Scientific evidence builds to counter...

Scientific evidence builds to counter global warming ANOTHER VIEW

There are 191 comments on the The Morning Call story from Dec 29, 2007, titled Scientific evidence builds to counter global warming ANOTHER VIEW. In it, The Morning Call reports that:

Heads of state, government bureaucrats, environmental activists, and the news media -- 15,000 strong -- have just completed a global warming conference in Bali, Indonesia.

Join the discussion below, or Read more at The Morning Call.

First Prev
of 10
Next Last
WatchDog

AOL

#1 Dec 29, 2007
Brinson is right on the money in this column. When someone can explain to me how human CO2 generation is causing the the icecaps on Mars to melt, then I will listen to this global warming garbage.

We are simply in a Solar maximum condition at this time which is causing Solar Warming not just Global warming according to many noted scientists. Al Gore is a joke!!
Avis

Reading, PA

#2 Dec 29, 2007
Binson is an idiot. He thinks reduction in CO2 emissions will have a bad effect on economies--what does he think flooding, droughts, stronger hurricanes and increased diseases will do to it?

There was a 700% increase in dengue fever in Mexico last year. Malaria is moving northward as higher temperatures expand mosquito territory. Italy just had a breakout of a insect borne TROPICAL disease.

There are people who still don't believe that smoking causes cancer--and I'm sure the American Cancer Society does not waste time having these people in to speak at their conferences. And for good reason.
Francis Bacon

Bethlehem, PA

#3 Dec 29, 2007
Brinson is not a scientist. He is a greedy, stupid man who will believe anything that aligns with his philosophy, no matter how extreme or absurd.

Global warming IS caused by rising CO2. There is overwhelming scientific evidence to support this, and 99% of the world's scientific community believes the evidence.

Not every crackpot scientist turns out to be Galileo. Some crackpot scientists are paid to lie or distort information because there is a lot of industrial money to be saved by ignoring the facts. Unfortunately, the whole world will suffer because of greedy ignoramuses like Brinson.
Chris Jury

Niles, MI

#4 Dec 29, 2007
WatchDog wrote:
Brinson is right on the money in this column. When someone can explain to me how human CO2 generation is causing the the icecaps on Mars to melt, then I will listen to this global warming garbage.
We are simply in a Solar maximum condition at this time which is causing Solar Warming not just Global warming according to many noted scientists. Al Gore is a joke!!
Ha, well anthropogenic CO2 certainly isn't causing warming on Mars. It isn't causing warming on Pluto either, but neither is the sun given that Pluto is simultaneously moving away from the sun AND warming. If the sun were causing warming, shouldn't we see warming not just on a couple of planetary bodies, but on all of the literally hundreds of planetary bodies in the solar system? I mean, shouldn't Mercury and Venus at the very least be heating up if this has anything at all to do with the sun?

And any of this proxy data might make a real difference, if we didn't have direct measurements of solar output since 1978. Guess what--solar output has shown no trend. The sun has stayed the same while the Earth has warmed substantially. To say that "it's not the sun, stupid" is an understatement.

You'll also note that we are at the minimum of an 11 year sunspot cycle, not a maximum, yet we still have a substantially warmer climate than we did a few decades ago. Of course, we already know that the sun isn't the cause...
Climatologist

AOL

#5 Dec 29, 2007
Watchdog and Brinson are right on. The sun has direct and indirect effects on the climate that statistically is far stronger than the greenhouse gases. The temperature warms and cools on a cycle of approximately 70 years. The 70 year cycle can be seen in the data going back hundreds of years. The current warm period peaked around 2000 and here in the US, it was only 0.21F warmer for the average of all the 1221 climate stations in 2000 than 1930 the prior peak (well within the margin of instrumental error). This cycle correlates far better with both the longer term cycles on the sun and in the oceans than with greenhouse gases. It is the sun and oceans, stupid. Even if the Kyoto protocol had been adapted by the US and all countries abided by the limitations, the reduction of future warming according to Wigley at NOAA and with the IPCC would have been less than 0.1F and would have cost millions of jobs and hurt our economy as it did many in Europe and elsewhere which did sign on.

The proposals in congress will produce much pain (especially for the low and middle income Americans and elderly on fixed incomes) through great increases in already out of sight energy costs without much if any gain. Merely a feel good measure that will enrich some people (carbon traders) and companies and governments at the public's expense.

I am all for conservation and use where it makes sense alternative energy sources. I do care about our environment.

