Yes folks, the globe is warming...

I'm amazed that people with so much ignorance can talk as if they know something. How much do you know about science? Just because we have a president who doesn't believe science doesn't mean that scientists have stopped working.

If you stopped listening to the politicians and paid more attention to the scientists you would at least start to understand what they are talking about.

 

The problem is that the media only reports one side of scientific debates, particularly on politically charged subjects like global warming. It's naive to believe that the science, and scientists, have not been politicized. Academic scientists who don't go along with the PC consensus on numerous issues can be ruined.

 

Name some scientists who have been ruined.

 

ok, you've convinced me, the globe is warming....


turn off your fricking computers and go dig a hole and sit in it ...


NOTE: my posts get nasty when the market moves against me...

No Offense ...

 

When it gets hot do what i do...go to 2nd street and ocean and just look at all the !@#$%^&^%$ walking around and catching rays...you can even catch a game of soccer/volley ball if ur lucky ( volley ball without using your arms/hands ) ..they get some good games...peace

 

Media does not report only "one side of scientific debates." I am not aware of a single debate in science where both sides were not fairly reported by the media. Give me an example.

Global warming is politicized not by the scientists or the media. It was by the people who know nothing about science and want to deny it. The scientific consensus is very clear on this.

 

Totally. Damn tree huggers made such a big deal about the ozone layer. Getting rid of CFCs crippled the US economy in the 90s. And look where we are now, the ozone hole just keeps getting bigger. Clearly, history shows that we are helpless in the face of our own mistakes.

Oh, wait.

Martin

 

<i>It's naive to believe that the science, and scientists, have not been politicized. Academic scientists who don't go along with the PC consensus on numerous issues can be ruined.</i>

The only place this is really happening now is with Karl Rove's minions who were (formerly) shadowing people like James Hansen and preventing them from telling the truth about it.

I am a scientist, from a family of scientists.

1) We do not want to destroy capitalist society. Our living depends on it. My father had personal and professional relations with fellow scientists in the USSR and knows very well how such a stupid and wicked system can squash the ambition, morality and prosperity of people.

2) We have been devoted servants of our nation in multiple capacities.

3) We do not like lies and bullshit, especially when they result in bad policies.

4) Internally, scientists, especially on something as serious as global climate change really DO debate one another very vigorously and challenge all evidence. I have a little bit of exposure to this (i am not a climate expert but know people who are) and they go after checking things that outsiders would hardly even imagine. Just to be really sure. They have been challenging and testing various aspects of the data and theory for long before people in the outside world have even heard of it.

In real science, widely read papers, and promotions and grants come about usually not by reinforcing the known scientific wisdom, but with evidence that overturns it. That's how science really works. However, accepted scientific wisdom is usually correct, for good reasons.

However, the challenge must come as scientific reasoning and convincing empirical data, not ad-hominem accusations about the (usually non-existent) political motivations.

And the right-wing know-nothings are accusing the scientists of "political correctness?" That's 100% hypocritical baloney. These people look at the scientists themselves and immediately dismiss their arguments because it comes from "The Wrong Kind Of People", and because it results in the "Wrong Kind of Actions". All pre-judged without regard to intellectual investigation or empirical fact. That is a canonical example of "political correctness" versus scientific correctness.

Look at other scientific results which the scientific community reported on recently:

1) there is no significant link between mercury in vaccines and autism.

2) there is no significant link between electrical power fields and cancers.

The opposite conclusion would have lead to more "capitalism destroying intervention" as the right wing shills put it. Yet, why didn't scientists go along with the supposed "Politically Correct" conclusion despite lots of neurotic housewives with sick children pestering people?

Answer: for the most part, professional scientists "call em as they see em", more than nearly any other profession. This, because BS is easy to find, and the cost of lying is high.

Imagining scientists around the planet, all looking at the same data, are ALL lying about global warming because they hate capitalism---that's known as "magical wishful thinking"---for those who are unwilling to recognize facts. You'd think that hard-core traders who have to go by reality and not fantasy ought to know this.

 

Bullshit..............

