Senators Debate Global Warming Policy Despite Global Cooling Evidence

[pegasus]

http://www.cnsnews.com/public/content/article.aspx?RsrcID=44431

 

[El Freako]

This is good forward thinking.

 

[tim290280]

"Global cooling evidence"????????

I'm sorry but that is just not the case. The only argument I hear in the scientific community (and you'd better believe agriculture is at the coal face on this one) is whether Global Warming is man-induced or not. Even there I'm not hearing an argument so much as some are more reserved and want more evidence first.

The media (and others) need to pull their heads out of their asses on this one. At the very least we are very inefficient at utilising a finite resource base and the damage we create from pollution and waste in our inefficiency. That alone should be impetus enough to change our ways, let alone any long term environmental damage that occurs.

 

[pegasus]

"Global cooling evidence"????????

I'm sorry but that is just not the case. The only argument I hear in the scientific community (and you'd better believe agriculture is at the coal face on this one) is whether Global Warming is man-induced or not. Even there I'm not hearing an argument so much as some are more reserved and want more evidence first.

The media (and others) need to pull their heads out of their asses on this one. At the very least we are very inefficient at utilising a finite resource base and the pollution and waste we create in doing so. That alone should be impetus alone to change our ways, let alone any long term environmental damage that occurs.

I've heard that other plants are getting warmer too, and its due to the increase in the nuclear activity on the sun, which occurs every so often.

I'm not saying I buy that argument, I just simply do not care what they say. When I was growing up It was global cooling which we had to be afraid of, now global warming. I do not believe these scientist, since this isn't a fact, its a consensus, and from what I know any project which is to do with the global warming doesn't find it too difficult to get grants from the WHO etc, I've even heard of grants for the study of effects of global warming on squirrels.

I think the governments are just opportunist who see this as a way to introduce a new tax, as we are witnessing Obama do so.

 

[tim290280]

I've heard that other plants are getting warmer too, and its due to the increase in the nuclear activity on the sun, which occurs every so often.

I'm not saying I buy that argument, I just simply do not care what they say. When I was growing up It was global cooling which we had to be afraid of, now global warming. I do not believe these scientist, since this isn't a fact, its a consensus, and from what I know any project which is to do with the global warming doesn't find it too difficult to get grants from the WHO etc, I've even heard of grants for the study of effects of global warming on squirrels.

I think the governments are just opportunist who see this as a way to introduce a new tax, as we are witnessing Obama do so.

Seriously?

And yes Global Warming is the hot topic for research $$ at the moment. In my own field I've seen it go from tillage to salt to perennial systems to sustainable systems to climate change. You want to know what the researchers in those areas changed from doing? Well it was cummulative. Each step has built on itself. Salt is still important and a key driver for use of perennial systems which in turn are linked to sustainability which in turn is a key component of productivity under climate change. It doesn't change the understanding or the science all it does is change the emphasis of the research. I won't be studying the most profitable cropping rotation, I'll be looking at the most moisture efficient with the best below ground biomass (for sequestration). Still sounds like a profitable and sustainable research project to me :music:

The figures that we have at our research station alone shows that rainfall here has decreased 15-20%. We recieve less cold fronts to bring rain, they are weaker cold fronts and result in less rain in the middle of winter and it isn't until later in the season when we get warmer air that fronts get far enough inland.

This shouldn't be an argument about whether science has it right. It is about what we should be doing about global warming, man-made or not.

 

[Ironslave]

At the very least we are very inefficient at utilising a finite resource base and the damage we create from pollution and waste in our inefficiency. That alone should be impetus enough to change our ways, let alone any long term environmental damage that occurs.

I agree with this for sure. The whole "warming/cooling" thing, whatever... be a good person, don't pollute, conserve energy (and save yourself money), and respect the property of others. It should be as simple as that.

The problems start when politicians who think watching Al Gore's movie makes them a climatologist get involved, lobby for stuppid laws, and so on.

 

[pegasus]

I agree with this for sure. The whole "warming/cooling" thing, whatever... be a good person, don't pollute, conserve energy (and save yourself money), and respect the property of others. It should be as simple as that.

The problems start when politicians who think watching Al Gore's movie makes them a climatologist get involved, lobby for stuppid laws, and so on.

I agree with IS. Like I said, I don't really care whether its getting warmer or colder, humans will find a way to adapt.

