I don't know where they learned it, Sun Tzu, Machiavelli, or ??? but page one of the right / conservative / pro corporate / wingnut playbook is make your weakness your enemies weakness.
For example if your guy had daddy pull strings to keep him out of Vietnam yet your enemy not only volunteered but was awarded medals for meritorious service then make your enemies service record an issue, not yours.
The fossil fuel industry etc stands to lose HUNDREDS OF BILLIONS ( $100,000,000,000s ) of dollars IF CO2 is causing global warming. Who here really believes they wouldn't lie about global warming to protect their profits? If you approached the average guy on the street and asked him "Do you think oil companies would spend millions to convince you global warming isn't true to protect their billions?" what is the natural answer? Everyone understands and believes in greed.
So what do you do? Turn it around, as this film does. Those scientists who promote global warming are in it for the grant money. It's the scientists who misled for money!!! Not the largest, richest corporations this world has ever seen. Of course only those totally ignorant of some basic facts would fall for this.
First, where is this grant money coming from? It sure as hell isn't the Federal Government. Bush has put a total strangle hold on science in this country. You work for NASA doing climate research? All your work has to go through a non scientist political hack who has the power to rewrite your conclusions before its published. You work for the EPA and find dangerous concentrations of a certain persistent pesticide in peoples drinking water? Sorry, you can't publish. Bush has cut funding for the EPA research library effectively cutting scientists off from decades of environmental data and research. Being pro enviornmental is not a career booster in this administration.
You think big business is rewarding pro climate change research with grants? A cadre of lefty billionaires? Yeah right.
Oh and you really have to love the '..its the environmentalists that are keeping Africans poor..' bullshit. Of course it has nothing to do with the IMF and World Bank policies of the last half century.
Now as I watched this film I wrote down the name of the 'experts' and then did some quick research on them and big surprise, they all work or contribute to a bunch of industry funded think tanks. Yeah they might not take money from oil companies but they take money from an institute that gets money from a coalition that takes money from the American Petroleum Institute that does take money from oil companies.
The this guy...
quote: Lindzen "charges oil and coal interests $2,500 a day for his consulting services; his 1991 trip to testify before a Senate committee was paid for by Western Fuels, and a speech he wrote, entitled 'Global Warming: the Origin and Nature of Alleged Scientific Consensus,' was underwritten by OPEC." ("The Heat is On: The warming of the world's climate sparks a blaze of denial," Harper's magazine, December 1995.)
Or this guy who no longer believes what the his footage in the film says...
quote:John Christy
Professor and Director, Atmospheric Science Department, University of Alabama at Huntsville
Alabama State Climatologist
Lead Author, 2001 IPCC TAR
While he now acknowledges that global warming is real and the human contribution is significant, Christy has been a long-time skeptic who previously argued that satellite climate data do not show a trend toward global warming, and even show cooling in some areas. His findings have been widely disputed. Christy now asserts that global warming will have beneficial effects on the planet and that increased CO2 emissions from human activities are a net positive.
Christy was a contributing writer to "Global Warming and Other Eco-Myths," published by Competitive Enterprise Institute in 2002.He spoke at a June 1998 briefing for congressional staff and media, which was sponsored by the Cooler Heads Coalition.
Both the Competitive Enterprise Institute and the Cooler Heads Coalition are funded by the oil industry. BTW this guy doesn't believe in evolution either, I wonder if he changed his mind on that too?
Or how about this guy
quote: Patrick J. Michaels
Research Professor of Environmental Sciences, University of Virginia
Dr. Patrick Michaels is possibly the most prolific and widely-quoted climate change skeptic scientist. He has admitted receiving funding from various fossil fuel industry sources.
His latest book, published in September 2004 by the Cato Institute, is titled: Meltdown: The Predictable Distortion of Global Warming by Scientists, Politicians, and the Media.
