Donkeys and Elephants and Delegates,oh my!
Check out the most popular
Warning: The Content in this Article May be Inaccurate
Readers have reported that this story contains information that may not be accurate.The 5 Deadliest Effects of Global Warming
environmentalgraffiti.com — Green house gases stay can stay in the atmosphere for an amount of years ranging from decades to hundreds and thousands of years. No matter what we do, global warming is going to have some effect on Earth. Here are the 5 deadliest effects of global warming.
msaleem- 857 diggs
- digg it
- hdar3415, on 02/22/2008, -33/+15Unfortunately for the planet Earth, the species most likely to survive global warming would be the species that expedited its destruction.
- bullcutter, on 02/22/2008, -12/+15wow, its impressive how thoroughly you've managed to let yourself be brainwashed.
- slezzzter, on 02/22/2008, -5/+9Coincidentally this article is on the FP right next to an article stating that the Milky Way is twice as large as we thought. Any chance global warming could be half as deadly as we are told think?
- nospinhere, on 02/22/2008, -5/+3hdar, save the planet, kill yourself.
- ElWizardo, on 02/22/2008, -5/+4Half of death is still death... you'll just suffer more.
- bullcutter, on 02/22/2008, -0/+4what does that even mean?
- postingbh, on 02/22/2008, -2/+5Absolutely. Science isn't about producing absolute truths. It's about determining probabilities based on the available evidence and explanations.
- slezzzter, on 02/22/2008, -5/+9Coincidentally this article is on the FP right next to an article stating that the Milky Way is twice as large as we thought. Any chance global warming could be half as deadly as we are told think?
- ICSU, on 02/22/2008, -3/+30On the contrary
"The planet is fine. The people are *****."
--Carlin- bullcutter, on 02/22/2008, -4/+12"The planet will shed us like dead skin when it wants to."
- iggee85, on 02/22/2008, -9/+6Why is he being dugg down? Humans will survive climate change. Certain countries in particular will receive more economic benefits than harm from a warmer planet. Canada, for example, will have access to natural resources that were previously inaccessible, its forests will expand northward providing more lumber and the opening of the Northwest passage will increase trade. However, many ecosystems will get ***** up and many more animals will likely become endangered and no one will care as long as the economy's doing fine.
- Iconoclast25, on 02/22/2008, -6/+6He's being dugg down for spewing his Kool-Aid-fueled propaganda in regard to this agi-prop piece from 2007.
- iggee85, on 02/22/2008, -8/+7Oh yeah I forgot, global warming was invented by the Al Gore!!!1 those environutjobs will eat up anything the goracle declares and proclaim it as truth!!!!!!111 damn i hate those idiot hippies!!!!!!11 etcetera etcetera....
- ElWizardo, on 02/22/2008, -10/+3Global Warming was not invented by Al Gore. It was going on around us. He brought it to the forefront.
- macweirdo42, on 02/22/2008, -1/+9It's not the stance on global warming that's the problem - it's this attitude that the planet is more in peril than we are. Lemme put it in perspective - we have the capability to wipe ourselves out a thousand times over, but that's still not enough to prevent the planet from bounching back.
- BigW, on 02/22/2008, -1/+4Too true. All the planet needs to do is call in one of those big "reset" asteroids it brings in every 100 million years or so.
- GhettoMan, on 02/22/2008, -6/+2.. Ur one of those scientology people??
- Rich711, on 02/22/2008, -1/+4They left off the deadliest effect of Global Warming. The tens of thousands of people that will die in the next few years in Africa of AIDS now that money to AIDS Africa is being cut by the UN to fund Global Warming. Fund it how you ask? Who knows they still have no proof that global warming is man made let alone how to fix it. So the next time some dooche says "so what if it's not real, what harm does it do to try?" tell them that's how.
- bullcutter, on 02/22/2008, -12/+15wow, its impressive how thoroughly you've managed to let yourself be brainwashed.
- JimmySpaza, on 02/22/2008, -56/+41One of the most deadly effects of the theory of global warming are the huge increases in taxation and regulation to deal with this "threat". It will be the death of new businesses, family nest eggs, and new technology.
But, so what? At least Al Gore and his Church of Global Warming will be popular.- ncairns, on 02/22/2008, -25/+53Global warming isn't a theory. It's an observable reality. Even the most profusely illiterate of global warming deniers (a rung you've evidently somehow managed to limbo under) have switched their FUD from 'global warming isn't real' to 'we aren't causing global warming'.
- JimmySpaza, on 02/22/2008, -20/+11Are you sure?
http://www.worldnetdaily.com/index.php?fa=PAGE.vie ...- ElWizardo, on 02/22/2008, -7/+8WND is not a valid source for news. They pander to you and tell you what ever you want to hear. Try again.
- RGWX, on 02/22/2008, -5/+10Unlike say, Raw Story? Alex Jones? Kos?
- didiman, on 02/22/2008, -4/+8thinkprogress is the only reliable source on digg
/sarcasm - postingbh, on 02/22/2008, -8/+6Raw Story and Think Progress generally reference AP articles, MSM, or other gov't resources. Like any other blog, they may be selective in the areas they cover, but they at least cite reliable sources. That's a far cry from WND, which only references reliable sources on rare occasion and often does so incorrectly.
- JimmySpaza, on 02/22/2008, -6/+7Did you RTFA? Did you see the photo of the temperature monitoring station?
Do you have ANY idea why placing reflective materials near a temperature monitor is a bad thing?
Do you see why people are skeptical about supposed increases in global temperatures if they use monitoring stations like these?
Or do you only care about the style and marketing, not the substance, of such discussions?
Don't be a lemming, dude. - postingbh, on 02/22/2008, -5/+4@Jimmy: It seems like Watts is doing fine work, but it's far from complete. Fortunately, science is self correcting and if his work goes through peer review, it may become influential in how we view the explanations for global warming.
But I don't think that's the point ElWizardo was making. Rather, the point was the WND is widely known to not only distort facts, but to report them inaccurately and often not provide any citation. They are not a respected news source. It would have been much more appropriate and credible to directly reference the research of Watts, rather than reference a WND article. - ElWizardo, on 02/22/2008, -1/+8"Unlike say, Raw Story? Alex Jones? Kos?"
I don't get my science any of these sites and I don't frequent them. - bullcutter, on 02/22/2008, -2/+4"They are not a respected news source. It would have been much more appropriate and credible to directly reference the research of Watts, rather than reference a WND article."
This does not change the fact of the story, which is, much of the data collected to "prove global warming" is faulty.
I wonder how many temperature monitoring stations across the globe have met these criteria for the last 50, 100, 150 years... (you know, since we started keeping "record" in the 1800s, probably with unstandardized mercury thermometers with little lines painted on them no less). FTA:
"To qualify as a properly maintained temperature station, sensors must be placed in elevated, slatted boxes on flat ground surrounded by a clear surface on a slope of less than 19 degrees with surrounding grass and vegetations ground cover of less than 10 centimeters high. The sensors must be located at least 100 meters from artificial heating or reflecting surfaces, such as buildings, concrete surfaces and parking lots." - postingbh, on 02/22/2008, -2/+2"This does not change the fact of the story, which is, much of the data collected to "prove global warming" is faulty."
- How do you define "much of the data?" Do these US Gov't run data sources represent "much of the data" available on the topic? If so, is only assessing 1/3 of that limited source an adequate audit? It may very well be that some of the data collection methods are faulty, but such a limited sample may not be enough to represent the population at large. I also question whether science has built in margin of errors into their calculations which could allow for such erroneous data collections to not significantly impact the conclusions. I suspect they have.
But even if the data collection methods are faulty, there would need to be additional steps taken to assert whether the actual conclusions have been compromised. Watts has much more work to do in order to actually explain anything. Right now, he's still in a preliminary data collection phase.
- ElWizardo, on 02/22/2008, -7/+8WND is not a valid source for news. They pander to you and tell you what ever you want to hear. Try again.
- Railer, on 02/22/2008, -20/+13You may also want to look at this ncairns:
http://wattsupwiththat.wordpress.com/2008/02/19/ja ...
since 1998 the world has significantly slowed in it's cooling to now it's starting to cool down despite more and more CO2 just like it did in the 30's and 40's (shock!) and as we go through a La Nina and a delayed solar cycle bets are 2008-2009 are going to continue to be colder and colder.- postingbh, on 02/22/2008, -9/+6One particular graph that page references is worth noting: http://wattsupwiththat.files.wordpress.com/2008/02 ...
In the short term, the effect may slow down or seemingly reverse; but when looked at over a longer period, it's rather obvious that temperatures are rising. - Railer, on 02/22/2008, -13/+10No when you look at the Long term you see we are coming out of mini ice age.
http://icecap.us/images/uploads/loehle_fig3.jpg
longer yet you see we are in a normal interglacial period.
http://www.junkscience.com/MSU_Temps/Vostok_long.g ...
It's funny how climatologists are allowed to cherry pick 100 year and 30 year time scales like some how they were written in stone? Why because pretty much every other time scale their theory on longer makes sense. - postingbh, on 02/22/2008, -9/+8Climatologists use time periods like 30, 50, and 100 years because those are time periods that make sense based on industrialization. You're presenting a straw man argument by suggesting that the scientific explanation of man-made global warming should explain climate change for periods prior to major industrialization.
Simply put, your idea of "long term" is one that doesn't make sense in this context.- bullcutter, on 02/22/2008, -7/+11simply put, AGW has never happened before, so how/why is anybody so certain of its outcomes in the first place? Railer's comparison of past data trends is the exact same thing Global Warmists do with ice core data. Increased atmo CO2 has NEVER been demonstrated to be causal of a changing climate, yet since there is a documented relationship between atmo CO2 and temperature no one ever questions its applicability to the novel "problem" of AGW.
Why can't we simply admit that perhaps we aren't 100% certain how the weather & climate works? - postingbh, on 02/22/2008, -7/+7"...yet since there is a documented relationship between atmo CO2 and temperature no one ever questions its applicability to the novel "problem" of AGW."
- Are you really saying that no scientists have questioned the current explanation for global warming? On what grounds could you possibly make that claim? Are you suggesting that the scientific community is too stupid to question the explanation or that the scientific community is perhaps bought out? I just want to understand why you don't trust the scientific community's explanation.
"Why can't we simply admit that perhaps we aren't 100% certain how the weather & climate works?"
- I've never heard anyone who understands science say we are 100% certain about any scientific explanation, including climate change. - Railer, on 02/22/2008, -7/+9"Climatologists use time periods like 30, 50, and 100 years because those are time periods that make sense based on industrialization." - You hit it right no the nose! They had the answer they wanted "INDUSTRY CAUSES WARMING" and they MADE SURE their data matched!