"Scientists have an independent obligation to respect and present the truth as they see it," Al Gore sensibly asserts in his film "An Inconvenient Truth", showing at Cumberland 4 Cinemas in Toronto since Jun 2. With that outlook in mind, what do world climate experts actually think about the science of his movie?

Professor Bob Carter of the Marine Geophysical Laboratory at James Cook University, in Australia gives what, for many Canadians, is a surprising assessment: "Gore's circumstantial arguments are so weak that they are pathetic. It is simply incredible that they, and his film, are commanding public attention."

But surely Carter is merely part of what most people regard as a tiny cadre of "climate change skeptics" who disagree with the "vast majority of scientists" Gore cites?

No; Carter is one of hundreds of highly qualified non-governmental, non-industry, non-lobby group climate experts who contest the hypothesis that human emissions of carbon dioxide (CO2) are causing significant global climate change. "Climate experts" is the operative term here. Why? Because what Gore's "majority of scientists" think is immaterial when only a very small fraction of them actually work in the climate field.

Even among that fraction, many focus their studies on the impacts of climate change; biologists, for example, who study everything from insects to polar bears to poison ivy. "While many are highly skilled researchers, they generally do not have special knowledge about the causes of global climate change," explains former University of Winnipeg climatology professor Dr. Tim Ball. "They usually can tell us only about the effects of changes in the local environment where they conduct their studies."

This is highly valuable knowledge, but doesn't make them climate change cause experts, only climate impact experts.

So we have a smaller fraction.

But it becomes smaller still. Among experts who actually examine the causes of change on a global scale, many concentrate their research on designing and enhancing computer models of hypothetical futures. "These models have been consistently wrong in all their scenarios," asserts Ball. "Since modelers concede computer outputs are not "predictions" but are in fact merely scenarios, they are negligent in letting policy-makers and the public think they are actually making forecasts."

We should listen most to scientists who use real data to try to understand what nature is actually telling us about the causes and extent of global climate change. In this relatively small community, there is no consensus, despite what Gore and others would suggest.

Here is a small sample of the side of the debate we almost never hear:

Appearing before the Commons Committee on Environment and Sustainable Development last year, Carleton University paleoclimatologist Professor Tim Patterson testified, "There is no meaningful correlation between CO2 levels and Earth's temperature over this [geologic] time frame. In fact, when CO2 levels were over ten times higher than they are now, about 450 million years ago, the planet was in the depths of the absolute coldest period in the last half billion years." Patterson asked the committee, "On the basis of this evidence, how could anyone still believe that the recent relatively small increase in CO2 levels would be the major cause of the past century's modest warming?"

Patterson concluded his testimony by explaining what his research and "hundreds of other studies" reveal: on all time scales, there is very good correlation between Earth's temperature and natural celestial phenomena such changes in the brightness of the Sun.

Dr. Boris Winterhalter, former marine researcher at the Geological Survey of Finland and professor in marine geology, University of Helsinki, takes apart Gore's dramatic display of Antarctic glaciers collapsing into the sea. "The breaking glacier wall is a normally occurring phenomenon which is due to the normal advance of a glacier," says Winterhalter. "In Antarctica the temperature is low enough to prohibit melting of the ice front, so if the ice is grounded, it has to break off in beautiful ice cascades. If the water is deep enough icebergs will form."

Dr. Wibj–rn KarlÈn, emeritus professor, Dept. of Physical Geography and Quaternary Geology, Stockholm University, Sweden, admits, "Some small areas in the Antarctic Peninsula have broken up recently, just like it has done back in time. The temperature in this part of Antarctica has increased recently, probably because of a small change in the position of the low pressure systems."

But KarlÈn clarifies that the 'mass balance' of Antarctica is positive - more snow is accumulating than melting off. As a result, Ball explains, there is an increase in the 'calving' of icebergs as the ice dome of Antarctica is growing and flowing to the oceans. When Greenland and Antarctica are assessed together, "their mass balance is considered to possibly increase the sea level by 0.03 mm/year - not much of an effect," KarlÈn concludes.

