second. The IPCC _has not even stated that humans are the cause of global warming._ They are, from what they said in their first report, 90% certain that humankind has had a warming effect on our planet. While I believe that humans would have some effect, there are obviously other factors involved, something that everyone seems to ignore for one reason or another. 

Don't get me wrong, I completely agree that mankind needs to be aware of, and prepare to deal with, the effects of a warming globe. It's just a natural tendency for a creature to want to survive. But enough doom and gloom, and enough blaming humans; those silly arguments only hurt the persuasiveness of people looking for change.


----------



## Firawyn

@ Barley - Thank you very kindly.




Gandalf White said:


> ...Except for the fact that the assessment makes several errors. First, it immediately assumes that global warming is going to destroy the earth. Second, it places the blame solely on mankind.



First, I didn't say destroy the earth...just shake it up a bit. I'm not expecting the earth to explode, I am simply saying that we should be prepared for life as we know it to change drastically.

Second - and who, may I inquire, were you going to blame? The boogie monster? 



> With regards to the first: the earth heats and warms naturally, it's scientific fact. Maybe the earth is returning to the tropical state it was in during the dinosaurs lifetime. Maybe it's just a longer heat increase then we've seen in our recorded history, and will reverse in a matter of time.



How much time do you expect we have? You say 'in recorded history', and have you considered that the pollution level is much higher now than 'in recorded history'? 



> With regards to the second. The IPCC _has not even stated that humans are the cause of global warming._ They are, from what they said in their first report, 90% certain that humankind has had a warming effect on our planet. While I believe that humans would have some effect, there are obviously other factors involved, something that everyone seems to ignore for one reason or another.



Again, what factors are you thinking? The human race was charged with the preservation of this planet, we can't pass the blame for what's become of it. 



> Don't get me wrong, I completely agree that mankind needs to be aware of, and prepare to deal with, the effects of a warming globe. It's just a natural tendency for a creature to want to survive. But enough doom and gloom, and enough blaming humans; those silly arguments only hurt the persuasiveness of people looking for change.



I'd personally like to do more than survive. I would be happy to see my children and grandchildren playing in the sun under the clear open sky. At this rate, we're more likely to be living in plastic bubbles with recycled air within the next 100 years.


----------



## Gandalf White

firawyn said:


> First, I didn't say destroy the earth...just shake it up a bit. I'm not expecting the earth to explode, I am simply saying that we should be prepared for life as we know it to change drastically.



I refer you to:



firawyn said:


> We don't need demons to attack and destroy the Earth...we're doing a fantastic job already





> Second - and who, may I inquire, were you going to blame? The boogie monster?



Read further; natural warming cycles and solar output can play a role. I don't believe in the boogie monster.



> Again, what factors are you thinking? The human race was charged with the preservation of this planet, we can't pass the blame for what's become of it.



See above. Charged with the preservation of it how, exactly? By God? I'm sorry, I find that unlikely. 



> I'd personally like to do more than survive. I would be happy to see my children and grandchildren playing in the sun under the clear open sky. At this rate, we're more likely to be living in plastic bubbles with recycled air within the next 100 years.



The human will to survive is accompanied by a desire to obtain the best possible survival, so your point is basically the same as mine. I will repeat, however, enough doom and gloom and enough of this diatribe against the human race. Change will never be achieved by that method.


----------



## Barliman Butterbur

Fir — don't bother arguing with GW. Read the documents and make up your own mind. Meanwhile, here are some reliable sources on global warming/climate change (no matter how much GW whinges....)

Take a look at the first four especially:


http://www.ipcc-wg2.org/
http://www.ipcc.ch/
http://www.worldviewofglobalwarming.org/
http://www.nrdc.org/globalWarming/

http://www.ucsusa.org/
http://www.stopglobalwarming.org/default.asp
http://www.sciam.com/article.cfm?id=special-report-climate-change&sc=WR_20071127
http://www.globalwarming.net/
http://www.sierraclub.org/globalwarming/
http://www.globalwarm.com/

Barley


----------



## Gandalf White

> Fir — don't bother arguing with GW. Read the documents and make up your own mind. Meanwhile, here are some reliable sources on global warming/climate change



Basically, this means that Barley can't argue against my previous post because his propaganda doesn't address it directly. He can't think for himself; never has, never will. He's too old for that. Give in to the hysteria and the diatribes against mankind; see how far it gets you. 

Barley, have the last word that you love so much. My work is done here.

By the way, 'whinges' is a great word, no matter how innacurately you use it.

Much love, 

GW


----------



## Barliman Butterbur

Gandalf White said:


> Basically, this means that Barley can't argue against my previous post because his propaganda doesn't address it directly. He can't think for himself; never has, never will. He's too old for that. Give in to the hysteria and the diatribes against mankind; see how far it gets you.
> 
> Barley, have the last word that you love so much. My work is done here.
> 
> By the way, 'whinges' is a great word, no matter how innacurately you use it.
> 
> Much love,
> 
> GW



You are truly amusing — like watching an egocentric puffed-up 20-something make a fool of himself. 

Barley


----------



## Barliman Butterbur

12-9-07

AT BALI CLIMATE CHANGE MEETING, A HARD LOOK AT KYOTO
Old climate change standards offer lessons as diplomats consider a successor pact.

By Peter N. Spotts | Staff writer of The Christian Science Monitor

http://www.csmonitor.com/2007/1210/p07s02-wogi.html

===========================

*Global Warming*

On Feb. 2, 2007, the United Nations scientific panel studying climate change declared that the evidence of a warming trend is "unequivocal," and that human activity has "very likely" been the driving force in that change over the last 50 years. The last report by the group, the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, in 2001, had found that humanity had "likely" played a role.

Full NYT story plus related articles here

Barley


----------



## Barliman Butterbur

*December 10, 2007: Al Gore's Nobel Prize Acceptance Speech*

SPEECH BY AL GORE ON THE ACCEPTANCE
OF THE NOBEL PEACE PRIZE
DECEMBER 10, 2007
OSLO, NORWAY

Your Majesties, Your Royal Highnesses, Honorable members of the Norwegian Nobel Committee, Excellencies, Ladies and gentlemen.

I have a purpose here today. It is a purpose I have tried to serve for many years. I have prayed that God would show me a way to accomplish it.

Sometimes, without warning, the future knocks on our door with a precious and painful vision of what might be. One hundred and nineteen years ago, a wealthy inventor read his own obituary, mistakenly published years before his death. Wrongly believing the inventor had just died, a newspaper printed a harsh judgment of his life’s work, unfairly labeling him “The Merchant of Death” because of his invention – dynamite. Shaken by this condemnation, the inventor made a fateful choice to serve the cause of peace.

Seven years later, Alfred Nobel created this prize and the others that bear his name.

Seven years ago tomorrow, I read my own political obituary in a judgment that seemed to me harsh and mistaken – if not premature. But that unwelcome verdict also brought a precious if painful gift: an opportunity to search for fresh new ways to serve my purpose.

Unexpectedly, that quest has brought me here. Even though I fear my words cannot match this moment, I pray what I am feeling in my heart will be communicated clearly enough that those who hear me will say, “We must act.”

The distinguished scientists with whom it is the greatest honor of my life to share this award have laid before us a choice between two different futures – a choice that to my ears echoes the words of an ancient prophet: “Life or death, blessings or curses. Therefore, choose life, that both thou and thy seed may live.”

We, the human species, are confronting a planetary emergency – a threat to the survival of our civilization that is gathering ominous and destructive potential even as we gather here. But there is hopeful news as well: we have the ability to solve this crisis and avoid the worst – though not all – of its consequences, if we act boldly, decisively and quickly.

However, despite a growing number of honorable exceptions, too many of the world’s leaders are still best described in the words Winston Churchill applied to those who ignored Adolf Hitler’s threat: “They go on in strange paradox, decided only to be undecided, resolved to be irresolute, adamant for drift, solid for fluidity, all powerful to be impotent.”

So today, we dumped another 70 million tons of global-warming pollution into the thin shell of atmosphere surrounding our planet, as if it were an open sewer. And tomorrow, we will dump a slightly larger amount, with the cumulative concentrations now trapping more and more heat from the sun.

As a result, the earth has a fever. And the fever is rising. The experts have told us it is not a passing affliction that will heal by itself. We asked for a second opinion. And a third. And a fourth. And the consistent conclusion, restated with increasing alarm, is that something basic is wrong.

We are what is wrong, and we must make it right.

Last September 21, as the Northern Hemisphere tilted away from the sun, scientists reported with unprecedented distress that the North Polar ice cap is “falling off a cliff.” One study estimated that it could be completely gone during summer in less than 22 years. Another new study, to be presented by U.S. Navy researchers later this week, warns it could happen in as little as 7 years.

Seven years from now.

In the last few months, it has been harder and harder to misinterpret the signs that our world is spinning out of kilter. Major cities in North and South America, Asia and Australia are nearly out of water due to massive droughts and melting glaciers. Desperate farmers are losing their livelihoods. Peoples in the frozen Arctic and on low-lying Pacific islands are planning evacuations of places they have long called home. Unprecedented wildfires have forced a half million people from their homes in one country and caused a national emergency that almost brought down the government in another. Climate refugees have migrated into areas already inhabited by people with different cultures, religions, and traditions, increasing the potential for conflict. Stronger storms in the Pacific and Atlantic have threatened whole cities. Millions have been displaced by massive flooding in South Asia, Mexico, and 18 countries in Africa. As temperature extremes have increased, tens of thousands have lost their lives. We are recklessly burning and clearing our forests and driving more and more species into extinction. The very web of life on which we depend is being ripped and frayed.

We never intended to cause all this destruction, just as Alfred Nobel never intended that dynamite be used for waging war. He had hoped his invention would promote human progress. We shared that same worthy goal when we began burning massive quantities of coal, then oil and methane.

Even in Nobel’s time, there were a few warnings of the likely consequences. One of the very first winners of the Prize in chemistry worried that, “We are evaporating our coal mines into the air.” After performing 10,000 equations by hand, Svante Arrhenius calculated that the earth’s average temperature would increase by many degrees if we doubled the amount of CO2 in the atmosphere.

Seventy years later, my teacher, Roger Revelle, and his colleague, Dave Keeling, began to precisely document the increasing CO2 levels day by day.

But unlike most other forms of pollution, CO2 is invisible, tasteless, and odorless -- which has helped keep the truth about what it is doing to our climate out of sight and out of mind. Moreover, the catastrophe now threatening us is unprecedented – and we often confuse the unprecedented with the improbable.

We also find it hard to imagine making the massive changes that are now necessary to solve the crisis. And when large truths are genuinely inconvenient, whole societies can, at least for a time, ignore them. Yet as George Orwell reminds us: “Sooner or later a false belief bumps up against solid reality, usually on a battlefield.”

In the years since this prize was first awarded, the entire relationship between humankind and the earth has been radically transformed. And still, we have remained largely oblivious to the impact of our cumulative actions.

Indeed, without realizing it, we have begun to wage war on the earth itself. Now, we and the earth's climate are locked in a relationship familiar to war planners: "Mutually assured destruction."

More than two decades ago, scientists calculated that nuclear war could throw so much debris and smoke into the air that it would block life-giving sunlight from our atmosphere, causing a "nuclear winter." Their eloquent warnings here in Oslo helped galvanize the world’s resolve to halt the nuclear arms race.

CONTINUED NEXT POST


----------



## Barliman Butterbur

CONTINUED FROM PREVIOUS POST

Now science is warning us that if we do not quickly reduce the global warming pollution that is trapping so much of the heat our planet normally radiates back out of the atmosphere, we are in danger of creating a permanent “carbon summer.”

As the American poet Robert Frost wrote, “Some say the world will end in fire; some say in ice.” Either, he notes, “would suffice.”

But neither need be our fate. It is time to make peace with the planet.

We must quickly mobilize our civilization with the urgency and resolve that has previously been seen only when nations mobilized for war. These prior struggles for survival were won when leaders found words at the 11th hour that released a mighty surge of courage, hope and readiness to sacrifice for a protracted and mortal challenge.

These were not comforting and misleading assurances that the threat was not real or imminent; that it would affect others but not ourselves; that ordinary life might be lived even in the presence of extraordinary threat; that Providence could be trusted to do for us what we would not do for ourselves.

No, these were calls to come to the defense of the common future. They were calls upon the courage, generosity and strength of entire peoples, citizens of every class and condition who were ready to stand against the threat once asked to do so. Our enemies in those times calculated that free people would not rise to the challenge; they were, of course, catastrophically wrong. 

Now comes the threat of climate crisis – a threat that is real, rising, imminent, and universal. Once again, it is the 11th hour. The penalties for ignoring this challenge are immense and growing, and at some near point would be unsustainable and unrecoverable. For now we still have the power to choose our fate, and the remaining question is only this: Have we the will to act vigorously and in time, or will we remain imprisoned by a dangerous illusion?

Mahatma Gandhi awakened the largest democracy on earth and forged a shared resolve with what he called “Satyagraha” – or “truth force.”

In every land, the truth – once known – has the power to set us free.

Truth also has the power to unite us and bridge the distance between “me” and “we,” creating the basis for common effort and shared responsibility.

There is an African proverb that says, “If you want to go quickly, go alone. If you want to go far, go together.” We need to go far, quickly.

We must abandon the conceit that individual, isolated, private actions are the answer. They can and do help. But they will not take us far enough without collective action. At the same time, we must ensure that in mobilizing globally, we do not invite the establishment of ideological conformity and a new lock-step “ism.”

That means adopting principles, values, laws, and treaties that release creativity and initiative at every level of society in multifold responses originating concurrently and spontaneously.

This new consciousness requires expanding the possibilities inherent in all humanity. The innovators who will devise a new way to harness the sun’s energy for pennies or invent an engine that’s carbon negative may live in Lagos or Mumbai or Montevideo. We must ensure that entrepreneurs and inventors everywhere on the globe have the chance to change the world.

When we unite for a moral purpose that is manifestly good and true, the spiritual energy unleashed can transform us. The generation that defeated fascism throughout the world in the 1940s found, in rising to meet their awesome challenge, that they had gained the moral authority and long-term vision to launch the Marshall Plan, the United Nations, and a new level of global cooperation and foresight that unified Europe and facilitated the emergence of democracy and prosperity in Germany, Japan, Italy and much of the world. One of their visionary leaders said, “It is time we steered by the stars and not by the lights of every passing ship.”

In the last year of that war, you gave the Peace Prize to a man from my hometown of 2000 people, Carthage, Tennessee. Cordell Hull was described by Franklin Roosevelt as the “Father of the United Nations.” He was an inspiration and hero to my own father, who followed Hull in the Congress and the U.S. Senate and in his commitment to world peace and global cooperation.

My parents spoke often of Hull, always in tones of reverence and admiration. Eight weeks ago, when you announced this prize, the deepest emotion I felt was when I saw the headline in my hometown paper that simply noted I had won the same prize that Cordell Hull had won. In that moment, I knew what my father and mother would have felt were they alive.

Just as Hull’s generation found moral authority in rising to solve the world crisis caused by fascism, so too can we find our greatest opportunity in rising to solve the climate crisis. In the Kanji characters used in both Chinese and Japanese, “crisis” is written with two symbols, the first meaning “danger,” the second “opportunity.” By facing and removing the danger of the climate crisis, we have the opportunity to gain the moral authority and vision to vastly increase our own capacity to solve other crises that have been too long ignored.

We must understand the connections between the climate crisis and the afflictions of poverty, hunger, HIV-Aids and other pandemics. As these problems are linked, so too must be their solutions. We must begin by making the common rescue of the global environment the central organizing principle of the world community.

Fifteen years ago, I made that case at the “Earth Summit” in Rio de Janeiro. Ten years ago, I presented it in Kyoto. This week, I will urge the delegates in Bali to adopt a bold mandate for a treaty that establishes a universal global cap on emissions and uses the market in emissions trading to efficiently allocate resources to the most effective opportunities for speedy reductions.

This treaty should be ratified and brought into effect everywhere in the world by the beginning of 2010 – two years sooner than presently contemplated. The pace of our response must be accelerated to match the accelerating pace of the crisis itself.

Heads of state should meet early next year to review what was accomplished in Bali and take personal responsibility for addressing this crisis. It is not unreasonable to ask, given the gravity of our circumstances, that these heads of state meet every three months until the treaty is completed.

We also need a moratorium on the construction of any new generating facility that burns coal without the capacity to safely trap and store carbon dioxide.

And most important of all, we need to put a price on carbon -- with a CO2 tax that is then rebated back to the people, progressively, according to the laws of each nation, in ways that shift the burden of taxation from employment to pollution. This is by far the most effective and simplest way to accelerate solutions to this crisis.

The world needs an alliance – especially of those nations that weigh heaviest in the scales where earth is in the balance. I salute Europe and Japan for the steps they’ve taken in recent years to meet the challenge, and the new government in Australia, which has made solving the climate crisis its first priority.

But the outcome will be decisively influenced by two nations that are now failing to do enough: the United States and China. While India is also growing fast in importance, it should be absolutely clear that it is the two largest CO2 emitters — most of all, my own country –– that will need to make the boldest moves, or stand accountable before history for their failure to act.

Both countries should stop using the other’s behavior as an excuse for stalemate and instead develop an agenda for mutual survival in a shared global environment.

These are the last few years of decision, but they can be the first years of a bright and hopeful future if we do what we must. No one should believe a solution will be found without effort, without cost, without change. Let us acknowledge that if we wish to redeem squandered time and speak again with moral authority, then these are the hard truths:

The way ahead is difficult. The outer boundary of what we currently believe is feasible is still far short of what we actually must do. Moreover, between here and there, across the unknown, falls the shadow.

That is just another way of saying that we have to expand the boundaries of what is possible. In the words of the Spanish poet, Antonio Machado, “Pathwalker, there is no path. You must make the path as you walk.”

We are standing at the most fateful fork in that path. So I want to end as I began, with a vision of two futures – each a palpable possibility – and with a prayer that we will see with vivid clarity the necessity of choosing between those two futures, and the urgency of making the right choice now.

The great Norwegian playwright, Henrik Ibsen, wrote, “One of these days, the younger generation will come knocking at my door.”

The future is knocking at our door right now. Make no mistake, the next generation will ask us one of two questions. Either they will ask: “What were you thinking; why didn’t you act?”

Or they will ask instead: “How did you find the moral courage to rise and successfully resolve a crisis that so many said was impossible to solve?”

We have everything we need to get started, save perhaps political will, but political will is a renewable resource.

So let us renew it, and say together: “We have a purpose. We are many. For this purpose we will rise, and we will act.”

===============================

Barley


----------



## Firawyn

Gandalf White said:


> Barley, have the last word that you love so much. My work is done here.
> 
> GW




GW...I'd say that you're the one that is throwing a fit for not getting the last word. 

And also, Gandalf, you may not believe in God and therefore say 'God cannot have charged us with the preservation of this planet' if you want. I disagree, I don't believe I was made from pond scum...however for arguments sake: The ideal of self preservation charged us with the preservation of this planet.


@Barley....write a book...gosh...


----------



## Barliman Butterbur

Firawyn said:


> @Barley....write a book...gosh...



Hey, I didn't write that, Al Gore did! Would that I were that gifted...  

Barley


----------



## Eledhwen

Firawyn said:


> The ideal of self preservation charged us with the preservation of this planet.


I once saw a joke in Private Eye magazine; it showed Humpty Dumpty lying broken at the foot of the wall, with 'All the King's Men' kneeling around him trying vainly to fix him, when one says: "I think we should let the horses have another go!"

It begs the question (as Firawyn implies): if we don't try to fix the planet, who will?

For those unfamiliar with Humpty Dumpty (who was a personified egg), it is a tragic tale that goes:

_Humpty Dumpty sat on a wall
Humpty Dumpty had a big fall
All the King's horses and all the King's men
Couldn't put Humpty together again._


----------



## Firawyn

Barliman Butterbur said:


> Hey, I didn't write that, Al Gore did! Would that I were that gifted...
> 
> Barley



Haha, well he must have just beat you to the punch then...I dare say I think you are that gifted...it was you that prodded at my grammer and spelling until it improved. 

@ Eledhwen:

Who doesn't know Humpty Dumpty?


----------



## Barliman Butterbur

Firawyn said:


> ...it was you that prodded at my grammer and spelling until it improved.



And you responded! You can be proud of yourself! That was a _major_ accomplishment, and no small achievement, that will serve you all your life! (And it's "grammar."   )

Seriously, the person who (and I'm sure you know this from personal experience by now) spells badly, even if they're very intelligent, doesn't _look_ it on the printed page, and that will cost them somewhere, sometime, somehow. The writer of a badly misspelled page simply isn't taken seriously.

If I actually helped to you undertake the major project of overhauling your spelling, that makes me feel _very_ good inside! 

Barley


----------



## Barliman Butterbur

*Ominous Arctic melt worries experts*

By SETH BORENSTEIN, AP Science Writer
Tue Dec 11, 6:49 PM ET

WASHINGTON - An already relentless melting of the Arctic greatly accelerated this summer, a warning sign that some scientists worry could mean global warming has passed an ominous tipping point. One even speculated that summer sea ice would be gone in five years.

Greenland's ice sheet melted nearly 19 billion tons more than the previous high mark, and the volume of Arctic sea ice at summer's end was half what it was just four years earlier, according to new NASA satellite data obtained by The Associated Press.

Full story here

Barley


----------



## Eledhwen

Firawyn said:


> Who doesn't know Humpty Dumpty?


Being married to a Greek Cypriot, I have come to realise that what I thought was universal knowledge turns out to be quite local. And so I'm not sure whether Humpty is known in places like Bulgaria or Finland, where many TTF members hail from.

I was chuckling to myself for days about letting the horses have another go; I love the absurd - except when it applies to my Government and global warming. They're trying to find ways of tackling it that don't affect the prosperity it has brought. It's time to get real. Chopping down the rain forests contributes 20% to the problem worldwide, yet instead of sending armies in to stop it, we're sending them to Iraq to protect the oil supplies.


----------



## Barliman Butterbur

Eledhwen said:


> ...I love the absurd - except when it applies to my Government and global warming. They're trying to find ways of tackling it that don't affect the prosperity it has brought. It's time to get real. Chopping down the rain forests contributes 20% to the problem worldwide, yet instead of sending armies in to stop it, we're sending them to Iraq to protect the oil supplies.



(Read something recently which points a finger at the tremendous amounts of pollution generated simply from heating large buildings!)

Ah, the rainforests: what they're doing to them for the sake of goddam _ fast foodhamburgers_ scares the hell out of me. If I were King of the World, I would summarily shut down the entire animal food industry, along with anything that generates power from coal or fossil fuel. But I'm not...

Barley


----------



## Firawyn

Barliman Butterbur said:


> And you responded! You can be proud of yourself! That was a _major_ accomplishment, and no small achievement, that will serve you all your life! (And it's "grammar."   )
> 
> Seriously, the person who (and I'm sure you know this from personal experience by now) spells badly, even if they're very intelligent, doesn't _look_ it on the printed page, and that will cost them somewhere, sometime, somehow. The writer of a badly misspelled page simply isn't taken seriously.
> 
> If I actually helped to you undertake the major project of overhauling your spelling, that makes me feel _very_ good inside!
> 
> Barley




*groan* Go figure. Humm....well better is good. And still improving. I've recently been addicted to _Scrabble_, and that too is helping, especially with those common every day words that people regularly misspell. Glad that my growth makes you happy... it was a good blend of your nagging and five years of Latin study.


----------



## Barliman Butterbur

Firawyn said:


> *... it was a good blend of your nagging and five years of Latin study.



_Latin study???!!!_ Well now, I'm _doubly_ pleased at the outcome! My next piece of advice: never listen to people who tell you that you're bright. Listen instead to those who tell you that the most important thing is to _persist_ in making _whatever_ effort is necessary to achieve the goal. Because _that's_ how goals are attained, no matter _what_ your IQ may or may not happen to be.

Barley


----------



## Firawyn

Haha, I will remember that. The study that I did/am still doing was called _The Latin Road to English Grammar_, by Barbra Beers. It's really a great study...I recommend it highly. 

So that, mixed with just general poking around, mixed with _Powerglide_ Curriculum...oh and add in my fluent-in-Greek roommate...my language skills are ever expanding. Not to mention...I'm a writer...I wrote one book so far...still editing thought...oh that's the fun part. 

Fir-


----------



## Ermundo

Barliman Butterbur said:


> If I were King of the World, I would summarily shut down the entire animal food industry, along with anything that generates power from coal or fossil fuel. But I'm not...
> 
> Barley



I know for a fact that change on a big scale takes a long as hell time. Most of the world relies on coal as a source (indirect) of energy. So to shut down all those coal plants out there, while knocking out many of those greenhouse gas emissions that make the world so hot, would throw much of the world into a type of limbo. I mean, we rely so much on electricity, it's mind boggling! Communication, transportation, light (light bulbs and such), cooking our food, and a hundred thousand more processes require electricity made by those coal plants everyone seems to hate nowadays. 

I agree that these coal factories are a killer to us all. But before we just chuck them away, we have to find a new source of power, one that can support the electrical demands for this day and age, but that is also relatively cheap and affordable to implement into society. If you don't know what I mean by "cheap and affordable to implement," consider this example. There is a limited supply of freshwater for us to use. And considering how our population is rapidly increasing, we need a lot more fresh water than what is available. Where are we going to get it from? Naturally, people look to the sea. However, we can't just drink the water straight from the ocean. The salt must be taken out, in one of two ways; Reverse Osmosis and distillation. They both work fine, but are *sooooo* expensive to put to use, that it is a pretty impractical way of getting good drinking water. To get electricity to the masses, we need a technology that is affordable enough to be used, or else the technology is defunct, just like Reverse Osmosis and distillation.


----------



## Eledhwen

Ermundo said:


> I agree that these coal factories are a killer to us all. But before we just chuck them away, we have to find a new source of power.


We just heard this week that there are proposals to build forests of wind turbines offshore around the British Isles. This is the start


----------



## Barliman Butterbur

*FROM THE UNION OF CONCERNED SCIENTISTS:*

Last night [12/13/07], the Senate overwhelmingly passed an Energy Bill that will significantly strengthen fuel economy standards for vehicles for the first time in more than a generation.

This historic victory was not a complete one, however. The Senate removed the renewable electricity standard and clean energy tax incentives from the bill—both of which would have increased our nation's use of clean, renewable energy. The House of Representatives is expected to pass this version of the bill next week, and move it to the president’s desk where he has already said he will sign it into law.

This bill represents years of work and is a significant step forward. The bill will boost Corporate Average Fuel Economy (CAFE) standards to a fleetwide average of at least 35 miles per gallon by 2020—saving 1.1 million barrels of oil per day in 2020(about half of what the United States currently imports from the Persian Gulf). This will significantly reduce America's oil consumption, save consumers billions at the gas pump each year, and is a meaningful step forward as we seek to reduce our nation’s global warming pollution.

UCS and our supporters have been a leading voice on this critical legislation—we should all be proud of what we have accomplished. Since we began our “Fuel A Cooler Future” campaign almost a year ago, UCS activists have written letters, made phone calls, met with their representatives, called out corporations, and even sent personalized gas receipts to Congress. All to ensure this legislation passed.

UCS engineers backed up your actions, producing timely, rigorous analysis clearly demonstrating the consumer, economic, and environmental benefits of stronger fuel economy standards—materials Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid specifically mentioned when the Senate first passed these standards in June. Our Washington representatives, in turn, held countless meeting on Capitol Hill to explain the benefits of this legislation to House and Senate staff, and to counter the relentless, well-funded “can’t do” lobbying tactics of the automakers and their allies that had for 30 years managed to hold sway in Washington.