They made SURE their tests matched their theory, and that exactly why the cherry picked their data. - BigManOnCampus, on 02/22/2008, -0/+2Presenting current climate change in the context of prior climate change is nowhere near a straw man argument. Your entire stance PRESUMES that man is the cause of global warming. If you do not presume this, then you understand that other things can and have caused changes to our climate. Gathering a full understanding of how much affect man is having requires understanding all possible events that can affect our climate, not just humanity.
You get an A for understanding of logical fallacies.
You get an EPIC FAIL for knowing the scientific method. - squalorous, on 02/23/2008, -0/+1"Are you really saying that no scientists have questioned the current explanation for global warming? "
No, that's not what he's saying at all. As a matter of fact, its about the exact opposite.
"I've never heard anyone who understands science say we are 100% certain about any scientific explanation, including climate change."
So why create so much unnecessary taxation and beaurocracy because of Global Warming, when there are far more evident and costly problems in the world, immediately available for the fixing?
- bullcutter, on 02/22/2008, -7/+11simply put, AGW has never happened before, so how/why is anybody so certain of its outcomes in the first place? Railer's comparison of past data trends is the exact same thing Global Warmists do with ice core data. Increased atmo CO2 has NEVER been demonstrated to be causal of a changing climate, yet since there is a documented relationship between atmo CO2 and temperature no one ever questions its applicability to the novel "problem" of AGW.
- postingbh, on 02/22/2008, -9/+6One particular graph that page references is worth noting: http://wattsupwiththat.files.wordpress.com/2008/02 ...
- bullcutter, on 02/22/2008, -16/+14the data on which global warming is based says the earth's temperature has (possibly) gone up about 1 degree in the last 150 years. it is therefore NOT "observable." it is based on loose data trends, the first 100 years of which comes from questionable, unstandardized data sources.
if you are so afraid of a 1 degree temperature rise in 150 years that you have to start throwing money at Al Gore and sign up for higher taxes and less fair global trading practices, you really should start questioning your ability to think for yourself. - BigManOnCampus, on 02/22/2008, -10/+13There's only one problem... Global warming has stopped. The earths temperature hasn't increased since 1998. So it isn't reality right now. And frankly, everything we see could just be in the noise.
- Robthefrog, on 02/22/2008, -4/+5Global warming is such a crock of *****.
- Poovey, on 02/22/2008, -6/+12ncairns is right! I have been watching this shrub in my front yard for a couple of years and if it keeps up it's rate of growth, in 70 years it will be 300 feet tall!
- Railer, on 02/22/2008, -4/+9Hey anyone still care that the NOAA just said that Increased Hurricanes is not a part of global warming?
http://digg.com/environment/NOAA_to_Al_Gore_You_re ...
So Much for some of the FUD- charlie55, on 02/22/2008, -3/+8correct. this is very heavily disputed by a large percentage of hurricane scientists. this is willfully ignored by the global warming community. it is factually inaccurate to state taht we know hurricanes will increase. they may in fact decrease, and the debate on this rages on.
very, very dishonest to claim this as a fact, that hurricanes would increase. - Iconoclast25, on 02/22/2008, -5/+7Charlie, intellectual honesty is not exactly the fundamental tenet of the goreacle's cult of AGW . . . in fact, the chicken little crew have more in common with scientology than science, intellect or honesty.
- charlie55, on 02/22/2008, -3/+8correct. this is very heavily disputed by a large percentage of hurricane scientists. this is willfully ignored by the global warming community. it is factually inaccurate to state taht we know hurricanes will increase. they may in fact decrease, and the debate on this rages on.
- fabthegerm, on 02/22/2008, -5/+2the thing is this: even if you don't accept that the vast majority of scientists in the world agree on this one, you'd risk making the life of your children and grand children so incredibly much harder just to save some tax money?
wow.- Iconoclast25, on 02/22/2008, -7/+7Why bankrupt the world chasing a chimera simply to enrich owl gore? AGW is a scam.
- fabthegerm, on 02/22/2008, -4/+2who put that bankrupt thing in your hand?
by the end of this century, all oil will be gone. what's going to make your car run then? or, let me say it with your words: who will then be able to make money? oil companies? not so sure...
so called green technology is going to be our only reliable energy source and people are going to earn a hell lot of money with it.
but i guess i'm going to get dugg down anyway...- kurtu5, on 02/23/2008, -0/+1You get dugg down for using a false dilemma. I am tired of the lack of imagination people like you disseminate.
Are you saying that petrol is the only way to power things? The reason we use petrol is its still damn cheap. If it disappear s, you say that every thing will stop running. Meanwhile my stock in solar power companies will make me rich. LOL. Fool. - fabthegerm, on 02/23/2008, -0/+0"Are you saying that petrol is the only way to power things?"
i was actually saying quite the opposite...
- kurtu5, on 02/23/2008, -0/+1You get dugg down for using a false dilemma. I am tired of the lack of imagination people like you disseminate.
- BECoole, on 02/22/2008, -4/+4What are you doing to prevent global cooling? Trying to save some money?
- BigW, on 02/22/2008, -3/+6Fine, but all the taxation and false economies won't help. They're just schemes to increase the size and scope of government.
- JimmySpaza, on 02/22/2008, -20/+11Are you sure?
- zanonymous, on 02/22/2008, -7/+6the earth is on average, cooler than it has been in the past. the fastest temperature rise in history is around 8 degrees Celsius in 20 years. it is far better for us that the globe is heating up rather than cooling down, less people will die this way. every single person on here making theories about humans being the ones causing it is a hypocrite, if you honestly believe its us, the best thing you could do would would be kill self, or at least not have children, more for the reason that you are slowing down the progression of the human race, like a "cancer" if you like. please reply, i would like that
- biotch, on 02/22/2008, -2/+5Source?
- ChocChunkOaties, on 02/22/2008, -1/+2I would hazard a guess that you have read State of Fear by Michael Crichton which is a good read and he certainly did his research as there are numerous sources (like 12 pages) stated in there. It made me see both sides to the story.
I personally believe that the earth's climate moves in 20,000 year cycles and that we are heading towards another ice age. It's whether or not we get locked into another ice age that's the problem.
I have no sources other than a documentary i watched on analysing ice samples.
oh and this:-
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/sci/tech/4081541.stm
- biotch, on 02/22/2008, -4/+1Yes Jimmy,
I too fear the day that the Solar power industry runs rampant through our country. - darylyounge, on 03/23/2008, -0/+0I would have laughed at this years ago but the biggest con the world will witness is the weather.The Al Gores and David Suzukis are the shysters.
- ncairns, on 02/22/2008, -25/+53Global warming isn't a theory. It's an observable reality. Even the most profusely illiterate of global warming deniers (a rung you've evidently somehow managed to limbo under) have switched their FUD from 'global warming isn't real' to 'we aren't causing global warming'.
- bryano, on 02/22/2008, -20/+36What about the effect of FUD mongering ?
- jonnyboy1544, on 02/22/2008, -5/+4I love how they threw in the economy. No, *****, the economy will be destroyed IF we do what you want us to do.
- Stevethegreat, on 02/22/2008, -3/+3People in here prove that most Diggers are stupid wanna be scientists, either that or Americans. If they're Americans I don't blame them the amount of propaganda that they're through, through their media is unprecedented and I can only drive parallels with that of Soviet Russia's and fascist states, so it's as hard to understand the nature of the problem in the US as it was in Nazi Germany to understand that Jews are NOT the problem.
If -however- some of them are not Americans they are just plainly stupid, I mean WTF? Climate changes? But of course that is what was always happening, that's why evolution happened in the first place, the first microbes had to adapt to the new environment induced by outside influences. Without climate change, we wouldn't even be here talking about it, but it is not climate change what we should really be talking about, should it? What we're through now is NOT a fictional entity which may or may not influence us, it's something that every ***** computer model shows and there's no controversy about it. What I'm talking about is rapid climate change unlike ANY other in recorded history, that's not the apocalypse, we have the technological know-how to sidestep or even make our defense against it.
According to climate models the average temperature rose 0.8 C the last 100 years, that's more of a change than in most other centuries, with the possible exception of the mini-Ice age of the Medieval which was on our recent history. What climate models show, though, is a further rising of average global temperature in the scale between 2 to 6 Celcious. In the best case scenario climate change won't be nearly as catastrophic as Al Gore and his minions say, we will only live in a warmer planet. The problem however starts from the 3C onwards from which many of the aforementioned effects will take place. The reality of the matter -though- is not that we can remain idle sitting and watching to the climate change. If by mid century we are already 2 points of Celcius warmer Global Warming would only become faster, THAT would be a catastrophic event, a run away global Warming which we would not be able to prevent or -at least- it would be many times harder for us to stop it. Many say it is CO2 that's causing it, it may be not but still it's the primary suspect, if we cut the emmisions and see that there was no difference we can go on on more extreme solutions and works of Global scale, like Giant mirrors reflecting some of the sunlight back to space, or artificial "reinforcement" of our atmosphere against sun rays. Even if it is NOT CO2 like many would say, we HAVE TO play it God and stop rapid climate change at its beginnings, why, but because it is in our best interests to do so. Either being from anthropogenic reasons or natural, Global Warming happens beyond any doubt and if it gets in it's runaway stage the economic catastrophe would be unprecedented.
Once again I have to say that We HAVE TO play it God and give the finger to nature even if it is her causing GW. You're fools to believe that climate change is not our business. If a wolf eats your lambs you don't look who sent the wolf, it maybe was his hunger, but it could also be those damn environmentalists, either the case you have to kill the damn beast so that it won't eat your lambs no more.- kurtu5, on 02/23/2008, -1/+2And what are you? Are you an American? Are you a scientist? You are certainly not humble, Stevethegreat.
- Stevethegreat, on 02/23/2008, -1/+2I don't think my intention was to be humble. Things are a little more fuzzy than they should have been among digg crowd, I can only offer you a way out of the fuzziness I cannot tell you what to believe or not to believe; but disregarding GW is obviously silly, especially since it comes by no background checking / research on the matter, but -rather- by one's opinion or the other's, be it Tree Huggers or Exxon.
- kurtu5, on 02/23/2008, -1/+2And what are you? Are you an American? Are you a scientist? You are certainly not humble, Stevethegreat.
- Daz3, on 02/22/2008, -21/+32The empirical evidence is for climate change is certainly there. The only debate that can arise now is whether we are responsible for it - to my eyes it seems clear that we are and that we should be setting policies to slow down/reverse the effect we have had.
