Community Perspective
Current generation must act on global warming
Published Sunday, July 20, 2008
Digg
delicious
Facebook
Mixx
Reddit
Stumble It!President Bush, at the meeting in Japan of world leaders on July 9, agreed to a commitment by the world’s major industrialized nations to reduce fossil fuel emissions 50 percent by 2050. This is a welcome acknowledgment that major action is needed here in the United States to, as Bush had said earlier, “… wean ourselves off our dependency on oil.”
Dealing with climate change is now no longer a partisan issue. A complete turnaround on climate change and appropriate action by the Bush administration cannot be expected within the few remaining months it will remain in office. It is now up to Congress to take stronger action to bring about reductions in greenhouse gas emissions.
Election year politics are no longer a justification for delay.
The amount of fossil fuels used throughout the United States can be reduced through improved efficiency, by increased investment in renewable and alternative energy technology, development to increase the availability of these non-polluting fuels and by energy conservation through improved building design by government, industry, as well as home design and construction.
These efforts can play a major role in reducing greenhouse gas accumulation in the atmosphere and thereby curtailing the detrimental consequences of additional global warming.
Added benefits will be the scaling down of fuel costs as demand decreases, which will stimulate the return to a more stable economy. Another associated benefit will be extension of the availability of fossil fuels for their use by our children and their children in the not too distant future, who we hope, with the help of new technology, will have learned to use fossil fuels in a less wasteful and more responsible fashion than we have.
Much can be accomplished along these lines at all levels of government through incentives for increased efficiency and conservation of energy use by industry, in transportation and in the home. Major financial support by government and the energy industry is needed to accelerate development and production of renewable and other alternative energy that can replace a major portion of the use of oil, coal, and other fossil fuels.
Improved public transport systems offer the potential to greatly reduce fossil fuel emissions for work-related commuting and other domestic transport that in much of the country has become dependent on the use of private vehicles.
New schools should be designed and constructed to be models in efficiency of energy use and conservation as an aid to education while at the same time contributing to the reduction of fossil fuel emissions.
Teaching an understanding of the consequences of climate change and its natural and human causes should be included in primary and secondary school curricula so that young people can be better prepared for living in the world they will be inheriting. Their education, for their own benefit, should lead to an understanding of their own dependency upon both the renewable and non renewable resources which support them and of the relationship of all people to the Earth’s environment.
David R. Klein is a member of North Star Veterans for Peace in Fairbanks.
Community Discussion
Newsminer.com doesn't necessarily condone the comments here, nor does it review every post. Read our full user's agreement.
Carbon Dioxide is Good for the Environment
by John Carlisle
Carbon dioxide is good for the environment.
That simple fact must be restated to counter environmentalists' baseless allegations that the accumulation of man-made carbon dioxide, produced by cars, power plants and other human activities, is causing dangerous global warming.
Indeed, far from being a poisonous gas that will wreak havoc on the planet's ecosystem, carbon dioxide is arguably the Earth's best friend in that trees, wheat, peanuts, flowers, cotton and numerous other plants significantly benefit from increased levels of atmospheric carbon dioxide.
Dr. Craig Idso of the Center for the Study of Carbon Dioxide and Global Change, one of the nation's leading carbon dioxide research centers, examined records of atmospheric carbon dioxide concentrations and air temperature over the last 250,000 years. There were three dramatic episodes of global warming that occurred at the end of the last three ice ages. Interestingly, temperatures started to rise during those warming periods well before the atmospheric carbon dioxide started to increase. In fact, the carbon dioxide levels did not begin to rise until 400 to 1,000 years after the planet began to warm. Concludes Dr. Idso, "Clearly, there is no way that these real-world observations can be construed to even hint at the possibility that a significant increase in atmospheric carbon dioxide will necessarily lead to any global warming."1
http://www.nationalcenter.org/NPA334.htm...
Climate change is a natural cycle driven by the sun. Who is to say what the optimum climate for the planet is? There is growing evidence that the planet may be beginning to cool.
Global warming,climate change, call it what ever is a natural cycle. We as a people can not predict the weather next week: much next year or twenty years from now.And no one can disprove that fact!
If the world is really 4 billion years old, who are we to determine what is going on or happening in nature?? The problem is with men that want/need to control the everything thing here on our mother earth. We have only been around for a little while, yet some of us think we can control everything...
The really neat thing about the world is---- even after YOU are gone- it will still be here!
OH-- BTW-- The Earth is NOT my mother!I look to the Creator-not the created :}
"These efforts can play a major role in reducing greenhouse gas accumulation in the atmosphere and thereby curtailing the detrimental consequences of additional global warming."
Don't take this the wrong way, the amount of Co2 released from permafrost melting will make what humans put out seem insignificant, remember "Y2K"? how many computers do you know failed that day?
Don't believe the hype!
Dave,
Seems like most of the people commenting aren't too worried about global warming.
If the idlers in academia really think this is going to be a big deal, they need to find new ways to engage the off-campus community.
