alexey Posted August 7, 2007 Share Posted August 7, 2007 http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/20122975/site/newsweek/site/newsweek/ Aug. 13, 2007 issue - Sen. Barbara Boxer had been chair of the Senate's Environment Committee for less than a month when the verdict landed last February. "Warming of the climate system is unequivocal," concluded a report by 600 scientists from governments, academia, green groups and businesses in 40 countries. Worse, there was now at least a 90 percent likelihood that the release of greenhouse gases from the burning of fossil fuels is causing longer droughts, more flood-causing downpours and worse heat waves, way up from earlier studies. Those who doubt the reality of human-caused climate change have spent decades disputing that. But Boxer figured that with "the overwhelming science out there, the deniers' days were numbered." As she left a meeting with the head of the international climate panel, however, a staffer had some news for her. A conservative think tank long funded by ExxonMobil, she told Boxer, had offered scientists $10,000 to write articles undercutting the new report and the computer-based climate models it is based on. "I realized," says Boxer, "there was a movement behind this that just wasn't giving up." If you think those who have long challenged the mainstream scientific findings about global warming recognize that the game is over, think again. Yes, 19 million people watched the "Live Earth" concerts last month, titans of corporate America are calling for laws mandating greenhouse cuts, "green" magazines fill newsstands, and the film based on Al Gore's best-selling book, "An Inconvenient Truth," won an Oscar. But outside Hollywood, Manhattan and other habitats of the chattering classes, the denial machine is running at full throttle—and continuing to shape both government policy and public opinion. Since the late 1980s, this well-coordinated, well-funded campaign by contrarian scientists, free-market think tanks and industry has created a paralyzing fog of doubt around climate change. Through advertisements, op-eds, lobbying and media attention, greenhouse doubters (they hate being called deniers) argued first that the world is not warming; measurements indicating otherwise are flawed, they said. Then they claimed that any warming is natural, not caused by human activities. Now they contend that the looming warming will be minuscule and harmless. "They patterned what they did after the tobacco industry," says former senator Tim Wirth, who spearheaded environmental issues as an under secretary of State in the Clinton administration. "Both figured, sow enough doubt, call the science uncertain and in dispute. That's had a huge impact on both the public and Congress." Just last year, polls found that 64 percent of Americans thought there was "a lot" of scientific disagreement on climate change; only one third thought planetary warming was "mainly caused by things people do." In contrast, majorities in Europe and Japan recognize a broad consensus among climate experts that greenhouse gases—mostly from the burning of coal, oil and natural gas to power the world's economies—are altering climate. A new NEWSWEEK Poll finds that the influence of the denial machine remains strong. Although the figure is less than in earlier polls, 39 percent of those asked say there is "a lot of disagreement among climate scientists" on the basic question of whether the planet is warming; 42 percent say there is a lot of disagreement that human activities are a major cause of global warming. Only 46 percent say the greenhouse effect is being felt today. As a result of the undermining of the science, all the recent talk about addressing climate change has produced little in the way of actual action. Yes, last September Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger signed a landmark law committing California to reduce statewide emissions of carbon dioxide to 1990 levels by 2020 and 80 percent more by 2050. And this year both Minnesota and New Jersey passed laws requiring their states to reduce greenhouse emissions 80 percent below recent levels by 2050. In January, nine leading corporations—including Alcoa, Caterpillar, Duke Energy, Du Pont and General Electric—called on Congress to "enact strong national legislation" to reduce greenhouse gases. But although at least eight bills to require reductions in greenhouse gases have been introduced in Congress, their fate is decidedly murky. The Democratic leadership in the House of Representatives decided last week not even to bring to a vote a requirement that automakers improve vehicle mileage, an obvious step toward reducing greenhouse emissions. Nor has there been much public pressure to do so. Instead, every time the scientific case got stronger, "the American public yawned and bought bigger cars," Rep. Rush Holt, a New Jersey congressman and physicist, recently wrote in the journal Science; politicians "shrugged, said there is too much doubt among scientists, and did nothing." It was 98 degrees in Washington on Thursday, June 23, 1988, and climate change was bursting into public consciousness. The Amazon was burning, wildfires raged in the United States, crops in the Midwest were scorched and it was shaping up to be the hottest year on record worldwide. A Senate committee, including Gore, had invited NASA climatologist James Hansen to testify about the greenhouse effect, and the members were not above a little stagecraft. The night before, staffers had opened windows in the hearing room. When Hansen began his testimony, the air conditioning was struggling, and sweat dotted his brow. It was the perfect image for the revelation to come. He was 99 percent sure, Hansen told the panel, that "the greenhouse effect has been detected, and it is changing our climate now." .... see link for full article Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DeanCollins Posted August 7, 2007 Share Posted August 7, 2007 It's all true :nana: :munchout: Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
