Here Today... Gone To Hell!

Draft of upcoming U.N. climate report raises the bar to 'very likely'

MSNBC News Services

Updated: 10:01 a.m. ET Jan 23, 2007

WASHINGTON - Signals that humans are the main factor behind recent global warming are stronger than ever, an authoritative global scientific report will warn when it is released next week.

A draft of the United Nations report by 600 scientists says it is "very likely" that human activities are the main cause of warming in the past 50 years, strengthening a conclusion in their last study in 2001 that the human link was "likely".

"It is very likely that ... greenhouse gas increases (from human activities) caused most of the globally average temperature increases since the mid-20th century," one source who had seen the draft quoted it as saying.

The 2001 report defined "very likely" as a 90-99 percent probability and "likely" as a 66-90 percent chance.

The new report means narrower ground for skeptics to argue that natural variations, such as in the sun's output, are to blame rather than emissions from burning oil, coal and gas.

Extremes narrowed
The draft does have some good news in that improved computer modeling allowed scientists to narrow the scenarios for projected future temperature and sea level rise.

The draft projects that world temperatures are likely to rise by 3.6-8.1 Fahrenheit by 2100 unless the world manages drastic cuts in greenhouse gas emissions from factories, cars and power plants.

The 2001 report had projected a wider possible range of between 2.5-10.4 F.

Sources said the new report would also narrow both ends of the band of projected sea level rises, projected in the 2001 report at between 3.5-35 inches by 2100. Details of the new figures were not available.

"There's good news that the top extremes for temperature and sea level rises have been cut," one source said. "But anyone hoping that the rise will be at the bottom end of the range will be disappointed."

Many scientists also stress that sea level rise beyond 2100 could be catastrophic if the ice sheets in Antarctica and Greenland start to lose significant mass.

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/16760730/

Perhaps you should keep all of your anti-Republican posts in one thread.

We have a thread on one of the most, if not the most important scientific reports in history, and you prefer to pick a fight?

Why talk about issues when you can just post stupid shit instead?

The issue itself is fine enough to talk about (although theres a few threads about it already), its the childish way you present it, and everything else for that matter, that could lead to another ban on politics on this board, especially if its spread over multiple threads. 

I don't care what you think.

Stop squabbling.



OT: Climate change is baaaaaaad.

I don't consider much of what the U.N. says or does is very reputable.

And coming from MSNBC isn't saying much either. So I'll wait for further details.

the one thing i think is amazing or scary is how the ice caps on Killamanjarro ( don't know how to spell it )
have melted in the past 50 years.

Why?  What in the report would you possibly question?

Today's media is just very unreliable when it comes to factual information.

It's just a fact that this is happening and that we are causing it...

I don't know how so many people can be sceptical and ignore basic science, we are destroying the earth!

But I think the earth will rebound after that, it first has to destroy the cause of it's damnation (humans!)


If you look at china which is exploding into the new mass market with a lot of extra fuel usage, I dunno, doesn't seem to be anything that can be done against global warming unless we have a good plan in which every country participates...

Right.....lets bury our heads in the sand and ignore any pieces of information we find might invade our comfort zone or make us question our belief set.

I mean, if it IS a problem, it'll probably just go away.

 ::)

How you can question a study released by the UN, which happens to be reported on MSNBC, is beyond me.  This certainly  isn't anything like a study commissioned by the Tobacco Industry to support smoking......you can disagree (if you can find scientific evidence) with the findings if you like...but disagreeing because you don't find the UN reputable ( ::)  :rofl: ) or think MSNBC isn't reputable (Fox News fan, are you?) is ludicrous.  Largely because those opinions aren't born out by anything close to reality.....unless your reality is colored by an adoption of conservative spin.  Just because O'Reilly says MSNBC isn't reputalbe (*cough* Oberman sour grapes *cough*) doesn't make it so.

On topic:  The study is disturbing, because it's grounded in some pretty good science.  It's not a study commissioned by an envirmonmental group OR a bankrolled by a corporation with a vested interest in the results....  I'd say, as studies go, this is a pretty good one, and I think the science behind it is relatively compelling (it's an extension of the '01 study)....which is not a good thing for us homosapiens.

are Americans (most not all) the only ones on the planet that don't belive global warming is happening?

http://www.breathingearth.net/

Global warming was always a fairy tell my parents told me before bed, i never took it seriously.

MSNBC is simply reporting the story; I don't see a problem with their reporting of the "story."? However, I do share Drew's skepticism from anything that comes from the UN.? It is a self-serving body that clearly possesses its own agendas on many issues - most of which tend to be left-wing issues.? The UN has not proven to be a competent body in my opinion.? Hopefully, that will now change with the change of the Secretary General.? With that said, I will look at the report with skepticism, but I will not completely discredit its findings until there is evidence or a basis to do so.?

Berk,

In all seriousness...can you point to any scientific study, commissioned by the UN, that has been discredited and would call into account their reliability or penchant for influencing scientific outcomes.

I can understand (but don't agree) the assertions that the UN is politically ineffective.

But I can't even understand an assertion, based on past events, that would lead someone to be "skeptical" of a SCIENTIFIC study commissioned by that organization.  If you have evidence to the contrary, I'd love to see it....I'm not opposed to broadening my viewpoint, obviously.

The UN is a politically motivated organization that certainly has its own agenda in many areas.  Whether that is the case in the scientific realm, I cannot speak one way or another.  However, prudence leads me to be skeptical.  I am sure you would say same, as would I, if the White House released a scientific report on the same subject.

Thank you Berkley Riot.