As for the consensus, the claim that 99% of all scientists agree is not true fact. I believe the silent majority disagree. I have worked in the universities, the government and private industry with thousands of meteorologists and climatologists and associated with many chemists, geologists, physicists and find the MAJORITY of them believe though man plays some role through urbanization, land use changes (deforestation) and the addition of gases and aerosols, natural variability is most important and can't be dismissed. The so called consensus argument is bogus.
JRS

Kenosha, WI

#7 Dec 29, 2007
U.N. Blackballs International Scientists from Climate Change Conference

Voice of dissent excluded from participation in Bali

CHICAGO, Illinois - December 5, 2007)-- The United Nations has rejected all attempts by a group of dissenting scientists seeking to present information at the climate change conference taking place in Bali, Indonesia.

The International Climate Science Coalition (ICSC) has been denied the opportunity to present at panel discussions, side events, and exhibits; its members were denied press credentials. The group consists of distinguished scientists from Africa, Australia, India, New Zealand, the United Kingdom, and the United States.

The scientists, citing pivotal evidence on climate change published in peer-reviewed journals, have expressed their opposition to the UN's alarmist theory of anthropogenic global warming. As the debate on man-made global warming has been heating up, the UN has tried to freeze out the scientists and new evidence,

summarily dismissing them with the claim "the science is settled."

James M. Taylor, senior fellow for The Heartland Institute explained, "It is not surprising the UN has completely rejected dissenting voices. They have been doing this for years. The censorship of scientists is necessary to promote their political agenda. After the science reversed on the alarmist crowd, they claimed 'the debate is over' to serve their wealth redistribution agenda."

Taylor continued, "For example, ICSC scientist Dr. Vincent Gray recently published Unsound Science by the IPCC, which proves the main claims by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change are scientifically unsound. Dr. Gray is an expert reviewer for the IPCC and has submitted more than 1,800 comments on IPCC reports. He is an expert on the IPCC methodology and published Spinning the Climate.

"Dr. Gray is the last person the politicized UN wants speaking," Taylor noted. "He single-handedly debunks the entire alarmist theory.

And there are more than 600 Dr. Grays trying to be the voice of reason and science. All are being censored."

Tayor said, "The ICSC scientists don't agree with the pre-determined 'Bali Mandate,' so instead of discussion and debate, we get censorship. Until the UN rejects the politicization of climate change, their reports, protocols, and mandates aren't worth reading--much less ratifying."

The ICSC scientists will be available for advice and counsel in Bali, but they expect scientists to be ignored at the Bali conference.
http://www.heartland.org/Article.cfm...

"The only people who would be hurt by abandoning the Kyoto Protocol would be several thousand people who make a living attending conferences on global warming."
- Professor Kirill Kondratyev, Russian Academy of Sciences

http://www.fdrs.org/quotes_on_global_warming....
JRS

Kenosha, WI

#8 Dec 29, 2007
In case you missed it:

"The only people who would be hurt by abandoning the Kyoto Protocol would be several thousand people who make a living attending conferences on global warming."
- Professor Kirill Kondratyev, Russian Academy of Sciences

http://www.fdrs.org/quotes_on_global_warming....
moral hazard

Bethlehem, PA

#9 Dec 29, 2007
From today's paper, page A4: "January was the warmest first month on record world-wide--1.53 degrees above normal. It was the first time since record-keeping began in 1880 that the globe's temperature has been so far above normal for any month of the year...U.S. weather stations broke or tied 263 all-time high temperature records, according to an Associated Press analysis of U.S. weather data. England had the warmest April in 348 years of record-keeping there, shattering the record set in 1865 by more than 1.1 degree Fahrenheit...Worst of all, according to climate scientists, the Arctic, which serves as the world's refrigerator, dramatically warmed in 2007, shattering records for the amount of melting ice...Through the first 10 months, it was the hottest year recorded on land and the third hottest when ocean temperatures are included. Smashing records was common, especially in August. At US weather stations, more than 8,000 new heat records were set or tied for specific August dates. More remarkably that same month, more than 100 all-time temperature records were tied or broken--regardless of the date--either for the highest reading or the warmest low temperature at night. By comparison only 14 all-time low temperatures were set or tied all year long, as of early December, according to records kept by the National Climatic Data Center."

Where is the data that supports Brinson's claim of "Earth's current temperature stasis"?

Since: Aug 07

Inglewood, CA

#10 Dec 29, 2007
U.S. Senate Report: Over 400 Prominent Scientists Disputed Man-Made Global Warming Claims in 2007.
http://tinyurl.com/2dv6nz
Diana

Allentown, PA

#11 Dec 29, 2007
I don't blame Brinson. Everyone is entitled to his or her opinion no matter how silly it is, but why does the Morning Call print this drivel and give access to a complete (selfish) idiot?

