Twitter
StumbleUpon
Facebook
Delicious
Digg
Newsvine
Google
Yahoo
TechnoratiParched: Australia Faces Collapse as Climate Change Kicks In
Leaves are falling off trees in the height of summer, railway tracks are buckling, and people are retiring to their beds with deep-frozen hot-water bottles, as much of Australia swelters in its worst-ever heatwave.
![[A man sunbathes on rocks at a beach in Melbourne January 31, 2009. (Reuter/Mick Tsikas)]](http://www.commondreams.org/files/article_images/heatwave.jpg "heatwave.jpg")
On Friday, Melbourne thermometers topped 43C (109.4F) on a third successive day for the first time on record, while even normally mild Tasmania suffered its second-hottest day in a row, as temperatures reached 42.2C. Two days before, Adelaide hit a staggering 45.6C. After a weekend respite, more records are expected to be broken this week.
Ministers are blaming the heat - which follows a record drought - on global warming. Experts worry that Australia, which emits more carbon dioxide per head than any nation on earth, may also be the first to implode under the impact of climate change.
At times last week it seemed as if that was happening already. Chaos ruled in Melbourne on Friday after an electricity substation exploded, shutting down the city's entire train service, trapping people in lifts, and blocking roads as traffic lights failed. Half a million homes and businesses were blacked out, and patients were turned away from hospitals.
More than 20 people have died from the heat, mainly in Adelaide. Trees in Melbourne's parks are dropping leaves to survive, and residents at one of the city's nursing homes have started putting their clothes in the freezer.
"All of this is consistent with climate change, and with what scientists told us would happen," said climate change minister Penny Wong.
Australia, the driest inhabited continent on earth, is regarded as highly vulnerable. A study by the country's blue-chip Commonwealth Scientific and Industrial Research Organisation identified its ecosystems as "potentially the most fragile" on earth in the face of the threat.
Many factors put Australia especially at risk. Its climate is already hot, dry and variable. Its vulnerable agriculture plays an unusually important part in the economy. And most people and industry are concentrated on the coast, making it vulnerable to the rising seas and ferocious storms that come with a warmer world.
Most of the south of the country is gripped by unprecedented 12-year drought. The Australian Alps have had their driest three years ever, and the water from the vast Murray-Darling river system now fails to reach the sea 40 per cent of the time. Harvests have fallen sharply.
It will get worse as global warming increases. Even modest temperature rises, now seen as unavoidable, are expected to increase drought by 70 per cent in New South Wales, cut Melbourne's water supplies by more than a third, and dry up the Murray-Darling system by another 25 per cent.
As Professor David Karoly, of the University of Melbourne, said last week: "The heat is unusual, but it will become much more like the normal experience in 10 to 20 years."
204 Comments so far
Show AllThis is a comment thread about Australia's situation faced by extreme weather.
With great pathos and sadness I came across these pictures of a koala so hot and thirsty it had to descend the dry trees and ask at a house for water! See what happened next here -
http://climateprogress.org/2009/02/06/
australia-hot-dry-koala-waltzing-mathilda/
Any science literate delayers and deniers, please read this.
If you can extract a substantial error in this analysis by Barry Brook - one of Australia's leading climate scientists and communicators then fire away......
But - if you post a criticism in your own name here, do so as well in a comment on Barry's webpage. That will show your have confidence in your comment and you don't mind it being examined by an Australian science literate web audience. If you don't then we can treat what you say as the vapid tosh that it is.
IS THERE A LINK BETWEEN ADELAIDE’S HEATWAVE AND GLOBAL WARMING?
http://bravenewclimate.com/2009/02/03/
is-there-a-link-between-adelaides-heatwave-and-global-warming
So, in Adelaide we have two freakishly rare extreme events happening with a 10 month period. How likely is that? Well, if the events are totally independent, we’d expect the joint likelihood of two such heatwaves (of 0.25% probability per year [the 2009 event] and 0.033% per year [2008 event], respectively), occurring within the same 12 month period, to happen about once every 1,200,000 years.
Is that unlikely enough for you? But if there is ‘autocorrelation’ - dependencies between the two events due to a linked cause, such as climate change - this calculated probability is not valid.
What exactly do I mean by this? Well, the heatwave that struck Europe is 2003 provides a good way to illustrate my final point, thanks to a neat analysis published in Nature in 2004 [http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v432/n7017/abs/nature03089.html].
The authors of this study estimate that warming to date has at least doubled the probability of such an extreme heatwave occurring. Moreover, under ongoing heating, climate models suggest that by 2040, this extraordinarily hot summer (in historical terms) will be just a run-of-the-mill average summer.
By 2060, it will be among the coolest of summers the future residents of Europe will thereafter ever experience.
AUSTRALIA IS PIONEERING THE TRACK SOON TO BE FOLLOWED BY CALIFORNIA, SOUTHERN EUROPE AND SOUTHERN AFRICA.
Hear Barry Brook's excellent seminar series here -
http://www.adelaide.edu.au/climatechange/seminars/climateqanda
Mark
Hope for the best, but plan for the worst.
If we don't plan that way,
hindsight from 50 years hence,
won't provide us any comfort.
From Adelaide:
Record for the most consecutive days above 40C is 6, this has occurred twice,
Jan 14-19 1908 40.7, 43.1, 41.8, 43.4, 42.8, 43.4
Jan 27-Feb 1 2009 43.2, 45.7, 43.4, 43.1, 41.1, 40.6
Four consecutive days above 40C has occurred 7 times
Feb 1899
Jan 1905
Jan 1906
Jan 1908 (Jan 1908 would have been a killer)
Jan 1912
March 1940
Jan 2006
The hottest day recorded was in 1939
Isn't it amazing how people who deny man-made global warming/climate change refuse to accept it unless every scientist in the world will vouch for it, but are perfectly fine trusting science to keep nuclear power safe and clean?
GETTING BEYOND THE DOUBTERS - SOMETHING USEFUL TO READ ABOUT....
Some highly recommended You Tube videos from a recent conference:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=O6JK9dAvfdI&feature=related
and http://www.youtube.com/watch?gl=GB&hl=en-GB&v=qKa_VCWbGJ0
Interesting to watch - tell me if, or why, the opinions are wrong...
This comes from:
www.arts.manchester.ac.uk/lti/projects/religionandclimatechange/futureethics/
workshop3/workshop3reports/
Take a look at the starter papers, and particularly at Aaran Stibbe’s paper
Finally you can see here an interview with Roman Krznaric, a writer and teacher on creative thinking about the art of living and social change.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ay0ZbmW2Ias&feature=related
and Roman's excellent paper Empathy and Climate Change: Proposals for a Revolution of Human Relationships. Get it here:
http://www.arts.manchester.ac.uk/lti/projects/
religionandclimatechange/futureethics/workshop2/
workshop2reports/fileuploadmax10mb,144491,en.pdf
You heard about all this here, first.......
The world is warming
Fossil fuels are causing this
More warming will come.
Yes you are quite right.
The more I see, speak about or write about global warming, the more I realize I share a lot in common with guys like you - the doubters and deniers who populate the blogosphere and the conservative movement.
I'm dubious about the process used by the U.N. Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) to write its reports.
I am skeptical of the so-called consensus on climate science as reflected in the IPCC reports.
I disagree with people who say "the science is settled." But that's where the agreement ends.
The science isn't settled - it is terribly unsettling, and getting more so every year, as the scientific community learns more about the catastrophic consequences of uncontrolled greenhouse gas emissions.
The big difference between you and people like me (a growing majority of informed citizens who have looked in depth at climate change science) is that you doubters and associated trolls and weirdos, somehow have contorted yourselves into a belief that the IPCC reports seriously overstate the impact of human emissions on the climate.
But you are obviously just wrong.
The actual observed climate data clearly shows that the IPCC consensus dramatically understated the impacts, ignored major feedbacks and tipping elements in Earth's systems, and built into their scenarios substantial assumptions that are unlikely to hold. All this means that the sheer difficulty in extricating humanity out of our predicament has been seriously underestimated.
Now the evolving body of findings - live, peer-reviewed, authoritative science - is rapidly accumulating into a solid updated consensus that baldly states just how deeply we are in trouble.
If you want to stick to your flat-earth contrarianism, put blinkers around your eyeballs, insert assorted mental filters, then you can just go and put your head into the snow to enjoy the PDO cooling, pick the start and end points for your graphs like cherries, link up with like-minded minority oddballs for funky group think, gently succumb to the CO2 loga-rhythmns, get with the low point of the solar cycle, while all this lasts ....
