Global warming is it really happening

Discussion in 'Earth Science' started by some_guy01, Oct 5, 2001.

  1. Edufer Tired warrior Registered Senior Member


    <font size=5><B>Nation's Temperature Down in May </B></font>
    Thu Jun 20, 5:21 PM ET
    By RANDOLPH E. SCHMID, Associated Press Writer

    WASHINGTON (AP) - The nation's temperature fell below normal in May, although worldwide readings remained above long-term averages. The National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration reported Thursday that the average temperature across the United States in May was 60.6 degrees Fahrenheit, a half-degree below the long-term average.

    <b>That makes May the 42nd coldest since records began being kept in 1895</B> and the first below-normal May since 1997. During the month, cool conditions edged south from Canada into the northern tier of states and into the Mississippi Valley in the center of the country, lowering temperatures below normal for all of that region.

    Only five states recorded <b<even slightly above normal readings</b> for the month — Nevada, Arizona, New Mexico, Texas and Florida. Worldwide, the average land and ocean temperature during May was 0.92 degrees Fahrenheit above the 1880-2001 monthly mean of 58.0 F, ranking it as the third warmest May on record, the agency said.

    The 12-month period from June 2001 through May 2002 was warmer than normal for the contiguous United States. The average temperature was 54.4 degrees F. That's 1.6 F greater than the long-term mean, according to NOAA's National Climatic Data Center in Asheville, N.C. These temperatures would make this past 12-month period the fourth warmest on record. That coincided with drier-than-average conditions in much of the West and along the eastern seaboard, conditions that are continuing in some areas, notably the Southwest.

    The agency said rain and snowfall totals in Colorado and Arizona were the lowest on record during the June 2001 through May 2002 period. New Mexico and Utah also had much below average precipitation totals. In New Mexico, water is flowing at less than 10 percent of average on the Upper Rio Grande and Upper Pecos, the lowest levels in more than 75 years, the data center said.

    Numerous wildfires have already occurred. The report said 29 percent of the United States is listed in severe drought with the potential for worsening conditions as the summer continues. In the Northeast, drought conditions intensified in late fall and winter due to five consecutive months of below normal rain and snowfall but now are improving following three months of above normal precipitation.


    On the Net:

    National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration: htp://

    See the article at: <A HREF=""></A>
  2. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement

    to hide all adverts.
  3. Gifted World Wanderer Registered Senior Member

    Those genetic aterations, what about all those dangerous chemicals we've been spewing? What happens when a mesquito lays its eggs in polluted water, eh? Has this been ruled out?
  4. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement

    to hide all adverts.
  5. Edufer Tired warrior Registered Senior Member

    Go here and you'll find a scientific study that will clear your doubts.
    and then complete your tour with the tables on carcinogenicity of chemicals here:

    I hope it will clear your fears.
    Who knows? Depends of the pollution. If it is higly polluted, perhaps the larvae will die. Don't believe all you see in "The Simpsons".

    If DDT hadn't been banned, there would be much less mosquitoes laying eggs in water, polluted or not.
  6. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement

    to hide all adverts.
  7. Gifted World Wanderer Registered Senior Member

    It was a semi-humorous reply to this:

    "Dr William Bradshaw and Dr Christina Holzapfel studied populations of the mosquito, Wyeomyia smithii, in the laboratory.� They found that the insects are now entering their pupae 8-10 days later than they did in the 1970s.

    Because the insects' life cycle is controlled by a genetic switch linked to the length of day, or photoperiod, it must be due to genes, the scientists say. "

    I'm NOT scared that we will have giant turtles beating up thugs in New York.
  8. Edufer Tired warrior Registered Senior Member

    These guys said quite clear: the link to genetic changes is with <b>"lenght of day or photoperiod"</b>, not changes in temperature or pollution.

    Leave Leonardo, and his brothers in peace. and you must also have peace of mind about this matter.
  9. odin Registered Senior Member


    I'm NOT scared that we will have giant turtles beating up thugs in New York.

    Don't forget Spider Men!
    & Harry Potter's

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

  10. Gifted World Wanderer Registered Senior Member

    Harry Potter wasn't a mutant.
  11. Edufer Tired warrior Registered Senior Member

    Getting cold down here...

    Free translation from a news clip in the Bolivian journal: <b>El Nuevo Día</b>, Santa Cruz de la Sierra, 5 Julio, 2002) :

    <b><font size=4 color=red>The worst cold has not arrived yet, and there are consequences already</font></b>

    According to meteorologists low temperatures will stay for about six more days. The "surazo" (cold southern wind) provoked absenteeism in schools. Sudden changes in temperature must be avoided. Rescue of damaged people has been already initiated in the province of Sur Lipez, in Potosí.

    If cold weather is a hindrance to carry on with daily activities, you must take into account forecasts by the National Meteorological and Hydrological Service (Senamhi), because they are not encouraging at all. The report indicates the cold weather will stay for six more days in Santa Cruz, the lowest temperatures will reach 6°C and the highest 20°C.

