Anyone catch this article (http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/19230786/) a few days ago?


It’s not in Al Gore’s PowerPoint presentation, but there are some upsides to global warming.

Northern homes could save on heating fuel. Rust Belt cities might stop losing snowbirds to the South. Canadian farmers could harvest bumper crops. Greenland may become awash in cod and oil riches. Shippers could count on an Arctic shortcut between the Atlantic and Pacific. Forests may expand. Mongolia could see a go-go economy.

This is all speculative, even a little facetious, and any gains are not likely to make up for predicted frightening upheavals elsewhere. But still... might there be a silver lining for the frigid regions of Canada and Russia?

“It’s not that there won’t be bad things happening in those countries. There will be — things like you’ll lose polar bears,” said economic professor Robert O. Mendelsohn of the Yale School of Forestry & Environmental Studies. “But the idea is that they will get such large gains, especially in agriculture, that they will be bigger than the losses...”

The future may have arrived already in icy Greenland, where fishermen are thrilled by the return of cod and farmers are reporting higher yields.

“Maybe the turnips get a little bit bigger, and the potatoes get a little bit bigger, but that’s important,” said Kenneth Hoegh, a government agricultural adviser. “We are right on the edge here for agriculture.”

Jesper Madsen, who directs Arctic research at the National Environmental Research Institute in Denmark, said Greenland’s agricultural gains would seem like small potatoes economically if the retreating ice there clears the way for more oil drilling.

But don't get excited...


Some researchers stress there aren’t really any winners in global warming because the planet will be such a big loser. Marginal gains in limited areas can’t be stacked up on one side of the ledger, they say, when the negatives can include planet-wide food and water shortages, mass flooding and extinction.

Like the scientists I'm still trying to figure this out. We could see both increased agricultural production and "planet-wide food" shortages, and both "mass flooding" with "planet-wide" water shortages. I wish someone would make up their mind.

Here's the question that I have: how do we know what the OPTIMAL temperature of the planet is supposed to be? How do we know that the temperature shouldn't be, say, 5 degrees higher than it is in order to maximize the natural potential of the planet? Or 5 degrees lower? Or exactly what it is now?

All the doom and gloom environ-mental-ists have assumed that they know what's best for the planet, and that they can accurately measure the earth's potential. These are the same guys who can't get the 5-day forcast right with any regularity, but we're supposed to assume that they have such a good read on the planet that they know what the opitmal temperature is?

Elliot

Here is some more to throw into the soup

Ban Ki Moon says the genocide in Darfur is about climate change. Climate change behind Darfur killing: UN's Ban (http://www.breitbart.com/article.php?id=070616212708.ymevxrx6&show_article=1&catnum=0) . Nothing to do about contolling the oil in the region... Nah

Floods in Fort Worth ? Yup global warming

Lake Superior at lowest levels in 81 years ? You got it... global warming... and here I thought that the big melt was going to raise water levels .

The snow caps of Kilimajaro melting due to global warming ? Nah ! The Buffalo News: Op-Ed Columns (http://www.buffalonews.com/248/story/100801.html?imw=Y)


Reid Bryson, known as the father of scientific climatology, considers global warming a bunch of hooey.

The UW-Madison professor emeritus, who stands against the scientific consensus on this issue, is referred to as a global warming skeptic. But he is not skeptical that global warming exists, he is just doubtful that humans are the cause of it.

There is no question the earth has been warming. It is coming out of the "Little Ice Age," he said in an interview this week.

"However, there is no credible evidence that it is due to mankind and carbon dioxide. We've been coming out of a Little Ice Age for 300 years. We have not been making very much carbon dioxide for 300 years. It's been warming up for a long time," Bryson said.