But we also worked hard to get the renewable electricity standard and the clean energy tax credits included in the Energy Bill, and are disappointed that the White House threatened to veto the bill if it included such provisions. By forcing the Senate to strip the renewable standard and the tax credits from the bill, the Bush administration has further delayed the development of clean, homegrown renewable energy that will save consumers money and create jobs. We remain fully committed to passing a national renewable electricity standard as soon as possible.

Internationally, the increase of fuel economy standards for American vehicles has been seen as a sign that the United States is finally accepting responsibility for reducing its own global warming pollution. UCS staff attending a critical global meeting on climate change this week in Indonesia have held up this congressional action as indication that the Bush administration represents the past, not the future, on U.S. climate change and energy policy.

While there is additional work to do on fuel economy, renewables, and other clean energy technologies, today is a day we should all take a moment to enjoy and to recognize what it is that we accomplished together: history.

Sincerely,

Kathleen Rest, PhD, MPA
Executive Director

===============================

Barley


----------



## Barliman Butterbur

Eledhwen said:


> We just heard this week that there are proposals to build forests of wind turbines offshore around the British Isles. This is the start



On another forum, there was another Brit grousing about this very mightily: he anticipated high pressure systems coming in and rendering them useless. He appeared to believe that high pressure systems becalm the area, which is ridiculous. Here in Southern California, we have something called the Santa Ana Winds, which come in like hot desert winds, particularly in high pressure situations.

Barley


----------



## Firawyn

_Very_ interesting. Humm. 

Now I wonder how long before they see things like that causing problems with the environment. 

Why can't they try _stopping_ the things they're already doing, instead of _starting_ new things to cover up existing problems. It's like a band-aid over a cut that needs stitches. We're begging for trouble.


----------



## Barliman Butterbur

*Oceans' growing acidity alarms scientists*

WASHINGTON — Seven hundred miles west of Seattle in the Pacific at Ocean Station Papa, a first-of-its-kind buoy is anchored to monitor a looming environmental catastrophe.

Forget about sea levels rising as glaciers and polar ice melt, and increasing water temperatures affecting global weather patterns. As the oceans absorb more and more carbon dioxide and other greenhouse gases, they're gradually becoming more acidic.

And some scientists fear that the change may be irreversible.

At risk are sea creatures up and down the food chain, from the tiniest phytoplankton and zooplankton to whales, from squid to salmon to crabs, coral, oysters and clams.

The oceans are already 30 percent more acidic than they were at the beginning of the Industrial Revolution, as they absorb 22 tons of carbon dioxide a day. By the end of the century, they could be 150 percent more acidic.

Full story here

Barley


----------



## Ermundo

Firawyn said:


> _Very_ interesting. Humm.
> 
> Now I wonder how long before they see things like that causing problems with the environment.
> 
> Why can't they try _stopping_ the things they're already doing, instead of _starting_ new things to cover up existing problems. It's like a band-aid over a cut that needs stitches. We're begging for trouble.



I see what you're saying, but it sounds a tad naive. People are working around the clock to stop this mess our world is getting into, but certain things have to be taken in account. You can't just _stop_ using all these, specifically, coal plants right now. We've become so dependent on them, that to stop using them right this second, or the next day, would be folly. Try to go a day without using electricity. I don't bet money ever, but if I did, I'm sure you'd owe me a lot from gambling the outcome. We're just that used to electricity; to keep our houses warm, cook our food, clean, provide light, ect. Now, to _stop_ the problem of global warming, we must imput smaller changes over a longer period, giving enough time between each adjustment so that society itself can adjust without hassle. Start off by opening more and more power plants that use renewable resources, and building from there. Right now, covering the problem is all we can do, until a point comes where society is ready to make those big steps, those steps that can really destroy the threat that coal power plants have on the atmosphere.

-Try reading my previous post.


----------



## Barliman Butterbur

Ermundo said:


> ... People are working around the clock to stop this mess our world is getting into, but certain things have to be taken in account. You can't just _stop_ using all these, specifically, coal plants right now. We've become so dependent on them, that to stop using them right this second, or the next day, would be folly...



Not only that (and relax, such change by large industries simply isn't going to happen that way). Those who make tons and tons of money from the status quo try to _keep_ the status quo, because they'll lose money: The coal, fossil fuel and animal food industries, most especially. That's why they won't change unless they're either forced to or see that they can make an equal if not better profit from change. 

They only understand money. There are already ways to make money from "going green," but it costs money to change over. My take is this: when global warming gets to the point where not even the "big boys" can ignore the dire consequences that are upon them, then they will change and pat themselves on the back for being progressive. Let's hope the changes don't come too late.

Barley


----------



## Ermundo

Barliman Butterbur said:


> My take is this: when global warming gets to the point where not even the "big boys" can ignore the dire consequences that are upon them, then they will change and pat themselves on the back for being progressive. Let's hope the changes don't come too late.
> 
> Barley



If time goes by, and the changes we see add up to the level of changes that even the mighty can't ignore...than I'm afraid it will be to late.


----------



## Firawyn

Found an interesting blog you guys would like.

Good stuff. There's alot of good links on here.


----------



## Barliman Butterbur

Firawyn said:


> Found an interesting blog you guys would like.
> 
> Good stuff. There's alot of good links on here.



That's quite a blog! However, I need to spend my time with the facts that come out of the science webs rather than the public's opinions about them. But thanks for bringing it to our attention!

Barley


----------



## Firawyn

Barliman Butterbur said:


> That's quite a blog! However, I need to spend my time with the facts that come out of the science webs rather than the public's opinions about them. But thanks for bringing it to our attention!
> 
> Barley



It's hard to argue a topic when you don't know what the general public thinks of it.


----------



## Barliman Butterbur

Firawyn said:


> It's hard to argue a topic when you don't know what the general public thinks of it.



It seems that the general public is squarely behind doing something about global warming. It's governments and big corporations — all those who are making vast profits from the status quo — who are against it.

Barley


----------



## Firawyn

Mayhaps but how would you have known that if not for blogs like this?


----------



## Barliman Butterbur

Firawyn said:


> Mayhaps but how would you have known that if not for blogs like this?



There are far more important places to look than blogs, however good they are:

http://www.ipcc.ch/
http://www.ipcc-wg2.org/
http://www.globalwarming.net/
http://www.worldviewofglobalwarming.org/
http://www.harvestcleanenergy.org/index.html
http://www.sciam.com/article.cfm?id=special-report-climate-change&sc=WR_20071127
http://www.ucsusa.org/

and so on.

Barley


----------



## Barliman Butterbur

From _*Scientific American:*_

*Clash: What Will Climate Change Cost Us?*
The science is clear: the climate is changing thanks to human activity. The question becomes: will preventing further globe-warming pollution ruin the global economy?

Full article here.

Barley


----------



## Firawyn

Barley....they have therapy for people like you.


----------



## Eledhwen

Barliman Butterbur said:


> From _*Scientific American:*_
> 
> *Clash: What Will Climate Change Cost Us?* Full article here.
> 
> Barley


At least all 3 experts agree it's happening! The article says "The question becomes: will preventing further globe-warming pollution ruin the global economy?" If it comes to a choice between ruining the globe or ruining the global economy, I know which I'd choose.

If only some boff would come up with a cheap, high capacity CO2 splitter (creating solid carbon and O2 gas).


----------



## Barliman Butterbur

Eledhwen said:


> At least all 3 experts agree it's happening! The article says "The question becomes: will preventing further globe-warming pollution ruin the global economy?" If it comes to a choice between ruining the globe or ruining the global economy, I know which I'd choose.
> 
> If only some boff would come up with a cheap, high capacity CO2 splitter (creating solid carbon and O2 gas).



Watching TV just now, they have methods for turning just about any old kind of trash into pure biofuel. It involves a kind of reactor which puts the stuff under high heat and pressure — but no flame — and it becomes fuel perfect for internal combustion engines. You can bet the coal and biofuel people will do their best to see it dies aborning...

Barley


----------



## Barliman Butterbur

I received an email (from GreyPilgrim) from the TTF forum that was automatically mailed to me via my CP format, but for some reason was not published (as of this moment anyway) in the thread. Here it is:

============================

Barley, you’re just a big softball floating over the plate, suspended in time just waiting for someone to hit you out of the park. I'll take a swing. 

How about the latest, just published December 20, 2007; from this site:
http://www.libertypost.org/cgi-bin/readart.cgi?ArtNum=210832&Disp=All&#C0
Titled:

Over 400 Prominent Scientists Disputed Man-Made Global Warming 

The report was sourced from:

US Senate Committee on Environment and Public Works 

The URL link for the senate report:
http://epw.senate.gov/public/index....ecord_id=f80a6386-802a-23ad-40c8-3c63dc2d02cb 

Over 400 prominent scientists from more than two dozen countries recently voiced significant objections to major aspects of the so-called "consensus" on man-made global warming. These scientists, many of whom are current and former participants in the UN IPCC (Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change), criticized the climate claims made by the UN IPCC and former Vice President Al Gore. 

Many scientists from around the world have dubbed 2007 as the year man-made global warming fears "bite the dust." (LINK) In addition, many scientists who are also progressive environmentalists believe climate fear promotion has "co-opted" the green movement. 

Many of the scientists featured in this report consistently stated that numerous colleagues shared their views, but they will not speak out publicly for fear of retribution. Atmospheric scientist Dr. Nathan Paldor, Professor of Dynamical Meteorology and Physical Oceanography at the Hebrew University of Jerusalem, author of almost 70 peer-reviewed studies, explains how many of his fellow scientists have been intimidated. 

*I have been seeing this appear more and more, often written by scientist, how they are being intimidated by the threat of losing their job, losing their funding, or losing their peer friendships. This would not be happening if the ‘man made global warming’ wasn’t a hoax.*

"Many of my colleagues with whom I spoke share these views and report on their inability to publish their skepticism in the scientific or public media," Paldor wrote. [Note: See also July 2007 Senate report detailing how skeptical scientists have faced threats and intimidation." 

Paleoclimatologist Dr. Tim Patterson, professor in the department of Earth Sciences at Carleton University in Ottawa, recently converted from a believer in man-made climate change to a skeptic. Patterson noted that the notion of a "consensus" of scientists aligned with the UN IPCC or former Vice President Al Gore is false. "I was at the Geological Society of America meeting in Philadelphia in the fall and I would say that people with my opinion were probably in the majority." 

*It would seem that Barliman and Al Gore will be the only two hoaxers left here very soon.*

The distinguished scientists featured in this new report are experts in diverse fields, including: climatology; oceanography; geology; biology; glaciology; biogeography; meteorology; oceanography; economics; chemistry; mathematics; environmental sciences; engineering; physics and paleoclimatology. Some of those profiled have won Nobel Prizes for their outstanding contribution to their field of expertise and many shared a portion of the UN IPCC Nobel Peace Prize with Vice President Gore. 

The report counters the claims made by the promoters of man-made global warming fears that the number of skeptical scientists is dwindling. 

*Well it would seem that somebody is lying. I wonder if it has something to do with brain size when so much evidence is out there to dispute something but people still continue to believe in it.*

===============================

When it comes to brain size GP, I daresay you should measure your own. So you found some scientists and Senators (and if you don't know that Senator Inhofe has attacked global warming since day one, who's deep in the pocket of coal/oil, and who has the reputation of being a general damn fool, then your head's _really_ in the sand) who dispute the evidence. So what? They have their own axes to grind, and many if not all of them have had their wallets generously padded by lobbyists and the coal/oil industry — not to mention the ones with portfolios heavy with coal/oil stock investment. There have always been naysayers and deniers and there always will be — you included. These "reports" are tosh, the usual counterattacks by those who stand to lose money or power or reputation.

I have said before and I'll say again: I'm not out to change the views of those who argue against global warming, you included. I do say what I believe, and I will continue to say it: global warming is an established fact. One day — the day it begins to effect you personally — you'll believe it and shut up. Meantime, your pathetic resort to an _ad hominem_ attack on me proves its worthlessness — in addition to your sources.

Barley


----------



## greypilgrim

Greetings Barliman!

I deleted the post in your quote because I (almost immediately) remembered exactly why I tend to avoid these kinds of discussions. Though I am not sorry that you reposted it...I am allowed to put this question to you:

You said "Meantime, your pathetic resort to an ad hominem attack on me proves its worthlessness — in addition to your sources."



> ...(From Link)... http://epw.senate.gov/public/index....ecord_id=f80a6386-802a-23ad-40c8-3c63dc2d02cb
> 
> Additionally, these scientists hail from prestigious institutions worldwide, including:
> 
> Harvard University;
> NASA;
> National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) and the National Center for Atmospheric Research (NCAR);
> Massachusetts Institute of Technology;
> the UN IPCC;
> the Danish National Space Center;
> U.S. Department of Energy;
> Princeton University;
> the Environmental Protection Agency;
> University of Pennsylvania;
> Hebrew University of Jerusalem;
> the International Arctic Research Centre;
> the Pasteur Institute in Paris;
> the Belgian Weather Institute;
> Royal Netherlands Meteorological Institute;
> the University of Helsinki;
> the National Academy of Sciences of the U.S., France, and Russia;
> the University of Pretoria;
> University of Notre Dame;
> Stockholm University;
> University of Melbourne;
> University of Columbia;
> the World Federation of Scientists;
> and the University of London.



^ Barliman, which of these institutions do you suppose sent these alleged paid scientists to the summit? 

I did not name them - but their names, where they are from, and what they have to say about it - are all in the link I provided. Interesting stuff. 

Also which "big oil" companies are paying them to lie (placing their reputation on the line...)? The same global oil giants about to rake in billions in profits from past and future endeavors in the middle east Barliman? I've heard of these oil giants being on both sides of the hoax. Can you prove any your ridiculious claims? Not about the senator (all politicians are snakes for hire and I know little about him) or the oil companies...but the filth you said about those hundreds of scientists? Care to prove a single one? I've yet to see this proven...by anyone (big or small) who makes this claim.

A common trait among those brainwashed by Al Gore is that they all say one thing is fact, when it's obviously false, their claims will even be proven false; yet the next day or next week they make the same claims, say the same things, like nothing happened. Here are some examples:

1. They all say man-made global warming has been established by fact - THAT IS FALSE. 

Instead, they ignore facts and make up their own.

2. They all claim the debate is over - THAT IS FALSE. 

The scientific debate is almost over for them though(the alarmists at the UN-IPCC), and thankfully for the rest of humanity. Soon the only debate will be what to do about the people that lied to us, and those who let them.

3. They all claim that the number of skeptical scientists is dwindling - THAT IS FALSE.

In fact, Barliman, the number of skeptical scientists is growing...



> Background: Only 52 Scientists Participated in UN IPCC Summary
> 
> The over 400 skeptical scientists featured in this new report outnumber by nearly eight times the number of scientists who participated in the 2007 UN IPCC Summary for Policymakers. The notion of “hundreds” or “thousands” of UN scientists agreeing to a scientific statement does not hold up to scrutiny. (See report debunking “consensus” (LINK) Recent research by Australian climate data analyst John McLean revealed that the IPCC’s peer-review process for the Summary for Policymakers leaves much to be desired. (LINK) & (LINK)
> 
> Proponents of man-made global warming like to note how the National Academy of Sciences (NAS) and the American Meteorological Society (AMS) have issued statements endorsing the so-called "consensus" view that man is driving global warming. But both the NAS and AMS never allowed member scientists to directly vote on these climate statements. Essentially, only two dozen or so members on the governing boards of these institutions produced the "consensus" statements. This report gives a voice to the rank-and-file scientists who were shut out of the process. (LINK)
> 
> (scroll about halfway down) http://epw.senate.gov/public/index....ecord_id=f80a6386-802a-23ad-40c8-3c63dc2d02cb



All the SUSPICION is on them - DIRECT EVIDENCE is support of the OPPOSITION and presents itself week after week. Not only that, but the OPPOSITION is gaining momentum and winning - nobody is buying into global warming anymore. Only those people who stand to gain from the policies implemented, along with their most devoted adherents are sticking around. 

I'll tell you a frightening fact about global warming that neither side can dispute, then ask you a simple yes or no question about it:

*FACT*
Recently in Australia, due to man-made global warming hysteria, some people actually tried to get legislation passed charging each mother 5000 at birth then 800 per year per child for every child she had after her first, a "life-tax" on the "extra" child's carbon released into the environment.

*QUESTION*
Do you accept this idealism? 









Now, one last thing before I'm finished. You might not care to change people's minds about global warming Barliman, but when I begin to see things, I take notice.


----------



## greypilgrim

Firawyn said:


> Barley....they have therapy for people like you.



Greetings Firawyn!

No need for that. Once this is over it's back to making fun of Christian extremists.  

Always a good time, but the global warming cult is so much more vibrant!!


----------



## Barliman Butterbur

To GP:

Obviously you want an argument because you evidently consider such things fun. Sorry, the bait isn't worth wasting my time taking. And in bringing up the 400 scientists and Senators (led by James Inhofe who has many — $$$$$$$$ — reasons to debunk) who deny global warming, you "forgot" to mention this:

"More than 400 scientists have in the past year alone challenged claims that global warming is caused by man, according to a report published last week _*by some of President George W Bush's allies*_ in the US Senate."

Source 

In bed with Bush and/or being paid to spout the big business party line by the coal/oil industry: that says it all. As I said before and will say again, the debunkers and deniers have a vested interest: they stand to lose some combination of money, power, or reputation. _They profit by keeping the status quo; they lose profit by having to change._ 

And then we have a class of people who deny it because they're inwardly terrified of the truth, because then it means that life becomes really scary, and another who just like to be ornery. I privately suspect that you fall into one or both of those latter two categories. This is my last response to you.

Barley


----------



## greypilgrim

^ Not saying anything new, Barley. 

As for the paper-thin allegation that was a fraudulent "Bush and his evil oil empire"-funded report, here is a similar report to the UN from the week prior. Note the names of the scientists in this report. All different scientists - from all over the world, as was the case with the newest report from this week, linked to in my previous post. Their numbers do keep growing, and their positions are being heard finally -despite claims to the contrary, and despite attempts to stifle their opinions.



> Don't fight, adapt
> We should give up futile attempts to combat climate change
> ...
> 
> The IPCC Summaries for Policy Makers are the most widely read IPCC reports amongst politicians and non-scientists and are the basis for most climate change policy formulation. *Yet these Summaries are prepared by a relatively small core writing team with the final drafts approved line-by-line by *government *representatives.* The great *majority of IPCC contributors and *reviewers, and the tens of thousands of other scientists who are qualified to comment on these matters, are not involved in the preparation of these documents. The summaries therefore cannot properly be represented as a consensus view among experts.
> 
> 
> 
> Source: http://www.nationalpost.com/news/story.html?id=164002
> Signatories: http://www.nationalpost.com/news/story.html?id=164004



In summary; that's two official reports in as many weeks, signed by more than 500 scientists. Both have stated their views and opinions are not represented in policy and reviews at the UN climate change conferences. Both reports state man-made global warming is false. To disbelieve them outright would be illogical. So, logically, we understand the policy makers are trying to stifle science, but who and why would they do that?


I don't know but can guess. I contend the whole hoax isn't about the environment, money or politics but instead is just one small part of a broader agenda to establish 1) a global economy, 2) global governance, 3) global population control. In a lesser extent also to punish Islamic oil-producing nations. What say you to that?


----------



## greypilgrim

I forgot - you had finished with me. Carry on then. Don't let facts, logic, and reason get in the way of your beliefs.


----------



## Barliman Butterbur

12/26/07, from the *Union of Concerned Scientists:*

Bioenergy—electricity and fuels derived from plant or animal-based materials—is increasingly being touted as a key global warming solution. If developed in a sustainable way, bioenergy does have the potential to produce both electricity and fuel with fewer risks than those associated with oil, coal, and nuclear technologies. But a rapid global expansion of bioenergy development could have profound negative environmental and economic consequences. If bioenergy is to become a part of our low-carbon future, farmers, producers, policy makers, and consumers will all have to be smart from the start.

That is why the Union of Concerned Scientists has launched its new Smart Bioenergy initiative. No other organization has the scientific expertise to sort through competing options for addressing these complex issues and to translate them into practical, responsible solutions for decision makers and the public. Our engineers and scientists who specialize in agriculture, climate, energy, and vehicles issues are uniquely situated to serve as guides through the lifecycle of bioenergy from seed to sedan.

Through our new report, Biofuels: An Important Part of a Low-Carbon Diet, UCS is working to ensure that bioenergy policies throughout the nation include environmental safeguards that prioritize production methods and materials that produce the lowest amount of global warming pollution. In addition, we’re highlighting that bioenergy is just one part of the whole solution—it must be pursued in conjunction with increases in energy efficiency, reduced energy demand through conservation, and reforms in transportation and land use policies.

The UCS bioenergy principles (pdf) lay out these guiding standards and have been a great tool in our efforts to ensure that the low-carbon fuel standard (pdf) being developed in California becomes a model for the nation. In addition, UCS analysts and advocates in Washington pushed to ensure that the Renewable Fuel Standard (RFS) in the recently-passed Energy Bill included strong provisions supporting sustainable bioenergy development.

===============================

Barley


----------



## Barliman Butterbur

*Big wake-up to global warming*

An attitude shift as inexorable as climate change itself this year brought world groups together to debate risks.

By Sandy Bauers
Philadelphia Inquirer Staff Writer

As the ice melted, the issue gelled.
This was the year that global warming hit the mass radar screen, driven by a drumbeat of catastrophic predictions from top scientists, a jaw-dropping acceleration in polar ice melt, Al Gore's Oscar - and then his Nobel.

His prize showed how important the issue was. His cameo on NBC's 30 Rock showed how mainstream it was.

As recently as 2003, when climatologist Heidi Cullen began her 90-second spots on the Weather Channel, global warming seemed fringe.

Now, her program is an hour, and global warming is a dinner-table topic coast to coast. "It's found its way into basic American dialogue," Cullen says.

When sea-level researcher Benjamin Horton talked climate change in 2006, his University of Pennsylvania students yawned.

This year, same class, seismically different evaluations. They "think it is the most important thing for science to understand," Horton says.

Indeed, researchers say, most Americans now understand the potential of global warming to affect every facet of society: energy production and use, population growth, water resources, storms, droughts, human health.

Full story here

Barley


----------



## Barliman Butterbur

*MANY RELIGIOUS LEADERS BACK CLIMATE-CHANGE ACTION*

A desire to exercise stewardship over the environment is growing among evangelical Christians.

By Brad Knickerbocker, Christian Science Monitor
December 20, 2007 

Reporter Brad Knickerbocker discusses how religious groups have been emphasizing environmental responsibility over the past decade.
Religious groups in the United States and around the world have steadily adopted pro-environmentpositions. At Christmastime this shift has been particularly evident regarding global climate change.

The pros and cons of cutting down real Christmas trees (which absorb carbon dioxide, the primary greenhouse gas) versus buying an artificial tree (which may contain pollutants) weigh on the minds of many, says an article in The Christian Post.

More than 100 influential evangelical leaders have signed the Evangelical Climate Initiative (ECI) to fight global warming, the Post article says. They're asking governments and individuals to reduce CO2 emissions.

The ECI concludes that global warming is real. The Post article quotes from the initiative's statement:

"Christians, noting the fact that most of the climate change problem is human induced, are reminded that when God made humanity he commissioned us to exercise stewardship over the earth and its creatures.... Climate change is the latest evidence of our failure to exercise proper stewardship, and constitutes a critical opportunity for us to do better."

Leaders from the US Catholic Conference of Bishops, the National Association of Evangelicals, the National Council of Churches, and the Union of Reform Judaism are pushing Congress and the Bush administration to fund efforts for poorer areas to adapt to drought, flooding, and other effects of climate change.

Full story here

Barley


----------



## Gothmog

*OK. Personal attacks on this thread STOP NOW.

This is not a request.

Gothmog TTF SuperModerator!*

I have not named those responsible as there is no need. However I will not allow this thread (or any other) to degenerate into a flame war.


----------



## Firawyn

Flame war? Haha, nice one coming from a belrog.


*salutes* Aye Super Moderator. But I wonder, by personal attacks are you referring to attacks to one person, or attacks to a people group?


----------



## Gothmog

For personal attacks please see Here



> Flame war? Haha, nice one coming from a belrog.


You will find that the Balrog's Shadow is far greater.


----------



## greypilgrim

> Al Gore Blows Hot Air
> 
> 2008 will be the year when Al Gore and his forecasts of an approaching inferno will be thoroughly discredited, not by the constantly growing legion of global warming skeptics, but by none other than Mother Nature herself.
> 
> 
> The lady has already set the stage here in the waning days of 2007 by plunging much of the Northern Hemisphere into the deep freezer. Blizzards, ice storms, and near hurricane force winds have swept across much of the world, snowfalls reaching record depths, and all of this days before winter was officially ushered in. I think we can accept these omens as portents of what is to come in the months ahead.
> 
> http://www.newsmax.com/brennan/global_cooling/2007/12/26/59855.html


----------



## greypilgrim

> December 3, 2007, 3:39 pm
> 
> Global Hoaxing Is Warm
> 
> In the latest ‘gotcha’ moment of the global-warming debate, the U.S. Climate Action Partnership, representing 33 major U.S. companies that have called for a mandatory U.S. greenhouse-gas emissions constraint, says it was the victim of a “fraudulent” news release making the rounds earlier Monday.
> 
> The fake release, which included USCAP letterhead and a fake Web site address, said companies such as General Motors, General Electric, Alcoa, and Shell were calling for a moratorium on new coal-fired plants and a 90% cut in greenhouse gas emissions. It came out on the opening day of a big United Nations global-warming confab in Indonesia.
> 
> A group called Rising Tide North America later said they were responsible for the hoax.(LINK)
> 
> 
> http://blogs.wsj.com/energy/2007/12/03/global-hoaxing-is-warm/


Why would they do that? Is it because they are getting desperate?


----------



## greypilgrim

Some random nutty warmers. Examples of what their thoughts and common mentality is like. Here is a glimpse:



some random nutty lady's blog said:


> A cancer causing chemical is a bullet shot out of the exhaust pipe of your car which hits its target, the lungs of random men, women and children and then explodes 10 years later causing the victim to undergo years of agonizing suffering as the chemical grows into this full body monster which eats you alive from the inside. An ounce of prevention is worth a pound of cure and there is no cure for cancer. However, cancer can be beaten back by eliminating the root cause of the cancer, cars. Cars and the oil, gasoline they burn are also the root cause of George Bush’s unsuccessful attempts to conquer the oil fields of Iraq and Iran, leading now to the Apocalypse.
> 
> Perhaps the world’s representatives cheered George Bush’s climate consigliore after ripping hr eyes out for two weeks because she finally informed them that the self proclaimed King of Kings George Bush had decided to ship them all to a secret American torture prison in the Green Zone if they didn’t shut up. George Bush told two reporters from the BBC that Jesus Christ ordered him to publicly launch a Christian Crusade against Islam by invading Afghanistan, Iraq and Iran, and if he could launch a Crusade then why couldn’t he also bring back the Inquisition?



Apparently she also thinks Nostradamus predicted global warming so it must be true.  

Now more and more scientists and THINKING people are seeing global warming for what it is. As this goes on the extremist Anti-captialistic environmentalists are getting shriller and more insane in their rants and threats:



> "When the chips are down I think democracy is a less important goal than is the protection of the planet from the death of life, the end of life on it. This has got to be imposed on people whether they like it or not."
> 
> Mayer Hillman - Policy Studies Institute



or this one:



> "As this current ecomonic system got us here in the first place, a climate change response must have at its heart a resdistribution of wealth and resources."
> 
> CAN International



Apparently America causes global warming, but not communist China. Since the phenomenon is not real, it's caused by anyone totalitarian leftists say it is.  
These same people try to dismantle free speech as well as strip away citizen's rights to own guns. Think on that for a sec. 