I pray for my kids, for the ecosystems and organisms we all depend on, and for the exposed marginal millions on this planet, that against all the odds, your doubts are right.
If you are not, and if you're alive in 20 years time, I hope you have the integrity and courage to tell your descendents living in a climate-changed world, that your contribution back then - that is now today - was to hang around comment threads and engage in obfuscating 'debate', making out that the more CO2, the greater the warming, the better.
HI ya Sigurdur 1.
Why bother? IT is because your information is not reliable. Don't you get it that if you look at the sources of some of this crap that it has no merit?
Forget weather for a while, look at climate if you would?????
And sir: if you don't think the sun has an influence on temps......then I just feel sorry for you.
if you don't think the sun has an influence on temps......then I just feel sorry for you.
This is exactly the kind of appeal that misinformers and dividers use constantly. Of course, the statement is correct; the Sun is the source of almost all of our heat, 24/7, for the past 4.7 billion years. Your point is?
Your point is nothing other than to humiliate the unaware.
What you have deliberately failed to articulate is your assertion that cyclical variations in solar output has had an effect on our climate (and the climate of other planets). Unfortunately for you, this assertion has been debunked by almost every planetary scientist and climatologist.
Never criticize a man until you've walked a mile in their moccasins - Native American proverb.
OH MY GOD!
So my nemesis Sigurdur_11 and his friend Snydly (now stringing along with Goblue) have done EXACTLY THE SAME to this discussion as they did to an earlier piece on Common Dreams - http://www.commondreams.org/headline/2008/12/26-7?page=1 Faster Climate Change Feared
There we had a long argument where my facts refuted an endless series of cobbled semi-lunatic assertions.... Just a waste of time, nothing was learnt, he did not benefit....
You guys are just MAGIC - predictable freaks who hang out on Common Dreams like trolls make the same twerpish arguments, getting refuted by the likes of Frangelica, WTF and all the others.
The same 'petitions', logarithmic cosmic rays, solar cycles, oodles of wacko arguments drudged out of the pits of the internet..... And made true just because you just believe it to be so.
Nothing distinguishes your mental behavior and disrepect of science from that of the hardest creationists and other contrarian flat-earthers...
WHAT IS THE POINT? WHY IS ANYONE ARGUING WITH YOU? IT'S ALWAYS THE SAME....
DO YOU GET A KICK OUT OF REPEATED HUMILIATION...?
GO AWAY!
JUST GET THE HECK OFF THESE PAGES, YOU ARE SIMPLETON CLOGS, CLOGGING ANYTHING SENSIBLE UP WITH REPETITIOUS AND LUDICROUS, PURE, DISTILLED, CRAP.
WHY DO YOU BOTHER?
JUST GO AWAY...
We bother because we care.
I want to figure out, or be told, how the spikes happen, and have happened as they are depicted on the chart that was used to make the GW argument---an argument BTW that I not only buy, but expand into an even bigger and better reason to go to alternative fuels and a lifestyle closely in harmony with Nature.
Who are you yelling at?
The folks in Queensland would like to see some of that water flow away and not come back for a few days.
Snydly,
The famous hockey stick curve. Here is the graph going back over 400,000 years based on ice core samples. As you can see, CO2 levels follow, not lead earth's temperature. Again, earth's temperature determines the level of CO2, not the other way around. Dr. Michael Mann's hockey stick curve Al Gore relies on is very deceptive because it only show a very short period of time. Also, it is very easy to corrupt a few professors or scientists to do and say what the establish wants. All it take is money or university endowments.
http://images.google.com/imgres?imgurl=http://noconsensus.files.wordpress.com/2008/08/historical-tempe...
Better explanation of what is happening based on over 400,000 years of data.
http://images.google.com/imgres?imgurl=http://maybeitsnotwarming.com/wp-content/uploads/2008/02/hockey...
The Vostok data that you show (published 1999) has actually been shown to be extremely robust supported by many subsequent independent ice cores taken in other areas in Antarctica. This is good news, something that even the buffoon Gore can take in his stride. Actually, the assertion that there might be a lag of CO2 concentrations behind temperature change (during glacial-interglacial climate changes) is hardly new to the climate science community, and was first proposed in a landmark paper by Lorius, Jouzel, Raynaud, Hansen and Treut in 1990 (yes, THAT Jim Hansen). [Note that I commented earlier in this thread on another recent paper by Jouzel and Raynaud that has also been misinterpreted by the CC-denialists].
However, you need to pay attention. We know why CO2 is increasing now, and the direct radiative effects of CO2 on climate have been known for more than 100 years. In the absence of human intervention CO2 does rise and fall over time, due to exchanges of carbon among the biosphere, atmosphere, and ocean and, on the very longest timescales, the lithosphere (i.e. rocks, oil reservoirs, coal, carbonate rocks). The rates of those exchanges are now being completely overwhelmed by the rate at which we are extracting carbon from the latter set of reservoirs and converting it to atmospheric CO2. No discovery made with ice cores is going to change those basic facts.
There is an excellent discussion on the meaning and interpretation of the Vostok and subsequent EPICA data at:
http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2007/04/the-lag-between-temp-and-co2/langswitch_lang/sw
Never criticize a man until you've walked a mile in their moccasins - Native American proverb.
Goblue...which "blue" would that be BTW? (Skies, or a pretty girl's eyes??)
On the first site I noticed the words "...the first thing you see is that CO2..." and on.
But, that's not the first thing I see.
The second site on the 400ky chart shows again what the first chart shows.
SPIKES, my Friend, SPIKES! And THAT'S what all the fuss should be about. Please read my previous posts closely so we can talk about it. There is more here than meets the eye.
(CD Jan 29, Jan 30 9:14PM comment on Gore and decision moment)
Thanks
Scare tactics don't work. To be credible, the data sets have to remain firm, and less emphasis on the models, which are not reliable forcasts of the future.
To the cooling deniers. Don't fixate on 30 years. That is weather. Look at the long term picture. And as much as you hate it, look at the cycles of the sun. The sun plays a much larger role in climate than co2 does. Anyone that thinks otherwise just isn't thinking. I am talking climate here again folks.
To those who think they should burn carbon based fuels with impunity. That is just as nuts as the AGW folks. Conservation should be forfront in everyone's mind as carbon is a finite resource. We are blessed with many other ways of producting energy, and those blessings should be explored and used as much as possible.
The science of climate is not mature. Admit it and get on with life. The science that shows carbon based fuels are finite is mature. Use that to your advantage to promote conservation. Those facts can nottttt be argued.
I agree that we should not focus on localized climate or 30 years of observations. However, by suggesting solar cycles may be responsible is abrogating your own suggestion of ignoring recent data. The solar-cycle thing was a single paper by C. Camp and K. K. Tung that uses data that goes back only to 1960. What CC-deniers fail to acknowledge is that Camp and Tung published a follow-up paper "Solar-Cycle Warming at the Earth’s Surface and an Observational Determination of Climate Sensitivity". Independently of models, they calculate a climate sensitivity between 2.3-4.1 °C. E.g., if CO2 levels are doubled, global temperatures will increase around 3.2 °C. This confirms the IPCC estimate of climate sensitivity. In Tung's own words, The finding adds to the evidence that mainstream climate models are right about the likely extent of future human-generated warming. It also effectively rules out some lower estimates in those models.
The other significant finding is that solar forcing will add another 0.18 °C warming on top of greenhouse warming between 2007 (we're currently at solar minimum) to the solar maximum around 2012. In other words, solar forcing will double the amount of global warming over the next five to six years.
Camp and Tung conclude: Since the equilibrium response should be larger than the periodic response measured, the periodic solar-cycle response measurements yields a lower bound on the equilibrium climate sensitivity that is equivalent to a global warming of 2.3 °K at doubled CO2. A 95% confidence interval is estimated to be 2.3-4.1 °K. This range is established independent of models.
What this means is that the temperature range 2.3-4.1 °K (1 °K = 1 °C) is very similar to what the latest estimates of how much the Earth will warm should CO2 levels reach double their pre-industrial maximum -- 3.2 °C. In other words, this paper supplies independent confirmation of what computer climate models are predicting, something that climatologists yearn for.
So quit cherry-picking data that supports your agenda and keep up with the science. It has left you behind.
Never criticize a man until you've walked a mile in their moccasins - Native American proverb.
