New forcast on corals from Australia

[Guest Larry-T]

Full story at:

 

http://www.ens-newswire.com/ens/dec2007/2007-12-21-03.asp

 

 

Global Warming Could Kill World's Coral Reefs in 50 Years

ST. LUCIA, Queensland, Australia, December 21, 2007 (ENS) - Seventeen eminent marine scientists warn that world leaders face a race against time in preparing coral reefs, and the coastal communities dependent upon them for the "inevitable impact" of rising levels of carbon dioxide in the Earth's atmosphere. Their new study shows that levels of carbon dioxide could become unsustainable for coral reefs within 50 years.

 

The warning comes in a new study published in the journal "Science" on December 14.

[Gatortailale]

U.S. Senate Report: Over 400 Prominent Scientists Disputed Man-Made Global Warming Claims in 2007

[bigJPDC]

thank you Gator.

[lanman]

U.S. Senate Report: Over 400 Prominent Scientists Disputed Man-Made Global Warming Claims in 2007

 

Excellent! I'm not going to say it's impossible that we are modifying the climate this way; but I've certainly never been convinced of it.

 

On the other hand - I think our massive and growing population will in various ways cause harm to the planet. Think Green!

 

bob

[bigJPDC]

wonder if this made mainstream news:

 

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/22246005/

 

 

[Guest Larry-T]

U.S. Senate Report: Over 400 Prominent Scientists Disputed Man-Made Global Warming Claims in 2007

 

A totally biased report on the REPUBLICAN page of a Senate committee is hardly woth the electrons it takes to post. I'll believe material printed in peer reviewed SCIENTIFIC journals before the cherry-picked junk posted by Republican serfs of the oil and coal industries.

[bigJPDC]

you forgot to mention Haliburton - please try again.

[bigJPDC]

I'll believe material printed in peer reviewed SCIENTIFIC journals before the cherry-picked junk posted by Republican serfs of the oil and coal industries.

 

good deal, beacuse I know you didn't read the article -

 

The science has continued to grow loud and clear in 2007. In addition to the growing number of scientists expressing skepticism, an abundance of recent peer-reviewed studies have cast considerable doubt about man-made global warming fears. A November 3, 2007 peer-reviewed study found that

[WallyBackm]

The evidence is pretty clear at this point that humans have a pretty big hand in warming the earth. Temperatures have been rising consistently as CO2 outputs have increased exponentially. Yes, correlation does not equal causation, but I'll side with the thousands of scientists who believe there is a causation there.

 

The question at this point is can we make a meaningful dent against the trend without crippling the economy and without getting India and China on board.

[Guest Larry-T]

The three links you posted are not peer-reviewed journals. They are partisan web sites with a definite corporate agenda. Try again.

 

 

 

good deal, beacuse I know you didn't read the article -

 

The science has continued to grow loud and clear in 2007. In addition to the growing number of scientists expressing skepticism, an abundance of recent peer-reviewed studies have cast considerable doubt about man-made global warming fears. A November 3, 2007 peer-reviewed study found that

[traveller7]

The three links you posted are not peer-reviewed journals. They are partisan web sites with a definite corporate agenda. Try again.

Why bother, this is a topic where peer's have agendas.

[WallyBackm]

"Peers" on the pro side in this "debate" consist of the now overwhelming consensus of the scientific community. I don't mean to belittle often serious counter-arguments to the humanity-being-the-main-culprit stand, but it must be said that the clear consensus of climatologists at this point is that humans are warming the earth.

[bigJPDC]

i posted many links to articles which shatter that belief. Please post one backing your claim up that contains recent scientific data and hypothesis, citing sources.

 

The Senate report listed 400 scientists, only 215 signed the latest thing in Bali. Not sure how we are defining 'consensus'.

 

The closer anybody actually looks at the science behind global climate changes, the more the data states the opposite opinion of the climate alarmists. Dozens of links to back up my statements are contained just in my own posts.

 

Please post one link backing your claim up that contains recent scientific data and hypothesis, not evil Republican and big oil company conspiracy theories, and of course please cite your sources.

