[Plummit]

Channel 4 (BBC) has distanced itself from this show because of false graphs, mis-representations, and use of out-dated, erroneous data.

http://news.independent.co.uk/environment/climate_change/article2355956.ece

 

[N8 v2.0]

Channel 4 (BBC) has distanced itself from this show because of false graphs, mis-representations, and use of out-dated, erroneous data.

http://news.independent.co.uk/environment/climate_change/article2355956.ece

of course they have..... the documentry's POV is far from popular in Old Europe

 

[bac]

... it again showed almost complete consensus in the scientific field in regards to global warming and an almost 50/50 split in mainstream media. Mainstream media is made to make money - that is all. Its more interesting to read about/see conflict than everyone agreeing about something.

Most all scientists with a vested interest in our government, or big oil all share one commom thread. They say that global warming is not a result of man. It's funny (actually disturbing) that this same group used to state that global warming is a MYTH. However, just like with the WMD lie, they've now had to FLIP-FLOP given the universally accepted fact (even the Bush administration has agreed) that global warming is indeed occuring:

It's interesting to note that scientists with no vested interest in this political debate all have a consistent, and completely opposing opinion of global warming. They say, almost sans exception, that global warming is clearly a man-made situation, and therefore, we MAY have the power to fix/help it.

We all can easily see which groups are backing which side of the alleged "argument". You certainly need not be a scientist to understand who is lying ....... yet again. You just can't be a sheep.

 

[narlus]

new avatar for n8:

 

[Changleen]

Uh, Channel 4 is not the BBC - Just FYI... They are an independant commercial channel traditionally known for being slightly more risque than the other channels might be. (At least until '5' came along)

 

[Secret Squirrel]

I like channels '69' and '96'.

 

[N8 v2.0]

i for one am ready for a little global warming!

bring it on!

 

[Secret Squirrel]

i for one am ready for a little global warming!

bring it on!

I do believe that I've finally found something that N8 positively contributed for the betterment of the Mon-kay.

Good show, sir....good show.

 

[N8 v2.0]

showed this to a few people whom were take in by algore's film and i was really surprised at how 'upset' they felt at being used by algore and the media.



these people were what i would descibe as ranging from ultra-liberal to conservative democratic voters.

 

[N8 v2.0]

it is interesting to me that those in the Church of Global Warming would prefer to think of man's actions as the guilty party to an increase in global temp rather than the sun which totally dominates our plant's characteristics... we are really very very insignificant..


http://www.space.com/scienceastronomy/sun_output_030320.html

http://space.com/scienceastronomy/070404_radio_bursts.html

 

[syadasti]

showed this to a few people whom were take in by algore's film and i was really surprised at how 'upset' they felt at being used by algore and the media.

Its not surprising, afterall they can tolerate you.

There is a big difference between mainstream media (a heavily edited sensational conspiracy piece at that) and science, most of the general public is too lazy and/or naive to really read into an issue and tell the difference.

You and your friends are the same people who take Fox News or Dateline at its face value without a second thought.

it is interesting to me that those in the Church of Global Warming would prefer to think of man's actions as the guilty party to an increase in global temp rather than the sun which totally dominates our plant's characteristics... we are really very very insignificant..


http://www.space.com/scienceastronomy/sun_output_030320.html

http://space.com/scienceastronomy/070404_radio_bursts.html

Oh yes genius, you are the only person who saw this article or had this theory and none of the real scientists in climatology ever considered that, right.

What major scientific problem are you going to solve next by cut and paste

Before you say it, you, the conservative, should be conservative in this issue and just in case you are wrong YOU can kill yourself to save the planet/RM.

 

[chicodude]

showed this to a few people whom were take in by algore's film and i was really surprised at how 'upset' they felt at being used by algore and the media.



these people were what i would descibe as ranging from ultra-liberal to conservative democratic voters.

Your "people" seem pretty easily swayed.

 

[Secret Squirrel]

When people are easily swayed by sensationalistic media and are in no way interested in the actual science of something, they are beyond help and only deserve to reap what they sow.

