The latest Global Warming info

[Ben's Car Wash]

Now for "debunking" this.

http://www.thedailygreen.com/environmental-news/latest/inhofe-global-warming-deniers-47011101

Click here for the entire list of 413 "prominent scientists," analyzed in detail.

Sen. James M. Inhofe once famously called global warming the "greatest hoax ever perpetrated on the American people." It's a deliciously concise phrase – so well said, in fact, that it demands repeating, because it is so sure of itself, and so wrong.

{snip}
Inhofe's latest claim is that "Over 400 prominent scientists from more than two dozen countries recently voiced significant objections to major aspects of the so-called 'consensus' on man-made global warming." It's a claim backed up by honest-to-goodness research, of the cut-and-paste kind.

{snip}But it takes a Hercules up to 12 labors-worth of boredom to prove it. Our Hercules is Mark V. Johnson, who works for AOL's Propeller.com. He endured 413 labors, one for each supposed expert on Inhofe's list, so you wouldn't have to.

Inhofe's list includes 413 people. (Score one Inhofe; the math holds up.)

84 have either taken money from, or are connected to, fossil fuel industries, or think tanks started by those industries.

49 are retired

44 are television weathermen

20 are economists

70 have no apparent expertise in climate science

Several supposed skeptics have publicly stated that they are very concerned about global warming, and support efforts to address it. One claims he was duped into signing the list and regrets it.

 

[Ben's Car Wash]

Cont.

The whole fact Inhofe was trying to debunk – that there is a broad consensus among scientists that global warming is real, caused by humans and a serious threat – was only articulated because of hoaxes perpetrated by the so-called skeptics on this list. (Why not assume Inhofe found them all?) By undermining the press and politicians on the issue, those global warming skeptics helped keep the problem from being recognized, let alone addressed, for years. One could say they stood squarely in the path of truth, and thwarted its progress, jujitsu-style, until finally being overrun by a triumphantly emboldened mass.

If you hunger for lists of skeptics – the scientific kind with true expertise – we have some recommendations.

For instance, the American Geophysical Union, which includes 50,000 earth, ocean and atmospheric scientists, among others, whose first mission is to value the scientific method (rational skepticism), has stated since 2003 that "Human activities are increasingly altering the Earth's climate. These effects add to natural influences that have been present over Earth's history. Scientific evidence strongly indicates that natural influences cannot explain the rapid increase in global near-surface temperatures observed during the second half of the 20th century. ... The unprecedented increases in greenhouse gas concentrations, together with other human influences on climate over the past century and those anticipated for the future, constitute a real basis for concern."
And if you, like Inhofe, value international expertise, consider the Intergovermental Panel on Climate Change. By some estimates, 2,000 scientists have participated. Their sole purpose is to state consensus about global warming, humankind's role in causing it and its likely effects. The panel spoke clearly last year that it is nearly certain that human pollution is making the climate warmer, and that it will have dire consequences around the world.

A good online resource for information on global warming and the wars over science information is DeSmogBlog.

 

[Ben's Car Wash]

So.... for the "skeptics" we have 400 (many paid from OIL industry fronts) people... not "experts", some on the list were actually DEAD while other (at one point I read over 15 letters from these signers requesting to withdraw thier names). Yet we have over 50,000 US scientist (board certified, degreed or credentialed) and 2000 international scientist on the IPCC. I'd say that it's weighted a little HEAVY toward a consensus in the favor that human activity is contributing to global warming. And that Al Gore has a large body of evidence on his side.

 

[jfmoran]

Doug, Jony and whoever else,

The problem with global warming is the dogmatic cram it down our throats "global warming is happening, we are causing it and we must do something about it now!" No discussion is allowed, no dissension from the ranks, no questioning of scientists (as if scientists are somehow infallible human beings who are never wrong).

Michael Crichton speaking on Global Warming said the following:

"Historically, the claim of consensus has been the first refuge of scoundrels; it is a way to avoid debate by claiming that the matter is already settled. Whenever you hear the consensus of scientists agrees on something or other, reach for your wallet, because you're being had.

"Let's be clear: the work of science has nothing whatever to do with consensus.

"Consensus is the business of politics. Science, on the contrary, requires only one investigator who happens to be right, which means that he or she has results that are verifiable by reference to the real world. In science consensus is irrelevant. What is relevant is reproducible results. The greatest scientists in history are great precisely because they broke with the consensus."

