Senator Responds to CNN Hit Piece On Global Warming

[SpeedRacer 1]

There is probably someone named Al in Clinton, Connecticut.

(What if he'd been named "Bill"?)

edited to add: I just checked Google Maps. There is a Clinton, Arkansas. That's what he should have used!

Speed Racer
--------------------------------------------------

[rushmc 23]

Quote

Quote

Al of Clinton, Connecticut writes: “It's about time someone with a loud microphone spoke up on the global warming scam. You have courage - if only this message could get into the schools where kids are being brow-beaten with the fear message almost daily.”

Uh . . . is it just me or does that name and location seem a bit contrived?

I'd love to see the sourcing on that.

That one jumped out at me too! Seems wierd but I can not answer to that one.

"America will never be destroyed from the outside,
if we falter and lose our freedoms,
it will be because we destroyed ourselves."
Abraham Lincoln

[rushmc 23]

Would (note: I'm not asking "could") you provide the specific Nature & Science references that you mentioned? I searched using the key words suggested in your earlier post but found only those that I listed. Thanks!

Quote

Again, those references come from the Senators speach, not me. I have spent a few minutes looking but I have not come across them yet. I want to see them (the specific articles) if you come across them first!

"America will never be destroyed from the outside,
if we falter and lose our freedoms,
it will be because we destroyed ourselves."
Abraham Lincoln

• Quote

[billvon 3,119]

>The other point I am making is this topic (as with many others) is mainly
>getting one side of the story from the media.

Well, that's one way to go on believing whatever you choose. Ignore the media, ignore mainstream science, ignore what you see when you fly over Alaska, and ignore current measurements of CO2 (which you could replicate yourself.) Instead, go with a politician (and of course Al in Connecticut.)

Personally, I find politicians to be good sources when it comes to "things to say to get yourself re-elected" - but not such good sources for science facts.

>Searching for the "other" side of the issue on the internet is possible but
>is it buried in the volumes data that is out there and takes some time.

It does indeed, but the payoff is that you will have a better idea of what's going on. Several of us have done just that.

[billvon 3,119]

>But both the journals Science and Nature have published studies
>recently finding – on balance – Antarctica is both cooling and gaining ice.

That was a fluctuation they saw in the 1990's. It's warming now, and overall is warmer than it was 150 years ago.

-----------------------------------
SEATTLE, Washington, September 6, 2006 (AP) - New research suggests that Antarctica has been getting gradually warmer for the past 150 years, despite indications that the continent cooled considerably during the 1990s.

The warming trend is not identifiable in the short meteorological records and was masked at the end of the 20th century by large temperature variations, according to the study.

The study, published in the current edition of "Geophysical Research Letters," sheds some light on recent cooling in Antarctica and on the complexities of the icy continent's climate.

For the study, scientists collected ice cores from five areas and studied oxygen and hydrogen isotopes in the cores to develop the first reconstruction of Antarctic temperature records for the last 150 years.

The reconstructed temperature record that shows average Antarctic temperatures have risen about two-tenths of a degree Celsius, or about one-third of a degree Fahrenheit, in 150 years.

. . .

Although it typically alternates between phases about every month, in the 1990s the positive phase occurred much more often. Absent that influence, Schneider said, it is likely the Antarctic would have shown the same kind of warming as the rest of the Southern Hemisphere.
----------------------------

(Original study: http://www.agu.org/pubs/crossref/2006/2006GL027057.shtml)

It's also losing ice:

----------------

Antarctica losing ice to oceans
By Richard Black
BBC News

A new space-based study of Antarctica shows its ice sheet is shrinking.

Researchers used satellites to plot changes in the Earth's gravity in the Antarctic during the period 2002-2005.

Writing in the journal Science, they conclude that the continent is losing 152 cubic km of ice each year, with most loss in the west.

In recent years scientists have found other evidence that West Antarctic ice is melting, which could contribute to sea level rise.