This commentary is a good start, but it seems obvious that much much more needs to be done. This campaign needs to go mainstream, NPR & PBS are preaching to the choir, you need to reach beyond that group.
global warming is a myth.. Even if it is happening, let it.. maybe we won't have -40 winters anymore. If a balmy 85F all winter in alaska is what global warming is bringing, Where do I sign up?
I didn't hear anyone spouting the Global Warming garbage when it was -54 this past winter. What a joke. Get out your life jackets and rafts people, the polar ice caps are melting.
I don't claim to be a geologist, but does anyone know any of the stats about the abiotic theory? Something about fossil fuels not actually being fossil fuels?
With our highs running about ten degrees below normal for this time of year, it is likely that winter will be long and harsh. A few degrees colder at night (16) and we will have frost. I have been cutting wood and piling it up.
All this talk of global warming reminds me of an old joke. When the Indian Chief was asked by the Army Colonel how bad he thought the winter would be, he replied, "Very bad. Just look at all the blankets stacked up at the trading post."
Theres more lost-orphan methane evaporating yearly on the N-slope than will ever be pumped thru a big-steel-pipeline.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=B36EoEuKj...
Methane is 23times worse than CO2 as GHGas.
We should work to make Alaska eligible for big carbon-credits by collecting the lost methane with HDPE-gasline gathering-pipe and converting it with GTL to eco-diesel.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gPe2rXTte...
I have a method figured out how to "farm" vast areas of arctic lakes in the winter to slow down the summertime methane losses.
Why be in a hurry to sell safely sequestered gas under Prudhoe when we can sell 4bcfd of orphan-gas for the same profit?
...splash/bubble
Dear David,
you are chatting about climate change like a blind about colors.
I am so sick of hearing about global warming. The earth has been warming since the last ice age. Otherwise, the ice age would never have ended and would be ongoing today. We may be accelerating the natural cycle a little, but we can't stop global warming. Someday the sun will run out out of gas and stop burning. Then things will really cool off. Just be patient.
To "outraged", et al:
How much more mainstream you want to make this crap? It's all we hear about on radio, TV, newspaper, magazines, movies, politics and so on.... And you still not convincing the majority of the population.
It will be almost funny (but not really), that all the so-called global warming it's actually being caused by "over-cleaning" and over doing everything we can to "clean up" the earth. We're finally seeing more contradicting studies by 'other' scientists that say the air being too clean and reducing the pollution so much and so drastically are playing a significant part in all the changes the earth is going through. So now the earth might be overcompensating in an opposite direction. Have you and others ever thought of that? Or do I need a Phd or better for my "opinion" to even be considered and worthy?
environmentalism is a LUXURY. some of you environmentalist nut jobs need to travel over seas to third world countries where the majority of the worlds pollution originates and go and "educate" these poverty stricken people on how they need to be more concerned about their carbon footprint on this world rather than feeding their family.
if global warming exists...why did the glaciers that covered the majority of the earth disappear when the SUV hadnt yet been designed and built by "Satan"
What a treat! To read an entire set of comments from people that I agree with, who havn't bought the hogwash.
I was just watching Al Gore on Meet the Press. In a nutshell, if we Americans were only willing to feel the pain for a while, we could set the country on a new historical course. That self-righteous gasbag uses more energy in a day than I use in a year.
It's a scam, and a business for people that cant produce anything useful. As I posted the other day, if only the manmade global warming advocates would give up using fossil fuels, then the supply would increase for the rest of us and the price would likewise go down. They need to put their money where there mouth is, and keep their hand out of my pocket.
I'm sure glad the last generation did not act on the global cooling scares in the 70's. The very same scientist were waring us all of the impending ice age if we did not take action. One plan was to dump millions of tons of soot on the polar caps to thaw the ice pack.
Apparently everyone in Fairbanks is an expert on climatology.
The scientists who claim that humans have played a significant role in climate change aren't making this stuff up. These people have invested 9+ years of their lives in postsecondary education, in order to earn Ph.D.s and thereby qualify to study climate issues professionally. Then they have devoted their careers to collecting hard data and analyzing it using the most rigorous methods available.
But hey, don't let it bother you that the hundreds of people around the world who have made this question their life's work have come as close to consensus as any entire profession has ever come on any potentially contentious point. I'm sure YOU know better, because you saw a video on YouTube / heard Rush Limbaugh trash global warming / read some theory about cows and volcanos / noticed that it still gets cold in Fairbanks / know that everything Al Gore says is a lie, so this can't be true / etc.
"With the July 2007 release of the revised statement by the American Association of Petroleum Geologists, no remaining scientific body of national or international standing is known to reject the basic findings of human influence on recent climate."
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_...
Maybe the scientists are wrong, but we ignore their conclusions at our own peril.
I too once preached solar, wind, and other alternative fuels. For years I spent money on "environmentally friendly" things. I even made an effort to recycle... in this town its not easy. By really starting to research what was happening, I, like the people above, saw through the hype. Al Gore and others want big laws passed on reducing emissions because they will probably have a big stake in the companies that actually do credit trading etc. The polar bears are not in decline..or 'THE LAST POLAR BEAR SCARE'..the proverbially canary in the coal mine.