The Little Ice Age was driven by volcanic activity. That settled down so it is getting warmer, he said.local (http://www.madison.com/tct/mad/topstories/197613)

Or maybe the meme that has become PC came from the faulty placement of temperature monitors. I kid you not . Helping along global warming - Pittsburgh Tribune-Review (http://www.pittsburghlive.com/x/pittsburghtrib/opinion/columnists/steigerwald/s_513013.html)

It appears some of the man made global warming is coming from air conditioning vents and not CO2 levels .

both "mass flooding" with "planet-wide" water shortages. I wish someone would make up their mind.Maybe the mass flooding refers to the oceans and the water shortages refers to fresh water.

I did not see this article. But I will say that my family and I try and do everything that we can to conserve energy and to reuse and recycle. Global warming is scary! If there is a chance I can help I am all for it. However, I am not so crazy on Al Gore's presentation. Usely everything has an upside and a downside . While on the subject Google up *freeycycle* and join, help rid the landfills of trash. :)peace

Global warming is scary!

Yes, most nightmares are scary. But nightmares are just dreams, they aren't real. Neither is the global warming threat. And that is the point.

Elliot

Yes, most nightmares are scary. But nightmares are just dreams, they aren't real. Neither is the global warming threat. And that is the point.Of course you're saying so doesn't make it any less real. Do you have any facts?

Hello:

If we could get the right wing fanatics to stop blowing so much hot air, we'd stop it in its tracks.

excon

Whether Global warming is a fact or not. We need to stop being so wasteful. Instead of opening more landfills we could have more green spaces and money and... :)

Ban Ki Moon says the genocide in Darfur is about climate change. Climate change behind Darfur killing: UN's Ban (http://www.breitbart.com/article.php?id=070616212708.ymevxrx6&show_article=1&catnum=0) . Nothing to do about contolling the oil in the region... Nah

Maybe we've found something to blame everything on besides Bush?


The snow caps of Kilimajaro melting due to global warming ? Nah !

Apparently it's a case of "freezer burn," seeing as how temperatures "never drop below freezing."

I love this quote by Bryson, "Consensus doesn't prove anything, in science or anywhere else, except in democracy, maybe."


Or maybe the meme that has become PC came from the faulty placement of temperature monitors. I kid you not . Helping along global warming - Pittsburgh Tribune-Review (http://www.pittsburghlive.com/x/pittsburghtrib/opinion/columnists/steigerwald/s_513013.html)

Nothing like striving for accuracy on an issue as "hot" as global warming. "NOAA didn't say whether it had adjusted for uncertainties caused by nearby burn barrels."

Here's the question that I have: how do we know what the OPTIMAL temperature of the planet is supposed to be?

Elliot, stop making sense. :D

If we could get the right wing fanatics to stop blowing so much hot air, we'd stop it in its tracks.

I think there's plenty of hot air to go around :cool:

Using less energy is always good simply because we have not found a clean and inexhaustible source of energy yet. We know that the earth is warming and that many scientist have said this is caused by humans. Many scientist also have said that this is part of the earths natural cycle of heating and cooling. Either way we need a source of clean and inexhaustible source of energy so instead of wasting all this time on debate and studies on whether or not humans are causing it. Lets spent the money on finding a new source of energy. I realize that it isn't that simply but really shouldn't it be.

Whether Global warming is a fact or not. We need to stop being so wasteful. Instead of opening more landfills we could have more green spaces and money and..... :)

I think we can all probably agree on that.

Using less energy is always good simply because we have not found a clean and inexhaustible source of energy yet. We know that the earth is warming and that many scientist have said this is caused by humans. Many scientist also have said that this is part of the earths natural cycle of heating and cooling. Either way we need a source of clean and inexhaustible source of energy so instead of wasting all this time on debate and studies on wether or not humans are causing it. Lets spent the money on finding a new source of energy. I realize that it isn't that simply but really shouldn't it be.

It is pretty much a waste of time and resources, but it's hard to press an agenda without all this doom and gloom. It's the only way they can get enough people to buy into their agenda, freak them out, scare them to death, assign blame and guilt.

Of course you're saying so doesn't make it any less real. Do you have any facts?

Quite a few, in fact.

