An Inconvenient Truth

"One who hugs trees too long...may get splinters."--Chinese proverb

Well I, for one, welcome the splinters.

We are seperate from our environment only in our minds, and it really saddens me that when people choose nature over the avarice and indifference of mankind, they are labelled as "tree-huggers". Should I prefer hugging my microwave, in all its smooth plastic other-ness? Why is it that if I feel in my bones what people like Gore are trying to illuminate, that I am somehow not thinking for myself. I apologize if I do not have the time to go back to college for an Environmental Science degree, but I get the feeling that hundreds of millions of people driving, eating, buying, and tossing might have a negative effect on our environment. Someone with data to confirm this should get it out there. Simple. The charts and graphs alone from this film would have been just as convincing, bereft of any of the psuedo-Hollywood filigree that some are convinced is in there.

We are harming the thing that sustains us, and I don't fault Gore for pointing it out. Are you asking me to try and hold the conflicting view in my mind at the same time? Is everything just okay? Absolutely not.

For me this couldn't be any less of a political issue, other than that it concerns us all, the body-politic. It is an issue of common sense and restraint. But, by all means, go ahead and play the "devil's advocate". That hat looks great on you.

IMHO we had all better start working together on this before it is too late.

Please see article below.

CLIMATE CHANGE UNITES SCIENCE AND RELIGION
17 January 2007, NewScientist.com news service, Phil Mckenna

excerpts:
"Laying down their swords over how we came to exist, leaders from scientific and evangelical communities in the US joined forces today in an unprecedented effort to protect what we have....

"The group issued an ?urgent call to action? signed by 28 coalition members including university professors, federal biologists, directors of conservation organisations, seminary officials, evangelical organisation leaders, and "megachurch" pastors."......

"Today?s statements are not the first time evangelicals have expressed concern over the environment. In February 2006, 86 evangelical leaders signed a statement to fight global warming. The statement declared that human-induced climate change is real, its consequences will hit the poor the hardest, and Christian moral convictions demand urgent response to the problem."........

the complete article is below http://environment.newscientist.com/article/dn10975-climate-change-unites-science-and-religion.html

Laying down their swords over how we came to exist, leaders from scientific and evangelical communities in the US joined forces today in an unprecedented effort to protect what we have.

Speaking at a press conference in Washington DC, members of the newly formed group expressed concerns about planetary threats caused by humans including climate change, habitat destruction, pollution, and species extinction.

The group issued an ?urgent call to action? signed by 28 coalition members including university professors, federal biologists, directors of conservation organisations, seminary officials, evangelical organisation leaders, and "megachurch" pastors.

The statement, sent to President George W Bush and Congressional leaders urges fundamental change in public policies and states that ?business as usual cannot continue yet one more day?.

Deep reverence

The group was spearheaded by leaders of Harvard University?s Center for Health and the Global Environment in Boston, Massachusetts, and the National Association of Evangelicals (NAE), an umbrella group that encompasses 45,000 churches, and represents 40% of the Republican Party?s supporters. The NEA announced their green intentions in early 2006, but now members from both organisations are calling for a united front on environmental issues.

?We share a very deep reverence for life on earth, whether that life was created by God or evolved over billions of years, it exists, is sacred to all of us, and is being endangered by human activity,? said Eric Chivian, Director of Harvard?s Center for Health and the Global Environment.

?It doesn?t matter if we are liberals or conservatives, Darwinists or Creationists, we are all under the same atmosphere and drink the same water and will do everything we can to work together to solve these problems.?

"Creation care agenda"

Reverend Richard Cizik, NAE's vice president for government affairs, says that by working together the two groups can have a larger impact.

?We have formed a partnership which we think has the power to reach far and wide and be very persuasive in promoting a creation care agenda,? Cizik says. ?We are driven by an overriding sense that we cannot fail, we must not fail, there is too much at stake.?

Having met for the first time at a retreat in late-November 2006 in Thomasville, Georgia, the group now plans to meet with Congressional leaders from both Republican and Democratic parties on Thursday to encourage action on environmental issues.
Inconvenient truth

Today?s statements are not the first time evangelicals have expressed concern over the environment. In February 2006, 86 evangelical leaders signed a statement to fight global warming. The statement declared that human-induced climate change is real, its consequences will hit the poor the hardest, and Christian moral convictions demand urgent response to the problem.

Today?s announcement follows the showing of An Inconvenient Truth, former Vice President Al Gore?s documentary on global warming, in thousands of churches across the US in recent months.

Scientists signing the letter included Harvard biologist and author of The Creation: An Appeal to Save Life on Earth, Edward O. Wilson. It was also signed by leading climate scientist James Hansen, who came under fire from the White House after calling for reductions in greenhouse gas emissions to slow global warming in December 2005.
Related Articles

* Can E. O. Wilson really save the world?
* http://environment.newscientist.com/article/mg19125711.300
* 30 September 2006
* Review: An Inconvenient Truth
* http://environment.newscientist.com/article/mg19125592.100
* 08 July 2006
* Evangelicals and environmentalists united
* http://environment.newscientist.com/article/mg19025454.700
* 01 April 2006

Weblinks

* Center for Health and the Global Environment, Harvard
* http://chge.med.harvard.edu/
* National Association of Evangelicals
* http://www.nae.net/
* An Inconvenient Truth
* http://www.aninconvenienttruth.co.uk

Well I, for one, welcome the splinters.

