Democratic Underground Latest Greatest Lobby Journals Search Options Help Login
Google

Global Warming: Is it the result of man or nature?

Printer-friendly format Printer-friendly format
Printer-friendly format Email this thread to a friend
Printer-friendly format Bookmark this thread
This topic is archived.
Home » Discuss » Archives » General Discussion (01/01/06 through 01/22/2007) Donate to DU
 
SocalismforAmerica Donating Member (13 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Jan-13-06 06:29 PM
Original message
Global Warming: Is it the result of man or nature?
I was deadlocked on my position that global warming was a result of humans (anthropogenic), until recently coming across some confusing information. In 1998, 15,000 scientists signed a petition saying that the IPCC report on global warming was based on "flawed" ideas. While only 2,500 or so endorsed the report. Anyway, 15,000 is a hard number to bargain against and that is extremely confusing. I was also recently shown a web page that does the math on global warming, and it concludes that human caused CO2 is only a minute percent of the total CO2 causing the global warming. So if we do cut back on greenhouse gases, it will be do next to nothing in effect. I will post the link so you can view the math: http://www.clearlight.com/~mhieb/WVFossils/greenhouse_data.html This is the only place I have ever seen this information so to verify, I think there needs to be additional sources and a "credible" source to verify that this was not manipulated, incorrect, or mistaken information. There is also another variable, sunspot activity is at a 1,000 year high which could be contributing to global warming.



Does anyone have any comments on the 15,000 scientists?

Has anyone ever seen the scientific data against global warming before?


http://www.sepp.org/pressrel/petition.html
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/3869753.stm
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
Junkdrawer Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Jan-13-06 06:34 PM
Response to Original message
1. Moonies...
Science and Environmental Policy Project (SEPP)

Founded in 1990 by widely publicized climate skeptic S. Fred Singer, SEPP s stated purpose is to "document the relationship between scientific data and the development of federal environmental policy." SEPP has mounted a sizeable media campaign -- publishing articles, letters to the editor, and a large number of press releases -- to discredit the issues of global warming, ozone depletion, and acid rain.

Spin: Moreover, climate change won t be bad for us anyway. Action on climate change is not warranted because of shaky science and flawed policy approaches.

Funding: Conservative foundations including Bradley, Smith Richardson, and Forbes. SEPP has also been directly tied to ultra right-wing mogul Reverend Sung Myung Moon s Unification Church, including receipt of a year s free office space from a Moon-funded group and the participation of SEPP s director in church-sponsored conferences and on the board of a Moon-funded magazine.

Affiliated Individuals:S. Fred Singer,Frederick Seitz

.....

http://www.ucsusa.org/global_warming/science/skeptic-organizations.html
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Junkdrawer Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Jan-13-06 06:37 PM
Response to Reply #1
2. SourceWatch....
Funding
"... S. Fred Singer, acknowledged during a 1994 appearance on the television program Nightline that he had received funding from Exxon, Shell, Unocal and ARCO. He did not deny receiving funding on a number of occasions from the Rev. Sun Myung Moon." <19> (http://www.heatisonline.org/contentserver/objecthandlers/index.cfm?id=3207&method=full)

In 2000 SEPP wrote on their web site:

"SEPP does not solicit financial support from either industry or governmental sources. Income is derived mainly from charitable foundations and private individuals. Some income is derived also from SEPP conference fees and the sale of books and reports to the public. As a non-profit educational and research 501(c) 3 organization, accepting tax-deductible contributions, SEPP is required to file an annual report with the IRS. SEPP operates on a modest budget; its officers and associated scientists do not receive salaries but contribute their services on a pro bono basis." <20> (http://www.sepp.org/NewSEPP/COP6.htm) (emphasis added)
ExxonMobil donated $10,000 to SEPP both in 1998 <21> (http://web.archive.org/web/20011031010631/www.exxonmobil.com/contributions/public_info.html) and 2000 <22> (http://stopexxon.unfortu.net/html/orgfactsheet.php?id=65).




http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=Science_and_Environmental_Policy_Project
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Cooley Hurd Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Jan-13-06 06:50 PM
Response to Reply #2
8. This is why I love DU...
They show up with bullshit, we send them scurrying home with facts!:thumbsup:
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
ISUGRADIA Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Jan-13-06 06:38 PM
Response to Original message
3. It'd be nice if any of these scientists against human caused
global warming would publish in scientific journals. 99% of the lit is against their view.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
SomewhereOutThere424 Donating Member (497 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Jan-13-06 06:43 PM
Response to Original message
4. Yeah but...
Edited on Fri Jan-13-06 06:44 PM by SomewhereOutThere424
Look at how many scientists supported smoking too back in the day? Data changes, but our minds shouldn't. We know pollution is greatly aiding global warming even if it isn't 100% man made. For our survival and our children's we really should atleast scrutinize the actions of mass pollution, especially the US who now passes china in ways of air polution (and they use leaded fuel).

