[lotuseclat79]

Protecting Ozone Layer Also Slowed Global Warming
Article here.

Global warming would be substantially worse right now if not for an international agreement in the 1980s that banned the use of ozone-destroying chemicals, a new study finds.

-- Tom

[lotuseclat79]

Memos tell Officials How to Discuss Climate
Article here.

-- Tom

[bassetman]

Originally Posted by compushlep

Time and again you bring up items without realizing they go nicely against your zealous quest to deny. Seems you again posted 'thinking' (that's a loose term, it's more like simple sorting into convenient drawers for you) the Guardian article somehow proves your point ... it's actually very good in showing how increasingly desperate and ridiculous the deniers are becoming ... which makes me wonder how many more bullet holes your foot can tolerate.

Stick to bashing Al and posting infantile cartoons, cuz that's all you really have left.

Let's make an uncomplicated forecast here, based on your obvious mindset: you'll still be searching for any spec of dirt you can dig up in the denial area while the rest of the world has long moved on in helping to solve the GW problem ... including the U.S. (with or without Bush's gov't measures -- individual states will likely do much better on their own).

Boy did you nail that one on the head!

[bassetman]

Originally Posted by lotuseclat79

Memos tell Officials How to Discuss Climate
Article here.

-- Tom

Well hush our mouths!

[compushlep]

Possible solutions? Radical last minute fixes? Or are these just plain ol' crazy nonsense?


Five Ways To Save The World
LINK
. Climate change is being felt the world over and if global warming continues to increase the effects could be catastrophic.
. Some scientists and engineers are proposing radical, large-scale ideas that could save us from disaster.

The first three proposed ideas featured in the film, look at reducing the power of the sun - thereby cooling the planet.
-----
The other two men in the programme want to tackle the problem of excess carbon dioxide - the cause of global warming.
-----
Although these ideas might have unknown side effects, some scientists believe we may soon have no choice but to put these radical and controversial plans into action.

The futuristic fleet of yachts pumping sea-water into the clouds LINK

Why launching sulphur rockets may stop global warming LINK

The deflective global sunshade designed to protect our planet LINK

Could feeding the ocean's phytoplankton help save the planet? LINK

The machines that mimic our natural carbon capturers LINK


Pick your preference
..

[LANMaster]

Originally Posted by compushlep

Possible solutions? Radical last minute fixes? Or are these just plain ol' crazy nonsense?


Five Ways To Save The World
LINK
. Climate change is being felt the world over and if global warming continues to increase the effects could be catastrophic.
. Some scientists and engineers are proposing radical, large-scale ideas that could save us from disaster.


The futuristic fleet of yachts pumping sea-water into the clouds LINK

Why launching sulphur rockets may stop global warming LINK

The deflective global sunshade designed to protect our planet LINK

Could feeding the ocean's phytoplankton help save the planet? LINK

The machines that mimic our natural carbon capturers LINK


Pick your preference
..

Finally some suggested solutions rather than the commonplace politically motivated, anti-Capitalist whine.

Interesting. Thanks

[LANMaster]

Originally Posted by compushlep

Time and again you bring up items without realizing they go nicely against your zealous quest to deny.

Yup ...... Anybody with half a brain should realize that this global cooling can only be caused by this global warming.


Frostbite ends Bancroft-Arnesen trek

MINNEAPOLIS - A North Pole expedition meant to bring attention to global warming was called off after one of the explorers got frostbite. The explorers, Ann Bancroft and Liv Arnesen, on Saturday called off what was intended to be a 530-mile trek across the Arctic Ocean after Arnesen suffered frostbite in three of her toes, and extreme cold temperatures drained the batteries in some of their electronic equipment.

"Ann said losing toes and going forward at all costs was never part of the journey," said Ann Atwood, who helped organize the expedition.

On Monday, the pair was at Canada's Ward Hunt Island, awaiting a plane to take them to Resolute, Canada, where they were to return to Minneapolis later this week.

Bancroft, 51, became the first woman to cross the North Pole on a 1986 expedition. She and Arnesen, 53, of Oslo, Norway, were the first women to ski across Antarctica in 2001.

But the latest trek got off to a bad start. The day they set off from Ward Hunt Island, a plane landing near the women hit their gear, punching a hole in Bancroft's sled and damaging one of Arnesen's snowshoes.

They repaired the snowshoe with binding from a ski, but Atwood said the patch job created pressure on Arnesen's left foot, which led to blisters that then turned into frostbite.

Then there was the cold — quite a bit colder, Atwood said, then Bancroft and Arnesen had expected. One night they measured the temperature inside their tent at 58 degrees below zero, and outside temperatures were exceeding 100 below zero at times, Atwood said.

"My first reaction when they called to say there were calling it off was that they just sounded really, really cold," Atwood said.

She said Bancroft and Arnesen were applying hot water bottles to Arnesen's foot every night, but had to wake up periodically because the bottles froze.

More


Damn that Bush!

[bill.aam]

Global Warming?