We are seperate from our environment only in our minds, and it really saddens me that when people choose nature over the avarice and indifference of mankind, they are labelled as "tree-huggers". Should I prefer hugging my microwave, in all its smooth plastic other-ness? Why is it that if I feel in my bones what people like Gore are trying to illuminate, that I am somehow not thinking for myself. I apologize if I do not have the time to go back to college for an Environmental Science degree, but I get the feeling that hundreds of millions of people driving, eating, buying, and tossing might have a negative effect on our environment. Someone with data to confirm this should get it out there. Simple. The charts and graphs alone from this film would have been just as convincing, bereft of any of the psuedo-Hollywood filigree that some are convinced is in there.

We are harming the thing that sustains us, and I don't fault Gore for pointing it out. Are you asking me to try and hold the conflicting view in my mind at the same time? Is everything just okay? Absolutely not.

For me this couldn't be any less of a political issue, other than that it concerns us all, the body-politic. It is an issue of common sense and restraint. But, by all means, go ahead and play the "devil's advocate". That hat looks great on you.

Dan, I agree that labeling people as tree huggers and hippies is counterproductive. All I was trying to point out was the rather chilling fact that there is an attempt to silence dissenters who feel they have credible data that counters the popularly accepted theory of global warming. When mass hysteria replaces rational thought process, you end up with situations like this:

Well I, for one, welcome the splinters.

We are seperate from our environment only in our minds, and it really saddens me that when people choose nature over the avarice and indifference of mankind, they are labelled as "tree-huggers". Should I prefer hugging my microwave, in all its smooth plastic other-ness? Why is it that if I feel in my bones what people like Gore are trying to illuminate, that I am somehow not thinking for myself. I apologize if I do not have the time to go back to college for an Environmental Science degree, but I get the feeling that hundreds of millions of people driving, eating, buying, and tossing might have a negative effect on our environment. Someone with data to confirm this should get it out there. Simple. The charts and graphs alone from this film would have been just as convincing, bereft of any of the psuedo-Hollywood filigree that some are convinced is in there.

We are harming the thing that sustains us, and I don't fault Gore for pointing it out. Are you asking me to try and hold the conflicting view in my mind at the same time? Is everything just okay? Absolutely not.

For me this couldn't be any less of a political issue, other than that it concerns us all, the body-politic. It is an issue of common sense and restraint. But, by all means, go ahead and play the "devil's advocate". That hat looks great on you.

Lighten up! Geez. Let me state that I too think the Earth may be going through a warming cycle (cycles that have occured for thousands of years). Its the "politics" and the arrogance that "man" is the major factor in affecting these cycles that's hard to swallow. I'm all for conservation and helping to make our air and water clean but for every "study" you show me that man is responsible for "global warming", I can show you the contrary. The fact that many call a rebuttal (on either side) propaganda does not make it so.

Besides, I procrastinate. I'm just now getting prepared for the coming "Ice Age" the "experts" were touting in the 70's.

Dan, I agree that labeling people as tree huggers and hippies is counterproductive. All I was trying to point out was the rather chilling fact that there is an attempt to silence dissenters who feel they have credible data that counters the popularly accepted theory of global warming. When mass hysteria replaces rational thought process, you end up with situations like this:

Well, we won't kill you if you disagree. ;-)

I would love to know what mass hysteria about global warming would look like. Would there be long lines at the recycle bin, excessive carpooling, used car lots overflowing, bicycle manufacturer's ads flooding the Super Bowl?

I would also be interested in watching a docu-info-mentary about how everything is just peachy. Maybe one of these dissenters will get on that pretty soon. Maybe that is what Bush will do with his time off, sort of like an anti-Gore. Maybe they can cancel each other out. Then we'll have a lengthy debate while Big Oil gets more onery. We'll keep driving our Hummers, eating our Big Macs and burning up our cellphones calling American Idol.

Sorry to rant, my issue is with consumerism at large. I believe that we are altering our environment, and rampant consumerism is the prime mover. It is what makes the big wheels churn steadily on.

Well, we won't kill you if you disagree. ;-)

I would love to know what mass hysteria about global warming would look like. Would there be long lines at the recycle bin, excessive carpooling, used car lots overflowing, bicycle manufacturer's ads flooding the Super Bowl?

I would also be interested in watching a docu-info-mentary about how everything is just peachy. Maybe one of these dissenters will get on that pretty soon. Maybe that is what Bush will do with his time off, sort of like an anti-Gore. Maybe they can cancel each other out. Then we'll have a lengthy debate while Big Oil gets more onery. We'll keep driving our Hummers, eating our Big Macs and burning up our cellphones calling American Idol.

Sorry to rant, my issue is with consumerism at large. I believe that we are altering our environment, and rampant consumerism is the prime mover. It is what makes the big wheels churn steadily on.

I think Dan has summed up with his last paragraph the reason for the skepticism.

I think Dan has summed up with his last paragraph the reason for the skepticism.

My take on the environmental issue is indeed chained together with a number of other ideas, which you may find overtly political. But, that doesn't mean that everybody else does the same. I apologize for my over-the-top generalizations, and for linking this issue to the others. I certainly don't think it's a bad thing to be skeptical. Believe me, I am VERY skeptical about a great number of things; most everything that I see on TV, in fact. I am, however, not ready to believe that Gore is doing this thing to make a buck, sell some movies, or get his close-up. I can't be that cynical just yet, as I am still an idealistic young man. I have to hope that majority science, though certainly not infalliable, has honed the craft enough to get this one right. Nobody wants there to be global warming, least of all the scientific community. It would threaten the world in which they are so interested. I am simply concerned. I read too much Alvin Toffler. I think about all the factories turning out the next plastic widget, in a last grasp at novelty. Can we just keep on "truckin"? There was an earlier post about how we as a society are going "green" regardless of this issue, because there stands to be a big dollar to be made from it. I don't care how or why we go there, I just hope we all can.

thanks for listening...

Check out this "long range" weather forecast of "wild weather" to phase in during this century.

