Re: 'Not Evil Just Wrong' exposes Al Gore's agenda
- From: Agamemnon <agamemnon48a@xxxxxxxxx>
- Date: Sat, 24 Oct 2009 15:41:42 -0700 (PDT)
On Sep 22, 11:30 pm, Jim E <noyb @nowhere.com> wrote:
'Not Evil Just Wrong' exposes Al Gore's agenda
It's a big conspiracy, just like the fake lunar landings. Break out
the tinfoil beanies!!!
They're trying to bring down big oil and it's your duty to defend big
oil and big coal to the death.
=====
Thank God that there are still a handful of self taught experts like
you, the documentary makers and the energy industry funded right wing
think tanks who are on to the big, secret plot by Al Gore, the
legitimate science community, President
Bush, the national governments of the world and the
multinationals!!
They're obviously a bunch of Lefty Socialist Tree Huggers and they've
even
got Bush, the US government and major multinational corporations
brainwashed
because they say that it's happening too!!! There are dozens of
capitalist
multinationals who have been hoodwinked by Gore's Godless Socialist
Scientists into committing tens of $millions to greenhouse gas
reduction!
Isn't it obvious that they're not as smart as you are? A jobless
right wing
mental cripple with a drool cup.
Bush Admits to Role of Humans in Global Warming
By Caroline Daniel and Fiona Harvey
Financial Times
Thursday 07 July 2005
President George W. Bush yesterday acknowledged more openly than in
the
past the role of human activity in causing global warming, as he
travelled to Scotland for the summit of the Group of Eight
industrialised nations.
"I recognise the surface of the earth is warmer and that an increase
in
greenhouse gases caused by humans is contributing to the problem," he
said during a visit to Denmark en route to Gleneagles.
------
Largest corporations agree to cut global warming emissions
February 20, 2007
More than 100 top executives from the private sector and leaders of
international governmental and non-governmental organizations
unveileved a plan to cut greenhouse gas emissions. They said
governments need to take immediate steps to stop global warming.
"Failing to act now would lead to far higher economic and
environmental
costs and greater risk of irreversible impacts," warned the Global
Roundtable on Climate Change in a statement issued Tuesday. "Long-
term
success will require a concerted effort to de-carbonize the global
energy
system."
The Roundtable put forth a series of recommendations for world
governments to reduce the risk of climate change including setting
"scientifically informed" targets for global CO2 concentrations,
developing a carbon trading market, promoting energy efficiency and
de-
carbonization through the increased used of renewable energy,
providing
incentines to reduce deforestation and harmful land management
practices, implementing adaption strategies to prepare populations
for
the impact of global change, and launching public awareness campaigns
to inform citizens of the risks of and solutions to climate change.
"Cost-efficient technologies exist today, and others could be
developed
and deployed, to improve energy efficiency and to help reduce
emissions
of CO2 and other GHGs in major sectors of the global economy," stated
the Roundtable. "Research indicates that heading off the very
dangerous
risks associated with doubling pre-industrial atmospheric
concentrations of CO2, while an immense challenge, can be achieved at
a
reasonable cost."
Alcoa, Ford Motor, General Electric, Goldman Sachs, Toyota Motor
North
America, and Wal-Mart are among the corporations that signed off on
the
initiative.
With corporations now making up roughly two-thirds the world's 150
largest entities, the private sector is arguably as important as
governments in directing policy on climate change. This new
initiative
will likely increase pressure on the world's largest polluters --
especially Europe and the United States -- to take action on the
issue,
which could have a devastating economic impact. A study released in
October by the British government said that economic damage caused by
global warming could rival that of the Great Depression.
Atmopheric concentrations of carbon dioxide -- the principal
greenhouse
gas produced by human activities -- currently stands at the highest
levels in at least 650,000 years according to research published in
2005. Most carbon emissions result from power generation, responsible
for more than 40 percent of energy-related emissions worldwide.
Overall, industry accounts for more than 18 percent of emissions,
transport 20 percent, and the residential and services sector 13
percent. The U.S. is the largest polluter, followed by China.
=====
Global Warming
What the science says...
The consensus position is generally defined as "most of the global
warming in recent decades can be attributed to human activities".
There are several ways you can approach the debate on scientific
consensus.