    The worst cold has not yet arrived, according to experts at Senamhi, and they recommend people to take precautions. The low temperatures are felt all over the country. The Sud Lipez province in Potosi, is the most affected, where the snowstorm not only cut the road to Chile, but families in 20 communities are damaged and is believed there have been deaths.

    Presidential minister Alberto Leytón said that they are in full process of preparing the rescue task force in order to help damaged people. <i>"More than 20 communities are isolated by the snow that measured more than 1 meter in the roads, stopping all vehicular traffic. For that reason airborne rescue operations are in progress"</i>. He also said that they will count with the help of a helicopter from the Peruvian Police and a specialized rescue team arriving in the next hours.

    In Santa Cruz, the "surazo" caused a marked absenteeism in schools and left thousand of persons working outdoors in trouble.

    <b>Surazo until the end of July</b>

    Low temperatures will continue during the whole month but the lowest ones will be here after the second half of July: <i>"Low temperatures must not be discarded this month, but they will start to rise during August"</i>, said Hubert Gallardo, division chief at <i>Senamhi</i>. He also said that in the entire Bolivian territory the cold fronts will be damp and very cloudy. It is estimated that temperatures will stay between <b>zero and 4 degrees centigrades below zero</b>, with some cases of 7 degrees centigrades below zero.

    The article in Spanish at:

    From <b>El Deber</b>, Santa Cruz de la Sierra: 5 July, 2002

    <b><Font size=4 color=red>El frío provoca estragos en Potosí y Cochabamba</font></b>

    This way looks Confital, a small village at km 137 in the road to Cochabamba-La Paz. The snow leaves people sick and stops agricultural labors. There are two deads and more than 100 disappeared in the village of Sud Lípez, in Potosí. Among them, five members of the Electoral Court. Ther is another dead in a small village in Cochabamba.

    Story at:



    "Average" low and high temperatures in the central and eastern part of Bolivia (Santa Cruz, Trinidad) normally are between 20°C and 30°C in this time of year. They go up to 24°C and 42°C during the summer. I was living in Santa Cruz when on June 25th, 1997, temperature went down to 6°C, making people "go bananas" over it. This year is going <b>below zero</B>.

    Here in Argentina, we are breaking all records in low temperatures, snowstorms and blizzards in the Andes. In the northern province of Salta (right below the Tropic of Capricorn!) an historic snowfall happened yesterday making children happy, as they had never seen snow!

    News come in the TV news from Spain telling they had an unusual cool spring and the weather remains abnormally cold.

    This is the <b>real world</b>. No computer simulations here. Could this be blamed on Global Warming? Thank God for the warming! I wonder what would happen if the planet where actually cooling...

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

  12. wet1 Wanderer Registered Senior Member


    By Paul Recer

    AP Science Writer

    (Published: July 18, 2002)

    Washington -- An estimated 24 cubic miles of ice are disappearing annually from Alaskan glaciers, turning some imposing ice mountains into minor hills and adding to the steady rise in global sea level, a study shows.

    Researchers at the University of Alaska surveyed 67 major glaciers using an airborne laser system and found that the rate of melting in the last five years is rapidly growing.

    "From the mid-1950s to the mid-1990s, the glaciers lost about 52 cubic kilometers (13 cubic miles) a year," said Anthony A. Arendt, first author of the study appearing in the journal Science. "In the last five years, that rate has almost doubled."

    Over almost a half century, he said, the glaciers have lost some 500 cubic miles of ice.

    The new measurements show that the glaciers of Alaska are contributing about half of the water worldwide flowing into the oceans from shrinking mountain glaciers, said Arendt.

    Studies have suggested that the global sea level has risen about 7.8 inches over the last 100 years, and some experts say the rate is increasing. Arendt said that would be consistent with what he and his co-authors have found in their study of the Alaskan glaciers. "The next question is what has been causing this glacier thinning. Is it because there is less snowfall in the winter or are the summers warmer?" said Arendt. "Glacier changes are linked to the climate, so this indicates that something has changed about the Alaskan climate."

    Alaska's glaciers grow if they receive more snow in the winter than is melted in the summer. Since the glaciers are shrinking, then one end of ice equation has changed and Arendt said that more study is needed to find out the causes.

    Mark F. Meier, a glacier expert at the University of Colorado, Boulder, said that the study by Arendt and his co-authors is an important advance in the efforts of science to understand the global climate.

    "For the first time we have some hard data from these glaciers which we have suspected, but didn't know for sure, are major contributors to the sea level change caused by glacier melt," Meier said.

    The contribution from Alaska's glaciers to the worldwide sea level rise "is even more that what we had expected," said Meier. Although Alaska contains 13 percent of the world's glacier-bound ice, the melt from its glaciers is greater than all the other glacier fields put together, excluding the ice fields in Greenland and Antarctica.