Since: Nov 07

Scituate, MA

#15 Dec 29, 2007
Avis wrote:
Binson is an idiot. He thinks reduction in CO2 emissions will have a bad effect on economies--what does he think flooding, droughts, stronger hurricanes and increased diseases will do to it?
There was a 700% increase in dengue fever in Mexico last year. Malaria is moving northward as higher temperatures expand mosquito territory. Italy just had a breakout of a insect borne TROPICAL disease.
There are people who still don't believe that smoking causes cancer--and I'm sure the American Cancer Society does not waste time having these people in to speak at their conferences. And for good reason.
Perhaps if they resumed the use of DDT and intelligent wetland management, they would reduce the recurrence of these tropical and mosquito-borne nightmares?
Ron Campbell

Colorado Springs, CO

#16 Dec 29, 2007
As mankind faces the most dramatic natural disaster in history we are squabbling instead of taking action. Quit arguing and let's come up with a plan.

Our poles are melting, temperature and weather patterns are changing. Those are facts. Whose fault it is, man made or natural is almost irrelevant. The important thing is that we take action to prepare for the unavoidable consequences of climate change NOW.

Past climate changes have happened quick, the most recent having taken only about a decade. We have seen weather patterns change over the last few years, lost a bunch of ice, witnessed massive amounts of species going extinct and see a slow-down of the ocean's conveyor which regulates temperature patterns around the globe. My gut feeling is to say that we are in the midst of climate change. Whether it's caused by CO2, an active sun or any other cause is not the issue. The issue is... we can't change, avert or avoid it so we have to figure out how to deal with it and survive it's effects.

The focal point of all the issues surrounding climate change is energy. More specifically, present and future energy. The energy we currently use, which most say changes the climate, and the energy we will need in the future to supply more people and to stave off the effects of a changed climate. We need cleaner fuel now, not only because of pollution or the fact that we are running out, but because we will need much more fuel in the future.

The world economy is currently dependant upon CO2 emitting fossil fuels and we won't just be able to throw a switch to convert to another source so we have to start now. We have to stop spending billions fighting over the remaining oil. No matter who owns it, we will use it up. As demand increases and supply dwindles it will become more expensive and economic factors will dictate that we replace it. If we're lucky, mankind will be reasonable enough to spend more money finding new energy sources than fighting over obsolete ones. That's a long shot but there's always hope.

We will need more energy and there is no denying that burning oil and coal pollutes our planet. We have 2 choices if we want to survive as a species.

1. Come up with more, preferably cleaner energy.

2. Shrink our global population to a size that our current energy supply can sustain.

The first is preferable but considering our primitive human nature, the second is more probable. Let's let common sense overpower human nature and strive towards option 1.

Think about it. There are many sources of energy, known and yet to be discovered that we can use. Wind, water, tidal, and solar are clean technologies that we have explored and can improve. We have started tinkering with ways to use the Earth's magnetic field. There is gravity and countless types of cosmic rays that we haven't even tried to harness yet. Nuclear has been around for decades and if it doesn't blow up on you, it is extremely clean.

My suggestion, no, my demand is that mankind stop it's economic and religious squabbling and start taking the action we need for our survival as a species. It will be impossible to get mankind to act as one, but someone has to start. If the US trimmed it's government and military to a minimum, keeping enough troops and nukes to sustain sovereignty, we could save billions and use it to develop energy sources.

That scenario might even be good for the economy. Imagine all of the workers needed to make electric cars or cosmic ray powered toasters. Besides, whoever discovers a technology usually has a lead when it comes to selling it's usage or the products it spins off.

New energy won't solve global warming but it will help us deal with it better. Right now it's the only option we have so let's get on it!

Ron
http://moreronnie.blogspot.com
Mark Schaffer

Henderson, NV

#17 Dec 29, 2007
For the true state of the science on AGW see:

http://www.ipcc.ch
http://www.realclimate.org

and for the consensus:

http://www.logicalscience.com/consensus/conse...

Ignore the denialists as the cranks they are.
wow

Mountain Top, PA

#18 Dec 29, 2007
who do the "world"s economies" belong to? Exxon? George Bush and dick Cheney? Th Federal Reserve? Averting climate disaster might relocate some wealth away from the oligarchs , but everyone else should be fine.

Here's how things work now-have a debt based banking system that prints more money in the form of new loans every year. You need to do this so you have enough money to pay back the old loans at interest. These loans are used for cars, houses, planes, trips, highways-all things that use oil.

If you limit the burning of fossil fuels the rich oligarchs won't be rich anymore.
RedWhiteBlue_nec k

Bangor, PA

#19 Dec 29, 2007
and so it goes...my scientists are better than yours...

I really like that they label the gw theory as theory...I thought (like the article says) it is a HYPOTHOSIS (and a badly supported one at that).

