Home » The Bin » Lester The Nightfly » I hate winter...
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| Re: I hate winter... [message #95188 is a reply to message #95174] |
Mon, 28 January 2008 23:39   |
Jamie K
Messages: 1115
Registered: July 2006
|
Senior Member |
|
|
Rich Lamanna wrote:
> Must be global warming. Anyone seen this? If you've got an hour check it
> out. It may take a minute or two to load.
Yep, the swindle movie is old news, we even discussed it here.
As I mentioned at the time, it ignores the main body of peer-reviewed
scientific evidence for the sake of sensationalism. It was done that way
deliberately by the producers, with no attempt at an objective look at
the actual scientific evidence. Fair and balanced it ain't.
I do like the breathless announcer, fast cuts and dramatic music. It's
always fun to see a one-sided polemic that ironically accuses others of
being one-sided. I doubt anyone here is gullible enough to take it as an
objective authority.
But anyway, here's more (follow the links):
From:
http://climatedenial.org/2007/05/01/why-was-the-great-global -warming-swindle-so-persuasive/
"The fans of the film would argue that it has been effective because it
is true. But truth is not, of itself, persuasive. When we receive new
information on a topic we have no idea whether it is true or not. We
base our conclusions on how it was presented to us, whether it concurs
with what we already know about that topic, how far we trust the person
telling us, and how well that information fits inside our world view. We
then seek to match our initial conclusions against the conclusions of
our peers. So, although we think we seek truth, the process by which we
reach opinions is equally capable of leading us in the wrong direction.
It turns out that Swindle was a collection of rather crude distortions
in an elegant package. We now know that the data was misrepresented, the
charts re-arranged, and the interviews edited in ways that were designed
to mislead."
From: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Great_Global_Warming_Swindl e
"Although the documentary was welcomed by global warming sceptics, it
was criticised heavily by many scientific organisations and individual
scientists (including two of the film's contributors[3][4]). The film's
critics argued that it had misused data, relied on out-of-date research,
employed misleading arguments, and misrepresented the position of the
Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change."
From: http://www.climateofdenial.net/?q=node/7
"The DVD version of ‘The Great Global Warming Swindle’ has been
available for purchase since late July 2007. The front of the
presentation case describes it as a “documentary”, which is defined by
the Oxford English Dictionary as “a film or television or radio
programme giving a factual account of something, using film,
photographs, and sound recordings of real events”. However, the DVD
contains at least five major misrepresentations of the scientific
evidence and researchers’ views on climate change. This document
presents details of the five misrepresentations."
From http://www.medialens.org/alerts/07/0313pure_propaganda_the.p hp
"What we now have is an out-and-out propaganda piece, in which there is
not even a gesture toward balance or explanation of why many of the
extended inferences drawn in the film are not widely accepted by the
scientific community. There are so many examples, it's hard to know
where to begin, so I will cite only one: a speaker asserts, as is true,
that carbon dioxide is only a small fraction of the atmospheric mass.
The viewer is left to infer that means it couldn't really matter. But
even a beginning meteorology student could tell you that the relative
masses of gases are irrelevant to their effects on radiative balance. A
director not intending to produce pure propaganda would have tried to
eliminate that piece of disinformation.” (http://ocean.mit.edu/~cwunsch/
papersonline/channel4response)"
Cheers,
-Jamie
www.JamieKrutz.com
Rich Lamanna wrote:
> Must be global warming. Anyone seen this? If you've got an hour check it
> out. It may take a minute or two to load.
>
> http://en.sevenload.com/videos/ha4PoKY/The-Great-Global-Warm ing-Swindle
>
> Rich
>
> "EK Sound" <ask_me@nospam.net> wrote in message news:479e36ad$1@linux...
>> Woke up this morning and the temp with wind chill was -59C >:(
>>
>> Why did I move here again???
>>
>> David.
>
>
|
|
|
|
| Re: I hate winter... [message #95189 is a reply to message #95176] |
Mon, 28 January 2008 23:49 |
Jamie K
Messages: 1115
Registered: July 2006
|
Senior Member |
|
|
;^)
Wow, that's some good lookin' snow you got going there, Deej!
I recommend the bent-handled snow shovel design. It served me well when
I lived in the snow belt, about 30 miles west and 3500 feet higher than
here.
We may yet get a little bit of snow out of that system over here in the
Denver area.
Cheers,
-Jamie
www.JamieKrutz.com
Deej wrote:
> Jamie K <Meta@Dimensional.com> wrote:
>> We're in the 50's just up the road in Denver. Toasty! Very little snow
>> left on the ground.
>>
>> Cheers,
>> -Jamie
>
> shut up. I hate you
>
> ;o)
>
>> www.JamieKrutz.com
>>
>>
>> Dedric Terry wrote:
>>> Sunny and in the 40's here in Co. Springs - just a couple of dozen miles
>
>>> east of the blizzard DJ is getting hammered with.
>>>
>>> It's pretty much an epic year for skiing. Might have to take a break
>
>>> from the long studio days once this storm passes and roads and passes
>
>>> clear a bit.
>>>
>>> Dedric
>>>
>>> "Bill L" <bill@billlorentzen.com> wrote in message news:479e3ee6$1@linux...
>>>> Don't feel bad too Deej. At least you're at home. I just read about a
>
>>>> snowed in train station in Southern China that has 200,000+ people
>>>> trying to get home for new years.
>>>>
>>>> Wish i was at Crested Butte. Is that near you? Monarch? Telluride?
>>>>
>>>> Deej wrote:
>>>>> EK Sound <ask_me@nospam.net> wrote:
>>>>>> Woke up this morning and the temp with wind chill was -59C >:(
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Why did I move here again???
>>>>>>
>>>>>> David.
>>>>> W've had over 2' of snow here in the last 24 hours, on top of another
>
>>>>> 12'
>>>>> that happened last Thursday.........and it's still coming down. Up
>>>>> higher,
>>>>> at the ski resorts, we've had 56" in the last 48 hours. We're over
>>>>> 150% of
>>>>> the average annual snowfall for this region already and it usually
>>>>> doesn't
>>>>> really start snowing hard here until mid February.
>>>>>
>>>>> We are literally snowed in today. I've got a wall of snow 4' high in
>
>>>>> front
>>>>> of my front door. It slid off the roof and now I can't open it. I can
>
>>>>> still
>>>>> get out the back door however so I'm getting ready to attack this
>>>>> with a
>>>>> snow shovel and propane burner in a little while.
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> ------------------------------------------------------------ ------------
>>>>>
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| Re: I hate winter... [message #95204 is a reply to message #95188] |
Tue, 29 January 2008 10:03 |
excelav
Messages: 2130
Registered: July 2005
Location: Metro Detroit
|
Senior Member |
|
|
Yep, those scientist don't know what they are talking about, Al Gore does,
after all he invented the internet. Nothing like trying to shift the wealth
of the world and making money doing it by selling global offsets and taxing
the shit out of stupid people with a lie! The Bush's, the Clinton's, and
the Gore's are all Trilateralists, they have done a fine job of lowering
the standard of living here in the USA! Long live the CFR, the world banks
and man made Global warming.
By the way, if you buy the man made global warming lie, I got some swamp
land I'd like to sell you!
Jamie K <Meta@Dimensional.com> wrote:
>
>Rich Lamanna wrote:
> > Must be global warming. Anyone seen this? If you've got an hour check
it
> > out. It may take a minute or two to load.
>
>Yep, the swindle movie is old news, we even discussed it here.
>
>As I mentioned at the time, it ignores the main body of peer-reviewed
>scientific evidence for the sake of sensationalism. It was done that way
>deliberately by the producers, with no attempt at an objective look at
>the actual scientific evidence. Fair and balanced it ain't.
>
>I do like the breathless announcer, fast cuts and dramatic music. It's
>always fun to see a one-sided polemic that ironically accuses others of
>being one-sided. I doubt anyone here is gullible enough to take it as an
>objective authority.
>
>But anyway, here's more (follow the links):
>
>From:
> http://climatedenial.org/2007/05/01/why-was-the-great-global -warming-swindle-so-persuasive/
>"The fans of the film would argue that it has been effective because it
>is true. But truth is not, of itself, persuasive. When we receive new
>information on a topic we have no idea whether it is true or not. We
>base our conclusions on how it was presented to us, whether it concurs
>with what we already know about that topic, how far we trust the person
>telling us, and how well that information fits inside our world view. We
>then seek to match our initial conclusions against the conclusions of
>our peers. So, although we think we seek truth, the process by which we
>reach opinions is equally capable of leading us in the wrong direction.
>It turns out that Swindle was a collection of rather crude distortions
>in an elegant package. We now know that the data was misrepresented, the
>charts re-arranged, and the interviews edited in ways that were designed
>to mislead."
>
>From: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Great_Global_Warming_Swindl e
>"Although the documentary was welcomed by global warming sceptics, it
>was criticised heavily by many scientific organisations and individual
>scientists (including two of the film's contributors[3][4]). The film's
>critics argued that it had misused data, relied on out-of-date research,
>employed misleading arguments, and misrepresented the position of the
>Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change."
>
>From: http://www.climateofdenial.net/?q=node/7
>"The DVD version of ‘The Great Global Warming Swindle’ has been
>available for purchase since late July 2007. The front of the
>presentation case describes it as a “documentary”, which is defined by
>the Oxford English Dictionary as “a film or television or radio
>programme giving a factual account of something, using film,
>photographs, and sound recordings of real events”. However, the DVD
>contains at least five major misrepresentations of the scientific
>evidence and researchers’ views on climate change. This document
>presents details of the five misrepresentations."
>
> From http://www.medialens.org/alerts/07/0313pure_propaganda_the.p hp
>"What we now have is an out-and-out propaganda piece, in which there is
>not even a gesture toward balance or explanation of why many of the
>extended inferences drawn in the film are not widely accepted by the
>scientific community. There are so many examples, it's hard to know
>where to begin, so I will cite only one: a speaker asserts, as is true,
>that carbon dioxide is only a small fraction of the atmospheric mass.
>The viewer is left to infer that means it couldn't really matter. But
>even a beginning meteorology student could tell you that the relative
>masses of gases are irrelevant to their effects on radiative balance. A
>director not intending to produce pure propaganda would have tried to
>eliminate that piece of disinformation.” (http://ocean.mit.edu/~cwunsch/
>papersonline/channel4response)"
>
>Cheers,
> -Jamie
> www.JamieKrutz.com
>
>
>
>Rich Lamanna wrote:
>> Must be global warming. Anyone seen this? If you've got an hour check
it
>> out. It may take a minute or two to load.
>>
>> http://en.sevenload.com/videos/ha4PoKY/The-Great-Global-Warm ing-Swindle
>>
>> Rich
>>
>> "EK Sound" <ask_me@nospam.net> wrote in message news:479e36ad$1@linux...
>>> Woke up this morning and the temp with wind chill was -59C >:(
>>>
>>> Why did I move here again???
>>>
>>> David.
>>
>>
|
|
|
|
| Re: I hate winter... [message #95208 is a reply to message #95204] |
Tue, 29 January 2008 09:51 |
Jamie K
Messages: 1115
Registered: July 2006
|
Senior Member |
|
|
James McCloskey wrote:
> Yep, those scientist don't know what they are talking about,
If you're looking for the opinion of scientists, here's a start:
From the American Physical Society
http://www.aps.org/policy/statements/07_1.cfm
"Emissions of greenhouse gases from human activities are changing the
atmosphere in ways that affect the Earth's climate. Greenhouse gases
include carbon dioxide as well as methane, nitrous oxide and other
gases. They are emitted from fossil fuel combustion and a range of
industrial and agricultural processes.
The evidence is incontrovertible: Global warming is occurring. If no
mitigating actions are taken, significant disruptions in the Earth’s
physical and ecological systems, social systems, security and human
health are likely to occur. We must reduce emissions of greenhouse gases
beginning now."
From the National Academy of Sciences
http://nationalacademies.org/onpi/06072005.pdf
"Climate change is real:
There will always be uncertainty in understanding a system as complex as
the world’s climate. However there is now strong evidence that
significant global warming is occurring1. The evidence comes from direct
measurements of rising surface air temperatures and subsurface ocean
temperatures and from phenomena such as increases in average global sea
levels, retreating glaciers, and changes to many physical and biological
systems. It is likely that most of the warming in recent decades can be
attributed to human activities (IPCC 2001)2. This warming has already
led to changes in the Earth's climate.
The existence of greenhouse gases in the atmosphere is vital to life on
Earth – in their absence average temperatures would be about 30
centigrade degrees lower than they are today. But human activities are
now causing atmospheric concentrations of greenhouse gases – including
carbon dioxide, methane, tropospheric ozone, and nitrous oxide – to rise
well above pre-industrial levels. Carbon dioxide levels have increased
from 280 ppm in 1750 to over 375 ppm today – higher than any previous
levels that can be reliably measured (i.e. in the last 420,000 years).
Increasing greenhouse gases are causing
temperatures to rise; the Earth’s surface warmed by approximately 0.6
centigrade degrees over the twentieth century. The Intergovernmental
Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) projected that the average global surface
temperatures will continue to increase to between 1.4 centigrade degrees
and 5.8 centigrade degrees above 1990 levels, by 2100."
From the American Geophysical Union
http://www.agu.org/sci_soc/policy/positions/climate_change20 08.shtml
"Human Impacts on Climate:
The Earth's climate is now clearly out of balance and is warming. Many
components of the climate system—including the temperatures of the
atmosphere, land and ocean, the extent of sea ice and mountain glaciers,
the sea level, the distribution of precipitation, and the length of
seasons—are now changing at rates and in patterns that are not natural
and are best explained by the increased atmospheric abundances of
greenhouse gases and aerosols generated by human activity during the
20th century. Global average surface temperatures increased on average
by about 0.6°C over the period 1956–2006. As of 2006, eleven of the
previous twelve years were warmer than any others since 1850. The
observed rapid retreat of Arctic sea ice is expected to continue and
lead to the disappearance of summertime ice within this century.
Evidence from most oceans and all continents except Antarctica shows
warming attributable to human activities. Recent changes in many
physical and biological systems are linked with this regional climate
change. A sustained research effort, involving many AGU members and
summarized in the 2007 assessments of the Intergovernmental Panel on
Climate Change, continues to improve our scientific understanding of the
climate.
During recent millennia of relatively stable climate, civilization
became established and populations have grown rapidly. In the next 50
years, even the lower limit of impending climate change—an additional
global mean warming of 1°C above the last decade—is far beyond the range
of climate variability experienced during the past thousand years and
poses global problems in planning for and adapting to it. Warming
greater than 2°C above 19th century levels is projected to be
disruptive, reducing global agricultural productivity, causing
widespread loss of biodiversity, and—if sustained over centuries—melting
much of the Greenland ice sheet with ensuing rise in sea level of
several meters. If this 2°C warming is to be avoided, then our net
annual emissions of CO2 must be reduced by more than 50 percent within
this century. With such projections, there are many sources of
scientific uncertainty, but none are known that could make the impact of
climate change inconsequential. Given the uncertainty in climate
projections, there can be surprises that may cause more dramatic
disruptions than anticipated from the most probable model projections.
With climate change, as with ozone depletion, the human footprint on
Earth is apparent. The cause of disruptive climate change, unlike ozone
depletion, is tied to energy use and runs through modern society.
Solutions will necessarily involve all aspects of society. Mitigation
strategies and adaptation responses will call for collaborations across
science, technology, industry, and government. Members of the AGU, as
part of the scientific community, collectively have special
responsibilities: to pursue research needed to understand it; to educate
the public on the causes, risks, and hazards; and to communicate clearly
and objectively with those who can implement policies to shape future
climate."
From The Geological Society of America
http://www.geosociety.org/positions/position10.htm
"The Geological Society of America (GSA) supports the scientific
conclusions that Earth’s climate is changing; the climate changes are
due in part to human activities; and the probable consequences of the
climate changes will be significant and blind to geopolitical
boundaries. Furthermore, the potential implications of global climate
change and the time scale over which such changes will likely occur
require active, effective, long-term planning. GSA also supports
statements on the global climate change issue made by the joint national
academies of science (June 2005), American Geophysical Union (December,
2003), and American Chemical Society (2004). GSA strongly encourages
that the following efforts be undertaken internationally: (1) adequately
research climate change at all time scales, (2) develop thoughtful,
science-based policy appropriate for the multifaceted issues of global
climate change, (3) organize global planning to recognize, prepare for,
and adapt to the causes and consequences of global climate change, and
(4) organize and develop comprehensive, long-term strategies for
sustainable energy, particularly focused on minimizing impacts on global
climate."
From the American Meteorological Society
http://www.ametsoc.org/POLICY/2007climatechange.html
"Why is climate changing?
Climate has changed throughout geological history, for many natural
reasons such as changes in the sun’s energy received by Earth arising
from slow orbital changes, or changes in the sun’s energy reaching
Earth’s surface due to volcanic eruptions. In recent decades, humans
have increasingly affected local, regional, and global climate by
altering the flows of radiative energy and water through the Earth
system (resulting in changes in temperature, winds, rainfall, etc.),
which comprises the atmosphere, land surface, vegetation, ocean, land
ice, and sea ice. Indeed, strong observational evidence and results from
modeling studies indicate that, at least over the last 50 years, human
activities are a major contributor to climate change.
Direct human impact is through changes in the concentration of certain
trace gases such as carbon dioxide, chlorofluorocarbons, methane,
nitrous oxide, ozone, and water vapor, known collectively as greenhouse
gases. Enhanced greenhouse gases have little effect on the incoming
energy of the sun, but they act as a blanket to reduce the outgoing
infrared radiation emitted by Earth and its atmosphere; the surface and
atmosphere therefore warm so as to increase the outgoing energy until
the outgoing and incoming flows of energy are equal. Carbon dioxide
accounts for about half of the human-induced greenhouse gas contribution
to warming since the late 1800s, with increases in the other greenhouse
gases accounting for the rest; changes in solar output may have provided
an augmentation to warming in the first half of the 20th century.
Carbon dioxide concentration is rising mostly as a result of fossil-fuel
burning and partly from clearing of vegetation; about 50% of the
enhanced emissions remain in the atmosphere, while the rest of the Earth
system continues to absorb the remaining 50%. In the last 50 years
atmospheric CO2 concentration has been increasing at a rate much faster
than any rates observed in the geological record of the past several
thousand years. Global annual-mean surface temperatures are rising at a
rapid rate to values higher than at any time in the last 400 (and
probably in the last 1000) years. Once introduced in the atmosphere,
carbon dioxide remains for at least a few hundred years and implies a
lengthy guarantee of sustained future warming. Further, increases in
greenhouse gases are nearly certain to produce continued increases in
temperature. Such changes in temperature lead to changes in clouds,
pressure, winds, and rainfall in a complex sequence of further effects."
