Cows are causing Global warming...

[karpbuster]

That will get a smile out most people, have a great week!

From the Fox Network:
--------------------------
A report by the United Nations' Food and Agricultural Organization says cattle and other livestock cause more greenhouse gases than cars, planes, and all other forms of transportation put together. Britain's Independent News says the report blames cow flatulence and manure for one-third of all methane emissions — which warm the earth 20 times faster than carbon dioxide.

The world's 1.5 billion cows are also blamed for everything from acid rain to desertification and the destruction of coral reefs. And while cows are taking the heat in one U.N. report, another says humans are doing less harm to the environment than previously thought. The Sunday Telegraph says the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change has reduced its estimate of human affect on global warming by 25 percent. And it has lowered its prediction of how much sea levels will rise by half. The Panel cites improved data for the revisions.
--------------------------
This is the month of Flatulence issues, there was a plane that was grounded temporarily for...well, flatulence. And it wasn't a Packer fan at fault.

There you go...now what. LOL!

karpbuster

[EyeSlayer]

Funny about that grounded plane from that person's flatulence. They did a skit on SNL about it, pretty funny.

As far as the methane production is concerned...Aren't humans an indirect cause of cattle methane production? If we didn't depend on cattle to feed us wouldn't there be less of them around to produce methane? Not trying to push any buttons, it's just a thought to ponder.

[mudpuppy]

They're also responsible for all the bull crap in the world! Something has to be done!

[Behr]

Ok, ok.... I'll ramp up my beef consumption to *max*.... but I can't do it alone...

-Behr

[RANGER]

Cows??? He11, my buddies are the worst......cows or not!! I guess if there were less of them, there would be less attribution to the "Global" problem as well!!

Beans are the killer here. And there is that mixture of barley and hopps............., Not, necessarily, meat!!

:cheers:

[hollis ULED]

I went to Germany a few years ago and was struck on how many cows were around (maybe it was the places I happened to go) but even in the hotels and Inns that we stayed , sometime the odor was terrible.
As far as cows,..well,.. for me they could all go away and I wouldn't miss them. I started cutting back on beef some years ago and one day it occurred to me that I lost my taste for it. After reading a few books like "Don't drink your Milk",...I have cut that out too. I believe I feel better too. I seemed to have found plenty of other food. I do feel for farmers. Some of the best people I have met have been dairy farmers but I guess if more people were like me, they would be extinct.

[Buckeye]

Do deer and elk fart? I think I saw a carp pass gas once too.

[FauxNews]

As usual, FoxNews gets it wrong. The FAO Reprot aggregated emissions throughout the livestock commodity chain - from feed production (which includes chemical fertilizer production, deforestation for pasture and feed crops, and pasture degradation), through animal production (including enteric fermentation and nitrous oxide emissions from manure) to the carbon dioxide emitted during processing and transportation of animal products.

[RickyP]

Faux News....fair and balanced.:rotflmao:

[Buckeye]

Now hold on a minute Mr. or Ms. unregistered person using the name Faux News.....

Are you saying the fertilizer production and deforestation are all happening because of the need for production of cattle feed?

If so, I'll submit to you that the vegetarians of the world (both voluntary and those who are too poor to afford animal protein)also contribute to the global warming "problem". Soy and corn products (Tofu, soy milk, corn chips, etc.), breads, veggies, etc. etc. all require tillable land and fertilizer. Those fertilizers are produced either naturally (manure from livestock) or manufactured from either oil, mined minerals, or many other organic compounds.

I'll also submit to you that production of forage crops (which is the primary feed ingredient for most dairy and beef cattle rations) are actually removing greenhouse gasses especially in no-till systems.

What caused global warming every other time through earth's history before there were people and cattle? Dinosaur farts?

[FauxNews]

Nobody is denying that ALL industrial agriculture contributes GHG emissions. Of course, it's not just cattle production that does so. However, the carbon emissions per calorie of food provided are far greater in cattle production. You can beat that strawman all day.

Carbon temporarily sequestered in crops does not surpass the carbon emitted in their production and transportation. The production of forage for cattle is a net contributor to atmospheric GHGs.

Climate has varied in the past and it has varied for many different reasons, some better understood than others. The cause for many of the climate cycles is fairly well understood to be the results of changes in the orbit of the Earth. These orbital cycles are regular and predictable and they are definately not the cause of today's warming. The present day climate change is very well understood and is different. Simply noting that something happened before without humans does not in any logical way show that humans are not causing it today.

[Burr]

"The present day climate change is very well understood and is different."

Making lofty statements of myth presented as fact is, well, flatulence.

[FauxNews]

A "myth"? No it's fact. Every major scientific institute dealing with climate, ocean, and/or atmosphere agrees that the climate is warming rapidly and the primary contributor is human GHG emissions.

