Don’t really care bears
Oddly, almost all the news sources on this report are outside the US. White House pressure on US news media not to report it? Nah!
Rising global temperatures could melt Latin America’s glaciers within 15 years, cause food shortages affecting 130-million people across Asia by 2050 and wipe out Africa’s wheat crop, according to a U.N. report released Tuesday.
The report, written and reviewed by hundreds of scientists, outlined dramatic effects of climate change including rising sea levels, the disappearance of species and intensifying natural disasters. It said 30 percent of the world’s coastlines could be lost by 2080.
Scientists with the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change outlined details of the report in news conferences around the world Tuesday, four days after they released a written summary of their findings. The report is the second of three being issued this year; the first dealt with the physical science of climate change and the third will deal with responses to it.
#25 fred, are you religious? You are looking at the IPCC report (actually one tiny 17 page portion of it) as if it were the Bible. They have such a fixation on CO2 that they have a separate special report on it.
IPCC Special Report
Here’s the some of the opposing science:
“The crude idea in the common popular presentation of the greenhouse effect is that the atmosphere is transparent to sunlight (apart from the very significant reflectivity of both clouds and the surface), which heats the Earth’s surface. The surface offsets that heating by radiating in the infrared. The infrared radiation increases with increasing surface temperature, and the temperature adjusts until balance is achieved. If the atmosphere were also transparent to infrared radiation, the infrared radiation produced by an average surface temperature of minus eighteen degrees centigrade would balance the incoming solar radiation (less that amount reflected back to space by clouds). The atmosphere is not transparent in the infrared, however. So the Earth must heat up somewhat more to deliver the same flux of infrared radiation to space. That is what is called the greenhouse effect.
The fact that the Earth’s average surface temperature is fifteen degrees centigrade rather than minus eighteen degrees centigrade is attributed to that effect. The main absorbers of infrared in the atmosphere are water vapor and clouds. Even if all other greenhouse gases (such as carbon dioxide and methane) were to disappear, we would still be left with over 98 percent of the current greenhouse effect. ”
The IPCC does not explain why from 1940 to 1975, while carbon dioxide emissions were rising, global temperatures were falling, nor does it admit that its 2001 “hockey stick” graph showing a dramatic temperature increase beginning in 1970s had omitted the Little Ice Age and Medieval Warming temperature changes, apparently in order to make the new global warming increases appear more dramatic.
fred, if you want to believe (hook line and sinker) go right ahead. I choose to keep an open mind and listen to all comers.
Uncle Dave this is way too BRUTISH!!!!!
The utter inhumanity and outrage!!!!!!!!!! Where is Green Peace when you need them!!!!! Is this Bear Pornography for you!!
I am sadden đ
Do you know how many source of CO2 (mind you, a proven global warming gas) these 3 dirty bears are using. Do they realize they are melting and shriveling their very own habitat with their dirty habits!!!!!!
I count 13 C02 and 3 sources of methane.
(1.) The fire (huge source)
(3.) A bear with a cigarette, and the lighter (hidden from view)
(9.) 5 shown carbonated beverages (but they come in 6 packs)
(10.) Copious hydrocarbons consumed to charge the battery of a color TV. BW would use less. (why does your spell corrector have only the British spelling of colour)
(13.) 3 sources of exhaled CO2
Then the obvious 3 huge sources of methane (unless they use their lighter to burn it, (watch the fur) then it become 3 sources of CO2)
My bad, I missed the open fire pit is really the top of a buried oil drum. Obviously with the oil cooking a protected species of penguin.
Oh, the inhumanity. Uncle Dave you are a bad man.
According to one of its advocates, Global Warming Scam is all about âA Big Chunk of 17 Trillion Dollarsâ quoted here by one of its architects as shown in the attached introductory video.
Global Warming Scam http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=1425249672931646464&q=%22Geo+Karras%22&hl=en
Follow the links at Geo Karras .Org to get the power point presentation that details the personnel and financial arrangers of Al Goreâs movieâBP and Exxon just to name two.
And understand the financials of Co2 regulation and carbon trading to understand why, and how the scam fits into globalization.
#31 BgScryAnmi
“Fred, you are quoting political propaganda, not real scientific research.”
Oh the irony!!!!
#32 JimR
Are you still fixated on the Hockey Stick graph issue? I thought I explained to you your errors on that argument. Stop pretending to understand what you are talking about it really makes you look foolish.
