tunderbar
2010-01-28 23:37:26 UTC
As sane people already know, "faith", or Religion as some prefer to call
it, is not based on concrete evidence or science, but on imagination,
paranoia, ideology and deceptivness. The anti-science criminals who
promote denial of climate change, (denial being the operative word,
meaning refusing to accept facts in evidence or counter them with facts of
their own) have become members of an almost religious cult which has no
basis on the truth than fantasies about God creating the universe in 6
days, 6000 years-ago, the tooth fairy or Leprechauns. You're afraid of the
truth, the truth that we have 36 national science academies, every
scientific organization, over 90% of articles in scientific journals, and
97% of climate science researchers. You have bloggers, right-wing
columnists, and your own paranoia.
Meanwhile, the mentally ill civil libertarians want us to suffer
$trillions in damage instead of spending $billions in prevention.
Of course, Libertarians are weak. Believing that corporations should have
the right to walk all over them and shit where they eat.
* One recent plan to address global warming would just cost less than
3% of the global gross domestic product (GDP) by 2030 to meet its
lowest targets or 0.12% annually.
* The IPCC suggests similar annual mitigation costs of 0.2-3.5% of
current world GDP. That compares favorably to global economic growth
that every year has averaged almost 3% since 2000.
* The damage from unabated climate change, meanwhile, might eventually
cost the global economy 5-20% of GDP each year, every year, according
to a 2006 British government report.
You conspiracy kooks are priceless. Looks like science is one big
conspiracy to undermine your religion of denial.
Of course know nothing, mentally ill conspiracy kooks and freaks with no
science background claim there is a fraud in the data, but they know
nothing about science and like you, condone criminal activity and have a
denialist agenda. Soft on crime conservatives like you are the problem
these days, and judging by how often you lie, you are criminals
yourselves.
There is no "Climategate". It's a bunch of crap
made up by deniers.
Arguments made by deniers and the facts countering
them:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/8376286.stm
Facts about the CRU hack (as opposed to the
fantasies being spread by the Coulter hack):
http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2009/11/the-cru-hack/
The Earth IS still warming:
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/33482750/ns/us_news-environment/
No, the data wasn't "destroyed":
http://www.eenews.net/public/Greenwire/2009/10/14/3
What the stolen e-mails actually reveal:
http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v462/n7273/full/462545a.html
Another response to the over-hyped puffery of
"Climategate":
http://www.scientificamerican.com/article.cfm?id=scientists-respond-to-
climategate-controversy
------------------
http://www.seattlepi.com/connelly/412728_joel30.html
Latest attempt to question climate change is junk
Last updated November 29, 2009 8:59 p.m. PT
By JOEL CONNELLY
SEATTLEPI.COM STAFF
Computer hackers recently penetrated the server at the University of East
Anglia in Britain, and caught academics in the Climate Research Unit in
gossipy conversation about how to discredit global warming critics.
Right-wing media have extracted quotes, cried "Junk Science," jazzed up a
buzzword -- "Climategate" -- with the Rev. Sun Myung Moon's Washington
Times headlining an editorial: "Hiding evidence of global cooling."
It's a classic example of Junk Propaganda. The klutzy profs at East Anglia
have become devil figures in a canny disinformation campaign, directed
into an ideologues' echo chamber.
Or as Dr. James Hansen, who heads the NASA Goddard Institute for Space
Studies, told Newsweek, "The contrarians or deniers do not have a
scientific leg to stand on. Their aim is to win a public relations battle,
or at least get a draw, which may be enough to stymie the actions that are
needed to stabilize climate."
If you apply a critical eye or ear to FOX News, Rush Limbaugh, the Drudge
Report or the right-wing Daily Telegraph in Britain, you'll recognize a
strategy defined in a famous tobacco industry memo on how to discredit the
medical consensus that cigarettes cause lung cancer and emphysema:
"Doubt is our product, since it is the best means of competing with the
'body of fact' that exists in the mind of the general public. It is also
the means of establishing a controversy."