The video is long, 1 hour and 15 min, but well worth the time IMO.

[bill.aam]

What alGore is mis-leading the world on global warming?

"He is guilty of a number of convenient untruths or distortions."

Even a top adviser to Mr Gore admits, "Former vice-president's work may hold "imperfections" and "technical flaws"".

Scientists have inconvenient news for Gore

THE environmental campaigner Al Gore may have won over Hollywood with his documentary An Inconvenient Truth. But the scientific world is proving a much tougher audience for his relentless campaign to raise public awareness of climate change.

There is a rising chorus of concern, extending even to "moderate" scientists with no political axe to grind, over the former US vice-president's tactics and advocacy.

The nub of their concern is a belief that he has over-egged his case. That, in trying to sell to the public the dangers of complacency in combating global warming, he is guilty of a number of convenient untruths or distortions.

The main charges are that he has skated over the Earth's history of climate change and that his talk of impending doom ignores that change is a slow-motion process.

Even a top adviser to Mr Gore, the environmental scientist James Hansen, admits the former vice-president's work may hold "imperfections" and "technical flaws".

The creeping unease among scientists has emerged in talks, articles and blog entries over the past few months. Among the critics is Robert Carter, a marine geologist at James Cook University, Queensland. In a blog late last year, Dr Carter joined other geologists in ticking off Mr Gore over his perceived failure to acknowledge the globe's long history of climate change.

"Nowhere does Mr Gore tell his audience that all of the phenomena that he describes fall within the natural range of environmental change on our planet," Dr Carter wrote. "Nor does he present any evidence that climate during the 20th century departed discernibly from its historical pattern of constant change."

An emeritus professor of geology at Western Washington University, Don Easterbrook, told the annual meeting of the Geological Society of America that he did not want to "pick on Al Gore".

"But there are a lot of inaccuracies in the statements we are seeing, and we have to temper that with real data."

Inconvenient news for Gore

[bill.aam]

The "REAL" Cause of Global Warming

[LANMaster]

^ Good one Bill! ^




Telegraph: Scientists threatened for 'climate denial'.

Scientists who questioned mankind's impact on climate change have received death threats and claim to have been shunned by the scientific community.
They say the debate on global warming has been "hijacked" by a powerful alliance of politicians, scientists and environmentalists who have stifled all questioning about the true environmental impact of carbon dioxide emissions.

Timothy Ball, a former climatology professor at the University of Winnipeg in Canada, has received five deaths threats by email since raising concerns about the degree to which man was affecting climate change.

One of the emails warned that, if he continued to speak out, he would not live to see further global warming.

"Western governments have pumped billions of dollars into careers and institutes and they feel threatened," said the professor.

"I can tolerate being called a sceptic because all scientists should be sceptics, but then they started calling us deniers, with all the connotations of the Holocaust. That is an obscenity. It has got really nasty and personal."

Last week, Professor Ball appeared in The Great Global Warming Swindle, a Channel 4 documentary in which several scientists claimed the theory of man-made global warming had become a "religion", forcing alternative explanations to be ignored.

Richard Lindzen, the professor of Atmospheric Science at Massachusetts Institute of Technology - who also appeared on the documentary - recently claimed: "Scientists who dissent from the alarmism have seen their funds disappear, their work derided, and themselves labelled as industry stooges.

"The Great Global Warming Swindle" is an excellent, must-see British documentary that shows how global warming is treated as a religious orthodoxy that cannot be questioned. Little Green Footballs has posted the Flash version of the one-hour-plus film. YouTube has a version in eight parts for easier viewing starting here. (LGF also noted an article about an oceanographer who says his views were misrepresented in the film).

And The New York Times both praises Evangelical Environmentalism (via TIA Daily) and reports that some scientists argue "that some of Mr. Gore's central points are exaggerated and erroneous"

Gus Van Horn has more here and here.


Source

[compushlep]

Hmmm ... just thinking, should we tell the angry hamsters that this thread in no longer called GW: Supported by Science? ... that it has been marked Solved?

Nah, let them spin in their wheels




It's just too bad these humourless fuzzballs don't watch Letterman


Top Ten Other New York Times Allegations Against Al Gore:

10. In addition to "An Inconvenient Truth," wrote "Big Momma's House 2"

9. Tells attractive ladies they can fight global warming by sleeping with him

8. Against CO2 emissions, yet he insists on exhaling carbon dioxide

7. Ordered his vice presidential limousine stocked with Yoo-Hoo and caramels

6. Al Gore, Al Qaeda? Not a coincidence

5. In his Senate desk, carved "I like big girls"

4. He killed beloved winemaker Ernest Gallo

3. Global warming is his excuse for not wearing underpants

2. "Al" is short for "Alice"

1. Real reason polar bears are endangered -- he's eating them
...

[LANMaster]

Eight Reasons to End the Scam

Concern over “global warming” is overblown and misdirected. What follows are eight reasons why we should pull the plug on this scam before it destroys billions of dollars of wealth and millions of jobs.

