Global Warming: Wisdom should dawn on the developed world!

[Kalp]

The recent environmental warning released by UN has raised concern about the future of the world. India and other developing countries will suffer most if the developed countries do not take care of global well-being.

Will wisdom dawn on them?

Views of Dr. Ratan Bhattacharjee

[margrace]

The recent environmental warning released by UN has raised concern about the future of the world. India and other developing countries will suffer most if the developed countries do not take care of global well-being.

Will wisdom dawn on them?

Views of Dr. Ratan Bhattacharjee

This morning they are reporting 3000 dead in Bangladash. Do we care?

[JerrySeinfeld]

This morning they are reporting 3000 dead in Bangladash. Do we care?

Climate changes all the tmie - more and more science is finding the true correlation / cause is not your SUV, but that big yellow thing in the sky. Wow, what a shocker.

[White Doors]

This morning they are reporting 3000 dead in Bangladash. Do we care?

Yes, cyclones and Bangledesh is new phenomenon and is only happening due to us over here in Canada trying to keep warm in the winter.

[JerrySeinfeld]

Yes, cyclones and Bangledesh is new phenomenon and is only happening due to us over here in Canada trying to keep warm in the winter.

Exactly! Canada's 0.001% of global carbon emissions, or, more "emotionally": your pleasure from cooking on a gas stove is personally resposible for the death toll of an indian cyclone.

baaaaahahahahahahahaha

[margrace]

Having lived a lot longer than most of you I can tell you that the huge changes in climate have happened over the last 20 years, but of course all of you probably were in diapers when it happened so how should you know aye.

[Moxie]

The recent environmental warning released by UN has raised concern about the future of the world. India and other developing countries will suffer most if the developed countries do not take care of global well-being.

Will wisdom dawn on them?

Views of Dr. Ratan Bhattacharjee

Anything the UN releases belongs in the bottom of a birdcage, please I smell agenda a mile away. Global Warming is the earth's natural cycle. Pollution is an issue I care about, Global Warming nope leftest propaganda.

[luvacuppajoe]

Having lived a lot longer than most of you I can tell you that the huge changes in climate have happened over the last 20 years, but of course all of you probably were in diapers when it happened so how should you know aye.

20 years ago I wasn't in diapers, I was changing them. But I wonder just how old you really are? Were you also alive during the last warming trend that the earth underwent -- the one before the last Ice Age? How about the several other warming trends prior to that?

The earth has always changed, and always will (hopefully). It's what it does.

"Huge" is a moot point when you look at the earth over several millennia rather than 20 years. I've still got t-shirts older than that.

[Topaz]

Has the ice ever melted in last 100 years, like it is now? How many times has the US seen drought like Atlanta is facing? I heard this AM that the Great Lake area doesn't do something about the pollution, the withdrawing on, that the Lakes could end up like the southern states. Humans can only live 5 days without water, so water is really more precious than oil!

[margrace]

Topaz it called hiding from the truth, if at least one strong world leader would admit that something is wrong then it might all change and we might be able to guarantee our great grandchildren a future. My first great grandchild was born two weeks ago, I hope she has fodd and water.

[MMT]

The recent environmental warning released by UN has raised concern about the future of the world. India and other developing countries will suffer most if the developed countries do not take care of global well-being.

Will wisdom dawn on them?

Views of Dr. Ratan Bhattacharjee

It seems that UN really believes that cause of the GW has human activity nature (carbon dioxide emissions, etc.). Meanwhile there is an opposite point of view, that it caused by changes of the Earth magnetic field. The forecast is different than "official" one too. Mostly the developed countries would suffer when their seashore infrastructure would be destroyed by a raising ocean.

Read article 'The Global Warming and the Future of the Planet' by Dr.Peter Khomyakov http://www.vdesyatku.com/GlobalWarmingEnglish.html

[noahbody]

I heard this AM that the Great Lake area doesn't do something about the pollution, the withdrawing on, that the Lakes could end up like the southern states.

Who were they interviewing? There are two sides to cause of the lowering of Superior. One points to global warming with no evidence. The other points to river bed erosion and increased flow of water leading out fo the lakes.

[bush_cheney2004]

The same pinheads tell us that the Great Lakes are only 10,000 years old, remnants from the Laurentide ice sheet. That would mean that global warming created them too....oh what to do!!

[Moxie]

Some interesting reading for the Flat Earthers: http://www.spiegel.de/international/europe...,508089,00.html

Snippet: A team of researchers led by Nobel-prize winning chemist Paul Crutzen has found that growing and using biofuels emits up to 70 percent more greenhouse gases than fossil fuels. They are warning that the cure could end up being worse than the disease.

Are biofuels a potential climate killler?