Of course, the evidence has continued to flow, even if bottled up on Fox
and belittled on Drudge.
This year will be one of the top five warmest years across the globe since
records began 150 years ago, according to figures compiled by Britain's
Met Office. Barring a very cold December, 2009 will be the fifth warmest
on record.
"The last 10 years have been in the top 15 warmest on record," the BBC
reported.
On this side of the Atlantic, researchers are reporting that climate
change is -- at least in Africa -- a major driver of armed conflict.
Future warming is predicted to increase the number of deaths in war.
The findings come in Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences.
Researchers used temperature databases for sub-Saharan Africa over a
20-year period to look for a connection between average warmth and lethal
conflict.
"Studies show that crop yields in the region are really sensitive to small
shifts in temperature, even of half a degree (Celsius) or so," research
leader Marshall Burke of the University of California, told the BBC.
"If the sub-Saharan climate continues to warm," he added, "and little is
done to help its countries better adapt to high temperatures, the human
costs are likely to be staggering."
The climate debate is curious.
In one corner, you have scientists working in the field -- the U.S.
Geological Survey measuring glaciers, NASA scientists recording satellite
images on how the Arctic icepack is shrinking, biologists measuring the
scope of forest- killing beetle infestations, and statisticians
establishing a connection between lack of rain, human displacement and
armed conflict.
Critics, by contrast, never go anywhere near the actual conditions that
scientists are measuring and recording.
They sit in New York TV studios, the Daily Telegraph's city room and
Drudge's Florida digs, and spout falsehoods: The distortions, in turn, are
eaten up by an audience that is sour, sedentary and suspicious of change.
The deniers, amazingly, are gaining traction.
Why? Part of the problem is that newspapers are contracting faster than
glaciers and polar icepacks.
"With budgets shrinking, many news organizations have relied on shortcuts
in covering disputes: Rather than devoting the time and resources
necessary to investigate competing claims, they commonly use the
'on-the-one-hand, on-the- other-hand' approach that can suggest a false
symmetry between the merits of differing viewpoints," former Vice
President Al Gore writes in his new book Our Choice.
In other words, a flack's sound bite gets equal play with a scientist's
findings.
The BBC, the Canadian Broadcasting Corp., the Guardian --yes, a few news
organizations -- try to avoid shortcuts. But new media has not filled the
vacuum left by old media.
"There is as yet no standard Internet news model that throws off enough
revenue to support the experienced cadre of journalists who can pursue the
truth wherever it takes them," Gore said in an interview here earlier this
month.
Add that to a balkanized electronic media and the country -- not to
mention the world -- must suffer both dirty air and dirty airwaves. Is
this the legacy we leave our children and grandchildren?
Joel Connelly can be reached at 206-448-8160 or
***@seattlepi.com.
© 1998-2009 Seattle Post-Intelligencer
=====
Bush Admits to Role of Humans in Global Warming
By Caroline Daniel and Fiona Harvey
Financial Times
Thursday 07 July 2005
President George W. Bush yesterday acknowledged more openly than in the
past the role of human activity in causing global warming, as he
travelled to Scotland for the summit of the Group of Eight
industrialised nations.
"I recognise the surface of the earth is warmer and that an increase in
greenhouse gases caused by humans is contributing to the problem," he
said during a visit to Denmark en route to Gleneagles.
------
Largest corporations agree to cut global warming emissions
February 20, 2007
More than 100 top executives from the private sector and leaders of
international governmental and non-governmental organizations
unveileved a plan to cut greenhouse gas emissions. They said
governments need to take immediate steps to stop global warming.
"Failing to act now would lead to far higher economic and environmental
costs and greater risk of irreversible impacts," warned the Global
Roundtable on Climate Change in a statement issued Tuesday. "Long-term
success will require a concerted effort to de-carbonize the global
energy
system."
