Your Ad Here Your Ad Here
Page 1 of 3 123 LastLast
Results 1 to 10 of 29

Thread: Addenda To Recent "global Warming" Debate

  1. #1
    j2k4's Avatar en(un)lightened
    Join Date
    Nov 2002
    Location
    Oh, please...
    Posts
    15,254
    I had tried to find this a short while ago when we were all having such a nice chat over the issue of Global Warming.

    Take it for what it's worth, paying special attention to the references to certain studies and organizations heretofore granted immunity from criticism, and further, the implications it carries vis a vis the media and the perceptions of no-nothing "world citizens" like you and me.

    I first read it in the Wall Street Journal, which is, I believe, a respectable newspaper?


    The Press Gets It Wrong
    Our report doesn't support the Kyoto treaty.

    BY RICHARD S. LINDZEN
    Monday, June 11, 2001 12:01 a.m. EDT

    Last week the National Academy of Sciences released a report on climate change, prepared in response to a request from the White House, that was depicted in the press as an implicit endorsement of the Kyoto Protocol. CNN's Michelle Mitchell was typical of the coverage when she declared that the report represented "a unanimous decision that global warming is real, is getting worse, and is due to man. There is no wiggle room."

    As one of 11 scientists who prepared the report, I can state that this is simply untrue. For starters, the NAS never asks that all participants agree to all elements of a report, but rather that the report represent the span of views. This the full report did, making clear that there is no consensus, unanimous or otherwise, about long-term climate trends and what causes them.

    As usual, far too much public attention was paid to the hastily prepared summary rather than to the body of the report. The summary began with a zinger--that greenhouse gases are accumulating in Earth's atmosphere as a result of human activities, causing surface air temperatures and subsurface ocean temperatures to rise, etc., before following with the necessary qualifications. For example, the full text noted that 20 years was too short a period for estimating long-term trends, but the summary forgot to mention this.

    Our primary conclusion was that despite some knowledge and agreement, the science is by no means settled. We are quite confident (1) that global mean temperature is about 0.5 degrees Celsius higher than it was a century ago; (2) that atmospheric levels of carbon dioxide have risen over the past two centuries; and (3) that carbon dioxide is a greenhouse gas whose increase is likely to warm the earth (one of many, the most important being water vapor and clouds).

    But--and I cannot stress this enough--we are not in a position to confidently attribute past climate change to carbon dioxide or to forecast what the climate will be in the future. That is to say, contrary to media impressions, agreement with the three basic statements tells us almost nothing relevant to policy discussions.


    One reason for this uncertainty is that, as the report states, the climate is always changing; change is the norm. Two centuries ago, much of the Northern Hemisphere was emerging from a little ice age. A millennium ago, during the Middle Ages, the same region was in a warm period. Thirty years ago, we were concerned with global cooling.
    Distinguishing the small recent changes in global mean temperature from the natural variability, which is unknown, is not a trivial task. All attempts so far make the assumption that existing computer climate models simulate natural variability, but I doubt that anyone really believes this assumption.

    We simply do not know what relation, if any, exists between global climate changes and water vapor, clouds, storms, hurricanes, and other factors, including regional climate changes, which are generally much larger than global changes and not correlated with them. Nor do we know how to predict changes in greenhouse gases. This is because we cannot forecast economic and technological change over the next century, and also because there are many man-made substances whose properties and levels are not well known, but which could be comparable in importance to carbon dioxide.

    What we do is know that a doubling of carbon dioxide by itself would produce only a modest temperature increase of one degree Celsius. Larger projected increases depend on "amplification" of the carbon dioxide by more important, but poorly modeled, greenhouse gases, clouds and water vapor.


    The press has frequently tied the existence of climate change to a need for Kyoto. The NAS panel did not address this question. My own view, consistent with the panel's work, is that the Kyoto Protocol would not result in a substantial reduction in global warming. Given the difficulties in significantly limiting levels of atmospheric carbon dioxide, a more effective policy might well focus on other greenhouse substances whose potential for reducing global warming in a short time may be greater.
    The panel was finally asked to evaluate the work of the United Nations' Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, focusing on the Summary for Policymakers, the only part ever read or quoted. The Summary for Policymakers, which is seen as endorsing Kyoto, is commonly presented as the consensus of thousands of the world's foremost climate scientists. Within the confines of professional courtesy, the NAS panel essentially concluded that the IPCC's Summary for Policymakers does not provide suitable guidance for the U.S. government.

    The full IPCC report is an admirable description of research activities in climate science, but it is not specifically directed at policy. The Summary for Policymakers is, but it is also a very different document. It represents a consensus of government representatives (many of whom are also their nations' Kyoto representatives), rather than of scientists. The resulting document has a strong tendency to disguise uncertainty, and conjures up some scary scenarios for which there is no evidence.