The following is a list of average temperatures for the month of January in Sydney, Australia for the years from 1944 - 2006. (NA = information not available).

January Avg Temp.
Year Avg. Temp (Celcius)
1944 23.8
1945 22.3
1946 N/A
1947 N/A
1948 19.7
1949 20.3
1950 21.8
1951 21.0
1952 22.3
1953 20.9
1954 21.3
1955 22.3
1956 21.7
1957 20.9
1958 N/A
1959 N/A
1960 23.7
1961 21.5
1962 21.5
1963 22.2
1964 22.6
1965 19.9
1966 21.6
1967 22.2
1968 21.9
1969 23.1
1970 N/A
1971 N/A
1972 N/A
1973 23.0
1974 22.8
1975 21.9
1976 21.5
1977 22.8
1978 22.5
1979 23.2
1980 22.5
1981 23.1
1982 22.9
1983 23.0
1984 21.8
1985 22.5
1986 22.0
1987 23.2
1988 22.9
1989 21.7
1990 21.7
1991 24.3
1992 21.3
1993 23.2
1994 23.9
1995 21.6
1996 22.2
1997 20.7
1998 23.3
1999 23.8
2000 21.1
2001 23.8
2002 22.9
2003 23.1
2004 23.1
2005 22.9
2006 23.7

And here is how the information plots on a graph.

http://i195.photobucket.com/albums/z190/etwolverine/AvgTemp.jpg?t=1182197752

Can you spot a pattern?

Don't worry. Nobody else could either. That's because there is none. Which is exactly the point. I can do the same thing over and over again for any month you choose in any location you choose. And there will be no discernable pattern for any of them. Let me know if you want me to go through the trouble.

Then there's the fact that "global warming" has been identified on Pluto, Mars, Jupiter and Saturn, as well as on Triton (Neptune's largest moon). Furthermore, there has been a measurable increase in the temperature of the sun itself. See the following articles.

SPACE.com -- Global Warming on Pluto Puzzles Scientists (http://www.space.com/scienceastronomy/pluto_warming_021009.html)



http://www.upi.com/NewsTrack/Science/2006/11/09/nasa_looks_at_a_monster_storm_on_saturn/4126/ (http://www.upi.com/NewsTrack/Science/2006/11/09/nasa_looks_at_a_monster_storm_on_saturn/4126/)

Global Warming Detected on Triton (http://www.scienceagogo.com/news/19980526052143data_trunc_sys.shtml)

Study says sun getting hotter (http://www.lubbockonline.com/news/092897/study.htm)

[URL="http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml?xml=/news/2004/07/18/wsun18.xml&sSheet=/news/2004/07/18/ixnewstop.html"]

Moving along, we have this article which is really the first in a series of articles that explain why so many REAL scientists with applicable degrees disagree with the global warming theory. The series highlights several noted recognized and reknowned scientists with specializations that are specific to the study of global warming who give their reasons for disagreeing with those who say that the science on global warming is "settled". You can link to the entire series from the first article in the series. http://www.canada.com/nationalpost/story.html?id=22003a0d-37cc-4399-8bcc-39cd20bed2f6&k=0

The series profiles the following experts:

Dr. Edward Wegman - Edward Wegman received his Ph.D. degree in mathematical statistics from the University of Iowa. In 1978, he went to the Office of Naval Research, where he headed the Mathematical Sciences Division with responsibility Navy-wide for basic research programs. He coined the phrase computational statistics, and developed a high-profile research area around this concept, which focused on techniques and methodologies that could not be achieved without the capabilities of modern computing resources and led to a revolution in contemporary statistical graphics. Dr. Wegman was the original program director of the basic research program in Ultra High Speed Computing at the Strategic Defense Initiative's Innovative Science and Technology Office. He has served as editor or associate editor of numerous prestigious journals and has published more than 160 papers and eight books.