Al Gore does,
> after all he invented the internet.
Here's what snopes has to say about that:
http://www.snopes.com/quotes/internet.asp
"Despite the derisive references that continue even today, Al Gore did
not claim he "invented" the Internet, nor did he say anything that could
reasonably be interpreted that way. The "Al Gore said he 'invented' the
Internet" put-downs were misleading, out-of-context distortions of
something he said during an interview with Wolf Blitzer on CNN's "Late
Edition" program on 9 March 1999."
Besides, Al Gore is not the point, he's just one guy. Love him or hate
him, the climate will do what it does with or without him. It's best to
look to the actual science.
Nothing like trying to shift the wealth
> of the world and making money doing it by selling global offsets and taxing
> the shit out of stupid people with a lie!
That the climate is currently changing is not a lie, it's a measurable
phenomenon we are currently experiencing on our planet.
A lot of evidence points to human contributions to the current climate
change event. So again, this is not a lie.
Your problem is with politics and economics, not with science. Blaming
the science does not help your cause. You have political and economic
objections to some of the proposed solutions, so by all means take them
on. If you don't like using a market mechanism to regulate carbon
emissions, which is just one idea that's been proposed, there are other
options on the table.
Do your best to move the solutions conversation in a direction you're
more comfortable with. But simple blanket denial of actual evidence and
peer reviewed science won't get you there.
> The Bush's, the Clinton's, and
> the Gore's are all Trilateralists, they have done a fine job of lowering
> the standard of living here in the USA! Long live the CFR, the world banks
> and man made Global warming.
You can believe what you like about all that, except that there is
actual evidence supporting human contributions to the current climate
change event. Again, ignoring evidence won't get you very far.
> By the way, if you buy the man made global warming lie, I got some swamp
> land I'd like to sell you!
You're being sold swamp land already, possibly by the fossil fuels
industry, and by people who want to maintain power and income.
http://www.cbc.ca/fifth/denialmachine/index.html
"The Denial Machine investigates the roots of the campaign to negate the
science and the threat of global warming. It tracks the activities of a
group of scientists, some of whom previously consulted for Big Tobacco,
and who are now receiving donations from major coal and oil companies."
http://www.exxonsecrets.org/
"The database compiles Exxon Foundation and corporate funding to a
series of institutions who have worked to undermine solutions to global
warming and climate change. It details the working relationships of
individuals associated with these organizations and their global warming
quotes and deeds."
Cheers,
-Jamie
www.JamieKrutz.com
> Jamie K <Meta@Dimensional.com> wrote:
>> Rich Lamanna wrote:
>>> Must be global warming. Anyone seen this? If you've got an hour check
> it
>>> out. It may take a minute or two to load.
>> Yep, the swindle movie is old news, we even discussed it here.
>>
>> As I mentioned at the time, it ignores the main body of peer-reviewed
>> scientific evidence for the sake of sensationalism. It was done that way
>
>> deliberately by the producers, with no attempt at an objective look at
>> the actual scientific evidence. Fair and balanced it ain't.
>>
>> I do like the breathless announcer, fast cuts and dramatic music. It's
>> always fun to see a one-sided polemic that ironically accuses others of
>
>> being one-sided. I doubt anyone here is gullible enough to take it as an
>
>> objective authority.
>>
>> But anyway, here's more (follow the links):
>>
>> From:
>> http://climatedenial.org/2007/05/01/why-was-the-great-global -warming-swindle-so-persuasive/
>> "The fans of the film would argue that it has been effective because it
>
>> is true. But truth is not, of itself, persuasive. When we receive new
>> information on a topic we have no idea whether it is true or not. We
>> base our conclusions on how it was presented to us, whether it concurs
>> with what we already know about that topic, how far we trust the person
>
>> telling us, and how well that information fits inside our world view. We
>
>> then seek to match our initial conclusions against the conclusions of
>> our peers. So, although we think we seek truth, the process by which we
>
>> reach opinions is equally capable of leading us in the wrong direction.
>
>> It turns out that Swindle was a collection of rather crude distortions
>> in an elegant package. We now know that the data was misrepresented, the
>
>> charts re-arranged, and the interviews edited in ways that were designed
>
>> to mislead."
>>
>> From: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Great_Global_Warming_Swindl e
>> "Although the documentary was welcomed by global warming sceptics, it
>> was criticised heavily by many scientific organisations and individual
>> scientists (including two of the film's contributors[3][4]). The film's
>
>> critics argued that it had misused data, relied on out-of-date research,
>
>> employed misleading arguments, and misrepresented the position of the
>> Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change."
>>
>> From: http://www.climateofdenial.net/?q=node/7
>> "The DVD version of ‘The Great Global Warming Swindle’ has been
>> available for purchase since late July 2007. The front of the
>> presentation case describes it as a “documentary”, which is defined by
>> the Oxford English Dictionary as “a film or television or radio
>> programme giving a factual account of something, using film,
>> photographs, and sound recordings of real events”. However, the DVD
>> contains at least five major misrepresentations of the scientific
>> evidence and researchers’ views on climate change. This document
>> presents details of the five misrepresentations."
>>
>> From http://www.medialens.org/alerts/07/0313pure_propaganda_the.p hp
>> "What we now have is an out-and-out propaganda piece, in which there is
>
>> not even a gesture toward balance or explanation of why many of the
>> extended inferences drawn in the film are not widely accepted by the
>> scientific community. There are so many examples, it's hard to know
>> where to begin, so I will cite only one: a speaker asserts, as is true,
>
>> that carbon dioxide is only a small fraction of the atmospheric mass.
>> The viewer is left to infer that means it couldn't really matter. But
>> even a beginning meteorology student could tell you that the relative
>> masses of gases are irrelevant to their effects on radiative balance. A
>
>> director not intending to produce pure propaganda would have tried to
>> eliminate that piece of disinformation.” (http://ocean.mit.edu/~cwunsch/
>
>> papersonline/channel4response)"
>>
>> Cheers,
>> -Jamie
>> www.JamieKrutz.com
>>
>>
>>
>> Rich Lamanna wrote:
>>> Must be global warming. Anyone seen this? If you've got an hour check
> it
>>> out. It may take a minute or two to load.
>>>
>>> http://en.sevenload.com/videos/ha4PoKY/The-Great-Global-Warm ing-Swindle
>>>
>>> Rich
>>>
>>> "EK Sound" <ask_me@nospam.net> wrote in message news:479e36ad$1@linux...
>>>> Woke up this morning and the temp with wind chill was -59C >:(
>>>>
>>>> Why did I move here again???
>>>>
>>>> David.
>>>
>
|
|
|
|
| Re: I hate winter... [message #95212 is a reply to message #95208] |
Tue, 29 January 2008 10:36 |
rick
Messages: 1976
Registered: February 2006
|
Senior Member |
|
|
this is a mac vs pc thing in disguise isn't it? ;o) thank god for
global dimming...
On Tue, 29 Jan 2008 10:51:55 -0700, Jamie K <Meta@Dimensional.com>
wrote:
>James McCloskey wrote:
>> Yep, those scientist don't know what they are talking about,
>
>If you're looking for the opinion of scientists, here's a start:
>
> From the American Physical Society
>http://www.aps.org/policy/statements/07_1.cfm
>"Emissions of greenhouse gases from human activities are changing the
>atmosphere in ways that affect the Earth's climate. Greenhouse gases
>include carbon dioxide as well as methane, nitrous oxide and other
>gases. They are emitted from fossil fuel combustion and a range of
>industrial and agricultural processes.
>
>The evidence is incontrovertible: Global warming is occurring. If no
>mitigating actions are taken, significant disruptions in the Earth’s
>physical and ecological systems, social systems, security and human
>health are likely to occur. We must reduce emissions of greenhouse gases
>beginning now."
>
>
> From the National Academy of Sciences
>http://nationalacademies.org/onpi/06072005.pdf
>"Climate change is real:
>There will always be uncertainty in understanding a system as complex as
>the world’s climate. However there is now strong evidence that
>significant global warming is occurring1. The evidence comes from direct
>measurements of rising surface air temperatures and subsurface ocean
>temperatures and from phenomena such as increases in average global sea
>levels, retreating glaciers, and changes to many physical and biological
>systems. It is likely that most of the warming in recent decades can be
>attributed to human activities (IPCC 2001)2. This warming has already
>led to changes in the Earth's climate.
>
>The existence of greenhouse gases in the atmosphere is vital to life on
>Earth – in their absence average temperatures would be about 30
>centigrade degrees lower than they are today. But human activities are
>now causing atmospheric concentrations of greenhouse gases – including
>carbon dioxide, methane, tropospheric ozone, and nitrous oxide – to rise
>well above pre-industrial levels. Carbon dioxide levels have increased
>from 280 ppm in 1750 to over 375 ppm today – higher than any previous
>levels that can be reliably measured (i.e. in the last 420,000 years).
>Increasing greenhouse gases are causing
>temperatures to rise; the Earth’s surface warmed by approximately 0.6
>centigrade degrees over the twentieth century. The Intergovernmental
>Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) projected that the average global surface
>temperatures will continue to increase to between 1.4 centigrade degrees
>and 5.8 centigrade degrees above 1990 levels, by 2100."
>
>
> From the American Geophysical Union
> http://www.agu.org/sci_soc/policy/positions/climate_change20 08.shtml
>"Human Impacts on Climate:
>The Earth's climate is now clearly out of balance and is warming. Many
>components of the climate system—including the temperatures of the
>atmosphere, land and ocean, the extent of sea ice and mountain glaciers,
>the sea level, the distribution of precipitation, and the length of
>seasons—are now changing at rates and in patterns that are not natural
>and are best explained by the increased atmospheric abundances of
>greenhouse gases and aerosols generated by human activity during the
>20th century. Global average surface temperatures increased on average
>by about 0.6°C over the period 1956–2006. As of 2006, eleven of the
>previous twelve years were warmer than any others since 1850. The
>observed rapid retreat of Arctic sea ice is expected to continue and
>lead to the disappearance of summertime ice within this century.
>Evidence from most oceans and all continents except Antarctica shows
>warming attributable to human activities. Recent changes in many
>physical and biological systems are linked with this regional climate
>change. A sustained research effort, involving many AGU members and
>summarized in the 2007 assessments of the Intergovernmental Panel on
>Climate Change, continues to improve our scientific understanding of the
>climate.
>
>During recent millennia of relatively stable climate, civilization
>became established and populations have grown rapidly. In the next 50
>years, even the lower limit of impending climate change—an additional
>global mean warming of 1°C above the last decade—is far beyond the range
>of climate variability experienced during the past thousand years and
>poses global problems in planning for and adapting to it. Warming
>greater than 2°C above 19th century levels is projected to be
>disruptive, reducing global agricultural productivity, causing
>widespread loss of biodiversity, and—if sustained over centuries—melting
>much of the Greenland ice sheet with ensuing rise in sea level of
>several meters. If this 2°C warming is to be avoided, then our net
>annual emissions of CO2 must be reduced by more than 50 percent within
>this century. With such projections, there are many sources of
>scientific uncertainty, but none are known that could make the impact of
>climate change inconsequential. Given the uncertainty in climate
>projections, there can be surprises that may cause more dramatic
>disruptions than anticipated from the most probable model projections.
>
>With climate change, as with ozone depletion, the human footprint on
>Earth is apparent. The cause of disruptive climate change, unlike ozone
>depletion, is tied to energy use and runs through modern society.
>Solutions will necessarily involve all aspects of society. Mitigation
>strategies and adaptation responses will call for collaborations across
>science, technology, industry, and government. Members of the AGU, as
>part of the scientific community, collectively have special
>responsibilities: to pursue research needed to understand it; to educate
>the public on the causes, risks, and hazards; and to communicate clearly
>and objectively with those who can implement policies to shape future
>climate."
>
>
> From The Geological Society of America
>http://www.geosociety.org/positions/position10.htm
>"The Geological Society of America (GSA) supports the scientific
>conclusions that Earth’s climate is changing; the climate changes are
>due in part to human activities; and the probable consequences of the
>climate changes will be significant and blind to geopolitical
>boundaries. Furthermore, the potential implications of global climate
>change and the time scale over which such changes will likely occur
>require active, effective, long-term planning. GSA also supports
>statements on the global climate change issue made by the joint national
>academies of science (June 2005), American Geophysical Union (December,
>2003), and American Chemical Society (2004). GSA strongly encourages
>that the following efforts be undertaken internationally: (1) adequately
>research climate change at all time scales, (2) develop thoughtful,
>science-based policy appropriate for the multifaceted issues of global
>climate change, (3) organize global planning to recognize, prepare for,
>and adapt to the causes and consequences of global climate change, and
>(4) organize and develop comprehensive, long-term strategies for
>sustainable energy, particularly focused on minimizing impacts on global
>climate."
>
>
> From the American Meteorological Society
>http://www.ametsoc.org/POLICY/2007climatechange.html
>"Why is climate changing?
>Climate has changed throughout geological history, for many natural
>reasons such as changes in the sun’s energy received by Earth arising
>from slow orbital changes, or changes in the sun’s energy reaching
>Earth’s surface due to volcanic eruptions. In recent decades, humans
>have increasingly affected local, regional, and global climate by
>altering the flows of radiative energy and water through the Earth
>system (resulting in changes in temperature, winds, rainfall, etc.),
>which comprises the atmosphere, land surface, vegetation, ocean, land
>ice, and sea ice. Indeed, strong observational evidence and results from
>modeling studies indicate that, at least over the last 50 years, human
>activities are a major contributor to climate change.
>
>Direct human impact is through changes in the concentration of certain
>trace gases such as carbon dioxide, chlorofluorocarbons, methane,
>nitrous oxide, ozone, and water vapor, known collectively as greenhouse
>gases. Enhanced greenhouse gases have little effect on the incoming
>energy of the sun, but they act as a blanket to reduce the outgoing
>infrared radiation emitted by Earth and its atmosphere; the surface and
>atmosphere therefore warm so as to increase the outgoing energy until
>the outgoing and incoming flows of energy are equal. Carbon dioxide
>accounts for about half of the human-induced greenhouse gas contribution
>to warming since the late 1800s, with increases in the other greenhouse
>gases accounting for the rest; changes in solar output may have provided
>an augmentation to warming in the first half of the 20th century.
>
>Carbon dioxide concentration is rising mostly as a result of fossil-fuel
>burning and partly from clearing of vegetation; about 50% of the
>enhanced emissions remain in the atmosphere, while the rest of the Earth
>system continues to absorb the remaining 50%. In the last 50 years
>atmospheric CO2 concentration has been increasing at a rate much faster
>than any rates observed in the geological record of the past several
>thousand years. Global annual-mean surface temperatures are rising at a
>rapid rate to values higher than at any time in the last 400 (and
>probably in the last 1000) years. Once introduced in the atmosphere,
>carbon dioxide remains for at least a few hundred years and implies a
>lengthy guarantee of sustained future warming. Further, increases in
>greenhouse gases are nearly certain to produce continued increases in
>temperature. Such changes in temperature lead to changes in clouds,
>pressure, winds, and rainfall in a complex sequence of further effects."
>
>
> Al Gore does,
>> after all he invented the internet.
>
>Here's what snopes has to say about that:
>
>http://www.snopes.com/quotes/internet.asp
>"Despite the derisive references that continue even today, Al Gore did
>not claim he "invented" the Internet, nor did he say anything that could
>reasonably be interpreted that way. The "Al Gore said he 'invented' the
>Internet" put-downs were misleading, out-of-context distortions of
>something he said during an interview with Wolf Blitzer on CNN's "Late
>Edition" program on 9 March 1999."
>
>
>Besides, Al Gore is not the point, he's just one guy. Love him or hate
>him, the climate will do what it does with or without him. It's best to
>look to the actual science.
>
>
>Nothing like trying to shift the wealth
>> of the world and making money doing it by selling global offsets and taxing
>> the shit out of stupid people with a lie!
>
>That the climate is currently changing is not a lie, it's a measurable
>phenomenon we are currently experiencing on our planet.
>
>A lot of evidence points to human contributions to the current climate
>change event. So again, this is not a lie.
>
>Your problem is with politics and economics, not with science. Blaming
>the science does not help your cause. You have political and economic
>objections to some of the proposed solutions, so by all means take them
>on. If you don't like using a market mechanism to regulate carbon
>emissions, which is just one idea that's been proposed, there are other
>options on the table.
>
>Do your best to move the solutions conversation in a direction you're
>more comfortable with. But simple blanket denial of actual evidence and
>peer reviewed science won't get you there.
>
>
>> The Bush's, the Clinton's, and
>> the Gore's are all Trilateralists, they have done a fine job of lowering
>> the standard of living here in the USA! Long live the CFR, the world banks
>> and man made Global warming.
>
>You can believe what you like about all that, except that there is
>actual evidence supporting human contributions to the current climate
>change event. Again, ignoring evidence won't get you very far.
>
>
>> By the way, if you buy the man made global warming lie, I got some swamp
>> land I'd like to sell you!
>
>You're being sold swamp land already, possibly by the fossil fuels
>industry, and by people who want to maintain power and income.
>
>http://www.cbc.ca/fifth/denialmachine/index.html
>"The Denial Machine investigates the roots of the campaign to negate the
>science and the threat of global warming. It tracks the activities of a
>group of scientists, some of whom previously consulted for Big Tobacco,
>and who are now receiving donations from major coal and oil companies."
>
>http://www.exxonsecrets.org/
>"The database compiles Exxon Foundation and corporate funding to a
>series of institutions who have worked to undermine solutions to global
>warming and climate change. It details the working relationships of
>individuals associated with these organizations and their global warming
>quotes and deeds."
>
>Cheers,
> -Jamie
> www.JamieKrutz.com
>
>
>
>> Jamie K <Meta@Dimensional.com> wrote:
>>> Rich Lamanna wrote:
>>>> Must be global warming. Anyone seen this? If you've got an hour check
>> it
>>>> out. It may take a minute or two to load.
>>> Yep, the swindle movie is old news, we even discussed it here.
>>>
>>> As I mentioned at the time, it ignores the main body of peer-reviewed
>>> scientific evidence for the sake of sensationalism. It was done that way
>>
>>> deliberately by the producers, with no attempt at an objective look at
>>> the actual scientific evidence. Fair and balanced it ain't.
>>>
>>> I do like the breathless announcer, fast cuts and dramatic music. It's
>>> always fun to see a one-sided polemic that ironically accuses others of
>>
>>> being one-sided. I doubt anyone here is gullible enough to take it as an
>>
>>> objective authority.