The Roundtable put forth a series of recommendations for world
governments to reduce the risk of climate change including setting
"scientifically informed" targets for global CO2 concentrations,
developing a carbon trading market, promoting energy efficiency and de-
carbonization through the increased used of renewable energy, providing
incentines to reduce deforestation and harmful land management
practices, implementing adaption strategies to prepare populations for
the impact of global change, and launching public awareness campaigns
to inform citizens of the risks of and solutions to climate change.
"Cost-efficient technologies exist today, and others could be developed
and deployed, to improve energy efficiency and to help reduce emissions
of CO2 and other GHGs in major sectors of the global economy," stated
the Roundtable. "Research indicates that heading off the very dangerous
risks associated with doubling pre-industrial atmospheric
concentrations of CO2, while an immense challenge, can be achieved at a
reasonable cost."
Alcoa, Ford Motor, General Electric, Goldman Sachs, Toyota Motor North
America, and Wal-Mart are among the corporations that signed off on the
initiative.
With corporations now making up roughly two-thirds the world's 150
largest entities, the private sector is arguably as important as
governments in directing policy on climate change. This new initiative
will likely increase pressure on the world's largest polluters --
especially Europe and the United States -- to take action on the issue,
which could have a devastating economic impact. A study released in
October by the British government said that economic damage caused by
global warming could rival that of the Great Depression.
Atmopheric concentrations of carbon dioxide -- the principal greenhouse
gas produced by human activities -- currently stands at the highest
levels in at least 650,000 years according to research published in
2005. Most carbon emissions result from power generation, responsible
for more than 40 percent of energy-related emissions worldwide.
Overall, industry accounts for more than 18 percent of emissions,
transport 20 percent, and the residential and services sector 13
percent. The U.S. is the largest polluter, followed by China.
=====
Global Warming
What the science says...
The consensus position is generally defined as "most of the global warming
in recent decades can be attributed to human activities".
There are several ways you can approach the debate on scientific
consensus.
Scientist roll call Much of the debate seems to consist of a show of hands
and parading of credentials. On the one hand, you have assorted scientists
as presented in the National Post Denier series. On the other side, you
have the IPCC stating anthropogenic emissions are the predominant cause of
global warming. If the IPCC is not your cup of tea, the following
scientific organisations also endorse the consensus:
* National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration
* Environmental Protection Agency
* NASA's Goddard Institute of Space Studies
* American Geophysical Union
* American Institute of Physics
* National Center for Atmospheric Research
* American Meteorological Society
* The Royal Society of the UK
* Canadian Meteorological and Oceanographic Society
* American Association for the Advancement of Science
Academies of Science from 19 countries
The Academies of Science from 19 different countries all endorse the
consensus. 11 countries have signed a joint statement endorsing the
consensus position:
* Academia Brasiliera de Ciencias (Brazil)
* Royal Society of Canada
* Chinese Academy of Sciences
* Academie des Sciences (France)
* Deutsche Akademie der Naturforscher Leopoldina (Germany)
* Indian National Science Academy
* Accademia dei Lincei (Italy)
* Science Council of Japan
* Russian Academy of Sciences
* Royal Society (United Kingdom)
* National Academy of Sciences (USA) (12 Mar 2009 news release)
Additionally, the Academies of Science from another 8 countries (as well
as several countries from the first list) also signed a joint statement
endorsing the IPCC consensus:
* Australian Academy of Sciences
* Royal Flemish Academy of Belgium for Sciences and the Arts
* Caribbean Academy of Sciences
* Indonesian Academy of Sciences
* Royal Irish Academy
* Academy of Sciences Malaysia
* Academy Council of the Royal Society of New Zealand
* Royal Swedish Academy of Sciences
Naomi Oreskes' survey of peer reviewed scientific literature However, it's
more relevant to examine peer reviewed journals - scientists can have
their opinions but they need to back it up with empirical evidence and
research that survives the peer review process.
A survey of all peer reviewed abstracts on the subject "global climate
change" published between 1993 and 2008 show that not a single paper
rejected the consensus position that global warming is man caused.
