CBC tonight at 9PM
- Thread starter Cuba Libre
- Start date
Big Green Machine
Well-Known Member
D Man, what did you think about that last article I posted?
Or are you just going to pop a bag of popcorn?
Dennis.t
Active Member
It was an interesting read.D Man, what did you think about that last article I posted?
Or are you just going to pop a bag of popcorn?
walleyes
Crew Member
GLG
Well-Known Member
Dennis.t and Soxy your leader has spoken.
Now be good sheep and follow his link.
walleyes
Crew Member
And some more for those who want the truth..
http://www.climatedepot.com/2013/09...-releases-comprehensive-new-1200-page-report/
http://www.climatedepot.com/2013/09...-releases-comprehensive-new-1200-page-report/
More oil industry propaganda.
Also the earth is flat.
Sad to see but greed and ignorance will probably be the downfall of the human race.
soxy
Member
Blah blah...
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fred_Singer
Global warming
In 2006, the CBC's Fifth Estate named Singer as one of a small group of scientists who have created what the documentary called a stand-off that is undermining the political response to global warming.[54] The following year he appeared on the British Channel 4 documentary The Great Global Warming Swindle.[55] Singer argues there is no evidence that the increases in carbon dioxide produced by humans cause global warming, and that if temperatures do rise it will be good for humankind. He told CBC: "It was warmer a thousand years ago than it is today. Vikings settled Greenland. Is that good or bad? I think it's good. They grew wine in England, in northern England. I think that's good. At least some people think so."[56] "We are certainly putting more carbon dioxide in the atmosphere," he told The Daily Telegraph in 2009. "However there is no evidence that this high CO2 is making a detectable difference. It should in principle, however the atmosphere is very complicated and one cannot simply argue that just because CO2 is a greenhouse gas it causes warming."[9] He believes that radical environmentalists are exaggerating the dangers. "The underlying effort here seems to be to use global warming as an excuse to cut down the use of energy," he said. "It's very simple: if you cut back the use of energy, then you cut back economic growth. And believe it or not, there are people in the world who believe we have gone too far in economic growth."[3]
During Operation Desert Storm in 1991, he argued that smoke from the Kuwaiti oil fires would have little impact, in opposition to most commentators. He debated the astronomer Carl Sagan on ABC's Nightline, Sagan arguing that the smoke might loft into the upper atmosphere and lead to massive agricultural failures. Singer argued that it would rise to 3,000 feet (910 m) then be rained out after a few days.[48] Singer's position proved correct: the fires had little impact beyond the Gulf region.
Last edited by a moderator:
soxy
Member
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/William_M._Gray
Stance on global warming
Gray is skeptical of current theories of human-induced global warming, which he says is supported by scientists afraid of losing grant funding[5] and promoted by government leaders and environmentalists seeking world government.[6] He believes that humans are not responsible for the warming of the earth and has stated that "We're brainwashing our children."[7] He asked, "How can we trust climate forecasts 50 and 100 years into the future (that can’t be verified in our lifetime) when they are not able to make shorter seasonal or yearly forecasts that could be verified?"[8]
Gray said those who had linked global warming to the increased number of hurricanes in recent years were in error. He cites statistics showing that there were 101 hurricanes from 1900 to 1949, in a period of cooler global temperature, compared to 83 from 1957 to 2006 when the earth warmed.[7]
Gray does not say there has not been any warming, but states "I don't question that. And humans might have caused a very slight amount of this warming. Very slight. But this warming trend is not going to keep on going. My belief is that three, four years from now, the globe will start to cool again, as it did from the middle '40s to the middle '70s."[9]
According to an earlier interview reported by Joel Achenbach, Gray had similarly said that the current warming in the past decades is a natural cycle, driven by a global ocean circulation that manifests itself in the North Atlantic Ocean as the Gulf Stream.[6]
In a December 2006 interview with David Harsanyi of The Denver Post, Gray said, "They've been brainwashing us for 20 years, starting with the nuclear winter and now with the global warming. This scare will also run its course. In 15–20 years, we'll look back and see what a hoax this was." In this interview, Gray cites the global cooling article in Newsweek from 1975 as evidence that such a scare has happened in the past.[9]
Gray has been an active scientist publishing and speaking about weather, hurricanes, and related matters for 60 years. In his presentation to the 7th International Conference on Climate Change sponsored by The Heartland Institute, Gray found virtually no basis to think added CO2 is generating extreme weather events.[10]
Stance on global warming
Gray is skeptical of current theories of human-induced global warming, which he says is supported by scientists afraid of losing grant funding[5] and promoted by government leaders and environmentalists seeking world government.[6] He believes that humans are not responsible for the warming of the earth and has stated that "We're brainwashing our children."[7] He asked, "How can we trust climate forecasts 50 and 100 years into the future (that can’t be verified in our lifetime) when they are not able to make shorter seasonal or yearly forecasts that could be verified?"[8]