>>>
>>> But anyway, here's more (follow the links):
>>>
>>> From:
>>> http://climatedenial.org/2007/05/01/why-was-the-great-global -warming-swindle-so-persuasive/
>>> "The fans of the film would argue that it has been effective because it
>>
>>> is true. But truth is not, of itself, persuasive. When we receive new
>>> information on a topic we have no idea whether it is true or not. We
>>> base our conclusions on how it was presented to us, whether it concurs
>>> with what we already know about that topic, how far we trust the person
>>
>>> telling us, and how well that information fits inside our world view. We
>>
>>> then seek to match our initial conclusions against the conclusions of
>>> our peers. So, although we think we seek truth, the process by which we
>>
>>> reach opinions is equally capable of leading us in the wrong direction.
>>
>>> It turns out that Swindle was a collection of rather crude distortions
>>> in an elegant package. We now know that the data was misrepresented, the
>>
>>> charts re-arranged, and the interviews edited in ways that were designed
>>
>>> to mislead."
>>>
>>> From: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Great_Global_Warming_Swindl e
>>> "Although the documentary was welcomed by global warming sceptics, it
>>> was criticised heavily by many scientific organisations and individual
>>> scientists (including two of the film's contributors[3][4]). The film's
>>
>>> critics argued that it had misused data, relied on out-of-date research,
>>
>>> employed misleading arguments, and misrepresented the position of the
>>> Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change."
>>>
>>> From: http://www.climateofdenial.net/?q=node/7
>>> "The DVD version of ‘The Great Global Warming Swindle’ has been
>>> available for purchase since late July 2007. The front of the
>>> presentation case describes it as a “documentary”, which is defined by
>>> the Oxford English Dictionary as “a film or television or radio
>>> programme giving a factual account of something, using film,
>>> photographs, and sound recordings of real events”. However, the DVD
>>> contains at least five major misrepresentations of the scientific
>>> evidence and researchers’ views on climate change. This document
>>> presents details of the five misrepresentations."
>>>
>>> From http://www.medialens.org/alerts/07/0313pure_propaganda_the.p hp
>>> "What we now have is an out-and-out propaganda piece, in which there is
>>
>>> not even a gesture toward balance or explanation of why many of the
>>> extended inferences drawn in the film are not widely accepted by the
>>> scientific community. There are so many examples, it's hard to know
>>> where to begin, so I will cite only one: a speaker asserts, as is true,
>>
>>> that carbon dioxide is only a small fraction of the atmospheric mass.
>>> The viewer is left to infer that means it couldn't really matter. But
>>> even a beginning meteorology student could tell you that the relative
>>> masses of gases are irrelevant to their effects on radiative balance. A
>>
>>> director not intending to produce pure propaganda would have tried to
>>> eliminate that piece of disinformation.” (http://ocean.mit.edu/~cwunsch/
>>
>>> papersonline/channel4response)"
>>>
>>> Cheers,
>>> -Jamie
>>> www.JamieKrutz.com
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> Rich Lamanna wrote:
>>>> Must be global warming. Anyone seen this? If you've got an hour check
>> it
>>>> out. It may take a minute or two to load.
>>>>
>>>> http://en.sevenload.com/videos/ha4PoKY/The-Great-Global-Warm ing-Swindle
>>>>
>>>> Rich
>>>>
>>>> "EK Sound" <ask_me@nospam.net> wrote in message news:479e36ad$1@linux...
>>>>> Woke up this morning and the temp with wind chill was -59C >:(
>>>>>
>>>>> Why did I move here again???
>>>>>
>>>>> David.
>>>>
>>
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| Re: I hate winter... [message #95222 is a reply to message #95212] |
Tue, 29 January 2008 11:16 |
Jamie K
Messages: 1115
Registered: July 2006
|
Senior Member |
|
|
rick wrote:
> this is a mac vs pc thing in disguise isn't it? ;o) thank god for
> global dimming...
Heh. Mac vs. PC is more benign.
Here's a paper on the relationship between global dimming and greenhouse
warming: http://www.iac.ethz.ch/people/wild/2006GL028031.pdf
From the summary:
"In the present study we investigated the role of solar dimming and
brightening in the context of recent global warming. Our analysis showed
that the decadal changes of land mean surface temperature as well as
TMAX, TMIN, and DTR are in line with the proposed transition in surface
solar radiation from dimming to brightening during the 1980s and with
the increasing greenhouse effect. This suggests that solar dimming,
possibly favoured by increasing air pollution, was effective in masking
greenhouse warming up to the 1980s, but not thereafter, when the dimming
disappeared and atmospheres started to clear up.
The temperature response since the mid-1980s may therefore be a more
genuine reflection of the greenhouse effect than during the decades
before, which were subject to solar dimming. Unlike to the decades prior
to the 1980s, the recent rapid temperature rise therefore no longer
underrates the response of the climate system to greenhouse forcing and
reflects the full magnitude of the greenhouse effect."
More discussion here:
http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2007/11/global -dimming-and-global-warming/
Cheers,
-Jamie
www.JamieKrutz.com
> On Tue, 29 Jan 2008 10:51:55 -0700, Jamie K <Meta@Dimensional.com>
> wrote:
>
>> James McCloskey wrote:
>>> Yep, those scientist don't know what they are talking about,
>> If you're looking for the opinion of scientists, here's a start:
>>
>> From the American Physical Society
>> http://www.aps.org/policy/statements/07_1.cfm
>> "Emissions of greenhouse gases from human activities are changing the
>> atmosphere in ways that affect the Earth's climate. Greenhouse gases
>> include carbon dioxide as well as methane, nitrous oxide and other
>> gases. They are emitted from fossil fuel combustion and a range of
>> industrial and agricultural processes.
>>
>> The evidence is incontrovertible: Global warming is occurring. If no
>> mitigating actions are taken, significant disruptions in the Earth’s
>> physical and ecological systems, social systems, security and human
>> health are likely to occur. We must reduce emissions of greenhouse gases
>> beginning now."
>>
>>
>> From the National Academy of Sciences
>> http://nationalacademies.org/onpi/06072005.pdf
>> "Climate change is real:
>> There will always be uncertainty in understanding a system as complex as
>> the world’s climate. However there is now strong evidence that
>> significant global warming is occurring1. The evidence comes from direct
>> measurements of rising surface air temperatures and subsurface ocean
>> temperatures and from phenomena such as increases in average global sea
>> levels, retreating glaciers, and changes to many physical and biological
>> systems. It is likely that most of the warming in recent decades can be
>> attributed to human activities (IPCC 2001)2. This warming has already
>> led to changes in the Earth's climate.
>>
>> The existence of greenhouse gases in the atmosphere is vital to life on
>> Earth – in their absence average temperatures would be about 30
>> centigrade degrees lower than they are today. But human activities are
>> now causing atmospheric concentrations of greenhouse gases – including
>> carbon dioxide, methane, tropospheric ozone, and nitrous oxide – to rise
>> well above pre-industrial levels. Carbon dioxide levels have increased
>>from 280 ppm in 1750 to over 375 ppm today – higher than any previous
>> levels that can be reliably measured (i.e. in the last 420,000 years).
>> Increasing greenhouse gases are causing
>> temperatures to rise; the Earth’s surface warmed by approximately 0.6
>> centigrade degrees over the twentieth century. The Intergovernmental
>> Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) projected that the average global surface
>> temperatures will continue to increase to between 1.4 centigrade degrees
>> and 5.8 centigrade degrees above 1990 levels, by 2100."
>>
>>
>> From the American Geophysical Union
>> http://www.agu.org/sci_soc/policy/positions/climate_change20 08.shtml
>> "Human Impacts on Climate:
>> The Earth's climate is now clearly out of balance and is warming. Many
>> components of the climate system—including the temperatures of the
>> atmosphere, land and ocean, the extent of sea ice and mountain glaciers,
>> the sea level, the distribution of precipitation, and the length of
>> seasons—are now changing at rates and in patterns that are not natural
>> and are best explained by the increased atmospheric abundances of
>> greenhouse gases and aerosols generated by human activity during the
>> 20th century. Global average surface temperatures increased on average
>> by about 0.6°C over the period 1956–2006. As of 2006, eleven of the
>> previous twelve years were warmer than any others since 1850. The
>> observed rapid retreat of Arctic sea ice is expected to continue and
>> lead to the disappearance of summertime ice within this century.
>> Evidence from most oceans and all continents except Antarctica shows
>> warming attributable to human activities. Recent changes in many
>> physical and biological systems are linked with this regional climate
>> change. A sustained research effort, involving many AGU members and
>> summarized in the 2007 assessments of the Intergovernmental Panel on
>> Climate Change, continues to improve our scientific understanding of the
>> climate.
>>
>> During recent millennia of relatively stable climate, civilization
>> became established and populations have grown rapidly. In the next 50
>> years, even the lower limit of impending climate change—an additional
>> global mean warming of 1°C above the last decade—is far beyond the range
>> of climate variability experienced during the past thousand years and
>> poses global problems in planning for and adapting to it. Warming
>> greater than 2°C above 19th century levels is projected to be
>> disruptive, reducing global agricultural productivity, causing
>> widespread loss of biodiversity, and—if sustained over centuries—melting
>> much of the Greenland ice sheet with ensuing rise in sea level of
>> several meters. If this 2°C warming is to be avoided, then our net
>> annual emissions of CO2 must be reduced by more than 50 percent within
>> this century. With such projections, there are many sources of
>> scientific uncertainty, but none are known that could make the impact of
>> climate change inconsequential. Given the uncertainty in climate
>> projections, there can be surprises that may cause more dramatic
>> disruptions than anticipated from the most probable model projections.
>>
>> With climate change, as with ozone depletion, the human footprint on
>> Earth is apparent. The cause of disruptive climate change, unlike ozone
>> depletion, is tied to energy use and runs through modern society.
>> Solutions will necessarily involve all aspects of society. Mitigation
>> strategies and adaptation responses will call for collaborations across
>> science, technology, industry, and government. Members of the AGU, as
>> part of the scientific community, collectively have special
>> responsibilities: to pursue research needed to understand it; to educate
>> the public on the causes, risks, and hazards; and to communicate clearly
>> and objectively with those who can implement policies to shape future
>> climate."
>>
>>
>> From The Geological Society of America
>> http://www.geosociety.org/positions/position10.htm
>> "The Geological Society of America (GSA) supports the scientific
>> conclusions that Earth’s climate is changing; the climate changes are
>> due in part to human activities; and the probable consequences of the
>> climate changes will be significant and blind to geopolitical
>> boundaries. Furthermore, the potential implications of global climate
>> change and the time scale over which such changes will likely occur
>> require active, effective, long-term planning. GSA also supports
>> statements on the global climate change issue made by the joint national
>> academies of science (June 2005), American Geophysical Union (December,
>> 2003), and American Chemical Society (2004). GSA strongly encourages
>> that the following efforts be undertaken internationally: (1) adequately
>> research climate change at all time scales, (2) develop thoughtful,
>> science-based policy appropriate for the multifaceted issues of global
>> climate change, (3) organize global planning to recognize, prepare for,
>> and adapt to the causes and consequences of global climate change, and
>> (4) organize and develop comprehensive, long-term strategies for
>> sustainable energy, particularly focused on minimizing impacts on global
>> climate."
>>
>>
>> From the American Meteorological Society
>> http://www.ametsoc.org/POLICY/2007climatechange.html
>> "Why is climate changing?
>> Climate has changed throughout geological history, for many natural
>> reasons such as changes in the sun’s energy received by Earth arising
>>from slow orbital changes, or changes in the sun’s energy reaching
>> Earth’s surface due to volcanic eruptions. In recent decades, humans
>> have increasingly affected local, regional, and global climate by
>> altering the flows of radiative energy and water through the Earth
>> system (resulting in changes in temperature, winds, rainfall, etc.),
>> which comprises the atmosphere, land surface, vegetation, ocean, land
>> ice, and sea ice. Indeed, strong observational evidence and results from
>> modeling studies indicate that, at least over the last 50 years, human
>> activities are a major contributor to climate change.
>>
>> Direct human impact is through changes in the concentration of certain
>> trace gases such as carbon dioxide, chlorofluorocarbons, methane,
>> nitrous oxide, ozone, and water vapor, known collectively as greenhouse
>> gases. Enhanced greenhouse gases have little effect on the incoming
>> energy of the sun, but they act as a blanket to reduce the outgoing
>> infrared radiation emitted by Earth and its atmosphere; the surface and
>> atmosphere therefore warm so as to increase the outgoing energy until
>> the outgoing and incoming flows of energy are equal. Carbon dioxide
>> accounts for about half of the human-induced greenhouse gas contribution
>> to warming since the late 1800s, with increases in the other greenhouse
>> gases accounting for the rest; changes in solar output may have provided
>> an augmentation to warming in the first half of the 20th century.
>>
>> Carbon dioxide concentration is rising mostly as a result of fossil-fuel
>> burning and partly from clearing of vegetation; about 50% of the
>> enhanced emissions remain in the atmosphere, while the rest of the Earth
>> system continues to absorb the remaining 50%. In the last 50 years
>> atmospheric CO2 concentration has been increasing at a rate much faster
>> than any rates observed in the geological record of the past several
>> thousand years. Global annual-mean surface temperatures are rising at a
>> rapid rate to values higher than at any time in the last 400 (and
>> probably in the last 1000) years. Once introduced in the atmosphere,
>> carbon dioxide remains for at least a few hundred years and implies a
>> lengthy guarantee of sustained future warming. Further, increases in
>> greenhouse gases are nearly certain to produce continued increases in
>> temperature. Such changes in temperature lead to changes in clouds,
>> pressure, winds, and rainfall in a complex sequence of further effects."
>>
>>
>> Al Gore does,
>>> after all he invented the internet.
>> Here's what snopes has to say about that:
>>
>> http://www.snopes.com/quotes/internet.asp
>> "Despite the derisive references that continue even today, Al Gore did
>> not claim he "invented" the Internet, nor did he say anything that could
>> reasonably be interpreted that way. The "Al Gore said he 'invented' the
>> Internet" put-downs were misleading, out-of-context distortions of
>> something he said during an interview with Wolf Blitzer on CNN's "Late
>> Edition" program on 9 March 1999."
>>
>>
>> Besides, Al Gore is not the point, he's just one guy. Love him or hate
>> him, the climate will do what it does with or without him. It's best to
>> look to the actual science.
>>
>>
>> Nothing like trying to shift the wealth
>>> of the world and making money doing it by selling global offsets and taxing
>>> the shit out of stupid people with a lie!
>> That the climate is currently changing is not a lie, it's a measurable
>> phenomenon we are currently experiencing on our planet.
>>
>> A lot of evidence points to human contributions to the current climate
>> change event. So again, this is not a lie.
>>
>> Your problem is with politics and economics, not with science. Blaming
>> the science does not help your cause. You have political and economic
>> objections to some of the proposed solutions, so by all means take them
>> on. If you don't like using a market mechanism to regulate carbon
>> emissions, which is just one idea that's been proposed, there are other
>> options on the table.
>>
>> Do your best to move the solutions conversation in a direction you're
>> more comfortable with. But simple blanket denial of actual evidence and
>> peer reviewed science won't get you there.
>>
>>
>>> The Bush's, the Clinton's, and
>>> the Gore's are all Trilateralists, they have done a fine job of lowering
>>> the standard of living here in the USA! Long live the CFR, the world banks
>>> and man made Global warming.
>> You can believe what you like about all that, except that there is
>> actual evidence supporting human contributions to the current climate
>> change event. Again, ignoring evidence won't get you very far.
>>
>>
>>> By the way, if you buy the man made global warming lie, I got some swamp
>>> land I'd like to sell you!
>> You're being sold swamp land already, possibly by the fossil fuels
>> industry, and by people who want to maintain power and income.
>>
>> http://www.cbc.ca/fifth/denialmachine/index.html
>> "The Denial Machine investigates the roots of the campaign to negate the
>> science and the threat of global warming. It tracks the activities of a
>> group of scientists, some of whom previously consulted for Big Tobacco,
>> and who are now receiving donations from major coal and oil companies."
>>
>> http://www.exxonsecrets.org/
>> "The database compiles Exxon Foundation and corporate funding to a
>> series of institutions who have worked to undermine solutions to global
>> warming and climate change. It details the working relationships of
>> individuals associated with these organizations and their global warming
>> quotes and deeds."
>>
>> Cheers,
>> -Jamie
>> www.JamieKrutz.com
>>
>>
>>
>>> Jamie K <Meta@Dimensional.com> wrote:
>>>> Rich Lamanna wrote:
>>>>> Must be global warming. Anyone seen this? If you've got an hour check
>>> it
>>>>> out. It may take a minute or two to load.
>>>> Yep, the swindle movie is old news, we even discussed it here.
>>>>
>>>> As I mentioned at the time, it ignores the main body of peer-reviewed
>>>> scientific evidence for the sake of sensationalism. It was done that way
>>>> deliberately by the producers, with no attempt at an objective look at
>>>> the actual scientific evidence. Fair and balanced it ain't.
>>>>
>>>> I do like the breathless announcer, fast cuts and dramatic music. It's
>>>> always fun to see a one-sided polemic that ironically accuses others of
>>>> being one-sided. I doubt anyone here is gullible enough to take it as an
>>>> objective authority.
>>>>
>>>> But anyway, here's more (follow the links):
>>>>
>>>> From:
>>>> http://climatedenial.org/2007/05/01/why-was-the-great-global -warming-swindle-so-persuasive/
>>>> "The fans of the film would argue that it has been effective because it
>>>> is true. But truth is not, of itself, persuasive. When we receive new
>>>> information on a topic we have no idea whether it is true or not. We
>>>> base our conclusions on how it was presented to us, whether it concurs
>>>> with what we already know about that topic, how far we trust the person
>>>> telling us, and how well that information fits inside our world view. We
>>>> then seek to match our initial conclusions against the conclusions of
>>>> our peers. So, although we think we seek truth, the process by which we
>>>> reach opinions is equally capable of leading us in the wrong direction.
>>>> It turns out that Swindle was a collection of rather crude distortions
>>>> in an elegant package. We now know that the data was misrepresented, the
>>>> charts re-arranged, and the interviews edited in ways that were designed
>>>> to mislead."
>>>>
>>>> From: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Great_Global_Warming_Swindl e
>>>> "Although the documentary was welcomed by global warming sceptics, it
>>>> was criticised heavily by many scientific organisations and individual
>>>> scientists (including two of the film's contributors[3][4]). The film's
>>>> critics argued that it had misused data, relied on out-of-date research,
>>>> employed misleading arguments, and misrepresented the position of the
>>>> Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change."