--------------

[kallend 2,150]

sf.indymedia.org/news/2006/09/1732494.php

Interesting article on how the campaign to discredit the science is being funded, and the involvement of Big Tobacco!

Some good bits:

In December 1992, the US Environmental Protection Agency published a 500-page report called Respiratory Health Effects of Passive Smoking. It found that "the widespread exposure to environmental tobacco smoke (ETS) in the United States presents a serious and substantial public health impact. In adults: ETS is a human lung carcinogen, responsible for approximately 3,000 lung cancer deaths annually in US non-smokers. In children: ETS exposure is causally associated with an increased risk of lower respiratory tract infections such as bronchitis and pneumonia. This report estimates that 150,000 to 300,000 cases annually in infants and young children up to 18 months of age are attributable to ETS."

Had it not been for the settlement of a major class action against the tobacco companies in the US, we would never have been able to see what happened next. But in 1998 they were forced to publish their internal documents and post them on the internet.

Within two months of its publication, Philip Morris, the world's biggest tobacco firm, had devised a strategy for dealing with the passive-smoking report. In February 1993 Ellen Merlo, its senior vice-president of corporate affairs, sent a letter to William I Campbell, Philip Morris's chief executive officer and president, explaining her intentions: "Our overriding objective is to discredit the EPA report ... Concurrently, it is our objective to prevent states and cities, as well as businesses, from passive-smoking bans."

To this end, she had hired a public relations company called APCO. She had attached the advice it had given her. APCO warned that: "No matter how strong the arguments, industry spokespeople are, in and of themselves, not always credible or appropriate messengers."

So the fight against a ban on passive smoking had to be associated with other people and other issues. Philip Morris, APCO said, needed to create the impression of a "grassroots" movement - one that had been formed spontaneously by concerned citizens to fight "overregulation". It should portray the danger of tobacco smoke as just one "unfounded fear" among others, such as concerns about pesticides and cellphones. APCO proposed to set up "a national coalition intended to educate the media, public officials and the public about the dangers of 'junk science'. Coalition will address credibility of government's scientific studies, risk-assessment techniques and misuse of tax dollars ... Upon formation of Coalition, key leaders will begin media outreach, eg editorial board tours, opinion articles, and brief elected officials in selected states."

APCO would found the coalition, write its mission statements, and "prepare and place opinion articles in key markets". For this it required $150,000 for its own fees and $75,000 for the coalition's costs.

By May 1993, as another memo from APCO to Philip Morris shows, the fake citizens' group had a name: the Advancement of Sound Science Coalition. It was important, further letters stated, "to ensure that TASSC has a diverse group of contributors"; to "link the tobacco issue with other more 'politically correct' products"; and to associate scientific studies that cast smoking in a bad light with "broader questions about government research and regulations" - such as "global warming", "nuclear waste disposal" and "biotechnology". APCO would engage in the "intensive recruitment of high-profile representatives from business and industry, scientists, public officials, and other individuals interested in promoting the use of sound science".


I expect Al of Connecticut had a role in this!

...

The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one.

[speedy 0]

Quote

Ignore the media, ignore mainstream science, ignore what you see when you fly over Alaska, and ignore current measurements of CO2 (which you could replicate yourself.)

Peel back all the onionskin layers of hypothesis, guesswork and extreme claims what we are left with is a possible one-sixth of one degree warming from increased atmospheric carbon dioxide overlaid on a background temperature of 287 or 288 Kelvin (depending of reference used). How are we supposed to distinguish a change of ~0.05% from all the noise of natural variability? That's the equivalent of having your optimally air conditioned home go from 24 °C to 24.012 °C. Would it be worth big $s to you to reduce it by that 0.012 °C? Well guess what? That's basically what we are talking about with all this fuss over trivial increase in the trace gas, carbon dioxide.

Dave

Fallschirmsport Marl

[billvon 3,119]

>How are we supposed to distinguish a change of ~0.05% from all the
>noise of natural variability?