[WallyBackm]

Well, I could start with the US National Academy of Sciences

 

http://www.nationalacademies.org/includes/...ergy_07_May.pdf

 

Then I could go on to the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change which released its most recent report this year

 

http://ipcc-wg1.ucar.edu/wg1/wg1-report.html

 

The main conclusion from that report is

 

"The primary source of the increased atmospheric

concentration of carbon dioxide since the pre-industrial

period results from fossil fuel use, with land-use change

providing another signifi cant but smaller contribution"

 

third, American Association for the Advancement of Science (AAAS)

http://www.aaas.org/news/press_room/climat...e_statement.pdf

 

Fourth,

American Meteorological Society (AMS)

http://www.ametsoc.org/policy/climatechang...earch_2003.html

 

Fifth, the American Association of State Climatologists

http://lwf.ncdc.noaa.gov/oa/aasc/AASC-Poli...-on-Climate.htm

 

And lastly, a petition signed by 12,000 scientists supporting the IPCC consensus

 

http://www.ucsusa.org/scientific_integrity...-statement.html

 

To see the prominent scientists who have signed on to that document, go to

 

http://www.ucsusa.org/scientific_integrity...ignatories.html

 

 

I'm not sure what your argument here is. Is it that the earth is not warming? that is flatly contradicted by empirical data. Is it that human activity is not responsible for the warming? That, as I think I've shown not to be "shattered", is the consensus of the scientific community. Or is it that there is little that can be done to stop the trend absent bankrupting the economy? This last question seems to me the only one up for debate at this point given the late hour.

[txaggies07]

Human induced Global Warming is BS

[bigJPDC]

I wasted all those words, research and time typing up what you so succinctly put together TX - beers are on me.

You must teach me.

 

[Gatortailale]

 

 

And lastly, a petition signed by 12,000 scientists supporting the IPCC consensus

 

 

 

care to point out where these 12,000 ALL sign in support of IPCC? The way I read your link is that 12,000 sign on to support the scientiststs statement http://go.ucsusa.org/RSI_list/index.php

The following is a list of all of the scientists who have signed on to the scientists' statement after it was released in 2004. These scientists represent a variety of fields, from engineers to physicists to ecologists to public health officials. All of the signers have experience in the United States scientific community and recognize the importance of scientific integrity and independence. To see a sampling of prominent signatories, click here.

 

as for statement all 12,000 signed on to ipcc - 1) don't have time to dig for answer so point it out to us 2) me thinks the board leaders of that group of scientists may have signed on in the name of the group, but I don't think all 12,000 individually signed on to ipcc.

 

 

Why bother, this is a topic where peer's have agendas.

... and big money to be made doing the research.

[WallyBackm]

care to point out where these 12,000 ALL sign in support of IPCC? The way I read your link is that 12,000 sign on to support the scientiststs statement http://go.ucsusa.org/RSI_list/index.php

 

 

 

as for statement all 12,000 signed on to ipcc - 1) don't have time to dig for answer so point it out to us 2) me thinks the board leaders of that group of scientists may have signed on in the name of the group, but I don't think all 12,000 individually signed on to ipcc.

 

I didn't say ALL signed the IPCC. I wrote

 

"a petition signed by 12,000 scientists supporting the IPCC consensus"

Edited December 27, 2007 by WallyBackm

[txaggies07]

My big problem with all this in that of funding. A professor at my school has been working the global warming thing for a long time. I don't think he believes it. The people that I know that work with him say it has to do with funding. The funding he gets for his global warming research helps fund everything else he does.

 

There is no money in saying global warming does not exist. The money is being sent to the researchers to show that there is global warming.

Edited December 27, 2007 by txaggies07

[WallyBackm]

 

Yes, Human activity is enhancing the severity of the normal warming cycle. One way to make a dent is to join with other industrialized nations to develop an international infrastructure for a Hydrogen economy and to freely share the technology with nations such as Brazil, India, and China. This is a true investment in both our environmental future and national security. By freeing ourselves of oil dependency for fuel, we reduce the influence of Saudi Arabia, Iran, Russia, and Venezuela on the international scene.

 

 

this is a great point. It's odd how so many conservatives view "green" initiatives with so much disdain considering the regimes we are directly funding by our oil addiction.

 

Regarding the rest of the tone of this debate, too many "care to point outs" and "la la las". Let's try to keep this civil.

 

Also, I don't think my point above has been addressed, namely

 

--"I'm not sure what your argument here is. Is it that the earth is not warming? that is flatly contradicted by empirical data. Is it that human activity is not responsible for the warming? That, as I think I've shown not to be "shattered", is the consensus of the scientific community. Or is it that there is little that can be done to stop the trend absent bankrupting the economy? "

[bigJPDC]

now that I've stopped laughing with Tx - Wally, that's the kind of response that I can dig into, thank you, let me digest some of it.