>>>>
>>>> From: http://www.climateofdenial.net/?q=node/7
>>>> "The DVD version of ‘The Great Global Warming Swindle’ has been
>>>> available for purchase since late July 2007. The front of the
>>>> presentation case describes it as a “documentary”, which is defined by
>>>> the Oxford English Dictionary as “a film or television or radio
>>>> programme giving a factual account of something, using film,
>>>> photographs, and sound recordings of real events”. However, the DVD
>>>> contains at least five major misrepresentations of the scientific
>>>> evidence and researchers’ views on climate change. This document
>>>> presents details of the five misrepresentations."
>>>>
>>>> From http://www.medialens.org/alerts/07/0313pure_propaganda_the.p hp
>>>> "What we now have is an out-and-out propaganda piece, in which there is
>>>> not even a gesture toward balance or explanation of why many of the
>>>> extended inferences drawn in the film are not widely accepted by the
>>>> scientific community. There are so many examples, it's hard to know
>>>> where to begin, so I will cite only one: a speaker asserts, as is true,
>>>> that carbon dioxide is only a small fraction of the atmospheric mass.
>>>> The viewer is left to infer that means it couldn't really matter. But
>>>> even a beginning meteorology student could tell you that the relative
>>>> masses of gases are irrelevant to their effects on radiative balance. A
>>>> director not intending to produce pure propaganda would have tried to
>>>> eliminate that piece of disinformation.” (http://ocean.mit.edu/~cwunsch/
>>>> papersonline/channel4response)"
>>>>
>>>> Cheers,
>>>> -Jamie
>>>> www.JamieKrutz.com
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Rich Lamanna wrote:
>>>>> Must be global warming. Anyone seen this? If you've got an hour check
>>> it
>>>>> out. It may take a minute or two to load.
>>>>>
>>>>> http://en.sevenload.com/videos/ha4PoKY/The-Great-Global-Warm ing-Swindle
>>>>>
>>>>> Rich
>>>>>
>>>>> "EK Sound" <ask_me@nospam.net> wrote in message news:479e36ad$1@linux...
>>>>>> Woke up this morning and the temp with wind chill was -59C >:(
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Why did I move here again???
>>>>>>
>>>>>> David.
>
|
|
|
|
| Re: I hate winter... [message #95231 is a reply to message #95222] |
Tue, 29 January 2008 18:34 |
chuck duffy
Messages: 453
Registered: July 2005
|
Senior Member |
|
|
So does this evidence mean that .........
Chuck
Jamie K <Meta@Dimensional.com> wrote:
>rick wrote:
>> this is a mac vs pc thing in disguise isn't it? ;o) thank god for
>> global dimming...
>
>Heh. Mac vs. PC is more benign.
>
>Here's a paper on the relationship between global dimming and greenhouse
>warming: http://www.iac.ethz.ch/people/wild/2006GL028031.pdf
>
> From the summary:
>"In the present study we investigated the role of solar dimming and
>brightening in the context of recent global warming. Our analysis showed
>that the decadal changes of land mean surface temperature as well as
>TMAX, TMIN, and DTR are in line with the proposed transition in surface
>solar radiation from dimming to brightening during the 1980s and with
>the increasing greenhouse effect. This suggests that solar dimming,
>possibly favoured by increasing air pollution, was effective in masking
>greenhouse warming up to the 1980s, but not thereafter, when the dimming
>disappeared and atmospheres started to clear up.
>
>The temperature response since the mid-1980s may therefore be a more
>genuine reflection of the greenhouse effect than during the decades
>before, which were subject to solar dimming. Unlike to the decades prior
>to the 1980s, the recent rapid temperature rise therefore no longer
>underrates the response of the climate system to greenhouse forcing and
>reflects the full magnitude of the greenhouse effect."
>
>More discussion here:
> http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2007/11/global -dimming-and-global-warming/
>
>Cheers,
> -Jamie
> www.JamieKrutz.com
>
>
>
>> On Tue, 29 Jan 2008 10:51:55 -0700, Jamie K <Meta@Dimensional.com>
>> wrote:
>>
>>> James McCloskey wrote:
>>>> Yep, those scientist don't know what they are talking about,
>>> If you're looking for the opinion of scientists, here's a start:
>>>
>>> From the American Physical Society
>>> http://www.aps.org/policy/statements/07_1.cfm
>>> "Emissions of greenhouse gases from human activities are changing the
>>> atmosphere in ways that affect the Earth's climate. Greenhouse gases
>>> include carbon dioxide as well as methane, nitrous oxide and other
>>> gases. They are emitted from fossil fuel combustion and a range of
>>> industrial and agricultural processes.
>>>
>>> The evidence is incontrovertible: Global warming is occurring. If no
>>> mitigating actions are taken, significant disruptions in the Earth’s
>>> physical and ecological systems, social systems, security and human
>>> health are likely to occur. We must reduce emissions of greenhouse gases
>>> beginning now."
>>>
>>>
>>> From the National Academy of Sciences
>>> http://nationalacademies.org/onpi/06072005.pdf
>>> "Climate change is real:
>>> There will always be uncertainty in understanding a system as complex
as
>>> the world’s climate. However there is now strong evidence that
>>> significant global warming is occurring1. The evidence comes from direct
>>> measurements of rising surface air temperatures and subsurface ocean
>>> temperatures and from phenomena such as increases in average global sea
>>> levels, retreating glaciers, and changes to many physical and biological
>>> systems. It is likely that most of the warming in recent decades can
be
>>> attributed to human activities (IPCC 2001)2. This warming has already
>>> led to changes in the Earth's climate.
>>>
>>> The existence of greenhouse gases in the atmosphere is vital to life
on
>>> Earth – in their absence average temperatures would be about 30
>>> centigrade degrees lower than they are today. But human activities are
>>> now causing atmospheric concentrations of greenhouse gases – including
>>> carbon dioxide, methane, tropospheric ozone, and nitrous oxide – to rise
>>> well above pre-industrial levels. Carbon dioxide levels have increased
>>>from 280 ppm in 1750 to over 375 ppm today – higher than any previous
>>> levels that can be reliably measured (i.e. in the last 420,000 years).
>>> Increasing greenhouse gases are causing
>>> temperatures to rise; the Earth’s surface warmed by approximately 0.6
>>> centigrade degrees over the twentieth century. The Intergovernmental
>>> Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) projected that the average global surface
>>> temperatures will continue to increase to between 1.4 centigrade degrees
>>> and 5.8 centigrade degrees above 1990 levels, by 2100."
>>>
>>>
>>> From the American Geophysical Union
>>> http://www.agu.org/sci_soc/policy/positions/climate_change20 08.shtml
>>> "Human Impacts on Climate:
>>> The Earth's climate is now clearly out of balance and is warming. Many
>>> components of the climate system—including the temperatures of the
>>> atmosphere, land and ocean, the extent of sea ice and mountain glaciers,
>>> the sea level, the distribution of precipitation, and the length of
>>> seasons—are now changing at rates and in patterns that are not natural
>>> and are best explained by the increased atmospheric abundances of
>>> greenhouse gases and aerosols generated by human activity during the
>>> 20th century. Global average surface temperatures increased on average
>>> by about 0.6°C over the period 1956–2006. As of 2006, eleven of the
>>> previous twelve years were warmer than any others since 1850. The
>>> observed rapid retreat of Arctic sea ice is expected to continue and
>>> lead to the disappearance of summertime ice within this century.
>>> Evidence from most oceans and all continents except Antarctica shows
>>> warming attributable to human activities. Recent changes in many
>>> physical and biological systems are linked with this regional climate
>>> change. A sustained research effort, involving many AGU members and
>>> summarized in the 2007 assessments of the Intergovernmental Panel on
>>> Climate Change, continues to improve our scientific understanding of
the
>>> climate.
>>>
>>> During recent millennia of relatively stable climate, civilization
>>> became established and populations have grown rapidly. In the next 50
>>> years, even the lower limit of impending climate change—an additional
>>> global mean warming of 1°C above the last decade—is far beyond the range
>>> of climate variability experienced during the past thousand years and
>>> poses global problems in planning for and adapting to it. Warming
>>> greater than 2°C above 19th century levels is projected to be
>>> disruptive, reducing global agricultural productivity, causing
>>> widespread loss of biodiversity, and—if sustained over centuries—melting
>>> much of the Greenland ice sheet with ensuing rise in sea level of
>>> several meters. If this 2°C warming is to be avoided, then our net
>>> annual emissions of CO2 must be reduced by more than 50 percent within
>>> this century. With such projections, there are many sources of
>>> scientific uncertainty, but none are known that could make the impact
of
>>> climate change inconsequential. Given the uncertainty in climate
>>> projections, there can be surprises that may cause more dramatic
>>> disruptions than anticipated from the most probable model projections.
>>>
>>> With climate change, as with ozone depletion, the human footprint on
>>> Earth is apparent. The cause of disruptive climate change, unlike ozone
>>> depletion, is tied to energy use and runs through modern society.
>>> Solutions will necessarily involve all aspects of society. Mitigation
>>> strategies and adaptation responses will call for collaborations across
>>> science, technology, industry, and government. Members of the AGU, as
>>> part of the scientific community, collectively have special
>>> responsibilities: to pursue research needed to understand it; to educate
>>> the public on the causes, risks, and hazards; and to communicate clearly
>>> and objectively with those who can implement policies to shape future
>>> climate."
>>>
>>>
>>> From The Geological Society of America
>>> http://www.geosociety.org/positions/position10.htm
>>> "The Geological Society of America (GSA) supports the scientific
>>> conclusions that Earth’s climate is changing; the climate changes are
>>> due in part to human activities; and the probable consequences of the
>>> climate changes will be significant and blind to geopolitical
>>> boundaries. Furthermore, the potential implications of global climate
>>> change and the time scale over which such changes will likely occur
>>> require active, effective, long-term planning. GSA also supports
>>> statements on the global climate change issue made by the joint national
>>> academies of science (June 2005), American Geophysical Union (December,
>>> 2003), and American Chemical Society (2004). GSA strongly encourages
>>> that the following efforts be undertaken internationally: (1) adequately
>>> research climate change at all time scales, (2) develop thoughtful,
>>> science-based policy appropriate for the multifaceted issues of global
>>> climate change, (3) organize global planning to recognize, prepare for,
>>> and adapt to the causes and consequences of global climate change, and
>>> (4) organize and develop comprehensive, long-term strategies for
>>> sustainable energy, particularly focused on minimizing impacts on global
>>> climate."
>>>
>>>
>>> From the American Meteorological Society
>>> http://www.ametsoc.org/POLICY/2007climatechange.html
>>> "Why is climate changing?
>>> Climate has changed throughout geological history, for many natural
>>> reasons such as changes in the sun’s energy received by Earth arising
>>>from slow orbital changes, or changes in the sun’s energy reaching
>>> Earth’s surface due to volcanic eruptions. In recent decades, humans
>>> have increasingly affected local, regional, and global climate by
>>> altering the flows of radiative energy and water through the Earth
>>> system (resulting in changes in temperature, winds, rainfall, etc.),
>>> which comprises the atmosphere, land surface, vegetation, ocean, land
>>> ice, and sea ice. Indeed, strong observational evidence and results from
>>> modeling studies indicate that, at least over the last 50 years, human
>>> activities are a major contributor to climate change.
>>>
>>> Direct human impact is through changes in the concentration of certain
>>> trace gases such as carbon dioxide, chlorofluorocarbons, methane,
>>> nitrous oxide, ozone, and water vapor, known collectively as greenhouse
>>> gases. Enhanced greenhouse gases have little effect on the incoming
>>> energy of the sun, but they act as a blanket to reduce the outgoing
>>> infrared radiation emitted by Earth and its atmosphere; the surface and
>>> atmosphere therefore warm so as to increase the outgoing energy until
>>> the outgoing and incoming flows of energy are equal. Carbon dioxide
>>> accounts for about half of the human-induced greenhouse gas contribution
>>> to warming since the late 1800s, with increases in the other greenhouse
>>> gases accounting for the rest; changes in solar output may have provided
>>> an augmentation to warming in the first half of the 20th century.
>>>
>>> Carbon dioxide concentration is rising mostly as a result of fossil-fuel
>>> burning and partly from clearing of vegetation; about 50% of the
>>> enhanced emissions remain in the atmosphere, while the rest of the Earth
>>> system continues to absorb the remaining 50%. In the last 50 years
>>> atmospheric CO2 concentration has been increasing at a rate much faster
>>> than any rates observed in the geological record of the past several
>>> thousand years. Global annual-mean surface temperatures are rising at
a
>>> rapid rate to values higher than at any time in the last 400 (and
>>> probably in the last 1000) years. Once introduced in the atmosphere,
>>> carbon dioxide remains for at least a few hundred years and implies a
>>> lengthy guarantee of sustained future warming. Further, increases in
>>> greenhouse gases are nearly certain to produce continued increases in
>>> temperature. Such changes in temperature lead to changes in clouds,
>>> pressure, winds, and rainfall in a complex sequence of further effects."
>>>
>>>
>>> Al Gore does,
>>>> after all he invented the internet.
>>> Here's what snopes has to say about that:
>>>
>>> http://www.snopes.com/quotes/internet.asp
>>> "Despite the derisive references that continue even today, Al Gore did
>>> not claim he "invented" the Internet, nor did he say anything that could
>>> reasonably be interpreted that way. The "Al Gore said he 'invented' the
>>> Internet" put-downs were misleading, out-of-context distortions of
>>> something he said during an interview with Wolf Blitzer on CNN's "Late
>>> Edition" program on 9 March 1999."
>>>
>>>
>>> Besides, Al Gore is not the point, he's just one guy. Love him or hate
>>> him, the climate will do what it does with or without him. It's best
to
>>> look to the actual science.
>>>
>>>
>>> Nothing like trying to shift the wealth
>>>> of the world and making money doing it by selling global offsets and
taxing
>>>> the shit out of stupid people with a lie!
>>> That the climate is currently changing is not a lie, it's a measurable
>>> phenomenon we are currently experiencing on our planet.
>>>
>>> A lot of evidence points to human contributions to the current climate
>>> change event. So again, this is not a lie.
>>>
>>> Your problem is with politics and economics, not with science. Blaming
>>> the science does not help your cause. You have political and economic
>>> objections to some of the proposed solutions, so by all means take them
>>> on. If you don't like using a market mechanism to regulate carbon
>>> emissions, which is just one idea that's been proposed, there are other
>>> options on the table.
>>>
>>> Do your best to move the solutions conversation in a direction you're
>>> more comfortable with. But simple blanket denial of actual evidence and
>>> peer reviewed science won't get you there.
>>>
>>>
>>>> The Bush's, the Clinton's, and
>>>> the Gore's are all Trilateralists, they have done a fine job of lowering
>>>> the standard of living here in the USA! Long live the CFR, the world
banks
>>>> and man made Global warming.
>>> You can believe what you like about all that, except that there is
>>> actual evidence supporting human contributions to the current climate
>>> change event. Again, ignoring evidence won't get you very far.
>>>
>>>
>>>> By the way, if you buy the man made global warming lie, I got some swamp
>>>> land I'd like to sell you!
>>> You're being sold swamp land already, possibly by the fossil fuels
>>> industry, and by people who want to maintain power and income.
>>>
>>> http://www.cbc.ca/fifth/denialmachine/index.html
>>> "The Denial Machine investigates the roots of the campaign to negate
the
>>> science and the threat of global warming. It tracks the activities of
a
>>> group of scientists, some of whom previously consulted for Big Tobacco,
>>> and who are now receiving donations from major coal and oil companies."
>>>
>>> http://www.exxonsecrets.org/
>>> "The database compiles Exxon Foundation and corporate funding to a
>>> series of institutions who have worked to undermine solutions to global
>>> warming and climate change. It details the working relationships of
>>> individuals associated with these organizations and their global warming
>>> quotes and deeds."
>>>
>>> Cheers,
>>> -Jamie
>>> www.JamieKrutz.com
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>> Jamie K <Meta@Dimensional.com> wrote:
>>>>> Rich Lamanna wrote:
>>>>>> Must be global warming. Anyone seen this? If you've got an hour check
>>>> it
>>>>>> out. It may take a minute or two to load.
>>>>> Yep, the swindle movie is old news, we even discussed it here.
>>>>>
>>>>> As I mentioned at the time, it ignores the main body of peer-reviewed
>>>>> scientific evidence for the sake of sensationalism. It was done that
way
>>>>> deliberately by the producers, with no attempt at an objective look
at
>>>>> the actual scientific evidence. Fair and balanced it ain't.
>>>>>
>>>>> I do like the breathless announcer, fast cuts and dramatic music. It's
>>>>> always fun to see a one-sided polemic that ironically accuses others
of
>>>>> being one-sided. I doubt anyone here is gullible enough to take it
as an
>>>>> objective authority.
>>>>>
>>>>> But anyway, here's more (follow the links):
>>>>>
>>>>> From:
>>>>> http://climatedenial.org/2007/05/01/why-was-the-great-global -warming-swindle-so-persuasive/
>>>>> "The fans of the film would argue that it has been effective because
it
>>>>> is true. But truth is not, of itself, persuasive. When we receive new
>>>>> information on a topic we have no idea whether it is true or not. We
>>>>> base our conclusions on how it was presented to us, whether it concurs
>>>>> with what we already know about that topic, how far we trust the person
>>>>> telling us, and how well that information fits inside our world view.
We
>>>>> then seek to match our initial conclusions against the conclusions
of
>>>>> our peers. So, although we think we seek truth, the process by which
we
>>>>> reach opinions is equally capable of leading us in the wrong direction.
>>>>> It turns out that Swindle was a collection of rather crude distortions
>>>>> in an elegant package. We now know that the data was misrepresented,
the
>>>>> charts re-arranged, and the interviews edited in ways that were designed
>>>>> to mislead."
>>>>>
>>>>> From: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Great_Global_Warming_Swindl e
>>>>> "Although the documentary was welcomed by global warming sceptics,
it
>>>>> was criticised heavily by many scientific organisations and individual
>>>>> scientists (including two of the film's contributors[3][4]). The film's
>>>>> critics argued that it had misused data, relied on out-of-date research,
>>>>> employed misleading arguments, and misrepresented the position of the
>>>>> Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change."
>>>>>
>>>>> From: http://www.climateofdenial.net/?q=node/7
>>>>> "The DVD version of ‘The Great Global Warming Swindle’ has been
>>>>> available for purchase since late July 2007. The front of the
>>>>> presentation case describes it as a “documentary”, which is defined
by
>>>>> the Oxford English Dictionary as “a film or television or radio
>>>>> programme giving a factual account of something, using film,
>>>>> photographs, and sound recordings of real events”. However, the DVD
>>>>> contains at least five major misrepresentations of the scientific
>>>>> evidence and researchers’ views on climate change. This document
>>>>> presents details of the five misrepresentations."