We are being suckered in to feeling guilty. I was one of those suckers...I still buy into it at times. I encourage everyone to think about the real worry...humanity. As one comment said above the planet isn't going anywhere, but we might be, probably from our own foolishness.
Aric - There is quite a bit of evidence on the other side from hundreds of PhDs, as well. That's the point - "man-made global warming" is hardly a proven fact. Conserve if you want to; it's noble and all. But it is not necessary for EVERYONE else to follow.
Well, we wont have too much longer to wait to wee who is right. This thread is sort of like two drunks fighting over control of the boat, while going over the falls.
Dana, you are right that there are several qualified, PhD-holding scientists who dispute (at least some aspects of) what you call "man-made global warming". I'm glad they're out there ensuring that the debate goes on in the most profound, careful, skeptical way.
But the number of dissenters is NOT equal to the number of "consensus" scientists; it is not even close. Over 4200 scientists from over 130 countries contributed to the latest report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. At least a handful of the IPCC's claims are destined to be proven substantially wrong. Many more claims will probably be shown to be overstated, or to have minor technical flaws. But chances are extremely good that they are correct in their most basic claim, whittled down to its most weak form: that the actions of mankind have had, and will continue to have, a significant effect on Earth's climate--certainly not the only effect, not necessarily the main effect, but a substantial effect.
If it turns out that even this claim is false, and we have engaged in significant conservation, the world will still be a better place for our efforts (remember, climate change isn't the only reason we should be concerned about pollution/wastefulness/etc.). But if this claim turns out to be true, and we have thumbed our noses at conservation, we will have shot ourselves in the foot. The risk/benefit analysis seems pretty straightforward to me.
Yes Aric and if it costs the US terrible economic hardship and turns out to be wrong....well at least we can say we did what we thought was right. And maybe it will level the playing field with the third world. We are always looking for equality of outcome.
How many of those thousands of scientists are working on government grants? Would they get more grants if their findings came out against the new eco-religion?.... If the cause wasn’t so urgent? …If we had more than 10 years to make sure we were right?
Great to see that the Global Warming propaganda machine is getting weaker every day. Hopefully it will be exposed as nonesense before we get some kind of Al Gore carbon tax. Every time human caused Global Warming is treated as factual instead of a far-fetched theory it needs to be debated. I see that people on this thread are not a bunch of me too chicken littles. Makes my day.
Anyone check NOAA weather forecast for the Tanana Valley for the next 7 days. They are saying it could go to 35 degrees in the Valley tonight. So much for the warming of the interior.
Aric, I respectfully disagree. Here's an article from 2005 that talks about the "consensus" and how media tends to hype on the worst case scenarios of the theory. http://www.heartland.org/Article.cfm?art...
Or how about this one?: http://www.ff.org/centers/csspp/pdf/5-CS... (17,000 scientists...not quite a handful, hey?)
Unless I've tapped into a large portion of the neocon conspiracy to end the world, these call into question the "consensus"...and these are just two examples, yes?
Unless I've tapped into a large portion of the neocon conspiracy to end the world, these call into question the "consensus"...and these are just two examples, yes?
No, dvd not to end the world just another neocon fruity!!
. http://www.heartland./Article.cfm?art...
Alan Caruba is a public relations advisor, a vitriolic critic of environmentalism and founder of the National Anxiety Center.
His personal website boasts that his clients have included or currently include "chemical and pharmaceutical companies, think tanks, trade associations, service providers, publishers, authors, and others. Since the 1990s, he has been the public relations counselor for the New Jersey Pest Management Association. For ten years, he served as the Director of Communications for the American Policy Center." [1]
A staunch conservative, he has also strongly supported the Bush administration's war with Iraq and advocates similar military action against other countries in the Middle East, including Syria. [2]
Nuf-said.
http://www.petitionproject.org/index.htm...
This is an interesting link. Still not proof, but it opens the door to some more debate.
No. Not "nuf-said". Should we analyze Al Gore for a bit? No, because you'd like the "science" to stand on its own, regardless of Al Gore's idiocy. Just because you, genius YMBC, don't like this man's politics has little to do with the information provided in the link. If anything, at least Alan Caruba isn't hiding behind an anonymous moniker.
As I've said, there's enough research out there that calls "man-made global warming" into question. It is far from a "consensus", whether you view some people as "neocon fruity" or not (I think the neolibs are a lot more fruity - and a lot more frightening, but hey, that's me). Is that "nuf-said"?
Ah yes. In addition, heartland.org actually says:
* For 24 years, our mission has been to discover, develop, and promote free-market solutions to social and economic problems.
* 84% of our funding in 2007 came from individuals and foundations. No corporation gives more than 5% of our annual receipts.
* We have procedures in place that protect our writers and editors from undue influence by donors.
* You can help us remain a truly independent voice by becoming a donor.
As for the National Anxiety Center: The National Anxiety Center was founded in 1990 by Alan Caruba, a veteran business and science writer, as well as Public Relations Counselor. The original purpose was to debunk the many claims made by environmental and consumer organizations that were engaged in deliberately false, media-driven scare campaigns.