    "Greenland is actually contributing less runoff than are these Alaskan glaciers," said Meier. "Greenland is much bigger, but it is much colder." Experts have attributed sea level rise to two primary effects: run off from the melting of ancient ice fields, such as the Alaskan glaciers, and an ocean expansion due to warming. Some have attributed the warming of the ocean to a general global trend caused by human action.

    Many believe that the burning of fossil fuels is causing an increase in atmospheric carbon dioxide, triggering what is called the greenhouse effect. A higher concentration of CO2 in the atmosphere would trap more of the sun's heat, possibly causing the Earth to warm.


    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

  13. wet1 Wanderer Registered Senior Member

    See also:


    "Glaciers in Alaska seem to be thinning from the mid-1950s to
    the mid-1990s," said Arendt, adding that the thinning rate has
    about doubled between the mid-1990s and 2001. (end excerpt)

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

  14. Edufer Tired warrior Registered Senior Member

    <B><CENTER><FONT size=5 color=red>&quot;Greenhouse Lobby, Read the Paper&quot;
    </FONT><FONT size=2 color=black>from </FONT><FONT color="#0000ff"><A HREF=""></A></B> </FONT><FONT color="#000000"></B></CENTER>
    &quot;Those following the climate debate should read, (between the lines), the features by Simon Grose, and by Peter Szental in today's CT. The first item , shows just how hard it is to say exactly what the temperature of the planet is doing, with some findings now showing that average temperatures in Antarctica may be dropping. The second castigates <FONT color=#800000><B><I>'strong and vocal self-interested groups that still argue against'</I></B></FONT><FONT color=#000000> the greenhouse effect. Its author happens to be, by the way, <FONT color=#800000><B><I>'chief executive officer of the Sustainable Energy Industry Association.'</I></B></FONT><FONT color="#000000"> Der. (Pot calling Kettle, come in Kettle…)&quot; (Larry Mounser, Canberra Times)

    <B><CENTER><FONT size=4 color="#ff0000">&quot;Guess what? Antarctica's getting colder, not warmer&quot;</B></FONT></CENTER>
    &quot;The Earth's polar regions long have been considered <b>canaries in the coal mine</B> on climate change - the first places to look, many scientists said, to learn whether the planet's temperature is, in fact, rising. Indeed, climate models generally predict that the heating of the atmosphere - precipitated by global warming - will cause the vast layer of ice that covers Antarctica to melt, raising sea levels and changing regional climate patterns by altering ocean currents.

    This week, that widely held presumption is being challenged.

    Two studies of temperatures and ice-cap movements in Antarctica suggest that the Southern Hemisphere's &quot;canary&quot; isn't going down without a fight - key sections of the ice cap appear to be growing thicker, not thinner, as previously believed. And the continent's average temperature appears to have cooled slightly during the past 35 years, not warmed.&quot; (Christian Science Monitor) | West Antarctic Ice Getting Thicker (AP) | Antarctic May Have Stopped Shrinking, Study Finds (Reuters) | Ice 'thickens' in West Antarctica (BBC Online) | West Antarctic ice sheet is thickening (New Scientist)

    <HR color=red>

    Also, see report on Alaska climate, ice thinning, etc: <a href=""><B>Alaska is Not Heating Up:</b></A> Thermometer readings from various locations around Alaska indicate that a warming occurred during the last five decades. But can this Alaska warming be connected to the air's increased carbon dioxide concentration from human activities like fossil fuel consumption? The short answer is, <b>no</b>. And that is at odds with the analysis from the United States National Assessment (USNA).

    <A HREF=" "><B>Global Warming Natural, May End Within 20 Years</B></A>, Says Ohio State University Researcher. Dare to read it?

    <b><font color=blue>More links to sea levels.</font></B>

    <A HREF=><B>PSMSL RLR Stations with Time Series Plots</B></A>

    <A HREF=><B>TOPEX/Poseidon Main Screen</B></A>

    <A HREF=><B>NASA/MSFC- Global Hydrology and Climate Center</B></A>

    <A HREF=><B>CCAR Recent Research Results - Mean Sea Level</B></A>

    <A HREF=><B>Tide Gauge Sea Level Data Sets</B></A>

    <HR color= red>

    But go here to find a huge list of links to <A HREF=><B>"Global Climate Web Sites"</B></A>, government sites, universities, scientific journals, skeptics and believers, dissenters and scaremongers, you name it... it may be useful in the future.
  15. wet1 Wanderer Registered Senior Member

    Melting Alaskan Glaciers Raise Sea Level
    Fri Jul 19, 3:25 PM ET
    By Maggie Fox, Health and Science Correspondent

    WASHINGTON (Reuters) - Alaska's glaciers are melting so badly that they are raising the world's overall sea level more than any other single source, scientists said on Friday.

    The melting glaciers are responsible for at least 9 percent of the rise in the world's sea level over the past century -- adding more than one-tenth of a millimeter (.04 inch) each year to overall sea level, the researchers said.

    That is far more than anyone thought, and more than what was produced by what was until now believed to be the biggest single known source -- the melting Greenland ice sheet.