NASA's Goddard Institute of Space Studies (GISS)
http://www.giss.nasa.gov/edu/gwdebate/
National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA)
http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/oa/climate/globalwarming.html
Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC)
http://www.grida.no/climate/ipcc_tar/wg1/index.htm
National Academy of Sciences (NAS)
http://books.nap.edu/collections/global_warming/index.html
State of the Canadian Cryosphere (SOCC)
http://www.socc.ca/permafrost/permafrost_future_e.cfm
Environmental Protection Agency (EPA)
http://yosemite.epa.gov/OAR/globalwarming.nsf/content/index.html
The Royal Society of the UK (RS)
http://www.royalsoc.ac.uk/page.asp?id=3135
American Geophysical Union (AGU)
http://www.ametsoc.org/policy/climatechangeresearch_2003.html
American Institute of Physics
http://www.aip.org/gov/policy12.html
National Center for Atmospheric Research (NCAR)
http://eo.ucar.edu/basics/cc_1.html
American Meteorological Society (AMS)
http://www.ametsoc.org/policy/jointacademies.html
Canadian Meteorological and Oceanographic Society (CMOS)
http://www.cmos.ca/climatechangepole.html

On top of that list, see also this joint statement that specifically and unequivocally endorses the work and conclusions of the IPCC Third Assessment report, issued by
- Academia Brasiliera de Ciências (Bazil)
- Royal Society of Canada
- Chinese Academy of Sciences
- Academié 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 (United States of America)
http://nationalacademies.org/onpi/06072005.pdf

and this one that includes the above signers plus:
- 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
http://www.royalsociety.org/displaypagedoc.asp?id=13619

[Junk Science]

The Earth is how old? We have data from how many of the years
earth has been in existence? Not enough data for any real scientist
to make any solid conclusions.

[INmitch]

Fauxnews your faux are just that. The biggest part of a cattle feed ration is made of by-products. Cottonseed from cotton, distillers grain from ethanol or whiskey, wheat middlings from wheat flour,soybean hulls from soyoil production, brewers grains from good ole beer, oathulls from you got it OATS. I could list a lot more but I'll stop there. Very little crops are grown to just make cattle feed. Now if you want to talk about rabbit food you've got a point, they are the real culprits here. Their ration is made of mostly alfalfa. Pesky critters.

[FauxNews]

We don't need data from the past to know what is happening now (although we do have a great deal of data from ice cores, boreholes, corals, and other 'proxies'). Understanding the current condition rests on two simple factors.
(1) Carbon dioxide and other greenhouse gases are increasing rapidly in the atmosphere due to human activity. This is a measured fact.
(2) Any increase in carbon dioxide and other greenhouse gases will change the radiation balance of the Earth and increase surface temperatures. This is basic and undisputed physics that has been known for over a hundred years.

[FauxNews]

That'll be a relief to my neighbors here in WI. I'll tell them they can take their cornfields out of production and their cows will be just fine. Livestock now use about 30 percent of the earth’s entire land surface, mostly permanent pasture but also including 33 percent of the global arable land used to producing feed for livestock. As forests are cleared to create new pastures, it is a major driver of deforestation, especially in Latin America.

[INmitch]

Last time I checked you don't till permanent pastures. Wait till the ethanol frenzy hits WI. They won't be feeding their corn.

[Burr]

OK, I will, and can back off my strong word "myth", but only if you realize your strong presentation as "fact" is also not reasonable.

Using just the first reference you posted above - I quote:

"In summary, all of these issues are ones that the scientific community potentially can make progress on in the near future, if they receive appropriate attention. The real global warming debate, in the sense of traditional science, can be resolved to a large extent in a reasonable time."

By your own reference - not fact.
If it was in fact, a fact, it would not be a debate now, would it?

Facts do not need to be resolved.

I admire passion for beliefs, not misrepresentation.

[Schnauzer]

Faux is correct, but let me warn him he is fighting an uphill battle trying to explain it to the crowd that frequents this forum. I have been watching environmental and global warming discussion here for years and I often find myself cringing.

I have seen guys here litereally deny global warming is even happening, let alone what scientific studies are identifying as the causes. Many can't get past the fact they had a record low temp in their neighborhood a few weeks back. Still others figure life will go on the same way, just with a longer summer (fun!). Perhaps most disturbing is an ignorant backlash against anything termed "scientific". I see these posts every time the subject comes up.

So, good luck Faux. I'm sure you will have plenty more to explain. Heck, if it has been warm on our planet in the past, it couldn't be our fault today, right? :) Climate change has been a regular killer of vast numbers of species through time on this planet. To brush off every assertion the current warming situation could possibly have anything to do with human activity is very short sighted, in my opinion.

[FauxNews]

I've never said there wasn't legitimate scientific debate; there is robust debate over the details and the extent of future impacts. ther is, however, no legitimate debate that global warming is now occurring, nor that humans play a significant role. The objections raised in this thread are not of the character of the honest scientific debates that will continue.

[EyeSlayer]

I hope this post doesn't get dusted. Keep it civil as I think there is a lot of good info being communicated (anonymous or not, thanks Faux). In the past these conversations have typically progressed to name calling. So far, so good.

I've never understood why this topic is rarely debated in a diplomatic way. I guess some fear change and information which is contradictory to what they believe or were lead to believe. Although no one is likely to be persuaded, we can agree to disagree.