Michael Crichton is a Graduate of Harvard Medical School, Former Post Doctoral Fellow at the Salk Institute for Biological Studies and a Renowned Author.

So the question is, do we or do we not have consensus?

John

 

[pitzerwm]

Doug, defending Gore is like saying that a blow job isn't sex. Giving Gore the Nobel Prize IMO makes that award worth zip. Gore didn't have a damn thing to do with the Internet, even he has shut up about it. I love it when you "bash" me for making money and you sit there in FL selling your services for more than it cost you to produce. If you read about how he went from the VP to a net worth of 100M, you would realize that he just cashed in the chips. He didn't do ****, people/companies paid him for his influence. If you don't understand that, get real. Just like Clinton's all of a sudden are wealthy. Don't you think that it is a little unrealistic that Bill won't disclose all of the people that are "giving him money". You want to pick up a cause, go back to the hospital and give a caring nurse a hug or something. Defending Gore or Clinton is a joke.

Doug has brought to my attention some factual information that Gore while not "inventing" the Internet, did start/support legislation along with others that helped make it bigger and better. It also is well documented that Gore is pretty loose with the facts when needed. He did indeed use photoshopped pictures from a movie in his movie. He will never be my role model or someone that I would listen to. Even a monkey with a typewriter can put words together.

 

[MikeV]

Hasn't it already been proven that Gore's movie was using photoshop-like images to make his point?
It is audacious to think that man can affect what God has made.

 

[Ben's Car Wash]

Doug, Jony and whoever else,

The problem with global warming is the dogmatic cram it down our throats "global warming is happening, we are causing it and we must do something about it now!" No discussion is allowed, no dissension from the ranks, no questioning of scientists (as if scientists are somehow infallible human beings who are never wrong).

Michael Crichton speaking on Global Warming said the following:

"Historically, the claim of consensus has been the first refuge of scoundrels; it is a way to avoid debate by claiming that the matter is already settled. Whenever you hear the consensus of scientists agrees on something or other, reach for your wallet, because you're being had.

"Let's be clear: the work of science has nothing whatever to do with consensus.

"Consensus is the business of politics. Science, on the contrary, requires only one investigator who happens to be right, which means that he or she has results that are verifiable by reference to the real world. In science consensus is irrelevant. What is relevant is reproducible results. The greatest scientists in history are great precisely because they broke with the consensus."

Michael Crichton is a Graduate of Harvard Medical School, Former Post Doctoral Fellow at the Salk Institute for Biological Studies and a Renowned Author.

So the question is, do we or do we not have consensus?

John

John, isn't a second opinion a consensus? I think that means more than "irrelevent" science. Tell a person having a tumor removed that a consensus among his Dr. doens't mater over it's treatment (10 Dr. says it's not harmful while thousand of puplications state other wise)! A consensus is not politics. Fight as hard as you may.

Ok... leave it at this.... time will tell who was right.

 

[Ben's Car Wash]

http://www.firstmonday.org/issues/issue5_10/wiggins/

What Gore Said
Although Al Gore never claimed to have invented the Internet, he did discuss his role in Internet development in an interview with Wolf Blitzer of Cable News Network. The interview took place on March 9, 1999 during CNN's "Late Edition" show. Specifically, what Gore said was "I took the initiative in creating the Internet."

Who Invented What, and When Did They Invent It?
Although Gore never said that he "invented the Internet," he did say he "took the initiative in creating the Internet." Can that claim be substantiated? As we will see, Gore did indeed take an intellectual and legislative interest in promoting high-speed data networks in the United States, and he did this during the 1980s, at a time long before most members of the public - let alone most politicians - were thinking about such issues.

The Internet Society hosts a monograph called called "A Brief History of the Internet." (See http://www.isoc.org/internet-history/brief.html) The authors include some of the designers of the essential components of how the Internet works today: Barry M. Leiner, Vinton G. Cerf, David D. Clark, Robert E. Kahn, Leonard Kleinrock, Daniel C. Lynch, Jon Postel, Larry G. Roberts, and Stephen Wolff. The paper notes these key milestones in Internet history:

1961: Leonard Kleinrock writes the first paper on packet switched networks.
1962: J.C.R. Licklider of MIT writes a paper describing a globally connected "Galactic Network" of computers.
1966: Larry Roberts proposes the ARPANET to the Defense Department's Advanced Research Projects Agency (ARPA).
1968: ARPA issues Request for Quotations for the Interface Message Processors (IMPs), which became the first routers.
1969: First IMP is installed at UCLA.
Early 1970s: Universities and defense agencies and contractors begin to connect to ARPANET.
1973: Bob Kahn and Vint Cerf begin research into what eventually becomes IP - the Internet Protocol and its companion, TCP - the Transmission Control Protocol.
1973: Bob Metcalfe develops Ethernet, which had been the subject of his PhD thesis, while working at Xerox.
Early 1980s: The Personal Computer revolution begins.
Mid 1980s: Local Area Networks (LANs) begin to flourish in business and university environments. Campus area networks soon follow.
January 1, 1983: All "old-style" traffic on the ARPANET ceases, as TCP/IP becomes the only protocol used. [Arguably, this is the date of the birth of the Internet as a functioning, practical, production network.]
1985: Dennis Jennings chooses TCP/IP as the protocol for the planned National Science Foundation Network (NSFnet).
1988: NSF sponsors a series of workshops at Harvard on the commercialization and privatization of the Internet.
1988: Kahn et al. write a paper "Towards a National Research Network." According to the Brief History, "This report was influential on then Senator Al Gore, and ushered in high speed networks that laid the networking foundation for the future information superhighway." [Emphasis added.]Note that these authors of (and participants in) Internet history state clearly that as early as 1988, then-Senator Gore became involved in the goal of building a national research network. We'll examine his role in more detail later.

 

[jfmoran]

Doug,

A consensus is: a majority of opinion. An opinion is : a belief or judgment that rests on grounds insufficient to produce complete certainty.

No where in those definitions are the word or words absolute truth or facts.

All of this brainwashing and hysteria is based on people's opinions not facts. I will spare you the anecdote about opinions since I'm sure you have heard it before.

John Moran

 

[jfmoran]

Doug,

The more you talk, the more you make my point. It's possible that two doctors (or more) could come up with very different OPINIONS about someone's health using the same information... Don't even get me started about today's so called modern medicine. If I never have to go the doctor that's too soon. We live in an over medicated, under educated society. Modern medicine my a-s-s! What's your drug of choice?

John

 

[Ben's Car Wash]

John... in all seriousness, a second opinion over a health care issue is very common and treatments are very "standard". Yes there are a lot of pill pushers out there, mostly HMO Doctors who find it cheaper to placate a patient with medication (so the patient thinks they are doing something) than to treat the underlying cause of the disease with a more expensive test or proceedure... that is what a second opinion is important... and a health care RIGHT that you are entitled too!

But don't be so cynical...it's your life and people count of you who love you (obviously Al Gore isn't one of them) so being too much of a cynic is detrimental to your health!

But like the global warming issues and the health of the planet, if you want to "burry your head in the sand" about both issue, your health is one I wouldn't gamble on!

 

[jfmoran]

Doug,

I am neither sticking my head in the sand about global warming or my own medical care. I go the doctor when I need to (which is right now once year), but I don't run for every ache and pain or sniffle looking for some drug to make me all better. "Modern Medicine" has taught generations that every little malady requires some sort of pill. In addition, we take what our doctor's tell us as gospel instead of challenging them or getting "second opinions.

As far as global warming. I have said before that I don't deny that we are having climate changes, but I do not buy into the notion that they are man made and that man can somehow stop it.

So if I've got my head in the sand, I guess that means that all the "man made global warming advocates" are standing with their hands over their ears yelling LaLaLaLALA... You know, like when you were a kind and you didn't want to hear what anybody else was saying.


John Moran

 

[jcedwards]

Get a jacket.

Oh No! More good news.....

http://www.nationalpost.com/opinion/columnists/story.html?id=f6fa4aca-61b4-4824-adb4-78eb8fa9081a

 

[jfmoran]

You can spot the Liberals reading this story above... They are the one's with their hands over the ears yelling LaLaLaLaLaLaLaLa...

 

[Ben's Car Wash]

Oh No! More good news.....

http://www.nationalpost.com/opinion/columnists/story.html?id=f6fa4aca-61b4-4824-adb4-78eb8fa9081a

The story uses the starting point of 1998. That was the "peak" temperature on record so "looking forward" would show little trend.

Also google "global dimming" and watch way the earth is cooling now and way it realtes to "global warming" and the amout of CO in the atmophere.

