MonroeTalks.com > Categories > Science & Technology > Global Warming Debate


Pages: [1] 2 3   Go Down

Author Topic: Global Warming Debate  (Read 4315 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

excelsior

  • Hero Talker
  • ******
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 4385
Global Warming Debate
« on: February 20, 2012, 10:38:18 PM »

Two groups of scientists are volleying over global warming.

No Need to Panic About Global Warming   
JANUARY 27, 2012
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052970204301404577171531838421366.html

Editor's Note: The following has been signed by the 16 scientists listed at the end of the article:
A candidate for public office in any contemporary democracy may have to consider what, if anything, to do about "global warming." Candidates should understand that the oft-repeated claim that nearly all scientists demand that something dramatic be done to stop global warming is not true. In fact, a large and growing number of distinguished scientists and engineers do not agree that drastic actions on global warming are needed.

Check With Climate Scientists for Views on Climate
FEBRUARY 1, 2012
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052970204740904577193270727472662.html

Do you consult your dentist about your heart condition? In science, as in any area, reputations are based on knowledge and expertise in a field and on published, peer-reviewed work. If you need surgery, you want a highly experienced expert in the field who has done a large number of the proposed operations.

You published "No Need to Panic About Global Warming" (op-ed, Jan. 27) on climate change by the climate-science equivalent of dentists practicing cardiology. While accomplished in their own fields, most of these authors have no expertise in climate science. The few authors who have such expertise are known to have extreme views that are out of step with nearly every other climate expert. This happens in nearly every field of science. For example, there is a retrovirus expert who does not accept that HIV causes AIDS. And it is instructive to recall that a few scientists continued to state that smoking did not cause cancer, long after that was settled science.


Concerned Scientists Reply on Global Warming
FEBRUARY 21, 2012
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052970203646004577213244084429540.html

Editor's Note: The authors of the following letter, listed below, are also the signatories of "No Need to Panic About Global Warming," an op-ed that appeared in the Journal on January 27. This letter responds to criticisms of the op-ed made by Kevin Trenberth and 37 others in a letter published Feb. 1, and by Robert Byer of the American Physical Society in a letter published Feb. 6.

The interest generated by our Wall Street Journal op-ed of Jan. 27, "No Need to Panic about Global Warming," is gratifying but so extensive that we will limit our response to the letter to the editor the Journal published on Feb. 1, 2012 by Kevin Trenberth and 37 other signatories, and to the Feb. 6 letter by Robert Byer, President of the American Physical Society. (We, of course, thank the writers of supportive letters.)
Logged
"The beginning of wisdom is a definition of terms." ~ Socrates

"No rational argument will have a rational effect on a man who does not want to adopt a rational attitude." ~ Karl Popper

"What vitiates entirely the socialists economic critique of capitalism is their failure to grasp the sovereignty of the consumers in the market economy." ~ Ludwig von Mises

“When the debate is lost, slander becomes the tool of the loser.”  ~ Socrates

Frenchfry

  • Hero Talker
  • ******
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 39903
Re: Global Warming Debate
« Reply #1 on: February 20, 2012, 10:51:50 PM »

Moved prior submission, seems more appropriate here:

INFLUENCE GAME: Leaks Show Group's Climate Efforts
Leaked documents from a prominent conservative think tank show how it sought to teach schoolchildren skepticism about global warming and planned other behind-the-scenes tactics using millions of dollars in donations from big corporate names.

More than $14 million of the money used by the Chicago-based Heartland Institute would come from one anonymous man, according to the leaked documents prepared for a meeting of the group's board.

Heartland is one of the loudest voices denying man-made global warming, hosting the largest international scientific conference of skeptics on climate change. Several of its documents were leaked this week to the news media, showing the planning and money behind its efforts. Heartland said some of the documents weren't accurate, but declined to be more specific.

