PlanetZ forums - scopeusers.com

European Birds Refuse to Respond to Warming as Climate Alarmists Say They Should

Gannet Birds Under Threat From Global Warming

http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/20 ... 091206.htm

16 April 2008

the date of the article i posted.


i don't doubt that there are individual species that may be having problems from all kinds of environmental pressures, but both those articles are a year old. the whole point of this article is that those earlier reports(or more importantly the conclusions drawn) were flawed.

you don't just want to refute me at any cost though, right? you're just looking for the truth, no?

Craig Idso the co-author of the article in the link you posted gets funding from Exxon.

Puleeez!


http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=Craig_Idso

well, i don't know anything about HIM(i'm not surprised that such a guy would want to write that article.), i just looked at who the scientists are who signed off on that website. while i don't think they are necessarily good people, none of them came up in your "source watch" upon a quick sampling. all of them are highly respected educators and scholars in the proper related fields.

the question is, is the data accurate?

I don't understand the whole movement to make global warming (or climate change) appear to be insignificant. I just don't get it. Apart from super powers or what not, the seasons are shifting all around the world, and since it will change the marine life, the effects will slowly permeate throughout the ecosystem. I don't think this is scientist stuff. I tend to think that it's the superpowers, or the ones who benefit from breaking the environment, are the ones trying their best to keep people from believing that the environment is in crisis. But anyway, each to his own I guess.

This may sound blunt, but if you want a more unbiased view / info on this matter, you need to step out of the us.

http://uk.youtube.com/watch?v=mkyYbIhBRmg

http://uk.youtube.com/watch?v=nrxmpihCjqw

well, I don't ignore it - I accept climate change as a natural process.
it's as natural as the next big ice block hitting earth from out of space or 20 km of a vulcano located on La Palma slipping into deep sea and washing away half of the US east coast in a super-tsunami 6 hours later.
When I step out to enjoy a day in the mountains I'm highly alert and try to be as careful as I can - yet rockfall could hit me any time.
It's part of the so-called 'objective risk' which you either accept or don't be up there.

A few years ago a huge rockfall stroke Yosemite - btw close to Washington Column where the original 'Astroman' (the climbing route) is located
The mass of falling stone iniated a wind through the valley that broke trees of > 5ft diameter like matches, causing a few fatalities among tourists.

if you look at the planet's surface you'll find (currently inactive) volcano fields with craters sized over 10 miles, each of which could probably release more carbon dioxide within a single day than all mankind would produce in a year.

the human race tends to overestimate it's meaning - they call it space flight, but hardly even leave the outer atmosphere of planet earth.
If we happen to get dangerous to creation (so to say) it will just wash us away like the dinosaurs

I don't consider this is a free ticket to deliberately plunder and pollute nature - no way
but according to current society rules it's the free will of the majority, even if this majority is a fake one, because it effectively doesn't even have an opinion at all - it just doesn't move it's butt.
It has been pointed out numerous times - people act like sheep and lemmings

Those who claim to speak in favour of nature and make a big political affair from it follow (whatever) personal interests...
Human induced global warming is one of their buzzwords
it's as signicant as calling the earth a disk
... though everyone knows it's just that, carried on the back of 3 elephants riding a cosmic turtle

cheers, Tom

astroman wrote:... though everyone knows it's just that, carried on the back of 3 elephants riding a cosmic turtle

cheers, Tom

4 elephants on the back of the great A' Tuin isn't it (Discworld novels)?

I slightly improved it - 3 makes it more stable and there will never be a draw in case of a decision...

The planet is going to freeze up when North America crashes into Europe but that is millions of years from now. Man made global warming is an immediate threat.

The only possible way to avoid it is if we can convince people to have 1 child or less. The more wealthy countries seem to be having a population decline so if there is enough economic growth, there may be some hope.

It's so frustrating that Clinton established the Kyoto treaty and then Bush pulled us out of it! It kind of reminds me of when Reagan immediately tore down the solar panels that Carter had installed on the roof of the White House as soon as he took office. It makes me think republicans are total a-holes.

Before anyone says anything, I agree that the Kyoto treaty is too little too late but at least some people in the world are now aware that there is a problem, also it would be really nice if we could breath clean air in our cities.