As indicated in a signature one of the great posters on this site, "If you think education is expensive, try ignorance"

[EyeSlayer]

>Perhaps most disturbing is an ignorant backlash
>against anything termed "scientific".

Isn't interesting those who are quick to throw around the phrase "junk science" will be the first to believe other studies or reports that coincide with their beliefs? For some strange reason reports and editorials from non-climatologists rebutting climate change data seem to have more credibility on this board.

[Schnauzer]

I agree. I do think I know why these discussions often get dusted. Face it, they often degenerate into name calling between the Tree hugging liberal democrat whackos and the Corporate loving environment killing conservative republican whackos. The politically charged discussions were deemed taboo here long ago. When that decision was made, the political stuff was starting to overtake things.

[hollis Uled]

Good points Schnauzer and Eye,...I think I'm done with trying to explain why I base why believe the way I do. So much misinformation here about how climatologist have don't really have tools to tell them what the weather was like "before recorded history". How these are "natural shifts that have always occurred without regard to understanding the time frames that apply.etc etc etc. People will rationalize what they want believe to to no end.
I agree the word "science" is a dirty word by some here or the term junk science is thrown around if they don't agree with whats been said.

[bigfish1965]

There is no doubt the earth has warmed significantly over the last 100 to 200 years. Faster than any point in history. It isn't a difficult thing to track..
The only question is...is it because of our interference or is it a natural cycle?
The evidence leans toward us being the cause. Living in Canada I'm not so worried if it gets warmer, but if I lived in Florida....

[unlogged rock2me]

The truth here is simple. It has been warmer and it has been colder. Where I am sitting was once a glacier. That glacier melted long before my ancestors were proficient in the use of fire.

About 100 to 50 million years ago, a time referred to as the Greenhouse world, the atmospheric concentration of carbon dioxide was high enough to make the air and oceans significantly warmer than today. How could that be? That is more than a few years before man was walking upright. Please, explain man's influence on the high carbon dioxide levels during this period?

Too many have fallen into the trap, believing we have a complete understanding of how Earth "works". Not even close.

It sure is warm today here in MN, but the "cause" of this warming is definitely up for debate. My "scientific" prediction is, for several months it will be cool, for several months it will be warmer, repeat yearly, die.
:rock-on:

[Dorland]

Ok fair enough but,..so? I'm not sure I care very much why 50 million years ago why there was a warming period. All the evidence is that these took millennia to happen. This time, its within a 100 years! Exactly why it happened then, in millions of years ago doesn't matter to me or any of any foreseeable thoughts of offspring. I think the point is its a matter of physics. Computers can figure that out precisely,.Add enough greenhouse gasses and get definite expected greenhouse.Other things can effect it and maybe we DON'T know all those reasons,..its been found that all the CO2 we have put in has had a less effect than we thought not too many years ago. This is because we find the the oceans absorb a lot of that CO2. Now if a volcano or solar flair etc etc comes into play, well thats something we can't predict or effect. We CAN effect a change in what we CAN effect.
That high amount of greenhouse gases has been postulated that it came from the ocean giving up much of its CO2. or the same of methane from the ocean bottom decay trapped for perhaps millions of year creating a massive release. The ocean has been absorbing a LOT of CO2 in the last hundred years. Some scientists feel once the oceans hold the max amount, it rapidly exhales back into the atmosphere. Maybe it will or maybe it won't, but why add to the mess? I don't understand the argument of "well it has always happened." (give or take thousands of years) or "we don't understand all the ramifications of they dynamics of climate (what scientist doesn't believe THAT!? Of course they do.) OK, Rivers have had oily hydrocarbons wash into them for millions of years.(natural ones,..ever see that foam in brooks?) But man is capable of putting oil and a whole lot of other nasty things in water esp rivers.killing fish off
Should we not try using the argument that fish die offs are natural? They have happened 50 million years ago when a volcano blew off. 10 million years ago when an active solar flare warmed up the water too much and so on. The difference of the ice age and now is only about 3-4 degrees, global warming causes a little warm up at first for us in the US. Then because of the dynamics of deep ocean currents, changes in salinity from Greenland and Antarctica ice melts changing the deep water flow of the Atlantic, and we here in the US gets noticeable colder and quite fast once that flow changes.

[Buckeye]

Those of us that are skeptical about what we are being told RE: global warming don't necessarily disagree with the premise itself. I don't doubt for a minute that the last 100 years of data show a gradual increase in global temps. What is in question is the accuracy of the historical weather "data", most of which is gleaned from fossils that are hundreds of million years old. It's a very interesting theory with some merit but still just that....theory. Heck it seems like every 10 years or so a new fossilized skull is uncovered that bumps the period of the first humanlike critter on earth back a few thousand more years. Change has happened through the earth's history and an advanced specie happens to occupy it's surface for what amounts to a very tiny blip in that history. In that perspective, we are just coming off an ice age. Makes sense to me that this global warming has been taking place for at least 10,000 years. Otherwise Lake Erie would be a 1 mile high block of ice.