Biofuels, once championed as the great hope for fighting climate change, could end up being more damaging to the environment than oil or gasoline. A new study has found that the growth and use of crops to make biofuels produces more damaging greenhouse gases than previously thought.

German Nobel-prize winning chemist Paul Crutzen and his team of researchers have calculated the

Time to sell Moxie, time to sell.

More debunking Global Warming:

http://shop.wnd.com/store/item.asp?ITEM_ID=2145

Snippet: The Truth About Global Warming

What you don’t hear in the media!

The debate is still raging within the scientific community. Sovereignty International has put together interviews of climate scientists and biologists from numerous sources who explain, step by step, why Al Gore and the global warming alarmists are incorrect. In some cases, blatantly so. It also provides evidence that the global warming agenda is being funded with tens of billions of dollars as a mechanism to create global governance.

Hear from congressmen, experts and even well-known news broadcasters discuss how global governance puts global institutions

[luvacuppajoe]

Has the ice ever melted in last 100 years, like it is now? How many times has the US seen drought like Atlanta is facing? I heard this AM that the Great Lake area doesn't do something about the pollution, the withdrawing on, that the Lakes could end up like the southern states. Humans can only live 5 days without water, so water is really more precious than oil!

Looking at what happened in only the last 100 years is about as relevant as looking at a bucket of sand to measure the beach. It's nothing but a nice, round number.

But if you consider that the last ice age began 40 million years ago and ended about 10,000 years ago, remembering that Canada and much of the US were under a few miles of ice, then we have some perspective.

If you still want to look at only the last 100 years then it's worth noting that after NASA corrected its data (upon which other sources have relied in making analysis and projections) we find that the temperatures peaked at the turn of the century, dipped until a peak again in the dust bowl era of the 30s, dipped again in the 70s and rose in the 90s. Looking at it overall, the hottest years in the last century were in the 30s, not the 90s as NASA originally claimed.

[stevoh]

If you still want to look at only the last 100 years then it's worth noting that after NASA corrected its data (upon which other sources have relied in making analysis and projections) we find that the temperatures peaked at the turn of the century, dipped until a peak again in the dust bowl era of the 30s, dipped again in the 70s and rose in the 90s. Looking at it overall, the hottest years in the last century were in the 30s, not the 90s as NASA originally claimed.

For the US. Global warming is global temperature change, not just the US.

Looking at what happened in only the last 100 years is about as relevant as looking at a bucket of sand to measure the beach. It's nothing but a nice, round number.

Considering that is the period with which humans have been releasing the most CO2 into the atmosphere, therefore potentially influencing global temperatures, it is entirely relevant. And really, the most important period to understand.

But if you consider that the last ice age began 40 million years ago and ended about 10,000 years ago, remembering that Canada and much of the US were under a few miles of ice, then we have some perspective.

Notice the normally slow pace of such change, 39 900 000 years according to your figures. The current global warming trend is not notable due to temperature extremes, it is notable due to the pace of change.

[noahbody]

For the US. Global warming is global temperature change, not just the US.

The data does tell us that before industrialization, the US was warmer. It also tells us that it is normal for regional temperatures to fluctuate. The arctic is no different. Don't forget, it wasn't long ago they were worried about another ice age.

Edited November 21, 2007 by noahbody

[luvacuppajoe]

For the US. Global warming is global temperature change, not just the US.

Considering that is the period with which humans have been releasing the most CO2 into the atmosphere, therefore potentially influencing global temperatures, it is entirely relevant. And really, the most important period to understand.

Notice the normally slow pace of such change, 39 900 000 years according to your figures. The current global warming trend is not notable due to temperature extremes, it is notable due to the pace of change.

Go to youtube and search for Prof Bob Carter's lecture series on the data of GW. It's in 4 parts but the third addresses the question of CO2 emissions. The pace isn't what you may think it is.

[stevoh]

Go to youtube and search for Prof Bob Carter's lecture series on the data of GW. It's in 4 parts but the third addresses the question of CO2 emissions. The pace isn't what you may think it is.

Just once, I would like to look up a global warming skeptic and find they are a legitimate climate scientist with peer reviewed publications currently working in the field of climate studies.

Usually, I am lucky if they are a scientist at all, at least in this case the guy is a geologist. All science, as all information, should be looked at with a critical eye. Why am I having so little luck finding legitimate scientific sources that back the current anti global warming theories? I am not interested in what a geologists opinion of climate change is.

Edited November 21, 2007 by stevoh

[luvacuppajoe]

Why am I having so little luck finding legitimate scientific sources that back the current anti global warming theories?

I don't know. What's your definition of legitimate -- Al Gore and Michael Mann?