This last one is a gem. Straight from the senior climate change policy advisor this past week in Bali, Dec 15:



> On Adaptation:
> 
> “At long last the UN climate talks have started to grapple with the devastating impacts climate change is already having on the world’s poorest people. Coping with these impacts comes at a price that rich polluters must pay. Under pressure from developing countries, Bali has delivered clear progress: a fund for adaptation is now in place and all countries agree that more money must be raised. But with estimated costs exceeding $50 billion annually, we now need to see rich countries put some serious money forward.”
> 
> http://oxfaminternational.wordpress.com/2007/12/15/the-bali-finale-oxfams-verdict/#more-167


Making billions of dollars out of thin air? I see. At the expense of western nations. There is no other way it could be done - except through lies and propoganda. 

Do you want to pay tax and penalties for having more than one child? Do you want to pay 20-25% more for everything? 40% more for oil products? A "luxury tax" of $780 per person per year to punish us for causing the imaginary climate change crisis? Or any of the countless other taxes, fines, and penalties they can dream up based on this fraud? 

Global warming isn't about money though, as I contended in an earlier post (and am yet waiting for an answer).


----------



## greypilgrim

*I highly recommend watching this*

*The Great Global Warming Swindle*​
http://www.rabbitlink.com/www.rabbitlink.com/GlobalWarming.html

This movie is excellent. It should get an award, simply for being a great documentary - regardless of it's subject. If you aren't sure what to think, you will be after watching it. Listen to them. Think for yourself. Read between the lines. Don't be a parrot. Be an independent thinking individual.

And all that hoo-hah.


----------



## greypilgrim

Gothmog said:


> For personal attacks please see Here
> 
> 
> You will find that the Balrog's Shadow is far greater.



Greetings Gothmog!

Thank you for your input. I consider it important and will respect your wishes!


----------



## Barliman Butterbur

*Parasites are the hidden face of climate change across Scotland*

By DAN BURGLASS

THERE is little doubt that climate change is having an impact on the agricultural industry in Scotland. The consensus is that this will lead to drier summers and increased rainfall during the winter. Scientists at the Moredun Research Institute, near Edinburgh, reckon that climate change will have a major impact on the health and welfare of livestock.
Dr Philip Skuce has been studying this topic. He said: "Recent data from diagnostic reports clearly shows that the incidence of parasitic gastroenteritis, caused by roundworms, has risen significantly in the last five years.

"Heavy infestations with the brown stomach worm, teladorsagia circumcinta, are now routinely diagnosed in lambs in the spring in the south-east of Scotland. This is believed to be caused by the survival of the free-living larval stages shed in the previous year through the winter on pasture."

In the past farmers were able to combat the various parasites which infect sheep with a range of drugs. The problem is that new parasites are being found.

Skuce added: "A very realistic threat is the emergence of haemonchosis in Scottish sheep flocks. This is a highly pathogenic, blood-sucking worm normally associated with more tropical climates, especially in Australia, South America and South Africa.

Full article here

Barley


----------



## Barliman Butterbur

*Parasites are the hidden face of climate change across Scotland*

By DAN BURGLASS

THERE is little doubt that climate change is having an impact on the agricultural industry in Scotland. The consensus is that this will lead to drier summers and increased rainfall during the winter. Scientists at the Moredun Research Institute, near Edinburgh, reckon that climate change will have a major impact on the health and welfare of livestock.
Dr Philip Skuce has been studying this topic. He said: "Recent data from diagnostic reports clearly shows that the incidence of parasitic gastroenteritis, caused by roundworms, has risen significantly in the last five years.

"Heavy infestations with the brown stomach worm, teladorsagia circumcinta, are now routinely diagnosed in lambs in the spring in the south-east of Scotland. This is believed to be caused by the survival of the free-living larval stages shed in the previous year through the winter on pasture."

In the past farmers were able to combat the various parasites which infect sheep with a range of drugs. The problem is that new parasites are being found.

Skuce added: "A very realistic threat is the emergence of haemonchosis in Scottish sheep flocks. This is a highly pathogenic, blood-sucking worm normally associated with more tropical climates, especially in Australia, South America and South Africa.

Full article here

Barley

PS: To the readers of this thread: Truth is always at a disadvantage when confronted with spin and propaganda. Truth can only be itself whereas spin and propaganda can be worked on and polished until practically bulletproof from every angle. Those with a vested interest in profiting from the status quo will never stop attempting puncturing the truth with endless spin. One must take a look at truth and propaganda, sift through it all, think it through carefully, try to find out _who's supplying the funding for the assertions,_ and come to his own conclusions. A tip: spin is generally very loud, sarcastic, hostile, argumentative, cherry-picked, morally repugnant, mean-spirited and tries to gang up on and shout down the truth. Truth is much more quiet and straightforward — and of course, spin-free. It has only itself to declare.


----------



## Barliman Butterbur

*2.6 million people can’t be wrong – Climate Change petitions delivered to UK Minister*

The biggest ever hand-in of climate change petitions has happened today, directly in-front of the United Nations Climate Change Conference in Bali. 

The UK Minister for the Environment, Hilary Benn came out from the conference to meet with representatives of 2.6 million people, from 193 countries, who have taken action on climate change with Avaaz.org, Oxfam, Greenpeace, Friends of the Earth, Moveon.org, Getup.org, 1Sky, Stop Climate Chaos, Live Earth, I Count and the Alliance for Climate Protection.
Mr Benn talked to people gathered and assured them that their concerns for our future where ones that he also shared and that he would take our messages back into conference discussions this afternoon.

The handover of the petition was our way of letting delegates know that there is no time for delay. Delegates have all the facts and figures they need to move forward and tackle climate change, from the Stern review, which looked at the economics, the IPCC reports, that covered the science and the United Nation’s Human Development Report, which put the human impacts of climate change in stark terms. All that is needed now is the political will.

Politicians and public servants that are here in Bali, representing their countries, need to show that they have been listening, to the experts, to the civil society organizations, but most importantly to women and men from around the world, who are standing together and demanding that their representatives take care of our future and that they take their responsibilities seriously.

=====

We really do need to sort this out faster because the “window of opportunity” to address the global challenges soon to be confronted by humanity is beginning to close. While we argue, too little action occurs.

The “powers that be” are evidently in denial of reality and unwilling to openly and honorably express their understanding of what 2000 IPCC Nobel Laureate scientists are reporting with regard to the ominous, distinctly human-induced predicament that is looming before the human community. That many too many economic powerbrokers, their bought-and-paid-for politicians and minions in the mass media adamantly support the soon to become unsustainable global enterprise of endless big-business expansion, come what may, does not favor our children’s well-being or safety, I believe. The talking heads appear to have pledged their primary allegiance and selfish devotion to their benefactors and to the short-term `successes’ of unbridled economic globalization, regardless of the long-term potential for catastrophe that such a recklessly unrestrained and unrealistic pursuit portends. For leaders of the political economy to conspicuously ignore —- much less debunk by using denialists from ideological ‘think tanks’ —- the carefully and skillfully obtained scientific evidence from the IPCC on climate change, and global warming in particular, is an incomprehensible failure with potentially profound implications for a good enough future of our children.

Plainly, what is necessary now is clarity of vision, intellectual honesty, coherence of mind and courage as well as a willingness among leaders to begin “centering” their attention on the probability of human-driven threats to humanity that could soon be posed by the gigantic scale and patently unsustainable growth rate of the over-consumption, overproduction and overpopulation activities of the human species, even now engulfing the surface of the Earth.

Steven Earl Salmony
AWAREness Campaign on The Human Population

Source

Barley


----------



## Barliman Butterbur

*As Earth Warms Up, Tropical Virus Moves to Italy*

by: Elisabeth Rosenthal 23 December 2007

Panic was spreading this August through this tidy village of 2,000 as one person after another fell ill with weeks of high fever, exhaustion and excruciating bone pain, just as most of Italy was enjoying Ferragosto, its most important summer holiday. 

"At one point, I simply couldn't stand up to get out of the car," said Antonio Ciano, 62, an elegant retiree in a pashmina scarf and trendy blue glasses. "I fell. I thought, O.K., my time is up. I'm going to die. It was really that dramatic." 

By midmonth, more than 100 people had come down with the same malady. Although the worst symptoms dissipated after a couple of weeks, no doctor could figure out what was wrong. 

People blamed pollution in the river. They denounced the government. But most of all they blamed recent immigrants from tropical Africa for bringing the pestilence to their sleepy settlement of pastel stucco homes. 

"Why immigrants?" asked Rina Ventura, who owns a shop selling shoes and purses. "I kept thinking of these terrible diseases that you see on TV, like malaria. We were terrified. There was no name and no treatment." 

Oddly, the villagers were both right and wrong. After a month of investigation, Italian public health officials discovered that the people of Castiglione di Cervia were, in fact, suffering from a tropical disease, chikungunya, a relative of dengue fever normally found in the Indian Ocean region. But the immigrants spreading the disease were not humans but insects: tiger mosquitoes, who can thrive in a warming Europe. 

Aided by global warming and globalization, Castiglione di Cervia has the dubious distinction of playing host to the first outbreak in modern Europe of a disease that had previously been seen only in the tropics. 

"By the time we got back the name and surname of the virus, our outbreak was over," said Dr. Rafaella Angelini, director of the regional public health department in Ravenna. "When they told us it was chikungunya, it was not a problem for Ravenna any more. But I thought: this is a big problem for Europe." 

The epidemic proved that tropical viruses are now able to spread in new areas, far north of their previous range. The tiger mosquito, which first arrived in Ravenna three years ago, is thriving across southern Europe and even in France and Switzerland. 

And if chikungunya can spread to Castiglione — "a place not special in any way," Dr. Angelini said — there is no reason why it cannot go to other Italian villages. There is no reason why dengue, an even more debilitating tropical disease, cannot as well. 

"This is the first case of an epidemic of a tropical disease in a developed, European country," said Dr. Roberto Bertollini, director of the World Health Organization's Health and Environment program. "Climate change creates conditions that make it easier for this mosquito to survive and it opens the door to diseases that didn't exist here previously. This is a real issue. Now, today. It is not something a crazy environmentalist is warning about." 

Was he shocked to discover chikungunya in Italy, his native land? "We knew this would happen sooner or later," he said. "We just didn't know where or when." 

It certainly caught this town off guard on Aug. 9, when public health officials in Ravenna received an angry call from Stefano Merlo, who owns the gas station. 

"Within 100 meters of my home, there were more than 30 people with fevers over 40 degrees," or 104 Fahrenheit, said Mr. Merlo, 47. "I wanted to know what was going on. I knew it couldn't be normal."

August is not the season for high fevers, Dr. Angelini agreed, and within days of interviewing patients she was intrigued. 

"The stories were so similar and so dramatic," she said. "But we had no clue it was something tropical." 

Hard-working shopkeepers could not get out of bed because their hips hurt so much. Able-bodied men could not lift spoons to their mouths. (Months later, many still have debilitating joint pain.) 

From the start, doctors suspected that the disease was spread by insects, rather than people. While almost all homes had one person who was ill, family members seemed not to catch the disease from one another. 

They initially focused on sand flies, since the disease clustered on streets by the river. 

Canceling their traditional mid-August vacations (in Italy, a true sign of panic), health officials sent off blood samples, called national infectious-disease experts, searched the Internet and set out traps to see what insects were in the neighborhood. The first surprise was that the insect traps contained not sand flies but tiger mosquitoes, and huge numbers of them. 

The scientific survey confirmed what residents of Castiglione had come to accept as a horrible nuisance, though not a deadly threat. 

"In the last three or four years, you couldn't live on these streets because the mosquitoes were so bad," said Rino Ricchi, a road worker who fell ill, standing at the entrance to his neatly tended garden, where mosquito traps have now replaced decorative fountains. "We used to delight in having a garden or a porch to eat dinner. You couldn't this year, you'd get eaten alive." 

Said Dr. Angelini: "They were treating the mosquitoes like an annoyance. They knew that mosquitoes could spread tropical diseases but they had peace of mind because they knew this didn't happen in Italy." 

Ravenna immediately set about killing the bugs in the hopes of containing the epidemic. Workers sprayed insecticides and went into each family's garden, emptying flower pots, fountains and the rainwater collection barrels to remove the mosquitoes' breeding ground. 

By early September, there were no new cases in Castiglione di Cervia. But there were a number of mini-epidemics in the region — in Ravenna, Cesena and Rimini — set off by tiger mosquitoes there. Each was controlled in the same way. 

By that point, the doctors had cataloged the patients' symptoms and tried to match them to mosquito-borne diseases. 

"We realized," Dr. Angelini said, "we were seeing a photocopy of an outbreak on Réunion," a French island in the Indian Ocean where more than 10,000 people have contracted chikungunya in the last two years. Blood tests confirmed the diagnosis. By summer's end, home-grown chikungunya had been diagnosed in nearly 300 Italians. 

Chikungunya is spread when tiger mosquitoes drink blood from an infected person and, if conditions are right, pass the virus on when they bite again. Tiger mosquitoes first came to southern Italy with shipments of tires from Albania about a decade ago but their habitat has expanded steadily northward as temperatures have risen. 

But the doctors were baffled by how chikungunya made its way into mosquitoes in northern Italy since no one in Castiglione di Cervia had been abroad. In the past two years France, especially Paris, has had a number of imported cases of chikungunya, in travelers returning from Réunion. But the disease has never spread in France, because the mosquito cannot thrive there yet. 

Eventually investigators discovered a link: one of the first men to fall ill in Castiglione di Cervia had been visited by a feverish relative in early July. That relative, an Italian, had previously traveled to Kerala, India. Chikungunya traveled to Italy in his blood, but climatic conditions are now such that it can spread and find a home here. 

Now it is winter in Castiglione di Cervia, near freezing as the sun went down on a recent evening and Christmas lights glowed across the piazza. There are no mosquitoes now. 

But dozens of residents still suffer from arthritis, a known complication of chikungunya. 

Mr. Ricchi, the road worker, says he still has trouble clenching his fists, and his left ankle has horrible pains. Three people in the town died after getting the virus, Mr. Merlo said, although all of those victims had other illnesses as well. 

From the start, townspeople noticed that the very elderly never got the disease. Now it makes sense: "If all you do is walk the 50 yards from your home to the church, there's not much chance to get bitten," said Mr. Ciano, the retiree. 

But the biggest mystery is whether chikungunya will emerge here next summer. In the tropics, it is a year-round disease, since the mosquitoes breed continually. But the virus can winter over in mosquito eggs, too, and no one knows if there are reservoirs of sleeping eggs in some pool of water in Italy. 

With climate change at hand, Dr. Bertollini said, chikungunya will surely be back somewhere in Europe again. 

Source

Barley


----------



## greypilgrim

I notice Barliman Butterbur is electing to bury my posts instead of addressing the questions I posed in them, instead parroting blogs and news sources. For reference, I've collected them for quick persual:

1: http://thetolkienforum.com/showpost.php?p=484671&postcount=156
2. http://thetolkienforum.com/showpost.php?p=484677&postcount=159





> I see a lot of people talking about how we can't afford not to stop Global Warming. Talking about all the possibilities, what they all leave out is the most likely, trying to stop Global Warming and failing. I do not foresee man World Wide following the instructions set forth by the Global Warming Crusade (GWC). Furthermore it is my personal belief that even if by some miracle man did, we still could not affect the outcome. Global Warming will either happen or it won't, it will be catastrophic or it won't. Causing Total Global Economic Collapse (TGEC) will not make it any better either way.
> *IF WE DON'T SAY NO TO THE GLOBAL WARMING CRUSADERS IT IS THE SAME THING AS SAYING YES!*​
> http://www.aninconvenientguilttrip.com/?gclid=CL_Dl77ZyJACFQ-SHgod002-QA



This author poses a very, very interesting question. Who is going to enforce policy around the globe if the GWC movement succeeds?


----------



## greypilgrim

*No 2*



> American Thinker, December 27, 2007
> 
> When in the course of human history has mankind been so healthy, secure and prosperous that national political leaders, scientists and the media elite worldwide could be preoccupied with a theoretical crisis predicted to occur 50 years hence? Controversy continues to rage over Anthropogenic Global Warming Theory, most recently with a minority Senate report citing 400 eminent scientists , yet it's worth reflecting on what this debate means about the human condition at the advent of the 21st Century
> 
> 
> The corollary to this preoccupation with hypothetical dangers 5 decades hence, of course, is that there is not one imminent threat to western nations that demands our immediate attention. Not one human soul is, or ever has been, in immediate danger from Global Warming.
> http://www.americanthinker.com/2007/12/nothing_better_to_worry_about.html



<<<....polititical commentary snipped, but a great read here....>>>


> (Cont.)
> This historically unprecedented era of world peace, prosperity, security and health habe been brought about by American military and economic power exercised through the crises of the 20th Century. Consider the following absurd scenarios:
> 
> 
> Imagine a former vice president lecturing President Franklin Delano Roosevelt in late December 1941 that he should not be preoccupied with Hitler and Tojo but rather should devote his attention to treating a mathematically-predicted climate "crisis" with consequences that might occur 50 years hence.
> 
> Imagine a former vice president lecturing Harry Truman in 1950 that he should shift his focus from the fall of China to communism and the invasion of South Korea by the North in order to deal with a mathematically-predicted climate "crisis" with consequences that might occur 50 years hence.
> 
> Imagine a former vice president telling Dwight Eisenhower to forget about that Suez Crisis and the rise of the Soviet Empire in order to treat a mathematically-predicted climate "crisis" with consequences that might occur 50 years hence.
> 
> Imagine a former vice president lecturing John F. Kennedy to divert his attention from the Cuban Missile Crisis in order to treat a mathematically-predicted climate "crisis" with consequences that might occur 50 years hence.
> 
> Imagine a former vice president advising Lyndon Johnson to forget about those Viet Nam War protestors and race rioters and concentrate on a mathematically-predicted climate "crisis" with consequences that might occur 50 years hence.
> 
> Imagine a former vice president advising Richard Nixon to forget about the fall of Saigon and the potential for further capitulations to communism around the globe in order to address a mathematically-predicted climate "crisis" with consequences that might occur 50 years hence.
> 
> Imagine a former vice president advising Jimmy Carter to leave aside that Embassy hostage-crisis in Tehran and the Soviet invasion of Afghanistan so that he could take measures against a mathematically-predicted climate "crisis" with consequences that might occur 50 years hence.
> 
> Imagine a former vice president hectoring Ronald Reagan to leave aside the military stand-off with the Soviet Empire along with calls for Mr. Gorbachev to "tear down this wall" so that he could devote resources to preparing for a mathematically-predicted climate "crisis" with consequences that might occur 50 years hence
> 
> Imagine a former vice president lecturing George H.W. Bush at the time of the fall of communism to take his attention away from all the potential problems and opportunities emerging unexpectedly on the world-stage in order to devote his attention to a mathematically-predicted climate "crisis" with consequences that might occur 50 years hence.
> 
> Imagine a vice president telling Bill Clinton to leave aside his concern over his impeachment and the ensuing constitutional crisis in order to devote his mind to pondering a mathematically-predicted climate "crisis" with consequences that might occur 50 years hence (for all we know this may have happened).
> 
> Imagine a former vice president lecturing George Bush in late September 2001 to leave aside concern over Al Qaeda, the Taliban, Sadam Hussein and other terrorists and terrorist-states in order to treat a mathematically-predicted climate "crisis" with consequences that might occur 50 years hence.
> 
> 
> In each case, the former vice president would have been rightly ridiculed over his sense of priorities accompanied with a possible referral for psychological evaluation. However today, we are so secure, healthy and complacent with nearly eight years of economic expansion with low unemployment that Americans need not devote much attention to immediate concerns.
> 
> 
> This may change. Iran, North Korea, Pakistan, and others have a say in the worries we must face. Meanwhile many still feel able to devote considerable time heeding Al Gore, a modern Nostradamus in his ruminations about western guilt and climate change. Whatever you think of the debate over "Global Warming", we should all thank God that the State of the Union and the state of the world are so good and strong that we can concern ourselves so wholeheartedly to debate over a mathematically-predicted climate "crisis" with consequences that might occur 50 years hence.
> 
> http://www.americanthinker.com/2007/12/nothing_better_to_worry_about.html



^ Sorry for the exceedingly long post. I brought this article out to address and support my previous assertion that the GWC (Global Warming Crusade) is not what it appears to be. Last question posted in the following link: http://thetolkienforum.com/showpost....&postcount=159

I believe that the STATED GOALS and METHODS PROPOSED FOR DEALING WITH CLIMATE CHANGE both champion the true agenda of the movement perfectly...that is the chamelion movement of the GWC. I further state that the way to bring about those (hidden) ends are the exact same ways and means being used to implement future climate change policy. The tactics are the same as were used in converting nations into Bolshevik and communist countries in Eastern Europe at the turn of this century, and until oh, about the 1980's or so. Just on a much, much larger scale.

My point is: There is a hidden war of IDEALS being waged against freedom and liberty at present. 

But,

Unwarranted Personal attack removed. Gothmog

Stay tuned!


----------



## greypilgrim

Global warming presents us with some fantastic opportunities. We just need to be brave enough to grab them, and run like hell.

This week, we look at some of the good things about global waming, and what it means to you. 

A sea-side home for every mountain-dweller 

With temperatures soaring, people won't burn fossil fules to heat their houses. 

No need to retire to Florida. The warmer climate is coming to you. 

Bangladesh was a ****-hole anyway. 

Lots of fresh, clean drinking water as the ice caps melt.

Girls will wear skimpy clothes even in winter. 

No more of those annoying penguins dancing all over the place. 

"Living underground" will no longer imply you're a spy. 

You'll be able to grow tropical fruit in your own bedroon, even if you live in Alaska. 

Your friends wont be able to brag about their ski trips to the Alps. 

No more lost mittens. 

You'll have an excuse to eat ice-cream all the time. 

Al Gore will stop lecturing us all, and just say "I told you so." 

It will be too hot to exercise, so being a couch potato will be socially acceptable. 

Dying and going to hell will make for a cool change. 

Humans will have empathy with dinosaurs.

Kevin Costner's film "Waterworld" will seem remarkably insightful, instead of just being remarkably awful. 

http://www.gorskys.com.au/articles/great-things-global-warming.html


----------



## Barliman Butterbur

*UC named one of the top 10 "coolest" schools in battle against global warming*

Sierra Magazine, in its November/December 2007 issue, has named the UC system one of America's Top 10 "coolest" schools for its efforts to stop global warming. UC ranked No. 4 on Sierra Club magazine's inaugural listing of the nation's greenest campuses.

UC was the highest-ranked public university — and the only California institution — on the list, which was led by Oberlin College. Harvard University was second and Warren Wilson College was third.

"The University of California system is honored that Sierra Magazine has recognized the significant impact that our sustainability policy is making," said Matthew St.Clair, UC's systemwide sustainability manager. "Our sustainability policy has been a model for other universities, and each of our 10 campuses shares their strengths with one another to improve the university's environmental practices across the board."

UC's sustainability policy officially began covering green building design and clean energy standards in 2004. It expanded in 2006 to include sustainable transportation practices and greenhouse gas emissions reductions. This year, climate protection practices, green building renovations, sustainable operations and maintenance, waste reduction and environmentally preferable purchasing were added to UC's menu of green business strategies.

Sierra Magazine highlighted several actions UC has taken to make itself greener:

- The UC system has pledged to generate 10 megawatts of renewable power (enough to power about 7,500 homes) by 2014, increase use of low-to-zero-emission vehicles by 50 percent by 2010, and achieve zero waste by 2020 at its 10 campuses

- UCLA has fought pollution-producing gridlock with its bicycle master plan - UC Davis has improved its agricultural sustainability and conducted environmental educational outreach to local junior high school students

- UC Merced has received kudos for its green building

- UC Berkeley has a certified organic kitchen at one of its dining halls and a new major in society and the environment.

"When such a large and important educational institution takes such significant, systemic steps toward addressing global warming it can't help but influence the thinking of many tens of thousands of students," said Bob Sipchen, the magazine’s editor-in-chief. "If students carry these strong environmental values back to their communities and into their careers, UC's initiative will reverberate globally."

Source

Barley


----------



## Barliman Butterbur

*Climate change fight 'can't wait'*

The world cannot afford to wait before tackling climate change, the UK prime minister has warned. A report by economist Sir Nicholas Stern suggests that global warming could shrink the global economy by 20%. But taking action now would cost just 1% of global gross domestic product, the 700-page study says.

Tony Blair said the Stern Review showed that scientific evidence of global warming was "overwhelming" and its consequences "disastrous".

*International response*

The review coincides with the release of new data by the United Nations showing an upward trend in emission of greenhouse gases - a development for which Sir Nicholas said that rich countries must shoulder most of the responsibility. And Chancellor Gordon Brown promised the UK would lead the international response to tackle climate change.

The BBC's Nick Robinson said that, while the Stern Review did not recommend specific tax rises, upping the cost of flying - both people and goods - and driving was on the agenda of all three main political parties.

Environment Secretary David Miliband said the Queen's Speech would now feature a climate bill to establish an independent Carbon Committee to "work with government to reduce emissions over time and across the economy". We have the time and knowledge to act but only if we act internationally, strongly and urgently

*Sir Nicholas Stern*

The report says that without action, up to 200 million people could become refugees as their homes are hit by drought or flood.

"Whilst there is much more we need to understand - both in science and economics - we know enough now to be clear about the magnitude of the risks, the timescale for action and how to act effectively," Sir Nicholas said.

"That's why I'm optimistic - having done this review - that we have the time and knowledge to act. But only if we act internationally, strongly and urgently."

Mr Blair said the consequences for the planet of inaction were "literally disastrous".

"This disaster is not set to happen in some science fiction future many years ahead, but in our lifetime," he said.

"Investment now will pay us back many times in the future, not just environmentally but economically as well."

"For every £1 invested now we can save £5, or possibly more, by acting now.

"We can't wait the five years it took to negotiate Kyoto - we simply don't have the time. We accept we have to go further (than Kyoto)."

*Large risks*

Sir Nicholas, a former chief economist of the World Bank, told BBC Radio 4's Today programme: "Unless it's international, we will not make the reductions on the scale which will be required."

He went on: "What we have shown is the magnitude of these risks is very large and has to be taken into account in the kind of investments the world makes today and the consumption patterns it has."

The Stern Review forecasts that 1% of global gross domestic product (GDP) must be spent on tackling climate change immediately.

*It warns that if no action is taken:*

Floods from rising sea levels could displace up to 100 million people
Melting glaciers could cause water shortages for 1 in 6 of the world's population

Wildlife will be harmed; at worst up to 40% of species could become extinct
Droughts may create tens or even hundreds of millions of "climate refugees"

*Clear objectives*

The study is the first major contribution to the global warming debate by an economist, rather than an environmental scientist.

There is the greatest opportunity of all, the prize of securing and safeguarding the planet for our generations to come 

*Gordon Brown* 

Mr Brown, who commissioned the report, has also recruited former US Vice-President Al Gore as an environment adviser.

"In the 20th century our national economic ambitions were the twin objectives of achieving stable economic growth and full employment," Mr Brown said.

"Now in the 21st century our new objectives are clear, they are threefold: growth, full employment and environmental care." 

"He said the green challenge was also an opportunity "for new markets, for new jobs, new technologies, new exports where companies, universities and social enterprises in Britain can lead the world".

"And then there is the greatest opportunity of all, the prize of securing and safeguarding the planet for our generations to come."

Mr Brown called for a long-term framework of a worldwide carbon market that would lead to "a low-carbon global economy". Among his plans are:

Reducing European-wide emissions by 30% by 2020, and at least 60% by 2050

By 2010, having 5% of all UK vehicles running on biofuels
Creating an independent environmental authority to work with the government

Establishing trade links with Brazil, Papua New Guinea and Costa Rica to ensure sustainable forestry

Working with China on clean coal technologies

The review was welcomed by groups including the European Commission and business group the CBI.