85% of the papers agreed with the consensus position while 15% made no
comment either way (eg - focused on methods or paleoclimate analysis).
it, is not based on concrete evidence or science, but on imagination,
paranoia, ideology and deceptivness. The anti-science criminals who
promote denial of climate change, (denial being the operative word,
meaning refusing to accept facts in evidence or counter them with facts of
their own) have become members of an almost religious cult which has no
basis on the truth than fantasies about God creating the universe in 6
days, 6000 years-ago, the tooth fairy or Leprechauns. You're afraid of the
truth, the truth that we have 36 national science academies, every
scientific organization, over 90% of articles in scientific journals, and
97% of climate science researchers. You have bloggers, right-wing
columnists, and your own paranoia.
Meanwhile, the mentally ill civil libertarians want us to suffer
$trillions in damage instead of spending $billions in prevention.
Of course, Libertarians are weak. Believing that corporations should have
the right to walk all over them and shit where they eat.
* One recent plan to address global warming would just cost less than
3% of the global gross domestic product (GDP) by 2030 to meet its
lowest targets or 0.12% annually.
* The IPCC suggests similar annual mitigation costs of 0.2-3.5% of
current world GDP. That compares favorably to global economic growth
that every year has averaged almost 3% since 2000.
* The damage from unabated climate change, meanwhile, might eventually
cost the global economy 5-20% of GDP each year, every year, according
to a 2006 British government report.
You conspiracy kooks are priceless. Looks like science is one big
conspiracy to undermine your religion of denial.
Of course know nothing, mentally ill conspiracy kooks and freaks with no
science background claim there is a fraud in the data, but they know
nothing about science and like you, condone criminal activity and have a
denialist agenda. Soft on crime conservatives like you are the problem
these days, and judging by how often you lie, you are criminals
yourselves.
There is no "Climategate". It's a bunch of crap
made up by deniers.
Arguments made by deniers and the facts countering
them:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/8376286.stm
Facts about the CRU hack (as opposed to the
fantasies being spread by the Coulter hack):
http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2009/11/the-cru-hack/
The Earth IS still warming:
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/33482750/ns/us_news-environment/
No, the data wasn't "destroyed":
http://www.eenews.net/public/Greenwire/2009/10/14/3
What the stolen e-mails actually reveal:
http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v462/n7273/full/462545a.html
Another response to the over-hyped puffery of
"Climategate":
http://www.scientificamerican.com/article.cfm?id=scientists-respond-to-
climategate-controversy
------------------
http://www.seattlepi.com/connelly/412728_joel30.html
Latest attempt to question climate change is junk
Last updated November 29, 2009 8:59 p.m. PT
By JOEL CONNELLY
SEATTLEPI.COM STAFF
Computer hackers recently penetrated the server at the University of East
Anglia in Britain, and caught academics in the Climate Research Unit in
gossipy conversation about how to discredit global warming critics.
Right-wing media have extracted quotes, cried "Junk Science," jazzed up a
buzzword -- "Climategate" -- with the Rev. Sun Myung Moon's Washington
Times headlining an editorial: "Hiding evidence of global cooling."
It's a classic example of Junk Propaganda. The klutzy profs at East Anglia
have become devil figures in a canny disinformation campaign, directed
into an ideologues' echo chamber.
Or as Dr. James Hansen, who heads the NASA Goddard Institute for Space
Studies, told Newsweek, "The contrarians or deniers do not have a
scientific leg to stand on. Their aim is to win a public relations battle,
or at least get a draw, which may be enough to stymie the actions that are
needed to stabilize climate."
If you apply a critical eye or ear to FOX News, Rush Limbaugh, the Drudge
Report or the right-wing Daily Telegraph in Britain, you'll recognize a
strategy defined in a famous tobacco industry memo on how to discredit the
medical consensus that cigarettes cause lung cancer and emphysema:
"Doubt is our product, since it is the best means of competing with the
'body of fact' that exists in the mind of the general public. It is also
the means of establishing a controversy."
Of course, the evidence has continued to flow, even if bottled up on Fox
and belittled on Drudge.
