Re: An Inconvenient Truth

carrie-cox@xxxxxxxxxxxxx wrote:
mr rapidan wrote:
carrie-cox@xxxxxxxxxxxxx wrote:
...twenty years ago it was Acid Rain...

You are a complete dip***. I suppose that after wading through
Daddy's NR and WSJ clippings (just absorbing the talking points,
right?, 'cause reading's so darn hard), you don't have time to actually
get out into the world. Do you ever *see* anything? Do you know
what's happening to the soil in areas that receive heavy acid
precipitation? Do you know what's happening to animal and plant immune
systems in these areas? Have you seen giant swaths of ghost firs?
This is real life, Carrie, it's what's happening to the planet that
your daughter lives on, it's not about the obfuscating and irrelevant
magazine and tv talking points, it's not about clinging to the false
clarity and comfort you clearly find in conservative environmental
propaganda. If you can't bring youself to read, why don't you try
getting your stupid ass into the world to see what's happening? How
will the dead hemlocks of the Shenandoah National Park respond when you
wave your WSJ clippings at them?

*I thought you and I had made up? Back to name-calling?!

You don't make it up Carrie - you instead relay what gets made up and
distorted by global warming disinformation outlets like the WSJ
editorial page and the National Review.

Again, from what I've gathered the sky is not falling...
The Earth goes through cycles..Here's a quote for all it's worth--
"Many climate scientists think the slight temperature increase..."is a
result of a phenomenon called the Atlantic Multidecadal Oscillation
(AMO)--a pattern of slow repeating changes in the ocean's
temperatures"--Geophysical Research Letters

And gee, speaking of....

That quote is not from "Geophysical Research Letters" - that quote is
instead from the cover article of the June 6 National Review:

http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1635077/posts

Stop lying, Carrie.

[ BTW: Rebuttals to some of the National Review's disinformation in
this article are here:
http://thinkprogress.org/2006/05/25/national-review-warming/
http://thinkprogress.org/2006/06/01/bastardizing-hansen/ ]

Furthermore, "we have historic temperatures in Europe going back a
thousand years. It was much warmer than it is today. Polar bears
survived...the ice caps survived...
And data from the ice cores suggest that previous interglacial periods
were warmer than the one we're going through now."
Fred Singer, George Mason University.

This is also from that National Review article, but at least this quote
is a real one.

That said, what the National Review fails to mention is Fred Singer is
a well-known rominent global warming skeptic and, as I've demonstrated
to you before Carrie, a documented deceiver and liar on the subject.
[1]

A thousand years ago you had farming way up in Greenland, etc..It does
not take someone of Al Gore's prescience to realize that the climate by
its nature is in a constant state of flux and has been much warmer and
much colder.

It has, however, never had this much CO2 in the atmosphere - and the
VAST MAJORITY of climate scientists believe that CO2 is a greenhouse
gas is highly correlated with global temperatures.

Take that to Vanity Fair Magazine.

No - you take that to the National Review. And while you are at it,
you should stop mispresenting their bull*** disinformation as from
scientific journals where people actually know what they are talking
about.

Ray


[1]
_______________________

Carrie wrote:

Certainly you will dismiss
out of hand anything S. Fred Singer reports here, but this goes into
detail about differeing scientific conclusions on the global warming
phenomenon.
http://www.sepp.org/NewSEPP/KyotoAssessment.htm

Well, S. Fred Singer is a prominent official of the Cato Institute -
the Libertarian think tank that is opposed to global warming
regulations on political principle. And the Cato Institute as well as
his "Science and Environmental Policy Project" organization here
receive significant sponsorship from Big Oil. As does he personally.
That said, I don't dismiss what you linked to here out of hand -- I
instead dismiss it more because: 1) It contains blatent disinformation,

and 2) It is out of date.

There are many points of disinformation with that citation, and
addressing all of them would take several hours, if not days. Instead
of doing that, I'll address one of the biggest ones:

"[T]here is certainly no scientific consensus favoring global warming."


This is simply a lie - the scientific consensus is both that global
warming exists and that it is primarily man-made.

Singer goes on to "support" his lie with: "If anything, the largest
number of scientists, some 17,000, signed a petition against the Kyoto
Protocol in 1998. And in July 1997, the US Senate passed a Resolution
opposing a Kyoto-like treaty by a vote of 95 to zero."

First off, the US Senate (at least most of them, anyway) are not
scientists, and so that Senate resolution means nothing about whether
there is a scientific consensus favoring global warming or not.
Moreover, that Senate resolution made no statement or assertions along
those lines in any event. Which is it say, it's irrelevant here.

Singer's other declaration here is even more deceptive - the petition
he is referring to here is a hoax. The Sierra Club (CA) explains
further:
_______________________________________

The petition is a hoax. According to the Union of Concerned Scientists
of the USA:

In the spring of 1998, mailboxes of US scientists flooded with packet
from the "Global Warming Petition Project," including a reprint of a
Wall Street Journal op-ed "Science has spoken: Global Warming Is a
Myth," a copy of a faux scientific article claiming that "increased
levels of atmospheric carbon dioxide have no deleterious effects upon
global climate," a short letter signed by past-president National
Academy of Sciences (NAS), Frederick Seitz, and a short petition
calling for the rejection of the Kyoto Protocol on the grounds that a
reduction in carbon dioxide "would harm the environment, hinder the
advance of science and technology, and damage the health and welfare of

mankind."

The sponsor, little-known Oregon Institute of Science and Medicine,
tried to beguile unsuspecting scientists into believing that this
packet had originated from the National Academy of the Sciences, both
by referencing Seitz's past involvement with the NAS and with an
article formatted to look as if it was a published article in the
Academy's Proceedings, which it was not.

The NAS quickly distanced itself from the petition project, issuing a
statement saying, "the petition does not reflect the conclusions of
expert reports of the Academy."

The petition project was a deliberate attempt to mislead scientists and

to rally them in an attempt to undermine support for the Kyoto
Protocol. The petition was not based on a review of the science of
global climate change, nor were its signers experts in the field of
climate science. In fact, the only criterion for signing the petition
was a bachelor's degree in science. The petition resurfaced in early
2001 in a renewed attempt to undermine international climate treaty
negotiations.

In fact, American experts agree with the IPCC on its fundamental
assertions:

In the summer of 2001, George W. Bush asked for the assistance of the
US National Academy of Sciences "in identifying the areas in the
science of climate change where there are the greatest certainties and
uncertainties," and for its "views on whether there are any substantive

differences between the IPCC Reports and the IPCC summaries." The NAS
was given only a month to respond but did so nonetheless:

Climate Change Science: An Analysis of Some Key Questions

Despite the fact that the committee producing this report includes a
notable skeptic who allegedly colludes with industry* (Dr. Richard
Lindzen of M.I.T.), the NAS report states:

"The IPCC's conclusion that most of the observed warming of the last 50

years is likely to have been due to the increase in greenhouse gas
concentrations accurately reflects the current thinking of the
scientific community on this issue. ... Despite the uncertainties,
there is general agreement that the observed warming is real and
particularly strong within the past 20 years" (p.3).

For further publications of the NAS see:

Abrupt Climate Change: Inevitable Surprises (2002)

Under the Weather: Climate, Ecosystems, and Infectious Disease (2001)
_______________________________________
http://www.sierraclub.ca/national/programs/atmosphere-energy/climate-...


So who are you going to trust: a deceiver, or the National Academy of
Sciences?

-------
http://groups.google.com/group/rec.music.gdead/msg/7bdf74b38656bac6?dmode=source

.

Loading