Even if you do not agree that we are responsible for climate change you can not deny that we adversely affecting not only our own health but the health of countless ecosystems with our waste products.- postingbh, on 02/22/2008, -7/+27"The only debate that can arise now is whether we are responsible for it"
- We must be very cautious at this point and make one thing very clear: the debate must occur within science, not politics. Rather than encourage debate, I think people who understand science should encourage listening to the experts (scientists) instead of non-experts (politicians, pundits, etc.)- ICSU, on 02/22/2008, -9/+5Science has spoken:
http://www.ipcc.ch/- BigManOnCampus, on 02/22/2008, -7/+10No, that's politically motivated bureacrats that do not share their data with the public, "have spoken"
- bullcutter, on 02/22/2008, -6/+6The process of consensizing is highly unscientific. Science isn't speaking at all.
- yellownumber5, on 02/23/2008, -2/+0Seriously....were you drinking here?
- postingbh, on 02/22/2008, -7/+4To both BigMan and bullcutter I ask this: How do you determine which science you trust and which science you do not trust? If you think that the scientific explanations of global warming are untrustworthy, what makes you certain that science is trustworthy in other areas?
- bullcutter, on 02/22/2008, -5/+4Because "anthropogenic global warming" is unlike any other scientific problem, ever, and people like Al Gore keep trying to bucket it into an easily explainable category of metaphor.
I am trained as a scientist and that is why I am not so quick to believe the claims of ridiculously dire predictions made by people who are obviously ignornant to the scientific method, which in large should warn you when making such complex conjectures that "you are actually certain of much less than you think you know."
Its quite easy to imagine the movement for recognition of AGW validity being hijacked by profiteers, as it already is being right now, in many different forms, quite a few of them on full display on Digg.
Skepticism should not be reserved solely for the ideological initiatives of Republicans. - wrongonce, on 02/22/2008, -4/+3Has there been an experimental result that supports the hypothesis? Is it verifiable and repeatable?
That is the kind of science I trust. - postingbh, on 02/22/2008, -2/+2@bullcutter:
"...people like Al Gore keep trying to...Skepticism should not be reserved solely for the ideological initiatives of Republicans."
- Thank you for pointing out exactly how you determine which science is trustworthy and which is not. - bullcutter, on 02/22/2008, -0/+3"Thank you for pointing out exactly how you determine which science is trustworthy and which is not."
Thanks for pointing out you'd rather attack the source than the argument. - postingbh, on 02/22/2008, -3/+2@bullcutter:
"Thanks for pointing out you'd rather attack the source than the argument."
- What argument did you even present? You conjured up, "it's quite easy to imagine" and like a partisan hack mentioned Al Gore and the "idiological initiatives of Republicans."
Back to my question, knowing that there are zero scientific organizations with dissenting statements, how do you determine which science is trustworthy and which is not? Why shouldn't we trust the 12 scientific organizations that say man-made global warming is real? Shouldn't we trust the scientists? If we don't trust the scientists in this scientific area, then why should we in any other scientific area? - squalorous, on 02/23/2008, -1/+2"Shouldn't we trust the scientists? If we don't trust the scientists in this scientific area, then why should we in any other scientific area?"
Which scientists? Several hundred, if not thousands, of scientists say global warming is false or if it is real its not manmade. I hope you realize collective panels of scientists such as the IPCC and other "organizations" you are referencing are not choirs singing in unison the Gospel of Gore. - kurtu5, on 02/23/2008, -0/+2I especially love the appeal to consensus. Remember when there where zero organizations that supported plate tectonics?
- wrongonce, on 02/23/2008, -0/+1RE: getting it all wrong...
It is not about trusting the scientists or organizations.
It is about trusting the science. That is why, since forever, we only bring verifiable & reproduceable results to the table along with full disclosure on methods used.
I could teach you how to do this, but would have to charge you a nominal fee.
- bullcutter, on 02/22/2008, -5/+4Because "anthropogenic global warming" is unlike any other scientific problem, ever, and people like Al Gore keep trying to bucket it into an easily explainable category of metaphor.
- Poovey, on 02/22/2008, -10/+4Science is incredibly untrustworthy. Especially when it tries to predict the future.
- Kagnew, on 02/22/2008, -7/+8The IPCC is a political body of NON-SCIENTISTS writing pre-formed conclusions from cherry-picked data gathered from thousands of real scientists. They can and do twist that data to demonstrate whatever they want. All those scientists who data were "used" DO NOT agree with the conclusions made by the IPCC.
- postingbh, on 02/22/2008, -4/+2"All those scientists who data were "used" DO NOT agree with the conclusions made by the IPCC."
- Science is not a democracy. I am thankful that dissenting scientists will always exist because much research is driven by these people in search of different and better explanations. You haven't backed up your other statements with any evidence. As much as I'd like to take you for your word, I would rather examine the evidence. - kurtu5, on 02/23/2008, -1/+1Dugg down for wanting evidence. Don't you know there is an agenda? God man what do you think science is?
/Sarcasm
- postingbh, on 02/22/2008, -4/+2"All those scientists who data were "used" DO NOT agree with the conclusions made by the IPCC."
- arthurdent3, on 02/22/2008, -4/+5@postingbh
Science is not always trust worthy and scientist have always stated that. A good scientist will always tell you that this is what we know now based on current data or studies. And they will always remind you that science theories and supposed fact are always changing as we learn more and study more.
When there are valid points being made on both side of the global Whining issue who are we to believe. I faintly remember that in the 70's we were told that the earth was going to cool and some of the things scientist wanted to do then would have done more damage if we actually listened. Also look at the damage that the environmentalist did on the coast of Florida by using tires to create a reef. The environmentalists also complained about the damage to ecosystem in Dubai where they are building man made islands but we are now learning that these man made islands are actually helping and improving the ecosystem there.- postingbh, on 02/22/2008, -2/+2"Science is not always trust worthy and scientist have always stated that. A good scientist will always tell you that this is what we know now based on current data or studies..."
- You are confusing trustworthiness with accuracy.
"When there are valid points being made on both side of the global Whining issue who are we to believe."
- There are at least 12 scientific organizations that have released statements concluding that man-made global warming exists. There are zero known scientific organizations with dissenting statements. Now, individual dissenting scientists may be right. Anyone who doesn't concede that doesn't understand science. With time and more research, hopefully we will come to more and more accurate explanations, whichever direction they lead. But as a layperson, I look at the statements of scientific organizations, which again is 12 vs. 0.
You also confuse the explanation with the applied solutions. The explanations for global warming may be accurate, but the solutions may be wrong or applied inappropriately. But our ability to apply effective solutions has no bearing on the validity of the explanation.
We must also be careful not to take statements from individual scientists and claim that they represent a larger group. Frequently we see this in action and I suspect the Dubai ecosystem complaints were of this nature. I would reference more examples, but simply watching YouTube videos of Glenn Beck or Sean Hannity discuss global warming will provide you with many examples of statements from individual scientists incorrectly being presented as the view of a larger scientific community.
- postingbh, on 02/22/2008, -2/+2"Science is not always trust worthy and scientist have always stated that. A good scientist will always tell you that this is what we know now based on current data or studies..."
- Math, on 02/23/2008, -1/+1Not only the IPCC, but also NASA, the Royal Society, CSIRO, EPA, and most of the other large scientific bodies around the world have expressed a similar opinion (Also the leaders almost every country in the world, including the USA).
There is not a single significant scientific body (or a single major country) that has denied the existance of global warming.
Almost all of the debate I see happening is pretty much only on Internet forums, or in portions of the media.
- 1randomguy08, on 02/22/2008, -4/+3Ok I was born in 1985. Just say I wasn't born at all, would global warming still be occurring? Also just say from now I did everything possible to prevent global warming and stop producing green house gases 100%. Would global warming still occur?
- postingbh, on 02/22/2008, -2/+3"Just say I wasn't born at all, would global warming still be occurring?"
- All other things being equal, I would expect science to say yes. Unless of course you alone have some drastic and abnormal individual effect that I don't know about.
"Also just say from now I did everything possible to prevent global warming and stop producing green house gases 100%. Would global warming still occur?"
- All other things being equal, I would expect science to say yes again. But that doesn't mean your efforts are futile. It's like saying, "Well, I won't vote because one vote doesn't make a difference, the same person would be elected regardless." On an individual level, there may be no apparent impact. But when you extend that approach to a larger population, the impact is much more apparent.
- postingbh, on 02/22/2008, -2/+3"Just say I wasn't born at all, would global warming still be occurring?"
- ICSU, on 02/22/2008, -9/+5Science has spoken:
- Railer, on 02/22/2008, -12/+10"we adversely affecting not only our own health but the health of countless ecosystems with our waste products"
- "Empirical evidence" wealthy countries who produce the most garbage has the highest life expectancy, while contries that produce the lowest garbage has the shortest lives, so observable Empirical Evidence" on the most basic of scales denies your "truth".
- This is not caused CO2, is not based on lies, and does not require massive draconian legislation to enact, it mostly local effects and can be managed locally.
- Mixing local systems and global systems and some how thinking they are equal means you need to read what global warming really is.
The empirical evidence is for climate change is certainly there. - your absolutely right, climate changes, always has, always will. EVERY interglacial period before this one has both been warmer and cooler for long stretches at a time, this evidence alone should give you pause and to your assumptions of why it changes.- postingbh, on 02/22/2008, -8/+7"EVERY interglacial period before this one has both been warmer and cooler for long stretches at a time, this evidence alone should give you pause and to your assumptions of why it changes."
- Why should this give non-experts reason to pause their understanding that man-made global warming is real? There are at least 12 scientific organizations that have issued statements saying that man-made global warming exists, 4 of which use the word "consensus." There are zero scientific organizations with dissenting statements. As a non-expert, I should trust the expert opinion. If I have reason to belief the experts are wrong, then that may give me pause. But those reasons would not be along scientific lines, but rather along political and economic lines, ones which the non-expert is much more capable of understanding. For instance, if scientists were knowingly being paid off by big business to produce certain results. Interestingly enough, we know that scientists are offered much more money to produce research arguing against man-made global warming and yet the scientists have rejected those economic incentives.- Railer, on 02/22/2008, -6/+5"There are at least 12 scientific organizations that have issued statements saying that man-made global warming exists"
Questions for you:
Who exactly in these organizations authorized these statements? 1 person? 2? a dozen?
Was there a vote taken through out the organization?
Could a vote me be held in the membership to confirm this "consensus"?
And if a vote could be done why hasn't it been done?
many petitions have been done amongst scientists and guess what they all state more science needs to be done.- postingbh, on 02/22/2008, -4/+6Science is not a democracy. Scientists don't sit around voting on which explanation they like best. Votes aren't done because there is a better system for determining the merit of scientific explanations - the process of peer review. Without understanding this, I can imagine why you misunderstand the way scientific explanations come into acceptance among scientists.
