Nuclear energy would appear to be the logical solution. Of course the evils of that were a former item on the armageddonist agenda. We should be investing heavily in the safest ways to use nuclear energy, and how to dispose of the waste.
Global Warming - What Do You Believe - O. T.
- Thread starter Wesley
- Start date
Nuclear is certainly better than big coal and oil burning power plants, in my opinion.
With that said, however, I don't think it is the solution. Having more nuclear power would certainly help reduce the cost of power and ease our dependency on oil and coal but doing so might cause complacency regarding research and develpment of even better clean power technologies.
But if someone forced me to pick between our existing power plants or new nuclear power to replace them, I'd have to choose nuclear.
You mean like a former Haliburton CEO that is now our VP who lead the White House task force on Energy?
Regardless of what you adhere to, I am glad this topic is being discussed, and on a sports blog no less. I think everyone would agree on a need to reduce their energy consumption. If you believe everything will work itself out ask friends and family in California how they enjoied the rolling blackouts.
If we go back to Nuclear for the future, perhaps we could just put the toxic waste on board the Space Elevator and then send it into the sun. Sounds crazy, right?
The Audacious Space Elevator
The Audacious Space Elevator
We can put a m/f on the moon and bring them home safely. The Hubble Space Telescope is in Mars orbit and sending home crystal clear polaroids. If you want a ride to outer space, call Richard Branson of Virgin and he will let your ride along for a million moondust.
How many decades of safe nuclear power (most built in the 60s) does it take to get over this debate. 20% of US power comes from nuclear, US battleships and submarines use nuclear power, not carbon based fuels and they get shot at. Where is the movement towards nuclear?
How many decades of safe nuclear power (most built in the 60s) does it take to get over this debate. 20% of US power comes from nuclear, US battleships and submarines use nuclear power, not carbon based fuels and they get shot at. Where is the movement towards nuclear?
And I just LOVE how Dr. Heidi Cullen plays that off by saying, "well, there were only 2 scientists that believed in global cooling. The rest of the scientists knew back then that global warming was a threat."
Yes, I hate on Dr. Heidi Cullen a lot, but i get sick of hearing her run her mouth in her commercials every morning when I'm trying to get the day's forecast...
There are enough mutants over there already. So maybe noone would notice.:yes4lo:
Let's just put that sh*t on a rocket and shoot it at the moon. We would get better lighting from it that way:laugh8kb:
My mom sent me the email comparing Bush's house in Crawford to Gore's House in Tennessee, I think it was titled "Who's the Environmentalist???" here was my response:
Yes, it is true. People were making cracks at Bush's environmental and energy policies when they came out in 2001 because they seemed so backwards from his own personal energy policy. I also enjoy the truly wonderful journalistic work of "Source: TV, online and talk radio"...yeah, everything on the internet and on talk radio is absolutely true, especially when they reference numbers...but that's non-sequitur...ultimately, actions do speak louder than words, and there will be change in Gore's lifestyle in the next 4-6 months, or he'll lose face. To me the important issue is the context of each person's decisions. Gore has, incorrectly and immorally, overlooked his own personal excesses while making a decision to focus on solving a problem that is much larger than himself (e.g. global warming) that CAN actually lead to a solution within our lifetimes. Bush has overlooked a GLOBAL problem, while making sound personal choices like solar heating and water reclamation, but let's look at the scope of the problem again. If you think that passive solar heating, geothermal heating, and reclaiming water are going to save the world, I've got news for you: Your kids are screwed!
Let's look at one common "Top 10 things you can do to be green": Change to Compact Fluorescent bulbs!
Desired effect: "If everybody traded one light bulb, the impact would be like taking 1 million cars off the road for one year or the ability to light 7 million additional homes in the United States". Sounds great, right?
Well, in the time it takes to change those bulbs (let's be aggressive and say 1 year) we've added approximately 18 million cars to the road globally (so in total that's a net gain of 11 million cars) these cars are manufactured to meet certain Corporate Average Fuel Economy (CAFE) standards and future targets for emissions. Who sets those emissions standards and future targets? The EPA. Those target reductions haven't changed for passenger cars since 1974....read that again....1974. The target in 1974 was to reach 27.5 miles/gallon in all passenger cars by 1985. What's the standard today? 27.5 mpg, with a re-classification for "small trucks", they only have to get 20.7 (amended in 2004). So, ok, Gore has a bigger house, but Bush allowed ratification of environmental policy that enables roughly 11 million new cars on the road to emit the same level of pollution as the did in 1985, some he LOWERED the standard. I'm not going to calculate the 6.8 mpg lower standard he allowed and multiply it by 1 million new light trucks and SUVs (~1 in 11 vehicles), times 15,000 miles travelled annually per average vehicle times 2,421 grams of CO2 emitted per gallon of gasoline to get 534,044.118 TONS of net CO2 gain allowed by the lowering of that one standard....oops, I calculated! :biggrin9gp:
Ok, so on a global scale, I'll yield that Gore didn't "change the light-bulbs" at his overly large house, but he IS arguing for policy that will change the way we think about technology and that will unleash the ingenuity of scientists, scholars and professionals to create new technology that is desperately needed solve a GLOBAL problem. Bush made a good decision to "change the light-bulbs" on his house, and has allowed for poor GLOBAL policy to pass under his watch as president. I don't care how big Gore's house is, he's not emitting over a half a million tons of carbon a year....
