BajaNomad - Sea Shepherd Conservation Society

Sea Shepherd Conservation Society

Pages: 1 2

gnukid - 7-8-2012 at 12:00 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by woody with a view
...
anyone know what the number is now-a-days?

edit: answer= http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/World_population

[Edited on 7-8-2012 by woody with a view]

You keep hearing that population is growing exponentially promoted by Ehrlich and Malthus among others yet it's clear that all around the world births have decreased greatly in all developing countries, and the USA's constant wars are killing people as well in the many millions and depleted uranium from bombs is continuing to reduce birth rate as well as life expectancy, japan, usa, russia, china, europe, latin america all are experiencing reduced birth rate due to more successful modern economies based on energy availability.

The true numbers of population are not available though I challenge you to point to a developing country with an increasing birth rate and population, therefore one can conclude that if countries are allowed to use energy and resources to have power to light and cook and use machinery to create a 1st world middle class lifestyle, population doesn't explode and catastrophe doesn't occur as predicted.

Even if population was increasing there isn't an arbitrary number that is the maximum the earth can support, since people and science evolve to work things out. In the early 1900's there were piles of manure in each city, miles high, it was the most serious problem facing humanity. Then when oil was found to be a useful energy source that could run motors the problem of pollution caused by horse manure was solved. So oil wasn't the so called ecological and economic disaster it is purported to be, in fact oil was an ecological and economic savior to humanity to reduce catastrophic pollution.

So, you can see there are a number of fallacies that are repeated that are pure conjecture. Oil has produced a more ecological earth and helped to reduce the need for high birthrates and has helped to create a balance and reduce pollution.

One can compare the vista in developed cities in the USA today to 20-30 years when you could see an outline of smog present at all time and today you do not due to improved methods of combustion in cars, trucks and coal factories.

[Edited on 7-8-2012 by gnukid]

willardguy - 7-8-2012 at 12:10 PM

Are there any parts of the world where population is not growing?

Yes. Roughly speaking, populations are holding stable in Japan and Western Europe. Populations are decreasing somewhat in Russia and some Eastern European countries. Growth in several southern African countries has slowed due to higher death rates because of AIDS. But population is growing either rapidly or very rapidly in every other part of the world right now, including India, Pakistan, Nigeria, the Democratic Republic of Congo, Bangladesh, Uganda, the United States of America, Australia, Ethiopia and China. In other words, population has stabilized where about 1.2 billion people live and is still increasing very rapidly where 4 billion people live -- those who can least afford it. Result: the annual net gain of over 70 million people!

woody with a view - 7-8-2012 at 12:11 PM

^^^i agree with your views^^^

willardguy - 7-8-2012 at 12:18 PM

"It doesnt matter what is true, it only matters what people believe is true"

Paul Watson

mtgoat666 - 7-8-2012 at 12:28 PM

:!:

SAVE THE WHALES!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

:!:

mtgoat666 - 7-8-2012 at 12:32 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by gnukid

Quote:

Originally posted by woody with a view
...
anyone know what the number is now-a-days?

edit: answer= http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/World_population

[Edited on 7-8-2012 by woody with a view]

You keep hearing that population is growing exponentially promoted by Erlich and Malthus among others yet it's clear that all around the world births have decreased greatly in all developing countries, and the USA's constant wars are killing people as well in the many millions and depleted uranium from bombs is continuing to reduce birth rate as well as life expectancy, japan, usa, russia, china, europe, latin america all are experiencing reduced birth rate due to more successful modern economies based on energy availability.

The true numbers of population are not available though I challenge you to point to a developing country with an increasing birth rate and population, therefore one can conclude that if countries are allowed to use energy and resources to have power to light and cook and use machinery to create a 1st word middle class lifestyle, population doesn't explode and catastrophe doesn't occur as predicted.

Even if population was increasing there isn't an arbitrary number that is the maximum the earth can support, since people and science evolve to work things out. In the early 1900's there were piles of manure in each city, miles high, it was the most serious problem facing humanity. Then when oil was found to be a useful energy source that could run motors the problem of pollution caused by horse manure was solved. So oil wasn't the so called economic disaster it is purported to be, in fact oil was an ecological and economic savior to humanity to reduce catastrophic pollution.

So, you can see there are a number of fallacies that are repeated that are pure conjecture. Oil has produced a more ecological earth and helped to reduce the need for high birthrates and has helped to create a balance and reduce pollution.

One can compare the vista in developed cities in the USA today to 20-30 years when you could see an outline of smog present at all time and today you do not due to improved methods of combustion in cars, trucks and coal factories.

[Edited on 7-8-2012 by gnukid]

newkid:
your argument is ridiculous. if everybody consumed energy at same rate as gringos, the rate of global warming would be 2 degrees per week!!!!!!!!! or something close to that rate :light:

gnukid - 7-8-2012 at 12:38 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Skipjack Joe
The things I wrote about in regards to Erlich are basic fundamentals of population bilogy taught in undergraduate classes in most zoolog departments. Look up Gaussian experiments of the 30's. r and K selection. Carrying capacity of environments.

In fact, Ehrlich was not wrong. Mankind did make the adjustments it had to make. Most higher evolved animals do self regulate. That also has been studied in nature. The Canadians at university of british columbia did it with voles.

Quote:

Originally posted by gnukid

In fact, the highest global temperature recorded was in 1988, Mann's hockey stick theory of global warming has been proven demonstrably not just wrong but unethical and junk science.

Coming from you that is funny. You are the king of junk science on this board. A pseudoscientist that mixes his own thoughts with cherry picked articles and comes out with fantastic theories that are worded to sound scholastically.

There you have it, fantastic! your criticism of me is that I use science combined with thought to make my point and you fail to rebut even one point while every point you offer is demonstrably false t and your only rebuttal is to refer to Paul Ehrlich who has been proven wrong on nearly every prediction to date?

So you haven't a leg to stand on, you have made no point nor refuted any, and you fall back upon Paul Ehrlich as a reference point not so unlike the institutional catastrophic group-think that has been a common trait of the arguments made by university and political elite to promote global governance.

You base your empty argument on a series of false points to promote failed policies, exemplified by such boondogles as carbon trading markets, punishing taxes on energy, bogus threats of malthusian population explosions causing catastrophe and demonizing energy and the middle class as our most serious problems for society, the same energy and middle class lifestyle that apparently reduces population and solves pollution problems?