>>>>>
>>>>> From http://www.medialens.org/alerts/07/0313pure_propaganda_the.p hp
>>>>> "What we now have is an out-and-out propaganda piece, in which there
is
>>>>> not even a gesture toward balance or explanation of why many of the
>>>>> extended inferences drawn in the film are not widely accepted by the
>>>>> scientific community. There are so many examples, it's hard to know
>>>>> where to begin, so I will cite only one: a speaker asserts, as is true,
>>>>> that carbon dioxide is only a small fraction of the atmospheric mass.
>>>>> The viewer is left to infer that means it couldn't really matter. But
>>>>> even a beginning meteorology student could tell you that the relative
>>>>> masses of gases are irrelevant to their effects on radiative balance.
A
>>>>> director not intending to produce pure propaganda would have tried
to
>>>>> eliminate that piece of disinformation.” (http://ocean.mit.edu/~cwunsch/
>>>>> papersonline/channel4response)"
>>>>>
>>>>> Cheers,
>>>>> -Jamie
>>>>> www.JamieKrutz.com
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> Rich Lamanna wrote:
>>>>>> Must be global warming. Anyone seen this? If you've got an hour check
>>>> it
>>>>>> out. It may take a minute or two to load.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> http://en.sevenload.com/videos/ha4PoKY/The-Great-Global-Warm ing-Swindle
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Rich
>>>>>>
>>>>>> "EK Sound" <ask_me@nospam.net> wrote in message news:479e36ad$1@linux...
>>>>>>> Woke up this morning and the temp with wind chill was -59C >:(
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Why did I move here again???
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> David.
>>
|
|
|
|
|
|
| Re: I hate winter... [message #95245 is a reply to message #95188] |
Tue, 29 January 2008 23:02 |
Rich Lamanna
Messages: 316
Registered: February 2006
|
Senior Member |
|
|
Jamie, the scientists interviewed in the film are "real" scientists, some
who had to sue the IPCC to have their names removed from the report due to
blatant omissions of the facts. In fact there is not a consensus, as many
scientists disagree as agree. Sea levels have been rising since the last ice
age ended, around 15,000 years ago. There were no man made CO2 generating
factories, cars, etc.... The Bahama bank was a huge land mass, now it's a
collection of islands. We are at the end of a warming period in the planets
vacillating temperature cycles. Humans are a pimple on the ass of the earth.
The effect mankind has on the planet is negligible. If anything we should be
more concerned about the next ice age which is guaranteed. Try to imagine
what the earth looked like 15,000 years ago. It was covered in ice dude. I
personally prefer global warming.
There are several reports stating that sea levels have been falling.
http://www.iceagenow.com/Sea_levels_are_falling.htm
http://www.iceagenow.com/Arctic_Sea_Level_Falling.htm
To the contrary many glaciers are growing.
http://www.iceagenow.com/List_of_Expanding_Glaciers.htm
There's global warming on Mars by the way too. This suggests a solar not
human cause.
http://www.iceagenow.com/Global_Warming_on_Mars.htm
I've got to go to bed.
Night,
Rich
"Jamie K" <Meta@Dimensional.com> wrote in message news:479edb94$1@linux...
>
> Rich Lamanna wrote:
> > Must be global warming. Anyone seen this? If you've got an hour check
it
> > out. It may take a minute or two to load.
>
> Yep, the swindle movie is old news, we even discussed it here.
>
> As I mentioned at the time, it ignores the main body of peer-reviewed
> scientific evidence for the sake of sensationalism. It was done that way
> deliberately by the producers, with no attempt at an objective look at
> the actual scientific evidence. Fair and balanced it ain't.
>
> I do like the breathless announcer, fast cuts and dramatic music. It's
> always fun to see a one-sided polemic that ironically accuses others of
> being one-sided. I doubt anyone here is gullible enough to take it as an
> objective authority.
>
> But anyway, here's more (follow the links):
>
> From:
>
http://climatedenial.org/2007/05/01/why-was-the-great-global -warming-swindle-so-persuasive/
> "The fans of the film would argue that it has been effective because it
> is true. But truth is not, of itself, persuasive. When we receive new
> information on a topic we have no idea whether it is true or not. We
> base our conclusions on how it was presented to us, whether it concurs
> with what we already know about that topic, how far we trust the person
> telling us, and how well that information fits inside our world view. We
> then seek to match our initial conclusions against the conclusions of
> our peers. So, although we think we seek truth, the process by which we
> reach opinions is equally capable of leading us in the wrong direction.
> It turns out that Swindle was a collection of rather crude distortions
> in an elegant package. We now know that the data was misrepresented, the
> charts re-arranged, and the interviews edited in ways that were designed
> to mislead."
>
> From: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Great_Global_Warming_Swindl e
> "Although the documentary was welcomed by global warming sceptics, it
> was criticised heavily by many scientific organisations and individual
> scientists (including two of the film's contributors[3][4]). The film's
> critics argued that it had misused data, relied on out-of-date research,
> employed misleading arguments, and misrepresented the position of the
> Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change."
>
> From: http://www.climateofdenial.net/?q=node/7
> "The DVD version of ‘The Great Global Warming Swindle’ has been
> available for purchase since late July 2007. The front of the
> presentation case describes it as a “documentary”, which is defined by
> the Oxford English Dictionary as “a film or television or radio
> programme giving a factual account of something, using film,
> photographs, and sound recordings of real events”. However, the DVD
> contains at least five major misrepresentations of the scientific
> evidence and researchers’ views on climate change. This document
> presents details of the five misrepresentations."
>
> From http://www.medialens.org/alerts/07/0313pure_propaganda_the.p hp
> "What we now have is an out-and-out propaganda piece, in which there is
> not even a gesture toward balance or explanation of why many of the
> extended inferences drawn in the film are not widely accepted by the
> scientific community. There are so many examples, it's hard to know
> where to begin, so I will cite only one: a speaker asserts, as is true,
> that carbon dioxide is only a small fraction of the atmospheric mass.
> The viewer is left to infer that means it couldn't really matter. But
> even a beginning meteorology student could tell you that the relative
> masses of gases are irrelevant to their effects on radiative balance. A
> director not intending to produce pure propaganda would have tried to
> eliminate that piece of disinformation.” (http://ocean.mit.edu/~cwunsch/
> papersonline/channel4response)"
>
> Cheers,
> -Jamie
> www.JamieKrutz.com
>
>
>
> Rich Lamanna wrote:
> > Must be global warming. Anyone seen this? If you've got an hour check
it
> > out. It may take a minute or two to load.
> >
> > http://en.sevenload.com/videos/ha4PoKY/The-Great-Global-Warm ing-Swindle
> >
> > Rich
> >
> > "EK Sound" <ask_me@nospam.net> wrote in message news:479e36ad$1@linux...
> >> Woke up this morning and the temp with wind chill was -59C >:(
> >>
> >> Why did I move here again???
> >>
> >> David.
> >
> >
|
|
|
|
| Re: I hate winter... [message #95246 is a reply to message #95231] |
Tue, 29 January 2008 22:03 |
Jamie K
Messages: 1115
Registered: July 2006
|
Senior Member |
|
|
chuck duffy wrote:
> So does this evidence mean that .........
.....global dimming and greenhouse gas induced warming are two different
processes that for a time overlapped. Global dimming is not going to
magically save us from the current warming trend. We're on the right
track with worldwide plans to slow our contribution of greenhouse gases
ASAP.
Cheers,
-Jamie
www.JamieKrutz.com
> Chuck
> Jamie K <Meta@Dimensional.com> wrote:
>> rick wrote:
>>> this is a mac vs pc thing in disguise isn't it? ;o) thank god for
>>> global dimming...
>> Heh. Mac vs. PC is more benign.
>>
>> Here's a paper on the relationship between global dimming and greenhouse
>
>> warming: http://www.iac.ethz.ch/people/wild/2006GL028031.pdf
>>
>> From the summary:
>> "In the present study we investigated the role of solar dimming and
>> brightening in the context of recent global warming. Our analysis showed
>
>> that the decadal changes of land mean surface temperature as well as
>> TMAX, TMIN, and DTR are in line with the proposed transition in surface
>> solar radiation from dimming to brightening during the 1980s and with
>> the increasing greenhouse effect. This suggests that solar dimming,
>> possibly favoured by increasing air pollution, was effective in masking
>
>> greenhouse warming up to the 1980s, but not thereafter, when the dimming
>
>> disappeared and atmospheres started to clear up.
>>
>> The temperature response since the mid-1980s may therefore be a more
>> genuine reflection of the greenhouse effect than during the decades
>> before, which were subject to solar dimming. Unlike to the decades prior
>
>> to the 1980s, the recent rapid temperature rise therefore no longer
>> underrates the response of the climate system to greenhouse forcing and
>
>> reflects the full magnitude of the greenhouse effect."
>>
>> More discussion here:
>> http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2007/11/global -dimming-and-global-warming/
>>
>> Cheers,
>> -Jamie
>> www.JamieKrutz.com
>>
>>
>>
>>> On Tue, 29 Jan 2008 10:51:55 -0700, Jamie K <Meta@Dimensional.com>
>>> wrote:
>>>
>>>> James McCloskey wrote:
>>>>> Yep, those scientist don't know what they are talking about,
>>>> If you're looking for the opinion of scientists, here's a start:
>>>>
>>>> From the American Physical Society
>>>> http://www.aps.org/policy/statements/07_1.cfm
>>>> "Emissions of greenhouse gases from human activities are changing the
>
>>>> atmosphere in ways that affect the Earth's climate. Greenhouse gases
>
>>>> include carbon dioxide as well as methane, nitrous oxide and other
>>>> gases. They are emitted from fossil fuel combustion and a range of
>>>> industrial and agricultural processes.
>>>>
>>>> The evidence is incontrovertible: Global warming is occurring. If no
>
>>>> mitigating actions are taken, significant disruptions in the Earth’s
>
>>>> physical and ecological systems, social systems, security and human
>>>> health are likely to occur. We must reduce emissions of greenhouse gases
>
>>>> beginning now."
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> From the National Academy of Sciences
>>>> http://nationalacademies.org/onpi/06072005.pdf
>>>> "Climate change is real:
>>>> There will always be uncertainty in understanding a system as complex
> as
>>>> the world’s climate. However there is now strong evidence that
>>>> significant global warming is occurring1. The evidence comes from direct
>
>>>> measurements of rising surface air temperatures and subsurface ocean
>
>>>> temperatures and from phenomena such as increases in average global sea
>
>>>> levels, retreating glaciers, and changes to many physical and biological
>
>>>> systems. It is likely that most of the warming in recent decades can
> be
>>>> attributed to human activities (IPCC 2001)2. This warming has already
>
>>>> led to changes in the Earth's climate.
>>>>
>>>> The existence of greenhouse gases in the atmosphere is vital to life
> on
>>>> Earth – in their absence average temperatures would be about 30
>>>> centigrade degrees lower than they are today. But human activities are
>
>>>> now causing atmospheric concentrations of greenhouse gases – including
>
>>>> carbon dioxide, methane, tropospheric ozone, and nitrous oxide – to rise
>
>>>> well above pre-industrial levels. Carbon dioxide levels have increased
>
>>> >from 280 ppm in 1750 to over 375 ppm today – higher than any previous
>
>>>> levels that can be reliably measured (i.e. in the last 420,000 years).
>
>>>> Increasing greenhouse gases are causing
>>>> temperatures to rise; the Earth’s surface warmed by approximately 0.6
>
>>>> centigrade degrees over the twentieth century. The Intergovernmental
>
>>>> Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) projected that the average global surface
>
>>>> temperatures will continue to increase to between 1.4 centigrade degrees
>
>>>> and 5.8 centigrade degrees above 1990 levels, by 2100."
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> From the American Geophysical Union
>>>> http://www.agu.org/sci_soc/policy/positions/climate_change20 08.shtml
>>>> "Human Impacts on Climate:
>>>> The Earth's climate is now clearly out of balance and is warming. Many
>
>>>> components of the climate system—including the temperatures of the
>>>> atmosphere, land and ocean, the extent of sea ice and mountain glaciers,
>
>>>> the sea level, the distribution of precipitation, and the length of
>>>> seasons—are now changing at rates and in patterns that are not natural
>
>>>> and are best explained by the increased atmospheric abundances of
>>>> greenhouse gases and aerosols generated by human activity during the
>
>>>> 20th century. Global average surface temperatures increased on average
>
>>>> by about 0.6°C over the period 1956–2006. As of 2006, eleven of the
>>>> previous twelve years were warmer than any others since 1850. The
>>>> observed rapid retreat of Arctic sea ice is expected to continue and
>
>>>> lead to the disappearance of summertime ice within this century.
>>>> Evidence from most oceans and all continents except Antarctica shows
>
>>>> warming attributable to human activities. Recent changes in many
>>>> physical and biological systems are linked with this regional climate
>
>>>> change. A sustained research effort, involving many AGU members and
>>>> summarized in the 2007 assessments of the Intergovernmental Panel on
>
>>>> Climate Change, continues to improve our scientific understanding of
> the
>>>> climate.
>>>>
>>>> During recent millennia of relatively stable climate, civilization
>>>> became established and populations have grown rapidly. In the next 50
>
>>>> years, even the lower limit of impending climate change—an additional
>
>>>> global mean warming of 1°C above the last decade—is far beyond the range
>
>>>> of climate variability experienced during the past thousand years and
>
>>>> poses global problems in planning for and adapting to it. Warming
>>>> greater than 2°C above 19th century levels is projected to be
>>>> disruptive, reducing global agricultural productivity, causing
>>>> widespread loss of biodiversity, and—if sustained over centuries—melting
>
>>>> much of the Greenland ice sheet with ensuing rise in sea level of
>>>> several meters. If this 2°C warming is to be avoided, then our net
>>>> annual emissions of CO2 must be reduced by more than 50 percent within
>
>>>> this century. With such projections, there are many sources of
>>>> scientific uncertainty, but none are known that could make the impact
> of
>>>> climate change inconsequential. Given the uncertainty in climate
>>>> projections, there can be surprises that may cause more dramatic
>>>> disruptions than anticipated from the most probable model projections.
>>>>
>>>> With climate change, as with ozone depletion, the human footprint on
>
>>>> Earth is apparent. The cause of disruptive climate change, unlike ozone
>
>>>> depletion, is tied to energy use and runs through modern society.
>>>> Solutions will necessarily involve all aspects of society. Mitigation
>
>>>> strategies and adaptation responses will call for collaborations across
>
>>>> science, technology, industry, and government. Members of the AGU, as
>
>>>> part of the scientific community, collectively have special
>>>> responsibilities: to pursue research needed to understand it; to educate
>
>>>> the public on the causes, risks, and hazards; and to communicate clearly
>
>>>> and objectively with those who can implement policies to shape future
>
>>>> climate."
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> From The Geological Society of America
>>>> http://www.geosociety.org/positions/position10.htm
>>>> "The Geological Society of America (GSA) supports the scientific
>>>> conclusions that Earth’s climate is changing; the climate changes are
>
>>>> due in part to human activities; and the probable consequences of the
>
>>>> climate changes will be significant and blind to geopolitical
>>>> boundaries. Furthermore, the potential implications of global climate
>
>>>> change and the time scale over which such changes will likely occur
>>>> require active, effective, long-term planning. GSA also supports
>>>> statements on the global climate change issue made by the joint national
>
>>>> academies of science (June 2005), American Geophysical Union (December,
>
>>>> 2003), and American Chemical Society (2004). GSA strongly encourages
>
>>>> that the following efforts be undertaken internationally: (1) adequately
>
>>>> research climate change at all time scales, (2) develop thoughtful,
>>>> science-based policy appropriate for the multifaceted issues of global
>
>>>> climate change, (3) organize global planning to recognize, prepare for,
>
>>>> and adapt to the causes and consequences of global climate change, and
>
>>>> (4) organize and develop comprehensive, long-term strategies for
>>>> sustainable energy, particularly focused on minimizing impacts on global
>
>>>> climate."
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> From the American Meteorological Society
>>>> http://www.ametsoc.org/POLICY/2007climatechange.html
>>>> "Why is climate changing?
>>>> Climate has changed throughout geological history, for many natural
>>>> reasons such as changes in the sun’s energy received by Earth arising
>
>>> >from slow orbital changes, or changes in the sun’s energy reaching
>>>> Earth’s surface due to volcanic eruptions. In recent decades, humans
>
>>>> have increasingly affected local, regional, and global climate by
>>>> altering the flows of radiative energy and water through the Earth
>>>> system (resulting in changes in temperature, winds, rainfall, etc.),
>
>>>> which comprises the atmosphere, land surface, vegetation, ocean, land
>
>>>> ice, and sea ice. Indeed, strong observational evidence and results from
>
>>>> modeling studies indicate that, at least over the last 50 years, human
>
>>>> activities are a major contributor to climate change.
>>>>
>>>> Direct human impact is through changes in the concentration of certain
>
>>>> trace gases such as carbon dioxide, chlorofluorocarbons, methane,
>>>> nitrous oxide, ozone, and water vapor, known collectively as greenhouse
>
>>>> gases. Enhanced greenhouse gases have little effect on the incoming
>>>> energy of the sun, but they act as a blanket to reduce the outgoing
>>>> infrared radiation emitted by Earth and its atmosphere; the surface and
>
>>>> atmosphere therefore warm so as to increase the outgoing energy until
>
>>>> the outgoing and incoming flows of energy are equal. Carbon dioxide
>>>> accounts for about half of the human-induced greenhouse gas contribution
>
>>>> to warming since the late 1800s, with increases in the other greenhouse
>
>>>> gases accounting for the rest; changes in solar output may have provided
>
>>>> an augmentation to warming in the first half of the 20th century.
>>>>
>>>> Carbon dioxide concentration is rising mostly as a result of fossil-fuel
>
>>>> burning and partly from clearing of vegetation; about 50% of the
>>>> enhanced emissions remain in the atmosphere, while the rest of the Earth
>
>>>> system continues to absorb the remaining 50%. In the last 50 years
>>>> atmospheric CO2 concentration has been increasing at a rate much faster
>
>>>> than any rates observed in the geological record of the past several
>
>>>> thousand years. Global annual-mean surface temperatures are rising at
> a
>>>> rapid rate to values higher than at any time in the last 400 (and
>>>> probably in the last 1000) years. Once introduced in the atmosphere,
>
>>>> carbon dioxide remains for at least a few hundred years and implies a
>
>>>> lengthy guarantee of sustained future warming. Further, increases in
>
>>>> greenhouse gases are nearly certain to produce continued increases in
>
>>>> temperature. Such changes in temperature lead to changes in clouds,
>>>> pressure, winds, and rainfall in a complex sequence of further effects."
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Al Gore does,
>>>>> after all he invented the internet.