Gray said those who had linked global warming to the increased number of hurricanes in recent years were in error. He cites statistics showing that there were 101 hurricanes from 1900 to 1949, in a period of cooler global temperature, compared to 83 from 1957 to 2006 when the earth warmed.[7]
Gray does not say there has not been any warming, but states "I don't question that. And humans might have caused a very slight amount of this warming. Very slight. But this warming trend is not going to keep on going. My belief is that three, four years from now, the globe will start to cool again, as it did from the middle '40s to the middle '70s."[9]
According to an earlier interview reported by Joel Achenbach, Gray had similarly said that the current warming in the past decades is a natural cycle, driven by a global ocean circulation that manifests itself in the North Atlantic Ocean as the Gulf Stream.[6]
In a December 2006 interview with David Harsanyi of The Denver Post, Gray said, "They've been brainwashing us for 20 years, starting with the nuclear winter and now with the global warming. This scare will also run its course. In 15–20 years, we'll look back and see what a hoax this was." In this interview, Gray cites the global cooling article in Newsweek from 1975 as evidence that such a scare has happened in the past.[9]
Gray has been an active scientist publishing and speaking about weather, hurricanes, and related matters for 60 years. In his presentation to the 7th International Conference on Climate Change sponsored by The Heartland Institute, Gray found virtually no basis to think added CO2 is generating extreme weather events.[10]
soxy
Member
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chris_de_Freitas
Education and professional career
De Freitas, born in Trinidad, received both his Bachelor's and his Master's at the University of Toronto, Canada, after which he earned his Ph.D. in Climatology as a Commonwealth Scholar from the University of Queensland, Australia.[1] During his time at the University of Auckland, he has served as Deputy Dean of Science, Head of Science and Technology, and for four years as Pro Vice Chancellor.[1] He is a former Vice President of the Meteorological Society of New Zealand and is a founding member of the Australia-New Zealand Climate Forum as well as serving on the Executive Board of the International Society of Biometeorology from 1999-2001.[1] He has written extensively in popular media on an array of environmental and climate-related issues. The New Zealand Association of Scientists has made him a four-time recipient of their Science Communicator Award.[1]
Global warming and skepticism about anthropogenic causes[edit]
De Freitas has questioned anthropogenic global warming, and the way information is received and interpreted. He has written that carbon dioxide emissions themselves may not necessarily be the source of recent increases in global temperature. In the New Zealand Herald (9 May 2006), he wrote:
"There is evidence of global warming. The climate has warmed about 0.6 °C in the past 100 years, but most of that warming occurred prior to 1940, before the post World War II industrialisation that led to an increase in carbon dioxide emissions. But warming does not confirm that carbon dioxide is causing it. Climate is always warming or cooling. There are natural variability theories of warming."
He was an editor for the journal Climate Research [2] and was involved in the Soon and Baliunas controversy.
In 2013 De Freitas said the devastating heatwave and wildfires that ravaged New South Wales in January were not linked to climate change, and said the Earth hasn't warmed at all in a decade.[
Education and professional career
De Freitas, born in Trinidad, received both his Bachelor's and his Master's at the University of Toronto, Canada, after which he earned his Ph.D. in Climatology as a Commonwealth Scholar from the University of Queensland, Australia.[1] During his time at the University of Auckland, he has served as Deputy Dean of Science, Head of Science and Technology, and for four years as Pro Vice Chancellor.[1] He is a former Vice President of the Meteorological Society of New Zealand and is a founding member of the Australia-New Zealand Climate Forum as well as serving on the Executive Board of the International Society of Biometeorology from 1999-2001.[1] He has written extensively in popular media on an array of environmental and climate-related issues. The New Zealand Association of Scientists has made him a four-time recipient of their Science Communicator Award.[1]
Global warming and skepticism about anthropogenic causes[edit]
De Freitas has questioned anthropogenic global warming, and the way information is received and interpreted. He has written that carbon dioxide emissions themselves may not necessarily be the source of recent increases in global temperature. In the New Zealand Herald (9 May 2006), he wrote:
"There is evidence of global warming. The climate has warmed about 0.6 °C in the past 100 years, but most of that warming occurred prior to 1940, before the post World War II industrialisation that led to an increase in carbon dioxide emissions. But warming does not confirm that carbon dioxide is causing it. Climate is always warming or cooling. There are natural variability theories of warming."
