Is global warming an Environmental Concern?

<p>
<b>No, he has not</b>, and that's the reason of this thread.
<p>

<p>
Only under the <b><font color=#800040>Precautionary Principle</font></b> you are not required to provide <b><font color=#ff0000>any proof of your claims</font></b> – <b><font color=#ff0000>the accusation becomes the death penalty</font></b>. Religion is conducted on dogmas, but Science is conducted differently, it is based on facts, <b>not “perceived damages”</b>.
<p>

<p>
I live in the open country, with a thick forest 100 meters away. What you “see” is your local experience, not a regional, or much less global. Our open country here is getting better, because of the work we make on the land. We are getting richer, too.
<p>

<p>
No scientific basis for that claim. Just a subjective perception induced by scare stories promoted by the media. Yes, on summer they go up, in winter they go down. So what? There is no important temperature rise <b><font color=#ff0000>anywhere in the world</font></b>, and I have already provided the proof that there are many regions in the world<b><font color=#ff0000> that are actually cooling.
</font></b>
<p>

<p>
Wrong. You haven't studied history, climatic history for that matter. Weather extremes <b>are not related to climate</b>. Climate is the long range of weather parameters (30 years or more) that makes a trend. As shown by MSU satellite readings of tropospheric temperatures, <b><font color=#ff0000>there is a cooling trend since 1979</font></b>, with the exception of the year 1998, the one with the strong <b><font color=#ff0000>El Niño/ENSO event</font></b>.
<p>

<p>
You are placing all cats in the same bag. <b><font color=#ff0000>Droughts have nothing to do with warming or cooling.</font></b> It has been demonstrated for many years now that drought patterns are caused by El Niño/ENSO, in the USA, Australia and Africa, and big rainy seasons in South America, India, etc. Read the paper related to US droughts and El Nino: <a href="http://www.john-daly.com/solar/US-drought.htm"><b>Long-range Forecast of US Drought based on solar activity</b></a>

That's wrong – <b><font color=#ff0000 size=4>completely wrong.</font></b> Those islands are not disappearing into the ocean, because there is no sea level rise. See here:

<b><font color=red size=4>No Sea Level Threat to Maldives</font></b>
(11 Jan 04)<p>In a recent paper, <a href=http://tinyurl.com/2mmv3>Nils-Axel Mörner et al</a> report on a new study of sea levels in the Maldives, a coral atoll group in the centre of the Indian Ocean and inhabited for the last 1,500 years.<p>They found that sea levels over the last few thousand years has at times been higher than those of today with no recent tendency toward sea level rise.* See past sea level history below.
<p>
<img src="http://mitosyfraudes.8k.com/images-7/maldi-3.gif">
<p>
Here is the Abstract:
<p>
<b>Abstract</b>
Novel prospects for the Maldives do not include a condemnation to future flooding. The people of the Maldives have, in the past, survived a higher sea level of about 50–60 cm. The present trend lack signs of a sea level rise. On the contrary, there is firm morphological evidence of a significant sea level fall in the last 30 years. This sea level fall is likely to be the effect of increased evaporation and an intensification of the NE-monsoon over the central Indian Ocean.
<p>
<b><font color=#ff8080 size=4>Tuvalu - Pacific Islands Crying Wolf</font></b>
<p>
The Government of Tuvalu, egged on by <b><i>Greenpeace</i></b>, is the most strident of small Pacific island countries, claiming they are being swamped by rising seas caused by global warming.*** Predictably, they want 'compensation' from the USA and Australia.*
<p>
But tide data from Funafuti, the capital of Tuvalu, data collected with Australian expertise and equipment, shows their claims to be both alarmist - and false.** (Data from the National Tidal Facility (NTF), Adelaide)
<p>
<img src="http://mitosyfraudes.8k.com/images/Tuvalu-2.gif">
<p>

In March 2002, the NTF stated* <b><font color=#ff0000>"The historical record shows no visual evidence of any acceleration in sea level trends."</font></b>* Instead, they suggested coastline degradation and sinking islets in Funafuti,* were the result of <b><font color=#ff0000>entirely local conditions</font></b>, not sea level rise.* <a href="http://www.spacedaily.com/news/020825041235.1kc48u02.html">(AFP story)</a>

It was not an argument. It was a joke – but you greens are devoid of humor. Ner ner. Happy now?