"many petitions have been done amongst scientists and guess what they all state more science needs to be done."
- You will never find a scientist saying that more science doesn't need to be done. Science will always be in search of better and more refined explanations. - arthurdent3, on 02/22/2008, -6/+4What I find interesting is that most scientists are afraid to come out against global whining. Just do a Google search and you will find many stories out there to back up my statement. And your consensus is not a consensus when there are many scientists asking that their names be removed from a lot of these so called studies because they do not agree or entirely agree with the studies. The UN is one of the biggest offenders in this area were they included names of scientists that nothing to do with their reports.
I also find something wrong with anything that somehow allows me the ability to purchase carbon credits so I can feel less guilty and still pollute. If CO2 is really the problem then I should be concerned about stopping my usage and not purchasing rights to pollute. If thats not a racket I don't know what is. - wrongonce, on 02/22/2008, -3/+2"peer review"
This does no more than provide a vote for that particular paper. Your statement is a failure of logic.
Peer review means that the peers have voted that the paper is valid.
Try experimental results -- verifiable, repeatable and with full disclosure. - postingbh, on 02/22/2008, -2/+3@arthurden3:
"What I find interesting is that most scientists are afraid to come out against global whining. Just do a Google search and you will find many stories out there to back up my statement."
- First you say "most scientists," then you say "many stories." Well, which one is it - most, many, some? You're casually throwing around generalizations without actually providing any evidence that supports your claim on a larger scale. Your best evidence is no evidence at all: "Just do a Google search"
"And your consensus is not a consensus when there are many scientists asking that their names be removed from a lot of these so called studies because they do not agree or entirely agree with the studies."
- What do you mean by "many scientists?" And who says that scientists need to agree entirely with the studies? Scientists fight over details all the time, even regarding strongly established theories such as evolution. But their disagreement with particular details doesn't invalidate the overall assessment.
@wrongonce: Peer review is more than a vote: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9X50lH-XxHI - Railer, on 02/22/2008, -2/+3@postingbh - do you even catch yourself in your lies? ON one side:
"Science is not a democracy. Scientists don't sit around voting on which explanation they like best."
And the in another post:
"I look at the statements of scientific organizations, which again is 12 vs. 0." yet right in the SAME article you use a vote to get consensus!
I love guy like you all excited to yell consensus! consensus! until someone ask well can we check this consensus and you then immediately switch to the vote means nothing. - postingbh, on 02/22/2008, -2/+1@Railer:
"Science is not a democracy," means that when determining the best scientific explanation, votes do not count. I never said the survey was scientific. It's an informal survey done to reasonably gauge the political and economic pressures facing scientists.
What I want to know from you is this: Why do you propose there are zero scientific organizations with dissenting statements?
- postingbh, on 02/22/2008, -4/+6Science is not a democracy. Scientists don't sit around voting on which explanation they like best. Votes aren't done because there is a better system for determining the merit of scientific explanations - the process of peer review. Without understanding this, I can imagine why you misunderstand the way scientific explanations come into acceptance among scientists.
- Railer, on 02/22/2008, -6/+7Oh btw, I noticed you didn't argue a single point of mine and went straight for the "consensus" lie and the "shills" lie are you Al Gore?
"Interestingly enough, we know that scientists are offered much more money to produce research arguing against man-made global warming and yet the scientists have rejected those economic incentives." - this a COMPLETE lie and unless you have facts that the Billions spent by governments worldwide to finance AGW is offset by any company spending billions on SPECIFICALLY Anti AWG research. If you can't either admit you are in error.- postingbh, on 02/22/2008, -7/+5"Oh btw, I noticed you didn't argue a single point of mine and went straight for the "consensus" lie and the "shills" lie are you Al Gore?"
- And for good reason, I'm not an expert in the area of climatology. It's not the responsibility of the layperson to weigh the merits of various scientific claims based on the various details of a given scientific explanation. So just as it's inappropriate for me to weigh the scientific merits of global warming, it's equally inappropriate for me to do so for other scientific explanations such as evolution and abiogenesis. I would rather obtain and understanding of science in general and allow the experts to handle the details.
A brief list of reports noting political and economic pressures facing scientists regarding global warming:
http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2007/01/30/politics ...
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/programmes/panorama/500 ...
http://www.nytimes.com/2006/01/29/science/earth/29 ...
http://environment.newscientist.com/article/dn1107 ...
http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2003/jun/20/ ... - wrongonce, on 02/22/2008, -4/+5If you are not an expert in climatology then, by your argument, you shouldn't be talking about this subject. Please continue to believe what you have been told and leave the discussion to people who believe there should be discussion.
- Railer, on 02/22/2008, -2/+4Well I agree with you there you know nothing about climatology, and although I am not a climatologist, I am a computer programmer and have created computer models, so i have a good understanding of the science behind how those models are build and they are bunk, and without those models AGW only has history and observable evidence to fall back and guess what? there is no geologic evidence of AGW.
As for your "pressure" find me ONE AGW alarmist who has been force out of his job, because skeptics that have voiced their opinions have been forced out.
http://blog.oregonlive.com/breakingnews/2008/02/ge ...
http://epw.senate.gov/public/index.cfm?FuseAction= ...
But of course REAL EMAILS and REAL firings mean nothing because "Union of Concerned Scientists" say they took a poll, funny how votes mean nothing to you unless it's YOUR agenda.
You might notice ALL your stories are about the "Union of Concerned Scientists" who have no ACTUAL evidence, but their say so, and since you completely bend to authority I guess that's good enough for you.
Do me a favor look out from the hole you've buried your head in for a second, if only to see what type of COMPLETE hypocrite you are. - postingbh, on 02/22/2008, -3/+2@wrongonce: "If you are not an expert in climatology then, by your argument, you shouldn't be talking about this subject. Please continue to believe what you have been told and leave the discussion to people who believe there should be discussion."
- To lead a reasonable life, we must all "believe what we have been told" to some extent. We can't all be subject matter experts in every subject. I suspect that you are not a subject matter expert on climatology either. If so, I would love to see a list of credentials and research record. But again, I highly doubt that's the case. As you'll note, I don't talk about the subject in detail because I'm not qualified to do so. Instead, I support listening to the scientists. That should be the focus of the discussion among laypeople; it is not our responsibility to assess the detailed merits of a given scientific explanation and it would be entirely inappropriate for us to do so.
@Railer:
"Well I agree with you there you know nothing about climatology, and although I am not a climatologist, I am a computer programmer... there is no geologic evidence of AGW."
- OK, I'll take the computer programmer's word for it that there is no geological evidence. But wait, I forgot. I'm a computer forensics and electronic discovery specialist, so by your reasoning, I'm also qualified to make a statement regarding not only the quantity of evidence, but also the quality. Well, that or we could just leave the evidence up to the scientists to analyze.
"But of course REAL EMAILS and REAL firings mean nothing because "Union of Concerned Scientists" say they took a poll, funny how votes mean nothing to you unless it's YOUR agenda."
- Science is not a democracy. In deciding on the best scientific explanations, votes don't count. But if you want an informal assessment of the political and economic pressures facing scientists, then a survey of scientists is entirely appropriate.
"As for your "pressure" find me ONE AGW alarmist who has been force out of his job, because skeptics that have voiced their opinions have been forced out."
- I will do you one better. Here is another example of experts being forced form their job because they don't accept the best scientific information available: http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,316406,00.html ...
I guess that means the explanation must be wrong and that a big bad bureaucratic machine is behind the corrupted explanation. Also, you completely misuse the term "skeptic," seeing as all scientists should consider themselves skeptics. The term you're looking for is "denier."
- postingbh, on 02/22/2008, -7/+5"Oh btw, I noticed you didn't argue a single point of mine and went straight for the "consensus" lie and the "shills" lie are you Al Gore?"
- Railer, on 02/22/2008, -6/+5"There are at least 12 scientific organizations that have issued statements saying that man-made global warming exists"
- postingbh, on 02/22/2008, -8/+7"EVERY interglacial period before this one has both been warmer and cooler for long stretches at a time, this evidence alone should give you pause and to your assumptions of why it changes."
- bullcutter, on 02/22/2008, -13/+8"The empirical evidence is for climate change is certainly there."
Yeah, primarily because the climate is ALWAYS changing!
"The only debate that can arise now is whether we are responsible for it "
FALSE. Spoken like a true fascist. You would make a terrible scientist.
"to my eyes it seems clear that we are and that we should be setting policies to slow down/reverse the effect we have had."
Why? Don't you know that whatever reduction we could feasibly make in CO2 emissions (at the expense of our economy and thusly quality of life) will be completely offset by the likes of China, India and Pakistan in the next 20 years, who are building megaton coal-burning power plants on a daily or weekly basis?
"Even if you do not agree that we are responsible for climate change you can not deny that we adversely affecting not only our own health but the health of countless ecosystems with our waste products."
OK, you are right. Why bother associating CO2 with Climate Change is the first place, since it has yet to be proven that higher atmospheric CO2 (very few ppm to very few ppm more) causes warmer global temperatures? Why can't we just cut down on pollution because it is bad and ***** people and places up? Far moreso than Global Warming ever has, and probably ever will....- carl0ski, on 02/22/2008, -3/+2""since it has yet to be proven that higher atmospheric CO2""
I don't believe a study has occurred to prove shoving a mobile phone in your colon is dangerous
however it is encouraged that people do not engage in the activity since it more than likely hazardous.
Heavy pollution although that 100% proven should be discouraged,
Generally things are required to be proven 90% safe prior to be approved for wide spread use. World Safety standards, EPA compliance, radiation limits.
Sales of medications, pharmaceuticals, electrical equipment, cars etc would be strictly monitored, limited or simply completely halted
if there was doubt proven or not to their non-compliance with health or safety standards.
where is the proof high levels of CO2 pollution is does or does not affect our safety and damaging our the climate our safety depends on.- bullcutter, on 02/22/2008, -0/+3"I don't believe a study has occurred to prove shoving a mobile phone in your colon is dangerous"
its unfortunate that you opened up with such a pointless analogy, because i agree with everything you had to say thereafter (the parts that i understood anyway).