The other thing that casts doubt in my mind is how the scientific world is split on the issue. I've read articles that tell me in our recorded history, volcanic activity has contributed more to the greenhouse effect than any human activity. Scientists say one event alone, Mt. Pinitubo's erruption 10 plus years ago, put more gasses and ash into the atmosphere than all of man's "progress" to that point.

I'm not saying humans don't contribute to the buildup of CO2 in the atmosphere nor do I deny cattle gas does. Thus far, the reading I have done on both sides of the issue hasn't convinced me to buy into the idea that we need to revert back to the stone age in order to stop it.

Let's face it, Eyeslayer is right. The pro-human caused global warming theory is one tough sell. None of us are inclined to buy into the theory that our Lunds, tow vehicles, etc. are the cause because we don't want to feel obligated to alter our lifestyle.

[Blackmacs]

>That'll be a relief to my neighbors here in WI. I'll tell
>them they can take their cornfields out of production and
>their cows will be just fine. Livestock now use about 30
>percent of the earth’s entire land surface, mostly permanent
>pasture but also including 33 percent of the global arable
>land used to producing feed for livestock. As forests are
>cleared to create new pastures, it is a major driver of
>deforestation, especially in Latin America.

Faux~ Could you share where you found the info on how much of the earth is pasture? Thanks for the other links too.

[Schnauzer]

BINGO... here is this thread's incredible "Global Warming isn't happening" installment. It took longer than usual (progress?), but here it is just the same.

Listen fella... Global Warming is all around you. You don't even have to be a scientist to see it. Just check your local glacier, if you can find one. Do you know how "Glacier National Park" got its name? It didn't become a National Park that long ago and when it did, it had lots of Glaciers. Now, barely any are left. Want an example a little closer to home... The NW Minnesota Moose herd has died off just in the last couple decades. The reason... bacteria and disease from a warmer climate. The NE MN herd is next, but they are okay for now. I could literally fill page after page from examples like this. You can argue humans being a big part of the cause. I will disagree with you but you can at least argue it. Nobody with eyes even half open can deny Global Warming though.

PLEASE TELL ME THIS IS THE ONLY GUY HERE ACTUALLY IN DENIAL OVER GLOBAL WARMING.

[FauxNews]

The numbers I used here were from the Food and Agricultural Organization that compiled the report, Livestock's Long Shadow, that started this discussion:
http://www.fao.org/newsroom/en/news/2006/1000448/index.html

Another good source on land-use is from the University of Wisconsin website:
http://www.sage.wisc.edu/pages/datamodels.html

[FauxNews]

The paleogeological data doesn't come from fossils. It comes from ice cores, boreholes, coral, glacial morains, stalagtite/stalagmites, and other sources.

Mt. Pinatubo did release a great amount of gas in the atmosphere, primarily sulfur dioxide. However, SO2 is not a GHG and it doesn't contribute to warming. On the contrary, Pinatubos explosion created a volcanic haze that scattered some of the incoming sunlight back to space, thus reducing solar heating of the Earth's surface. See NASA's brief:
http://www.giss.nasa.gov/research/briefs/hansen_02/

We don't have to revert back to the stone age to address the issue. Moving beyond 19th/20th century technologies can help us maintain a comfortable lifestyle AND mitigate climate change.

I think you missed EyeSlayer's point. He accurately suggests that it is a tough sell because too many people are susceptible to the disinformation campaigns of a few vested interests in the old technologies.

[Not in denial]

Yup. the earth is warming. The earth will cool at some point.
It's just a natural cycle. Nobody can prove otherwise.

[Schnauzer]

There. You have solved Global Warming, and have managed to trump every climate study that that says otherwise. Well done. Do you have anything this quick and simple for the trouble in the Middle East? Perhaps they should just get along. Why didn't they think of that? On to curing cancer...

[RickyP]

This really is a good thread and one of the most rational discussions regarding global warming I have read on this board. I does seem that those who want to debunk global warming fall on one side of the political spectrum, and probably get their information from like minded media outlets. I choose to listen to the scientific community itself, which seems to overwhelmingly agree that we do have a serious problem.

I do see the injection of politics into science as a serious problem today, and the current powers in Washington have been at the forefront of the movement.

[Sceptic also]

I too am a sceptic.
I have yet been able to find anyone show me one piece of evidence that the ocean is rising due to "global warming'
If it is that factual that 100 years of warming and more is going to cause oceans to rise then why haven't'? Show me what place on the map that oceans have rose a few inches ? a foot? No one has been able to so far.

Maybe its because there are so many other factors we do not understand.
No that long ago Mankind (vikings) used to camp in the green grass of Greenland , and now they don't and maybe they will again.
I suspect cycles and volcanos and sunspots have far more effect.
So yes we could spend trillions of dollars to chang ethe temperature by one or two degrees in 100 years. Or we could spend the trillions of dollars to take care of much more important priorities that will for sure save lives and mankind, including educating them.

jack
in canada
ps don't believe your book selling former vice president GORE , most of his facts have already been proved very exaggerated.
But everyone needs a cause to stay in the public eye.