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

This does not surprise me, since Tuvalu has had good business sense for a long time. Ever wonder where the .TV top level domain came from? That's not TeleVision, that's TuValu. I understand they're getting rich off that...

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

Oppps, sorry Edufer....I've got more bad news for you...the world is GLOBALLY WARMING.
Your regional analysis isn't science, it's quackery, as we're talking about GLOBAL TEMPS....GLOBAL, GLOBAL, GLOBAL....and your regional analysis in isolation is completely worthless.



http://www.philly.com/mld/inquirer/living/health/7721956.htm


2003 ties as world's second-hottest year

At 1.03 degrees higher than average, it seemed to continue a trend toward global warming.
By Seth Borenstein
Inquirer Washington Bureau

WASHINGTON - It's cold comfort to people shivering in much of the United States right now, but 2003 tied for the world's second-hottest year, according to federal government data released yesterday.
The world's average temperature last year was 58.03 degrees Fahrenheit, according to the National Climatic Data Center in Asheville, N.C. That's 1.03 degrees warmer than the 124-year world average.

The United States fared a bit better than many other countries in 2003. Americans experienced only the 20th-hottest year on record last year, with an average temperature of 53.7 degrees. That was nine-tenths of a degree warmer than normal.

Going into December, it looked as though 2003 would rank only as the world's third-hottest year, but a toasty final month tied the year with 2002 for second place since record-keeping began Jan. 1, 1880, said Jay Lawrimore, the global data center's climate monitoring chief. The hottest year was 1998, with an average temperature of 58.14.
The five hottest years on record all have occurred since 1997, and the 10 hottest since 1990. It has been 221 months since the world recorded a colder-than-normal month.

The consensus of most climate scientists is that the world is warming and will continue to get hotter because gases emitted from burning fossil fuels, such as coal and gasoline, are trapping heat from the sun.
Global temperatures increased 1 degree in the 20th century and probably will increase 2 to 10 more degrees by 2100, the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, a group that includes many of the world's leading weather experts, predicted in 2001.

"Mother Nature keeps reminding us that [global warming] is going on," said Kevin Trenberth, the head of climate analysis at the National Center for Atmospheric Research in Boulder, Colo. "The evidence never really comes out to contradict it, even though the man on the street says, 'It's bloody freezing out here.' "

Global warming may be playing a role in Americans' sense that January has been especially cold, Trenberth and Lawrimore said. Because winters have been milder in the 1990s and 2000s, cold snaps feel colder, as people are unaccustomed to them, they said.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

Poor David, you are a fool educated beyond your capabilities. You keep insisting on your <b>“science by press release”</b> that fools only gullible people. If you had studied maths in college, you would know that there is something called derivatives and integrals, and is the way you can make accurate calculations, especially related to aerodynamics, fluids, surfaces, etc. You discover then that the integral (or the whole, the global) is composed by a myriad of small parts (the derivatives). The following explanation is intended for other readers of this thread, not for you as your understanding of exact and precise sciences is nil. Zero.<p>So, how is the IPCC making its average for “global” temperatures? It takes thousands of temperature average records and makes a grand total. That means that local stations put together (say, in an area of 200 km2) makes a “regional” average. Then many of those regional averages makes a continental average, then a hemispheric average and finally the global average. OK?<p>But when one takes a multitude of local stations, that conform a big region, and the average for that region <b><font color=#009040>shows no warming trend, or a slight cooling</font></b>, then we start to wonder how the IPCC construct their averages. I have shown here the GISS graph, used by the IPCC for claiming there is a 0.8º C warming since the 1900s. Here it is again:
<p><center><img src=http://mitosyfraudes.8k.com/images-5/giss2000.gif></center><p>You should notice the IPCC starts its trend in 1880, <b>during the coolest portion of the 19th century</b>. Had the IPCC started its trend in 1781, the warming trend in those 223 years would <b><font color=#ff0000>have been 0.2º C,</font></b> not enough to scare sensible, gullible spirits, let aside people with with functioning brains.<p> And then I showed the graph of US average temperatures, also made by GISS, showing <b><font color=#ff0000>there is not an abnormal temperature rise</font></b>, in stark contrast with "global" averages:<p><center><img src=http://mitosyfraudes.8k.com/images-2/usa-1999.gif></center><p>As usual, this explanation continues in the next post.
<p>