Scientist roll call
Much of the debate seems to consist of a show of hands and parading
of
credentials. On the one hand, you have assorted scientists as
presented in the National Post Denier series. On the other side, you
have the IPCC stating anthropogenic emissions are the predominant
cause of global warming. If the IPCC is not your cup of tea, the
following scientific organisations also endorse the consensus:
* National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration
* Environmental Protection Agency
* NASA's Goddard Institute of Space Studies
* American Geophysical Union
* American Institute of Physics
* National Center for Atmospheric Research
* American Meteorological Society
* The Royal Society of the UK
* Canadian Meteorological and Oceanographic Society
* American Association for the Advancement of Science
Academies of Science from 19 countries
The Academies of Science from 19 different countries all endorse the
consensus. 11 countries have signed a joint statement endorsing the
consensus position:
* Academia Brasiliera de Ciencias (Brazil)
* Royal Society of Canada
* Chinese Academy of Sciences
* Academie des Sciences (France)
* Deutsche Akademie der Naturforscher Leopoldina (Germany)
* Indian National Science Academy
* Accademia dei Lincei (Italy)
* Science Council of Japan
* Russian Academy of Sciences
* Royal Society (United Kingdom)
* National Academy of Sciences (USA) (12 Mar 2009 news release)
Additionally, the Academies of Science from another 8 countries (as
well as several countries from the first list) also signed a joint
statement endorsing the IPCC consensus:
* Australian Academy of Sciences
* Royal Flemish Academy of Belgium for Sciences and the Arts
* Caribbean Academy of Sciences
* Indonesian Academy of Sciences
* Royal Irish Academy
* Academy of Sciences Malaysia
* Academy Council of the Royal Society of New Zealand
* Royal Swedish Academy of Sciences
Naomi Oreskes' survey of peer reviewed scientific literature
However, it's more relevant to examine peer reviewed journals -
scientists can have their opinions but they need to back it up with
empirical evidence and research that survives the peer review
process.
A survey of all peer reviewed abstracts on the subject "global
climate
change" published between 1993 and 2003 show that not a single paper
rejected the consensus position that global warming is man caused.
75%
of the papers agreed with the consensus position while 25% made no
comment either way (eg - focused on methods or paleoclimate
analysis).
More on Naomi Oreskes' survey...
Klaus-Martin Schulte's list of studies rejecting the consensus
That is not to say there are no studies that reject the consensus
position. Klaus-Martin Schulte surveyed peer reviewed abstracts from
2004 to February 2007 and claims 32 studies (6%) reject the consensus
position. In these cases, it's instructive to read the studies to see
whether they actually do refute the consensus and if so, what their
arguments are. You can read a summary of Schulte's skeptic studies
here...
Judge the science, not the person
Ultimately what matters is what a person says, not who says it
(that's
not to say there's people I respect and pay attention to but I don't
automatically agree with everything they might say). In the global
warming debate, there are smart people on both sides subscribing to
polar opposite views - intelligence does not always equate to
correctness. This is a debate where people often form a view then
muster up the arguments (valid or not) to back up their
preconception.
So note the credentials but ultimately, make your judgements based on
the scientific arguments.
---------------
What the science says...
1970's ice age predictions were predominantly media based with the
majority of scientific papers predicting warming.
The notion that the 1970s scientific consensus was for impending
global cooling is incorrect. In actuality, there were significantly
more papers in the 1970s predicting warming than cooling.
Scientific studies in the 1970's re global cooling
Most predictions of an impending ice age came from the popular press
(eg - Newsweek, NY Times, National Geographic, Time Magazine). As far
as peer reviewed scientific papers in the 1970s, very few papers (7
in
total) predicted global cooling. Significantly more papers (42 in
total) predicted global warming due to CO2. More on 1970s science...
Figure 1: Number of papers classified as predicting global cooling
(blue) or warming (red). In no year were there more cooling papers
than warming papers (Peterson 2008).
Rasool and Schneider's ice age "projection"
The main study cited by skeptics is Atmospheric Carbon Dioxide and
Aerosols: Effects of Large Increases on Global Climate (Rasool 1971).
The paper doesn't actually predict an ice age. Instead, it projects a
possible scenario - if aerosol levels increased 6 to 8 times then
sustained those levels for several years, it may trigger an ice age.
Historically, what happened was aerosol levels fell. While it's
unclear whether Rasool's calculations re aerosol cooling were
accurate, one inaccuracy was they underestimated climate's
sensitivity
to CO2 by a factor of 3.
In the decades since their 1971 paper, many studies constraining
climate sensitivity calculate that if atmospheric CO2 was doubled,
global temperatures would rise around 3°C. These studies employ
different methods (modelling, calculations from empirical
observations) looking at different time periods (the 20th century,
the
Holocene, past ice ages), different aspects of climate (surface
temperature, mid-tropospheric temperature, ocean heat intake) and
response to different forcings (volcanic, CO2, solar). More on
climate
sensitivity...
National Academy of Sciences - now and then
The most comprehensive study on the subject (and the closest thing to
a scientific consensus at the time) was the 1975 US National Academy
of Sciences/National Research Council Report. Their basic conclusion
was "…we do not have a good quantitative understanding of our climate
machine and what determines its course. Without the fundamental
understanding, it does not seem possible to predict climate…"
Contrast this with the US National Academy of Science's current
position: "there is now strong evidence that significant global
warming is occurring... It is likely that most of the warming in
recent decades can be attributed to human activities... The
scientific
understanding of climate change is now sufficiently clear to justify
nations taking prompt action." This is in a joint statement with the
Academies of Science from Brazil, France, Canada, China, Germany,
India, Italy, Japan, Russia and the United Kingdom.