"Provided we act with sufficient speed, we will not have to make a choice between averting climate change and promoting growth and investment," said CBI head Richard Lambert.

Pia Hansen, of the European Commission, said the report "clearly makes a case for action".

"Climate change is not a problem that Europe can afford to put into the 'too difficult' pile," she said.

"It is not an option to wait and see, and we must act now."

Story from BBC NEWS:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/go/pr/fr/-/2/hi/business/6096084.stm

===============================

Barley


----------



## Barliman Butterbur

*Sir Nicholas Stern: Report's stark warning on climate*

Analysis 
By Robert Peston 
Business Editor, BBC News

The Stern Review says that climate change represents the greatest and widest-ranging market failure ever seen. And on the basis of this intellectually rigorous and thorough report, it is hard to disagree. Sir Nicholas Stern, a distinguished development economist and former chief economist at the World Bank, is not a man given to hyperbole.

Yet he says "our actions over the coming few decades could create risks of major disruption to economic and social activity, later in this century and in the next, on a scale similar to those associated with the great wars and the economic depression of the first half of the 20th Century".

His report gives prescriptions for how to minimise this economic and social disruption.

His central argument is that spending large sums of money now on measures to reduce carbon emissions will bring dividends on a colossal scale. It would be wholly irrational, therefore, not to spend this money.

However, he warns that we are too late to prevent any deleterious consequences from climate change.

The prospects are worst for Africa and developing countries, so the richer nations must provide them with financial and technological help to prepare and adapt.

*Tough decisions*

He believes it is practical to aim for a stabilisation of greenhouse gas levels in the atmosphere of 500 to 550 parts per million of carbon dioxide equivalent by 2050 - which is double pre-industrial levels and compares with 430ppm today.

Carbon dioxide itself stands at about 380ppm, but Sir Nicholas has used the higher figure of 430 which incorporates other greenhouse gases such as methane.

But even stabilising at that level will probably mean significant climate change.

===

For 150 years, we've pumped carbon into the atmosphere - whether through energy or transport - as if it had no price 
David Miliband, Environment Secretary 

===

Even to stabilise at that level, emissions per unit of gross domestic product (GDP) would need to be cut by an average of three-quarters by 2050 - a frightening statistic.

As well as decarbonising the power sector by 60%-70%, there will also have to be an end to deforestation - emissions from deforestation are estimated at more than 18% of global emissions, more than transport. And there will have to be deep cuts in emissions from transport.

The costs of these changes should be around 1% of global GDP by 2050 - in other words the world would be 1% poorer than we would otherwise have been, which would be significant but far from prohibitive.

To be clear, this does not mean we would be 1% poorer than we are today, but that global growth will be slower.

The way to look at this 1% is as an investment. Because the costs of not taking this action are mind-bogglingly large.

*Rising estimates*

Sir Nicholas Stern's start point is economic modelling carried out in other studies showing that a scenario of 2-3 degrees of warming would lead to a permanent loss of up to 3% in global world output, compared to what would have happened without climate change. But he says those estimates are too low.

He believes 5-6 degrees of warming is a "real possibility" for the next century.

Having fed the probabilities of the various different degrees of global warming into his economic model, he estimates that "business as usual" would lead to a permanent reduction in global per-capita consumption of at least 5%.

But, that estimate does not include the financial cost of the direct impact on human health and the environment from global warming, or the disproportionate costs on poor regions of the world.

It also ignores so-called "feedback mechanisms", which may mean that as the stock of greenhouse gases increases there is a disproportionate rise in warming with each new increment in emissions.

*Unfair burden*

Putting all these factors together, he comes up with the stark conclusion that if we do nothing to stem climate change, there could be a permanent reduction in consumption per head of 20%.

In other words, everyone in the world would be a fifth poorer than they would otherwise have been.

Even worse, these costs will not be shared evenly. There will be a disproportionate burden on the poorest countries.

So here's the winning formula: Stern says spend 1% of world GDP to be 20% richer than we will otherwise be. It looks like a no-brainer.

There is another way of presenting this analysis of benefits versus costs.

Stern says that if you take the present value (the value in today's money) of the benefits over the coming years of taking action to stabilise greenhouse gases by 2050, then deduct the costs, you end up with a "profit" of $2.5 trillion (£1.32 trillion).

Any way you look at it, the financial case for tackling climate change looks watertight.

*Hurdles*

That said, there are great impediments to harvesting this dividend.

One is the obvious problem, which is that it requires collective, coordinated action by most of the world's governments - and securing the requisite consensus on the way forward will not be simple.

===

We should prepare for a whole series of shocks from the effects of climate change that are already unavoidable 
Robert Peston, BBC Business Editor

===

In the interests of fairness, Stern argues that the richer countries should take responsibility for between 60% and 80% of reductions in emissions from 1990 levels by 2050.

But assuming that consensus is reached, what is the best way to correct the grotesque market failure that is currently taking us on a path to poverty? How do we start to pay a price for carbon that reflects its true economic and social costs, or a price that includes the present value of future climate change?

*There are two main ways of achieving this.*

One is through taxation. The other is through rationing the amount of carbon emissions that any business - or any individual - can make, and then creating a proper global market.

Such a move would allow any business or institution that wants to emit more than its entitlement to buy that right, and any business that emits less than its entitlement to sell the unused portion of its entitlement - effectively carbon trading.

Another imperative for governments is to encourage research and development on low-carbon technologies.

Governments must also encourage "behavioural change", through regulation - such as imposing tighter standards on the energy efficiency of buildings - as well as educating the public about the true costs of wasting energy.

*Trouble ahead*

That said, we should prepare for a whole series of shocks from the effects of climate change that are already unavoidable.

There will probably be both more droughts and more floods. An increased incidence of devastating storms is expected. And there is an increased risk of famine in the poorest countries.

So we must start to get better at monitoring of climate conditions - and adapt ourselves for the new world.

That means reinforcing buildings and infrastructure to make them sturdier in the face of extreme weather conditions, investment in new dykes, and support for financial markets so that it is possible to purchase insurance against climate-related disaster.

It will all be very expensive, disproportionately so for developing countries. So Stern argues, and it's hard to disagree, that there is a strong moral obligation on the richer countries to help the poorest ones protect themselves against the very worst that may transpire.

Story from BBC NEWS:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/go/pr/fr/-/2/hi/business/6096594.stm

===============================

Barley


----------



## greypilgrim

From Barliman's newslink:



> "There are two main ways of achieving this. (Stealing billions)
> 
> One is through taxation. The other is through rationing the amount of carbon emissions that any business - or any individual - can make, and then creating a proper global market.



They will try for both, guaranteed.


----------



## Barliman Butterbur

*Report: China To Overtake U.S. As Top Greenhouse Gas Emitter This Year*

By CHRISTOPHER BODEEN
Associated Press Writer
SHANGHAI, China

*China will overtake the United States as the world's biggest source of greenhouse gasses this year, a news report cited the International Energy Agency as saying.*

China had been forecast to surpass the U.S. in 2010, but its sizzling economic growth has pushed the date forward, IEA chief economist Fatih Birol was quoted as saying in an interview in Tuesday's Wall Street Journal newspaper.

"In the past couple of months, economic growth and related coal consumption has grown at such an unexpected rate," Birol was quoted as saying. China's rising emissions will effectively cancel out other countries' attempts to reduce their own, he said.

Birol's comments mark the direst prediction yet about China's contribution to global warming.

They follow the release over the weekend of a Chinese government report detailing the costs of climate change, but asserting that the country should focus on development before cutting greenhouse gas emissions.

Higher-than-average temperatures mean spreading deserts, worsening droughts, shrinking glaciers and increased spread of diseases, said the report, compiled by more than a dozen government bodies. Wheat, rice and corn yields could fall by up to 37 percent in the second half of the century, it said.

China is a signatory to the Kyoto Protocol on reducing greenhouse gasses, but it is exempt from its restrictions because it is a developing country.

The Paris-based International Energy Agency advises developed countries on energy policy. Agency officials could not immediately be reached to corroborate Birol's comments.

China maintains that richer countries are responsible for the accumulated greenhouse emissions and should take the lead in cleaning up the problem.

However, Birol's remarks reflect rising concern both internationally and domestically over the environmental costs of China's soaring growth. Beijing last week said the economy grew by 11.1 percent in the first three months from the same period last year, defying attempts to slow down growth and ensure money is invested wisely.

China's heavy reliance on highly polluting coal for electricity generation have made it a major contributor to greenhouse gasses, mainly carbon dioxide, which are blamed for damaging the ozone layer and causing global warming.

Industries and urban buildings are far less energy efficient than those in developed countries and the massive growth of private car ownership has helped turn air in cities such as Shanghai and Beijing into a toxic soup.

In an article in the U.S. magazine The Nation this week, Elizabeth Economy of the U.S. Council on Foreign Relations wrote that Chinese officials are either unwilling or powerless to enforce environmental standards as a consequence of the regime's emphasis on development.

If current trends hold, China's greenhouse gas emissions will likely exceed that of all industrialized countries combined over the next 25 years, wrote Economy.

"In short, it's a nightmarishly bad picture," she said.

Beijing has made some efforts to boost efficiency, mandating that solar, wind, hydroelectric and other forms of renewable energy provide 10 percent of all power by 2010 and telling key industries to reduce energy consumption by 20 percent.

However, Birol said Beijing's refusal to place restrictions on greenhouse gas emissions undermines attempts to draft a new international treaty against greenhouse gasses to replace the Kyoto Protocol, which expires in 2012, he said.

"Without having China on board, without having them play a significant role, all these efforts, none of it, will make any sense," Birol was quoted as saying.

China has also joined the Asia Pacific Partnership on Clean Development and Climate which promotes renewable energy sources and cleaner ways to use coal but does not impose binding targets on member countries for reducing emissions.

Chinese Premier Wen Jiabao and Japanese Prime Minister Shinzo Abe this month also signed an environmental agreement that called for the countries to work on a successor to the Kyoto.

Source

Barley


----------



## Barliman Butterbur

Newspapers around the world published a story today about a scientific report coming out of the United States warning that the Arctic Ice Cap is melting much faster than expected, and is in fact thirty years ahead of predictions made by the IPCC! This means that the ocean at the top of the world could be free or nearly free of summer ice by 2020.

*Arctic ice cap melting 30 years ahead of forecast*

WASHINGTON (Reuters) - The Arctic ice cap is melting much faster than expected and is now about 30 years ahead of predictions made by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, a U.S. ice expert said on Tuesday.

No ice on the Arctic Ocean during summer would be a major spur to global warming, said Ted Scambos, a glaciologist at the National Snow and Ice Center in Colorado.

“Right now … the Arctic helps keep the Earth cool,” Scambos said in a telephone interview. “Without that Arctic ice, or with much less of it, the Earth will warm much faster.”

That is because the ice reflects light and heat; when it is gone, the much darker land or sea will absorb more light and heat, making it more difficult for the planet to cool down, even in winter, he said.

Scambos and co-authors of the study, published in the journal Geophysical Research Letters, used satellite data and visual confirmation of Arctic ice to reach their conclusions, a far different picture than that obtained from computer models used by the scientists of the intergovernmental panel.

“The IPCC report was very careful, very thorough and cautious, so they erred on the side of what would certainly occur as opposed to what might occur,” Scambos said in a telephone interview.

*ICE-FREE SUMMER*

The wide possibility of what might occur included a much later melt up north, or a much earlier one, Scambos said.

“It appears we’re on pace about 30 years earlier than expected to reach a state where we don’t have sea ice or at least not very much in late summer in the Arctic Ocean,” he said.

He discounted the notion that the sharp warming trend in the Arctic might be due to natural climate cycles. “There aren’t many periods in history that are this dramatic in terms of natural variability,” Scambos said.

He said he had no doubt that this was caused in large part by greenhouse gases in the atmosphere, which he said was the only thing capable of changing Earth on such a large scale over so many latitudes.

Asked what could fix the problem — the topic of a new report by the intergovernmental panel to be released on Friday in Bangkok — Scambos said a large volcanic eruption might hold Arctic ice melting at bay for a few years.

But he saw a continued warm-up as inevitable in the coming decades.

“Long-term and for the next 50 years, I think even the new report will agree that we’re in for quite a bit of warming,” Scambos said.

“We just barely now, I think, have enough time and enough collective will to be able to get through this century in good shape, but it means we have to start acting now and in a big way.”

By Deborah Zabarenko, Environment Correspondent

Source

===============================

Barley


----------



## Barliman Butterbur

*New global warming evidence presented*

Scientists say their observations prove industry is to blame

David Perlman, Chronicle Science Editor
Saturday, February 19, 2005
(02-19) 04:00 PST Washington -- Scientists reported Friday they have detected the clearest evidence yet that global warming is real -- and that human industrial activity is largely responsible for it.

Researchers at the annual meeting of the American Association for the Advancement of Science cited a range of evidence that the Earth's temperatures are rising:

-- The Arctic regions are losing ice cover.

-- The populations of whales and walrus that Alaskan Eskimo communities depend on for food are crashing.

-- Fresh water draining from ice and snow on land is decreasing the salinity of far northern oceans.

-- Many species of plankton -- the microscopic plants that form the crucial base of the entire marine food web -- are moving north to escape the warming water on the ocean surface off Greenland and Alaska.

Ice ages come and go over millennia, and for the past 8,000 years, the gradual end of the last ice age has seen a natural increase in worldwide temperatures, all scientists agree. Skeptics have expressed doubt that industrial activity is to blame for world's rapidly rising temperatures.

But records show that for the past 50 years or so, the warming trend has sped up -- due, researchers said, to the atmospheric burden of greenhouse gases produced by everything industrial, from power plants burning fossil fuels to gas-guzzling cars -- and the effects are clear.

"We were stunned by the similarities between the observations that have been recorded at sea worldwide and the models that climatologists made," said Tim Barnett of the University of California's Scripps Institution of Oceanography. "The debate is over, at least for rational people. And for those who insist that the uncertainties remain too great, their argument is no longer tenable. We've nailed it."

Barnett and other experts marshaled their evidence and presented it to their colleagues for the first time at a symposium here.

For the past 40 years, Barnett said, observations by seaborne instruments have shown that the increased warming has penetrated the oceans of the world - - observations, he said, that have proved identical to computer predictions whose accuracy has been challenged by global-warming skeptics.

The most recent temperature observations, he said, fit those models with extraordinary accuracy.

But a spokesman for the Bush administration -- which has been criticized for not taking global warming seriously -- was unfazed by the latest news.

"Our position has been the same for a long time," said Bill Holbrook, spokesman for the White House Council on Environmental Quality. "The science of global climate change is uncertain."

"Ice is in decline everywhere on the planet, and especially in the Arctic, " said Ruth Curry, a physical oceanographer at the Woods Hole Oceanographic Institution, "and there is large-scale drying throughout the Northern Hemisphere."

Ice cores drilled deep into the Greenland ice cap show that salinity of the ice at the upper layers of the cores has decreased sharply due to the incursion of fresh water draining from melting snows on the surface, she reported, and land ice and permafrost are in decline all around the Arctic. In the meantime, she said, measurements show that salinity of the ocean waters nearer the equator has increased as the rate of evaporation of warmer tropical and subtropical oceans quickens.

It may take several centuries for all the ice that covers Greenland to melt, Curry said, "but its release of fresh water will make sea-level rise a very significant issue in this century." In fact, she said, changes in the freshwater balance of the oceans has already caused severe drought conditions in America's Western states and many parts of China and other Asian countries.

Already, the physics of increased warming and the changes in ocean circulation that result are strongly affecting the entire ecology of the Arctic regions, according to Sharon L. Smith, an oceanographer and marine biologist at the University of Miami.

Last summer, on an expedition ranging from Alaska's Aleutian islands to the Arctic Ocean above the state's oil-rich North Slope, Smith said she encountered the leading elder of an Eskimo community on Little Diomede island who told her that ice conditions offshore were changing rapidly year by year; that the ice was breaking up and retreating earlier and earlier; and that in the previous year the men of his community were able to kill only 10 walrus for their crucial food supplies, compared to past harvests of 200 or more.

Populations of bowhead whales, which the Eskimo people of Barrow on the North Slope are permitted to hunt, are declining too, Smith said. The organisms essential to the diet of Eider ducks living on St. Lawrence Island have been in rapid decline, while both the plants and ducks have moved 100 miles north to colder climates -- a migration, she said, that obviously was induced by the warming of the waters off the island.

Another piece of evidence Smith cited for the ecological impact of warming in the Arctic emerged in the Bering Sea, where there was a huge die- off in 1997 of a single species of seabirds called short-tailed shearwaters.

Hundreds of thousands of birds died, she said, and the common plankton plants on which they depend totally for food was replaced by inedible plants covered with calcite mineral plates. Those plants thrive in warmer waters and require higher-than-normal levels of carbon dioxide -- the major greenhouse gas -- to reproduce, Smith said.

"What more convincing evidence do we need that warming is real?" Smith asked.

Source

Barley


----------



## greypilgrim

Red China. That great big beast in the east. I'm glad China is finally being addressed in all this.



Barliman Butterbur said:


> *China will overtake the United States as the world's biggest source of greenhouse gasses this year, a news report cited the International Energy Agency as saying.*....China's rising emissions will effectively cancel out other countries' attempts to reduce their own, he said.



And when the UN decides that China has exceeded it's limits imposed on it, what do you suppose is going to happen? Economic sanctions? LOL! No body of governments is going to bully China or impose their will on that nation, ever. 



> They follow the release over the weekend of a Chinese government report detailing the costs of climate change, but asserting that the country should focus on development before cutting greenhouse gas emissions.


So in other words, they are NEVER GOING TO FOLLOW the GWC Policies. China will be in a stage of perpetual development for the next 50-100 years. What then? As their power spreads throughout Asia and the rest of the world, their carbon footprint (lol) will perpetually grow along with their global influence. You can already see it happenng now. Every day China gets bigger. But the carbon footprint of China is just an illusion, like I've been saying all along.



> Wheat, rice and corn yields could fall by up to 37 percent in the second half of the century, it said.(China Report)



America won't ever have a food shortage crisis, thankfully. Any future alarms concerning a food shortage crisis in the future should be given immediate suspicion. I refer to my post entitled "No 2" earlier. 



> China is a signatory to the Kyoto Protocol on reducing greenhouse gasses, but it is exempt from its restrictions because it is a developing country.


I'm sorry, I thought they referred to China as a developing country. 

That's "slightly" misleading. China is a developing country - but to label them in that category under the Kyoto Protocols is insane. China is in the economic ring with the big boys, indeed they are becoming a vast, major superpower and source of much concern for the rest of the world today.




> The Paris-based International Energy Agency advises developed countries on energy policy. Agency officials could not immediately be reached to corroborate Birol's comments.


Gee, that's a shocker. 



> China maintains that richer countries are responsible for the accumulated greenhouse emissions and should take the lead in cleaning up the problem.


Of course! 



> However, Birol's remarks reflect rising concern both internationally and domestically over the environmental costs of China's soaring growth. Beijing last week said the economy grew by 11.1 percent in the first three months from the same period last year, defying attempts to slow down growth and ensure money is invested wisely.


That's a scary statement. 



> If current trends hold, China's greenhouse gas emissions will likely exceed that of all industrialized countries combined over the next 25 years, wrote Economy.
> 
> "In short, it's a nightmarishly bad picture," she said.


Replace "greenhouse gas emissions" with "continuing growth and firmness of grip and entrenchment in the global economic sector" and you will likely have a more accurate statement.




> "Without having China on board, without having them play a significant role, all these efforts, none of it, will make any sense," Birol was quoted as saying.


None of it makes sense from the beginning! 



> China has also joined the Asia Pacific Partnership on Clean Development and Climate which promotes renewable energy sources and cleaner ways to use coal but does not impose binding targets on member countries for reducing emissions.


Of course!

===============================

Following up on my assertion made in post #159, I now refer to China as the UN's opponent in a game for global dominance pitting east vs west. In this game the European Union of Soviet Socialist Republics and Old America play "white" vs China"black". The fronts in this war are being established now on the very underbelly of the world...that dark, ugly, menacing aspect of the world that nobody knows or thinks about. There are as many aspects in the battle for global domination as chess pieces, and that's the best example I can use for my theory. A Chess Game For Global Dominace. Infinite control over people's lives.That is the ultimate goal of the underground, communist-socialist movement that was thought dead and buried in the 1980's, resurfacing under political and social environmentalism, social reform, and educational reform groups from time to time in the past two decades. 

China is the rest of the world's biggest threat to growth and progress at present and will be for decades, most especially for the UN.

These pitiful attacks in the media against them only just begin prove my point, that the GWC being just one front in the hidden war being waged throughout the world today.

I highly recommend watching this 16 minute propaganda piece from a chinese film student. It's called "Hahaha America!" In it, he paints a picture of the world that is funny and scary at the same time, and a picture I guarantee you have never considered before.

http://www.atomfilms.com/film/haha_america.jsp (please wait a few seconds to let it load)


----------



## Barliman Butterbur

Evidently I provide facts and GP provides questionable cherry-picked op-ed/spin...

Barley


----------



## Barliman Butterbur

*China opens 1st air-sea interaction lab to analyze climate change*

BEIJING, Dec. 27 [2007] (Xinhua) -- China opened its first air-sea interaction and climate change laboratory in Qingdao, Shandong Province, to closely observe climate change on the sea and to provide scientific solutions.

****The newly-built lab in the eastern coastal province, funded and run by the State Oceanic Administration (SOA) First Institute of Oceanography (FIO), would conduct research on climate influencing phenomena of mass, energy, momentum and radiation fluxes across the sea, FIO head Ma Deyi said in the China Ocean News on Thursday.

****The lab's research topics mainly included the study of concentration of size distribution of marine aerosol in the boundary layer over the sea surface and in the coastal zone. It would also study atmospheric optical depth over coastal zones and open sea, and modeling of the light field in the atmosphere and ocean, Ma said.

****The lab would also act as a nerve center for an underway oceanic monitoring network. This was expected to be completed next year for observing climate change in the Bohai Sea, the South China Sea and sea areas, said vice SOA chief Wang Fei.

****"We'll strengthen our capability in forecasting weather and analyzing air-sea interactions in deep seas," he said.

****The U.N. Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) issued a new report on the phenomenon earlier this year. It warned the world's average temperature, if left unchecked, could rise by as much as two to four degrees centigrade by 2080. This would probably trigger more natural disasters endangering human beings.

****Representatives from 180 countries convened earlier this month in Bali, Indonesia, agreeing on a clear agenda for the key climate change issues to be negotiated up to 2009. These included actions for adapting to the negative consequences of climate change, methods to reduce greenhouse gas emissions, methods to deploy climate-friendly technologies and financing both adaptation and mitigation measures.

****Sea-weather observation and air-sea interactions analysis were effective in monitoring global climate change.

****World-leading organizations, such as the National Aeronautics and Space Administration, and top universities, including Massachusetts Institute of Technology and California Institute of Technology, have already focused on air-sea interaction to know more about climate change.

Source

Barley


----------



## greypilgrim

Barliman Butterbur said:


> Evidently I provide facts and GP provides questionable op-ed/spin...
> 
> Barley



Barliman, 

Prove me wrong or else go back to copy/pasting from blogs.


----------



## Barliman Butterbur

*Political Interference with Climate Change Science Under the Bush Administration, December 2007*

The U.S. House of Representatives' Committee on Oversight and Government Reform produced this analysis of the Bush administration's relationship to climate change issues.

The executive summary states, "For the past 16 months, the House Oversight and Government Reform Committee has been investigating allegations of political interference with government climate change science under the Bush Administration. During the course of this investigation, the Committee obtained over 27,000 pages of documents from the White House Council on Environmental Quality (CEQ) and the Commerce Department, held two investigative hearings, and deposed or interviewed key officials. Much of the information made available to the Committee has never been publicly disclosed.

This report presents the findings of the Committee's investigation. The evidence before the Committee leads to one inescapable conclusion: the Bush Administration has engaged in a systematic effort to manipulate climate change science and mislead policymakers and the public about the dangers of global warming.

In 1998, the American Petroleum Institute developed an internal "Communications Action Plan" that stated: "Victory will be achieved when ... average citizens 'understand' uncertainties in climate science ... [and] recognition of uncertainties becomes part of the 'conventional wisdom.'" The Bush Administration has acted as if the oil industry's communications plan were its mission statement. White House officials and political appointees in the agencies censored congressional testimony on the causes and impacts of global warming, controlled media access to government climate scientists, and edited federal scientific reports to inject unwarranted uncertainty into discussions of climate change and to minimize the threat to the environment and the economy.

*The White House Censored Climate Change Scientists*

 The White House exerted unusual control over the public statements of federal scientists on climate change issues. It was standard practice for media requests to speak with federal scientists on climate change matters to be sent to CEQ for White House approval. By controlling which government scientists could respond to media inquiries, the White House suppressed dissemination of scientific views that could conflict with Administration policies. The White House also edited congressional testimony regarding the science of climate change.

Former CEQ Chief of Staff Philip Cooney told the Committee: "Our communications people would render a view as to whether someone should give an interview or not and who it should be." According to Kent Laborde, a career public affairs officer at the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, media requests related to climate change issues were handled differently from other requests because "I would have to route media inquires through CEQ." This practice was particularly evident after Hurricane Katrina. Mr. Laborde was asked, "Did the White House and the Department of Commerce not want scientists who believed that climate change was increasing hurricane activity talking with the press?" He responded: "There was a consistent approach that might have indicated that."

White House officials and agency political appointees also altered congressional testimony regarding the science of climate change. The changes to the recent climate change testimony of Dr. Julie Gerberding, the Director of the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, have received considerable attention. A year earlier, when Dr. Thomas Karl, the Director of National Climatic Data Center, appeared before the House Oversight Committee, his testimony was also heavily edited by both White House officials and political appointees at the Commerce Department. He was not allowed to say in his written testimony that "modern climate change is dominated by human influences," that "we are venturing into the unknown territory with changes in climate," or that "it is very likely (>95 percent probability) that humans are largely responsible for many of the observed changes in climate." His assertion that global warming "is playing" a role in increased hurricane intensity became "may play."

*The White House Extensively Edited Climate Change Reports*

 There was a systematic White House effort to minimize the significance of climate change by editing climate change reports. CEQ Chief of Staff Phil Cooney and other CEQ officials made at least 294 edits to the Administration's Strategic Plan of the Climate Change Science Program to exaggerate or emphasize scientific uncertainties or to deemphasize or diminish the importance of the human role in global warming.

The White House insisted on edits to EPA's draft Report on the Environment that were so extreme that the EPA Administrator opted to eliminate the climate change section of the report. One such edit was the inclusion of a reference to a discredited, industry-funded paper. In a memo to the Vice President's office, Mr. Cooney explained: "We plan to begin to refer to this study in Administration communications on the science of global climate change" because it "contradicts a dogmatic view held by many in the climate science community that the past century was the warmest in the past millennium and signals of human induced 'global warming.'"

In the case of EPA's Air Trends Report, CEQ went beyond editing and simply vetoed the entire climate change section of the report.

*Other White House Actions*

 The White House played a major role in crafting the August 2003 EPA legal opinion disavowing authority to regulate greenhouse gases. CEQ Chairman James Connaughton personally edited the draft legal opinion. When an EPA draft quoted the National Academy of Science conclusion that "the changes observed over the last several decades are likely mostly due to human activities," CEQ objected because "the above quotes are unnecessary and extremely harmful to the legal case being made." The first line of another internal CEQ document transmitting comments on the draft EPA legal opinion reads: "Vulnerability: science." The final opinion incorporating the White House edits was rejected by the Supreme Court in April 2007 in Massachusetts v. EPA. The White House also edited a 2002 op-ed by EPA Administrator Christine Todd
 Whitman to ensure that it followed the White House line on climate change. Despite objections from EPA, CEQ insisted on repeating an unsupported assertion that millions of American jobs would be lost if the Kyoto Protocol were ratified."

