climate change and how the left has been misleading public

[Ned Kelly]

I repeat:

What was the name of that volcanic mountain in Iceland, the one whose eruption brought Europe's airlines to their knees, and what effect did it have? 'Word' is that it wiped out every measure 'we' have taken to reduce our impact on climate change.

[Sappho]

I repeat:

What was the name of that volcanic mountain in Iceland, the one whose eruption brought Europe's airlines to their knees.....

mount ldfupoaufnqpiouxcyvioqyh

[HIGHERBEAM]

I repeat:

What was the name of that volcanic mountain in Iceland, the one whose eruption brought Europe's airlines to their knees, and what effect did it have? 'Word' is that it wiped out every measure 'we' have taken to reduce our impact on climate change.

You are right,in one explosion it destroys years of so called saving of the planet mesures,what happens when there is two explosions and a meteorite,we will go thru a mini ice age and we will have the left saying we should plug all volcanos and send all missiles up to stop the meteorites.

[HIGHERBEAM]

mount ldfupoaufnqpiouxcyvioqyh

You forgot mneu on the end

[Sappho]

mount ldfupoaufnqpiouxcyvioqyh

You forgot mneu on the end

My spelling has never been that good.

[Ned Kelly]

mount ldfupoaufnqpiouxcyvioqyh

You forgot mneu on the end

My spelling has never been that good.

Matches your credibility, Monkey Magic.

[Super Nova]

You answered my question,yes the USA is involved and they have turned so far left they should be a eastern europe country umder the Obama admin.But wait china where everyone is equal in the socialist utopia but some are more equal than others and they spend more per capita on coal than any other country and nucleur well that is another thing.

I don't consider Vhina to be a socialist utopia. It is moving to capitalisim at a very fast rate. They use solialist dogma to control the masses and have a long history of central control. Imagine a world where everyone is poluting like the west a 100 years ago. It would be a terrible place and you would have to agree the world would be very severely damaged by mans activity. Just because you live in a western and modern country where the imediate effects of carbon release is not felt, go have a look at some of the shit holes are the world. The UK has moved form one of the mos pollutd places to one of the cleanest in a 100 years. It to legislation (like the clean air act) and political will. The behavour of people and industry followed. We need to do the same on a global level.

Climate science predictions don't involve recently discovered feedback mechanisms so until we have these mech we have to assume that we are going thru another cyclic period

Do we always have to wait until it is so bad before we act. Can we afford the risk of not taking positive efforts to minimise our effects on the planets climate. I argue we should not wait.

Yes lets spends vast amounts of money that could feed the poor on data and climate stratagies that could be wiped ouy in one volcanic explosion that could or could not be correct and destroy every economy in the world

Your point is flawed. Imagine the world were we are adding the equivalent damage as a massive eruption and then we have a major erruption. Like adding 2 sine waves together the impact would be even more dramatic. the arguement for doing nothing because the earth has it's own natural variations is flawed. The earths climate is currently the best for humanity. We should try to keep it that way. Is your argument akin to 2 wrongs make a right. i am sure it is not but it is just as crediable.

In summary,
-we are having a negative effect on the planet
-we need to do something now
-we owe future generations a planet that is fit for everyone to live on
-money...a poor measure of cost... the cost of doing nothing needs to be considered
-our style of consumption needs to change
-we will do something... we will take action to rduce our negative effects on climate change

SN

[HIGHERBEAM]

I don't consider Vhina to be a socialist utopia. It is moving to capitalisim at a very fast rate. They use solialist dogma to control the masses and have a long history of central control. Imagine a world where everyone is poluting like the west a 100 years ago. It would be a terrible place and you would have to agree the world would be very severely damaged by mans activity. Just because you live in a western and modern country where the imediate effects of carbon release is not felt, go have a look at some of the shit holes are the world. The UK has moved form one of the mos pollutd places to one of the cleanest in a 100 years. It to legislation (like the clean air act) and political will. The behavour of people and industry followed. We need to do the same on a global level.

The biggest poluters in the world will not accept that they have to clean up there act or that they have anything to clean up(china,india)if we accept that there is a problem which I dont.The western world can do nothing with out them because the more western countries try to decrease their footprint the growing economies will replace that footprint and increase their economic power,do we really want china telling the western world what to do,I think not.

Do we always have to wait until it is so bad before we act. Can we afford the risk of not taking positive efforts to minimise our effects on the planets climate. I argue we should not wait.

Your logic may be flawed because how do we stop volcanos erupting,how do we stop being affected by sunspots,do we set up big fans to blow the cloud cover away.

The earths climate is currently the best for humanity. We should try to keep it that way. Is your argument akin to 2 wrongs make a right. i am sure it is not but it is just as crediable.

Is that what humanity said between 10th to 14th centuries when we had a hot period.Humanity adapted.Is that what they said after that when humanity went thru a mini ice age,I think not.