Bob Carter is a Research Professor at James Cook University (Queensland) and the University of Adelaide (South Australia). He is a palaeontologist, stratigrapher, marine geologist and environmental scientist with more than thirty years professional experience, and holds degrees from the University of Otago (New Zealand) and the University of Cambridge (England). He has held tenured academic staff positions at the University of Otago (Dunedin) and James Cook University (Townsville), where he was Professor and Head of School of Earth Sciences between 1981 and 1999.

Bob has wide experience in management and research administration, including service as Chair of the Earth Sciences Discipline Panel of the Australian Research Council, Chair of the national Marine Science and Technologies Committee, Director of the Australian Office of the Ocean Drilling Program, and Co-Chief Scientist on ODP Leg 181 (Southwest Pacific Gateways).

Bob Carter contributes regularly to public education and debate on scientific issues which relate to his areas of knowledge. He also offers lecture or workshop presentations by arrangement. His public commentaries draw on his knowledge of the scientific literature and a personal publication record of more than 100 papers in international science journals on topics which include taxonomic palaeontology, palaeoecology, the growth and form of the molluscan shell, New Zealand and Pacific geology, stratigraphic classification, sequence stratigraphy, sedimentology, the Great Barrier Reef, Quaternary geology, and sea-level and climate change.

Bob Carter's current research on climate change, sea-level change and stratigraphy is based on field studies of Cenozoic sediments (last 65 million years) from the Southwest Pacific region, especially the Great Barrier Reef and New Zealand, and includes the analysis of marine sediment cores collected during ODP Leg 181.

Bob's research has been supported by grants from competitive public research agencies, especially the Australian Research Council (ARC). He receives no research funding from special interest organisations such as environmental groups, energy companies or government departments. Bob strives to provide critical and dispassionate analysis based upon scientific principles, demonstrated facts and a knowledge of the scientific literature.

Source

Carter's publication record.

[Oleg Bach]

The recent environmental warning released by UN has raised concern about the future of the world. India and other developing countries will suffer most if the developed countries do not take care of global well-being.

Will wisdom dawn on them?

Views of Dr. Ratan Bhattacharjee

No wisdom will not dawn on them. They have had a thousand years and all they could come up with was a mystic way of thinking at best. All poor countries dream of being us in 1958. Much like China, no matter how green we get - the black cloud of old style industrialization will sweap across the globe and we will taste the dirt and the heat - we in the west green our selves but suport ourselves now on the un-greeing that we encourage else where. Hypocritical. As with all wisdom the first thing to over come is fear and survivalism in order to have wisdom set in. Not being mean but the worship of the monkey the snake or the cow or mulitiple gods has not served them well. There would have been evidence by now that this culture took the right path spiritually - I personally believe that they did not..as with all cultures they are based on their founding religion..they have no base for wisdom - sorry.

[noahbody]

Just once, I would like to look up a global warming skeptic and find they are a legitimate climate scientist with peer reviewed publications currently working in the field of climate studies.

Usually, I am lucky if they are a scientist at all, at least in this case the guy is a geologist. All science, as all information, should be looked at with a critical eye. Why am I having so little luck finding legitimate scientific sources that back the current anti global warming theories? I am not interested in what a geologists opinion of climate change is.

I'm willing to bet you didn't watch the lecture at all. You simply googled the lecturer's name so you could attack the person. Correct?

As the lecturer points out, the first rule of gw religion is don't discuss the science. Attack the person. Repeat the mantra.

Watch the lecture. Then we can debate if polar bears exist.

[White Doors]

Yep, the man made GW fanatics think that the time for debate is over and anyone who dares debate it now are to be ostracized.

This is not science, it's a cult.

[stevoh]

I'm willing to bet you didn't watch the lecture at all. You simply googled the lecturer's name so you could attack the person. Correct?

You are correct in that I didn't watch the lecture. You are wrong that I did it so that I could attack the person. I WANT to find a legitimate climate scientist or group of climate scientists with scientifically peer reviewed information that counter the human global warming claims. I just haven't yet.

The links above from another poster prove that that Bob Carter is a qualified geologist. However, the majority of the publications from the links concerning climate science are opinion pieces and lectures. They are not designed to further scientific investigation within the climate sciences. They are designed to address groups of individuals to convince them that global warming is not any cause for alarm.

Let me explain the difference. In his field of expertise, geology, he is responsible for publishing part of a paper entitled "Beyond the GSSP: New developments in chronostatigraphy". His section, linked from the website provided above, is called "Stratigraphy into the 21st century". The purpose of this paper is to imalgimate the various papers provided by scientists, one of whom was Robert Carter, that were presented at the conference. This paper was for sharing information with the scientific community at a conference for the purpose of furthering scientific understanding of Chronostatigraphy. The PURPOSE and WHO IT IS PRESENTED TO, are key elements here. Its purpose is to share information with the scientific community, it is presented to fellow scientists.