Still, there remains no proof that rising atmo CO2 is necessarily causative of warmer global temperatures, and some studies suggest warmer temperatures are what drives up atmo CO2. Seeing as how total human greenhouse gas contributions add up to about 0.28% of the overall greenhouse effect, this inverse of Al Gore's "conventional wisdom" is just as likely (or more) to be true.- carl0ski, on 02/23/2008, -2/+0I used the analogy as i just happened to see an article mentioning that it is a weird craze in Malaysia for school girls
- bullcutter, on 02/22/2008, -0/+3"I don't believe a study has occurred to prove shoving a mobile phone in your colon is dangerous"
- carl0ski, on 02/22/2008, -3/+2""since it has yet to be proven that higher atmospheric CO2""
- ICSU, on 02/22/2008, -8/+9Do you morons deny pollution too? Smog, acidic rain, poisoned water, increase in cancer incidence, allergies ... all not happening?
- BigManOnCampus, on 02/22/2008, -7/+9No.
I live in Los Angeles. I've lived in Los Angeles, since 1984. When my family first moved here, it was a *RARE* day that you could clearly see Downtown Los Angeles from Long Beach. Now it happens with regularity The reason LA's air is so much cleaner now is because of local laws designed to clean up local messes. Only a fool would deny the positive impact of such things, and I've come to really appreciate the amazingly cleaner air in LA (overall anyway). But human-induced global warming is little more than a political platform of fear. The science is far from settled, it was ramrodded through a poor peer-review process and published by the U.N. which is always looking for a global issue on which to gain more political clout worldwide. - pirloui, on 02/22/2008, -5/+4Aparently they do, it's insane, it's like they where paid for it..
- BigManOnCampus, on 02/22/2008, -7/+9No.
- Larz0rz, on 02/22/2008, -4/+4Even if global warming isn't happening (as some still believe), we ARE running out of fossil fuels.
So no matter what, we'll still have to make major changes in the near future.
We need to stop procrastinating cause the deadline could come sooner than we think.- digging4freedom, on 02/22/2008, -6/+4We are not running out of fossil fuels. Do the research and find out.
- postingbh, on 02/22/2008, -3/+2Oil isn't far off (~40-50 yrs) and I assume that is what LarzOrz was primarily referring to.
- pjpark, on 02/22/2008, -1/+4As demand for increases, to the extent that supply cannot keep up, the price increases. As price increases people use less (directly or indirectly) while, at the same time, entrepreneurs find ways to extract oil from sources where it was too expensive to do so at the lower price. As the price continues to increase, other sources of energy become more attractive until demand increases the price of the new sources above the price of oil or the next alternative. We don't need to do anything because the market is smarter than any politician or scientist who ever lived.
- squalorous, on 02/23/2008, -0/+4bam, well said.
- digging4freedom, on 02/22/2008, -6/+4We are not running out of fossil fuels. Do the research and find out.
- postingbh, on 02/22/2008, -7/+27"The only debate that can arise now is whether we are responsible for it"
- suzywang3000, on 02/22/2008, -28/+50I can't believe that "it produces huge quantities of stupid hippies" wasn't on there.
- SuperVepr308, on 02/22/2008, -5/+1BWAHAHAHAHAHA! Damn, that made my morning.
- PinkFloydFan, on 02/22/2008, -9/+35They forgot the most important one! If the ice caps melt, then Santa will have no place to stay and thousands of cute little elves in little green pointy hats will drown! GLOBAL WARMING WILL KILL ELVES!!!!!
- snowskate22, on 02/22/2008, -2/+3FEWER TOYS, HIGHER WAGES
(reference to elf bowling)
- snowskate22, on 02/22/2008, -2/+3FEWER TOYS, HIGHER WAGES
- vsujohn2, on 02/22/2008, -17/+10Lets just drive hybrids already! Come on people now!
- bullcutter, on 02/22/2008, -4/+10come on now people come on
- BigManOnCampus, on 02/22/2008, -3/+4I would just to use less oil if they weren't so expensive.
Besides, I don't drive much. - DrunkenSavior, on 02/22/2008, -3/+5Sure! You paying?
- Justice101, on 02/22/2008, -4/+3LEAVE BRITTANY ALONE!!! /meme
- Poovey, on 02/22/2008, -2/+4I do! my car runs on Gasoline and occasionally Nitrous Oxide.
- skyshock1, on 02/22/2008, -2/+6Why so I can get worse gas mileage than my old '93 Civic?
Hybrids my ass. Renewable energy FTW. - jonnyboy1544, on 02/22/2008, -0/+1No tax the energy companies and they'll pay for the hybrids. Did I mention the price of fuel and electricity will rise enough as to offset the economic benefits of hybrids?
- priceev, on 02/22/2008, -1/+2wow a total of one person got that south park reference
- jebidiah123, on 02/22/2008, -8/+13WATERWORLD here we come. I'm going to invest in gene splicing.
- Kagnew, on 02/22/2008, -2/+8Sea level rise since the last ice age = + 300 feet. Earth seems to have survived it just fine.
Maximum sea level rise "if" every spec of ice currently on this planet melts = + another 263 feet.
"Waterworld" is nothing more than a bad movie.- Poovey, on 02/22/2008, -2/+5This is hate speech! Kevin Costner has never made a bad movie! Now pardon me while i go watch The Postman.
- brskeen, on 02/22/2008, -0/+2If a ***** Kevin Costner movie was the worst effect, then we'd be fine.
- SuperVepr308, on 02/22/2008, -0/+0I want to be the Dennis Hopper character (but not die at the end of course)
- Kagnew, on 02/22/2008, -2/+8Sea level rise since the last ice age = + 300 feet. Earth seems to have survived it just fine.
- doctechnical, on 02/22/2008, -7/+6"Green house gases stay can stay in the atmosphere for an amount of years ranging from decades to hundreds and thousands of years."
Those pesky clouds just won't go away! - inghamb87, on 02/22/2008, -5/+16The Almighty tells me he can get me out of this mess, but he's pretty sure you're *****.
- Tuti02, on 02/22/2008, -0/+0I'd like to give myself a pat on the back for recognizing that from Braveheart. Always loved that line, especially the delivery.
- snowskate22, on 02/22/2008, -24/+45Al Gore invented Global Warming
- skyshock1, on 02/22/2008, -8/+14WTF, I'm totally sick of people taking this quote out of context. What Al Gore REALLY said was:
"During my service in the United States Congress, I took the initiative in creating Global Warming."
For *****'s sake get the quote correct and quit trying to say he invented Global Warming.- 0260, on 02/22/2008, -5/+9al gore "took initiative in creating global warming"
- zanonymous, on 02/22/2008, -9/+7yo skyshock, eat *****
- jonnyboy1544, on 02/22/2008, -4/+4Well done. Al Gore stinks.
- GrandmaSheila, on 02/24/2008, -1/+2Killing the messenger is all you e-coli conservatives have, isn't it?
- skyshock1, on 02/22/2008, -8/+14WTF, I'm totally sick of people taking this quote out of context. What Al Gore REALLY said was:
- bullcutter, on 02/22/2008, -24/+46"Green house gases stay can stay in the atmosphere for an amount of years ranging from decades to hundreds and thousands of year"
You forgot to mention the #1 greenhouse gas is water vapor, which is constantly fluxing in and out of the atmosphere.
Incidentally, water vapor accounts for at least 90% of the overall greenhouse effect, and there has been more tonnage of water vapor added to the atmosphere from volcanoes than there is all anthropogenically-derived CO2.
CO2 is also a weaker greenhouse gas than water vapor and until someone can produce proof that an indiscernable rise in atmo CO2 is bad for human kind or life, whatsoever, STOP assuming that it is!
Now for a deconstruction of the ***** "effects" (and they are ALL *****):
5. "As northern countries warm, disease carrying insects migrate north, bringing plague and disease with them. Indeed some scientists believe that in some countries thanks to global warming, malaria has not been fully eradicated."
WHAT THE *****? Malaria has been around LONG before AGW, so because it still exists its GLOBAL WARMING's fault? What are you a *****' moron? Only a total rube would be duped by this duplicitous assertation. If you were please get the ***** off Digg.
4. "As the temperature of oceans rises, so will the probability of more frequent and stronger hurricanes. We saw in this in 2004 and 2005."
So, I guess since 2006 and 2007 were unusually calm hurricane seasons, falling far short of the ridiculously dire forecasting expert's predictions, can we assume Global Warming is now over? This point is an indefensible leap in logic, again only to be gobbled up by the passive feel-gooders and easily-fooled.
3. "Increased probability and intensity of droughts and heat waves"
Fiction. Has yet to happen. Pure speculation that was unscientifically derived (yes, I'm referring to climate models).
2. "Hurricanes cause do billions of dollars in damage, diseases cost money to treat and control and conflicts exacerbate all of these."
Any rise in damage costs will be attributable to the fact that there are 6.5 billion+ people in the world. More people = more buildings = more damage. To attribute increases in damage costs to Global Warming is again incorrect, duplicitously misleading, and utter, utter *****.
1. "Polar ice caps melting"
Unless, of course, you are referring to the Antarctic pole, which has been getting measurably colder.- Railer, on 02/22/2008, -8/+12Bullclutter how dare you put facts into this!
http://wattsupwiththat.wordpress.com/2008/02/21/no ...
You may want to read that, I think you will like it:
FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE - February 21, 2008*** NEWS FROM NOAA ***
NATIONAL OCEANIC & ATMOSPHERIC ADMINISTRATION U. S. DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE WASHINGTON, DC
Contact: Dennis Feltgen, NOAA 305-229-4404Increased Hurricane Losses Due to More People,
Wealth Along Coastlines, Not Stronger Storms, New Study Says
A team of scientists have found that the economic damages from hurricanes have increased in the U.S. over time due to greater population, infrastructure, and wealth on the U.S. coastlines, and not to any spike in the number or intensity of hurricanes.
“We found that although some decades were quieter and less damaging in the U.S. and others had more land-falling hurricanes and more damage, the economic costs of land-falling hurricanes have steadily increased over time,” said Chris Landsea, one of the researchers as well as the science and operations officer at NOAA’s National Hurricane Center in Miami. “There is nothing in the U.S. hurricane damage record that indicates global warming has caused a significant increase in destruction along our coasts.”- skyshock1, on 02/22/2008, -8/+3TL,DR
- Railer, on 02/22/2008, -3/+3TL,DR?
- skyshock1, on 02/22/2008, -3/+3too long, didn't read
- Iconoclast25, on 02/22/2008, -0/+4Translated: most people don't come to these sites to read detailed scholarly treatments on topics such as this and, perhaps unfortunately, he's right - few have the time or inclination to do so in such venues. This is more of an observation than a criticism (I hope).
- Worldviewsblog, on 02/23/2008, -0/+2"TL,DR," skyshock1 says, burping up beer reflux as he watches on the evening news a long and detailed story on Paris Hilton's latest sexcapades.
- Railer, on 02/22/2008, -3/+3TL,DR?
- Becca4RonPaul, on 02/22/2008, -1/+4Dude, you rock.
