Anti-Global Warming Propaganda Goes Here

skip, he's a meterologist. meteorology is a legitimate field of scientific study.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Meterology
"Meteorology (from Greek: μετέωρον, meteoron, "high in the sky"; and λόγος, logos, "knowledge") is the interdisciplinary scientific study of the atmosphere that focuses on weather processes and forecasting. Meteorological phenomena are observable weather events which illuminate and are explained by the science of meteorology. Those events are bound by the variables that exist in Earth's atmosphere. They are temperature, pressure, water vapor, and the gradients and interactions of each variable, and how they change in time. The majority of Earth's observed weather is located in the troposphere. [1] [2]

Meteorology, climatology, atmospheric physics, and atmospheric chemistry are sub-disciplines of the atmospheric sciences. Meteorology and hydrology compose the interdisciplinary field of hydrometeorology."


how many doctorate degrees do you hold skip? probably none. not all scientists hold doctorate degrees skip, so implying that it takes a doctorate degree to be a career scientist is absurd and untrue.don't get all butthurt because not everyone is guilable enough to fall for UN doomsday propaganda. show me some proof that he has some kind of connection to the oil industry. i have yet to find any.

 

Are we sure it doesn't?

On my screen, the graph goes 1/8" beyond the 2000 mark. Given the scale (on my screen, 5/8" between neighboring 20-year marks), the data should run to about 2004.

 

If you look at the graphs you'll see that the data for solar activity stops at around 2004 in the top graph and around 2000 in the bottom graph. This is strange, considering the data is readily available through the present. The temperature data is also for the US and Arctic air temp, not worldwide mean temp.

Pretty much everybody agrees that changes in solar activity probably DID drive the changes in mean global temp we saw during the first 1/2 or 3/4 of the 20th century (though this is not graphed, only a pair of regions are). CO2 and other greenhouse gas forcing was not much higher than natural during this period, so there was little human influence at the time. We'd expect natural influence to dominate. What they seem to purposefully sidestep with these two graphs is the fact that solar activity since 1985 (we have direct measurments since 1978) has been roughly stable, or shown a very slight decreasing trend. If solar activity were driving climate over the last 30 years we'd expect stable or slightly cooling temperatures. That's not what we've seen. In fact, we've seen a very rapid increase in temperature. Changes in solar activity cannot possibly explain this.

As they suggest, based on solar activity we should have seen a cooling trend over the last several years, but in fact we've seen just the opposite. Obviously changes in solar activity do not and cannot explain why we are warming. Increases in greenhouse gases certainly can and do.

 

Very well put Chris. Obviously human kind has fucked up our ecosystem horribly. Granted I don't think we're the only cause that has asisted this effect but it is one of the major ones. Electrically powered cars an' such would help to reduce the problem but the BIG question you have to ask is is it too late???

 

By the time goes on, this mega disaster will come but it's not the reason for us to declarate our "mega frightened".We can do some basic efforts, to say the least, for instance be friendly with our "Mother Earth" and avoid to make a lot of pollution.Litteraly, I can see so many scientist try so hard to mitigate the effect of this global warming and I am salute for them. We can imagine if all the people in this world do just this basic thing, our beloved world will survive longer than our scientists expect !!! (Please, your help at my grammar, I am just a beginner in this forum, thank's)

 

there you go skip! here's a peer reviewed study with no links to the oil industry that seems contrary to what the United Nations is pushing. you know what this global warming phenomenon amounts to? fear mongering, plain and simple.



http://canadafreepress.com/index.php/article/908

Carbon dioxide (CO2) is not a pollutant.
New Peer-Reviewed Study Finds ‘Warming is naturally caused and shows no human influence’
By EPW Blog Monday, December 10, 2007


An inconvenient new peer-reviewed study published in the December 2007 issue of the International Journal of Climatology.

Climate warming is naturally caused and shows no human influence:
Climate scientists at the University of Rochester, the University of Alabama, and the University of Virginia report that observed patterns of temperature changes (‘fingerprints’) over the last thirty years are not in accord with what greenhouse models predict and can better be explained by natural factors, such as solar variability. Therefore, climate change is ‘unstoppable’ and cannot be affected or modified by controlling the emission of greenhouse gases, such as CO2, as is proposed in current legislation.

