Statement on Global Warming Petition Signed by 31,478 Scientists
June 15, 2009 02:24 PM EDT
views: 274
|
rating: 8.2/10
(10 votes)
|
comments: 169
Statement of Congressman Ron Paul United States House of Representatives | | | | | Statement on Global Warming Petition Signed by 31,478 Scientists | | | | | | June 4, 2009 | | | | | | - Mr. PAUL. Madam Speaker, before voting on the ''cap-and-trade'' legislation,
- my colleagues should consider the views expressed in the following petition
- that has been signed by 31,478 American scientists:
- ''We urge the United States government to reject the global warming agreement
- that was written in Kyoto, Japan in December, 1997, and any other similar
- proposals. The proposed limits on greenhouse gases would harm the
- environment, hinder the advance of science and technology, and damage the
- health and welfare of mankind.
- There is no convincing scientific evidence that human release of carbon
- dioxide, methane, or other greenhouse gases is causing or will, in the
- foreseeable future, cause catastrophic heating of the Earth's atmosphere
- and disruption of the Earth's climate. Moreover, there is substantial scientific
- evidence that increases in atmospheric carbon dioxide produce many
- beneficial effects upon the natural plant and animal environments of the
- Earth.''
- Circulated through the mail by a distinguished group of American physical
- scientists and supported by a definitive review of the peer-reviewed
- scientific literature, this may be the strongest and most widely supported
- statement on this subject that has been made by the scientific community.
- A state-by-state listing of the signers, which include 9,029 men and women
- with PhD degrees, a listing of their academic specialties, and a peer-reviewed
- summary of the science on this subject are available at
- www.petitionproiect.org.
- The peer-reviewed summary, ''Environmental Effects of Increased
- Atmospheric Carbon Dioxide'' by A. B. Robinson, N. E. Robinson, and
- W. Soon includes 132 references to the scientific literature and was circulated
- with the petition.
- Signers of this petition include 3,803 with specific training in atmospheric,
- earth, and environmental sciences. All 31,478 of the signers have the
- necessary training in physics, chemistry, and mathematics to understand
- and evaluate the scientific data relevant to the human-caused global
- warming hypothesis and to the effects of human activities upon
- environmental quality.
- In a letter circulated with this petition, Frederick Seitz--past President
- of the U.S. National Academy of Sciences, President Emeritus of Rockefeller
- University, and recipient of honorary doctorate degrees from 32 universities
- throughout the world--wrote:
- ''The United States is very close to adopting an international agreement that
- would ration the use of energy and of technologies that depend upon coal,
- oil, and natural gas and some other organic compounds.
- This treaty is, in our opinion, based upon flawed ideas. Research data on
- climate change do not show that human use of hydrocarbons is harmful.
- To the contrary, there is good evidence that increased atmospheric carbon
- dioxide is environmentally helpful.
- The proposed agreement we have very negative effects upon the technology
- of nations throughout the world; especially those that are currently
- attempting to lift from poverty and provide opportunities to the over
- 4 billion people in technologically underdeveloped countries.
- It is especially important for America to hear from its citizens who have
- the training necessary to evaluate the relevant data and offer sound advice.''
- We urge you to sign and return the enclosed petition card. If you would
- like more cards for use by your colleagues, these will be sent.''
- Madam Speaker, at a time when our nation is faced with a severe shortage
- of domestically produced energy and a serious economic contraction;
- we should be reducing the taxation and regulation that plagues our
- energy-producing industries.
- Yet, we will soon be considering so-called ''cap and trade'' legislation that
- would increase the taxation and regulation of our energy industries.
- ''Cap and-trade'' will do at least as much, if not more, damage to the
- economy as the treaty referred by Professor Seitz! This legislation is being
- supported by the claims of ''global warming'' and ''climate change''
- advocates--claims that, as demonstrated by the 31,477 signatures
- to Professor Seitz' petition, many American scientists believe is disproved
- by extensive experimental and observational work.
- It is time that we look beyond those few who seek increased taxation and i
- ncreased
[Page: E1325] <cite>GPO's PDF</cite> regulation and control of the American people. Our energy policies must be based upon scientific truth--not fictional movies or self-interested international agendas. They should be based upon the accomplishments of technological free enterprise that have provided our modern civilization, including our energy industries. That free enterprise must not be hindered by bogus claims about imaginary disasters. - Above all, we must never forget our contract with the American people--the
- Constitution that provides the sole source of legitimacy of our government.
- That Constitution requires that we preserve the basic human rights of our
- people--including the right to freely manufacture, use, and sell energy
- produced by any means they devise--including nuclear, hydrocarbon, solar, wind, or even bicycle generators.
- While it is evident that the human right to produce and use energy does
- not extend to activities that actually endanger the climate of the Earth
- upon which we all depend, bogus claims about climate dangers should
- not be used as a justification to further limit the American people's freedom.
In conclusion, I once again urge my colleagues to carefully consider the arguments made by the 31,478 American scientists who have signed this petition before voting on any legislation imposing new regulations or taxes on the American people in the name of halting climate change. ***** Well 31,478 Scientists disagree with the political football no going though congress. Man made Climate Change is nothing but a Hoax. |
|
Tags:
conspiracy,
law,
news,
politics,
business,
environment,
planet,
people,
economy,
money,
future,
dont forget morons
rate
email
print
link to this page
Comments: 169 ( 1 removed by Col. George W. )
THere was one done a couple of years ago, I believe by the same scientists. I think evey year they grow by a few more scientists, all joining in, either first time stance, or switch overs from those that believed, but found the truth.
It was also debunked a couple of years ago, Dan.
It'll still be ignored by the worshippers of Al Gore.
This nation has real problems, Why is our congress considering this hoax?
Especially for Al Gore Sparky
Because, George, it is not a hoax.
Al Gore is one who will have substantial monetary gain from the global warming hoax because of his investments in the Green technologies. I believe the reduction of carbon emission will be a threat to life as we now know it and I'm not a scientist. Common sense dictates that the trees and vegetation on our planet survive on those emissions and provide us with oxygen, a necessary element to our existence. Also, oxygen is the necessary component in producing rain, again necessary to human and animal existence. Those in government pressing for controls of those emissions are in it for the power and monetary gain by the elites in their party who will be the recipients of such legislation.
You are so right Barbara, where were you when everyone was jumpping my case over Global Warming? I could have used your help.
Barbara said: "I believe the reduction of carbon emission will be a threat to life as we now know it.."
This hypothosis seems rather astounding to me. Let's consider that humans have only been emitting vast amounts of carbon into the atmo for the past two hundred years. Since humans have been living successfully on the globe for thousands of years without emitting carbon, I fail to see how it could be dangerous for us to stop or reduce our output now.
Bill, humans have been emmiting vast amounts of carbon for not only a couple of hundred years, but a couple of thousand years. I would make an educated guess for about 17000 years +/- 2-3 thousand. It would become dangerous as a posible responce because we have a lot of plants that are feeding on that carbon, so reducing the amount would in effect starve many plants and algie, thus starting a chain reaction right up the food chain.
Remember during high CO2 periods, that is also higher abounts of diverse life. Something the Global Warming scammers don't want you to realize or accept.
Dan R. - You're kidding, right? You are seriously going to claim that the carbon emissions of the human race have not risen significantly over the past 17,000 years; let alone the past 200? So the tens of thousands of cavemen (the total human population of 17,000 years ago) who had barely mastered creating a fire emitted out the same amount of carbon gases as our current industrialized population of over 6,000,000,000?
Let's be clear. Humans (and all our industries) could vanish from the face of the planet tomorrow; and nature would thrive on just fine.
That's right Bill if all humans and animal live was eliminated nature would thrive. That proves man has nothing or little to do with global warming.
It is climate change and it happens.
Thank you for convincing me that this is not a serious conversation, Col.
Guess you are not getting your way Bill. I don't know where you got the idea it was not serious.
Bill these guy are either to lazy to read or to stoned to use reason they will believe an outsourced propaganda but not hard data. they will bury their children in their greed before giving up their sacred cow. how sad.
So Bill, still ignoring the facts. Ok you and Darren can keep your belief that CO2 is causing Global Warming. But facts will never change on their own to support you. Devonian Period which was maked as the first of the Highest diversity of life, also has all the geological signs of high CO2, which was also seen in the Jurassic period, the second highest period of diverse life.
So Darren who is stoned? Me with the facts, or you and Bill with the make-believe?
A geologist can show you the strata in the earth and tell which is a warm period and which is a cold time. Supposedly we get Oil from decayed animal and plant matter. It is then logical that at one time the entire earth, or most of it, was a tropical forrest.
How did the oil get into northern Alaska and Siberia if this is not true?
Col, The carboniferous period that produced most of our fossil fuels (that's where the name of the period came from) was also quite a bit warmer than our current climate. The levels of carbon dioxide in the air were higher then which explains part of the warmer climate.
Human beings, until recently, burned almost no fossil fuels. They burned wood which would have been eaten and burned (metabolized) by bacteria and fungi anyway and carbon dioxide and methane would have been released thereby back into the air. That's what happens to old wood anyway without people. The carbon cycle doesn't need us at all.
But when we burn coal or oil we are increasing the amount of carbon that is active in the weather affecting systems (the air and the ocean and plant matter near the surface of the earth) so that we unbalance them. WIthout us change would mostly be slow. We speed up that change.
There will be a pop quiz on the above material in the next five days. Be ready.
Back in history Coal was the dominate fuel for factorys and for home heating. Coal was used to melt ore to make metal way back 2 thousand years ago. That is what Solomon used to refine gold to cover the temple in gold.
Nearly every home in the US had a coal fired furnace or stove. Pitsburg was known for its smoky atmosphere because of coal fired furnices to manufacture steel.
There is a lot less coal used both domestically and industral now than there was in the last two or three thousand years. NOW the gas from burning coal is a problem?
links should lead to facts not hype
i have Grandchildern so F off with this propaganda. Who are you serving?
truth
Truth
don't believe theses guys how about DARPA
You don't believe 31,478 scientists who are trained and experienced to know?
You got truth and don't use bad language or I will have to delete you.
i have the internet and know how to search there is no substance behind this partition the names are circular and lead to hundreds of loops.
there are real scientist in the filed and on the ground. biology dose not lie i have plants and insects in my yard that don't belong here they are migrating.
Over 31 thousand name who claim to be scientists who have studied and are expert in this field...c'mon. There has not been that many since the dawn of mankind. Perhaps some of them can explain why temps are soaring into the 80's and above in ALASKA on the shores of the Bering Sea in early June?
Who are you trying to convince? Why persist in posting such lies? There should be a new flag made available on Gather: "This post contains blatant lies." And after 3 of these flags, the poster should be kicked off Gather.
If gather did that we would not have any Global Warming believers with which to argue.
news flash Charles we live here
Charles, did you learn nothing from school about temperature ranges and such in the far northern arctic regions? You guys are just nonsense anyway... no one in their right would believe what you all are writing , so it's got to be a joke. BTW, we done have to hide our guns inside the house; we carry them on our shoulders, gun belts, in cars anywhere, except in bars.
That's a joke -- Right? Seriously the more things the government can get us to be scared about, the more control they can get over our daily lives. Global Warming or Climate Change is one.
Another attack is another, eh? ;)
Even If You Don't Like Carl Sagan, the Stars are Still Out There
There's a meme going around the net - and it pops up often in comments on TreeHugger - that really gets my goat. It has many variations, but it always comes back to trying to link anything that has to do with global warming/climate change (especially when it's things we don't quite understand yet) with Al Gore. "Ah! Because of X, I guess Al Gore was wrong!". There's a lot of subtext there, but the main goal is apparently to deny climate science via ad hominem on a single individual. Well, newsflash, Al Gore has been popularizing global warming science for a while, but it's not his theory. Thousands of scientists have been working on it for decades, and whether you like Gore or not has nothing to do with the validity of the science.
Image: NASA
The reason why this meme (the word "meme", by the way, was popularized by Richard Dawkins to explain the spread of ideas and culture) is so popular sadly doesn't seem to have much to do with the search for truth.
If figuring out what's really going on was the true goal, the so-called skeptics would be discussing the science (and not just repeating sound-bytes about it). But since that's hard and there's an overwhelming scientific consensus, it's much easier to reframe this as "Al Gore's thing" since people who don't like Al Gore will be strongly predisposed to also dislike his ideas (which in itself isn't very rational -- if someone you don't like says the sky is blue, that doesn't make it yellow, and a good idea should still be a good wherever it comes from).
So the next time you see people trying to implicitly make global warming "Al Gore's thing", remind them that GW isn't anymore Al Gore's than stars and galaxies are Carl Sagan's, and no scientific field is owned by a single author who writes a book for the layman about it.
Our friends at Grist have a useful guide on How to Talk to a Climate Skeptic. That's a good place to start to get familiar with the science (and Al Gore isn't even mentioned in the index!).
More Climate Articles
Some Himalayan Glaciers are Growing. Does this Mean Global Warming Isn't Real?
EU Closes Car Air Conditioner Regulatory Loophole, Earth's Climate Wins
Global Warming Speeding Up Erosion in Alaska
Vicious Cycle: Drought Threatens Amazon Forest, Speeds Global Warming
Al Gore stands to make millions. I would rather get my information from a reliable source.
The climate changes perodocially. That is nature. There is no influence by man on the climate. DON'T MESS WITH MOTHER NATURE is a good idea.
NASA is not reliable?
it's just a big conspiracy is that it?
http://www.nature.com/nature/journa
l/v421/n6918/abs/nature01286.html
http://caliber.ucpress.net/doi/abs/10.1641/0006-3568(2000)050[0871:GWATEA]2.0.CO;2
http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v408/n6809/abs/408184a0.html
http://md1.csa.com/partners/viewrecord.php?requester=gs&collection=TRD&recid=A9235924AH&q=&uid=1215786&setcookie=yes
http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v421/n6918/abs/nature01333.html
Darren, you say "overwhelming science" I would not call 31,000+ less than overwelming.
Darren, If someone I knew was a proven liar and he said the sky was blue I would take a look just to be sure.
Can you read? do your eyes work? do you have aers? i live on the Bearing Sea.
The Bering Sea is one of the major Large Marine Ecosystems in the world (fig 1); fisheries from Alaska represent half of the marine harvest in United States waters. The Bering Sea is also home to large bird and marine mammal populations. The climate and ecosystem of the Bering Sea has changed over the previous fifty years. There are two shifts in climate associated with increased warm temperatures and other factors, the first in the late 1970s and again around 2000. There was a major ecosystem reorganization following the late-1970s shift. These changes represent a transition from primarily cold Arctic ecosystems earlier in the 20th century, dominated by sea ice, to sub-Arctic conditions.
Right Darren and they will change again and againg as years pass. That is what nature does. You speak of the 70s. That was when the "scientists" were predicting an Ice Age. In the 70s there was also a scare about running out of oil. Neither one happened.
Darren is right. In the 70's they did not have the amount and depth of data they do today. There are two competing processing going on. A global cooling factor, caused by particulates in the atmosphere, that is masking the global warming and keeping it from being as intense as it would be normally.
Darren is also right about the simple-mindedness of the anti-global -warming argument being aimed exclusively at Al Gore. The Republicans think they can villianize someone and use that someone as an argument for ages.
There was never a concensus about a coming ice age as there is for global warming either. The changes predicted once they are really visible to human's senses will have gone past the point of being changeable by simply stopping creating greenhouse gasses.
I cannot believe the ignorant arguments against global warming, they are all based on, I can't see anything changing, so it doesn't exist. That is like cave-man thinking, ignoring anything that is not a crisis and finding ways to ridicule and deny scientific data. These are people who do not understand science.
The post is about the CAUSE of Global Warming, not Global Warming. You statement only go to substantuate the premise that it is not man made. It has more to do with the relationship of the Sun to the Earth.
I clearly remember all the hype about the coming ice age in the 70s. It was a big national concern. I think the Kyoto (sp) treaty came from that period. Fortunately the US had sense enough not to sign it.
your laughable George, you clame that the top oceanographic university in the world is using junk sciences and to prove your point you sight the smoking Dr. this is raw hummer.
Climatology is a dicipline to be taken more seriously than Oceanography when it comes to Climate Darren. They are two different fields of study.
no they are not... but maybe thats way this is so hard for you. the earth is a holistic biosphere
ScienceDaily (May 24, 2008) — Up to now, the oceans have buffered climate change considerably by absorbing almost one third of the worldwide emitted carbon dioxide. The oceans represent a significant carbon sink, but the uptake of excess CO 2 stemming from man's burning of fossil fuels comes at a high cost: ocean acidification.
What economist or socialoligist wrote that article? just kidding.
Uptake of excess CO2? We are not burning more fossil fuels now than we did 50 years ago. In fact we are burning less and cleaning the emissions better.
Oh yeah, and burning fossil fuels gives very little CO2. They give off CO not CO2 because of incomplete combustion. CO2 is created with complete combustiion and that is only achieved in the lab under ideal conditions.
http://www.uctv.tv/search-details.aspx?showID=14989&subject=sci
http://www.uctv.tv/search-details.aspx?showID=14335&subject=sci
http://www.uctv.tv/search-details.aspx?showID=14856&subject=sci
http://www.uctv.tv/search-details.aspx?showID=11759&subject=sci
You could get pictues like that any summer. They prove nothing.
the links are to direct data and no you can't.
Changes are also seen in the northern Bering Sea. Native peoples noted a shift away from Arctic conditions after 1976 with more variable timing of seasonal changes and a reduction in the quality of sea ice for hunting activities. Productivity and biomass of bottom species have decreased since 1998 and the dominant species of clam has shifted. Gray whales which were found south of Bering Strait in the 1980s were found north of the Strait in 2002.
http://www.beringclimate.noaa.gov/bering_status_overview.html
No one is saying there have been no changes. The question is the cause.
Darren, I checked out you links Of the NINE only THREE link Global Warming to CO2 emmissions and one of those seems to not be all that sure.
I find it interesting that in 100 years the earth has warmed 0.6 degrees. Hey that is just over half of one degree. I am scared to death. NOT
the evidents of our part is ocverwellming how much free research do you want me to do for you? i have provided you with over a thousand hours of reeding and video on the subject. get a life
http://catalog.ou.edu/courses/geography_courses.htm
you have not studied the subject nor did you read the links you are not a machine you cant crunch data that quickly I've been studying this for the past 9 years
You would be suprised what this old man can do Darren
Yeah, don't mess with mother nature. All that pollution is causing global warming and more. NASA says so. And NASA isn't fringe science or voodoo science (there's always too much of that).
thank you Peter. this is the worst type of hate there is to willfully destroy our children's future for a fist full of dollars.
NASA scientist are expert at putting things in space Peter, These scientists are expert in environmental isssues.
Please give us your sourse or did you make that up?
Darren, is is bad only if it is not true. I think I'll believe the scientists with all their credentials.
will you? i put links to real scientist in the file as well as video lectures and a resource search tool i can't learn for you. i don't see what you get out of this propaganda. do they paid
The vast majority of scientists subscribe to global climate change, basically a heating up of the planet that will have escalating effects once it breaks past the self-correcting system that the Earth has had for so long. I don't know why anyone would even want to take a chance on gambling with that.
Bruce, what makes them think the self-correcting system is going to break down?
"this is the worst type of hate there is to willfully destroy our children's future for a fist full of dollars"
Hmmm... when I read that guess what I thought of. Our national deficit.
They are two completely different things - COMPLETELY !!!
To bail out capitalism to save it for your children is VERY different from polluting the world.
If you don't get that then you must be modern Republican.
Col. - Your link to petitionproject.com is not typed correctly; and so, doesn't work. Your other link only leads to the second half of Dr. Paul's statement, so maybe you will want to correct that.
What I find confusing is that Dr. Paul apparently stated:
"All 31,478 of the signers have the necessary training in physics, chemistry, and mathematics to understand and evaluate the scientific data relevant to the human-caused global warming hypothesis and to the effects of human activities upon environmental quality."
Yet Paul also says that only 3,803 of the signers have specific training in atmospheric, earth, and environmental sciences; and only 9,029 of the signers had PhDs. So what are the credentials of the other 18,646?
Man's ability to effect the environment is not arguable. Nature did not create the Dust Bowl event of the last century; man did. We dam up waterways, remove billions of acres of forest, hunt species to extinction, pollute waterways to an unihabitable point, dump tons of toxic and harmful gases into out atmosphere and we remove the tops of mountains so we can harvest the materials beneath. These things are not deniable; and we have only been doing more and more of these things over the past two hundred years.
Thank you, Bill. You just bore out my point.
The dust bowl of the late 20 and thirties was not caused by man. It came down from Canada into Montana and spread thorughout the great plains. Man had nothing to do with it or it would still be here.
are you plaining stupid?
My mom's family were affected by the dust bowl in Oklahoma. And from the family history of that event, farmers stripped the trees from the earth in southwestern Oklahoma, leaving nothing but the dirt to blow away in the wind. If you travel through southwestern Oklahoma, you will see the trees that line the fences because those are the ones they planted to slow the wind thus keeping their soil and crops in the ground as it was intended to be a part of. This I learned from my mom as a youngster who asked, "Why are the trees all in a row with nothing in between?" Also, as I said before, trees and vegetation produce the elements to create rain, also needed to support life of every form.
Yep they did that and those trees now serving as a wind break were part of a program by FDR. CO2 had nothing to do with it. It was a freak of nature that caused that endless wind and ruined thousands of farms.
They didn't have to cut many trees either since OK is one of the Great Plains States. On the border of the Great Plains at least.
your an idiot i'm sorry but you dont have any brain in your head don't you no that it was the natural grass that fed the buffalo for thousands of years that intern was removed by farmers that created the conditions that led to the dust storms?
That's right the dust bowl was from bad farming practices but that did npot create that wind.
Hey Bill that links works perfectly for me.
the link is broken it took me to yahoo. but i'm a search expert and had no trouble finding it and the lie behind it. you can lie to yourself but not to the world. the old days are over you can't hide behind story's and old wives tails.
So then why are you posting links that do not claim CO2 is the problem? Are you trying to sell us a bill of goods for some reason?
There seems to be as much evidence global warming is an affect of sun spots or flares.
BTW I am no search expert and I had no problem with that link.
"BTW I am no search expert and I had no problem with that link."
if that were true we would not be having this talk..
CO2 this is your Question?
No credible scientific body denies this despite the seemingly divided opinions among scientists in recent years. This is no longer under debate in the science community.
“With the July 2007 release of the revised statement by the American Association of Petroleum Geologists, no remaining scientific body of national or international standing is known to reject the basic findings of human influence on recent climate.”
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_opinion_on_climate_change
Wikipedia has a comprehensive list of every major scientific body and direct links to the official position statements by these organizations which all ring to the same tune. Anyone wishing to discredit the claim that Global Warming is real or that man can influence climate, is doing so in direct opposition of all major scientific institutions and organizations in the world. Just because some individuals are in denial doesn’t mean this is somehow still under debate. If you still don’t believe this is real, you are in denial and do not agree with science. You also most likely will not help to do anything about this major problem and you are therefore against the preservation of humanity. Congratulations, your grandchildren ought to be proud.
Significantly more carbon is stored in the world's soils—including peatlands, wetlands and permafrost—than is present in the atmosphere. Disagreement exists, however, regarding the effects of climate change on global soil carbon stocks. If carbon stored belowground is transferred to the atmosphere by a warming-induced acceleration of its decomposition, a positive feedback to climate change would occur. Conversely, if increases of plant-derived carbon inputs to soils exceed increases in decomposition, the feedback would be negative. Despite much research, a consensus has not yet emerged on the temperature sensitivity of soil carbon decomposition. Unravelling the feedback effect is particularly difficult, because the diverse soil organic compounds exhibit a wide range of kinetic properties, which determine the intrinsic temperature sensitivity of their decomposition. Moreover, several environmental constraints obscure the intrinsic temperature sensitivity of substrate decomposition, causing lower observed 'apparent' temperature sensitivity, and these constraints may, themselves, be sensitive to climate.
"THE DOUBLING OF CARBON DIOXIDE IS A GUARANTEE FOR GLOBAL DISASTER ... IN THE LAST MILLION YEARS IT'S NEVER BEEN MORE THAN ONE DEGREE CELSIUS WARMER THAN IT IS NOW [BUT] WHAT WE'RE DOING WITH THE HUMAN-MADE GREENHOUSE GASES ... WE ARE VERY CLOSE TO THE SLIPPERY SLOPE..."
Every switch we flip, every plug we use and every button we push to turn something on inevitably leads back to a power plant most likely running on fossil fuel -- the coal, oil or natural gas that comes from burning the fossilized remains of prehistoric plants and animals.
Nearly 90 percent of the world's energy consumption is through fossil fuel, which produces carbon dioxide (CO2) when burned.
CO2 rises into the atmosphere and, along with water vapor, methane, nitrous oxide and ozone, forms the "greenhouse gases" that float like a dome over the planet, retaining just enough of the sun's reflected energy to maintain temperatures that support life.
As the amounts of those gases increase, they trap more heat and can radically affect the climate all over the planet.
For the last 250 years, "greenhouse emissions" have soared as we find more and more ways to use more and more energy. As the amount of CO2 rises, so does the average temperature all over the planet.
In the United States, there is probably more CO2 released every year from the making and consumption of cheeseburgers than from driving SUVs. Here is how it breaks down: Americans eat an average of three cheeseburgers every week, which is equivalent to 150 per person a year. The total energy needed to make that many burgers releases almost 200 million metric tons of carbon dioxide into the atmosphere each year. The carbon footprint of each burger measures all the energy that was consumed every step of the way for each of a cheeseburger's component parts -- from the feedstock that feeds the cattle to the wheat that is grown to make the buns to processing the milk into cheese, and trucking, refrigerating and cooking the end product.
The dangerous level of carbon dioxide molecules in the atmosphere is about 450 parts per million -- we are already at 383.
Researchers and climate modelers around the world can reasonably predict what could happen as temperatures rise another 2 to 3 degrees Celsius, but almost all agree that 3 degrees of warming would be a tipping point that irreversibly changes how we live.
We may reach the tipping point of 3 degrees warmer as early as 2050 if we don't pay attention to the warning signs and alter our production and consumption of energy sources.
http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v440/n7081/abs/nature04514.html
Too bad that was cut off at the end of every line.
NASA is set to light the match to the Orbiting Carbon Observatory, scanning Earth's surface for elusive carbon dioxide "sinks" in Earth's atmosphere. The OCO is NASA's first spacecraft dedicated to studying atmospheric carbon dioxide, the most significant human-produced greenhouse gas and the principal human-produced driver of climate change. eWEEK offers a NASA mission primer.
http://www.eweek.com/c/a/Green-IT/NASAs-Latest-and-Greenest-Mission-Focuses-on-Climate-Change/
Their findings should be interesting Darren.
It's a $250 m reef. NASA is one of the largest polluters and indeed the largest in space pollution.
Of the 2000± "real scientists" who make up the global warming "consensus" the majority are economists and "social scientists". One look at the worlds economies is evidence enough they are not the brightest bunch of people.
The majority of the data being analyzed is produced by NASA et el. and does not produce any evidence of "catastrophic climate change" and not one single model mentions or takes into account of the weather and vapor river manipulation or the other large scale manipulation being carried out by our military and many other countries. This is the reason they have changed from "global warming" to "climate change" so that regardless of what happens they can justify this pointless tax and control over every aspect of the rights to life for everyone..
This list was compiled in 1997 and has been maintained and updated. All the names are there for anyone who wants to know who they are and what they do.
Bline is a good name for you.
prove this!
{Of the 2000± "real scientists" who make up the global warming "consensus" the majority are economists and "social scientists". One look at the worlds economies is evidence enough they are not the brightest bunch of people.}
I've read thousands of pages of IPCC garbage and this is a personal observation from reading the bios on the LA's and the CLA'a. Most of it is junk science as the concern is how to convince the people of the world to be at the mercy of a small group of cartels while maximizing their profits and control. It is also a fact publicly confirmed by William Schlesinger who has been on record stating that only 20% of IPCC scientists deal with climate and I'm certain he's stretching the numbers in their favor. Even the president of the IPCC is an economist. Either way it is only about 200 compared to 3000. Why don't they post a comprehensive list of these scientists?
Many of these scientists have conflicting papers as well as close connections to the Monsanto's, GE's, (those loving humanitarians who are contaminating your water and soil and poisoning your food) Exxon's and BP's who, like Al Gore, are in a position to profit greatly from "the largest revenue generating scheme in history"
Scripts and UC Divis are two of the top university's in the world if your to lazy to read you can sit on your coutch and watch. Science is not like your bible you can't pick out the part you like and discard to rest.
http://www.uctv.tv/search-moreresults.aspx?catSubID=117
I check out about a dozen of your links already. I noticed that UC and Scripts tends to forget tell us what dicipline the speaker's degree is. I did notice several are from Oceanography though.
Oceanography is closely connected to the climate. Those are highly relevant.
Other than the fact that the ocean evaporates and forms clouds so it will rain and that the air is cooler around water what does it have with CO2 in the atmosphere. I'm told that the "harm" is up high not the surface of the planet. I don't see what Oceanogaphy has to do with climate, Please explain.
El Nino, the Gulf Stream (and Kuroshio Extension), and the California (and Humbolt) Current are a few of the currents with major impacts on regional and global climate. (If you don't understand the reasoning behind the awkward parenthetical inclusions above ... you don't know Jacques about Oceanography or Climatology.)
Gently scratching the "Carbon Question": There is a "carbon cycle" where carbon circulates through solids forms (Living matter, coral, sea shells, etc) and dissolved carbonate in sea water and atmospheric carbon. The carbonate capacity of sea water is influenced by temperature, salinity, and the pH (the Ocean is a "Buffered Solution."), and marine algae, corals, mollusks and foraminifera are a significant carbon "sink" both while alive and when their little corpses sink to the bottom (above the Carbonate Compensation Depth), and become trapped in sediments and eventually sedimentary rocks like Limestone.
The sensitivity of Ocean carbonate solubility to temperature and pH set up some of the "tipping point" scenarios. CO2 solubility decreases as temperature increases. This potentially sets up a positive feedback loop where greenhouse warming heats the ocean, which releases more CO2, which increases greenhouse warming. Lather, Rinse, Repeat.
... and so it goes ... that's brief bit from the 4 years I spent at Scripps, and we weren't even really talking about Global Warming. That's just part of "Intro to Marine Chemistry." There's a whooooole lot more ... Go to Carbonate Compensation Depth on Wikipedia to get a small whiff of the total complexities of the Carbon Cycle. (But I'm sure you won't ... for long anyway ...)
Marine Biologists and Geologists did much of the fundamental work on Paleoclimate through deep sea sediment cores.
Col., the fact that you even asked this question shows that, while you have a "right to your opinion," your opinion can hardly be an informed one on the science. Neither you, nor apparently your "sources," have the background in the field.
I read in Wicki some time ago and it said the main gas from burning fossel fuels is CO, not CO2. I went there a few days ago and now it says CO2 is the main gas from burning fossel fuels, Why is that?
i researched all this for you the responses time alone is proof you never fully read the researched info.
I suppose we have the temps in the northeast, and the great lakes areas today that are again below normal to make the best argument against global warming. We know that our cycles are more in tune with the sun and the number of solar flares it produces. Those solar flares are subsiding and have been for a while. I would say to do some research in who is buying up land more southward than northward for farming and that may be the best evidence yet of it being a hoax. It takes warm weather to produce food in the fields.
This country has just went through one of the worst winters in years. Yep that's global warming. Here in Montana we have yet to see a series of warm days. It is chilly right now. Yep that's global warming.
Have you noticed the vent just at the bottom of your windshield? Years ago that vent was right under the headlights. People were dieing in traffic jams from inhaling Carbon Monoxide given off by the car in front of them.
When I went to school to repair oil burners I was taught that the main gas from burning fossel fuels was Carbon Monoxide.
Last year I looked up the product of combustion for fossel fuels on my computer. Carbon Monoxide was then one of the major products.
I just look it all up again. Carbon Monoxide is not mentioned. They have replaced CO with CO2. Burning fossel fuels has not changed. Why isn't CO still listed?
I'd like to know why the ice bergs on Mars are melting if it's from carbon emissions or could it be from the sun? Ya think? Last we knew of Mars, there aren't any Martians spewing carbon into the atmosphere or lack thereof. Sometimes I think those who have some education are truly dangerous people when they try and demean those of us who have lived a bit longer and seen more things in real life, not books and lectures. It seems to me they believe that when folks have an opinion on the subject, they need to back it up with scientific data when common sense would suffice.
Strange; No one has answered my question about CO being one of the main gasses from burning fossel fuels.
Barbara,
Where did you hear about ice bergs melting on Mars? Does "having lived a bit longer and seen more things in real life" mean you've seen them? Nasa is still trying to determine if there is water there, What are your ice burgs made of? Dangerous young people? I don't think so, dear. When you go in for your operation make sure you get some older person who has just common sense but no scientific learning on the subject.
WE OLDER people need to move over and let the younger people have a go at fixing what WE so famously srewed up.
Ice bergs on Mars? I seem to have read about that once. If there is Ice on mars, that means there is water and if there is water there is a good chance of life there.
I wondered where ET came from.
Ha! So all this post IS a joke!!! I knew it! Good job!!! ET, ho ho ho!
Martian bergs - I get it - the new McDonald bergers franchise up there!
Without a little levity these things get booring Joyce and people get to taking their opinions too seriously. No matter what we say on here nothing is going to be changed one way or the other.
Col.; " They have replaced CO with CO2. Burning fossel fuels has not changed. Why isn't CO still listed?"
It is like H2SO4 is not listed either. When using the Catalytic Converters, the Government to push the use of these has regulated the information about them. Yes they do clean many of the gases, but they also produce other gases, like the H2SO4 which is speeding up errosion and comes from the heating up of the fiberglass filter in the converters, in which they still use.
THe Catalytic Converts do a number of things to the engine, like increase back pressure, which is why the engines now have a much shorter life span than the older ones (Disposible Cars). THey produce different and some of the same gases, including mush more dangerous ones than the lead from the leaded gases. CO is still there, and if you use an older Emmissions tester you'll find it will still read it.
I think we need to do every thing we can to help save the plant. Like not citting down the rain forest .By cutting down all of the trees for lumber. But I don't go for Al Gores globel warming.
You're in good company Deloris!
Scripts and UC Divis are two of the top university's in the world if your to lazy to read you can sit on your coutch and watch. Science is not like your bible you can't pick out the part you like and discard to rest.
http://www.uctv.tv/search-moreresults.aspx?catSubID=117
Independent Climate Skeptics - Well, Maybe not so Independent After All (With Graphics)
Everyone in this thread with a Graduate Degree in Climatology, raise your hand, please...
Meteorology?
Earth Sciences (Geology, Paleontology...)?
Nobody?
What I thought.
I thought that right along, Chuck.
thank you chuck i'm an expert in search I've lead the horse to water. it's the best i could do.
Darren I was just forced to delete one of your comments. Personal insults are not allowed on my posts.
You led the horse to water and the horse was given the information, The globe has warmed just over half a degree in the last 100 years. I don't think that is a crisis worth congressional legislatiion.
George, when you consider a three degree increase in world temp causes all ice all over the world to melt, than a half degree increase most certainlly does make a diference.
Careful what you ask for Chuck. You might get it.
Three degrees? At the rate warming has gone that would be about 600 years from now. Hardly a catstrophy worth passing Cap and Trade or a Carbon Tax.
Sorry Joyce, but I just read the other day about the glacier in Patagonia is growing in defiance of global warming. Go figure, a glacier is defiant!
Joyce, Three degrees warmer than 40 below does not melt ice.
Barbara, I read that as well. Some glaciers just do not follow instructions.
600 years, hah? Destroy future generations, huh? just as long as you are not around, huh? You convict yourself by your own words. God/karma/whichever deity is listening...
for you chuk
Independent Climate Skeptics - Well, Maybe not so Independent After All (With Graphics)
The problem that I see with the term "Global Warming" is the fact that it can mean different things to different people.....
Because one person can see it as an expotentially-increasing phenomenon that threatens all life on earth, while another person can see it as the idea that the planet is merely temporarily warmer than it used to be, but it is nothing to worry about.....
And it all ends up boiling down to what the idea of "Global Warming" represents in the mind of each person.....
I think that, because there can be more than one definition of the term "Global Warming," it has led to a lot of confusion on both sides of the issue.
You are probably right BERF. To say that Global Warming is a catastrophy that needs congress to pass a bill is a lot over the top as far as I am concerned. Those scientists that Ron Paul quotes are entirely right.
Good thought BERF.
George, the PEOPLE that Ron Paul quoted (not scientists) are wrong. This has been debunked before and the people exposed as paid by certain conglomerates, one of which went bankrupt, to spiel this out. PROVEN, man, why do you persist in this nonsense? Have you seen measurements taken on how much loss of shoreline has been occuring worldwide due to water rising? Where is that water coming from?
The argument is not Global Warming or Climate Change Joyce. The question is the Cause not the affect. I'm sorry I didn't see where he quoted a non scientist. I'll have to read it again.
Nope he didn't quote any non scientist but he did quote some very promenent scientists. One will notice there is NO one saying Climate Change is not happening. They are addressing the Cause Only.
Independent Climate Skeptics - Well, Maybe not so Independent After All (With Graphics)
One positive aspect is if global warming continues it will make more of the world inhabitable.
I don't have a problem with it warming up some, what's a third of a degree in a lifetime anyway.
It is June and it is cold to near freezing outside. I could do with a degree or two more warmth.
Scripts and UC Divis are two of the top university's in the world if your to lazy to read you can sit on your coutch and watch. Science is not like your bible you can't pick out the part you like and discard to rest.
http://www.uctv.tv/search-moreresults.aspx?catSubID=117
Neher can you Darren, Frederick Seitz is one of the premere scientists in the world and he says it is not man made. It is in the article and I looked him up on the net. What Ron Paul says is a direct quote from Seitz.
Oh and don't tell a Texas Aggie his school is not the best in the world. LOL
A 2006 article in Vanity Fair magazine called Dr. Seitz the "$45 million man" for the amount of money he helped R.J. Reynolds distribute for research that specifically avoided the health issues surrounding smoking. "They didn't want us looking at the health effects of cigarette smoking," Seitz admitted in the article. During the time RJR was funding the research, it used the results of the program to claim that the evidence was inconclusive about the health effects of smoking. Dr. Seitz went on to become a denier of global warming. [6]
Corporate Scientific Affairs states,
he used the same "uncertainty" tactic to challenge global warning that he had used effectively at R.J. Reynolds to confuse the cancer/smoking link debate
They must be paing you good to sellout our kids.
Not that this has a thing to do with global warming.
Aggies muster
Agamemnon underwent a refit at Malta in 1918. On 30 October 1918 the Ottoman Empire signed the Armistice of Mudros on board Agamemnon while she was anchored at Lemnos in the northern Aegean Sea. She was part of the British squadron that went to Constantinople in November 1918 following the armistice. She returned to the United Kingdom in March 1919, where she paid off at Chatham Dockyard and went into reserve on 20 March 1919.
Dig
Are you telling me you are an aggie Darren?
no
The U.S. entered the war as an "associated power", rather than a formal ally of France and Britain, because it had not declared war on the Ottoman Empire
Democratic Republic of Armenia
Allies of World War I
n March 1917, the spontaneous revolution that toppled Tsar Nicholas and the Romanov dynasty established a caretaker administration, known as the Provisional Government established
Turkish–Armenian War
. ".there is no good scientific evidence that moderate passive inhalation of tobacco smoke is truly dangerous under normal circumstances.""
Darren, He was and is right. There is no evidence what so ever other than environmentlest nonsense that moderate passive inhalation of tobacco smoke is truly dangerous under normal circumstances.
Estimates are made of the numbers and proportions of death attributable tosmoking in 44 developed countries in 1990. In developed countries as a whole, tobacco was responsible for 24% of all male deaths and 7% of all femaledeaths, rising to over 40% in men in some former socialist economies and 17% in women in the USA. The average loss of life for all cigarette smokers was about 8 years and for those whose deaths were attributable to tobacco about 16 years. Trends in mortality attributable to tobacco differed by half in men since 1965; in others it was continuing to increase. In women, the proportion was mostly increasing, almost universally in old age. Mortality not attributable to smoking decreased since 1955 in all OECD (Organization for European Collaboration and Development) countries, by up to 60% in men and more in women. No precise estimate can be made of the number of deaths attributable to smoking in undeveloped countries, but the prevalence of smoking suggests that it will be large. In the world as a whole, some 3 million deaths a year are estimated to be attributable to smoking, rising to 10 million a year in 30–40 years' time.
Estimates
estimatedThose are the words you should have hilighted. It is speculation only no scientific proof. Stats don't lie but liars collect stats.
Normal conditions are not to have toxic gases going into your lungs, you guys are still delusional on any modern science, I have a hard time taking you seriously when you cling to saying that smoking is not bad for you.
The subject is Second Hand Smoke Bruce. There is NO proof it is harmful under normal conditions and it is NOT a toxic gas.
Lungs are self cleaning. If a smoker quits, in a few years his lungs are as good as ever. How is second hand smoke going to be any different.