Even though it is admittedly speculative it is very fascinating.
There actually is some relatively "good news" for our area.

excerpts:
... "What we take now as a surprise will be normal"...

..For many parts of the world it seems this trend is already under way. Climate scientists announced last week that 2006 has been the hottest year on record for the US, topping nine years of almost continuous rises.

Meanwhile, Europe experienced severe heatwaves in both 2003 and 2006, and for the UK 2006 was the warmest year since records began. ...

... the European Commission warns of stark changes for EU countries over the coming century, including shrinking forests, floods, drought and the drying out of fertile land - unless radical steps are taken to combat climate change.

..Rainfall in places in the middle, like Australia and the southern US, is expected to remain fairly close to what it is now."


BTW the graphics at this site for this article are very interesting

http://environment.newscientist.com...74.000-2100-a-world-of-wild-weather.html2100:

A world of wild weather
* 18 January 2007
* NewScientist.com news service
* Kate Ravilious

Think back to the hottest summer you can remember. Now imagine a summer like that every year. For those of us who are still around by the end of the 21st century, this is what we can expect, according to a new index that maps the different ways that climate change will hit different parts of the world. The map reveals how much more frequent extreme climate events, such as heatwaves and floods, will be by 2100 compared with the late 20th century. It is the first to show how global warming will combine with natural variations in the climate to affect our planet.

"We hope it will help policy-makers gain a quick overview of the scientific facts without getting lost in the detail," says Mich?le B?ttig of the Swiss Federal Institute of Technology in Zurich, who created the index with colleagues after talking to delegates at the 2005 UN Climate Change Conference in Montreal, Canada. The index allows anyone to compare the severity of the predicted effect of climate change on a chunk of the Amazon rainforest, for example, with its effect on a corner of Antarctica.

The results are presented on a global map (see top image), in which the areas experiencing the greatest changes are shown in the darkest shades. Swathes of the tropics and high latitudes are coloured a foreboding brown, signifying the most marked changes.

Perhaps the most startling feature is how few areas remain unscathed. "This reinforces what much of the piecemeal climate science is telling us - that many places will face severe challenges," says Neil Adger of the UK's Tyndall Centre for Climate Change Research at the University of East Anglia in Norwich, Norfolk. In the coming decades people in these areas could find it difficult or impossible to adapt to the changed conditions, he adds.

For many parts of the world it seems this trend is already under way. Climate scientists announced last week that 2006 has been the hottest year on record for the US, topping nine years of almost continuous rises. Meanwhile, Europe experienced severe heatwaves in both 2003 and 2006, and for the UK 2006 was the warmest year since records began. Nor does it look as if the mercury is going to stop rising. In an energy technology outlook study published last week, the European Commission warns of stark changes for EU countries over the coming century, including shrinking forests, floods, drought and the drying out of fertile land - unless radical steps are taken to combat climate change.

Yet in a global context, even these dramatic changes seem relatively modest. On B?ttig's climate change index map Europe, the US and Australia are coloured in shades of yellow and orange, putting them at around 6 or 7 on the scale. Parts of South America's Amazon rainforest and Africa's Congo basin fare much worse, with a predicted climate change index of around 11 (Geophysical Research Letters, DOI: 10.1029/2006GL028159).

The index was calculated from nine separate indicators of climate change. These included years that are hot, dry or wet overall, and also those in which the months of June, July and August, or December, January and February, would be extremely warm, dry or wet. B?ttig and her colleagues divided the world into squares measuring 375 by 375 kilometres, and for each indicator they identified the extreme climate events that in the period 1961 to 1990 would have been expected to occur in 1 year in 20.

Using three different global climate models, each based on a mid-range forecast for greenhouse gas emissions, they computed the likely change in frequency of these extreme events during the period 2071 to 2100. The changes were then weighted to provide a single number between 0 and 19 for each grid square. A value of 0 equates to all nine climate indicators remaining as 1-in-20-year events, whereas a value of 19 equates to all climate indicators becoming annual events.

"It is a very striking graphic," says Chris West, director of the UK Climate Impacts Programme at the University of Oxford. While other climate change indices have compared changes in average temperature or precipitation, this is the first global index based on climate extremes. "It focuses the debate on the big events we ought to be worrying about," says Tom Downing of the Stockholm Environment Institute and author of The Atlas of Climate Change.

The new index has its limitations. "Places that become hotter will face different problems to places that become wetter, but the index implies that they have the same level of risk," Downing says. B?ttig has addressed this problem with separate maps for each climate indicator. The first of these, representing additional hottest years, shows the world in an ominous deep red (see Map). When it comes to overall temperature, 1-in-20-year temperatures are set to become annual events by the end of this century. "What we take now as a surprise will be normal", says Downing.

Meanwhile, Antarctica and the Arctic can expect exceedingly wet years to become 13 times more likely, while tropical regions like the Amazon rainforest and the Congo basin will suffer droughts around 13 times more frequently (see Map). Rainfall in places in the middle, like Australia and the southern US, is expected to remain fairly close to what it is now.

Where natural disasters now take their toll

Climate change is not the same as climate impact, as changes in temperature and precipitation will affect people in some regions far more than others. For example, sub-Saharan Africa is a drought hotspot, while south and south-east Asia are vulnerable to storms and flooding. Any changes in climate here could affect people more severely than, say, those in Europe.

Art Lerner-Lam and colleagues from Columbia University in Palisades, New York, have sketched out which natural disasters pose the greatest threat to life on a global map of their own (see bottom image, right). They produced their map by combining data on hazard frequency and intensity from the recent past with population density, GDP and geographical factors such as land use. This has already influenced organisations such as the World Bank in deciding which regions should be prioritised for emergency lending.