He was an editor for the journal Climate Research [2] and was involved in the Soon and Baliunas controversy.
In 2013 De Freitas said the devastating heatwave and wildfires that ravaged New South Wales in January were not linked to climate change, and said the Earth hasn't warmed at all in a decade.[
GLG
Well-Known Member
el.Pereh
Well-Known Member
SOXY:
Here is a list of organizations that accept anthropogenic global warming as real and scientifically well-supported:
NASA’s Goddard Institute of Space Studies (GISS): http://www.giss.nasa.gov/edu/gwdebate/
National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA): http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/oa/climate/globalwarming.html
Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC): http://www.grida.no/climate/ipcc_tar/wg1/index.htm
National Academy of Sciences (NAS): http://books.nap.edu/collections/global_warming/index.html
State of the Canadian Cryosphere (SOCC) – http://www.socc.ca/permafrost/permafrost_future_e.cfm
Environmental Protection Agency (EPA): http://epa.gov/climatechange/index.html
The Royal Society of the UK (RS) – http://www.royalsoc.ac.uk/page.asp?id=3135
American Geophysical Union (AGU): http://www.agu.org/sci_soc/policy/climate_change_position.html
American Meteorological Society (AMS): http://www.ametsoc.org/policy/climatechangeresearch_2003.html
American Institute of Physics (AIP): http://www.aip.org/gov/policy12.html
National Center for Atmospheric Research (NCAR): http://eo.ucar.edu/basics/cc_1.html
American Meteorological Society (AMS): http://www.ametsoc.org/policy/jointacademies.html
Canadian Meteorological and Oceanographic Society (CMOS): http://www.cmos.ca/climatechangepole.html
Here is a list of organizations that accept anthropogenic global warming as real and scientifically well-supported:
NASA’s Goddard Institute of Space Studies (GISS): http://www.giss.nasa.gov/edu/gwdebate/
National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA): http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/oa/climate/globalwarming.html
Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC): http://www.grida.no/climate/ipcc_tar/wg1/index.htm
National Academy of Sciences (NAS): http://books.nap.edu/collections/global_warming/index.html
State of the Canadian Cryosphere (SOCC) – http://www.socc.ca/permafrost/permafrost_future_e.cfm
Environmental Protection Agency (EPA): http://epa.gov/climatechange/index.html
The Royal Society of the UK (RS) – http://www.royalsoc.ac.uk/page.asp?id=3135
American Geophysical Union (AGU): http://www.agu.org/sci_soc/policy/climate_change_position.html
American Meteorological Society (AMS): http://www.ametsoc.org/policy/climatechangeresearch_2003.html
American Institute of Physics (AIP): http://www.aip.org/gov/policy12.html
National Center for Atmospheric Research (NCAR): http://eo.ucar.edu/basics/cc_1.html
American Meteorological Society (AMS): http://www.ametsoc.org/policy/jointacademies.html
Canadian Meteorological and Oceanographic Society (CMOS): http://www.cmos.ca/climatechangepole.html
el.Pereh
Well-Known Member
You listed 3 individuals.