Pilferk, No, I don't think MSNBC or any news outlet is truely reputable.  And the U.N. is so deep in lies and corruption it's insane. The U.N. screws up more than they'll ever be able to accomplish. Kofi Annan should have been gone long ago. He was a fuck up from the beginning and disgrace.

There is no global warming, and the government isn't lying to us ::)

The fact that we are experiencing global warming as we speak shouldn't even be debated. It's a solid fact supported by all serious scientists. The exceptions are, well, the oil industry and those benefitting from it. I just don't know who to believe ::)

You liked the record warm summer we just had? You enjoy the snowfree winter? There's your answer right there.


Jesus, we're risking everything and still people stand around questioning it. Soon it'll be too late.

Snowfree?

You got a point?

It's very scary this issue.  Living here in the lower area of NY where we haven't even gotten one inch of snow this season and it is almost February is something that is next to unheard of.  I think it flurried maybe twice this season so far.

It's easy to look the other way and say "oh but it just means the weather is nicer and I don't have the hassle of driving in the snow" but you really need to stop and think about the implications of the weather changes. 

When it's snowing in Malibu, California and not in NY something is terribly wrong, folks.  I don't need a UN report or news from MSNBC to figure it out. 

Yes, that isn't factual. And this why alot of people have doubts.

Drop the semantics. It's factual, I see it with my own eyes.

You don't find it funny that a 9 out of 10 scientists agree on the matter in question, while only 5 out of 10 agree in the public? Brainwashing by the large corporations and media outlets.

You don't find it alarming that our CO2 level is twice that it has ever been for the last half million years?

No, your wrong and you know it. Did you miss the winter storm that moved across the U.S. this past month?

Where do you get "Snowfree?"

I get it from Europe, where I live. The first snow fell yesterday. That's 4 months late compared to 10 years ago. We also had summer weather all the way into September, which is unheard of in these parts.

I've seen the stats, I've seen the pics, graphs, measurements and I've read the reports.

I'll agree we don't yet grasp the full consequences, but it's no denying something's happening. Do we want to gamble?

Look at the NE corner of the US, for example.  The "snowbelt" of the east coast.

We've had, in CT, one inch of snow...we usually are running around 34.

Now, I'm not saying that's global warming....but it's certainly remarkable.

Thanks...so you have no real basis.  That's pretty much what I suspected.

There's ample evidence to the contrary, in relation to other studies they've commissioned.  Since you can't provide anything contrary....I'm assuming you're basing your opinion on your perception of their political ineffectiveness. 

Thanks, that colors your opinon on the subject just enough to give it proper credence.....and it shows you're basing your opinion on politics, rather than prior precedent.

It is remarkable and rather scary if you ask me.

I said this in one of the other topics but I wasn't aware global warming was a political debate.  I wasn't aware it took more than looking out your window every once in a while to see things have changed. 

    Group: ExxonMobil paid to mislead public



WASHINGTON - ExxonMobil Corp. gave $16 million to 43 ideological groups between 1998 and 2005 in a coordinated effort to mislead the public by discrediting the science behind global warming, the Union of Concerned Scientists asserted Wednesday.

The report by the science-based nonprofit advocacy group mirrors similar claims by Britain's leading scientific academy. Last September, The Royal Society wrote the oil company asking it to halt support for groups that "misrepresented the science of climate change."

ExxonMobil did not immediately respond to requests for comment on the scientific advocacy group's report.

Many scientists say accumulating carbon dioxide and other heat-trapping gases from tailpipes and smokestacks are warming the atmosphere like a greenhouse, melting Arctic sea ice, alpine glaciers and disturbing the lives of animals and plants.

ExxonMobil lists on its Web site nearly $133 million in 2005 contributions globally, including $6.8 million for "public information and policy research" distributed to more than 140 think-tanks, universities, foundations, associations and other groups. Some of those have publicly disputed the link between greenhouse gas emissions and global warming.

But in September, the company said in response to the Royal Society that it funded groups which research "significant policy issues and promote informed discussion on issues of direct relevance to the company." It said the groups do not speak for the company.

Alden Meyer, the Union of Concerned Scientists' strategy and policy director, said in a teleconference that ExxonMobil based its tactics on those of tobacco companies, spreading uncertainty by misrepresenting peer-reviewed scientific studies or cherry-picking facts.

Dr. James McCarthy, a professor at Harvard University, said the company has sought to "create the illusion of a vigorous debate" about global warming.

AP

You guys are acting as if the UN is the only body that is providing proof that global warming is created by man-they aren't.

If you don't like what you read it can't be true.




You know, global warming and the conclusion that humans are now contributing to the rate of global warming, is a theory put forth and vetted by the international body of scientists. It only becomes political propaganda when you attribute that feature to it.

What is the political nature of the present theory? I read and view material on this phenomena using the scientific method. And, right now there is no better explanation being offered by the side who would like to ignore the signs of global warming's accelerated rate being created/accelerated by human activities. In fact it seems your side is the one making this issue political and sending out a lot of propaganda on the subject.

Prove us all wrong and offer up a comprehensive, scientific, documented counter explanation for the loss of the arctic ice caps and other glacial ice around the world.

Do humans contribute to global warming? Yes. What is their effect?? Hard to say. The Earth has been thru much, much worse than ice.....we're still in a Ice Age, the warming trend could be the result of us coming out of that.

Either way.....The Earth will heat up and the Earth will cool down. It has always, it's always will and all the alternative energy sources, recycling, and used vegetable oil powered cars won't change that. The Earth is not going anywhere, we are......