[work2fish]

FWIW, on the topic of global warming in prehistoric times, here is a reference to a recent scientific study which used a sophisticated computer model and geological records to reach their conclusion:

http://news.mongabay.com/2005/0829-permian_triassic.html

This paper won the 2006 Outstanding Publication Award at the National Center for Atmospheric Research and describes a very different cause for the mass extinction of life on our planet at that time (an event which many have associated with the impact of a meteorite).

[BillT]

I don't know how to answer misinformation. Greenland only supported life in the south west tip for a short period of time during the minor medieval warm period. The Vikings named Greenland to get people to go there instead of Iceland which was much greener to throw others off. When it went back to normal, the vikings that were cut off by ice flows and essentially starved. The water levels HAVE risen,..exactly the amount predicted. I don't know where you get this information.

[BillT]

BTw the difference in mean ave temps from now and the last ice age is about 3 degrees. If you don't know how that works to cause this, well it would take too long to explain it to you.

[Schnauzer]

Ocean temps are on the rise. Ocean levels are on the rise. Climate is changing. This isn't a theory. This is fact.

But, hey, the view of the ocean from the hotel you stayed at looks pretty much the same, so all is okay, right? It doesn't look any deeper. It is pretty hard to prove anything to anyone if all they want to believe is their own limited points of view and observations. Throw in a misinformed distrust of anything labled "scientific" and you've got a ready-made sand pile in which to bury your head.

Oh, and Sceptic, did you look at any of the links Faux provided above? I just did a quick check and I saw lots of graphs listing climate change and ocean levels through time. Its all there. You asked for proof and data. It was already right here for you when you asked the question. Check it out... unless you don't want to don't want to know...

[El Nino]

Not sure how relevant this is to the topic (is it climate or is it just weather?), but one thing for certain there is going to be a heck of a sale on ice shanties and the like this year in the great lakes region. That is if the current El Nino prediction holds true, temps well above average so "they" say...

Who knows maybe it will be Walleyes spawning in tribs during February like the last big El Nino in the late 90's. The silver lining is more time to fish out of the boat, less cabin fever.

Have a Merry Green Christmas!

[hollis ULed]

If you have a few minutes you might want to see the video clips here.

http://60minutes.yahoo.com/segment/26/global_warming

[compare photos]

Is there any sat imagery available to compare year to year, say over the last 10 to 20 years? That might convince me, if in fact there will be no summer ice in the arctic in 30 years or so from now, the progression should be noticeable.

I am a skeptic of the 60 minutes reporting, my guess says they filmed that show on June 21st on around the summer soltice in the N hemisphere. Get rid of hidden agendas and focus on the facts.

[Hmmm]

So how do you guys explain the global warming and global cooling trends of the past back 100s of years ago when there were not any cars or industrial production like we know it? I do not think that the great debate is whether there is global warming, but rather whether the current warming trend is more severe than in the past.

[bigfish1965]

>So how do you guys explain the global warming and global
>cooling trends of the past back 100s of years ago when there
>were not any cars or industrial production like we know it? I
>do not think that the great debate is whether there is global
>warming, but rather whether the current warming trend is more
>severe than in the past.
>
>

Past changes occurred over millenia. Now they occur within one's lifetime. There is no debate among the scientific world that this is happening and very little debate over why. Even the US Government's own scientists recognize our influence in the whole thing.
But we can also act and rectify the trouble. Those of us who lived on Lake Erie in the 60's and 70's would never have dreamed that it would be the clean and healthy system it is today. It was a sewer then.

There are only two things in history that have brought about massive environmental change...catastrophic events ( like meteors or incredible volcanic activity) and man.
None of this means the sky is falling and none of it means we can't do anything to fix it. It just means we must be aware of the consequenses of our actions. You can't keep pumping tons of crud into the water or the air and not expect it to affect things.
I don't think you need to be a pinko-liberal-socialist-hippie to understand that.
I find it difficult how anglers sometimes cannot see the forest for the trees. You readily accept and witness mans affect, both positive and negative, on fisheries on a daily basis. You accept that quotas, clean water and effective management is key to protecting the fish, yet you cannot understand the concept of mans affect on global warming.

[hollis ULed]

yes there are sat images of Greenland from the first ones that could take clear pics and current ones. The difference is shocking. I saw them on line not long ago but I don't have the link right now.

[Chris22]

Here is one link

http://www.thewe.cc/weplanet/news/water/dramatic_melt_in_arctic_icecape.htm

[Good link]

"News for the PROGRESSIVE community" :horsepoop:

[leechboy unlogged]

It's good to see this topic discussed. I think that fishermen and hunters should all have a keen interest in the enviroment. With all the misinformation about the science of GW out there, skeptics will always exist.
Some people still think the earth is flat and that we never landed on the moon either...-lb

[Skeptic Also]

Okay I went to the link from the NATIONAL Ocean and Atmosphere to check about oceans rising.
And they estimate

I quote: " Global mean sea level has been rising at an average rate of 1 to 2 mm/year over the past 100 years, which is significantly larger than the rate averaged over the last several thousand years. Projected increase from 1990-2100 is anywhere from 0.09-0.88 meters, depending on which greenhouse gas scenario is used and many physical uncertainties in contributions to sea-level rise from a variety of frozen and unfrozen water sources."