As detailed in the papers, Heartland's plans for this year included paying an Energy Department consultant $100,000 to design a curriculum to teach school children that mainstream global warming science is in dispute, even though it's a fact accepted by the federal government and nearly every scientific professional organization. It also pays prominent global warming skeptics more than $300,000 a year and plans to raise $88,000 to help a former television weatherman set up a new temperature records website.

More here:
http://abcnews.go.com/Technology/wireStory/influence-game-leaks-show-groups-climate-efforts-15693816#.T0CPNfWXv5x

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

"...internal documents acquired by ThinkProgress Green reveal that the Heartland Institute, a right-wing think tank funded by the Koch brothers, Microsoft, and other top corporations, is planning to develop a "global warming curriculum" for elementary schoolchildren that presents climate science as "a major scientific controversy"...".
Climate Change Hoax For Kids - Documents Expose Corporate-Funded Plan   
Climate Change Hoax For Kids - Documents Expose Corporate-Funded Plan


-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------


Leak exposes how Heartland Institute works to undermine climate science
The billionaire Charles Koch, a key financier of the Heartland Institute, which works to undermine the established science on climate change.
http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2012/feb/15/leak-exposes-heartland-institute-climate


------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

In case you haven’t seen this, several world-leading climate scientists have published an open letter to the Heartland Institute. Here it is:

An Open Letter to the Heartland Institute


As scientists who have had their emails stolen, posted online and grossly misrepresented, we can appreciate the difficulties the Heartland Institute is currently experiencing following the online posting of the organization’s internal documents earlier this week. However, we are greatly disappointed by their content, which indicates the organization is continuing its campaign to discredit mainstream climate science and to undermine the teaching of well-established climate science in the classroom.

We know what it feels like to have private information stolen and posted online via illegal hacking. It happened to climate researchers in 2009 and again in 2011. Personal emails were culled through and taken out of context before they were posted online. In 2009, the Heartland Institute was among the groups that spread false allegations about what these stolen emails said. Despite multiple independent investigations, which demonstrated that allegations against scientists were false, the Heartland Institute continued to attack scientists based on the stolen emails. When more stolen emails were posted online in 2011, the Heartland Institute again pointed to their release and spread false claims about scientists.

So although we can agree that stealing documents and posting them online is not an acceptable practice, we would be remiss if we did not point out that the Heartland Institute has had no qualms about utilizing and distorting emails stolen from scientists.

We hope the Heartland Institute will heed its own advice to “think about what has happened” and recognize how its attacks on science and scientists have helped poison the debate over climate change policy. The Heartland Institute has chosen to undermine public understanding of basic scientific facts and personally attack climate researchers rather than engage in a civil debate about climate change policy options.

These are the facts: Climate change is occurring. Human activity is the primary cause of recent climate change. Climate change is already disrupting many human and natural systems. The more heat-trapping greenhouse gas emissions that go into the atmosphere, the more severe those disruptions will become. Major scientific assessments from the Royal Society, the U.S. National Academy of Sciences, United States Global Change Research Program and other authoritative sources agree on these points.

What businesses, policymakers, advocacy groups and citizens choose to do in response to those facts should be informed by the science. But those decisions are also necessarily informed by economic, ethical, ideological, and other considerations. While the Heartland Institute is entitled to its views on policy, we object to its practice of spreading misinformation about climate research and personally attacking climate scientists to further its goals.

We hope the Heartland Institute will begin to play a more constructive role in the policy debate. Refraining from misleading attacks on climate science and climate researchers would be a welcome first step toward having an honest, fact-based debate about the policy responses to climate change.