Source

Barley


----------



## Barliman Butterbur

greypilgrim said:


> Barliman,
> 
> Prove me wrong or else go back to copy/pasting from blogs.



Copy/pasting from reliable sites (not blogs) provides facts and information from which rational thinkers form their own conclusions. I don't need to prove you wrong, that would be a monumental waste of my time. Besides, my "copy/pasting" does it for me. 

Barley


----------



## Barliman Butterbur

*Birds' changing behavior is warning of global warming*

Sunday, September 30, 2007
James F. McCarty
Plain Dealer Reporter

*The return of robins, the blooming of daffodils and the crack of the bat on Opening Day have symbolized the arrival of spring for generations in Northeast Ohio.*

But in recent years, many of the robins never left, having spent the entire winter flying about in flocks in search of crab-apples and ornamental cherries to feed on.

Like canaries in the coal mine, birds are age-old indicators of things amiss in our world. Some of the country's leading ornithological minds are attributing changes in bird distribution, population and migratory patterns to an irrefutable fact: The Earth is getting warmer.

In its report, "A Birdwatcher's Guide to Global Warming," the American Bird Conservancy predicts doom for more than half of the migrating species in the Great Lakes region if the Earth's warming trend continues at its current pace.

The 1990s included seven of the 10 warmest years on record, and 1998 was the warmest year ever, according to the report. Projections show average surface temperatures rising from 2 to 10 degrees by 2100.

At that pace, Baltimore orioles, American goldfinches and rose-breasted grosbeaks would abandon their traditional nesting grounds in Ohio, and common migrants such as robins would fall fatally out of step with their food supplies, the report concludes.

"As a result, the early birds may not get the worm," the report said.

Consider other avian changes in Ohio:

Northern mockingbirds - those rowdy mimics of the south - have expanded far into the upper Midwest and are abundant in the briars at Whiskey Island on Cleveland's lakefront.

A pair of Mississippi kites - sleek, gray raptors common in the Deep South - nested and fledged a chick this past summer on a golf course in Hocking County in southern Ohio. It marked the farthest north the kites had ever nested and the first time on record in Ohio.

The number of cerulean warblers, common blue-and-white nesters in the oaks and sycamores of the Cuyahoga Valley National Park, have plummeted by 70 percent over the past 25 years and could be headed for the Endangered Species List.

Kenn Kaufman, for one, isn't taking a fatalist's view of global warming.

"Some of the predictions are really extreme," said Kaufman, a birding author, field-guide publisher and tour leader who for the past three years has lived in Rocky Ridge in Ottawa County with his wife, Kim. "It's true, these changes are happening, but I'm going to take everything with a grain of salt until I see it for myself."

Kaufman suspects a combination of factors has contributed to the natural ebb and flow of bird distribution. Available food sources, increased availability of insects, changes in vegetation, bird population explosions in the South and a gradually warming atmosphere all affect what birds nest in Ohio, when they migrate and how they behave while they're here.

Over the past decade, Kaufman has recognized northward-moving trends among orchard orioles, while they have become scarce in their southernmost habitats.

He has witnessed the southern range of our familiar black-capped chickadee peeled back, losing ground to its southern cousin, the Carolina chickadee.

Similar trends are happening with the golden-winged warbler, being pushed north by the blue-winged warbler. One study found that 20 percent of Eastern warbler species have shifted north by an average of 65 miles over the past two decades.

Other southern species - blue grosbeak, white-winged dove, great-tailed grackle - are unexplainably showing up in the North, and several nested in the Dakotas, Kaufman noted.

John Pogacnik, a naturalist with the Lake Metroparks and an inveterate birder, doesn't need convincing anymore.

"I think it's all weather-related," Pogacnik said.

How else, he wondered, to explain the abundance of summer tanagers at the Oak Openings Preserve in the Toledo Metroparks, where less than a decade ago there were one or two a year?

During the Christmas Bird Count at Kelleys Island last year, Pogacnik counted more than 100 hermit thrush where there had never been more than a handful before.

He used to feel lucky to see a pine warbler in the Lakeshore Metropark. This summer, two or three pairs of the southern warblers nested there.

"I don't know if the birds are following the bugs, or if they're all following the same weather patterns," said Pogacnik.

Bugs - not birds - are the key to tracking environmental changes, in the opinion of Jim McCormac, a naturalist with the Ohio Division of Wildlife and president of the Ohio Ornithological Society.

"You can't ignore the amazing number of warblers that have been attempting to overwinter in the East," McCormac said. "Warblers are insect-eaters, and changes in warmth means insects will be able to survive longer, providing these predatory birds something to keep them alive."

Researchers at the Cornell Lab of Ornithology, the country's premier center of bird study, are analyzing mountains of data to determine what is causing these changes in bird movement, distribution and populations, said spokeswoman Patricia Leonard.

"We're just on the brink of getting any kind of meaningful answers," Leonard said. "There are so many other threads affecting birds that you have to weave them all into the mix. It's not just climate change, although that certainly is having an effect."

Source

Barley


----------



## greypilgrim

Barliman Butterbur said:


> Evidently I provide facts and GP provides questionable cherry-picked op-ed/spin...
> 
> Barley


Excuse me? Correction: You provided an article that is comprised of the exact same type of text derived in a much similar fashion as that of which you accused me of doing, and I ripped it to shreds. Meanwhile, you have not responded to one single counter point of mine from two pages ago.

PS: The Chinese have in the past, can and will continue to tell foreign beaurocrats attemting to interfene with their wealth accumulation to "Go F-themselves."


----------



## greypilgrim

Barliman Butterbur said:


> Copy/pasting from reliable sites (not blogs) provides facts and information from which rational thinkers form their own conclusions. I don't need to prove you wrong, that would be a monumental waste of my time. Besides, my "copy/pasting" does it for me.
> 
> Barley



Point conceded and just as well. Although The Saviours in the GWC and at UNIPCC headquarters are quickly and perpetually running out of "time", according to their position on global warming. LOFL. I hope your message reaches more rational thinkers in time, please continue.


----------



## Barliman Butterbur

greypilgrim said:


> ... you have not responded to one single counter point of mine from two pages ago.



Nor do I intend to. You're the one who wants a "debate;" I'm interested in putting out facts on global warming aka climate change. If you have trouble with that, you are free to eschew the thread. I do not intend to have a moderator close down this thread because of getting into a catfight with you. I will proceed, GP, as much as possible, as if you weren't even here. That means I will post as and when I find material I consider appropriate — on no particular schedule, certainly not in reaction to whatever you may have to say.

Barley


----------



## Barliman Butterbur

*Climate model shows dual cause*

By environment correspondent Alex Kirby

UK scientists say only a combination of natural and human causes can explain the Earth's warming during the 20th Century.

They combined data on greenhouse gas emissions, ozone and sulphate aerosol levels, solar variations, and volcanic aerosols in different versions of a state-of-the-art climate model.

Natural causes, they found, mattered more early in the century, and human-induced factors during the present warming.

They say their work increases their confidence in predictions of human contributions to future warming.

The scientists, from the Hadley Centre for Climate Prediction and Research, part of the UK Met Office, and the Rutherford Appleton Laboratory, report their findings in the magazine _Science._

*Explanation sought*

They write: "A comparison of observations with simulations of a coupled ocean-atmosphere general circulation model shows that both natural and anthropogenic factors have contributed significantly to 20th Century temperature changes.

"More than 80% of observed global mean temperature variations and more than 60% of 10- to 50-year land temperature variations are due to changes in external forcings."

Global mean temperature near the Earth's surface has been increasing at 0.2 degrees Celsius a decade over the last three decades.
A comparable rise occurred between 1910 and 1945, with a lull then until the mid-1970s.

Until now climate simulations had found it hard to explain this earlier warming, having ignored many natural factors.

"For the first time," the Met Office says, "this new research combines the most important human and natural factors in one climate model."
The authors say the simulations they made in their model incorporate changes in greenhouse gases, including carbon dioxide and methane, changes in tropospheric and stratospheric ozone, and changes in sulphur emissions.

"When we include both anthropogenic and natural forcings", they write, "our model successfully simulates not just the observed global mean response, but also some of the large-scale features of the observed temperature response.

"We conclude that both anthropogenic and natural factors are required to account for 20th Century near-surface temperature change.
"The model successfully simulates large-scale temperature changes over the 20th Century.

*Consistent findings*

"However, it does not capture observed changes in the Atlantic in the early part of the century, nor does it simulate the rise in the North Atlantic Oscillation index observed over the last three decades.

"It may be that the model does not sufficiently resolve the stratosphere, or that there are deficiencies in generating or responding to sea surface temperature variations."

Despite the uncertainties, they conclude: "The overall large-scale pattern of observed near-surface temperature change over the 20th Century is consistent with our understanding of the combined impacts of natural and anthropogenic forcings.

"Natural forcings were relatively more important in the early-century warming, and anthropogenic forcings have played a dominant role in warming observed in recent decades.

"External forcings appear to be the main contributors controlling near-surface decadal-mean temperature changes on global and continental land scales.

*Credibility demonstrated*

"Our successful hindcast of large-scale temperature changes over the 20th Century increases our confidence in predictions of the anthropogenic contribution to future temperature changes."

Dr Peter Stott, who led the research team, said: "This model is still not perfect but, by successfully simulating past temperature changes, it demonstrates the credibility of our climate predictions.

"These show that the current rate of warming of two to three degrees Celsius per century is likely to continue over the coming decades.
"However, there is much more work to do if we are to provide the predictions needed to assess the impacts of climate change on individual countries."

Source

Barley


----------



## greypilgrim

Barliman Butterbur said:


> Nor do I intend to. You're the one who wants a "debate;" I'm interested in putting out facts on global warming aka climate change. If you have trouble with that, you are free to eschew the thread. I do not intend to have a moderator close down this thread because of getting into a catfight with you. I will proceed, GP, as much as possible, as if you weren't even here. That means I will post as and when I find material I consider appropriate — on no particular schedule, certainly not in reaction to whatever you may have to say.
> 
> Barley



Greetings Barliman!

Please allow me to extend a sincere, heartfelt apaology to you. I thought this was a thread created for debate on global warming. I'm much relieved, as I will no longer feel unneccesary irritation for not having my criticisms, opinions and vivid monikers of thoughtful expression on the subject ignored by you. I am no longer under the illusion that you are interested in debate.


----------



## greypilgrim

Greenland is not showing signs of melting any time soon. A drilling and study of fossils was done in Greenland in July, 2007. I bring this article to your attention because it sheds light on key points, which I will address later:



> ...
> 
> *Even though this study will likely get little to no attention from a media in full fawn mode over Gore and his Live Earth concerts, the findings throw a huge monkey wrench into alarmist warnings of climate-related devastation to the planet and species offered as reasons for developed nations to radically change behavior.*
> 
> As marvelously reported by the Boston Globe Friday (h/t Benny Peiser, emphasis added throughout):
> 
> Story Continues Below Ad ↓
> An international team of scientists, drilling deep into the ice layers of Greenland, has found DNA from ancient spiders and trees, evidence that suggests the frozen shield covering the immense island survived the earth's last period of global warming.
> 
> The findings, published today in the journal Science, indicate Greenland's ice may be less susceptible to the massive meltdown predicted by computer models of climate change, the article's main author said in an interview.
> 
> "If our data is correct, and I believe it is, then this means the southern Greenland ice cap is more stable than previously thought," said Eske Willerslev, research leader and professor of evolutionary biology at the University of Copenhagen. "This may have implications for how the ice sheets respond to global warming. They may withstand rising temperatures."
> 
> 
> How can that be? After all, soon-to-be-Dr. Al Gore – who has had absolutely no training in the relevant areas of science despite the media belief that he is indeed the foremost expert on the subject – says Greenland is going to thaw in the near future with devastating repercussions. Surely he can’t be wrong:
> 
> A painstaking analysis of surviving genetic fragments locked in the ice of southern Greenland shows that somewhere between 450,000 and 800,000 years ago, the world's largest island had a climate much like that of Northern New England, the researchers said. Butterflies fluttered over lush meadows interspersed with stands of pine, spruce, and alder.
> 
> Greenland really was green, before Ice Age glaciers enshrouded vast swaths of the Northern Hemisphere.
> 
> 
> *Wait. Isn’t the debate over and the science settled on this issue? It appears not:*
> 
> *More controversially -- and as an example of how research in one realm of science can unexpectedly affect assumptions in another --* the discovery of microscopic bits of organic matter retrieved from ice 1.2 miles beneath the surface indicates that the ice fields of southern Greenland may be more resilient to rising global temperatures than has been forecast. The DNA could have been preserved only if the ice layers remained largely intact.
> 
> A scenario often raised by global warming specialists is that Greenland's ice trove will turn liquid in the rising temperatures of coming decades, with hundreds of trillions of gallons of water spilling into the Atlantic. This could cause ocean levels worldwide to rise anywhere from 3 to 20 feet, according to computer projections -- bad news for seaport cities like Boston.
> 
> But the discovery of organic matter in ice dating from half-a-million years ago offers evidence that the Greenland ice shield remained frozen even during the earth's last "interglacial period" -- some 120,000 years ago -- when average temperatures were 9 degrees Fahrenheit warmer than they are now. That's slightly higher than the average temperatures foreseen by most scientists for the end of this century, although some environmentalists warn it might get even hotter.
> 
> 
> *Incredible. And, as many scientists have been claiming regardless of such falling on deaf press ears, this indicates just how nonsensical and worthless climate models proclaiming imminent planetary doom are:*
> 
> Researchers from the Danish-led team said the unanticipated findings appear to fly in the face of prevailing scientific views about the likely fate of Greenland's thickly-layered ice, although Willerslev stressed that the findings do not contradict the basic premise that the earth's temperature is rising to worrisome levels, with gases emitted by industry, cars, and other human activity playing a big role.
> 
> "But it suggests a problem with the [computer] models" that predict melting ice from Greenland could drown cities and destroy civilizations, according to Willerslev.
> 
> 
> Think this will be headline news during Live Earth weekend?
> 
> No. Neither do I. Regardless, it certainly makes watching the concerts more comical!
> 
> —Noel Sheppard is an economist, business owner, and Associate Editor of NewsBusters.
> 
> http://www.newsbusters.org/node/13948



~ Example: Studies like this and another to refute it's findings could go on forvever. If Greenland doesn't melt, it's got to be Antarctica that's melting...or vice versa. Our World's Scientists have said again and agian: SCIENCE IS NEVER 100% Hence, the ideology grows and recruits new members forever.


Considering, if you will, that the Ice Caps covering Greenland and Antarctica will probably be there until our planet dies or humans are extinct, and considering that every nation our entire planet is dependant on oil and probably will be for quite some time, and lastly considering man's natural propensity to be a NON-THINKER,the GWC and the hucksters at the UNIPCC some few decades ago drew themselves up a perfect scam, hurdling themselves (and those who share their ideals) into a permanent position to I will assume: 1. Become wealthy and powerful benefactors of an ideology perpeduated by an eternal scam - invented completely from thin air and based on non-science; 2. Establish their authority in every nation and have popular support enough to never be removed.

Furthemore; World Leaders - seeing China as a very likely threat to the throne of the world - the current #1 realize they cannot halt this, need to take certain steps. About to be dethroned, but trying to leave a clean footprint in their wake for the world to remember them by - an attempt at Repentance. Alright, the Faith-based, Capitalistic West sees it's current reign falling, and so along with the EUSSR years ago began taking steps to make the crossing less painful. But the trade off for us here in "The West" is this: In order for any current soverign nation (including the US)to survive the longest, as well as retain the most of it's former brilliance, it must accept a new faith - the faith of Globalism along with socialist, tyrannical, dogmatic, meganomiacal, soul-sucking Communism...currently clothed as environmentalism...and kill the nature of it's nation-state (Including the US).


----------



## greypilgrim

Good news, and assurance that the fight is going our way (that is, the way of people who love whatever liberty and freedom they have left):



> Dec. 24, 2007 (Investor's Business Daily delivered by Newstex) --
> 
> Climate Change: A Senate minority report lists 400 reputable scientists who think the only melting ice we should really fear was in the cocktail glasses of attendees at the recent global warming conference in Bali.
> 
> In the wake of the Dec. 3-14 conference, where delegates worked to draft a successor to the failed Kyoto Protocol on global warming, Sen. James Inhofe, R-Okla., ranking member on the Senate Environment and Public Works Committee, has released a report that lists scientists who challenge both Al Gore's assertion that the debate is over and the Bali conclusion that the planet is in imminent danger.
> 
> Many of the 400 scientists have taken part in the U.N.'s Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, whose climate change reports tout consensus but which critics charge are heavily edited to support pre-defined conclusions.


Reason being: The people silencing them are stiff neck dogmatic tyrants and filthy rich liars, who can and will do whatever they want in their quest to control people's lives.



> Among the IPCC's warming "deniers" is atmospheric scientist Hendrik Tennekes, former research director at the Netherlands' Royal National Meteorological Institute.
> 
> "I find the Doomsday picture Al Gore is painting -- a six-meter sea level rise, 15 times the IPCC number -- entirely without merit," he said. "I protest vigorously the idea that the climate reacts like a home heating system to a changed setting of the thermostat: Just turn the dial, and the desired temperature will soon be reached."


Furthermore, why no mention of what would happen if the GWC policies fail, or even the likelyhood of them succeeding? I'll tell you. There is no way to test and accuratley affirm or deny the myth, much like investigating God. 



> Physicist John W. Brosnahan, who develops remote-sensing tools for clients like the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, says: "Of course I believe in global warming, and in global cooling -- all part of the natural climate changes that the Earth has experienced for billions of years, caused primarily by cyclical variations in solar output."
> 
> Brosnahan says he has "not seen any sort of definitive, scientific link to man-made carbon dioxide as the root cause of global warming, only incomplete computer models that suggest that this might be the case." Those models, he says, leave out too many variables.
> 
> Indeed, a study in the Royal Meteorological Society's International Journal of Climatology looked at 22 computer models used by the IPCC. Most of the models couldn't even predict the past.
> 
> *Predictably, after a quick review of the report, Gore spokeswoman Kalee Kreider said 25 to 30 of the scientists may have received funding from Exxon Mobil (NYSE:XOM), though she didn't name which scientists she thinks were bribed to distort the truth. Wise move.*



^ As their evidence crumbles, the accusations fly. I love it! 



> This is not like Al Gore getting 75 hours of free airtime on NBC, a unit of General Electric (NYSE:GE) , which stands to make wads of cash on things like solar panels and wind turbines. Or Gore being involved with a company that sells carbon offsets.



The GWC Mascot, Al Gore, making as much money as he will off this apparently, doesn't care about the environment. 



> Heartland Institute senior fellow James Taylor has noted that more than 600 scientists at the Bali gathering could have debunked Gore's warming theories, but the U.N. "censored" them.



Yet another mention of the UNIPCC's "If it disagrees, shut it up!" policy.



> By the way, Gore and his statist friends in Europe repeatedly have criticized the U.S. for its "failure to act" on warming. But new data show the U.S. in 2006 slashed output of greenhouse gases by 1.3%, while Europe's output continued to grow. So who's failing to act?
> 
> Here an idea: How about NBC hosting 75 hours of debate between some of Inhofe's 400 scientists and any one of Gore's choosing, including himself? Afraid of some inconvenient truths, Al?
> 
> http://money.cnn.com/news/newsfeeds/articles/newstex/IBD-0001-21855031.htm


No, but they are afraid of the Inconvenient Truth exposing them and their perpetual scam for what they are.


----------



## greypilgrim

Readers please note: As more evidence crushes the insane ideology of the GWC we hear the term "Global Warming" being used less and less in the media. The upbeat, user friendly, hip new name in neon lights is "Climate Change" - the Media's new, cleaner, more valid-sounding, less offensive Politically Correct name of the scam. Chamelions. Filthy liars, the lot of them.


----------



## Barliman Butterbur

*Climate puts squeeze on grape growers*

Asa Wahlquist | December 29, 2007

GRAPE growing is the canary in the coal mine of agriculture, the industry most sensitive to climate change.

Snow Barlow, head of Melbourne University's school of agriculture and food systems and a grape grower, says: "If you look at an industry that is almost uniquely dependent on climate, it would be the grape industry."

Every stage of a grapevine's life - from flowering to the quality of the grape - is linked to temperature. And the temperature is rising. Since 1950, temperatures in Australia have risen, on average, by 1C. This year, 2007, is set to be the warmest on record for southern Australia, and that means just about all the grape-growing areas.

Barlow says the hot spring in 2006 lead to the earliest vintage on record this year in many places. "We were a month early where our grapes are grown."

With CSIRO researcher Leanne Webb, and CSIRO climate guru Penny Whetton, he has looked at every major winegrowing area in Australia, for the years 2030 and 2050.

They found rising temperatures would lead to a shorter growing season.

Using price as a measure of quality, they established a relationship between mean January temperature, "which is just one climate measure, but it was probably the most robust one in our work", and price. They found a 20 per cent impact on quality (measured as price) for a 1.5C increase in temperature.

"If it's warmer during the year, the grapes end up ripening a month earlier," Barlow says. "If you take Coonawarra, we predict conservatively it will be 1.5C warmer in 2050, which brings the harvest back by 35 days, into another month." But ripening in March, rather than April, also means ripening in a hotter month, an effective increase of 3.5C.

Recently Barlow sent out the call for the full pheonology, or the times of recurring natural phenomena, of grape growing: essentially the dates of budburst, flowering, fruit set, veraison and harvest, over the years.

"We just didn't get anywhere," he says. But he was recently offered the Foster's data set of harvest dates, and interest is stirring in the industry.

Harvest dates reflect more than the temperature.

Stephen Doyle lists the picking dates for chardonnay, from his vineyard, Bloodwood, in central NSW. Since 2000, the date has come forward from March 29, to March 2, but he points out the sugar level in 2007 was lower than in 2000. "Last year was a big droughty year. I picked it early because I could see the acids dissipating, there was also rain happening and birds were moving in."

Doyle points out that fashions in winemaking change, and the drive to lower-alcohol wines means picking earlier (at lower sugar levels). But he agrees warming is occurring. "It might bring vintage forward a week or so but the native birds, which are starving around us, could bring it forward two weeks, and the lack of labour could put it back two weeks. There are all these variables."

Barlow says the data sets coming out of France show that in Champagne the harvest has come forward by one month.

"What is happening now is they harvest the grapes, because they are looking for a sugar level, then the leaves hang around for another month. So next year, because there has been the carbohydrate infusion into the vines, the vines are more fruitful. The vine balance is changing."

He suspects something similar is happening right now in Australia, after the early 2007 vintage. "It is only anecdotal, but what I hear from people around a number of regions is that there is a lot of fruit on the vine this year."

The consequences of temperature rises, for the inland warmer areas - the Riverina, Sunraysia and the Riverland, the so-called engine room of Australian winemaking - are profound. Barlow says the most recent scenario is for a 2.5C-plus rise by 2050.

Temperature rise also means more extreme events, like heatwaves, which are traditionally managed by heavier watering.

"But if you don't have all the water you might need, that becomes a tricky management problem as well."

Webb, in a paper on the impact of climate change on Australian grape growing, estimates it could cut wine grape quality by 7 to 23 per cent by 2030 and 12 to 57 per cent by 2050. By 2030, the area suitable for grape growing could be cut by 10 per cent, rising to as much as 44 per cent by 2050.

Webb suggests the industry could either preserve its current wine styles by moving to a cooler region, or by growing warmer-climate grape varieties.

Mark McKenzie, the executive director of Winegrape Growers Australia, says: "We're looking towards adaptive strategies that can handle a hotter environment, less water and in the lower reaches (of the Murray) higher salinity levels."

The choice seems simple: adapt on site, or shift. But McKenzie points out: "We have also got to shift to where we have water resources."

The water shortage gripping grape growers along the Murray this year is front of mind, and many fear lower river levels are here to stay.

McKenzie says: "We still have a structural oversupply of vineyards in cool climate areas, but at the moment wine companies have been beating a path to their door." He says the question is whether they can produce grapes more cheaply in the longer term.

"We have such uncertainty about future water supply, and about the likely temperature or climatic impacts on existing vineyard areas, let alone new areas," McKenzie says.

Michael de Palma is a Mildura grape grower and chairman of Murray Valley Winegrowers. "How do we separate drought from climate change?" he asks. "I think the jury is still out on that". He says grapes are ripening earlier in most of the inland areas but points out the move to produce lower tonnages brings ripening forward.

"Our viticultural practices have changed. In the last 10 years we definitely have seen an earlier ripening period, but how much of that is due to climate change and how much of that is due to viticultural practices is not proven yet."

The real question, de Palma says, is how the industry can adapt to climate change and to drought. "If we're facing significant change, we probably need to change the style of product we are producing." But he worries that after two years of drought, many growers will not have the finances to manage necessary structural change.

Barlow points out climate change is a global phenomenon and also affects Australia's competitors.

"So it's about who adapts first and who responds first, as to who survives this," he says.

Source

Barley


----------



## Barliman Butterbur

*Deep-sea species' loss could lead to oceans' collapse, study suggests*

The loss of deep-sea species poses a severe threat to the future of the oceans, suggests a new report publishing early online on December 27th and in the January 8th issue of Current Biology, a publication of Cell Press. In a global-scale study, the researchers found some of the first evidence that the health of the deep sea, as measured by the rate of critical ecosystem processes, increases exponentially with the diversity of species living there.

“For the first time, we have demonstrated that deep-sea ecosystem functioning is closely dependent upon the number of species inhabiting the ocean floor,” said Roberto Danovaro of the Polytechnic University of Marche, in Italy. “This shows that we need to preserve biodiversity, and especially deep-sea biodiversity, because otherwise the negative consequences could be unprecedented. We must care about species that are far from us and [essentially] invisible.” 

Ecosystem functioning involves several processes, which can be summarized as the production, consumption, and transfer of organic matter to higher levels of the food chain, the decomposition of organic matter, and the regeneration of nutrients, he explained. 

Recent investigations on land have suggested that biodiversity loss might impair the functioning and sustainability of ecosystems, Danovaro said. However, the data needed to evaluate the consequences of biodiversity loss on the ocean floor had been completely lacking, despite the fact that the deep sea covers 65% of the Earth and is “by far the most important ecosystem for the cycling of carbon, nitrogen, and phosphorus of the biosphere.” 

The deep sea also supports the largest “biomass” of living things, including a large proportion of undiscovered species. 

In the new study, Danovaro’s team examined the biodiversity of nematode worms and several independent indicators of ecosystem functioning and efficiency at 116 deep-sea sites. Nematodes are the most abundant animals on earth and account for more than 90% of all life at the bottom of the sea. Earlier studies have also suggested that nematode diversity is a good proxy for the diversity of other deep-sea species. 

They found that sites with a higher diversity of nematodes support exponentially higher rates of ecosystem processes and an increased efficiency with which those processes are performed. Efficiency reflects the ability of an ecosystem to exploit the available energy in the form of food sources, the researchers said. Overall, they added, “our results suggest that a higher biodiversity can enhance the ability of deep-sea benthic systems to perform the key biological and biogeochemical processes that are crucial for their sustainable functioning.” 

The sharp increase in ecosystem functioning as species numbers rise further suggests that individual species in the deep sea make way for more species or facilitate one another, Danovaro said. That’s in contrast to terrestrial-system findings, which have generally shown a linear relationship between diversity and ecosystem functioning, he noted, suggesting complementary relationships among species. 