So there you have it, irrational illogical scientific talk, SkipJack would prefer to quote Paul Ehrlich who said population was a problem "bigger than Hitler" and used false and exaggerated predictions and fear to promote forced abortions and forced sterilization among other ideas to reduce the number of humans, presumably because Ehrlich believed he was more suited to be on the earth than you or your child! All based on false argument and lies to promote harsh methods of control of your life and liberty, two of the so called inalienable rights of man. This type of malthusian techno-toltalinarianism is as far from science and factual discussion as possible and yet you have presumably educated adults such as SkipJack and Obama parroting their lies to demand you live in austerity while they ride around in jets on vacation, the hypocrisy and myopia of so called experts spouting nonsense and false argument are the greatest threat to humanity, not common man, energy, CO2 or population.

[Edited on 7-8-2012 by gnukid]

DavidE - 7-8-2012 at 01:06 PM

Whales? Wales? Here I thought this thread was about whales, not "uranium bombs" and temperature records. Wouldn't it be nice if an agreement could be worked out with Canada to ship tens of millions of acre feet of water south? Enough water to enrich without stripping water for Canada or her natural resources such as the fisheries. The income could certainly help Canada, the water could turn vast areas of the USA to soybean production (diesel fuel additive), and protect the USA from an inevitable drought caused by climate change. The arguments about climate change reminds me of an old joke: The guy tossing buckets of gasoline onto a huge forest fire and quipping "Oh why hell, this can't possibly hurt". I'd sure like to see 80% of our electrical production derived from renewable resources. I'd like to see an amendment to the US constitution that demands that all traffic control signals that see more than a hundred automobiles an hour use a computerized signal timing system. Speed lanes like those in Mexico City. Enter US 405 off the 5 and exit only in 3 places, just one on ramp, the 5 at both ends.

Green credits. Plant approved trees and get them for free, subsidized. Tens of thousands of weeping willows along California's levees. Their roots will prevent levee failures. Plants turn CO2 into O2. Instead of protesting, go plant something even if its in a planter. People that do the least are the ones yelling loudest about people not doing enough.

gnukid - 7-8-2012 at 01:09 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by mtgoat666

newkid:
your argument is ridiculous. if everybody consumed energy at same rate as gringos, the rate of global warming would be 2 degrees per week!!!!!!!!! or something close to that rate :light:

Pollution is often referred to as a portion of green house gasses or GHG. CO2 makes up less than 3.62% of GHG and human produced C02 makes up only 3.4% of that. So humans are responsible for about .0009 of GHG CO2 that is supposed to be the life threatening monumental threat to humanity requiring that punishing austerity be promoted worldwide and less developed countries shouldn't be allowed to benefit from 1st world lifestyles, the same middle class lifestyle that apparently has reduced populations in the USA and the need for high birth rate to combat child death and support for labor intensive requirements by oppressed people without access to cheap and efficient energy, the same cheap energy that we 1st world people all benefit from and enjoy?

Meanwhile not only have oil and coal solved the problem of mile high piles of manure polluting cities, modern oi and coal based power plants are becoming more efficient evidenced by reduced pollution output by the USA and UK measured as a reduction of CO2 output by more than 7% since 2006? USA reduced pollution output occurred without any forcing measures other than common will and desire.

Again, we see that the threat of catastrophe caused by population and pollution decreases when people are allowed access to cheap energy and are free of artificial scarcity promoted by hacks such as Paul Ehrlich, John Holdren, Skipjack and the Goat who clearly haven't demonstrated they have got a handle on practical science nor facts.

gnukid - 7-8-2012 at 01:17 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by DavidE
Whales? Wales? Here I thought this thread was about whales, not "uranium bombs" and temperature records. Wouldn't it be nice if an agreement could be worked out with Canada to ship tens of millions of acre feet of water south? Enough water to enrich without stripping water for Canada or her natural resources such as the fisheries. The income could certainly help Canada, the water could turn vast areas of the USA to soybean production (diesel fuel additive), and protect the USA from an inevitable drought caused by climate change. The arguments about climate change reminds me of an old joke: The guy tossing buckets of gasoline onto a huge forest fire and quipping "Oh why hell, this can't possibly hurt". I'd sure like to see 80% of our electrical production derived from renewable resources. I'd like to see an amendment to the US constitution that demands that all traffic control signals that see more than a hundred automobiles an hour use a computerized signal timing system. Speed lanes like those in Mexico City. Enter US 405 off the 5 and exit only in 3 places, just one on ramp, the 5 at both ends.

Green credits. Plant approved trees and get them for free, subsidized. Tens of thousands of weeping willows along California's levees. Their roots will prevent levee failures. Plants turn CO2 into O2. Instead of protesting, go plant something even if its in a planter. People that do the least are the ones yelling loudest about people not doing enough.

Here David promotes a simple infrastructure solution to scarcity of water, an aquaduct to send water from the north to the south.

How simple and effective, send resources to where they are needed using modern technology and ability. Now with all the modern technology and massive strength the USA possesses couldn't the USA invest in simply pipe or aquaduct to send water from the ice caps to the south? Of course we could and it would radically change the outlook and productivity of the land and the productiveness of the country, so why don't we see infrastructure improvements like this? And to those selected managers who fail to move forward on improvements to infrastructure how should we respond?

Cypress - 7-8-2012 at 01:37 PM

Water Pipelines. Will the enviro-nuts be opposed to them, all the eco-damage? Probably not. Depends upon how thirsty they are.

Skipjack Joe - 7-8-2012 at 01:50 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by gnukid

So you haven't a leg to stand on, you have made no point nor refuted any, and you fall back upon Paul Ehrlich as a reference point not so unlike the institutional catastrophic group-think that has been a common trait of the arguments made by university and political elite to promote global governance.

This is so you.

Back to conspiracy theories about the academia and 'political elite'. The bogeymen. Nothing is what it seems to be. There are hidden agendas everywhere and only an astute individual like yourself understands the true facts.

Quote:

Originally posted by gnukid

So there you have it, irrational illogical scientific talk, SkipJack would prefer to quote Paul Ehrlich who said population was a problem "bigger than Hitler" and used false and exaggerated predictions and fear to promote forced abortions and forced sterilization among other ideas to reduce the number of humans, presumably because Ehrlich believed he was more suited to be on the earth than you or your child! All based on false argument and lies to promote harsh methods of control of your life and liberty, two of the so called inalienable rights of man. This type of malthusian techno-toltalinarianism is as far from science and factual discussion as possible and yet you have presumably educated adults such as SkipJack and Obama parroting their lies to demand you live in austerity while they ride around in jets on vacation, the hypocrisy and myopia of so called experts spouting nonsense and false argument are the greatest threat to humanity, not common man, energy, CO2 or population.

WTF are you talking about? I don't jet around the world. I put my pants on one leg at a time same as anyone else.

Ehrlich was no crackpot. Comparing him to Hitler is ludicrous. He was a full fledged professor at Stanford who actually did some great research in ecology (butterflies). His science publications were regular reading material in grad school.

Why are you providing links to fox news political pages in a discourse on science?