- yellowcakewalk, on 02/23/2008, -1/+3Your post does not deny global warming. It merely cites a "study" by NOAA, which is famous for having its scientists muzzled by the Bush admin. You might consider the fact that ALL of the peer-reviewed journals agree that global warming is a human-caused phenomenon with potentially catastrophic consequences for the entire biosphere, not just for tanned retirees on a Florida coast.
Nice try though. You got the flat-earthers chiming right in.
- skyshock1, on 02/22/2008, -8/+3TL,DR
- UltramegaOK, on 02/22/2008, -5/+1Way to ***** on the story. -_-
- bullcutter, on 02/22/2008, -0/+2thanks! i went out of my way for this one.
- capnkevha, on 02/22/2008, -3/+8I just listened to the state climatologist of Delaware explain that only one of five areas where hurricanes occur has had increased activity from 1984 to 2004. This was the Atlantic Ocean, where as the other four regions have actually stayed the same and one region has actually decreased in activity.
- BigW, on 02/22/2008, -2/+2WTF, Delaware has a state climatologist?? Why the hell would a state need a climatologist??
- Logicexe, on 02/22/2008, -2/+3I share your skepticism of numbers 5 and 4 (and therefore 2 since it follows from them). I haven't seen any compelling evidence to lead me to believe that disease will increase with climate change. Of course, that doesn't mean it's impossible, I just don't think its been sufficiently demonstrated. As for the hurricanes, there's debate about this even amongst climatologists. Many think that climate change may lead to less overall hurricane activity, some think it may lead to fewer but bigger hurricanes so it's not the cut and dry danger that the blog claims it is.
However the risk of droughts and floodings are a legitimate concern. I do agree however that a strong prediction of when and where is almost impossible so we really can't plan anything out, we just have be prepared to deal with it if and when it happens. The thing with the models used by climatologists is that they can be reliable for general long term predictions but are useless when applied to short term prediction. They predict trends, not details. Kinda of like how statistics can predict how often a loaded coin will land on heads or tails given a certain number of trials, but can't predict what your next flip will be. I'm sure there are plenty of guys out there using their models to make specific predictions (like this blog for example) and in those cases I agree with you, but I do not agree that the models they use are unscientific or useless, they're just limited.
As for the poles on average they are getting warmer and they are not refreezing during the winter as much as they used to. I suggest you recheck your sources. Now there is some ambiguity over the south pole since the ozone hole may be retarding the warming down there. The Ozone Layer, like water vapor contributes to the natural warming of the globe. Since there is a huge hole in the ozone layer over Antarctica it's expected that it won't be as strongly effected by climate change as the arctic. So while it may be possible for it to get warmer in the future, it shouldn't me of much concern for the next few decades.
As for your claim about water vapor, yes you're absolutely right. Without water vapor in our atmosphere our planet would be almost as cold as Mars. The thing about water vapor is that it tends to not build up in the atmosphere over large amounts of time. We have this meteorological phenomenon where water in the atmosphere actually falls down from the sky. CO2 however, does not have this property, it builds up over long periods of time. Of course there are trees and other methods of reducing the amount of CO2 in the atmosphere, but they do not do so at a rate high enough to counter act the additional CO2 that we humans are putting into the atmosphere. This leads to a long term buildup of CO2. CO2 is a known warming gas, this is not speculation or confusing historical correlation with causation, this is physics and has been tested in controlled experiments before the field of climatology even existed.- bullcutter, on 02/22/2008, -1/+2"Now there is some ambiguity over the south pole since the ozone hole may be retarding the warming down there. "
Isn't it convenient how man's evil effects on his atmosphere tend to cancel each other out, removing evidence for the existence of either?
"CO2 however, does not have this property, it builds up over long periods of time."
Yes, long, long, loooong periods of time... atmospheric CO2 has increased on the order of a few parts per million over the last 150 years, and as it has yet to be demonstrably proven that slightly rising atmo CO2 necessarily causes warmer global temperatures and CO2 does not become toxic to oxygen-breathing life until much greater concentrations, its absurd to assume that rising CO2 levels is a bad thing whatsoever. Its equally absurd to assume global warming (1 degree across 150 years) is necessarily a bad thing.
"CO2 is a known warming gas, this is not speculation or confusing historical correlation with causation,"
No, but it is highly misleading to therefore say such a minute increase in atmospheric CO2 (when life had previously thrived in concentrations of atmo CO2 10x higher) contributes ANYTHING more to the overall greenhouse effect, which you admitted yourself is mostly water vapor (a much, MUCH more potent greenhouse gas). Natural variations in water vapor density overshadow ANY contributions made by anthropogenically-derived atmo CO2, and I dare anybody to produce evidence otherwise.
Q: Why can't we just initiate efforts to reduce CO2 in the name of pollution reduction instead of Global Warming?
A: Because pollution isn't scary enough anymore, we have to market the problem as a product and give the people something to think about by scaring them into submission to "the greater good" (ie, Al Gore's paychecks & ego).
- bullcutter, on 02/22/2008, -1/+2"Now there is some ambiguity over the south pole since the ozone hole may be retarding the warming down there. "
- Railer, on 02/22/2008, -8/+12Bullclutter how dare you put facts into this!
- skewl, on 02/22/2008, -12/+4we are a highly adaptable species - our bodies will be okay - our economy may not be - other species will have trouble surviving global warming (polar bears) while some will flourish (tropical species including tropical mosquito's)
- ICSU, on 02/22/2008, -4/+4Your knowledge of evolution is laughably stupid.
- protogenxl, on 02/22/2008, -4/+36. Bears - Polar Bears are rapidly losing their habitat and your humble centrally cooled abode is the perfect place for them to put their paws up and kickback with an Ice Cold Beverage.
- digging4freedom, on 02/22/2008, -2/+4Polar bears are doing very well--there are over 20,000 at the latest count in one Bear enclave in Canada. Evidence shows that they have done very well during previous global warming spells--they sure didn't die out, did they, because they are STILL HERE!
- protogenxl, on 02/22/2008, -1/+2I was going for the for the Colbert Report Threat Watch Joke.
- Iconoclast25, on 02/22/2008, -0/+2I dugg ya up for the (seemingly) obvious facetious humor of the first post, but colbert is a liberal ***** - so this one gets buried.
- protogenxl, on 02/22/2008, -1/+2I was going for the for the Colbert Report Threat Watch Joke.
- digging4freedom, on 02/22/2008, -2/+4Polar bears are doing very well--there are over 20,000 at the latest count in one Bear enclave in Canada. Evidence shows that they have done very well during previous global warming spells--they sure didn't die out, did they, because they are STILL HERE!
- gplpark92, on 02/22/2008, -5/+8most people pretend to care but don't, driving around in their Ford Excursions and Hummer H1s
- Poovey, on 02/22/2008, -1/+4That is not true. I don't care and I drive a car. It's not fuel efficient but it's fast.
- skyshock1, on 02/22/2008, -3/+2Most tractor trailer drivers pretend to care, but don't, driving around in their Peterbuilts and Kenworths.
Seriously dude? Excursions and H1's? Drop in the ***** ocean. - Iconoclast25, on 02/22/2008, -0/+1I try to buy fuel efficient vehicles to avoid further enriching the camel jockeys, futures market exploiters and grossly over-paid petroleum company executives. And have since 1973! This carbon footprint kaka is what you tell the brain-dead tofu eaters who otherwise worship at the church of conspicuous consumption.
- elebrio, on 02/22/2008, -8/+10Every armchair scientists here should get a life.
- bullcutter, on 02/22/2008, -5/+14yeah trying to learn stuff is dorky, we know
- catdawg555, on 02/22/2008, -3/+4all i know is this has been the fookin coldest winter in a long time i work outdoors and gawd allmighty it's freezing and i live in georgia wish i could put my steel toe boot up al gores buttocks jeesh
- wrongonce, on 02/22/2008, -1/+4Every life-scientist should get an armchair.
- Iconoclast25, on 02/22/2008, -0/+4And every armchair kaka merchant should aspire to match noun and verb when they grow up . . . .
- bullcutter, on 02/22/2008, -5/+14yeah trying to learn stuff is dorky, we know
- OniLynx, on 02/22/2008, -6/+5"So here we have the ice caps melting... meteors be coming crash to Earth..."
- darienphoenix, on 02/22/2008, -2/+6"FIRE ZE MISSILES!"
- snowskate22, on 02/25/2008, -0/+1but i am le tired
- darienphoenix, on 02/22/2008, -2/+6"FIRE ZE MISSILES!"
- kbaz, on 02/22/2008, -4/+3That's scary
- jonnyboy1544, on 02/22/2008, -0/+1I know right. Articles that grossly exaggerate data are very scary.
- shadovvman, on 02/22/2008, -12/+76th deadliest effect of global warming: having to listen to al gore lecture about it. effects may include dizzyness, lethargy, loss of sexual desire, coma.
- Iconoclast25, on 02/22/2008, -1/+1The cult of the falling sky and the dogma of AGW are prima facie evidence that exposure to owl gore rots the brain.
- blasian, on 02/22/2008, -3/+3The deadliest effect of global warming is death
- zanonymous, on 02/22/2008, -3/+0stupid comment
- BigW, on 02/22/2008, -1/+1Actually no, death due to cold far outweigh the number of deaths due to excess warmth.
- Iconoclast25, on 02/22/2008, -0/+2Judging by the brain-dead tofu eaters who espouse it, I must concur.
- Poovey, on 02/22/2008, -10/+16Warning! Unbelievable *****!
- LastDitchHero, on 02/22/2008, -10/+8Dumb hippies
- f4nt0m4s, on 02/22/2008, -7/+3#1. Pythons
- VanD, on 02/22/2008, -7/+4Wouldn't death be the most deadly effect of global warming?
- firebirdx01, on 02/22/2008, -4/+5dont forget the disappearance of animals, like bees, salmon...
- digging4freedom, on 02/22/2008, -1/+2global warming is not killing the bees--where is the evidence for that. More likely it due to genetically modified foods that have toxic pollens and/or the mix of pesticides and herbicides being applied in tremendous amounts to the plants worldwide.
- Iconoclast25, on 02/22/2008, -0/+1Loss of bees is due almost entirely to the use of pesticides / herbicides - the residues of which kill the hives over winter. This is particularly noticeable in areas where potatoes are a major agri-business crop.
Salmon fisheries were damaged / destroyed by over-fishing, water pollution and blocked (dammed) waterways. Unlike bees, these are gradually recovering due to the efforts of government and sportsmen.