    "Most glaciers have thinned several hundred feet at low elevations in the last 40 years and about 60 feet at higher elevations," Keith Echelmeyer, a glaciologist at the University of Alaska Fairbanks Geophysical Institute who led the study, said in a statement.

    "Data from our study indicates that Alaska glaciers are contributing the most to the sea level rise that has been measured," said Anthony Arendt, a graduate student listed as first author on the study.

    The team of researchers used a laser altimetry system rigged up to a small airplane, which Echelmeyer flew over 67 of Alaska's mountain glaciers. They compared their readings to measurements taken by the U.S. Geological Survey ( news - web sites) in the 1950s.

    Writing in the journal Science, they said the glaciers had lost, on average, more than half a meter a year in height, or more than a foot and a half.


    This added up to a lot of water -- enough to raise the overall level of the world's oceans measurably.

    "(One-tenth of a millimeter) seems like small amount but that can cause a fair amount of transgression of water onto an area where people live near coastal regions," Arendt said -- especially if the shoreline is flat.

    Many people in countries such as Bangladesh and some island nations live along flat coastlines and estuaries that can be severely affected by small changes in sea level.

    In 2001 Echelmeyer's team flew over the same glaciers they had measured in the early 1990s, and to their amazement found that the glaciers were thinning at double the rates of 40 years before.

    Echelmeyer, Arendt and colleagues said they could not go so far as to blame the melting on global warming ( news - web sites).

    "We can't really make that link," Arendt said. "It's not really our job. But (global warming) is consistent with other things going on, with increasing rates of warming in other parts of the world," he added.

    "Certainly the fact that the thinning rate of the glaciers has doubled in the past 10 years indicates that something is going on in Alaska -- warmer summers or less precipitation in winter."

    There is, however, plenty more water locked up in these glaciers, the researchers noted. "Glaciers in Alaska and neighboring Canada cover 90,000 square kilometers, or about 13 percent of the mountain glacier area on Earth, and include some of the largest ice masses outside of Greenland and Antarctica," they wrote.

    Some Antarctic glaciers are also melting, as are some ice sheets, but parts of the continent are adding ice, so the picture there is complicated.
  16. odin Registered Senior Member

  17. Edufer Tired warrior Registered Senior Member

    Banshee, your activity in the forums seems to be dedicated to a "copy and paste" job, posting Apocalyptic scaremongeries that would, presumably, awake dormant people to the imminent destruction of the Earth. The report by the <b>World Wide Fraud</b> --oops, the <i>Wordwide Fund for Nature</i> follows the old Malthusian strategy: <b>"Scare them to death --and then you can stick your hands in their pockets."</b> That policy is universally used by robbers and muggers, when they put a knife to their victim's throat, or a gun into their skulls, while saying: "Gimme your money!" It works only on people unable to defend themselves, but it does not work with self-defense experts or Karate, Aikido, Tae Kwon Do, and other blackbelts.

    The green tactics of "scaring and asking for money" works -unfortunately- on gullible and/or ignorant people, who sincerely donate money for "saving something" that will only make the checkbooks of the green leaders grow fatter and fatter.

    But for those who know about science and the environment, the Living Planet by the WWF does not fool us for a single microsecond. The report is just a clumsy artifact based solely in computer projections and "managed" statistics that use selective, biased and mostly forged data for reaching results that had been previously designed and established by a geopolitical agenda.

    I must point something to you: had you ever visited and read any of the links I suggested, you would have stopped posting your "The Sky is Falling" messages. You choose to believe in whatever you want, and that's OK with me. But, as a longtime teacher, much in the way I feel sad when I see a pupil that refuses to learn, I feel sad when I see a grownup adult refusing to use the basic mechanisms of reasoning for harnessing the full potential of his/her brain.

    It seems you have lots of faith in our Prophets of Doom.
  18. overdoze human Registered Senior Member

    Anyone smelling the coffee yet?

    Uhm, I sorta find this hard to argue against. BTW those graphs come from the following web site:

    (as seen from the post).

    Any takers?
    Last edited: Jul 24, 2002
  19. overdoze human Registered Senior Member


    I apologize for presuming to answer in Banshee's stead, but isn't your activity in the forums dedicated to a "copy and paste" job, posting industry lobby group propaganda that would, presumably, pacify the over-anxious people with respect to our bright technological future?

    I can easily imagine a few years ago a similar thread on the topic of whether tobacco smoke is harmful and addictive. You'd be square on the industry apologists' side.

    Name a single person who is getting richer from this issue as opposed to in absense of this issue. Just one name will do. And, name-calling?

    One thing I just don't get: why the heck are the car companies complaining??? They get to put more technology on their vehicles, which drives up the price, which improves their profit margins. Isn't it actually good for business? Won't it actually create entire new industries around the CO2 and other emission control? With all the associated new jobs? On the continental U.S.? Politically, won't it reduce our dependence on Arab oil? Oh wait, isn't the oil lobby the staunchest opponents of global warming mitigation? Duh, that would explain the Bush/Cheney travesty, won't it?