Ultimately this is all just banter to win sides: what are they going to spout off next, that Bush re-painted the white house white again this year to help with passive solar absorption and lower heating bills in the summer?
I hate to be cynical, but I would bet the homes, incomes, cars and energy usage of the people on this email are all 2x to 3x the average US family (2,349 sf in 2005 per US Census)....but everybody needs a scapegoat.
It appears from the first article that man is responsible for 4% carbon dioxide. If you spend 3 trillion dollars, you can sink a fourth of it in the oceans if technology becomes available. That would solve 1% of the carbon dioxide. That might put the polar bears uin a better mood. Cheaper to cut back CO2 outputs. Nuclear energy fuel is weak lin for the move to nucleat. They are using a lot of recycled uranium derived from outdated bombs anmd 3 main mining areas in the world including Austraiia. It is limited and the price is sure to rise. I like wind generators. It appears Iowa may lead the nation at 976 outfits. Ted Kennedy is still fighting wind turbines off Nantucket. Poor Ted.
I don't really know what to believe. Our Sociology professor did try to brainwash us into believing the entire An Inconvenient Truth film we watched in class. I have to say, the beginning was kind of interesting, but Gore put me to sleep about 30 mins in.
'Five Years Left To Save The Planet'
Updated: 12:30, Tuesday May 15, 2007
<H2>Our planet is just five years away from climate change catastrophe - but can still be saved, according to a new report.
</H2>
Planet is five years from disaster
The World Wide Fund for Nature (WWF) warns governments have until 2012 to "plant the seeds of change" and make positive moves to limit carbon emissions.
If they fail to do so, the WWF's Vision For 2050 warns "generations to come will have to live with the compromises and hardships caused by their inability to act".
"We have a small window of time in which we can plant the seeds of change, and that is the next five years," James Leape, from the WWF, said.
"We cannot afford to waste them. This is not something that governments can put off until the future."
Between now and 2050, the world's energy needs are expected to double.
But the Climate Solutions document says technologies already available could be harnessed to produce enough sustainable energy to power the planet while also reducing greenhouse gas emissions by 60-80%.
The WWF report also states that nuclear power is not necessary to cut carbon emissions.
The finding is in stark contrast to the UK Government's insistence upon the need to go nuclear.
Keith Allott, head of WWF-UK's climate change programmes, said: "This report shows that although the scale of the climate change challenge can seem daunting, it can be tackled provided we act with real urgency.
"We can slash carbon emissions and meet global energy demand without resorting to the red herring of nuclear power.
"The big question is whether the world's statesmen will have the strength and vision to make this happen - and Britain will be key to that."
Updated: 12:30, Tuesday May 15, 2007
<H2>Our planet is just five years away from climate change catastrophe - but can still be saved, according to a new report.
</H2>
The World Wide Fund for Nature (WWF) warns governments have until 2012 to "plant the seeds of change" and make positive moves to limit carbon emissions.
If they fail to do so, the WWF's Vision For 2050 warns "generations to come will have to live with the compromises and hardships caused by their inability to act".
"We have a small window of time in which we can plant the seeds of change, and that is the next five years," James Leape, from the WWF, said.
"We cannot afford to waste them. This is not something that governments can put off until the future."
Between now and 2050, the world's energy needs are expected to double.
But the Climate Solutions document says technologies already available could be harnessed to produce enough sustainable energy to power the planet while also reducing greenhouse gas emissions by 60-80%.
The WWF report also states that nuclear power is not necessary to cut carbon emissions.
The finding is in stark contrast to the UK Government's insistence upon the need to go nuclear.
Keith Allott, head of WWF-UK's climate change programmes, said: "This report shows that although the scale of the climate change challenge can seem daunting, it can be tackled provided we act with real urgency.
"We can slash carbon emissions and meet global energy demand without resorting to the red herring of nuclear power.
"The big question is whether the world's statesmen will have the strength and vision to make this happen - and Britain will be key to that."