In addition to that list, see also this joint statement (http://grist.files.wordpress.com/2005/06/06072005.pdf) that specifically and unequivocally endorses the work and conclusions of the IPCC Third Assessment report. The statement was issued by:
Academia Brasiliera de Ciencias (Brazil)
Royal Society of Canada
Chinese Academy of Sciences
Academie des Sciences (France)
Deutsche Akademie der Naturforscher Leopoldina (Germany)
Indian National Science Academy
Accademia dei Lincei (Italy)
Science Council of Japan
Russian Academy of Sciences
Royal Society (United Kingdom)
National Academy of Sciences (United States of America)
Australian Academy of Sciences
Royal Flemish Academy of Belgium for Sciences and the Arts
Caribbean Academy of Sciences
Indonesian Academy of Sciences
Royal Irish Academy
Academy of Sciences Malaysia
Academy Council of the Royal Society of New Zealand
Royal Swedish Academy of Sciences
In addition to that list, see also this joint statement (http://grist.files.wordpress.com/2005/06/06072005.pdf) that specifically and unequivocally endorses the work and conclusions of the IPCC Third Assessment report. The statement was issued by:
Academia Brasiliera de Ciencias (Brazil)
Royal Society of Canada
Chinese Academy of Sciences
Academie des Sciences (France)
Deutsche Akademie der Naturforscher Leopoldina (Germany)
Indian National Science Academy
Accademia dei Lincei (Italy)
Science Council of Japan
Russian Academy of Sciences
Royal Society (United Kingdom)
National Academy of Sciences (United States of America)
Australian Academy of Sciences
Royal Flemish Academy of Belgium for Sciences and the Arts
Caribbean Academy of Sciences
Indonesian Academy of Sciences
Royal Irish Academy
Academy of Sciences Malaysia
Academy Council of the Royal Society of New Zealand
Royal Swedish Academy of Sciences
el.Pereh
Well-Known Member
Shell:
"Shell shares the widespread concern that the emission of greenhouse gases from human activities is leading to changes in the global climate."
http://www.shell.com/global/environment-society/environment/climate-change.html
Got a counter point? Have a read before you make more normal people upset: http://grist.org/series/skeptics/ Should have you covered.
Soxy et al. I'm out.
"Shell shares the widespread concern that the emission of greenhouse gases from human activities is leading to changes in the global climate."
http://www.shell.com/global/environment-society/environment/climate-change.html
Got a counter point? Have a read before you make more normal people upset: http://grist.org/series/skeptics/ Should have you covered.
Soxy et al. I'm out.
soxy
Member
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ian_Plimer
Carbon dioxide has an effect on the atmosphere and it has an effect for the first 50 parts per million and once it's done its job then it's finished and you can double it and quadruple it and it has no effect because we've seen that in the geological past, and we've seen it in times gone by when the carbon dioxide content was 100 times the current content. We didn't have runaway global warming, we actually had glaciation, so there's immediately a disconnect. So carbon dioxide is absolutely vital for living on earth; it's plant food, all of life lives off carbon dioxide. To demonise it shows that you don't understand school child science.
Ian Plimer, interviewed on ABNNewswire, June 2009
•Solar activity a greater climate change driver than man
•'0.1 per cent of carbon dioxide due to human activity'
•El Nino, La Nina caused by earthquake and volcanic activity
MANKIND is naive to think it can influence climate change, according to a prize-winning Australian geologist.
Solar activity is a greater driver of climate change than man-made carbon dioxide, argues Ian Plimer, Professor of Mining Geology at the University of Adelaide and winner of several notable science prizes.
“When meteorologists can change the weather then we can start to think about humans changing climate,” Prof Plimer said.
“I think we really are a little bit naive to think we can change astronomical and solar processes.”
Speaking last night after presenting his theory for the first time, to the Australasian Institute of Mining and Metallurgy in Sydney, Prof Plimer said he had researched the history of the sun, solar and supernovae activity and had been able to correlate global climates with solar activity.
“But correlations don't mean anything, you really need a causation,” Prof Plimer said.
So he then examined how cosmic radiation builds up clouds.
A very active sun blows away the cosmic radiation, while a less active sun allows radiation to build up, he said.
“So you can very much tie in temperature, cloud formation, cosmic radiation and the sun,” he said.
The next part of Prof Plimer's research was to examine the sources of carbon dioxide.
He said he found that about 0.1 per cent of the atmospheric carbon dioxide was due to human activity and much of the rest due to little-understood geological phenomena.
Prof Plimer also argued El Nino and La Nina were caused by major processes of earthquake activity and volcanic activity in the mid-ocean ridges, rather than any increase in greenhouse gases.
Nor does the melting of polar ice have anything to do with man-made carbon dioxide, he said.
“Great icebergs come off, not due to temperature change but due to the physics of ice and the flow of ice,” Prof Plimer said.
“There's a lag, so that if temperature rises, carbon dioxide rises 800 years later.
“If ice falls into the ocean in icebergs that's due to processes thousands of years ago.”