“Deep-sea ecosystems provide goods (including biomass, bioactive molecules, oil, gas, and minerals) and services (climate regulation, nutrient regeneration and supply to the [upper ocean], and food) and, for their profound involvement in global biogeochemical and ecological processes, are essential for the sustainable functioning of our biosphere and for human wellbeing,” the researchers concluded. “Our results suggest that the conservation of deep-sea biodiversity can be crucial for the sustainability of the functions of the largest ecosystem” on the planet. 

Source

Barley


----------



## Barliman Butterbur

*Nobel Peace Prize Lecture, 2007 (IPCC)*

Published December 10, 2007
Speaker:	
R.K. Pauchari

_This Nobel lecture was delivered by R. K. Pachauri, Chairman of the UN'sIntergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), in Oslo on December 10, 2007. The 2007 Nobel Peace Prize was shared between the IPCC and Albert Gore._

Your Majesties, Your Royal Highnesses, Honourable Members of the Norwegian Nobel Committee, Excellencies, My Colleagues from the IPCC, Distinguished Ladies & Gentlemen.

As Chair of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) I am deeply privileged to present this lecture on behalf of the Panel on the occasion of the Nobel Peace Prize being awarded to the IPCC jointly with Mr Al Gore. While doing so, I pay tribute to the thousands of experts and scientists who have contributed to the work of the Panel over almost two decades of exciting evolution and service to humanity. On this occasion I also salute the leadership provided by my predecessors Prof. Bert Bolin and Dr Robert Watson. One of the major strengths of the IPCC is the procedures and practices that it has established over the years, and the credit for these go primarily to Prof. Bolin for their introduction and to Dr Watson for building on the efforts of the former most admirably. My gratitude also to UNEP and WMO for their support, represented here today by Dr. Mostapha Tolba and Dr. Michel Jarraud respectively.

The Fourth Assessment Report of the IPCC has had a major impact in creating public awareness on various aspects of climate change, and the three Working Group reports as part of this assessment represent a major advance in scientific knowledge, for which I must acknowledge the remarkable leadership of the Co-Chairs of the three Working Groups, Dr Susan Solomon, Dr Qin Dahe for Working Group I; Dr Martin Parry and Dr Osvaldo Canziani for Working Group II; and Dr Bert Metz and Dr Ogunlade Davidson for Working Group III respectively. The Synthesis Report, which distills and integrates the major findings from these three reports has also benefited enormously from their valuable inputs.

The IPCC produces key scientific material that is of the highest relevance to policymaking, and is agreed word-by-word by all governments, from the most skeptical to the most confident. This difficult process is made possible by the tremendous strength of the underlying scientific and technical material included in the IPCC reports.

Full speech here

Barley


----------



## Barliman Butterbur

*Nobel Peace Prize Lecture, 2007 (Gore)*

Published December 10, 2007
Speaker:	Al Gore

_This Nobel lecture was delivered by Albert Gore in Oslo on December 10, 2007. The 2007 Nobel Peace Prize was shared between Gore and the UN's International Panel on Climate Change (IPCC)._

Your Majesties, Your Royal Highnesses, Honorable members of the Norwegian Nobel Committee, Excellencies, Ladies and gentlemen.
I have a purpose here today. It is a purpose I have tried to serve for many years. I have prayed that God would show me a way to accomplish it.
Sometimes, without warning, the future knocks on our door with a precious and painful vision of what might be. One hundred and nineteen years ago, a wealthy inventor read his own obituary, mistakenly published years before his death. Wrongly believing the inventor had just died, a newspaper printed a harsh judgment of his life's work, unfairly labeling him "The Merchant of Death" because of his invention – dynamite. Shaken by this condemnation, t he inventor made a fateful choice to serve the cause of peace.

Seven years later, Alfred Nobel created this prize and the others that bear his name.

Seven years ago tomorrow, I read my own political obituary in a judgment that seemed to me harsh and mistaken – if not premature. But that unwelcome verdict also brought a precious if painful gift: an opportunity to search for fresh new ways to serve my purpose.

Unexpectedly, that quest has brought me here. Even though I fear my words cannot match this moment, I pray what I am feeling in my heart will be communicated clearly enough that those who hear me will say, "We must act."

The distinguished scientists with whom it is the greatest honor of my life to share this award have laid before us a choice between two different futures – a choice that to my ears echoes the words of an ancient prophet: "Life or death, blessings or curses. Therefore, choose life, that both thou and thy seed may live."

We, the human species, are confronting a planetary emergency – a threat to the survival of our civilization that is gathering ominous and destructive potential even as we gather here. But there is hopeful news as well: we have the ability to solve this crisis and avoid the worst – though not all – of its consequences, if we act boldly, decisively and quickly.

Full speech here

Barley


----------



## Barliman Butterbur

*Cause for alarm*

Tony Juniper
December 28, 2007 9:00 AM

The global warming debate entered a new phase in 2007. February saw the first of three new reports published by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), setting out the most recent state of the science of global warming. Not only did it confirm earlier assessments linking human activities to alterations in climatic patterns, it set out how the problem is more urgent than previously believed.

This new and more alarming science thankfully seemed to have immediate political impact. The EU summit in Brussels in early March responded with a new policy to increase renewable energy to 20% of the total used in Europe by 2020. EU leaders also said they would adopt a target to cut emissions by up to 30% at global negotiations in Bali later in the year, if others pledged to do the same.

Closer to home the IPCC's work helped to maintain momentum behind proposals for a new climate change bill that would create a new legal framework for emissions reductions here in the UK. In March a draft was published before being introduced into the House of Lords in November. At Friends of the Earth, having launched the campaign for this new law in 2005, we have broadly welcomed what is proposed, but believe that it needs to be strengthened considerably before entering into law.

One aspect that needs changing is to end the irrational exclusion of emissions from international aviation and shipping; the proposal to build a new runway at Heathrow is a reminder of why.

This year also saw yet another attempt to reform to the UK's planning system so as to make it easier to build major infrastructure, including the roads and runways that will increase emissions. Many see these proposed reforms as not only a problem for the environment, but also a threat to democracy, with centralising tendencies that will diminish the public voice. This is not the direction policy must go if we are to achieve a sustainable society.

While in 2007 the climate issue was truly mainstreamed, the mass extinction of life on Earth that is being accelerated by unsustainable farming, over consumption of resources and habitat degradation merits hardly a mention in the intensified green debate.

Despite the signals from the science, and some positive reaction to it, we remain at the end of 2007 still focused on managing the symptoms of our unsustainable system (for example responding to floods and various agricultural crises) rather than putting effort into dealing with the causes (getting renewable power scaled up or promoting sustainable farming).

We have a bit of time to turn things around, but at the pace we are going right now not enough. The weak deal agreed in Bali at the end of 2007 underlines the gap between the urgency of the science and our collective willingness to act. It is essential that in 2008 the world find the means to move beyond simply setting targets toward implementing real solutions. Otherwise someone writing a column like this in not many years' time might well be lamenting how we have left it too late.

Source (Clicking on this link brings up the original article which contains yet more links to related articles.)

===============================

Barley


----------



## Barliman Butterbur

December 13, 2007 7:19 AM PST

*Global warming worry: Accelerating pace of change*

Posted by Stephen Shankland

SAN FRANCISCO--I've been spending some time at the the American Geophysical Union conference here, and I've had a recurring thought: When it comes to apocalyptic predictions, geophysicists have the Book of Revelations beat, hands down.

Sometime in the last few years, the idea that global warming is a reality and that it's caused in large measure by people has finally started sinking in. But perhaps because of the remaining skepticism, and more likely because of the fascinating research involved, scientists just can't leave the issue alone.

Global warming has been a major theme among the 14,500 scientists who have converged here for the 40th AGU conference. Seemingly, they can't get enough of it: A year after former Vice President Al Gore addressed conference attendees during the height of hype around his Inconvenient Truth documentary, organizers again gave the stage to an articulate speaker on the issue. This time it was Lonnie Thompson, an Ohio State University scientist who has spent innumerable hours drilling into icecaps at the world's highest elevations.

Global warming, a decades-old idea that posits certain greenhouse gases will keep heat from escaping into space, has moved gradually from a prediction to a measurable phenomenon. But for those who are inclined to feel comfort that scientists got it right, Thompson had sobering words on Wednesday evening: the pace of glacial melting is accelerating, and scientists don't have a handle on the new patterns.

"We're in unfamiliar territory," Thompson said. "The observed rapid changes in Greenland and Antarctica are not predicted. What we're seeing is fast glacier flow."

Thompson uses yaks to carry back each one of hundreds of six-foot ice core samples retrieved from holes drilled in glaciers.

Take the Jacobshavn Ice Stream, a glacier on the west side of Greenland that drains about 6.5 percent of the continent's massive ice sheet. Between 2000 and 2003, its rate of retreat nearly doubled. Scientists expected a slow and linear response to global warming, but instead the response has been fast and accelerating. Another example is the Qori Kalis Glacier in Peru, whose initial retreat rate around 1991 was about 6 meters per year but now is 60 meters per year.

"It's not just retreating. It's an exponential increase," he said.

Humanity has a lousy track record dealing with environmental crises before they become severe, he said, pointing as an example to Ohio's famously polluted Cuyahoga River.

"When did we do anything about that river? When it caught on fire," he said. "We've cleaned it up. Now there are walleye and pike in it. It wasn't that we couldn't do it; it was that we didn't have the political will to do it."

Compared to some crises, though, global warming poses long-term challenges because greenhouse gases stay in the atmosphere 70 to 120 years after being emitted, he said.

This year, melting split the Furtwangler Glacier on Africa's Mt. Kilamanjaro into two halves.

Glaciers are only one reflection of overall climate trends, but Thompson believes they're an important one--especially the ones he's specialized in studying, those growing at the tops of high mountains in central latitudes rather than the vast expanses in the Arctic and Antarctic regions.

"Glaciers, especially tropical glaciers, are the canaries in the coal mine for our global climate system," he said.

In his research, Thompson has spent 840 days above 18,000 feet, setting up camps and drilling out cores of ice from the glaciers. The ice cores record in tiny air bubbles volcanic activity and greenhouse gas levels; each year has its own layer that can be dated by characteristic patterns of dust deposition and by wet and dry seasons.

The ice core records are disappearing along with the glaciers, though. Several he's examined, for example, show evidence of above-ground thermonuclear bomb tests from the Soviet Union in the 1960s and the United States in the 1950s. But there's no evidence of either on the Naimona'nyi Glacier on the Tibetan Plateau.

"These glaciers are wasting from the surface down," Thompson said.

Source The original story contains further links to relevant articles.

Barley


----------



## greypilgrim

Stuff they don't tell you:



> As a group of scientists reported in a study published in last week's online edition of the International Journal of Climatology, over the past three decades, the forecasts of computer-generated climate change models (which warming alarmists rely on) don't correlate with actual, measurable data from weather balloons and orbiting satellites.
> 
> But that's just the tip of the Arctic ice cap (which, by the way, is not shrinking).
> 
> 
> According to Brazil's MetSul Weather Center, this year, the Arctic ice cap is within 1% of the winter norm, and winter has just begun. Ice on the southern polar ice cap has grown substantially, compared to last year.
> 
> Australian Cardinal George Pell, Archbishop of Sydney, notes that the atmospheric temperature of Mars has risen by 0.5 degrees Celsius. If only Martians would stop having so many kids with huge carbon footprints and start riding bicycles.
> 
> Hurricane expert William Gray of Colorado State University believes the Earth will start to cool within 10 years. Neil Frank, a former director of the National Hurricane Center, calls Global Warming "a hoax."
> 
> Richard Lindzen, a professor of meteorology at MIT, points out that Europe was far warmer in the Middle Ages then it is today. But the 17th century was much colder. (Then, it wasn't unusual for the Thames to freeze over in the winter.) In other words -- please pay attention, Albert -- the Earth goes through periodic cycles of warming and cooling, completely unrelated to carbon emissions.
> 
> There are now an estimated 22,000 polar bears, compared to 5,000 60 years ago. Apparently, the creatures enjoy the effects of Global Warming on their environment -- witness their predilection for sunglasses and Hawaiian shirts.
> 
> The temperature in Greenland is lower now then it was in 1940.
> 
> A thousand years ago, Viking settlers were growing crops in Greenland, which really was green. Sadly, Sven and Inga began driving SUVs and burning fossil fuels to run their 11th century factories. Ja, by jimmeny, the rest is history.
> 
> Reid Bryson, professor emeritus at the University of Wisconsin at Madison, considered the father of scientific climatology, explains: "We've been coming out of a Little Ice Age for 300 years. We have not been making very much carbon dioxide for 300 years."
> 
> From what we know about climate change over the past 12,000 years (based on historical accounts and data like growth rings on trees) the Earth's warming and cooling cycles exactly coincide with the sun's magnetic activity.
> 
> How about that scientific consensus in favor of man-made Global Warming, touted by Gore and company? It's a myth. There are plenty of scientists with the courage to call it a fraud -- the 21st century equivalent of the Piltdown Man. Others are silenced by intimidation. Scientists who are willing to go along to get along get tenure, research assistants, grants and peer recognition.
> 
> As Lindzen explains, "Scientists who dissent from the alarmism have seen their funds disappear, their work derided, and themselves labeled as industry stooges." The invective is vicious. Lindzen: "I can tolerate being called a skeptic because all scientists should be skeptics, but then they started calling us deniers, with all of the connotations of the Holocaust (deniers). That is an obscenity."
> 
> http://frontpagemagazine.com/Articles/Read.aspx?GUID=D9F17F62-10FF-4F53-8288-28353B567FDF



And just for reference:



> In the December 9th edition of Medical Journal of Australia, Professor Barry Walters urges a one-time "baby levy" of $5,000, followed by an annual tax of $800 per child, on Australian families with more than two children.
> 
> "Every newborn baby in Australia represents a potent source of greenhouse gas emissions for an average of 80 years, not simply by breathing but by the profligate consumption of resources typical of our society," writes Walters, who calls childbearing "greenhouse unfriendly behavior."



Wow, just...wow.


----------



## Gandalf White

Oh, this is just too good, I have to chime in.

Hahaha.

Ok, done.

Technically I don't think that counts as a last word.


----------



## greypilgrim

IPCC TACTICS 



> The pressure to achieve consensus remains very much a part of the IPCC today - a fact made obvious by the press reports of the late night meetings proceeding the publication of the three summary reports of the IPCC’s work this year. And in the run-up to the publication of its final report - Fourth Assessment: The Synthesis Report - to be finalised at a conference in mid-November, the IPCC is pushing the significance of this consensus strongly.
> 
> For example, take the following advert for the forthcoming Synthesis Report on the IPCC’s website home page:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Who could possibly argue with such an array of international expertise all in agreement with one another? But in many ways, these figures are misleading. The expertise of those contributing to IPCC processes is unsurprisingly hugely varied, necessarily covering a vast array of disciplines and fields of research. So in reality, the ‘one report’ brings together distinct and discrete areas of expertise addressing often related but distinct questions – the experts on cloud formation, for example, will have little expert opinion to input into the discussion of the impact of global warming on biodiversity.
> 
> The contrast between the impression of thousands of scientists acting as one and the reality of the IPCC process was highlighted in an analysis recently conducted by John McLean, titled Peer Review, What Peer Review? and published by the Science and Public Policy Institute. Analysing information secured from the IPCC under a US Freedom of Information request, McLean examines the level of review activity associated with the IPCC’s key Working Group 1 (WG1) report that assesses ‘The Physical Science Basis’ of climate change.
> 
> Looking at the comments made by the scientific reviewers for the Second Revision of the Draft WG1 report, McLean found that a total of 308 reviewers commented on the Second Revision, which was the penultimate draft. According to McLean ‘only 32 reviewers commented on more than three chapters and just five reviewers commented on all 11 chapters’. There were 143 reviewers (46 per cent) who commented on just one chapter and 71 reviewers (23 per cent) who commented on two chapters.
> 
> Such a tally does not itself demonstrate a faulty peer review process. However, McLean certainly seems to have a point when he draws attention to the gap between the perception the IPCC wishes to create of thousands of scientists in unity in one report, and the reality of a report comprised of many distinct parts, each contributed to and commented on by a far smaller number of scientists with knowledge of a specific field.
> 
> http://www.spiked-online.com/index.php?/site/printable/3967/


IN SUMMARY: 

Evidence suggests no scientific consensus exists.
Credited researchers claim bias in official reports.


----------



## Barliman Butterbur

*"In my view, climate change is the most severe problem that we are facing today -- more serious even than the threat of terrorism."* 

With this warning to an international science meeting in February 2004, David A. King, Chief Scientific Advisor to the British Government, brought the issue of global warming into sharp focus.

The World View of Global Warming project is documenting this change through science photography from the Arctic to Antarctica, from glaciers to the oceans, across all climate zones. Rapid climate change and its effects is fast becoming one of the prime events of the 21st century. It is real and it is accelerating across the globe. As the effects of this change combine with overpopulation and weather crises, climate disruptions will affect more people than does war.

The 2005 average global temperature equaled (within several hundredths of a degree) the record warm year of 1998, according to meteorologists. 2002-4 were nearly as warm, and the 11 warmest years on record have all occurred since 1990. In response, our planet has been changing with warming winds and rising seas. At the poles and in mountains, ice is under fire and glaciers are receding. Down into the temperate zone, change is rearranging the boundaries of life. The plants and animals with whom we share the planet are adapting and moving -- some even going extinct -- because they have no choice.

We six billion humans are being affected, too. Coastal towns are suffering from rising sea level, storms are getting stronger and 35,000 people died in European heat waves in 2003. However, we have choices to make to help correct and ameliorate global warming. This is a story of frightening scale and and great urgency that is just beginning to be told. Please go to Actions to see what you can do now.

I began photographing climate change in 1999, about when scientists started to realize how great a change in temperatures is taking place in our time. Past earth temperatures left their mark in tree rings, glaciers and ancient lake and ocean sediments, and the record shows slowly decreasing temperatures over the last 2000 years. In that time there have been warm and cool periods, but nothing like the rise in temperatures in the past 150 years -- and no increase even close to the past 30. This research has created what has become the single most powerful icon of climate change, the so-called "hockey-stick" graph of temperatures. In 2005-6 it was subjected to intense re-analysis. Evidence of previous cool and warm periods has increased, but the rapid and sustained heat gain especially since the 1970s remains unparalleled in recent earth history.

Full article here

This site is especially important because it supplies photographic evidence of climate change — something the naysayers have particular trouble refuting.

Barley


----------



## Barliman Butterbur

Gandalf White said:


> Oh, this is just too good, I have to chime in.
> 
> Hahaha.
> 
> Ok, done.
> 
> Technically I don't think that counts as a last word.



The thing is, GW, it's _not_ fun. It's way too serious to be fun. That's why I simply supply what I think is important information and do not engage in useless debates, leaving it to the viewers to examine both sides of the issue and come to their own conclusions. 

•••

BTW — make no mistake; I've been reading the "other side" of the issues that GP posts here, as well as other places in the news and on the web. What I see in the main are (1) groups and individuals who genuinely disagree and don't/can't/won't believe in global warming because it makes no sense or logic to them and/or it scares the hell out of them, (2) powerful companies who would lose fortunes by a change in the status quo, (3) ornery cusses who just like to argue for their own entertainment and self-aggrandizement, (4) whole social systems for whom significant change in response to global warming would be in truth and indeed disastrous. Nevertheless, the changes are occurring quite above and beyond anyone's beliefs, no matter what side of the issue.

It is obvious that I believe that the more time goes on, the more it is man's activities that are causing the warming and the consequences that come with it, despite the arguments that the other side present, both logically and speciously. Their best efforts do not dissuade me, especially not so in the face of the photographic evidence of change — change that has come more rapidly and quite probably irreversibly than at any other time or past age. And what _really_ scares me is how many subtle tipping points — points of no return leading to an ecosystem non-supportive of human life — that we've _already_ gone past _without even knowing it._

Barley


----------



## Barliman Butterbur

1 October 2007

*Arctic Sea Ice Shatters All Previous Record Lows
Diminished summer sea ice leads to opening of the fabled Northwest Passage*

This is a press release from the National Snow and Ice Data Center (NSIDC), which is part of the Cooperative Institute for Research in Environmental Sciences at the University of Colorado at Boulder.

Arctic sea ice during the 2007 melt season plummeted to the lowest levels since satellite measurements began in 1979. The average sea ice extent for the month of September was 4.28 million square kilometers (1.65 million square miles), the lowest September on record, shattering the previous record for the month, set in 2005, by 23 percent (see Figure 1). At the end of the melt season, September 2007 sea ice was 39 percent below the long-term average from 1979 to 2000 (see Figure 2). If ship and aircraft records from before the satellite era are taken into account, sea ice may have fallen by as much as 50 percent from the 1950s. The September rate of sea ice decline since 1979 is now approximately 10 percent per decade, or 72,000 square kilometers (28,000 square miles) per year (see Figure 3).

Arctic sea ice has long been recognized as a sensitive climate indicator. NSIDC Senior Scientist Mark Serreze said, “Computer projections have consistently shown that as global temperatures rise, the sea ice cover will begin to shrink. While a number of natural factors have certainly contributed to the overall decline in sea ice, the effects of greenhouse warming are now coming through loud and clear.”

•••

NSIDC scientists monitor and study Arctic sea ice year round, analyzing satellite data and seeking to understand the regional changes and complex feedbacks that we are seeing. Serreze said, “The sea ice cover is in a downward spiral and may have passed the point of no return. As the years go by, we are losing more and more ice in summer, and growing back less and less ice in winter. We may well see an ice-free Arctic Ocean in summer within our lifetimes.” The scientists agree that this could occur by 2030. Serreze concluded, “The implications for global climate, as well as Arctic animals and people, are disturbing."

Full article here Many illustrations are at the site.

Barley


----------



## greypilgrim

Barliman Butterbur said:


> The thing is, GW, it's _not_ fun. It's way too serious to be fun. That's why I simply supply what I think is important information and do not engage in useless debates, leaving it to the viewers to examine both sides of the issue and come to their own conclusions.
> 
> Barley


Greetings Barliman!

I agree. It _isn't a laughing matter_.

May I take this moment; I have been warned about crossing the line in regards to my zeal in posting in this thread. I will state: I feel I was unfairly drawn into this discussion (I thought it was supposedly a discussion on global warming) when a post I deleted was brought back up. I will henceforth achieve to maintain the highest degree of respectable, eloquent lucidy in my future posts - for all concerned.

greypilgrim


----------



## Barliman Butterbur

The year in the environment

*One step up, one step back was the refrain in news about global warming, automobiles and biodiversity in 2007.*

By Katharine Mieszkowski

Dec. 29, 2007 | NOBEL WARNING

This year, Al Gore, the Man Who Was Almost President, received a stunning vindication from the Nobel Committee for his Paul Revere campaign about global warming. "The Earth has a fever, and the fever is rising," Gore said in his Nobel lecture in Oslo, Norway, in December as he accepted the Peace Prize, which he shared with the scientists of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. "The experts have told us it is not a passing affliction that will heal by itself. We asked for a second opinion -- and a third -- and a fourth -- and the consistent conclusion, restated with increasing distress, is that something basic is wrong. We are what is wrong, and we must make it right."

In 2007, even the United States stopped asking for a second opinion. The Bush administration now agrees that global warming is a threat. But all the plaudits heaped on Gore couldn't move the United States to, in Gore's words, "make it right." The United States remains the only industrialized nation not to endorse the goals of the Kyoto Protocol; Australia, the other big holdout, belatedly ratified the treaty's goals in December. Not coincidentally, Australia has recently been plagued by serious drought. But the United States, where the governor of drought-ridden Georgia held a prayer vigil in November in hopes of inspiring rain, was still not swayed. At the international climate talks in Bali, Indonesia, this December, the Bush administration refused to agree to any mandatory limits on greenhouse gas emissions, giving developing giant China cover to avoid any such restrictions itself.

Yet there are tantalizing signs that the American people are not waiting for the Bush administration to leave power to start taking steps to address the "planetary emergency" that Gore warns about. A Senate committee passed the first legislation that would impose mandatory limits on greenhouse gases. Although the bill may not make it to the president's desk, it's a sign that meaningful climate legislation is on the horizon. In the meantime, action is occurring at state and local levels. To date, some 725 U.S. mayors, representing 25 percent of the U.S. population, have signed a pledge to reduce greenhouse gases by 2012. In August, Illinois became the 26th state to require that some of the state's electricity come from renewable sources. And in October, Kansas became the first state to refuse a permit for a new coal-fired power plant because of the threat it would pose to public health and the atmosphere.

Frustration abounds in the scientific community. The IPCC's latest dire report, released in November, made bleaker projections than ever, yet climate scientists fear that the world's simply not heeding their alarm. More than 200 scientists were so fed up that in December they signed a petition calling for the world to take drastic action to reduce greenhouse gas emissions in half by 2050. In his Nobel lecture in Oslo, Rajendra Pachauri, chairman of the IPCC, warned that unchecked warming could bring massive ice melting in Greenland and disappearing rainfall in many tropical areas. Yet he reminded the world that the worst threats can still be ameliorated: "The implications of these changes, if they were to occur, would be grave and disastrous," he said. "However, it is within the reach of human society to meet these threats." It looks like the United States -- and the world -- will have to wait for the next American president to begin to meet them.

PLUG IN, DRIVE ON

With the price of oil inching near $100 a barrel, Americans searched for new ways to save gas and the atmosphere. Many drivers kicked the SUV habit and switched to smaller cars. As of September 2007, 16 percent of cars sold this year were diminutive compacts, including the likes of the Honda Fit and the Mini Cooper, up from 13.8 percent in 2002, according to the National Automobile Dealers Association.

While hybrids remain a fraction of the overall car market, this year they continued to gain popularity. Automakers reported an 82 percent increase in hybrid sales this year, compared with last. (That's not counting General Motors, which doesn't break out hybrid sales from others.) Toyota, makers of the popular Prius, saw a 109 percent increase in hybrid sales this November, compared with last. Finally, the Bush administration got in on the act, signing a new energy bill that raises the fuel-efficiency standard for car fleets from today's 25 mpg to 35 mpg by 2020.

Those who dream of driving without guilt -- or at least with less guilt -- are tricking out their hybrids to go farther with even less gas. This year, the number of so-called "plug-in hybrids" on the road, which get over 100 miles per gallon, quadrupled as corporate fleets and utilities, and even some individuals, experimented with enhancing their hybrids. Plug-ins are hybrid cars that have been converted, at a cost of some $10,000, to plug into a conventional electric socket and gather juice from the grid.

CONTINUED NEXT POST


----------



## Barliman Butterbur

CONTINUED FROM PREVIOUS POST

"The plug-in car is the only car that gets cleaner as it gets older, because the grid is getting cleaner," says Felix Kramer, founder of CalCars.org, a nonprofit that promotes the vehicles. Advocates believe that Toyota could sell a plug-in version of the Toyota Prius for just $3,000 extra, although the leading hybrid automaker currently has no plans to do so. General Motors plans to release a plug-in hybrid Saturn Vue in 2009 and the plug-in hybrid Chevy Volt in 2010.

The race is on to build cars that sip even less fuel. A group of engineering students at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology have launched a competition with hundreds of other engineering students at colleges around the globe, including India and China, to produce the first plug-in electric hybrid that gets 200 miles per gallon within three years. And Silicon Valley upstart Tesla Motors has plans to start selling its fully electric, $95,000 roadster early next year. Actors George Clooney and Matt Damon have each already reserved one.

But what of those who foresee no future in driving at any miles per gallon? These are the stalwart bike activists who pedal to work or the store or school, and this August, the Bush administration gave them a swift quick in the spokes. The secretary of transportation declared that bike paths and trails are not legitimate forms of transportation, as she attempted to blame the tragic Minneapolis bridge collapse, which killed 13 people and injured 100 more, on money being diverted from shoring up the nation's bridges to building paths and trails. That's right. According to Mary Peters, bike paths kill.