The next step will be to overlay the extent of climate change, as revealed by B?ttig's index for example, and see how this affects the frequency and severity of future hazards. "We are working on this right now," says Lerner-Lam.
From issue 2587 of New Scientist magazine, 18 January 2007, page 6-7
Close this window

Check out this "long range" weather forecast of "wild weather" to phase in during this century.

Even though it is admittedly speculative it is very fascinating.
There actually is some relatively "good news" for our area.

excerpts:
... "What we take now as a surprise will be normal"...

..For many parts of the world it seems this trend is already under way. Climate scientists announced last week that 2006 has been the hottest year on record for the US, topping nine years of almost continuous rises.

Meanwhile, Europe experienced severe heatwaves in both 2003 and 2006, and for the UK 2006 was the warmest year since records began. ...

... the European Commission warns of stark changes for EU countries over the coming century, including shrinking forests, floods, drought and the drying out of fertile land - unless radical steps are taken to combat climate change.

..Rainfall in places in the middle, like Australia and the southern US, is expected to remain fairly close to what it is now."


BTW the graphics at this site for this article are very interesting

http://environment.newscientist.com...74.000-2100-a-world-of-wild-weather.html2100:

A world of wild weather
* 18 January 2007
* NewScientist.com news service
* Kate Ravilious

Think back to the hottest summer you can remember. Now imagine a summer like that every year. For those of us who are still around by the end of the 21st century, this is what we can expect, according to a new index that maps the different ways that climate change will hit different parts of the world. The map reveals how much more frequent extreme climate events, such as heatwaves and floods, will be by 2100 compared with the late 20th century. It is the first to show how global warming will combine with natural variations in the climate to affect our planet.

"We hope it will help policy-makers gain a quick overview of the scientific facts without getting lost in the detail," says Michle Bttig of the Swiss Federal Institute of Technology in Zurich, who created the index with colleagues after talking to delegates at the 2005 UN Climate Change Conference in Montreal, Canada. The index allows anyone to compare the severity of the predicted effect of climate change on a chunk of the Amazon rainforest, for example, with its effect on a corner of Antarctica.

The results are presented on a global map (see top image), in which the areas experiencing the greatest changes are shown in the darkest shades. Swathes of the tropics and high latitudes are coloured a foreboding brown, signifying the most marked changes.

Perhaps the most startling feature is how few areas remain unscathed. "This reinforces what much of the piecemeal climate science is telling us - that many places will face severe challenges," says Neil Adger of the UK's Tyndall Centre for Climate Change Research at the University of East Anglia in Norwich, Norfolk. In the coming decades people in these areas could find it difficult or impossible to adapt to the changed conditions, he adds.

For many parts of the world it seems this trend is already under way. Climate scientists announced last week that 2006 has been the hottest year on record for the US, topping nine years of almost continuous rises. Meanwhile, Europe experienced severe heatwaves in both 2003 and 2006, and for the UK 2006 was the warmest year since records began. Nor does it look as if the mercury is going to stop rising. In an energy technology outlook study published last week, the European Commission warns of stark changes for EU countries over the coming century, including shrinking forests, floods, drought and the drying out of fertile land - unless radical steps are taken to combat climate change.

Yet in a global context, even these dramatic changes seem relatively modest. On Bttig's climate change index map Europe, the US and Australia are coloured in shades of yellow and orange, putting them at around 6 or 7 on the scale. Parts of South America's Amazon rainforest and Africa's Congo basin fare much worse, with a predicted climate change index of around 11 (Geophysical Research Letters, DOI: 10.1029/2006GL028159).

The index was calculated from nine separate indicators of climate change. These included years that are hot, dry or wet overall, and also those in which the months of June, July and August, or December, January and February, would be extremely warm, dry or wet. Bttig and her colleagues divided the world into squares measuring 375 by 375 kilometres, and for each indicator they identified the extreme climate events that in the period 1961 to 1990 would have been expected to occur in 1 year in 20.

Using three different global climate models, each based on a mid-range forecast for greenhouse gas emissions, they computed the likely change in frequency of these extreme events during the period 2071 to 2100. The changes were then weighted to provide a single number between 0 and 19 for each grid square. A value of 0 equates to all nine climate indicators remaining as 1-in-20-year events, whereas a value of 19 equates to all climate indicators becoming annual events.

"It is a very striking graphic," says Chris West, director of the UK Climate Impacts Programme at the University of Oxford. While other climate change indices have compared changes in average temperature or precipitation, this is the first global index based on climate extremes. "It focuses the debate on the big events we ought to be worrying about," says Tom Downing of the Stockholm Environment Institute and author of The Atlas of Climate Change.

The new index has its limitations. "Places that become hotter will face different problems to places that become wetter, but the index implies that they have the same level of risk," Downing says. Bttig has addressed this problem with separate maps for each climate indicator. The first of these, representing additional hottest years, shows the world in an ominous deep red (see Map). When it comes to overall temperature, 1-in-20-year temperatures are set to become annual events by the end of this century. "What we take now as a surprise will be normal", says Downing.

Meanwhile, Antarctica and the Arctic can expect exceedingly wet years to become 13 times more likely, while tropical regions like the Amazon rainforest and the Congo basin will suffer droughts around 13 times more frequently (see Map). Rainfall in places in the middle, like Australia and the southern US, is expected to remain fairly close to what it is now.

Where natural disasters now take their toll

Climate change is not the same as climate impact, as changes in temperature and precipitation will affect people in some regions far more than others. For example, sub-Saharan Africa is a drought hotspot, while south and south-east Asia are vulnerable to storms and flooding. Any changes in climate here could affect people more severely than, say, those in Europe.