On the same basis, changes to sea level and temperature are also unrelated to anything happening today, he said.
“It is extraordinarily difficult to argue that human-induced carbon dioxide has any effect at all,” he said.
Prof Plimer added that as the planet was already at the maximum absorbance of energy of carbon dioxide, any more would have no greater effect.
There had even been periods in history with hundreds of times more atmospheric carbon dioxide than now with “no problem”, he said.
The professor, a member of the Australian Skeptics, an organisation devoted to debunking pseudo-scientific claims, denied his was a minority view.
“You'd be very hard pushed to find a geologist that would differ from my view,” he said.
He said bad news was more fashionable now than good and that people had an innate tendency to want to be a little frightened.
But Prof Plimer conceded the politics of greenhouse gas emissions meant that attention was being given to energy efficiency, which he supported.
The professor, who is writing a book on the subject, said he only used validated scientific data, published in reputable peer-reviewed refereed journals, as the basis of his theories
Carbon dioxide has an effect on the atmosphere and it has an effect for the first 50 parts per million and once it's done its job then it's finished and you can double it and quadruple it and it has no effect because we've seen that in the geological past, and we've seen it in times gone by when the carbon dioxide content was 100 times the current content. We didn't have runaway global warming, we actually had glaciation, so there's immediately a disconnect. So carbon dioxide is absolutely vital for living on earth; it's plant food, all of life lives off carbon dioxide. To demonise it shows that you don't understand school child science.
Ian Plimer, interviewed on ABNNewswire, June 2009
•Solar activity a greater climate change driver than man
•'0.1 per cent of carbon dioxide due to human activity'
•El Nino, La Nina caused by earthquake and volcanic activity
MANKIND is naive to think it can influence climate change, according to a prize-winning Australian geologist.
Solar activity is a greater driver of climate change than man-made carbon dioxide, argues Ian Plimer, Professor of Mining Geology at the University of Adelaide and winner of several notable science prizes.
“When meteorologists can change the weather then we can start to think about humans changing climate,” Prof Plimer said.
“I think we really are a little bit naive to think we can change astronomical and solar processes.”
Speaking last night after presenting his theory for the first time, to the Australasian Institute of Mining and Metallurgy in Sydney, Prof Plimer said he had researched the history of the sun, solar and supernovae activity and had been able to correlate global climates with solar activity.
“But correlations don't mean anything, you really need a causation,” Prof Plimer said.
So he then examined how cosmic radiation builds up clouds.
A very active sun blows away the cosmic radiation, while a less active sun allows radiation to build up, he said.
“So you can very much tie in temperature, cloud formation, cosmic radiation and the sun,” he said.
The next part of Prof Plimer's research was to examine the sources of carbon dioxide.
He said he found that about 0.1 per cent of the atmospheric carbon dioxide was due to human activity and much of the rest due to little-understood geological phenomena.
Prof Plimer also argued El Nino and La Nina were caused by major processes of earthquake activity and volcanic activity in the mid-ocean ridges, rather than any increase in greenhouse gases.
Nor does the melting of polar ice have anything to do with man-made carbon dioxide, he said.
“Great icebergs come off, not due to temperature change but due to the physics of ice and the flow of ice,” Prof Plimer said.
“There's a lag, so that if temperature rises, carbon dioxide rises 800 years later.
“If ice falls into the ocean in icebergs that's due to processes thousands of years ago.”
On the same basis, changes to sea level and temperature are also unrelated to anything happening today, he said.
“It is extraordinarily difficult to argue that human-induced carbon dioxide has any effect at all,” he said.
Prof Plimer added that as the planet was already at the maximum absorbance of energy of carbon dioxide, any more would have no greater effect.
There had even been periods in history with hundreds of times more atmospheric carbon dioxide than now with “no problem”, he said.
The professor, a member of the Australian Skeptics, an organisation devoted to debunking pseudo-scientific claims, denied his was a minority view.
“You'd be very hard pushed to find a geologist that would differ from my view,” he said.
He said bad news was more fashionable now than good and that people had an innate tendency to want to be a little frightened.
But Prof Plimer conceded the politics of greenhouse gas emissions meant that attention was being given to energy efficiency, which he supported.
The professor, who is writing a book on the subject, said he only used validated scientific data, published in reputable peer-reviewed refereed journals, as the basis of his theories
Last edited by a moderator:
Similar threads