This year will be one of the top five warmest years across the globe since
records began 150 years ago, according to figures compiled by Britain's
Met Office. Barring a very cold December, 2009 will be the fifth warmest
on record.
"The last 10 years have been in the top 15 warmest on record," the BBC
reported.
On this side of the Atlantic, researchers are reporting that climate
change is -- at least in Africa -- a major driver of armed conflict.
Future warming is predicted to increase the number of deaths in war.
The findings come in Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences.
Researchers used temperature databases for sub-Saharan Africa over a
20-year period to look for a connection between average warmth and lethal
conflict.
"Studies show that crop yields in the region are really sensitive to small
shifts in temperature, even of half a degree (Celsius) or so," research
leader Marshall Burke of the University of California, told the BBC.
"If the sub-Saharan climate continues to warm," he added, "and little is
done to help its countries better adapt to high temperatures, the human
costs are likely to be staggering."
The climate debate is curious.
In one corner, you have scientists working in the field -- the U.S.
Geological Survey measuring glaciers, NASA scientists recording satellite
images on how the Arctic icepack is shrinking, biologists measuring the
scope of forest- killing beetle infestations, and statisticians
establishing a connection between lack of rain, human displacement and
armed conflict.
Critics, by contrast, never go anywhere near the actual conditions that
scientists are measuring and recording.
They sit in New York TV studios, the Daily Telegraph's city room and
Drudge's Florida digs, and spout falsehoods: The distortions, in turn, are
eaten up by an audience that is sour, sedentary and suspicious of change.
The deniers, amazingly, are gaining traction.
Why? Part of the problem is that newspapers are contracting faster than
glaciers and polar icepacks.
"With budgets shrinking, many news organizations have relied on shortcuts
in covering disputes: Rather than devoting the time and resources
necessary to investigate competing claims, they commonly use the
'on-the-one-hand, on-the- other-hand' approach that can suggest a false
symmetry between the merits of differing viewpoints," former Vice
President Al Gore writes in his new book Our Choice.
In other words, a flack's sound bite gets equal play with a scientist's
findings.
The BBC, the Canadian Broadcasting Corp., the Guardian --yes, a few news
organizations -- try to avoid shortcuts. But new media has not filled the
vacuum left by old media.
"There is as yet no standard Internet news model that throws off enough
revenue to support the experienced cadre of journalists who can pursue the
truth wherever it takes them," Gore said in an interview here earlier this
month.
Add that to a balkanized electronic media and the country -- not to
mention the world -- must suffer both dirty air and dirty airwaves. Is
this the legacy we leave our children and grandchildren?
Joel Connelly can be reached at 206-448-8160 or
***@seattlepi.com.
© 1998-2009 Seattle Post-Intelligencer
=====
Bush Admits to Role of Humans in Global Warming
By Caroline Daniel and Fiona Harvey
Financial Times
Thursday 07 July 2005
President George W. Bush yesterday acknowledged more openly than in the
past the role of human activity in causing global warming, as he
travelled to Scotland for the summit of the Group of Eight
industrialised nations.
"I recognise the surface of the earth is warmer and that an increase in
greenhouse gases caused by humans is contributing to the problem," he
said during a visit to Denmark en route to Gleneagles.
------
Largest corporations agree to cut global warming emissions
February 20, 2007
More than 100 top executives from the private sector and leaders of
international governmental and non-governmental organizations
unveileved a plan to cut greenhouse gas emissions. They said
governments need to take immediate steps to stop global warming.
"Failing to act now would lead to far higher economic and environmental
costs and greater risk of irreversible impacts," warned the Global
Roundtable on Climate Change in a statement issued Tuesday. "Long-term
success will require a concerted effort to de-carbonize the global
energy
system."