Climate Momentum Shifting: Prominent Scientists Reverse Belief in Man-made Global Warming - Now Skeptics
Growing Number of Scientists Convert to Skeptics After Reviewing New Research
Following the U.S. Senate's vote today on a global warming measure (see today's AP article: Senate Defeats Climate Change Measure,) it is an opportune time to examine the recent and quite remarkable momentum shift taking place in climate science. Many former believers in catastrophic man-made global warming have recently reversed themselves and are now climate skeptics. The names included below are just a sampling of the prominent scientists who have spoken out recently to oppose former Vice President Al Gore, the United Nations, and the media driven “consensus” on man-made global warming. Growing Number of Scientists Convert to Skeptics After Reviewing New Research
The list below is just the tip of the iceberg. A more detailed and comprehensive sampling of scientists who have only recently spoken out against climate hysteria will be forthcoming in a soon to be released U.S. Senate report. Please stay tuned to this website, as this new government report is set to redefine the current climate debate.
In the meantime, please review the list of scientists below and ask yourself why the media is missing one of the biggest stories in climate of 2007. Feel free to distribute the partial list of scientists who recently converted to skeptics to your local schools and universities. The voices of rank and file scientists opposing climate doomsayers can serve as a counter to the alarmism that children are being exposed to on a daily basis. (See Washington Post April 16, 2007 article about kids fearing of a “climactic Armageddon”)
The media's climate fear factor seemingly grows louder even as the latest science grows less and less alarming by the day. (See Der Spiegel May 7, 2007 article: Not the End of the World as We Know It ) It is also worth noting that the proponents of climate fears are increasingly attempting to suppress dissent by skeptics. (See UPI May 10, 2007 article: U.N. official says it's 'completely immoral' to doubt global warming fears ) Once Believers, Now Skeptics ( Link to pdf version )
Geophysicist Dr. Claude Allegre, a top geophysicist and French Socialist who has authored more than 100 scientific articles and written 11 books and received numerous scientific awards including the Goldschmidt Medal from the Geochemical Society of the United States, converted from climate alarmist to skeptic in 2006. Allegre, who was one of the first scientists to sound global warming fears 20 years ago, now says the cause of climate change is "unknown" and accused the “prophets of doom of global warming” of being motivated by money, noting that "the ecology of helpless protesting has become a very lucrative business for some people!" “Glaciers’ chronicles or historical archives point to the fact that climate is a capricious phenomena. This fact is confirmed by mathematical meteorological theories. So, let us be cautious,” Allegre explained in a September 21, 2006 article in the French newspaper L'EXPRESS. The National Post in Canada also profiled Allegre on March 2, 2007, noting “Allegre has the highest environmental credentials. The author of early environmental books, he fought successful battles to protect the ozone layer from CFCs and public health from lead pollution.” Allegre now calls fears of a climate disaster "simplistic and obscuring the true dangers” mocks "the greenhouse-gas fanatics whose proclamations consist in denouncing man's role on the climate without doing anything about it except organizing conferences and preparing protocols that become dead letters." Allegre, a member of both the French and U.S. Academy of Sciences, had previously expressed concern about manmade global warming. "By burning fossil fuels, man enhanced the concentration of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere which has raised the global mean temperature by half a degree in the last century," Allegre wrote 20 years ago. In addition, Allegre was one of 1500 scientists who signed a November 18, 1992 letter titled “World Scientists' Warning to Humanity” in which the scientists warned that global warming’s “potential risks are very great.”
Geologist Bruno Wiskel of the University of Alberta recently reversed his view of man-made climate change and instead became a global warming skeptic. Wiskel was once such a big believer in man-made global warming that he set out to build a “Kyoto house” in honor of the UN sanctioned Kyoto Protocol which was signed in 1997. Wiskel wanted to prove that the Kyoto Protocol’s goals were achievable by people making small changes in their lives. But after further examining the science behind Kyoto, Wiskel reversed his scientific views completely and became such a strong skeptic, that he recently wrote a book titled “The Emperor's New Climate: Debunking the Myth of Global Warming.” A November 15, 2006 Edmonton Sun article explains Wiskel’s conversion while building his “Kyoto house”: “Instead, he said he realized global warming theory was full of holes and ‘red flags,’ and became convinced that humans are not responsible for rising temperatures.” Wiskel now says “the truth has to start somewhere.” Noting that the Earth has been warming for 18,000 years, Wiskel told the Canadian newspaper, “If this happened once and we were the cause of it, that would be cause for concern. But glaciers have been coming and going for billions of years." Wiskel also said that global warming has gone "from a science to a religion” and noted that research money is being funneled into promoting climate alarmism instead of funding areas he considers more worthy. "If you funnel money into things that can't be changed, the money is not going into the places that it is needed,” he said.