WHAT?!?!
Do you clowns think I'm just trying to sell more copies of "An Inconvenient Truth"??
Until you have read and interpreted the big chart or the IPCC charts it's derived from, you're just sqeezing each other's noses and squirting seltzer at each other. Get the frikkin CHART, THEN talk.
The thing isn't political, it's just like tree rings, or sediment layers, or magnetic striping. Real stuff that gets analysed and written down by boring, pedantic 9 to 5 scientific technicians. And don't stand too close to the book---you can see the whole story from 5 feet away. Why do you think Al projected it on a studio WALL and got on a forklift to show it?!?
Ay Carumba!
Joe:
Methane is a short lived gas. Around 8 years. It won't be a problem.
To be precise, methane has a half-life of around 8 years. With the volume of methane projected to be inserted into the atmosphere, that little problem will be around for over 100,000 years. Please, let's be accurate and avoid flippancies such as "it won't be a problem".
Never criticize a man until you've walked a mile in their moccasins - Native American proverb.
At first, any methane bubble that has escaped from under the melting tundra will be like a giant flammable fart with high global warming potential. Over the course of 8 years each CH4 will be oxidized by two O2's to a CO2 and 2 H2O's.
Every methane molecule will produce one molecule of CO2, and use up two molecules of O2, which will not particularly help global warming. The oxidation could happen slowly over time, or quickly if a flame is around the eruption.
I do not think we have a basis to say there will be no problems with methane. Regards to Kem Patrick, wherever he may be.
(scuse my language - I don't know the euphemism for fart)
Joe
Thanks for the correction WTF. It is a half-life of 8 years.
Joe
I believe the current polite term is 'belch'.
Or flatulence.
Never criticize a man until you've walked a mile in their moccasins - Native American proverb.
WTC,
Your replies are so misleading, or they don't address my question. I will comment on each one separately. You said,
"Gore is not a scientist, nor can he present and argue data like a scientist."
You have to be kidding me. A person like Al Gore doesn't know whether or not polar bears are drowning? You do not have to be a scientist to know this. Again, a quick search by a middle school student would realize this. In fact, polar bear population has more than quadrupled during the past 25 years. From 5,000 to around 20,000-25,000. So, did Al Gore make an honest mistake, or was he purposely lying to get all the animal lovers and school children behind his scam? I'd say he was lying. In fact, this lie is so blatant and obvious, he should never have brought it up. I cannot believe he got a Nobel Peace Prize, an Oscar, and an Emmy for his junk science, "Inconvenient Truth." It is absolutely mind bobbling. Again, you do not have to be a scientist to know whether or not polar bears are drowning. Thus, your reply to my question gets you an "E."
If you have not realized it yet, or refuse to realize it, just as Bush/Cheney used the bogus war on terror to make hundreds of billions for themselves and their friend, it appears, unfortunately, that Al Gore, Obama and their handlers are ready to use GW to scam hundreds of billions of dollars for themselves and their friends.
I actually liked Al Gore and believed everything he said before I realized the scam. Just eight months ago, I was hoping he would run for president. I even have a Gore/Obama button. What a disappointment.
Don't drink too much of the government kool aid. You will be severely disappointed.
I am still waiting for your comments on my answers to your questions 2, 3, and also answers to my questions on your qualifications (arm-chair scientist will suffice), and how any middle-school student would answer.
Instead, you fixate on Al Gore, which is pretty much all that CC-deniers can do. Gore is a buffoon, and an easy target. Your question about "polar bears drowning" is irrelevant to any discussion on CC, and serves only to obfuscate any discussion.
To be honest, CC-deniers use as much cherry-picked data, bad science and hyperbole as Gore. Neither of you do any service for humanity, other than to wage a war of words that mandates delay.
Never criticize a man until you've walked a mile in their moccasins - Native American proverb.
a more balanced article on recent Australian weather http://www.theaustralian.news.com.au/story/0,25197,25000195-2702,00.html
WTF,
Ahh, the classic, attack the messenger and not the message. A tactic one uses when one cannot win a debate. Something a person like Rush Limbaugh would use. Since no amount of evidence will persuade you that GW is a naturally occurring event, let me ask a few questions even middle school students can answer. I hope you will answer them.
1. Al Gore told us polar bears are in trouble and that they are drowning. Do you believe that?
2. Man-made CO2 only accounts for .13% of ALL greenhouse gases. It has been this way since the industrial revolution began some 200 years ago. Do you believe that this minute amount of man-made CO2 is actually causing our climate to change so drastically that we should be afraid? Naturally occurring CO2 accounts for about .25% or twice man-made CO2.
3. What is causing other planets in our solar system to warm up? Is it the SUVs and factories on earth? Do other planet have SUVs and factories? Or, could it be the cyclical nature of the SUN!
http://www.google.com/search?sourceid=navclient&ie=UTF-8&rlz=1T4GGLR_enUS252US253&q=planets+in+our+sol...
Again, instead of attacking the messenger, I hope you will answer the questions above.
You soil the chant of a great and intellectually rigorous institution. You should've done your homework.
GoBlue,
Answers to questions:
1) The message that Gore carries is not effectively communicated to either policy makers or the public that continues to mistakenly perceive debate among scientists. Gore is not a scientist, nor can he present and argue data like a scientist. He is a salesman, nothing more, and makes all the mistakes that salesman make. I stand by data, not political gesturing.
2) I don't know how you can make such a ridiculous statement that man-made CO2 has remained constant since the start of the industrial revolution. Not only has our population increased in the last 250 years, so too has our demands for energy. Add to that the deforestation that has occurred since then, you have an increasing source, and a decreasing sink. Every paper I have read indicate that CO2 levels have increased from 280ppm to 385ppm over the past 250 years. How can you say with a straight face that CO2 levels have remained constant?
3) Please read this:
http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2005/10/global-warming-on-mars/
Basically, one paper was written looking at a single Martian Summer and inferring global warming from the 3-year Martian regional trend. Two words: Bad science. The authors are not able to discriminate between weather and climate, as in this CD article.
How did your "middle-school" student answer?
Your ploy of "attacking the messenger, not the message" is specious and typical of a misinformant. The message is wrong. Earlier civilizations killed the messenger for bringing a message of lies. Consider yourself lucky.
Never criticize a man until you've walked a mile in their moccasins - Native American proverb.
SarahConnah
"On the Beach: The Sequel"
Lets look at the "credentials" of CC deniers GoBlue and Sigurdur_11.
GoBlue is a new user and as far as I can see, this is the first CD thread he/she has posted on, ever.
Sigurdur_11 joined us a couple of years ago, but has limited his/her comments to CD articles on CC and the joys of the nuclear power industry.
Never criticize a man until you've walked a mile in their moccasins - Native American proverb.
Did our groundhog just promise Australia 6 more weeks of summer??
WTF:
When you post the realclimate link, you lose credibility as well.
I have posted on the url, and to get a straight answer is like pulling an elephants tusk off.
Gavin will dance around an issue, even if you present him with evidence.
Used to think that he was a straightforward fellow....not any more. He has an agenda just like Mr. Hansen.
I do know one thing for sure, Gavin does notttttt like someone who has actually read the IPCC report in its entirety.
For other CD readers, Gavin Schmidt who runs the realclimate page is a climate modeller at the NASA Goddard Institute for Space Studies in New York and is interested in modeling past, present and future climate. He received a BA (Hons) in Mathematics from Oxford University, a PhD in Applied Mathematics from University College London and was a NOAA Postdoctoral Fellow in Climate and Global Change Research. He serves on the CLIVAR/PAGES Intersection and the Earth System Modeling Framework Advisory Panels and is an Associate Editor for the Journal of Climate. He was cited by Scientific American as one of the 50 Research Leaders of 2004.
Gavin's criticisms of minor sections of the IPCC does not illegitimize him; in fact, his questioning makes him all the more believable.
Seeing that you know so much, where do you work, and what are your qualifications?
Just so that you don't feel left out, I have a PhD in maths. A long time ago I worked in computer simulations of LARGE natural processes, so I do know about numerical modeling. I consult now in arms control, and believe it or not, earth science, remote sensing and climate is a major factor in this, so yes, I do know something about what I speak.
Never criticize a man until you've walked a mile in their moccasins - Native American proverb.
This is a good reply. One of the background sports in reading CD is watching those who always pop up on a particular subject to repeat the same misleading things and clog the discussion. They seem unable to listen and immune from any development of thought. I try to figure out who they represent. Sigdur seems to present the oil industry talking points, but I am not sure.