 

[El Freako]

At the very least we are very inefficient at utilising a finite resource base and the damage we create from pollution and waste in our inefficiency. That alone should be impetus enough to change our ways, let alone any long term environmental damage that occurs.

Well said.

humans will find a way to adapt.

That's the sad truth, we're a blight on this planet yet because of our over-sized brains we'll continue to survive through the harshest of conditions and live to leech for another day.

 

[pegasus]

Seriously?

And yes Global Warming is the hot topic for research $$ at the moment. In my own field I've seen it go from tillage to salt to perennial systems to sustainable systems to climate change. You want to know what the researchers in those areas changed from doing? Well it was cummulative. Each step has built on itself. Salt is still important and a key driver for use of perennial systems which in turn are linked to sustainability which in turn is a key component of productivity under climate change. It doesn't change the understanding or the science all it does is change the emphasis of the research. I won't be studying the most profitable cropping rotation, I'll be looking at the most moisture efficient with the best below ground biomass (for sequestration). Still sounds like a profitable and sustainable research project to me :music:

The figures that we have at our research station alone shows that rainfall here has decreased 15-20%. We recieve less cold fronts to bring rain, they are weaker cold fronts and result in less rain in the middle of winter and it isn't until later in the season when we get warmer air that fronts get far enough inland.

This shouldn't be an argument about whether science has it right. It is about what we should be doing about global warming, man-made or not.

I done some research and found this: http://solar-center.stanford.edu/sun-on-earth/glob-warm.html which acknowledges an increase in the activity on the sun. They do not go on to say its the reason for global warming, but neither did I, I just stated what I had heard and that I did not buy that argument or in fact any other.

You say its a fact, and the only thing that's left to be decided is whether its because of man or nature it self, but there are thousands who don't buy this bullshit..

31,000 scientists reject ‘global warming’ agenda
May 19, 2008
By Bob Unruh
© 2008 WorldNetDaily

More than 31,000 scientists across the U.S. – including more than 9,000 Ph.D.s in fields such as atmospheric science, climatology, Earth science, environment and dozens of other specialties – have signed a petition rejecting “global warming,” the assumption that the human production of greenhouse gases is damaging Earth’s climate.

“There is no convincing scientific evidence that human release of carbon dioxide, methane, or other greenhouse gases is causing or will, in the foreseeable future, cause catastrophic heating of the Earth’s atmosphere and disruption of the Earth’s climate,” the petition states. “Moreover, there is substantial scientific evidence that increases in atmospheric carbon dioxide produce many beneficial effects upon the natural plant and animal environments of the Earth.”

The Petition Project actually was launched nearly 10 years ago, when the first few thousand signatures were assembled. Then, between 1999 and 2007, the list of signatures grew gradually without any special effort or campaign. But now, a new effort has been conducted because of an “escalation of the claims of ‘consensus,’ release of the movie ‘An Inconvenient Truth’ by Mr. Al Gore, and related events,” according to officials with the project.

“Mr. Gore’s movie, asserting a ‘consensus’ and ‘settled science’ in agreement about human-caused global warming, conveyed the claims about human-caused global warming to ordinary movie goers and to public school children, to whom the film was widely distributed. Unfortunately, Mr. Gore’s movie contains many very serious incorrect claims which no informed, honest scientist could endorse,” said project spokesman and founder Art Robinson.

WND submitted a request to Gore’s office for comment but did not get a response.

Robinson said the dire warnings about “global warming” have gone far beyond semantics or scientific discussion now to the point they are actually endangering people. […]

Robinson said the project targets scientists because, “It is especially important for America to hear from its citizens who have the training necessary to evaluate the relevant data and offer sound advice.”

He said the “global warming agreement,” written in Kyoto, Japan, in 1997, and other plans “would harm the environment, hinder the advance of science and technology, and damage the health and welfare of mankind.” “Yet,” he said, “the United Nations and other vocal political interests say the U.S. must enact new laws that will sharply reduce domestic energy production and raise energy prices even higher.

“The inalienable rights to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness include the right of access to life-giving and life-enhancing technology. This is especially true of access to the most basic of all technologies: energy. These human rights have been extensively and wrongly abridged,” he continued. “During the past two generations in the U.S., a system of high taxation, extensive regulation, and ubiquitous litigation has arisen that prevents the accumulation of sufficient capital and the exercise of sufficient freedom to build and preserve needed modern technology.