No, my opinion is based on the probability of alternative motives by the U.N.

The corruption can be followed all thru the U.N.

Then prove it.  You have the floor.

Please cite examples of the UN using it's influence to "sway" the outcomes of scientific or medical research.  There are BOATLOADS of studies, so you have lots of source material with which to work.

I doubt you'll find any.  I have first hand experience with some of it...much of it pertaining to UNICEF commissioned studies on medical care.  I think you'll be hard pressed....no, I think you'll find it impossible...to find any cases where the UN has tried to use it's influence to "modify" the results found by a body of scientists (who, FYI, are scattered around the globe).  I also am pretty sure you won't find, knowing what I know of it, any possibility of manipulation in the selection process (which scientists/doctors get chosen to participate in which studies).

Again, any "corruption" on the part of the UN (or your opinion thereof) speaks to their political effectiveness.  Not to the bias of a SCIENTIFIC study they commissioned.

You dismiss it because you don't like what it says.....not because you have good grounds for dismissing it.  Just like you dismiss it because the story happens to appear on MSNBC.  That speaks volumes.....

Well, I don't know if this means anything, but it hasn't snowed here yet this year, and I don't think it will!

 :o

Yeah, you know...Florida is quite the snow belt.

Ya nut!  :rofl:

Actually, the basis is that it is a political self-serving motivation.  Just because it is a scientific study does not mean that numbers can't be manipulated or misleading.  Noticeably, you ignored the comparison to a white house study.  I think you would agree to be skeptical if one came out.

Like I said, I am not aware of other scientific studies that they have conducted so I can't use that as a basis for drawing an opinion one way or the other.

I am basing it on the fact that it is a politically motivated self-serving organization.  Just because it calls itself "the United Nations" doesn't mean it does not have its agendas.  Like I said, I never said that the study was wrong; I just said that I view things that come out of that organization with skepticism.

Wasnt there some sort of Scientific test that said the earth was only gonna heat up like 6 thousands of a degree over the next 100 years?


I dont really believe in Global Warming, I think its just Earth's natural Evolution.




Is the weather truly that much more different now than 20 years ago?


Weren't there even a worse case of Hurricanes back in the late 70's than a couple years ago?



I think Global warming is another govt tool to try and scare people into behaving certain ways.


Maybe I am wrong but I don't buy all of what they try to sell.

 ???

Maybe you can explain this further?


"They" being scientists?

I love how the topic starter comes to HTGTH, a forum for GNR fans, and hasn't even posted in a GNR section. Only here to drill Republicans.

I just dont swallow everything that is fed to me.

People watch Al Gore and all of a sudden think the world is gonna blow up in a hundred years. It is absurd.


The world will blow up via Nuclear Holocaust long before we have a chance to destroy it with global warming.

I think its a waste of time, money and energy to worry about it.



Fear is a controlling tool used by people to make people behave in certain ways.


Scientist last i checked make money right?

If they dont find any evidence guess what? they are unemployed..... SO OF COURSE They are gonna paint the grimmest picture regardless to stay employed.




The world is almost turning into another Dark Age where people are fed all sorts of superstitions to control their behavior.

Hell Bush won re-election with this very tactic.



T

Here?s what the data say, about which there is little debate; ground-based temperatures stations indicate that the planet has warmed somewhere between .3 and .6 degrees Celsius since about 1850, with about half of this warming occurring since WWII.



To me, that is hardly a crisis.

Good post D.

Pilferk,

What I'm saying is this report/study being released by the U.N. with their approval is just not reputable in my opinion. An organization that has corruption from top to bottom, being the Oil for Food scandal, Kofia Annan, the rapes committed in Africa, etc., etc., etc. is not reliable or trust worthy in my opinion anymore or any report they attach their name too.

I don't think it's an opinion based on politics. Look at the scandals of the U.N. and Kofi Annan. That's is where I come to my opinion. With thses corruptions taking place time after time after time, they lose credibility. Everytime I turn around there's another scare alert on global warming.

There may be a chance of global warming but not to the extents of these extremist. Nothing last forever and neither will this planet. So changes are bound to happen over periods of time. But in my own opinion, there's no reason to send the world scare alerts on global warming.

Ive seen enough of your posts to know how untrue this is.

In this instance, youre choosing to "swallow" what global warming skeptics have offered.  The only difference between you and global warming believers is they choose to swallow the findings of the scientific community, while you choose to swallow the pridefully dismissive, corporate-friendly assertions of the skeptics.


 :hihi:

So says the George W. Bush/Bill O'Reilly fan.



Wow...

You never explained what this conspiracy to control peoples behavior entails; whos behind it?  What kind of behavior would they like to see?  Youve proposed a bold conspiracy theory, now try backing it up.

Im also curious how much research youve really done on the subject.  My guess is very little, relying on little more than Fox News talking heads and your own baseless self-certainty.  But after that scientist theory, Im not sure it matters.

Dude I am actually a Democrat.

WHy is it ok for Democrats to take verbatim everything a democrat says but if its a republican its all a bunch of lies and bullshit? Aren't you doing what you are accusing me of?

Al Gore does a one sided Documentary like Micheal Moore and everyone reacts as if everything presented is 100 percent factual which it isnt.

Do u know that if we conserve 20 percent energy that it will cost millions of jobs in the US?

Some believe that GLobal Warming is a ploy to try to redistribute The world's income to take away from the United States and make other countries Richer and more powerful.

Read my last paragraph. That has come from studies that are not disputed.

The world has warmed .3 to .6 degrees Celcius in 157 Years!