ANIMAL-LESS PLANET

This year, the drumbeat of extinction grew louder, as traditional threats like habitat loss and poaching met the newfangled menace of global warming, putting stress on many critters already under pressure. "We previously assumed that if the land is protected, then the plants and animals living there will persist," said Sandy Andelman, an ecologist with Conservation International. "That may be wishful thinking."

No nature preserve, however well protected, can reliably shelter its resident plants, insects, birds and primates from the vagaries of changes to the Earth's atmosphere. More than half of the world's protected areas, such as national parks and forest reserves, are likely to be negatively impacted by global warming, even in a best-case scenario, according to a new study from scientists with Conservation International, the University of Maryland and the University of Wisconsin.

Already, almost a third of bird species in the U.S. need help to avoid going the way of the dodo, according to a new report from the Audubon Society and the American Bird Conservancy released in November. That followed the news that 16,306 species are now on the brink of extinction around the globe, according to the latest IUCN Red List. And a third of primate species, humans' closest living relatives, are also staring down extinction, with the 25 most endangered species barely able to fill a ballpark. "If you took all of the remaining individuals of those 25 species that are on the list, and you gave each one a seat in a football stadium, you probably couldn't fill the stadium," says Russell Mittermeier, president of Conservation International, who is chairman of the IUCN's Species Survival Commission's Primate Specialist Group.

Yet, efforts to curb global warming could save tropical rain forest habitat, home to many of the world's threatened flora and fauna. Forests are like giant carbon sinks, as the leaves of trees and plants suck up carbon dioxide in the atmosphere through photosynthesis, converting it into wood and other biomass. When a forest is cleared or burned for agriculture or ranching, much of that carbon dioxide is released back into the atmosphere. That's why deforestation accounts for some 20 percent of human-induced greenhouse gas emissions.

"We'll never solve the climate challenge unless we address the loss of tropical forests, which puts out as much carbon dioxide as all the planes, trains and cars worldwide," said Stephanie Meeks, acting CEO and president of the Nature Conservancy, at a news conference at the Bali climate talks.

The Nature Conservancy is helping the World Bank create incentives to preserve rain forests. An effort called Cool Earth, which has won the support of former British prime minister Tony Blair, among others, is also raising money to preserve forests in the name of climate protection. At the Bali conference, saving rain forests in developing countries became a priority for the next international climate treaty. It's a good start to 2008.

-- By Katharine Mieszkowski

Source

Barley

FAIR USE NOTICE -- This dispatch contains copyrighted material the use of which has not always been specifically authorized by the copyright owner. We are making such material available in our efforts to advance understanding of environmental, political, human rights, economic, democracy, scientific, and social justice issues, etc. We believe this constitutes a 'fair use' of any such copyrighted material as provided for in section 107 of the US Copyright Law. In accordance with Title 17 U.S.C. Section 107, the material of this dispatch is distributed without profit to those who have expressed a prior interest in receiving the included information for research and educational purposes. For more information go to: http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/17/107.shtml. If you wish to use copyrighted material from this dispatch for purposes of your own that go beyond 'fair use', you must obtain permission from the copyright owner.


----------



## Barliman Butterbur

from the December 31, 2007 edition - Christian Science Monitor

*America: Step up on climate change*

_Global warming is the nuclear issue of our age._

By Helena Cobban

WASHINGTON: 2007 was the year that global warming became a defining issue in world politics. The science behind it has become firmer than ever. People around the world tell pollsters they judge climate change to be a very serious – sometimes immediate – challenge, and a strong majority say they are ready to make lifestyle changes to reduce warming.

Nearly all the world's governments started acting on this issue a long time ago. They have been working together under the 1999 Kyoto Protocol to reduce the world's total emissions of greenhouse gases (GHGs).

But where is the United States? The Bush administration has been a notable laggard on the climate question. Only recently and reluctantly has it started to shift from a long-held policy of working with a Washington-dominated "coalition of the willing" toward considering binding international agreements under United Nations auspices.

The years 2008 and 2009 will be crucial in environmental diplomacy. American citizens and our government should push the present momentum even further, working energetically and in good faith with the rest of the international community to tackle the challenge of global warming.

At the UN's mid-December Climate Change Conference in Bali, which launched the negotiations for a follow-on after Kyoto's 2012 expiration, two events underlined the problems with the go-it-alone posture the US had maintained until then. First, Australia's newly elected Labor Party prime minister presented the gathering with his country's ratification of Kyoto, leaving the US the only significant country remaining outside the agreement.

Then, in Bali's last, tension-filled hours, US Undersecretary of State Paula Dobriansky was openly booed by other participants when she said the US would reject the action plan the 187 other delegations had painstakingly negotiated in the preceding days.

The representative of tiny Papua New Guinea stood up and publicly chided Ms. Dobriansky. Five minutes later, Dobriansky announced that the US would, after all, accept the plan. That announcement was greeted by well-deserved cheers.

But peoples and governments around the world had taken note of the humiliating moments. We can safely expect they will be watching America's performance on the climate issue very closely in the important years ahead.

US policy on environmental issues matters a lot – to us, our grandchildren, and the world. It matters first because we are probably still the world's highest emitter of GHGs (though China is rapidly catching up). Americans make up fewer than 5 percent of the world's people, but we contribute more than 20 percent of the world's emissions of the key GHG, carbon dioxide.

Our per capita emissions rate looks even worse: It is more than twice that of the advanced economies of Japan or the European Union, more than five times that of China, and 20 times India's. Clearly, as we ask other countries to cut back their emissions, we should also be ready to credibly promise that we will be making deep reductions of our own.

America's environmental policy also matters deeply because climate change has become such a critical issue in world affairs. The world's 6 billion non-Americans, and their governments, will be carefully monitoring whether Washington participates fully in the technological and lifestyle transformation that will be required to reduce emissions in the years ahead – and whether we deal fairly with other countries as we do so.

Leaders from Europe and many other regions have expressed harsh criticisms of the Bush administration's tendency to "go it alone" on climate issues. Officials in China, India, and other low-income countries argue, not unreasonably, that their citizens also deserve the chance to have lifestyles similar to those of Americans and Europeans. They argue that concerns about climate change should not be used to deny them that chance.

If all these aspirations are to be met and the Earth's climate is to be saved, it will require far-reaching changes in how modern societies organize their economies: in how we generate power, manufacture and transport goods, design cities, farm, and use forests. No one country can on its own foster and finance the level of innovation required. Nations need to allocate the tasks and responsibilities involved in a way that is equitable, inclusive, and sustainable. The UN's big post-Bali negotiation, which will last two years, will be the main forum for this effort.

The Bush administration is now, after Dobriansky's Bali U-turn, on board with this process. In mid-December, too, Congress adopted its boldest plan to date to reduce GHG emissions – but it still did not go far enough. And in a separate provision, Congress continued its practice of giving hefty subsidies to coal and oil producers.

That's why all Americans – from the grass roots to the presidential candidates – must now intensify the national conversation about what we want our country's role to be in the global climate negotiations of 2008 and 2009.

Climate change now looks set to be the same kind of touchstone issue in global politics that nuclear weapons has been since 1945. As with nuclear weapons, the threats posed by climate change know no national boundaries. They could, in some circumstances, threaten all of human life. As with nuclear weapons, good-faith international cooperation is a must if the climate problem is to be brought under control.

The people of the rest of today's richly interconnected world will be monitoring Washington's performance carefully. How will Americans and our leaders respond?

Source

Barley

FAIR USE NOTICE -- This dispatch contains copyrighted material the use of which has not always been specifically authorized by the copyright owner. We are making such material available in our efforts to advance understanding of environmental, political, human rights, economic, democracy, scientific, and social justice issues, etc. We believe this constitutes a 'fair use' of any such copyrighted material as provided for in section 107 of the US Copyright Law. In accordance with Title 17 U.S.C. Section 107, the material of this dispatch is distributed without profit to those who have expressed a prior interest in receiving the included information for research and educational purposes. For more information go to: http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/17/107.shtml. If you wish to use copyrighted material from this dispatch for purposes of your own that go beyond 'fair use', you must obtain permission from the copyright owner.


----------



## Barliman Butterbur

*Climate change is a security issue*

Daniel Howden

Foreign policy-makers are waking up to the impact of climate change on conflict zones worldwide, and added their voice to those calling on governments at the UN conference in Bali to act urgently.

An internal presentation to senior diplomats at the Foreign Office listed every recent, serious breakdown of civil order around the world and mapped it against those countries hardest hit by climate change. The fit was almost perfect. One of the diplomats present said there was an "audible intake of breath" from the audience when the slide was shown.

As the scientific debate has been unequivocally settled by the UN's Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change this year, it has become increasingly apparent that its effects will have major implications for foreign policy.

"Climate change presents an enormous challenge to the international community, and unless we respond effectively we won't be able to deal with the implications," said John Ashton, the UK's special representative for climate change. "We need to see how we can use the assets at our disposal to something about it."

Those assets include the know-how to build international coalitions, and the kind of influence over governmental decision-making that environment ministers can only dream of. Analysts point out that while environment experts know how to make emissions trading work, it's a "political fact" that you get a quicker response to a security crisis.

Delegations from some 190 countries began talks on the Indonesian island of Bali yesterday, aimed at agreeing a "road map" for a successor to the Kyoto protocol. There are concerns that, despite scientific and business consensus on the urgent need for deep cuts to carbon emissions, Bali will be simply more talks about talks.

From rising sea levels in the Indian Ocean to the increasing spread of desert in Africa's Sahel region and water shortages in the Middle East, global warming will cause new wars across the world and is being described by diplomats as a "threat multiplier" - adding new stress to areas of traditional geopolitical instability.

Mr Ashton was brought into the Foreign Office by the former foreign secretary Margaret Beckett last year as a "climate-change ambassador" to try to instil a sense of urgency on the issue in the diplomatic service. Britain also used its presidency of the UN Security Council to lead its first debate on climate change and conflict. "What makes wars start?" asked Mrs Beckett. "Fights over water. Changing patterns of rainfall. Fights over food production, land use. There are few greater potential threatst to peace and security itself."

Those sentiments were echoed in June by the head of the UN Environment Programme, Achim Steiner, who launched a report revealing the environmental roots of the conflict in Darfur.

Mr Steiner said global warming would produce new wars. "People are being pushed into other people's terrain by the changing climate and it is leading to conflict," he said.

"Societies are not prepared for the scale and the speed with which they will have to decide what they will do with people."

Were global carbon emissions to be cut by half today, any mitigating effects on climate change would take at least two decades to appear. In the short term we are locked into global warming, so efforts to "climate proof" the nations set to be hit hardest by it is one of the biggest tasks facing the UN, and the most effective means of reducing the likelihood of climate-driven wars.

Schemes to mute the impact of climate change, such as wider use of drought-resistant crops, irrigation or better forecasting of storm surges, could help protect hundreds of millions of people.

In parts of Sudan, for instance, a study showed that a shift to small-scale irrigated vegetable gardens and efforts to stabilise sand dunes had raised food output.

For Uruguay and Argentina, the report urged "a review of coastal and city defences, and of early-warning systems and flood-response strategies" along the river Plate. In Gambia, a projected decline in rainfall this century is likely to cut yields of millet. Cases of dengue fever in the Caribbean could triple, and better education about the risks could help. "Adaptation is not an option - it's essential," said Neil Leary of the International Start Secretariat in Washington, who led the studies. 

(Source: The Independent, UK)

Source

Barley

FAIR USE NOTICE -- This dispatch contains copyrighted material the use of which has not always been specifically authorized by the copyright owner. We are making such material available in our efforts to advance understanding of environmental, political, human rights, economic, democracy, scientific, and social justice issues, etc. We believe this constitutes a 'fair use' of any such copyrighted material as provided for in section 107 of the US Copyright Law. In accordance with Title 17 U.S.C. Section 107, the material of this dispatch is distributed without profit to those who have expressed a prior interest in receiving the included information for research and educational purposes. For more information go to: http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/17/107.shtml. If you wish to use copyrighted material from this dispatch for purposes of your own that go beyond 'fair use', you must obtain permission from the copyright owner.


----------



## Eledhwen

On a more personal, anecdotal note; the daffodils in the pocket park across the road from my house were in full bloom by Boxing Day.

I remember the days when everyone used to hope they'd be in bloom by Mothering Sunday (4th Sunday in Lent - March 2nd in 2008).


----------



## Barliman Butterbur

Eledhwen said:


> On a more personal, anecdotal note; the daffodils in the pocket park across the road from my house were in full bloom by Boxing Day.
> 
> I remember the days when everyone used to hope they'd be in bloom by Mothering Sunday (4th Sunday in Lent - March 2nd in 2008).



It's these kinds of personally experienced anecdotal changes — as well as the ones carefully documented by scientists — that will, over time, tell the tale to the point that all the insane denial now in progress will evaporate. Let us hope that we won't have gone through too many tipping points of no return by then.

Barley


----------



## Barliman Butterbur

*Japan to lead climate debate as head of G8 rich club*

TOKYO (AFP) — Japan took over the presidency of the Group of Eight club of the world's leading economies Tuesday, with Prime Minister Yasuo Fukuda vowing to put a focus on climate change and environmental issues.

The world's second biggest economy after the United States, Japan is also the home of the Kyoto Protocol, the landmark 1997 treaty that really launched the fight against global warming. So when leaders of the rich club convene for a summit in July in Toyako, a northern resort in the Japanese island of Hokkaido, it will be with climate change on their mind.

"Environmental issues will be a big agenda" item at the summit, Fukuda said in a New Year statement.

"Japan hopes to lead the worldwide discussions in order to hand over clean skies to our children."

It has announced four main issues for the summit: environment and climate change; the world economy; development and Africa; and broad political issues such as nuclear non-proliferation and the fight against terrorism.

Apart from Japan and outgoing president Germany, the G8 club is made up of Britain, Canada, France, Germany, Italy, Russia and the United States.
China is not a member but habitually gets invited.

Fukuda plans a "global climate change" summit immediately before the Group of Eight leaders meet and has reportedly invited the leaders of China, India, South Korea and Indonesia.

Last week, Fukuda vowed to use Japan's presidency to promote eco-friendly technology, saying "we must promote our technologies to the rest of the world. That should benefit Japan and the rest of the world."

Japan has proposed a goal of cutting global emissions by half by 2050 from what they were in 1990.

But Tokyo is far behind on its own Kyoto obligations to slash emissions by six percent by 2012 as its economy recovers from a recession in the 1990s.
Fukuda, who returned Monday from his first four-day trip to China as prime minister, signed an agreement which would see Tokyo help Beijing -- one of the world's biggest greenhouse gas emitters -- work to combat global warming.

Japan will invite about 50 Chinese researchers each year over the next four years to be trained in the technology and science of fighting climate change.

Still, green groups criticised Japan for siding with the United States at last month's UN climate change conference in Bali. That final document lacked an EU-led call for a specific goal on how far to cut greenhouse gas emissions after Kyoto's obligations expire in 2012.

Japan also aims to use its lead role to spearhead a health drive aiming to get the world back on track to meeting UN targets on poverty and disease, the government has said.

The goals, adopted at a UN summit in 2000, seek progress in eight areas by 2015 including cutting child mortality rates and halting the spread of AIDS, but studies have shown some targets are set to be badly missed.

Japan has invited African leaders here in May for the fourth summit of an initiative it launched on African development.

At that gathering Japan "intends to take up the issue of health in Africa, and at the G8 summit, the wider issue of global health," its foreign minister, Masahiko Komura, said earlier.

It hopes notably to share its own experiences after World War II, when it launched nationwide health check-ups through schools and hospitals to build a country that now has the world's longest life expectancy.

Source

Barley

FAIR USE NOTICE -- This dispatch contains copyrighted material the use of which has not always been specifically authorized by the copyright owner. We are making such material available in our efforts to advance understanding of environmental, political, human rights, economic, democracy, scientific, and social justice issues, etc. We believe this constitutes a 'fair use' of any such copyrighted material as provided for in section 107 of the US Copyright Law. In accordance with Title 17 U.S.C. Section 107, the material of this dispatch is distributed without profit to those who have expressed a prior interest in receiving the included information for research and educational purposes. For more information go to: http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/17/107.shtml. If you wish to use copyrighted material from this dispatch for purposes of your own that go beyond 'fair use', you must obtain permission from the copyright owner.


----------



## greypilgrim

> 2008: The year a new superpower is born
> 
> By Cahal Milmo
> Published: 01 January 2008
> 
> Here comes the world's newest superpower. The rest of the world is gloomily contemplating economic slowdown and even recession. Not in Beijing. China is set to make 2008 the year it asserts its status as a global colossus by flexing frightening economic muscle on international markets, enjoying unprecedented levels of domestic consumption and showcasing itself to a watching world with a glittering £20bn Olympic Games.
> 
> The world's most populous nation will mark the next 12 months with a coming-of-age party that will confirm its transformation in three decades from one of the poorest countries of the 20th century into the globe's third-largest economy, its hungriest (and most polluting) consumer and the engine room of economic growth.
> 
> Once regarded at best as a sporting also-ran, China is widely tipped to top the medals table in the Beijing Olympics in August, an event in which the country's leadership is investing huge importance and prestige.
> 
> It will be a celebration viewed with consternation by many, as China's authoritarian regime shows little sign of relaxing its grip on power and continues to expand its influence overseas from the oil fields and metal mines of Africa to the City of London. Appropriately, 2008 marks the Year of the Rat, an animal considered in Chinese folklore to be a harbinger and protector of material prosperity.
> 
> Britain will feel the full power of the new superpower's confidence. This month, for the first time, China's state-controlled banks will begin spending some of its $1.33trn (£670bn) in foreign currency reserves on London's financial markets. Beijing has ruled that Britain should become only the second destination after Hong Kong to be allowed to receive investors' money via so-called "sovereign funds" – the huge state-controlled surpluses built up by cash-rich economies from Qatar to South Korea. Throw in the biggest round of Chinese art exhibitions ever to tour these islands and the oriental bias to 2008 becomes even more pronounced.
> 
> The UK has made it clear that Beijing's investment, which could reach as much as £45bn, is welcome and it follows the recent acquisition by Chinese banks of stakes in such blue chip stocks as Barclays and the US private equity firm Blackstone, at a cost of $3bn. The talk in the finance houses is that the label "Made in China" will soon be replaced by one reading "Owned by China". Takeover speculation has provoked concern in some quarters at the wisdom of selling large assets to organs of a democratically unaccountable state where the financial sector remains underdeveloped.
> 
> China's trade surplus with the rest of the world will widen from £130bn in 2007 to £145bn this year as it tries to tame its burgeoning economy amid pressure from Washington and Brussels to narrow the trade gap and raise its currency's value.
> 
> Stephen Perry, chairman of the 48 Group Club, a Sino-British business network, said: "China has become an international player much more quickly than it would have wanted to do, in part to meet its need for natural resources. But I don't think China has any intention of taking on American power. The West is important to China in this stage of its development as it seeks inward investment. But that is beginning to be much less important and it is looking more to the development of a strong Asia, in which it is one of the strongest players because of its enormous consumer base."
> 
> But while some may question Beijing's political motives, there is no doubt that China has arrived as serious power-broker. Last year, it surpassed America as the greatest driver of global economic demand. It is also widely predicted to overtake Germany as the world's third largest economy this year.
> 
> While nearly all of its success since Premier Deng Xiaoping began China's economic transformation in 1978 has been driven by producing goods for the outside world, the country has a burgeoning urban middle-class whose insatiable appetite for consumer durables is hoped to put the economy on a more stable footing. One London-based luxury markets analyst said: "The Chinese are waking up to quality brands in a way that is quite exciting. There is a real sense that what the West once kept to itself is now available to them, or at least the urban few who can afford it."
> 
> The arrival of conspicuous consumption and entry of Shanghai's sovereign funds into foreign investment markets, with London soon expected to be followed by the US, is symptomatic of a China increasingly willing to assert itself as a political and cultural influence, according to experts.
> 
> *From global warming to Darfur and North Korea, the views of Beijing and its willingness to act have become prerequisites to any solution to the world's most pressing problems.*
> 
> The Chinese New Year on 7 February will herald the beginning of the largest-ever festival of China's culture in Britain with an accent on contemporary artists in fields from video art to neon signs. But others warn 2008 has as much potential to be a disaster as a triumph for Beijing's attempts to herald its own arrival on the world stage. The Chinese capital will host 31,000 journalists for the Olympics and any sign of protest or an attempt to quell dissent with violence would be catastrophic.
> 
> *The drum beat of protectionism is already sounding in America and will only get louder in a presidential election year, putting pressure on both Republican and Democratic candidates to take a "strong" stance on China.*


USD was dumped by Iran, Venezuala, and now Russia may start selling it's oil in rubles not USD. What hardline stance could we possibly take? Too bad, so sad.



> In the meantime, Beijing will have to grapple with issues from rising inflation to Taiwan, which holds presidential elections in March, to *its status as the world's biggest emitter of carbon dioxide and likely role as the largest consumer of primary energy resources.*
> 
> Dr Kerry Brown, associate fellow of the Royal Institute of International Affairs, said: "There are good reasons to feel pretty uncomfortable about 2008 for China. The world will be rightly watching China in August for the Olympics. But it will only take one truncheon blow to turn it away from a story about sport to one about repression."
> 
> http://news.independent.co.uk/world/asia/article3298364.ece


Who will use less resources in order for them to use more? Not only China but India and Vietnam, as well? Not one country. There will be competition and wars. And so, the GWC, born in the West, comes here to regulate resources, prohibit other developing countries, raise money, and promote their ideology. It's totally not about the environment.


----------



## Barliman Butterbur

Grey Pilgrim said:


> "It's totally not about the environment."
> 
> "There will be competition and wars."



On those two points we are, sadly, in agreement.

Barley


----------



## Eledhwen

When my oldest (married) son was still a nipper, I noticed that it was getting harder and harder to find him toys not made in China. I saw the writing on that particular wall even then. 

Bible scholars will remember that the translation of the original writing on the wall goes something like "You have been weighed in the scales and found to be wanting." We will never learn; probably not even when it's too late (and who's to say it isn't already).


----------



## Barliman Butterbur

Eledhwen said:


> Bible scholars will remember that the translation of the original writing on the wall goes something like "You have been weighed in the scales and found to be wanting." We will never learn; probably not even when it's too late (and who's to say it isn't already).



_Mene mene tekel uparsin._

If the human race doesn't survive, it simply means we hadn't survival-evolved sufficiently — like so many species that died out. If we do go, it will be horrible for the human race, but not for the planet. At present we are the disease from which it's trying to recover. And, as all physicians know, all diseases are self-limiting. You might be interested in pursuing the Gaia Theory, which posits that the entire planet is one complex living being.

This is the gist of it (taken from the link in the previous paragraph):

"The Gaia Theory posits that the organic and inorganic components of Planet Earth have evolved together as a single living, self-regulating system. It suggests that this living system has automatically controlled global temperature, atmospheric content, ocean salinity, and other factors, that maintains its own habitability. In a phrase, “life maintains conditions suitable for its own survival.” In this respect, the living system of Earth can be thought of analogous to the workings of any individual organism that regulates body temperature, blood salinity, etc. So, for instance, even though the luminosity of the sun – the Earth’s heat source – has increased by about 30 percent since life began almost four billion years ago, the living system has reacted as a whole to maintain temperatures at levels suitable for life.

"The Gaia theory was developed in the late 1960’s by Dr. James Lovelock, a British Scientist and inventor, shortly after his work with NASA in determining that there was probably no life on Mars. His research led to profound new insights about life on Earth. The theory gained an early supporter in Lynn Margulis, a microbiologist at the University of Massachusetts. In the past 15-20 years, many of the mechanisms by which Earth self-regulates have been identified. As one example, it has been shown that cloud formation over the open ocean is almost entirely a function of the metabolism of oceanic algae that emit a large sulfur molecule (as a waste gas) that becomes the condensation nuclei for raindrops. Previously, it was thought that cloud formation over the ocean was a purely chemical/physical phenomenon. The cloud formation not only helps regulate Earth’s temperature, it is an important mechanism by which sulfur is returned to terrestrial ecosystems.

"The Gaia Theory has inspired many leading figures of the past 20 years, including Vaclav Havel, John Todd (inventor), Freeman Dyson (physicist), Al Gore, Joseph Campbell (mythology expert), and Elisabet Sahtouris (microbiologist). These and many other people have written and spoken eloquently about how the Gaia Theory can help us model human activities after the living systems of our planet; the concept offers lessons for the design of economic, energy, social and governmental systems."

In the light of the Gaia Theory, if it is true, the living earth is responding to man's environmental attacks by tipping into a new ecosystem where conditions will permit the the _planet's_ survival — but not _man's_. It is as if the earth's ecological immune system is responding to what man is doing to the earth by combating the disease — us — which is so rapidly destroying its originally normal, proper and healthy ecosystem. In order for the earth to survive, it must destroy man — and will certainly do so as long as man continues on his present course.

Barley


----------



## greypilgrim

Barliman Butterbur said:


> On those two points we are, sadly, in agreement.
> 
> Barley



Hence, you are accepting of the fact that the entire Global Warming Crusade is just an illusion operating under false pretenses, created and guided by globalist-socialists? Wonderful! Now let us expose the scum and kick them out of our countries. There, global warming problem solved (in under two seconds!).


----------



## Barliman Butterbur

greypilgrim said:


> Hence, you are accepting of the fact that the entire Global Warming Crusade is just an illusion operating under false pretenses, created and guided by globalist-socialists?



No.

Barley


----------



## greypilgrim

So, to be clear...non acceptance of global warming-induced politics de-facto equates to bloodshed, war, and threatens world peace?


----------



## Barliman Butterbur

greypilgrim said:


> So, to be clear...non acceptance of global warming-induced politics de-facto equates to bloodshed, war, and threatens world peace?



"To be clear..." I have no intention of agreeing or disagreeing with you. My sole interest here is to publish what I consider the facts of global warming. Actually you are doing me a service by posting representative examples of just how far gw deniers both in and out of the pay of the coal/oil industry and the governments of developed nations (see Post #232) will go to discredit the facts. 

Barley


----------



## greypilgrim

You win at this point. I have presented my theory, tried building it up using facts, logic, and specualtive insight - including identifying three enemies, displaying their tactics, giving righteous reasons for resistance, even resorted to using the old "blame the commies" tried and true plea - and all for naught I suppose. My only intention is to crush evil where I see it. I beg your pardon for my interruption as I excuse myself from this convo. Even still, greypilgrim will accept gift cards plus any adoration or small gestures of gratitude in the future for my efforts, after that glorious day I was proven to be in the right!


----------



## Barliman Butterbur

*Water Is Focus of Climate Change in Middle East and North Africa*

In the Middle East and North Africa climate change is an especially urgent issue, particularly in a region that experiences increasingly frequent droughts and a looming water supply shortage. 

Based on estimates from the UN’s latest Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) assessment, most of the MENA region is expected to become hotter and drier. Higher temperatures and reduced precipitation will increase the occurrence of droughts, an effect that is already materializing in the Maghreb, the western part of North Africa.

According to IPCC computer modeling, an estimated additional 80 million to 100 million people will be exposed to water stress by 2025, putting more pressure on already depleted groundwater resources. Climate models further project sea levels rising by over 0.5 meters by the end of the century would place low-lying coastal areas in Tunisia, Qatar, Libya, UAE, Kuwait, and Egypt at particular risk. 