Art Lerner-Lam and colleagues from Columbia University in Palisades, New York, have sketched out which natural disasters pose the greatest threat to life on a global map of their own (see bottom image, right). They produced their map by combining data on hazard frequency and intensity from the recent past with population density, GDP and geographical factors such as land use. This has already influenced organisations such as the World Bank in deciding which regions should be prioritised for emergency lending.

The next step will be to overlay the extent of climate change, as revealed by Bttig's index for example, and see how this affects the frequency and severity of future hazards. "We are working on this right now," says Lerner-Lam.
From issue 2587 of New Scientist magazine, 18 January 2007, page 6-7
Close this window

What was the average temperature between the years 1613 to 1663? How about 345 BC to 245 BC? I don't know. The Earth, by most accounts, is 3 1/2 to 4 billion years old. So we use records that date back (maybe) 100 years or so to conclude that we are beginning a global warming period. BTW global warming apparently started about 10-15 years ago according to mostof the data proponents offer (the decade of the 30's also showed increased temps.).

The point is that the Earth is a living planet and goes through climatic changes. We can't start it and we can't stop it. We can do things that can help give us a cleaner enviroment which can provide us a more healthy place in which we live. The cause of global warming and global cooling is the SUN, which also is a living body. What caused the "Ice Age"? What caused the end of the "Ice Age"...mammoth farts?

We have what seems to be warming in the Artic but also cooling in the Antartic. Are we only having global warming in the northern hemisphere? I believe I have the answer that most of the alarmist want to hear: The initials for global warming is gw...GW is in the White House! It's George Bush's fault!!!
There...i said it for you. Now you don't have to "beat around the Bush" (pun intended). I now must apologize to the ozone because I'm eating Mexican tonight.

ttp://www.newscientist.com/article/mg18524861.500-meet-the-global-warming-sceptics.html

MEET THE GLOBAL WARMING SKEPTICS

* 12 February 2005
* NewScientist.com news service

"Most of the prominent organisations making the case against mainstream climate science have an avowed agenda of promoting free markets and minimal government. They often accept funding from the fossil-fuel industry. Few employ climate scientists.

1 Competitive Enterprise Institute (Washington DC)

A free-market lobby organisation that employs six experts on climate change. Two are lawyers, one an economist, one a political scientist, one a graduate in business studies and one a mathematician. They include economist Myron Ebell, most famous in the UK for a tirade on BBC radio in November 2004 in which he accused the UK government's chief scientist David King of "knowing nothing about climate science". The institute receives funding from ExxonMobil, the world's largest oil company and an outspoken corporate opponent of mainstream climate science.

2 American Enterprise Institute (Washington DC)

Another free market think tank. The five experts it sent to the most recent negotiations on the Kyoto protocol, held in Buenos Aires, Argentina, in December, included just one natural scientist - a chemist. Receives money from ExxonMobil.

3 George C. Marshall Institute (Washington DC)

A think tank that has been promoting scepticism on climate change since 1989. It is a leading proponent of the argument that climate science is highly uncertain. Receives money from ExxonMobil.

4 International Policy Network (London)

Free-market think tank which in November 2004 said global warming was a "myth", and described David King as "an embarrassment". Receives money from ExxonMobil.
5 The scientists

There are a few authoritative climate scientists in the sceptic camp. The most notable are Patrick Michaels from the University of Virginia, who is also the chief environmental commentator at the Cato Institute in Washington DC, and meteorologist Richard Lindzen from MIT. Most others are either retired, outside mainstream academia or tied to the fossil fuel industry. In the UK, three of the most prominent are Philip Stott, a retired biogeographer, former TV botanist David Bellamy, and Martin Keeley, a palaeogeologist. Keeley argues on a BBC website that "global warming is a scam, perpetrated by scientists with vested interests". He is an oil exploration consultant.
From issue 2486 of New Scientist magazine, 12 February 2005, page 40
Close this window
Printed on Fri Jan 19 22:27:55 GMT 2007

I hope everyone is watching or listening to what is happening in our government right now. If you look at the number of American cities, local governments, and now even politicians who are pushing for "global warming" based change it is hard to imagine it is all a hoax. Some of the biggest "free thinking" places in America are taking a stand because their president will not. Now even congress is taking a stand on the issue. Someone told me today that Scotland made "An Inconvenient Truth" a mandatory part of school curriculum. So I ask anyone who doubts global warming one question, "does a hoax or farce fool this many intelligent people?" I wonder how many of the skeptics writing on this thread have even seen Mr. Gore's film. The thing that I find amusing is that Gore addresses every single point being brought up in this discussion. He then goes on to solidify his points with both scientific and photographic proof. He address the heating-cooling cycles of the earth, the former ice ages, carbon records, and much more. It is hard to ignore the data, which by the way no one argues. Things are beginning to change very quickly. If you don't believe this just research what Chicago, New York, or better yet your Congress (as of today) is doing to bring about change. I say let the skeptics think what they want, but when the change comes they will have the most difficulty adjusting.

I think the point is not to be fooled by any propaganda machine, regardless of who is greasing the wheels. Silencing voices on either side of the debate is wholly contrary to the scientific method.

Isn't it a flaming coincidence that the oil industry pays for the anti-global warming lobbyists. Whose interests do they speak for? The public? Assuming one side is wrong here, even if the enviromentalists are wrong, what is the catastrophe of alternative fuels and a cleaner backyard. Can you imagine an entire generation of Americans not fixated on the Middle East, or trying to jeopardize our coastlines or wilderness in order to pump fossil fuels? I can, because we have the technological know-how to do it and make the change. Oh, I forgot....the oil companies don't want this to happen. Why do we have a carrier battle group heading to the Persian Gulf? Freedom? Our kids are dying to keep the entire region stable for the uninterupted flow of oil. We have been pumping oil for about 150 years now, and I look forward to the day when a model drilling platform is in the Smithsonian, to be treated as a relic and curiosity.