I dont think the world at that pace is gonna explode anytime soon.

I think it is all political.

Bush scared the United States via Terrorism to get re elected, So Democrats who know they cant win on their war stance are now going the Enviroment/healthcare route.

I just find it funny how I can be condemned and treated as a dumbass for believing what I believe but yet You feel like u are a genius for believing some UN report that is probably as credible as the anti Global Warming people.

Doesnt make you or I right or wrong. You buy into one side. I buy into the other.

Is there such a thing as Global Warming? Possibly, I think there are definite possibilities.

Do I believe it is a Huge, world Crisis?? NO , not at all. I believe it is completely overblown like SARS, Bird Flu and the flesh eating paper cut disease.


Also u speak of Scientists like they are GOD.

U ever noticed Construction on the interstate?  U ever noticed how it never ends? U know why that is? cause if the Construction ended, People would be without Jobs so they continously fix unbroken things to keep getting paid.  If Scientists didnt find these HARSH studies, No one would donate and pay their bills so Yeah I do question them greatly. Anybody who makes a big paycheck I question cause its human nature to keep wanting to collect that paycheck.

Hypothetically, if the U.N. report found that global warming doesnt exist/isnt hastened by human activity, would you believe the opposite?  After all, that seems to be the foundation of your skepticism.

What do you believe then?  If you, like your colleague D, dont trust the majority of reputable scientists because you believe theyre fabricating conclusions for money (Id love to see this explained further), what science do you accept?  If you dismiss anything presented by a government body tarnished by cases of corruption, what do you accept of the White House and Congress?  Youre automatically skeptical of any news outlet (regardless of the fact that in this case the outlet has nothing to do with the findings), so I wonder where you learned about all of these U.N. stories.

I am skeptical of everybody.

I just believe its a waste of money and time.

Its as silly as the Terror Alert levels on TV.

When it starts snowing 20 inches in Hawaii maybe I'll be a believer. The earth heating up a degree or 2 over a 50 year period is not proof, Its Evolution, its the earth's natural progression over time.


note:


The Scientists said "Very Likely"

Who are they Axl Rose?

What kind of answer is that? Very Likely? How is that definitive at all?? Sounds like Bullshit to me.


Could they be more vague?

3 to 35 inches by 2100? How could they estimate something like that? And they sure are giving a great deal of room for error arent they? Why didnt they just say between 1 and 100?


4 degrees in 93 years once again to me is not that drastic and to me is something u cant predict.


who the hell has ever been able to predict the weather anyway?

http://www.cato.org/speeches/sp-jt011698.html




I have no idea their party affiliation NOR do i care.

I think its pretty interesting.

Ill take your word for it with the understanding that Zell Miller and Joe Lieberman identify themselves as Democrats as well.  Some are interested in identifying themselves in a particular way and then contradicting the expectations that come with the label.  Like I said the other day, such a facade assumedly creates an air of objectivity.  Bush-supporters can give Republican talking points and then clarify that "Im saying that as a Democrat."  That may not be the case for you, but I certainly get that impression from your posts. 


What are you talking about? 


This topic is about a report from 600 scientists, not Al Gore and Michael Moore.


Who believes this?  What evidence do they have to support this? 

It seems your covering your own tracks by turning that claim into a strawman; why not just say that you believe it?  Youve already fundamentally rejected the institution of science because scientists make money, why stop now?


Yes, because it was only after Bushs elections that people made up global warming.

No, their credibilty is garbage either way.

Booker:

What did the scientists claim as Fact?


Every single thing was "Likely" or "Very Likely" or possibly.

They gave NO Definitive answer.

Sea Level could rise 3 to 35 inches by 2100


Hell Jesus could come back and claim our souls by 2100.

How vague are those 600 scientist who seem to me are making sure they keep collecting donations and their funding budgets.


The earth cooled down for 19 years and now has started heating back up and Im sure after a couple decades it will once again start cooling down.

its what the earth does!


What dont u understand about .3 to .6 degrees in 157 years? 18cm's is all Sea Level has risen.

that to me is hardly a crisis.

Its political hogwash.


Booker, you and your ilk probably believed in 1985 that we would have flying cars by the year 2000.

Scientists, meteorologist etc cant predict the weather for tomorrow, how are they remotely qualified to say how the world will be in the year 2100?

Hell we may not even have a world by 2100.

Its all pointless.

Did you see the movie?




After the last 5 years America has little ground to stand on when speaking of "credibility".

I say we list his personal info to shut him up and teach him a lesson.



The right wing smear machine has always gone above and beyond to ruin anybody who spoke up against their illegal war. There are plenty who still buy it hook line and sinker to this day, repeating the "UN is corrupt" mantra without missing a beat. 

When asked to put up or shut up, the GOP liars got  shut down (http://youtube.com/watch?v=Wj0m0dSUPR8), and spanked live on Cspan.  I'll never forget that day.

I use to not belive in global warming, but as i am attending college again I had to do a paper last year on it. After studing all the information on it that has been presented I now belive that global warming does exist. Scientists have some-what of an idea of what it may do, but nobody really knows what exactly the affects will be. I do belive that some orginaztions and political groups use it for many reasons, which is a shame because it is a serious situation, that hopefully will continue to be researched for years to come, and maybe our kids will finally do something about it.


Bush used terror, everyone uses terror. I'm neither an elephant or a jack-ass. I belive the real reason bush won re-election is because the right wing religous nuts when out it droves in mid-western states to make sure they get a guy that wont allow any rights to homosexuals.

