Click HERE to see this thread with all of the graphics, features, and links.

http://www.sitewave.net/pproject/listbystate.htm

Anti Global Warming Petition

Names by State

States: AK, AL, AP, AR, AZ, CA, CO, CT, DC, DE, FL, GA, HI, IA, ID, IL, IN, KS, KY, LA, MA, MD, ME, MI, MN, MO, MS, MT, NC, ND, NE, NH, NJ, NM, NV, NY, OH, OK, OR, PA, PR, RI, SC, SD, TN, TX, UT, VA, VT, WA, WI, WV, WY

State: AK
Ronald G Alderfer, PhD, Donald F Amend, PhD, David Anderson, MD, Donald N Anderson, PhD, Roger Baer, Alex Baskous, MD, Don Bassler, John Beitia, William M Bohon, James Boltz, John K Bowman, Mike Briscoe, Carrel Bryant, William Burgess, Roger C. Burggraf, Bonnie Carrington, Glen D Chambers, Lowell Crane, Michael Croft, Thomas R Delahunt, Edward M Dokoozian, PhD, Kathleen Douglas, Robert Dragnich, James Drew, PhD, Richard Dusenbery, PhD, William E Eberhardt, Jeffrey D Eckstein, John Egenolf, PhD, William James Ferrell, PhD, Jeffrey Foley, Will E. Godbey, Edward R Goldmann, Daniel C Graham, Lawrence G Griffin, Lenhart T Grothe, David B Harvey, Charles C Hawley, PhD, James Hendershot, Kurt R Hulteen, Lyndon Ibele, Timtohy K Irvin, Steven Jones, Donald Keill, Joseph M Killion, George F Klemmick, Professor Lance, Harold D Lee, Harry R Lee, Erwin Long, William E Long, PhD, Monte D Mabry, Robert Malouf, T R Marshall Jr, Jerzy Maselko, PhD, Jeff Michels, J U Miesse, M Miranda, William W Mitchell, PhD, Jesse Mohrbacher, John Mulligan, Erik Opstad, Walter T Phillips, Bruce Porter, Richard Reiley, Rydell Reints, Kermit Reppond, Donald R Rogers, MD, Allan Ross, Joe L Russell, George Schmidt, Lynn Schnell, Michael Schowen, Glenn E Shaw, PhD, Ernst Siemoneit, Michael Storer, James W Styler, Richard Swainbank, PhD, Tim Terry, Kevin Tomera, MD, Duane Vaagen, Dominique Van Nostrand, Ross Warner, Jean S Weingarten, Michael W Wheatall, Theron Wilson, Frank Wince,

Top

State: AL
H W Ahrenholz, Oscar R Ainsworth, PhD, Michael L Alexander, Robert Allen, MD, Ronald C Allison, MD, Berard J Anderson, PhD, John Anderson, PhD, Larry D Anderson, Russell S Andrews, PhD, Ann Askew, Larry Atkinson, Brooks H Baker III, Robert Baker, James Baltar, Alan A. Barksdale, Richard Barnes, Kenneth A Barrett, Sidney D Beckett, PhD, Arthur B Reindorff, PhD, M Bersch, PhD, Raymond Bishop, Edward Blair, Jonathan Boland, Theodore Bos, PhD, Wm D Boyer, PhD, William C Bradford, Bradley A Brasfield, John F Brass, Claude E Breed, James M Brown, PhD, Robt A Brown, PhD, Walter Brush, Donald F Burchfield, PhD, Kim A Burke, Kevin Burrows, Eddie Burt, PhD, Michael A Butts, Arnold E Carden, PhD, Charles R Christensen, PhD, Otis M Clarke Jr, Stan G Clayton, William M Clement, PhD, Jack Cleveland, David N Clum, Ty Cobb, W Frank Cobb Jr, W A Cochran, Jr, Ernst M Cohn, Robt B Cook, PhD, Clifton Couey, Sylvere Coussement, PhD, Delmar N Crowe Jr, Joseph A Cunningham, MD, J F Cuttino, PhD, Thomas P Czepiel, PhD, Robert S Dahlin, PhD, Thomas W Daniel, Julian Davidson, PhD, Donald E Davis, PhD, Jimmy D Davis, Michael Day, PhD, David L Dean, PhD, Warren D Dickinson, Wenju Dong, PhD, Thomas P Dooley, PhD, Gilbert Douglas Jr, MD, James A Downey III, Don A. Sibley, PhD, James L Dubard, PhD, Zbigniew Dybczak, PhD, George R Edlin, PhD, Tricia Elgavish, Gabriel Elgavish, PhD, Rotem Elgavish, Rush E Elkins, PhD, Jesse G Ellard, Howard C Elliott, PhD, Arthur Ellis, David Elrod, PhD, Leonard E Ensminger, PhD, Robert D Erhardt Jr, Ken Fann, GL Fish, Julius Fleming, Wm F Foreman, Mark Fowler, R D Francis, PhD, Ronald G Garmon, PhD, William F Garvin, Gautier, PhD, W W Gebhart, Gerard Allen Geppert, Marvin Glass, Mark W. Glenn, Alexander Goforth, Bruce W Gray, PhD, George H Griswold, Ed Grygiel, A M Guarino, PhD, Leroy M Hair, Ben Hajek, PhD, James W. Handley, Gregorg Harris, Douglas Hayes, PhD, James L Hayes, Charles D Haynes, PhD, James E Heath, DVM, Bobby Helms, Ron Helms, Robert L Henderson, John B Hendricks, PhD, William Henry Jr, William D Herrin, Mitch Higginbotham, B Hinton, PhD, William A Hollerman, Mac Holmes, PhD, David Hood, James N Hool, PhD, Stephen K Howard, James W Hugg, PhD, Chin- Chen Hung, PhD, Bob Hunter, Herbert Hunter, PhD, Ray Hunter, Donald J Ifshin, John D Irwin, PhD, Holger M Jaenisch, PhD, Homer C Jamison, PhD, Donald Janes, Kenneth Jarrell, Wm W Jemison Jr, Robt G Jernigan, Danny Johnson, Frank J Johnson, Frederic A Johnson, PhD, Alfred Leon Joly, David A Kallin, James M Kampfer, Robert D Keenum, Paul King, James E Kingsbury, D A Klip, PhD, James Knight, Philip Lamoreaux, John H Lary Jr, MD, Lloyd H Lauerman, PhD, David Laven, William F Lawrence, N T Lee, John Leffler, George R Lewis, Baw- Lin Liu, PhD, Allen Long, MD, James M Long, MD, Joyce M Long, Walter Long, MD, John Lozowski, MD, Linda C Lucas, MD, Wm R Lucas, PhD, Brian Luckianow, Robert A Macrae, I R Manasco, Baldev S Mangat, PhD, Sven Peter Mannsfield, PhD, Matthew Mariano, PhD, Carter Matthews, Paul R Matthews, Charles R Mauldin, David Mays, PhD, Van A Mc Auley, George McCullars, MD, PhD, Randall McDaniel, Wm B McKnight, PhD, Curtis J McMinn, Thomas E McNider, Jasper L McPhail, MD, Joseph P Michalski, MD, J G Micklow, PhD, Randall Mills, Larry S Monroe, PhD, Rickie D Moon, George S Morefield, Perry Morton, PhD, Richard L Mullen, Nelson A Perry, Grady Nichols, PhD, Pat Odom, PhD, JF Olivier, Edward James Parish, PhD, Mitchell Pate, W Quinn Paulk, MD, Nelson Perry, Kenneth F Persin, Tom Pfitzer, David K Phillips, Sean Piecuch, Charles Pike, Peter Pincura, Michael Piznar, Char W Prince, PhD, Ronald O Rahn, PhD, Joseph L Randall, PhD, James Ready, MD, Jerry Reaves, Robert Ware Reynolds, PhD, Richard G Rhoades, PhD, Wm Eugene Ribelin, PhD, Dennis Rich, George Richmond, Logan R Ritchie, Jr, Alfred Ritter, PhD, Ronnie L Rivers, PhD, Harold V Rodriguez, PhD, Robert G Rosser, MD, John S Runge, Leon Y Sadler III, PhD, James Sanford, Ted L Sartain, Robert Schaal, Carl Schauble, PhD, William G Setser, Raymond F Sewell, PhD, Raymond L Shepherd, PhD, Charles Shivers, PhD, Harold W Skalka, MD, Daniel Skinner, MD, Peter J Slater, PhD, David A Smith, Michael Sosebee, D Paul Sparks Jr, Michael P Spector, PhD, Philip Speir, etc etc ad infinitum!

i think it should be basic human logic that we should have as little of an impact on environental change as possible. this petition insinuates that mankind is actually "helping" the environment through our overconsumption of fuel. so, you want to call man made global warming 'junk science'? fine so be it. but they then go on to battle supposed junk science with junk science...and people are falling for it...why? because thats exactly the answer they want to hear.

Originally posted by PVS
i think it should be basic human logic that we should have as little of an impact on environental change as possible. this petition insinuates that mankind is actually "helping" the environment through our overconsumption of fuel. so, you want to call man made global warming 'junk science'? fine so be it. but they then go on to battle supposed junk science with junk science...and people are falling for it...why? because thats exactly the answer they want to hear.

We actually don't know how much impact on Global Warming we are having or even if Global Warming is real. The more you look into it the more you will find this out.

Who started the above petition and why

Frederick Seitz
Past President, National Academy of Sciences, U.S.A.
President Emeritus, Rockefeller University

The United States is very close to adopting an international agreement that would ration the use of energy and of technologies that depend upon coal, oil, and natural gas and some other organic compounds.

This treaty is, in our opinion, based upon flawed ideas. Research data on climate change do not show that human use of hydrocarbons is harmful. To the contrary, there is good evidence that increased atmospheric carbon dioxide is environmentally helpful.

The proposed agreement would have very negative effects upon the technology of nations throughout the world, especially those that are currently attempting to lift from poverty and provide opportunities to the over 4 billion people in technologically underdeveloped countries.

It is especially important for America to hear from its citizens who have the training necessary to evaluate the relevant data and offer sound advice.

We urge you to sign and return the petition card. If you would like more cards for use by your colleagues, these will be sent.

Junk Science

Originally posted by PVS
i think it should be basic human logic that we should have as little of an impact on environental change as possible.

considering that we know how we could possibly be doing harm, and considering that the worst case scenario of acting on an incorrect theory is wasted money (combined with a freedom from dependancy on fossil fuels which should pay back nicely). then consider that the worst case scenario of not acting on a correct theory (infinite possibilities of shittiness)

so how is it illogical to take steps to reduce our supposed impact on the environment? especially if it means we can tell saudi arabia to quit fist****ing us and get lost

Originally posted by PVS
considering that we know how we could possibly be doing harm, and considering that the worst case scenario of acting on an incorrect theory is wasted money (combined with a freedom from dependancy on fossil fuels which should pay back nicely). then consider that the worst case scenario of not acting on a correct theory (infinite possibilities of shittiness)

so how is it illogical to take steps to reduce our supposed impact on the environment? especially if it means we can tell saudi arabia to quit fist****ing us and get lost

I hate theories passed off as fact - I take your reasoning on board and those are good reasons, however the evidence against * global warming being caused by CO2 if indeed it is a result of mans activity at all or even happening are at least as great. You want Atomic Power as a safe alternative and "quick fix" as many Environmentalist Global Warming advocates like this want?

http://www.globalwarming.org/index.php

Good Plan

*(and I have used this project as evidence as it is the most famous of a number of places where excellent Scientists debunk Environmental Sciences)

http://www.oism.org/pproject/s33p36.htm#Message54

With the third World increasing it's CO2 emissions "sinks" are more sensible than alternative energy sources.