These results are in conflict with the conclusions of the United Nations Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) and also with some recent research publications based on essentially the same data. However, they are supported by the results of the US-sponsored Climate Change Science Program (CCSP).

The report is published in the December 2007 issue of the International Journal of Climatology of the Royal Meteorological Society [DOI: 10.1002/joc.1651]. The authors are Prof. David H. Douglass (Univ. of Rochester), Prof. John R. Christy (Univ. of Alabama), Benjamin D. Pearson (graduate student), and Prof. S. Fred Singer (Univ. of Virginia).

The fundamental question is whether the observed warming is natural or anthropogenic (human-caused). Lead author David Douglass said: “The observed pattern of warming, comparing surface and atmospheric temperature trends, does not show the characteristic fingerprint associated with greenhouse warming. The inescapable conclusion is that the human contribution is not significant and that observed increases in carbon dioxide and other greenhouse gases make only a negligible contribution to climate warming.”

Co-author John Christy said: “Satellite data and independent balloon data agree that atmospheric warming trends do not exceed those of the surface. Greenhouse models, on the other hand, demand that atmospheric trend values be 2-3 times greater. We have good reason, therefore, to believe that current climate models greatly overestimate the effects of greenhouse gases. Satellite observations suggest that GH models ignore negative feedbacks, produced by clouds and by water vapor, that diminish the warming effects of carbon dioxide.”

Co-author S. Fred Singer said: “The current warming trend is simply part of a natural cycle of climate warming and cooling that has been seen in ice cores, deep-sea sediments, stalagmites, etc., and published in hundreds of papers in peer-reviewed journals. The mechanism for producing such cyclical climate changes is still under discussion; but they are most likely caused by variations in the solar wind and associated magnetic fields that affect the flux of cosmic rays incident on the earth’s atmosphere. In turn, such cosmic rays are believed to influence cloudiness and thereby control the amount of sunlight reaching the earth’s surface and thus the climate.” Our research demonstrates that the ongoing rise of atmospheric CO2 has only a minor influence on climate change. We must conclude, therefore, that attempts to control CO2 emissions are ineffective and pointless. – but very costly.

Now on the web at http://science-sepp.blogspot.com/2007/12/press-release-dec-10-2007.html
Contact: Dr S Fred Singer, President, SEPP singer@SEPP.org 703-920-2744

Posted 12/10 at 09:52 AM Email (Permalink)

 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/S._Fred_Singer



Siegfried Frederick Singer (born September 27, 1924 in Vienna) is an American electrical engineer and physicist. He is best known as President and founder (in 1990) of the Science & Environmental Policy Project, which disputes the prevailing scientific views of climate change, ozone depletion, and secondhand smoke[1] and is science advisor to the conservative journal NewsMax.

Global warming

​

​

​

A 2007 Newsweek cover story on climate change denial reported that: "In April 1998 a dozen people from the denial machine — including the Marshall Institute, Fred Singer's group and Exxon — met at the American Petroleum Institute's Washington headquarters. They proposed a $5 million campaign, according to a leaked eight-page memo, to convince the public that the science of global warming is riddled with controversy and uncertainty."
​

​

​

 

no part of the previous article is guilty of being in denial about global warming. it simply states that global warming is more due to natural changes than by human error. do you believe everything newsweek says? i would hope not. newsweek is just one more outlet of the corporate, controled mass media.

 

And thank goodness for peer review not only before, but AFTER publication. This study has been widely discredited since publication, see here: http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2007/12/tropical-troposphere-trends/langswitch_lang/in#more-509

It's easy to come to incorrect conclusions when you make several false assumptions, as in Douglass et al., 2007. This is merely the latest permutation of already settled arguments. Frankly, I'm surprised it got published.