The democrats touch on environment, but they know its not a huge issue to the american people. The main thing they have and will go for is healthcare. And I belive the only reason democrats dont speak out against global warming is only because they don't have the lobbyists and financers from big industrial buisness the republicans have, so since their not gonna get anything out of supporting them they speak out for the environment and against? oil-based industrial buisness.? :smoking:

That changes nothing regarding the U.N. though.

You don't get it do you?

When somebody is as morally bankrupt as this administration is, it is hard to take them seriously as they finger point at other governing bodies. In fact it gives them zero credibility, which does in fact change everything about the UN, no matter how much you'd like to pretend otherwise.

You may now return to your koolaid.

By politics, I meant the UN's, not yours.  Just to clarify.

And you're doing exactly what I contend you are.  And you just said as much.

With the past UN scientific and medical studies...you get your grant money regardless of what your findings show.  So long as the study audit is successful (which simply asks for documentation the study occurs, not of the findings which are submitted seperately), you get the $$.

It's not vague, actually.  If you read the article in question (or know of the original study) you'll see they gave a pretty definitive defenition to what "Very Likely", in terms of percentages, means.

That's largely the point.  In this case, their "credibility" doesn't really have anything to do with the findings in question....they weren't the ones conducting the study.  They paid for it, but if you know anything of the methodology of selection in these types of studies, you'd know that, again, the credibility of the UN has nothing to do with it.

just curious, what did al gore do with the earnings from the movie release? did he profit from it at all?

I read the entire article and that is what I am talking about.

They are predicting for the year 2100 and I just ask how they could possibly have any idea what the world is gonna be in 2100?

Their findings are vague hence the 3 to 35 inches. That is ridiculous and sounds made up.


How precise are their findings with that kind of margin of error?


So what if the world heats up 4 degrees by the year 2100? is that really that big of a deal? Once again, the earth cooled down for 19 years starting in the 60's, it is simply heating up again and soon it will go into a cool down period. (that is what the earth does)


I think Global Warming may exist on some level, I am only stating it isn't this big outrageous overblown deal we are being led to believe.


The earth heating up .3 to .6 degrees in 157 years is hardly a crisis.

Sea Level rising 18 Centimeters *we arent talkin inches, We are talkin Centimeters* in 157 years is not time for major panic.

Are you sure you read the entire article?  Either you didn't or your reading comprehension is terrible.  The 2001 report said 3 to 35 inches, the findings from the new report were not released.  How you can call findings that aren't released "vague" is beyond me.

Secondly, why are you so baffled by being able to predict future weather?  You comment on Al Gore's movie, but after reading your posts in this tread I doubt you even saw it.  He does a pretty good job of showing you the trends of CO2 emissions and hotter weather. 

Lastly, your ramblings about a political conspiracy and evil scientists is just laughable. 

He gave 100 percent of his profits to a bipartisan educational fund for global warming, while paramount pitched in a measly 5 percent.

Nice try though.

D, remember a couple of years, I sent you a PM about going to Alaska for the summer?  anyway, I didnt get paid much ($5000 for the 12 weeks), but I want to tell you what I did up in Barrow, AK.  I did not go for the $$ obviously, but just a chance to get away from LA.

The fact is that global C02 levels have risen far above the natural cycle of Earth.  What we *infer* from it, is up for grabs. Some people like to focus on the correlation between temperature and CO2....a lot of inferences have been made about this and this has resulted in many doomsday predictions.  So I dont have a problem with your scepticism really. 

But I wish there was a more organized effort to explain the consequences of CO2 increase, one in particular is how the Earth compensates for changes in the balance (Le Chatelier's principle from chemistry).  The two things I want to talk about is the tundra (in Alaska and elsewhere), and the oceans.  Both of these masses absorb our CO2 releases into the atmosphere  (so any inferences about atmospheric heating must take them into account).  The problem with relying on the ocean is that it lowers the pH and most of the life in it cannot handle the acidity.  They just die, whereas things like algae can survive.  I hope you like eating algae  ;)    The tundra has also been a carbon sink, and one of the things I did up in AK was to use spectroscopy (shine different wavelengths of light) onto the layers of ice and try to see what chemicals were present.  This is all very cool, but the problem is the tundra is starting to melt.  (Funny thing is that some of the Alaskan natives, the Inupiat, like this, because it makes their life easier).  When the tundra melts, it releases its absorbed CO2 back out! 

And then we come to the question, what does it all mean?  What we can infer about non-typical CO2 increases in the atmosphere and ocean.  People have focused on temperature, sea level, ocean life and trying to predict what will happen.  I didnt work on that aspect it, but I wish it was reported in a more systematic way.  We should be able to show our raw data, the processed data, the statistical analysis, and finally the conclusion (which may or may not be 'doomsday') in public literature instead of hiding it away in scientific journals that most people do not read.

And finally, this is the tundra in the summer.  I had to walk on these mats every day for 12 weeks.  It was fun  :)

(http://farm1.static.flickr.com/37/83987066_240fe7811a.jpg)

Actually, you don't get it.  The same reason you think the Administration should not be trusted is the same reason that the UN should not be trusted.

The cooling of the Earth they found in 60's was leading to another massive Ice Age. Oops. Guess they had their results upside down.

Once again, we're leaving what is called "the Little Ice Age". The warming of the Earth is 100% natural. As is the cooling of the Earth.

99.9% of EVERYTHING that has EVER lived on this planet is gone.....guess who's gonna join them?? We are!! We're going away. The Earth will renew itself, clean the air and the water, and new species with emerge and thrive....and we won't leave much of a trace behind.