J, your recollection must be in your dreams. At no time have you explained your version of the hockey stick graph to me and I don’t see any other posts of yours above.
When someone resorts to name calling, there’s usually an inferiority complex behind it.
J, why don’t you accept the scientific concensus? The hockey stick is not it the released report, when it was there in 2001. Do you think all those scientists are wrong?
Good lord, all the baring of teeth by the usual propagandists. Bottom line is, the report was reviewed by hundreds of scientists. It is not a religious tract nor is it propaganda, which by its nature intentionally bends or breaks the truth. These scientists are just scientists, working to understand the available data.
Propagandists? Teligious crusaders? Jeez. Both of those occupations are more suited to their critics, who do tend to be propagandists, religious crusaders or both.
Scientists use observations and formulas to try to predict future events. That’s what scientists do. All you ragers baring fierce teeth at them should stay in your political zoos.
Another thing scientists do: As their data get more refined they will adjust their predictions. And the usual right-wing propagandists will seize on those adjustments as evidence the scientists don’t know what they’re talking about.
It gets tiresome, guys. Stop attacking scientists’ motives and start dealing with the data. And by that I don’t mean wild guesses about the sun. If you’re going to rip into the report, at least read it first.
To quote the Master: Cripes.
Theme song for the Pic..
Elephant walk..
#37 JimR
You have my sincere apologies. I was incorrect. It was not you it was that person that calls themselves “Smith”
However, The hockey stick graph is not incorrect. There is debate about the mathematical approach by some statisticians but even with their approach the data still shows a very large increase in temperature directly relation to human activity. Scale is the only thing in debate.
“When someone resorts to name calling, thereâs usually an inferiority complex behind it. ”
I didn’t call you a name I said you “look” foolish. It is not the same and you know it. Inferiority complex? Pfff!! Oh Please!
Also, you are wrong about the psychiatric assumption Do a little more research before you continue to type nonsense into your keyboard.
#38MikeN
I am not sure what you are asking. If you are wondering why they may have left it out of the current report. I will answer. It is NOT because it is inherently wrong. It is because it is only a small part of the huge amount of data the demonstrates mans influence on his environment. It has become a focal point for people like JimR because they only know the talking points of the Anti Global warming lobbyist.
They don’t need it to make the case and it has become controversial due to a lack of understanding on the part of certain people. But no matter how you analysis the data it still draws the same conclusion and there is no disputing that.
J, they really sucked you in. There’s no debating with you as you already have all the answers. In the off chance you are interested in other scientific opinions, try looking up Dr. Ball, or start here…
The Mars and Pluto are warming too
There are many links from there to less politically motivated research by many other scientists.
#42JimR
“Thereâs no debating with you as you already have all the answers”
No. Just allot more than you it seems.
“Dr. Timothy Ball”
Ah yes the great global warming skeptic. I have read all of his publications have you? Do you know what his credentials are? No? Well I do. let me clue you in. He holds a Ph.D. in Geography from the University of London. How does that give him credibility in climatology? Well you see it doesn’t
How about the temperature of Mercury, Venus, Jupiter, Saturn, Uranus Neptune? Have you bothered to look up the temperature data for those? Probably not! If just one of those planets is cooling the whole argument of mars and Pluto is negated. I dare you to look it up. I have because I know how to do research. I guess my fortune in life has lead to getting a good education as opposed to what you seem to have received. You also need to take a cruise over to nasa.gov and poke around to see what they have to say about the issue.
Then you post a link to a 19 year old political science students rant! LOL you really don’t know anything about the research do you?
If that is the best you can come up with you need to go back to school. I have heard better arguments from a 5 year old.
Dr. Ball has a PhD in Geography with a specific focus on historical climatology.
The title of Dr. Ball’s doctoral thesis, placed in the public record at the library of Queen Mary College, university of London, England in 1983 is Climatic Change in Central Canada: A preliminary analysis of weather information from the Hudson’s Bay Company Forts at York Factory and Churchill Factory, 1714-1850.
The link I gave you was a jumping off point to other more official sites. Who cares how old the creator of that site is. He didn’t create the information at the National Geographic site or at any of the others. That’s why you know so little about the subject. You’re far too self-aggrandizing to even consider that there might be another reason or reasons for global worming even though many other scientists are skeptical.
With your fanatical stance, trillions of dollars might be thrown at a losing battle while millions of impoverished go without. Thanks.