Astrophysicist Dr. Nir Shaviv,javascript:void(0);/*1179274529322*/one of Israel's top young award winning scientists, recanted his belief that manmade emissions were driving climate change. ""Like many others, I was personally sure that CO2 is the bad culprit in the story of global warming. But after carefully digging into the evidence, I realized that things are far more complicated than the story sold to us by many climate scientists or the stories regurgitated by the media. In fact, there is much more than meets the eye,” Shaviv said in February 2, 2007 Canadian National Post article. According to Shaviv, the C02 temperature link is only “incriminating circumstantial evidence.” "Solar activity can explain a large part of the 20th-century global warming" and "it is unlikely that [the solar climate link] does not exist,” Shaviv noted pointing to the impact cosmic- rays have on the atmosphere. According to the National Post, Shaviv believes that even a doubling of CO2 in the atmosphere by 2100 "will not dramatically increase the global temperature." “Even if we halved the CO2 output, and the CO2 increase by 2100 would be, say, a 50% increase relative to today instead of a doubled amount, the expected reduction in the rise of global temperature would be less than 0.5C. This is not significant,” Shaviv explained. Shaviv also wrote on August 18, 2006 that a colleague of his believed that “CO2 should have a large effect on climate” so “he set out to reconstruct the phanerozoic temperature. He wanted to find the CO2 signature in the data, but since there was none, he slowly had to change his views.” Shaviv believes there will be more scientists converting to man-made global warming skepticism as they discover the dearth of evidence. “I think this is common to many of the scientists who think like us (that is, that CO2 is a secondary climate driver). Each one of us was working in his or her own niche. While working there, each one of us realized that things just don't add up to support the AGW (Anthropogenic Global Warming) picture. So many had to change their views,” he wrote.
Mathematician & engineer Dr. David Evans, who did carbon accounting for the Australian Government, recently detailed his conversion to a skeptic. “I devoted six years to carbon accounting, building models for the Australian government to estimate carbon emissions from land use change and forestry. When I started that job in 1999 the evidence that carbon emissions caused global warming seemed pretty conclusive, but since then new evidence has weakened the case that carbon emissions are the main cause. I am now skeptical,” Evans wrote in an April 30, 2007 blog. “But after 2000 the evidence for carbon emissions gradually got weaker -- better temperature data for the last century, more detailed ice core data, then laboratory evidence that cosmic rays precipitate low clouds,” Evans wrote. “As Lord Keynes famously said, ‘When the facts change, I change my mind. What do you do, sir?’” he added. Evans noted how he benefited from climate fears as a scientist. “And the political realm in turn fed money back into the scientific community. By the late 1990's, lots of jobs depended on the idea that carbon emissions caused global warming. Many of them were bureaucratic, but there were a lot of science jobs created too. I was on that gravy train, making a high wage in a science job that would not have existed if we didn't believe carbon emissions caused global warming. And so were lots of people around me; and there were international conferences full of such people. And we had political support, the ear of government, big budgets, and we felt fairly important and useful (well, I did anyway). It was great. We were working to save the planet! But starting in about 2000, the last three of the four pieces of evidence outlined above fell away or reversed,” Evans wrote. “The pre-2000 ice core data was the central evidence for believing that atmospheric carbon caused temperature increases. The new ice core data shows that past warmings were *not* initially caused by rises in atmospheric carbon, and says nothing about the strength of any amplification. This piece of evidence casts reasonable doubt that atmospheric carbon had any role in past warmings, while still allowing the possibility that it had a supporting role,” he added. “Unfortunately politics and science have become even more entangled. The science of global warming has become a partisan political issue, so positions become more entrenched. Politicians and the public prefer simple and less-nuanced messages. At the moment the political climate strongly supports carbon emissions as the cause of global warming, to the point of sometimes rubbishing or silencing critics,” he concluded. (Evansbio link )
Climate researcher Dr. Tad Murty, former Senior Research Scientist for Fisheries and Oceans in Canada, also reversed himself from believer in man-made climate change to a skeptic. “I stated with a firm belief about global warming, until I started working on it myself,” Murty explained on August 17, 2006. “I switched to the other side in the early 1990's when Fisheries and Oceans Canada asked me to prepare a position paper and I started to look into the problem seriously,” Murty explained. Murty was one of the 60 scientists who wrote an April 6, 2006 letter urging withdrawal of Kyoto to Canadian prime minister Stephen Harper which stated in part, "If, back in the mid-1990s, we knew what we know today about climate, Kyoto would almost certainly not exist, because we would have concluded it was not necessary.”
