PUBLIC VASTLY MISINFORMED ON GLOBAL WARMING

[one...two...tree 2,762]

Dueling scientists

As we have seen, the "dueling scientists" became a common feature of the prestige-press terrain in the United States. Late in 1990, a coherent and cohesive group emerged to challenge the claims that were made in the IPCC reports. S. Fred Singer, Don Pearlman, Richard Lindzen, Sallie Baliunas, Frederick Seitz, Robert Balling Jr., Patrick Michaels and others began to speak out vociferously against the findings of the IPCC. This group is what Jeremy Leggett's book The Carbon War dubbed the "Carbon Club," describing them as "the foot soldiers for the fossil-fuel industries."

Scientists from the Carbon Club consistently found their way into the news. For example, in a Washington Post article headlined "Primary Ingredient of Acid Rain May Counteract Greenhouse Effect" (9/17/90), the skeptics were afforded prominent billing. Discussing the relative role of sulfur dioxide, the article stated:

If the role of sulfur cooling proves to be large, and this is still far from certain, some researchers say it could be necessary to continue burning fossil fuels in order to produce sulfur dioxide to fight the carbon dioxide-driven warming. "I would not be surprised if somebody suggested concentrating fossil fuel power plants on the eastern margins of continents, which would put a lot of sulfates into the atmosphere, which would rain out over the oceans, which have a tremendous capacity to absorb acidity," [Patrick] Michaels [of the University of Virginia] said. "This plan would make sense because the prevailing winds blow from east to west."

In another article from the New York Times (4/22/98), another global-warming skeptic, Dr. Frederick Seitz, was portrayed as supporting a supposedly scientific study pushing the idea that carbon dioxide emissions were not a threat to the climate, but rather "a wonderful and unexpected gift from the Industrial Revolution."

These global warming skeptics deflect attention away from the IPCC's consensus on the human contributions to global warming, thereby providing space for politicians to call for "more research" before tinkering with the status-quo consumption of fossil fuels. Through "balanced" coverage, the mass media have misrepresented the scientific consensus of humans' contribution to global warming as highly divisive, what the Washington Post (10/31/92) once referred to as "the usual fickleness of science." Such coverage has served as a veritable oxygen supply for skeptics in both the scientific and political realms.

http://www.fair.org/index.php?page=1978

[Dean iWait 0]

Dueling scientists

As we have seen, the "dueling scientists" became a common feature of the prestige-press terrain in the United States. Late in 1990, a coherent and cohesive group emerged to challenge the claims that were made in the IPCC reports. S. Fred Singer, Don Pearlman, Richard Lindzen, Sallie Baliunas, Frederick Seitz, Robert Balling Jr., Patrick Michaels and others began to speak out vociferously against the findings of the IPCC. This group is what Jeremy Leggett's book The Carbon War dubbed the "Carbon Club," describing them as "the foot soldiers for the fossil-fuel industries."

Scientists from the Carbon Club consistently found their way into the news. For example, in a Washington Post article headlined "Primary Ingredient of Acid Rain May Counteract Greenhouse Effect" (9/17/90), the skeptics were afforded prominent billing. Discussing the relative role of sulfur dioxide, the article stated:

If the role of sulfur cooling proves to be large, and this is still far from certain, some researchers say it could be necessary to continue burning fossil fuels in order to produce sulfur dioxide to fight the carbon dioxide-driven warming. "I would not be surprised if somebody suggested concentrating fossil fuel power plants on the eastern margins of continents, which would put a lot of sulfates into the atmosphere, which would rain out over the oceans, which have a tremendous capacity to absorb acidity," [Patrick] Michaels [of the University of Virginia] said. "This plan would make sense because the prevailing winds blow from east to west."

In another article from the New York Times (4/22/98), another global-warming skeptic, Dr. Frederick Seitz, was portrayed as supporting a supposedly scientific study pushing the idea that carbon dioxide emissions were not a threat to the climate, but rather "a wonderful and unexpected gift from the Industrial Revolution."