 

Is it that the earth is not warming? that is flatly contradicted by empirical data. - I've also seen a lot of empirical data that refutes this, but am really not sure which measurements and timeframes are the ones that paint anything that is cause for the alarmist state some have. Anybody familiar with the GW issue knows about the Time story in the 50's that said the Earth was cooling and we were at the tipping point of heading into an ice age, as well as how normal temperatures are if you go back far enough. How many major hurricanes were predicted this past two seasons? How many hit the US?

 

 

Is it that human activity is not responsible for the warming? That, as I think I've shown not to be "shattered", is the consensus of the scientific community. - I am not radical to think that human expansion and progress has not created co2 and waste, but geez, those fires in Cali and volcanos and solar storms and such have to enter the mix somewhere, right? And more than somebody driving a Hummer to work. I have to be convinced that a - we are significantly contributing, and b. us lowering our contributions as a nation can make any impact. The Earth is a pretty big, complex thing - I'm not sure that Prius is going to buy us an inch of sea level.

 

 

Or is it that there is little that can be done to stop the trend absent bankrupting the economy? This last question seems to me the only one up for debate at this point given the late hour. - The American economy is my first concern, which is why I am against enviro-activist legislation and regulation, BUT, again, nobody responsible would suggest that the planet or future generations should suffer because of something we could be doing different.

 

 

considering the regimes we are directly funding by our oil addiction.

 

http://www.gravmag.com/oil.html

I'd love to see these statists updated, but in 2005 we imported 19% of our oil from Suaid Arabia, Kuwait and Iraq (down from the figures in 2002). I gues that means 81% comes from other places huh (although some like Venezuela are still in OPEC)?

 

Oil only accounts for 42% of our energy dependence, so do the math there too to see what our energy dependence really is on the Middle East.

 

Would you have guessed those percentages before reading this?

[WallyBackm]

BIGJPDC,

 

From 1993 to 2006, each year was among the hottest 20 on record.

 

The Time story you reference I believe was from the early 70s, if I'm not mistaken, prior to the emergence of the last two decades empirical evidence.

 

Regarding what's responsible, I agree there are reputable scientists that

disagree with the IPCC's conclusions. However, there is not one single national or international scientific body to reject the basic findings that humans are causing, in good part, warming.

 

Hey, I'm just a layman on this, as I assume you are as well. This could quickly dissolve into a p*ssing match--you have your doubts about the IPCC. That's your right. I just find the evidence at this point (mostly because the IPCC and NAS have said so) to be compelling. this casuses me to worry about my children's world and their children's world, and also about reefs and many other things. If driving a Prius makes some small dent, then h*ll that's good. If the IPCC and the rest turn out to be wrong, and your skepticism proves well-founded, then I will be a very happy man.

 

 

http://www.gravmag.com/oil.html

I'd love to see these statists updated, but in 2005 we imported 19% of our oil from Suaid Arabia, Kuwait and Iraq (down from the figures in 2002). I gues that means 81% comes from other places huh (although some like Venezuela are still in OPEC)?

 

Oil only accounts for 42% of our energy dependence, so do the math there too to see what our energy dependence really is on the Middle East.

 

Would you have guessed those percentages before reading this?

 

I have read about those statistics before. I think that's mostly because most of our electricity (especially in the midwest) is produced by coal burning (from coal mined here).

 

However, these statistics don't change the fact that we are pouring money into ugly regimes' hands.

Edited December 27, 2007 by WallyBackm

[txaggies07]

Well...I have some reasoning to think it is BS. I guess I might as explain it.

 

The IPCC states that we are going to raise the earths temperatures by 1.4 degrees C in the next 100 years. I think natural events cause far more impact than can be determined by this panel. For instance, after Mount Pinatubo erupted in 1991, global temperatures fell by 0.5 C. The ozone hole grew much larger. In 1883, Krakatoa erupted and caused global temperatures to fall by 1.2 C. My point is that two volcanoes altered the global temperatures by a modest amount.

 

In the 1970s people were worried about slipping into another ice age. Temperatures in the US now are finally back up to the peaks they were at in the 1930s (as shown by the US temperature data on the NASA website listed earlier). If you look at all the temperature data, the year to year variation is more than the overall trend.

 

Looking at natural cycles we are close to 400 years from another ice age. The global temperatures always peak right before this. Anyways...I still maintain that human induced global warming is BS. We do have an effect, but far much less than Al Gore would have us believe.

[bigJPDC]

very good Wally - excellent debate!

 

[txaggies07]

Also, global warming will just make Canada a nice place.

 

Did I ever tell you about my plans to become president and take over Canada? I figure, one tank from Vancouver and the other from Toronto should be able to take over the country in a week.