Generally, we should ignore them.
Joe
Joe,
I would like to agree with you on just ignoring the misinformers, but I feel that if they go unchallenged, those readers who may not be as well informed or able to discriminate between good and bad science will be lulled into believing their propaganda. Think Fox News and VOA without accountability.
Never criticize a man until you've walked a mile in their moccasins - Native American proverb.
snydly:
I will have to check it out at the library to see what you are talking about.
But coming from Mr. Gore, I wouldn't lend a lot of credence to the accuracy of it. The poor guy seems to be getting lost moreso every day.
Yeah, sometimes its hard to tell what's BS and waht's good, but this chart had to get past hundreds (I suppose) of scientists and the Nobel commission, so maybe it holds some water---so to speak.
I got one at full price, and one for $1 at the library used book corner.
Al gave us a chart covering 650ky, but only talked about the last 10ky, and what's either worse, or cagey, made his deductions just from that 10ky.
If you have the time check out my post from 29 Jan Gore and climate. I tried to give the chart a walk-through there...
And, no, I do not deny anthropomorphic global warming---but it does not tell the whole story---a story not many want to hear.
thanks.
WTF:
You posted an invitation only survey......yep........that has credence.
Anyways....we are cooling, not warming and humanity had better get ready for the cooling as the disruption from cooling far outweighs the disruption from warming.
The climate has been cooling since 7,000 years ago. That is climate, what has happened in the small time frame that the cooling deniars want to look at is weather.
You can lead a horse to water, but you can't make him drink.
Every survey is by "invitation only".. So what is your point other than trying to deflect mine?
Perhaps you think that the OISM "survey" mentioned by GoBlue (and see my post of February 2nd, 2009 2:18 pm) that supposedly garnered mostly BSc's (most of whom were probably NOT working as scientists) to be more important than working climatologists?
I really don't care what you think, and neither does most anyone with an IQ above room temperature. What we do care about is your very carefully planned misinformation. CC denial is not about "proving" that CC is wrong, but about inserting misinformation into the discussion and causing delay to any action that may slow it's progress.
Your kool-aide is warming.
Never criticize a man until you've walked a mile in their moccasins - Native American proverb.
You can lead a horse to the big chart printed in Al Gore's book (+movie)the he got on a forklift to show us, BUT YOU CAN'T MAKE HIM BUY IT, READ IT AND MINE IT FOR INFORMATION, heh?
My electronic buddy, go back to the posts we were doing on the 29th (Gore and climate), I had a little extra time and let it rip. Cleared a couple things up.
Let us know what you think.
The US and Australia as well as most other industrializing nations are insanely spending hundreds of billions of dollars building new freeways and airports instead of sanely dealing with the climate crisis and peak oil.
The world is burning and they are basking in the ambient heat that will fry their children into a soylent green world.
Stop the Freeways now. Take this lte and get it published anywhere you can. Organize like your whole families life dependied on it.
Our future is with rail, not wider freeways
(template)
It appears that in the name of creating jobs, Congress and the U.S. Senate in 2009 will attempt to waste hundred of billions of dollars by expanding the obsolete petroleum based and failing freeway systems throughout the nation. Congressman (insert your congress person), Senator (insert your Senator) and Senator (insert your other Senator) should scrap these same obsolete freeway expansion plans. Our future as a civilization is now dependent on creating a new transportation system to survive the end of cheap petroleum and climate change. More and wider freeways and highways will only hasten economic and climatic chaos and disruption.
The only way to make this transition to a 21st century transportation system is through major expansion of passenger rail as well as extensive upgrading of existing rail infrastructure as a viable alternative to the crumbing freeway systems.
The planned expansion “NAFTA freeways,” which includes the expansion of Interstate (insert freeway in your area), being promoted throughout the country by governors, Congress and the paving industry to accommodate millions of bigger and heavier trucks from Mexico and Canada must be stopped and scrapped.
Surely we must repair and upgrade some of the most vital bridges around the country, but we must simultaneously create a rail-based public transportation system. At some point in the near future the trucking and airline transportation systems are likely to fail, and if we do not prepare for that inevitability there will be chaos and major economic disruption because of our dangerous dependence on these two petroleum-based systems for our essential needs.
While worldwide demand for oil is temporarily diminishing we should take advantage of this lull in demand and massively expand rail infrastructure throughout the nation. We can wean ourselves off of our over-dependence on petroleum with bold leadership from Congressman (insert your Congressperson), Senator (your Senator) and Senator (insert your other Senator) as well as the Obama Administration.
Light rail and heavy rail is the safest and most sustainable transportation on the planet. In the case of passenger transport, hybrid and other hyper-mileage cars can compete with light rail only when used as carpool vehicles. Passenger rail achieves between 50 to 80 passenger miles per gallon, and about 70 to 100 grams of carbon per passenger per mile. A 40-mpg auto can achieve between 40 or 80 (with 2 occupants) passenger miles per gallon. The death rate for all rail is 0.7 deaths per billion miles traveled, while the death rate for motor vehicle use is more than 10 deaths per billion miles traveled.
Fifty years of building highways and freeways for autos and trucking without any regard to urban planning, the impact on our climate, the effects on our health as well as the impact to our psychological well being as a society has led us to this over dependence on a failed system.
Many major urban areas in the country are turning towards high-speed light rail. Why is the (insert or region, southeast or your state) not forging ahead with a new high-speed passenger rail system from (insert your metro area)?
In November of 2008 the people of California voted to fund a 10 billion dollar state bond that will be matched by 20 billion dollars of federal transportation dollars to build a high-speed passenger rail system from Sacramento to Los Angeles. This action by California voters is awe inspiring!
The new Amtrak rail from New York to Washington, D.C.,, the same train Vice President elect Joe Biden rides to work every day, has seen an increase in rider-ship of 20 percent from 2006-07, for a total of 3.1 million passenger trips. An upgraded Amtrak route from San Jose to Sacramento is up 15 percent from 2006-07 for a total of 1.4 million passenger trips.
As constituents we must convince Congressman (insert) — (chairman …. )— Senator (insert) and Senator (insert) as well as other (insert your state) lawmakers that we must have a high-speed light rail system in the (insert your region or state) as well as major upgrades and expansion of rail infrastructure throughout the nation. These new rail systems will not only provide thousands of new jobs for decades but will keep the (insert your region or state) and the country economically competitive with other economic superpowers in Asia and Europe.
We must demand rail infrastructure now. We either transition off of our complete dependence to petroleum by going to rail now or surrender to a complete collapse of our whole economic system and way of life.
HHHH
Come on folks the planet is cooling -I heard it on FOX!!!!!
For GoBlue and Sigdur_11 who believe there is no scientific consensus for climate change (CC).
Please stop printing links to nonsense.
"31,072 American Scientists Have Signed This Petition, Including 9,021 PhDs"
Is classic stupidity. In the US, the National Science Foundation funds most climate research. Most Principal Investigators receiving NSF funding are PhDs. Today, a PhD is almost required to obtain a research position at a University or within the Govt. (even positions funded solely with soft-money). So what is the relevance of a "non-PhD scientist"? While it is true that one does not need a PhD to conduct scientific research, in today's environment, lacking a PhD restricts one's access to the latest data and being recognized in peer-reviewed publications.
Rather than the stupid "petition" of non-PhD holders the deniers like to quote, a more appropriate poll was published just this week by the American Geophysical Union, the largest organization of Earth scientists in the world. The AGU survey asked a) if members agreed that global temperatures have risen since 1880, and b) if members agreed that human activity is a significant contributor to CC.
15.5% or responders were geochemists, 12% were geophysicists, 10.5% oceanographers, 7% geologists and 5% climatologists. This is a good sampling of the Earth-science community.
The poll found that 90% of participants agreed that that global temperatures have risen since the 1880s. 82% agreed that recent CC is anthropogenic.
Looking specifically at the response from the climatologists (ie, those with more than 50% of their recent peer-reviewed papers on CC), 96.2% agreed that temperature has risen since 1880, and 97.4 agreed that CC is driven by human activity. Those that disagreed are well-known deniers in the employ of oil and coal companies.
The article was published in EOS, Transactions of the AGU, V90, #3, 20 Jan 2009.
It seems that the debate on the authenticity of GW and the role played by human activity is largely nonexistent among those that understand the nuances and scientific basis of long-term climatic processes.