In summary,
-we are having a negative effect on the planet
-we need to do something now
-we owe future generations a planet that is fit for everyone to live on
-money...a poor measure of cost... the cost of doing nothing needs to be considered
-our style of consumption needs to change
-we will do something... we will take action to rduce our negative effects on climate change

I dispute that we are having a negetive impact
We certainly do need to leave our future generations strong economies

Atmospheric carbon dioxide levels and temperature change since 1940. The film asserts that records of atmospheric CO2 levels since 1940 show a continuing increase, but during this period, global temperature decreased until 1975, and has increased since then.
Variations in warming rate. The programme states that all models of greenhouse effect-derived temperature increase predict that the warming will be at its greatest for a given location in the troposphere and at its lowest near the surface of the earth. The programme asserts that current satellite and weather balloon data do not support this model, and instead show that the surface warming rate is greater than or equal to the rate in the lower troposphere.
Increases in CO2 and temperatures following the end of ice ages. According to the film, increases in CO2 levels lagged behind temperature increases during glacial terminations.

EPICA and Vostok ice cores display the relationship between temperature and level of CO2 for the last 650,000 years.Relationship between atmospheric carbon dioxide levels and temperature change. The film asserts that carbon dioxide levels increase or decrease as a result of temperatures increasing or decreasing rather than temperatures following carbon dioxide levels, because as the global climate cools the Earth's oceans absorb carbon dioxide, and as the climate warms the oceans release carbon dioxide.
Influence of oceanic mass on temperature changes. The programme argues that due to the very large mass of the world's oceans, it takes hundreds of years for global temperature changes to register in oceanic mass, which is why analysis of the Vostok Station and other ice cores shows that changes in the level of atmospheric carbon dioxide follow changes in global temperature by 800 years.
Influence of water vapour on climate change. According to the film, water vapour makes up 95% of all greenhouse gases and has the largest impact on the planet's temperature. Water particles in the form of clouds act to reflect incoming solar heat, but the film argues that the effects of clouds cannot be accurately simulated by scientists attempting to predict future weather patterns and their effects on global warming.
Influence of carbon dioxide on climate change. The film states that carbon dioxide comprises only a very minuscule amount—just 0.054% of the Earth's atmosphere. According to the film, human activity contributes much less than 1% of that, while volcanoes produce significantly more CO2 per year than humans, while plants and animals produce 150 gigatons of CO2 each year. Dying leaves produce even more CO2, and the oceans are "the biggest source of CO2 by far." Human activity produces a mere 6.5 gigatons of CO2 each year. The film concludes that man-made CO2 emissions alone cannot be causing global warming. (Durkin subsequently acknowledged that the claim about volcanic CO2 emissions was wrong, and removed the claim from later versions.[15])
Influence of the sun on climate change. The film highlights the solar variation theory of global warming, asserting that solar activity is currently at an extremely high level, and that this is directly linked to changes in global temperature. The posited mechanism involves cosmic rays as well as heat from the sun aiding cloud formation.[16] The film argues that the activity of the sun is far more influential on global warming and cooling than any other man-made or natural activity on Earth.
Previous episodes of warming. The programme asserts that the current episode of global warming is nothing unusual and temperatures were even more extreme during the Medieval Warm Period, a time of great prosperity in western Europe.
[edit] Political issues
The programme makes a number of assertions arguing that the integrity of climate research has been compromised by financial, ideological and political interests:

Increased funding of climate science. According to the film, there has been an increase in funds available for any research related to global warming "and it is now one of the best funded areas of science."
Increased availability of funding for global warming research. The film asserts that scientists seeking a research grant award have a much more likely chance of successfully obtaining funding if the grant is linked to global warming research.
Influence of vested interests. The programme argues that vested interests have a bigger impact on the proponents (rather than the detractors) of the theory of man-made global warming because hundreds of thousands of jobs in science, media, and government have been created and are subsidised as a result of this theory.
Suppression of dissenting views. According to the programme, scientists who speak out (against the theory that global warming is man-made) risk persecution, death threats, loss of funding, personal attacks, and damage to their reputations.
Role of ideology. The film proposes that some supporters of the theory that global warming is man-made do so because it supports their emotional and ideological beliefs against capitalism, economic development, globalisation, industrialisation, and the United States.
Role of politics. The programme asserts that the theory that global warming is man-made was promoted by the British Conservative Prime Minister Margaret Thatcher as a means of promoting nuclear power and reducing the impact of strike action in the state-owned coal industry by the National Union of Mineworkers.
Role of industry. The film argues that the assertion that global warming sceptics are funded by private industry (such as oil, gas, and coal industries) are false and have no basis in fact.

[Super Nova]

Source: http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news ... rming.html

Is It Happening?

Yes. Earth is already showing many signs of worldwide climate change.

• Average temperatures have climbed 1.4 degrees Fahrenheit (0.8 degree Celsius) around the world since 1880, much of this in recent decades, according to NASA's Goddard Institute for Space Studies.