These global warming skeptics deflect attention away from the IPCC's consensus on the human contributions to global warming, thereby providing space for politicians to call for "more research" before tinkering with the status-quo consumption of fossil fuels. Through "balanced" coverage, the mass media have misrepresented the scientific consensus of humans' contribution to global warming as highly divisive, what the Washington Post (10/31/92) once referred to as "the usual fickleness of science." Such coverage has served as a veritable oxygen supply for skeptics in both the scientific and political realms.

http://www.fair.org/index.php?page=1978

You just don't get it Steven. Global warming is a theory not a fact. There is no scientific proof that the .5 to 1 degree temperature change in the last 150 years is unnatural. Just because you have a large group of scientists that have theories this is caused by humans doesn't make it so. There is a also a large group of scientists who have theories its not caused by humans. They have these theories otherwise because there is no proof or facts to convince them of it. You see that's what science is about FACTS! Of course you call these scientists who disagree, yahoos, right wing or quacks. That rings hollow my friend. I'm guessing 500 years ago you would have believed the earth was flat. If it served your political agenda anyway.

[one...two...tree 2,762]

Dueling scientists

As we have seen, the "dueling scientists" became a common feature of the prestige-press terrain in the United States. Late in 1990, a coherent and cohesive group emerged to challenge the claims that were made in the IPCC reports. S. Fred Singer, Don Pearlman, Richard Lindzen, Sallie Baliunas, Frederick Seitz, Robert Balling Jr., Patrick Michaels and others began to speak out vociferously against the findings of the IPCC. This group is what Jeremy Leggett's book The Carbon War dubbed the "Carbon Club," describing them as "the foot soldiers for the fossil-fuel industries."

Scientists from the Carbon Club consistently found their way into the news. For example, in a Washington Post article headlined "Primary Ingredient of Acid Rain May Counteract Greenhouse Effect" (9/17/90), the skeptics were afforded prominent billing. Discussing the relative role of sulfur dioxide, the article stated:

If the role of sulfur cooling proves to be large, and this is still far from certain, some researchers say it could be necessary to continue burning fossil fuels in order to produce sulfur dioxide to fight the carbon dioxide-driven warming. "I would not be surprised if somebody suggested concentrating fossil fuel power plants on the eastern margins of continents, which would put a lot of sulfates into the atmosphere, which would rain out over the oceans, which have a tremendous capacity to absorb acidity," [Patrick] Michaels [of the University of Virginia] said. "This plan would make sense because the prevailing winds blow from east to west."

In another article from the New York Times (4/22/98), another global-warming skeptic, Dr. Frederick Seitz, was portrayed as supporting a supposedly scientific study pushing the idea that carbon dioxide emissions were not a threat to the climate, but rather "a wonderful and unexpected gift from the Industrial Revolution."

These global warming skeptics deflect attention away from the IPCC's consensus on the human contributions to global warming, thereby providing space for politicians to call for "more research" before tinkering with the status-quo consumption of fossil fuels. Through "balanced" coverage, the mass media have misrepresented the scientific consensus of humans' contribution to global warming as highly divisive, what the Washington Post (10/31/92) once referred to as "the usual fickleness of science." Such coverage has served as a veritable oxygen supply for skeptics in both the scientific and political realms.

http://www.fair.org/index.php?page=1978

You just don't get it Steven. Global warming is a theory not a fact. There is no scientific proof that the .5 to 1 degree temperature change in the last 150 years is unnatural. Just because you have a large group of scientists that have theories this is caused by humans doesn't make it so. There is a also a large group of scientists who have theories its not caused by humans. They have these theories otherwise because there is no proof or facts to convince them of it. You see that's what science is about FACTS! Of course you call these scientists who disagree, yahoos, right wing or quacks. That rings hollow my friend. I'm guessing 500 years ago you would have believed the earth was flat. If it served your political agenda anyway.

Dean, may I ask - what is your educational background? Have you taken any college science classes? The reason I ask is because you, as well as many others keep misunderstanding what scientific theory means.