People talk about 'wasted money' as if it didn't matter.

They forget that the practical effect of this waste that will be caused by implementation of Kyoto is people's livelihoods- jobs lost, people's lives destroyed.

It's a heck of a thing to ask without firm proof of the need. That's in dispute.

Originally posted by Ushgarak
People talk about 'wasted money' as if it didn't matter.

They forget that the practical effect of this waste that will be caused by implementation of Kyoto is people's livelihoods- jobs lost, people's lives destroyed.

It's a heck of a thing to ask without firm proof of the need. That's in dispute.

Agreed!

Well, we just had 60 degree weather in the middle of January here in NY....so something is quite possibly...wrong.

Oh.....

If there was profit to be made in acknowledging and fighting global warming--rather than denying it--we'd be the healthiest planet in the universe.

Disregarding the so called "effects" Do you wana live in a world that;

Has less and less trees...
Air is mainly smog...
rivers are poluted...
animal stocks dwindling...
and we don't even get snow in england anymore....

I think these VISABLE effects are already here... Should we try to change these???

Yes, before it's too late.......It might already be.

Originally posted by Hit_and_Miss
Disregarding the so called "effects" Do you wana live in a world that;

Has less and less trees...
Air is mainly smog...
rivers are poluted...
animal stocks dwindling...
and we don't even get snow in england anymore....

I think these VISABLE effects are already here... Should we try to change these???

Well now, river pollution isn't related to global warming- no-one is saying all environmentalism is bull; environmentalism is a good idea.

But as for no snow- the point is that it is in dispute as to whether anything Man is doing is actually causing anything like that.

Also, frankly, we DO still get snow.

So the case isn't against environmentalism, only against parts of it that might not be true.

While there is plenty of debate about global warming (in Australia people are scratching their head, heat waves where there hasn't been heat waves before, storms at odd times of year, droughts that never end - Global Warming or Not? Both sides have valid points) I would like to see pollution, all pollution, reduced just for the sake of reducing pollution - in order to live in a healthier world.

There may be uncertainty about whether our polluting is destroying the ozone layer and leading to global warming - but we know the things polluting does do - the smog, the acid rains and so forth. And we know the sources of dirty power - coal, oil and the like are not infinite. Eventually, at our rate of consumption, they will run out - and when the oil industry dies alot of people will be out of a job, and a lot of people will be out of pocket. Logically it seems to me it would be wiser to take steps now to make changes, in order to prepare for the future - a cleaner and more secure future.

And if such preparation happens to reduce the theorised risk of global warming it would be a benefit. I mean, drawing parallels in an unsuitable fashion - George W. Bush's administration preached the practice of preempting. Going to war on shaky evidence against a nation that may or may not have been a threat - something that many people supported. Now then we have a theory that has a lot of support from the scientific community, we've found a hole in the ozone layer, we are seeing odd things happening with the weather, they are recording the decline in the ice caps and predicting what that increase of water will do to the worlds oceans. I'll admit I'm not certain, but there seems to be enough evidence to argue rationally that maybe, just maybe, it might be wise to consider the alternatives. To consider erring on the side of caution.

the evidence is pretty fricken obvious unless you don't believe in aerosols and human emissions.

I've released some pretty bad human emissions in my time...

a simple way to think of global warming is the experiment you do in high school with pond weed

put it in water...shine a light on it...and it makes bubbles...the brighter the light, the faster the reaction...the hotter it is, the faster the reaction

the pond weed is using carbon dioxide and producing oxygen

the same happens to the earth as a whole

the more it warms up...the faster the trees etc, convert carbon dioxide to oxygen and thus help to restore the balance

the only problem is that something like 70% of the forests of 200 years ago have been cut down

Originally posted by jaden101

the only problem is that something like 70% of the forests of 200 years ago have been cut down

right. and the eath patches up layers of ozone as well. just that volcanoes dont erupt often enough to make a big difference at this point

Originally posted by Ushgarak
Well now, river pollution isn't related to global warming- no-one is saying all environmentalism is bull; environmentalism is a good idea.

But as for no snow- the point is that it is in dispute as to whether anything Man is doing is actually causing anything like that.

Also, frankly, we DO still get snow.

So the case isn't against environmentalism, only against parts of it that might not be true.

Sorry I picked the wrong topic about rivers.. I ment to say they keep flooding... Never use to happen really!

I can look back at my childhood pics and at christmas we always got snow... enough for me to go sledging.. Now we get none around me..

Seems like water pollution is in topic right now.
but whats this about "The ice caps melting, and the seas rising"!?!?!?

WTF!?

When water is Frozen, it expands by 10%.

Only 10% of all Frozen water is visible above water, everything underwater is already contributing to the rise of the seas.

Ounce the Ice melts... it will "shrink" 10% and just not affext sea level.

Then one might say "But what about the ice thats not floating?"

....



Shut up.






It just won't be as much of a crisis as they make it out to be. and anyways, tehre is NO WAY near enough water on earth, or "hidden inside the crust" For us to see a "WaterWorld" or Mythical "Great Flood"

th earth is over 70% water. how is that not enough to drown most of the planet?

One of two reasons. They are in the pocket of large corporations or they are religious crackpots. The vast majority of scientists acknowledge global warming is very real.

If you look at a graph of the earths average temperature during its existence, you will see that it is always changing. This is what makes it so hard to tell if global warming is actually occuring, or if the average temperature is merely changing again, as it has been known to do.

Granted, it seems highly likely that global warming is occuring, but htere is the possibility that most of the temperature change is being caused naturally by the earth

Originally posted by RedAlertv2
If you look at a graph of the earths average temperature during its existence, you will see that it is always changing. This is what makes it so hard to tell if global warming is actually occuring, or if the average temperature is merely changing again, as it has been known to do.

Granted, it seems highly likely that global warming is occuring, but htere is the possibility that most of the temperature change is being caused naturally by the earth


And we are not making it worst?

I find that hard to beleive.

Then again, I find it hard to beleive that several thousand malfunctioning Refridgirators caused a Hole in the Ozone Layer.

Originally posted by Imperial_Samura
While there is plenty of debate about global warming (in Australia people are scratching their head, heat waves where there hasn't been heat waves before, storms at odd times of year, droughts that never end - Global Warming or Not? Both sides have valid points) I would like to see pollution, all pollution, reduced just for the sake of reducing pollution - in order to live in a healthier world.

There may be uncertainty about whether our polluting is destroying the ozone layer and leading to global warming - but we know the things polluting does do - the smog, the acid rains and so forth. And we know the sources of dirty power - coal, oil and the like are not infinite. Eventually, at our rate of consumption, they will run out - and when the oil industry dies alot of people will be out of a job, and a lot of people will be out of pocket. Logically it seems to me it would be wiser to take steps now to make changes, in order to prepare for the future - a cleaner and more secure future.

And if such preparation happens to reduce the theorised risk of global warming it would be a benefit. I mean, drawing parallels in an unsuitable fashion - George W. Bush's administration preached the practice of preempting. Going to war on shaky evidence against a nation that may or may not have been a threat - something that many people supported. Now then we have a theory that has a lot of support from the scientific community, we've found a hole in the ozone layer, we are seeing odd things happening with the weather, they are recording the decline in the ice caps and predicting what that increase of water will do to the worlds oceans. I'll admit I'm not certain, but there seems to be enough evidence to argue rationally that maybe, just maybe, it might be wise to consider the alternatives. To consider erring on the side of caution.

You can't start tanking economies on the precautionary principle. It's not even vaguely moral to do that without convincing proof.

This will become especially relevant once the developing nations start becoming mass emitters of carbon, as I say. Starting with China, and carrying on throughout the rest of the world; as they struggle to lift their nations out of poverty and stop having their citizens die of cold, hunger and disease, all this babble about the world maybe being in trouble but we can't actually prove it... is going to look pretty abstract. They will just see jealous Western nations trying to keep them down. Hence... it is imperative that the case for the man-made nature of global warming be beyond any reasonable doubt if there is ever going to be a global approach.

Furthermore, it is dangerous to many to suggest that we may as well try. The money being blown trying on something that a. might not be true and b., might not be stoppable could be MUCH better spent on preparing to adapt to climate change. In my 'Dangerous Ideas' thread, we see a submission from an editor of Nature saying that the idea that global warming will be a mass calamity for all of us is very wrong indeed- but it WILL be a disaster for some of the poorest people in the world, and no-one is spending any money to protect them for it. Hysteria about unproven global warming issues is preventing money from going where it should.

Also, people keep muddying the waters by talking about the o-zone layer, which is a seperate issue again.

one thing that has to be taken into consideration when thinking about global warming is that about 400-500 years ago there were vineyards in scandanavian countries so it was obviously hotter then than it is now...

Originally posted by Darth_Erebus
One of two reasons. They are in the pocket of large corporations or they are religious crackpots. The vast majority of scientists acknowledge global warming is very real.

Actually no they don't read the start of this thread, in case you can't be bothered A short sample of high-caliber scientists who have criticized the hoax of 'global warming', demonstrates by itself how media-engendered is the myth of consensus on 'global warming':

Robert White (former head of the US Weather Bureau)

Richard Lindzen (Prof. of Meteorology at the MIT)

Willie Soon (Harvard-Smithsonian Center for Astrophysics)

Sallie Baliunas (Harvard-Smithsonian Center for Astrophysics)

Robert Balling Jr. (Director of the Office of Climatology, Prof. of Geography at Arizona State University)

Fred Singer (President of The Science & Environmental Policy Project)

Zbigniew Jaworowski (Chair of the Scientific council of the Warsaw Central Laboratory for Radiological Protection, CLOR)

Eric S. Posmentier (Department of Physics and Mathematics at Long Island University, Brooklyn)

Michael Jorgensen (Paleoclimatologist)

Theodor Landscheidt (Schroeter Institute for Research in Cycles of Solar Activity, Nova Scotia)

Frederick Seitz (Former president of the National Academy of Sciences)

Robert E. Stevenson (Oceanographer, previously with the ONR and Secretary General of The International Association for the Physical Science of the Oceans)

Craig Idso (Center for the Study of carbon Dioxide and Global Change, Arizona)

Sherwood Idso (Center for the Study of carbon Dioxide and Global Change, Arizona)

David Legates (Center for Climactic Research, Delaware)

Chauncey Starr (Former Dean of Engineering at UCLA and founder of EPRI)

Kary Mullis (Nobel Prize, Molecular Biologist)

Add to this scientists who have reversed their originally pro-'global-warming' views, such as:

Roger Revelle (Prof. of Ocean Science at Scripps Institute of Oceanography)

Michael McElroy (Head of the Department of Earth and Planetary Sciences at Harvard)

But for those who have any doubts about the dissenting views of a majority of scientists with respect to the fad of 'global warming' just consult the Petition Project of the Oregon Institute of Science and Medicine (19,000 signatures, of which 2,500 by scientists in Earth Sciences), at www.oism.org/pproject/s33p403.htm

If there is a scientific consensus about 'global warming', it is that it is junk science, pseudo-science, humbug.