Botanist Dr. David Bellamy, a famed UK environmental campaigner, former lecturer at Durham University and host of a popular UK TV series on wildlife, recently converted into a skeptic after reviewing the science and now calls global warming fears "poppycock." According to a May 15, 2005 article in the UK Sunday Times, Bellamy said “global warming is largely a natural phenomenon. The world is wasting stupendous amounts of money on trying to fix something that can’t be fixed.” “The climate-change people have no proof for their claims. They have computer models which do not prove anything,” Bellamy added. Bellamy’s conversion on global warming did not come without a sacrifice as several environmental groups have ended their association with him because of his views on climate change. The severing of relations came despite Bellamy’s long activism for green campaigns. The UK Times reported Bellamy “won respect from hardline environmentalists with his campaigns to save Britain’s peat bogs and other endangered habitats. In Tasmania he was arrested when he tried to prevent loggers cutting down a rainforest.”
Climate scientist Dr. Chris de Freitas of The University of Auckland, N.Z., also converted from a believer in man-made global warming to a skeptic. “At first I accepted that increases in human caused additions of carbon dioxide and methane in the atmosphere would trigger changes in water vapor etc. and lead to dangerous ‘global warming,’ But with time and with the results of research, I formed the view that, although it makes for a good story, it is unlikely that the man-made changes are drivers of significant climate variation.” de Freitas wrote on August 17, 2006. “I accept there may be small changes. But I see the risk of anything serious to be minute,” he added. “One could reasonably argue that lack of evidence is not a good reason for complacency. But I believe the billions of dollars committed to GW research and lobbying for GW and for Kyoto treaties etc could be better spent on uncontroversial and very real environmental problems (such as air pollution, poor sanitation, provision of clean water and improved health services) that we know affect tens of millions of people,” de Freitas concluded. de Freitas was one of the 60 scientists who wrote an April 6, 2006 letter urging withdrawal of Kyoto to Canadian prime minister Stephen Harper which stated in part, “Significant [scientific] advances have been made since the [Kyoto] protocol was created, many of which are taking us away from a concern about increasing greenhouse gases.”
Meteorologist Dr. Reid Bryson, the founding chairman of the Department of Meteorology at University of Wisconsin (now the Department of Oceanic and Atmospheric Sciences, was pivotal in promoting the coming ice age scare of the 1970’s ( See Time Magazine’s 1974 article “Another Ice Age” citing Bryson: & see Newsweek’s 1975 article “The Cooling World” citing Bryson) has now converted into a leading global warming skeptic. In February 8, 2007 Bryson dismissed what he terms "sky is falling" man-made global warming fears. Bryson, was on the United Nations Global 500 Roll of Honor and was identified by the British Institute of Geographers as the most frequently cited climatologist in the world. “Before there were enough people to make any difference at all, two million years ago, nobody was changing the climate, yet the climate was changing, okay?” Bryson told the May 2007 issue of Energy Cooperative News. “All this argument is the temperature going up or not, it’s absurd. Of course it’s going up. It has gone up since the early 1800s, before the Industrial Revolution, because we’re coming out of the Little Ice Age, not because we’re putting more carbon dioxide into the air,” Bryson said. “You can go outside and spit and have the same effect as doubling carbon dioxide,” he added. “We cannot say what part of that warming was due to mankind's addition of ‘greenhouse gases’ until we consider the other possible factors, such as aerosols. The aerosol content of the atmosphere was measured during the past century, but to my knowledge this data was never used. We can say that the question of anthropogenic modification of the climate is an important question -- too important to ignore. However, it has now become a media free-for-all and a political issue more than a scientific problem,” Bryson explained in 2005.
Global warming author and economist Hans H.J. Labohm started out as a man-made global warming believer but he later switched his view after conducting climate research. Labohm wrote on August 19, 2006, “I started as a anthropogenic global warming believer, then I read the [UN’s IPCC] Summary for Policymakers and the research of prominent skeptics.” “After that, I changed my mind,” Labohn explained. Labohn co-authored the 2004 book “Man-Made Global Warming: Unraveling a Dogma,” with chemical engineer **** Thoenes who was the former chairman of the Royal Netherlands Chemical Society. Labohm was one of the 60 scientists who wrote an April 6, 2006 letter urging withdrawal of Kyoto to Canadian prime minister Stephen Harper which stated in part, “’Climate change is real’ is a meaningless phrase used repeatedly by activists to convince the public that a climate catastrophe is looming and humanity is the cause. Neither of these fears is justified. Global climate changes all the time due to natural causes and the human impact still remains impossible to distinguish from this natural ‘noise.’”
