|
Cityview magazine Knoxville Tennessee — This piece is poorly structured, but contains a lot of excellent info regarding the Global Warming debate. It attacks the “everyone is in total agreement” argument made by Gore. |
On December 13, 2007, 100 scientists (often referred to as the Bali-100) wrote an open letter to the Secretary-General of the United Nations, His Excellency Ban Li-Moon, in New York, NY. Among other things, the letter made three significant declarations: 1. “[R]ecent observations of phenomena such as glacial retreats, sea-level rise and the migration of temperature-sensitive species are not evidence for abnormal climate change, for none of these changes has been shown to lie outside the bounds of known natural variability. 2. The average rate of warming of 0.1 to 0.2 degrees Celsius per decade recorded by satellites during the late 20th century fall within known natural rates of warming and cooling over the last 10,000 years. 3. Leading scientists, including some senior IPCC representatives, acknowledge that today’s computer models cannot predict climate…
On March 4, at the 2008 International Conference on Climate Change, more than 500 scientists closed the conference with what is referred to as the Manhattan Declaration. In short, they declared that “global climate has always changed and always will, independent of the actions of humans, and that carbon dioxide (CO2) is not a pollutant but rather a necessity for all life. . . There is no convincing evidence that CO2 emissions from modern industrial activity has in the past, is now, or will in the future cause catastrophic climate change. . . Now, therefore, we recommend that world leaders reject the view expressed by the United Nations Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change as well as popular, but misguided, works such as An Inconvenient Truth.” How many of you heard or read about these declarations in the mainstream media?
On April 14, 2008, a group of scientists (Hans Schreuder, Piers Corbyn, Dr. Don Parkes, Svend Hendriksen*), including a former Nobel Peace Prize recipient*, sent a letter to the IPCC. The letter opens with “[W]e are writing to you and others associated with the IPCC position – that man’s CO2 is a driver of global warming and climate change – to ask that you now in view of the evidence retract support from the current IPCC position and admit that there is no observational evidence in measured data going back 22,000 years or even millions of years that CO2 levels (whether from man or nature) have driven or are driving world temperatures or climate change.” They close the letter by asking that the IPCC “and all those whose names are associated with the IPCC policy accept the scientific observations and renounce current IPCC policy.”
Do you still think there is consensus? Try this on: between 1999 and 2001 a petition (commonly referred to as the Oregon Project) was attached to a 12 page paper and circulated within the scientific community. The petition reads, in its entirety: “We urge the United States government to reject the global warming agreement that was written in Kyoto, Japan in December, 1997, and any other similar proposals. The proposed limits on greenhouse gases would harm the environment, hinder the advance of science and technology, and damage the health and welfare of mankind. There is no convincing evidence that human release of carbon dioxide, methane, or other greenhouse gasses is causing, or will, in the foreseeable future, cause catastrophic heating of the Earth’s atmosphere and disruption of the Earth’s climate. Moreover, there is substantial scientific evidence that increases in atmospheric carbon dioxide produce many beneficial effects upon the natural plant and animal environments of the Earth.” This petition was signed by nearly 20,000 scientists. More than 7,000 are PhDs. Of the 263 signatories from Tennessee, more than 53% hold a PhD or MD. While critics of the petition have pointed to fake signatures (e.g., Janet Jackson, Perry Mason, etc.), no doubt put there by those wanting to discredit it, none have attacked the science and evidence cited in the paper.
#196 – bobbo,
I don’t remember all of my answers. I probably said disagree to that. It doesn’t make my blood boil. Here’s a small sample of questions to which I responded strongly. I’m going to try to pick the ones you may find controversial.
SA == Strongly Agree; SD == Strongly Disagree
* because corporations cannot be trusted to voluntarily protect the environment, they require regulation. — SA
* it’s a sad reflection on our society that something as basic as drinking water is now a bottled, branded consumer product. — SA
* protectionism is sometimes necessary in trade. — SA
* possessing marijuana for personal use should not be a criminal offence. — SA
* first-generation immigrants can never be fully integrated within their new country. — SD
* what’s good for the most successful corporations is always, ultimately, good for all of us. — SD
* our civil liberties are being excessively curbed in the name of counter-terrorism. — SA
* the businessperson and the manufacturer are more important than the writer and the artist. — SD
* mothers may have careers, but their first duty is to be homemakers. — SD (I might consider a change to that if they said it about all parents. If they had said all parents should put their children’s well being ahead of their own, I would strongly agree.)
* you cannot be moral without being religious. — SD
* a same sex couple in a stable, loving relationship, should not be excluded from the possibility of child adoption. — SA
Interestingly, since I don’t record my answers, I come out in slightly different places when I retake the test. No major difference though.