 

So what's the mystery? As I said before, but David refuses to get it into his little brain, the US weather station network is run with <b><i>a high degree of accuracy</i></b>, a mixture of personal responsibility, skill, and high technology - while in most parts of the world, weather stations are full of obsolete equipment and lazy, unskilled and/or irresponsible personnel, <b>leading to wrong lectures and faulty records.</b> As these stations are the overwhelming majority, it is easy for the IPCC to get a flawed record showing and abnormal, unexistent warming. And this stands clear when we see the satellite records (highly accurate, down to a 100th of a degree) compared with surface weather stations. (Both graphs made by the NOAA):<p><center><img src=http://mitosyfraudes.8k.com/images-5/surf-msu.gif></center><p>As you can see, temperatures measured and recorded by surface stations differ from those recorded by satellites. For dismissing objections as to the accuracy of satellite measurements (as they have tried to do lately), the radio sonde in weather balloons have validated the satellite records, and there is nothing that can be said against balloon readings.<p><center><img src=http://mitosyfraudes.8k.com/images-6/LowTropTemp.gif></center><p>We can see clearly in the graph, a high peak in 1998 corresponding to the El NiñO/ENSO event of that year, one of the strongest in the century. Why that El Niño was a strong one? Dr. Theodor Landscheidt, from the Schroeter Institute for Solar Research, in Germany, has established a firm ground for the hypothesis that solar activity (sunspots, flares, faculae, solar wind, etc) are the driving force behind climatic anomalies. See this graph, also used by the IPCC in their website:<p><center><img src=http://mitosyfraudes.8k.com/images-5/Solactivo.jpg></center><p>You can see there that temperature variations closely follow sunspot number. You can see there the <b>Maunder Minimum</b> of 1650, that sent Earth into de <b>Little Ice Age</b>, the <b>Dalton Minimum</b> of 1860, that cooled Earth and gave the IPCC the ideal starting point for its "catastrophic" global warming. As you see, I have used IPCC, NOAA and GISS data and graphs to show you that I do not provide flawed, or "paid-by-oil-corporations" data and information. The only requiste is a well functioning brain, and the knowledge to interpret and understand what's in the graphs.<p>So, if you are really interested in the strong effect the Sun has on Earth's climate, make yourself a favor, and read somre interesting and enlightening scientific papers (they are not long, and are written for people with no too much knowledge in astrophysics):<p> <a href="http://mitosyfraudes.8k.com/Calen/SolarWind.html"><b>Solar Wind Near Earth: Indicator of Variations in Global Temperature</b></a><p>And the bad news for David is that these scientific studies demonstrate that his <b>UNDISPUTED</b> GHG theory is nothing more than <b><font color=#ff0000>pure HOT AIR</font></b>, a perfect match to Al Gore's incredible idiocy.

 

Notice that the concentrations of certain atmospheric gasses
are increasing. Please see the second and third columns of
this table: http://cdiac.ornl.gov/pns/current_ghg.html

Use the Watts per meter squared radiative forcing metric and
show that these gasses are now trapping about 2.7 +- .5 W/m*m
more heat than before the industrial revolution. Note that
2.7 watts per square meter of the Earth's surface is quite
substantial, the energy equivalent of 1200 megatons per hour.
Please see the last column in the table whose URL was given
above. A complete explanation of radiative forcing by
greenhouse gasses is found in current college textbooks on
atmospheric chemistry and atmospheric physics. One such
textbook is online. The relevant chapter in that book is at
this URL:
http://www.acd.ucar.edu/education/textbook/ch15/index.html