If you really believe that CO2 causes your gw thing, then you all should stop breathing. Just one gw believer that spews their religion puts out more CO2 than all of my dino burning musclecars and redneck mobiles combined. Get over it.

Wanna race? gas station to gas station...whoever puts out the most noxious exhaust (my exhaust pipes, your vocal pipes) wins. Ready, GO!
RedWhiteBlue_nec k

Bangor, PA

#20 Dec 29, 2007
Ron Campbell wrote:
As mankind faces the most dramatic natural disaster in history we are squabbling instead of taking action. Quit arguing and let's come up with a plan.
Heres a plan...move to higher ground if you are afraid of water and stop wasting energy typing all that crap.
Money ball

Allentown, PA

#21 Dec 29, 2007
Brinson raises some excellent points but unfortunately his polarized political style of presentation is as unimpressive as that of the people on the left who he attacks. The existence of a recent warming trend is confirmed by objective data. The cause(s) of that warming or the probability of its future continuation are not as obvious. This basis of the discussion of what is best to do would be better left to people capable of objective scientific analysis than to those who want to conform their opinions to fit the ideological mantras of either the ultra right or left.
Mark Schaffer

Henderson, NV

#22 Dec 29, 2007
RedWhiteBlue_neck is confused and obviously uneducated. He could start by spelling hypothesis correctly then move on to how science defines the word. He could then follow up by understanding the definition of theory in science. He could then go to an actual research library to understand what the difference is between carbon cycling naturally through the earth's ecosystems e.g. respiration versus burning fossil fuels which have sequestered carbon from the atmosphere for many millions of years...But all this takes work. Why do that when sarcasm is so much faster? Oh wait, that is the sum total of his intellectual ability. Again for those with a desire to actually understand and constructively deal with this huge problem caused be humans see:

http://www.ipcc.ch
http://www.realclimate.org

and for the consensus:

http://www.logicalscience.com/consensus/conse...
I love Gas Guzzlers

Bethlehem, PA

#23 Dec 29, 2007
Ah yes, its time again for Brinson's monthly tirade on global warming. Common sense would tell you warming is a reality. Oh thats right Brinson has none of that. Look at how winters keep getting milder and shorter over the past 30 years. I thought Brinson was only an expert on running dumpy gyms. I'll have to remember from now on that he is a scientist also. I wonder what type of gas guzzler he drives? I'm glad I don't patronize his gyms anymore. I'd much rather hand my monthly dues to LA Fitness.
RedWhiteBlue_nec k

Bangor, PA

#24 Dec 29, 2007
Mark Schaffer wrote:
RedWhiteBlue_neck is confused and obviously uneducated. He could start by spelling hypothesis correctly then move on to how science defines the word. He could then follow up by understanding the definition of theory in science. He could then go to an actual research library to understand what the difference is between carbon cycling naturally through the earth's ecosystems e.g. respiration versus burning fossil fuels which have sequestered carbon from the atmosphere for many millions of years...But all this takes work. Why do that when sarcasm is so much faster? Oh wait, that is the sum total of his intellectual ability. Again for those with a desire to actually understand and constructively deal with this huge problem caused be humans see:
http://www.ipcc.ch
http://www.realclimate.org
and for the consensus:
http://www.logicalscience.com/consensus/conse...
Oh, eye guss yew never mixspeeled a word or to. That's right...you are perfect, just like your perfect know-it-all liberal friends. You are right, as always. Next time, try to dumb it down for me...yor ranting makes noe cents.

ps...it is called "being witty", not sarcasm. Here is how you can tell the difference, mr. smartguy

Wit: your parents contributed greatly to gw. The biggest waste of air is obviously you.
Sarcasm: you are the greatest person in the world.

Tell me when this thread is updated:

Subscribe Now Add to my Tracker
First Prev
of 10
Next Last

Add your comments below

Characters left: 4000

Please note by submitting this form you acknowledge that you have read the Terms of Service and the comment you are posting is in compliance with such terms. Be polite. Inappropriate posts may be removed by the moderator. Send us your feedback.

Activism Discussions

Title Updated Last By Comments
News Time to honour those who fought for gay New Zea... 18 hr Here is what I 6
News Will Green Political Machine Foil Trump? Thu Lawrence Wolf 38
News Occupy Wall Street rises up for Sanders Jul 26 Wall Street 2016 38
News 25 years on, disabilities act has changed lives... (Jul '15) Jul 26 Divorce Lawyer 5
News #BlackLivesMatter: The Rise Of A Movement Jul 25 bozo 1
News How gay rights advance democracy in the Middle ... Jul 24 Marco R s Secret ... 3
News Philadelphia readies for DNC after quiet Clevel... Jul 24 fell that BERN 1
More from around the web