glOBaL waRMInG - Page 3

Well I've heard lots of arguments either way. I really don't know. I would say, handover decision making to the scientific community.

As elitist as that sounds.

Yeah amd dangerous because they can be easily bought and the evidence shows that on global warming too many of them have (i.e. say this and you will get so much funding etc.).

Furthermore, too many of them disagree so how do you know who to trust?

I trust scientists more then the men of the oil industry. They obviously have a powerful financial interest to ignore any and all claims (legitimate or not) that global warming exists.

Obviously scientists can be corrupt. The risk for corruption exists everywhere. However, scientists are the only ones who can make a decent educated guess on the issue.

Funny you mention that. Many of those Environment groups have boards that are highly represented by industry, especially oil.

As for educated guesses there is great danger in that too. Look what the scientists and environmentalists did to America's first national wildlife reserve, Yellowstone. Their educated guesses lead to the vast destruction of numerous native plants, fish and the wolves, beavers, bears, elk etc. Itis really quite sad.

Look at what the scientists educated guess did by forcing the ban on DDT - current estimates are that it caused the death of 50,000,000 people, mostly in the 3rd world.

Of course scientists are going to be wrong sometime. The idea is that they know what they are talking about. And hence, when a scientist does something science-related its less of a stab-in-the-dark then an ignorant politician.

About gobal warming, the theory states [cites] an cyclic effect of abnormally hot/humid and colder dryer cycles as part of the process?
So the question is where in the cycle has changes in our environment left us?

In the Navy I served under the National Science Foundation in Antarctica. We had scientists come down all over the world. It took several years while they sampled and took readings year after year and debated. Many believed it was a natural accurance and many believed it was not. Enough proof was gathered that it was decided that global warming was accuring and it wasn't a natural effect, but our effect on nature, because of this the Kyoto accord was created.

quote:

---

Global warming: scientists reveal timetable
By Michael McCarthy, Environment Correspondent

03 February 2005

A detailed timetable of the destruction and distress that global warming is likely to cause the world was unveiled yesterday.

It pulls together for the first time the projected impacts on ecosystems and wildlife, food production, water resources and economies across the earth, for given rises in global temperature expected during the next hundred years.

The resultant picture gives the most wide-ranging impression yet of the bewildering array of destructive effects that climate change is expected to exert on different regions, from the mountains of Europe and the rainforests of the Amazon to the coral reefs of the tropics.

Produced through a synthesis of a wide range of recent academic studies, it was presented as a paper yesterday to the international conference on climate change being held at the UK Met Office headquarters in Exeter by the author Bill Hare, of the Potsdam Institute for Climate Impact Research, Germany's leading global warming research institute.

The conference has been called personally by Tony Blair as part of Britain's attempts to move the climate change issue up the agenda during the current UK presidency of the G8 group of rich nations, and the European Union. It has already heard disturbing warnings from the latest climate research, including the revelation on Tuesday from the British Antarctic Survey that the massive West Antarctic ice sheet might be disintegrating - an event which, if it happened completely, would raise sea levels around the world by 16ft (4.9 metres).

---

http://news.independent.co.uk/world/environment/story.jsp?story=607254a >

What would it profit to buy a scientist to make such claims? It would be more profitable to buy a scientist to say that the world wasn't warming up. Tony Blair strongly believes it. Not that he is creditable. Imagine if we all stopped burning oil tomorrow, the Bush family would go broke and we would not profit off of the Iraq war.

Global Warming can cause an ice age - really know one knows for sure what will happen, how fast or how slow - at this point we're all guessing.

But you can follow Mr. Bush because he says he's a Christian and as such God has bestowed upon him wisdom, and you just close your eyes, because thats easy to do. We will all stand accountable for what we do, and fail to do.

In the last 20 years the region of Antarctica has been getting colder not warmer.

Enough proof has been gathered that it is absolutely a fact that there is no proof of global warming.

Scienticists dont even know if the ecosystem is cooling or getting warmer or what influence land effect has on temperature gauges.

That article you posted is an excellent example of PLUM's use of fear to dupe the ignorant and gullible in order to raise more money.

quote:

---

Enough proof has been gathered that it is absolutely a fact that there is no proof of global warming.