Dr. Richard S.J. Tol. - Richard Tol received his PhD in Economics from the Vrije Universiteit in Amsterdam. He is Michael Otto Professor of Sustainability and Global Change at Hamburg University, director of the Centre for Marine and Atmospheric Science, principal researcher at the Institute for Environmental Studies at Vrije Universiteit, and Adjunct Professor at the Center for Integrated Study of the Human Dimensions of Global Change, at Carnegie Mellon University. He is a board member of the Centre for Marine and Climate Research, the International Max Planck Research Schools of Earth Systems Modelling and Maritime Affairs, and the European Forum on Integrated Environmental Assessment. He is an editor of Energy Economics, an associate editor of Environmental and Resource Economics, and a member of the editorial board of Environmental Science and Policy and Integrated Assessment.

Dr. Christopher Landsea - Christopher Landsea received his doctoral degree in atmospheric science from Colorado State University. A research meteorologist at the Atlantic Oceanic and Meteorological Laboratory of the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, he was chair of the American Meteorological Society's committee on tropical meteorology and tropical cyclones and a recipient of the American Meteorological Society's Banner I. Miller Award for the "best contribution to the science of hurricane and tropical weather forecasting." He is a frequent contributor to leading journals, including Science, Bulletin of the American Meteorological Society, Journal of Climate, and Nature.

Dr. Duncan Wingham - Duncan Wingham was educated at Leeds and Bath Universities where he gained a B.Sc. And PhD. In Physics. He was appointed to a chair in the Department of Space and Climate Physics in 1996, and to head of the Department of Earth Sciences in October, 2005. Prof. Wingham is a member of the National Environmental Research Council's Science and Technology Board and Earth Observation Experts Group. He is a director of the NERC Centre for Polar Observation & Modelling and principal scientist of the European Space Agency CryoSat Satellite Mission, the first ESA Earth Sciences satellite selected through open, scientific competition.

Dr. Richard Lindzen - Richard Lindzen received his PhD in applied mathematics in 1964 from Harvard University. A professor of meteorology in the Department of Earth, Atmospheric and Planetary Sciences at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology, he is a member of the National Academy of Sciences, a fellow of the American Association for the Advancement of Science, and a member of the National Research Council Board on Atmospheric Sciences and Climate. He is also a consultant to the Global Modeling and Simulation Group at NASA's Goddard Space Flight Center, and a Distinguished Visiting Scientist at California Institute of Technology's Jet Propulsion Laboratory. Prof. Lindzen is a recipient of the AMS's Meisinger, and Charney Awards, and AGU's Macelwane Medal. He is author or coauthor of over 200 scholarly papers and books.

Dr. Henrik Svensmark - Henrik Svensmark is director of the Centre for Sun-Climate Research at the Danish Space Research Institute (DSRI). Previously, Dr. Svensmark was head of the sunclimate group at DSRI. He has held post doctoral positions in physics at University California Berkeley, Nordic Institute of Theoretical Physics, and the Niels Bohr Institute. In 1997, Dr Svensmark received the Knud Hojgaard Anniversary Research Prize and in 2001 the Energy-E2 Research Prize.

Dr. Habibullo Abdussamatov - Habibullo Abdussamatov, born in Samarkand in Uzbekistan in 1940, graduated from Samarkand University in 1962 as a physicist and a mathematician. He earned his doctorate at Pulkovo Observatory and the University of Leningrad. He is the head of the space research laboratory of the Russian Academies of Sciences' Pulkovo Observatory and of the International Space Station's Astrometry project, a long-term joint scientific research project of the Russian and Ukrainian space agencies.

Dr. Nir Shariv - (No CV given in the article.)

There's plenty more information where that came from, NeedKarma. But I think I've left you with enough reading material for a while. Let me know if you need some more, and I'll e happy to present more information.

Elliot

If you draw a line in that graph you posted it will show a slight warming trend, but tempatures at ground level aren't used to say that the world is warming they use upper atmosphere tempatures.