Like I said:
(a) add a little salt (Ehrlich)
(b) add a little pepper (Obama)
(c) mix it with sterilization and abortions

... and you have another gnukid dish. As only you know how to prepare them.

Skipjack Joe - 7-8-2012 at 01:58 PM

Gnukid,

Please provide some reference material that human intelligence has gone through ups and downs over time. Please support that statement.

Mexitron - 7-8-2012 at 02:02 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by gnukid

Quote:

Originally posted by Skipjack Joe
Much was written about man's abuse of our planet, it's inhabitants, and our certain path to extinction.

Gnukid tried to make the correction but in so doing added his pet conspiracy theories that had little to do with the subject.

Back in the late 60's the Stanford professor Paul Erlich was a late night visitor of late night television who became interested in his book "The Population Bomb".

This book clearly maps out how our population is growing and all of the known agricultural and potential agricultural centers of our planet. The potential of our oceans was also evaluated. The global food resources were evaluated. The food requirements of mankind were evaluated. And finally a graph was presented. A horizontal line for food availability and a diagonal line for our growth. At the interesection of the 2 we were going to start experiencing global famines.

This was supposed to happen somewhere in the late 70's - early 80's. The 70's - early 80's came and went with none of the predictions being met. Paul Erlich was no longer a popular speaker.

As any biologist knows no living species continues to grow unabated forever. Ehrlich assumed that the balance would be reached through starvation. But there are many other ways. We self regulate.

My wife's peruvian family had 14 siblings but none of those sivlings had more than 2 kids. My grandmother belonged to a family of 11 but, again nobody had more than 3 kids.

The fact is that when a population is growing at a exponential rate without restrictions it will reproduce very differently then when the carring capacity of the environment is reached.

The reason we're not starving is because we've adapted. And because we can adapt there will be no extinction.

And we will adapt to global warming in some way when the stakes get high enough.

SkipJack's reply provides an example of the irrational thought programming that is the single most significant plague on humanity. His reply contains a number of fallacies, theories and conclusion.

SkiJack makes a personal attack on me without making or rebutting a point? This is fallacious argument, ad hominem, and is used by people with no point to make.

Skipjacks notes about Paul Erlich false predictions don't make a point. Using a negative conclusion as evidence doesn't support a valid argument or make a point. Saying this didn't happen so therefore x is true doesn't make a point except that x didn't happen. Erlich was wrong, so what?

Furthermore, population isn't growing exponentially, it's unclear that is growing at all as we see in all developing countries population is decreasing. The overall population is currently stable and many if not most countries are losing population as a product of births per family.

He uses the term global warming as a reference but that as well is theory while it is clear the earth was absolutely warmer previously, as well with much higher CO2 than today. In fact, the highest global temperature recorded was in 1988, Mann's hockey stick theory of global warming has been proven demonstrably not just wrong but unethical and junk science.

So, SkipJack makes a series of inflamatory and false statements which support absolutely no other conclusion than irrational thought is rampant and lack of reason is a most serious obstacle toward thoughtful discussion and human evolution.

So what is the cause of the loss of reason among humanity and what can we do to reverse the trend?

[Edited on 7-8-2012 by gnukid]

Gnukid makes the following statement in the above , with a link to source it:

"He uses the term global warming as a reference but that as well is theory while it is clear the earth was absolutely warmer previously, as well with much higher CO2 than today. In fact, the highest global temperature recorded was in 1988, Mann's hockey stick theory of global warming has been proven demonstrably not just wrong but unethical and junk science."

Your link to the source that states the highest-ever global temperature was in 1988 is a New York Times article that was published in 1989!

[Edited on 7-8-2012 by Mexitron]

Skipjack Joe - 7-8-2012 at 02:13 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by gnukid

Quote:

Unfortunately it's too simple.

California has for years been arguing over the idea of sending water from the northern half to the southern half. To no avail. Because the proposed aqueduct would suck in salt water from the ocean into the delta killing most endemic species that have evolved to live at a certain salinity. The less water that flows out of SF bay the further the intrusion of salt water.

Most simple solutions are like that. They have repercussions. In our modern world scientific models predict all changes before the green light is given. It'snot like the dams that went up on the Columbia River system in the 30's that pretty much wiped out the salmon runs.

gnukid - 7-8-2012 at 02:29 PM

Skipjack provides no points, no references, makes fallacious points and ad hominem attacks.

Correction of your hyperbole, it was Paul Ehrlich who made analogies that the threat of population was bigger than than threat of Hitler.

Skipjack successfully makes an argument that exceptional irrationalism is the plague of our time. There is no purpose or benefit in spewing insults and conflating statements to confuse and misdirect the point at hand: population is not a serious threat to humanity, nor is pollution caused by human generated green house gasses.

Quite the opposite, in the past, before humans, GHG CO2 was as high as 1500ppm +_ 500ppm and the earth had much more plantlife, today we have about 350-380ppm or less with reduced output by developed countries annually, so if anything we are at risk of a lack of GHG CO2 if anything to fuel the plant life needed to produce oxygen to support human life.

As to the evidence that humans were previously more intelligent, you make a good argument yourself that previously people were smarter. Let's avoid the tendency here to move off topic when one fails to have a point to make, Skipjack.

[Edited on 7-8-2012 by gnukid]

Skipjack Joe - 7-8-2012 at 02:43 PM

Wow. That's really lame, gnukid.

gnukid - 7-8-2012 at 02:49 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Mexitron

Quote:

Originally posted by gnukid

Quote:

Yes the highest recorded temperatures recorded was 1988, the data set goes back about 100 years. Evidence exists that temperatures were much higher in the distant past. So in our modern times while cheap energy proliferated we do not see runaway temperature and increases nor do we see direct correlation, in fact we see the peak was 1988 while populations have increased since then and energy use, while at the same time CO2 is down as is global temperature.

The issue here is there is not a threat from CO2, temperature or population. Yet the promoters of global catastrophe, Paul Ehrlich, Mexitron, SkipJack, Goat, John Holdren and the like are busy predicting worldwide catastrophe that has not been evidenced.

How many times to we remain faithful that dire predictions shall come to pass when the predictors are wrong everytime? At what time does rational thought precede faith in the religion of global l catastrophe.

If someone arrived in your town and started barking that people are the biggest threat, worse than Hitler, and population growth measured in babies born are the greatest threat known to man along with cheap energy so you must support forces abortion, sterlilization, austerity and restrict under-developed countries from access to cheap energy, and they demonstrated they had a track record of failed predictions and catastrophes, wouldn't you pause to think for a minute and conclude the track record of doomsday predictors fail to take into account that people naturally overcome obstacles and that challenges to growth are the force that prompts scientific invention.