The Antarctica has survived warm and cold events over millions of years. A meltdown is simply not a realistic scenario in the foreseeable future.

Gore tells us in the film, "Starting in 1970, there was a precipitous drop-off in the amount and extent and thickness of the Arctic ice cap." This is misleading, according to Ball: "The survey that Gore cites was a single transect across one part of the Arctic basin in the month of October during the 1960s when we were in the middle of the cooling period. The 1990 runs were done in the warmer month of September, using a wholly different technology."

KarlÈn explains that a paper published in 2003 by University of Alaska professor Igor Polyakov shows that, the region of the Arctic where rising temperature is supposedly endangering polar bears showed fluctuations since 1940 but no overall temperature rise. "For several published records it is a decrease for the last 50 years," says KarlÈn

Dr. Dick Morgan, former advisor to the World Meteorological Organization and climatology researcher at University of Exeter, U.K. gives the details, "There has been some decrease in ice thickness in the Canadian Arctic over the past 30 years but no melt down. The Canadian Ice Service records show that from 1971-1981 there was average, to above average, ice thickness. From 1981-1982 there was a sharp decrease of 15% but there was a quick recovery to average, to slightly above average, values from 1983-1995. A sharp drop of 30% occurred again 1996-1998 and since then there has been a steady increase to reach near normal conditions since 2001."

Concerning Gore's beliefs about worldwide warming, Morgan points out that, in addition to the cooling in the NW Atlantic, massive areas of cooling are found in the North and South Pacific Ocean; the whole of the Amazon Valley; the north coast of South America and the Caribbean; the eastern Mediterranean, Black Sea, Caucasus and Red Sea; New Zealand and even the Ganges Valley in India. Morgan explains, "Had the IPCC used the standard parameter for climate change (the 30 year average) and used an equal area projection, instead of the Mercator (which doubled the area of warming in Alaska, Siberia and the Antarctic Ocean) warming and cooling would have been almost in balance."

Gore's point that 200 cities and towns in the American West set all time high temperature records is also misleading according to Dr. Roy Spencer, Principal Research Scientist at The University of Alabama in Huntsville. "It is not unusual for some locations, out of the thousands of cities and towns in the U.S., to set all-time records," he says. "The actual data shows that overall, recent temperatures in the U.S. were not unusual."

Carter does not pull his punches about Gore's activism, "The man is an embarrassment to US science and its many fine practitioners, a lot of whom know (but feel unable to state publicly) that his propaganda crusade is mostly based on junk science."

In April sixty of the world's leading experts in the field asked Prime Minister Harper to order a thorough public review of the science of climate change, something that has never happened in Canada. Considering what's at stake - either the end of civilization, if you believe Gore, or a waste of billions of dollars, if you believe his opponents - it seems like a reasonable request.


Tom Harris is mechanical engineer and Ottawa Director of High Park Group, a public affairs and public policy company. He can be reached at letters@canadafreepress.com

http://www.canadafreepress.com/2006/harris061206.htm

 

Here are some quotes from those promoting "global warming"

Quotes on Climate Change


"They have cheated the case and I am angry about that, because that will come to our account. They use bad data, as well as for the Brent Spar as for the French nuclear tests. I am against nuclear tests, but one should use scientifical sound arguments….No, Greenpeace has harmed the environmental case."

Paul Crutzen, Nobel Prize winner for his work on the ozone layer,
cancelled his Greenpeace membership



"If present trends continue, the world will be about four degrees colder for the global mean temperature in 1990, but eleven degrees colder by the year 2000….This is about twice what it would take to put us in an ice age."

Kenneth E. F. Watt on air pollution and global cooling, Earth Day 1970.



"No matter if the science is all phony, there are collateral environmental benefits…. climate change [provides] the greatest chance to bring about justice and equality in the world."

Christine Stewart, Canadian Environment Minister, Calgary Herald, December 14, 1998



"The answer to global warming is in the abolition of private property and production for human need. A socialist world would place an enormous priority an alternative energy sources. This is what ecologically-minded socialists have been exploring for quite some time now."

Louis Proyect, Columbia University