Originally posted by RedAlertv2
If you look at a graph of the earths average temperature during its existence, you will see that it is always changing. This is what makes it so hard to tell if global warming is actually occuring, or if the average temperature is merely changing again, as it has been known to do.

Granted, it seems highly likely that global warming is occuring, but htere is the possibility that most of the temperature change is being caused naturally by the earth

and things like UBI's muddy the picture further.

Originally posted by jaden101
one thing that has to be taken into consideration when thinking about global warming is that about 400-500 years ago there were vineyards in scandanavian countries so it was obviously hotter then than it is now...

So true Kent even had wild grapes growing!!

Isn't it also true that another theory thats been talked about in regards to "global" climate changes is that the poles North and South could switch places change in the future.

whirly... Please answer this questiong I've asked it twice now... Do you think we are distroying the enviroment?

Originally posted by Hit_and_Miss
whirly... Please answer this questiong I've asked it twice now... Do you think we are distroying the enviroment?

It depends what you mean by this, do I think Global warming has been proven scientifically to my satisfaction, No! Do I think as most Environmentalists argue Nuclear power is a safer alternative - I look at 3 mile Island and Chernobyl and I say.... No!!!
Do I think we are destroying some Environments, Yes!!! Do I think we are affecting the Biosphere to a point where life becomes unsustainable...... No!!
The question you are asking is to general. It's like one of AC's tabloid questions!

apparently some scientists were told to prove that there is no global warming..just so someone could keep on burning fuels... or something like that

Originally posted by joeykangaroo
apparently some scientists were told to prove that there is no global warming..just so someone could keep on burning fuels... or something like that

A conspiracy theory do you know Deano?

Originally posted by Sir Whirlysplat
A conspiracy theory do you know Deano?
...and i was being serious too

Lets get rid of fossil fuels I mean why not just get engines that can run off of buffalo chips No no Hydrogen cuz nothing would be a safer fuel for the enviroment then splitting atoms of hydrogen for fuel and refuel centers like a mile from your house

There needs to be a sensible approach to growth and the enviroment however Green Peace screamers are just more visible and they whine and sink ships to make their point

Originally posted by soleran30
Lets get rid of fossil fuels I mean why not just get engines that can run off of buffalo chips No no Hydrogen cuz nothing would be a safer fuel for the enviroment then splitting atoms of hydrogen for fuel and refuel centers like a mile from your house

There needs to be a sensible approach to growth and the enviroment however Green Peace screamers are just more visible and they whine and sink ships to make their point


what are buffalo chips

it would be a big flying saucer sized piece of dried dung!

Originally posted by jaden101
a simple way to think of global warming is the experiment you do in high school with pond weed

put it in water...shine a light on it...and it makes bubbles...the brighter the light, the faster the reaction...the hotter it is, the faster the reaction

the pond weed is using carbon dioxide and producing oxygen

the same happens to the earth as a whole

the more it warms up...the faster the trees etc, convert carbon dioxide to oxygen and thus help to restore the balance

the only problem is that something like 70% of the forests of 200 years ago have been cut down

Missed this excellent post ties in perfectly with my comment about sinks earlier. I would expect it from a fellow scientist though Jaden

haven't they found fossil fuels under Antarctica

the very title of the thread is a lie.
most of the scientific community says that global warming
is a reality. the debate is over whether or not its being caused/accelerated
by our fuel consumption, or just a part of some natural cycle.

btw, the "little ice age" came abruptly after the last recorded spell of global warming, so perhaps we have that in store for us after all.

Originally posted by PVS
the very title of the thread is a lie.
most of the scientific community says that global warming
is a reality. the debate is over whether or not its being caused/accelerated
by our fuel consumption, or just a part of some natural cycle.

btw, the "little ice age" came abruptly after the last recorded spell of global warming, so perhaps we have that in store for us after all.

I don't want to start an argument so don't take this personally but actually this statement of yours is not true and is more of a lie, what scientists believe is we have an upward trend in global temperatures over the last one hundred years overall however, even this statement is contentious for numerous reasons which I will explain if you wish. The link to fossil fuels is highly contentious. As for the little Ice age it was after a period of upward movement in temperatures although as stated overall the trends (based on flaw data) iss upward. Statistical relevance of most global warming data = 0 (this can easily be proven by Nasa data ((also flawed)). As Ush stated you can't base economic decisions on flawed data!

Dr Michael Crichton

The precautionary principle

This dogmatic principle argues that if there is even an imagined health or ecological issue associated with some form of technology, then, that technology should be discarded--no matter what benefits are lost, or what harms will have to be confronted without the technology.

The precautionary principle properly applied forbids the precautionary principle. It is self-contradictory. The precautionary principle therefore cannot be spoken in terms that are too harsh." He adds: "The current near-hysterical preoccupation with safety is at best a waste of resources and a crimp on the human spirit, and at worse, an invitation to totalitarianism."

Certainty is Dangerous

Some have claimed that environmental groups, such as the Natural Resources Defense Council, are committed to the view that all environmental and health woes can be traced directly to the door of "industry." However, research has demonstrated that development leads to reductions in pollution. Moreover, as Crichton points out, sound public policy does not come from organizations espousing dogmatic and close-minded political agendas--unmoved by the existing scientific facts when those facts are at variance with the organization's political goals.

Originally posted by Sir Whirlysplat
what scientists believe is we have an upward trend in global temperatures over the last one hundred years overall however, even this statement is contentious for numerous reasons which I will explain if you wish. The link to fossil fuels is highly contentious. As for the little Ice age it was after a period of upward movement in temperatures although as stated overall the trends (based on flaw data) iss upward. Statistical relevance of most global warming data = 0 (this can easily be proven by Nasa data ((also flawed)). As Ush stated you can't base economic decisions on flawed data!

Originally posted by PVS
the debate is over whether or not its being caused/accelerated
by our fuel consumption, or just a part of some natural cycle.

again:

Originally posted by PVS
...or just a part of some natural cycle.

Again

Originally posted by Sir Whirlysplat
Dr Michael Crichton

The precautionary principle

This dogmatic principle argues that if there is even an imagined health or ecological issue associated with some form of technology, then, that technology should be discarded--no matter what benefits are lost, or what harms will have to be confronted without the technology.

The precautionary principle properly applied forbids the precautionary principle. It is self-contradictory. The precautionary principle therefore cannot be spoken in terms that are too harsh." He adds: "The current near-hysterical preoccupation with safety is at best a waste of resources and a crimp on the human spirit, and at worse, an invitation to totalitarianism."

Certainty is Dangerous

Some have claimed that environmental groups, such as the Natural Resources Defense Council, are committed to the view that all environmental and health woes can be traced directly to the door of "industry." However, research has demonstrated that development leads to reductions in pollution. Moreover, as Crichton points out, sound public policy does not come from organizations espousing dogmatic and close-minded political agendas--unmoved by the existing scientific facts when those facts are at variance with the organization's political goals.

Religion of Environmentalism

by Dr Michael Crichton

I have been asked to talk about what I consider the most important challenge facing mankind, and I have a fundamental answer. The greatest challenge facing mankind is the challenge of distinguishing reality from fantasy, truth from propaganda. Perceiving the truth has always been a challenge to mankind, but in the information age (or as I think of it, the disinformation age) it takes on a special urgency and importance.

We must daily decide whether the threats we face are real, whether the solutions we are offered will do any good, whether the problems we're told exist are in fact real problems, or non-problems. Every one of us has a sense of the world, and we all know that this sense is in part given to us by what other people and society tell us; in part generated by our emotional state, which we project outward; and in part by our genuine perceptions of reality. In short, our struggle to determine what is true is the struggle to decide which of our perceptions are genuine, and which are false because they are handed down, or sold to us, or generated by our own hopes and fears.

As an example of this challenge, I want to talk today about environmentalism. And in order not to be misunderstood, I want it perfectly clear that I believe it is incumbent on us to conduct our lives in a way that takes into account all the consequences of our actions, including the consequences to other people, and the consequences to the environment. I believe it is important to act in ways that are pathetic to the environment, and I believe this will always be a need, carrying into the future.

I believe the world has genuine problems and I believe it can and should be improved. But I also think that deciding what constitutes responsible action is immensely difficult, and the consequences of our actions are often difficult to know in advance. I think our past record of environmental action is discouraging, to put it mildly, because even our best intended efforts often go awry. But I think we do not recognize our past failures, and face them squarely. And I think I know why...

Read it all here.

http://www.perc.org/printer.php?id=397&url=perc.php?subsection=10&id=397;

...which proves what? i addressed your contradictory post as meaningless since i acknowledged both sides of the debate. your posted opinion of some scientist is supposed to add to your proof that my statement was false? where does he deny that global warming exists? he doesnt.

the denial is that the global warming trend is MAN MADE is widely held, which is....what i just said. let us address one point at a time.

as for your changing the subject back to my first post on this thread, what of the acknowledgment that fossil fuels are dwindling in supply as our dependancy grows at a staggering rate? i guess thats not happening either?

one more time. read carefully:

Originally posted by PVS
the very title of the thread is a lie.
most of the scientific community says that global warming
is a reality. the debate is over whether or not its being caused/accelerated
by our fuel consumption, or just a part of some natural cycle.

Originally posted by PVS
...which proves what? i addressed your contradictory post as meaningless since i acknowledged both sides of the debate. your posted opinion of some scientist is supposed to add to your proof that my statement was false? where does he deny that global warming exists? he doesnt.

the denial is that the global warming trend is MAN MADE is widely held, which is....what i just said. let us address one point at a time.

as for your changing the subject back to my first post on this thread, what of the acknowledgment that fossil fuels are dwindling in supply as our dependancy grows at a staggering rate? i guess thats not happening either?

And you miss the point of the thread

Global Warming may just be a temporary fluctuation, what the thread is about is Propaganda. The religion of Environmenatalism and "The Precautionary Principle" Ush alluded to earlier and I expanded on. Even the term "Global Warming" is an ambiguous label.



Even the data for rising temperatures is flawed.

you missed the point of my post, intentionally it would seem.

"Why do all these Scientists think Global Warming is a crock?"

that is completely untrue. most scientists acknowledge that the earth is in
a trend of continual rise in average temperature, which is also
known as "global warming". what they argue is whether or not
we have caused/accelerated it, or whether it is simply a part of the
earth's natural cycle. the debate is NOT over whether or not the
earth is in a phase of warming.

is that clear enough?

"Even the data for rising temperatures is flawed."

fact, huh?

The negative effects of massive pollution are not up for debate. The environment suffers at the hands of chemical/resource companies on a daily basis. I've listened to both sides of the global warming debate. And the confusing part for most people seems to be the total destruction of humanity because of our own selfish means. However, the global environment does go through certain constant changes. Those that have been observed by the scientific community have occured over the last 100 to 150 years. This just happens to coincide with the industrial revolution. But, that doesn't mean the industrial revolution was the cause of the climate changes.

However, I believe that there need to be more strict regulations to protect teh environment, and govern big buisness pollution. Because it may one day be proven that corporate pollution has had an effect on teh environment, but so to do teh actions of every day citizens. I might sound like a leftist liberal nut, but clean energy is essential to the ongoing prosperity and security of most modernized countries. I believe it was PVS who said that any reason not to be in bed with the Saudis is reason enough. I agree. Once a resonable/sensible energy alternative is provided, gasoline should be taxed out of existence.