Paleoclimatologist Tim Patterson, of Carlton University in Ottawa converted from believer in C02 driving the climate change to a skeptic. “I taught my students that CO2 was the prime driver of climate change,” Patterson wrote on April 30, 2007. Patterson said his “conversion” happened following his research on “the nature of paleo-commercial fish populations in the NE Pacific.” “[My conversion from believer to climate skeptic] came about approximately 5-6 years ago when results began to come in from a major NSERC (Natural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of Canada) Strategic Project Grant where I was PI (principle investigator),” Patterson explained. “Over the course of about a year, I switched allegiances,” he wrote. “As the proxy results began to come in, we were astounded to find that paleoclimatic and paleoproductivity records were full of cycles that corresponded to various sun-spot cycles. About that time, [geochemist] Jan Veizer and others began to publish reasonable hypotheses as to how solar signals could be amplified and control climate,” Patterson noted. Patterson says his conversion “probably cost me a lot of grant money. However, as a scientist I go where the science takes me and not were activists want me to go.” Patterson now asserts that more and more scientists are converting to climate skeptics. "When I go to a scientific meeting, there's lots of opinion out there, there's lots of discussion (about climate change). I was at the Geological Society of America meeting in Philadelphia in the fall and I would say that people with my opinion were probably in the majority,” Patterson told the Winnipeg Sun on February 13, 2007. Patterson, who believes the sun is responsible for the recent warm up of the Earth, ridiculed the environmentalists and the media for not reporting the truth. "But if you listen to [Canadian environmental activist David] Suzuki and the media, it's like a tiger chasing its tail. They try to outdo each other and all the while proclaiming that the debate is over but it isn't -- come out to a scientific meeting sometime,” Patterson said. In a separate interview on April 26, 2007 with a Canadian newspaper, Patterson explained that the scientific proof favors skeptics. “I think the proof in the pudding, based on what (media and governments) are saying, (is) we're about three quarters of the way (to disaster) with the doubling of CO2 in the atmosphere," he said. “The world should be heating up like crazy by now, and it's not. The temperatures match very closely with the solar cycles."
Physicist Dr. Zbigniew Jaworowski, chairman of the Central Laboratory for the United Nations Scientific Committee on the Effects of Radiological Protection in Warsaw, took a scientific journey from a believer of man-made climate change in the form of global cooling in the 1970’s all the way to converting to a skeptic of current predictions of catastrophic man-made global warming. “At the beginning of the 1970s I believed in man-made climate cooling, and therefore I started a study on the effects of industrial pollution on the global atmosphere, using glaciers as a history book on this pollution,” Dr. Jaworowski, wrote on August 17, 2006. “With the advent of man-made warming political correctness in the beginning of 1980s, I already had a lot of experience with polar and high altitude ice, and I have serious problems in accepting the reliability of ice core CO2 studies,” Jaworowski added. Jaworowski, who has published many papers on climate with a focus on CO2 measurements in ice cores, also dismissed the UN IPCC summary and questioned what the actual level of C02 was in the atmosphere in a March 16, 2007 report in EIR science entitled “CO2: The Greatest Scientific Scandal of Our Time.” “We thus find ourselves in the situation that the entire theory of man-made global warming—with its repercussions in science, and its important consequences for politics and the global economy—is based on ice core studies that provided a false picture of the atmospheric CO2 levels,” Jaworowski wrote. “For the past three decades, these well-known direct CO2 measurements, recently compiled and analyzed by Ernst-Georg Beck (Beck 2006a, Beck 2006b, Beck 2007), were completely ignored by climatologists—and not because they were wrong. Indeed, these measurements were made by several Nobel Prize winners, using the techniques that are standard textbook procedures in chemistry, biochemistry, botany, hygiene, medicine, nutrition, and ecology. The only reason for rejection was that these measurements did not fit the hypothesis of anthropogenic climatic warming. I regard this as perhaps the greatest scientific scandal of our time,” Jaworowski wrote. “The hypothesis, in vogue in the 1970s, stating that emissions of industrial dust will soon induce the new Ice Age, seem now to be a conceited anthropocentric exaggeration, bringing into discredit the science of that time. The same fate awaits the present,” he added. Jaworowski believes that cosmic rays and solar activity are major drivers of the Earth’s climate. Jaworowski was one of the 60 scientists who wrote an April 6, 2006 letter urging withdrawal of Kyoto to Canadian prime minister Stephen Harper which stated in part: "It may be many years yet before we properly understand the Earth's climate system. Nevertheless, significant advances have been made since the protocol was created, many of which are taking us away from a concern about increasing greenhouse gases."
