Global warming news you don't hear about

As I remember it:

I read an op-ed by the scientists largely creditted with some important antartic model that global warming deniers love to tout. The scientists said their information was being distorted (State of Fear by Michael Crichton IIRC was one of those) to wrongfully deny global warming and that the antarctic thing was just a piece of evidence for the aggregate, not the end all be all, and furthermore a comprehensive look at the antarctic thing showed also strong signs for global warming as well, often ignored by the deniers.

P.S. Gothmog ftw :D
 
Needless to say, there is no scientific consensus that claims that man is causing global warming! It is, however, being reported in the media that way!
Why is this?
Well, us being less harmful to the environment won't be a bad thing, will it? :)
 
Let me ask you a question.

Say you have lung cancer. Are you going to care whether you got it from smoking or not?

You'd be thinking "who cares who or what caused it, it's a problem I need to fix".

There it is.
Not so fast.

You do a round of chemotherapy and the cancer goes into remission.

And then the cancer comes back because you didn't stop smoking.


The real truth is that you DO need to know what caused it. Global warming is treated by many as a problem, but it is really a symptom. To stop it, you have to treat the problem.

Pain is merely a symptom; taking painkillers doesn't treat the problem, it treats the symptom. The thing that's making you sick is still there.
 
Global warming is treated by many as a problem, but it is really a symptom. To stop it, you have to treat the problem.

WHAT? Global warming is a symptom? A symptom for what problem?

NO, it's a problem. It's a problem for our lifestyles, economies, tourism and many other things. It's going to affect the very way we live!
 
Although there're always discussions and scientific modeling and re-modeling of global warming, I generally, from our everyday experience, judged that global warming has probably occurred.
storealex said:
How you, quasar, hope to use that as an argument against global warming, is beyond me.
I'm not saying there is no global warming, and neither are these articles. The gist of these articles disputes the contention that man's activities are driving climate change; rather, that climate change is cyclical, responding to changes in the sun, or even cosmic rays. After all, we know the sun has maximum and minimum periods of sunspots (next maxima due ~2010). Also, the Earth's climate system itself has many oscillations: e.g. the North Atlantic Oscillation, and even El Nino-La Nina-La Nada is an oscillation.

Some of the articles I posted claim that the rate of global warming is slowing. The warming period, or oscillation, may even be peaking. If that is so, then man hardly has a controlling interest in the energy balance of the Earth.

Masquerouge said:
So, what's your suggestion? That we keep on polluting and don't care about controlling it?
Hardly. Pollution is bad, period. I recycle. I turn off lights and the TV when I'm not in the room. I drive a fuel-efficient car, even when a lot of my buddies have SUVs. I have a 3-mile commute, and have walked to work on occasion. I don't litter. I don't waste water. One ought to take care of the environment, regardless of their views about global warming.

Dragonlord said:
Of course, if you don't WANT to believe because you resist changing your lifestyle and don't want a guilty conscience... then you won't ever be convinced, no matter how many scientists offer proof.
See above. I don't have a guilty conscience, because I live a fairly 'green' lifestyle. The reason I am not convinced, is that my fellow scientists are not offering proof, only conjecture. That the Earth has been warming, I accept. That man is causing the warming, is simply not factual.

Today's submissions:
Cleveland's weather wizards downplay global warming

How to fix global warming? Live rock concerts!
Print, broadcast ignore hypocrisy of a 'green' event that could pollute every continent.
 
As I thought, the global warming hysteria can't live up to it's own hype.

It's more like you fail at looking at credible sources.
 
Quasar1011

You claim to be a scientist, so where's the science?

Why link to non-peer reviewed articles and other crap.

If you want to talk science, let's talk science.
 
in every 100 articiles pubsished in scienfic papers 100 agree that we were affecting climate change in newspapers only 50% that is why there is so much confusion
 
El_Machinae said it best

I don't know what's being disputed. That:
- CO2 traps additional sun heat, and stays in the atmosphere for a decent amount of time.
- mankind is massively increasing the amount of CO2 in the air
- that additional heat causes climate changes
- that mankind will continue to pump additional CO2 into the air, faster than it can be sequestered naturally
- that our economies are designed for our current climate, and that shifting infrastructure to accomodate new climates will be expensive.

Where's the stumbling block?
 
UK Channel 4: The Great Global Warming Scandal

This is set to air on Britain's channel 4 on Thursday. The gist of the documentary is revealed in the linked article's first 2 paragraphs.