If we subscribed to SkipJack and his empty argument against humanity, liberty and proliferation of cheap energy we would be destined to live in a static and oppressed society restricted from travel and the modern advances that we benefit from, these eco-ethicists promote restricting the distribution of innovation that has made our lives more enjoyable, boating, flying in planes, heat, hot water, water pressure, transportation.

SkipJack can you make a point supporting your argument in any way and provide a reference, it can't be that hard so you have to resort to personal empty attacks and false attribution.

watizname - 7-8-2012 at 02:49 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by gnukid

Quote:

Originally posted by woody with a view
...
anyone know what the number is now-a-days?

edit: answer= http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/World_population

[Edited on 7-8-2012 by woody with a view]

I just spent the last two months working in Burbank CA, a very developed city in Southern California. There was smog every single day. You could see it, smell it, feel it on your skin, and wheeze it when you breathed. So much for the improved methods of combustion. I guess the vista was still there, but my eyes were tearing so badly I couldn't see it.

gnukid - 7-8-2012 at 03:04 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by watizname
I just spent the last two months working in Burbank CA, a very developed city in Southern California. There was smog every single day. You could see it, smell it, feel it on your skin, and wheeze it when you breathed. So much for the improved methods of combustion. I guess the vista was still there, but my eyes were tearing so badly I couldn't see it.

It's a bit more complex than saying it was smoggy so therefore people are bad and should be punished.

The discussion is about correlation, social policies and theoretical ideas versus freedom to pursue innovation and allow people and economies to solve their problems through innovation in free markets versus oppressive forced austerity and punishing taxes that only transfer wealth to a private group as opposed to promote healthy economies.

SFandH - 7-8-2012 at 03:08 PM

http://www.ucsusa.org/ssi/climate-change/scientific-consensu...

Statement on climate change from 18 scientific associations

"Observations throughout the world make it clear that climate change is occurring, and rigorous scientific research demonstrates that the greenhouse gases emitted by human activities are the primary driver." (October, 2009)

American Meteorological Society: Climate Change: An Information Statement of the American Meteorological Society

"Indeed, strong observational evidence and results from modeling studies indicate that, at least over the last 50 years, human activities are a major contributor to climate change." (February 2007)

American Physical Society: Statement on Climate Change

"The evidence is incontrovertible: Global warming is occurring. If no mitigating actions are taken, significant disruptions in the Earth’s physical and ecological systems, social systems, security and human health are likely to occur. We must reduce emissions of greenhouse gases beginning now." (November 2007)

American Geophysical Union: Human Impacts on Climate

"The Earth's climate is now clearly out of balance and is warming. Many components of the climate system—including the temperatures of the atmosphere, land and ocean, the extent of sea ice and mountain glaciers, the sea level, the distribution of precipitation, and the length of seasons—are now changing at rates and in patterns that are not natural and are best explained by the increased atmospheric abundances of greenhouse gases and aerosols generated by human activity during the 20th century." (Adopted December 2003, Revised and Reaffirmed December 2007)

American Association for the Advancement of Science: AAAS Board Statement on Climate Change

"The scientific evidence is clear: global climate change caused by human activities is occurring now, and it is a growing threat to society." (December 2006)

Geological Society of America: Global Climate Change

"The Geological Society of America (GSA) supports the scientific conclusions that Earth’s climate is changing; the climate changes are due in part to human activities; and the probable consequences of the climate changes will be significant and blind to geopolitical boundaries." (October 2006)

American Chemical Society: Statement on Global Climate Change

"There is now general agreement among scientific experts that the recent warming trend is real (and particularly strong within the past 20 years), that most of the observed warming is likely due to increased atmospheric greenhouse gas concentrations, and that climate change could have serious adverse effects by the end of this century." (July 2004)

National Science Academies

U.S. National Academy of Sciences: Understanding and Responding to Climate Change (pdf)

"The scientific understanding of climate change is now sufficiently clear to justify taking steps to reduce the amount of greenhouse gases in the atmosphere." (2005)

International academies: Joint science academies’ statement: Global response to climate change (pdf)

"Climate change is real. There will always be uncertainty in understanding a system as complex as the world’s climate. However there is now strong evidence that significant global warming is occurring." (2005, 11 national academies of science)

International academies: The Science of Climate Change

"Despite increasing consensus on the science underpinning predictions of global climate change, doubts have been expressed recently about the need to mitigate the risks posed by global climate change. We do not consider such doubts justified." (2001, 16 national academies of science)

Research

National Research Council of the National Academies, America’s Climate Choices

"Most of the recent warming can be attributed to fossil fuel burning and other human activities that release carbon dioxide and other heat-trapping greenhouse gases into the atmosphere." America's Climate Choices, Advancing the Science of Climate Change, 2010

U.S. Climate Change Research Program, Global Climate Change Impacts in the United States (2009)

"Global warming is unequivocal and primarily human-induced. Global temperature has increased over the past 50 years. This observed increase is due primarily to human-induced emissions of heat-trapping gases."

Examining the Scientific Consensus on Climate Change, Peter T. Doran and Maggie Kendall Zimmerman

"It seems that the debate on the authenticity of global warming and the role played by human activity is largely nonexistent among those who understand the nuances and scientific basis of long-term climate processes."

Doran surveyed 10,257 Earth scientists. Thirty percent responded to the survey which asked: 1. When compared with pre-1800s levels, do you think that mean global temperatures have generally risen, fallen, or remained relatively constant? and 2. Do you think human activity is a significant contributing factor in changing mean global temperatures?

Beyond the Ivory Tower: The Scientific Consensus on Climate Change, Naomi Oreskes

"Oreskes analyzed 928 abstracts published in refereed scientific journals between 1993 and 2003 and listed in the ISI database with the keywords 'climate change.'... Of all the papers, 75 percent either explicitly or implicitly accepted the consensus view that global warming is happening and humans are contributing to it; 25 percent dealt with methods or ancient climates, taking no position on current anthropogenic [human-caused] climate change. Remarkably, none of the papers disagreed with the consensus position." ?

Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change

Climate Change 2007: The Physical Science Basis, IPCC, 2007. Contribution of Working Group I to the Fourth Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change [Solomon, S., D. Qin, M. Manning, Z. Chen, M. Marquis, K.B. Averyt, M.Tignor and H.L. Miller (eds.)]. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, United Kingdom and New York, NY, USA.

“Warming of the climate system is unequivocal, as is now evident from observations of increases in global average air and ocean temperatures, widespread melting of snow and ice, and rising global average sea level”

“Most of the observed increase in global average temperatures since the mid-20th century is very likely due to the observed increase in anthropogenic greenhouse gas concentrations.”

IPCC defines "very likely" as greater than 90% probability of occurrence.