Michaels is the Chief Editor for the "World Climate Review," a newsletter on global warming funded by the Western Fuels Association. Dr. Michaels has acknowledged that 20% of his funding comes from fossil fuel sources: (http://www.mtn.org/~nescncl/complaints/determinations/det_118.html)Known funding includes $49,000 from German Coal Mining Association, $15,000 from Edison Electric Institute and $40,000 from Cyprus Minerals Company, an early supporter of People for the West, a "wise use" group. He received $63,000 for research on global climate change from Western Fuels Association, above and beyond the undisclosed amount he is paid for the World Climate Report/Review. According to Harper's magazine, Michaels has recieved over $115,000 over the past four years from coal and oil interests.
Here is a graphic that show how they are interconnected
It seems to me there is more money to be made being a global warming skeptic than a pro scientist.
And let me state the obvious. The fact that this film is a propagandist piece of crap does not prove or disprove climate change is man made, obviously
posted March 20, 2007 08:55 AM
Edited By: ridgeracer on 20 Mar 2007 10:00
And just released today....
quote:Bush administration altered scientific evidence of global warming, former high-ranking official has admitted.
Philip Cooney, an oil industry lobbyist now working for Exxon Mobil, admitted that while he was chief of staff of the White House Council on Environmental Quality he heavily edited environmental reports playing down on the adverse effects of man-made emissions on the climate.
"My sole loyalty was to the President and advancing the policies of his administration," Cooney told the house government reform committee.
New documents revealed that in 2003 Bush administration officials made at least 181 changes to a 2003 State of the Environment report that dealt with climate change. All the changes played down the consequences of global warming.
There were another 113 changes that downplayed human causes of climate change, to match views within the Bush administration and its friends in the business sector.
"These changes must be made," according to a note in Cooney's handwriting. "The language is mandatory."
James Hansen, director of NASA's Goddard Institute for Space Studies, also appeared before the committee, complaining that the Bush administration had attempted to prevent him from speaking out about the dangers of global warming.
"Scientific press releases were going to the White House for editing," he said. [AP, AGENCIES]
You'll find Philip Cooney in my little chart above.
By the way lets repeat that.....
quote:...an oil industry lobbyist now working for Exxon Mobil, admitted that while he was chief of staff of the White House Council on Environmental Quality...
posted March 20, 2007 08:14 PM
RR,
Been surfing the internet for about a week now, compiling scientific data on Global Warming. There is such a wealth of information on the subject, that I gave up trying to compile it. Many scientist including former supporters of Global Warming are refuting the exaggerations, lies, and hype. Here' just a snippet:
"Mr. "I Invented the Internet Al Gore" is renowned for his exaggerations. He has been using the microphones provided him by the mainstream media to predict, among other things, that global warming will cause ocean levels to rise 20 feet. To demonstrate how much the media has adopted his preaching as gospel, all you have to do is check the recent cover of Sports Illustrated, which had Dontrelle Willis of the Marlins depicted on a baseball diamond in water up to his waist.
One problem: The U.N. Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, which Gore quotes in almost every appearance, says its worst-case scenario is that the most sea levels will rise in the next hundred years is 23 inches. That's only a difference of more than 18 feet.
But the most outrageous of Gore's statements that have gone unchallenged is that there is universal scientific support for his theories. Perhaps this explains why the Matt Lauers, Diane Sawyers and Katie Courics of the world seem petrified they will be labeled flat-Earthers if they dare challenge anything regarding the global-warming scare.
This claim isn't an exaggeration. It is a lie. Thousands of scientists dispute much of what Gore says and maintain that global warming might be real but man's impact on it is negligible, that the Earth goes through cycles and it's currently in a warming cycle. There have been several ice ages, and all were neutralized by subsequent warming periods long before cars and factories. As recently as 1975, the concern was global cooling.
An article in The New York Times last week reported, "Part of [Gore's] scientific audience is uneasy. In talks, articles and blog entries that have appeared since his film and accompanying book came out last year, these scientists argue that some of Mr. Gore's central points are exaggerated and erroneous. They are alarmed, some say, at what they call his alarmism."
Some people don't seem to mind being manipulated and lied to. I prefer to come to my own conclusions, and I believe the truth is somewhere in the middle....
____________
We First make our habits and then our habits make us.
quote: Some people don't seem to mind being manipulated and lied to.
Apparently not.