1. Most scientists do not believe human activities threaten to disrupt the Earth’s climate. More than 17,000 scientists have signed a petition circulated by the Oregon Institute of Science and Medicine saying, in part, “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.” (Go to www.oism.org for the complete petition and names of signers.) Surveys of climatologists show similar skepticism.

2. Our most reliable sources of temperature data show no global warming trend. Satellite readings of temperatures in the lower troposphere (an area scientists predict would immediately reflect any global warming) show no warming since readings began 23 years ago. These readings are accurate to within 0.01ºC, and are consistent with data from weather balloons. Only land-based temperature stations show a warming trend, and these stations do not cover the entire globe, are often contaminated by heat generated by nearby urban development, and are subject to human error.

3. Global climate computer models are too crude to predict future climate changes. All predictions of global warming are based on computer models, not historical data. In order to get their models to produce predictions that are close to their designers’ expectations, modelers resort to “flux adjustments” that can be 25 times larger than the effect of doubling carbon dioxide concentrations, the supposed trigger for global warming. Richard A. Kerr, a writer for Science, says “climate modelers have been ‘cheating’ for so long it’s almost become respectable.”

4. The IPCC did not prove that human activities are causing global warming. Alarmists frequently quote the executive summaries of reports from the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), a United Nations organization, to support their predictions. But here is what the IPCC’s latest report, Climate Change 2001, actually says about predicting the future climate: “The Earth’s atmosphere-ocean dynamics is chaotic: its evolution is sensitive to small perturbations in initial conditions. This sensitivity limits our ability to predict the detailed evolution of weather; inevitable errors and uncertainties in the starting conditions of a weather forecast amplify through the forecast. As well as uncertainty in initial conditions, such predictions are also degraded by errors and uncertainties in our ability to represent accurately the significant climate processes.”

5. A modest amount of global warming, should it occur, would be beneficial to the natural world and to human civilization. Temperatures during the Medieval Warm Period (roughly 800 to 1200 AD), which allowed the Vikings to settle presently inhospitable Greenland, were higher than even the worst-case scenario reported by the IPCC. The period from about 5000-3000 BC, known as the “climatic optimum,” was even warmer and marked “a time when mankind began to build its first civilizations,” observe James Plummer and Frances B. Smith in a study for Consumer Alert. “There is good reason to believe that a warmer climate would have a similar effect on the health and welfare of our own far more advanced and adaptable civilization today.”

6. Efforts to quickly reduce human greenhouse gas emissions would be costly and would not stop Earth’s climate from changing. Reducing U.S. carbon dioxide emissions to 7 percent below 1990’s levels by the year 2012--the target set by the Kyoto Protocol--would require higher energy taxes and regulations causing the nation to lose 2.4 million jobs and $300 billion in annual economic output. Average household income nationwide would fall by $2,700, and state tax revenues would decline by $93.1 billion due to less taxable earned income and sales, and lower property values. Full implementation of the Kyoto Protocol by all participating nations would reduce global temperature in the year 2100 by a mere 0.14 degrees Celsius.

7. Efforts by state governments to reduce greenhouse gas emissions are even more expensive and threaten to bust state budgets. After raising their spending with reckless abandon during the 1990s, states now face a cumulative projected deficit of more than $90 billion. Incredibly, most states nevertheless persist in backing unnecessary and expensive greenhouse gas reduction programs. New Jersey, for example, collects $358 million a year in utility taxes to fund greenhouse gas reduction programs. Such programs will have no impact on global greenhouse gas emissions. All they do is destroy jobs and waste money.

8. The best strategy to pursue is “no regrets.” The alternative to demands for immediate action to “stop global warming” is not to do nothing. The best strategy is to invest in atmospheric research now and in reducing emissions sometime in the future if the science becomes more compelling. In the meantime, investments should be made to reduce emissions only when such investments make economic sense in their own right.

This strategy is called “no regrets,” and it is roughly what the Bush administration has been doing. The U.S. spends more on global warming research each year than the entire rest of the world combined, and American businesses are leading the way in demonstrating new technologies for reducing and sequestering greenhouse gas emissions.


Time for Common Sense

The global warming scare has enabled environmental advocacy groups to raise billions of dollars in contributions and government grants. It has given politicians (from Al Gore down) opportunities to pose as prophets of doom and slayers of evil corporations. And it has given bureaucrats at all levels of government, from the United Nations to city councils, powers that threaten our jobs and individual liberty.

It is time for common sense to return to the debate over protecting the environment. An excellent first step would be to end the “global warming” scam.

More

[compushlep]

What's worse than an angry hamster you ask? I'll tell ya ... an ignorant angry hamster who posts nothing but retched refuse. ....

....

[lotuseclat79]

Could crazy technology save the planet?
Article here.

Crazy-sounding ideas for saving the planet are getting a serious look from top scientists, a sign of their fears about global warming and the desire for an insurance policy in case things get worse.

-- Tom