I hope everyone is watching or listening to what is happening in our government right now. If you look at the number of American cities, local governments, and now even politicians who are pushing for "global warming" based change it is hard to imagine it is all a hoax. Some of the biggest "free thinking" places in America are taking a stand because their president will not. Now even congress is taking a stand on the issue. Someone told me today that Scotland made "An Inconvenient Truth" a mandatory part of school curriculum. So I ask anyone who doubts global warming one question, "does a hoax or farce fool this many intelligent people?" I wonder how many of the skeptics writing on this thread have even seen Mr. Gore's film. The thing that I find amusing is that Gore addresses every single point being brought up in this discussion. He then goes on to solidify his points with both scientific and photographic proof. He address the heating-cooling cycles of the earth, the former ice ages, carbon records, and much more. It is hard to ignore the data, which by the way no one argues. Things are beginning to change very quickly. If you don't believe this just research what Chicago, New York, or better yet your Congress (as of today) is doing to bring about change. I say let the skeptics think what they want, but when the change comes they will have the most difficulty adjusting.

No one that I have read on this thread (I may have missed it) has said that global warming is a hoax. I have stated several times that we may indeed be in the beginning stages of a period where the Earth is warming. Its the assumption that it is "man-made" or I guess to appease many appetites "Big Sleazy Corrupt Corporation-Made" that I find ridiculous. Either side can and has picked "facts" that support their positions.

So bluntly, my position is that if we are going through Global Warming...its a part of the natural process the Earth has experienced for billions of years. If you believe that global warming is caused or can be stopped by man... then this is the first time in about 4,000,000,000 years such a thing has happened (I could be mistaken by this, so please enlighten me if there have been other such occassions.)

Questions I would like addressed : End of "Ice Age"? (no big mean oil companys around). Did we have global warming in the 30's? (5 of the top ten hottest on record were during the 30's) If the ice shelf is melting in the Artic due to global warming...why is the ice shelf growing in the Antartic? I really would like to hear some views on this (other than the old "propaganda" reply which seems to be the standard response.)

For a more scientific rebuttal to Al Gore's facts please take a gander at:

www.canadafreepress.com/2006/harris061206.htm

For a more scientific rebuttal to Al Gore's facts please take a gander at:

www.canadafreepress.com/2006/harris061206.htm

Thanks for sharing that article.

I also don't like to be propagandized by far left liberals or extremist conservatives and welcome a diversity of opinions.

The article below is just the "tip of the iceberg" (please pardon the expression) about the how the Bush administration is censoring scientific reports on global warming.


TOP CLIMATOLOGIST ACCUSES U.S. OF TRYING TO GAG HIM
* 12:57 30 January 2006
* NewScientist.com news service
* NewScientist.com staff and AFP

NASA's top climate scientist has accused the Bush administration of trying to stop him from speaking out after he called for swift cuts in emissions of the greenhouse gases linked to global warming in a recent lecture.

James Hansen, director of the US space agency's Goddard Institute for Space Studies, said that officials at NASA headquarters had ordered the public affairs staff to review his forthcoming lectures, papers, postings on the Goddard website and requests for media interviews, the New York Times reported on Sunday.

"They feel their job is to be this censor of information going out to the public," said Hansen, who told the paper he would ignore the restrictions.

Dean Acosta, deputy assistant administrator for public affairs at NASA, denied that there was any effort to silence Hansen. "That's not the way we operate here at NASA," Acosta said. "We promote openness and we speak with the facts."

Acosta said that government scientists were free to discuss scientific findings but that policy statements should be left to policy makers and appointed spokesmen. "This is not about any individual or any issue like global warming," he said. "It's about coordination."
Different planet

Hansen has been issuing about the long-term threat of greenhouse gas emissions since 1988, and has had run-ins with various US politicians.

He said that "efforts to quiet him" had begun in a series of calls after a lecture he gave on December 6, 2005, at the annual meeting of the American Geophysical Union in San Francisco. In this talk he said that significant emission cuts could be achieved with existing technologies, but that without leadership by the US, climate change would eventually leave the Earth "a different planet".

US administration policy is to use voluntary measures to slow, but not reverse, the growth of emissions.

"After that speech and the release of data by Dr Hansen on December 15 showing that 2005 was probably the warmest year in at least a century, officials at the headquarters of the space agency repeatedly phoned public affairs officers, who relayed the warning to Dr Hansen that there would be 'dire consequences' if such statements continued, those officers and Dr Hansen said in interviews," the Times reported.

Hansen said "it would be irresponsible not to speak out, particularly because NASA's mission statement includes the phrase 'to understand and protect our home planet'".

Hansen's supervisor, Franco Einaudi, is reported as saying there had been no official "order or pressure to say shut Jim up". However, he added: "That doesn't mean I like this kind of pressure being applied.?

For a more scientific rebuttal to Al Gore's facts please take a gander at:

www.canadafreepress.com/2006/harris061206.htm

TripleB I am a little disappointed. I figured you would at least check the people that you are basing your arguments on. The link that you posted from canadafreepress was referring to a letter sent to the Canadian Prime Minister by 60 renowned current and retired scientists requesting a rational examination of the science of global warming. These scientists are part of a group called "the Friends of Science". Now if you had done a little more research you would have discovered that the "friends" attempt to persuade the Canadian Prime Minister to question the human role in the global warming debate ended in embarrassment. It was discovered that "the Friends of Science" was receiving its funding from the oil industry. Now we all remember the wonderful science that was funded by the tobacco industry. I have included a link below so you can read for yourself in case you are skeptical. I have to say, I don't think this issue is about arguing or proving each other wrong. It is simply about our children's future. There is no big group promoting the move to "Green" because they will greatly profit from it. No one argues that oil and coal produce the cheapest and most profitable form of energy. The question is at what cost. Going green, at least in the case of oil, will probably be expensive at first, and no one group will be able to monopolize it like oil has. There are many alternatives that will play a role. You can go online right now and find ways to run your vehicle gas free, and you can get this information for free. These people are not trying to corner the market. They just realize change must take place.
Some links:
http://desmogblog.com/oil-companies-funding-friends-of-science
http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=Friends_of_Science