---

I know that this mountain of proof is not in Antarctica because I've been there. As a matter fact there are recent photos all over the Internet of the drunken forests caused by thawed thermo frost. This mountain of proof certainly isn't in Alaska. What is PLUM - and make profit for what? I never charged a dime for those articles, and I can send you some more for free if you like.

Where is this mountain of proof. I only know of one book that has been written disputing global warning. It wasn't written by a scientist, and you probably read it and now think you're an expert.

In the last 20 years Antarctica has been increasing in ice not losing it.

If you read above you would understand more. PLUM is a complex of Politicians, Lawyers, Universities and Media that earn billions by generating a state of fear.

And I am not talking about any single book but hundreds of peer reviewed scientific artlicles in scholarly journals.

Do you know what land effect is?

quote:

---

Do you know what land effect is?

---

No - and I obviously don't know what mountains of proof is either, because I still can't see it.

Land effect is the situation created by growing cities where the buildings and concrete raise the temperature of the area. Scientists have no clue as to how much land effect is effecting their temperature gauges and thus are incapable of generating any kind of accuracy of statistical data regarding global temperatures.

For example, many cities like Albany have seen a slight decrease in temperature over the last 200 years whereas NYC has seen an increase of 5 degrees F. If global warming was occuring then Albany - which is so close to NYC should also be seeing a rise in temperature. And that is just one of hundreds of examples I can cite. A large number of cities in Europe are all actually recording a decrease in temperature over the last 200 years.

Plus I havent even mentioned the subjective nature and human factors of creating proper temperature gauges. It is agreed that the USA has the best technology and most reliable temperature statistics over the last 130 years and in that time period the US has seen practically no rise in temperature. Furthermore, over the last 50 years many of the temperature stations have been surrounded by population explosions and are thus effected by the land effect problem.

As for all you mountains of proof - you have none. You have either some evidence (most of which has contradictory explanations or scientific discoveries) or you rely upon computer generated models, which been shown to have extremely large predictor error rates (error rates around 400%). Read that article you posted again and you will see it was based upon a computer generated model.

As I explained, global warming can cause an ice age. An ice age is doubtful, but what could happen, nobody really knows, everyone is guessing and running their computer simulations. Global climate is complicating and confusing, that's why it took scientist from around the globe meeting in Antarctica every year for more than four years to finally agree that the earth's temperature is rising. But yes, some places will get colder rather than warmer.

Here where I live, we haven't seen snow yet. However, south of us where they never see snow. Southern Oklahoma/Northern Texas, they've already had more than one snow storm. Bad weather used to come from the North west, now it comes from the South east.

The nsf.gov site seems to be down so I couldn't find nothing for you there, but I'm sure if you go there after they get there site back you'll find something about it, but I did find this:

http://www.gcrio.org/USGCRP/nsf.html.

They do have a link to the nsf.gov site. The National Science Foundation is a Federal government agency of The United States. I served with them from 1985 to 1990. There was a lot of argueing and bickering on this subject.

quote:

---

Land effect is the situation created by growing cities where the buildings and concrete raise the temperature of the area.

---

Get out into a natural areas (agricultural, wooded lands, etc) one quickly understand how much cooler those areas are related to temperatures in towns. At night light can be seen from townships. Accumulated polutants, smog & auto exhaust as well as the heat produced by motors significantly change the local temperture by a few degrees.

quote:

---

It is agreed that the USA has the best technology and most reliable temperature statistics over the last 130 years and in that time period the US has seen practically no rise in temperature. Furthermore, over the last 50 years many of the temperature stations have been surrounded by population explosions and are thus effected by the land effect problem.

---

While you may be correct that land effect would increase temperature variations [high / low]. But a real problem or solution would have to include these mechanisms are not linear . . . as energy increases the resistance increases until the inertia reverses the process.

Does anyone have any source that the ice in the poles are INCREASING?

I could have sworn I saw something on CNN saying the opposite. I mean, that the ice be increasing is contrary that has been implied in my education. I wouldn't mind a source.