    Science, in the public arena, is commonly used as a source of authority with which to bludgeon political opponents and propagandize uninformed citizens. This is what has been done with both the reports of the IPCC and the NAS. It is a reprehensible practice that corrodes our ability to make rational decisions. A fairer view of the science will show that there is still a vast amount of uncertainty--far more than advocates of Kyoto would like to acknowledge--and that the NAS report has hardly ended the debate. Nor was it meant to.

    Mr. Lindzen, a professor of meteorology at MIT, was a member of the National Academy of Sciences panel on climate change.
    “Think about how stupid the average person is, and then realize that half of 'em are stupider than that.” -George Carlin

  2. The Drawing Room   -   #2
    I think the author has a hidden agenda that is anti-everything. He is part of a conspiracy to turn the world into a huge ashtray where each president is given a 50 mile long cigar and masturbates in the ashes whilst shouting "down with the liberals DOWN with them I say!!!"

    Dont bother asking me to prove this or explain it because I'll just shout this at you (even though its unrelated to your questions about the imaginary conspiracy).

    Originally posted by j2k4

    AHA!

    And what if I demand you prove every shred of what you claim; all this frothing about climactic fluctuations and such!

    Your post is idiotic and contemptuous of known fact; where do you come up with such bollocks, and how do you excuse your lack of studies (preferably by private concerns)?

    Huh? HUH??!!?

    If you don't have studies and links and googles and stuff, your post is invalid!!!

    You are wrongwrongwrongwrongwrongwrongwrongwrongwrongwrongwrongwrongwrongwrongwrongwrongwrongwrong.........
    "If its good enough for you its good enough for me.."
    Dodgy - Good Enough



    For those who missed the 'comedy' references.....

    J2k4s last 'performace' on this topic

  3. The Drawing Room   -   #3
    Well written piece for a beakerboy. I enjoyed the effort of the author made to acknowledge both sides of the "global warming " issue and the complete absence of emotive phraseology.


    See, there really is no issue with "copy and pasting",(see "Long Posts" thread) it is usually the quality of the "pasted" material. You can probably find an article defending ANY position you want out there on the web.

    When these agenda, not truth, driven, emotive articles get dropped here for our consideration, we react to the smell of bullshit, not so much that is a "copy and paste" effort.

    I would prefer to see articles which give consideration to both sides of an issue. From this point we can then venture into a discussion.

    Would have preferred if the article had been entirely in bold, though.
    Aren't we in the trust tree, thingey?

  4. The Drawing Room   -   #4
    j2k4's Avatar en(un)lightened
    Join Date
    Nov 2002
    Location
    Oh, please...
    Posts
    15,254
    Originally posted by leftism+24 January 2004 - 18:21--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (leftism &#064; 24 January 2004 - 18:21)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'>I think the author has a hidden agenda that is anti-everything. He is part of a conspiracy to turn the world into a huge ashtray where each president is given a 50 mile long cigar and masturbates in the ashes whilst shouting "down with the liberals DOWN with them I say&#33;&#33;&#33;"

    Dont bother asking me to prove this or explain it because I&#39;ll just shout this at you (even though its unrelated to your questions about the imaginary conspiracy).

    <!--QuoteBegin-j2k4


    AHA&#33;

    And what if I demand you prove every shred of what you claim; all this frothing about climactic fluctuations and such&#33;

    Your post is idiotic and contemptuous of known fact; where do you come up with such bollocks, and how do you excuse your lack of studies (preferably by private concerns)?

    Huh? HUH??&#33;&#33;?

    If you don&#39;t have studies and links and googles and stuff, your post is invalid&#33;&#33;&#33;

    You are wrongwrongwrongwrongwrongwrongwrongwrongwrongwrongwrongwrongwrongwrongwrongwrongwrongwrong.........
    "If its good enough for you its good enough for me.."
    Dodgy - Good Enough



    For those who missed the &#39;comedy&#39; references.....

    J2k4s last &#39;performace&#39; on this topic[/b][/quote]
    Is yours included likewise, lefty?

    I posted the column as Mr. Lindzen positively reeks of credibility on the subject; he is one of the scientists for which your ilk purports to speak when you say things like "all scientists", and "the entire scientific community", and " scientists are in lock-step", and other such foolishness.

    This is a new post, mind you.

    Why don&#39;t you respond to it, instead of venting on me?

    Or do you wish to avoid the topic?
    “Think about how stupid the average person is, and then realize that half of 'em are stupider than that.” -George Carlin

  5. The Drawing Room   -   #5
    Originally posted by j2k4
    Why don&#39;t you respond to it, instead of venting on me?
    I tried that last time (asked you to explain your "the greens are part of an anti-American conspiracy) and you went absolutely mad. Why on Earth would I want to repeat the same mistake of treating you with respect if thats the result?