Here's a high school textbook definition...

Scientific Law: This is a statement of fact meant to explain, in concise terms, an action or set of actions. It is generally accepted to be true and univseral, and can sometimes be expressed in terms of a single mathematical equation. Scientific laws are similar to mathematical postulates. They don’t really need any complex external proofs; they are accepted at face value based upon the fact that they have always been observed to be true.

Some scientific laws, or laws of nature, include the law of gravity, the law of thermodynamics, and Hook’s law of elasticity.

Hypothesis: This is an educated guess based upon observation. It is a rational explanation of a single event or phenomenon based upon what is observed, but which has not been proved. Most hypotheses can be supported or refuted by experimentation or continued observation.

Theory: A theory is more like a scientific law than a hypothesis. A theory is an explanation of a set of related observations or events based upon proven hypotheses and verified multiple times by detached groups of researchers. One scientist cannot create a theory; he can only create a hypothesis.

In general, both a scientific theory and a scientific law are accepted to be true by the scientific community as a whole. Both are used to make predictions of events. Both are used to advance technology.

The biggest difference between a law and a theory is that a theory is much more complex and dynamic. A law governs a single action, whereas a theory explains a whole series of related phenomena.

An analogy can be made using a slingshot and an automobile.

A scientific law is like a slingshot. A slingshot has but one moving part--the rubber band. If you put a rock in it and draw it back, the rock will fly out at a predictable speed, depending upon the distance the band is drawn back.

An automobile has many moving parts, all working in unison to perform the chore of transporting someone from one point to another point. An automobile is a complex piece of machinery. Sometimes, improvements are made to one or more component parts. A new set of spark plugs that are composed of a better alloy that can withstand heat better, for example, might replace the existing set. But the function of the automobile as a whole remains unchanged.

A theory is like the automobile. Components of it can be changed or improved upon, without changing the overall truth of the theory as a whole.

Some scientific theories include the theory of evolution, the theory of relativity, and the quantum theory. All of these theories are well documented and proved beyond reasonable doubt. Yet scientists continue to tinker with the component hypotheses of each theory in an attempt to make them more elegant and concise, or to make them more all-encompassing. Theories can be tweaked, but they are seldom, if ever, entirely replaced.

http://wilstar.com/theories.htm

[cmartyn 0]

And here is yet another one. I could go on and on but I am sure your only going to ignore or scoff at anything that does not agree with your doom and gloom, the world is ending idea.

Scientists respond to Gore's warnings of climate catastrophe

"The Inconvenient Truth" is indeed inconvenient to alarmists

By Tom Harris

Monday, June 12, 2006

"Scientists have an independent obligation to respect and present the truth as they see it," Al Gore sensibly asserts in his film "An Inconvenient Truth", showing at Cumberland 4 Cinemas in Toronto since Jun 2. With that outlook in mind, what do world climate experts actually think about the science of his movie?

Professor Bob Carter of the Marine Geophysical Laboratory at James Cook University, in Australia gives what, for many Canadians, is a surprising assessment: "Gore's circumstantial arguments are so weak that they are pathetic. It is simply incredible that they, and his film, are commanding public attention."

This guy, "Professor Bob Carter" isn't a climatoligist. Hes a Geoligist on Exxon's payroll.

You got to check your sources more carefully.

Some of the other scientists you mentioned are known shills and crooks who have lost much of their professional credibility as well.

I dunno..

I know it's hard but we got to cut back. I was going to buy a new QX6700 CPU and a EVGA 8800GTX.. But then I found that that will draw about 750 watts. I don't need to plug in a kettle to play a Video game now and again.

I am now researching some photovoltaic cells. I want to build a solar powered PC. It will cost 100 times what the PC costs Im sure but when Im not using the PC I can power up my TV or something.

Cool. And I bet it will create a lot more high tech jobs than just paying my utility bill.

