Global Warming

[sjslhill]

I guess it's not a good thing to go here.

[Dr. Jet]

Anthropogenic global warming is a hoax perpetrated by those who stand to profit from the resulting government regulations and taxation.

Don't worry boys and girls, I will not go off on another political diatribe. The other one is more than enough for this author...........

[Bill-SOCAL]

The American Physical Society, an organization representing nearly 50,000 physicists, has reversed its stance on climate change and is now proclaiming that many of its members disbelieve in human-induced global warming

http://wattsupwiththat.wordpress.com/

thanks,
Steve

Maybe you want to check the fact first rather than simply regurgitate misinformation.

Here is what the American Physical Society has to say:

APS Climate Change Statement

APS Position Remains Unchanged

The American Physical Society reaffirms the following position on climate change, adopted by its governing body, the APS Council, on November 18, 2007:

"Emissions of greenhouse gases from human activities are changing the atmosphere in ways that affect the Earth's climate."

An article at odds with this statement recently appeared in an online newsletter of the APS Forum on Physics and Society, one of 39 units of APS. The header of this newsletter carries the statement that "Opinions expressed are those of the authors alone and do not necessarily reflect the views of the APS or of the Forum." This newsletter is not a journal of the APS and it is not peer reviewed.

http://www.aps.org/

I mean really, doesn't ANYBODY ever actually check if something is true before rushing to post it simlpy because you agree with it??

[avengersteve]

oh christ.. so it gonna get hotter and wetter.. i guess we will just evolve like always.

[Bill-SOCAL]

Anthropogenic global warming is a hoax perpetrated by those who stand to profit from the resulting government regulations and taxation.

Exactly. Except for the fact that you are misinformed. The mistake you make is thinking that global warming was invented or dreamed up by politicians. That is absolutely wrong. The primary researcher that got the ball rolling is the Chief Climatologist at NASA, Dr. James Hansen.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/James_Hansen

Please explain to me how he will benefit from global warming and how it serves him as a political agenda.?

Other scientists involved in the research and study of global warming also have little to gain from the situation, except perhaps the continuation of the research.

You guys just get lost in the fact that Al Gore is involved and since you hate Al Gore then the whole deal must be BS.

Now ask yourself who benefits from pretending that global warming is as you put it, a hoax? Well, that would be the oil companies, the coal companies, power companies, and other business ventures involved in the production and consumption of carbon based fossil fuels. And if you can't trust the oil companies, then who can you trust??

Now the political question is what do we do about it, if anything?? I have absolutely no doubt in my mind that man is having an accelerating influence on the natural rhythm of global climate change. The real question is if this is something we need to be worried about.

So rather than spend time arguing the facts, shouldn't we be spending our time considering what we can do, and determining if there is anything that we should do in the first place??

The climate of the world is absolutely changing. But is that necessarily a bad thing?? That is the question I want answered.

[Dr. Jet]

In 2004, history professor Naomi Oreskes performed a survey of research papers on climate change. Examining peer-reviewed papers published on the ISI Web of Science database from 1993 to 2003, she found a majority supported the "consensus view," defined as humans were having at least some effect on global climate change. Oreskes' work has been repeatedly cited, but as some of its data is now nearly 15 years old, its conclusions are becoming somewhat dated.

Medical researcher Dr. Klaus-Martin Schulte recently updated this research. Using the same database and search terms as Oreskes, he examined all papers published from 2004 to February 2007. The results have been submitted to the journal Energy and Environment, of which DailyTech has obtained a pre-publication copy. The figures are surprising.

Of 528 total papers on climate change, only 38 (7%) gave an explicit endorsement of the consensus. If one considers "implicit" endorsement (accepting the consensus without explicit statement), the figure rises to 45%. However, while only 32 papers (6%) reject the consensus outright, the largest category (48%) are neutral papers, refusing to either accept or reject the hypothesis. This is no "consensus."

The figures are even more shocking when one remembers the watered-down definition of consensus here. Not only does it not require supporting that man is the "primary" cause of warming, but it doesn't require any belief or support for "catastrophic" global warming. In fact of all papers published in this period (2004 to February 2007), only a single one makes any reference to climate change leading to catastrophic results.

These changing viewpoints represent the advances in climate science over the past decade. While today we are even more certain the earth is warming, we are less certain about the root causes. More importantly, research has shown us that -- whatever the cause may be -- the amount of warming is unlikely to cause any great calamity for mankind or the planet itself.

