Middle Stance Emerges in Debate Over Climate

NY Times ^ | January 1, 2007 | ANDREW C. REVKIN

[preacher]

NYT Biased Reporting: "Conservative politicians and a few scientists, many with ties to energy companies, have variously countered that human-driven warming is inconsequential, unproved or a manufactured crisis,"

Her's something about the "few" scientists who disagree:
http://www.oism.org/pproject/s33p357.htm

During the past 2 years, more than 17,100 basic and applied American scientists, two-thirds with advanced degrees, have signed the Global Warming Petition.

This is the Petition: http://www.oism.org/pproject/ - “This treaty is, in our opinion, based upon flawed ideas. Research data on climate change do not show that human use of hydrocarbons is harmful.” - Frederick Seitz, Past President, National Academy of Sciences, U.S.A.

Signers of this petition so far include 2,660 physicists, geophysicists, climatologists, meteorologists, oceanographers, and environmental scientists (select this link for a listing of these individuals) who are especially well qualified to evaluate the effects of carbon dioxide on the Earth's atmosphere and climate.

Signers of this petition also include 5,017 scientists whose fields of specialization in chemistry, biochemistry, biology, and other life sciences (select this link for a listing of these individuals) make them especially well qualified to evaluate the effects of carbon dioxide upon the Earth's plant and animal life.

Nearly all of the initial 17,100 scientist signers have technical training suitable for the evaluation of the relevant research data, and many are trained in related fields. In addition to these 17,100, approximately 2,400 individuals have signed the petition who are trained in fields other than science or whose field of specialization was not specified on their returned petition.

[Tzimisce]

So basically we have open minded, non partisan liberal scientists who are trying to warn everyone of the eminent danger of global warming on one side, partisan, closed minded, obnoxious evil scientists (backed by big evil and Karl Rove) who stupidly challenge the data of the said liberal scientists on the other and the moderate scientists telling us that cars exhale CO2 (as if we didn't know that already....)

[freedomfiter2]

reenland was then warm enough to have grass filled pastures which fed the cattle and sheep which in turn fed the Vikings. Then it turned colder and the Viking comunity began to die off until the remnant returned to Iceland.


Exactly, we're just trying to restore the correct climate to Earth.

[capt. norm]

I always assumed it was because warmer seas can't hold as much dissolved CO2.

Totally valid point, that walked right past me tonight.

With the Pacific waters dropping in temperature, and right now it's in the deeper waters, the ability of the ocean waters to absorb CO₂ increase substantially.

[Maelstorm]

I agree we do know that CO2 is rising.

"We also see what extremely high level of CO2 does to planets (see Venus). "

I don't agree that Venus can be used as an accurate model to infer anything about Earth. It is probably one of the biggest sources of misconceptions about a "run away Green House effect" as it relates to Earth. The history of Venus and Earth are largely different. It appears likely that Venus had a moon created in a collision and then somehow lost it in another collision. Venus for whatever reason did not develop the same mechanisms that occurred on Earth which allowed a more favorable environment for life to arise whether that be because of a different chemical/gas distribution or impacts that exceeded what occurred to early earth it is clear Venus and Earth have never been the identical twins that early science writers imagined.

That said, I can only hope the reality that the CO2 levels on Earth started out at levels as much as 80 to 600 (24000-80000ppm)times the current levels when the sun's solar output was 25% less. There are only two periods the Late Carboniferous and our current period where CO2 Levels have averaged less than 400ppm. The hysteria is really out of control. We are no where near the concentrations of CO2(1500ppm) that existed at the times of extensive inland oceans and vast balmy forests of ferns filled with giant insects. So it can easily be said with confidence that we are in no danger of creating a run away greenhouse effect through our paltry emissions. Even the Cambrian period had CO2 levels of as much as 7000 ppm. If you also take into account the Earth's has been losing its internal heat for sometime it is clear that only a fool(Al Gore) could believe the doomsday scenarios that are being passed off as science. We are in no danger of losing the icecaps and the melting of Glaciers is not going to deluge the world.