I'm not going to say that global warming is a bad thing though every time there has been a warming trend in the world the human race has advanced significantly.
Global Warming = The Renaissance Period
Global Cooling = The Dark Ages

ET don't confuse the issue with facts. If the left says Global warming is caused by the evil Republicans then the argument is over.

It is pretty much a waste of time and resources, but it's hard to press an agenda without all this doom and gloom. It's the only way they can get enough people to buy into their agenda, freak them out, scare them to death, assign blame and guilt.


Are you suggesting we stop all the fear-mongering?? Blasphemy!!

ET don't confuse the issue with facts. If the left says Global warming is caused by the evil Republicans then the argument is over.
That's Funny. And true!

Are you suggesting we stop all the fear-mongering????? Blasphemy!!!!!

Heaven forbid... there's still plenty of anti-Jihad talk for me to get out :D

I would like to make my position clear. I am not against conservation, finding alternative energy sources, etc. What I am against is the global warming cabal that is trying to drive a political, anti-capitalist agenda.

I happen to think there are some very good reasons to develop renewable energy sources... the most important being energy independence and the chink in our armor that a reliance on Arab oil creates. I believe that nuclear energy is a solution to many of our energy problems, and greater fuel efficiency and new fuel types for our vehicles will help some more. I also support reasonable conservation measures... emphasis on reasonable.

But I don't accept that the reason to take these measures is in order to decrease emissions that are creating a global warming that nobody can prove via some mechanism that nobody understands, and that can't be reliably linked to those emissions. I don't see "global warming" as a reason to curb our nations productivity. And I don't think we should be taking radical action based on dubious science.

Anyone remember DDT? DDT is an insecticide that was banned in the 1960s based on dubious claims by alarmist scientists who made some very tenuous claims of dangers to the birds, including the bald eagle. None of these claims were really proven and most were based on limited on limited observation, but the product was taken off the market anyway, despite the fact that it was the most effective insecticide on the market at the time. The Ban was taken up by the UN who made it a worldwide ban.

Turns out that the UN had been using DDT to eliminate malaria worldwide with great effect (malaria deaths decreased from 192 per 100,000 population to 7 per 100,000 worldwide). But when the product was banned, malaria boomed. Not only that, but we now have West Nile Virus and many other diseases that are spread by mosquitoes that kill millions of people every year. These diseases could have been completely wiped out, but without DDT to help control the mosquito population, it could never happen.

These are the effects of jumping to conclusions and taking radical actions based on dubious scientific claims of ecological danger that may or may not exist. People get hurt or die based on these decisions.

That's why it is important NOT TO JUMP TO CONCLUSIONS OR TAKE ACTION WITHOUT REAL SCIENTIFIC PROOF AND A STUDY OF THE EFFECTS OF THE ACTIONS BEING TAKEN!!

That is why I'm such a "radical" on the issue of global warming. I don't want people to be hurt by stupid decisions made by stupid people who are relying on dubious evidence to take radical actions without understanding the consequences of those actions.

Oh... one more point about DDT: in September 2006, the World Health Organization announced that DDT was going to be one of three products that were going to be used to control malaria. Turns out that the WHO and other bodies have decided that the ban was wrong and that its use as a control for malaria outweighs any potential ecological issues. USAID has agreed to fund the use of DDT as a malaria control product. In the end, the "scientists" who called for the ban on DDT were WRONG.

Could they be wrong on "global warming" too?

Elliot

You make some great points Wolverine. It seems that for every study saying X is true, there is another study saying X is false (in this case global warming).

I'm no scientist, nor do I play one on TV, so I don't know what position to take on global warming. You look at the photos, the warming trends, etc and it seems legitimate, but then when some of the pics are debunked and the warming trend is proven pretty typical, it throws a wrench in the whole thing. Regardless, I agree that we should be taking steps to find a renewable source of energy (nuclear power, etc) to reduce our dependency on foreign oil, but also find something that burns cleaner. If you look at the skyline of any major metro area you can see the smog hanging above it - find a cleaner burning fuel, that will go away/reduce. I think it is naïve to think humans have not had an impact on the world, but it goes a little to far (in my opinion) to say that we are going to cause all this doom and gloom end of times, blah blah blah.