[Ban Hammer 13,344]

I know it's hard but we got to cut back. I was going to buy a new QX6700 CPU and a EVGA 8800GTX.. But then I found that that will draw about 750 watts. I don't need to plug in a kettle to play a Video game now and again.

remember the first pentuim chips? it was said that you could keep your coffee cup on it to keep it warm.

on the other hand, i just changed out tv's here at home, i went from a 12 year old sony 27" to a 32" sony and the newer one uses 5 watts less than the old one.

[Dean/Gra 0]

Global warming is a fact, at least for the time being. Supposedly it has gone up less than 1 degree celcius in the last 100 years or so. Steven, for your info I am not an educated man, but I am a thinking man. None of these "scientists" are telling us how warm it will get and by when. I watch the local weather frequently and they have a hard time predicting the weather for tomorrow let alone many years to come.

I remember many years ago when the "scientists" were telling us that the world would be out of food and starving by now. There were all kinds of dire predictions on the mass famines that would happen. They were telling us that we needed to have "zero population growth", so that we all would not starve to death.

I also remember the prediction some 30 years ago about the "global cooling" that was taking place at that time. All the dire predictions of what it would be like to have another ice age.

What about the ozone layer? You don't hear much about that these days. That was one of the other scare tactics some of these "scientists" were giving at the time. Remember we were all supposed to be cooking now from the harmful rays of the sun?

ALL of the "scientists" try to frighten people to get governments to FUND their "research" into any particular area. All of the above mentioned were given funding by various governments, ours included, to try to prove their "theories". Steven you were good at the dictionary stuff there, how about a definition of "theory".

This is my prediction, in a few years most of us will not remember this topic as they will have gotten their funding, i.e. money, to do their research. This topic will go away and another will take its place.

Supposedly since the formation of the earth there have been ice ages, but there have also been tropical weather during the time of the dinosaurs. What do the "scientists" attribute that to? My uneducated guess would be that it was natural.

What about the dinosaurs? What Happened? Seen any mastadons lately? My guess is that this was also man made disaster.

I saw a documentary recently about finding crocodile fossils in the Sahara desert. How did that happen? I'm not a "scientist" but my guess would be that there was water, and a lot of it covering the Sahara. Did man cause that or was it a natural phenomenon? My guess would be it was natural.

I lived in Dallas for many years and there was white gypsum formations over most of that region . Inside the stones were every description of aquatic creatures, especially shells. Obviously that part of the world was covered with water at one time, but it is several hundred miles from the ocean now, and there are no natural lakes in that area.

I have heard many "experts" say many things thru the years and I find the best way to deal with those issues is simply to seek out and ask the same types of questions. Example: A business associate and I were talking about healthy foods when he commented that the danger of mercury poisoning had caused him to stop eating fish. I asked him how many people he knew of that had died of mercury poisoning? How many did he know that were sick of mercury poisoning? Of course, like the rest of us he did not know of anyone. The same holds true with all the other scare stories these "scientists" have told us asbestos and mold. All of that was caused by lawyers doing a shakedown of businesses, because the "settlements" mostly went to the lawyers on all those things. John Edwards for example got millions from the tobacco industry because he got a cut of the "settlement".

Wake up folks, look at things with your own eyes. Think with your own mind. Just because someone says it dont make it so. Most of the scientific "theory" that we hold as truths today, will be tomorrow's wive's tales. OR you can always trust that august body know as the UN. You know their studies are impeccable. All of their members, except the US of course, are all fine upstanding people, only interested in protecting humanity.

My uneducated guess is that man did not create this earth, cannot change its rotation, cannot move it out of its orbit or do much of anything else to destroy it, or change its climate. There have been any number of instances where "scientists" tried to make it rain, with very very limited success. Until they can make it rain I will stay with my way of thinking. I'm not advocating trashing out planet by any means, but at the same time a little common sense goes a long way.

And of course there was the cancellation of a meeting on global warming because of the blizzards this winter. OK, why dont they just make it warm up, at least for their meeting. Maybe they could burn their "scientists" degrees.