Never criticize a man until you've walked a mile in their moccasins - Native American proverb.
WTF,
You state,
"Rather than the stupid "petition" of non-PhD holders the deniers like to quote,"
Why do you distort the facts. Just like a neoconservative, you ignore the facts. Of the 31,072 scientists, there are 9,021 PhDs on the list. Also, here is the peer-reviewed paper. Do you even know that earth's temperature is what determines the levels of CO2, not the other way around. Also, man-made CO2 only accounts for about .13% of ALL greenhouse gases. Naturally occurring CO2 accounts for about .25%. Are you telling me that .13% of man-made CO2 is causing our entire earth to heat up. More likely, it is the sun that is causing the temperature to fluctuate. I guess you are one of those people that believe polar bears are drowning.
http://www.petitionproject.org/gwdatabase/GWPP/Review_Article.html
The paper presented on this link was NEVER published in a peer-reviewed journal. It is self-published by the Oregon Institute of Science and Medicine, a corporate-funded think-tank with 6 "faculty" members (but no students) that receives zero public money.
OISM claim that the article was cited in Journal of American Physicians and Surgeons, but the Director of that journal, Jane Orient, is also a "professor" of OISM.
From http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=Oregon_Institute_of_Science_and_Medicine
The Oregon Institute of Science and Medicine (OISM) describes itself as "a small research institute" that studies "biochemistry, diagnostic medicine, nutrition, preventive medicine and the molecular biology of aging." It is headed by Arthur B. Robinson, an eccentric scientist who has a long history of controversial entanglements with figures on the fringe of accepted research. OISM also markets a home-schooling kit for "parents concerned about socialism in the public schools" and publishes books on how to survive nuclear war.
Sounds like a paragon of scientific research to me.
Material debunking the OISM "paper" is here:
http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2007/10/oregon-institute-of-science-and-malarkey/
Never criticize a man until you've walked a mile in their moccasins - Native American proverb.
Check the big chart Al Gore got on a forklift to show us, and ask yourself, "Self, what weather phenomenon could defeat and reverse such a temp/CO2 spike?(as were the last three)".
Most of the groups that survived the last ice age(s) had no idea what "profit" was.
It would be instructive to hear what the Aborigine cultural has to say about all this.
We are all children of the last ice age(s). Most of the groups that made it had no idea what "profit" was...
Check the big chart Al Gore got on a forklift to show us, and ask yourself, "Self, what weather phenomenon could defeat and reverse such a temp/CO2 spike?(as were the last three)".
Polar Bears are Drowning!!!
Polar bears are NOT drowning. That is so ridiculous, people perpetrating this lie probably laughed their asses off. I cannot believe Al Gore kept a straight face saying this. Polar bears are excellent swimmers. They have been known to swim 100 miles at one time. If a piece of ice breaks off (happens regularly during spring warming), they can swim back to the mainland. Here is how the hoax was accomplished. An obvious lie and designed to tug at the heart strings of animal lovers. Polar bear population has increased from 5,000 to 20,000 - 25,000 during the past 25 years. Please look it up.
Polar bear swimming. Swims better than Michael Phelps.
http://www.arkive.org/polar-bear/ursus-maritimus/video-06b.html
Times Online - "Polar Bears in Danger? Is this some kind of a joke?"
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/comment/columnists/guest_contributors/article2852551.ece
Australian TV Exposes "Stranded Polar Bear" Global Warming Hoax
http://newsbusters.org/node/11879
http://www.abc.net.au/mediawatch/watch/default.htm?program=mediawatch&pres=20070402_2120&story=3 (video)
Excellent point Goblue.
I read whatever I can find about Climate Change. I have detected a strong shift as of late that there is a lot about climate that modelers etc don't understand.
After reading the actual IPCC report, not just the summary, I find that most climate scientists are not satisfied with the certainty of their models.
Anyways, I have to get working. The main thing to recognize is that the scientists now who are talking about a Maudner Minn are scared of the implications of the coming cooling. Governments should be preparing for this.
Fear Mongering,
Just as we were scared into supporting the war against Iraq based on lies, our government is scaring you into supporting a carbon tax or cap and trade where those perpetrating this lie will make trillions of dollars. Governments, or people at the top, have to scare people into submission and they are doing a great job of it. Before we invaded Iraq, close to 80% of the people believed Iraq had WMDs.
Don't let them fool you again.
"Before we invaded Iraq, close to 80% of the people believed Iraq had WMDs."
80%? Of which people? I remember that plenty of people said 'bollocks' at that time and continued to say so. But that was somewhere in Europe and I guess that's not the place you're refering to?
Something is happening. 40 years ago most winters in Central/Eastern Europe were pretty coll: cold, snowy, the air was fresh and crisp. Now it's just grey in grey - it's relatively warm and humid and rain, rain, rain... And the summers are warmer. So something is happening. If it's a natural change we can't do much about it, that's true, if it's man made we can. So why not give it a try? Because we'll feel stupid upon finding out it wasn't our fault and all our actions were futile? Imagine how stupid we'll feel if we don't do anything and find out we could have and should have....
In all of this the main thing to recognize is that warming is not an enemy, but cooling certainly is.
Another thing to recognize is that the "science" is not in agreement, no matter how much some wish it were.
Also, that post about 5C warming caused by co2 is false.
Hope you all have a good day. The sun is still blank today and that is very very troublesome.
Scientists certainly are in agreement. See my post February 2nd, 2009 11:37 am.
I have read all your posts, and everything that you have written has been debunked. You just seems that you are unable to keep up with research.
Never criticize a man until you've walked a mile in their moccasins - Native American proverb.
History shows that people/cultures who migrate, live and grow into desert areas, or into areas otherwise balanced in a precarious climate, soil and geological combination, often fail quite spectacularly... and often for the same reasons they had initial success. The laws of evolution hold fast here: cultures, like species, that cannot change as fast as the environment around them fail and die, or migrate out, supplanting, conflicting with and/or integrating with the cultures they find in their new residence.
I was just talking to a friend about relatively minor climactic changes that were largely responsible for the French Revolution and the subsequent Reign of Terror. Two years of no growing season due to a mini ice age (only two years!) immediately prior to and concurrent with the rumblings of large scale social change pushed the masses into full scale revolt.
Let them eat cake? How shall we arrange it on the platter around your head?
It simply does not matter what kind of climate change we are talking about, or what we name it: it will take very little change, in relatively short durations, in climactic terms to change the face of human society beyond recognition.
Nanoo
The Old Farmer's 2009 Almanac has an article entitled, "Is Global Waning on the Wane? 2nd paragraph... "We at the Almanac are among those who believe sunspot cycles and their affects on oceans correlate with climate changes. Studying these and other factors suggests that a cold, not warm, climate may be in our future." Last paragraph, " During the past 100 years, while tempratures have risen and fallen and risen again, carbon dioxide has been on a steady climb and, for that, mankind does bear some responsibility. however, we would be wise to also consider the cycles and synchronicity of the Sun and oceans in any discussion of the causes of climate change."
I find all this over the top reporting about a heat wave which is nothing new here to be just that...over the top. I don't recall hearing a similar hysterical outcry last winter when parts of NSW had the coldest winter for 20 years. Oddly enough, it was comparable with winters of 20 years ago according to old time locals. They are saying the same about the heatwave we are now experiencing. So, what say you climate change gurus? Yes, I agree changes are occuring but it's a bit like talking down the economy...much of which has been done of late..frighten people into climate change fear and what do you get? Panic which is no help to anyone.
"According to old time locals."
?
You'd rather trust the opinions of a few old locals rather than the facts presented by the vast majority of the scientific community, who have spent decades upon decades collecting data on weather and climate patterns in this country and around the world?
And what's this panic you talk of? Our politicians don't seem concerned right now. There all counting the pennies in their pockets.
I think the real panic will come when we can't grow crops anymore, when the elderly and infants start dying in devastating heatwaves (which is beginning to occur now), and eventually when nations begin wars over basic things like food and water. Right now it's "no worries mate, she'll be right!"
yet another genius.. has spoken. world heed these words.
by gurus do you mean people who have spend a whole lot more time (some a lifetime) than you thinking, experimenting and interpreting complex data? not to mention the fact you couldn't understand the experiments, data and analysis even if they presented it to you.
old time locals huh? do you also consult the "bones" to make decisions in your life?
frighten people into climate change? are you making an analogy to being frightened into not trying to cross a freeway on foot? panic is no help to anyone, unless the reason for the panic is legitimate. Unfortunately for you, you do not own the tools to help you tell the difference.
to all you opinionated simpletons who dismiss scientists like you do your overeating, why do you not get a phd in climate science first and then see if you are still parroting the same toddler stories? at least then you will have some credibility....