    Or perhaps their strategy consists of playing catch-up to the Japanese? We all know how well that one works, don't we? Are you aware that the Japs already have several hybrid models in the U.S. market, and have had them here for a year already? While they perfect their designs and marketing, the U.S. car manufacturers are spending millions bitching and whining.

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

    You are hilarious. What "green leaders" are you talking about?? Whose checkbooks are the fattest, again? LOL

    On the other hand, one has to admire your bravery and fortitude for betting your entire future and your children's future on a vague hope that global warming isn't real. Way to go, daddy-o. But then again, you don't sound like you have children.

    Listen to yourself. You poor paranoid conspiracy theorist, you.

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

    Well, I've read many of your links (not all) and I'm not convinced in the least.

    Much of what you've posted are local climatic aberrations which are actually predicted to increase in magnitude with global warming. That means that some places will experience dramatic, record-breaking temperature extremes -- both at high and low end. BTW Moskow is having a record-breaking heat wave right now. Does that prove global warming? NO. You have to look at average global temperatures.

    Many of your other links are on various "dissenter" theorists who claim that their models are better. However, none of them have actually bothered to run their models computationally and observe the results. And if they have, I haven't seen any of their output. BTW, when I speak of output I'm talking about correlation between known climate history and what their models "predict" would have happened. In case you're unaware, the current "consensus" models are in pretty good agreement with the climate record and therefore there is good reason to expect their predictions to be at least somewhat reliable.

    I pity your students. They are not learning to think critically. At least not from you.

    [edit: oops, I didn't notice you're hailing from Argentine. There I go, typical "American", assuming the whole internet population lives in U.S. Sorry for that, tho' my arguments still stand (just replace "U.S." with Argentine, etc.)]
    Last edited: Jul 24, 2002
  20. wet1 Wanderer Registered Senior Member

    Thank you Overdoze, for an excellent reply.

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

    Edufer, given the fact that you have posted the same reply to me in two threads in this Forum, I will not bother to reply again to you. It's just no use.

    Good luck Edufer...
  21. Gifted World Wanderer Registered Senior Member

    I might point out, Overdoze, that you first graph shows that co2 levels have been rising for twenty thousand years. I suppose we have been going back in time and building caol power plants in the past.
  22. Edufer Tired warrior Registered Senior Member

    Overdoze, you´re a toddler

    The graphs usually present surface temperatures from 1860 to present days, relative to the 1951-1980 average, as stated by the Cornell Univ. webpage. This is arbitrary, because it assumes that the 1951-1980 average is "normal", so any deviation from it looks catastrophic. If you take as "normal" the average temperatures of the <b>Climatic Optimum</B> of 1100 AD, then the trends disappear and everything looks fine. This kind of graphs convince people who likes to see great swings in the curves, but do not read the whole story. A look at the graph will give you a different picture:

    <img src="">"Divergence of Temperture Trends in Lower Troposphere in IPCC Global Warming Forecast"</A> (by S.B. Robinson, S.A. Baliunas, W. Soon and Z.W. Robinson, 1998.

    Another point never mentioned by the media is that CO2 increase <b>lags behind temperature increase by some few hundred years</B>, so it is not CO2 what increases temperature but increased temperatures produce the conditions for more CO2 emissions from biomass.

    A visit to the Cornel University page "A Global Warming Primer" shows that 5339 visitors read the page since 1996, and average of 74.1 visitors a month, or 2 visitors a day. It does not speak well of the scientific confidence and trustability obtained by the page. As a comparison, the webpage of the <b>Argentine Foundation for a Scientific Ecology, <A HREF=>"Ecology: Myths and Frauds"</B></A> (Spanish and English versions), gets an average of 277 unique visitors a day (not bad for a $10 a month website in Freeservers...) The industry and oil lobbies don't pay us enough as to have a $25 website...

    Of course. BTW, while Spain is having a record cool spring and summer, South America is going through the worst blizzards and cold (freezing) temperatures in recent history (Argentina, Chile, Bolivia, Peru). In Bolivia and Peru it has been labeled as a "National Tragedy" because the death toll it took in human and animal lives. As you say, we must see average temperatures (global or local) and here comes handy this temperature graph from Newkirk, Oklahoma, from 1930, to 1990, a time lapse <B>wide enough to set a trend</B>.

    <img src="">

    It looks that there was not warming in Oklahoma until 1990. Are you curious about temperature trends in the world? You can check them, one by one, from a set of some hundreds at this webpage: <A HREF=""><B>What the Stations Say.</B></A> Don't be afraid, see them with your own eyes.
    My "copy and paste" <B>is limited to links</B>. The wording is all mine. When I quote somebody I make that clear and provide the source. Sometimes I translate news in Spanish into English, because a link to a language most of you don't understand would be stupid. But lengthy pasting of full articles is not my habit. It is boring.