“These unfavorable political trends have severely damaged our energy production, where lack of industrial progress has left our country dependent upon foreign sources for 30 percent of the energy required to maintain our current level of prosperity,” he said. “Moreover, the transfer of other U.S. industries abroad as a result of these same trends has left U.S. citizens with too few goods and services to trade for the energy that they do not produce. A huge and unsustainable trade deficit and rapidly rising energy prices have been the result.

“The necessary hydrocarbon and nuclear energy production technologies have been available to U.S. engineers for many decades. We can develop these resources without harm to people or the environment. There is absolutely no technical, resource, or environmental reason for the U.S. to be a net importer of energy. The U.S. should, in fact, be a net exporter of energy,” he said. […]

The Petition Project website today said there are 31,072 scientists who have signed up, and Robinson said more names continue to come in.

In terms of Ph.D. scientists alone, it already has 15 times more scientists than are seriously involved in the U.N.’s campaign to “vilify hydrocarbons,” officials told WND.

“The very large number of petition signers demonstrates that, if there is a consensus among American scientists, it is in opposition to the human-caused global warming hypothesis rather than in favor of it,” the organization noted.

The project was set up by a team of physicists and physical chemists who do research at several American institutions and collects signatures when donations provide the resources to mail out more letters. [...]

The petition is needed, supporters said, simply because Gore and others “have claimed that the ‘science is settled’ – that an overwhelming ‘consensus’ of scientists agrees with the hypothesis of human-caused global warming, with only a handful of skeptical scientists in disagreement.”

The list of scientists includes 9,021 Ph.D.s, 6,961 at the master’s level, 2,240 medical doctors and 12,850 carrying a bachelor of science or equivalent academic degree. [...]

but why am I arguing with tim, he knows more than all the other scientists and skeptics who don't buy this crap! silly me

 

[Tech]

Don't worry guys....if there is a problem, the government will fix it. They know best.

Whenever the government gets involved with something, they always seem to make things better.

lol.wat.

 

[pegasus]

Don't worry guys....if there is a problem, the government will fix it. They know best.

Whenever the government gets involved with something, they always seem to make things better.

lol.wat.

ain't nothing but a peanut for the government

 

[lifterdead]

Well, I might disagree with some of the things said here, but there are two things I agree wholeheartedly with:

1) We shouldn't leave this up to the government,

and

2)

The media (and others) need to pull their heads out of their asses on this one. At the very least we are very inefficient at utilising a finite resource base and the damage we create from pollution and waste in our inefficiency. That alone should be impetus enough to change our ways, let alone any long term environmental damage that occurs.

Agreed.

Btw, this is a great blog. Dude documents official temperature recording stations and their lousy conditions around the US. Last week he noticed a massive mistake in data presented about arctic ice levels, caused the agency to revise their data and admit to errors.

http://wattsupwiththat.com/

I'd love to argue with Tim......:gaysign:

 

[tim290280]

I done some research and found this: http://solar-center.stanford.edu/sun-on-earth/glob-warm.html which acknowledges an increase in the activity on the sun. They do not go on to say its the reason for global warming, but neither did I, I just stated what I had heard and that I did not buy that argument or in fact any other.

Solar flares: apparently are dying down at the moment according to the New Scientist from Jan 2009. I've also heard ossilation and orbit elipse as possible explanations. Although these are lacking in hard numbers and don't match up very well as far as I've read. Could be plausible though.

You say its a fact, and the only thing that's left to be decided is whether its because of man or nature it self, but there are thousands who don't buy this bullshit..

There are plenty of scientists that are fundamentalist Christians as well. They spend millions of $$ a year trying to disprove evolution and other inconveniant science. So combine them with the sceptics who haven't read outside of their field and you could easily have a bunch of people saying just about anything.

2,240 medical doctors and 12,850 carrying a bachelor of science or equivalent academic degree.

MD's aren't even scientists. Hell technically they stole the term Doctor to add more respect to their position. BSc is an undergraduate degree; I'm sorry but that is junior level stuff. I was at a presentation yesterday by a BSc who didn't know the difference between standard error and significant difference.