>>>> Here's what snopes has to say about that:
>>>>
>>>> http://www.snopes.com/quotes/internet.asp
>>>> "Despite the derisive references that continue even today, Al Gore did
>
>>>> not claim he "invented" the Internet, nor did he say anything that could
>
>>>> reasonably be interpreted that way. The "Al Gore said he 'invented' the
>
>>>> Internet" put-downs were misleading, out-of-context distortions of
>>>> something he said during an interview with Wolf Blitzer on CNN's "Late
>
>>>> Edition" program on 9 March 1999."
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Besides, Al Gore is not the point, he's just one guy. Love him or hate
>
>>>> him, the climate will do what it does with or without him. It's best
> to
>>>> look to the actual science.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Nothing like trying to shift the wealth
>>>>> of the world and making money doing it by selling global offsets and
> taxing
>>>>> the shit out of stupid people with a lie!
>>>> That the climate is currently changing is not a lie, it's a measurable
>
>>>> phenomenon we are currently experiencing on our planet.
>>>>
>>>> A lot of evidence points to human contributions to the current climate
>
>>>> change event. So again, this is not a lie.
>>>>
>>>> Your problem is with politics and economics, not with science. Blaming
>
>>>> the science does not help your cause. You have political and economic
>
>>>> objections to some of the proposed solutions, so by all means take them
>
>>>> on. If you don't like using a market mechanism to regulate carbon
>>>> emissions, which is just one idea that's been proposed, there are other
>
>>>> options on the table.
>>>>
>>>> Do your best to move the solutions conversation in a direction you're
>
>>>> more comfortable with. But simple blanket denial of actual evidence and
>
>>>> peer reviewed science won't get you there.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>> The Bush's, the Clinton's, and
>>>>> the Gore's are all Trilateralists, they have done a fine job of lowering
>>>>> the standard of living here in the USA! Long live the CFR, the world
> banks
>>>>> and man made Global warming.
>>>> You can believe what you like about all that, except that there is
>>>> actual evidence supporting human contributions to the current climate
>
>>>> change event. Again, ignoring evidence won't get you very far.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>> By the way, if you buy the man made global warming lie, I got some swamp
>>>>> land I'd like to sell you!
>>>> You're being sold swamp land already, possibly by the fossil fuels
>>>> industry, and by people who want to maintain power and income.
>>>>
>>>> http://www.cbc.ca/fifth/denialmachine/index.html
>>>> "The Denial Machine investigates the roots of the campaign to negate
> the
>>>> science and the threat of global warming. It tracks the activities of
> a
>>>> group of scientists, some of whom previously consulted for Big Tobacco,
>
>>>> and who are now receiving donations from major coal and oil companies."
>>>>
>>>> http://www.exxonsecrets.org/
>>>> "The database compiles Exxon Foundation and corporate funding to a
>>>> series of institutions who have worked to undermine solutions to global
>
>>>> warming and climate change. It details the working relationships of
>>>> individuals associated with these organizations and their global warming
>
>>>> quotes and deeds."
>>>>
>>>> Cheers,
>>>> -Jamie
>>>> www.JamieKrutz.com
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>> Jamie K <Meta@Dimensional.com> wrote:
>>>>>> Rich Lamanna wrote:
>>>>>>> Must be global warming. Anyone seen this? If you've got an hour check
>>>>> it
>>>>>>> out. It may take a minute or two to load.
>>>>>> Yep, the swindle movie is old news, we even discussed it here.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> As I mentioned at the time, it ignores the main body of peer-reviewed
>
>>>>>> scientific evidence for the sake of sensationalism. It was done that
> way
>>>>>> deliberately by the producers, with no attempt at an objective look
> at
>>>>>> the actual scientific evidence. Fair and balanced it ain't.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> I do like the breathless announcer, fast cuts and dramatic music. It's
>
>>>>>> always fun to see a one-sided polemic that ironically accuses others
> of
>>>>>> being one-sided. I doubt anyone here is gullible enough to take it
> as an
>>>>>> objective authority.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> But anyway, here's more (follow the links):
>>>>>>
>>>>>> From:
>>>>>> http://climatedenial.org/2007/05/01/why-was-the-great-global -warming-swindle-so-persuasive/
>>>>>> "The fans of the film would argue that it has been effective because
> it
>>>>>> is true. But truth is not, of itself, persuasive. When we receive new
>
>>>>>> information on a topic we have no idea whether it is true or not. We
>
>>>>>> base our conclusions on how it was presented to us, whether it concurs
>
>>>>>> with what we already know about that topic, how far we trust the person
>>>>>> telling us, and how well that information fits inside our world view.
> We
>>>>>> then seek to match our initial conclusions against the conclusions
> of
>>>>>> our peers. So, although we think we seek truth, the process by which
> we
>>>>>> reach opinions is equally capable of leading us in the wrong direction.
>>>>>> It turns out that Swindle was a collection of rather crude distortions
>
>>>>>> in an elegant package. We now know that the data was misrepresented,
> the
>>>>>> charts re-arranged, and the interviews edited in ways that were designed
>>>>>> to mislead."
>>>>>>
>>>>>> From: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Great_Global_Warming_Swindl e
>>>>>> "Although the documentary was welcomed by global warming sceptics,
> it
>>>>>> was criticised heavily by many scientific organisations and individual
>
>>>>>> scientists (including two of the film's contributors[3][4]). The film's
>>>>>> critics argued that it had misused data, relied on out-of-date research,
>>>>>> employed misleading arguments, and misrepresented the position of the
>
>>>>>> Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change."
>>>>>>
>>>>>> From: http://www.climateofdenial.net/?q=node/7
>>>>>> "The DVD version of ‘The Great Global Warming Swindle’ has been
>>>>>> available for purchase since late July 2007. The front of the
>>>>>> presentation case describes it as a “documentary”, which is defined
> by
>>>>>> the Oxford English Dictionary as “a film or television or radio
>>>>>> programme giving a factual account of something, using film,
>>>>>> photographs, and sound recordings of real events”. However, the DVD
>
>>>>>> contains at least five major misrepresentations of the scientific
>>>>>> evidence and researchers’ views on climate change. This document
>>>>>> presents details of the five misrepresentations."
>>>>>>
>>>>>> From http://www.medialens.org/alerts/07/0313pure_propaganda_the.p hp
>>>>>> "What we now have is an out-and-out propaganda piece, in which there
> is
>>>>>> not even a gesture toward balance or explanation of why many of the
>
>>>>>> extended inferences drawn in the film are not widely accepted by the
>
>>>>>> scientific community. There are so many examples, it's hard to know
>
>>>>>> where to begin, so I will cite only one: a speaker asserts, as is true,
>>>>>> that carbon dioxide is only a small fraction of the atmospheric mass.
>
>>>>>> The viewer is left to infer that means it couldn't really matter. But
>
>>>>>> even a beginning meteorology student could tell you that the relative
>
>>>>>> masses of gases are irrelevant to their effects on radiative balance.
> A
>>>>>> director not intending to produce pure propaganda would have tried
> to
>>>>>> eliminate that piece of disinformation.” (http://ocean.mit.edu/~cwunsch/
>>>>>> papersonline/channel4response)"
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Cheers,
>>>>>> -Jamie
>>>>>> www.JamieKrutz.com
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Rich Lamanna wrote:
>>>>>>> Must be global warming. Anyone seen this? If you've got an hour check
>>>>> it
>>>>>>> out. It may take a minute or two to load.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> http://en.sevenload.com/videos/ha4PoKY/The-Great-Global-Warm ing-Swindle
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Rich
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> "EK Sound" <ask_me@nospam.net> wrote in message news:479e36ad$1@linux...
>>>>>>>> Woke up this morning and the temp with wind chill was -59C >:(
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Why did I move here again???
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> David.
>
|
|
|
|
|
|
| Re: I hate winter... [message #95252 is a reply to message #95245] |
Wed, 30 January 2008 02:03 |
Jamie K
Messages: 1115
Registered: July 2006
|
Senior Member |
|
|
Rich Lamanna wrote:
> Jamie, the scientists interviewed in the film are "real" scientists, some
> who had to sue the IPCC to have their names removed from the report due to
> blatant omissions of the facts.
Out of all the many scientists involved in that report, how many are you
referring to?
In fact, most of the scientists involved do not fall into that category.
It would be wise to listen to them ALL, and not simply ignore most of
the scientists as this polemic "swindle" film did. That's a clear bias.
> In fact there is not a consensus, as many
> scientists disagree as agree.
You mean to claim there's a 50/50 split among climate scientists? Sorry,
but that's not even close to true. If it WERE just a simple vote by
published scientists in the field, it would be a landslide to the
consensus. But voting doesn't matter, evidence does. And on that point,
again the consensus is on the high ground.
A large chunk of the "controversy" is due to PR and lobbying from some
of the fossil fuel companies, who are currently making record profits.
They are obviously at risk for a drop in short term profits as countries
look for alternatives that spew less greenhouse gases into the atmosphere.
Hence the FUD campaign. And so some of the more prominent contrarians
have been funded from that special interest source in order to amplify
any and all objections. To create and exaggerate controversy.
Anyway, here's an overview that looks at the history and some of the
science behind the consensus view:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Global_warming
> Sea levels have been rising since the last ice
> age ended, around 15,000 years ago. There were no man made CO2 generating
> factories, cars, etc.... The Bahama bank was a huge land mass, now it's a
> collection of islands. We are at the end of a warming period in the planets
> vacillating temperature cycles.
Here's the thing. Climate scientists aren't stupid. They have been
studying the history of the earth and the atmosphere very carefully in
order to find out where we are and how we got here. So it's not like
they're ignoring any of that. And still the evidence points to a strong
chance that we are contributing to the current climate change event.
Read ALL the science.
> Humans are a pimple on the ass of the earth.
Speak for yourself! ;^)
However, consider that your pimple problem can be just enough for that
cute girl to say no when you ask her out. IOW it can make a big difference.
Likewise, it doesn't take much of a change in greenhouse gases to affect
the climate.
Why? Visible light passes through the atmosphere and is absorbed by the
ground. The ground reradiates some of that energy as infrared heat.
Most of our air, about 99 percent, is nitrogen and oxygen. Infrared
energy passes through nitrogen and oxygen heading for space. If there
were no so-called "greenhouse gases," much of that heat would radiate
out into space. The earth would be a much colder planet. Too cold for
the life we know and love to survive. Including us. We wouldn't be here.
But add in that tiny, tiny percentage of greenhouse gases and things
change significantly. C02, for example, is one of the gases that absorbs
the infrared heat energy and reradiates it. In the troposphere where we
live, these sparse but effective gases heat the air and the earth by
redirecting about half of the heat toward the ground (the rest is bucket
brigaded out to space). With that extra retained heat, the ecosystems we
know and love can thrive, and we have a place to live. Great!
But very recently in our history we've started to affect the greenhouse
gas component by digging up ancient carbon and pumping some of it into
the air. Here's where extra C02 comes into the picture, a byproduct of
burning that carbon.
Remember that it doesn't take much of a change in our very minor
greenhouse gas percentage to alter how much heat is retained. In less
than a century the evidence suggests we've started bumping up the
Earth's thermostat in a measurable way.
Today we are burning a huge and growing amount of ancient hydrocarbons,
including coal and oil. We are releasing byproducts as greenhouse gases
that would otherwise largely remain sequestered underground (see the
postscript below for some oil statistics). It's a huge, uncontrolled
experiment.
Bottom line: Very minute changes in the tiny percentage of greenhouse
gases can have a large effect on climate. We are providing that change
via our appetite for unleashing ancient carbon into today's atmosphere.
And yes, it's enough to make a difference.
More about greenhouse gases:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Greenhouse_gas
> The effect mankind has on the planet is negligible.
Not true. In fact we came very close to seriously impairing the
protective ozone layer, which blocks harmful UV radiation that is
otherwise a threat to life on earth.
After changes in human behavior (banning chlorofluorocarbons) the
stratospheric ozone is still in recovery (chlorofluorocarbons take a
long time to dissipate). If memory serves, it will take more than fifty
additional years for the ozone to recover. In the mean time we still
have a large ozone hole over Antarctica to remind us of the effects we
can and do have on atmospheric chemistry.
More on the ozone layer:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ozone_layer
> If anything we should be
> more concerned about the next ice age which is guaranteed. Try to imagine
> what the earth looked like 15,000 years ago. It was covered in ice dude. I
> personally prefer global warming.
A rapid rate of change in the current climate change event may be a
significant problem. Ecosystems may not be able to keep up. This could
put a number of species at risk.
As to the next ice age, are you kidding? You won't live nearly long
enough to see the next ice age. But you're already living through the
beginnings of the current warming event.
> There are several reports stating that sea levels have been falling.
> http://www.iceagenow.com/Sea_levels_are_falling.htm
> http://www.iceagenow.com/Arctic_Sea_Level_Falling.htm
Heh. "iceagenow." As if we're having an ice age RIGHT NOW. :^)
In fact, we're involved in a measurable warming trend. Although one
theory does say that if the Atlantic flow reverses due to warming,
(preventing warm waters from flowing up from the south on the east
coast), it could actually plunge parts of North America in a long term
regional cold spell due to new weather patterns. If that happens, we
might think it's an ice age in the affected area, but planet-wide the
average would still be warmer.
Anyway, in any given location, sea level is variable based on many
factors, including local water temperature, inflow, outflow, wind blown
effects, salt concentration, evaporation, precipitation, and currents.
Note that the satellite which measured a slight 2.17 millimeter drop per
year in Arctic sea level from 1995 to 2003 (which adds up to a little
over half an inch for that entire 8 year period in that local area) -
that same satellite also measured a worldwide yearly sea level RISE.
There's a clear bias in the way the iceagenow web site trumpets the
local data as gospel, and then turns around and criticizes the global
data from the SAME SATELLITE. They can't have it both ways.
More:
http://gristmill.grist.org/story/2006/11/9/162012/366
http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2006/06/sea-le vel-in-the-arctic/
BTW, I couldn't find much on the Maldives assertions except that the
author has claimed a drop in sea level there for a short period in the
70s, and claimed an increase in local evaporation at that time. While
it's quite clear the iceagenow web site is scouting for any report of
sea level drop they can get their hands on, even if just a local one,
their simultaneous dismissal of global satellite data showing a rising
overall sea level shows clear bias. It seems to me that the global data
is the telling indicator of overall sea level trends, and iceagenow is
obviously cherrypicking local data wherever they can find a drop, even
though such local drops are not unexpected because local sea level is
variable.
If we see accelerated melting of the Antarctic ice sheets and the
Greenland ice sheet, sea level will be impacted much more dramatically.
There's an article on that in the current Scientific American, check it
out. I haven't finished it yet but it's on the reading pile...
Another possible impact of the warming climate is rising sea level due
to water expansion as the average ocean temperature goes up.
> To the contrary many glaciers are growing.
> http://www.iceagenow.com/List_of_Expanding_Glaciers.htm
Here again, it's not good enough to cherrypick a few glaciers. Overall,
glaciers are shrinking.
http://gristmill.grist.org/story/2006/10/31/115130/58
http://www.geo.unizh.ch/wgms/mbb/mb04/sum04.html
http://nsidc.org/sotc/glacier_balance.html
Quote: "At one time or another, researchers have measured mass balance
on more than 300 glaciers since 1946, although we only have a continuous
record from about 40 glaciers since the early 1960s. These results
indicate that in most regions of the world, glaciers are shrinking in mass."
Check out the data graphed on the web site.
BTW, climate change doesn't mean that every square inch of the earth
will have identical weather. So in some places, it may actually get
colder, some places warmer, but on average, the earth is getting warmer.
Don't be fooled by cherrypicked local data (again, by the iceagenow
site, sheesh!).
> There's global warming on Mars by the way too. This suggests a solar not
> human cause.
> http://www.iceagenow.com/Global_Warming_on_Mars.htm
Mars vs. Earth is an apples/oranges comparison. Don't get distracted by
that one. The mechanism and result on Mars is different. Iceagenow is
not telling the complete story, to put it mildly.
From: http://gristmill.grist.org/story/2006/12/17/222712/69
Quote: "The only relevant factor the earth and Mars share is the sun, so
if the warming were real and related, that would be the logical place to
look. As it happens, the sun is being watched and measured carefully
back here on earth, and it is not the primary cause of current climate
change."
(More on the sun's role:
http://gristmill.grist.org/story/2006/12/28/090/30666)."
Quote: "On Earth, we have poles melting, surface temperature rising,
tropospheric temperatures rising, permafrost melting, glaciers worldwide
melting, CO2 concentrations increasing, borehole analysis showing
warming, sea ice receding, proxy reconstructions showing warming, sea
level rising, sea surface temperatures rising, energy imbalance, ice
sheets melting, and stratospheric cooling, all of which leads us to
believe the earth is undergoing global warming driven by an enhanced
greenhouse effect. One Mars we have one spot melting, which leads us to
believe that ... one spot is melting."
From: http://www.realclimate.org/index.php?p=192
Quote: "Globally, the mean temperature of the Martian atmosphere is
particularly sensitive to the strength and duration of hemispheric dust
storms, (see for example here and here). Large scale dust storms change
the atmospheric opacity and convection; as always when comparing mean
temperatures, the altitude at which the measurement is made matters, but
to the extent it is sensible to speak of a mean temperature for Mars,
the evidence is for significant cooling from the 1970's, when Viking
made measurements, compared to current temperatures. However, this is
essentially due to large scale dust storms that were common back then,
compared to a lower level of storminess now. The mean temperature on
Mars, averaged over the Martian year can change by many degrees from
year to year, depending on how active large scale dust storms are.
In 2001, Malin et al published a short article in Science (subscription
required) discussing MGS data showing a rapid shrinkage of the South
Polar Cap. Recently, the MGS team had a press release discussing more
recent data showing the trend had continued. MGS 2001 press release MGS
2005 press release. The shrinkage of the Martian South Polar Cap is
almost certainly a regional climate change, and is not any indication of
global warming trends in the Martian atmosphere. Colaprete et al in
Nature 2005 (subscription required) showed, using the Mars GCM, that the
south polar climate is unstable due to the peculiar topography near the
pole, and the current configuration is on the instability border; we
therefore expect to see rapid changes in ice cover as the regional
climate transits between the unstable states.
Thus inferring global warming from a 3 Martian year regional trend is
unwarranted. The observed regional changes in south polar ice cover are
almost certainly due to a regional climate transition, not a global
phenomenon, and are demonstrably unrelated to external forcing. There is
a slight irony in people rushing to claim that the glacier changes on
Mars are a sure sign of global warming, while not being swayed by the
much more persuasive analogous phenomena here on Earth…"
It's not credible when a source, such as iceagenow, grasps at any
possible objection to human contributions to climate change, while
turning a blind eye to the majority of evidence gathered over decades of
research, research that actually shows a strong likelyhood of human
contributions to the current climate change event.