Sign-on Statements

The Importance of Science in Addressing Climate Change: Scientists’ letter to the U.S. Congress. Statement signed by 18 scientists.
"We want to assure you that the science is strong and that there is nothing abstract about the risks facing our Nation." (2011)

Climate Change and the Integrity of Science
Signed by 255 members of the National Academy of Sciences. "... For a problem as potentially catastrophic as climate change, taking no action poses a dangerous risk for our planet. ... The planet is warming due to increased concentrations of heat-trapping gases in our atmosphere. ...Most of the increase in the concentration of these gases over the last century is due to human activities, especially the burning of fossil fuels and deforestation." (2010)

U.S. Scientists and Economists' Call for Swift and Deep Cuts in Greenhouse Gas Emissions

"We call on our nation's leaders to swiftly establish and implement policies to bring about deep reductions in heat-trapping emissions. The strength of the science on climate change compels us to warn the nation about the growing risk of irreversible consequences as global average temperatures continue to increase over pre-industrial levels (i.e. prior to 1860). As temperatures rise further, the scope and severity of global warming impacts will continue to accelerate." (2008)

Increase Your Leadership on Global Warming: A Letter from California Scientists

"If emissions continue unabated, the serious consequences of a changing climate for California are likely to include a striking increase in extreme heat and heat-related mortality, significant reductions in Sierra snowpack with severe impacts on water supply, mounting challenges to agricultural production, and sea-level rise leading to more widespread erosion of California’s beaches and coastline." (2005)

WTF! I thought this was about me?

willardguy - 7-8-2012 at 03:10 PM

DavidE - 7-8-2012 at 03:17 PM

SLOW DOWN AND READ FOR CRI'SAKES!

"It's Too Simple"

What does CANADA have to do with CALIFORNIA?

Ever seen the McKenzie river? It is a Mississippi size torrent of fresh water that washes into the arctic. Are you suggesting that sockeye and pink salmon that now swim upstream against a 5 knot current will perish if it is reduced to 4 knots?

Making sound environmental decisions is much like driving an automobile that can go 100+ mph. Does the mere mention of driving cause you to say "No Way! That thing'll do way beyond the speed limit"?

I guess it must be, in the mind of some, that importing vast quantities of water to the USA "has to be bad, because it, well, it...oh hell, it isn't natural!"

It's better to leave untold millions of acres barren desert, that render little if any CO2 to O2 reversion, intact. It would look weird to drive across Nevada, and see "Aghh GASP! CROPS!" Oh, the O2 production would be, well, it wouldn't be 'natural' like the pristine O2 generated in rain forests. "I demand to see SAGEBRUSH as I drive past Winemucca!"

California's salmon need fresh clear water and lots of it. The kind of fresh water that can be had naturally, by STOPPING diversion of tributaries of the Sacramento and San Joaquin rivers, and using water from a COUNTRY that floods with fresh water.

But no. idiots are going to argue, and pontificate, and sit on their butt. not plant a damned tree, and wait until NATURAL climate change causes a long term drought in the states, then they'll run around and say "See! I told you so!"

The USA and Canada has the potential to become the food basket for the world. More power than a hundred million thermonuclear bombs, more compelling than the most profound rhetoric, and bomb proof. Who the hell is going to lob a bomb at their own survival? You folks had better brush up on your stats. One acre of productive US crop land produces 21 times as much food, meaning, grain, vegetables, sugar as the average acre in the world. It is power. Whoa baby, it is real basic power. Stronger than any army.

But my words go wasted here. Time to tend my GREEN, GROWING, O2 producing plot.

gnukid - 7-8-2012 at 03:20 PM

A Sharp Rise in Retractions Prompts Calls for Reform

US Scientists Significantly More Likely to Publish Fake Research, Study Finds

More

http://www.drroyspencer.com/2012/07/june-2012-u-s-temperatur...

http://theaveragejoenewsblogg.com/2012/07/07/alarmists-use-e...

http://www.slate.com/blogs/future_tense/2012/07/06/global_wa...

http://junkscience.com/2012/06/22/hank-campbell-ipcc-gives-u...

http://pielkeclimatesci.wordpress.com/2012/04/26/comment-on-...

http://wattsupwiththat.com/climategate/

[Edited on 7-8-2012 by gnukid]

mtgoat666 - 7-8-2012 at 03:25 PM

if god had meant man to live in the desert, he would have put water in the desert!!!!!!

SFandH - 7-8-2012 at 03:35 PM

http://www.skepticalscience.com/print.php?a=17

This overwhelming consensus among climate experts is confirmed by an independent study that surveys all climate scientists who have publicly signed declarations supporting or rejecting the consensus. They find between 97% to 98% of climate experts support the consensus (Anderegg 2010). Moreover, they examine the number of publications by each scientist as a measure of expertise in climate science. They find the average number of publications by unconvinced scientists (eg - skeptics) is around half the number by scientists convinced by the evidence. Not only is there a vast difference in the number of convinced versus unconvinced scientists, there is also a considerable gap in expertise between the two groups.

The Academies of Science from 19 different countries all endorse the consensus. 11 countries have signed a joint statement endorsing the consensus position:

•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 (USA) (12 Mar 2009 news release)

[Edited on 7-8-2012 by SFandH]

DavidE - 7-8-2012 at 03:45 PM

100011100101001000011100010010010011111000111010101001010101010101

Tossing the above around does not do anything but CONSUME ELECTRICITY. i love it.

Cypress - 7-8-2012 at 03:47 PM

At one time most of the world's scientist's also thought that the world was flat. :yes:

SFandH - 7-8-2012 at 03:48 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by gnukid
Again, we see that the threat of catastrophe caused by population and pollution decreases when people are allowed access to cheap energy .....

Thanks to cheap energy:

Air pollution could become China's biggest health threat, expert warns

Leading respiratory disease specialist warns of consequences if government fails to monitor and publicise the dangers of smog

http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2012/mar/16/air-pollut...

[Edited on 7-8-2012 by SFandH]

COP15-China-and-carbon-ai-001.jpg - 15kB

COP15-China-and-carbon-ai-001.jpg - 15kB

gnukid - 7-8-2012 at 04:04 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by SFandH
http://www.skepticalscience.com/print.php?a=17

This overwhelming consensus among climate experts is confirmed by an independent study that surveys all climate scientists who have publicly signed declarations supporting or rejecting the consensus. They find between 97% to 98% of climate experts support the consensus (Anderegg 2010). Moreover, they examine the number of publications by each scientist as a measure of expertise in climate science. They find the average number of publications by unconvinced scientists (eg - skeptics) is around half the number by scientists convinced by the evidence. Not only is there a vast difference in the number of convinced versus unconvinced scientists, there is also a considerable gap in expertise between the two groups.