So in the next 100 years at very worst only rise less than 3 feet.
However considering the exaggeration the Global warming budgies have given us ....we can probably safely estimate only half that amount.....so maybe 18 inches. HMMMMMMMMMMM thats not exactly the twenty or 30 feet or Sky is falling book selling Gore is saying is going to washout Manhatten.

It seems to me there are a lot more factors in this cycle of climate change that the solar system causes, versus our pidley impact.

Interstingly that site should of given statistics to show where on earth the ocean went up 150 mm ,ooooh all of 4 inches in last 100 years!!!
Considering the earth was created probably 8000 years ago , I think we are doing fine.
Considering 80% of the USA is supposed to believe in God, then 80% of you should trust he created the world and knows what his purposes for it are. I get the impression we will destroy it with fire not flood.
Lets reduce pollution yes , but CO2 is not pollution.Lets spend all the global warming sky is falling money on preventing us blowwing each other up with nuclear arms or feeding the hungry now ! rather than worrying about some balmy weather our children will have. Isn't it typical of mankind to think they can control everyting and know it all. Maybe we should considers God's purposes for mankind.

[RickyP]

Skeptic Also....Your theory reminds me of a story. There was a man who was trapped on his rooftop in a great flood. He was a very religious man who believed very strongly that God would save him. Along came a man in a canoe, but the man said no thanks, God is going to save me. Next was a helicopter with a rope lowered to him to take him to safety. No thanks he said, I'm waiting for God to save me. Finally, a sheriff came by in a rowboat, but once again the man said no thanks, God is coming to save me. Well, the man finally drown. When he got to heaven, God was waiting there at the pearley gates. The man then asked God why he had let him drown. God replied, "I sent a canoe, a helicopter, and a rowboat. What more did you want me to do?"

Ignoring a serious problem that we have the power and knowledge to make better because it is somehow "God's will" doesn't make sense to me. You do go the doctor don't you? Carrying you logic out, doctors wouldn't be necessary. It's God's will right?

[Skeptic]

Its not the same at all

There is only X numbers of dollars in the world to take care of society in general.

We can spend the money now to prevent people from dieing now of starvation and war and aids and cancer etc etc. (I am quite sure God wants us to do that !)

Or we can spend the billions of dollars on some far fetched "might be" theories !
It was only 40 years ago we were being told by the same scientific community we would be heading towards an ice age in next two hundred years. Good thing common sense prevented us from back then rushing to conclusions and spending billions on that eh !!! .

[Schnauzer]

Considering how long it takes to create a glacier, and how fast they are currently melting... I don't think anyone has rushed to this conclusion. It is a pretty sound one... backed by the most informed, educated climatologists, geographers, geologists, etc. on the planet.

The ice age predictions you speak of are still there... periods of warming and cooling happen naturally, or are brought about suddenly by events like volcanoes, impacts with large meteors/commets, and yes... our own current greenhouse gas creation. We can't stop the meteors or volcanos. Maybe we can do something about all those greenhouse gasses. Maybe?

For Aids/famine etc., won't God just take care of that? You seem to have God and his will all figured out. Just let us know what he is going to do and we can work on the other stuff. Meanwhile... this Global Warming thing gets more serious every year. It is already affecting animal species all over the globe and this is only the beginning.

I must have missed Sunday School the day we got to map out the problems God would work on and the ones that were left up to us.

[Skeptic]

Good twisting of my words ..........

it seems to me that much of the extrapolation of these worst case scenarios does not factor in things they don't want to.

For example ..........all sorts of nuclear testing took place in mid 1945's to 70's (including Hiroshima/Nagaskai too)

So the math would conclude that the same rate we had back then for 50 years is the same or more we will do for next 50. But we realized our mistake about testing nuclear and major ozone holes those made.
So most of us stopped. So that extrapolation rate should be reduced by that. etc etc.
If we concentratated on how to prevent massive volacano blasts (getting rid of pressures etc ?) we would have a better chance on moving the temp meter by one degree because two extra volcanos a year destroys any improvments we think we can make in a year. It doesn't matter anyway, because anything we do will be quickly goballed up by China because we continue to support their economy by buying chinese goods at Walmart instead of loyalty shopping US or CDN. Doing that alone would move the needle and cost us three bucks more for a shirt but the shirt would be made in a enviro friendlier plant and keep our our citizens employed and prevent one less pollution plant in china from being built.

[No Fear]

Global Warming is nothing more than a cash cow for
those creating a career from it. Create a problem and
make a living from it.
Reminds me of the C.W.D. fiasco we have in Wisconsin.
Our D.N.R. didn't have enough to do, budget cuts etc.
Walla! let's create a problem to address, we'll scare the
crap out of everyone with this horrible deer disease. The
ignorant peasants will throw money at us and we will have
new careers.