Science. We can land within a few meters of a target on a planet millions of miles away, even with all the forces trying to affect the spacecraft. We're getting pretty good at compensating for (and understanding) natural forces.

In terrms of your temperature example - If _your_ temperature increased by that amount (1 deg F) it would indicate you might be sick. If you ignored the fever, it might just make you very sick later. Heck, most moms understand that.

Predictions put the eventual increase of 3 to 10 degrees F by the end of the century. If your temperature went up by 10F, you'd probably end up dead very quickly.

The planet is a much more complicated organism than you are, but it is still vulnerable to those sort of temperature changes. We've seen the effects of minor temperature change on the biosphere already.

>Well guess what? That's basically what we are talking about with all this
>fuss over trivial increase in the trace gas, carbon dioxide.

Nope. We're talking about the permafrost melting and releasing its methane into the atmosphere (that's happening now.) We're talking about entire forests drying out and burning (that's happening now.) We're talking about losing entire ice sheets to warming (that's happening now.) We're talking about changes in global ocean circulation (that hasn't happened yet, fortunately.)

The problem with the deniers who claim "there's no such thing as global warming!" is that people can SEE it. It's become a big enough issue that it is affecting people all over the world. It's easy to ignore it if you compare it to an air conditioned house. If it means that your house is falling through the permafrost in Alaska, no one's going to believe someone who tells them it's not really happening.

[rushmc 23]

The big difference is that you see global warming as man made. Others see it as natural.....as do I

"America will never be destroyed from the outside,
if we falter and lose our freedoms,
it will be because we destroyed ourselves."
Abraham Lincoln

[billvon 3,119]

>The big difference is that you see global warming as man made.

Yep, I do. But the guy I was answering above doesn't even believe it's natural; he believes it's so small as to be nonexistent, hidden in the noise. It's a less-popular angle for climate change deniers to take nowadays, since people can look out their windows to see the change.

[rushmc 23]

Quote

>The big difference is that you see global warming as man made.

Yep, I do. But the guy I was answering above doesn't even believe it's natural; he believes it's so small as to be nonexistent, hidden in the noise. It's a less-popular angle for climate change deniers to take nowadays, since people can look out their windows to see the change.

Yep, it is easy to see nature at work.

"America will never be destroyed from the outside,
if we falter and lose our freedoms,
it will be because we destroyed ourselves."
Abraham Lincoln

[kallend 2,150]

Quote

The big difference is that you see global warming as man made. Others see it as natural.....as do I

Aren't you even slightly curious about WHY Philip Morris funded a campaign to discredit the science supporting global warming and its man-made origins, and why it hid that campaign behind a screen of fine-sounding foundations?

...

The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one.

[Michele 1]

Quote

>The big difference is that you see global warming as man made. <

Yep, I do.

Well, I think it's the termites' fault.

Ciels-
Michele

~Do Angels keep the dreams we seek
While our hearts lie bleeding?~

[rushmc 23]

ditto my other post......

"America will never be destroyed from the outside,
if we falter and lose our freedoms,
it will be because we destroyed ourselves."
Abraham Lincoln

[billvon 3,119]

>Well, I think it's the termites' fault.

A recent anti-global-warming editorial concluded by saying ". . . but blaming Homo Erectus for global warming is going too far."

I say - why not? Blame those slopey-headed idiots for causing global warming! Their million-year-old corpses are probably releasing all sorts of nasty greenhouse gases even as we speak.

It's not industry, or the republicans, or fossil fuels that's causing the problem - it's our less-than-brilliant ancestors* causing all this trouble. Vote the bums out of office, and the problem will be solved.

(* required disclaimer for creationists - supposed ancestors.)

[speedy 0]

Quote

>How are we supposed to distinguish a change of ~0.05% from all the
>noise of natural variability?

Science. We can land within a few meters of a target on a planet millions of miles away, even with all the forces trying to affect the spacecraft. We're getting pretty good at compensating for (and understanding) natural forces.