Note that the increased concentrations of greenhouse gasses
have anthropogenic sources:

A) Radio isotope analysis of carbon in atmospheric CO2 shows
that the increasing CO2 concentrations come from fossil fuel
origins. (The Seuss Effect) If one simply has to have all
the trivia, one can trace the carbon cycle. See:
http://www.radix.net/~bobg/faqs/scq.CO2rise.html
or: http://www.grida.no/climate/ipcc_tar/wg1/095.htm

B) Sources, sinks, and trends for CH4 are summarized in this table:
http://www.grida.no/climate/ipcc_tar/wg1/134.htm#tab42

C) Most of the atmospheric organo-halogens have no natural sources.
Therefore, their increasing concentrations must be anthropogenic.

Realize that anthropogenic greenhouse forcing easily dominates
all other potential causes of the observed warming. Please see:

http://www.grida.no/climate/ipcc_tar/wg1/figspm-3.htm
and
http://www.giss.nasa.gov/data/si2000/
and
ftp://ftp.ngdc.noaa.gov/paleo/gcmoutput/crowley2000/forc-total-4_12_01.txt

 

<p>
Nonsense. I will remind you of what I posted on January 7, 2004, in this same thread (at: http://www.sciforums.com/showthread.php?t=29085&page=3&pp=20), that you have obviously ignored. Following are some excerpts, for a complete reading go to the above link:

“Dr. Sherwood Idso, then in the Water Conservation Laboratory in Phoenix, Az., published in 1980 a short paper in Science (properly reviewed, David boy - as for 1980s standards of peer-review, then more reliable) where he suggested all climate models were doing the same mistake when predicting a 2º C increase in future temperatures <b>for a doubling in CO2 concentrations.</b> He said the predictions <b><font color=red>were 10 times higher</font></b> than what they would really be.

“According to Idso, the doubling of CO2 concentrations would cause <b><font color=red>an increase of not more than 0.2ºC.</font></b> Idso made the presentation of his thesis in a meeting at the Scripps Institution of Oceanography, in 1981, presenting the papers <b>peer-reviewed by Science magazine</b>. Instead of <b><font color=red>modeling</font></b> the atmosphere, he investigated the way in which temperature varies over the Earth's surface, <b><font color=red>in the real world</font></b>, when atmospheric conditions vary and, from those real world observations, he calculated a “<b><font color=red>response function</font></b>” (or "forcing") that will tell us how temperature will respond to the CO2 greenhouse effect.”
<b>… … …</b>

“He compared this value <b>with 105 observation stations along the US</b> and compared the seasonal fluctuations. He found that inland places showed the same “forcing function” of 0.19º C w/m2, <b><font color=red>but for seaside regions, the response function was reduced to half.</font></b> Assuming this represents the maximum possible response from the oceans, and considering oceans cover 70% of our planet, Idso estimated that the mean global “forcing response” <b><font color=red>cannot be higher than 0.113º C w/m2.”</font></b>

”What is the relation this has to the greenhouse effect? It is easy to calculate the increase in radiant energy in the surface that would be produced if the amount of CO2 went from 300 ppm to 600 ppm. So, 2,28 w/m2 by the forcing function 0.112 equates to <b><font color=red>an increase of global mean temperature of 0.25ºC.</font></b>”

<b>… … … </b>

Gribbins is right there. CO2 concentrations during the Cretaceous <b>were between 2600 and 6000 ppm, more than 20 times higher than now</b> – <b><font color=red>and global mean temperature was merely 1.5 – 2.0º C higher than now.</font></b>

"So, <b><font color=red> “Increased Radiative Forcing = 1.46 W/sq. meter”</font></b> claimed by IPCC's friends should read : <b><font color=red>0.113º C w/m2</font></b>."