I heard an interesting ad on CNN with Nancy Peloci and Newt Gringrich regarding global warming today:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qi6n_-wB154

When there is a disagreement, I think you have to look at what the vast majority of scientists say. They have been taking measurements for 30 years and the evidence is overwhelming clear that global warming is real and it is man made.

I think that the main problem is not the accuracy of the analysis or the inevitable allocation of funds done by the different interests to support this or that. The main problem is that, as many examples of disasters have shown, nuclear, environmental and geological, there are economical powers which don't give a damn about anything terrible that can happen to the communities everywhere in the world as long as they keep earning shitloads of money. Wars, crack in the streets, drowning an old oil carrier in the ocean, trade of organs and kidnapping of children for this purpose, support of third world dictators and fomenting of violence to sell weapons and infinite other examples of that kind show how well distributed at every level there are criminal purposes and actions.

One of the self defense weapons of the citizen and the communities is the awareness on where to put their money or not, what to chose and what to buy.
Obviously, information is essential for that and the only possibility is to collect all the different and opposite informations and be aware of the bias.

Because if taking as gold everything is said about global warming is not too clever, thinking that all is good and that there aren't problems on what our development model is doing to us is completely irresponsible and against logic. The sad thing is that most of the people like to remove problems or, on the other side, cultivate paranoias for psychological purposes that nothing have to do with the object of their arguments, but because they have an identity or a status to defend.
Everyone is ready to marry this or that assumption just because it fits the picture in the mirror, without really knowing what's about , really.

I only know that when I was a kid I was taught by my grandparents and my parents how wrong it is to waste things and how not respectful is to all those who are missing what they need and how bad for your same humanity is to treat the world like a trash bin. Those concepts were not coming from global warming issues but from an ancient wisdom and, nevertheless, if they where still followed and felt by everyone our cities would be much better places to live in and probably it wouldn't happen that one person over three gets a cancer one day or another. And we could also say with a sufficient fairness that the global warming is a natural thing. But for what I see how's people life we shouldn't even question it, right or wrong, we should try to change our models.
The causes of global warming are maybe arcane for the common man, but the stinky air of our cities is evident even to the children.

If you take measurements for 30 years that only proves a 30 year trend for the subclimates you measured. I'm not against climate change, but when I was a young child (roughly 30 years ago) the big fear was 'Global Cooling' and the upcoming ice-age (which should have been only a few decades away from where we are now). Countries all over the world would rail against the US and other affluent nations, placing the blame at our feet for not effecting change fast enough to "solve the cooling crisis". I think the data that is now used to support "global warming" goes back more than 30 years, but the fact that the we used to focus on "global cooling" and now focus on "global warming" is somewhat humorous to me. The arctic passes have been open to shipping lanes on more than one occasion (and if you don't believe that I have a Land Bridge to sell you).

Which isn't to say that I'm coming out against global warming either, but I think stating unequivocally that we can "prove" what's happening based on a subset of data taken over a limited period of time with our limited knowledge of the Way Things Work...well it's definately easy for those with counter political motivations to poke holes in that stuff. My personal opinion would be that Climate Change is a better term to start with, because it doesn't presume to know exactly what the change is or what all of the causes are. Then we can frame what the human *contribution* is to this as well.

The problem with rational, moderate discussions is that they have very little impact. And a big part of this discussion isn't just motivation by concern for the environment and 'coming energy crisis' because we're truly taking an egalitarian view that cares about tectonic lubrication, it's motivated by those who have Found A Foothold in the Climb Against The Ruling Elite. Ie, it becomes a political stick used by "progressive" smaller nations against large, lumbering economic overloards that meddle in affairs all over the globe. It's used by 'radical' thinking (and sometimes correct) intellectuals against those that are motivated by largely un-intellectual motivations (such as power, greed and just sheer intertia). So this discussion becomes polarized, and yes the end result is that the various polarities increasingly raise the timbre of the discussiona and the presentation of their (filtered) datasets to "prove" their side or "disprove" the other's (whichever other that might be) or to just muddy the waters so they can keep on selling their Snake OIL.

Quite a few of the arguments against global warming should just be unbundled from it as a political cause and taken on their own merits. Does the US consumeristic lifestyle lead to emotional, political and environmental damage around the world, through abusing various small indigenous cultures and raping natural resources? Yes. Are China, India and Brazil quickly overtaking the US in terms of energy production, the amount of construction, destruction and consumption? Yes as well. Are the ruling elite separate in each country or do they live & thrive outside of international boundaries and use politics to keep local populations distracted and inflamed about issues that have little bearing or are at least un-solveable in our current frameworks so that they can continue in their ruling eliteness? (quite possibly and its at least as likely as the US being the current Root of All Evil).