If it walks like a duck and quacks like a duck and you think it's a dolphin, fine. Just don't take me down with you...

 

[N8 v2.0]

stupid really hot sun

 

[MMike]

When people are easily swayed by sensationalistic media and are in no way interested in the actual science of something, they are beyond help and only deserve to reap what they sow.

If it walks like a duck and quacks like a duck and you think it's a dolphin, fine. Just don't take me down with you...

Stupid jew dolphins ruining the planet........

 

[N8 v2.0]

No Such Thing As a 'Perfect' Temperature
By Richard S. Lindzen
Newsweek International

April 16, 2007 issue - Judging from the media in recent months, the debate over global warming is now over. There has been a net warming of the earth over the last century and a half, and our greenhouse gas emissions are contributing at some level. Both of these statements are almost certainly true. What of it? Recently many people have said that the earth is facing a crisis requiring urgent action. This statement has nothing to do with science. There is no compelling evidence that the warming trend we've seen will amount to anything close to catastrophe. What most commentators—and many scientists—seem to miss is that the only thing we can say with certainly about climate is that it changes. The earth is always warming or cooling by as much as a few tenths of a degree a year; periods of constant average temperatures are rare. Looking back on the earth's climate history, it's apparent that there's no such thing as an optimal temperature—a climate at which everything is just right. The current alarm rests on the false assumption not only that we live in a perfect world, temperaturewise, but also that our warming forecasts for the year 2040 are somehow more reliable than the weatherman's forecast for next week.

A warmer climate could prove to be more beneficial than the one we have now. Much of the alarm over climate change is based on ignorance of what is normal for weather and climate. There is no evidence, for instance, that extreme weather events are increasing in any systematic way, according to scientists at the U.S. National Hurricane Center, the World Meteorological Organization and the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (which released the second part of this year's report earlier this month). Indeed, meteorological theory holds that, outside the tropics, weather in a warming world should be less variable, which might be a good thing.

In many other respects, the ill effects of warming are overblown. Sea levels, for example, have been increasing since the end of the last ice age. When you look at recent centuries in perspective, ignoring short-term fluctuations, the rate of sea-level rise has been relatively uniform (less than a couple of millimeters a year). There's even some evidence that the rate was higher in the first half of the twentieth century than in the second half. Overall, the risk of sea-level rise from global warming is less at almost any given location than that from other causes, such as tectonic motions of the earth's surface.

Many of the most alarming studies rely on long-range predictions using inherently untrustworthy climate models, similar to those that cannot accurately forecast the weather a week from now. Interpretations of these studies rarely consider that the impact of carbon on temperature goes down—not up—the more carbon accumulates in the atmosphere. Even if emissions were the sole cause of the recent temperature rise—a dubious proposition—future increases wouldn't be as steep as the climb in emissions.

Indeed, one overlooked mystery is why temperatures are not already higher. Various models predict that a doubling of CO2 in the atmosphere will raise the world's average temperature by as little as 1.5 degrees Celsius or as much as 4.5 degrees. The important thing about doubled CO2 (or any other greenhouse gas) is its "forcing"—its contribution to warming. At present, the greenhouse forcing is already about three-quarters of what one would get from a doubling of CO2. But average temperatures rose only about 0.6 degrees since the beginning of the industrial era, and the change hasn't been uniform—warming has largely occurred during the periods from 1919 to 1940 and from 1976 to 1998, with cooling in between. Researchers have been unable to explain this discrepancy.

Modelers claim to have simulated the warming and cooling that occurred before 1976 by choosing among various guesses as to what effect poorly observed volcanoes and unmeasured output from the sun have had. These factors, they claim, don't explain the warming of about 0.4 degrees C between 1976 and 1998. Climate modelers assume the cause must be greenhouse-gas emissions because they have no other explanation. This is a poor substitute for evidence, and simulation hardly constitutes explanation. Ten years ago climate modelers also couldn't account for the warming that occurred from about 1050 to 1300. They tried to expunge the medieval warm period from the observational record—an effort that is now generally discredited. The models have also severely underestimated short-term variability El Niño and the Intraseasonal Oscillation. Such phenomena illustrate the ability of the complex and turbulent climate system to vary significantly with no external cause whatever, and to do so over many years, even centuries.