Here are some interesting articles

http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2006/10/061017085135.htm
http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2004/11/041117003741.htm
http://www.space.com/scienceastronomy/venus_life_040826.html

[PSYCHO-FREEP]

Don't forget about the recent sub sea volcanic activity which is literally 1,000 times greater over the last 10 year period compared to the last 100 years. This phenomena has raised Ocean temperatures substantially, added co2 to the water and also can account for the reason there is a sudden spike in atmospheric co2 because the Oceans are already saturated.

[Strategerist]

Don't forget about the recent sub sea volcanic activity which is literally 1,000 times greater over the last 10 year period compared to the last 100 years. This phenomena has raised Ocean temperatures substantially, added co2 to the water and also can account for the reason there is a sudden spike in atmospheric co2 because the Oceans are already saturated.

The above is a COMPLETELY fabricated lie. Interesting to know what kooknutter website was your "source" for that.

There's nothing remotely unusual about current undersea volcanic activity, as best we can tell.

[norwaypinesavage]

"because of reforestation, some claim the U.S. is a carbon sink."

You've actually swerved into a serious problem here. One sure cure for CO2 emissions is to permanently store carbon underground i.e. bury newspapers in landfills. Repeat!! cure CO2 emissions by NOT recycling your newspapers. The problem, of course, is that newspapers are going down the tube. We must SAVE THE WORLD. Buy newspapers. /sarc

[neverdem]

Thanks for the link.

[neverdem]

Ping

[HannagansBride]

Well, ya gotta admit...

Al Gore's "Environmental Champion" ploy is getting better traction than some of other cockamaine causes he's come up with in the past.

Does anyone remember the "Redefining Government" crusade he spearheaded during the Clinton years? What happened to that?

Or how about the "Downsizing Government" ploy when they thought people were concerned with out-of-control government? Remember the big media event with Al Gore and the fork lift palette loaded with government regulations they were going to streamline? Just how far did that project get... beyond the television face time of the media event itself?

Now we have the environmental champion. I'll bet that goes a long way too.

Politians always search for parades they can jump to the front of so they can feel needed... and they can support their "annointed-one" lifestyles.

It would be nice if he'd get a real job! (How about "Would you like fries with that Sir?")

[PSYCHO-FREEP]

It wasn't a website where The info. was garnered. It came from a reputable magazine article of which I did not write down the source for later reference. (very busy that day) It was interesting that the Ocean temperatures have been on the increase without a logical reason. Solar activity may be part of it. But it made sense to me.

You must be some monumental authority by your use of the term "WE". Have you decided what is the cause yet?

[Mr. Jeeves]

Al Gore's "Environmental Champion" ploy is getting better traction than some of other cockamaine causes he's come up with in the past.

Here's a nice quote from an eminent climatologist whom the NYT probably considers an "Exxon Lackey":

"(Al Gore) is an embarrassment to US science and its many fine practitioners, a lot of whom know (but feel unable to state publicly) that his propaganda crusade is mostly based on junk science. Gore's circumstantial arguments are so weak that they are pathetic. It is simply incredible that they, and his film, are commanding public attention."

-- Professor Bob Cook, from the Marine Geophysical Laboratory at James Cook University, in Australia.

[neverdem]

Hey, it's neverdem's favorite paper.

It is unfortunately the proverbial "paper of record." For health & science articles, it's one of the best. Check out "In Ancient Fossils, Seeds of a New Debate on Warming."

I was born in NYC. I like the NY Sun better. I wish they had the resources of the Times.

[TigersEye]

I have a hard time believing that CO2 from auto emissions is anywhere near the amount of CO2 deliberately created for the trillions of gallons of carbonated soft drinks made each year. Almost all of which is released unchanged into the atmosphere.

[neverdem]

Bird flu raging in Vietnam's Mekong delta (In Ca Mau many poultry reportedly died Monday.)

The Claim: You Can Predict the Sex of a Baby by the Way the Mother Is Carrying

FReepmail me if you want on or off my health and science ping list.

[Fawnn]

I blame catalytic converters. ;)

[ReleaseTheHounds]

This will be "used" like an admission to the climate hysterics. Watch what the mainstream media makes of this "admission".