Sadly, firebird - and I say this with no malice or intent to offend - much of what is being peddled by the merchants of doom is 100% pure unadulterated bull ***** and the two species you gave are excellent examples of this. Seriously - get out of the house, get out of the city, spend some time in the field observing, then come back and read about the wildlife you saw. You would be absolutely amazed at how much you can learn from this (not to mention the improvements to your mental and physical health). Don't rely on these clueless idiots with an agenda . . . most of them think pigeons and gray squirrels are "wildlife."
- LastDitchHero, on 02/22/2008, -14/+7…………………………………….__,,,,,,,---,,,,,,_…………………………………………………………
…………………………_,,,--~’’¯¯ ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ;¯’’-,,_………………………………………………….
…………………….,-~’’ ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ;¯’~,_……………………………………………
…………………,-‘’ ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ;’’~-,,………………………………………
……………..,-‘’ ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; _,,_ ; ; ;¯’-,…………………………………..
…………..,-‘’ ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ;,-‘’_ ¯’-, ; ; ; ; ‘,…………………………………
…………,’ ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ;,,-~’’’’’~-,, ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ;’-‘;;;’, : :||; ; ; ; ; ‘,……………………………….
……….,-‘ ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ;,-‘/ :,-~’’~, : ‘,, ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ;’-,-‘ : // ; ; ; ; ; ;’,……………………………..
……..,-‘ ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ;’,| : ‘-,;;;;,-‘ : /’ ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ¯’’’¯ ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ‘-,……………………………
…….,’ ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ;’’-,,___,,-~’ ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ;’’~,, ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ;’-,………………………….
…….| ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ;-,;;’, ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ;’-………………………….
……,’ ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ;-;;;;| ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; |…………………………
……| ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ,,-‘,;;;;|’’-~ ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ‘,…………………………
......| ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ;---,,,,,,,_,,,,-~’’, ‘-,;;;| ,,-‘ ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ;’,……………………….
……| ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ;¯’’~-,,,_ , , , , , , ‘,;,’,’ ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ;……………………….
……| ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ;’’-,~-,, , ,,’’,’ ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ;’,………………………
……’, ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ‘’-,,¯’’;;;;| ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ;’,………………………
…….| ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ;’’-,_,’ ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ‘,………………………
…….’, ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ;’,……………………..
……..’, ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; …………………….
……… ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ‘,……………………
……….’, ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ;|……………………
………..| ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ;’-,………………….
………..’, ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ,,--~~--,, ; ; ; ; ;,--------,, ; ,--~, ; ; ,,-~, ; ;,--,,;,,-~~-,, ; ; ; ; ; ;’,………………..
…………| ; ; ; ; ; ; ,-‘’ . ,,--,, . ‘-, ; ; ; ;| . ,-,, . ‘, | . . | ; ;’-, . .,,/ . ./’-,,--, . ‘, ; ; ; ; ; ; ‘-,………………
…………| ; ; ; ; ; ; | . .,’ ; ; ;’, . .| ; ; ; | . .’-‘ . ,-‘ | . . | ; ; ; ‘-, . . .,-‘ ; ;,-‘ . ,-‘ ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ‘-,…………….
…………’, ; ; ; ; ; ;’, . ‘-,__,-‘ . ,’ ; ; ; | . .| . . . | . . |___ ; ;} . . / ; ; ;’----‘ ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ;’-,………….
………….| ; ; ; ; ; ; ;’-,,_ . ._,,-‘ ; ; ; ; |__| .__ ;|_____/ ; ;/__/ ; ; ; ; (¯) ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ‘-,…………
…….......’, ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ;¯ ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ‘-,………
…………,’ ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ;-,,_……
…………| ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ;- mranderson86, on 02/22/2008, -2/+1And
It's a trap.... how can a carbon tax stop global warming... fkn ecoterrorists.... Green on the outside, red on the outside. - Curlz31, on 02/22/2008, -0/+1People are doing this in every submission now. It's getting old.
- mranderson86, on 02/22/2008, -2/+1And
- SkripOnToast, on 02/22/2008, -12/+8Yeah we can all drive hybrid cars and we'll never make up the premium cost of such autos in gas savings. So lets plop down several thousands more per car to be stylish while it is the hip thing to do. I don't believe in Global warming. We are judging a planet that is 4.3 BILLION years old by interpreting spotty data from the last 100-1000 years!? Wow now that is hubris if I have ever heard it. Lets read God's mind while we're at it. The money wasted on climate policy can be much better spent on pretty much anything. We have bridges falling down and children still starving in this country. With the money saved you can feed, clothe and insure them and have enough to build infrastructure. Stop being so easily swayed by issues. Just watch your wallet and question the supposed "common sense" being fed you.
- KMye, on 02/22/2008, -8/+9WTF? People are still circulating the hurricane *****?
- digging4freedom, on 02/22/2008, -10/+10The global warming issue is man-made allright, but it is a man-made POLITICAL issue that will be used to tax the hell out of us for using energy. Of course there is some very mild warming being caused by normal climate trends. I would love for it to be a bit warmer farther north--more sun and longer growing seasons sound great to me.
- worldthoughts, on 02/27/2008, -0/+1Yeah, being a conspiracy theorist sounds great to me too.
- edebolt, on 02/22/2008, -7/+8I have global warming in my pants :-) and I like it
- zanonymous, on 02/22/2008, -0/+1i like your style,
- Richandler, on 02/22/2008, -8/+4Well are all going to be fatigue when all that exists in fluorescent lights and incandescent become a black market item. You guys in joy your headaches and lack of energy physical energy.
- digging4freedom, on 02/22/2008, -3/+3 Continued
ERROR 23-SAHARA DESERT "DRYING"
Gore says terrible tragedies are occurring in the southern Sahara because of drought which he blames on “global warming.” Not True.
There is no drought caused by “global warming.” In 2007 there were record rains across the whole of the southern Sahara. In the past 25 years the Sahara has shrunk by some 300,000 square kilometers because of additional rainfall. Some scientists think “global warming” may actually mitigate pre-existing droughts because there will be more water vapor in the atmosphere.
ERROR 24-WEST ANTARCTIC ICE SHEET "UNSTABLE"
Gore says disturbing changes have been measured under the West Antarctic ice sheet, implicitly because of “global warming.” Not True.
Most of the recession in this ice sheet over the past 10,000 years has occurred in the absence of any sea-level or temperature forcing. In most of Antarctica, the ice is in fact growing thicker. Mean Antarctic temperature has actually fallen throughout the past half-century. In some Antarctic glens, environmental damage has been caused by temperature decreases of up to 2 degrees Celsius. Antarctic sea-ice spread to a 30-year record extent in late 2007.
ERROR 25-ANTARCTIC PENINSULA ICE SHELVES "BREAKING UP"
Gore says half a dozen ice shelves each “larger than Rhode Island” have broken up and vanished from the Antarctic Peninsula recently, implicitly because of “global warming.” Not True.
Global warming is unlikely to have been the cause. Gore does not explain that the ice shelves have melted before, as studies of seabed sediments have shown. The Antarctic Peninsula accounts for about 2% of the continent, in most of which the ice is growing thicker. All the recently-melted shelves, added together, amount to an area less than one-fifty-fifth the size of Texas.
ERROR 26-LARSEN B ICE SHELF "BROKE UP BECAUSE OF'GLOBAL WARMING'"
Gore focuses on the Larsen B ice shelf, saying that it completely disappeared in 35 days.
FACT. There has been extensive ice-shelf break-up throughout the past 10,000 years, and the maximum ice-shelf extent may have been in the Little Ice Age in the late 15th century.
ERROR 27-MOSQUITOES "CLIMBING TO HIGHER ALTITUDES"
Gore says that, because of “global warming”, mosquitoes are climbing to higher altitudes. They are not.
Most recent outbreaks have been at lower levels than those of a century and more ago. He says that Nairobi was founded 1000 m above sea level so as to be above the mosquito line. It was not. In the period before anthropogenic warming could have had any significant effect, there were ten malaria outbreaks in Nairobi, one of which reached as far up as Eldoret, almost 3000 m above sea level. Malaria is not a tropical disease. Mosquitoes do not need tropical temperatures: they need no more than 15 degrees Celsius to breed. The largest malaria outbreak of modern times was in Siberia in the 1920s and 1930s, when 13 million were infected, 600,000 died and 30,000 died as far north as Arkhangelsk, on the Arctic Circle. There is no reason to suppose that malaria will spread even if the climate continues to become warmer.
ERROR 28-MANY TROPICAL DISEASES "SPREAD THROUGH'GLOBAL WARMING'"
Gore says that, as well as malaria, “global warming” is spreading dengue fever, Lyme disease, West Nile virus, arena virus, avian flu, Ebola virus, E. Coli 0157:H7, Hanta virus, legionella, leptospirosis, multi-drug-resistant TB, Nipah virus, SARS and Vibrio Cholerae 0139.
It is doing no such thing. Only the first four diseases are insect-borne, but none is tropical. Of the other diseases named by Gore either in his film or in the accompanying book, not one is sensitive to increasing temperature. They are spread not by warmer weather but by rats, chickens, primates, pigs, poor hygiene, ill-maintained air conditioning, or cold weather.
ERROR 29-WEST NILE VIRUS IN THE US "SPREAD THROUGH GLOBAL WARMING'"
Gore says that West Nile virus spread throughout the US in just two years, implicitly because of “global warming.” It did not.
The climate in the US ranges from some of the world’s hottest deserts to some of its iciest tundra. West Nile virus flourishes in any climate. Warming of the climate, however caused, does not affect its incidence or prevalence.
ERROR 30-CARBON DIOXIDE IS "POLLUTION"
Gore describes carbon dioxide as “global warming pollution.” It is not.
Carbon dioxide is food for plants and trees. Tests have shown that even at concentrations 30 times those of the present day even the most delicate plants flourish. Well-managed forests, such as those of the United States, are growing at record rates because the extra carbon dioxide in the atmosphere is feeding the trees. Carbon dioxide, in geological timescale, is at a very low concentration at present. Half a billion years ago it was at 7000 parts per million by volume, about 18 times today’s concentration.
ERROR 31-THE EUROPEAN HEAT WAVE OF 2003 "KILLED 35,000"
Gore says, “A couple of years ago in Europe they had that heat wave that killed 35,000.”
Though some scientists agree with Gore, the scientific consensus is that extreme warm anomalies more unusual than the 2003 heat wave occur regularly; extreme cold anomalies also occur regularly; El Niño and volcanism appear to be of much greater importance than any general warming trend; and there is little evidence that regional heat or cold waves are significantly increasing or decreasing with time.
In general, warm is better than cold, which is why the largest number of life-forms are in the tropics and the least number are at the poles. A cold snap in the winter following the European heat wave killed 20,000 in the UK alone. Though the IPCC says 150,000 people a year are being killed worldwide by “global warming,” it reaches this figure only by deliberately excluding the number of people who are not being killed because there is less cold weather. In the US alone, it has been estimated that 174,000 fewer people are being killed each year because there are fewer episodes of extreme cold.