Here's the link - the site is actually rather entertaining:
http://www.anxietycenter.com/default.htm...
What a radical! Caruba actually questions scientists and news reporters. And he works for a living, and supports the President. Must be a "neocon fruity".
http://www.scienceandpolicy.org/ = Center for Science and Public Policy A Project of Frontiers and Freedom
dvd, why do they always have to put freedom in there? It is a dead give-away!! LOL
Yo g! You said it, he does work and there is A LOT of money to be made in the GW war! He looks like he understands that...does'nt make him any less fruity though.
I love YMBC's inability to engage in anything other than ad hominem attacks. Never addressing the argument, only focusing on the person behind the argument...
Allow me to give you an example: GWB says the sky is blue. GWB is a liar. Thus, the sky must not be blue. Or, Alan Caruba questions the consensus of global warming. Alan Caruba is a NEOCON and all neocons are fruity! Thus, everything Alan Caruba writes is fruity and should be discarded.
glacierles - Yes. The evil knows no bounds. Damn them working folk, especially those that disagree with the extreme left YMBC position. How dare anyone disagree; it's just fruity.
Dana, among the Alaskan contingent of your petition-signing "scientists" are a surgeon (Richard A. Peters), a dentist (Todd Sneesby), a senior drilling engineer for BP (Patrick J. Archey), a biologist for the state division of commercial fisheries (Randall L. Bachman), a family practice doctor (Alex Baskous)... True, these people signing this petition have degrees in some branch of the sciences; I don't doubt that they are generally intelligent people. Relatively few of them have PhDs (less than 1 in 3), and it appears that very, very few of them have actual expertise in climate issues. I seriously doubt that many of these people have actually read any published scholarly studies on climate change, and even fewer have bothered to put together a scholarly rebuttal, let alone publish primary research demonstrating that humans have no effect on climate change. The premise behind the petition is that anyone with any kind of degree in the sciences (broadly construed) is qualified to issue an informed professional opinion on climate change research. But a bachelor's degree in civil engineering or computer science simply does not qualify someone to issue a professional opinion on the subject.
Hi there. Been reading these posts on climate change and need to say a couple things which i've researched a bit on lately. I know, I'm not a "scientist" who is funded by the govt, but I do have a high school diploma. And since this CO2 theory is high school science, well, most people in this country ARE qualified to discuss it. So called "experts" are paid by govt - no more climate scare = no more money. It's called "motivation". And belief in "experts" is such a classist attitude. Ever hear of Autodidacticism? You don't need to pay a school to learn.
Anyway, we BREATHE CO2 everyday - in fact we release 900g of it daily. And if you combine that with all the cows we raise for food, in total we (humans and cows alone) release more CO2 than ALL of technology . See link - http://kokeycola.blogspot.com/2007/01/co...
The earth once had 20 times the amount of CO2 it does today - 20 times! Where were we then? It's time we stop this hoopla regarding climate change! Humans should be smart enough to deal. After all, we invented home heating and air conditioning right?
And it has also been "proven" that CO2 increases lag about 500 to 700 years AFTER temp increases, not the other way around. This info is from those ice cores everyone is chatting about. So to believe that CO2 causes temp increases is like saying that lung cancer causes smoking. Wake up, people.
It is also a known fact that humans survive the heat MUCH better than the cold. Case in point - Europe, 2002-2003 had an incredible heat wave and about 35,000 people died - we all heard about it on the news. But what we weren't told was that that very same winter was one of the coldest in recent history and killed 135,000 people. Cold kills, period.
Everyone should read some "skeptical" viewpoints as well - check out Bjorn Lomborg's book - "Cool It". very interesting. Everyday we are inundated with reports of Global Warming, except that only half-truths come out. For example , the polar bear. Here we go - 19 subpopulations of bears exist, 2 are in decline, 2 are growing and the other 15 are STABLE. Yet they made the threatened species list! Just another obstacle now for ANWR is all. Keeping you "extreme" environmentalists all worked up is all too easy. (And please don't go off about political affiliations here). Yes, I mentioned ANWR. Let's continue to import most of our energy instead of produce it ourselves and pay a crapload more for it, I'm having so much fun doing that now.
And hey, ARIC , ever heard of the "Global Warming Petition" - over 31,000 scientists and PH.D's have signed it. Consensus? I think not!
But as long as people like you continue to believe everything Fox news tells ya we'll be just fine. The sky is falling!
Hey, remember the theory that an ice age was coming back in the seventies?
dvd, as I always tell ya...roll out your best. But when you use Exxon front 501's, I and many others will call you on it.
I also dont take my info from one side or the other...I listen to Elders. Why? Because they understand and listen to the past. They know the past because unlike us it was passed down in voice. When they tell me that man is changing the planet and it is happening rapidly and with no care, I listen.
Dont worry, the End of Dayer's have your back, who cares what we do to this place?
You said it all.. Conserve if you want to; it's noble and all. But it is not necessary for EVERYONE else to follow." Why do you think you have to follow when conserving? Why dont you lead? Oh, I know because you think someone is telling you that you have too...you really dont like to be told to do things? Well, some things?