#44JimR
Dr. Ball doesn’t do climate research he only studied the impact on humans. that does not qualify him as a climate expert. It qualifies him on the POST effect of climate change to human civilization. He is not a climate scientist!!!!!!
Did you even bother to read the article on National Geographic? It is one scientist perspective and it is not supported by 99% of the scientific community.
Did you bother to look up the data for the other 6 planets. If he were correct the same thing would be true for all of them. Unfortunately for him and you that is not the case.
Did you bother to read and understand the link to space.com about Pluto. Apparently not because it supports my claim.
Did you bother to read and understand the link to space.com about Jupiter. Apparently not because nowhere does it say that Jupiter is warming or that it is relate to global warming on earth.
Did you bother to read and understand the link to the NASA press release about Saturn. Apparently not because again nowhere does it back up anything that 19 year old says and nothing you said.
Quit insulting those of us with intelligence. This kid is a POLITICAL SCIENCE STUDENT!!! Not a climatologist and his little rant not only doesn’t have focus it has links on it that don’t support his claims. But people like you just see the link and think “oh that must be true because they put a link”
“Thatâs why you know so little about the subject. ”
I know a hell of a lot more than you that is for sure.
“Youâre far too self-aggrandizing to even consider that there might be another reason or reasons for global worming even though many other scientists are skeptical.”
No I have seen the evidence and it points toward man direct involvement. Please list for me the “many” scientists that are skeptical. the ones I know about either have no credible or testable evidence to back up their claims or they are working for the oil gas and coal industry on a weekly payment plan of $2500 and up.
“With your fanatical stance, trillions of dollars might be thrown at a losing battle while millions of impoverished go without. Thanks”
Oh shut up! I don’t see you bitching about the 1/2 Trillion spent on a pointless war.
x
#44JimR
Dr. Ball doesn’t do climate research he only studied the impact on humans. that does not qualify him as a climate expert. It qualifies him on the POST effect of climate change to human civilization. He is not a climate scientist!!!!!!
Did you even bother to read the article on National Geographic? It is one scientist perspective and it is not supported by 99% of the scientific community.
Did you bother to look up the data for the other 6 planets. If he were correct the same thing would be true for all of them. Unfortunately for him and you that is not the case.
Did you bother to read and understand the link to space.com about Pluto. Apparently not because it supports my claim.
Did you bother to read and understand the link to space.com about Jupiter. Apparently not because nowhere does it say that Jupiter is warming or that it is relate to global warming on earth.
Did you bother to read and understand the link to the NASA press release about Saturn. Apparently not because again nowhere does it back up anything that 19 year old says and nothing you said.
Quit insulting those of us with intelligence. This kid is a POLITICAL SCIENCE STUDENT!!! Not a climatologist and his little rant not only doesn’t have focus it has links on it that don’t support his claims. But people like you just see the link and think “oh that must be true because they put a link”
“Thatâs why you know so little about the subject. ”
I know a hell of a lot more than you that is for sure.
“Youâre far too self-aggrandizing to even consider that there might be another reason or reasons for global worming even though many other scientists are skeptical.”
No I have seen the evidence and it points toward man direct involvement. Please list for me the “many” scientists that are skeptical. the ones I know about either have no credible or testable evidence to back up their claims or they are working for the oil gas and coal industry on a weekly payment plan of $2500 and up.
“With your fanatical stance, trillions of dollars might be thrown at a losing battle while millions of impoverished go without. Thanks”
Oh shut up! I don’t see you bitching about the 1/2 Trillion spent on a pointless war.
# 45 echo 47
“For those who believe, no explanation is necessary. For those who do not believe, no explanation is possible.” Anonymous
No I have seen the evidence and it points toward man direct involvement.
There is no credible or testable evidence of human involvement. The case for global warming is crumbling.
… or they are working for the oil gas and coal industry on a weekly payment plan of $2500 and up
Maybe, doesn’t mean the science is faulty.
You and the other “believers” are zealots, nothing more. Too bad communism around the world is failing, you wackos focus your energy to this anti-capitalistic issue.
Do you realize that if it were not for terrorist, you’d starve. Grow up, leave the university, get a real job. Stop living off the sweat of others.
#48 BgScryAnmi
“There is no credible or testable evidence of human involvement. The case for global warming is crumbling.”
That is a completely false statement.
“Maybe, doesnât mean the science is faulty.”
No that’s true but it just so happens that their “science” is faulty.
“Too bad communism around the world is failing”
What does this have to do with communism?
“you wackos focus your energy to this anti-capitalistic issue.”