# 194 bobbo
Please bobbo spare me! The dribble that pours from of your keyboard sometimes is more than tedious. It enough to cause brain damage for those that can see you have no idea of your own but like to play the middle ground between the sides as to make you feel more important as some kind of mediator.
Yet you make no comment about pedro. I came here to discuss global warming and am forced to read the nonsensical bullshit pedro is well known for. He has nothing to contribute except his complete lack of knowledge and links to tangential issues. I could ignore him but I choose not to because as the evidence shows he still doesn’t go away even when you do. I sorry it bores you. I find poking a stick at him quite entertaining on occasion.
#197–Scott==this should be “confrontation fee” discussion of questionaire taking technique:
it’s a sad reflection on our society that something as basic as drinking water is now a bottled, branded consumer product. — SA
I only “agreed.” YOU MAKE MY BLOOD BOIL by being so over sensitive? Whats wrong with people spending their money any stupid way they want to? I assume some of the bottled water is flavored or bubbly and not otherwise available.
Your position?
#198–J==more than tedious is what were after. Hold that thought.
BTW==I thought your return line about sticking to sweeping floors was kinda funny in a totally racist/stereotypical way which I hope even Pedro thought was funny?
But in any case, as an American, you should welcome the non-American point of view. Right or wrong, pedro makes good points. You won’t get those unique views if he takes your advice, then all we’ll have left is pasty white guys pulling their puds.
# 200 bobbo
“I thought your return line about sticking to sweeping floors was kinda funny in a totally racist/stereotypical way which I hope even Pedro thought was funny?”
Perhaps that is because of your mindset. Unfortunately I don’t think that way. I was referring to the movie “Good Will Hunting” where he was a janitor but was capable of so much more in juxtaposition to pedro who is not. Wow I guess you really have some preconceived notions don’t you. The guy who sweeps my floors is Polish not Hispanic. That is when I don’t do it myself.
“But in any case, as an American, you should welcome the non-American point of view. ”
I do. I also judge it equally with any American point of view. Which means if it is stupid I call it such.
“Right or wrong, pedro makes good points. ”
AHHHHH HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA. Wait. AH HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA your kidding right? AH HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA AH HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA AH HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA !
Wow have I lost the small amount of respect I had for you.
“You won’t get those unique views if he takes your advice, then all we’ll have left is pasty white guys pulling their puds.”
I’m not white(technically) and I don’t care about how you spend your time.
# 197 Misanthropic Scott
Hey Scott I took you test. lol I almost felt I had too. lol
I am in good company. Nelson Mandela, The Dalai Lama, Gandhi. I feel ok about those results.
#201–J==so your message to Pedro is that he is super smart and wasting his time on this blog==or just responding to you? Nice spin.
I didn’t know Pedro was Hispanic. How do you know that? He lives in South America somewhere and doesn’t like Cuzco is all I recall.
J-boy, avoid the tedious.
Bottled water is one of the things being done in this country to privatize our water supply. In one South American country, they privatized water and ended up with a revolution on their hands. Atlanta has private water and often runs out or has tainted water.
But, the bottled water makes my blood boil for the following reasons:
1) It increases plastic waste that will be around for hundreds of millions of years.
2) It increases fuel use. Imagine just one small case, Poland Spring is probably the most popular water in NYC. Imagine the caravan of diesel trucks carting this stuff from Maine to NYC, an 8 hour drive by car, increasing global warming all the way. Imagine a caravan of diesel powered garbage trucks carting the shit away.
All this while NYC has some of the best public water in the nation.*
3) Depending on the brand, true spring water need not be tested … at all. Any testing they do is voluntary. So, people are spending their money to increase global warming, increase the ocean of plastic we’ve already got in the doldrums, all the while buying crap that may make them sick.
Yeah that pisses me off.
* History: In the first half of the 20th century, NYC’s water was getting pretty bad. NYC had two choices. 1) Buy expensive filtration systems to filter the water coming into NYC. 2) Buy up all the land around the reservoirs and protect it from runoff and other problems.
This was one of those cases where the best environmental and economic choices were identical. We got the Catskill parks around our reservoirs and still do not need filters for our water.
Many restaurateurs in NYC claim that one reason we have such great restaurants in the city is the clean delicious drinking water used in cooking. So, seeing induhviduals buying their bottled water here pisses me off.
Seeing the spread of bottled water where there is a real reason for it pisses me off even more. Why can’t we protect our reservoirs better?
#204–Scott==you had me at “bottled….”
OK, I won’t ask you for any further explanations, I like my peace of mind. Based on ignorance as J will confirm, but I like it.
Rock on and GO GREEN!!!!!!
# 203 bobbo
No my message to pedro is that he sweeps floors and will never amount to more than that.
Hum? Lives in South America. English is a second language and uses the name pedro. You must suck at Jeopardy. I am a betting man and my money is on the fact that he is Hispanic.