    <B>Green leaders</B> who profit from the activities of the WWF and daughter (and subordinate organizations) as : Greenpeace, Friends of the Earth, World Resources Institute, Sierra Club, Nature Conservancy, Survival International, Earth First!, Sea Shepherd, Lynx, Rainforest Action Network, Worldwatch Institute, National Resources Defense Council, Environmental Defense Fund, etc.

    1) <b>Prince Philip</b> of Greece and Denmark, Baron Greenwich, Earl of Merioneth, Duke of Edinburgh, royal consort to Queen Elizabeth II, <b>and owner of the WWF</b>;

    2) his cousin and former president of the WWF, <b>Prince Bernhard von Lippe</B> of the Netherlands (BTW, former member of the <b>NSDAP</B> (Nazi Party) with affiliation card #2583009, date: May, 1st, 1933, former <B>SS member</B>, worked in IG Farbenindustrie --makers of the <b>Zyklon-B</B> gas--), was caught receiving a $1.1 million bribe from Lockheed Corp. in 1976.

    3) All members of the <b>1001 Club</b>, founded by Prince Bernhard in 1971, amongst them: <B>Conrad Black</B>, Chairman and CEO of the Hollinger Corp., a media conglomerate, with newspapers in England, Australia, USA, Canada, Israel, etc. ---<B>Peter Cadbury</B>, Chairman, Preston Publications Ltd., chairman of George Cadbury Trust, family's chocolate interests dominates the economies of West Africa. ---<b>Alexander King</b>, Co-founder of the Club of Rome; co author of <B>Limits to Growth</B>; ---<B>Maurice Strong</B>, vice president of the WWF until 1973, first executive director of the U.N. Environmental Program, responsible of the Earth Summit Rio 92, currently chairman of Ontario Hydro; ---<B>Jonkheer John H. Loudon</B>, Succesor of Bernhard in the WWF presidency in 1977, former CEO of the Royal Dutch Shell Group; chairman of Shell Oil Co. until 1976; ---<B>Gustavo Cisneros</B>, Venezuelan billionaire, charged with bank frauds in 1994 in Venezuela; ran BIOMA, a leading Venezuelan "environmentalist group" shut down after being caught faking dolphin killings for a campaign against the tuna fishing industry; ---<B>Fred >Meuser</B>, the bagman for the $1.1 million bribe to Prince Bernhard from Lockheed Corp. in 1976; ---<B>Tibor Rosenbaum</B>, first Mossad logistic chief. His bank, the <b>Banque du Crédit International</B> was identified by <b>LIFE</B> magazine in 1967 as a money laundry for <b>Meyer Lansky</B> (hope you know who this guy was); ---<B>Robert Vesco</B>, a capomaffia still a fugitive, the American Connection to the Medellín Cartel, initially sponsored by the Swiss branch of the Rothschild family to take over the Lansky-affiliated <b>Investors Overseas Service</B> (IOS). Last known address: Havana, Cuba. Smoking excellent cigars with Fidel...

    I could give you a list of many thousand names, but you asked for <b>just ONE</B>. To the names provided of people who profit from their "environmental activities" we must add a huge list of "scientists" working by sucking carloads of money from government funds to make "environmental research". The Chicken of the Golden Eggs!.

    More names that profit from "environmental scaremongering": ---<B>Paul Ehrlich</B> (and wife), ---<B>Lester Brown</B>, Worldwatch Institute, ---<B>Stephen Schneider</B>, "climatologist" that in the 70s predicted an imminent global <B>cooling</B>, but found that the "ice age" was not profitable; ---<B>F. Sherwood Rowland</B>, inventor of the gigantic farse of the Ozone Hole; ---<B>David McTaggart</B>, owner (and former president) of Greenpeace International, and blah, blah, blah, .... the list of "clever people" is too long to publish here.

    It looks as you are a newcomer to this subject. You have a long way to go before trying to engage in a serious discussion.

    If I don't sound to you as something, maybe is due to your lack of trained ears... Thank God, I have three sons, and one grandson. And my hope is not vague: it is based on scientific proofs and undeniable evidences.
    Coming from you, this is a compliment. Thanks!
    None of my links sent you to any modeler. Some of my links usually refer people to the articles and scientific studies (not models) of Dr. Patrick Michaels, a distinguished atmospheric scientist, or to <A REF=><B>Dr. Sallie Baliunas</B></A> ( ), or Dr. Willie Soon, from The Harvard-Smithsonian Center for Astrophysics, or simply to <A HREF=><b>Dr. Richard Lindzen</B></A> who is Alfred P. Sloan Professor of Meteorology, Department of Earth, Atmospheric and Planetary Sciences at MIT. Prof. Lindzen is a recipient of the AMS's Meisinger, and Charney Awards, and AGU's Macelwane Medal. He is a corresponding member of the National Academy of Sciences Committee on Human Rights, a member of the NRC Board on Atmospheric Sciences and Climate, and a Fellow of the AAAS. He is a consultant to the Global Modeling and Simulation Group at NASA's Goddard Space Flight Center, and a Distinguished Visiting Scientist at California Institute of Technology's Jet Propulsion Laboratory. (Ph.D., '64, S.M., '61, A.B., '60, Harvard University).