Originally posted by Sir Whirlysplat
http://www.sitewave.net/pproject/listbystate.htm

Anti Global Warming Petition

Names by State

States: AK, AL, AP, AR, AZ, CA, CO, CT, DC, DE, FL, GA, HI, IA, ID, IL, IN, KS, KY, LA, MA, MD, ME, MI, MN, MO, MS, MT, NC, ND, NE, NH, NJ, NM, NV, NY, OH, OK, OR, PA, PR, RI, SC, SD, TN, TX, UT, VA, VT, WA, WI, WV, WY

State: AK
Ronald G Alderfer, PhD, Donald F Amend, PhD, David Anderson, MD, Donald N Anderson, PhD, Roger Baer, Alex Baskous, MD, Don Bassler, John Beitia, William M Bohon, James Boltz, John K Bowman, Mike Briscoe, Carrel Bryant, William Burgess, Roger C. Burggraf, Bonnie Carrington, Glen D Chambers, Lowell Crane, Michael Croft, Thomas R Delahunt, Edward M Dokoozian, PhD, Kathleen Douglas, Robert Dragnich, James Drew, PhD, Richard Dusenbery, PhD, William E Eberhardt, Jeffrey D Eckstein, John Egenolf, PhD, William James Ferrell, PhD, Jeffrey Foley, Will E. Godbey, Edward R Goldmann, Daniel C Graham, Lawrence G Griffin, Lenhart T Grothe, David B Harvey, Charles C Hawley, PhD, James Hendershot, Kurt R Hulteen, Lyndon Ibele, Timtohy K Irvin, Steven Jones, Donald Keill, Joseph M Killion, George F Klemmick, Professor Lance, Harold D Lee, Harry R Lee, Erwin Long, William E Long, PhD, Monte D Mabry, Robert Malouf, T R Marshall Jr, Jerzy Maselko, PhD, Jeff Michels, J U Miesse, M Miranda, William W Mitchell, PhD, Jesse Mohrbacher, John Mulligan, Erik Opstad, Walter T Phillips, Bruce Porter, Richard Reiley, Rydell Reints, Kermit Reppond, Donald R Rogers, MD, Allan Ross, Joe L Russell, George Schmidt, Lynn Schnell, Michael Schowen, Glenn E Shaw, PhD, Ernst Siemoneit, Michael Storer, James W Styler, Richard Swainbank, PhD, Tim Terry, Kevin Tomera, MD, Duane Vaagen, Dominique Van Nostrand, Ross Warner, Jean S Weingarten, Michael W Wheatall, Theron Wilson, Frank Wince,

Top

State: AL
H W Ahrenholz, Oscar R Ainsworth, PhD, Michael L Alexander, Robert Allen, MD, Ronald C Allison, MD, Berard J Anderson, PhD, John Anderson, PhD, Larry D Anderson, Russell S Andrews, PhD, Ann Askew, Larry Atkinson, Brooks H Baker III, Robert Baker, James Baltar, Alan A. Barksdale, Richard Barnes, Kenneth A Barrett, Sidney D Beckett, PhD, Arthur B Reindorff, PhD, M Bersch, PhD, Raymond Bishop, Edward Blair, Jonathan Boland, Theodore Bos, PhD, Wm D Boyer, PhD, William C Bradford, Bradley A Brasfield, John F Brass, Claude E Breed, James M Brown, PhD, Robt A Brown, PhD, Walter Brush, Donald F Burchfield, PhD, Kim A Burke, Kevin Burrows, Eddie Burt, PhD, Michael A Butts, Arnold E Carden, PhD, Charles R Christensen, PhD, Otis M Clarke Jr, Stan G Clayton, William M Clement, PhD, Jack Cleveland, David N Clum, Ty Cobb, W Frank Cobb Jr, W A Cochran, Jr, Ernst M Cohn, Robt B Cook, PhD, Clifton Couey, Sylvere Coussement, PhD, Delmar N Crowe Jr, Joseph A Cunningham, MD, J F Cuttino, PhD, Thomas P Czepiel, PhD, Robert S Dahlin, PhD, Thomas W Daniel, Julian Davidson, PhD, Donald E Davis, PhD, Jimmy D Davis, Michael Day, PhD, David L Dean, PhD, Warren D Dickinson, Wenju Dong, PhD, Thomas P Dooley, PhD, Gilbert Douglas Jr, MD, James A Downey III, Don A. Sibley, PhD, James L Dubard, PhD, Zbigniew Dybczak, PhD, George R Edlin, PhD, Tricia Elgavish, Gabriel Elgavish, PhD, Rotem Elgavish, Rush E Elkins, PhD, Jesse G Ellard, Howard C Elliott, PhD, Arthur Ellis, David Elrod, PhD, Leonard E Ensminger, PhD, Robert D Erhardt Jr, Ken Fann, GL Fish, Julius Fleming, Wm F Foreman, Mark Fowler, R D Francis, PhD, Ronald G Garmon, PhD, William F Garvin, Gautier, PhD, W W Gebhart, Gerard Allen Geppert, Marvin Glass, Mark W. Glenn, Alexander Goforth, Bruce W Gray, PhD, George H Griswold, Ed Grygiel, A M Guarino, PhD, Leroy M Hair, Ben Hajek, PhD, James W. Handley, Gregorg Harris, Douglas Hayes, PhD, James L Hayes, Charles D Haynes, PhD, James E Heath, DVM, Bobby Helms, Ron Helms, Robert L Henderson, John B Hendricks, PhD, William Henry Jr, William D Herrin, Mitch Higginbotham, B Hinton, PhD, William A Hollerman, Mac Holmes, PhD, David Hood, James N Hool, PhD, Stephen K Howard, James W Hugg, PhD, Chin- Chen Hung, PhD, Bob Hunter, Herbert Hunter, PhD, Ray Hunter, Donald J Ifshin, John D Irwin, PhD, Holger M Jaenisch, PhD, Homer C Jamison, PhD, Donald Janes, Kenneth Jarrell, Wm W Jemison Jr, Robt G Jernigan, Danny Johnson, Frank J Johnson, Frederic A Johnson, PhD, Alfred Leon Joly, David A Kallin, James M Kampfer, Robert D Keenum, Paul King, James E Kingsbury, D A Klip, PhD, James Knight, Philip Lamoreaux, John H Lary Jr, MD, Lloyd H Lauerman, PhD, David Laven, William F Lawrence, N T Lee, John Leffler, George R Lewis, Baw- Lin Liu, PhD, Allen Long, MD, James M Long, MD, Joyce M Long, Walter Long, MD, John Lozowski, MD, Linda C Lucas, MD, Wm R Lucas, PhD, Brian Luckianow, Robert A Macrae, I R Manasco, Baldev S Mangat, PhD, Sven Peter Mannsfield, PhD, Matthew Mariano, PhD, Carter Matthews, Paul R Matthews, Charles R Mauldin, David Mays, PhD, Van A Mc Auley, George McCullars, MD, PhD, Randall McDaniel, Wm B McKnight, PhD, Curtis J McMinn, Thomas E McNider, Jasper L McPhail, MD, Joseph P Michalski, MD, J G Micklow, PhD, Randall Mills, Larry S Monroe, PhD, Rickie D Moon, George S Morefield, Perry Morton, PhD, Richard L Mullen, Nelson A Perry, Grady Nichols, PhD, Pat Odom, PhD, JF Olivier, Edward James Parish, PhD, Mitchell Pate, W Quinn Paulk, MD, Nelson Perry, Kenneth F Persin, Tom Pfitzer, David K Phillips, Sean Piecuch, Charles Pike, Peter Pincura, Michael Piznar, Char W Prince, PhD, Ronald O Rahn, PhD, Joseph L Randall, PhD, James Ready, MD, Jerry Reaves, Robert Ware Reynolds, PhD, Richard G Rhoades, PhD, Wm Eugene Ribelin, PhD, Dennis Rich, George Richmond, Logan R Ritchie, Jr, Alfred Ritter, PhD, Ronnie L Rivers, PhD, Harold V Rodriguez, PhD, Robert G Rosser, MD, John S Runge, Leon Y Sadler III, PhD, James Sanford, Ted L Sartain, Robert Schaal, Carl Schauble, PhD, William G Setser, Raymond F Sewell, PhD, Raymond L Shepherd, PhD, Charles Shivers, PhD, Harold W Skalka, MD, Daniel Skinner, MD, Peter J Slater, PhD, David A Smith, Michael Sosebee, D Paul Sparks Jr, Michael P Spector, PhD, Philip Speir, etc etc ad infinitum!


Maybe it is a crock. Yeah, I know it probably isn't, but it would be great if it was because then we could just keep on polluting and fart whenever we want and nothing bad would happen. Unless you had to fart but it turned out it wasn't really a fart.

We....we didn't listen!

Originally posted by Uberking Robert
Maybe it is a crock. Yeah, I know it probably isn't, but it would be great if it was because then we could just keep on polluting and fart whenever we want and nothing bad would happen. Unless you had to fart but it turned out it wasn't really a fart.

STANDARDIZED BONEHEAD REPLY FORM

Dear:

Clueless Newbie Lamer Flamer
Loser Spammer Troller
"Me too" er Pervert Geek
Freak Nerd Elvis
Racist Fed Freak
Fundamentalist Satanist Homeopath
Unbearably self-righteous person Shoko Asahara


I took exception to your recent:

Email
Post to ________ newsgroup
Post to killermovies.com forum
Broadcast
Letter
Book
Lecture
Phone call
Advertisement
Schematic
Telepathic message
Existence


It was:

Lame Stupid Abusive
Clueless Idiotic Brain-damaged
Imbecilic Arrogant Malevolent
Contemptible Libelous Ignorant
Stupid Fundamentalist Microsoftian
Boring Dim Cowardly
Deceitful Demented Self-righteous
Crazy Weird Hypocritical
Loathsome Satanic Despicable
Belligerent Mind-numbing Maladroit
Much longer than any worthwhile thought you may be capable of.
All of the above


Your attention is drawn to the fact that:

You posted what should have been emailed.
You obviously don't know how to read your newsgroups line.
You are trying to make money on a non-commercial newsgroup.
You self-righteously impose your religious beliefs on others.
You self-righteously impose your racial beliefs on others.
You posted a binary in a non-binaries group.
You don't know which group to post in.
You posted something totally uninteresting.
You crossposted to *way* too many newsgroups.
I don't like your tone of voice.
What you posted has been done before.
Not only that, it was also done better the last time.
You quoted an *entire* post in your reply.
You started a long, stupid thread.
You continued spreading a long stupid thread.
Your post is absurdly off topic for where you posted it.
You posted a followup to crossposted robot-generated spam.
You posted a "test" in a discussion group rather than in misc.test
You posted a "YOU ALL SUCK" message.
You posted low-IQ flamebait.
You posted a blatantly obvious troll.
You followed up to a blatantly obvious troll.
You said "me too" to something.
You make no sense.
Your sig/alias is dreadful.
You must live in a skinner box to be this clueless.
You posted a phone-sex ad.
You posted a stupid pyramid money making scheme.
You claimed a pyramid-scheme/chain letter for money was legal.
Your margin settings (or lack of) make your post unreadable. Each line just goes on and on, not stopping at 75 characters, making it hard to read.
You posted in ELitE CaPitALs to look k0OL.
You posted a message in ALL CAPS, and you don't even own a TRS-80.
Your post was FULL of RANDOM CAPS for NO APPARENT REASON.
You have greatly misunderstood the purpose of this newsgroup.
You have greatly misunderstood the purpose of the Internet.
You are a loser.
This has been pointed out to you before.
You didn't do anything specific, but appear to be so generally worthless that you are being flamed on general principles.