For the MENA region, climate change is not a completely new phenomenon. “Throughout the ages, societies of the MENA region have been under pressure to adapt to water scarcity and heat, and have developed various technical solutions and institutional mechanisms to deal with these environmental constraints,” says Inger Andersen, Director of the Sustainable Development Department in the Bank’s MENA region. “However, the scale of impacts that are expected from climate change is likely to be beyond the coping range of many communities and countries, and will require additional adaptation efforts.”

In terms of economic impact, changes in temperature and precipitation patterns may result in damage to tourism and other strategic economic sectors with growth potential such as high-value-added agriculture. A combination of adverse impacts could slow down the reform process in governments and economies and ultimately offset the benefits generated by high oil prices.

According to Raffaello Cervigni, Regional Coordinator for Climate Change, “MENA contributes relatively little to global emissions (less than 6 percent), but it is highly vulnerable to climate change impacts in strategic sectors such as agriculture, water resource management, and urban development.
“Reducing carbon emissions can generate important domestic benefits, such as improved air quality; but an equally important agenda for the region is to enhance its resilience to climate variability and climate change.”

*How the World Bank Can Help*

While effective action to tackle climate change will depend on countries’ commitment, the Bank has a key role in supporting efforts to decrease climate vulnerability and to promote low-carbon growth.

Globally, the main thrust of efforts to slow down climate change is reducing carbon emissions – mainly through cleaner energy generation and by giving countries financial incentives to limit deforestation. These efforts are called low-carbon growth. In the Middle East and North Africa, the main issue is adapting to the impact of global climate change, which knows no national borders. Low-carbon growth is a secondary strategy.

“Our overarching goal is to help countries ’mainstream’ adaptation and mitigation actions within their growth and development strategies,” says Inger Andersen. “On mitigation, we intend to encourage more efficient use of energy, and help MENA countries access the opportunities offered by the carbon markets. On adaptation, we will mobilize the resources and the knowledge needed to help countries in the region to climate-proof their development programs and projects.”

In addition to supporting adaptation efforts through its pipeline of infrastructure projects (which will average $1.1 billion per annum over the next three years), the Bank is providing (in countries such as Morocco, Tunisia, Djibouti, and Yemen) knowledge and technical expertise for better analyzing likely impacts of climate change, and for designing least-cost adaptation interventions to minimize such impacts.

The Bank is also preparing a regional program for technical assistance on climate change adaptation and mitigation. This knowledge initiative builds on the experience of the Mediterranean Environmental Technical Assistance Program (METAP) and will serve as a vehicle to strengthen institutional capacity across the region.

Significant progress in adaptation can be achieved by improving the policy and incentive framework of regional governments. Fiscal reforms can encourage more efficient use of land, water, and energy resources, thereby promoting their allocation to more climate-resilient uses, and freeing up valuable public funds which could be used for protecting the most vulnerable social groups.

The World Bank will continue to work with its MENA clients to identify, analyze, and implement reform by mobilizing global knowledge and providing targeted financial support.

“The recent United Nations conference in Bali has added new momentum to efforts to reduce carbon emissions; but it has also put adaptation squarely into the international agenda” says Raffaello Cervigni.

Source

Barley

FAIR USE NOTICE -- This dispatch contains copyrighted material the use of which has not always been specifically authorized by the copyright owner. We are making such material available in our efforts to advance understanding of environmental, political, human rights, economic, democracy, scientific, and social justice issues, etc. We believe this constitutes a 'fair use' of any such copyrighted material as provided for in section 107 of the US Copyright Law. In accordance with Title 17 U.S.C. Section 107, the material of this dispatch is distributed without profit to those who have expressed a prior interest in receiving the included information for research and educational purposes. For more information go to: http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/17/107.shtml. If you wish to use copyrighted material from this dispatch for purposes of your own that go beyond 'fair use', you must obtain permission from the copyright owner.


----------



## Barliman Butterbur

*Hot, and here to stay*

CARA JENKIN
January 04, 2008 

ADELAIDE has sweltered through its hottest year since records began 120 years ago, in a sign that meteorologists say shows climate change is already here.

The Bureau of Meteorology yesterday released its annual climate statement for 2007, showing South Australia also had its hottest year on record and Australia had its sixth-warmest year.

Adelaide's annual mean temperature was 0.3C above its previous maximum of 18.1C, set in 1914, and the hottest since records were first kept, in 1887.

The extreme heat will return today, with total fire bans in some districts. A top of 39C [102.2F] is forecast for Adelaide, ahead of 38C tomorrow.

Weather extremes of all kinds were felt across Australia in 2007 – including flooding in the eastern states.

Climate Institute chief executive John Connor said the reality of the weather was stacking up with all projections.

"It also shows that global weather is not just about warmer weather, it's about wilder weather," he said.

"The projections are for intense storms, flooding, droughts and bushfires and we had all of those in 2007."

Federal Climate Change Minister Penny Wong said that the statement reinforced the need to tackle climate change.

Among the most recent examples of wild weather wreaking havoc in and around South Australia was a "mini tornado" which struck the Mallee town of Pinnaroo on December 19 and a giant dust storm at the border with New South Wales two days later.

The wall of dust just east of the South Australian border near Broken Hill was photographed by NSW pastoralist Mel Scott, 25, on December 21. She said it was "raining mud" inside the 50km-wide wall of dust as she drove through it near Wilcannia. "It was not very windy, it was pretty calm and eerie, we didn't know what to expect," she said.

Bureau of Meteorology senior meteorologist Darren Ray said the rare dust storm was created when the cold front which brought rain to South Australia that day, met northerly winds and dust was blown from the land in opposing directions.

Mr Ray said that the December 21 downpour in SA, NSW and Victoria was related to La Nina.

"We had good rains in November/December because of the La Nina influence, otherwise it's very poor. It was the 15th consecutive year of above-average temperatures for South Australia and that shows the global warming trends biting," he said.

The Murray-Darling Basin also recorded its warmest year since records began.

Mr Ray said SA had its first fire ban issued in winter, which was also consistent with global warming trends.

Source

Barley

FAIR USE NOTICE -- This dispatch contains copyrighted material the use of which has not always been specifically authorized by the copyright owner. We are making such material available in our efforts to advance understanding of environmental, political, human rights, economic, democracy, scientific, and social justice issues, etc. We believe this constitutes a 'fair use' of any such copyrighted material as provided for in section 107 of the US Copyright Law. In accordance with Title 17 U.S.C. Section 107, the material of this dispatch is distributed without profit to those who have expressed a prior interest in receiving the included information for research and educational purposes. For more information go to: http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/17/107.shtml. If you wish to use copyrighted material from this dispatch for purposes of your own that go beyond 'fair use', you must obtain permission from the copyright owner.


----------



## Barliman Butterbur

*Manmohan: developed nations responsible for climate change*

Amitabh Sinha

Posted online: Friday, January 04, 2008

VISAKHAPATNAM, JAN 3
Stressing on the need for India to have a “proactive and pragmatic” strategy to deal with climate change, Prime Minister Manmohan Singh on Thursday exhorted the scientific community to develop environment-friendly and efficient technologies that are “affordable and also scalable”.

Speaking after inaugurating the 95th Science Congress here, the Prime Minister said India must take steps to stop further environmental degradation even though the major responsibility lay with the developed countries. “They (the developed world) bear the biggest responsibility for what has happened and must bear the greatest responsibility for correcting the damage. But we too have to take action. I believe our response must be proactive and based on our finding feasible and practical solutions to the real and potential threats we face,” the Prime Minister said.

Towards this end, he said, the scientists must also tap into traditional knowledge base. The Prime Minister identified five areas where such clean technologies needed to be applied on a “war footing”, among them food production and energy security. Mass transport systems, construction industry and manufacturing sector were the other areas where such technologies needed to developed, he said.

“The most important area for the application of knowledge for sustainable development is in energy conservation and the development of renewable energy sources,” Manmohan Singh said while advocating greater dependence on solar and atomic energy. “I would like to see a concerted effort being made in the development of solar energy by our scientific, technological and business communities.

“In the longer run, atomic energy can also make an important contribution to energy security. It is this perspective which has led us to seek removal of restrictive regimes which prevent India from participation in international trade in civilian nuclear materials, equipment and technologies,” he said.

This year’s Science Congress—an annual jamboree of Indian scientists which has attracted close to 4,000 delegates to Vizag—has its theme as “Knowledge Base Society Using Environmentally Sustainable Science and Technology”.

Manmohan Singh said the Government was ready to invest in and strengthen the infrastructure required to develop the scientific capability in this new area. “We need a quantum jump in science education and research. This agenda can no longer wait. I am aware that we need policy reform, we need institutional reform, we need organisational reform, and above all, we need more investment in science education. Let us work together and transform science education and research in India,” he said.

Source

Barley

FAIR USE NOTICE -- This dispatch contains copyrighted material the use of which has not always been specifically authorized by the copyright owner. We are making such material available in our efforts to advance understanding of environmental, political, human rights, economic, democracy, scientific, and social justice issues, etc. We believe this constitutes a 'fair use' of any such copyrighted material as provided for in section 107 of the US Copyright Law. In accordance with Title 17 U.S.C. Section 107, the material of this dispatch is distributed without profit to those who have expressed a prior interest in receiving the included information for research and educational purposes. For more information go to: http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/17/107.shtml. If you wish to use copyrighted material from this dispatch for purposes of your own that go beyond 'fair use', you must obtain permission from the copyright owner.


----------



## Barliman Butterbur

*Pork Purveyors, Lamb Lobbyists, and Poultry Pushers Are Harder on the Environment and the Nation's Health Than Gasoline, Alcohol, and Tobacco, Says PETA *

For Immediate Release:
January 3, 2008

Contact:
Ashley Byrne 

Concord, N.H. - Decked out in pig costumes and driving a red Mustang convertible, two PETA members will make appearances at all the presidential candidates' campaign stops in New Hampshire from January 4 to 8 to educate all-comers about the need for a federal excise tax on meat. The PETA porkers' point? That meat is a leading cause of global warming and causes cancer and heart disease--driving health-care costs through the roof. PETA says that meat should be taxed at 10 cents per pound to offset its staggering costs, just as alcohol, tobacco, gasoline, and other items are subject to a "sin" tax.

According to a 2006 U.N. report, raising animals for food emits 40 percent more global warming gases than all the cars, trucks, SUVs, planes, and ships in the world combined. A recent study by the University of Chicago found that going vegan is 50 percent more effective at fighting global warming than switching from a standard car to a hybrid. Also, the American Dietetic Association determined that vegetarians have lower rates of heart disease, certain types of cancer, diabetes, and obesity than meat-eaters.

"The environmental and health problems caused by eating meat take a huge bite out of the U.S. budget," says PETA Vice President Bruce Friedrich. "Slapping a long-overdue tax on meat would save countless lives--including animals'."

Source

Barley

FAIR USE NOTICE -- This dispatch contains copyrighted material the use of which has not always been specifically authorized by the copyright owner. We are making such material available in our efforts to advance understanding of environmental, political, human rights, economic, democracy, scientific, and social justice issues, etc. We believe this constitutes a 'fair use' of any such copyrighted material as provided for in section 107 of the US Copyright Law. In accordance with Title 17 U.S.C. Section 107, the material of this dispatch is distributed without profit to those who have expressed a prior interest in receiving the included information for research and educational purposes. For more information go to: http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/17/107.shtml. If you wish to use copyrighted material from this dispatch for purposes of your own that go beyond 'fair use', you must obtain permission from the copyright owner.


----------



## Barliman Butterbur

Friday, Jan. 04, 2008

*Plan B — How to Stop Global Warming*

By Bryan Walsh

It's called eco-anxiety — free-form worry triggered by concerns about the worsening fate of the planet — and if you suffer from it, you might want to give Lester Brown's new book, Plan B 3.0, a pass. Brown — the president of the Earth Policy Institute, a Washington-based environmental think tank — paints a comprehensive and depressing picture of the planet, with ream after ream of dire statistics. Here's just a handful: Arctic summer sea ice shrinkage increased by 9.1% a decade between 1979 and 2006, and this year an area of ice almost twice the size of Britain melted in a single week. In an era of unprecedented global economic growth, the number of hungry people increased from 800 million to 830 million between 1996 and 2003. At current rates of logging, the natural forests of Indonesia and Burma will be gone within a decade or so. Each year the number of failing states increases — Sudan and Somalia today, perhaps Pakistan tomorrow — a trend that climate change will only worsen. Global demands on the Earth already exceed sustainable capacity by 25% — and we're set to add another 3 billion people by 2050. As Brown writes: "Civilization is in trouble."

But take a few deep breaths and relax — a little bit. Brown, one of the U.S.'s most respected environmentalists, has a plan — and it's called Plan B. (Hear Brown talk about Plan B 3.0 in this week's Greencast.) After detailing just how screwed our overpopulated, overconsuming world is — thanks to an economic system that rewards production without regard for environmental impact — Brown lays out an alternate path that could save us from the worst consequences of climate change. At the heart is a call to reduce global carbon dioxide emissions 80% by 2020 — far more aggressive than anything you'll hear from political leaders or even most activists. It's an ambitious plan, one that is less concerned with political feasibility than the survivability of the planet. "This is not Plan A, business as usual," Brown writes. "This is Plan B — a wartime mobilization, an all-out response proportionate to the threat that global warming presents to our future."

The key to Brown's Plan B is winding down our dependence on coal — the carbon-heavy fuel that the people over at the environmental website Grist like to refer to as "the enemy of the human race." Right now the world is on pace to build hundreds of new coal power plants over the coming decades, adding vast amounts of carbon dioxide into the atmosphere, and if that happens the fight against global warming is as good as lost. Brown argues that rapid action to improve energy efficiency, develop renewable sources of power and expand the Earth's forest cover could reduce carbon emissions enough to allow us to phase out coal power and meet that 80% target.

The numbers are simple. It's easy to ridicule the "switch a light bulb, save the planet" school of environmental planning, but Brown points out that by making the most of efficiency improvements in lighting and appliances, we could reduce power demand sufficiently to obviate the need for 1,410 coal plants. That's more than the 1,382 coal plants the International Energy Agency predicts will be built by 2020. If we start pumping out new wind turbines with the same industrial urgency the U.S. produced tanks and bombers in World War II, Brown writes, we could generate 3 million megawatts of wind power by 2020, enough to meet 40% of the world's energy needs. Solar thermal, plug-in hybrid and geothermal technology are all part of Plan B. (Did you know that the geothermal energy contained in the upper six miles of the Earth's crust is 50,000 times more powerful than all of our oil and natural gas? Brown does.)

To push the transition to a cleaner, more efficient economy — the Plan B economy — Brown argues for a worldwide carbon tax to be phased in at $20 per ton each year between 2008 and 2020, topping out at $240 per ton. That might seem excessive, but Brown points out that even a carbon tax higher than $240 per ton wouldn't cover all the environmental and health costs of burning fossil fuels, from climate change to air pollution–related illnesses. And while it's difficult to imagine any politician standing up for such a tax, he reminds us that we already have a precedent for a heavy tax that takes into account negative externalities and attempts to discourage consumption: cigarette taxes.

Altogether Brown calculates that his Plan B would cost the world an additional $190 billion a year. That might seem high, until he compares the price tag to the global military budget, which stands at more than $1.2 trillion. All we have to do is find the political and popular will to implement the plan. But that's the problem. Brown's proposals are solid, but the real battle over climate change is now political, not technological, and it's one that too many environmentalists tend to discount. If you've drunk the green Kool-Aid, it can seem frustratingly obvious why we need a $240 carbon tax, or why the climate change challenge is on par with World War II, and thus demands Rosie the Riveter redux. But the true, painstaking challenge of the next few years will be building a broad political coalition that will support that level of commitment. Brown's Plan B is a great blueprint for combating climate change, but we might need a Plan C to put it into action.

Source: Time Magazine

Barley

FAIR USE NOTICE -- This dispatch contains copyrighted material the use of which has not always been specifically authorized by the copyright owner. We are making such material available in our efforts to advance understanding of environmental, political, human rights, economic, democracy, scientific, and social justice issues, etc. We believe this constitutes a 'fair use' of any such copyrighted material as provided for in section 107 of the US Copyright Law. In accordance with Title 17 U.S.C. Section 107, the material of this dispatch is distributed without profit to those who have expressed a prior interest in receiving the included information for research and educational purposes. For more information go to: http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/17/107.shtml. If you wish to use copyrighted material from this dispatch for purposes of your own that go beyond 'fair use', you must obtain permission from the copyright owner.


----------



## Barliman Butterbur

Dear TTFers:

Is anyone out there following my posts, or am I shouting into the wind? There seems to be some lurking going on, but nobody seems to have the energy or interest to actually post a response. If I don't get any significant response to this post in the next few days, I'll assume that no one's interested in following this thread and I'll abandon it, putting my energies elsewhere in terms of my personal efforts trying to combat global warming and disseminating facts.

Barley


----------



## Barliman Butterbur

Even though no one here appears to give a damn about the process that may just put an end the human race, I feel compelled anyway to publish the following for the benefit of anyone living in the greater Los Angeles area:

*UCLA Office of the Chancellor

To the Campus Community:*

On January 31, UCLA students, staff and faculty can participate in an important symposium about global warming, as we join more than 1,400 other U.S. institutions in hosting "Focus the Nation: Global Warming Solutions for America." 

The day-long event will feature discussions of climate change through the lenses of science, politics and the economy. Events will include presentations by guest speakers and UCLA experts; art and music performances; and a screening of the 2007 documentary, "The 11th Hour." A vendor fair in Bruin Plaza will showcase environmentally friendly businesses and campus organizations. 

UCLA has long been a leader in the effort to promote the health of our planet. Since 1997, the Institute of the Environment has generated policy solutions and educational programs promoting sustainability. Another 20 academic and research programs focus on sustainability solutions through engineering, public policy and other disciplines. 

Our campus continues to adopt practices to reduce our collective carbon footprint, save energy and conserve water. We have substantially reduced emissions from automobiles by providing substantial on-campus housing for students and an award-winning alternative transportation program. Our cogeneration facility generates electricity for the campus, using a combination of natural and landfill gas. In addition, we expect our "green" building program to increase energy efficiency and reduce our environmental impact for years to come. 

Sponsored by several campus organizations, including the Campus Sustainability Committee, the Institute of the Environment and the Office of the Chancellor, Focus the Nation will shed light on how each individual ˜and our community˜ can help reverse global warming. 

Learn more about the event at http://www.sustain.ucla.edu/FtN_sched_Jan3.pdf and about the national initiative at http://www.focusthenation.org/. Supervisors are encouraged to provide sufficient release time for employees to attend, provided the time would not infringe upon the performance of required job duties. 

I invite you to join the discussion of this critical global challenge. Add your voice and learn from your peers as we imagine new solutions to global warming.

Sincerely,

Gene D. Block
Chancellor

===============================

Barley


----------



## Sidhe

I would assume that perhaps people are either in agreement, or that they don't have a lot of knowledge about the subject. I do but since I support the idea of global warming being man made, I'm not going to argue with your statistics, except to say there are for every positive think tank in the US, there is a negative think tank; oddly enough often heavily sponsored by big business. 

I don't know how much the Earth is being affected by certain warming conditions, that are causing it, but I am pretty much convinced that all the warming isn't down to these. And there is at least some AGW (Anthropogenic Global Warming) To what extent is yet to be determined, but I think it is significant, and even if it isn't it would certainly pay to move away from reliance on fossil fuels. It is common sense to move towards sustainable resources and to encourage greater efficiency in all energy processes, this in the long run will reduce costs and it can be done as the UK has shown. Provided they don't exacerbate the problem (for example in the case of bio fuels, meaning land such as rain forest that is beneficial is cleared to produce fuel, and such fuel is at the expense of food that the population needs) Then this seems the most sensible course.

I'm personally hoping fusion pans out, it seems a promising area of energy development as it is low pollution, very much sustainable with the source of fuel being sea water (from which we can obtain deuterium) and lithium. And the radioactivity produced being small scale and short term (ie tritium). All that is needed is a 1% efficiency to get the ball rolling. If anything more than 0% net energy is produced then eventually it will pay for itself, and it's waste products helium and tritium are reusable (particularly tritium which can be used in the fusion process) and relatively non environmentally damaging. Also there is no real risk of a reactor going critical because as soon as the process is shut down the reactor very quickly becomes inert. So there is no chance of a cascade reaction as there is with fission reactors. Even were a reactor to be destroyed by some sort of terrorist attack the profusion of radioactivity would be small scale and much less short lived as it the tritium fuel only really accumulates in the reactor itself and has a short half life anyway. 

Consider the fact that if we are wrong about GW, then what have we lost? We have made industry more efficient, at some short term cost, and have reduced deaths due to environmental pollution. If it is true to any extent then we can only stand to gain also.

Sorry I was in a bit of a hurry and haven't read the whole thread so if all this has been mentioned already my apologies.


----------



## Illuin

Well Barley, I truly do commend your efforts and your concern for your fellow kin; but I do not subscribe to this puffed-up political frenzy surrounding Global Warming. Just to get this out of the way; I am in no way political. In fact, I couldn't care less about all of those idiots; they're all crooks simply out to further their agenda as far as I'm concerned. Scientific facts are what I am interested in _("Just the facts, ma'am"); _so this viewpoint is in no way political. As my avatar may suggest; I study the heavens (and Earth) for a living; and in my opinion, numbers don't lie.

Global Warming as it is currently being presented can not be backed up with rigorous scientific fact. This may be a callous reality check in light of all of the recent news stories, but _"hot air"_ from politicians and environmental groups may be more to blame for the warming of the atmosphere. Human doings are actually a minimal contributor of climate changes, and global warming.

First of all; scientifically speaking; what is global warming? Scientifically; it is an increase in the temperature of a planet over the course of many years. Sadly, there is currently no set amount of degrees, and no set amount of time. Has this happened? Yes, and no. It all depends upon WHERE the temperatures are measured. In large cities, the temperatures have risen slightly, but in other areas, the temperatures have dropped. The increases are within the Earth's natural variation of temperature. Sure, there have been warmer winters and summers, and the temperature in the large cities has increased slightly, but throughout the years, there has been no significant change in the Earth's temperature.

The variations in climate over the years is due to natural causes more than the meddling of people. Changes in the Sun's energy output, rotation of the Earth, revolution of the Earth, and debris from comets, meteors, and asteroids, all actually have an effect on the climate. Add to that, dust from earthquakes and volcanoes, and we have an infinitely larger impact on global warming from natural events. One _"average size"_ volcanic eruption (not even one like Mt. St. Helens) for example, puts far more pollution into the atmosphere than ten years worth of human activity. And what about this so called "man-made" pollution? We have all heard about it. But is it causing the Greenhouse Effect, creating global warming? Hardly. 

Most of these "greenhouse gasses" have natural sources; volcanoes, animal and plant respiration, and the oceans. Well, the main advocates of this trend tell us that carbon dioxide is the primary cause of this greenhouse effect. I have a Prius; and am totally for cleaner air myself; and am excited we are moving in that direction; but to spend billions of dollars trying to cut back on emissions from cars and whatever else; because of Global Warming doesn’t scientifically make sense. Why? This would entirely ignore one of the major culprits of all-time; *TREES* (not the Two Trees though ).

Trees clean the air while they are growing. Once fully grown, combined they actually give off an incomprehensible amount carbon dioxide.The carbon is incorporated into carbohydrate compounds and stored in plant tissue. When the trees and forests are fully grown, the Carbon Dioxide is released back into the air. That "haze" that makes remote mountain ranges such a sight to behold, is composed mainly of Carbon Dioxide.

Ironically, what really makes the entire political scheme comical _is the fact that Carbon Dioxide itself is scarcely a factor at all_. The primary cause of Global Warming is not Carbon Dioxide; but *WATER VAPOR!* Obviously, the environmentalists and politicians can't do anything about it since it occurs naturally from evaporation in enormous oceans, so they tell us that carbon dioxide is the problem. Ironically, if we didn't have the small natural greenhouse effect that the water vapor provides, the temperature on the Earth would be like that on Mars, where a warm day would be around a cozy zero degrees.

Of all the Carbon Dioxide (*not the main culprit; Water Vapor; but Carbon Dioxide*) emissions into the atmosphere,* 51 percent is from plants* *and trees*, *45 percent* *from the oceans*, and *only 3 percent* from the burning of fossil fuels!

Amazingly, this evil "Greenhouse Gas" accounts for only *0.035 percent* of our atmosphere. So doing the math; that is *3 percent* *(0.03 fossil fuels)* of *0.035 percent of our atmosphere*; *which amounts to 0.00105 percent*. Don’t think we have to fret about it. Clean air is a good thing, especially living in a city; but globally speaking; there is no need to even slightly worry; not to mention panic. Carbon Dioxide’s role in this Greenhouse effect is negligible (_especially the minute fraction caused by fossil fuels_). 

Greenhouse Gas is primarily *water vapor*, which accounts for about *2 percent* of our atmosphere (*over TWO THOUSAND TIMES that of Carbon Dioxide caused by fossil fuels*). However, it occurs naturally in our atmosphere, due to ocean and water evaporation, and since the global warming advocates can do nothing about it, they ignore it and blame Carbon Dioxide instead. 

According to scientists at the NASA Goddard Space Flight Center, Water Vapor is the predominant greenhouse gas, and plays a crucial role in the global climate system. In the end, this enormous and complex planetary body called Earth is going to do its own thing; regardless of what we insignificant humans are doing. 

This Global Warming craze is nothing but typical sensationalism mingled with bogus, politically biased science. And the public, who is far more interested in politics and ideology, rather than scientific facts, is swallowing it hook, line, and sinker.





Sorry Barley (wait...that sounds like a Tuna fish commercial ). Anyway, I still would love to drop in for that beer , even though our POV differs.


----------



## Persephone

Do any of you think that it's possible the aliens are the ones causing the global warming? They could be preparing our world for invasion.


----------



## Barliman Butterbur

If you (all of you, any of you) do nothing else, bookmark this site, and act on it:

http://www.climatechangenews.org/

Barley


----------



## Prince of Cats

If anyone is looking for a good free book to read regarding this topic and other environmental issues as they relate to people, check out www.earthpolicy.org Plan B 3.0


----------



## Eledhwen

Unfortunately, it's not the global movers and shakers who suffer; and by the time they get their feet wet, it will be too late.

On Saturday, Belfast got its entire August rainfall in one day. This is the result. There's a small photo in the link with 3 tower blocks with what looks like a ramp. The ramp leads to the bridge over a road underpass ... filled to the brim with river water from the watercourse that was diverted to build it. I would drag the architects and planners before the cameras to explain themselves. Amusingly (as no-one died), there was a highway maintenance notice in the underpass, advising stranded drivers to stay with their vehicles until rescued. Their vehicles are now under about 20 feet of water.

BANKS FUNDING COAL FIRED POWER STATIONS RISK CONSUMER BACKLASH

High street banks, including Royal Bank of Scotland, HSBC and Barclays, face a consumer boycott if they continue to channel billions of pounds (dollars to you lot over there) of new investment into coal projects, campaigning groups warned last night.

The warning came as 50 campaigners were arrested over the weekend at the climate camp set up to protest against building a new coal-fired power station at Kingsnorth in Kent. [protesters claim that] "RBS is providing the financial means for companies to build unabated coal-fired power stations and dig new coal mines all over the world, yet still refuses to disclose full information on the fossil fuel projects it helps finance or to take any responsibility for the emissions that result." .... They point out that the Co-op Bank, by contrast, has introduced an ethical investment policy prohibiting it from financing any coal, oil or gas projects.

The excuse for building new coal fired plants is that they will be 'carbon capture ready' ... an energy-expensive process that prevents some of the carbon emissions being released. Gas is running out ... Coal is cheap.

Source: http://www.guardian.co.uk/business/2008/aug/11/banking.ethicalbusiness

Interesting: http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/video/2008/aug/06/kingsnorth.climate.camp

I bank with the Co-op, who also won't fund firearms sales.


----------