DVD,
please take a look on
http://epw.senate.gov/public/index.cfm?F...
"The amount of fossil fuels used throughout the United States can be reduced through improved efficiency, by increased investment in renewable and alternative energy technology, development to increase the availability of these non-polluting fuels and by energy conservation through improved building design by government, industry, as well as home design and construction."
And all this does is save people money. Yes, being more efficient is good, but for our pocketbooks only, makes no difference to the earth. Mother earth is FAR stronger than what we puny little humans can even imagine. It deals with the likes of the sun everyday.
And one more point for Aric, again. PH.D's, Bachelor's, "experts" -
dude, we're talking about HIGH School science. Greenhouse gases are an 18th century "THEORY" taught in high schools across the country. It's really not a "FACT" yet. Maybe THAT needs to be checked into. A scientific fact is an objective and verifiable observation; in contrast with a hypothesis or theory, which is intended to explain or interpret facts.
The older(and wiser) that I become, I realize just how little "credentials" really matter. You see, anyone with the ability to read and a passion for a subject can learn about ANYTHING.
College is but an industry making a LOT of money off of kids who really don't even know what the heck they want to do in life. I know - I went for two years before I finally saw through the light. College is only for those rich enough to afford it . So the rest of us just learn ON OUR OWN.
Global Warming? What happened to the inevitable ice age that was coming in the 70s? Now I am confused we where going into an Ice Age 3 decades ago and now we are going into Global Warming? What do I do with all these coats?
My old buddy, YMBC---
Who are these Elders you speak of?
Most elders that I know, and at age 55 I know a lot of people older than myself, or I have known them before they passed on. Almost every single one of them was hard working all their life. Had to, to survive the Great Depression, and the dust bowl. My own Grandmother packed up 7 kids and moved west, where they all made their livelihoods in California by hard work. 2 or 3 jobs at a time. Some became millionares.
These elders sacrificed blood, sweat, and tears to save the world in WWII. These elders, almost every single one of them, loved and love the USA. With a fighting passion.
I'm not just talking about white people, either.
So when do your Elders talk to you? Are these real conversations, or in your imagination? Or am I just assuming, wrongly, that you are a white man thinking to be in tune with the oral traditions of Alaskan Natives? And use their traditions to justify your extremely radical views, and closed mindedness.
Mr. Green, I have a profound respect for lifelong learning. However, I do put a lot of stock in the expert opinions of PhD-holding climate scientists because, unlike George Bush, Rush Limbaugh, or Bob the Dentist (or, for that matter, Al Gore, Barack Obama, or John McCain):
* these people have spent a lifetime studying these issues, just as you have presumably spent a lifetime becoming an expert at whatever it is you do for a living
* these people actually conduct primary research on climate change, using the most careful, stringent methods known to mankind
* these people spare no expense to let the world know the methodologies, assumptions, and data that led them to their conclusions, so that their work is maximally open to intelligent criticism
* these people carefully consider and respond scientifically to criticisms leveled against their findings--this includes revising their findings and opinions as necessary to account for counter-evidence
Just as it would have been unlikely for a layperson to discover the theory of relativity, I find it extremely unlikely that a layperson has the time, the energy, and the expertise (knowledge, skills, methodology) necessary to resolve the climate change issue. If it really were a simple matter of high school science, we would ALL understand and agree on the mechanisms contributing to climate change, the role of increased CO2, and the impact of mankind on the Earth's climate.
We SHOULD read informed skeptical viewpoints of climate change, just as we should read informed viewpoints arguing for the anthropogenic position. I absolutely don't doubt that both sides are right on some points, and that both sides are wrong on some points. We should consider every explanation we can think of. What we should not do is dismiss out of hand a growing body of evidence that the climate is in fact changing in ways predicted by highly scrutinized models and that dissenters are increasingly hard-pressed to provide adequate explanations that do not involve mankind in some way.
Yo g, thanks for the history lesson.
The Elders I have known and know could care less whether you agree with their understanding of the Earth.
Remember to respect your Elders.
"Just as it would have been unlikely for a layperson to discover the theory of relativity"
Actually, a layperson did discover it.
Aric - The folks who set up the petition were very clear that it was not filled to the max with climatologists - in face, there is a FAQ section where we are told that: Signatories are approved for inclusion in the Petition Project list if they have obtained formal educational degrees at the level of Bachelor of Science or higher in appropriate scientific fields. The petition has been circulated only in the United States.
The current list of 31,072 petition signers includes 9,021 PhD; 6,961 MS; 2,240 MD and DVM; and 12,850 BS or equivalent academic degrees. Most of the MD and DVM signers also have underlying degrees in basic science. "All of the listed signers have formal educations in fields of specialization that suitably qualify them to evaluate the research data related to the petition statement. Many of the signers currently work in climatological, meteorological, atmospheric, environmental, geophysical, astronomical, and biological fields directly involved in the climate change controversy."