Is there any point in pretending that CO2 increases will be catastrophic? Or could they be modest and on balance beneficial? India has warmed during the second half of the 20th century, and agricultural output has increased greatly. Infectious diseases like malaria are a matter not so much of temperature as poverty and public-health policies (like eliminating DDT). Exposure to cold is generally found to be both more dangerous and less comfortable.

Moreover, actions taken thus far to reduce emissions have already had negative consequences without improving our ability to adapt to climate change. An emphasis on ethanol, for instance, has led to angry protests against corn-price increases in Mexico, and forest clearing and habitat destruction in Southeast Asia. Carbon caps are likely to lead to increased prices, as well as corruption associated with permit trading. (Enron was a leading lobbyist for Kyoto because it had hoped to capitalize on emissions trading.) The alleged solutions have more potential for catastrophe than the putative problem. The conclusion of the late climate scientist Roger Revelle—Al Gore's supposed mentor—is worth pondering: the evidence for global warming thus far doesn't warrant any action unless it is justifiable on grounds that have nothing to do with climate.

Lindzen is the Alfred P. Sloan Professor of Meteorology at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology. His research has always been funded exclusively by the U.S. government. He receives no funding from any energy companies.

 

[Honus]

James Hansen has argued against Lindzen for some time now. He's stated before that Lindzen lacks a basic understanding of greenhouse mechanisms. These guys have been going at it for a long time and both are on the government payroll.

The bottom line is that you would have to be a complete idiot to not try to improve the environmental impact that humans have. This planet will be here long after humans are gone but I'd like to think we can at least do something to help extend our stay.

http://www.giss.nasa.gov/edu/gwdebate/

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Richard_Lindzen

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/James_Hansen

 

[Honus]

And on a lighter note, this is just too funny:

 

[N8 v2.0]

Updates:

http://mfile.akamai.com/5020/wma/rushlimb.download.akamai.com/5020/New/balloffire.asx

http://dpa.aapg.org/correlator/2006/globalwarming.cfm

 

[syadasti]

Updates:http://dpa.aapg.org/correlator/2006/globalwarming.cfm

Thats a solid source and I like their recommended reading - popular fiction. You really know how to pick them N8.

For more information on the truth and lies behind the global warming issue, I would encourage you to read “State of Fear” by Michael Crichton; an excellent thriller with abundant footnoted facts about climate change. You are also encouraged to visit Lee Gerhard’s excellent web-site. Other interesting web sites, both informative and alarmist are listed below....

Division of Professional Affairs

American Association of Petroleum Geologists
Physical: 1444 South Boulder Ave • Tulsa, OK 74119, USA
Postal: P.O.Box 979 Tulsa, OK 74101-0979, USA

(918) 584-2555 • (800) 364-8874 • Email

whois information...

aapg.org
AAPG Home Page
Meta Keywords: AAPG, American Association of Petroleum Geologists, petroleum, geology, geologist, oil, gas, natural gas, exploration, production, carbohydrate, energy, minerals, geoscience, geoscientist, career, meeting, meetings, Explorer, Bulletin, CDs, CD-ROMs, earth

 

[N8 v2.0]

denier!!!


http://www.globalwarminghype.com/

 

[N8 v2.0]

...and the hysteria gets even shriller and more fantastic....

http://www.breitbart.com/print.php?id=D8ODVBK00&show_article=1

Rising global temperatures could melt Latin America's glaciers within 15 years, cause food shortages affecting 130 million people across Asia by 2050 and wipe out Africa's wheat crop, according to a U.N. report released Tuesday.

Polar ice caps will likely melt, opening a waterway at the North Pole and threatening to make the Panama Canal obsolete, IPCC member Edmundo de Alba said.

