Page 46 of 1140 FirstFirst ... 36444546474856961465461046 ... LastLast
Results 451 to 460 of 11393
Like Tree450Likes

Thread: The Climate Change Debate Thread

  1. #451
    Politics.ie Member
    Join Date
    Oct 2009
    Location
    Dublin
    Posts
    116

    Climate Change is bound to happen, it's how we deal with it and use it to our advantage!
    In the corrupted currents of his world, may offence's guilded hand shove past justice - Cladius, Hamlet Act 3, Scene 3

  2. #452
    Politics.ie Newbie
    Join Date
    Nov 2009
    Location
    Up a damp boreen in Mayo
    Posts
    95

    Don't be silly, nobody can ever point to an event like this. You are just exploiting peoples pain saying such a thing.
    __________________
    I'd say that people have been predicting climate change for some considerable time now.

  3. #453
    Politics.ie Regular
    Join Date
    May 2008
    Location
    California, USA
    Posts
    410

    Another debunked falsehood

    The claim that:
    "Himalayan glaciers are disappearing “rapidly” — in fact, that they may disappear by 2035, a mere 25 years from now." has just been debunked.

    I seems that the IPCC report (WGII 2007, pg.497) that stated that the himalayan glaciers would dissapear, misread the original supporting documentation that stated the estimate was the year 2350, and reported it as the year 2035. Let's be generous and call it a typo.

    More than that, Hindu scientist with on-location current data have stated that:
    "it is premature to make a statement that the Himalayan glaciers are retreating abnormally because of global warming"

    Pajamas Media Climategate: Imminent Demise of Glaciers Due to … a Typo!

    Just another example of mass histeria, and possibly lack of scientific ethics.

    Is it a concerted unethical ploy when data that does not agree with your preconceived conclusions is exhaustively reviewed, while the data that seems to agree is given a cursory look? or is it simply lack of discipline?. After so many examples of this I have my own opinion.

    One thing is for sure: we need more discipline in climate science.

  4. #454
    Politics.ie Regular truthisfree's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2009
    Location
    Midlands
    Posts
    3,834

    Quote Originally Posted by davefromeire View Post
    A Message to the Environmental Movement: Your Movement Has Been Hijacked

    James Corbett



    You the environmentalists, you the activists, you the campaigners.
    You who have watched with growing concern the ways in which the world around us has been ravaged in the pursuit of the almighty dollar.
    You who are concerned with the state of the planet that we are leaving for our children and our grandchildren and those generations yet unborn.
    This is not a message of divisiveness, but cooperation.
    This is a message of hope and empowerment, but it requires us to look at a hard and uncomfortable truth:
    Your movement has been usurped by the very same financial interests you thought you were fighting against.
    You have suspected as much for years.
    You watched at first with hope and excitement as your movement, your cause, your message began to spread, as it was taken up by the media and given attention, as conferences were organized and as the ideas you had struggled so long and hard to be heard were talked about nationally. Then internationally.
    You watched with growing unease as the message was simplified. First it became a slogan. Then it became a brand. Soon it was nothing more than a label and it became attached to products. The ideas you had once fought for were now being sold back to you. For profit.
    You watched with growing unease as the message became parroted, not argued, worn like a fashion rather than something that came from the conviction of understanding.
    You disagreed when the slogans–and then the science–were dumbed down. When carbon dioxide became the focus and CO2 was taken up as a political cause. Soon it was the only cause.
    You knew that Al Gore was not a scientist, that his evidence was factually incorrect, that the movement was being taken over by a cause that was not your own, one that relied on beliefs you did not share to propose a solution you did not want. It began to reach a breaking point when you saw that the solutions being proposed were not solutions at all, when they began to propose new taxes and new markets that would only serve to line their own pockets.
    You knew something was wrong when you saw them argue for a cap-and-trade scheme proposed by Ken Lay, when you saw Goldman Sachs position itself to ride the carbon trading bubble, when the whole thrust of the movement became ways to make money or spend money or raise money from this panic.
    Your movement had been hijacked.
    The realization came the first time you read The Club of Rome’s 1991 book, The First Global Revolution, which says:
    “In searching for a common enemy against whom we can unite, we came up with the idea that pollution, the threat of global warming, water shortages, famine and the like, would fit the bill. In their totality and their interactions these phenomena do constitute a common threat which must be confronted by everyone together. But in designating these dangers as the enemy, we fall into the trap, which we have already warned readers about, namely mistaking symptoms for causes. All these dangers are caused by human intervention in natural processes, and it is only through changed attitudes and behaviour that they can be overcome. The real enemy then is humanity itself.”
    And when you looked at the Club of Rome’s elite member roster. And when you learnt about eugenics and the Rockefeller ties to the Kaiser Willhelm Institute and the practice of crypto-eugenics and the rise of overpopulation fearmongering and the call by elitist after elitist after elitist to cull the world population.


    Still, you wanted to believe that there was some basis of truth, something real and valuable in the single-minded obsession of this hijacked environmental movement with manmade global warming.
    Now, in November 2009, the last traces of doubt have been removed.
    Last week, an insider leaked internal documents and emails from the Climate Research Unit of East Anglia University and exposed the lies, manipulation and fraud behind the studies that supposedly show 0.6 degrees Celsius of warming over the last 130 years. And the hockey stick graph that supposedly shows unprecedented warming in our times. And the alarmist warning of impending climate disaster.
    We now know that these scientists wrote programming notes in the source code of their own climate models admitting that results were being manually adjusted.
    We now know that values were being adjusted to conform to scientists’ wishes, not reality.
    We now know that the peer review process itself was being perverted to exclude those scientists whose work criticized their findings.
    We now know that these scientists privately expressed doubts about the science that they publicly claimed to be settled.
    We now know, in short, that they were lying.
    It is unknown as yet what the fallout will be from all of this, but it is evident that the fallout will be substantial.
    With this crisis, however, comes an opportunity. An opportunity to recapture the movement that the financiers have stolen from the people.
    Together, we can demand a full and independent investigation into all of the researchers whose work was implicated in the CRU affair.
    We can demand a full re-evaluation of all those studies whose conclusions have been thrown into question by these revelations, and all of the public policy that has been based on those studies.
    We can establish new standards of transparency for scientists whose work is taxpayer funded and/or whose work effects public policy, so that everyone has full and equal access to the data used to calculate results and all of the source code used in all of the programs used to model that data.
    In other words, we can reaffirm that no cause is worth supporting that requires deception for its propagation.
    Even more importantly, we can take back the environmental movement.
    We can begin to concentrate on the serious questions that need to be asked about the genetic engineering technology whereby hybrid organisms and new, never-before-seen proteins that are being released into the biosphere in a giant, uncontrolled experiment that threatens the very genome of life on this planet.
    We can look into the environmental causes of the explosion in cancer and the staggering drops in fertility over the last 50 years, including the BPA in our plastics and the anti-androgens in the water.
    We can examine regulatory agencies that are controlled by the very corporations they are supposedly watching over.
    We can begin focusing on depleted uranium and the dumping of toxic waste into the rivers and all of the issues that we once knew were part of the mandate of the real environmental movement.
    Or we can, as some have, descend into petty partisan politics. We can decide that lies are OK if they support ‘our’ side. We can defend the reprehensible actions of the CRU researchers and rally around the green flag that has long since been captured by the enemy.
    It is a simple decision to make, but one that we must make quickly, before the argument can be spun away and environmentalism can go back to business as usual.
    We are at a crossroads of history. And make no mistake, history will be the final judge of our actions. So I leave you today with a simple question: Which side of history do you want to be on?

    Very good and it is what all the eco people should be reading.

  5. #455
    Politics.ie Regular jcdf's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2005
    Posts
    4,432

    Here is some proof that global warming is happening: Glacier threat to Bolivia capital
    Economic Left/Right: -0.50
    Social Libertarian/Authoritarian: -0.77

  6. #456
    Politics.ie Regular
    Join Date
    Jan 2009
    Location
    Ireland
    Posts
    4,261

    The Internet is All Over Climategate While the MSM Sleeps | WebProNews

    A great trusted IT site covered this also...
    Covering the highlights in the coders notes.

    Its shocking really.

    Still no mention of this controversy on the evening news of the major broadcast networks. It's ironic that these same news organizations are in Washington right now discussing the Internet's impact on their business model while they continue not to cover news that the Internet media is covering. For years the major networks have covered global warming as fact -- but now no coverage when there is significant evidence that global warming caused by humans is fiction. Interesting....
    (Update) A complete PDF has been produced that succinctly explains Climategate: PDF Doc.

    Apparently, the BBC was first to receive the climate files from a whistleblower in the CRU. They actually held the files for a month and did nothing. The whistleblower then uploaded the files to a small Internet board based in the United States which exposed the "fudging" of the data to obtain their desired political result. Amazingly, the Internet Media is still the main source for coverage of this world warming scandal.

  7. #457
    Politics.ie Regular wombat's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2007
    Posts
    11,399

    Quote Originally Posted by andrejsv View Post
    More than that, Hindu scientist with on-location current data have stated that:
    "it is premature to make a statement that the Himalayan glaciers are retreating abnormally because of global warming"
    The problem I have with the debate on climate change and man's contribution is that it takes so long to prove the theory right or wrong - what happens if its true?
    We spend millions every year on maintaining a fire service but most people never experience a fire - is it wasted money?

  8. #458
    Politics.ie Regular
    Join Date
    Jan 2009
    Location
    Ireland
    Posts
    4,261

    Quote Originally Posted by wombat View Post
    The problem I have with the debate on climate change and man's contribution is that it takes so long to prove the theory right or wrong - what happens if its true?
    We spend millions every year on maintaining a fire service but most people never experience a fire - is it wasted money?
    “The elephant in the room is the questions raised by the emails which have been made public,” said Rep. John Shadegg, (R-Ariz), on Wednesday. “Anyone who thinks that the emails are insignificant, that they don’t damage the credibility of the entire movement, is naïve.”
    'Climategate' could threaten Dem agenda - - POLITICO.com

    Interesting... from Politico

  9. #459
    Politics.ie Member
    Join Date
    Oct 2009
    Posts
    331

    This was posted on John Gibbons site Think or Swim.
    I tried to respond but Gibbons would not let me.


    Prof Colin O'Dowd says:
    December 3, 2009 at 20:45
    COPY OF LETTER SUBMITTED TO EDITOR, THE IRISH TIMES:

    Madam,

    I listened with great surprise to the Pat Kenny Show this morning and Kenny’s appalling and gratuitous treatment of the debate on climate change. He hosted an author of a climate sceptic book (which I have not read), but from the claims of the author himself only 3% or less of the contemporary CO2 increase is due to anthropogenic activity (and hence industrial and economic development).

    Kenny also hosted the Irish Times informed journalist Mr. John Gibbons. Kenny’s aggressive attack on the latter seemed to be motivated to justify his own “pedigree” in impartial journalistic skills rather than to being motivated by credibility in discussion of issues under debate!

    Well done to John Gibbons in his defense of the one-sided onslaught! Kenny should be seriously embarrassed of his professional skill as he came across as siding with an apparently discredited climate sceptic and more so, gratuitously attacking a journalist apparently better informed via credible and accepted scientific peer-reviewed literature.

    The CO2-Climate issue is based on fundamental physics – CO2 is a simple, essentially non-reactive molecule that blocks infra-red radiation emitted from the Earth and the amounts emitted depends on the amount of visible radiation absorbed through the atmosphere.

    We know the emissions of CO2, we know the accumulation in the atmosphere, we know the biosphere uptake (this is evident from the seasonal cycle in CO2 which is not changing much so far!), we know the interaction with radiation, and we know the effect on the radiation balance – simple physics, otherwise basic physics is wrong and we are in great trouble!

    Kenny prides himself in being a knowledgeable scientist and an informed journalist – he should demonstrate this excellent combination of skills better in such an important debate.

    What is uncertain is the climate (temperature and precipitation) sensitivity to CO2 accumulation and this has more to do with transmission of solar energy through the atmosphere rather than solar energy variability. This solar energy transmission is controlled by atmospheric aerosols and their cooling effect through their role in determining the reflectance of haze and cloud layers.

    Sceptics can of course point to periods of global warming and global cooling since the industrial revolution for a variety of reasons. One compelling reason for recent periods of global cooling, or global dimming, has been due to atmospheric aerosols (Particulate Matter in terms of Air Quality issues) accumulation.

    However, as we strive towards cleaner air, the temperature response will be, and has been in more recent years, greater than previously estimated, resulting in an increased rate of global warming. The net result is that cleaning up air quality will increase the rate of global warming and the rate of global warming can be almost completely (with the exception of soot carbon) attributed to the increase in greenhouse gases.

    The most important greenhouse gas is water vapour but the amount of water vapour is interlinked with the amount of greenhouse gases as CO2 induced warming will increase the water evaporation rate and potentially also lead to increases storminess and precipitation.

    To suggest that 3% of the increase of CO2 results from anthropogenic emissions is without foundation. This means that 97% of the emission increases are either unaccounted for or are natural (geophysical or biospheric). The biosphere tends to remove CO2, leaving geophysical emissions as accounting for 97% of the increase in CO2 concentrations in the atmospheric.

    If this is the case, there is a massive emission of CO2 from the Earth’s surface or from regions remote from measurement networks. Remote volcanoes could be such a source, as cited by the sceptic, but the first and gold standard CO2 time series by Keeling et al, do not illustrate any such volcanic effect since measurements started in 1958 (these were located on Mauna Loa Observatory, close to a volcano).

    In addition to the Inter-governmental Panel on Climate Change’s recent assessment which concluded that the current day climate warming is primarily induced by anthropogenic greenhouse gasses, there are many non-governmental consortia (up to 60-70 institutional partners) that speak independently and from a credible independent voice. This voice has never spoken of such low anthropogenic CO2 contributions to the atmospheric burden.

    Since measurements of background CO2 levels began in Ireland’s Global Atmosphere Watch station at Mace Head, run by NUI Galway’s Centre for Climate & Air Pollution Studies, in co-operation with the French Research Institute LCSE, in 1992, average CO2 levels have risen from ~350 ppm to ~385 ppm to date.

    The biosphere signal in this dataset illustrates an almost constant annual cycle over the period due to biospheric uptake of CO2 in the northern hemispheric growing season. This means that the biosphere has little responsibility for the increasing trend in CO2 concentrations.

    In light of the above simple facts, the credibility of the climate change debates hosted on the Kenny RTE1 radio show have to be seriously questioned!

    Professor Colin O’Dowd
    School of Physics & (Director) Center for Climate & Air Pollution Studies, Environmental Change Institute, National University of Ireland ,Galway

  10. #460
    Politics.ie Member
    Join Date
    Oct 2009
    Posts
    331

    Here is my response.

    Hello Prof O,Dowd,
    I would like to discuss your previous post.

    "The CO2-Climate issue is based on fundamental physics – CO2 is a simple, essentially non-reactive molecule that blocks infra-red radiation emitted from the Earth and the amounts emitted depends on the amount of visible radiation absorbed through the atmosphere."

    If co2 blocks radiation leaving the earth does it not block radiation
    coming in. Are you implying that it is one sided in thet respect?.
    Further does the amount of visible radiation being absorbed through the atmosphere not depend on the amont of radiation being emmitted from the sun, which varies?