I post information about the Whitehouse hiring an oil company executive to be in charge of the Dept to evaluate if oil companies are causing global warming who admits he lied and withheld valid scientific research showing the effects of global warming from the public and your only response is to paste a hit piece on Al Gore?
What happened to don't attack the messenger?
Believe me I'm no Al Gore fan. In fact let me share this with you.
Way back in '92 when he was running for VP he went to a small town in Ohio where they were about to open the country's largest Toxic Waste incinerator right across the road from an elementary school. He went there and gave a big speech about if they elected Clinton/Gore they would put a stop this kind of shit and make the EPA enforce the law instead of just ignoring them the way Reagan and Bush 41 did.
So they get elected and what do they do? Nothing. The incinerator was still built. The locals proved that it was polluting more than its EPA permit allowed. The EPA did nothing. Gore wouldn't take their calls. After 5 years their permit expired yet the EPA let them continue to operate without a permit. They didn't reapply because they knew they were exceeding their allowable output of toxins and the permit process would document it. All Clinton/Gore had to do was have the EPA enforce the existing law to help these people, well within their powers as the administration.
There are more than enough facts to paint Gore as an environmental hypocrite without making stuff up. (Google Gore and hilltop mining sometime)
But back to the message...
The 20 foot sea level rise is not a 'lie' that Gore made up or exaggerated. It come from a cooperative study funded by the National Science Foundation and done by researchers from the U.S. National Center for Atmospheric Research (NCAR), the University of Arizona, the University of Colorado, and the University of Calgary. The study also involved researchers from the universities of Calgary and Colorado, the U.S. Geological Survey, and The Pennsylvania State University.
Now you may disagree with their study methodology or their conclusions but it was a serious study carried out by competent people and peer reviewed. Any one who would call it a 'lie' is trying to manipulate you with empty rhetoric.
Also the UN study that predicts only a 23 inch rise used outdated data from 2001. Recent real world observations by NASA satellites of ice mass show the melt rates twice as fast as previously thought and much higher than the data used by the UN.
The UN study notes "that its dynamics are still inadequately understood to make firm projections" In other words we can measure the melt runoff but the melting may have unknown consequences like very large sections sliding into the ocean and then melting which has been observed lately
posted March 21, 2007 12:31 PM
Edited By: Megabyte on 21 Mar 2007 13:39
RR,
Your posts are well thought out and well documented, and I had no intention of "attacking the messenger," and apologize if I came across that way....
This is one of the sites I've was referring to: http://www.ourcivilisation.com/aginatur/moregw.htm
If you remove an ice cube from a glass of water, the water level drops by an amount of water that equals the weight of the water that was displaced by the ice cube. So, an iceberg melts, and the water level changes by ? The water hasn't been removed from the ocean; it's just changed its state and is still displacing the same amount of water as it did when it was an ice cube . The notion that the water level is going to rise by 20 feet just seems on its face incredulous to me. The mean temperature @ the poles is so far below 0 that it would take a huge rise in temperature to totally melt them, and I just don't think it's plausible that this will happen. I may be wrong about this, but I just don't see it. However stranger things have happened, just as Noah
____________
We First make our habits and then our habits make us.
quote:If you remove an ice cube from a glass of water, the water level drops by an amount of water that equals the weight of the water that was displaced by the ice cube. So, an iceberg melts, and the water level changes by ? The water hasn't been removed from the ocean; it's just changed its state and is still displacing the same amount of water as it did when it was an ice cube . The notion that the water level is going to rise by 20 feet just seems on its face incredulous to me.
first let me say that i am also VERY skeptical about the 20ft number. in fact i outright don't believe it, especially considering the issue u mentioned about he world having to warm like 50C to melt ALL the ice in the poles.
but to ur question about melting icebergs: that in itself is true. a free floating iceberg is what, 90% underwater? so at most the increase in water level will be the 10% that is above water. add to that the fact that water takes up LESS volume than ice, and that shaves off another... i dunno, guessing 1 or 2%? BUT... there is tons of ice that is NOT floating in teh ocean. think greenland, which is solid ground covered in a rediculous amount of ice. if that ice melted, it would all be contributing to higher water levels. altho, i'm sure that unweighting the ground like that would probably cause the country to rise a touch, which would offset some of the water level increase. can't imagine it woudl be much tho. plus there's all the glaciers in mountains of more temperate areas (like the US and southern canada) that would melt with a few extra degrees. hell, outside my back door we've been having some pretty serious glacier melt for the last several years, tho that is too drastic a melt to blame on global warming since it is way too sudden and too short a time period.