Other indications of current consensus
Other scientific bodies that have released statements endorsing
anthropogenic global warming include:
* National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration
* Environmental Protection Agency
* NASA's Goddard Institute of Space Studies
* American Geophysical Union
* American Institute of Physics
* National Center for Atmospheric Research
* American Meteorological Society
* The IPCC Fourth Assessment Report (AR4) draws upon the work of
over 850 peer reviewed studies
None of these bodies (at least the ones that existed back then)
endorsed ice age predictions in the 70s. More on scientific
consensus...
So global cooling predictions in the 70s amounted to media and a
handful of studies, even then outweighed by global warming
predictions. Today, an avalanche of studies and overwhelming
scientific consensus endorse anthropogenic global warming. To compare
cooling predictions in the 70s to the current situation is both
inappropriate and misleading.
----------------
The CO2 record confirms both the amplifying effect of atmospheric CO2
and how sensitive climate is to change.
Does temperature rise cause CO2 rise or the other way around? A
common
misconception is that you can only have one or the other. In
actuality, the answer is both.
Milankovitch cycles - how increased temperature causes CO2 rise
Looking over past climate change, scientists have observed a cycle of
ice ages separated by brief warm periods called interglacials. This
pattern is due to Milankovitch cycles - gradual, regular changes in
the earth's orbit and axis. While there are several different cycles,
the dominant climate signal is the 100,000 year eccentricity cycle as
the Earth's orbit changes from a more circular to a more elliptical
orbit (Petit 1999, Shackleton 2000).
The eccentricity cycle causes changes in insolation (incoming
sunlight). When springtime insolation increases in the southern
hemisphere, this coincides with rising temperatures in the south,
retreating Antarctic sea ice and melting glaciers in the southern
hemisphere (Shemesh 2002). As temperature rises, CO2 also rises but
lags the warming by 800 to 1000 years (Monnin 2001, Caillon 2003,
Stott 2007).
How does warming cause a rise in atmospheric CO2? As the oceans warm,
the solubility of CO2 in water falls (Martin 2005). This causes the
oceans to give up more CO2, emitting it into the atmosphere. The
exact
mechanism of how the deep ocean gives up its CO2 is not fully
understood but believed to be related to vertical ocean mixing
(Toggweiler 1999).
The greenhouse effect - how increased CO2 causes temperature rise
When there's more CO2 in the atmosphere, the earth absorbs more heat.
Shortwave radiation from the sun passes straight through our
atmosphere and is absorbed by the earth. The earth reemits it as
longwave (infrared) radiation which is partially absorbed by
atmospheric CO2. This is the greenhouse effect. CO2 lets energy in,
doesn't let as much get out.
CO2 warming explains how the relatively weak forcing from
Milankovitch
cycles can bring the planet out of an ice age. It begins with the
high
southern latitudes (eg - Antarctica) warming and releasing CO2 from
the oceans. The CO2 mixes through the atmosphere, amplifying and
spreading the warming to northern latitudes (Cuffey 2001). This is
why
warming in the southern hemisphere precedes warming in the northern
hemisphere (Caillon 2003). This is confirmed by marine cores that
show
tropical temperatures lag southern warming by ~1000 years (Stott
2007).
Climate sensitivity - how CO2 amplifies temperature increase
Climate sensitivity is defined as how much global temperature
increase
if we doubled CO2. Studies of past CO2 and temperature records have
helped quantify how sensitive our climate is to changes in CO2.
Temperature and various forcings (including CO2) over the past few
centuries shows a climate sensitivity between 1.5 to 6.2°C (Hegerl
2006). One study combines the results from various paleontological
studies to narrow climate sensitivity to around 2.5 to 3.5°C (Annan
2006). Basically, multiple studies covering many different periods of
earth's history confirm that when CO2 is doubled, global temperatures
go up around 3°C.
So what does the CO2 lag tell us? The behaviour of CO2 in the past
confirms the amplifying effect of CO2 in the atmosphere. Sharp
temperature rises in the past indicate how sensitive climate is to
change. Our past history shows how our climate is prone to "tipping
points" where warming can lead to positive feedbacks sparking a
warming effect.
.
- Prev by Date: Re: Republications support hate crimes against gays
- Next by Date: Re: How many first ladies were capable of jumping double Dutch on the South Lawn?
- Previous by thread: Progressive Group Ad Targets Obama For Imperiling Public Option
- Next by thread: Exposing The Right Wing Lies And Urban Myths About DDT
- Index(es):
Relevant Pages
|