However, of the 32,000 with higher educations who signed it, among them were:
1. Atmospheric, environmental, and Earth sciences includes 3,697 scientists trained in specialties directly related to the physical environment of the Earth and the past and current phenomena that affect that environment.
2. Computer and mathematical sciences includes 903 scientists trained in computer and mathematical methods. Since the human-caused global warming hypothesis rests entirely upon mathematical computer projections and not upon experimental observations, these sciences are especially important in evaluating this hypothesis.
3. Physics and aerospace sciences include 5,691 scientists trained in the fundamental physical and molecular properties of gases, liquids, and solids, which are essential to understanding the physical properties of the atmosphere and Earth.
4. Chemistry includes 4,796 scientists trained in the molecular interactions and behaviors of the substances of which the atmosphere and Earth are composed.
5. Biology and agriculture includes 2,924 scientists trained in the functional and environmental requirements of living things on the Earth.
6. Medicine includes 3,069 scientists trained in the functional and environmental requirements of human beings on the Earth.
7. Engineering and general science includes 9,992 scientists trained primarily in the many engineering specialties required to maintain modern civilization and the prosperity required for all human actions, including environmental programs.
Hmmmm. 9,012 PhDs. 3,697 scientists trained in specialties directly related to the physical environment of the Earth and the past and current phenomena that affect that environment. Yeah, the petition holds only Bob the dentist and friends.
There were roughly 2,000 scientists at IPCC (some of which have attempted to remove their names from it). But, I only have a B.A. I'm obviously unqualified to have an opinion.
skewt - Thank you. There's a lot of links, so it'll take some time to look through it. Interesting, though.
YMBC - That is exactly my point. The "science" about "global warming" is not proven; in fact it's hotly disputed. Despite this reality, powers-that-be are trying to control what I do and they use "man-made global warming" as the reasoning behind it. There is GREAT money in this hyped scenario that lacks fact and from what many say, sound science. You harp so much on "follow the money", maybe you could follow your own advice here, huh?
I have great respect for elders, of many cultures. It doesn't make them right all the time though, now does it? Change does not necessarily = change for the worse and it definitely does not always = man can fix it. Sometimes it just equals change.
If one wants to conserve, by all means. All people should do it. All people should eat well and take care of their grandmothers - I don't want laws telling me that it must be done though.
Dana, the people who signed that petition have credentials that qualify them to review and critique one or more aspects of climate change research. However, they are not qualified to issue a professional opinion until they have actually done a review of those aspects of the published work on climate change that relate to their specialty. Your BA may give you the skills to criticize published work on Shakespeare, for example, but until you actually read that work, you're not qualified to give a meaningful opinion.
Why is it always the United States fault. Have you people seen what they are trying to do in Beijing to clear the air for the Olympics? The level of polluted air is disgusting and how much of these pollutants make it over to Alaska. We saw the Gobi desert sands come into Fairbanks last year, can you imagine what else we are breathing from there. What is the impact of all of this on temperature, not to mention on your body.
Aric - We disregard 3600+ because you say they aren't qualified. Gotcha. However, I'm not about to bow down and blindly accept what not even a majority of "scientists" have to say about this issue. The only time I was willing to accept the "Because I know better" was when I was a child living at home with my folks - and it didn't fly too often then, either. Fact is, many qualified scientists disagree. Many say that all this man-made global warming stuff is NOT based in real science. There are many who have reviewed the "science" and they are not in agreement. I'm not as willing as some to swallow the pill they I'm told to take because it's pretty.
My entire point, Aric, is that the debate is far from over. My BA certainly qualifies me to comprehend that.
Aric - YOU really need to stop using the words laymen and layperson. You see, we are ALL laypersons about MOST things. And THAT is what I was stating earlier - that you DO NOT need some degree in something to have a clue of what is going on. Too many people in this country think that way.
Thankyou Denaliguy! I was just about to say that! Einstein was considered a retarded individual early on. And even later in life people still thought he was a crackpot. He "discovered" a theory about Relativity by purely THINKING. He was a great THINKER. And yes, a layperson, who could THINK.
So don't call BOB the dentist a layperson, he may just moonlight as an astrophysicist for the fun of it. And didn't Mr. Bush go to a prestigious institution? He's one smart fella, no?
So, Aric, if you truly believe you are destroying the planet, then by all means give up your car, electricity ,running water, refridgeration, your computer and everything else that makes your life so easy. But until you do, then I guess you are just as much a part of this so-called problem. And yes, it IS high school science, but when the media gets in the way, people tend to forget what they learned in school.
And I see you ignored completely my info on HUMAN and CATTLE produced CO2.
Maybe it would help if we all held our breathe for I dunno, ten minutes every day.
Hey, and woodman - if you hate Chinese pollution so much - then stop consuming! Where was your computer made? How about EVERYTHING you buy at walmart? Do you hunt? Everything in Cabela's is made in China too.
Global warming.... Didn't that Start the Minute the Ice-Age started Melting Down? And how come you don't hear a thing about " Global warming" when it's -40 Below 0 ??
MrGreen: Humans and cows do not combine to produce more exhaust gases than all forms of technology. If you honestly believe that they do, well, maybe this isn't high school science after all.