I do get it. The U.N. is not the same as this administration. They are a complete and separate entity which currently leaves the U.N. with absolutely no credibility. Kofi Annan's corruption is by his own doing. Same with the Oil for Food scandal and the rapes commited by U.N. officials. The scandals were not driven by Bush and his administration.

thanks for the info.

you always assume you know people's intentions. i wasn't "trying" anything. if i was, i could have simply checked wikipedia first to find the answer. 

my question was an honest one, and one that i thought should be clarified in this discussion.

yet you reply with your typical cocky/miserable remarks. it must suck being you. you should smoke some weed.

I base my responses on what I have seen prior, and I've seen more than enough from people like you. I believe your intentions about as much as I believe in the tooth fairy.

Thanks for your concern, however I have a great life- I just don't like liars.

(http://i99.photobucket.com/albums/l304/MistyMountain67/images.jpg)

I wrote a 30 page paper back in my college days (31 to be exact)...I don't have it on me at the moment, but I believe I titled it:  The Problems with Doomsday Theorists (or something along those lines.  I wrote it in Fall of '95.  I guess I've always been a bit of a contrarian.  My prof was a very liberal fellow, and I looked at the task as a challenge. 

Like any issue, both sides of the debate can throw data together to suit their needs.  I got an A- on the paper.

Now at that time, I remember seeing a chart that gave the average world temps for the past 100 years, and I pointed out that something like 70% of the rise came in the first 30 or so years of that 100 year period.  It just didn't jive with the rise in atmospheric CO2. 

I should pull that thing out and see what else was on there.

That being said, I do believe global warming is real.  I do believe it is a real threat.  The last 10 years of very abnormally high temperatures alone would have been enough, but  coupled with the economies of China and India revving up their energy usage, (yes, the US is the worst and has no moral authority to demand the rest of the world behave any better, I understand that) the 21st century will be interesting to say the least.

Now about the side argument:  everything Bush does is not bad.  Everything the UN does is not bad.  Please.  Base the debate on science.  The results do favor the side of global warming being a true threat.   

The pack of lies UN bullshit is only brought up so the poster can ignore science and smoke screen their ignorance on the subject.

One can most definitely side with science and not be swayed by either UN fans/enemies or Bush fans/enemies.  Just look at independent university research and combine it with basic science.  The Greenhouse Effect is real.   

On a slightly related topic, I'd be very interested to know President Bush's scientific background.  I imagine he's read more passages from the Bible than from scientific literature.  The inherent problem with not reading up on the topic is that you are at the mercy of those you surround yourself with.  In this case very strong lobbyists from the oil and energy industries who don't want to change a damn thing, especially when business is so damn good right now.   

Yes, the Greenhouse Effect is very real, it's also a 100% natural process of Earth.

Yes Mama Kin, it existed before us, and it will exist after us...but if you think we have no effect on it at all, you are kidding yourself.  How much we are affecting the process is the debate right now.  It's not if, it's how much.  ;)

I admit I havent watched Al Gore's Movie simply cause I dont like One Sided Documentaries. If he had both sides represented and let the viewer decide for themselves what they believe I would watch it, but I don't like hearing just one side.


Does anyone debate the findings of the earth heating up only .3 to .6 degrees since 1850? Hanna U say they haven't released the new data so why the hell is everyone up in arms over this then?

maybe they havent released the new data cause the new data isnt scary enough to freak people out?


I am skeptical by nature and I just don't believe in Global Warming as this Doomsday end of life as we know it plague.

I think it is a scary way to live to take things as Fact just cause a scientist or former vice President or whoever says it without studying both sides and forming an opinion based on both sides.  For every 100 scientists that believe in Global Warming u could probably find 100 that dont believe in it.

It is irresponsible to say this side is being honest and this side are liars just because they have different theories.

I think the world goes in cycles and right now it is in a heating up period just like in the 60's it was cooling down. a couple decades down the road it will start cooling down again.

Actually D, I'd challenge you to find 100 scientists who don't believe global warming is a huge issue for every 1000 that do. 

If you lived closer to the ocean shore, you might feel differently. 

If every country in the world is held to the same standards on CO2 emissions, what harm will be done?   

actually I have seen on several news shows and reports that it is about 50/50 as far as scientists who believe in global warming....but forget about that....we have had the technology since the early 60's to use solar power in cars....yet we are still using oil...so lets recount...from 1963-1968 LBJ was in office(democrat) from 1968-1976 it was Nixon/Ford(republicans) 1976-1980 it was Carter(dem), 1981-1988 Reagan(R) 1988-1992 Bush (R) 1992-2000 Clinton(D) and 2001-Present day its Bush(R)....so lets review, over the past 45 years both political parties have had a fair amount of time running our country...yet NOBODY has done anything about getting us off of Oil...interesting....could it be because both the dems and republicans are getting rich off it?

American Conservative = an insistence that evolution did not happen, while simultaneously doing everything possible to ensure that humans are its next casualty

American Liberal = an insistence that evolution happens, while simultaneously doing everything possible to ensure that it is not allowed to take its course

God, I love this country.  :peace:  <----------Is that supposed to be Nixon?

I think its kinda silly of you to judge/question/criticize a movie you haven't even seen.  Gore does a great job of explaining both sides in the movie, yes he has an agenda and an opinion, but he doesn't just say his side and not tak about the skeptics/critics POV - he does both.  You should check out the movie, its very good and might dispell some of the misconceptions you seem to have.

as for the new findings - there you go again making assumptions - let the new data come out before you critcize it. 