LONDON -- With a packet of claims that are almost certain to defy conventional wisdom, a television documentary to be aired in Britain this week condemns man-made global warming as a myth that has become "the biggest scam of modern times."
The program titled "The Great Global Warming Scandal" and set for screening by TV Channel 4 on Thursday dismisses claims that high levels of greenhouse gases generated by human activity causes climate change. Instead, the program suggests that the sun itself is the real culprit.
 
Even if the sun is the real culprit we still need TO DO something about it.

For instance, a large comet the size of Australia is headed to Earth. It's not man-made. Shall we just dig our graves and go to bed?

We need to reduce our greenhouse gas emissions either way.
 
UK Channel 4: The Great Global Warming Scandal

This is set to air on Britain's channel 4 on Thursday. The gist of the documentary is revealed in the linked article's first 2 paragraphs.

LONDON -- With a packet of claims that are almost certain to defy conventional wisdom, a television documentary to be aired in Britain this week condemns man-made global warming as a myth that has become "the biggest scam of modern times." The program titled "The Great Global Warming Scandal" and set for screening by TV Channel 4 on Thursday dismisses claims that high levels of greenhouse gases generated by human activity causes climate change. Instead, the program suggests that the sun itself is the real culprit.
You haven't even seen the docu yet, but allready you are using it as a source to substantiate your claim? Just it's existense, not it's content is important here? Also I love how they talk about 9 scientists but disregard 2,500. Too bad I can't get Channel 4.

Would you say these people are qualified as well?
Don Anair
Engineer
Clean Vehicles Program
Berkeley, CA
Don Anair, Engineer in the Union of Concerned Scientists' Clean Vehicles Program, is an expert on diesel pollution, advanced vehicle technologies, and alternative fuels.

Steven Bantz
Senior Engineer
Clean Vehicles Program
Washington, DC
As a Senior Engineer in the Clean Vehicles Program, Steven Bantz carries out research to analyze and assess transportation issues with a focus on biomass-based fuels and energy.

Christopher Busch
California Climate Economist
Global Warming Program
Berkeley, CA
Dr. Christopher Busch is an expert in the economics of global warming and global warming solutions.

Cliff Chen
Clean Energy Analyst
Clean Energy Program
Berkeley, CA
Cliff Chen, a Clean Energy Analyst in the Union of Concerned Scientist's California office, is the author of several economic analyses of state renewable electricity standards.

Steve Clemmer
Research Director
Clean Energy Program
Cambridge, MA
As Research Director in the Union of Concerned Scientists' Clean Energy Program, Steven Clemmer is an expert on renewable-energy project implementation at the state and federal levels.

Nancy Cole
Deputy Director
Global Environment Program
Cambridge, MA
Nancy Cole, Deputy Director of the Union of Concerned Scientists' Global Environment Program and a grassroots-organizing veteran, works with scientists across the country to bring the voice of the scientific community to bear on issues critical to the global environment.

Jonathan Dean
Adviser on Global Security Issues
Global Security Program
Washington, DC
Ambassador Jonathan Dean, Adviser on Global Security Issues, is an expert on issues related to national and European security, arms control, and international peacekeeping.

Jeff Deyette
Analyst
Clean Energy Program
Cambridge, MA
Jeff Deyette is an Energy Analyst with expertise in renewable energy and resource and environmental management.

Brenda Ekwurzel
Climate Scientist
Global Environment Program
Washington, DC
Brenda Ekwurzel works on the national climate program at the Union of Concerned Scientists (UCS). She is leading UCS's climate science education work aimed at strengthening support for strong federal climate legislation and sound U.S. climate policies.

David Friedman
Research Director
Clean Vehicles Program
Washington, DC
Mr. Friedman is the author or co-author of more than 20 technical papers and reports on advances in conventional, fuel cell, and hybrid-electric vehicles, with an emphasis on clean and efficient technologies.

Peter Frumhoff
Director of Science & Policy and Chief Scientist, Climate Campaign
Executive Program
Cambridge, MA
Peter Frumhoff is Director of Science & Policy and Chief Scientist, Climate Campaign, at UCS. A global change ecologist, he has published and lectured widely on topics that include climate change impacts, climate science and policy, tropical forest conservation and management, and biological diversity.