 

[syadasti]

Oh yes N8, its people from the fringe...

From the office of Michael Bloomberg today.

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE
PR- 105-07
April 10, 2007

MAYOR BLOOMBERG RELEASES NEW YORK CITY'S FIRST-EVER COMPREHENSIVE CARBON INVENTORY

Reducing Carbon Emissions Will Be a Top Priority for Next 1,000 Days

Mayor and Partnership for New York City Also Announce Climate Summit to be Held in New York City this May with Mayors from Around the World

Mayor Michael R. Bloomberg today released the first comprehensive inventory of greenhouse gas emissions in New York City's history and announced that New York will host mayors from large cities around the world at a C40 Large Cities Climate Summit in May. The Mayor was joined by City Council Speaker, Christine Quinn; Deputy Mayor for Economic Development and Rebuilding, Dan Doctoroff; New York Academy of Sciences President, Ellis Rubinstein; ICLEI- Local Governments for Sustainability, USA

Director Northeast Regional Capacity Center, Kim Lundgren; Partnership for New York City President, Kathryn Wylde; Chairman of the City Council's Environmental Protection Committee, James F. Gennaro, and New York City Global Partners Acting President, Marjorie Tiven, to release the report and announce the summit during a day-long meeting on "Climate Change in New York." The event was co-sponsored by the New York Academy of Sciences and the New York State Energy Research and Development Authority.

"New York has always been a leader in forward thinking public policies, and by undertaking the most comprehensive, detailed inventory of greenhouse gas emissions in US history, and establishing a very clear target for reductions, we will lead by example in fighting global warming. We look forward to discussing these issues with mayors from around the world here next month," said Mayor Bloomberg. "You can no longer deny the science and bury your head in the sand - climate change is real, and by looking at where and how we are contributing to that problem, we can identify how to reduce our emissions and create a better future for our children and grandchildren."

"Rising greenhouse gas emissions are a global problem, but we all need to act locally to find solutions," said Speaker Quinn. "Working closely with the administration, and with the leadership of Environmental Protection Committee Chair James Genarro, the Council has taken a number of steps to reduce emissions, improve our environment, and make our city greener overall. This inventory will help us build on these efforts, and continue New York City's efforts as a leader in the fight against global warming."

The inventory will serve as the benchmark for reducing greenhouse gas (carbon) emissions by 30 percent between now and 2030, a target the Mayor set during his December 12, 2006 speech. Specific plans to reduce greenhouse gas emissions to targeted levels will be detailed in a major policy speech scheduled for later this month. The speech is expected to propose solutions to the challenges facing New York City as it grows by approximately one million residents between now and 2030. The report released today breaks down emissions into two separate inventories: those produced by New York City as a whole and those produced from City government operations.

New York's greenhouse gas emissions inventory was completed as part ICLEI - Local Governments for Sustainability's "Cities for Climate Protection" Campaign. New York is one of 750 cities participating internationally, including 240 U.S. cities. The analysis shows that citywide carbon dioxide equivalent (CO2e) emissions were approximately 58 million metric tons in 2005, with 79 percent coming from buildings. New York's carbon emissions were approximately 1 percent of 2005 U.S. totals, and less than a third of the average U.S. per capita level. However, citywide emissions have increased by approximately 8 percent in the last ten years, and are on trend to increase approximately 25 percent above 2005 levels by 2030.

City government CO2e emissions were 3.8 million metric tons in 2006, with 64 percent coming from City owned buildings. City government emissions increased by 15 percent from 1995 to 2001. Nevertheless, government emissions have remained stable over the last five years, and are on trend to remain so through 2017, despite background growth in electricity use.

"We applaud New York City for the completion of their greenhouse gas inventory, the most comprehensive ever completed by a U.S. city, which builds on the tremendous progress the city has already made towards climate protection," said Michelle Wyman, Executive Director of ICLEI-Local Governments for Sustainability. "The biggest city in the U.S. is also one of the leaders in local climate action, earning the nickname the 'Big Green Apple.' New York City has demonstrated that we can turn the problem of global warming into profitable solutions that also make our communities cleaner, better places to live."

