Nooo! Global Cooling!

[cannon_fodder]

Conan, I totally agree.  The only reason I brought up the Global Cooling thing was to try and make that point.  But as I mentioned repeatedly it is not a matter of scientific debate for many people but an emotional issue... thus I failed.

Anyway, Gongol.com (economics-ish website) has it right:

quote:
Threats and Hazards Russia uses oil money to pay for bombers to annoy US aircraft carriers:
Four Tupolev-95 bombers were launched from far eastern Russia on Saturday, and one of them flew 2,000 feet above the USS Nimitz. Forget global warming: Energy efficiency and research is a national security issue. Russia's government is making a lot of money by exporting high-priced oil and natural gas in greater volumes than in the past through the nationalized petroleum businesses, and it's using that money to fund a bit of revived militarism. If we could reduce our consumption of energy through efficiency gains, learn to produce more of our own energy, or (better still) do some of both, we could help ease pressure on the world energy market. That would put less money in the pockets of countries and groups that are trying to make things worse in the world. And if that helps the environment, too, then so much the better.

http://www.gongol.com/

Even though I'm not on bored with Global Warming, the efficiency/pollution issue can be asserted from many different perspectives.  National security, economics, environment - pick your course.  They all amount for a need for a new energy policy.

[Conan71]

I don't think you've failed at anything.  Don't expect to convert everyone, and don't expect that logic will overcome emotion in every situation.

It's interesting how personal paradigms affect what and who we are either cynical or trusting of in our government.

Case in point- I don't trust Al Gore as a spokesperson on global warming because he has buisness interests which would prosper with increased regulations and fellow Democrats he can help get elected with enviro issues.

If there were someone with more credibility, less to gain, and appeared to heed his/her own advice, I might tend to view it with less skepticism, but I still owe it to myself to learn as many facts as I can about it so I can react appropriately and do my part.

Other's (many who believe global warming without question) don't trust the motives of the Iraq war since Haliburton gets big contracts on rebuilding (nevermind they were already raking in big business in the ME, and there are Democrats with interests in Haliburton and other companies profiting off the war) and the former CEO is our Vice President.

Anyone notice that day-to-day coverage of Iraq is no longer front-page?  Things must not be going badly enough to warrant some coverage.

[Gaspar]

I tend to notice the use of language a bit more than some people, and it has a tendency to make me over-examine some things.

Lately I've noticed that as the new data on CO2 emissions, and Global Warming trends over time have begun to to be less supportive of the theory that the Earth is heating up, the Term "Global Warming" is no longer being used.

The new term is "Climate Change" or "Climate Crisis."  Being curious, I visited several of the Pro-Global Warming sites including the mother of them all, Al Gore's Generation Investment Management Company.  They have all removed references to Global Warming and replaced them with either "Climate Change" or "Climate Crisis."  

I cannot determine a definition of Climate Change that is narrow enough to be useful to a thinking person.  However I can see where it can continue to be used to motivate the simple majority.

They even changed Al's quote on the front page to say "Integrating issues such as climate change into investment analysis is simply common sense" - Al Gore

If the Global Warming controversy is disintegrating, I think it is wrong for those with a financial stake in the theory to simply morph the language in an attempt to preserve their interests.

I'm all for a reduction in pollutants, clean air, clean water, and healthy people, plants, trees.  

Less usage and more renewable resources simply makes common sense.  But creating, morphing, and perpetuating monsters to support this logic is more damaging than simply encouraging people to embrace it!

My two cents!


The whole aim of practical politics is to keep the populace alarmed – and hence clamorous to be led to safety – by menacing it with an endless series of hobgoblins, all of them imaginary. – H.L. Mencken

[sauerkraut]

I never heard anyone say why a colder planet is better than a warmer planet. I don't believe in global warming I think it's a big hoax being played on the American people. I wish the planet was getting warmer though. We'd have longer growing seasons and use less heating fuel and have shorter winters. Sadly the reports came out saying that since 1998 the temp has been falling and the 2007-2008 winter was one of record cold all over the planet. China had it's coldest winter in over 150 years and Australia had it's coolest summer in over 50 years. The planet was much warmer 1,000 years ago than it is today.. I like it warmer.[]

[hoodlum]

and there you go Sauerkraut just proved why it is no longer called "Global Warming", but is instead refered to as "Climate Change"

[hoodlum]

by the way the statement "The planet was much warmer 1,000 years ago" is an unsubstantiated claim. nothing more

[FOTD]

It's a hell of a lot worse than people think, and will unfold a hell of a lot faster.

http://www.physorg.com/news126761406.html

Earth in crisis, warns NASA's top climate scientist

"The industry is misleading the public and policy makers about the cause of climate change. And that is analogous to what the cigarette manufacturers did. They knew smoking caused cancer, but they hired scientists who said that was not the case."

[godboko71]

Not sure anyone has mentioned it, but from what I have read, want watched, the little ice age was caused by a combination of our larger rotation (the earth doesn't always have the same rotation around the sun) and less solar flares from the sun.

Thought that might be worth mentioning, if someone else already did sorry for bringing it up.

[cannon_fodder]

quote:Originally posted by hoodlum

by the way the statement "The planet was much warmer 1,000 years ago" is an unsubstantiated claim. nothing more

IN the history of the Earth the temperature has been MUCH MUCH higher and into a deep freeze.  Levels of CO2 have risen to extremes and then been all but removed from the atmosphere.  The variations will happen, it is the timing and possible human impact that is the point of debate.

Lots of data out there, this one goes back about as far as temperature records go.  The further back you go, the more speculative in nature.  Further than this and core samples with CO2 levels/fossils and historical accounts are the best record.