ERROR 32-PIED FLYCATCHERS "CANNOT FEED THEIR YOUNG"
Gore says “The peak arrival date for migratory birds 25 years ago was April 25. Their chicks hatched on June 3, just at the time when the caterpillars were coming out: Nature’s plan. But 20 years of warming later the caterpillars peaked two weeks earlier. The chicks tried to catch up with it, but they couldn’t. So they are in trouble.”
Adaptation is easy for the flycatchers: they merely fly a few tens of kilometers further north and they will find caterpillars hatching at the appropriate time. Besides, though Gore does not say so, what is bad news for the pied flycatchers is good news for the caterpillars, and for the butterflies they will become.
ERROR 33-GORE'S BOGUS PICTURES AND FILM FOOTAGE
In the book accompanying Gore’s film, the story of the pied flycatchers and the caterpillars is accompanied by a picture of a bird feeding her hungry chicks. However, closer inspection shows that the bird is not a pied flycatcher but a black tern; and that she is not carrying a caterpillar in her beak, but a small fish.
Gore similarly misuses spectacular footage of a glacier apparently calving off enormous slabs of ice into the sea – footage that is often shown on television to accompany stories about “global warming.” However, the glacier in question is one that is known to be advancing – and to be doing so more rapidly and more often than previously. It is in southern Argentina, where its snout crosses – and eventually dams, Lake Argentino. Water builds up behind the ice dam and eventually bursts it, causing the spectacular collapse of ice into the lake that is so misleadingly used as the iconic image of the effect of “global warming” on glaciers. The breaking of the ice dam used to occur every eight years or so: now, however, it occurs every five years, not because of “global warming” because of the regional cooling of the southern Atlantic.
ERROR 34-THE THAMES BARRIER "CLOSING MORE FREQUENTLY"
Gore says that rising sea levels are compelling the operators of the Thames Barrier to close it more frequently than when it was first built. They are not.
The barrier is indeed closed more frequently than when it was built, but the reason has nothing to do with “global warming” or rising sea levels. The reason is a change of policy by which the barrier is closed during exceptionally low tides, so as to retain water in the tidal Thames rather than keeping it out. Yet even the present leader of the official Opposition in the UK Parliament recently used a major speech as the opportunity to mention today’s more frequent closing of the Thames Barrier as though it were a matter of grave concern.
ERROR 35-"CO2 PREDICTED RISE IS NOT IN DISPUTE BY ANYBODY."
Gore says that his prediction that the atmospheric concentration of carbon dioxide will rise to more than 600 parts per million by volume as soon as 2050 is “not controversial in any way or in dispute by anybody.”
Not one of the half-dozen official projections of growth in CO2 concentration made by the IPCC shows as much as 600 parts per million by 2050.
ERROR 23-SAHARA DESERT "DRYING"
Gore says terrible tragedies are occurring in the southern Sahara because of drought which he blames on “global warming.” Not True.
There is no drought caused by “global warming.” In 2007 there were record rains across the whole of the southern Sahara. In the past 25 years the Sahara has shrunk by some 300,000 square kilometers because of additional rainfall. Some scientists think “global warming” may actually mitigate pre-existing droughts because there will be more water vapor in the atmosphere.
ERROR 24-WEST ANTARCTIC ICE SHEET "UNSTABLE"
Gore says disturbing changes have been measured under the West Antarctic ice sheet, implicitly because of “global warming.” Not True.
Most of the recession in this ice sheet over the past 10,000 years has occurred in the absence of any sea-level or temperature forcing. In most of Antarctica, the ice is in fact growing thicker. Mean Antarctic temperature has actually fallen throughout the past half-century. In some Antarctic glens, environmental damage has been caused by temperature decreases of up to 2 degrees Celsius. Antarctic sea-ice spread to a 30-year record extent in late 2007.
ERROR 25-ANTARCTIC PENINSULA ICE SHELVES "BREAKING UP"
Gore says half a dozen ice shelves each “larger than Rhode Island” have broken up and vanished from the Antarctic Peninsula recently, implicitly because of “global warming.” Not True.
Global warming is unlikely to have been the cause. Gore does not explain that the ice shelves have melted before, as studies of seabed sediments have shown. The Antarctic Peninsula accounts for about 2% of the continent, in most of which the ice is growing thicker. All the recently-melted shelves, added together, amount to an area less than one-fifty-fifth the size of Texas.
ERROR 26-LARSEN B ICE SHELF "BROKE UP BECAUSE OF'GLOBAL WARMING'"
Gore focuses on the Larsen B ice shelf, saying that it completely disappeared in 35 days.
FACT. There has been extensive ice-shelf break-up throughout the past 10,000 years, and the maximum ice-shelf extent may have been in the Little Ice Age in the late 15th century.
ERROR 27-MOSQUITOES "CLIMBING TO HIGHER ALTITUDES"
Gore says that, because of “global warming”, mosquitoes are climbing to higher altitudes. They are not.
Most recent outbreaks have been at lower levels than those of a century and more ago. He says that Nairobi was founded 1000 m above sea level so as to be above the mosquito line. It was not. In the period before anthropogenic warming could have had any significant effect, there were ten malaria outbreaks in Nairobi, one of which reached as far up as Eldoret, almost 3000 m above sea level. Malaria is not a tropical disease. Mosquitoes do not need tropical temperatures: they need no more than 15 degrees Celsius to breed. The largest malaria outbreak of modern times was in Siberia in the 1920s and 1930s, when 13 million were infected, 600,000 died and 30,000 died as far north as Arkhangelsk, on the Arctic Circle. There is no reason to suppose that malaria will spread even if the climate continues to become warmer.
ERROR 28-MANY TROPICAL DISEASES "SPREAD THROUGH'GLOBAL WARMING'"
Gore says that, as well as malaria, “global warming” is spreading dengue fever, Lyme disease, West Nile virus, arena virus, avian flu, Ebola virus, E. Coli 0157:H7, Hanta virus, legionella, leptospirosis, multi-drug-resistant TB, Nipah virus, SARS and Vibrio Cholerae 0139.
It is doing no such thing. Only the first four diseases are insect-borne, but none is tropical. Of the other diseases named by Gore either in his film or in the accompanying book, not one is sensitive to increasing temperature. They are spread not by warmer weather but by rats, chickens, primates, pigs, poor hygiene, ill-maintained air conditioning, or cold weather.
ERROR 29-WEST NILE VIRUS IN THE US "SPREAD THROUGH GLOBAL WARMING'"
Gore says that West Nile virus spread throughout the US in just two years, implicitly because of “global warming.” It did not.
The climate in the US ranges from some of the world’s hottest deserts to some of its iciest tundra. West Nile virus flourishes in any climate. Warming of the climate, however caused, does not affec
- digging4freedom, on 02/22/2008, -3/+3 Continued
- Menie, on 02/22/2008, -1/+2Globe warming also exerts a good influence on something like plants. Despite of this, as it says, it may bring us to a horrible destruction.
- zanonymous, on 02/22/2008, -0/+1some fact will exert a good influence on global warming some would aggree, or dissagree
- digging4freedom, on 02/22/2008, -14/+23 Inconvenient Truth--Al Gore's film is chock full of errors!
http://scienceandpublicpolicy.org/monckton/goreerr ...
Download the full article with analysis at:
http://scienceandpublicpolicy.org/images/stories/p ...
--------
In October 2007 the High Court in London identified nine “errors” of many found in Al Gore's movie "An Inconvenient Truth." The judge had stated that, if the UK Government had not agreed to send to every secondary school in England a corrected guidance note making clear the mainstream scientific position on these nine “errors”, he would have made a finding that the Government’s distribution of the film and the first draft of the guidance note earlier in 2007 to all English secondary schools had been an unlawful contravention of an Act of Parliament prohibiting the political indoctrination of children.
In defense, Al Gore’s spokesman and “environment advisor,” Ms. Kalee Kreider said that the film presented “thousands and thousands of facts.”
This is not true either, and not possible--2, 000 “facts” in 93 minutes would have been one fact every three seconds.
The film contained only a few dozen points, most of which will be seen to have been substantially inaccurate. The judge concentrated only on nine points, which even the UK Government (to which Gore is a climate-change advisor!) had to admit did not represent mainstream scientific opinion.
Thirty five of the errors are summarized below.
--------
LIST OF 35 ERRORS IN "AN INCONVENIENT TRUTH":
ERROR 1- SEA LEVEL "RISING 6 METERS"
Gore says that a sea-level rise of up to 6 m (20 ft) will be caused by melting of either West Antarctica or Greenland, in the near future.
In the next 100 years, according to calculations based on figures in the IPCC’s 2007 report, melting of these two ice sheets would add a little over 6 cm (2.5 inches) to sea level, not 6 m. Gore has accordingly exaggerated the official sea-level estimate by approaching 10,000 per cent.
ERROR 2-PACIFIC ISLANDS "DROWNING"
Gore says low-lying inhabited Pacific coral atolls are already being inundated because of human caused global warming, leading to the evacuation of several island populations to New Zealand.
There have been no mass evacuations of populations of islanders as suggested by Gore, though some residents of Tuvalu have asked to be moved to New Zealand, even though the tide-gauges maintained until recently by the National Tidal Facility of Australia show a mean annual sea-level rise over the past half-century equivalent to the thickness of a human hair.
The coral atolls are not being inundated, except where dynamiting of reefs or over-extraction of fresh water by local populations has caused damage. Because corals can grow at ten times the predicted rate of increase in sea level, it is not unreasonable that by coincidence that so many atolls reach just a few feet above the ocean surface.
In the Maldives, a detailed recent study showed that sea levels were unchanged today compared with 1250 years ago, though they have been higher in much of the intervening period, and have very seldom been lower. A well-established tree very close to the Maldivian shoreline and only inches above sea level was recently uprooted by Australian environmentalists anxious to destroy this visible proof that sea level cannot have risen very far.
ERROR 3-THERMOHALINE CIRCULATION "STOPPING"
Gore says “global warming” may shut down the thermohaline circulation in the oceans, which he calls the “ocean conveyor,” plunging Europe into an ice age.
It will not. A paper published in 2006 says: “Analyses of ocean observations and model simulations suggest that changes in the thermohaline circulation during the last century are likely the result of natural multidecadal climate variability. Indications of a sustained thermohaline circulation weakening are not seen during the last few decades. Instead, a strengthening since the 1980s is observed.”
ERROR 4-CO2 "DRIVING TEMPERATURE"
Gore says that in e