I recommend that you:

Get a clue.
Get a life.
Go away.
Grow up.
Never post again.
Read every newsgroup you crossposted to for a week.
stop reading Usenet news and get a life.
stop sending Email and get a life.
Bust up your modem with a hammer and eat it.
Have your medication adjusted.
Jump into a bathtub while holding your monitor.
find a volcano and throw yourself in.
get a gun and shoot yourself.
Actually post something relevant.
Read the FAQ.
stick to AOL chat rooms and come back when you've grown up.
Apologize to everybody in this foum for bumping an ancient thread just to say "ME TOO".
consume excrement.
consume excrement and thus expire.
Post your tests to misc.test.
Put your home phone number in your ads from now on.
Don't post until you have a vague idea what you're doing.
All of the above.


In Closing, I'd Like to Say:

You need to seek psychiatric help
Take your gibberish somewhere else
*plonk*
Learn how to post or get off the Internet.
Most of the above
All of the above
Some of the above, not including All of the above
You are so clueless that I didn't bother filling in this

but it's not completely untrue is it?...because he never posted that all scientists believe global warming is a crock...just the ones listed...hence the word "these"

"The Oregon Institute of Science and Medicine (OISM) describes itself as "a small research institute" that studies "biochemistry, diagnostic medicine, nutrition, preventive medicine and the molecular biology of aging." It is headed by Arthur B. Robinson, an eccentric scientist who has a long history of controversial entanglements with figures on the fringe of accepted research. OISM also markets a home-schooling kit for "parents concerned about socialism in the public schools" and publishes books on how to survive nuclear war.

The OISM is located on a farm about 7 miles from the town of Cave Junction, Oregon (population 1,126). Located slightly east of Siskiyou National Forest, Cave Junction is one of several small towns nestled in the Illinois Valley, whose total population is 15,000. Best known as a gateway to the Oregon Caves National Monument, it is described by its chamber of commerce as "the commercial, service, and cultural center for a rural community of small farms, woodlots, crafts people, and families just living apart from the crowds. ... It's a place where going into the market can take time because people talk in the aisles and at the checkstands. Life is slower, so you have to be patient. You'll be part of that slowness because it is enjoyable to be neighborly." The main visitors are tourists who come to hike, backpack and fish in the area's many rivers and streams. Cave Junction is the sort of out-of-the-way location you might seek out if you were hoping to survive a nuclear war, but it is not known as a center for scientific and medical research. The OISM would be equally obscure itself, except for the role it played in 1998 in circulating a deceptive "scientists' petition" on global warming in collaboration with Frederick Seitz, a retired former president of the National Academy of Sciences."

"In reality, neither Robinson's paper nor OISM's petition drive had anything to do with the National Academy of Sciences, which first heard about the petition when its members began calling to ask if the NAS had taken a stand against the Kyoto treaty. Robinson was not even a climate scientist. He was a biochemist with no published research in the field of climatology, and his paper had never been subjected to peer review by anyone with training in the field. In fact, the paper had never been accepted for publication anywhere, let alone in the NAS Proceedings. It was self-published by Robinson, who did the typesetting himself on his own computer. (It was subsequently published as a "review" in Climate Research, which contributed to an editorial scandal at that publication.)

None of the coauthors of "Environmental Effects of Atmospheric Carbon Dioxide" had any more standing than Robinson himself as a climate change researcher. They included Robinson's 22-year-old son, Zachary (home-schooled by his dad), along with astrophysicists Sallie L. Baliunas and Willie Soon. Both Baliunas and Soon worked with Frederick Seitz at the George C. Marshall Institute, a Washington, D.C., think tank where Seitz served as executive director. Funded by a number of right-wing foundations, including Scaife and Bradley, the George C. Marshall Institute does not conduct any original research. It is a conservative think tank that was initially founded during the years of the Reagan administration to advocate funding for Reagan's Strategic Defense Initiative--the "Star Wars" weapons program. Today, the Marshall Institute is still a big fan of high-tech weapons. In 1999, its website gave prominent placement to an essay by Col. Simon P. Worden titled "Why We Need the Air-Borne Laser," along with an essay titled "Missile Defense for Populations--What Does It Take? Why Are We Not Doing It?" Following the collapse of the Soviet Union, however, the Marshall Institute has adapted to the times by devoting much of its firepower to the war against environmentalism, and in particular against the "scaremongers" who raise warnings about global warming."

"In addition to the bulk mailing, OISM's website enables people to add their names to the petition over the Internet, and by June 2000 it claimed to have recruited more than 19,000 scientists. The institute is so lax about screening names, however, that virtually anyone can sign, including for example Al Caruba, a pesticide-industry PR man and conservative ideologue who runs his own website called the "National Anxiety Center." Caruba has no scientific credentials whatsoever, but in addition to signing the Oregon Petition he has editorialized on his own website against the science of global warming, calling it the "biggest hoax of the decade," a "genocidal" campaign by environmentalists who believe that "humanity must be destroyed to 'Save the Earth.' . . . There is no global warming, but there is a global political agenda, comparable to the failed Soviet Union experiment with Communism, being orchestrated by the United Nations, supported by its many Green NGOs, to impose international treaties of every description that would turn the institution into a global government, superceding the sovereignty of every nation in the world."

When questioned in 1998, OISM's Arthur Robinson admitted that only 2,100 signers of the Oregon Petition had identified themselves as physicists, geophysicists, climatologists, or meteorologists, "and of those the greatest number are physicists." This grouping of fields concealed the fact that only a few dozen, at most, of the signatories were drawn from the core disciplines of climate science - such as meteorology, oceanography, and glaciology - and almost none were climate specialists. The names of the signers are available on the OISM's website, but without listing any institutional affiliations or even city of residence, making it very difficult to determine their credentials or even whether they exist at all. When the Oregon Petition first circulated, in fact, environmental activists successfully added the names of several fictional characters and celebrities to the list, including John Grisham, Michael J. Fox, Drs. Frank Burns, B. J. Honeycutt, and Benjamin Pierce (from the TV show M*A*S*H), an individual by the name of "Dr. Red Wine," and Geraldine Halliwell, formerly known as pop singer Ginger Spice of the Spice Girls. Halliwell's field of scientific specialization was listed as "biology." Even in 2003, the list was loaded with misspellings, duplications, name and title fragments, and names of non-persons, such as company names."

www.sourcewatch.org

http://www.aetherometry.com/global_warming/Section_I_3.html
Not citing sources is called plagiarism.

Originally posted by Sir Whirlysplat
Actually no they don't read the start of this thread, in case you can't be bothered A short sample of high-caliber scientists who have criticized the hoax of 'global warming', demonstrates by itself how media-engendered is the myth of consensus on 'global warming':


Originally posted by Sir Whirlysplat
Richard Lindzen (Prof. of Meteorology at the MIT)
Lindzen was reported in 1995 to "charges oil and coal interests $2,500 a day for his consulting services; his 1991 trip to testify before a Senate committee was paid for by Western Fuels, and a speech he wrote, entitled 'Global Warming: the Origin and Nature of Alleged Scientific Consensus,' was underwritten by OPEC."

www.sourcewatch.org - Harper's Magazine
Originally posted by Sir Whirlysplat
Willie Soon (Harvard-Smithsonian Center for Astrophysics)

Sallie Baliunas (Harvard-Smithsonian Center for Astrophysics)Has had research funded by the American Petroleum Institute. Collaborator, Baliunas, is affiliated with groups that receive funding from ExxonMobil.

www.sourcewatch.org

Originally posted by Sir Whirlysplat
Robert Balling Jr. (Director of the Office of Climatology, Prof. of Geography at Arizona State University)"Balling has acknowledged that he had received $408,000 in research funding from the fossil fuel industry over the last decade (of which his University takes 50% for overhead). Contributors include ExxonMobil, the British Coal Corporation, Cyprus Minerals and OPEC."

www.sourcewatch.org

Originally posted by Sir Whirlysplat
Fred Singer (President of The Science & Environmental Policy Project)Cosponsor of the Leipzig Declaration.

http://naturalscience.com/ns/letters/ns_let08.html

Originally posted by Sir Whirlysplat
Frederick Seitz (Former president of the National Academy of Sciences)Chairman Emeritus of the George C. Marshall Institute, which has received funding from ExxonMobil. Current President William O'Keefe is a former executive of the American Petroleum Institute and lobbyist for ExxonMobil.

www.sourcewatch.org
ExxonSecrets.org

Originally posted by Sir Whirlysplat
Craig Idso (Center for the Study of carbon Dioxide and Global Change, Arizona)

Sherwood Idso (Center for the Study of carbon Dioxide and Global Change, Arizona)"The Center has links to the fossil fuel industry, both through personnel and funding.

According to Center for Science in the Public Interest, the Center for the Study of Carbon Dioxide and Global Change received $10,000 from ExxonMobil in 2001. (http://web.archive.org/web/20011031010631/www.exxonmobil.com/contributions/public_info.html)

StopExxon.org reports Center for the Study of Carbon Dioxide and Global Change has received $65,000 from ExxonMobil between 1998 and 2003. (http://stopexxon.unfortu.net/html/orgfactsheet.php?id=24)

The Center works with the Greening Earth Society, a front group of the Western Fuels Association.

The Center is run by Keith E. Idso and Craig Idso, along with their father, Sherwood B. Idso. Both Idso brothers have been on the Western Fuels payroll at one time or another."

www.sourcewatch.org
ExxonSecrets.org

Originally posted by Sir Whirlysplat
Chauncey Starr (Former Dean of Engineering at UCLA and founder of EPRI)Chauncey Starr is a member of the Board of Directors at the George C. Marshall Institute. He is also a member of the Board of Science Advisors of the Science and Environmental Policy Project (SEPP) and like most other members of that board he signed the Leipzig Declaration on Global Climate Change. Since EPRI receives funding form the oil industry, it is strange that he signed a declaration starting with "As independent scientists concerned with atmospheric and climate problems ..."

www.sourcewatch.org

Originally posted by Sir Whirlysplat
But for those who have any doubts about the dissenting views of a majority of scientists with respect to the fad of 'global warming' just consult the Petition Project of the Oregon Institute of Science and Medicine (19,000 signatures, of which 2,500 by scientists in Earth Sciences), at www.oism.org/pproject/s33p403.htm
See above post.

Originally posted by jaden101
but it's not completely untrue is it?...because he never posted that all scientists believe global warming is a crock...just the ones listed...hence the word "these"

so. its not true, hense the lack of the words "man made/influenced/accelerated...etc"
the title implies that these scientests listed all believe that the earth is not in a
trend of warming, which is untrue.

Dunno about that, PVS- quite a few deny warming at all.

xmarks post is not of any great value, being very one-sided. Scientists get their funding where they can- and some of those he lists are those who work for groups that have had money given to them by fossil fuel companies over time. That is too remote to be a biased link; one may as well disassociate a charity for taking money from MacDonalds, saying they would be biased towards fast food. Fact is, fossil fuel companies often will fund such causes for good PR; it has no discernable effect on the objectivity of group members.