It isn't just global warming. The man made pollution is actually puncturing holes in the o-zone layer, which keeps in all of our oxygen, and we're rapidly decimating the population of oxygen producing plants and trees too. It's not just one issue, I wish they'd change 'global warming' to something that looked at all the aspects of how it's going to effect us...
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
smirkymonkey Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Jan-13-06 08:26 PM
Response to Reply #4
18. That's what people need to know: How it's going to affect them.
To the masses, "Global Warming" is just an abstract concept. I think people need to be made aware of scenarios 5, 10, 15 years down the road. Most people still have the attitude, "It won't happen to me."

Not everybody reads DU, and most people I know, even many liberals and democrats, aren't aware of the gravity of the situation.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
ZombieGak Donating Member (341 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Jan-13-06 06:45 PM
Response to Original message
5. DOES IS MATTER?
Humanity has adapted its civilization largely in response to the climate of the past few thousand years. If global warming is real... regardless of the cause, humanity is stuck with many of it's resources in the wrong places... such as low lying cities too close to oceans.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
texastoast Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Jan-13-06 06:51 PM
Response to Reply #5
10. No
It's too late. Dumbfucks of 30 years ago could have done something. The wild ride has begun. Hang on.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
texastoast Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Jan-13-06 06:46 PM
Response to Original message
6. Hmm
Well, the last symposium I listened to had BP and a number of other really big oil companies (not shitwad Exxon) agreeing that the burning of fossil fuels contribute to climate change. I wonder if those participants were among the 2,500 or the 15,000 you cite.

Twenty years ago I sat on a plane with a consultant who had just gotten out of one of many meetings with then-HL&P executives who were extremely concerned about CO2 caused from burning lignite. I had a very long discussion with this consultant and learned a lot. Over this past twenty years, all of this consultant's predictions have come to pass.

So my question is, are you here to enlighten us libs or encourage us to keep an open mind in spite of the evidence from the ice record which irrefutably indicates that this type of climate change we are witnessing now worldwide has never occurred this quickly in over 40,000 years?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
devilgrrl Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Jan-13-06 06:49 PM
Response to Original message
7. Global warming? What's that?
:sarcasm:
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
hatrack Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Jan-13-06 06:50 PM
Response to Original message
9. The Oregon Petition came from a small nutball group in Cave Junction, OR
Edited on Fri Jan-13-06 06:54 PM by hatrack
Oh, and here's the link to OISM itself. They're into civil defense, nuclear war survival skills, and they'll even do website design and consulting!

http://www.oism.org/

The Oregon Petition, sponsored by the OISM, was circulated in April 1998 in a bulk mailing to tens of thousands of U.S. scientists. In addition to the petition, the mailing included what appeared to be a reprint of a scientific paper. Authored by OISM's Arthur B. Robinson, Sallie L. Baliunas, Willie Soon, and Zachary W. Robinson, the paper was titled "Environmental Effects of Increased Atmospheric Carbon Dioxide" and was printed in the same typeface and format as the official Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences. Also included was a reprint of a December 1997, Wall Street Journal editorial, "Science Has Spoken: Global Warming Is a Myth, by Arthur and Zachary Robinson. A cover note signed "Frederick Seitz/Past President, National Academy of Sciences, U.S.A./President Emeritus, Rockefeller University", may have given some persons the impression that Robinson's paper was an official publication of the academy's peer-reviewed journal. The blatant editorializing in the pseudopaper, however, was uncharacteristic of scientific papers.

Robinson's paper claimed to show that pumping carbon dioxide into the atmosphere is actually a good thing. "As atmospheric CO2 increases," it stated, "plant growth rates increase. Also, leaves lose less water as CO2 increases, so that plants are able to grow under drier conditions. Animal life, which depends upon plant life for food, increases proportionally." As a result, Robinson concluded, industrial activities can be counted on to encourage greater species biodiversity and a greener planet:

As coal, oil, and natural gas are used to feed and lift from poverty vast numbers of people across the globe, more CO2 will be released into the atmosphere. This will help to maintain and improve the health, longevity, prosperity, and productivity of all people.
Human activities are believed to be responsible for the rise in CO2 level of the atmosphere. Mankind is moving the carbon in coal, oil, and natural gas from below ground to the atmosphere and surface, where it is available for conversion into living things. We are living in an increasingly lush environment of plants and animals as a result of the CO2 increase. Our children will enjoy an Earth with far more plant and animal life as that with which we now are blessed. This is a wonderful and unexpected gift from the Industrial Revolution.
In reality, neither Robinson's paper nor OISM's petition drive had anything to do with the National Academy of Sciences, which first heard about the petition when its members began calling to ask if the NAS had taken a stand against the Kyoto treaty. Robinson was not even a climate scientist. He was a biochemist with no published research in the field of climatology, and his paper had never been subjected to peer review by anyone with training in the field. In fact, the paper had never been accepted for publication anywhere, let alone in the NAS Proceedings. It was self-published by Robinson, who did the typesetting himself on his own computer. (It was subsequently published as a "review" in Climate Research, which contributed to an editorial scandal at that publication.)