Quote

I think that most weather forcasters suck at what they do. We have little understanding of how the planets weather is affected by variations in temperature. Compared to understanding warming and cooling in our atmosphere calculating a trajectory for a spacecraft is trivial.

In terrms of your temperature example - If _your_ temperature increased by that amount (1 deg F) 0.01 F it would indicate you might be sick[/S] nothing.

Quote

Fixed that for you

If you ignored the fever, it might just make you very sick later. Heck, most moms understand that.

Quote

We can measure the temperature of the human body pretty accurately. The temperature of the planet is a different matter entirely.

Predictions Wild guesses put the eventual increase of 3 to 10 degrees F by the end of the century. If your temperature went up by 10F, you'd probably end up dead very quickly.
I fixed that for you

The planet is a much more complicated organism than you are, but it is still vulnerable to those sort of temperature changes. We've seen the effects of minor temperature change on the biosphere already.

Quote

Of course we have, they happen all the time. However, now we have the media to produce the hype. The planet has coped with warming and cooling over millions of years.
The real problem now is that mankind thinks it is capable of controlling the planets thermostat. Utter folly.

>Well guess what? That's basically what we are talking about with all this
>fuss over trivial increase in the trace gas, carbon dioxide.

Nope. We're talking about the permafrost melting and releasing its methane

Quote

methane is not CO2

into the atmosphere (that's happening now.) We're talking about entire forests drying out and burning (that's happening now.) We're talking about losing entire ice sheets to warming (that's happening now.) We're talking about changes in global ocean circulation (that hasn't happened yet, fortunately.)

The problem with the deniers who claim "there's no such thing as global warming!"

Quote

I never said there was no such thing as warming. I was just rejecting the idea that CO2 is the culprit for a warming anomally.

is that people can SEE it. It's become a big enough issue that it is affecting people all over the world. It's easy to ignore it if you compare it to an air conditioned house. If it means that your house is falling through the permafrost in Alaska, no one's going to believe someone who tells them it's not really happening.

Dave

Fallschirmsport Marl

[speedy 0]

Quote

>The big difference is that you see global warming as man made.

Yep, I do. But the guy I was answering above doesn't even believe it's natural; he believes it's so small as to be nonexistent, hidden in the noise. It's a less-popular angle for climate change deniers to take nowadays, since people can look out their windows to see the change.

And again to be sure you understand, CO2 is not causing any percieved global warming.
If we come to the conclusion the planet is warming CO2 in the atmosphere cannot be the cause.

Dave

Fallschirmsport Marl

[kallend 2,150]

Quote

Quote

>The big difference is that you see global warming as man made.

Yep, I do. But the guy I was answering above doesn't even believe it's natural; he believes it's so small as to be nonexistent, hidden in the noise. It's a less-popular angle for climate change deniers to take nowadays, since people can look out their windows to see the change.

And again to be sure you understand, CO2 is not causing any percieved global warming.
If we come to the conclusion the planet is warming CO2 in the atmosphere cannot be the cause.

Seems to me that Bill understands rather better than you do.

...

The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one.

[billvon 3,119]

>Fixed that for you

I fear you are doing what many deniers are doing and making up your own numbers. It's a 1F rise, not .01F, and we have actually seen that sort of increase.

>The planet has coped with warming and cooling over millions of
>years.

Yes it has, and we've seen mass extinctions occur when the change happens over 10,000 years. We're forcing it to happen within a few hundred. It would be foolish to think that that will have LESS impact.

>methane is not CO2

That's right! It's a much stronger greenhouse gas.

>The real problem now is that mankind thinks it is capable of
>controlling the planets thermostat. Utter folly.

We've seen similar "folly" throughout the years.

We thought that the atmosphere was limitless; it could absorb everything we put into it. "What? You think man's puny emissions can taint the thousands of cubic miles of atmosphere?" Then we had Donora, PA - 20 people were killed and 7000 hospitalized by pollution. We had the killer fogs of London that killed 12,000 in the 1950's. We learned we were wrong about the atmosphere being able to take anything we threw at it.

