Posts Tagged Global Warming
Many of the activists on Global Warming don’t believe that educating people about this crises works, that education won’t do any good for those who refuse to be educated. Or that people in Utah who are not on our side won’t be educate; or some variant of these.
What I see, however is that the best scientists and leaders of the movement are right now trying desperately to educate. James Hansen is one example. His lecture on Monday night at UNC, Chapel Hill is here.
Why I say education is needed, and we need it ourselves, is that the science and the data related to Global Warming (GW) and Climate Change (CC) are constantly changing. The implications and likely results of what we are doing becomes more dire each week. If we want to ask for policy changes and personal changes because of GW & CC, it would seem that we should know the situation, at least have conversational knowledge of the topic, or we should know where to go to get the current best information. We probably need that at-hand if we are going to talk to those in our communities about it, deniers or not. So education and accurate communication is crucial when the situation gets more dire each week.
Much of the science is straightforward, much of the data is clear and simple. I don’t think that learning the science of GW & CC—at least to get to understand that catastrophe is soon approaching–is more difficult than learning how to drive. Yet, we learn driving because we see it as necessary to operate in our world. Because GW & CC is not yet seen as necessary to understand by many, perhaps most, does not mean that we can’t take the position that it is important for everyone to understand the basic science and data. Read the rest of this entry »
Posted by in This Blog on January 2, 2010
While doing a Google search for global warming 2010 it is interesting to note that by 2010 many of the predicted doomsday scenarios were to have played out. We are now in 2010 and none of the dire predictions have yet to materialize.
A funny thing happened however. Nature did not cooperate with the scientific consensus and the computer models. Just goes to show you cannot fool mother nature.
Global warming expected to snowball after 2010…
Fri, Aug 10, 2007
A report published in the Science journal yesterday by leading climate scientists outlines the most detailed model to date predicting the climate over the next ten years – and it’s not looking good.
2010 may be hottest year ever
PTI 12 December 2009, 12:25am IST
LONDON: 2010 is likely to be the world’s warmest year on record, the British Met Office has predicted.
According to the Met Office, man-made climate change will be a factor and natural weather patterns would contribute less to 2010’s temperature than they did in 1998, the current warmest year in the 160-year record
We will hold them to this.
Global warming ‘is three times faster than worst predictions’
By Geoffrey Lean, Environment Editor
Sunday, 3 June 2007
Global warming is accelerating three times more quickly than feared, a series of startling, authoritative studies has revealed.
They have found that emissions of carbon dioxide have been rising at thrice the rate in the 1990s. The Arctic ice cap is melting three times as fast – and the seas are rising twice as rapidly – as had been predicted.
Another prediction that has not panned out.
Global Warming to Cause 50 Million Refugees by 2010
Friday November 4, 2005
“Scholars are predicting that 50 million people worldwide will be displaced by 2010 because of rising sea levels, desertification, dried up aquifers, weather-induced flooding and other serious environmental changes brought on by global warming and the resulting climate changes.” writes Larry West, About.com’s Guide to Environmental Issues.
So where are all these 50 million environmental refugees? Did the rapture happen and no one told us?
Climate Shift Tied To 150,000 Fatalities
Earth’s warming climate is estimated to contribute to more than 150,000 deaths and 5 million illnesses each year, according to the World Health Organization, a toll that could double by 2030.
in 2009 The number claimed shot up to 300,000
Global Warming is already responsible for 300,000 deaths a year and is affecting 300m people, according to the first comprehensive study of the human impact of global warming.
It projects that increasingly severe heatwaves, floods, storms and forest fires will be responsible for as many as 500,000 deaths a year by 2030, making it the greatest humanitarian challenge the world faces.
Wow! it only took a few years for the numbers to double not all the way to 2030. At this rate half the world population will be wiped out by 2030.
Whew talk about inflation. I guess in 2010 we can expect at least a half a million but since numbers are being arbitrarily thrown around why not say 10 million or even better 100 million?
Predictions of global warming have never panned out but the warmers with their religious zeal keep trumpeting it. It was convenient to make predictions back in the 90s and early two thousands because it was far enough away but we are now well within the period that temperatures where supposed to be through the roof and small Island nations should have already been flooded out well on their way to being swallowed up by the sea.
The famous hockey-stick and Nasa’s James Hanson’s graph’s had steady increases from 1998 on but we have seen a cooling trend since then, the exact opposite of what the warmer scientists and computer models predicted.
A new study that has recently been published also contradicts the assumption that atmospheric C02 has risen steadily, but in fact the study shows that it has remained consistent since for 160 years even though humans have steadily increased carbon output.
People are becoming increasingly skeptical of global warming because they have heard all these dire warnings and have taken note that everything predicted is simply not happening. The warmers keep having to move their predictions further out when their earlier predictions fail to materialize. How often must they be proven wrong for the hard core warmers to start questioning the entire concept of global warming?
The warmers know they are losing the PR battle. The first sign was when they were forced to change the terminology used from global warming to climate change. No one has to change the terminology when they are winning the argument. The problem is the public was sold on warming and now that it has not materialized the proponents had to come up with new euphemisms as a desperate attempt to keep their cause alive. It won’t work.
White hat hackers, deserving of the Nobel Peace Price, procured emails from a British University server, hosting some of the most prominent global warming researchers, exposes a conspiracy to manipulate data, overstate conclusions and hide contrary evidence.