TripleB I am a little disappointed. I figured you would at least check the people that you are basing your arguments on. The link that you posted from canadafreepress was referring to a letter sent to the Canadian Prime Minister by 60 renowned current and retired scientists requesting a rational examination of the science of global warming. These scientists are part of a group called "the Friends of Science". Now if you had done a little more research you would have discovered that the "friends" attempt to persuade the Canadian Prime Minister to question the human role in the global warming debate ended in embarrassment. It was discovered that "the Friends of Science" was receiving its funding from the oil industry. Now we all remember the wonderful science that was funded by the tobacco industry. I have included a link below so you can read for yourself in case you are skeptical. I have to say, I don't think this issue is about arguing or proving each other wrong. It is simply about our children's future. There is no big group promoting the move to "Green" because they will greatly profit from it. No one argues that oil and coal produce the cheapest and most profitable form of energy. The question is at what cost. Going green, at least in the case of oil, will probably be expensive at first, and no one group will be able to monopolize it like oil has. There are many alternatives that will play a role. You can go online right now and find ways to run your vehicle gas free, and you can get this information for free. These people are not trying to corner the market. They just realize change must take place.
Some links:
http://desmogblog.com/oil-companies-funding-friends-of-science
http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=Friends_of_Science

I find it interesting and quite telling that you concentrate on WHO is saying what instead of WHAT they are saying. Is the information they have wrong? Are they giving false resources? They did not say that that Dr. Al Gore's (he is a PHD right? He's the expert.) data was wrong. They said it wasn't complete and it was misleading. I believe a better name for Dr. Gore's Movie would have been "Inconvenient Half-Truths". As far as "funding" goes..the bread is buttered on both sides. The "Oh my God we are all gonna die!" crowd has plenty of "research" grant money riding on the global warming coat tails.

I find it interesting and quite telling that you concentrate on WHO is saying what instead of WHAT they are saying. Is the information they have wrong? Are they giving false resources? They did not say that that Dr. Al Gore's (he is a PHD right? He's the expert.) data was wrong. They said it wasn't complete and it was misleading. I believe a better name for Dr. Gore's Movie would have been "Inconvenient Half-Truths". As far as "funding" goes..the bread is buttered on both sides. The "Oh my God we are all gonna die!" crowd has plenty of "research" grant money riding on the global warming coat tails.

Don't blow a fuse. I hope you took your meds today. You obviously did not investigate any further, but I honestly didn't expect that you would. If you did Triple, you would have seen the countless publications addressing why WHAT they were saying was incorrect, backed by hard data I might add. I just figured you would actually go back and do some research before you exploded back onto the scene, but I guess I was wrong. Just a bit of advise Triple, when you go on line and google a topic you shouldn't sell the farm on the first article you read. Your 60 scientist letter does not hold credibility next to the many studies done by 1000s of world renowned scientists. I have not been able to find one study published by a scientist refuting humans affects on global warming that wasn't traced back to the oil industry. I have on the other hand found hundreds of studies published by scientists whose backers cover the spectrum of our society and the world. Once again I will bring up Wal Mart. You should read the article in Outside magazine about Wal Mart that was just published. We all know that Wal Mart doesn't really care about the community. They shut down small businesses and then they don't even take care of their own. They've capped salaries, reduced full time employment, and all but eliminated benefits. The owners each make $19 billion a year, and yet they do everything they can to prevent giving back to the employee. I find it interesting that a company that obviously cares nothing about the community has made it their goal to become almost completely Green by 2012. They already built the first Wal Mart free from the grid in Colorado. They are also pushing their vendors to move their companies towards green production and sustainability. Wal Mart spent a great deal of money researching the human caused global warming issue, and what they discovered scared them. I wouldn't consider Wal Mart's research to be "green" funded.
I do consider what is being said not just who is saying it, but even more importantly I consider the credibility of who is saying it. You accuse Mr. Gore of claiming to be "the expert" on the topic, which just shows me that you have not seen the movie yet. If you had seen the movie you would realize that Gore gives all the credit for the science he uses to the scientists who produced it. Where is your credibility? You are fighting so hard to disprove something that you have never even seen. It is just plain silly and so is this discussion.
I appreciate your right to your own opinion, but I also find hope in the fact that your opinion has become the minority in the world. I have to leave our discussion at that because it simply isn't going anywhere. I wish you the best.