my take on the global warming issue remains that WE DON'T KNOW EITHER WAY. and i think we're not even CLOSE to knowing and quite possibly never will know.
posted March 22, 2007 03:31 PM
Good post! Let's hope we don't find out the hard way
Because an iceberg can only displace an amount of water = to its mass, which is water, I still think a melted iceberg wouldn't change the sea level. However, your point about Greenland, and other ice mases is a good one...I also believe that water also takes up more space as it warms, so some of the predicted rise in sea level could be attributed to the warming water temperature. Still 20 feet is a hard number to swallow. Let's see, if we subtract the current volume of the earth from the earth's volume + 20 ft, then ..... I wonder how much water it would take ???? Maybe I'll work on that number
quote:
my take on the global warming issue remains that WE DON'T KNOW EITHER WAY. and i think we're not even CLOSE to knowing and quite possibly never will know.
____________
We First make our habits and then our habits make us.
posted March 22, 2007 04:39 PM
Edited By: ridgeracer on 22 Mar 2007 17:40
You don't believe it or you don't want to believe it? I don't think you understand how they got that 20 ft number. It's historical. It's already happened before between 120,000 and 116,000 years ago.
Your ice cube analogy about floating ice and melted ice displacing the same amount of water, while correct, is too simplistic for what is going on. Antarctica has enough ice to raise sea levels 200+ feet. Just a portion of the Western Antarctic Ice Sheet (WAIS) is enough to raise sea levels 3 or 4 meters. The majority of the WAIS is supported by land and not contributing to the current sea level. However its base is under water and it sits on a downhill slope. We are talking about a piece of ice the size of France.
The WAIS's base is being melted from below by warmer sea water. As the base melts the water acts as a lubricant and as the sea level rises from other sources, say Greenland, then buoyancy takes some of the weight off the ice They are not afraid of it melting but sliding off into the sea. That is the flip side of your ice cube analogy; floating ice and melted ice displace the same amount of water.
Now this isn't going to happen over night, but the rate of glacial flow is accelerating. In Greenland the ice is disappearing 250% faster than it was just 5 years ago.
This is the Larson B shelf. This photo is about 150 km x 100 km. More than a 1000 sq mi of ice 220 meters thick broke up in less than a month. They believe this shelf had been stable for more than 12,000 years. Now this was mostly floating ice. But these shelves hold back and buttress the land bound ice.
One thing that keeps the WAIS from sliding into the sea is the Ross Ice Shelf. If it suddenly broke up the way the Larson did that would be really really bad. They are starting to see the same kind of pooling on the Ross as they did on the Larson before it broke up. They don't currently think the Ross is warm enough to break like the Larson but temps in the area are warming 0.5 C per decade.
posted March 23, 2007 08:54 AM
I don't want to believe, do you?
Using the Radius of the Earth = 20 925 524.9 feet. It would take 747637 cubic miles of water
to raise the sea level by 20 feet. I realize that water only covers 5/7th of the planet, so I'm not sure how to account for this factor, because if you raise the sea level my 20 feet, waters going to cover more the 5/7 of the earth. Anyway you slice it, mucho water.....
Volume of the Earth = 4/3 Pi (20 925 524.9)^3=38381124220494286091421 cubic feet -
Volume of the Earth + 20' =4/3 Pi (20925544.9)^3=9162844734354251817283.cubic feet=
110050747364679103 cubic feet = 747637 cubic miles of water.
So that's approximately a cube of water 750 miles long x 750 miles wide, x 750 deep.
quote:You don't believe it or you don't want to believe it? I don't think you understand how they got that 20 ft number. It's historical. It's already happened before between 120,000 and 116,000 years ago.
____________
We First make our habits and then our habits make us.