Also remember that scientists are naturally and trained to be sceptics. So they are often the most adverse to new theories until there is insommountable evidence. So having a list of scientists that are sceptics is not new. What this does is highlight that anyone can make a list. There was a list going around a few hundred years ago citing who believed we were the centre of the universe and that the world was flat......

but why am I arguing with tim, he knows more than all the other scientists and skeptics who don't buy this crap! silly me

I didn't say that. And it is particularly rude to insinuate it

The list of sceptics doesn't prove anything. I could take a straw poll in our organisation about most topics and find people who will offer an opinion on something they know absolutely nothing about. Smart people, educated people, who will still make comment about things they haven't the first clue about. What would be really conclusive is if this list of "scientists" (as I said above MD's don't count, and you have to be practicing scientist, and you have to be familiar with the studies and science done in the field) actually had presented contrary evidence. Instead they have resorted to arguing from a position of authority, which is very anti-science. Instead of countering the argument of global warming the petition is just ignoring the argument.

 

[skindnef]

IMO
Mankind is arrogant to think we have absolute effect/No effect.

"The Sun's magnetic poles will remain as they are now, with the north magnetic pole pointing through the Sun's southern hemisphere, until the year 2012 when
they will reverse again. This transition happens, as far as we know, at the peak of every 11-year sunspot cycle -- like clockwork"

"Earth’s magnetic field also flips, but with less regularity. Consecutive reversals are spaced 5 thousand years to 50 million years apart. The last reversal happened 740,000 years ago. Some researchers think our planet is overdue for another one, but nobody knows exactly when the next reversal might occur"

"After some 400 years of relative stability, Earth's North Magnetic Pole has moved nearly 1,100 kilometers out into the Arctic Ocean during the last century and at its present rate could move from northern Canada to Siberia within the next half-century. "

IMO I think that what we are witnessing is a precursor to a complete Pole shift.

 

[pegasus]

I didn't say that. And it is particularly rude to insinuate it

Like I've stated a few times already, this topic does not interest me since I don't believe scientists who are not able to predict next weeks weather accurately are capable of predicting that the temperature is to go up by x amount in the next 50 years. The climate fluctuates, sometimes some regions have draughts, sometimes they don't. The only reason I read the article in the first place was because I have a strong opposition to any green taxes based on the predictions of some computer models, since its impossible for a computer program to stimulate something with so many attributes. The earth is always changing, humans must adapt, if the sea levels rise then humans should move further inland, if a few species go instinct, I'm sure something else will come along to fill the gap.

Taxing people will not stop this (if something really is happening), and if its going to happen, it will, whether we like it or not.

P.S. I never try to be rude, but when you reply to my post like this:
"Seriously? "
your not showing much respect either. You have the right to have your opinions, as I do, but you are not in a position to ridicule me.

 

[tim290280]

Like I've stated a few times already, this topic does not interest me since I don't believe scientists who are not able to predict next weeks weather accurately are capable of predicting that the temperature is to go up by x amount in the next 50 years. The climate fluctuates, sometimes some regions have draughts, sometimes they don't. The only reason I read the article in the first place was because I have a strong opposition to any green taxes based on the predictions of some computer models, since its impossible for a computer program to stimulate something with so many attributes. The earth is always changing, humans must adapt, if the sea levels rise then humans should move further inland, if a few species go instinct, I'm sure something else will come along to fill the gap.

Taxing people will not stop this (if something really is happening), and if its going to happen, it will, whether we like it or not.

P.S. I never try to be rude, but when you reply to my post like this:
"Seriously? "
your not showing much respect either. You have the right to have your opinions, as I do, but you are not in a position to ridicule me.

Some good points.

Yeh sorry dude. I get a bit carried away with this CC stuff because there is a lot of misinformation and deliberately misleading statements made by interst groups. Just gets me going a bit :gaysign:

I think we can all agree on that earlier point and leave it at that.

 

[pegasus]

Some good points.

Yeh sorry dude. I get a bit carried away with this CC stuff because there is a lot of misinformation and deliberately misleading statements made by interst groups. Just gets me going a bit :gaysign:

I think we can all agree on that earlier point and leave it at that.

yeah, lets leave it at that

 

[pegasus]

Over the past 20 years, southern sea ice has expanded, in contrast to the Arctic's decline, and researchers want to understand why. Many climate-model experiments show the Arctic responding more rapidly than Antarctica as global warming kicks in. But after looking at the latest projections from the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, "Arctic sea ice is well ahead of the models, and Antarctic sea ice is well behind what the models project," says Stephen Ackley, a polar scientist at the University of Texas, San Antonio.

http://www.csmonitor.com/2008/0110/p14s01-sten.html

Interesting read..

 

[Ironslave]

There are plenty of scientists and mathematical models on both sides of the equation, all of whom know millions more on the issue than I do. However, these same scientists know trillions more on the topic than members in the government who create related laws do.