John Galloway
Senior Analyst
Clean Energy Program
Berkeley, CA
John Galloway is a Senior Analyst in the Union of Concerned Scientists' Clean Energy Program, working in our Berkeley, California office.

Laura Grego
Staff Scientist
Global Security Program
Cambridge, MA
Dr. Laura Grego, Staff Scientist in the Global Security Program at UCS, is an expert on space security issues. Her other interests are the militarization and weaponization of space, nuclear arms control, and national security policy.

Francesca Grifo
Senior Scientist and Director
Scientific Integrity Program
Washington, DC
Francesca Grifo, Senior Scientist and Director of the Scientific Integrity Program, is an expert in biodiversity conservation, environmental education, and scientific integrity.

Lisbeth Gronlund
Co-Director/Senior Scientist
Global Security Program
Cambridge, MA
Lisbeth Gronlund, Co-Director of the Union of Concerned Scientists' Global Security Program, is an expert on technical issues related to ballistic missile defenses, ballistic missile proliferation, international fissile material controls, and nuclear arms control.

Doug Gurian-Sherman
Senior Scientist
Food and Environment Program
Washington, DC
Doug Gurian-Sherman, a Senior Scientist with the Food and Environment Program at the Union of Concerned Scientists, is a widely cited expert on biotechnology and genetically engineered food.

Daniel Kalb
California Policy Coordinator
Clean Vehicles Program
Berkeley, CA
Dan Kalb, California Policy Coordinator for the Union of Concerned Scientists, is an expert on environmental issues in California.

Kevin Knobloch
President
Executive Program
Cambridge, MA
Kevin Knobloch, President of the Union of Concerned Scientists, is an expert on many environmental and arms control issues.

Gregory Kulacki
Analyst, China Project
Global Security Program
China Project
Dr. Gregory Kulacki is a respected expert on international educational exchanges with the People's Republic of China. He lived and worked in China for more than 12 years, developing and administering a wide variety of exchange programs between China and the United States.

Dave Lochbaum
Director, Nuclear Safety Project
Global Security Program
Washington, DC
David Lochbaum is the Director of the Nuclear Safety Project in the Global Security Program. He is one of the nation's top independent experts on nuclear power.

Amy Luers
California Climate Manager
Global Environment Program
Berkeley, CA
Amy Luers is an environmental scientist in the Global Environmental Program at the Union of Concerned Scientists (UCS). She manages UCS's California climate change impacts work.

Edwin Lyman
Senior Staff Scientist
Global Security Program
Washington, DC
Edwin Lyman, Senior Staff Scientist in the Global Security Program at the Union of Concerned Scientists, is an expert on nuclear weapons policy, nuclear materials, and nuclear terrorism.

Don MacKenzie
Vehicles Engineer
Clean Vehicles Program
Washington, DC
Don MacKenzie is a Vehicles Engineer with the Union of concerned scientists and an expert in issues surrounding fuel economy.

Margaret Mellon
Director/Senior Scientist
Food and Environment Program
Washington, DC
Margaret Mellon, Director/Senior Scientist, of the Union of Concerned Scientists' Food and Environment Program, is one of the nation's most respected experts on biotechnology and food safety.

Alden Meyer
Director of Strategy & Policy
Executive Program
Washington, DC
Alden Meyer, Director of Strategy and Policy for the Union of Concerned Scientists, is an expert on environmental issues.

Patricia Monahan
Deputy Director for Clean Vehicles/Director of the California Office
Clean Vehicles Program
Berkeley, CA
Patricia Monahan, Deputy Director for the Clean Vehicles Program at the Union of Concerned Scientists, is an expert on vehicular emissions, California and federal diesel regulations, and the health impacts of vehicular pollution.

Alan Nogee
Program Director
Clean Energy Program
Cambridge, MA
Alan Nogee is a widely respected authority on renewable energy and brings to UCS more than 20 years of experience as an energy analyst and advocate.

Kathleen M. Rest
Executive Director
Executive Program
Cambridge, MA
Kathleen Rest, Executive Director of the Union of Concerned Scientists, is an expert on public health issues.

Jane Rissler
Deputy Director/Senior Scientist
Food and Environment Program
Washington, DC
Dr. Jane Rissler, Deputy Director/Senior Scientist in the Food and Environment Program at the Union of Concerned Scientists, is an expert on agricultural biotechnology and antibiotic resistance.