#206–j==”Alex, I’ll take tired old stereotypes that don’t make any difference anyway for $500.”
The answer is “Pedro”
My question is “In South American, what internet usename is most commonly used by floor sweeping mathematical geniuses of Castilian descent?”
# 203 bobbo
You are so full of shit. You said my statement about him sweeping floors was racist or stereotypical but then you claim that you didn’t know he was Hispanic. YOU ARE SUCH A FUCKING LIAR!!!!!
Editor==please correct my entry at #207 to read “what internet usename is most commonly used by floor sweeping mathematical geniuses who are black jewish women of Russian descent.”
Also please change all references to tedious to “genius.” If Pedro likes it, who am I to deny her?
#209–J==I took sweeping floors the same way you did==a reference to low intellect in keeping with your derision. I missed any allusion to “Good Will Hunting” as opposite to your expressed opinion?
If any lie there is, I think you’ll find it there.
# 207 bobbo
“My question is “In South American, what internet usename is most commonly used by floor sweeping mathematical geniuses of Castilian descent?”
No that would be Guillermo. I knew you sucked a Jeopardy.
BTW Not all native people of South America are of Castilian decent. Wow you really have some strange views on race. No wonder you backed up the Mr. Musturd imposter when they were spouting all those racist terms.
# 208 pedro
“I am actually a black jewish Russian woman.”
Wow pedro we have a little in common heritage wise.
“Don’t ever change nor grow up. ”
Ok
“No matter what people say, you’re not tedious, you’re really entertaining J.”
I am glad someone appreciates my musings. I just didn’t think you were capable of that level of comprehension. A promotion for you. You now get to stock the shelves.
# 211 bobbo
“a reference to low intellect in keeping with your derision.”
Really? Is that why the character in the movie was a Genius?
“I missed any allusion to “Good Will Hunting” as opposite to your expressed opinion?”
Watch the movie again and get back to me.
You are such a fucking liar! I caught you lying and now you are trying to turn the tables. Sorry but you are the one that knew pedro was Hispanic and interpreted my comment about sweeping floors in that way. Then you tried to lie and say you didn’t know he was Hispanic.
Sweeping floors has nothing to do with race. It has to do with education. You tend not to sweep floors if you have an education. Pedro in my opinion does not. That is why my reference to Good Will Hunting was funny. Will was very educated and swept floors. Pedro trys to act like Will but will forever be stuck sweeping floors. That is why I told him he ought to stick to sweeping floors. Kind of funny if you have seen the movie.
I can’t believe you are that obtuse.
Now that I think about it. I don’t know ANY Hispanics that sweep floors and I talk to all the service people. They are all Polish, Irish and Russian.
#202 – J,
Good place to be.
bobbo,
Gotta say that I’m with J on the pedro issue. I think I probably would have dropped the name calling war long ago myself (or at least I’d like to pretend I would have). However, I have not seen an intelligent post by pedro on this thread (nor on a prior one where he and I had a bit of back and forth about his claim that Gore invented the internet), so mostly just ignored him this time.
# 214 Misanthropic Scott
I admit I am slightly lower on that chart then all of those guys. Which I guess means I lean a little more anarchist.
As far as pedro. Don’t lower yourself to get into my mess. It is beneath you. I sometime like to wallow in the mud. It is how I get my kicks.
#212 – J
“of Castilian de[s]cent”?? Zounds!
A friendly tip: “Descent” is spelled as indicated, “descent”. You keep spelling it “decent”, so I assume it’s a spelling error, not a typo on your part.
#214–Scott==yea, I skipped the Gore invented the internet as not interesting no matter what, but I think you must have missed several of Pedro’s interesting comments on Chavez and the growing power/influence of South America in general. Or maybe my goodwill just flows over.
J==you have it mostly right about me, just jerking you around. All the janitors here in Ca are Mexican or Filipina and most of them making more money than me. I still don’t get your convolutions about Good Will Hunting but I’ll just chalk that up to your superior intellect. Please don’t explain it again.
#218 – bobbo,
That must’ve been another thread.
#205 – J,
Did you beat my scores on the negative side?
Economic Left/Right: -7.75
Social Libertarian/Authoritarian: -8.31
That’s usually considered pretty extreme. It essentially indicates 4 points in my beliefs.
1) People should be free, as long as they are not hurting others.
2) Corporations are tools, and thus have no rights of their own, though their shareholders do.
3) Communism is genuinely bad. Corporations should not be owned by the government.
4) Basic life-sustaining services such as clean air, water, and health care should be provided by the government as basic rights necessary to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness.
Back on topic, here’s some more news on climate change.
Federal Report: Warming = More Harmful Climate Extremes
For the full federal report, all 164 pages of it, feel free to go to this link and download the whole thing or specific sections of it.