The Academies of Science from 19 different countries all endorse the consensus. 11 countries have signed a joint statement endorsing the consensus position:

•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 (USA) (12 Mar 2009 news release)

[Edited on 7-8-2012 by SFandH]

The idea that there is consensus in science is on contrast to the heart of science, that is the role of the skeptic. One can not make an argument that consensus is proof, one must use the scientific method which always considers a margin of error. It is the nature of science to continually update theory and advance science.

If one wanted to make a point to discuss the topic one could make a point about the topic, however the argument that experts agree or argument by authority is not a valid argument for anything.

Hopefully you can see the problem, in order to confirm science or discover error we must reference data and points, not just an appeal to have faith because I am an expert.

The basic point of Global Warming is that human output of green house gasses are a significant force that drives the temperature which is a significant risk to humanity.

What is known is that in the past green house gasses were in higher concentrations, temperature changes precede changes in green house gasses, and there is a cyclical nature to the environment largely outside the control of humans who have an affect on the atmosphere though it is quite insignificant.

Furthermore, the argument for Global Warming jumps to the conclusion that by punishing people with austerity and high energy taxes and costs, the catastrophe will be lessened, which is a huge jump and no way supported by the data or by any logic.

In fact the opposite evidenced. People do not have significant affect on the atmosphere, temperature, ice cap, CO2 or green house gasses. Human affect on GHG is about .0009 or almost 1/1000th of a percent of GHG is associated by human output.

Again, cheap energy and modern advances reduce the need for increasing populations due to reduced need for labor to support the family, and reduced CO2 due to increasingly efficient energy production.

Global Warming proponents spend an estimated 600 billion a year to reduce human afffects on the atmosphere, yet the efforts are not designed to reduce pollution whatsover, the spending is largely on promotion of the meme through lavish conventions and jet-setting representatives looking for handouts for heavily subsided projects, which fail to reduce pollution.

While simply leaving people and economies to themselves to be more efficient has demonstrated a reduction of GHG by 7% for developed nations in the USA and UK voluntarily.

Furthermore, proponents have come under criticism because or repeated cases of fraud, junk science, use of non-peer-reviewed literature such as press releases and college papers as well as failure to release data sets for review.

The recent Climate Change Convention in Brazil Rio 20 failed to get any conclusive agreement on any points.

If you are a such a proponent with great faith in the meme of global warming why not invest in carbon credits? Is it because the carbon exchange market just like Cap and Trade have nothing to do with reducing pollution, not one point of reduction is required and are 100% about taxing economies for profit by private parties?

[Edited on 7-8-2012 by gnukid]

Barry A. - 7-8-2012 at 04:09 PM

Case in point---------most of the visible "smog" in China is mist due to the climate (very moist & hot sea-air in summer) and not the LA type of SMOG. Still, it is nasty stuff, and gettin nastier, for humanoids.

Personally, when in the LA basin, my throat and eyes always hurt--------I did not experience that in Beijing or Hong Kong, etc.

My point------things are not necassarily as they appear.

Barry

Skipjack Joe - 7-8-2012 at 04:20 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by DavidE
SLOW DOWN AND READ FOR CRI'SAKES!

"It's Too Simple"

What does CANADA have to do with CALIFORNIA?

Ever seen the McKenzie river? It is a Mississippi size torrent of fresh water that washes into the arctic. Are you suggesting that sockeye and pink salmon that now swim upstream against a 5 knot current will perish if it is reduced to 4 knots?

Making sound environmental decisions is much like driving an automobile that can go 100+ mph. Does the mere mention of driving cause you to say "No Way! That thing'll do way beyond the speed limit"?

I guess it must be, in the mind of some, that importing vast quantities of water to the USA "has to be bad, because it, well, it...oh hell, it isn't natural!"

It's better to leave untold millions of acres barren desert, that render little if any CO2 to O2 reversion, intact. It would look weird to drive across Nevada, and see "Aghh GASP! CROPS!" Oh, the O2 production would be, well, it wouldn't be 'natural' like the pristine O2 generated in rain forests. "I demand to see SAGEBRUSH as I drive past Winemucca!"

California's salmon need fresh clear water and lots of it. The kind of fresh water that can be had naturally, by STOPPING diversion of tributaries of the Sacramento and San Joaquin rivers, and using water from a COUNTRY that floods with fresh water.

But no. idiots are going to argue, and pontificate, and sit on their butt. not plant a damned tree, and wait until NATURAL climate change causes a long term drought in the states, then they'll run around and say "See! I told you so!"

The USA and Canada has the potential to become the food basket for the world. More power than a hundred million thermonuclear bombs, more compelling than the most profound rhetoric, and bomb proof. Who the hell is going to lob a bomb at their own survival? You folks had better brush up on your stats. One acre of productive US crop land produces 21 times as much food, meaning, grain, vegetables, sugar as the average acre in the world. It is power. Whoa baby, it is real basic power. Stronger than any army.

But my words go wasted here. Time to tend my GREEN, GROWING, O2 producing plot.

I did not imply that California was Canada. I stated that simply building an aqueduct without adequate study of it's impact is a bad idea. I gave an example of why it's a bad idea in California. It may be a good idea from the arctic or it may not be. One thing for sure it will have some impact (everything does).

Personally I have no problem with the earth's biomes being what they are. But I can see how growing vegetables in the desert of asuncion can lead to thoughts about the potential of the desert being 'wasted'.

Regarding the NW Territory's MacKenzie River and the sockeyes and pink salmon. There are none. The northern boundary of those two species is about half way up the Bering Straight. Perhaps you meant Arctic Char.

I Used 134 kWh Of Power Last Month. How much Did YOU use?

DavidE - 7-8-2012 at 05:11 PM

But I can see how "growing vegetables in the desert of asuncion can lead to thoughts about the potential of the desert being 'wasted'"

Let's save it. After all it's 400 feet down and declining on it's own accord. I for one am unsubscribing from the thought of burning five hundred gallons of fuel to haul food to me all the way down the Baja peninsula. As long as we're correcting, let's change that to Bering Strait. I used the salmo example for solely that. And here when I thought folks would IMPLY thoughts of "study" when I mentioned water flow, I guess I need a hammer to pound single syllable words into place. Of course environmental impact studies need to be performed, but they need to be of pure science and engineering, not political mongering. Go back. Go way way way way (is that far enough?) back and read the "cons" against the Alaska pipeline. Read arctic Armageddon.

Everything has impact. Ask the asteroid that just about killed all life on earth. If present society existed then, it would have been arguing whether or not to file an environmental impact report as it plowed into the Atlantic ocean.