Using the Radius of the Earth = 20 925 524.9 feet. It would take 747637 cubic miles of water
to raise the sea level by 20 feet. I realize that water only covers 5/7th of the planet, so I'm not sure how to account for this factor, because if you raise the sea level my 20 feet, waters going to cover more the 5/7 of the earth. Anyway you slice it, mucho water.....
Volume of the Earth = 4/3 Pi (20 925 524.9)^3=38381124220494286091421 cubic feet -
Volume of the Earth + 20' =4/3 Pi (20925544.9)^3=9162844734354251817283.cubic feet=
110050747364679103 cubic feet = 747637 cubic miles of water.
So that's approximately a cube of water 750 miles long x 750 miles wide, x 750 deep.
quote:You don't believe it or you don't want to believe it? I don't think you understand how they got that 20 ft number. It's historical. It's already happened before between 120,000 and 116,000 years ago.
I've appreciated the intelligence, and tone of most of these post, but I think we're wearing out our welcome here, and wonder if there my be a better forum for our discussion ?. At least we've demonstrated that mature, intelligent adults can have a civil discussion w/o making personal attacks on each other, and that's a victory for all of us....
____________
We First make our habits and then our habits make us.
posted March 23, 2007 01:52 PM
Edited By: ridgeracer on 23 Mar 2007 14:53
quote:There are two types of ice in Antarctica, the continental icesheet, and sea-ice. The ice sheet covers over 99% of continent and has an mean thickness of 2.16 km. By multiplying the area of the ice sheet (13,524,390 square km)by this thickness, we find that the total volume of the continental ice sheet is 29,212,682 km cubed.
29,212,682 km cubed = 11,279,080 miles cubed.
Using your figure of 747,637 cubic miles divided by 11,279,080 cubic miles = 6.6%
Only 6.6% of the current land ice in Antarctica would have to melt or fall into the sea to raise the level 20'
posted March 23, 2007 03:23 PM
Edited By: blueford on 23 Mar 2007 16:24
The Commie said:
quote:You don't believe it or you don't want to believe it? I don't think you understand how they got that 20 ft number. It's historical. It's already happened before between 120,000 and 116,000 years ago.
He's correct about that, very unusual for him, anyways, so what does that explain given that at the time there was just 25,000 humans running around naked with no matches to play with?
Duh, maybe people aren't the cause and it's natural cycle?????
Read up on "Milankovitch cycles" (aka Orbital forcing) the cause of ice ages, we're reaching the peak of an interglacial period that will last 50,000 years.
Moderator
Please... speak to the hand.
Posts: 3212
posted March 26, 2007 05:41 AM
I "vote" to run my old KDX at a rich 32:1 ratio, keep my 2 stroke weed whacker and drive my 13MPG, 7,000 lb Dodge pick-up and just buy "carbon credits".
Okay, I was just kidding about the "buy carbon credits" part.
____________
There are only three sports: bullfighting, motor racing, and mountaineering; all the rest are merely games.
-Ernest Hemingway
quote: Read up on "Milankovitch cycles" (aka Orbital forcing) the cause of ice ages, we're reaching the peak of an interglacial period that will last 50,000 years.
I did. Here is a graph of what he is talking about....
The basic theory is that variations in the earth's orbit, the wobble of its axis etc. change the amount of solar heating. The bottom of the graph shows the solar variation going back 400,000 years. The first thing that is obvious is that we are not reaching a peak in the orbital forcing. In fact...
quote: This article summarizes how the theory has evolved since the pioneer studies of James Croll and Milutin Milankovitch, reviews recent evidence that supports the theory... this model predicts that the long-term cooling trend which began some 6000 years ago will continue for the next 23,000 years.
The only reference I could find to blueford's claim was
quote: A model of the effect of the Milankovitch cycles on the Earth's climate described the 2002 paper in science by Berger & Loutre "Climate: An exceptionally long interglacial ahead?", predicts a possible ice age in 50,000 year time (in the absence of anthropologically enhanced CO2).
But it argues the next ice age is in 50k instead of 25k years. It is not an explanation for current warming.