    Anyway... now you know how it feels like to be treated in the same manner as you treat other people. If you dont like what you see in the mirror, dont blame the mirror

  6. The Drawing Room   -   #6
    vidcc's Avatar there is no god
    Join Date
    Dec 2003
    Location
    USA
    Posts
    5,630
    for me the arguements for or against global warming are futile...we polute too much and we really have no excuse of any real worth. I would hold this view even if every scientist in the world proved without question that it didn&#39;t cause global warming.
    This is the air we breathe, the water we drink and the land we grow our food on. We need it more than it needs us so lets start treating it with the respect it deserves.

    it’s an election with no Democrats, in one of the whitest states in the union, where rich candidates pay $35 for your votes. Or, as Republicans call it, their vision for the future.

  7. The Drawing Room   -   #7
    Originally posted by vidcc@24 January 2004 - 18:00
    for me the arguements for or against global warming are futile...we polute too much and we really have no excuse of any real worth. I would hold this view even if every scientist in the world proved without question that it didn&#39;t cause global warming.
    This is the air we breathe, the water we drink and the land we grow our food on. We need it more than it needs us so lets start treating it with the respect it deserves.
    Tell it to the Chinese


    Report: Chinese demand for auto to quadruple by 2020...

    BEIJING, Jan. 22 (Xinhuanet) -- China&#39;s demand for automobiles in 2020 is expected to reach 20.74 million units, including 20.43 million sedans, and the total number of cars in China by then willtop 156 million, reported Tuesday&#39;s China Automobile News.

    http://news.xinhuanet.com/english/2004-01/...ent_1286778.htm

  8. The Drawing Room   -   #8
    Biggles's Avatar Looking for loopholes
    Join Date
    Jul 2003
    Location
    Scotland
    Age
    60
    Posts
    8,804
    Originally posted by vidcc@24 January 2004 - 23:00
    for me the arguements for or against global warming are futile...we polute too much and we really have no excuse of any real worth. I would hold this view even if every scientist in the world proved without question that it didn&#39;t cause global warming.
    This is the air we breathe, the water we drink and the land we grow our food on. We need it more than it needs us so lets start treating it with the respect it deserves.
    I would tend to agree with this.

    I made my views on the current state of knowledge regarding climate fluctuation in the last thread. However, if we can avoid soiling our own nest I would prefer to take that option. Dioxins, chemicals which mimic oestrogen, and pollutants that seem to give ever more children asthma are not something I want to be party too. When I was a kid I can recall one kid in my school that had asthma - now it seems like every class has half a dozen.

    Whilst not a paid up member of the open toed sandal brigade, I do want to pass a spoiled world on to my kids.

    There has to be balance and those who would make a quick buck at the expense of the environment which belongs to us all need the choke chain put on them.
    Cogito cogito ergo cogito sum


  9. The Drawing Room   -   #9
    vidcc's Avatar there is no god
    Join Date
    Dec 2003
    Location
    USA
    Posts
    5,630
    Originally posted by <TROUBLE^MAKER>+24 January 2004 - 23:10--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (<TROUBLE^MAKER> @ 24 January 2004 - 23:10)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'> <!--QuoteBegin-vidcc@24 January 2004 - 18:00
    for me the arguements for or against global warming are futile...we polute too much and we really have no excuse of any real worth. I would hold this view even if every scientist in the world proved without question that it didn&#39;t cause global warming.
    This is the air we breathe, the water we drink and the land we grow our food on. We need it more than it needs us so lets start treating it with the respect it deserves.
    Tell it to the Chinese


    Report: Chinese demand for auto to quadruple by 2020...

    BEIJING, Jan. 22 (Xinhuanet) -- China&#39;s demand for automobiles in 2020 is expected to reach 20.74 million units, including 20.43 million sedans, and the total number of cars in China by then willtop 156 million, reported Tuesday&#39;s China Automobile News.

    http://news.xinhuanet.com/english/2004-01/...ent_1286778.htm [/b][/quote]
    erm when i say we i mean mankind... or did you arogantly assume i just mean the USA?.....you kind of helped my point though.
    i could go through a list of the worst poluters who just don&#39;t give a damm and i could go through those that say they want to help but in reality are just talking out their backsides but my point is a global issue about mankind.
    i am not pointing a finger at any one nation ( if you want to do that be my guest, as long as you can judge your own nation with the same critical standard )

    it’s an election with no Democrats, in one of the whitest states in the union, where rich candidates pay $35 for your votes. Or, as Republicans call it, their vision for the future.

  10. The Drawing Room   -   #10
    vidcc's Avatar there is no god
    Join Date
    Dec 2003
    Location
    USA
    Posts
    5,630
    Originally posted by Biggles@24 January 2004 - 23:17
    Whilst not a paid up member of the open toed sandal brigade, I do want to pass a spoiled world on to my kids.

    isn&#39;t it funny how those people always look like they could do with a cleaning up ? perhaps they should consider everyone elses noses and filter the smell from their feet

    it’s an election with no Democrats, in one of the whitest states in the union, where rich candidates pay $35 for your votes. Or, as Republicans call it, their vision for the future.

Page 1 of 3 123 LastLast

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •