The Global Warming Myth - Ocelot stands corrected

[CHARLESMANSON]

Ocelot -
You keep saying ALL scientists claim that humans are responsible for global warming. I'm really curious where you get your facts from. Seeing some of the bullshit you continually come up with gives me a very strong feeling that you simply "make stuff up".

A Gallup poll of scientists from the Meteorological Society and American Geophysical Society asked...."Are human actions causing global warming?" The results = A whopping 83% said NO.

Listen up liberals. Global warming and cooling is a natural phenomena driven by the output radiation of the Sun. The most recent cycle was strong with major solar flares. This cycle is known as the 11 year solar cycle.

Dr. Robert Balling, Director of Climatology at ASU, said that when one plots the energy output of the Sun over the last few decades, it appears to match precisely the fluctuations in global temperature on earth. In the middle ages, records indicate that the earth was warmer than it is now and that about 1600, the earth suddenly got cooler in what as been called the "Little Ice Age" from which we are just now emerging. 1999 was hottest year and we were rising to the peak of the 11 year sunspot cycle which has proven to be one of the strongest cycles in recent history with very strong solar flares.

 

[CHARLESMANSON]

19,200 U.S. Scientists say man caused warming is NONSENSE. All of the 19,200 scientists signed the Global Warming Petition shown below.....

"There is no convincing scientific evidence that human release of carbon dioxide, methane, or other greenhouse gasses 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."

Aren't you glad you have me around Ocelot?

 

[smurphy]

This thread shouldn't even be started. It could so easily just become a war of links, it's ridiculous. I guess I'll briefly state what I've read from a broad range of sources and political views.

*Human activity has directly affected global warming. This effect has grown disproportionately with our increase in activity. The precise amount of effect we have caused is unclear. The long term projections and effects are unclear.*

I think it's ridiculous to bash anyone's opinion or concern for global warming, ozone deletion, or any other environmental situation that can potentially have huge impacts on our entire planet. The science is there, but not complete. It's certainly worth examining as much as possible, in my opinion.

 

[CHARLESMANSON]

I'll tell you what is rediculous is to ignore the facts that I just presented and it's rediculous to spend so much money and time trying to stop global warming. The science IS COMPLETE. Global Warming is caused BY THE SUN'S CYCLES -- NOT HUMANS.

 

[ocelot]

Manson, noone wants to debate you because all you do is call anyone that disagrees with you liberal. Global Warming is NOT a myth no matter how many Oil Industry scientists say it isn't. Also Global Warming is NOT a theory of Ocelot. Though I'm flattered - I did not invent the Global Warming Science and never claimed to - kind of like Al Gore never claimed to have invented the Internet. Unlike George though, he at least knew what the hell it was.

 

[ocelot]

Manson, rather than just make unsubstantiated claims as you do while using "liberal" amounts of bold and large fonts and underlining I will post this from the government's EPA site from the NSF (that would be the National Science Foundation). I am confident this would be an objective body NOT paid by industry OR environmental groups.

"According to the National Academy of Sciences, the Earth's surface temperature has risen by about 1 degree Fahrenheit in the past century, with accelerated warming during the past two decades. There is new and stronger evidence that most of the warming over the last 50 years is attributable to human activities. Human activities have altered the chemical composition of the atmosphere through the buildup of greenhouse gases ? primarily carbon dioxide, methane, and nitrous oxide. The heat-trapping property of these gases is undisputed although uncertainties exist about exactly how earth?s climate responds to them. Go to the Emissions section for much more on greenhouse gases."

 

[ferdville]

By the way, cows produce more methane than do humans. What should we do about that? A volcanic eruption causes far more damage than do humans. What should we do about that? Are you in favor of the Kyoto Treaty which would virtually ruin our economy (though I am sure that Ocelot would say that W has already ruined it)? A treaty that would give a free pass to "underdeveloped" nations and basically put the honus on the US? Did Bush, Chaney, Rummy, Rove, Haliburton, Reagan, Nixon,Condi Rice, Powell, etc. accelerate the fallatious global warming problem in order to make a profit? What is happening with the ozone layer? Various gases, etc. can no longer be used in aerosol propellents. Has that helped? Freon is basically banned as well. Has that helped? Smog in L.A. ,for example, is at a 40 year low. Does that mean anything? Many states have to use a special blend of gasoline ( a total ripoff meant to benefit corn growers) that supposedly benefits the environment. Does that mean anything? Do you live as the Amish do? Would that stop global warming? Why did scientists predict on the cover of a 1975 Time magazine that we were about to possibly enter another Ice Age? When the earth's temperature changed precipitously thousands of years ago was that due to man's meddling?

I could go on and on, but it would probably take back to back threads and I don't want to infringe on Ocelotland.

 

[IntenseOperator]

Why did scientists predict on the cover of a 1975 Time magazine that we were about to possibly enter another Ice Age?

I brought this up here a while back myself.

Are these the same scientists using the same methods for their predictions today?

Genious

 

[smurphy]

Various gases, etc. can no longer be used in aerosol propellents. Has that helped? Freon is basically banned as well. Has that helped? Smog in L.A. ,for example, is at a 40 year low. Does that mean anything? Many states have to use a special blend of gasoline ( a total ripoff meant to benefit corn growers) that supposedly benefits the environment.

YES, these things have helped. Unfortunately, the lack of restrictions in developing countries like China and India do not help.

Let's look at LA smog levels. Are they down because we didn't do anything? No - we were pro-active and made nenessary changes based on science. Sure, some people kicked and screamed but it was benefficial to everyone.

Why bring up 1975? That is such a Rush Limbaugh copout. Obviously, the science of global warming was not yet known.

Of course the global climate is not static. It changes regardless of what we do. Perhaps we enter an ice age eventually anyway. But the statistics coming out about pollution, warming, and ozone depletion show a much more immediate threat - like to the very next generation.

Like with the air in LA, shouldn't we do what we can?

I agree, many of the agreements that have been proposed have not been fair. That doesn't mean we should throw everything away. Keep working at it. It's probably too important not to.

 

[CHARLESMANSON]

Ocelot you mentioned "evidence" then failed to provide any. Nice work. And how do you dispute the theory of global warming caused by the sun? I guess you can't can you?

You ignored everything that the 83% of Atmospheric scientists concluded but you are so quick to refer to your environmentalist tree-huggers from the EPA. Oh well, not my problem if you want to live in a fantasy world, just you and your thesaraus. I also like how you took the opportunity to strategically "take another shot at Bush" in your response. It only shows how desperate and all over the map you constantly are. Why is it when you debate it seems like you're constantly trying to dig yourself out of holes??? :mj03:

*******HERE'S SOME FACTS, SINCE YOU PROVIDED NONE

Since coming into effect February 16, 2005, the Kyoto Protocol has cost the world about $64 BILLION while the potential temperature saving by the year 2050 so far achieved by Kyoto is a miniscule 0.000662198 c ----- 50 YEARS!!!

That means for the bargain price of just $100 TRILLION, we still could not lower global mean temperature by even 1 ?C.

The $100 TRILLION does not include over $2 BILLION per year to research Global Warming, or the $3 BILLION per year that we waste on "alternative" energy research.

 

[ocelot]

Yes 1975 doesn't really mean squat. The threat has grown non-linearly.

By the way, a volcanic eruption causes more damage than humans? Where is that statement proven and what does it even mean? Why do we have so many cows? For human consumption perhaps? I certainly haven't heard of too many wild cow herds roaming the prairie.

Credible science has shown that even by stopping all of our dangerous emissions today cold turkey that greenhouse gases would continue to build for many years before stabilizing. Similarly, just because the ozone is continuing to deplete though we stopped a token amount of our emissions doesn't mean that was not a good step. And smog is at a low in LA maybe because CALIFORNIA has the toughest environmental laws out there - do ya think?

By the way Mr. English Prof - explain your statement:

"A treaty that would give a free pass to "underdeveloped" nations and basically put the honus on the US?"

What the hell? I thought Honus was an old time baseball player - hahahahahaha. Your killin' me.

 

[ferdville]

Sorry for the typo, buddy. What is your opinion on the Kyoto treaty? Do you think it is good for America?

Also, YOUR indicates possession.

YOU'RE would be the correct word to use in the sentence "your killin' me."

And here I thought that my kinder, gentler approach to you would win praise. I thought I would make the first overature at detente and you come back and hurt my feelings. That just is not in the spirit. I think when I come back from the convention, I may change my political philosophy. Then you can't pick on me. It is not fair. You have a degree and making fun of my education is downright mean. I am going to do some serious thinking during this time and may just have to change my ways. And I will have you to thank. So, thanks.

 

[CHARLESMANSON]

By the way, a volcanic eruption causes more damage than humans? Where is that statement proven and what does it even mean?

Dude.....are you serious? You asked for it.

*****FROM THE E.P.A. 2004 (The same source you quoted)

"Environmentalist claim that the increase in carbon dioxide and other greenhouse gases in the earth's atmosphere are the result of human activity.
Yet this ignores the FACT that a single volcanic eruption produces more of these gases than the entire wood, coal and oil burned by human in ALL HUMAN HISTORY."

Compared to how much emissions humans create with the internal combustion engine we don't even make a difference to the environment.
BUT to make the claim that human activity is seriouslt altering the atmosphere while IGNORING the #1 source of these gases - volcanic activity - is absurd in the extreme."


Enjoy :mj14:

 

[ocelot]

I think it is good for America - good for all. Not that it cannot be improved. It would be far more productive if the US would participate to modify it than throw stones from afar.

 

[CHARLESMANSON]

Ocelot....please dispute this statement or else please just give up. You are starting to look like a real idiot.

FROM THE EPA=
"Environmentalist claim that the increase in carbon dioxide and other greenhouse gases in the earth's atmosphere are the result of human activity.
Yet this ignores the FACT that a single volcanic eruption produces more of these gases than the entire wood, coal and oil burned by human in ALL HUMAN HISTORY."

Compared to how much emissions humans create with the internal combustion engine we don't even make a difference to the environment.
BUT to make the claim that human activity is seriouslt altering the atmosphere while IGNORING the #1 source of these gases - volcanic activity - is absurd in the extreme."

 

[ferdville]

Thanks, Charlie. It is nice to see one peckerwood help out another peckerwood when in need. But I don't know if the EPA can be trusted.

 

[ocelot]

Thank you Manson. I'm still trying to find that and having no luck at the website I quoted but I haven't given up.

I did find this though (notice the last sentence in the 2d paragraph):

"Hans von Storch of the GKSS Research Center (Geesthacht, Germany) and colleagues tested the ability of this statistical method to reproduce known temperature changes in the ?virtual world? of a climate model. The researchers first used the model to produce a simulated temperature record for the past 1,000 years. They then generated virtual data for tree rings, ice cores, and other indirect data sources by adding statistical noise to the model?s simulated temperatures, mimicking the noise inherent in real-world data (such as the influence of changes in moisture and pest outbreaks on the width of tree rings). The team then applied the statistical method used in previous analyses to see how accurately it could reproduce the model?s simulated temperature record from the virtual tree ring and ice core data. They found good agreement for the past 100 years or so, but large disparities over longer timescales.

The new findings raise the possibility that the current warming trend may not be as unusual or unprecedented as previously thought, and that the climate?s natural variability may be greater than most recent studies have assumed. However, the authors emphasize that their results do not challenge conclusions that rising concentrations of greenhouse gases have contributed to the warming of the 20th century.

The study was published in the 30 September 2004 issue of ScienceExpress.

 

[ocelot]

And not good for those of us on the Gulf Coast:

"Climate Change Expected to Lead to Stronger Hurricanes
A comprehensive new computer modeling study suggests that hurricanes will become more intense as the climate warms, with stronger winds and heavier rainfall. The study projects an average 6 percent increase in maximum hurricane winds by the year 2080, along with an 18 percent increase in the rate of precipitation within 60 miles (100 kilometers) of the storm?s core. The increase in intensity amounts to roughly a half step in the 5-category hurricane scale. These specific projections are based on the assumption that carbon dioxide concentrations in the atmosphere will increase by 1 percent per year (compounded) over the next 80 years, which is higher than the current rate of about 0.6 to 0.7 percent per year.

The study?s authors do not expect the changes in hurricane intensity to be detectable ?for decades to come,? but warn that there may be a gradually increasing risk of highly destructive category 5 storms over the course of this century.

The study?s basic findings are consistent across nine different climate models and a range of characterizations of physical processes in a hurricane model, bolstering the conclusions. Previous studies based on input from one climate model had also shown a tendency toward stronger hurricanes in warmer climates, but it was unclear how much of this effect was due to assumptions in the model."

 

[ocelot]

Oh, why here it is Manson. I will allow others to judge whether the following supports your argument or mine regarding volcanic eruptions. Perhaps this thread's title should be changed to OCELOT VINDICATED:

"Researchers Find Evidence of Human-Produced Warming in Oceans
A new study has found a ?compelling agreement? between observed changes in ocean temperatures since 1960 and the changes simulated by two climate models under rising atmospheric concentrations of greenhouse gases. In all of the world?s ocean basins, the warming predicted by the models for the upper 700 meters (2,300 feet) of the ocean corresponded to actual measurements obtained at sea, with confidence exceeding 95 percent.

?The immediate conclusion is that human influences are largely responsible for the warming signal,? the authors write. ?The statistical significance of these results is far too strong to be merely dismissed, and should wipe out much of the uncertainty about the reality of global warming,? said lead author Tim Barnett of the Scripps Institution of Oceanography.

Barnett and his colleagues used one of the models to explore whether the climate?s own natural variability could account for the warming oceans, or whether the warming could be explained by other natural factors such as solar variability and volcanic eruptions. In neither case could the model replicate the warming that has been observed in the real world. The changes were simply too strong to be explained by natural causes.

The authors argue that since these two climate models have been shown to simulate past changes accurately, their predictions for future changes, at least out to the next 20-30 years, ?are apt to be reasonably good.? The study was published in the June 2, 2005 online version of the journal Science."

 

[ferdville]

I went to the Nat'l Academy of Science website to look up what they have there on the environment. From what I saw they are very fair and balanced, much like FOX. Pay close attention to their first release. Who wouldn't agree that we should eliminate our system to track sea launched and intercontinental missles. Duh! I know you will say they are just assessing the damage, but let's be fair and realize their bias in the same way you would look at what Rush McNabb was saying.

Environmental Issues (30 most recent releases)

Return to Categories Page

An Assessment of Potential Health Effects from Exposure to PAVE PAWS Low-Level Phased-Array Radiofrequency Energy
Committee to Assess Potential Health Effects from Exposures to PAVE PAWS Low-Level Phased-Array Radiofrequency Energy, National Research Council
6 x 9, 214 pages, 2005.

PAVE PAWS is a phased-array warning system designed to detect and track sea-launched and intercontinental ballistic missiles operated on Cape Cod since 1979 by the U.S. Air Force Space Command. In 1979, the National Research Council issued two ...


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

An International Spent Nuclear Fuel Storage Facility -- Exploring a Russian Site as a Prototype: Proceedings of an International Workshop
Glenn E. Schweitzer and A. Chelsea Sharber, Editors, Committee on the Scientific Aspects of an International Spent Fuel Repository in Russia, Office for Central Europe and Eurasia, National Research Council, Russian Academy of Sciences
8 1/2 x 11, 232 pages, 2005.



--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Assessment of the Scientific Information for the Radiation Exposure Screening and Education Program
Committee to Assess the Scientific Information for the Radiation Exposure Screening and Education Program, National Research Council
6 x 9, 500 pages, 2005.

The Radiation Exposure Compensation Act (RECA) was set up by Congress in 1990 to compensate people who have been diagnosed with specified cancers and chronic diseases that could have resulted from exposure to nuclear-weapons tests at various U.S. test ...


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------





--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Effects of Nuclear Earth-Penetrator and Other Weapons
Committee on the Effects of Nuclear Earth-Penetrator and Other Weapons, National Research Council
8 1/2 x 11, 150 pages, 2005.

Underground facilities are used extensively by many nations to conceal and protect strategic military functions and weapons? stockpiles. Because of their depth and hardened status, however, many of these strategic hard and deeply buried targets could only be put ...


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Health Implications of Perchlorate Ingestion
Committee to Assess the Health Implications of Perchlorate Ingestion, National Research Council
6x9, 276 pages, 2005.

Perchlorate?a powerful oxidant used in solid rocket fuels by the military and aerospace industry?has been detected in public drinking water supplies of over 11 million people at concentrations of at least 4 parts per billion (ppb). High doses of ...


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Health Risks from Exposure to Low Levels of Ionizing Radiation: BEIR VII ? Phase 2
Committee to Assess Health Risks from Exposure to Low Levels of Ionizing Radiation, National Research Council
8 1/2 x 11, 750 pages, 2005.

BEIR VII develops the most up-to-date and comprehensive risk estimates for cancer and other health effects from exposure to low-level ionizing radiation. It is among the first reports of its kind to include detailed estimates for cancer incidence in addition ...


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Impact of Revised Airborne Exposure Limits on Non-Stockpile Chemical Materiel Program Activities
Committee on Review and Assessment of the Army Non-Stockpile Chemical Materiel Demilitarization Program: Workplace Monitoring, National Research Council
8 1/2 x 11, 108 pages, 2005.

The U.S. Army?s Non-Stockpile Chemical Materiel program is responsible for dismantling former chemical agent production facilities and destroying recovered chemical materiel. In response to congressional requirements, the Center for Disease Control (CDC), in 2003, recommended new airborne exposure limits ...


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------


The Department of Energy?s Office of Environmental Management (EM) directs the massive cleanup of more than 100 sites that were involved in the production of nuclear weapons materials during the Manhattan Project and the Cold War. This report offers ...


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Interim Design Assessment for the Pueblo Chemical Agent Destruction Pilot Plant
Committee to Assess Designs for Pueblo and Blue Grass Chemical Agent Destruction Pilot Plants, National Research Council
8 1/2 x 11, 92 pages, 2005.

In 1996, Congress enacted directing the Department of Defense to assess and demonstrate technology alternatives to incineration for destruction of the chemical weapons stored at Pueblo Chemical and Blue Grass Army Depots. Since then, the National Research Council (NRC) ...


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Interim Report of the Committee on Changes in New Source Review Programs for Stationary Sources of Air Pollutants
Committee on Changes in New Source Review Programs for Stationary Sources of Air Pollutants, National Research Council
6 x 9, 242 pages, 2005.

The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency?s New Source Review (NSR) programs are designed to help ensure that the construction or modification of factories, electric-generating facilities and other large stationary sources of pollutants will meet emissions criteria. EPA revised the programs ...






--------------------------------------------------------------------------------






----------------------------------------------------------------------

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------