It's not credible to ignore the billions of dollars at stake, in the
short term for the fossil fuels industry. Money distorts the discussion.
And it's not credible to imply that most of the scientific experts too
stupid to understand the role of the sun or other basic drivers of
climate. Or that they are all in a vast conspiracy of some sort. They
can't be both utterly stupid and diabolically clever. That's where the
denial industry PR flacks contradict themselves.
While it's useful to have some amount of contrarianism in science, in
this case it hasn't risen to the level of the consensus even with the
backing of well heeled special interests.
And so, despite the special interest denial industry's best efforts,
denial, half truths, and outright lies are NOT stopping us from acting
on what we already know, for which our kids will be grateful.
Denial sites may be fun, but read ALL the science if you truly want to
better understand the situation.
Cheers,
-Jamie
www.JamieKrutz.com
PS. Recent oil consumption snapshot (in billion barrels per DAY) - (just
one of the ways we're adding extra greenhouse gases to the atmosphere
every day, week in and week out, month after month, year after
year...and consumption is growing):
#1 United States: 20,730,000 bbl/day
#2 China: 6,534,000 bbl/day
#3 Japan: 5,578,000 bbl/day
#4 Germany: 2,650,000 bbl/day
#5 Russia: 2,500,000 bbl/day
#6 India: 2,450,000 bbl/day
#7 Canada: 2,294,000 bbl/day
#8 Korea, South: 2,149,000 bbl/day
#9 Brazil: 2,100,000 bbl/day
#10 France: 1,970,000 bbl/day
#11 Mexico: 1,970,000 bbl/day
#12 Italy: 1,881,000 bbl/day
#13 Saudi Arabia: 1,845,000 bbl/day
#14 United Kingdom: 1,827,000 bbl/day
#15 Spain: 1,573,000 bbl/day
#16 Iran: 1,510,000 bbl/day
#17 Indonesia: 1,168,000 bbl/day
#18 Taiwan: 965,000 bbl/day
#19 Netherlands: 946,700 bbl/day
#20 Thailand: 900,000 bbl/day
#21 Australia: 877,300 bbl/day
#22 Singapore: 800,000 bbl/day
#23 Turkey: 715,100 bbl/day
#24 Belgium: 641,000 bbl/day
#25 Egypt: 590,000 bbl/day
#26 Venezuela: 560,000 bbl/day
#27 Malaysia: 515,000 bbl/day
#28 South Africa: 502,000 bbl/day
#29 Argentina: 470,000 bbl/day
#30 Poland: 445,700 bbl/day
#31 Greece: 435,700 bbl/day
#32 United Arab Emirates: 400,000 bbl/day
#33 Iraq: 377,000 bbl/day
#34 Sweden: 362,400 bbl/day
#35 Philippines: 342,000 bbl/day
#36 Kuwait: 335,000 bbl/day
#37 Portugal: 332,000 bbl/day
#38 Pakistan: 324,000 bbl/day
#39 Nigeria: 290,000 bbl/day
#40 Hong Kong: 285,000 bbl/day
#41 Ukraine: 284,600 bbl/day
#42 Austria: 282,000 bbl/day
#43 Colombia: 269,000 bbl/day
#44 Switzerland: 268,100 bbl/day
#45 Israel: 249,500 bbl/day
#46 Norway: 244,300 bbl/day
#47 Chile: 238,000 bbl/day
#48 Libya: 237,000 bbl/day
#49 Puerto Rico: 234,000 bbl/day
#50 Algeria: 233,000 bbl/day
#51 Vietnam: 230,000 bbl/day
#52 Syria: 230,000 bbl/day
#53 Kazakhstan: 222,000 bbl/day
#54 Finland: 220,400 bbl/day
#55 Romania: 212,000 bbl/day
#56 Cuba: 204,000 bbl/day
#57 Czech Republic: 203,100 bbl/day
#58 Ireland: 182,400 bbl/day
#59 Denmark: 171,000 bbl/day
#60 Morocco: 170,000 bbl/day
#61 Belarus: 165,000 bbl/day
#62 Peru: 156,000 bbl/day
#63 New Zealand: 150,600 bbl/day
#64 Uzbekistan: 148,000 bbl/day
#65 Ecuador: 148,000 bbl/day
#66 Hungary: 132,000 bbl/day
#67 Bulgaria: 131,400 bbl/day
#68 Dominican Republic: 127,000 bbl/day
#69 Azerbaijan: 120,000 bbl/day
#70 Virgin Islands: 115,000 bbl/day
#71 Lebanon: 107,000 bbl/day
#72 Jordan: 107,000 bbl/day
#73 Turkmenistan: 95,000 bbl/day
#74 Croatia: 93,000 bbl/day
#75 Tunisia: 89,000 bbl/day
#76 Serbia and Montenegro: 85,000 bbl/day
#77 Yemen: 85,000 bbl/day
#78 Bangladesh: 85,000 bbl/day
#79 Sri Lanka: 82,000 bbl/day
#80 Qatar: 80,000 bbl/day
#81 Panama: 79,000 bbl/day
#82 Slovakia: 74,000 bbl/day
#83 Guatemala: 73,510 bbl/day
#84 Jamaica: 72,080 bbl/day
#85 Netherlands Antilles: 70,000 bbl/day
#86 Sudan: 66,000 bbl/day
#87 Luxembourg: 62,420 bbl/day
#88 Estonia: 60,000 bbl/day
#89 Oman: 60,000 bbl/day
#90 Lithuania: 56,000 bbl/day
#91 Kenya: 55,000 bbl/day
#92 Slovenia: 53,000 bbl/day
#93 Angola: 48,000 bbl/day
#94 Latvia: 47,000 bbl/day
#95 Bolivia: 47,000 bbl/day
#96 Costa Rica: 44,000 bbl/day
#97 Ghana: 44,000 bbl/day
#98 El Salvador: 43,000 bbl/day
#99 Armenia: 41,000 bbl/day
#100 Uruguay: 38,100 bbl/day
#101 Honduras: 37,000 bbl/day
#102 Trinidad and Tobago: 34,000 bbl/day
#103 Senegal: 31,000 bbl/day
#104 Ethiopia: 29,000 bbl/day
#105 Tajikistan: 28,000 bbl/day
#106 Bahrain: 27,000 bbl/day
#107 Paraguay: 27,000 bbl/day
#108 Bahamas, The: 27,000 bbl/day
#109 Nicaragua: 25,200 bbl/day
#110 Albania: 25,200 bbl/day
#111 Korea, North: 25,000 bbl/day
#112 Mauritania: 24,200 bbl/day
#113 Cameroon: 24,000 bbl/day
#114 Gibraltar: 24,000 bbl/day
#115 Côte d'Ivoire: 23,000 bbl/day
#116 Tanzania: 23,000 bbl/day
#117 Bosnia and Herzegovina: 23,000 bbl/day
#118 Macedonia, Republic of: 23,000 bbl/day
#119 Zimbabwe: 22,500 bbl/day
#120 Mauritius: 21,500 bbl/day
#121 Iceland: 20,560 bbl/day
#122 Burma: 20,460 bbl/day
#123 Malta: 19,000 bbl/day
#124 Papua New Guinea: 18,000 bbl/day
#125 Namibia: 18,000 bbl/day
#126 Guam: 16,000 bbl/day
#127 Brunei: 14,900 bbl/day
#128 Madagascar: 14,500 bbl/day
#129 Togo: 14,000 bbl/day
#130 Benin: 14,000 bbl/day
#131 Moldova: 14,000 bbl/day
#132 Georgia: 13,000 bbl/day
#133 Gabon: 13,000 bbl/day
#134 Zambia: 13,000 bbl/day
#135 Macau: 12,360 bbl/day
#136 Djibouti: 11,900 bbl/day
#137 Haiti: 11,600 bbl/day
#138 Nepal: 11,550 bbl/day
#139 Mozambique: 11,500 bbl/day
#140 Botswana: 11,500 bbl/day
#141 Mongolia: 11,220 bbl/day
#142 Guyana: 11,200 bbl/day
#143 Suriname: 11,200 bbl/day
#144 Barbados: 11,000 bbl/day
#145 Uganda: 10,890 bbl/day
#146 New Caledonia: 10,000 bbl/day
#147 Kyrgyzstan: 10,000 bbl/day
#148 Fiji: 10,000 bbl/day
#149 Guinea: 9,650 bbl/day
#150 Congo, Democratic Republic of the: 8,200 bbl/day
#151 Burkina Faso: 8,200 bbl/day
#152 Maldives: 7,200 bbl/day
#153 Aruba: 7,000 bbl/day
#154 Sierra Leone: 6,600 bbl/day
#155 French Polynesia: 6,000 bbl/day
#156 Congo, Republic of the: 6,000 bbl/day
#157 Seychelles: 5,600 bbl/day
#158 Niger: 5,500 bbl/day
#159 Malawi: 5,500 bbl/day
#160 Rwanda: 5,400 bbl/day
#161 Eritrea: 5,300 bbl/day
#162 Somalia: 5,000 bbl/day
#163 Bermuda: 4,658 bbl/day
#164 Faroe Islands: 4,550 bbl/day
#165 Afghanistan: 4,500 bbl/day
#166 Mali: 4,300 bbl/day
#167 American Samoa: 3,900 bbl/day
#168 Greenland: 3,860 bbl/day
#169 Antigua and Barbuda: 3,800 bbl/day
#170 Cambodia: 3,750 bbl/day
#171 Liberia: 3,500 bbl/day
#172 Swaziland: 3,500 bbl/day
#173 Burundi: 3,100 bbl/day
#174 Belize: 3,000 bbl/day
#175 Laos: 3,000 bbl/day
#176 Saint Lucia: 2,800 bbl/day
#177 Cayman Islands: 2,600 bbl/day
#178 Guinea-Bissau: 2,500 bbl/day
#179 Central African Republic: 2,420 bbl/day
#180 Gambia, The: 2,000 bbl/day
#181 Grenada: 1,800 bbl/day
#182 Western Sahara: 1,800 bbl/day
#183 Chad: 1,460 bbl/day
#184 Lesotho: 1,400 bbl/day
#185 Saint Vincent and the Grenadines: 1,400 bbl/day
#186 Solomon Islands: 1,280 bbl/day
#187 Equatorial Guinea: 1,220 bbl/day
#188 Bhutan: 1,160 bbl/day
#189 Cape Verde: 1,150 bbl/day
#190 Samoa: 1,000 bbl/day
#191 Nauru: 1,000 bbl/day
#192 Tonga: 900 bbl/day
#193 Dominica: 900 bbl/day
#194 Saint Kitts and Nevis: 800 bbl/day
#195 Comoros: 720 bbl/day
#196 São Tomé and Príncipe: 660 bbl/day
#197 Vanuatu: 620 bbl/day
#198 Saint Pierre and Miquelon: 500 bbl/day
#199 British Virgin Islands: 480 bbl/day
#200 Cook Islands: 420 bbl/day
#201 Montserrat: 380 bbl/day
#202 Falkland Islands (Islas Malvinas): 230 bbl/day
#203 Kiribati: 200 bbl/day
#204 Saint Helena: 100 bbl/day
#205 Turks and Caicos Islands: 80 bbl/day
#206 Niue: 20 bbl/day
Total: 82,234,918 bbl/day
http://www.nationmaster.com/graph/ene_oil_con-energy-oil-con sumption
> Night,
> Rich
>
>
> "Jamie K" <Meta@Dimensional.com> wrote in message news:479edb94$1@linux...
>> Rich Lamanna wrote:
>> > Must be global warming. Anyone seen this? If you've got an hour check
> it
>> > out. It may take a minute or two to load.
>>
>> Yep, the swindle movie is old news, we even discussed it here.
>>
>> As I mentioned at the time, it ignores the main body of peer-reviewed
>> scientific evidence for the sake of sensationalism. It was done that way
>> deliberately by the producers, with no attempt at an objective look at
>> the actual scientific evidence. Fair and balanced it ain't.
>>
>> I do like the breathless announcer, fast cuts and dramatic music. It's
>> always fun to see a one-sided polemic that ironically accuses others of
>> being one-sided. I doubt anyone here is gullible enough to take it as an
>> objective authority.
>>
>> But anyway, here's more (follow the links):
>>
>> From:
>>
> http://climatedenial.org/2007/05/01/why-was-the-great-global -warming-swindle-so-persuasive/
>> "The fans of the film would argue that it has been effective because it
>> is true. But truth is not, of itself, persuasive. When we receive new
>> information on a topic we have no idea whether it is true or not. We
>> base our conclusions on how it was presented to us, whether it concurs
>> with what we already know about that topic, how far we trust the person
>> telling us, and how well that information fits inside our world view. We
>> then seek to match our initial conclusions against the conclusions of
>> our peers. So, although we think we seek truth, the process by which we
>> reach opinions is equally capable of leading us in the wrong direction.
>> It turns out that Swindle was a collection of rather crude distortions
>> in an elegant package. We now know that the data was misrepresented, the
>> charts re-arranged, and the interviews edited in ways that were designed
>> to mislead."
>>
>> From: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Great_Global_Warming_Swindl e
>> "Although the documentary was welcomed by global warming sceptics, it
>> was criticised heavily by many scientific organisations and individual
>> scientists (including two of the film's contributors[3][4]). The film's
>> critics argued that it had misused data, relied on out-of-date research,
>> employed misleading arguments, and misrepresented the position of the
>> Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change."
>>
>> From: http://www.climateofdenial.net/?q=node/7
>> "The DVD version of ‘The Great Global Warming Swindle’ has been
>> available for purchase since late July 2007. The front of the
>> presentation case describes it as a “documentary”, which is defined by
>> the Oxford English Dictionary as “a film or television or radio
>> programme giving a factual account of something, using film,
>> photographs, and sound recordings of real events”. However, the DVD
>> contains at least five major misrepresentations of the scientific
>> evidence and researchers’ views on climate change. This document
>> presents details of the five misrepresentations."
>>
>> From http://www.medialens.org/alerts/07/0313pure_propaganda_the.p hp
>> "What we now have is an out-and-out propaganda piece, in which there is
>> not even a gesture toward balance or explanation of why many of the
>> extended inferences drawn in the film are not widely accepted by the
>> scientific community. There are so many examples, it's hard to know
>> where to begin, so I will cite only one: a speaker asserts, as is true,
>> that carbon dioxide is only a small fraction of the atmospheric mass.
>> The viewer is left to infer that means it couldn't really matter. But
>> even a beginning meteorology student could tell you that the relative
>> masses of gases are irrelevant to their effects on radiative balance. A
>> director not intending to produce pure propaganda would have tried to
>> eliminate that piece of disinformation.” (http://ocean.mit.edu/~cwunsch/
>> papersonline/channel4response)"
>>
>> Cheers,
>> -Jamie
>> www.JamieKrutz.com
>>
>>
>>
>> Rich Lamanna wrote:
>>> Must be global warming. Anyone seen this? If you've got an hour check
> it
>>> out. It may take a minute or two to load.
>>>
>>> http://en.sevenload.com/videos/ha4PoKY/The-Great-Global-Warm ing-Swindle
>>>
>>> Rich
>>>
>>> "EK Sound" <ask_me@nospam.net> wrote in message news:479e36ad$1@linux...
>>>> Woke up this morning and the temp with wind chill was -59C >:(
>>>>
>>>> Why did I move here again???
>>>>
>>>> David.
>>>
>
>
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| I just this liberal would get a clue...... [message #95292 is a reply to message #95246] |
Thu, 31 January 2008 15:26 |
Deej [5]
Messages: 373
Registered: March 2008
|
Senior Member |
|
|
http://www.spiked-online.com/index.php?/site/reviewofbooks_p rintable/4357/
;o)
"Jamie K" <Meta@Dimensional.com> wrote in message news:47a0168b@linux...
> chuck duffy wrote:
>> So does this evidence mean that .........
>
> ....global dimming and greenhouse gas induced warming are two different
> processes that for a time overlapped. Global dimming is not going to
> magically save us from the current warming trend. We're on the right track
> with worldwide plans to slow our contribution of greenhouse gases ASAP.
>
> Cheers,
> -Jamie
> www.JamieKrutz.com
>
>
>
>> Chuck
>> Jamie K <Meta@Dimensional.com> wrote:
>>> rick wrote:
>>>> this is a mac vs pc thing in disguise isn't it? ;o) thank god for
>>>> global dimming...
>>> Heh. Mac vs. PC is more benign.
>>>
>>> Here's a paper on the relationship between global dimming and greenhouse
>>
>>> warming: http://www.iac.ethz.ch/people/wild/2006GL028031.pdf
>>>
>>> From the summary:
>>> "In the present study we investigated the role of solar dimming and
>>> brightening in the context of recent global warming. Our analysis showed
>>
>>> that the decadal changes of land mean surface temperature as well as
>>> TMAX, TMIN, and DTR are in line with the proposed transition in surface
>>> solar radiation from dimming to brightening during the 1980s and with
>>> the increasing greenhouse effect. This suggests that solar dimming,
>>> possibly favoured by increasing air pollution, was effective in masking
>>
>>> greenhouse warming up to the 1980s, but not thereafter, when the dimming
>>
>>> disappeared and atmospheres started to clear up.
>>>
>>> The temperature response since the mid-1980s may therefore be a more
>>> genuine reflection of the greenhouse effect than during the decades
>>> before, which were subject to solar dimming. Unlike to the decades prior
>>
>>> to the 1980s, the recent rapid temperature rise therefore no longer
>>> underrates the response of the climate system to greenhouse forcing and
>>
>>> reflects the full magnitude of the greenhouse effect."
>>>
>>> More discussion here:
>>> http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2007/11/global -dimming-and-global-warming/
>>>
>>> Cheers,
>>> -Jamie
>>> www.JamieKrutz.com
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>> On Tue, 29 Jan 2008 10:51:55 -0700, Jamie K <Meta@Dimensional.com>
>>>> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> James McCloskey wrote:
>>>>>> Yep, those scientist don't know what they are talking about,
>>>>> If you're looking for the opinion of scientists, here's a start:
>>>>>
>>>>> From the American Physical Society
>>>>> http://www.aps.org/policy/statements/07_1.cfm
>>>>> "Emissions of greenhouse gases from human activities are changing the
>>
>>>>> atmosphere in ways that affect the Earth's climate. Greenhouse gases
>>
>>>>> include carbon dioxide as well as methane, nitrous oxide and other
>>>>> gases. They are emitted from fossil fuel combustion and a range of
>>>>> industrial and agricultural processes.