<hr color=blue size=2 width=70%>

Greenhouse gases are increasing, <b>so what?</b>

The main and almost the only one deserving the name of greenhouse gas is <b>water vapor</B>. It accounts for <b>more than 95% of the Earth’s atmosphere potential for holding heat</b>. As John Gribbin (a die hard IPCC supporter) noted back in the 80s, (quoted just above) during the Cretaceous period CO2 levels were in the range of <b>2600-6000 ppm</b>, while temperatures <b><font color=red>were just 1.5º C-2º C higher than now.</font></b>

With levels 20 times higher than now, temperatures <b><font color=red>rose merely 2º C.</font></b> So what’s the importance of a doubling of CO2 levels? Idso already demonstrated that such a doubling would cause <b><font color=red>an 0.25º C increase</font></b>.

So, <b><font color=red size=5>Why the fuzz?</font></b>

The only explanation is <b><font color=red>Money and Power Talk Loud!</font></b>

 

Just for fun, I got this email yesterdayand i want to share it with you:

<B>FROM:</B> jack maluga columnthree@yahoo.ca
<b>DATE:</b> Tuesday, January 27, 2004 08:45 p.m.
<b>TO:</b> shuara@fullzero.com.ar shuara@fullzero.com.ar
<B>SUBJECT:</B> Hi Argentina

Hi Eduardo: Want the weather update from Canada? cold, cold, cold and snow, snow, snow. At 4 pm today our temperature in Wynyard, Saskatchewan, was <b>minus 36 degrees C.</b>, and the windchill was somewhere around <b>minus 50 degrees</b>. Are you still looking for some property around the equator for me? I hope so.

Regards, Jack

 

This is on one of your fossil fool hero's E....as are the other pair of nuts Idso.

WIPE YOU BUMMY AGAIN E

 

<font size=4>You keep dodging the issue of your lack of scientific arguments by sending fruitless <b><font color=red>ad hominem attacks</font></b> on dissenting scientists. But, what can we expect from someone that ignores everything about the way real science is conducted?</font>

You persist in your ><font color=red>INVINCIBLE IGNORANTE</font> attitude. But, what the heck! It's in your genes...

 

In drawing a false connection between greenhouse gases and the shrinking of the Kilimanjaro ice cap, the <i>New York Times</i> created a media sensation. However, the <i>Times </i>is not alone in demonstrating, in the words of climatologist <b>Pat Michaels</b>, an <b><font color=#ff0000>“absolute lack of critical insight tendered towards environmental scares.”</font></b> The following is an article published in the December 8, 2003, <i>Sacramento Bee</i>, quite in the same line of thought and arguing posted by David Mayes and Bells. Comments posted at the bottom - follow the reference number:

<b><font color=#008080 size=4>Change and Leadership</font></b><br>
<b>Russia, U.S. can't duck global warming role</b><p>The world is flawed, but only global warming strategy is on dangerously thin ice. Russian officials, who used to routinely voice support for the so-called Kyoto Protocol, are beginning to send mixed signals as to whether they will commit to reducing emissions of carbon dioxide--saying “no” one day, then “maybe” the next. If Russia and the United States, the world's two largest polluters in terms of total carbon dioxide emissions, fail to adopt this treaty, it fails to formally take effect in the rest of the 100-plus countries that have already approved it. This is hardly the style of leadership that this increasingly worrisome issue demands.<p>The scientific evidence at this point is crushing. Global warming is not only for real, it's accelerated by the emissions of modern society. <b><font color=#ff0000>(1)</font></b> <p>A new report in California predicts a scary scenario in the Sierra, a precipitation shift from snowfall to rain that would effectively reduce the ability of the state's massive reservoir system to capture adequate supplies of water. <b><font color=#ff0000>(2)</font></b> <p>Small increases in the sea level could have huge impacts in the Sacramento-San Joaquin Delta, where a saltwater intrusion would wreak havoc on the pumps that provide water for farming and for the economy of 17 million people in Southern California. <b><font color=#ff0000>(3)</font></b><p> By the end of this century, according to a new study by teams of international researchers (published in last Friday's [December 5] edition of Science), there is a 90 percent chance that the world's temperature will rise between 3.1 and 8.9 degrees Fahrenheit. <b><font color=#ff0000>(4)</font></b><p> <i>“Modern climate change is dominated by human influences, which are now large enough to exceed the bounds of natural variability,”</i> concludes the study. <b><font color=#ff0000>(5)</font></b><p> <i>“It is very unlikely to be adequately addressed without greatly improved international cooperation and action.”</i> Crafted in 1997, the Kyoto Protocol called for reducing carbon dioxide emissions worldwide by 5.2 percent by the year 2012 (compared to 1990 levels). How? The strategy was to rely heavily on the advanced economies. <b><font color=#ff0000>(6)</font></b><p> Their high standards of living (more cars, air conditioners, electricity consumption, etc.) simply create more pollution. <b><font color=#ff0000>(7)</font></b><p> The investments by big polluters such as the United States could either happen at home or in a fast-developing country where modest spending could have a big payoff. <b><font color=#ff0000>(8)</font></b><p>The Bush administration seeks to debate once again the question of who has to reduce what, to further study whether humans are really behind the temperature shift and to seek volunteers among the major pollution sources to curb emissions. This is a prescription for failure and international ridicule. <b><font color=#ff0000>(9)</font></b>