Schulte's survey contradicts the United Nation IPCC's Fourth Assessment Report (2007), which gave a figure of "90% likely" man was having an impact on world temperatures. But does the IPCC represent a consensus view of world scientists? Despite media claims of "thousands of scientists" involved in the report, the actual text is written by a much smaller number of "lead authors." The introductory "Summary for Policymakers" -- the only portion usually quoted in the media -- is written not by scientists at all, but by politicians, and approved, word-by-word, by political representatives from member nations. By IPCC policy, the individual report chapters -- the only text actually written by scientists -- are edited to "ensure compliance" with the summary, which is typically published months before the actual report itself.

By contrast, the ISI Web of Science database covers 8,700 journals and publications, including every leading scientific journal in the world.

________________________________________

http://www.thelocal.se/12580/

http://wattsupwiththat.wordpress.com/2008/06/05/lieberman-warner-debate-senator-rohrabacher-do-you-really-think-the-world-is-filled-with-morons/

http://wnd.com/index.php?fa=PAGE.view&pageId=64734

http://canadafreepress.com/index.php/article/1696

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

http://www.csmonitor.com/2007/0927/p13s03-sten.html

http://www.opinionjournal.com/editorial/feature.html?id=110010607

http://www.dailytech.com/article.aspx?newsid=8641

[Dr. Jet]

Now ask yourself who benefits from pretending that global warming is as you put it, a hoax?

It is the people selling "carbon credits", getting tax breaks for "green" projects (some may be valuable, some may be a complete waste), and similar ventures. Not to mention entire new government departments with huge staffs of cubicle-dwellers making a living off MY tax dollars with no benefit to anyone but themselves. In government employees jargon it's called "empire-building". Employ a large staff, get promoted, get a bigger budget, employ more staff, get promoted, get a bigger budget and so on ad infinitum.

Just what we need. More layers of government regulating something we can not control or even quantify. I'm not saying there is no warming, we go through the warming/cooling cycle every 10,000 years or so. In 1978, the New York Times warned of certain doom due to global cooling. A concensus of scientists agreed. We were all going to die.

I fly over the Sierras and see evidence of glaciers, long gone. Greenland used to be green. They grew wine grapes in England during the middle ages. The earth's temperature changes, but it's not because I drive my 6-wheel drive Pinzgauer (makes a Hummer look wimpy) or use incandescent light bulbs.

P.S.

Bill,

Just because I think you are sadly misguided and an ill-informed consumer of left-wing propaganda, it doesn't mean I don't consider you as a friend. I actually enjoy this political banter. I will never convince you to see things my way, and you will never see things my way, but you are more than welcome to come race boats and have some fun with the SLOBS. We promise not to talk religion, politics or sex.

[Doby]

Hey, whats wrong with talking about sex ??????????????????????????????

[Dr. Jet]

Hey, whats wrong with talking about sex ??????????????????????????????

Bill is of the male persuasion and so am I. This isn't some "Brokeback Mountain" thing we SLOBS engage in.

[Bill-SOCAL]

I am glad you cited Dr. Klaus-Martin Schulte. Here is what the scientific world has to say about his "research"

http://www.desmogblog.com/schultes-analysis-not-published-not-going-to-be

Beyond that you have committed a basic error in reviewing scientific works, and that is the error of generalization of expertise. The good doctor is just that, a doctor. A medical doctor. He is not qualified to even be doing the review he has done. Now I imagine that if you needed surgery you would go to a surgeon and not a climatologist, but somehow you will take the word of people outside a field of study when it comes to sustaining your preconceived beliefs.

I know you love to cite a barrage of links, but again you never delve into the links themselves. For instance the link to Dr. Art Robinson's famous petition fails to acknowledge that the very project that he did was in fact financed to a large degree by oil companies. In addition, he admits that he himself has not done any research into global warming.

http://www.desmogblog.com/node/1067

All I can say is that we will once again reach an impasse on this subject. You fervently believe that global warming is a hoax perpetrated by villainous politicians. I see the deniers as tools of those that will profit from denying global warming.

I still maintain that it is counter productive to discuss the IF of global warming. It is happening. The question is still can we and/or should we do anything about it.

[sjslhill]

deleted

[sjslhill]

nah

[ghostofpf1]

Anyone denying that we have an impact is shortsighted enough that they can't see past their front porch..hell even my dog is smart enough not to defecate in her food bowl...

last post in this subject..most I get caught up with in these discussions indeed can not see past their own veranda instead posting others hyperbole and propaganda claiming them as their own independant thoughts ...parrots..

Have fun
Ghost

[sjslhill]

Okay

nah

[sjslhill]

woops