Meanwhile, if you looked at how many pro manmade global warming scientists have links to the green lobby, or receive funding because of their views, you will note that just about ALL scientists are 'compromised' in this way.

You cannot simply discount expert testimony for these reasons. Fact remains the existence of a 'consensus' is a fallacy.

As for that Oregon petition though... I do seem to rememeber that has long been a dud.

Originally posted by Ushgarak
Fact is, fossil fuel companies often will fund such causes for good PR; it has no discernable effect on the objectivity of group members.

its a blatant conflict of interests.
sure those scientists may choose to keep it honest and objective,
but i think it would be pretty obtuse to just ignore the 'cooincidences'

The answer to your question, Whirly?....because these scientists are all a bunch of morons. It is very visible to the average human being that global warming is in effect, albeit at a slow rate....and, we humans are mostly responsible for it, even if the earth is also going through a natural warming cycle.

Originally posted by PVS
its a blatant conflict of interests.
sure those scientists may choose to keep it honest and objective,
but i think it would be pretty obtuse to just ignore the 'cooincidences'

This kind of logic is ridiculous. Fossil fuel companies will give money to climate change boards to show they are interested and not abrogating their responisiblites. Such bodies will get funding from the green lobby as well. It's idiocy to reject anyone on such a body just because, working in an industry related field, that industry supplies money. You would have to lose the testimony of just about every expert voice there is if you did.

If they are a spokesperson for an industry, or in some similar way paid to represent industry interests, then you have a conflict.

Else you are just witchhunting experts out of the debate.

And bobby- you are wrong on both counts, it's not visible at all, nor is it provable to reasonable standards.

Ushgarak, it has been proven/shown that several different species of fish, frogs, toads, some bugs/insects, etc....whose infancy is very closely related to temperature in these early stages of life, have suddenly become extinct. These same species have been around for THOUSANDS or HUNDREDS OF THOUSANDS of years. We are not talking extinction by a cataclismic event such as a meteor or asteroid colliding with our planet.

Yes, I could be reaching on the natural warming cycle of the planet, but that's the rebuttal that's always given when politicians or environmentalists don't wish to take responsibility.

Let's remind of some simple facts here, Bobby:

1. It has not been proven to a reasonable standard that the Earth is warming. Sources conflict.

2. It has not been proven to a reasonable standard that any man-made activity could contribute towards warming

There could be plentiful reasons for the phenemenon you espouse. Fact is, without reasonable proof of point 1, your original statement is wrong.

And saying that is the rebuttal always given... is a statement of no value. That it is always given means it's not true does it? That would be the belief of a moron. Look at the science involved, that is all you can do. The science does not favour your statement.

Originally posted by Ushgarak
This kind of logic is ridiculous. Fossil fuel companies will give money to climate change boards to show they are interested and not abrogating their responisiblites. Such bodies will get funding from the green lobby as well. It's idiocy to reject anyone on such a body just because, working in an industry related field, that industry supplies money. You would have to lose the testimony of just about every expert voice there is if you did.

If they are a spokesperson for an industry, or in some similar way paid to represent industry interests, then you have a conflict.

Else you are just witchhunting experts out of the debate.

And bobby- you are wrong on both counts, it's not visible at all, nor is it provable to reasonable standards.

in the case of direct funding, i disagree. money talks and i really dont feel like debating that, as i dont wish to debate whether the sky is blue. im not saying the studies are bias 'just because', but rather that i am skeptical. unless you mean to imply that all or most studies on environmental change are at least partially funded by petrolium companies, how can you not be suspicious?.

just as tobacco companies managed to dig up scientists in the early 20'th century to say that smoking was healthy, then mid century to say its not unhealthy, i do not trust studies directly funded by the very industry which is under scrutiny.

Surely the increases in the atmosphere of both carbon dioxide and artificial compounds which also have insulating effects will make the biosphere more of a greenhouse?

Most or all are funded by those with vested interest, that's the end result of it. Unless there is a direct association, you are simply being unreasonable- close to immoral, in fact- to discount expert opinion for that reason.

I'll tell you this- a court of law would sure as hell see it as expert opinion, with no reservations.

I guarantee you, if you tried to reduce the field to those who have never been invovled in a project that received funding from a vested interest on either side, you would be left with so few experts as to make the process of expert consultation pointless.

Originally posted by shaber
Surely the increases in the atmosphere of both carbon dioxide and artificial compounds which also have insulating effects will make the biosphere more of a greenhouse?

Debatable point 1- whether the amount of carbon needed to fulfill this phenomenon could ever occur. Early predictions on the amounts needed and the effects it would have have already been shown to be wrong.

Debatable point 2- whether MAN would be the contributor in any significant fashion to any such change of atmospheric composition. Much evidence points to Man's efforts being a tiny pinprick compared to nature's.

Ushgarak, if all you say is true, then I don't like you anymore because you just ruined my appreciation for National Geographic, Discovery, and Animal Planet now.

sorry ush... But xmarksthespot has a good point with the bias....

Are there any studies that have been funded by the oil companies that have actually said they believe in global warming???

Originally posted by Ushgarak
Most or all are funded by those with vested interest, that's the end result of it. Unless there is a direct association, you are simply being unreasonable- close to immoral, in fact- to discount expert opinion for that reason.

I'll tell you this- a court of law would sure as hell see it as expert opinion, with no reservations.

I guarantee you, if you tried to reduce the field to those who have never been invovled in a project that received funding from a vested interest on either side, you would be left with so few experts as to make the process of expert consultation pointless. Fossil fuel conglomerates specifically funding research in order to disseminate information opposing the existence of global warming is as much conflict of interest as tobacco companies funding research into the non-existence of lung cancer. Impropriety does not have to exist for conflict of interest to exist.

Legality only comes into play if it can be proven that the person or body in question has exploited their position to exert an influence for personal gain.

Science+corporate money=bullshit.

Does anyone remember the Exxon/proctor and gamble funded school curriculum called "Decision Earth"?

"Clear cutting removes all trees within a stand of a few species to create new habitat for wildlife... Clear cutting also opens the forest floor to sunshine, thus stimulating growth and providing food for animals."

Or how it called garbage incineration "thermal recycling". A slogan Waste Management inc. is still using.

Here's a better link- http://www.abc.net.au/science/slab/beder/story.htm

Originally posted by Sir Whirlysplat
Evidence for GW on any level is highly flawed. Record Coldsnap in Greece as we speak!!

not to mention the "evidence" for the melting of the polar ice caps...even though just last the group who carry out the long term study of the antarctic have announced that the centre of the ice cap has increasingly thicker ice...although they do say that many of the areas which are thickening because they used to be too cold for snow and that increasing temperatures have brought about a larger snowfall than is historically known...

strangely enough...they calculated the snowfall to the 45 billion tonnes per year...the same that is melting from the greenland glaciers

Originally posted by jaden101
not to mention the "evidence" for the melting of the polar ice caps...

http://www.nasa.gov/images/content/134721main3_seaice_min_1979_250.jpghttp://www.nasa.gov/images/content/134723main3_seaice_min_2005_250.jpg

Source: www.NASA.gov

bah... Nasa scientists know how to use photoshop to doctor evidence to prove global warming....

Originally posted by xmarksthespot
http://www.nasa.gov/images/content/134721main3_seaice_min_1979_250.jpghttp://www.nasa.gov/images/content/134723main3_seaice_min_2005_250.jpg

Source: www.NASA.gov

pay attention sunshine...the ice in the middle is thicker to the same extent the the ice at the edges has receeded...hence the polar caps arent getting smaller by mass

can you give a link?? or some pics please jaden101... cause those ones xmarks gave arn't 3d....

Originally posted by Hit_and_Miss
can you give a link?? or some pics please jaden101... cause those ones xmarks gave arn't 3d....

all one needs to do is ask




from new scientist...a very reputable source

http://www.newscientist.com/article.ns?id=dn1806

"Finally, Joughin says that two nearby West Antarctic glaciers are thinning rapidly, so the trend cannot be extended across the continent."

Originally posted by jaden101
pay attention sunshine...the ice in the middle is thicker to the same extent the the ice at the edges has receeded...hence the polar caps arent getting smaller by mass "Sunshine", the NASA images are of the recession of Arctic Ice, not Antarctic.
Originally posted by jaden101
strangely enough...they calculated the snowfall to the 45 billion tonnes per year...the same that is melting from the greenland glaciers You're implication that the increase in Antarctic ice is equivalent to the loss in the Arctic isn't supported by the New Scientist article. Where did you derive the 45 billion figure? In case you don't know, Greenland is in the Northern Hemisphere.

oh dear... someone didn't read the fine print!

as the point out in the artical... it could just be a fluke... they didn't wana say that the trend would continue....

ARG! stop copy pastin into every post... Sum it up in a couple of lines and then provide a link....

Again... If we are damaging the enviroment (like you agreed) what damage are we actually responcable for???

If GW(be it naturaly or man made) continues would it not be a bad thing??? should we not try to limit the amount of crap we put into the air?

Originally posted by Hit_and_Miss
ARG! stop copy pastin into every post... Sum it up in a couple of lines and then provide a link....

Again... If we are damaging the enviroment (like you agreed) what damage are we actually responcable for???

If GW(be it naturaly or man made) continues would it not be a bad thing??? should we not try to limit the amount of crap we put into the air?

facts are the point - opinion means little and please don't tell me not to produce evidence, I don't debate your way. I use evidence to support my opinion.

I never agreed we were causing global watming or evidence for absolute evidence for it existed, as Ush said you are arguing something different.

I'm not asking to not produce evidence.. But you don't post anything yourself... Just something Copied and pasted from a website... Thats why I said "put a link" I'm fed up with reading monster chunks of text just to find out the underlying point is rubbish....(not saying this is the case)

Again...

If GW(be it naturaly or man made) continues would it not be a bad thing??? should we not try to limit the amount of crap we put into the air?

Originally posted by Hit_and_Miss
I'm not asking to not produce evidence.. But you don't post anything yourself... Just something Copied and pasted from a website... Thats why I said "put a link" I'm fed up with reading monster chunks of text just to find out the underlying point is rubbish....(not saying this is the case)

Again...

If GW(be it naturaly or man made) continues would it not be a bad thing??? should we not try to limit the amount of crap we put into the air?

That's called secondary sources, I could paste a pale imitation of the evidence or I could use the real thing. I find the way many of you children on here say thing like "it's a fact because I say so hilarious". At least X marks the spot uses some evidence although he holds the stuff he doesn't like back often.

Be fed up with reading or better yet don't read it at all and stick to your opinion based arguments.

Whirly... lets get something straight here...
I haven't made up my mind if GW is natural or man made...
the only belief I have is that we have been poluting the enviroment for along time now.. Be it the water/deforestation/coal fires
Combined with the fact that temps are rising around the globe (naturaly or man made) should we not do something to stop this? after all GW isn't a good thing...

Originally posted by Hit_and_Miss
Whirly... lets get something straight here...
I haven't made up my mind if GW is natural or man made...
the only belief I have is that we have been poluting the enviroment for along time now.. Be it the water/deforestation/coal fires
Combined with the fact that temps are rising around the globe (naturaly or man made) should we not do something to stop this? after all GW isn't a good thing...