    You should read what Dr. Lindzen told the Senate Environment and Public Works Committee on May, 2nd, 2001, by going to the link provided above, or go to the source in the US Senate: . If you choose to keep disbelieving, then, nothing can be done. As Dr. Lindzen said when addressing the Committee:
    <b>Indeed, the identification of some scientists as 'skeptics' permits others to appear 'mainstream' while denying views held by the so-called 'skeptics' <font color=red>even when these views represent the predominant views of the field.</font></B>
    I guess Dr. Lindzen also suffers from a severe syndrome of dissenting and skepticism that makes him <B>a poor paranoid conspiracy theorist</B>.

    Cheers, and don't feel upset. You're just starting to climb the stairs in search for the Truth. I hope you have chosen the right staircase.

    Note: Edited because the link to Richard Lindzen was faulty.
    Last edited: Jul 24, 2002
  23. overdoze human Registered Senior Member

    Old man, I may be younger than you are but that gives you no grounds for the arrogance and presumption you exude. You may discover this toddler has fangs in the context of finding your arse in shreds.

    It doesn't matter what you calibrate as your 0 point. The trend merely gets translated up or down on the graph. The curve stays the same. Exponential.

    Take another look, and tell me the graph is not exponential.

    I don't suppose the surface temperatures actually mean anything, then. It's not like the glaciers are located on the surface, after all.

    Excuse me??? How the heck is warmer temperature supposed to increase CO2?? Warmer oceans absorb more CO2. Warmer climates encourage greater vegetation which sequesters CO2 from the atmosphere. Biomass scrubs carbon from the atmosphere. Burning previously scrubbed carbon in the form of coal, oil, natural gas or biomass releases it back into the atmosphere as CO2. Did you flunk biology, Mr. teacher?

    Take another look at the second graph below, and help me find that lag of "some few hundred years":

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

    Granted, CO2 doesn't always correlate perfectly with global temperature (as seen from the first graph above), which means other factors are also at play. However, the correlation is still there and is very strong.

    Are you aware that CO2 is a greenhouse gas? That's not propaganda; it's mere physics. CO2 efficiently absorbs infra-red (heat) emissions from the ground, thereby making it more difficult for heat to escape into space.


    By your standard, Sciforums is a far more reputable source of information than either of the above. So you better trust what I say, granpa.

    FYI, most scientists read journals instead of websites. If you read those journals, you'd not be arguing such a braindead cause. Also FYI, Cornell University is a globally recognized and highly acclaimed academic institution.

    And in case you're imagining that "the industry and oil lobbies" pay greens, you're in need of medical attention. As a matter of fact, industry and oil lobbies spend millions and billions on "research" to deflate unfavorable facts in the public's eye. Just like the tobacco industry used to do versus anti-smoking campaigns.

    More local temperature swings. You must not comprehend the notions of "global", "average", and "trend".

    Newkirk, Oklahoma = global. Ok, point conceded. You got me there.

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

    But let's take a look at Oklahoma as a state. Here's official NOAA data for you:

    [edit: link doesn't work as it's a dynamically generated page. To reproduce it, follow these instructions:

    <li>go to</li>
    <li>select Period -> Annual (scroll down the list)</li>
    <li>click the "Submit" button</li>

    Generally, it's a rather nifty website for all your weather-related questions within confines of US.]

    As you can see, mean temperature in that state has gone up 1 degree Fahrenheit in the last century. Not that big, but magnitude does vary by location. Global averages take a few more points in addition to Newkirk, Oklahoma or even Oklahoma in its entirety.

    Profit from the activities? We'll see...

    These people are rich to begin with. Show me how they actually profit from the green movement.

    Either you're implying that Zyklon-B is connected to the green movement, or you're implying that Lockheed Corp. wants to curb CO2 emissions. You must be out of your mind.

    How do any of these people actually profit from the green movement? You name many unsavoury individuals, and you don't think they would support good causes at their own expense to try and whitewash their more nefarious activities? You have to be a political moron not to see the grandstanding for what it is. If it is indeed working for them, then indeed they are profiting. But not in a fiscal sense. And at any rate, what bearing does their opportunism have on the real environmental issues?

    Oh yes, those "scientists" are really getting fat off that government money.

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

    Not like we would actually need or want a good climate model.

    You have a rather cynical view of climate modeling. Perversely cynical. But please, do explain how Paul Ehrlich is profiting from CO2 emissions control. And maybe he even is, if he's a smart businessman. The retards moan and whine, the adept adapt.

    If we did not curb CFC emissions, the "gigantic farse" would be beaming ultraviolet all over the planet even as we speak. The holes over the arctic and antarctic are just now beginning to stabilize and shrink. Maybe you like sunburns and skin cancers. I, personally, prefer to have them not.