Gosh...what a very angry person. I had hoped for a somewhat different response. I had expected some intelligent information regarding the cooling that appears to be happening and not such an agry put down. I always enjoy discussions on this site because they are usually civil. Alas ...
I live in Sydney and I'm not a climate scientist, so like others, rely on the experts to inform me about changes in climate and issues like Global warming.
The Bureau of Meterology in Australia has a fantastic website. The link below will allow you to select an area of the continent and give you a bar graph of the avereage temperature or ranifall in that area for the last 50 years. I think you will all see that in the last 10 years or so, the temperature has been increasingly above the average. The line graph visible behind the bars also indicate that SE Australia is heating.
http://www.bom.gov.au/cgi-bin/silo/cli_var/area_timeseries.pl
Hi frangelica, welcome to CD! I se you have met Siggi, our Viking denier.
When the climatologists look at the HADCRUT or NASA/GISS temperature graphs, they agree you can cherry pick a downward trend since '88 (hadcrut) or '07 (GISS), but they are confident that (unfortunately) its only a natural cycle making a temporary dent in CO2 produced global warming.
As far as logarithmic goes, that is exactly what the climatologists are worried about. Present CO2 concentrations and increases are at the steepest slope of temperaure change vs concentration and predict 5-7 deg C rise by 2100.
Sorry Australia is getting so hot and dry. Another facet of CO2 is "ocean acidification", and I read the great barrier reef is taking a beating from the heat and reduced pH. What is weird is Australia is home to som of the noisiest deniers in spite of all this.
Hee is some reading material, some from down under scientitsts, themselves:
http://www.cmar.csiro.au/
http://www.gfdl.noaa.gov/~tk/climate_dynamics/climate_impact_webpage.html
http://data.giss.nasa.gov/gistemp/graphs/
http://www.squarecirclez.com/blog/earth-killer-composite-trigonometry-co2-graph/978
http://www.columbia.edu/~jeh1/
http://www.oar.noaa.gov/spotlite/spot_gcc.html
http://climateprogress.org/
http://www.metoffice.gov.uk/climatechange/science/
http://coralreefwatch.noaa.gov/satellite/oa/description/oaps_intro_oa.html
Finally, Siggi's beloved HADCRUT graphs:
http://www.metoffice.gov.uk/climatechange/science/monitoring/
You can see the 1988 spike outside the smoothed curve, probably caused by an El Nino and possibly the 11 year solar cycle ramping up at the time, and YES, temperatures are a little lower thereafter but still the better part of 1 deg C warmer than the 19th century. The GISS graphs show the same long term trend, but the peak is 2005 with a decline starting in 07.
If the climatologists are right, the curves will soon be back on their upward merry way, and we're gonna cook.
As you say, Cheers!
Have you had the chance to obtain and study the big chart that Al Gore got on a forklift to show us in his movie "An Inconv Truth"?
To see it in print and really READ it for buried information is a knock out!
Good looking out kid...
I will be looking out for you bbr-001. Looking forward to chatting with you in the future, about other topics.
Cheers, homie.
"What is weird is Australia is home to som of the noisiest deniers in spite of all this."
It's because Australia is very focused on material things and consume. Australians live by the motto: to have it all and to have it now. And they are constantly told that's how it should be - watch the news - half the time they're refered to as 'consumers'.
If you admit that something's happening you'll have to do something about it and for most it would mean they'd have to do without something. Something would have to change. And Australians are not that keen on change. Sure, iPhone and flat screen TV are welcome, but if the change ment smaller and less and you'd have to take more than just your own good into consideration - it's not Australia's strong point.
What they are good at is denial, not just when it comes to the climat but everything that might cause inconvenience or shine not a very favourable light on them.
But I guess that applies to big parts of the world nowadays (I hear the US are not far behind) so I might be unfair. (Probably irritated by the noisy factory (A/C) on my neighbour's roof and their stupid barking-all-day dog.)
Damn Em-y, go on with your bad self....
Bravo, could not have said it better myself. Genius!
Brilliant...
em-y
The first comment here mentiones "no airconditioning" in Adelaide. It is worth noticing that in big parts of Australia airconditioning isn't really necessary.
Or rather it wouldn't be if the houses were built to suit the climate.
When I first moved to Australia from Europe I was shocked at such low housing standard in a supposedly developed country. The imperative for most Australians seems to be as cheap as possible, as big as possible, quality comes last. The events of the last few weeks won't change that, especially considering that there is no political will in this country to change anything or to do the right thing simply because it's the right thing to do and not because you think it's going to win you the next election.
Yes, there is a rebate on PV systems for those on less than $100.000 per annum. Considering that many Australians on 150K think they're doing it tough how many of them will install PV on their roof?
Also, while for example in Germany you get paid more per KW of solar power you feed into the grid than the price the power suppliers charge, in Australia you get only a fraction of the price.
It's scary how many Australians still refuse to do anything because they have not enough information. 2 decades after the global warming debate started?!?
Even worse is the constant finger pointing mostly towards China. We don't have to change, it's all China's fault. Quite frankly if you're so concerned about the Chinese pollution maybe Australia should stop selling them Australian coal which is decried in Europe as the dirtiest of all.
Talking of China - apparently approx. 30 million housholds in China have a solar hot water system. True, the prices for a solar hws in China start at around $400... whereas in Australia they're $4.000 or 5.000, which is significantly more than what an electric system costs... which takes us back to political will....
Also, those who like to think that Australia doesn't need to act because they're a small nation should try and see it this way: Australian emmissions account for something like 1.4 per cent of the total emmissions, however the population of approx.21 or 22 million is nowhere near 1.4 percent of the entire world population. So you're still the worst polluter of all.
Also, as far as I understand the whole issue of carbon emmissions it's not like you emit today and tomorrow they'll impact on the weather. Wasn't there something about carbon dioxide being stored in the atmosphere for up to 100 years before it actually starts having any effect? Which would mean that Australia like the rest of the developed world is responsible for what's happening now. China has been at it for, well - not long enough. Sure, one day their emmissions will have an impact, but if we (including Australia) don't do anything it won't really matter.
If we're talkin about 'clean energy' why look to nuclear? Why aren't we talking about solar power? After all we're in Australia, the sunniest place on earth. You'd think Australia would be world leader in solar generated electricity. But no, it's the good old Germany, the country of which Napoleon once famously said 'it has 6 months winter and 6 months no summer'. 2 years ago Germany was still the country with the biggest solar farm in the world. They invest in solar and wind power. So do Denmark and the UK. All have carbon neutral communities. You'd think UK of all countries shouldn't rely on sun...
As for wind farms there are quite a few community-owned ones around the world. Australia? Australia's first community-owned wind farm is still looking for public investment.
Germany, Austria and Switzerland build highly effective pasive solar houses and there are houses in Sweden that use less energy than an avarage Australian house. Even when it comes to recycling Australia laggs behind the rest of the world. Take electronic waste - in Australia only 4% is recycled, while in Europe it's more like 80%.
Australian companies specialising in wind, solar and geothermal technologies are leaving for China and California, because the Australian governments fail to see the potential, not only to reduce the greenhouse emmissions, but also to create jobs and new industries.
Every dirty and destructive industry imaginable enjoys government support in Australia in the name of job protection... Apparently in Germany famous for its car industry, more people work in new technologies than in car manufacturing. But the Australian government still believes that supporting new technologies wouldn't create any jobs... I guess, you have to prop up old industries, when you allow the future to leave for faraway lands...
Australia is squandering opportunities and will one day end up paying for it. Already building a smart sustainable house in Australia is out of reach for mere mortals due to the exorbitant costs while in Europe the extra costs are negligible.
But the government is not the only one at fault here - the truth is that most Australians live very wasteful lifes. They're wasting water, electricity, petrol, consuming without rhyme or reason and refusing to change. People will tell you that they can't afford paying $10 more for power from renewable sources while filling up their petrol gusling 4WD...
Lastly I want to say, that I know that there are Australians out there who worry and try to do the right thing, but the overal picture is depressing.
Spot on
do you really think other species are worried about you? you're a dog/cat lover aren't you?
why don't you worry about your own species first?