The temperature rise may also only be seasonal, or short term again the evidence is spurious that it's happening at all. The cold snap in Greece and the thickening of the perma frost are merely two of many anomalous peices of evidence against. Global Warming evidence is often aimed at promoting something as fact that simply is not. Evidence is conflicted.

Today

Kiev, Jan 26: A relentless Arctic weather front wreaked more havoc across a wide swath of eastern Europe today, killing 53 people overnight in Ukraine alone and severely disrupting transport networks in half a dozen countries.

Intemperate weather has even covered Athens's Acropolis in snow and frozen stretches of the eastern Danube running between Bulgaria and Romania.

The week-long deep freeze, forecast to last through tomorrow, has claimed hundreds of lives from the Baltic nations and Russia in the north all the way down to turkey and Greece, both semi-paralyzed by uninterrupted snowfall.

The 24-hour toll in Ukraine brings to 130 the number of weather-related deaths there since temperatures plunged into the minus 20s and minus 30s degrees Celsius.

The cold snap has also been lethal in Russia, with well over 100 deaths in Moscow alone, as well as Poland, where 14 persons died overnight yesterday and 53 have succumbed since last week.

and what does those weather reports prove???

Originally posted by Hit_and_Miss
and what does those weather reports prove???

I Despair, it proves as much as seasonal temp increases taken out of context!

So your going to address a poorly understood condition with poorly presented materials???

neither side has a very strong case for if we are the cause or not to GW..
But is GW a good thing????

Originally posted by xmarksthespot
"Sunshine", the NASA images are of the recession of Arctic Ice, not Antarctic.
You're implication that the increase in Antarctic ice is equivalent to the loss in the Arctic isn't supported by the New Scientist article. Where did you derive the 45 billion figure? In case you don't know, Greenland is in the Northern Hemisphere.

i'm well aware of the geography of the world...you asked where the figure came from

http://www.post-gazette.com/pg/05140/507684.stm

and from the los angeles gazzete

http://uplink.space.com/showflat.php?Cat=&Board=environment&Number=223595&page=0&view=collapsed&sb=7&o=0&fpart=

so its not my "implication" is it?...no

the new scientist article does show that the ice cap has had a net gain of mass...given that there is a fixed volume of water in all its states on the planet then global warming = increase in sea level isnt really the massive problem that some scientists predict

if there is one issue that could be a problem is that if the ice caps are geographically smaller as in your picture then that means they reflect less sunlight back into space and thus their "cooling" effect might be reduced

Originally posted by Hit_and_Miss
So your going to address a poorly understood condition with poorly presented materials???

neither side has a very strong case for if we are the cause or not to GW..
But is GW a good thing????

You miss the point H and M here Jaden explainse it pretty well the evidence for global warming is incredibly spurious, the arguments against it are at least as compelling.

Originally posted by jaden101
i'm well aware of the geography of the world...you asked where the figure came from

http://www.post-gazette.com/pg/05140/507684.stm

and from the los angeles gazzete

http://uplink.space.com/showflat.php?Cat=&Board=environment&Number=223595&page=0&view=collapsed&sb=7&o=0&fpart=

so its not my "implication" is it?...no

the new scientist article does show that the ice cap has had a net gain of mass...given that there is a fixed volume of water in all its states on the planet then global warming = increase in sea level isnt really the massive problem that some scientists predict

if there is one issue that could be a problem is that if the ice caps are geographically smaller as in your picture then that means they reflect less sunlight back into space and thus their "cooling" effect might be reduced

nice post Jade Got to admit both you and X have really shown that this debate has conflicting evidence. I would expect nothing less from two quality biologists.

whirly stop and answer this quesiton..

Is GW a good thing???

Originally posted by Hit_and_Miss
whirly stop and answer this quesiton..

Is GW a good thing???

You still miss the point, no conclusive proof for Global Warming exists, we don't know whats causing any of these things as all the conflicting research in this threads show.

You seem to be quite slow on the old uptake here... I didn't ask if there was proof for it or against it...
As I have said...

Originally posted by Hit_and_Miss
Whirly... lets get something straight here...
I haven't made up my mind if GW is natural or man made...

I asked if GW was a good thing???

How can anyone form an educated opinion on an unknown such as GW with unkown variables and unknown results unless of course you are just looking for an answer. Most scientists will just refer you back to the previous document stating their findings................which are unclear as in the case.

Maybe you should open a thread with something more to the affect of general pollution and the planet?

Originally posted by soleran30
How can anyone form an educated opinion on an unknown such as GW with unkown variables and unknown results unless of course you are just looking for an answer. Most scientists will just refer you back to the previous document stating their findings................which are unclear as in the case.



agreed but people like H and M try to have an opinion based on "what they have heard". They then try and insult you when you ask for proof a bit sad really .

What are you talking about whirly??? what I have heard... Came from school... and What I have read... came from scientific books....

I asked you if GW was a good thing several times now.... You really don't wana answer this question do you!

Originally posted by Hit_and_Miss
What are you talking about whirly??? what I have heard... Came from school... and What I have read... came from scientific books....

I asked you if GW was a good thing several times now.... You really don't wana answer this question do you!


Well when it's happened in the past according to tree ring evidence and plant species present etc. We had wild grapes growing in the south of England, this was the middle ages, it appears to have been warmer than it is now.

School Books reallly don't tell you much compared to post grad level evidence. Thats what people are using here.

So global warming is a good thing then whirly??? is that what your trying to say with that post???

Originally posted by Hit_and_Miss
So global warming is a good thing then whirly??? is that what your trying to say with that post???

not at all read the thread - We don't even know if it's happening! At least once in the last 1000 years it has been a good thing in the UK.

So wouldn't it be better if we did everything to try to prevent GW from happening??? I'm sure putting chems into the atmoshpere isn't helping... Its my understanding that if GW continues we don't have a very "bright" future....

it was a good thing that we could grow graphs... .... oh whirly... you know how to tell them!

Originally posted by Hit_and_Miss
So wouldn't it be better if we did everything to try to prevent GW from happening?

As Ush said you can't base an economy change on maybes

Originally posted by Hit_and_Miss
I'm sure putting chems into the atmoshpere isn't helping... Its my understanding that if GW continues we don't have a very "bright" future....


Well noone really knows thats the point

Originally posted by Hit_and_Miss
it was a good thing that we could grow graphs... .... oh whirly... you know how to tell them!

grow graphs grapes

woops!

well while science doesn't know I'll feel good as the world continues to pollute...

I mean its not like its happened before... science coming to late to the scene of a disaster and saying..
"well we know better now.."

Originally posted by Hit_and_Miss
woops!

well while science doesn't know I'll feel good as the world continues to pollute...

I mean its not like its happened before... science coming to late to the scene of a disaster and saying..
"well we know better now.."

A breif history of pollution plagurised from elsewhere

Learn

As everyone knows, the toxic molecule DHMO is all around us. Also, the very air we breathe is toxic. However, the link between the two is relatively simple - the deadly process known as photosynthesis.
Way back when, before the dinosaurs, life happily munched on safe hydrogen sulphide or even hydrogen itself. At some point, the evil technology was invented by some cunning algae out to destroy the world. Instead of splitting safe fuel, the potentially destructive 'water' was used to provide protons. This inevitably produced oxygen as a toxic byproduct.

Although tolerable for a while (couple of million years?), the inevitable result was mass extinction of the peaceful anoxic species and the domination of the photosynthetic organisms. A record of this time is written in the rocks, where iron oxide is deposited in bands from around this time. Salvation came in the form of bacteria that could detoxify this terrible gas, reducing it back again into DHMO. Soon everyone started carrying around these purification factories and a balance between the destructive plants and the benign animals was restored.

Evolution needs new challenges.

However the threads about global warming, Water Vapour causes more of this natural effect at present than anything.

can I get a link to the site thats from...

Originally posted by Hit_and_Miss
can I get a link to the site thats from...

can't remember but heres something similar.

http://www.science501.com/PTProteroz.html

The first "pollution crisis" hit the Earth about 2.2 billion years ago. Several pieces of evidence -- the presence of iron oxides in paleosols (fossil soils), the appearance of "red beds" containing metal oxides, and others -- point to a fairly rapid increase in levels of oxygen in the atmosphere at about this time. Oxygen levels in the Archaean had been less that 1% of present levels in the atmosphere, but by about 1.8 billion years ago, oxygen levels were greater than 15% of present levels and rising. It may seem strange to call this a "pollution crisis," since most of the organisms that we are familiar with not only tolerate but require oxygen to live. However, oxygen is a powerful degrader of organic compounds. Even today, many bacteria and protists are killed by oxygen. Organisms had to evolve biochemical methods for rendering oxygen harmless; one of these methods, oxidative respiration, had the advantage of producing large amounts of energy for the cell, and is now found in most eukaryotes.

It's pretty common stuff, I believe it's even taught in school these days.

Nar... I want the comical one above it... I'm not interested in the basic science it provides.. I'm interested in the site...

From where does the Los Angeles Gazette, derive the 45 billion ton figure? The article Joughin, I.; Tulaczyk, S. Positive Mass Balance of the Ross Ice Streams, West Antarctica. Published in Science vol. 295 pp 476-480. Only provides a net positive figure of 26.8 gigatons.
Originally posted by jaden101
the new scientist article does show that the ice cap has had a net gain of mass...given that there is a fixed volume of water in all its states on the planet then global warming = increase in sea level isnt really the massive problem that some scientists predictThe Science article on which the New Scientist article is based states that net positive mass balance is due primarily to Ice Stream C, of the Ross Ice Stream. It states that this trend is not continent wide, and states nothing of the arctic Ice. Their finding would only account for a negligible sea level drop, leaving net sea level rise.

From Joughin & Tulaczyk, 2002 referring to the Ross Ice Shelf:

"Additional impetus for retreat/break-up may come from future climatic warming that appears to have helped to destabilize some smaller ice shelves along the Antarctic Peninsula (27). Over time scales on the order of decades to centuries, ice shelves may represent the most vulnerable element of the West Antarctic ice sheet/shelf system. Break-up of the Ross Ice Shelf alone would expose ~400,000 km2 of new shallow sea surface area and could have important implications for exchange of energy and water between the ocean and the atmosphere/ice-sheet system in the region. Moreover, brine exclusion during sea-ice formation could turn this newly exposed polar continental shelf into a key source of bottom ocean water. This strengthened Antarctic bottom-water formation could outcompete the North Atlantic source of bottom water and switch the global ocean into a new mode of thermohaline circulation, with global climatic implications (28)."

in short...it could **** up the gulf stream...which has been measured as being reduced by 30% already...but this in itself wouldn't cause a perpetuation of global warming and if fact may do the exact opposite to massive areas across the north Atlantic region as its the gulf stream that keeps the relatively moderate climate of great Britain and the rest of the west of Europe given that they are on the same latitude as Canada and northern Russia which has far lower temperatures

so what would happen then?

massive and longer lasting snowfall over larger areas would reflect more sunlight lower the temperature of the Eart as a whole and counteract the warming of other areas



European space agency (i know...contradiction in terms...dont laugh)

Originally posted by jaden101
in short...it could **** up the gulf stream...which has been measured as being reduced by 30% already...but this in itself wouldn't cause a perpetuation of global warming and if fact may do the exact opposite to massive areas across the north Atlantic region as its the gulf stream that keeps the relatively moderate climate of great Britain and the rest of the west of Europe given that they are on the same latitude as Canada and northern Russia which has far lower temperatures

so what would happen then?

massive and longer lasting snowfall over larger areas would reflect more sunlight lower the temperature of the Eart as a whole and counteract the warming of other areas



European space agency (i know...contradiction in terms...dont laugh)

Basically the truth is guys almost everything is supposition at this stage, in my opinion! I enjoyed reading both X and Jadens posts on this topic!