Don't blow a fuse. I hope you took your meds today. You obviously did not investigate any further, but I honestly didn't expect that you would. If you did Triple, you would have seen the countless publications addressing why WHAT they were saying was incorrect, backed by hard data I might add. I just figured you would actually go back and do some research before you exploded back onto the scene, but I guess I was wrong. Just a bit of advise Triple, when you go on line and google a topic you shouldn't sell the farm on the first article you read. Your 60 scientist letter does not hold credibility next to the many studies done by 1000s of world renowned scientists. I have not been able to find one study published by a scientist refuting humans affects on global warming that wasn't traced back to the oil industry. I have on the other hand found hundreds of studies published by scientists whose backers cover the spectrum of our society and the world. Once again I will bring up Wal Mart. You should read the article in Outside magazine about Wal Mart that was just published. We all know that Wal Mart doesn't really care about the community. They shut down small businesses and then they don't even take care of their own. They've capped salaries, reduced full time employment, and all but eliminated benefits. The owners each make $19 billion a year, and yet they do everything they can to prevent giving back to the employee. I find it interesting that a company that obviously cares nothing about the community has made it their goal to become almost completely Green by 2012. They already built the first Wal Mart free from the grid in Colorado. They are also pushing their vendors to move their companies towards green production and sustainability. Wal Mart spent a great deal of money researching the human caused global warming issue, and what they discovered scared them. I wouldn't consider Wal Mart's research to be "green" funded.
I do consider what is being said not just who is saying it, but even more importantly I consider the credibility of who is saying it. You accuse Mr. Gore of claiming to be "the expert" on the topic, which just shows me that you have not seen the movie yet. If you had seen the movie you would realize that Gore gives all the credit for the science he uses to the scientists who produced it. Where is your credibility? You are fighting so hard to disprove something that you have never even seen. It is just plain silly and so is this discussion.
I appreciate your right to your own opinion, but I also find hope in the fact that your opinion has become the minority in the world. I have to leave our discussion at that because it simply isn't going anywhere. I wish you the best.

I see the arrogance is not limited to man-made global warming. I am not a scientist. I am not saying you should believe or disbelieve the artical I referenced. It is just 1 of many that seem to poke holes into some of the theories presented by the alarmist. I do think global warming MAY be taking place. We are talking about a celestial body that is over 3.5 billion years old!!! You are using data collected over 15-20 years or so (data that whether you like it or not is debatable) to come to a conclusion that human consumerism (a phrase I borrow from another poster) is the catalyst for the global warming. Is it 10 years, 15 years or maybe 30 years we are using for analysis? We are comparing this to what? The last 50 years? 100 years? 100 years is a long time to us humans but it is a blink of the eye to a planet that has been around over 3.5 billion years.

I'm sorry I have disappointed you in that my research isn't up to the high standards you have obviously set for yourself and others. I am not out to "disprove" anything. The onus is on the "man-made global warming " crowd to come up with the proof. Proof that has yet to be conclusive and inclusive as to the data that seems to be conveniently over looked or omitted.

My research methods may be lacking mainly because: 1. I'm not an alarmist,
2. Common sense tells me 10-20 years of data out of sample size of about 75-125 years from a variable that has over 3,500,000,000 years is about as worthless as a George Bush fundraiser at Barbara Streisands house and 3. I have a life. Why do I have this strange feeling that if there is a Democrat in the White House the global warming debate will gradually fade away (remember the homeless during the Reagan & Bush I years).

I find it interesting and quite telling that you concentrate on WHO is saying what instead of WHAT they are saying. Is the information they have wrong? Are they giving false resources?

So TripleBS let me ask you a question. First I have to say that your response seems to be anger based with all the bold print and misspellings. I find this interesting and telling about you. Anger is often the result of embarrassment, and I would have to say that you embarrassed yourself pretty well when you started supporting your argument with biased research. Actually I have two questions now that I think about it. The first one deals with the tobacco industry. So from what you are telling everyone are we supposed to also believe the highly qualified scientists that were supported by the tobacco industry? These guys presented scientific research and data that said tobacco does not cause cancer. They were experts in their fields. Are you really that naive TripleBS? If a person's pay is based on them not understanding something, why would anyone expect them to understand it? So I realize I have asked more than two questions, but that is okay I am sure you understand. Why would the oil industry fund research into global warming? It would be counter productive to them. If they discovered it was caused by carbon emissions what would they benefit? They would have just spent a bunch of money discovering the one thing that will put them out of business. :funn: :nono1: Ahh but wait. What if they spent a bunch of money trying to convince ignorant people that humans have no part in causing global warming. Now that is worth spending money on. That's right, keep them driving their hummers because as we all know they make you look big and tough and important. Oh shoot I didn't use any bold type. Lets see how about ignorant, ignorant, ignorant. But hey what should we expect from someone who has a liquor bottle next to their handle?

2. Common sense tells me 10-20 years of data out of sample size of about 75-125 years from a variable that has over 3,500,000,000 years is about as worthless as a George Bush fundraiser at Barbara Streisands house and

Dude you are just striking out left and right here. I have actually seen the film the Inconvenient Truth, and the data used on the film is from 3,500,000,000 years ago. They got the data from ice cores taken at both poles. These core samples reveal data as far back as the first ice age because there has always been some ice at the poles. If you don't believe that, then you probably don't believe in carbon dating either, or better yet gravity or relativity. Which means that you obviously can't believe that scientists put rovers on Mars, or that dinosaurs existed. As for saying you have a life, I have to question that. Look at how many posts you have on this message board.

Interesting discourse but ... I am beating Kurt to the punch :roll: ...aren't we all supposed to attack the "issue" and not the "poster"?? Name calling gets no where and tells those of us that lurk in a discussion more about the poster than anything else.

Just my .02 cents.

Interesting discourse but ... I am beating Kurt to the punch :roll: ...aren't we all supposed to attack the "issue" and not the "poster"?? Name calling gets no where and tells those of us that lurk in a discussion more about the poster than anything else.

Just my .02 cents.

You are absolutely right. I get a little worked up when people argue a topic that they really know nothing about, specially when it is something that will affect all of us. TripleB I apologize.

You are absolutely right. I get a little worked up when people argue a topic that they really know nothing about, specially when it is something that will affect all of us. TripleB I apologize.

Thank you. And now might I add... .

Interesting discourse but ... I am beating Kurt to the punch :roll: ...aren't we all supposed to attack the "issue" and not the "poster"?? Name calling gets no where and tells those of us that lurk in a discussion more about the poster than anything else.

Just my .02 cents.

:clap_1: Well said IJ!
____________________________________________