Paleoclimatologist Dr. Ian D. Clark, professor of the Department of Earth Sciences at University of Ottawa, reversed his views on man-made climate change after further examining the evidence. “I used to agree with these dramatic warnings of climate disaster. I taught my students that most of the increase in temperature of the past century was due to human contribution of C02. The association seemed so clear and simple. Increases of greenhouse gases were driving us towards a climate catastrophe,” Clark said in a 2005 documentary "Climate Catastrophe Cancelled: What You're Not Being Told About the Science of Climate Change.” “However, a few years ago, I decided to look more closely at the science and it astonished me. In fact there is no evidence of humans being the cause. There is, however, overwhelming evidence of natural causes such as changes in the output of the sun. This has completely reversed my views on the Kyoto protocol,” Clark explained. “Actually, many other leading climate researchers also have serious concerns about the science underlying the [Kyoto] Protocol,” he added.
Environmental geochemist Dr. Jan Veizer, professor emeritus of University of Ottawa, converted from believer to skeptic after conducting scientific studies of climate history. “I simply accepted the (global warming) theory as given,” Veizer wrote on April 30, 2007 about predictions that increasing C02 in the atmosphere was leading to a climate catastrophe. “The final conversion came when I realized that the solar/cosmic ray connection gave far more consistent picture with climate, over many time scales, than did the CO2 scenario,” Veizer wrote. “It was the results of my work on past records, on geological time scales, that led me to realize the discrepancies with empirical observations. Trying to understand the background issues of modeling led to realization of the assumptions and uncertainties involved,” Veizer explained. “The past record strongly favors the solar/cosmic alternative as the principal climate driver,” he added. Veizer acknowledgez the Earth has been warming and he believes in the scientific value of climate modeling. “The major point where I diverge from the IPCC scenario is my belief that it underestimates the role of natural variability by proclaiming CO2 to be the only reasonable source of additional energy in the planetary balance. Such additional energy is needed to drive the climate. The point is that most of the temperature, in both nature and models, arises from the greenhouse of water vapor (model language ‘positive water vapor feedback’,) Veizer wrote. “Thus to get more temperature, more water vapor is needed. This is achieved by speeding up the water cycle by inputting more energy into the system,” he continued. “Note that it is not CO2 that is in the models but its presumed energy equivalent (model language ‘prescribed CO2’). Yet, the models (and climate) would generate a more or less similar outcome regardless where this additional energy is coming from. This is why the solar/cosmic connection is so strongly opposed, because it can influence the global energy budget which, in turn, diminishes the need for an energy input from the CO2 greenhouse,” he wrote.
More to follow...
Related Links:
Senator Inhofe declares climate momentum shifting away from Gore (The Politico op ed)
Scientific Smackdown: Skeptics Voted The Clear Winners Against Global Warming Believers in Heated NYC Debate
Global Warming on Mars & Cosmic Ray Research Are Shattering Media Driven "Consensus’
Global Warming: The Momentum has Shifted to Climate Skeptics
Prominent French Scientist Reverses Belief in Global Warming - Now a Skeptic
Top Israeli Astrophysicist Recants His Belief in Manmade Global Warming - Now Says Sun Biggest Factor in Warming
Warming On Jupiter, Mars, Pluto, Neptune's Moon & Earth Linked to Increased Solar Activity, Scientists Say
Panel of Broadcast Meteorologists Reject Man-Made Global Warming Fears- Claim 95% of Weathermen Skeptical
MIT Climate Scientist Calls Fears of Global Warming 'Silly' - Equates Concerns to ‘Little Kids’ Attempting to "Scare Each Other"
Weather Channel TV Host Goes 'Political'- Stars in Global Warming Film Accusing U.S. Government of ‘Criminal Neglect’
Weather Channel Climate Expert Calls for Decertifying Global Warming Skeptics
ABC-TV Meteorologist: I Don't Know A Single Weatherman Who Believes 'Man-Made Global Warming Hype'
The Weather Channel Climate Expert Refuses to Retract Call for Decertification for Global Warming Skeptics
Senator Inhofe Announces Public Release Of "Skeptic’s Guide To Debunking Global Warming"
The shift in thinking is very interesting. It is interesting how socierty with all its resources cannot truly figure out the big picture.
Greenpeace Builds Replica of Noah's Ark
May 16 07:43 AM US/Eastern
ISTANBUL, Turkey (AP) - Environmental activists are building a replica of Noah's Ark on Mount Ararat—where the biblical vessel is said to have landed after the great flood—in an appeal for action on global warming, Greenpeace said Wednesday.