Just to respond to your point, H&M... I shall repeat what I have said before to those saying we should do it anyway...

1. Remember, the economic costs involved in such things would ruin the lives of many ordinary people. This would be a crime. You need firm evidence to justify such a thing; we have none.

2. It would be pointless anyway because without firm evidence you will NEVER convince developing nations to cut back on emissions, and before long they will become the major users- for example, I am including China and India here.

3. The money would be better spent on preparation for change rather than trying to resist something that is not man-made and hence cannot be stopped. There are millions- mostly living in poverty- who face ruin if global warming occurs who are completely unprepared, whilst pointless amounts of money are spent on an idea that is not yet reasonably proven- that man is causing global warming- and is having no discernable effect.

So absolutely no, we should not proceed without that reasonable standard of proof.

and when GW happens it will be too late to act? no?

Originally posted by Ushgarak
3. The money would be better spent on preparation for change rather than trying to resist something that is not man-made and hence cannot be stopped. There are millions- mostly living in poverty- who face ruin if global warming occurs who are completely unprepared, whilst pointless amounts of money are spent on an idea that is not yet reasonably proven- that man is causing global warming- and is having no discernable effect.Underlined is an assumption on your part stated rather adamantly. Are you a climatologist, and/or are you privy to the knowledge of a climatologist?
The UNIPCC, the American Meteorological Society, the American Geophysical Union and the National Academies of Sciences of a multiple countries, including that of the US, disagree with you.
Those who take your view, the Idsos, Lindzen, Balling, et al. have benefited personally, professionally or institutionally from Oil Industry money.

A direct causal relationship between cigarette smoking and incidence of lung cancer has to my knowledge not been completely established. There is undeniable evidence of a correlative relationship. Health warnings and measures to reduce cigarette smoking are commonplace due to this correlative evidence. These more than likely hurt the tobacco industry causing them to incur "economic costs". What a crime.

Reducing the use of fossil fuels and the development of sustainable/renewable energy alternatives to fossil fuels to try and reduce and prevent further impact on the environment is a waste of money? That money should be spent on what exactly?

Smoke up and screw Tuvalu.

Edit: Oh and BTW China is not expected to exceed US greenhouse emissions for another two decades. Although currently exempt from the Kyoto Protocol, China has signed the agreement. Even when China as a nation equals the emissions output of the US, per capita they will still be producing 4 times less than the US.

time to stoke up those coal fires people...because cleaning up air pollution is causing global warming

http://www.newscientist.com/article.ns?id=dn7346

Originally posted by jaden101
time to stoke up those coal fires people...because cleaning up air pollution is causing global warming

http://www.newscientist.com/article.ns?id=dn7346

Yes I read about this in relation to Aeroplane Vapour trails after 9/11, Because all the planes were grounded and the vapour trails served a similar role to the smog in this article. As ever with anything to do with this debate I have read rebuttle evidence on both sides it's very interesting though. Should give Ecos something to worry about though. That they will doom us faster than big business.

Whirly!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Originally posted by Cyber Ninja
Whirly!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

hello mate

Get your butt to the offtopic comic thread and live again!!

Originally posted by Cyber Ninja
Get your butt to the offtopic comic thread and live again!!


I will say hi to everyone I have to vote as a judge on the bouts down there by Saturday, but work is complex at the moment and I am hardly on!

They think it's a crock because it is.

Originally posted by BackFire
They think it's a crock because it is.

agreed! probably

You will be hardpressd to find a scientist who'll say that it is 100 % certain that humans are behind Global Warming.
Why? Because scientists base their facts on research, statistics etc. And we do not have enough climate-dates to be absolutely sure.
But almost everything we see points to the conclusion, that our CO2-emissions are causing the rise in global temperatures.

That rise is REAL. Period. Is it just a fluctuation caused by solar radiation? CO2 emissions? Both? The icacaps are melting (Oh, and yes, ice is more "massive" than water, but when water is HEATED it will expand!), the Great Barrier Reef is being scorched, heaviest hurricane season ever etc. etc. Why on Earth take the risk of it NOT being manmade and try to change path?
CO2-smog is not good for anyones health. Lack of ozone is not either. Chemicals in rivers and oceans are poison.

I guess as long as oil-companies are the richest in the world, and money makes the world go around, we'll just consume until someone realises that we can't eat money (shrugs)...

So - NO scientist can claim that manmade global warming is junk. The fact is, that sciencist do not have enough statistics. See? It's this abuse of science's adherence to correctness, facts and research that is the problem.

Originally posted by The Omega

So - NO scientist can claim that manmade global warming is junk. The fact is, that sciencist do not have enough statistics. See? It's this abuse of science's adherence to correctness, facts and research that is the problem.

You would advocate a more pragmatic scientific approach then?

I'd say that since CO2 IS a greenhouse gas (look at Venus!), and since most scientific models point to rising temperatures and some rather bleak scenarios I think it's just plain insane to follow the path we are on now.
I think we should all commonly realise that our health is being damaged by smog, chemicals, poisons (in our air and food and water), and that we will all benefit from changing lanes.
The oil-reserves are NOT infinite, gas is poisneous... I mean, come ON... choal is not good for you either...
We need a good reneweable energy-source for the future as it IS. We need to deal with our garbage-problems...
For the good of every human on this planet.

Go Iter!

I think they do believe but, to say it is true would cause global panic

Originally posted by The Omega
I'd say that since CO2 IS a greenhouse gas (look at Venus!), and since most scientific models point to rising temperatures and some rather bleak scenarios I think it's just plain insane to follow the path we are on now.
I think we should all commonly realise that our health is being damaged by smog, chemicals, poisons (in our air and food and water), and that we will all benefit from changing lanes.
The oil-reserves are NOT infinite, gas is poisneous... I mean, come ON... choal is not good for you either...
We need a good reneweable energy-source for the future as it IS. We need to deal with our garbage-problems...
For the good of every human on this planet.

Go Iter!

please read the thread before posting simplistic scenarios, what is poisneous?

Originally posted by Victor Von Doom
You would advocate a more pragmatic scientific approach then?

Oh, certainly!

Originally posted by jaden101
a simple way to think of global warming is the experiment you do in high school with pond weed

put it in water...shine a light on it...and it makes bubbles...the brighter the light, the faster the reaction...the hotter it is, the faster the reaction

the pond weed is using carbon dioxide and producing oxygen

the same happens to the earth as a whole

the more it warms up...the faster the trees etc, convert carbon dioxide to oxygen and thus help to restore the balance

the only problem is that something like 70% of the forests of 200 years ago have been cut down

I have to say that these scientists feel global warming is a crock because the cap n trade regime primarily focuses on carbon.Now everybody knows the problem in our planet is pollution.Is that what is causing climate change? i doubt it.But it definatly isn't sanitary and causes other serious issues.Pollution should be the real issue at hand.They say it's pollution but the plan is carbon.Destroying the lives of people with a disguise of saving the planet is completely wrong.Taxing is the form of controlling the people. After all it was big government that created industry not us.

There are definite ways to help eliminate pollution.Furthering the ruin of the economy is far from it.Lets give an example here.Anyone hear of the north pacific gyre? And how it is accumulating plastic trash that is now twice the size of the state of Texas and growing? How about addressing this issue..the issue of petroleum and what it does to our wildlife..or how about Palin and her ariel killings of wolves?How about the use of paper when we have the technology to go without it enabling forests to be left alone? it goes on and these issues don't need taxing they need a sense of community..thats what separates the government and the people.

Are all these scientists on board with my beliefs?Who knows, but isn't clear that it's time we come together....instead it just feels we are just coming apart.

Originally posted by zeyda
After all it was big government that created industry not us.

Isn't the usual complaint that the government suppresses industry?

Originally posted by Symmetric Chaos
Isn't the usual complaint that the government suppresses industry?

If you asked Thomas Jefferson, he'd probably say "no" on an account of Alexander Hamilton and his national bank and "domestic manufacturing" ideas.

Another thing is reflection of sunlight. As snow and glaciers melt less sunlight is reflected back into space. More heat from the sun is absorbed thus making the earth warmer.

There have been at least 4 ice ages in the remote past (most likely more), and in between each of these ice ages there was a warming period. Sense humans were not around at the time, what caused these warming period? Also, how do we know for sure that this same mysterious mechanism that caused the warming periods in the past is not to blame for the current warming period?

All we need to do is set off a bunch of volcanoes and were all good :d

As long as I'm not alive when global warming goes nuts I don't care what happens.

Originally posted by Ryo 666
As long as I'm not alive when global warming goes nuts I don't care what happens.

You would make a good Republican.

Originally posted by Shakyamunison
You would make a good Republican.

el oh e....



Hey, wait a minute.


You can't make fun of yourself.

Originally posted by dadudemon
el oh e....



Hey, wait a minute.


You can't make fun of yourself.



I'm not a Republican. I'm independent.

Originally posted by Shakyamunison
I'm not a Republican. I'm independent.

Oh, I thought you were Jewish.

Originally posted by dadudemon
Oh, I thought you were Jewish.

Maybe you should try to answer my question.


Originally posted by Shakyamunison
There have been at least 4 ice ages in the remote past (most likely more), and in between each of these ice ages there was a warming period. Sense humans were not around at the time, what caused these warming period? Also, how do we know for sure that this same mysterious mechanism that caused the warming periods in the past is not to blame for the current warming period?

Originally posted by Shakyamunison
Maybe you should try to answer my question.

You're preaching to the choir.

I also "cite" the fact that it takes hundreds of years for the ocean to catch up to the "global warming", the fact that we are coming out of an ice age, the fact that CO2 has been MUCH higher in the past during one of the coldest periods in all of history, reject the fallacious fear-mongering of what global warming do, etc.


But there is no denying that humans have not had some sort of impact. They estimate it at a very small percentage....but that can literally be the difference.

global Warming was always bullshit to me. I knew it was shenanigans because i kind of payed attention during school. Maybe i was lucky though, i grew up before they changed the history books.

Originally posted by jinXed by JaNx
global Warming was always bullshit to me. I knew it was shenanigans because i kind of payed attention during school. Maybe i was lucky though, i grew up before they changed the history books.

Well "global warming" isn't really up for debate at this point. The question is how much impact humans actually have.

Originally posted by Symmetric Chaos
Well "global warming" isn't really up for debate at this point. The question is how much impact humans actually have.


I'll debate it. At least the dumbass Al gore theory.

Originally posted by Shakyamunison
You would make a good Republican.

I know jack shit about politics, is that bad? lol

Originally posted by Shakyamunison
There have been at least 4 ice ages in the remote past (most likely more), and in between each of these ice ages there was a warming period. Sense humans were not around at the time, what caused these warming period? Also, how do we know for sure that this same mysterious mechanism that caused the warming periods in the past is not to blame for the current warming period?

The earth has natural cycles of cooling and warming. There have been a lot more than just 4 ice ages.

The major difference this time is the rate at which it's happening. In the past it took thousands or even tens of thousands of years for climate swings to occur. This time it's happening in only a couple hundred.

Global warming? WTF is that?