Now, take an article not within his field of expertise, "The Stern Review: A Dual Critique

, Volume 7 Number 4.". Where is this information published? In "World Economics" a Journal of current Economic Analysis and Policy. What is the purpose of this journal? From the websites description:

"World Economics is essential reading for government and corporate economists, politicians and their research staff, civil servants, labour leaders and senior business people. It supplies vital analysis for central banks, investment banks and other financial institutions, and for major corporations and regulatory institutions. It provides crucial briefing for members of think-tanks, government ministries and intergovernmental agencies."

The purpose of this article is to provide information for economic decisions to non-scientists. The information Bob Carter provides is not peer reviewed, and is not provided to fellow climate scientists in order to further the understanding of climate science. It is provided to influence policy amongst economists.

It is interesting to note that within the same publication, a little while later, Bob Carters article is rebuffed in the article "Response to ‘The Stern Review: A Dual Critique’

Nigel Arnell, Rachel Warren & Robert Nicholls", where Carters critisism of the original Stern review (which supported global warming) is rebuffed.

This provides me with two pieces of information. World Economics is an opinion based economics journal that provides information in a non-biased format concerning economics, where both sides of an argument are presented. While I am pleased to see the lack of bias, I recognize that it is neither a scientific journal with peer reviewed publications, nor is it an attempt to further the study of climate science.

Bob Carter's expertise is geography. His climate science articles are opinion, not qualified scientific study. His climate science articles are designed to influence policy, not further climate science.

As the lecturer points out, the first rule of gw religion is don't discuss the science. Attack the person. Repeat the mantra.

I am looking for the science, from a climate scientist.

[noahbody]

You are correct in that I didn't watch the lecture. You are wrong that I did it so that I could attack the person. I WANT to find a legitimate climate scientist or group of climate scientists with scientifically peer reviewed information that counter the human global warming claims. I just haven't yet.

The links above from another poster prove that that Bob Carter is a qualified geologist. However, the majority of the publications from the links concerning climate science are opinion pieces and lectures. They are not designed to further scientific investigation within the climate sciences. They are designed to address groups of individuals to convince them that global warming is not any cause for alarm.

Let me explain the difference. In his field of expertise, geology, he is responsible for publishing part of a paper entitled "Beyond the GSSP: New developments in chronostatigraphy". His section, linked from the website provided above, is called "Stratigraphy into the 21st century". The purpose of this paper is to imalgimate the various papers provided by scientists, one of whom was Robert Carter, that were presented at the conference. This paper was for sharing information with the scientific community at a conference for the purpose of furthering scientific understanding of Chronostatigraphy. The PURPOSE and WHO IT IS PRESENTED TO, are key elements here. Its purpose is to share information with the scientific community, it is presented to fellow scientists.

Now, take an article not within his field of expertise, "The Stern Review: A Dual Critique

, Volume 7 Number 4.". Where is this information published? In "World Economics" a Journal of current Economic Analysis and Policy. What is the purpose of this journal? From the websites description:

"World Economics is essential reading for government and corporate economists, politicians and their research staff, civil servants, labour leaders and senior business people. It supplies vital analysis for central banks, investment banks and other financial institutions, and for major corporations and regulatory institutions. It provides crucial briefing for members of think-tanks, government ministries and intergovernmental agencies."

The purpose of this article is to provide information for economic decisions to non-scientists. The information Bob Carter provides is not peer reviewed, and is not provided to fellow climate scientists in order to further the understanding of climate science. It is provided to influence policy amongst economists.

It is interesting to note that within the same publication, a little while later, Bob Carters article is rebuffed in the article "Response to ‘The Stern Review: A Dual Critique’

Nigel Arnell, Rachel Warren & Robert Nicholls", where Carters critisism of the original Stern review (which supported global warming) is rebuffed.

This provides me with two pieces of information. World Economics is an opinion based economics journal that provides information in a non-biased format concerning economics, where both sides of an argument are presented. While I am pleased to see the lack of bias, I recognize that it is neither a scientific journal with peer reviewed publications, nor is it an attempt to further the study of climate science.

Bob Carter's expertise is geography. His climate science articles are opinion, not qualified scientific study. His climate science articles are designed to influence policy, not further climate science.

I am looking for the science, from a climate scientist.

When you're standing outside and notice you're getting wet, you don't need a weatherman to confirm that it's raining do you?

Similarly, in this case, all that's really required is the ability to be able to recognize a pattern. Watch segment 1, at least. It won't kill you.