<hr color=blue size=2 width=80%>

<b><font color=#ff0000>(1)</font></b> As James Schlesinger noted in a Washington Post article last summer, <i>“Despite the certainty many seem to feel about the causes, effects, and extent of climate change, we are in fact making only slow progress in our understanding of the underlying science.”</i> A petition compiled by a <b><font color=#ff0000>past president of the National Academy of Sciences</font></b> and signed by <b><font color=#ff0000>more than 17,000 scientists</font></b> says the science of climate change, and man's role in it, is uncertain.<p><b><font color=#ff0000>(2)</font></b> Actually, the study's lead author was careful to say <b><font color=#804040>their “scenarios” are not predictions.</font></b> They are <b><font color=#804040>computer simulations based on many assumptions</font></b>, often with margins of error larger than the effects they claim to find. The <i>Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change </i>(IPCC) says <b><font color=#ff0000>forecasts of the regional effects of climate change are impossible.</font></b><p><b><font color=#ff0000>(3)</font></b> Scientific evidence <b><font color=#804040>shows sea level is not rising or is rising at a rate consistent with post-ice age history</font></b>. Moreover, even if sea levels rose a couple of feet, as predicted by alarmists, this would have no impact on the water table for Sacramento, which is dozens of miles and a coastal mountain range removed from the sea.<p><b><font color=#ff0000>(4)</font></b> This study <b><font color=#ff0000>was outdated and debunked</font></b> before it was published. The predicted temperature increases cited by the Sacramento Bee are dependent on unrealistic assumptions that <b><font color=#804040>most of the impoverished nations of the Earth</font></b> will undergo <b><font color=#804040>astonishing growth fueled almost exclusively by fossil fuels</font></b>. The alarmist scenario assumes average incomes on the entire Asian continent will increase over the next 100 years by a factor of between 70 and 140. Similarly, this scenario depends on an assumption that nations such as North Korea, Libya, and Latvia, to name just a few, will in the coming century <b><font color=#ff0000>surpass the United States in per-capita Gross Domestic Product</font></b>, and do so almost entirely through dramatic escalations in CO2 emissions. Common sense clearly dictates such predictions are farfetched, to say the least.<p><b><font color=#ff0000>(5)</font></b> The <b><font color=#ff0000>global climate is dominated by the sun</font></b>, not by man. To the extent the human presence has any influence, it is probably due to farming, ranching, and deforestation in developing countries, not emissions from the U.S. The small human influence, if it exists, may be preventing the overdue recurrence of another ice age.<p><b><font color=#ff0000>(6)</font></b> The U.S. and other developed countries would have to make drastic cuts in energy use, while nations such as China and India, the second and third greatest emitters of greenhouse gases, are allowed to increase their emissions as much as they like. As a result, total global emissions would continue to rise.<p><b><font color=#ff0000>(7)</font></b> Nations with “advanced economies” emit far fewer greenhouse gases per unit of domestic product than developing nations, which rarely utilize advanced emission-reduction technologies.<p>(8) As stated by James Hansen, <i><font color=#804040>“it is estimated that two-thirds of the cost of the Kyoto targets, if they were extended to the U.S., would be borne by the U.S.”</font></i> Moreover, observed Hansen, <i><font color=#804040>“the Far East </font></i>(defined as Japan, Korea, China, Taiwan, Mongolia) <i><font color=#804040>and the rest of Asia </font></i>(includes the Middle East) <i><font color=#804040>have had the fastest growing CO2 emissions in recent decades and are now near the same level of emissions as the United States. Future global CO2 emissions will depend upon the path of Asian emissions.”</font></i> (http://www.giss.nasa.gov/research/forcings/ceq_presentation.pdf)<p> <b><font color=#ff0000>(9)</font></b> Stepping up scientific research is a prescription for international ridicule only if the international community is either ignorant of the science or intent on implementing the Kyoto Protocol as a means to secure competitive advantages for their own economies at the expense of the U.S. economy.

