Global Warming (time to stir the pot)

Ok people,here is an alternative view, that is every bit as valid as the ones you support. I (PLEASE READ THIS PART CAREFULLY) do not claim this as the be all and end all on the issue..just another look at the same data.

Global Warming Models Labeled 'Fairy Tale' By Team of Scientists
By Marc Morano
CNSNews.com Senior Staff Writer
May 14, 2002

Washington (CNSNews.com) - A team of international scientists Monday said climate models showing global warming are based on a "fairy tale" of computer projections. The scientists met on Capitol Hill to expose what they see as a dearth of scientific evidence about global warming.

Hartwig Volz, a geophysicist with the RWE Research Lab in Germany questioned the merit of the climate projections coming from the United Nations sponsored Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC.) The IPCC climate projections have fueled worldwide support for the Kyoto Protocol, which aims to restrict the greenhouse gases thought to cause global warming.

Volz noted that the IPCC does not even call the climate models "predictions" and instead refers to them as "projections" or "story lines." Volz said the projections might be more aptly termed "fairy tales."

Monday's luncheon was sponsored by the Frontiers of Freedom Institute and titled "Whatever Happened to Global Warming? Climate Science Does Not Support the Kyoto Protocol."

S. Fred Singer, an atmospheric physicist with the University of Virginia and the Environmental Policy Project, called the IPCC's global warming projections "completely unrealistic."

"Prediction is a very difficult business, particularly about the future," he said.

Singer accused the IPCC of "assuming extreme scenarios of population growth and fossil fuel consumption" and called on the Bush administration to "assemble another team using the IPCC report -- using the same facts" to "write a different summary."

Dr. Ulrich Berner, a geologist with the Federal Institute for Geosciences in Germany, said global temperatures have varied greatly in the earth's history and are unrelated to human activity.

"The climate of the past has varied under natural conditions without the influence of humans," Berner said.

Berner also declared that an extensive analysis of carbon dioxide (C02) concentrations in the ice core of Greenland showed that elevated C02 in the atmosphere does not necessarily lead to temperature increases.

"There are numerous temperature changes which are not mimicked by the CO2 concentration," Berner explained.

"Carbon Dioxide doesn't police climatic changes. Climatic changes have always occurred and will for the future always occur," Berner added.

Singer agreed, stating, "The balance of evidence suggests that there has been no appreciable warming since 1940. This would indicate that the human effects on climate must be quite small."

Singer pointed to the sun as a major culprit in climate change. "The sun is responsible for most, and perhaps all of the short-term climate changes we observe," he said.

Environmental groups were quick to dismiss the scientific skepticism on global warming. Ariana Silverman, a spokesperson for the Sierra Club's Global Warming & Energy program, disputed the panel's claim that climate science does not support the Kyoto Protocol.

"It is very difficult to make that claim. There is a consensus in the scientific community," Silverman said.

Silverman admitted there is room for some skepticism about global warming models because "nobody knows, we don't have god-like abilities [to predict the future.]"

She noted that the Sierra Club believes we need to "cut down on gasses right now and make cars go further on a gallon of gas." Silverman predicted that if no action is taken, there could be "major changes to our climate and changes to our ecosystems with species dying."

"Climate is not a responsible thing for us to be changing," Silverman added.


I would like to note here that the Sierra Club person commenting obviously has no idea what the meaning of the word CONSENSUS is, there is NO concensus on the issue of global warming, unless you only include the people who think exactly like you do....which this article goes to show, that not everyone does.

Consensus...Con-sen-sus \ken-'sen'ses\ n. 1. Agreement in opinion, testimoney, or belief. 2. collective opinion.

As I said I am not claiming any special weight should be given to these people, but I did wantr to point out that REAL scientists do not all agree. I also noted that todays paper pointed out that Canada wants special considerations or it too is wanting to pull out of the Kyoto accord.

[Azred]

There has never been any concrete scientific proof or evidence that human activity has led directly to climactic changes. El Nino has more effect on weather patterns than all "greenhouse gases" combined, and is a completely natural phenomenon.
The reason that global warming was ever even an issue was that some scientists made wild, earth-changing claims that all our coastal cities would flood and that the equatorial belt would become like the Sahara, etc. Massive ecological disaster makes for good, flashy news stories that generate a lot of interest in the "research". (anyone remember "cold fusion"?)

I do think that we should continue to look for clean sources of energy (fuel cells and solar cells are the two best) but anyone who claims that "the end is near" should be politely ignored. The consensus of the scientific community used to be that the Earth was the center of the universe, you know....

[ 05-15-2002, 03:45 PM: Message edited by: Azred ]

Actually there is serious evidence that Global warming exists, *BUT* there is no direct and definitive proof that global warming
is a serious, long-term threat, or that people are a significant factor, since much evidence is based around computer models, and you only get out of computer models what you put in.
At his point in time we simply cannot say that we know much about it.
But IMHO we should still be seeking to reduce emissions and making renewable energy etc since this can only benefit us in the long term.