The problem is one of total absolutely asinine polarization. "If you aren't totally for us then you are totally against us". Between, meaning middle ground, between two absurd extremes, resides reality. Good luck finding it in the morass of utter stupidity that reins supreme in the public today. People don't stop to THINK. People who criticize others for growing their own food condemn themselves to absurdity. They do it when they burn hydrocarbons fetching food what, twice a week? They do it when the store obtains food from thousands of miles away. It isn't "miracled" from the field to the store, it leaves a long long long long (long enough?) carbon footprint. But of course I shouldn't be growing things in the desert, so I am on very shaky (sandy) ground when I state this. i should be spending thousands of dollars wasting hydrocarbons and resources attending rallies to find myself among fellow travelers who demand that we use LESS.

The huge, overwhelming, daunting and loathsome reason that conservation (remember that word from the 60's?) is failing today is because it's utter rock bottom foundation is based in hypocrisy. People who point fingers at each other are usually the worst offenders.

[Edited on 7-9-2012 by DavidE]

and you guys call me a nutbag!

willardguy - 7-8-2012 at 05:21 PM

DavidE - 7-8-2012 at 05:36 PM

Are they correct?

gnarlon - 7-8-2012 at 05:43 PM

I'm sorry but every time i watch the show Whale Wars i get upset. It seems ironic to put human lives at stake for the benefit of saving the whales. I understand what they stand for and what they are trying to do. Last week Paul Watson said he needed Australians to board the Japanese boat. One of the men had two boys under the age of 10. He boarded knowing that he would most likely receive a 15 year sentence to a Japanese prison. Shouldn't he be worried about raising his children? Paul Watson has an interesting way of letting others take the fall for his actions.

Skipjack Joe - 7-8-2012 at 05:47 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by gnukid

Quote:

Using references as proof of the existence of man-made global warming is totally appropriate. If your doctor diagnozed you with cancer wouldn't you get all of your facts from the American Cancer Society and not rely on searches through the internet? In fact your very doctor is continually going to them for guidance.

Look. Most of our information, most of our truths are accepted as truths without anything we do to prove them correct. We go through 20 years of schooling learning things that others have discovered and which we accept as truth.

What about water? How do you really know that it is composed of 2 hydrogen and 1 oxygen atoms? How do you know that atoms really exist? Electrons? Molecules? How do you know that your campfire consists of a chemical reaction? Have you ever seen oxygen?

Our culture is based on people who study parts of the world and share it with others. What we do is set up accredited organzations who validate the discoveries, add them to school textbooks, and pass it on to the rest of us.

So when you cite 98% (whatever the number is) of the world's science orgs as supporting manmade global warming. That is very significant. In fact it's pretty much the only way most of us are ever going to know of the truth.

Conversely for us to argue that some paper cites as proof that manmade global warming is a hoax is totally inappropriate. We're in no position to know the truth. We're too uneducated to know the difference. An intelligent man knows his boundaries.

"Render unto Caesar that which is Caesar's"

Let the experts do their thing and trust them. If you don't trust them then find people that you do trust. But if you find yourself never trusting accepted public knowledge then it's time to look at yourself and ask why.

mtgoat666 - 7-8-2012 at 05:52 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by gnarlon
I'm sorry but every time i watch the show Whale Wars i get upset. It seems ironic to put human lives at stake for the benefit of saving the whales.

many people undertake dangerous activities when they feel benefits outweigh the risks. for example: soldiers, cops, race car drivers, climbers, acrobats, smokers, fat people, couch potatoes, alcoholics... all do things for work or sport or leisure even after being warned of the risks the activities pose to themselves or their families.

it appears that some people feel more passionately about whales than you do!

Skipjack Joe - 7-8-2012 at 05:58 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by gnukid

If we subscribed to SkipJack and his empty argument against humanity, liberty and proliferation of cheap energy we would be destined to live in a static and oppressed society restricted from travel and the modern advances that we benefit from, these eco-ethicists promote restricting the distribution of innovation that has made our lives more enjoyable, boating, flying in planes, heat, hot water, water pressure, transportation.

Huh?

Where is my argument against humanity?

What the hell are you talking about?

DavidE - 7-8-2012 at 06:05 PM

You have to do MORE than just nod yes. One, just one, drought related kill off of vegetation in the Amazon, releases more CO2 that all the molecules of CO2 ever produced by mankind since Lucy.

This is NOT a question of IF. It is a challenge of Do we have enough time to adapt for it?

Simply declaring "I Believe!" and ranting about Kyoto Accords DOES NOT MAKE IT! We have the power and the wisdom to avoid global disaster that will come whether or not we all eat tofu and bicycle to work. It is a natural, predictable and unavoidable consequence of earth's climate changes. Intelligent modifications to lifestyle have to be made whether we like it or not. Simply declaring the earth has a quintillion tons of coal and septillions of cubic yards of natural gas doesn't make it either. We have to be smarter to do the best we can without returning to the stone age.

Like It Or Not Department:

I've listened for a half dozen decades to people who rant and rave with a primal motive of being an "America Hater". They have to be weeded out from the group that has scientific objectivity and humanity at heart. These people hide behind every movement and societal group there is.

But I see I am wasting my time here. So this marks the end of my participation in this lunacy.

Never doubt....

djh - 7-8-2012 at 07:39 PM

I've read these posts, most of them civil. I figured to stay out of it, but I do want to share a little bit, then I'll shut up and read again....

"Never doubt that a small group of thoughtful, committed people can change the world. Indeed, it is the only thing that ever has." M.M.

Conscience... Everyone's is a bit different. COMMITTED, ACTIVE people of conscience have brought about most of the changes in human history that have kept civilization at least marginally CIVIL.

I met Capt. Paul Watson in Eugene, OR at an Environmental Law Conference about 20+ years ago.... we served on a panel together. I spent part of an afternoon with him and a few mutual friends. Paul struck me as a man of conscience, conviction, and commitment. His ACTIONS are not just "theories" or armchair quarterbacking. His actions are congruent with his convictions and words. That to me is more respectable than all of the "he should... YOU should....." judgements and adnoseum dissecting and political interjections and blame.....

He IS enforcing International Law where other countries and their enforcement agencies refuse to. He HAS spent time incarcerated for his actions, but has always been released because of his defense of those international laws that he was enforcing (the international ban on whaling, eh?). BTW Maratime law is some of the oldest law - and was one of the first duties of our own government

If YOU believe LAWS must be changed, great, get up and work on that, eh? Far too easy to say, "HE should do this or that.". BTW, Ghandi broke lots of laws, as did many other of humankind's most positively influential and pivotal individuals

Although I have spent many years working in other related environmental arenas and using different approaches, I understand PW's passion and commitment..... And I'll bet most of YOU who have swam, snorkeled / dived with, or just been in a panga - looking into the eye of a Grey Whale - or any other aquatic mamal UNDERSTAND what drives PW.