Chris

 

Here you go for all you naysayers:

http://www.eurekalert.org/pub_releases/2008-01/agu-arp012508.php

 

Is Global Warming Really Happening?
By REAL NEWS Editor


In 1988, James Hansen, director of NASA's Goddard Institute of Space
Studies, testified before the Senate that based on computer models and
temperature measurements he was "99 percent sure . . . the [human caused]
greenhouse effect has been detected and it is changing our climate now."
His statement was widely covered by the media and brought the term
"global warming" to the general public's attention for the first time.
Many of his colleagues thought, and still think, that his announcement
was premature at best and rash at worst. But critics received little
attention in the rush to publicize this most apocalyptic of all
environmental threats.
Nineteen years later, I want to know when this global warming is
supposed to happen. Since Hansen's year 1988 global warming warning,
temperatures have fluctuated from warmer to colder in various parts of
the world, but don't show any average world-wide temperature increase.
Fact is, warmest average temperatures were recorded back in the year
1936. In the year 1970, global cooling was the crisis that scaremongers
were touting.
The global warming debate that the public and policymakers usually
see is one-sided, dominated by government scientists and government
organizations agenda-driven to find data that suggest a human impact on
climate and to call for immediate government action, or to fund their own
continued research with government grant money, but often to achieve
political agendas entirely unrelated to the science of climate change.
There is another side, but in recent years it has been denied a platform
from which to speak.
Most of the media articles you will see refer to reports issued by
the IPCC. The IPCC is the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate change, a
political body appointed by the United Nations (UN). Many of the 3,000
members of this panel are not scientists, but simply political
appointees. The few real scientists on the panel have disputed the
panel's findings but have been silenced by having their comments deleted
from the reports.
More than 19,000 basic and applied American scientists, two-thirds
with advanced degrees, have signed the Oregon Institute of Science and
Medicine's Global Warming Petition, which says in part, "There is no
convincing scientific evidence that human release of carbon dioxide,
methane, or other greenhouse gases is causing or will, in the foreseeable
future, cause catastrophic heating of the earth's atmosphere and
disruption of the earth's climate."
The solutions given for global cooling and global warming appear to
be the same: population control, redistribution of wealth, and more
government control, which also seem to be the goals of secular
progressives and Marxists.
Analysis of global warming and global flooding indicates that they
are based ..ive partial evidence, rumors and steam-rollered
propaganda by powerful antagonists with the agenda of changing our way of
living. Case closed.


--REAL NEWS Editor thenewsman@ij.net

 

Global warming is a misnomer. A better name is climate change. The evidence is all around us. Spring is arriving 2 weeks earlier in many places. Migratory animals are confused. In Indiana, geese fly around in circles b/c they don't know if it is spring or winter when we have single digit temperatures and then 50 degree weather within a span of a week or less. Trees are budding out in January, crocuses are coming up around this time as well. Look at the weather; there was 68 or so tornadoes on Tuesday, which is a record for the month of February.

Who benefits from the doubt on climate change? Corporations. They don't want us to change our habits b/c they will suffer from a loss of sales. They want us to keep buying more, more, more. They don't care about anything but that dollar sign and we the people become just another statistic. Corporations don't give 2 shits if the environment goes to hell. There is a saying that a capitalist will sell you the rope to hang them. This is becoming more and more true every day.

Peace and love

 

corporations also benefit when they accept the idea of global warming. which is why they recently had the liveearth thing on tv. if acceptance of glabal warming were not about money the UN wouldn't get involved. to me the fact that 19,000 scientists signed a petition stating they're not so sure about all the hype in regards to global warming is true is a pretty strong case that we shouldn't be so quick to blame all this on human behavior. or that it necessarily means doomsday for earth.

i remember back in 1998 seeing trees bloom in january. it's quite natural for the earth to go into both warming and cooling phases. it's been going on since earth has been around. so relax, have you ever considered that perhaps that this might just be not as bad as you would like to think it is? to deny that money is not a motivating factor in regards to pushing the global warming agenda on to the world at large is just laughable at best.

these big money movers and shakers who promote the mainstream idea about global warming don't care one way or another about the environment. they just see dollar signs, if there were no financial incentives about this al gore and hollywood wouldn't be in on it. heck, even the discovery channel had a program about global warming, it said that more than likely global warming doesn't mean the end of the world. even if it did, it would still mean it's not going to happen in our lifetime or our childrens lifetimes. i'm not denying that humans have screwed up the environment, but i think there's too many other possibilities as to why this is happening for us to conclude that this is mostly the fault of humans.