Originally posted by Dramnek_Ulk: Actually there is serious evidence that Global warming exists, *BUT* there is no direct and definitive proof that global warming is a serious, long-term threat, or that people are a significant factor, since much evidence is based around computer models, and you only get out of computer models what you put in. At his point in time we simply cannot say that we know much about it. But IMHO we should still be seeking to reduce emissions and making renewable energy etc since this can only benefit us in the long term.

For once I totally agreeee with you. Cleaner renewable energy resourcces are a gggod idea anyway you looook at it.

[flibulzbuth]

I agree with Damnek. The last decenny has been the hottest since we keep meteorology records. Worlwide, droughts have been more frequent then ever before. Still, we can't get 100% solid evidence that this is the result of the rising CO2 emmissions. Has Azred stated, other factors are involved as El Nino events and deforestation (about the drought part).

But we have to keep in mind that in the global warming debate, an overwelming majority of the scientific community acknowledges global warming. The anti global-warming scientifics represents only a small minority heavily funded by corporate interests (read oil industry). As a matter of fact, most of the the anti-global warming publications come from U.S.A., Canada and the U.K. All these countries economy are driven by the oil.

I've yet to find a professor at my University that thinks that global warming is a myth. And as stated in the article:

"It is very difficult to make that claim. There is a consensus in the scientific community,"

It is somewhat ridiculous to think that most of the developed countries, which economy and industries are very oil-dependant, would ratify the Kyoto protocol to please treehugging voters or because they have an ecological consciousness. They know that in the long term financial losses caused by global warming will be greater than oil profit. If there was enough doubt possible about it, they would never, ever bother about the Kyoto protocol.

[khazadman]

But we have to keep in mind that in the global warming debate, an overwelming majority of the scientific community acknowledges global warming. The anti global-warming scientifics represents only a small minority heavily funded by corporate interests (read oil industry)

actually the majority of environmental scientists claim that there is not enough evidence to make a conclusion one way or the other,the next largest group are those that say it's not happening,and the smallest being the alarmists who claim global warming is mans fault.is there any one here besides me who is old enough to remember the first earth day?back then the alarmists were claiming that pollution was going to cause a new ice age.please!these people can't predict the weather reliably ten days in advance,how can they be expected to predict it 100 years in advance.
anyone who thinks man is destroying the planet should look to the planet for the real culprit.the 1991 mount pinatubo eruption poured more ozone depleting chemicals into the atmosphere than man has in his entire history.1000 time more.

[Downunda]

Tell you the truth, I don't know whether global warming is a myth or not. What I do know is that the smog in Christchurch some nites is so bad that you can't see 10ft in front of you, to me this is more enough reason to cut down on greenhouse emissions and harmfull toxins etc...

Originally posted by flibulzbuth: I agree with Damnek. The last decenny has been the hottest since we keep meteorology records. Worlwide, droughts have been more frequent then ever before. Still, we can't get 100% solid evidence that this is the result of the rising CO2 emmissions. Has Azred stated, other factors are involved as El Nino events and deforestation (about the drought part). But we have to keep in mind that in the global warming debate, an overwelming majority of the scientific community acknowledges global warming. The anti global-warming scientifics represents only a small minority heavily funded by corporate interests (read oil industry). As a matter of fact, most of the the anti-global warming publications come from U.S.A., Canada and the U.K. All these countries economy are driven by the oil. I've yet to find a professor at my University that thinks that global warming is a myth. And as stated in the article: quote: "It is very difficult to make that claim. There is a consensus in the scientific community,"

It is somewhat ridiculous to think that most of the developed countries, which economy and industries are very oil-dependant, would ratify the Kyoto protocol to please treehugging voters or because they have an ecological consciousness. They know that in the long term financial losses caused by global warming will be greater than oil profit. If there was enough doubt possible about it, they would never, ever bother about the Kyoto protocol.[/QUOTE]Im not sure what a decenny is, but according to the article I started this thread with, these scientists claim that there has been no noticable global temperature increase since the 1940's. What I do know is that To date, there is no conclusive proof that humans have influenced in any way the average mean temperature of the world.

I will also point out that OIL and othe rpetrochemicals are not a long term pollution problem. As my green friends keep pointing out..We are running out of oil. So in a couple of decades we wont have any oil to burn and the pollution problem is solved. Look somewhere else if you want to talk long term.

[ 05-15-2002, 06:41 PM: Message edited by: MagiK ]

Originally posted by Downunda: Tell you the truth, I don't know whether global warming is a myth or not. What I do know is that the smog in Christchurch some nites is so bad that you can't see 10ft in front of you, to me this is more enough reason to cut down on greenhouse emissions and harmfull toxins etc...

Greenhouse emmissions are carbon dioxide, a colorless odorless gas. Any smog you see is something else. What is making this thig smog blanket in Christchurch? You all burning pitch or somehting?

[gaunty]

"hello"!! most environment people have a big split problem.
yes let us just dump all the gas and oil engiens, and switch to a all
electricity economy( which meens your either burning natural gas/methaine or you will go to a completely nukular dependant).

I do not see all of usa going completely nukular, yah that'il be the day. so we will waist all of our methaine supplies and then have to go back the gasoline in about 3 to 5 years.