Incidentally, Einstein was a layperson only in that he was not a member of the clergy. He was, however, a HIGHLY RESPECTED MEMBER of the scientific community before he published the special theory of relativity. The "Einstein was a Retard" theory is an urban legend. He did perform poorly in grammar school, but by the time his theories were published, that was ancient history.
As for global warming, nothing has been proven. Not a thing. Everything is theory. On BOTH sides. Claiming that something has been proven proves only that you are an idiot.
I'll try to put this simply: CO2 is a greenhouse gas. It allows solar radiation to pass through, but then traps that radiation when it reflects off the Earth's surface. Fact.
Mankind is releasing CO2 into the atmosphere in larger quantites than at any point in our history. Fact.
Therefore, this CO2 is playing a role, however small, in the global climate. Fact.
The theories and debate, among real scientists, that is, are all concerned with the scale of that role. How much of an effect will this have, how large of an increase will we cause, those are the questions that real scientists, on both sides of the debate, are asking.
Anyone who says otherwise is not well informed on the issue.
Henry---
You forgot to conclude with the RedEye Gutfelft editorial quote, "And if you disagree with me, then you, sir, are worse than Hitler."
dvd, the thought that keeps coming to my mind is...humans and bound and determined to repeat the past.
Yes. Leaping before looking has often been a problem of ours.
Aric - With 20 years of experience as a weather forecaster/observer, I can tell you that a PhD doesn't really mean squat in our field.
There are three types of weather people:
"Weathercasters" - minor in Meteorology, major in Broadcasting with very little to no applied knowledge, but they sure look great on tv!
"Meteorologists" - advanced degree in Meteorology and can talk about how Boyle's Law permutates into each forecast model, but can't forecast their way out of a wet paper bag
"Forecasters" - possess at least 2-4 years schooling in Meteorology, can reliably brief large groups of customers (from pilots to Joe Blow) AND have the applied knowledge of weather that really counts at the end of the day
Given as how the "meteorologists" still can't figure out how to create a more reliable forecast model and how little most "weathercasters" know about atmospheric physics/dynamics, I'll take a "forecaster" much serious 9 out of 10 times.
Hilarious! George junior passes off a lie about weapons of mass destruction being made in Iraq and he is now a martyr on his own plight; Al Gore sells us one of the biggest hoaxes (by the posting on here anyway) about global warming and he gets a nobel peace prize. I want to see which lies costs us more at the end of the joke. Hey, wait, thats not funny. sigh.
Aric,
I think you are leaning a bit too much on the PhD crowd. They may be quite sharp and well educated, but if they don't keep some action going on whatever topic they are tinkering with....well then they can't get grants, no grad students will be hanging around to do their bidding (for free) and ultimately they will just be teachers again.
They have to feed their beast too.
As for the science of climatology, it is really in it's infant state. The climate data bases are quite young, much of the data is post WWII.
Ice cores, tree rings and sediment layers aren't really a substitute for sea and air tempeature data.
I too recall when the scare was another Ice Age, so I am very reluctant to get on Chicken Little's band wagon.
Yes, leaping, living only to leap again seems...stupid?
Thinking, analyzing and understanding the leap before it is made, YMBC, is the least stupid of the choices. That is all I advocate for here, with the "man-made global warming" crisis that has so many chewing and swallowing garbage and then feeding it back to the masses whole. I'd like people, and governments, to think, analyze and understand before they take a giant leap into the unnecessary and unfounded.
I will remind you of your own words from long-ago - "Follow the money" - follow the money here, YMBC, and perhaps you will see that there is quite a bit of dollar-sign mania involved in many aspects of this debate - a debate that is far from conceded or concluded.
The increased air temperature itself isn't the real problem we have to worry about. It's all the other effects such a change will have on the weather. Storms become more rare and more severe, increasing both floods and droughts. Changing ocean currents will redistribute ocean species and change all our fisheries. Rising sea levels will wreck economies with trillions of dollars in lost property and billions of refugees. Changing rainfall patterns will make some fertile fields into deserts and vice versa.
It doesn't ultimately matter if the cycle is "natural" or not. We should still do whatever we can to stop accelerating the changes, because for the first time in our history we aren't a very adaptable species. Ten thousand years ago if the sea level rose ten feet we'd just walk to higher ground. Now we'd have to find somewhere else for everyone in New York City to live, and figure out what to do with the trillions of dollars in property damage. If our agricultural areas become less productive, we've got to figure out a way to feed people. And when every other country on Earth experiences the same kinds of problems, just imagine the wars that will break out over resources.
So when you think about global warming, don't just think about the temperature. Think about how all the associated weather changes may impact global economics and peace. That's why you should care.
hello Henry, thanx for commenting. Let me start by saying that personal attacks on my intelligence level do not help your argument.
First let me just say that, yes, I agree 100% with your fact list. We have indeed added some CO2 to the environment and yes there has been an effect - 1 degree F in 100 years. I'm not disputing that. It's also FACT that 40% of that increase happened BEFORE 1940 and the rest since 1970 - FACT. Why the big increase then before 1940?