Weather and Climate Extremes in a Changing Climate
# 217 Mister Mustard
Yes I am a terrible typist and a terrible speller. I also don’t check my work before posting. I know how descent is spelled I just don’t catch it. It is a wonder I even bother with blogs. I have become way too dependant on dictating to someone else.
# 218 bobbo
“All the janitors here in Ca are Mexican or Filipina and most of them making more money than me.”
If that’s true you need to find a new line of work.
I think the dominance has to do with local population more than race. There are a lot of poor and working class Irish, Polish and, Russians here in Chicago. A lot of Hispanics too but they don’t seem to do those type of jobs as much. From what it appears the poorer Hispanic people seem to work in restaurants more than cleaning services at least here in Chicago. I have my suspicions as to why but I wont bother.
Seriously the Good Will Hunting thing? You can’t see it? Did you see the movie?
# 219 Misanthropic Scott
Holy Shit you got me beat you Liberal Anarchist!!!! 😛
Mine were -6.12 -7.18
I don’t disagree with any of those 4 statements. But I would add. 3)Corporations should also not own the government. I would preface 4) with For the betterment of the society as a whole.
#221 – J,
You’re pretty far out there too. I think you’re solidly more left and libertarian than Gandhi and Mandela as well.
I accept your edits. They do make the statements better and more accurate.
I am NOT an anarchist. I believe in laws that protect people from each other and protect people from corporations. I do not think people need to be protected from themselves.
I also think that the biosphere needs to be protected from the cancer that is humanity. But, that probably doesn’t really show up on this chart.
# 222 Misanthropic Scott
“You’re pretty far out there too. ”
My wife says exactly the same thing. lol
“I think you’re solidly more left and libertarian than Gandhi and Mandela as well.”
It looked to me as if I fell between Nelson Mandela and The Dalai Lama in Gandhi land on the left. But I was clearly south of all of them. It is hard to tell because they don’t have grid lines on all the charts.
“I am NOT an anarchist.”
LOL I was kidding you know. 😛
#221 – J
>>I have become way too dependant on
>>dictating to someone else.
Again, zounds! Not to be ageist or anything, but you must be older than dirt! I didn’t know anyone actually did that any more.
And are you able to hire people who know shorthand?? They must be older than dirt too!
# 224 Mister Mustard
I was born before computers were commonly used in business but no I am not that old.
Well….It isn’t officially dictation. I just tell her what I want to say and she types it up for me. She uses one of those solid state recorders to record what I say. Then I look at it and make changes where applicable. I don’t do it all the time. Only when the document is official.
#170
Do I really have to spell this out for you? The entire point is that there *may be* many compensators to an increase in CO2 that balances the climate. That the discovery of animals that thrive on CO2 was a phenomenon determined in the lab is orthogonal to the point that we have discovered one small potential compensator to that effect of which we previously were unaware. It substantiates the point that the biosphere is far more complicated than your fish tank. Get it now?
#177
We are able to solve tangible problems using the discoveries of quantum mechanics to make real world devices unlike the models that predict CO2 correlates to increased surface temperature. That is the difference.
#178
I did read the post and I stand by what I said. The insurance companies generally could care less why the weather created more losses. If people believe their premiums are going up because of “Global Warming” so much the better. There are lies, damn lies and statistics and the insurance companies are champions at twisting statistics to meet their needs. I might buy the claim that insurance companies were “hurt” by the weather more if there was some other industry making the claim.
#182
Excellent point!
#190
I’d say that’s about right although the questions were poorly phrased, I would have thought I would ended up farther to the right economically. I question that Friedmen, given the questions. would have been as far right as they claim.
Economic Left/Right: 0.62
Social Libertarian/Authoritarian: -3.49
I have taken similar tests and find that almost no one ends up in the southeast quadrant other than myself and perhaps Penn Gillette.
# 226 Thomas
No. I understand what you are saying and you are wrong. You are wrong on fact and you are wrong in theory. None of the evidence backs up what you are saying. Your proposal is nothing more than wishful thinking.
Your use of a “lab” test to justify your stance after you have denounced closed system testing is hypocrisy.
That test has not discovered anything. As you should have read there are many questions to the methods they used in the test and they have yet to explain the details to anyone. So as far as science is concerned they have no verifiable evidence yet.
“It substantiates the point that the biosphere is far more complicated than your fish tank.”
No one is denying that the biosphere is complicated or even more complicated than a fish tank so get off that point.
What you seem to still be missing is that we know enough to make extremely educated decisions because we use science as our method. We have been able to accurately predict outcomes that have come to fruition. We have done testing in the real world not a lab. We have also collected mounds of evidence that supports the the conclusions that have been drawn. That shows that we understand a great deal more than you seem to give credit for.
#227–J==you say: “We have been able to accurately predict outcomes that have come to fruition.” /// Like what as it relates to the human contribution/amelioration of global warming?