"By undertaking this inventory and setting an achievable benchmark, we are asserting ourselves as global leaders in green initiatives and sustainable development, and with our City poised to grow by more than a million people in the next couple of decades, that is the only position that makes sense," said Deputy Mayor Dan Doctoroff. "Cities are more energy efficient and produce one third less carbon emissions per capita than our rural and suburban counterparts. We need to look at the challenges of our future growth, but we need to welcome and accommodate that growth in the interest of fighting global warming."

The inventory released today reports that actions taken by the City from 1995 to 2006 resulted in the avoided emission of 446,000 metric tons of CO2e per year. Additional actions taken between 2006 and 2017 are projected to result in annual avoided emissions of 404,000 metric tons by 2017. The past actions include the ENCORE program, an agreement between the City and the New York Power Authority (NYPA) that provides financing for energy efficiency projects in City buildings, the use of alternative fuel vehicles in the City's fleet, landfill methane recovery, and the conversion of traffic signals to LEDs. Planned future to further reduce CO2e emissions include the switch from truck to barge and rail for the hauling of solid waste out of the City as part of the landmark Solid Waste Management Program (the SWMP), Local Law 86 of 2005 (the City's green buildings law), Local Law 119 of 2005 (the energy efficient products procurement law), and increased street tree planting citywide.

"Global warming is, without a doubt, the most pressing environmental issue of our time and it is clear that urgent action by all levels of government is necessary to avert its catastrophic consequences," said Councilman Gennaro. "Mayor Bloomberg continues to show tremendous leadership in the fight against global warming, and he deserves the support and gratitude of all New Yorkers."

The Mayor also announced today that New York City will host mayors and delegations from cities around the world at the C40 Large Cities Climate Summit, convened to promote the role of cities in reducing carbon emissions and reversing global climate change. The Summit will take place May 14-17, 2007, at the Essex House Hotel and other venues throughout the City. The Clinton Climate Initiative, the Partnership for New York City and NYC Global Partners, Inc. are organizing the event on behalf of the Bloomberg Administration and the Large Cities Climate Leadership Group.

Mayor Bloomberg will welcome mayors from more than 30 of the world's largest cities, including London, Paris, Tokyo, Mexico City, Sao Paulo, Moscow and Istanbul. Private sector companies will also be represented through sponsorship of sessions and events, and having CEOs in attendance. These companies include: JP Morgan Chase & Co., Alcoa, Deutsche Bank, the Hearst Corporation, the Shell Oil Company, Siemens, Time Warner, BSKYB, Citigroup, Con Edison, Federated Department Stores, General Electric, Keyspan, KPMG LLP, Swiss Re, and Tishman Speyer.

"The Climate Summit will showcase the important role that New York City's international business community is playing around the world to help cities make the most of the economic development opportunities associated with cleaner and greener business practices," said Kathryn Wylde, President and CEO of the Partnership for New York City.

"The challenge of reducing greenhouse gas (carbon) emissions can only be addressed if global cities are ready to share their experiences and innovative approaches," said Commissioner Marjorie Tiven, NYC Global Partners Acting President. "This will be the sixth international meeting hosted by Mayor Bloomberg, which promotes cooperation and sharing of information on best practices among the world's great cities."

For more information on PlaNYC or NYC Global Partners, log onto www.nyc.gov. For more information about the Large Cities Climate Summit, log onto www.nycclimatesummit.com.

 

[N8 v2.0]

too long and too boring to read but basically an elected official flapping whichever way he can in the political wind to win reelection in a city that has elected Hilliary Clinton to office twice now...


wow.

 

[MMike]

just wait 'til yer country elects her.

 

[N8 v2.0]

just wait 'til yer country elects her.

 

[narlus]

too long and too boring to read but basically an elected official flapping whichever way he can in the political wind to win reelection in a city that has elected Hilliary Clinton to office twice now...

one of the greatest cities in the world, at that.