 

How would corporations benefit if the consumers stopped buying so much? I don't see how they would profit if people started carpooling, stopped buying shit they didn't need, started using public transportation, started recycling more, and made other reductions in lifestyles?

Peace and love

 

this forum isn't about the consumer lifestyle, it's about global warming. if you're so against the consumer lfiestyle and buying crap you don't need. why bother having a computer in your house? i have said what i did say because live earth was a corporate event. i imagine using all that electricity to power the event on more than one continent put a huge carbon footprint down. live earth encouraged people to spend and buy and consume by having corporate sponsors. these corporations could profit by investing their monies into widespread recycling programs and public transportation companies. i don't know what city you live in, but over in kansas city, missouri they put advertising for Nike and Starbuck's coffee on the metro bus system there. these advertisements have a definate corelation with making people want to buy all kinds of stuff. including overpriced name brands. even Wal-Mart has a corporately sponsosred recycling program. you know why? because this makes them money to put their investment into such a thing. Anheiser Busch also sponsors wildlife preservation causes. i'm willing to bet if there were no monetary returns in these investments, that these corporate entities wouldn't even bother going along with it.

 

Corporations will grab each and every chance they have of making money, whatever happens. They'd be able to transform the most honest message into some money making bullshit.

 

Where does a lot of carbon dioxide and other emissions come from? The manufacturing of goods, transportation of goods, and then removing the waste that comes from these goods. Quite frankly, I can't see how rampant consumerism ISN'T a contributing factor of climate change. We need energy to obtain materials, refine them, ship them to factories where they are assembled, ship them to warehouses, then ship them to stores, then from the store to our home. There is a lot of energy and where is it coming from? Fossil fuels, which are one of many factors contributing to climate change. I'm also not saying that humans are 100% responsible for the climate change, but human activity IS affecting the climate (we just can't say how much). Whether from emissions or removal of the rain forests which reduce carbon dioxide, our activity is having some impact. It doesn't matter if you or I believe that it is happening, it is still happening. I could believe that you do not exist but you would still exist, no matter what my beliefs are. There is so much evidence that something is happening, but I think we're too busy assigning blame. Of course, once everyone agrees on what is happening, it may be too late.

Peace and love

 

CO2 is NOT a pollutant.

 

I don't understand what your point is. The carbon cycle is very much out of whack right now. There was much carbon dioxide stored beneath the surface in the forms of coal, peat, petroleum, and natural gas. Now from the fossil fuels we have used, the carbon dioxide is building in the atmosphere. We are removing trees which extract the carbon dioxide from the atmosphere. Besides trees, there are other photosynthetic organisms in the ocean and if these too are suffering from human activity, there is less and less carbon dioxide is being removed. What will happen w/ the excess carbon dioxide? We don't know for sure, but ice core samples, among other methods of determining historical climate, have indicated that increasing carbon dioxide is linked to climate change. Of course, carbon dioxide is just one factor, amongst many others.

Do we know exactly what is going to happen? No, but do we really want to find out how bad it could get? I don't. We know glaciers are melting at record levels, as well as the ice caps. What effect will that have? I don't know, but that is another thing I would rather not want to happen. By ignoring everything that is going on, the chances that major climate change will negatively affect us becomes greater and greater.

What happened to the Vikings in Newfoundland? They settled there during a relatively warm climate and suddenly, there was a little glacial period. That's why the Vikings left their colonies. They couldn't grow food there, fishing became more difficult, and they began to starve. Do we really want to find out if this climate change, much more extreme than the one that occurred then, would have similar consequences? This is one more thing I would rather not know the answer to.

Peace and love

 

stephen hawking thinks we should start colonising outer space to deal with our rapid population growth. i think population explosion is a serious thing. or maybe we need something like another bubonic plague, only on a larger scale to knock the population down and stabilise it a bit? i dunno, but my point is the people at the top of the chain who promote the idea that humans are solely to blame for global warming have an agenda that involves money. we should approach this more objectively, which we aren't going to do if we listen to the UN about this. they've shown themselves to be untrustworthy many times over.