No doubt, he is an intense guy.... He called Greenpeace "Environmental Cookie Sale Group...". I really don't care about his ego. I care about his actions and the resultant changes he has brought about.... BTW, during our afternoon discussion, PW told us that when he sunk the Norwegian whaling fleet - in port, at dock, he boarded the scuttled ships and told EVERY crewmember on board that they must leave the ship immediately, as their vessel was already scuttled and sinking.... saving crews' (the "enemy's" ??) lives.

Talk is cheap.

Do you know why talk is cheap.....?

Simple economics..... SUPPLY is so much greater than DEMAND.

djh

bigmike58 - 7-8-2012 at 07:49 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Cypress
At one time most of the world's scientist's also thought that the world was flat. :yes:

LOL...

motoged - 7-9-2012 at 10:22 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by mtgoat666
if god had meant man to live in the desert, he would have put water in the desert!!!!!!

...

Yep....and fish/ camarone taco stands along the streets....Tecate in Cuomos.... :lol:

Perfect solution

bajaguy - 7-9-2012 at 10:47 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by mtgoat666
if god had meant man to live in the desert, he would have put water in the desert!!!!!!

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vN7ehccspao

Mexitron - 7-9-2012 at 08:11 PM

Gnukid:

"The issue here is there is not a threat from CO2, temperature or population. Yet the promoters of global catastrophe, Paul Ehrlich, Mexitron, SkipJack, Goat, John Holdren and the like are busy predicting worldwide catastrophe that has not been evidenced."

Um, how did you make the leap from my pointing out your data set was way out of date to calling me a promoter of global catastrophe? :lol:

gnukid - 7-11-2012 at 10:12 AM

Here is a peer reviewed study that was recently published that shows that over the the past 2000 years there is no evidence of a connection between man made green house gasses and global temperature. More so, there are long term cycles that affect the atmosphere which are forces that drive temperature.

Of course, science is an on going process, without 'consensus' that simply strives to describe our experience on earth.

If you are interested:

http://www.nature.com/nclimate/journal/vaop/ncurrent/full/nc...

http://newsbusters.org/blogs/noel-sheppard/2012/07/11/new-st...

Summary:

"In the IPCC view, the planet was cooler during Roman times and the medieval warm spell. Overall the temperature is headed up - perhaps wildly up, according to the famous/infamous "hockey stick" graph.

The new study indicates that that's quite wrong, with the current warming less serious than the Romans and others since have seen - and the overall trend actually down by a noticeable 0.3°C per millennium, which the scientists believe is probably down to gradual long-term shifts in the position of the Sun and the Earth's path around it."

Mexitron - 7-11-2012 at 12:25 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by gnukid
Here is a peer reviewed study that was recently published that shows that over the the past 2000 years there is no evidence of a connection between man made green house gasses and global temperature. More so, there are long term cycles that affect the atmosphere which are forces that drive temperature.

Of course, science is an on going process, without 'consensus' that simply strives to describe our experience on earth.

If you are interested:

http://www.nature.com/nclimate/journal/vaop/ncurrent/full/nc...

http://newsbusters.org/blogs/noel-sheppard/2012/07/11/new-st...

The article in Nature is interesting, and good news if its true, yet it is only one of hundreds of studies and is based on tree rings in one area, then projected out via climate models. We all know that climate change---if its actually happening---will see some areas get warmer while others may cool down. Still, good article to keep in mind.
Your second link however exposes a political motive----says this about the author:

"Noel Sheppard is the Associate Editor of NewsBusters as well as a small business owner residing in Northern California. He is also a contributing writer to Fox Forum and the Washington Examiner."

Skipjack Joe - 7-11-2012 at 01:43 PM

Here's an article published in 'Science', which is just as reputable as 'Nature', that states the opposite:

Recent Warming Reverses Long-Term Arctic Cooling

I see little value in providing such links on nomads because each nomad provides the link that supports his case and ignores the ones that contradict it.

newkid: your "summary" is partisan BS spin!!!!!!!!!!

mtgoat666 - 7-11-2012 at 01:51 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by gnukid
Summary:

"In the IPCC view, the planet was cooler during Roman times and the medieval warm spell. Overall the temperature is headed up - perhaps wildly up, according to the famous/infamous "hockey stick" graph.

The new study indicates that that's quite wrong, with the current warming less serious than the Romans and others since have seen - and the overall trend actually down by a noticeable 0.3°C per millennium, which the scientists believe is probably down to gradual long-term shifts in the position of the Sun and the Earth's path around it."

newkid:
your summary is partisan BS spin. here is astract of Nature article:

Solar insolation changes, resulting from long-term oscillations of orbital configurations1, are an important driver of Holocene climate2, 3. The forcing is substantial over the past 2,000 years, up to four times as large as the 1.6 W m−2 net anthropogenic forcing since 1750 (ref. 4), but the trend varies considerably over time, space and with season5. Using numerous high-latitude proxy records, slow orbital changes have recently been shown6 to gradually force boreal summer temperature cooling over the common era. Here, we present new evidence based on maximum latewood density data from northern Scandinavia, indicating that this cooling trend was stronger (−0.31 °C per 1,000 years, ±0.03 °C) than previously reported, and demonstrate that this signature is missing in published tree-ring proxy records. The long-term trend now revealed in maximum latewood density data is in line with coupled general circulation models7, 8 indicating albedo-driven feedback mechanisms and substantial summer cooling over the past two millennia in northern boreal and Arctic latitudes. These findings, together with the missing orbital signature in published dendrochronological records, suggest that large-scale near-surface air-temperature reconstructions9, 10, 11, 12, 13 relying on tree-ring data may underestimate pre-instrumental temperatures including warmth during Medieval and Roman times.

motoged - 7-11-2012 at 01:54 PM

Uhhhh, his thread is NOT about climate change.... :no:

mtgoat666 - 7-11-2012 at 02:05 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by motoged
Uhhhh, his thread is NOT about climate change.... :no:

save the whales!

sea shepherd is great organization!

woody with a view - 7-11-2012 at 02:07 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by motoged
Uhhhh, his thread is NOT about climate change.... :no:

not yet, but a hijack is in the making...... :light:

motoged - 7-11-2012 at 02:54 PM

It's been interesting....mostly a good conversation....and the hijack thing was inevitable. :yes:

save the whales, harpoon a fat dude....

woody with a view - 7-11-2012 at 03:21 PM

[Edited on 7-11-2012 by woody with a view]

rsz_1hey-george-harpoon-fatty-fat-obese-japanese-sailing-whale-fl-demotivational-poster-1255905355.jpg - 17kB

rsz_1hey-george-harpoon-fatty-fat-obese-japanese-sailing-whale-fl-demotivational-poster-1255905355.jpg - 17kB

Pages: 1 2