One thing this graph does show is that the climate varies naturally and is unstable. Being inherently unstable means small changes can upset it. The amount of CO2 has increased 30% since the industrial revolution to historically unprecedented levels and yet people still believe that little bitty man is having no effect on the great big earth?
quote: Read up on "Milankovitch cycles" (aka Orbital forcing) the cause of ice ages, we're reaching the peak of an interglacial period that will last 50,000 years.
I did. Here is a graph of what he is talking about....
The basic theory is that variations in the earth's orbit, the wobble of its axis etc. change the amount of solar heating. The bottom of the graph shows the solar variation going back 400,000 years. The first thing that is obvious is that we are not reaching a peak in the orbital forcing. In fact...
quote: This article summarizes how the theory has evolved since the pioneer studies of James Croll and Milutin Milankovitch, reviews recent evidence that supports the theory... this model predicts that the long-term cooling trend which began some 6000 years ago will continue for the next 23,000 years.
The only reference I could find to blueford's claim was
quote: A model of the effect of the Milankovitch cycles on the Earth's climate described the 2002 paper in science by Berger & Loutre "Climate: An exceptionally long interglacial ahead?", predicts a possible ice age in 50,000 year time (in the absence of anthropologically enhanced CO2).
But it argues the next ice age is in 50k instead of 25k years. It is not an explanation for current warming.
One thing this graph does show is that the climate varies naturally and is unstable. Being inherently unstable means small changes can upset it. The amount of CO2 has increased 30% since the industrial revolution to historically unprecedented levels and yet people still believe that little bitty man is having no effect on the great big earth?
Bikeland's Rosie O'Donnell, like all lefties is prone to HYSTERIA!!
Their opinion that global warming will annihilate the planet is but one of many hysterical ideas held on the Left.
There's hysteria about the dangers of the PATRIOT Act and the NSA surveillance of Al Qaeda phone conversations as a return to Nazi fascism.
Oil drilling in the remotest area of North Alaska is a major environmental desecration that will kill billions of little furry creatures.
Opposition to same-sex marriage means an imminent Christian theocracy will take over America.
Big business is to blame." It's America's fault, we didn't ratify the Kyoto protocol, yeah, yeah, please put a sock in it Rosie!
posted March 27, 2007 02:59 PM
Al Gore, Hollywood stars, and various liberals live in the most hi-energy most wasteful homes imaginable. But support the global warming effort, these people need your money.
____________
2010 Concours14
'08 R1 YAMAHA
ZX14 gone!
CBR600RR track bike
posted March 28, 2007 08:40 PM
That is all you got? Al Gore is a hypocrite so global warming is a hoax?
As for HYSTERIA!!!! It's you guys on the right that think every cab driver and 7/11 clerk is a sleeper cell terrorist.
And apparently Republicans are just as hysterical on global warming....
quote: In December long before Al Gore's Oscar and the latest consensus scientific report we surveyed 400 New Hampshire Republican primary voters... Nearly eight in 10 Republican primary voters in New Hampshire believe global warming is a reality that is either happening now or will happen in the future. A solid 56 percent majority see global warming already occurring, while an additional 23 percent believe it will happen in the future. Just 14 percent think global warming will not happen.
Moreover, this issue is of central concern to Republican primary voters. Nearly all (82 percent) say it is important to them that the U.S. take action to reduce the emissions that cause global warming....
Perhaps most strikingly, Newt Gingrich's argument against the reality of global warming elicited extremely negative reactions from his fellow Republicans. When confronted with the former Speaker's statement that "There's no evidence to support global warming none. It's essentially cultural anthropology," nearly half said it made them less likely to vote for the candidate who uttered it, including 34 percent who said it made them much less likely to vote for that candidate.
All times are America/Va [ This thread is 2 pages long: 12 ]
HOME
NEW TOPIC
posted March 19, 2007 08:35 AM
Edited By: 
. The notion that the water level is going to rise by 20 feet just seems on its face incredulous to me. The mean temperature @ the poles is so far below 0 that it would take a huge rise in temperature to totally melt them, and I just don't think it's plausible that this will happen. I may be wrong about this, but I just don't see it. However stranger things have happened, just as Noah 