Further back NOAA extrapolation of temperatures I have found (instead of saying "warmer period, about XYZ):
[

[spoonbill]

Very interesting observations.  For your information, this is the published paper that caused all of the Enviroterrorists to change their language last year.  It was a huge bomb in the scientific community.  The media was able to quiet it for a while, but it's out now!

The research was originally intended to show the effects of CO2 increase on humans, and was intended to be written as a piece of medical research, but as the information mounted they made some irrefutable discoveries that caused the scientific community as a whole to change their stride.  It's from the Journal of American Physicians and Surgeons

http://www.jpands.org/vol12no3/robinson600.pdf

It was unsuccessfully snuffed by the media and has now become the foundation for most of the new research.

The culprit that causes Climate Change is solar activity and the research is nearly impossible to refute, therefore the groups that rely on grants and funding to research Global Warming have had to change their tune to preserve their income.

Unless they find that I have parked my idling SUV on the sun, there is very little we can do about the cycle of solar activity.

[hoodlum]

in response to above:

The NAS [National Academy of Sciences] Council would like to make it clear that this petition has nothing to do with the National Academy of Sciences and that the manuscript was not published in the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences or in any other peer-reviewed journal," it stated in a news release. "The petition does not reflect the conclusions of expert reports of the Academy." In fact, it pointed out, its own prior published study had shown that "even given the considerable uncertainties in our knowledge of the relevant phenomena, greenhouse warming poses a potential threat sufficient to merit prompt responses. Investment in mitigation measures acts as insurance protection against the great uncertainties and the possibility of dramatic surprises."


click here

[Gaspar]

quote:Originally posted by hoodlum

in response to above:

The NAS [National Academy of Sciences] Council would like to make it clear that this petition has nothing to do with the National Academy of Sciences and that the manuscript was not published in the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences or in any other peer-reviewed journal," it stated in a news release. "The petition does not reflect the conclusions of expert reports of the Academy." In fact, it pointed out, its own prior published study had shown that "even given the considerable uncertainties in our knowledge of the relevant phenomena, greenhouse warming poses a potential threat sufficient to merit prompt responses. Investment in mitigation measures acts as insurance protection against the great uncertainties and the possibility of dramatic surprises."


click here

Interesting.  Thanks Hood.  But I still have to go back to language.  It seems that this and other studies were enough to cause many organizations to change their language and drop the term Global Warming.

The members of The Nation Academies are scientists and engineers that receive 100% of their funding from research grants, so I can understand how they would choose not to recognize correlations that threaten what they have worked so hard to achieve.

I think we all have our motivations and goals based on self preservation, but what I am commenting on is the use of language, because it is the best long term barometer of truth.  

When I see such a massive shift in the terminology for such an important issue, I freak, because with the change in terminology comes a change in definition and therefore the threat purposed becomes altered.  

10 years of people telling me that the earth is getting warmer and posing theories based on human actions as the cause, then suddenly in the span of less than a year they change the whole terminology because emerging data no longer supports the original causation and outcome, is beyond disturbing.  

I have no doubt that with our technology and uncontrolled use of resources we have the ability to influence our environment, but using theory to alarm a populace and then simply changing the premise, language, and definitions when your theory is no longer supported is wrong!  The only purpose it serves is to keep your populace alarmed to support your political, financial, and emotional ambitions.

No one likes to be proved wrong.  It's kind of like the "flat-earth" theorists of the past simply changing their movement to the "curved-earth" theory and continuing to ignore that the curve eventually makes a sphere.

[sauerkraut]

I know many web sites that de-bunk global warming... www.junkscience.com has many links.

[Gaspar]

quote:Originally posted by sauerkraut

I know many web sites that de-bunk global warming... www.junkscience.com has many links.

I don't believe that it started that way.  I think that the theories behind global warming were honest attempts to explain changes in the climate that were beyond our understanding at the time.  

I still don't think you could call it a hoax, it is simply a theory that is no longer valid.  This is what happens with science.  

It's the attempt to perpetuate the beast by re-naming and re-classifying it that is unethical.  Adding ambiguity to the theory, as part of the theory, and continuing to attribute it to the same causal entity is beyond unethical!  It reveals that there is an agenda that refuses to go away no matter what the evidence yields.

[sauerkraut]

quote:Originally posted by Gaspar

quote:Originally posted by sauerkraut

I know many web sites that de-bunk global warming... www.junkscience.com has many links.

I don't believe that it started that way.  I think that the theories behind global warming were honest attempts to explain changes in the climate that were beyond our understanding at the time.  

I still don't think you could call it a hoax, it is simply a theory that is no longer valid.  This is what happens with science.  

It's the attempt to perpetuate the beast by re-naming and re-classifying it that is unethical.  Adding ambiguity to the theory, as part of the theory, and continuing to attribute it to the same causal entity is beyond unethical!  It reveals that there is an agenda that refuses to go away no matter what the evidence yields.

I don't know how it started, but it was in the early 1990's when the global warming bandwagon took off. It may at one time been thought to be real, but then it just spun out of control. Today even when proof is shown that questions global warming it is ignored or pushed aside. Al Gore has no science training or science degrees yet he is the global warming expert and he says the debate is over. In real science it's up the person with the new theory to prove it's real,- not for established science to dis-prove a theory. We just had the coldest winter world-wide in over 150 years. The sun controls our heat. The planet was much warmer 1,000 years ago than it is today if anything we are too cold and we need to warm up. I think global warming is a political hoax to affect change and to add a new carbon tax on people. No one even knows what the normal temp of the planet Earth is, it's 4.5 billion years old.[B)]