Michelle Robinson
Director of Clean Vehicles
Clean Vehicles Program
Washington, DC
Michelle Robinson, Director of the Union of Concerned Scientists' Clean Vehicles Program, is a recognized expert on state and federal transportation policy and the legislative debates surrounding them.

Lexi Shultz
Washington Representative
Executive Program
Washington, DC
Lexi Shultz is an expert on climate change policy.

Erika Spanger-Siegfried
Northeast Climate Project Manager
Global Warming Program
Cambridge, MA
Erika Spanger-Siegfried manages the Northeast Climate Impacts Assessment, a collaboration between the Union of Concerned Scientists and a multi-disciplinary team of more than 40 scientists from across the region.

Karen Stillerman
Senior Analyst
Food and Environment Program
Washington, DC
As a Senior Analyst in the Food and Environment Program at UCS, Karen Stillerman leads the Union of Concerned Scientists' effort to protect the food supply from crops that are genetically engineered to produce pharmaceutical and industrial chemicals.

Marchant Wentworth
Washington Representative
Clean Energy Program
Washington, DC
Marchant Wentworth, Legislative Representative for the Clean Energy Program at the Union of Concerned Scientists, is an expert on renewable energy and energy efficiency policy.

Phyllis Windle
Senior Scientist
Invasive Species, Global Environment Program
Washington, DC
Phyllis Windle, Senior Staff Scientist in the Global Environment Program at the Union of Concerned Scientists, is one of the nation's most respected experts on invasive species.

David Wright
Co-Director/Senior Scientist
Global Security Program
Cambridge, MA
Dr. David Wright, Co-Director of the Union of Concerned Scientists' Global Security Program, is an established expert on the technical aspects of arms control, particularly those related to missile defense systems and missile proliferation.

Stephen Young
Washington Representative/Senior Analyst
Global Security Program
Washington, DC
Stephen Young is an expert on a wide range of arms control and international security issues, including national missile defense and the Comprehensive Test Ban Treaty.

Well, they also wrote a piece about Global Warming and how it is caused by the greenhouse effect. I don't seem to have to post that article since content didn't seem to matter.
 
Trite question, but why?

If it were due to the tilt of the earth's axis, would you seriously advocate trying to tilt the earth?

If a shift in a tilt of the axis leads to warming, we should do what we can to reduce risks of further warming.

Anyone with basic science knowledge knows the theory of the greenhouse effect. So even if natural warming is occurring, we have to do what we can to reduce warming on any level from our part. We know carbon dioxide traps heat. So we should reduce our emissions. It's really that simple.
 
If a shift in a tilt of the axis leads to warming, we should do what we can to reduce risks of further warming.

Anyone with basic science knowledge knows the theory of the greenhouse effect. So even if natural warming is occurring, we have to do what we can to reduce warming on any level from our part. We know carbon dioxide traps heat. So we should reduce our emissions. It's really that simple.

No, its not. What we *should* do is gain a better understanding of what the actual effects and magnitude of global warming are, and then make an informed decision as to whether the risks (or benefits) are justified by the cost.

For (another somewhat trite) example: If continuing with current emissions levels could be demonstrated conclusively to be the key to mitigating against an end-of-century ice-age, would reducing emissions be a good option, or not?
 
No, its not. What we *should* do is gain a better understanding of what the actual effects and magnitude of global warming are, and then make an informed decision as to whether the risks (or benefits) are justified by the cost.
2 problems with that. One, at what point do we have sufficient understanding and who decides what level is 'sufficient'. it seems that to some this level will never be reached and the waters are allready muddied. Two, many scientists allready say that the need to act now is present. What if we miss our window of oportunity?

So, allthough what you are proposing would indeed be the prefered way to go, it's not quite sure we have the luxury of time to do it in. Missing the window could be disastrous.

Lastly, if we are wrong and there are benefits to Global Warming like postponing an ice age or such, it is easier to enrich the atmosphere with CO2 than take it out.
 
No, its not. What we *should* do is gain a better understanding of what the actual effects and magnitude of global warming are, and then make an informed decision as to whether the risks (or benefits) are justified by the cost.

For (another somewhat trite) example: If continuing with current emissions levels could be demonstrated conclusively to be the key to mitigating against an end-of-century ice-age, would reducing emissions be a good option, or not?

Yes it would be a good option but that's not happening. What's happening is that average temperatures and sea levels are on the rise and the polar ice caps are shrinking. That's what's happening. So the key right now is to reduce carbon emissions.
 
Top Bottom