Here's a link to a book I read recently which covers all the fear-mongering topics in the media and politics today:

Amazon.com: Chicken Little Agenda: Debunking "Experts'" Lies: Books: Robert G. Williscroft (http://www.amazon.com/Chicken-Little-Agenda-Debunking-Experts/dp/1589803523/ref=pd_bbs_sr_1/002-9926364-8004805?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1182280278&sr=8-1)

I have not done my fact-checking (frankly I'm too lazy) but it was a good read and provided an opposing point of view to most of the claims put out there. I'd say it's worth the $12 to pick up a used copy if anyone is curious.

I do not believe in Global Warming!I think it is a bunch of crap. The world will evolve the way that it should. That is called nature!

I do not believe in Global Warming!I think it is a bunch of crap. The world will evolve the way that it should. That is called nature!That's the whole point, nature does indeed take care of itself, the issue is man's involvement in it.

I would like to make my position clear. I am not against conservation, finding alternative energy sources, etc. What I am against is the global warming cabal that is trying to drive a political, anti-capitalist agenda.

Absolutely.


Turns out that the UN had been using DDT to eliminate malaria worldwide with great effect (malaria deaths decreased from 192 per 100,000 population to 7 per 100,000 worldwide). But when the product was banned, malaria boomed. Not only that, but we now have West Nile Virus and many other diseases that are spread by mosquitoes that kill millions of people every year. These diseases could have been completely wiped out, but without DDT to help control the mosquito population, it could never happen.

Ever checked out the Malaria Clock (http://www.junkscience.com/malaria_clock.html) at JunkScience? While you're there you can also get your DDTee to wear to the next enviro-mental rally.

That's the whole point, nature does indeed take care of itself, the issue is man's involvement in it.

Yes... and the point is that we don't know that man's involvement has had any effect whatsoever.

Do you know the single largest source for methane (a major greenhouse gas) in the world? Cow flatulance. Want to know the next one? Volcanoes. Human ativity is actually pretty far down the line in terms of being a source of methane.

Know the single largest source of carbon dioxide (another major greenhouse gas) in the world? Plant life. That's right, the very thing that is supposed to absorb CO2 is the major source of CO2 as well. CO2 is absorbed during respiration by plants during the growth phase, but emitted by plants during resperation when they are mature. The second source of CO2 is decaying plant and animal carcasses. Human activity is again way down on the list of sources of CO2.

So if we are not the major sources of these greenhouse gases, and are in fact rather small contributors to the overall level of greenhouse gases, what, exactly, is our part in global warming? What changes in human activity will create a major change change in the level of greenhouse gasses, if we aren't the source for them? Exactly what is our real impact on the environment?

NONE of these questions have ever been satisfactorily answered. And if we don't even know what our impact on the environment is, how do we know what actions we must take to correct a problem we're not even sure exists? Even if there is a problem, how do we know we won't be making it worse with our attempts to cure the problem?

Do we dare jump off the cliff without knowing what lies below?

We need to take this slowly. We need to truly study the matter and understand all the ramifications of our actions and be SURE of our decisions before we take action. If we don't, the risks are high, from the environmental, social, sociological, political and economic standpoints. When the risks are that high, we had better be absolutely sure we know all the angles before taking action.

And that is the sum of my argument. We are not sure. The science is NOT settled. We don't know allo the issues. And we shouldn't act before we do, because the WRONG action may very well be worse than no action at all, as it was with DDT.

I'm willing to accept that there may indeed be global warming, that human activity plays a role in it, and that we need to act to stop it. But PROVE it to me. Don't make computer models that are full of unproven assumptions about atmospheric activity and claim that the matter is settled. PROVE it, and I'll be happy to jump on the global warming bandwagon. But until it is proven, there's no reason to jump the gun.

Elliot