portisizzle Posted August 7, 2007 Share Posted August 7, 2007 In the 1960's and the early 1970's is was all about "Global Cooling" Why don't the scientists get their story straight. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Larry Posted August 7, 2007 Share Posted August 7, 2007 In the 1960's and the early 1970's is was all about "Global Cooling" Why don't the scientists get their story straight. Two years ago it was all about "Global Warming isn't happening". Why can't the paid spinmeisters get their truth denial straight? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
alexey Posted August 7, 2007 Author Share Posted August 7, 2007 In the 1960's and the early 1970's is was all about "Global Cooling" Why don't the scientists get their story straight. Satisfying this requirement is impossible. Hopefully you are aware of this cute little logical flaw in your thinking. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
PeterMP Posted August 7, 2007 Share Posted August 7, 2007 In the 1960's and the early 1970's is was all about "Global Cooling" Why don't the scientists get their story straight. Global cooling was real. We were releasing particles from coal plants into the atmosphere. Those particles were blocking sun light. The coal plants were cleaned up, the particles went away, and cooling ended. Scientist can't help it when people change the conditions that are causing the phenomenon they are observing. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
alexey Posted August 7, 2007 Author Share Posted August 7, 2007 This country is capable of great things if we put our minds to it. Ideally we need something like the Apollo Program focused on energy independence. This challenge presents a great opportunity for human society to evolve. This kind of a push to evolve is certainly more desirable than nuclear war. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
portisizzle Posted August 7, 2007 Share Posted August 7, 2007 America was once a rainforest jungle. It will be again. America was also under ice. It will be again. And it will not matter to the Earth how many miles I run in my Ford Excursion burning fossil fuel. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
portisizzle Posted August 7, 2007 Share Posted August 7, 2007 Two years ago it was all about "Global Warming isn't happening". Why can't the paid spinmeisters get their truth denial straight? It was damn chilly this year on the East Coast....... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
frommd Posted August 7, 2007 Share Posted August 7, 2007 Global cooling was real. We were releasing particles from coal plants into the atmosphere. Those particles were blocking sun light. The coal plants were cleaned up, the particles went away, and cooling ended. Scientist can't help it when people change the conditions that are causing the phenomenon they are observing. Problem solved, bring back to the coal plants. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
alexey Posted August 7, 2007 Author Share Posted August 7, 2007 Skinner: Well, I was wrong. The lizards are a godsend. Lisa: But isn't that a bit short-sighted? What happens when we're overrun by lizards? Skinner: No problem. We simply release wave after wave of Chinese needle snakes. They'll wipe out the lizards. Lisa: But aren't the snakes even worse? Skinner: Yes, but we're prepared for that. We've lined up a fabulous type of gorilla that thrives on snake meat. Lisa: But then we're stuck with gorillas! Skinner: No, that's the beautiful part. When wintertime rolls around, the gorillas simply freeze to death. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
portisizzle Posted August 7, 2007 Share Posted August 7, 2007 Global cooling was real. We were releasing particles from coal plants into the atmosphere. Those particles were blocking sun light. The coal plants were cleaned up, the particles went away, and cooling ended. Scientist can't help it when people change the conditions that are causing the phenomenon they are observing. Bull. It was because the Earth was on a cooling trend. How do you explain the oppressive heat during the dust bowl? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
portisizzle Posted August 7, 2007 Share Posted August 7, 2007 Skinner: Well, I was wrong. The lizards are a godsend.Lisa: But isn't that a bit short-sighted? What happens when we're overrun by lizards? Skinner: No problem. We simply release wave after wave of Chinese needle snakes. They'll wipe out the lizards. Lisa: But aren't the snakes even worse? Skinner: Yes, but we're prepared for that. We've lined up a fabulous type of gorilla that thrives on snake meat. Lisa: But then we're stuck with gorillas! Skinner: No, that's the beautiful part. When wintertime rolls around, the gorillas simply freeze to death. You can take the dust bowl question as well if you would like. How many Excursions were driving around then? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Vinnick Posted August 7, 2007 Share Posted August 7, 2007 I don't see the harm in trying to clean up our methods. I wonder if the GOP had been harping on this topic for a few years, if some of the same sheeple would change their turns. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
portisizzle Posted August 7, 2007 Share Posted August 7, 2007 I don't see the harm in trying to clean up our methods. I wonder if the GOP had been harping on this topic for a few years, if some of the same sheeple would change their turns. No new refineries since the late 70's. Exactly what do you want cleaned up? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Vinnick Posted August 7, 2007 Share Posted August 7, 2007 More cash into Alt Energies that don't need refineries, for starters. Create an x-prize type situation for the brightest to start working on this. It solves more than just the environment. If we could get off the Saudi "oil" tip. Then they wouldn't be able to secretly fund the people who are on the other side of this "War On Terror". They'd implode on themselves. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