[Hilarious Clinton 452]

Dean,

Comments like your's get ignored by the left. Keep up the independent thought (it pi$$es them off).

Man is so arrogant to think the climate shouldn't change.

[fozzie 41]

What about the ozone layer? You don't hear much about that these days. That was one of the other scare tactics some of these "scientists" were giving at the time. Remember we were all supposed to be cooking now from the harmful rays of the sun?

I thought that cfc's were responsible for the hole in the ozone layer and that after cutting them out of our lives we have given the ozone layer a chance to heal itself. The hole has either stopped expanding or is infact getting smaller since we started listening to the scientists.

[Hilarious Clinton 452]

I know it's hard but we got to cut back. I was going to buy a new QX6700 CPU and a EVGA 8800GTX.. But then I found that that will draw about 750 watts. I don't need to plug in a kettle to play a Video game now and again.

Is that Al Gore math? You probably need a 750 watt power supply but the card doesn't draw 750 watts. It draws 277 under load.

I still like the solar idea and 277 is easier to achieve than 750. Not sure what the whole system would draw though.

Power consumption for the 8800

[Trumplestiltskin 5,791]

I saw a documentary recently about finding crocodile fossils in the Sahara desert. How did that happen? I'm not a "scientist" but my guess would be that there was water, and a lot of it covering the Sahara. Did man cause that or was it a natural phenomenon? My guess would be it was natural.

Not necessarily... Desertification can and does take place as a direct result of human activity - specifically overuse of land for agricultural purposes. What do you think caused the Dust Bowl in the 1930s? Natural drought exacerbated by poor and intensive farming methods would be my guess...

Interesting you mentioned the Sahara, because its actually getting larger year after year - for much the same reason.

If I dam a river, it follows that the ecosystem downstream is going to noticeably affected by that. Ever lived near a coastal town where Groynes have been built to trap the sand to maintain nice sandy beaches? Guess what happens further down the coast - that's right, coastal erosion.

[Dean/Gra 0]

I saw a documentary recently about finding crocodile fossils in the Sahara desert. How did that happen? I'm not a "scientist" but my guess would be that there was water, and a lot of it covering the Sahara. Did man cause that or was it a natural phenomenon? My guess would be it was natural.

Not necessarily... Desertification can and does take place as a direct result of human activity - specifically overuse of land for agricultural purposes. What do you think caused the Dust Bowl in the 1930s? Natural drought exacerbated by poor and intensive farming methods would be my guess...

Interesting you mentioned the Sahara, because its actually getting larger year after year - for much the same reason.

If I dam a river, it follows that the ecosystem downstream is going to noticeably affected by that. Ever lived near a coastal town where Groynes have been built to trap the sand to maintain nice sandy beaches? Guess what happens further down the coast - that's right, coastal erosion.

Thanks for the comments, and I agree with you on most of the points you make here. However the Sahara at one time was probably farmed, but even it wasn't being farmed at the time, with the small number of people on the planet, lack of rain is what keeps it a desert. Vegetation does not generate rain. So, even if it were covered with vegetation with plenty of water there is no guarantee that it would rain. We see that all the time in various parts of the world that experience droughts, yet they have vegetation.

As far as the dust bowl is concerned, you are absolutely correct about the drought being exacerbated by the farming practices of the day. A good portion of the land was taken from prarie grasses to plowed row crops. Most of the erosion was actually caused by water run off rather than wind as many would assume. Obviously the wind did have a great impact, but not as much as the rain. The dust bowl region no longer experiences those kinds of problems because the immediate impact of dust bowl drove most of the farmers off the land and all those jerks moved to California. LOL just kidding.

As for your comments about dams and coastal erosion, I will take your word for it as I do not have any experience with that, having lived most of my life land locked in Oklahoma. By the way, do you know how to tell if an Okie is married? There will be tobacco spit stains on both sides of the truck.