>>>>>
>>>>> The evidence is incontrovertible: Global warming is occurring. If no
>>
>>>>> mitigating actions are taken, significant disruptions in the Earth’s
>>
>>>>> physical and ecological systems, social systems, security and human
>>>>> health are likely to occur. We must reduce emissions of greenhouse
>>>>> gases
>>
>>>>> beginning now."
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> From the National Academy of Sciences
>>>>> http://nationalacademies.org/onpi/06072005.pdf
>>>>> "Climate change is real:
>>>>> There will always be uncertainty in understanding a system as complex
>> as
>>>>> the world’s climate. However there is now strong evidence that
>>>>> significant global warming is occurring1. The evidence comes from
>>>>> direct
>>
>>>>> measurements of rising surface air temperatures and subsurface ocean
>>
>>>>> temperatures and from phenomena such as increases in average global
>>>>> sea
>>
>>>>> levels, retreating glaciers, and changes to many physical and
>>>>> biological
>>
>>>>> systems. It is likely that most of the warming in recent decades can
>> be
>>>>> attributed to human activities (IPCC 2001)2. This warming has already
>>
>>>>> led to changes in the Earth's climate.
>>>>>
>>>>> The existence of greenhouse gases in the atmosphere is vital to life
>> on
>>>>> Earth – in their absence average temperatures would be about 30
>>>>> centigrade degrees lower than they are today. But human activities are
>>
>>>>> now causing atmospheric concentrations of greenhouse gases – including
>>
>>>>> carbon dioxide, methane, tropospheric ozone, and nitrous oxide – to
>>>>> rise
>>
>>>>> well above pre-industrial levels. Carbon dioxide levels have increased
>>
>>>> >from 280 ppm in 1750 to over 375 ppm today – higher than any previous
>>
>>>>> levels that can be reliably measured (i.e. in the last 420,000 years).
>>
>>>>> Increasing greenhouse gases are causing
>>>>> temperatures to rise; the Earth’s surface warmed by approximately 0.6
>>
>>>>> centigrade degrees over the twentieth century. The Intergovernmental
>>
>>>>> Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) projected that the average global
>>>>> surface
>>
>>>>> temperatures will continue to increase to between 1.4 centigrade
>>>>> degrees
>>
>>>>> and 5.8 centigrade degrees above 1990 levels, by 2100."
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> From the American Geophysical Union
>>>>> http://www.agu.org/sci_soc/policy/positions/climate_change20 08.shtml
>>>>> "Human Impacts on Climate:
>>>>> The Earth's climate is now clearly out of balance and is warming. Many
>>
>>>>> components of the climate system—including the temperatures of the
>>>>> atmosphere, land and ocean, the extent of sea ice and mountain
>>>>> glaciers,
>>
>>>>> the sea level, the distribution of precipitation, and the length of
>>>>> seasons—are now changing at rates and in patterns that are not natural
>>
>>>>> and are best explained by the increased atmospheric abundances of
>>>>> greenhouse gases and aerosols generated by human activity during the
>>
>>>>> 20th century. Global average surface temperatures increased on average
>>
>>>>> by about 0.6°C over the period 1956–2006. As of 2006, eleven of the
>>>>> previous twelve years were warmer than any others since 1850. The
>>>>> observed rapid retreat of Arctic sea ice is expected to continue and
>>
>>>>> lead to the disappearance of summertime ice within this century.
>>>>> Evidence from most oceans and all continents except Antarctica shows
>>
>>>>> warming attributable to human activities. Recent changes in many
>>>>> physical and biological systems are linked with this regional climate
>>
>>>>> change. A sustained research effort, involving many AGU members and
>>>>> summarized in the 2007 assessments of the Intergovernmental Panel on
>>
>>>>> Climate Change, continues to improve our scientific understanding of
>> the
>>>>> climate.
>>>>>
>>>>> During recent millennia of relatively stable climate, civilization
>>>>> became established and populations have grown rapidly. In the next 50
>>
>>>>> years, even the lower limit of impending climate change—an additional
>>
>>>>> global mean warming of 1°C above the last decade—is far beyond the
>>>>> range
>>
>>>>> of climate variability experienced during the past thousand years and
>>
>>>>> poses global problems in planning for and adapting to it. Warming
>>>>> greater than 2°C above 19th century levels is projected to be
>>>>> disruptive, reducing global agricultural productivity, causing
>>>>> widespread loss of biodiversity, and—if sustained over
>>>>> centuries—melting
>>
>>>>> much of the Greenland ice sheet with ensuing rise in sea level of
>>>>> several meters. If this 2°C warming is to be avoided, then our net
>>>>> annual emissions of CO2 must be reduced by more than 50 percent within
>>
>>>>> this century. With such projections, there are many sources of
>>>>> scientific uncertainty, but none are known that could make the impact
>> of
>>>>> climate change inconsequential. Given the uncertainty in climate
>>>>> projections, there can be surprises that may cause more dramatic
>>>>> disruptions than anticipated from the most probable model projections.
>>>>>
>>>>> With climate change, as with ozone depletion, the human footprint on
>>
>>>>> Earth is apparent. The cause of disruptive climate change, unlike
>>>>> ozone
>>
>>>>> depletion, is tied to energy use and runs through modern society.
>>>>> Solutions will necessarily involve all aspects of society. Mitigation
>>
>>>>> strategies and adaptation responses will call for collaborations
>>>>> across
>>
>>>>> science, technology, industry, and government. Members of the AGU, as
>>
>>>>> part of the scientific community, collectively have special
>>>>> responsibilities: to pursue research needed to understand it; to
>>>>> educate
>>
>>>>> the public on the causes, risks, and hazards; and to communicate
>>>>> clearly
>>
>>>>> and objectively with those who can implement policies to shape future
>>
>>>>> climate."
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> From The Geological Society of America
>>>>> http://www.geosociety.org/positions/position10.htm
>>>>> "The Geological Society of America (GSA) supports the scientific
>>>>> conclusions that Earth’s climate is changing; the climate changes are
>>
>>>>> due in part to human activities; and the probable consequences of the
>>
>>>>> climate changes will be significant and blind to geopolitical
>>>>> boundaries. Furthermore, the potential implications of global climate
>>
>>>>> change and the time scale over which such changes will likely occur
>>>>> require active, effective, long-term planning. GSA also supports
>>>>> statements on the global climate change issue made by the joint
>>>>> national
>>
>>>>> academies of science (June 2005), American Geophysical Union
>>>>> (December,
>>
>>>>> 2003), and American Chemical Society (2004). GSA strongly encourages
>>
>>>>> that the following efforts be undertaken internationally: (1)
>>>>> adequately
>>
>>>>> research climate change at all time scales, (2) develop thoughtful,
>>>>> science-based policy appropriate for the multifaceted issues of global
>>
>>>>> climate change, (3) organize global planning to recognize, prepare
>>>>> for,
>>
>>>>> and adapt to the causes and consequences of global climate change, and
>>
>>>>> (4) organize and develop comprehensive, long-term strategies for
>>>>> sustainable energy, particularly focused on minimizing impacts on
>>>>> global
>>
>>>>> climate."
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> From the American Meteorological Society
>>>>> http://www.ametsoc.org/POLICY/2007climatechange.html
>>>>> "Why is climate changing?
>>>>> Climate has changed throughout geological history, for many natural
>>>>> reasons such as changes in the sun’s energy received by Earth arising
>>
>>>> >from slow orbital changes, or changes in the sun’s energy reaching
>>>> >Earth’s surface due to volcanic eruptions. In recent decades, humans
>>
>>>>> have increasingly affected local, regional, and global climate by
>>>>> altering the flows of radiative energy and water through the Earth
>>>>> system (resulting in changes in temperature, winds, rainfall, etc.),
>>
>>>>> which comprises the atmosphere, land surface, vegetation, ocean, land
>>
>>>>> ice, and sea ice. Indeed, strong observational evidence and results
>>>>> from
>>
>>>>> modeling studies indicate that, at least over the last 50 years, human
>>
>>>>> activities are a major contributor to climate change.
>>>>>
>>>>> Direct human impact is through changes in the concentration of certain
>>
>>>>> trace gases such as carbon dioxide, chlorofluorocarbons, methane,
>>>>> nitrous oxide, ozone, and water vapor, known collectively as
>>>>> greenhouse
>>
>>>>> gases. Enhanced greenhouse gases have little effect on the incoming
>>>>> energy of the sun, but they act as a blanket to reduce the outgoing
>>>>> infrared radiation emitted by Earth and its atmosphere; the surface
>>>>> and
>>
>>>>> atmosphere therefore warm so as to increase the outgoing energy until
>>
>>>>> the outgoing and incoming flows of energy are equal. Carbon dioxide
>>>>> accounts for about half of the human-induced greenhouse gas
>>>>> contribution
>>
>>>>> to warming since the late 1800s, with increases in the other
>>>>> greenhouse
>>
>>>>> gases accounting for the rest; changes in solar output may have
>>>>> provided
>>
>>>>> an augmentation to warming in the first half of the 20th century.
>>>>>
>>>>> Carbon dioxide concentration is rising mostly as a result of
>>>>> fossil-fuel
>>
>>>>> burning and partly from clearing of vegetation; about 50% of the
>>>>> enhanced emissions remain in the atmosphere, while the rest of the
>>>>> Earth
>>
>>>>> system continues to absorb the remaining 50%. In the last 50 years
>>>>> atmospheric CO2 concentration has been increasing at a rate much
>>>>> faster
>>
>>>>> than any rates observed in the geological record of the past several
>>
>>>>> thousand years. Global annual-mean surface temperatures are rising at
>> a
>>>>> rapid rate to values higher than at any time in the last 400 (and
>>>>> probably in the last 1000) years. Once introduced in the atmosphere,
>>
>>>>> carbon dioxide remains for at least a few hundred years and implies a
>>
>>>>> lengthy guarantee of sustained future warming. Further, increases in
>>
>>>>> greenhouse gases are nearly certain to produce continued increases in
>>
>>>>> temperature. Such changes in temperature lead to changes in clouds,
>>>>> pressure, winds, and rainfall in a complex sequence of further
>>>>> effects."
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> Al Gore does,
>>>>>> after all he invented the internet.
>>>>> Here's what snopes has to say about that:
>>>>>
>>>>> http://www.snopes.com/quotes/internet.asp
>>>>> "Despite the derisive references that continue even today, Al Gore did
>>
>>>>> not claim he "invented" the Internet, nor did he say anything that
>>>>> could
>>
>>>>> reasonably be interpreted that way. The "Al Gore said he 'invented'
>>>>> the
>>
>>>>> Internet" put-downs were misleading, out-of-context distortions of
>>>>> something he said during an interview with Wolf Blitzer on CNN's "Late
>>
>>>>> Edition" program on 9 March 1999."
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> Besides, Al Gore is not the point, he's just one guy. Love him or hate
>>
>>>>> him, the climate will do what it does with or without him. It's best
>> to
>>>>> look to the actual science.
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> Nothing like trying to shift the wealth
>>>>>> of the world and making money doing it by selling global offsets and
>> taxing
>>>>>> the shit out of stupid people with a lie!
>>>>> That the climate is currently changing is not a lie, it's a measurable
>>
>>>>> phenomenon we are currently experiencing on our planet.
>>>>>
>>>>> A lot of evidence points to human contributions to the current climate
>>
>>>>> change event. So again, this is not a lie.
>>>>>
>>>>> Your problem is with politics and economics, not with science. Blaming
>>
>>>>> the science does not help your cause. You have political and economic
>>
>>>>> objections to some of the proposed solutions, so by all means take
>>>>> them
>>
>>>>> on. If you don't like using a market mechanism to regulate carbon
>>>>> emissions, which is just one idea that's been proposed, there are
>>>>> other
>>
>>>>> options on the table.
>>>>>
>>>>> Do your best to move the solutions conversation in a direction you're
>>
>>>>> more comfortable with. But simple blanket denial of actual evidence
>>>>> and
>>
>>>>> peer reviewed science won't get you there.
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>> The Bush's, the Clinton's, and
>>>>>> the Gore's are all Trilateralists, they have done a fine job of
>>>>>> lowering
>>>>>> the standard of living here in the USA! Long live the CFR, the world
>> banks
>>>>>> and man made Global warming.
>>>>> You can believe what you like about all that, except that there is
>>>>> actual evidence supporting human contributions to the current climate
>>
>>>>> change event. Again, ignoring evidence won't get you very far.
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>> By the way, if you buy the man made global warming lie, I got some
>>>>>> swamp
>>>>>> land I'd like to sell you!
>>>>> You're being sold swamp land already, possibly by the fossil fuels
>>>>> industry, and by people who want to maintain power and income.
>>>>>
>>>>> http://www.cbc.ca/fifth/denialmachine/index.html
>>>>> "The Denial Machine investigates the roots of the campaign to negate
>> the
>>>>> science and the threat of global warming. It tracks the activities of
>> a
>>>>> group of scientists, some of whom previously consulted for Big
>>>>> Tobacco,
>>
>>>>> and who are now receiving donations from major coal and oil
>>>>> companies."
>>>>>
>>>>> http://www.exxonsecrets.org/
>>>>> "The database compiles Exxon Foundation and corporate funding to a
>>>>> series of institutions who have worked to undermine solutions to
>>>>> global
>>
>>>>> warming and climate change. It details the working relationships of
>>>>> individuals associated with these organizations and their global
>>>>> warming
>>
>>>>> quotes and deeds."
>>>>>
>>>>> Cheers,
>>>>> -Jamie
>>>>> www.JamieKrutz.com
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>> Jamie K <Meta@Dimensional.com> wrote:
>>>>>>> Rich Lamanna wrote:
>>>>>>>> Must be global warming. Anyone seen this? If you've got an hour
>>>>>>>> check
>>>>>> it
>>>>>>>> out. It may take a minute or two to load.
>>>>>>> Yep, the swindle movie is old news, we even discussed it here.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> As I mentioned at the time, it ignores the main body of
>>>>>>> peer-reviewed
>>
>>>>>>> scientific evidence for the sake of sensationalism. It was done that
>> way
>>>>>>> deliberately by the producers, with no attempt at an objective look
>> at
>>>>>>> the actual scientific evidence. Fair and balanced it ain't.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> I do like the breathless announcer, fast cuts and dramatic music.
>>>>>>> It's
>>
>>>>>>> always fun to see a one-sided polemic that ironically accuses others
>> of
>>>>>>> being one-sided. I doubt anyone here is gullible enough to take it
>> as an
>>>>>>> objective authority.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> But anyway, here's more (follow the links):
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> From:
>>>>>>> http://climatedenial.org/2007/05/01/why-was-the-great-global -warming-swindle-so-persuasive/
>>>>>>> "The fans of the film would argue that it has been effective because
>> it
>>>>>>> is true. But truth is not, of itself, persuasive. When we receive
>>>>>>> new
>>
>>>>>>> information on a topic we have no idea whether it is true or not. We
>>
>>>>>>> base our conclusions on how it was presented to us, whether it
>>>>>>> concurs
>>
>>>>>>> with what we already know about that topic, how far we trust the
>>>>>>> person
>>>>>>> telling us, and how well that information fits inside our world
>>>>>>> view.
>> We
>>>>>>> then seek to match our initial conclusions against the conclusions
>> of
>>>>>>> our peers. So, although we think we seek truth, the process by which
>> we
>>>>>>> reach opinions is equally capable of leading us in the wrong
>>>>>>> direction.
>>>>>>> It turns out that Swindle was a collection of rather crude
>>>>>>> distortions
>>
>>>>>>> in an elegant package. We now know that the data was misrepresented,
>> the
>>>>>>> charts re-arranged, and the interviews edited in ways that were
>>>>>>> designed
>>>>>>> to mislead."
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> From: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Great_Global_Warming_Swindl e
>>>>>>> "Although the documentary was welcomed by global warming sceptics,
>> it
>>>>>>> was criticised heavily by many scientific organisations and
>>>>>>> individual
>>
>>>>>>> scientists (including two of the film's contributors[3][4]). The
>>>>>>> film's
>>>>>>> critics argued that it had misused data, relied on out-of-date
>>>>>>> research,
>>>>>>> employed misleading arguments, and misrepresented the position of
>>>>>>> the
>>
>>>>>>> Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change."
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> From: http://www.climateofdenial.net/?q=node/7
>>>>>>> "The DVD version of ‘The Great Global Warming Swindle’ has been
>>>>>>> available for purchase since late July 2007. The front of the
>>>>>>> presentation case describes it as a “documentary”, which is defined
>> by
>>>>>>> the Oxford English Dictionary as “a film or television or radio
>>>>>>> programme giving a factual account of something, using film,
>>>>>>> photographs, and sound recordings of real events”. However, the DVD
>>
>>>>>>> contains at least five major misrepresentations of the scientific
>>>>>>> evidence and researchers’ views on climate change. This document
>>>>>>> presents details of the five misrepresentations."
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> From http://www.medialens.org/alerts/07/0313pure_propaganda_the.p hp
>>>>>>> "What we now have is an out-and-out propaganda piece, in which there
>> is
>>>>>>> not even a gesture toward balance or explanation of why many of the
>>
>>>>>>> extended inferences drawn in the film are not widely accepted by the
>>
>>>>>>> scientific community. There are so many examples, it's hard to know
>>
>>>>>>> where to begin, so I will cite only one: a speaker asserts, as is
>>>>>>> true,
>>>>>>> that carbon dioxide is only a small fraction of the atmospheric
>>>>>>> mass.
>>
>>>>>>> The viewer is left to infer that means it couldn't really matter.
>>>>>>> But
>>
>>>>>>> even a beginning meteorology student could tell you that the
>>>>>>> relative
>>
>>>>>>> masses of gases are irrelevant to their effects on radiative
>>>>>>> balance.
>> A
>>>>>>> director not intending to produce pure propaganda would have tried
>> to
>>>>>>> eliminate that piece of disinformation.”
>>>>>>> (http://ocean.mit.edu/~cwunsch/
>>>>>>> papersonline/channel4response)"
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Cheers,
>>>>>>> -Jamie
>>>>>>> www.JamieKrutz.com
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Rich Lamanna wrote:
>>>>>>>> Must be global warming. Anyone seen this? If you've got an hour
>>>>>>>> check
>>>>>> it
>>>>>>>> out. It may take a minute or two to load.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> http://en.sevenload.com/videos/ha4PoKY/The-Great-Global-Warm ing-Swindle
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Rich
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> "EK Sound" <ask_me@nospam.net> wrote in message
>>>>>>>> news:479e36ad$1@linux...
>>>>>>>>> Woke up this morning and the temp with wind chill was -59C >:(
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Why did I move here again???
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> David.
>>
|
|
|
|
Goto Forum:
Current Time: Sat Nov 16 09:02:36 PST 2024
Total time taken to generate the page: 0.03178 seconds
|
The PARIS Forums
Search
Help
Members
Register
Login
Home