The Roundtable put forth a series of recommendations for world
governments to reduce the risk of climate change including setting
"scientifically informed" targets for global CO2 concentrations,
developing a carbon trading market, promoting energy efficiency and de-
carbonization through the increased used of renewable energy, providing
incentines to reduce deforestation and harmful land management
practices, implementing adaption strategies to prepare populations for
the impact of global change, and launching public awareness campaigns
to inform citizens of the risks of and solutions to climate change.
"Cost-efficient technologies exist today, and others could be developed
and deployed, to improve energy efficiency and to help reduce emissions
of CO2 and other GHGs in major sectors of the global economy," stated
the Roundtable. "Research indicates that heading off the very dangerous
risks associated with doubling pre-industrial atmospheric
concentrations of CO2, while an immense challenge, can be achieved at a
reasonable cost."
Alcoa, Ford Motor, General Electric, Goldman Sachs, Toyota Motor North
America, and Wal-Mart are among the corporations that signed off on the
initiative.
With corporations now making up roughly two-thirds the world's 150
largest entities, the private sector is arguably as important as
governments in directing policy on climate change. This new initiative
will likely increase pressure on the world's largest polluters --
especially Europe and the United States -- to take action on the issue,
which could have a devastating economic impact. A study released in
October by the British government said that economic damage caused by
global warming could rival that of the Great Depression.
Atmopheric concentrations of carbon dioxide -- the principal greenhouse
gas produced by human activities -- currently stands at the highest
levels in at least 650,000 years according to research published in
2005. Most carbon emissions result from power generation, responsible
for more than 40 percent of energy-related emissions worldwide.
Overall, industry accounts for more than 18 percent of emissions,
transport 20 percent, and the residential and services sector 13
percent. The U.S. is the largest polluter, followed by China.
=====
Global Warming
What the science says...
The consensus position is generally defined as "most of the global warming
in recent decades can be attributed to human activities".
There are several ways you can approach the debate on scientific
consensus.
Scientist roll call Much of the debate seems to consist of a show of hands
and parading of credentials. On the one hand, you have assorted scientists
as presented in the National Post Denier series. On the other side, you
have the IPCC stating anthropogenic emissions are the predominant cause of
global warming. If the IPCC is not your cup of tea, the following
scientific organisations also endorse the consensus:
* National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration
* Environmental Protection Agency
* NASA's Goddard Institute of Space Studies
* American Geophysical Union
* American Institute of Physics
* National Center for Atmospheric Research
* American Meteorological Society
* The Royal Society of the UK
* Canadian Meteorological and Oceanographic Society
* American Association for the Advancement of Science
Academies of Science from 19 countries
The Academies of Science from 19 different countries all endorse the
consensus. 11 countries have signed a joint statement endorsing the
consensus position:
* Academia Brasiliera de Ciencias (Brazil)
* Royal Society of Canada
* Chinese Academy of Sciences
* Academie des Sciences (France)
* Deutsche Akademie der Naturforscher Leopoldina (Germany)
* Indian National Science Academy
* Accademia dei Lincei (Italy)
* Science Council of Japan
* Russian Academy of Sciences
* Royal Society (United Kingdom)
* National Academy of Sciences (USA) (12 Mar 2009 news release)
Additionally, the Academies of Science from another 8 countries (as well
as several countries from the first list) also signed a joint statement
endorsing the IPCC consensus:
* Australian Academy of Sciences
* Royal Flemish Academy of Belgium for Sciences and the Arts
* Caribbean Academy of Sciences
* Indonesian Academy of Sciences
* Royal Irish Academy
* Academy of Sciences Malaysia
* Academy Council of the Royal Society of New Zealand
* Royal Swedish Academy of Sciences
Naomi Oreskes' survey of peer reviewed scientific literature However, it's
more relevant to examine peer reviewed journals - scientists can have
their opinions but they need to back it up with empirical evidence and
research that survives the peer review process.
A survey of all peer reviewed abstracts on the subject "global climate
change" published between 1993 and 2008 show that not a single paper
rejected the consensus position that global warming is man caused.
85% of the papers agreed with the consensus position while 15% made no
comment either way (eg - focused on methods or paleoclimate analysis).