[RickyP]

>Global Warming is nothing more than a cash cow for
>those creating a career from it. Create a problem and
>make a living from it.
> Reminds me of the C.W.D. fiasco we have in Wisconsin.
>Our D.N.R. didn't have enough to do, budget cuts etc.
>Walla! let's create a problem to address, we'll scare the
>crap out of everyone with this horrible deer disease. The
>ignorant peasants will throw money at us and we will have
>new careers.

Brilliant, simply brilliant. This is the most insightful post on global warming yet. No wonder it was posted anonomously.

[No Fear]

The social forces driving the hysteria of 'global warming'

But how did the official line of Royal Science and mass-media coverage manage to flip flop from the hysteria of anticipated 'global cooling' to the hysteria of 'global warming'?

By 1989, mass-media mouthpieces were promoting the notion, now dominant, that 'all' scientists in the U.S. and Europe were agreed on the reality of 'global warming'. The magazine Science, of course, was at the forefront of the new fashion. When Lindzen submitted, in the spring of 1989, a critique of the myth to Science, the paper was rejected without even being peer-reviewed. Eventually, it was accepted by the Bulletin of the American Meteorological Society, but Science took it upon itself to criticize the blackballed article before it was even published - one in a long line of clear-cut instances of Science's unethical behavior, and proof positive of the existence of an unspoken policy of general circulation of leaked submissions.

The direct political reasons for the promotion of the 'global warming' fad are to be found in the convergence of diverse social forces:

• the evolution of left (social-democratic) political forces towards a new electoral marketing - militant form of environmentalism, and technocratic managerialism;

• the transformation of 'ecological' organizations into profitable non-profit, macro-capitalist funds;

• the design of national State bureaucracies to control the entirety of social life with new regulatory mechanisms;

• the emergence of a new International State technobureaucracy in search of supranational powers and jurisdictions.

To these social forces one must add the worldwide unregulated growth of cadres and the transformation of forces of antiproduction and destruction into profitable ventures. Thus -

• an excess of PhD's in physics and mathematics with little left to aim for other than the pursuit of a career within the official institutions of organized dissent, where they endlessly generate models and fads pliable to political interests, in particular those fads that are dear to the global techno-socialist management of capitalism; and

• the subsidies, grants and investment provided to 'green' groups by some of the worst polluter industries (eg oil, nuclear companies, utilities, etc) as a way to redeem their status or blanch their image, and as a sort of 'protection fee'.

Finally, there is, as we said, a softness that, so far, is intrinsic to environmental sciences, and which makes them particularly vulnerable to mystification and political manipulation.

Of all these social forces and trends, it is apparent that the main role is played by the emerging global technobureaucracy. Taken separately, the other forces were unlikely to amass sufficient momentum for a deep social penetration. They needed a substantial partner in power, and a pseudo-scientific doctrine that could be shoved down everyone's throat. That's what they found in the UN, in its latest role as a 'regulator' of 'sustainable development and global growth', and in its highly corrupt NGO structure. From the sham Rio de Janeiro Conference, in 1992, to Kyoto, these neo-left-wing militants - their ranks swollen with crypto-anarchist volunteer slave-labor - formed the frontlines of the New Global Order, the millenial paradigm, even as they claimed to be denouncing 'globalism'. Pliable to the new international capitalism of global looting, the 'global warming' movement disguised its objectives as scientific, and 'dictated' them as being in the objective interest of mankind. The myth of 'global warming' was their precious tool:

"Global warming advocacy is big business, hundreds of millions in research and other funds are available annually for those scientists and organizations who spout the party line (just check the Pew Foundation gravy trains), don't fool yourself, scientists and professors need money and research funds, and some are willing to violate the scientific method to obtain them. (...) Sierra Club, Friends of the Earth, WWF, etc, who make these claims, (...) who present themselves as non-profit/non-partisan, are neither. They are just as biased and unscientific in their approach as the big oil, car and chemical companies are. They make money from fear mongering to collect funds from well meaning, concerned, but scientifically naive people." [4]

'Global warming' is likely to be the most expensive pseudo-scientific hoax ever implemented. As of August 22, 2005 - and since the Kyoto protocol came into effect on February 16, 2005 - the Kyoto Agreement has cost 80 billion dollars for, supposedly, a prevention of warming by 0.0008 deg C... To prevent a 1 deg C increase it will cost some 100 trillion dollars [5]. One can measure this wasteful capital expenditure by the 16 billion that was needed to shore up New Orleans and the Mississippi delta from a stage 5 hurricane like Katrina, or by the paltry 3 billion that the US spends annually in orthodox research on alternative energy (reduced, in essence, to solar cells and wind turbines) . 'Global warming' is a clearcut example of the central role acquired by antiproduction in global capitalism. Its promoters, with peer-reviewed mainstream publications at the forefront, have struck gold - a very lucrative business, where nothing needs to be actually produced, not even real science, in order for a 'healthy' profit to be made under the cover of an altruistic advocacy voicing demands in the name of mankind...