To jump back to "global warming" for a second, there are also some 'nutcases' (or perhaps not so nutty cases?) that point out that most of the planets in our solar system are actually undergoing a warming trend, and that the current solar minimum is lasting longer than we've observed before. This shortly after a solar maximum that was more active than we've known in many years. Most of these people are either into astronomy or are ham radio operators, and so in most cases are either too nerdy or too hermit-ey to be noticed by the rest of the masses. Of course there's a cross section of these people that believe gravity is just electromagnetics on a larger scale and that just because our maths don't translate well across those scales it doesn't make it wrong. These are the same people that often point out funny ideas about scalar electrodynamics causing natural disasters and what is HAARP really up to anyway?

And amidst all of the chaos you have the mediational monks saying it's all just samadhi (confusion) anyway unless you work towards bliss. Next to the fellow who points out that it's all according to God's Plan and Bush Must Be In Office For A Reason Even If We Can't Understand IT.

Leaving one with the impression that perhaps the media's confusion is to be ignored, this whole discussion is For the Birds and I might as well go fishin' (with a powered fishing boat). Which brings me back to memories of watching tv as a child and listening to the Coming Global Cooling Crisis. On a serious note, one thing has panned out as predicted, there are less birds flying in the skies over my head than there were when I was a child. I definately remember seeing enough birds flock in the skies during the fall to darken the autumn evenings, now I'm lucky if I see a few dozen huddled together in the distance as they flock to southern skies.

Carbon dioxide is a green house gas. Every year we measure how much is in the atmosphere. The source is no mystery because there are chemical markers on carbon dioxide which comes from the burning of fossil fuels:

The concentration of atmospheric carbon dioxide has increased by about 35% since the beginning of the age of industrialization.

This isn't a matter of speculation, is is a fact. Sadly, some people are ignorant of this.

just one thing worth mentioning....

the same people promoting crisis and a a global carbon tax, own companies like Exxon who claim there's no crisis.....the world wildlife fund is a eugenics organization funded by the Rothschilds and Rockefellors(whio are funded by the Rothschilds). the Rockefellors own Standard Oil of NY which was funded by the Rothschilds who control nearly 100% of the worlds oil(they loan the money for the exploration, drilling and refining operations). the Rothschilds are also the number one source of funds to investigate and mitigate global warming. and of course, their agents in the Club of Rome wrote the book which stated that global warming would be used as the next boogieman to unite people under their rulers.

ordo ab chao!


oh and exactly, Valis and Astroman......

Recently scientists studying a glacial lake in Greenland were shocked when 11 billion gallons drained out of it in 24 hours. They were lucky not to be on it at the time where they had placed some instruments:

http://www.sciencefriday.com/program/archives/200804183

The actual amount of carbon dioxide present in the atmosphere is only a fraction of the overall level of gases. a 35% increase in >1% is still only ~1%.

In the past history of this planet we've had CO(2) levels that are up to 15x present levels, with higher levels of plantlife and more oxygen/warmer temperatures to boot. Warmer tempuratures that again allowed more plantlife to thrive. Perhaps that was the Atlantean industrial age...

Now imagine if Greenland and Siberia suddenly were able to grow more crops, who would we (in the US) give our rotting govt. subsidized wheat to?! Might as well send it to the New Brazilian Desert...?

reality is just too confusing for some...think, it's not illegal, YET....

To deny that the climate is changing is irresponsible.
Even the US government is doing something to cut the CO2 levels.

In February 2002, President Bush committed the United States to a comprehensive strategy to reduce the greenhouse gas emission intensity of the American economy by 18 percent by 2012. Meeting this commitment will prevent more than 500 million metric tons of carbon-equivalent emissions through 2012, the equivalent of taking 70 million cars off the road. This step will set America on a path to slow the growth of our greenhouse gas emissions and, as science justifies, to stop and then reverse the growth of emissions.

And again, HAARP is open to the public. You don't trust it? Get your favorite scientist and go study the equipment.
Secondly, climate data is available for more than 400000 years of Earth's history. To claim that only 30 years of climate data is available, again, it is ignorant.
Please, stop anti climate change propaganda!