Again, there is a fundamental difference between US governement funded studies and UN funded studies.  There's a difference between the selection process, the methodologies required, AND the parameters to recieve full funding from the grants.

I will tell you, having been involved in both types of studies, and both processes, that the US governments policies and guidlines leave MUCH more room for "abuse".  I'm not saying, by any stretch, that the US government USES those loopholes....I've never seen that happen at the institutional level....but the guidlines leave the possibility open.  For example, unlike the UN guidlines, the US govt study audit process requires you submit your findings WITH your study audit data.  It leaves open the possibility that they could terminate, or withhold, your funding based on your results.  Again, I've never seen it happen, but it can.  In the case of UN funded studies, the "writer of the checks" only sees your audit data...not your results.  Those are passed on to a completely seperate entity.

People keep talking about politics.  The study, and it's validity, has nothing to do with them, whatsoever, and are being used as a convenient excuse to dismiss the findings out of turn....without having any idea that the dismissal being made makes no sense.

We get it.  Really, we do.  We're just temporary residents on this planet.

But it behooves US to try to lengthen our stay on this planet rather than sitting idly by and  watching it all pass before us.  If everyone lived their lives based on the tenets you're espousing......the entire human race would have long passed into oblivion.

(http://img59.imageshack.us/img59/8666/peakmd2.jpg) (http://imageshack.us)


The peak of Mount Kilimanjaro in northeastern Tanzania, October 31, 2005. The mountain has become an icon for environmental campaigners, with scientists predicting that the mountain's glaciers will vanish within the next twenty years because of global warming.


1 hour, 22 minutes ago

OSLO (Reuters) - Thirteen percent of Americans have never heard of global warming even though their country is the world's top source of greenhouse gases, a 46-country survey showed on Monday.

The report, by ACNielsen of more than 25,000 Internet users, showed that 57 percent of people around the world considered global warming a "very serious problem" and a further 34 percent rated it a "serious problem."

"It has taken extreme and life-threatening weather patterns to finally drive the message home that global warming is happening and is here to stay unless a concerted, global effort is made to reverse it," said Patrick Dodd, the President of ACNielsen Europe.

People in Latin America were most worried while U.S. citizens were least concerned with just 42 percent rating global warming "very serious."

The United States emits about a quarter of all greenhouse gases, the biggest emitter ahead of China, Russia and India.

Thirteen percent of U.S. citizens said they had never heard or read anything about global warming, the survey said.

Almost all climate scientists say that temperatures are creeping higher because of heat-trapping greenhouse gases released by burning fossil fuels.

The study also found that 91 percent of people had heard about global warming and 50 percent reckoned it was caused by human activities.

A U.N. report due on Friday is set to say it is at least 90 percent probable that human activities are the main cause of warming in the past 50 years.

People in China and Brazil were most convinced of the link to human activities and Americans least convinced.

The survey said that people living in regions vulnerable to natural disasters seemed most concerned -- ranging from Latin Americans worried by damage to coffee or banana crops to people in the Czech Republic whose country was hit by 2002 floods.

In Latin America, 96 percent of respondents said they had heard of global warming and 75 percent rated it "very serious."

Most industrial nations have signed up for the U.N.'s Kyoto Protocol, which imposed caps on emissions of greenhouse gases, mainly from factories, power plants and vehicles.

President George W. Bush pulled the United States out of Kyoto in 2001, but said last week that climate change was a "serious challenge."

You seem to be much more knowledgeable about the subject than I am.  Although we disagree on certain things, I respect you as a poster, and I believe that you generally post based on thought and fact rather than partisanship.  I will take your word on the distinction and the legitimacy of the study. 

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/16886008/

Intersting, no?  Given our discussion here.

Just thought I'd add it a link to the article to stir up some further discussion.

Just FYI...I'm not too impressed with the findings of this "survey".  It's interesting discussion points, but the manner in which it was conducted, and the relatively low % of respondants, pretty much calls it's findings into question.

Which isn't to say the findings might not be in line with what actually occurs.....just that they aren't very well founded.

This:
The scientists also reported 435 instances of political interference in their work over the past five years.

and this:
    * 43 percent of respondents reported edits during review of their work that changed the meaning of their findings.
    * 46 percent felt administrative requirements that impaired climate-related work.
    * 67 percent said the environment for federal government climate research is worse now than five years ago.

I find disturbing.  I don't think the issue of global warming itself is political, but, as Gore says, it's a moral issue - but when you read stuff like this it makes you wonder if the people in charge of our country are aware of that.

Sadly, it doesn't seem that way.  Until EVERY politician, from BOTH parties cuts loose the chains of their coroporate masters, this country will be headed in the wrong direction.

I agree, it's interesting discussion.  I just wish they'd not presented it the way they did.

The fact is that only about 132 respondants reported edits....of the 1600 involved.   They cite 43%..but that's of the people that RESPONDED.  I'm not sure we can make the correlation that, if more of the sample responded, that % would have held out.  With this type of survey (mail in), the bias of respondants is a well documented issue....usually those responding "have something to say", if you know what I mean.

Ditto on the 46% (really 141 people).

The 67% is more compelling because that means about 207 respondants, or about 13% of the 1600 scientists, feel that way.

Again, I'm not sure the study DOESN'T reflect what actually occurs, but their methodology just makes their numbers shaky.  And that's too bad because it takes away from the point they're trying to make.....

Some folks are not interested in science, science for them is a political matter. The Earth is 3,000 years old. The sun spins around the Earth. The Grand Canyon was created by Noah's Flood, dinosaur fossils are planted by the Devil to trick us humans, and the Earth is slowly getting warmer because Christ is on his way back and he's got his Lake O' Fire on a slow simmer.