Nothing could outdo the power of this hoax in fuelling anti-Americanism worldwide, nor become as engrossing a plot for the 'prime time' show:

"The global warming circus was in full swing. Meetings were going on nonstop. One of the more striking of those meetings was hosted in the summer of 1989 by Robert Redford at his ranch in Sundance, Utah. Redford proclaimed that it was time to stop the research and begin acting. I suppose that that was a reasonable suggestion for an actor to make, but it was also indicative of the overall attitude towards science. Barbara Streisand personally undertook to support the research of Michael Oppenheimer at the Environmental Defense Fund, although he is primarily an advocate and not a climatologist. Meryl Streep made an appeal on public television to stop warming. A bill was even prepared to guarantee Americans a stable climate." [1]

From Jeremy Legget of Greenpeace, to George Mitchell and Albert Gore (who compared the 'true believers' in 'global warming' to Galileo! Caramba!), 'global warming' had become the latest soap, an international brand to sell books and plead for donations. Lindzen appropriately concludes:

"Rarely has such meager science provoked such an outpouring of popularization by individuals who do not understand the subject in the first place."

To the long list of circus performers, one must add that other latecomer among the plethora of modern trashcans, the populist purveyor of gross ineptitude - Wikipedia, ruled by a neo-maoist cabal of 'global warming' zealots.

[RickyP]

And I for one am not willing to form my opinion of global warming on what one man (Lindzen) has to say about it. I can pull many quotes off the internet that marginalize his view on the subject. It appears he could well be in the hip pocket of large energy companies who would like to see the global warming issue go away, and stand to lose economically if it is acted upon. Who do you trust? I certainly think the subject is important enough to look at a whole spectrum of views.

[Steven North]

Gad, you people keep reporting the same old misinformation. 40 years ago "the scientific community" did NOT say that we were going into an ice age. A couple of contrarian scientist wrote a few poorly designed papers that gave scenarios about how the world could be cooler. The "scientific community certainly did NOT endorse this but every time this subject is brought up you parrot the same old thing, hoping it gives a bit of credence to how the statements of, by far the majority of scientists that work in the field believe in global warming. But then, you believe the world is only 8,000 years old.

[Ponder this]

Caught a Discovery channel show on this topic. A brief comment was made how pollution, as least the floating particulate may actually prevent global warming by reflecting the suns energy back into space rather than letting it heat the water and ground. Of course they spent about 5 seconds on this and the remaining hour on how terrible humans have abused the planet...

Out of all of it, it does seem that the weather has been warmer, hard to argue right now especially. There are facts that point out the planet has undergone exponential changes in its millions of years history. Always having effect on living things during those changes.

I think sometimes people get too caught up in what they can and can't change. Reducing CO2 emissions is great if it lessens dependence on foreign oil, but that is a seperate agenda cloaked in global warming spew. By in large when talking about an evolving planet, that's like bailing out a cracked boat with a dixey cup. Mother nature still calls the shots, humans would be better off grabbing a life jacket or in other words "adapt."

[Skeptic cubed]

Hey don't question Al Gore. After all he did invent the internet. Al Gore is banking on global warming. If you guys buy that the world is going into an ice age (Hollywood movie) or that the oceans are going to rise 30 feet, then you will vote for Al Gore. He has everything to gain by promoting global warming.

[Global cooling]

http://denisdutton.com/cooling_world.htm

From the same nuts that brought you global cooling, we now have global warming. Just do a global search and replace on this article and replace "global cooling" with global warming and compare it to today's articles. Quite a few Phds from NOAA being quoted. Why should we have believed them then? Why should we believe then now?

[D. Warda]

Do you ever read anyone else's posts? I believe Steve addressed this too. This was a Newsweek reporters idea of piecing together a story. I believe at the same time there was another in a similar popular press around the same time. This was not a popular view then and was not in any scientific publication. You can find stories in Newsweek and Time about Britiany Spears this week. A few weeks ago they had some about her that were inaccurate. They need headlines and gee wiz stuff, not places I trust for my science information.

[Dacotah Eye]

I hope the bull around here isn't contributing to it. :sorry: :cheers:

[Global cooling]

The opinions were from Phds from NOAA. The same government organization who is making the predictions now. Apparently there was enough of a cooling spell from the 1940s - 1979 to make it in print in Newsweek and the local newspapers many times. I am glad that it is over and famine and widespread hunger has been averted. I much prefer warm to cold. The current global warming trend will be over when we head into the next cooling trend. And then people will laugh at this theory once again.

[Schnauzer]

Well Warda,

You asked if he ever read anyone else's post. I think you got your answer: No.

[Global cooling]

I did read Steve's post. He failed to point out that scientists from our own government agency NOOA were supporting the Global Cooling theory. If you have data to support that there was global warming from 1940 - 1979, I would like to see it. If you can show that crop production INCREASED during this period due to global warming, I would like to see that also.

[Bib Bob the Fisherman]

Kind of makes me huungry for a burger!