From the New York Times
In several e-mail exchanges, Kevin Trenberth, a climatologist at the National Center for Atmospheric Research, and other scientists discuss gaps in understanding of recent variations in temperature. Skeptic Web sites pointed out one line in particular: “The fact is that we can’t account for the lack of warming at the moment and it is a travesty that we can’t,” Dr. Trenberth wrote.
In one e-mail exchange, a scientist writes of using a statistical “trick” in a chart illustrating a recent sharp warming trend. In another, a scientist refers to climate skeptics as “idiots.”
Some skeptics asserted Friday that the correspondence revealed an effort to withhold scientific information. “This is not a smoking gun; this is a mushroom cloud,” said Patrick J. Michaels, a climatologist who has long faulted evidence pointing to human-driven warming and is criticized in the documents.
In one email they even refer to the death of a global warming skeptic as “cheering news”
When the story first broke the University and scientists tried to deny the emails authenticity but since then the scientists have fessed up and admitted they are authentic but somehow think they should not be held accountable because the emails were taken by nefarious means.
So far the MSM has either ignored the story or are trying to discredit the scandal because of the hackers but the fact is these emails show a culture of corruption among leading global warming “scientists” and at best shows they have a circle the wagon mentality that has clouded their scientific judgment.
There are calls for congressional investigations on what has been dubbed “climategate” but seeing that so many in Congress stand to benifit by the conspiracy it will go about as far as ACORN investigations but this may become too big to contain.
These hackers do bring to mind the two young journalists who exposed ACORN and brought it to its knees, Likewise, this has the potential of finally putting to rest the greatest scientific conspiracy in history.
Wall Street Journal has a link to download the emails (over 60 MB).
And hundreds more: Google Search on Climategate.
It must be very lonely being the last flat-earther.
Sen. Jim Inhofe of Oklahoma, committed climate-change denier, found himself in just such a position Tuesday morning as the Senate environment committee, on which he is the ranking Republican, took up legislation on global warming. Sen. Lindsey Graham (R-S.C.) was in talks with Democrats over a compromise bill — the traitor! And as Inhofe listened, fellow Republicans on the committee — turncoats! — made it clear that they no longer share, if they ever did, Inhofe’s view that man-made global warming is the “greatest hoax ever perpetrated on the American people.” —>>Read the rest<<–
How did this slip past the editors of the BBC? One of the leading global warming promoters is asking the forbidden question “what happened to global warming?“. To even use the term global warming in a month with an ‘R’ in it is unfathomable but to actually contemplate that climate change may not be occurring is downright heresy. They even go as far as to suggest that global warming skeptics may have legitimate arguments and that the debate over climate change is “far from over”. gasp!
The BBC sites the fact that world temperatures peaked in 1998 and have steadily declined ever since and that the infallible computer models did not predict this. They also site a study that shows the sun may have been the driving force for increased temperatures during the 20th century and not from increased atmospheric carbon dioxide as claimed by Al Gore and global warming believers.
Since atmospheric Carbon Dioxide has increased since 1998 there should have been a corresponding increase in world temperatures but that has not occurred which has baffled scientists. Maybe they will be less baffled if they use actual science to come to their conclusions and show a willingness to change the conventional wisdom when confronted with data that does not fit their preconceived notions?
From The BBC What happened to global warming?
This headline may come as a bit of a surprise, so too might that fact that the warmest year recorded globally was not in 2008 or 2007, but in 1998.
But it is true. For the last 11 years we have not observed any increase in global temperatures.
And our climate models did not forecast it, even though man-made carbon dioxide, the gas thought to be responsible for warming our planet, has continued to rise.
So what on Earth is going on?
|Should the US spend tax money to try and stop global warming?|
|Is global warming Real? (G)||Is it human caused? (H)||Will it be catastophic? (C)||Can we stop it? (S)||G ^ H ^ C ^ S|
|By Ken Bingham|
This is a logic truth table. It carries every option conceivable based on the propositions listed. I have removed the false options on ‘is global warming real’, not because it may or may not be real but that a false renders everything else not only false but irrelevant.
The first 3 propositions are conditions that global warming believers must meet for their hypothesis to even be considered valid.
1. ‘Is global warming real?’ I have not included false logic on the first question since if that premise is false then all others are irrelevant.
2. ‘Is it human caused?’ The question is essential because if it is not human caused then the 4th proposition is automatically false. If humans are not responsible for global warming then there is no possibility we can do anything about it and spending trillions on it would be an act of futility.
3. ‘Will it be catastrophic?’ This is an important question because even if global warming is real and human caused if it is not going to have massive negative effects then it would not be worth spending trillions of dollars to combat a non-problem.
(2 and 3 are not mutually exclusive because even if global warming is human caused it does not automatically mean it will be catastrophic or vise versa.)
4. ‘Can we stop it?’ Must always be true in order to justify spending trillions of dollars, not to mention our freedoms, to stop global warming. However, I would submit that there is nothing that justifies losing our freedom.
Thus my analysis comes to this, if we can’t stop global warming then it is irrelevant whether it is happening or not. If it is really happening then we must expend our efforts to adapt to it rather than tilting at windmills spending trillions of good dollars over bad in a Quixotic effort to try and stop it.
All we can do is adapt which is the only thing nature truly cares about.