    Proofs?? Undeniable evidences?? Where are they? Physics says CO2 is a greenhouse gas. You have proof against that? Atmospheric CO2 concentrations have been dramatically boosted in the last couple of centuries and continue to increase exponentially! You have proof against that? Man is unbalancing the natural carbon budget by releasing previously sequestered carbon into the atmosphere in massive amounts growing exponentially. You have proof against that? CO2 persists in the atmosphere for a long time. You have proof against that? Venus is 900 degrees Fahrenheit at the surface due to a runaway greenhouse effect. You have proof against that? How about "undeniable evidences"?

    So we don't currently observe the large effect that was predicted. Does that mean there is no effect? Does that mean that whatever is buffering against the effect will continue to buffer equally well in the future? The planet may be getting greener for now, but how much greener will it get before the flora is saturated? Before annual fires begin to release as much CO2 back into the atmosphere as is sequestered by additional greenery every year? Before rotting biomass begins to release enough methane (a much more potent greenhouse gas than CO2) to progressively make things worse?

    Until we have an impeccable model of climate indicating that CO2 explosion will not lead to climate catastrophe and detailing the exact reasons why not, the only prudent course of action is that of caution and prevention. This is not alarmism, it is not inventing new problems out of thin air. There is good reason to suspect that increasing concentrations of CO2 and other greenhouse gases could unbalance the climate. Unless and until we have a compelling reason to strongly believe otherwise, caution is the only prudent option.

    He likes to complain a lot about how we don't have a perfect model for climate. Whoopty doo. Perhaps we should wait a few more decades to develop a perfect model, before we actually act on the underlying problem? Throw caution to the wind, burn it all!

    Michaels is more than just a scientist. He has a clear libertarian (anti-regulation, anti-establishment, pro-freemarket) agenda. As are pretty much all of the scientists you've mentioned in addition to him.

    No, fair enough, really. However, he never explained (even though he promised to) why he thinks the "precautionary principle" is a bad idea. IMHO, it's the only sane idea on the table. The best alternative consists of crossing fingers and hoping for the best. He did mention, in passing, that assuming an unstable Earth would indicate "bad design" -- the guy is apparently a creationist, to boot. No wonder he believes everything's going to work out; the Almighty will do something to save us.

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

    An interesting thing I find is that all the anti-regulation exponents admit that warming is indeed occurring in the arctic, predominantly with respect to nights and winters. Perhaps they are not aware, but cold temperatures at night and during winter contribute to growth or maintenance of glaciers and permafrost. Warm it up, and you've got global flooding on one hand and endless arctic swamps on the other (with all the attendent mosquitoes -- gotta love'em.) Melting of ice and permafrost in the arctic would flush extra freshwater into the arctic ocean, creating a lightweight top layer and threatening to inhibit or even shut down the Gulf Stream. But never mind that, we'll all take a collective gamble I guess.

    Something I find amusing. The libertarian proponents as a rule deny CO2-driven radiative forcing, decry alleged economic costs and then, in the same breath, denounce the Kyoto treaty for not doing enough. By golly, they have it all figured out.

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

    I just don't understand the "freemarket" hysteria over emission control. "Hidden taxes", they say. But new jobs, new industries, they neglect to mention. "Let the market evolve the clean technologies", they say. Yet without federal regulations we still wouldn't have catalytic converters on our cars. If you think that's a good thing, take a trip to Moskow and take a deep breath. We'd still be driving on leaded gazoline. We'd still be driving without crumple zones, seat belts, air bags or reinforced cages. Without federal research and infrastructure development, we still wouldn't have access to space. Free market my foot. Without federal money, we wouldn't have our highway system. The "American" affair with the automobile would never have happened; I'm sure the freemarket zealots of Detroit would have loved that scenario. Without taxpayer support, we wouldn't have our airports and airlines. But at least the taxpayers would've kept a little more of their money.

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

    Newsflash: free markets do not and cannot exist, are not a panacea, and they are not the optimum anyway. Sanity ought to be the first priority.

    Invariably, gory visions of horrendous alternatives are floated in opposition to fossil fuel mitigation. Nuclear plants and solar/wind generation are apparently the only solutions to the problem. Whatever happened to tidal and wave generators, hydroelectric, geothermal, biomass, solar concentrators, temperature differential and other already developed, viable commercial alternatives? Not to mention gee-whiz schemes with potentially huge payoffs like fusion or space-based power plants? Whatever happened to all the taxpayer subsidies for the nuclear and fossil fuel industries? We're about to spend billions of taxpayer dollars on the ridiculous Yacca Mountain project after having already spent billions on related research as well as cleanup of toxic waste dumps. We've spent billions subsidizing coal mines and gas/oil pipelines, cleaning up their leaks and disasters, fighting in the Middle East for domination and making an enemy of the Arab world, and I'm sure you could go on with respect to the Americas, Africa, Asia and the various islands. Is that free market, or is it a load of bullshit?

    Green policies, while sometimes misguided, are the sane alternative. The bad policies are eventually revealed for what they are and scrubbed. The good ones we keep and blissfully forget about, in our zeal toward bashing the greens.
    Last edited: Jul 31, 2002

Share This Page