**because from the stand point of justice and fairness they are the bigger victims. They function perfectly well in the ecology-its humans who mess things up.
If you can say "worry about your own species first" someone else can say "worry about your own race first."
That's what zionists do. The idea that humans are meant to base their moral concern upon dna is naive and denies human history. Humans have always discriminated on the basis of criteria other than species. For some race was important, for others, class, for others wealth, religion, age, height, language, you name it. Hell, the Roman army would kill themselves to recover a metal banner shaped like an eagle.
This is the worst time to be a human supremacist. Lots of arrogant idiots say humans need to be managers or custodians of Nature. Nature doesnt need managing-humans do.
On the issue of "first nations/aborigines."
I agree that if they had access to better weaponry they would be more destructive. The idea of the noble savage is pretty much bullshit.
Case in point, the term Buffalo Jump refers to the practice of stampeding herds of buffalo over cliffs so they are crushed and crippled. The tribe that engaged in it would leave the rest to rot.
No other species does that. Natural predators(wolves, cats) they dont do that.
The Makah tribe of Washington used to take slaves from other tribes and force them to tie the fins of grey whales. The Makah word for Grey whale translates as devil fish.
A Manitoba tribe used to capture beluga whales for aquariums and said they had a god given right to massacre the whales if they wanted to.
So human arrogance isnt restricted to the European.
If one believes in true equality then any human is capable of being a prick.
Humans are humans no matter where they are.
I also dont think its wise to worship scientists like priests. They are humans, and can have their own agendas.
Common sense tells us that polluting the atmosphere or a river isnt a good idea.
If people had more respect for other lifeforms in Nature we wouldnt be in such a mess, that's for sure. Not that Nature cares, but much of the problems humans face are caused by humans.
"human supremacist' that is brilliant. just tell me your name and address and if by some miracle we ever meet in a position where I either save your life and your family, or that of a bunch of pigs I will be sure to choose the pigs. Since you seem to think that animals understand or are due justice, why stop there? Why not some of your intimate affection? I guess it makes sense that insane people will make insane claims on the internet because in real life it sounds well, insane.
listen clown, next time I see an animal driving around looking to do justice to my fellow human beings, I will consider saving them as well as myself.
You obviously don't understand evolution do you? Since you are such a defender of nature why do you stop bacteria with antibiotics? why do you eat? that hurts nature too. when you eat a living thing it actually kills it.
Speaking of evolution, humans can do what we do because we have out-competed, and out evolved all other species except ourselves. Amongst our own, the ones that have out-competed you are the rich capitalists who laugh while they see you standing up for animal justice.
....Lots of arrogant idiots say humans need to be managers or custodians of Nature. Nature doesnt need managing-humans do.
dude you just called yourself an idiot because earlier you mentioned humans doing justice to animals. that sounds like a manager or custodian to me....
if being honest that I respect the intellectual discipline required to become a respected scientist is considered worship then bring on the virgins.
what a joke humans had more respect for nature....
i wonder how much respect for the ebola virus you will have if you ever encounter it...
bravo....
Interesting that very little reporting of Australia's long-term drought makes it into the MSM given that it is 25 million or so descendants of Anglo-Saxon prison refugees and indentured servants and a few hundred thousand "aborigines" who are experiencing this calamity. Sort of reminds me of the U.S. Dust-Bowl days.
Meanwhile, the governor of Kentucky, a U.S. state with a few million hapless citizens, has just called out his ENTIRE National Guard, to relieve people in rural areas who have been without electricity now for a week after a massive ice and snow storm knocked out power lines and downed trees and made roads impassable.
Number of people in Kentucky REPORTED without power all week: around half a million.
Number of National Guard available: under 5,000 (how many are in Iraq and Afghanistan?).
Amount of available rescue and repair equipment & supplies? Unreported.
"Worst 'natural disaster' in Kentucky history" says the news.
Katrina now stands as the symbol of the United States as a people incapable of rebuilding itself, while Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell, of Kentucky, a leading critic of anything Obama seeks to do to rescue this country, ought to commit Hari Kiri in front of the Lincoln monument. But first he should stop taking Botox and other anti-aging-IMAGE DRUGS so we can see him for what he really is. A Sophist who has argued that Money is Speech, Corporations are Persons under the Constitution, and tobacco should not be regulated while marijuana remains a federally criminalized medicine.
All Obama has to do for Americans to realize the enormity of the crimes of the Bush years is to tread water.
Or to recapitulate at a different level, even very recently in the U.S., the "North/South Divide" was seen as the old Mason-Dixon Line while today it is the Equator.
Meanwhile, an earlier Poster above discriminated between WEATHER and longer-term issues and is correct; but daily weather is the consequence of longer-term trends, and what is going on in Australia as a general trend can no longer be called, merely, WEATHER. Ditto, California and the American West and the glaciers of the world and even probably Greenland. We are witness to massive shifts in global weather trends and we better pay attention. At this level of cognition we need no God(s). We evolved as a consequence of the Life-sustaining Evolution of this precious Planet, so what "value-system" gives us the right to destroy it?
When was the last time you saw the term, fecund, in the prevailing Media?
Meanwhile, I welcome the idea from a Poster above to welcome Australians into Canada. Canada is intentionally underpopulated. OTOH, I have been considering moving to Canada for years and I am told by my Canada relatives who moved there via Jamaica that Canada is VERY choosy about who they let in. First you need money. The Australian aborigines will probably end up retaining their land...at great cost given the invasion by Capitalism! "Goodbye Columbus!" And good riddance. Everybody else knew the world was round. Including the American aborigines.
As a psychiatrist I must say we are a very sick sick people who have purposefully denied our origins and history. Just observe our Congress as it dissolves into a Comity of Errors as the Economy irreversibly Deflates while Ohio former Speaker of the House John Boehner keeps his artificial tan. That about sums up America.
Meanwhile, thanks CD and Sioux Rose for the opportunity to grow in reflection. I apologize for being so angry right now. I have a grandson and I fear for his humanity. I am a "poor person." Being underemployed these past decades I have had an opportunity to read and reflect, and I hope I have contributed to Humanity in the process. As Ben Franklin put it, "If we do not hang together we will all hang separately."
-30-
cybervigilanti,
Opps! Arctic Sea Ice is now growing. Global warming of the earth is due to sun's output and it is cyclical. We are now in the cooling stage. Thus, the ice is growing. The mainstream media doesn't tell you about this.
http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&rlz=1T4GGLR_enUS252US253&q=arctic+sea+ice+growing&btnG=Search
Well Frangelica:
Yours had a hair over 3,000, the one above has over 9,000...so if it is numbers.....you lose. So PHD to PHD....yous is wayyy down the list.
I would guess that both surveys have as much validity. Yours was by invitation only......which takes any credibility out of it.......and Goblue's is open to whatever scientist wanted to put his name on it.
And no.....a scientist does NOT require a PHD.
yes. I agree in your world it's evident that a scientist does not require a phd. you're a farmer what the hell do you know about scientists and the credentials required to be one?
Frangelica:
You are correct in that I can't debate things I don't understand. However, I do understand science quit well. I will not make any claims that I can't back up, nor will I tolerate people who read a story and take it as gospel.
Nor, as this oped piece does, confuse climate with weather.
This is a very very pooly written piece that has no value to climate at all.
That is my point.
Great quotes by respected scientists.
"I am a skeptic ... . Global warming has become a new religion." -- Nobel Prize Winner for Physics, Ivar Giaever.
Warming fears are the "worst scientific scandal in the history ... . When people come to know what the truth is, they will feel deceived by science and scientists." -- U.N. IPCC Japanese Scientist Dr. Kiminori Itoh, an award-winning Ph.D. environmental physical chemist
"It is a blatant lie put forth in the media that makes it seem there is only a fringe of scientists who don't buy into anthropogenic global warming." -- U.S. Government Atmospheric Scientist Stanley B. Goldenberg of the Hurricane Research Division of NOAA, the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration.
"Even doubling or tripling the amount of carbon dioxide will virtually have little impact, as water vapor and water condensed on particles as clouds dominate the worldwide scene and always will." -- Geoffrey G. Duffy, a professor in the Department of Chemical and Materials Engineering of the University of Auckland, New Zealand.
"Gore prompted me to start delving into the science again and I quickly found myself solidly in the skeptic camp ... . Climate models can at best be useful for explaining climate changes after the fact." -- Meteorologist Hajo Smit of Holland, who reversed his belief in man-made warming to become a skeptic, is a former member of the Dutch U.N. IPCC committee.