Turkish and German volunteer carpenters are making the wooden ship on the mountain in eastern Turkey, bordering Iran. The ark will be revealed in a ceremony on May 31, a day after Greenpeace activists climb the mountain and call on world leaders to take action to tackle climate change, Greenpeace said.
"Climate change is real, it's happening now and unless world leaders take urgent, decisive and far-reaching action, the next decades will see human misery on a scale not experienced in modern times," said Greenpeace activist Hilal Atici. "Those leaders have a mandate from the people ... to massively cut greenhouse gas emissions and to do it now."
Many countries are struggling to address global and national standards for carbon emissions. U.N. delegates are meeting this week in Germany to prepare for December negotiations on a new set of international rules for controlling emissions. The new accord would succeed the Kyoto Protocol, which ends in 2012.
Climate change will also be on the agenda when the Group of Eight major industrialized countries—the U.S., Britain, France, Germany, Japan, Italy, Canada and Russia—meet in Germany in June.
Greenpeace Builds Replica of Noah's Ark
Turkish and German volunteer carpenters are making the wooden ship on the mountain in eastern Turkey, bordering Iran. The ark will be revealed in a ceremony on May 31, a day after Greenpeace activists climb the mountain and call on world leaders to take action to tackle climate change, Greenpeace said.
"Climate change is real, it's happening now and unless world leaders take urgent, decisive and far-reaching action, the next decades will see human misery on a scale not experienced in modern times," said Greenpeace activist Hilal Atici. "Those leaders have a mandate from the people ... to massively cut greenhouse gas emissions and to do it now."
Many countries are struggling to address global and national standards for carbon emissions. U.N. delegates are meeting this week in Germany to prepare for December negotiations on a new set of international rules for controlling emissions. The new accord would succeed the Kyoto Protocol, which ends in 2012.
Climate change will also be on the agenda when the Group of Eight major industrialized countries—the U.S., Britain, France, Germany, Japan, Italy, Canada and Russia—meet in Germany in June.
Last edited:
The initial post in this thread assumes that global warming is occurring...I do not necessarily believe that.
The bottom line is that my climatologist / meteorologist cannot tell me for certain what the weather will be tomorrow so how can he tell me that he knows for certain we have long term global warming occurring due to humans?
I think too many humans have too much time on their hands and are concocting all sorts of theories that our demise is imminent due to our own actions. I do not believe this.
One last thing...many of these global warming "experts" are finding it much easier to get governmental funding if they are "on board" with the theory...as always my friends - FOLLOW THE MONEY!
The bottom line is that my climatologist / meteorologist cannot tell me for certain what the weather will be tomorrow so how can he tell me that he knows for certain we have long term global warming occurring due to humans?
I think too many humans have too much time on their hands and are concocting all sorts of theories that our demise is imminent due to our own actions. I do not believe this.
One last thing...many of these global warming "experts" are finding it much easier to get governmental funding if they are "on board" with the theory...as always my friends - FOLLOW THE MONEY!
MAKES IT A LOT MORE COMFORTING TO BELIEVE WE ARE NOT PERSONALLY RESPONSIBLE DOESN'T IT. SINCE WE CAN'T DO ANYTHING ABOUT "NATURAL CYCLES" HOW ABOUT WE ASSUME WE ARE RESPONSIBLE AND ALL START MAKING BETTER CHOICES BECAUSE IF THE "NATURAL CYCLE" PEOPLE ARE WRONG WE WOULD BE IDIOTS TO NOT TRY TO DO SOMETHING THAT MAY HELP.
No one's saying that we should stop trying to be environmentally conscious - quite the opposite. We all should have cleaner air to breathe and water to drink, and it will likely lead to healthier humans. It's just that a lot of us are tired of the scare tactics based on flawed and biased science - if any at all - in order to advance someone's political or financial power.
Maybe we could start saving the world by using less capital letters:wink0st:. Surely the energy saving from computers not having to download all that could save the world.
global warming???
global warming as in its expletives of our former vice president al gore is a bunch of social scientist garbage.earth warming is more related to the warming and cooling of the sun surface due to solar activity on the sun's surface related to the activity of sun spot activity on the surface of the sun.the more sun spot activity on the sun's surface translates into warmer activity on the surfaces of the planets. the lower sun spot activity on the sun's surface translates into cooler temperatures on planet surfaces and eco systems.
global warming as in its expletives of our former vice president al gore is a bunch of social scientist garbage.earth warming is more related to the warming and cooling of the sun surface due to solar activity on the sun's surface related to the activity of sun spot activity on the surface of the sun.the more sun spot activity on the sun's surface translates into warmer activity on the surfaces of the planets. the lower sun spot activity on the sun's surface translates into cooler temperatures on planet surfaces and eco systems.