They are VERY MUCH RELATED.... IT IS A PROTECTIVE MECHINSM. Eroupe is already seeing the effect of reducing polution and removing the "haze" that "COOLS" the Earth since that peak in 1998. Record temp have reappeared in those area that have combated pollution.

Secondly, look at what happend on the days folloing 911 when NO AIRPLANES FLEW and no CONTRAILS were over the US. Temps over the US rose over 1 degree. The COOLING is happening to protect us form the warming as the droplets of moisture from excessive evaporation (from melting ice, warming seas, melting permafroast and radiation) and polution blocking the SUNLIGHT..... this is called "GLOBAL DIMMING". It is measurable.

We are only delaying what will happen. But go ahead and have a good laugh. But at least take the time to read about GLOBAL DIMMING or WATCH THIS LINK:

http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-2058273530743771382

 

[ted mcmeekin]

The gore worshipers refuse to accept any data counter to their ferry tale. By the way, similar good news yesterday on storm frequency implications.

Ted

 

[Ben's Car Wash]

The gore worshipers refuse to accept any data counter to their ferry tale. By the way, similar good news yesterday on storm frequency implications.

Ted

Actually That was old news. A University of Gerogia study from 3-4 years ago said that the storm frequenty will decrease but the intensity will increase.... which it seems it has. They say that their will be more CAT 5 storms.... this is not "GOOD NEWS". The article yesterday on the front page of AOL (you guy alway hate the media) stated at the end (if you read that far) that he came up with the same conclussion.... stronger storms, HEAVIER RAINFALL, more flash flooding and more damage on a larger scale. I'd rather have a more active Hurricane season (seeing that I live in Florida and in 2005 I had 4 hurricane pass within 30 miles of my house, 2 went over head) with CAT 1-2 storms that a less active one with cat 4-5's! WILMA, DENNIS, CHARLIE, FRAN, JEANNE, IVAN, KATRINA are frightnig names to us here in Florida who live through them!

My mother & fathers HOME was wipped off the face of this earth by JEANNE!

So unless you live here, you don't know what "good news" is about have STRONGER but less frequent HURRICANES.... thanks for you enthusam! People in the KEYS are still recovering from KATRINA then WILMA a few weeks later that got NO PRESS COVERAGE in the Keys.

 

[pitzerwm]

If true, something to think about

http://www.autocareforum.com/houses.html

 

[Ben's Car Wash]

http://www.autocareforum.com/houses.html

Old! you need to update that.



The U.S. Green Building Council gave Gore?s home house ?its second-highest rating for sustainable design.? How did he do it?

http://climateprogress.org/2007/12/16/gore-greens-his-tennessee-home/
The former vice president has installed solar panels, a rainwater-collection system and geothermal heating. He also replaced all incandescent lights with compact fluorescent or light-emitting diode bulbs ? even on his Christmas tree.

? his natural gas use has dropped 93 percent in the three months since the geothermal pump was activated.

Gore has also said he invests in renewable energy such as solar and wind power to balance 100 percent of his electricity usage.

 

[Ben's Car Wash]

http://www.autocareforum.com/houses.html

http://blogs.wsj.com/washwire/2008/03/11/energy-ad-campaign-targets-al-gores-house/

March 11, 2008, 3:56 pm
Energy Ad Campaign Targets Al Gore?s House
Susan Davis reports on global warming.

The global-warming skeptics at the Competitive Enterprise Institute launched a national ad today targeting ? who else? ? former Vice President Al Gore.

The $30,000 buy is small as far as national-ad campaigns go, but it will run on cable over the next two weeks in Boston, Phoenix, Orlando, Pittsburgh, and Washington, D.C.


The ad criticizes the Gores for using ?twenty times as much? energy as the average household in their Nashville, Tenn.-area home. ?Al Gore?s friends use lots of energy, too,? the voiceover states as pictures of Gore with celebrities including Leonardo DiCaprio and Larry David float across the screen.

{snip}
Gore spokeswoman Kalee Kreider took issue with the ad?s attack on the Gore?s home, noting that the group used outdated data. The house underwent an extensive renovation in recent years and now meets one of the highest standards set by the U.S. Green Building Council.

?I think they?ve lost the debate on the science and the policy and now all they are left with is to just attack the messenger,? Kreider said.

Sam Kazman, general counsel for CEI, said Gore was a natural target ?with his ascendancy as chief spokesman for global warming alarmism.?