And then you say - "The theories and debate, among real scientists, that is, are all concerned with the scale of that role. How much of an effect will this have, how large of an increase will we cause, those are the questions that real scientists, on both sides of the debate, are asking."
Actually, scientists have already "predicted" what this effect will be - we hear about it every night on the news. Supercomputer models have been "proven" to be bogus since they only predict what "scientists" program them to predict- they do not replicate the atmosphere as they once thought, the factor being water vapor - something we understand very little about and is 90% of the "greenhouse gases" that exist. But someone of my low level of intelligence really cannot comprehend this. Only expert computer modelers.
And in case you missed the FIRST post - here is part of it-
Dr. Craig Idso of the Center for the Study of Carbon Dioxide and Global Change, one of the nation's leading carbon dioxide research centers, examined records of atmospheric carbon dioxide concentrations and air temperature over the last 250,000 years. There were three dramatic episodes of global warming that occurred at the end of the last three ice ages. Interestingly, temperatures started to rise during those warming periods well before the atmospheric carbon dioxide started to increase. In fact, the carbon dioxide levels did not begin to rise until 400 to 1,000 years after the planet began to warm. Concludes Dr. Idso, "Clearly, there is no way that these real-world observations can be construed to even hint at the possibility that a significant increase in atmospheric carbon dioxide will necessarily lead to any global warming."1
Sounds like this CO2 expert verifies the temp BEFORE CO2 theory, NOT the other way around. Maybe read it twice so you really absorb it.
Now, historical records from around the world prove a warming period around 700 to 1000 years ago(called the Roman warming period- go ahead, look it up). Seems to match up with what this Dr. Idso is saying - temp BEFORE CO2. So you see, there is a "theory" that we are also seeing a naturally occurring rise in CO2 from a Warm Period 700 years ago. But don't take my word for it.
MrGreen: I did not make an attack on your intelligence level. You did, when you said this was High School science. By quoting Dr. Idso's comment about this being theory, you have proved the only point I wanted to make: that the only things that have been proven are the facts I identified above. Everything else, including your 1 degree rise in temperature, is theory.
I don't know why you're debating me. I essentially agree with you. My biggest disagreements with you are that this is not HS science and that proof is the wrong term to use.
Here's a link for you ADULTS who don't understand the Climate Change Hoax. These are KIDS that seem to know more about this than most grown-ups. Just proves that this is all just GRADE school science after all. Good thing this next generation might actually have a clue - we'll see...
http://www.wnd.com/index.php?fa=PAGE.vie...
Another good link - shows lesson plans for grade school and high school level kids. I thought you had to go to college first to understand this stuff?
http://commtechlab.msu.edu/sites/Letsnet...
They STUDY and DEBATE the theory of Greenhouse gases and Global Warming. Kids!
more proof that high school kids learn about global warming...
http://seagrant.uaf.edu/nosb/papers/2005...
And on this link understanding the theory of greenhouse gases is rated as middle school level....HHMMM...
http://forest.mtu.edu/kidscorner/face_nf...
And I love what this guy says about teachers dumbing down the country -
http://www.mtexpress.com/index2.php?ID=2...
And he even states it's high school science we're talking about...
Shame on me for remembering this topic in science class during MY high school years. Curious, Henry, where did you go to school that they neglected to inform you of the Earth sciences?
Was anyone else denied this information in school as well?
Mr. Green quit being such a book worm and get out to socialize, then you might realize that your reaction has been a bit, uhm, over the top.
Shakes head.
dvd, dollar for dollar, big business is on the Anti side! I think deep down you know this if you really are "Thinking, analyzing and understanding the leap before it is made".
But, alas, a leap of faith really is not needed. Dollar for dollar, the real benifit is for the whole world to work towards the challenges of global warming. The ones who see this are ahead of the curve, (watch what is happening to our US auto-industry) Why do you think BP runs renewable resource ads 24-7, they see where this is going? But, hey denial is a huge money maker. All these links posted for the ANTI's proves it.
Look, you are doing their work for them and you are not getting paid for it? They love that!
No, YMBC. You are wrong. You think there is less money in carbon-cap tax? In "carbon-footprint" tax? In any sort of consumption tax? And that's just the beginning of the money in store for government. Oh, yes, you like tax. I forgot. It's not how much money, it's who gets the money. I remember. As long as it's government profit, somehow it's okay.
Beyond that, "man-made global warming" is not proven. The links posted by the "antis" prove ONLY that global warming, as it is being fed to us, is not by any means, a fact. And as such, I refuse to be a pawn - as some have chosen to do by chewing this junk and swallowing it whole.
BP running renewable resource ads and the auto industries actions prove ONLY (whether I agree with them or not) that industries follow their markets. There are people who want to "conserve" and because of this, markets are following with products that fulfill that want. There is no need for people to forced into this crap by government - which is the inevitable conclusion of this hysteria if left unchecked.
Your beliefs are everything the left has been trying to create for 40 years. The more people believe the garbage, the more I will pay for it. Congratulations are in order.