There have been droughts since then, many in fact, but the point I'm trying to make in this whole discussion is that the climate changes with or without man. Yes, man can create problems with the environment, but they are not nearly as great as some would have us believe nor are the permanent as some would have us believe.

We have all seen films of the oil gushers spewing thousands of gallons of crude oil onto the land. Ever wonder what happens? The oil does a number on the soil, most plants cannot live in it and die very quickly. But after a few years, even without any clean up, the vegetation grows back and it soon becomes impossible to tell that there ever was a environmental disaster there. A few years ago I was driving thru my pasture in my pickup truck, with tobacco stains down both sides, and had a five gallon can of gasoline in the back. The can turned over and and ran out the bed of the truck as I crossed the pasture covering approx a 50 yard long area and perhaps 2 feet wide. I thought it would kill all the vegetation. Much to my surprise the grass became much greener and taller in that area than the surrounding grass. I know this is not a "scientific" approach, but the results were without dispute.

The sun plays a greater role in climate change than man ever could. I just read a report that stated the sun goes thru 11 year cycles and can be predicted with some degree of accuracy. However sun solar eruptions cannot be predicted and they have a great effect on our climate here on earth. The poles receive more radiation than the rest of the planet according to most scientists, therefore doesn't it stand to reason they would heat more and cool more during their cycles?

We all understand the seasons of our year and what causes the change. Doesn't it stand to reason that the sun will cause the earth to warm, thereby evaporating water, which in turn becomes clouds, which in turn block the sun?

[Hilarious Clinton 452]

"Wait a minute. When we burn fossil fuels we are only returning the carbon back to the environment that used to exist hundreds of millions of years ago. Is this a bad thing? During this time there was obviously a lot of vegetation about that was broken down into the present day fossil fuels. It might have been more of a paradise."

http://hecubus.wordpress.com/2007/03/02/ca...egger-and-gore/

[Dean/Gra 0]

What about the ozone layer? You don't hear much about that these days. That was one of the other scare tactics some of these "scientists" were giving at the time. Remember we were all supposed to be cooking now from the harmful rays of the sun?

I thought that cfc's were responsible for the hole in the ozone layer and that after cutting them out of our lives we have given the ozone layer a chance to heal itself. The hole has either stopped expanding or is infact getting smaller since we started listening to the scientists.

Good question! Actually the hole in the ozone has varied every year, only since man has been in outer space did we even know it existed. There is absolutely no evidence to support the "theory" that cfc's destroy the ozone. There again, these people got their money and they shut up.

I pose a question to you. Many cities have ozone alert days, when the climatic conditions are just right and everyone is supposed to walk or ride bicycles and stay indoors. My question is this, why don't we use more ozone polluting vehicles so the ozone can go up and plug the ozone holes? Or, if it is so bad for us why don't we all get a can of freon and spray it around to "kill" the ozone?

The same yoyos that told us there would be world wide starvation by now, and global cooling, are the same bunch of as%$*@#$les that are telling us that global warming is caused by humans. Watch what I'm telling you, in a few years this will all be ancient history.

[Dean/Gra 0]

"Wait a minute. When we burn fossil fuels we are only returning the carbon back to the environment that used to exist hundreds of millions of years ago. Is this a bad thing? During this time there was obviously a lot of vegetation about that was broken down into the present day fossil fuels. It might have been more of a paradise."

http://hecubus.wordpress.com/2007/03/02/ca...egger-and-gore/

Wait a minute. You can't say that, it makes too much sense. LOL You are not supposed to think for yourself, you are supposed to believe all that ####### they are shoveling.

If people would think more for themselves than listen to the so called experts they would be much better off. As has been said before, "An expert is a fellow with a briefcase that is at least 50 miles from home."

[Dean/Gra 0]

Dean,

Comments like your's get ignored by the left. Keep up the independent thought (it pi$$es them off).

Man is so arrogant to think the climate shouldn't change.

Thanks for the encouragement Lucky. Do they still make Lucky Strike cigarettes? How about Pall Mall? Man my age is showing, I better shut up.