 

Ray Bradley, PhD, Director of the Climate System Research Center, University of Massachusetts

David Karoly, PhD, ARC Federation Fellow and Professor, University of Melbourne, Australia

Michael Mann, PhD, Director, Earth System Science Center, Pennsylvania State University

Jonathan Overpeck, PhD, Professor of Geosciences and Atmospheric Sciences, University of Arizona

Ben Santer, PhD, Research Scientist, Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory Gavin Schmidt, PhD, Climate Scientist, NASA Goddard Institute for Space Studies

Kevin Trenberth, ScD, Distinguished Senior Scientist, Climate Analysis Section, National Center for Atmospheric Research
http://planetsave.com/2012/02/18/open-letter-to-heartland-institute-from-climate-scientists/
Logged
This is what I see when I visit:

"Sorry Frenchfry, you are banned from posting and sending personal messages on this forum.
This ban is not set to expire."

No emails, no warnings, no communication whatsoever...just that ban

May be what happened to the other libs as well.

I guess disabling the report to admin link only on the lib side was indicative of the slanted games they play.

Enjoy your spoon-fed Faux News type right-wing echo-chamber.

Edited to add:

This is the only way to answer some of the questions posed:

1) I did nothing to warrant the banishment, it's political.

2) It's the router that's blocked but considering all the nonsense right-wing games being played by those running the site...it's just not worth it to bypass the banishment block.

3) The moron stalkers from MT contemplating a visit will be considered a threat and can expect to have a bad day if they act upon those idiotic thoughts.

bumfunkegypt@live.com

excelsior

  • Hero Talker
  • ******
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 4385
Re: Global Warming Debate
« Reply #2 on: February 21, 2012, 12:15:12 AM »

Moved prior submission, seems more appropriate here:



You need to connect these sixteen scientists to Heartland Institute for your post to be relevant to this debate post.
Logged
"The beginning of wisdom is a definition of terms." ~ Socrates

"No rational argument will have a rational effect on a man who does not want to adopt a rational attitude." ~ Karl Popper

"What vitiates entirely the socialists economic critique of capitalism is their failure to grasp the sovereignty of the consumers in the market economy." ~ Ludwig von Mises

“When the debate is lost, slander becomes the tool of the loser.”  ~ Socrates

BigRedDog

  • Hero Talker
  • ******
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 38857
  • 1969-1971
Re: Global Warming Debate
« Reply #3 on: February 21, 2012, 08:30:22 AM »

Do you consult your dentist about your heart condition?


While I am sure most people do NOT  consult their dentist about their heart they probably should.

There have been numerous cited cases where a dentist was the first to spot a coronary issue.  It happened to a friend of mine from Dundee...   she went to the dentist for her semi-annual cleaning and exam...    the dentist took one look at her gums and asked if she had seen cardiologist recently...    she made an appointment with a cardiologist and 3 days after that appointment she had to have a quad bypass :( :( :(

That was probably 4-5 years ago and she's still going strong today ;) ;) ;)

Quote
Heart Problems
Did you know that adopting mouth-healthy habits may ultimately keep your heart healthy, too? Research has found a surprising number of links between the state of your dental health and your heart. “Inflamed gums and loose teeth can be warnings of heart disease,” says Alyson Hope Koslow, DDS, a clinical assistant professor of restorative dentistry at the University of Illinois Chicago. That’s because if you have a gum disease like periodontitis, the bacteria in your gums could travel to your heart and contribute to coronary artery disease. Bacteria may also increase your risk for heart disease by contributing to the formation of clots or further plaque build-up in your arteries that can interfere with blood flow to the heart. One Swedish study found that people with more pockets of infection of the gum around the base of the tooth had a 53 per cent increased risk of heart attack compared to those with the fewest pockets. And as the recent AHA study found, regular dental cleanings will safeguard your smile and protect your ticker.


From:  http://www.guardian.co.tt/lifestyle/2012-02-16/health-problems-your-dentist-can-spot

I know every time I go to get my teeth cleaned my heart gets a workout just looking at the attractive young gal that cleans 'em ;) ;) ;)
Logged
Friends can email me at bigreddog481 at gmail dot com.  Non friends can just save their energy!!!

"It's always easy to come up with a solution to someone else's problems".