 DOUG MELLGREN, Associated Press Writer Thu Feb 1, 6:29 AM ET

OSLO, Norway - Former Vice President
Al Gore was nominated for the 2007 Nobel Peace Prize for his wide-reaching efforts to draw the world's attention to the dangers of global warming, a Norwegian lawmaker said Thursday.

"A prerequisite for winning the Nobel Peace Prize is making a difference, and Al Gore has made a difference," Conservative Member of Parliament Boerge Brende, a former minister of environment and then of trade, told The Associated Press.

Brende said he joined political opponent Heidi Soerensen of the Socialist Left Party to nominate Gore as well as Canadian Inuit activist Sheila Watt-Cloutier before the nomination deadline expired Thursday.

"Al Gore, like no other, has put climate change on the agenda. Gore uses his position to get politicians to understand, while Sheila works from the ground up," Brende said.

During eight years as
Bill Clinton's vice president, Gore pushed for climate measures, including for the Kyoto Treaty. Since leaving office in 2001 he has campaigned worldwide, including with his Oscar-nominated documentary on climate change called "An Inconvenient Truth."

Norwegian lawmakers are among the thousands of people and groups with rights to nominate Nobel candidates. Others include members of national governments, past laureates, members of the awards committee and its staff, and many university professors.

The winner is traditionally announced in mid-October, with the prize always presented on the Dec. 10 anniversary of the death of its creator, Swedish industrialist Alfred Nobel.

I've no problem with him winning a  Nobel Prize, but how, exactly, do they connect Gore's anti-global warming stance with the PEACE prize? 

This highlights a major problem with the Nobel prizes.  They were too stubborn about the categories, so when someone does something important, they have to cram it into an existing category. 

http://www.guardian.co.uk/print/0,,329703480-117700,00.html

"Ian Sample, science correspondent
Friday February 2, 2007
Guardian

Scientists and economists have been offered $10,000 each by a lobby group funded by one of the world's largest oil companies to undermine a major climate change report due to be published today.

Letters sent by the American Enterprise Institute (AEI), an ExxonMobil-funded thinktank with close links to the Bush administration, offered the payments for articles that emphasise the shortcomings of a report from the UN's Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC).

Travel expenses and additional payments were also offered.

The UN report was written by international experts and is widely regarded as the most comprehensive review yet of climate change science. It will underpin international negotiations on new emissions targets to succeed the Kyoto agreement, the first phase of which expires in 2012. World governments were given a draft last year and invited to comment.

The AEI has received more than $1.6m from ExxonMobil and more than 20 of its staff have worked as consultants to the Bush administration. 
Lee Raymond, a former head of ExxonMobil, is the vice-chairman of AEI's board of trustees.

The letters, sent to scientists in Britain, the US and elsewhere, attack the UN's panel as "resistant to reasonable criticism and dissent and prone to summary conclusions that are poorly supported by the analytical work" and ask for essays that "thoughtfully explore the limitations of climate model outputs".

Climate scientists described the move yesterday as an attempt to cast doubt over the "overwhelming scientific evidence" on global warming. 
"It's a desperate attempt by an organisation who wants to distort science for their own political aims," said David Viner of the Climatic Research Unit at the University of East Anglia.

"The IPCC process is probably the most thorough and open review undertaken in any discipline. This undermines the confidence of the public in the scientific community and the ability of governments to take on sound scientific advice," he said.

The letters were sent by Kenneth Green, a visiting scholar at AEI, who confirmed that the organisation had approached scientists, economists and policy analysts to write articles for an independent review that would highlight the strengths and weaknesses of the IPCC report.

"Right now, the whole debate is polarised," he said. "One group says that anyone with any doubts whatsoever are deniers and the other group is saying that anyone who wants to take action is alarmist. We don't think that approach has a lot of utility for intelligent policy."

One American scientist turned down the offer, citing fears that the report could easily be misused for political gain. "You wouldn't know if some of the other authors might say nothing's going to happen, that we should ignore it, or that it's not our fault," said Steve Schroeder, a professor at Texas A&M university.

The contents of the IPCC report have been an open secret since the Bush administration posted its draft copy on the internet in April. 
It says there is a 90% chance that human activity is warming the planet, and that global average temperatures will rise by another 1.5 to 5.8C this century, depending on emissions.

Lord Rees of Ludlow, the president of the Royal Society, Britain's most prestigious scientific institute, said: "The IPCC is the world's leading authority on climate change and its latest report will provide a comprehensive picture of the latest scientific understanding on the issue. It is expected to stress, more convincingly than ever before, that our planet is already warming due to human actions, and that 'business as usual' would lead to unacceptable risks, underscoring the urgent need for concerted international action to reduce the worst impacts of climate change. 
However, yet again, there will be a vocal minority with their own agendas who will try to suggest otherwise."

Ben Stewart of Greenpeace said: "The AEI is more than just a thinktank, it functions as the Bush administration's intellectual Cosa Nostra. They are White House surrogates in the last throes of their campaign of climate change denial. They lost on the science; they lost on the moral case for action. All they've got left is a suitcase full of cash."
On Monday, another Exxon-funded organisation based in Canada will launch a review in London which casts doubt on the IPCC report. Among its authors are Tad Murty, a former scientist who believes human activity makes no contribution to global warming. Confirmed VIPs attending include Nigel Lawson and David Bellamy, who believes there is no link between burning fossil fuels and global warming."