portisizzle Posted August 7, 2007 Share Posted August 7, 2007 More cash into Alt Energies that don't need refineries, for starters. Create an x-prize type situation for the brightest to start working on this. It solves more than just the environment. If we could get off the Saudi "oil" tip. Then they wouldn't be able to secretly fund the people who are on the other side of this "War On Terror". They'd implode on themselves. I would submit to you that if every human being rode bikes instead of cars it would make ZERO difference to our climate. If you want to eliminate fossil fuels from our energy options for geopolitical reasons then we are talking about a whole different subject. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Vinnick Posted August 7, 2007 Share Posted August 7, 2007 What do you have to support that claim? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
alexey Posted August 7, 2007 Author Share Posted August 7, 2007 I would submit to you that if every human being rode bikes instead of cars it would make ZERO difference to our climate. Would such submission include supporting arguments? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
PeterMP Posted August 7, 2007 Share Posted August 7, 2007 Bull. It was because the Earth was on a cooling trend. How do you explain the oppressive heat during the dust bowl? http://www.cicero.uio.no/media/1427.pdf Do you have any studies that say other wise? Anyway, you are mixing global phenomena w/ local phenomena. The cooling trend in the 70's itself was some what local in that the Northern hemisphere was more affected then the S. hemisphere (exactly what you'd expect from coal power plants, but not from a decrease in solar output). The oppressive heat during the dust bowl was a local phenomonea that I don't even have to take into account global changes (e.g. increase solar output) to explain. It is believed that it was the result of changes in the jet stream, which fluxates rather periodically (el nino vs. el nina), and appears to have little to nothing to do w/ solar output. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
portisizzle Posted August 7, 2007 Share Posted August 7, 2007 What do you have to support that claim? Temperature records for as long as we have kept them. What have you got that shows a direct correlation between temperature and driving cars? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
chomerics Posted August 7, 2007 Share Posted August 7, 2007 In the 1960's and the early 1970's is was all about "Global Cooling" Why don't the scientists get their story straight. Hmmm, better science, better satellites, and better understanding of the climate. Why can't YOU get YOUR story straight. Didn't you argue that the world was not warming? then argue, well, it is warming but it is natural cyclical warming? So which is it, are we warming or not? Why do you hold all others to an arbitrarily high standard simply because they disagree with you, yet you have the lowest of standards for those you agree with? Why not have the same standard for both and let the scientific facts and data decide what is going on? Is it because you know what the data shows, and lack the intestinal fortitude to admit a mistake, or is it because you believe everything the right wing media spews? In either case, you come out with egg on your face, so why not clean yourself up and admit that you were wrong on the issue? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
portisizzle Posted August 7, 2007 Share Posted August 7, 2007 The oppressive heat during the dust bowl was a local phenomonea that I don't even have to take into account global changes (e.g. increase solar output) to explain. It is believed that it was the result of changes in the jet stream, which fluxates rather periodically (el nino vs. el nina), and appears to have little to nothing to do w/ solar output. My good friend this is the same argument that would support your global warming assertion. Have you heard of island warming effect? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
chomerics Posted August 7, 2007 Share Posted August 7, 2007 I would submit to you that if every human being rode bikes instead of cars it would make ZERO difference to our climate. You could tell us that, but you would be 100% wrong. You can pull crap out of your arse all day long, but at the end of the day, when you have tried to sculpt the crap into something worthwhile, you are still left with a pile of crap, and smelly fingers. If you want to eliminate fossil fuels from our energy options for geopolitical reasons then we are talking about a whole different subject. Not for geopolitical reasons, but for simply geological ones. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
chomerics Posted August 7, 2007 Share Posted August 7, 2007 Temperature records for as long as we have kept them. What have you got that shows a direct correlation between temperature and driving cars? The amount of Co2 in the atmosphere has a direct correlation to temperature. Do you disagree or agree? Do you want me to PROVE to you the correlation, or will you give your mea culpa right now and admit that CO2 in the atmosphere has a direct correlation to temperature. You can also see an increase in CO2 with the increase of autos. Do you agree or disagree with this assertion, that as the amount of cars increases, so does the CO2 rate? Now, follow the logic, I know it is hard. . . IF, more cars make more CO2. . .AND More CO2 makes the temperature increase, THAN, more cars make the temperature increase. If A=>B and B=>C than A=>C it is logic 101 Portis. . . Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.