Skittelroo

  • Hero Talker
  • ******
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 3220
Re: Global Warming Debate
« Reply #4 on: February 21, 2012, 09:09:13 AM »


I know every time I go to get my teeth cleaned my heart gets a workout just looking at the attractive young gal that cleans 'em ;) ;) ;)

Why doesn't my dentist have cute young guys to do cleanings?   ;)
Logged

BigRedDog

  • Hero Talker
  • ******
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 38857
  • 1969-1971
Re: Global Warming Debate
« Reply #5 on: February 21, 2012, 09:14:34 AM »

Why doesn't my dentist have cute young guys to do cleanings?   ;)

Sometimes life just isn't fair Skittelroo ;) ;) ;)
Logged
Friends can email me at bigreddog481 at gmail dot com.  Non friends can just save their energy!!!

"It's always easy to come up with a solution to someone else's problems".

Skittelroo

  • Hero Talker
  • ******
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 3220
Re: Global Warming Debate
« Reply #6 on: February 21, 2012, 09:21:35 AM »

Sometimes life just isn't fair Skittelroo ;) ;) ;)

Yeah, but it's sure a rude awakening when you find out.   :'(
Logged

Frenchfry

  • Hero Talker
  • ******
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 39903
Re: Global Warming Debate
« Reply #7 on: February 21, 2012, 10:46:46 AM »


You need to connect these sixteen scientists to Heartland Institute for your post to be relevant to this debate post.
You need to realize you are powerless to make such demands.

The title says "Global Warming Debate"

The right will do anything to create the impression that there's doubt of validity.

Global Warming Fast Facts
http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2004/12/1206_041206_global_warming.html

Climate Change
http://www.epa.gov/climatechange/
Logged
This is what I see when I visit:

"Sorry Frenchfry, you are banned from posting and sending personal messages on this forum.
This ban is not set to expire."

No emails, no warnings, no communication whatsoever...just that ban

May be what happened to the other libs as well.

I guess disabling the report to admin link only on the lib side was indicative of the slanted games they play.

Enjoy your spoon-fed Faux News type right-wing echo-chamber.

Edited to add:

This is the only way to answer some of the questions posed:

1) I did nothing to warrant the banishment, it's political.

2) It's the router that's blocked but considering all the nonsense right-wing games being played by those running the site...it's just not worth it to bypass the banishment block.

3) The moron stalkers from MT contemplating a visit will be considered a threat and can expect to have a bad day if they act upon those idiotic thoughts.

bumfunkegypt@live.com

Baggins

  • Hero Talker
  • ******
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 3281
Re: Global Warming Debate
« Reply #8 on: February 21, 2012, 11:23:04 AM »

Panic over global warming? NO, but be aware and concerned...The trend is obvious, Arctic and Antarctic ice are having higher and higher melt rates...What that means isn't quite clear yet.  We're not seeing the end product of this, it's just begun.

This is something that can not be ignored and passed off as not happening just because you find it inconvenient or not profitable...
Whether mankinds activities are accelerating it or not, it's a matter of fact that "something" is happening.

Now I personally believe it is an effect of mankinds actions.  Our hack and burn and pollute mentality has gone on for decades unchecked (what laws and regulation that have been passed are laughable, no more than token efforts forced by circumstance) and it would be quite ignorant and very arrogant to think that we have no effect on our environment...Yet, that's just my opinion, I'm no expert, but I know how to do the research and read everything I can find on the studies being done...I also have eyes, and they see a sad story from all the glaciers of the world that have done nothing but recede over the past 30 years.



*BTW - I think this should be in the enviroment category...
« Last Edit: February 21, 2012, 11:29:47 AM by Baggins »
Logged
"Praise not the day until evening has come,
 A sword until it is tried,
 A maiden until she is married,
 Ice until it has been crossed,
 Beer until it has been drunk!" - (Viking proverb)

Will Sweat

  • Hero Talker
  • ******
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 4166
Re: Global Warming Debate
« Reply #9 on: February 21, 2012, 12:08:26 PM »

Panic over global warming? NO, but be aware and concerned...The trend is obvious, Arctic and Antarctic ice are having higher and higher melt rates...What that means isn't quite clear yet.  We're not seeing the end product of this, it's just begun.