"Many [scientists] are now searching for a way to back out quietly (from promoting warming fears), without having their professional careers ruined." -- Atmospheric physicist James A. Peden, formerly of the Space Research and Coordination Center in Pittsburgh, Pa.
"Creating an ideology pegged to carbon dioxide is a dangerous nonsense ... . The present alarm on climate change is an instrument of social control, a pretext for major businesses and political battle. It became an ideology, which is concerning." -- Environmental Scientist Professor Delgado Domingos of Portugal, the founder of the Numerical Weather Forecast group, has more than 150 published articles.
"CO2 emissions make absolutely no difference one way or another ... . Every scientist knows this, but it doesn't pay to say so ... . Global warming, as a political vehicle, keeps Europeans in the driver's seat and developing nations walking barefoot." -- Dr. Takeda Kunihiko, vice-chancellor of the Institute of Science and Technology Research at Chubu University in Japan.
"The [global warming] scaremongering has its justification in the fact that it is something that generates funds." -- Award-winning Paleontologist Dr. Eduardo Tonni, of the Committee for Scientific Research in Buenos Aires and head of the Paleontology Department at the University of La Plata.
http://www.globalresearch.ca/index.php?context=va&aid=11383
These guys are so full of crap. The ice caps are melting. Talk about not being able to see the nose on your face, through the fog of obtuse theories from scientists who are supported by the club-for-growth.
Unlimited, unregulated and unrestrained growth is called cancer for good reason. We've just seen what it does to the economic system, but still don't see the light.
dude you are brilliant! lets see apparently, you don't even know the difference between the various disciplines in science! a physicist? a chemical engineer, a paleontologist? WOW!
fuck by your brilliant logic, let's ask botanists how to run the LHC at Cern.
frangelica,
What degree do you have? You don't have to be a rocket scientist to recognize bull shit. Since you don't know how to read, you may want to watch this movie. I think even a junior high student can see Al Gore's junk science, "Inconvenient Truth," is BS. I cannot believe he won the Nobel Peace Prize and an Emmy Award and an Oscar for this. Are they insane? Maybe there is an agenda behind giving him all those awards? I use to like Al Gore. I actually have a Gore/Obama button.
"The Great Global Warming Swindle"
http://www.garagetv.be/video-galerij/blancostemrecht/The_Great_Global_Warming_Swindle_Documentary_Film...
I listened to that video and read some comments.
They say what it isn't, but stop short of saying what it is.
From Gore/IPCC's own chart we can see our actual situation. I'm guessing Al chose not to tell you straight out because it's too scary.
You want to see? Get the book.
wow rocket scientist, bullshit, "you cannot read" insults, from a guy who get's all he needs to know from movies. you .... like, totally got me....
I followed the links on the page Frangelica.
Thanks for the url, it has proven to be quit useful.
frangelica,
Do you want peer-reviewed paper? Here you go. 31,072 scientists dispute man-made global warming. Please see peer-reviewed paper below. Man-made global warming is a scam to tax every man, women and child on earth. So a few rich bastards can make trillions of dollars.
Global Warming Petition Project
31,072 American Scientists Have Signed This Petition, Including 9,021 PhDs
http://www.petitionproject.org/
Summery of Peer-Reviewed Research
http://www.petitionproject.org/gwdatabase/GWPP/Review_Article.html
Still believe global warming is caused by human activity?
You offer us a peer-reviewed paper, but all we get from you is a petition. A petition is NOT a peer-reviewed paper.
And to answer your question: No, I don't believe global climate change is caused by human activity. I am absolutely convinced that it is.
Here is another genius posting petitions and making an ass of himself by actually posting the title:
31,072 American Scientists Have Signed This Petition, Including 9,021 PhDs
Hey moron, in order to be a credible scientist a PhD is required. Idiot! Just like in order for a doctor to practice medicine on you he is required to have an MD. What does that make the other 22,000+ "scientists" idiots like you?
Cheers,
frangelica,
Do you not know how to read? The petition has 9,021 PhDs. What about the peer-reviewed paper. Oh, I forgot. You can't read.
it's a petition moron! just because i start a petition that you're a moron, it does not make it so. Actual evidence does. Like the evidence that you think a petition is equivalent to a peer-reviewed paper....
speaking of reading lepton, check the authors they are the same that the farmer quoted. that is 3 scientists and you cannot even name the peer-reviewed journal that it was published in.
you really got me, what can I say?
Frangelica:
I am not making a fool of myself, and thanks for your opinion.
You have stated so well that you don't understand the log values of co2. I do.
Keep up the good work, and please read a bit more and study what you are projecting.
And.....will you answer me this? What do you make of the large decline in temps since 1998?????????????????
While most main stream media and politicians have yet to awaken to this reality, many in the public have already caught on and recent polls (see here, here and here, for example) show a dwindling enthusiasm to make the sacrifices necessary to have any significant impact on the emissions of so-called 'global warming gases'.[8] You can't fool all of the people all of the time." Instead of ignoring, or at times denigrating 'climate skeptics', it has now become urgent that they are welcomed into the discussion and regularly consulted about the evolving science, despite the political incorrectness of their opinions. It is only through a full appreciation of the relevant factors, including all reputable opinions of the science, that another collapse on the scale of the sub-prime mortgage fiasco can be avoided. The International Climate Science Coalition welcomes the opportunity to help the financial, legal and business communities understand the immense risk they are taking by not considering the demonstrable uncertainties in the science of global warming.
Frangelica......this is from the url you posted.
Dude do you grow hash on your farm? The problem with this what you posted is that other people can follow the link and figure out that you did now you are just making shit up. Where did you get that text from one of the comments? I searched and could not find it.
Here is the article in it's entirety;
Survey: Scientists agree human-induced global warming is real
January 19th, 2009 in Space & Earth science / Environment
While the harsh winter pounding many areas of North America and Europe seemingly contradicts the fact that global warming continues unabated, a new survey finds consensus among scientists about the reality of climate change and its likely cause.
A group of 3,146 earth scientists surveyed around the world overwhelmingly agree that in the past 200-plus years, mean global temperatures have been rising, and that human activity is a significant contributing factor in changing mean global temperatures.
Peter Doran, University of Illinois at Chicago associate professor of earth and environmental sciences, along with former graduate student Maggie Kendall Zimmerman, conducted the survey late last year.
The findings appear today in the publication Eos, Transactions, American Geophysical Union.
In trying to overcome criticism of earlier attempts to gauge the view of earth scientists on global warming and the human impact factor, Doran and Kendall Zimmerman sought the opinion of the most complete list of earth scientists they could find, contacting more than 10,200 experts around the world listed in the 2007 edition of the American Geological Institute's Directory of Geoscience Departments.
Experts in academia and government research centers were e-mailed invitations to participate in the on-line poll conducted by the website questionpro.com. Only those invited could participate and computer IP addresses of participants were recorded and used to prevent repeat voting. Questions used were reviewed by a polling expert who checked for bias in phrasing, such as suggesting an answer by the way a question was worded. The nine-question survey was short, taking just a few minutes to complete.
Two questions were key: have mean global temperatures risen compared to pre-1800s levels, and has human activity been a significant factor in changing mean global temperatures.
About 90 percent of the scientists agreed with the first question and 82 percent the second.
In analyzing responses by sub-groups, Doran found that climatologists who are active in research showed the strongest consensus on the causes of global warming, with 97 percent agreeing humans play a role. Petroleum geologists and meteorologists were among the biggest doubters, with only 47 and 64 percent respectively believing in human involvement. Doran compared their responses to a recent poll showing only 58 percent of the public thinks human activity contributes to global warming.
"The petroleum geologist response is not too surprising, but the meteorologists' is very interesting," he said. "Most members of the public think meteorologists know climate, but most of them actually study very short-term phenomenon."
He was not surprised, however, by the near-unanimous agreement by climatologists.
"They're the ones who study and publish on climate science. So I guess the take-home message is, the more you know about the field of climate science, the more you're likely to believe in global warming and humankind's contribution to it."
Doran and Kendall Zimmerman conclude that "the debate on the authenticity of global warming and the role played by human activity is largely nonexistent among those who understand the nuances and scientific basis of long-term climate processes." The challenge now, they write, is how to effectively communicate this to policy makers and to a public that continues to mistakenly perceive debate among scientists.
Source: University of Illinois at Chicago