• The rate of warming is increasing. The 20th century's last two decades were the hottest in 400 years and possibly the warmest for several millennia, according to a number of climate studies. And the United Nations' Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) reports that 11 of the past 12 years are among the dozen warmest since 1850.

• The Arctic is feeling the effects the most. Average temperatures in Alaska, western Canada, and eastern Russia have risen at twice the global average, according to the multinational Arctic Climate Impact Assessment report compiled between 2000 and 2004.

• Arctic ice is rapidly disappearing, and the region may have its first completely ice-free summer by 2040 or earlier. Polar bears and indigenous cultures are already suffering from the sea-ice loss.

• Glaciers and mountain snows are rapidly melting—for example, Montana's Glacier National Park now has only 27 glaciers, versus 150 in 1910. In the Northern Hemisphere, thaws also come a week earlier in spring and freezes begin a week later.

• Coral reefs, which are highly sensitive to small changes in water temperature, suffered the worst bleaching—or die-off in response to stress—ever recorded in 1998, with some areas seeing bleach rates of 70 percent. Experts expect these sorts of events to increase in frequency and intensity in the next 50 years as sea temperatures rise.

• An upsurge in the amount of extreme weather events, such as wildfires, heat waves, and strong tropical storms, is also attributed in part to climate change by some experts.

Are Humans Causing It?

[Super Nova]

and more

Industrialization, deforestation, and pollution have greatly increased atmospheric concentrations of water vapor, carbon dioxide, methane, and nitrous oxide, all greenhouse gases that help trap heat near Earth's surface. (See an interactive feature on how global warming works.)

• Humans are pouring carbon dioxide into the atmosphere much faster than plants and oceans can absorb it.

• These gases persist in the atmosphere for years, meaning that even if such emissions were eliminated today, it would not immediately stop global warming.

• Some experts point out that natural cycles in Earth's orbit can alter the planet's exposure to sunlight, which may explain the current trend. Earth has indeed experienced warming and cooling cycles roughly every hundred thousand years due to these orbital shifts, but such changes have occurred over the span of several centuries. Today's changes have taken place over the past hundred years or less.

• Other recent research has suggested that the effects of variations in the sun's output are "negligible" as a factor in warming, but other, more complicated solar mechanisms could possibly play a role.

What's Going to Happen?

A follow-up report by the IPCC released in April 2007 warned that global warming could lead to large-scale food and water shortages and have catastrophic effects on wildlife.

• Sea level could rise between 7 and 23 inches (18 to 59 centimeters) by century's end, the IPCC's February 2007 report projects. Rises of just 4 inches (10 centimeters) could flood many South Seas islands and swamp large parts of Southeast Asia.

• Some hundred million people live within 3 feet (1 meter) of mean sea level, and much of the world's population is concentrated in vulnerable coastal cities. In the U.S., Louisiana and Florida are especially at risk.

• Glaciers around the world could melt, causing sea levels to rise while creating water shortages in regions dependent on runoff for fresh water.

• Strong hurricanes, droughts, heat waves, wildfires, and other natural disasters may become commonplace in many parts of the world. The growth of deserts may also cause food shortages in many places.

• More than a million species face extinction from disappearing habitat, changing ecosystems, and acidifying oceans.

• The ocean's circulation system, known as the ocean conveyor belt, could be permanently altered, causing a mini-ice age in Western Europe and other rapid changes.

• At some point in the future, warming could become uncontrollable by creating a so-called positive feedback effect. Rising temperatures could release additional greenhouse gases by unlocking methane in permafrost and undersea deposits, freeing carbon trapped in sea ice, and causing increased evaporation of water.

What is Climategate?

In late November 2009, hackers unearthed hundreds of emails at the U.K.'s University of East Anglia that exposed private conversations among top-level British and U.S. climate scientists discussing whether certain data should be released to the public. [Do we know who the hackers were? Were they skeptics? Might be worth noting]

The email exchanges also refer to statistical tricks used to illustrate climate change? trends, and call climate skeptics idiots, according to the New York Times.

One such trick was used to create the well-known hockey-stick graph, which shows a sharp uptick in temperature increases during the 20th century. Former U.S vice president Al Gore relied heavily on the graph as evidence of human-caused climate change in the documentary An Inconvenient Truth.

The data used for this graph come from two sources: thermostat readings and tree-ring samples.

While thermostat readings have consistently shown a temperature rise over the past hundred years, tree-ring samples show temperature increases stalling around 1960.

On the hockey-stick graph, thermostat-only data is grafted onto data that incorporates both thermostat and tree-ring readings, essentially presenting a seamless picture of two different data sets, the hacked emails revealed.

But scientists argue that dropping the tree-ring data was no secret and has been written about in the scientific literature for years.

Climate change skeptics have heralded the emails as an attempt to fool the public, according to the Times.

Yet climate scientists maintain that these controversial points are small blips that are inevitable in scientific research, and that the evidence for human-induced climate change is much broader and still widely accepted.