This is something that can not be ignored and passed off as not happening just because you find it inconvenient or not profitable...
Whether mankinds activities are accelerating it or not, it's a matter of fact that "something" is happening.

Now I personally believe it is an effect of mankinds actions.  Our hack and burn and pollute mentality has gone on for decades unchecked (what laws and regulation that have been passed are laughable, no more than token efforts forced by circumstance) and it would be quite ignorant and very arrogant to think that we have no effect on our environment...Yet, that's just my opinion, I'm no expert, but I know how to do the research and read everything I can find on the studies being done...I also have eyes, and they see a sad story from all the glaciers of the world that have done nothing but recede over the past 30 years.



*BTW - I think this should be in the enviroment category...


I think the reason your approach will not be adopted is that it is reasoned and respectful.  I believe that there has been some level of environmental damage created by pollution.

What that level is - I don't know - I am not a scientist.  I do believe we are so far along the chain of need that thinking we can end production of fossil fuels is a silly idea in my lifetime.  I would like us to continue to expand our base of knowledge and look for other solutions.  I am not a fan of the current batteries being used in the Nissan Leaf or the GM Volt because of the very real damage such production can and possibly has caused.  So - we must continue to work for solutions.

I also think that both sides of the spectrum use misleading data to forward there own agenda.  Speaker Newt Gingrich believed in something enough to appear in an add with Speaker Nancy Pelosi and now calls it the worst mistake of his career.  Currently - the "Heartland Memo's" are being touted as "proof" of a grand conspiracy (see link below).  The problem is that there is also very real questions that they are "fake".  This reminds me of the "hockey stick" graph used to impugn Vice Pres. Gore and his film.  I guess my issue is . . . . instead of having battling scientist - why not just use common sense and say that after 150 years (my own, fake number) or industrial production . . . there must be some impact so - how do we move forward and minimize that impact?     

http://www.theatlantic.com/business/archive/2012/02/heartland-memo-looking-faker-by-the-minute/253276/

Logged
"While we try to teach our childern about life, our childern teach us what life is about"  - Angela Schmidt

BigRedDog

  • Hero Talker
  • ******
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 38857
  • 1969-1971
Re: Global Warming Debate
« Reply #10 on: February 21, 2012, 12:09:25 PM »

Logged
Friends can email me at bigreddog481 at gmail dot com.  Non friends can just save their energy!!!

"It's always easy to come up with a solution to someone else's problems".

excelsior

  • Hero Talker
  • ******
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 4385
Re: Global Warming Debate
« Reply #11 on: February 21, 2012, 01:18:57 PM »

The scientists in this debate are not linked to Heartland Institute to my knowledge, but anyone has information about a relationship then please post it.

Reports in the 1970's called for banning of aerosols because some scientists believed aerosol contained tiny particles that would get in the upper atmosphere and reflect sunshine.  These scientists predicted that we were headed for a second ice age.

The track record of Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) predictions can be seen in the chart below. 

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052970203646004577213244084429540.html



The computer-model predictions of alarming global warming have seriously exaggerated the warming by CO2 and have underestimated other causes. Since CO2 is not a pollutant but a substantial benefit to agriculture, and since its warming potential has been greatly exaggerated, it is time for the world to rethink its frenzied pursuit of decarbonization at any cost.

signed by:

Claude Allegre, former director of the Institute for the Study of the Earth, University of Paris; J. Scott Armstrong, cofounder of the Journal of Forecasting and the International Journal of Forecasting; Jan Breslow, head of the Laboratory of Biochemical Genetics and Metabolism, Rockefeller University; Roger Cohen, fellow, American Physical Society; Edward David, member, National Academy of Engineering and National Academy of Sciences; William Happer, professor of physics, Princeton; Michael Kelly, professor of technology, University of Cambridge, U.K.; William Kininmonth, former head of climate research at the Australian Bureau of Meteorology; Richard Lindzen, professor of atmospheric sciences, MIT; James McGrath, professor of chemistry, Virginia Technical University; Rodney Nichols, former president and CEO of the New York Academy of Sciences; Burt Rutan, aerospace engineer, designer of Voyager and SpaceShipOne; Harrison H. Schmitt, Apollo 17 astronaut and former U.S. senator; Nir Shaviv, professor of astrophysics, Hebrew University, Jerusalem; Henk Tennekes, former director, Royal Dutch Meteorological Service; Antoninio Zichichi, president of the World Federation of Scientists, Geneva.
Logged
"The beginning of wisdom is a definition of terms." ~ Socrates

"No rational argument will have a rational effect on a man who does not want to adopt a rational attitude." ~ Karl Popper

"What vitiates entirely the socialists economic critique of capitalism is their failure to grasp the sovereignty of the consumers in the market economy." ~ Ludwig von Mises

“When the debate is lost, slander becomes the tool of the loser.”  ~ Socrates

Baggins

  • Hero Talker
  • ******
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 3281
Re: Global Warming Debate
« Reply #12 on: February 21, 2012, 01:24:06 PM »

Well, I've never called for the complete elimination of the use of fossil fuels and start from scratch idea(though some have blamed me of such before), that would be a ridiculous notion...I don't know what the "answer" is, we have started on somewhat the right direction, but the way is full of blockades and those determind not to let those changes occur within their lifetimes.  It's a very hard sell to some very set-minded individuals.  Why is there such a movement against wind farms?  The whole NIMBY mindset is, if anything, selfish and petty...I would gladly have a wind turbine in my yard, knowing the cost savings and ZERO pollution!  I realise the argument of peek power issues, but that's something to be worked out, not a definitive argument against the feasibility of alternatives.

Solar and wind are FREE, other than the initial cost of set up and maintenance, which are minuscule compared to the continuing cost of using fossil fuels...In the long run you can not loose!

I also don't like the battery technologies we have now either, most of them are made with toxins harmful to the environment themselves(recycling only works if it's done all the time)...It doesn't make any sense to give up one poison for another...More work needs to be done.  It's not going to be fixed over night, considering it took decades to acknowledge there even was a problem.  Yet, some still vehemently deny there is one...The ones with the most to loose(oil companies, coal suppliers) have the biggest voice against any action taken towards an alternative future and will say and do anything within there power to stop it.


Logged
"Praise not the day until evening has come,
 A sword until it is tried,
 A maiden until she is married,
 Ice until it has been crossed,
 Beer until it has been drunk!" - (Viking proverb)

Baggins

  • Hero Talker
  • ******
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 3281
Re: Global Warming Debate
« Reply #13 on: February 21, 2012, 01:58:25 PM »



What this graph shows me is a trend of steady increase over time, regardless of what any prediction has said.  I don't care so much for the predictions as much as the actual trend being shown....The ups and down will happen, it's the end result that matters.
Logged
"Praise not the day until evening has come,
 A sword until it is tried,
 A maiden until she is married,
 Ice until it has been crossed,
 Beer until it has been drunk!" - (Viking proverb)

Baby Hitler

  • Guest
Re: Global Warming Debate
« Reply #14 on: February 21, 2012, 02:25:24 PM »

Reports in the 1970's called for banning of aerosols because some scientists believed aerosol contained tiny particles that would get in the upper atmosphere and reflect sunshine.  These scientists predicted that we were headed for a second ice age.
Actually, the particles deplete the ozone that protects us from UV light. And in case you didn't know, the ozone hole in the Antartic has continued to grow at an alarming rate.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ozone_depletion
Logged
Pages: [1] 2 3   Go Up