We thought the oceans were limitless; we could haul as much fish out of it as we wanted. We drove whales almost to extinction, and vast fisheries are being depleted at an incredible rate. We were wrong about that; the oceans ARE limited.

We thought we couldn't possibly damage the atmosphere with chemicals. After all, it was incredibly big, and the layer that protected us against UV was miles high! We were wrong about that, too.

Now some people think that doubling the amount of CO2 in the atmosphere can't possibly have any effect. They're wrong about that, too. Try doubling the amount of potassium in your body, and see if it is "utter folly" that such a small change can affect how you live.

>I never said there was no such thing as warming.

Yes you did! You claimed it was not measurable (which isn't true) and then that it was only .01F (which also isn't true.)

I have noticed that climate change deniers use something of a spectrum of angles when they need to dispute the increase in temperatures due to anthropogenic emissions of CO2. They generally go something like this:

"There's no warming."
"So what if there is warming? It certainly has nothing to do with us. We don't emit lots of CO2."
"OK, so we emit CO2. That doesn't warm the planet."
"If we _do_ have anything to do with global warming - well, it would have happened anyway."
"So we're causing warming. It's a GOOD thing overall because we're warmer."

It almost makes it appear as if they're not interested in the science - just the ability to get a good sound bite to push their political views on an uninformed populace. Again, their biggest enemy is not science (most people don't much care about the science) it's the melting glaciers, and the loss of permafrost, and indeed the loss of whole communities up north. That trumps a sound bite any day.

[billvon 3,119]

>CO2 is not causing any percieved global warming.

I think you might want to revisit the science of greenhouse gases.

[Amazon 7]

Gee I think you may be in for a little preview of what it looks like...since global warming is all such hooey


El Nino is here...

http://www.cnn.com/2006/WEATHER/09/13/weather.nino.reut/index.html

Warmer and drier here in the NW..

[speedy 0]

Now some people think that doubling the amount of CO2 in the atmosphere can't possibly have any effect. They're wrong about that, too. Try doubling the amount of potassium in your body, and see if it is "utter folly" that such a small change can affect how you live.

Quote

I do not understand the connection. Try putting minute amounts of ricin into a person. They will also die. We are talking about CO2, not potassium.

>I never said there was no such thing as warming.

Yes you did! No I didn't You claimed it was not measurable (which isn't true) and then that it was only .01F (which also isn't true.)

Quote

I only claimed that any warming due to CO2 in the atmosphere was not measurable. It can be calculated but not measured.If you want to assign blame for global warming, please look elsewhere

Dave

Fallschirmsport Marl

[speedy 0]

[reply
Seems to me that Bill understands rather better than you do.

[billvon 3,119]

>I do not understand the connection.

We're increasing the amounts of a substance that is a critical part of the planet's biosphere by a factor of 2. You believe that it is "utter folly" to think such a change could possibly have any effect. Do the same thing to a human body - it often has a very significant effect.

Still think it's utter folly?

>I only claimed that any warming due to CO2 in the atmosphere was
> not measurable. It can be calculated but not measured.

So now you are admitting that there IS significant warming. OK, now we're getting somewhere.

CO2 warming can and has been measured. See below.

The first graph shows CO2 levels, methane levels (also a greenhouse gas) insolation and temperatures over the past half million years or so. See if you can spot the correlation.

The second graph shows temperatures over the past 2000 years. See if you can spot a trend there.

Human action has increased the CO2 concentration in atmosphere to a level that hasn't been seen in 650,000 years. It is utter folly (to use your phrase) to think that that cannot possibly have any effect on the climate of the planet.

>If you want to assign blame for global warming, please look elsewhere.

Oil and coal companies would love for us to do just that, but unfortunately the science is getting better and better.

[kallend 2,150]

Quote

[reply
Seems to me that Bill understands rather better than you do.

You are a physisist correct? The global warming scare was created by a chemist, namely, Margaret Thatcher.

Try posting a valid arguement instead of "Yeah! Billvons right"