There is nothing anti-capitalistic about stopping global warming. As a matter of fact there could be completely new industries created in an effort to save the planet. Stop spewing the talking points of the ignorant right
“Do you realize that if it were not for terrorist, youâd starve”
I can’t believe how dumb of a statement that is. Should I take that as a conformation that you are in support of terrorism? RING RING HELLO, HOMELAND SECURITY
“Grow up, leave the university, get a real job. ”
I left the “Universities” years ago. Not that I need to work but I do. As a matter of fact I own 2 companies and a large number of real-estate properties. How about you what do you contribute to society?
“Stop living off the sweat of others”
Isn’t that the exact freedom of capitalism? Does the Walton family work the register at your local Wal-Mart?
I THINK YOU ARE CONFUSED
Stupid bears. You can’t make good S’Mores with penguin meat!!! All you need is marshmallows, Hershey’s squirt chocolate bars, and Heather Graham crackers.
mI gh0d, polar bears are stupid.
Almost as stupid as the fact that you wouldn’t ever, ever find polar bears (from the Arctic circle) roasting penguins (from the Antarctic circle) — Gary Larson taught me that with “The Far Side”
OTOH, polar bears with headphones, iPods, and hibachis — that’s totally believable on my plane of existence. Pass the bong.
#31BgScryAnml
“The âradioactive forceâ quote is irrelevant to the primary cause of global warming.”
For once I completely agree with you! The âradioactive forceâ (whatever that may be) is totally irrelevant to the issue. What the IPCC report refers to is, however, “radiative forcing”. You do know what radiative forcing is don’t you? No? Let me help.
“In climate science, radiative forcing is defined as (loosely) the difference between the incoming radiation energy and the outgoing radiation energy in a given climate system.” Ref. Wikipedia.
Oh, please don’t thank me. I’m glad to be of help in your education.
J, you really need to control your anger and your conceit. Types like you cannot be reasoned with, nor can anyone have a serious discussion with you. Why? Because you already know everything of course. You even know that I’m all for “the1/2 Trillion spent on a pointless war” when it’s not even part of the discussion and we’ve never discussed it. Wrong again of course.
Some day your arrogance will kick you in the ass. but good. EOD.
#52 JimR
I’m not angry. Conceited?……..Well I guess that depend on your perspective.
Jim you presented evidence that every right wing moron uses. You present NOTHING as valid proof and you don’t even research your own links. So you are the one that doesn’t want to have a “serious “discussion. You just want to push the propaganda like you understand it when it is clear to me and probably many others here that you don’t know shit!
Prove your Case without using propaganda. Use REAL science and please don’t post things from science articles that you don’t really understand because it is embarrassing for you when it proves my case instead of yours. lol
“Because you already know everything of course.”
Like I said No. But I do know more than you about the global warming issue than you.
As far as you being for or against 1/2 trillion spent on a pointless war…….. I guess you got me there. You are Canadian so I guess you don’t care about the money because it isn’t yours being spent. But I never once read a post of yours where you said you were against the war and that it was a terrible waist of money. As a matter of fact you seem to support it allot from your posts here on Dvorak.org/blog.
Besides you bitch about this mythical trillions of dollars and you have no basis for that statement or amount. You are just pulling numbers out of your ass. Or maybe you are pulling them out of someone else’s. Either way they are erroneous until you can justify them.
“Some day your arrogance will kick you in the ass. but good”
The tell tale signs of a person who is has an inferiority complex. Work middle management much? LOL
#32 JimR
“fred, if you want to believe (hook line and sinker) go right ahead. I choose to keep an open mind and listen to all comers.”
A very wise colleague once remarked to me that “one should always keep an open mind – but not so open that the wind blows through”:-)
The UNâs frivolous, empty and hyperbolized IPCC report was trumpeted as closing the door on the argument of man-made global warming. But the report is not what it appears to be – it is not the version that was approved by the contributing scientists listed on the title page.
Fifteen key sections of the science chapter have been deleted including the statement that, ” None of the studies cited has shown clear evidence that we can attribute the observed climate changes to the specific cause of increases in greenhouse gases.” And, “No study to date has positively attributed all or part of the climate change observed to date to anthropogenic man made causes.”
The report deliberately censored any dissenting scientists while still listing them as participants. Scientists who were invited to participate in the IPCC report expose the fundamental flaws contained throughout the document. There has never been a more disturbing corruption of the peer review process than the events that led to the IPCC report.