BTW: Patrick Michaels is a world renown and respected climatologist - you are <B><font size=5 color=red>NOBODY</font></b>.

 

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, 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 an renewed attempt to undermine international climate treaty negotiations.


WIPE YOU BUMMY EDUFER.....I AM A CHAMPION

 

Pat Michaels has
received more than $165,000 in funding from fuel companies, including
funding for a non-peer-reviewed journal he edits called World Climate
Change."

 

You are the <FONT COLOR=RED SIZE=6><B>World Champion of NITWITS,</B></FONT> Dave.

Your <B><FONT COLOR=RED SIZE=5><B>only three</B></FONT> functioning neurons prevent you from remembering you have already posted that <B>Union of Concerned Scientists (UCS)</B> press release that was subsequentely refuted and exposed by me, showing the total lack of scientific basis of the UCS, <b>and its abundant funding from OIL companies</b>, among them the one that Al Gore has controlling shares, and the Sun Oil Co., the same one that funds the Pew Center for Climatic Change.

<b>Set your three neurons in motion before setting your tongue in action. </b>

<FONT COLOR=RED SIZE=6><B>David Mayes = MORON</font></b>

 

Edufer, virtually everything you've said in this thread has been garbage, eloquent, but garbage nonetheless.

You are what we call in Australia a SHITSPEAKER...someone who is full of SHIT, a Bullshitter.

Get back to your entourage of 3 devoted fossil fool advocates.

 

Yes. It is not worth losing our time any longer, when you find the strongest arguments thrown into the discussion table is "wipe you bummy", and "I am GOD". See you people in some other more interesting thread.

Last message to David: We in South America call people like you "COMEMIERDAS". In Latin that would be "COPROFAGUS". It is a human mental condition whose sufferers become intoxicated in the long run. They live a miserable life.

 

Like is said before it does not matter what or who causes climate changes, what matters is that no matter what we have to deal with it, if we want to continue living well that is.

 

I'm too powerful for you Edufer, my truth-based knowledge has made you my psychological prisoner....I am now controlling your future.

But once again I remind you that GHG is UNDISPUTED, and their is an UNDISPUTED GLOBAL heating trend, all this combined with the UNDISPUTED knowledge of climatology enables those of infinite wisdom to access FULL TRUTH on this matter.

 

David, you speak with tongue in cheek. Of course a global heating trend is disputed though you and I may disagree with the validity of the disputation. I agree that we need to take remedial action to lessen our release of GHG and we also need to replenish much of the biomass our collective neglect and abuse has rendered into free carbon dioxide. We need to do so quickly. I believe we can see the catastrophies already mounting. I doubt if the climate records of the strongest recorded extremes happening in our recent history will convince Edufer. He seems pretty damn steadfast in his "Don't worry, be happy" opinion. That complacency in the face of fairly obvious danger appears indicative of a quite complex and intricate web of experiences that I suspect would make Edufer's agenda a difficult one to understand especially via the confines of an online forum.