    "We know the emissions of CO2, we know the accumulation in the atmosphere, we know the biosphere uptake (this is evident from the seasonal cycle in CO2 which is not changing much so far!), we know the interaction with radiation, and we know the effect on the radiation balance – simple physics, otherwise basic physics is wrong and we are in great trouble! "

    Do we know all this? Do we know that co2 is plant food. Simple physics.

    "What is uncertain is the climate (temperature and precipitation) sensitivity to CO2 accumulation and this has more to do with transmission of solar energy through the atmosphere rather than solar energy variability. This solar energy transmission is controlled by atmospheric aerosols and their cooling effect through their role in determining the reflectance of haze and cloud layers."

    Here you make an atempt to seperate solar energy being transmitted through the atmosphere from solar energy output. Despite the fact
    that they are directly interlinked. You give way too much credit to
    co2 which is miniscule in terms of percentage of atmosphere and GHG.

    "One compelling reason for recent periods of global cooling, or global dimming, has been due to atmospheric aerosols (Particulate Matter in terms of Air Quality issues) accumulation."

    Hardly compelling . That sounds like something Gore would come up with.
    This dimming you refer to is the result of the sun,s current state.

    SpaceWeather.com -- News and information about meteor showers, solar flares, auroras, and near-Earth asteroids


    "However, as we strive towards cleaner air, the temperature response will be, and has been in more recent years, greater than previously estimated, resulting in an increased rate of global warming. The net result is that cleaning up air quality will increase the rate of global warming and the rate of global warming can be almost completely (with the exception of soot carbon) attributed to the increase in greenhouse gases. "

    I am assuming you made a mistake here Proffessor.
    From what I can gather you are saying The Chinese
    are doing a grat job by making the air filthy.
    Please explain.

    "The most important greenhouse gas is water vapour but the amount of water vapour is interlinked with the amount of greenhouse gases as CO2 induced warming will increase the water evaporation rate and potentially also lead to increases storminess and precipitation."

    While I agree with you on the importance of water vapour, again you give way too much credit to co2 despite its miniscule nature.
    The sun creates water vapour, yet once again you ommit the sun.
    As far as storms and precipitation is concerned Henrick Svensmark has proved beyond therory the battle between solar wind/magnetisim and cosmic rays determines cloud formation and percipitation.

    "To suggest that 3% of the increase of CO2 results from anthropogenic emissions is without foundation. This means that 97% of the emission increases are either unaccounted for or are natural (geophysical or biospheric). The biosphere tends to remove CO2, leaving geophysical emissions as accounting for 97% of the increase in CO2 concentrations in the atmospheric. "

    No one made this suggestion. Plimer was reffering to overall co2 levels, not the increase.

    "If this is the case, there is a massive emission of CO2 from the Earth’s surface or from regions remote from measurement networks. Remote volcanoes could be such a source, as cited by the sceptic, but the first and gold standard CO2 time series by Keeling et al, do not illustrate any such volcanic effect since measurements started in 1958 (these were located on Mauna Loa Observatory, close to a volcano. "

    Short List of volcanic eruptions since 1958.
    Mt St Helena U.S.A 1980, 2005
    Mt Penetubo Philipines 1991, 1993
    Mountserratt Carribean 1995 2004

    Are you saying these eruptions played no role in the increase
    from 350 ppm to 385ppm?

    Please clarify Proffessor.
    Thanks Joe

Similar Threads

  1. UK Climate Change ad
    By thebrom in forum Environment
    Replies: 36
    Last Post: 30th November 2009, 12:30 AM
  2. Replies: 1
    Last Post: 24th October 2007, 03:37 PM
  3. Climate Change and Sex.....
    By Barra Roantree in forum Environment
    Replies: 5
    Last Post: 1st September 2007, 06:09 PM
  4. Is Climate Change really the problem?
    By Simon.D in forum Current Affairs
    Replies: 8
    Last Post: 21st April 2006, 04:28 PM