None of the coauthors of "Environmental Effects of Atmospheric Carbon Dioxide" had any more standing than Robinson himself as a climate change researcher. They included Robinson's 22-year-old son, Zachary (home-schooled by his dad), along with astrophysicists Sallie L. Baliunas and Willie Soon. Both Baliunas and Soon worked with Frederick Seitz at the George C. Marshall Institute, a Washington, D.C., think tank where Seitz served as executive director. Funded by a number of right-wing foundations, including Scaife and Bradley, the George C. Marshall Institute does not conduct any original research. It is a conservative think tank that was initially founded during the years of the Reagan administration to advocate funding for Reagan's Strategic Defense Initiative--the "Star Wars" weapons program. Today, the Marshall Institute is still a big fan of high-tech weapons. In 1999, its website gave prominent placement to an essay by Col. Simon P. Worden titled "Why We Need the Air-Borne Laser," along with an essay titled "Missile Defense for Populations--What Does It Take? Why Are We Not Doing It?" Following the collapse of the Soviet Union, however, the Marshall Institute has adapted to the times by devoting much of its firepower to the war against environmentalism, and in particular against the "scaremongers" who raise warnings about global warming.

"The mailing is clearly designed to be deceptive by giving people the impression that the article, which is full of half-truths, is a reprint and has passed peer review," complained Raymond Pierrehumbert, a meteorlogist at the University of Chicago. NAS foreign secretary F. Sherwood Rowland, an atmospheric chemist, said researchers "are wondering if someone is trying to hoodwink them." NAS council member Ralph J. Cicerone, dean of the School of Physical Sciences at the University of California at Irvine, was particularly offended that Seitz described himself in the cover letter as a "past president" of the NAS. Although Seitz had indeed held that title in the 1960s, Cicerone hoped that scientists who received the petition mailing would not be misled into believing that he "still has a role in governing the organization."

http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=Oregon_Institute_of_Science_and_Medicine#Case_Study:_The_Oregon_Petition

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Junkdrawer Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Jan-13-06 07:12 PM
Response to Reply #9
11. SLAM!!! Right on target....
....

The NAS issued an unusually blunt formal response to the petition drive. "The NAS Council would like to make it clear that this petition has nothing to do with the National Academy of Sciences and that the manuscript was not published in the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences or in any other peer-reviewed journal," it stated in a news release. "The petition does not reflect the conclusions of expert reports of the Academy." In fact, it pointed out, its own prior published study had shown that "even given the considerable uncertainties in our knowledge of the relevant phenomena, greenhouse warming poses a potential threat sufficient to merit prompt responses. Investment in mitigation measures acts as insurance protection against the great uncertainties and the possibility of dramatic surprises."

Notwithstanding this rebuke, the Oregon Petition managed to garner 15,000 signatures within a month's time. S. Fred Singer called the petition "the latest and largest effort by rank-and-file scientists to express their opposition to schemes that subvert science for the sake of a political agenda."

Nebraska senator Chuck Hagel called it an "extraordinary response" and cited it as his basis for continuing to oppose a global warming treaty. "Nearly all of these 15,000 scientists have technical training suitable for evaluating climate research data," Hagel said. Columns citing the Seitz petition and the Robinson paper as credible sources of scientific expertise on the global warming issue have appeared in publications ranging from Newsday', the Los Angeles Times and Washington Post to the Austin-American Statesman, Denver Post, and Wyoming Tribune-Eagle.

In addition to the bulk mailing, OISM's website enables people to add their names to the petition over the Internet, and by June 2000 it claimed to have recruited more than 19,000 scientists. The institute is so lax about screening names, however, that virtually anyone can sign, including for example Al Caruba, a pesticide-industry PR man and conservative ideologue who runs his own website called the "National Anxiety Center." Caruba has no scientific credentials whatsoever, but in addition to signing the Oregon Petition he has editorialized on his own website against the science of global warming, calling it the "biggest hoax of the decade," a "genocidal" campaign by environmentalists who believe that "humanity must be destroyed to 'Save the Earth.' . . . There is no global warming, but there is a global political agenda, comparable to the failed Soviet Union experiment with Communism, being orchestrated by the United Nations, supported by its many Green NGOs, to impose international treaties of every description that would turn the institution into a global government, superceding the sovereignty of every nation in the world."

When questioned in 1998, OISM's Arthur Robinson admitted that only 2,100 signers of the Oregon Petition had identified themselves as physicists, geophysicists, climatologists, or meteorologists, "and of those the greatest number are physicists." This grouping of fields concealed the fact that only a few dozen, at most, of the signatories were drawn from the core disciplines of climate science - such as meteorology, oceanography, and glaciology - and almost none were climate specialists. The names of the signers are available on the OISM's website, but without listing any institutional affiliations or even city of residence, making it very difficult to determine their credentials or even whether they exist at all. When the Oregon Petition first circulated, in fact, environmental activists successfully added the names of several fictional characters and celebrities to the list, including John Grisham, Michael J. Fox, Drs. Frank Burns, B. J. Honeycutt, and Benjamin Pierce (from the TV show M*A*S*H), an individual by the name of "Dr. Red Wine," and Geraldine Halliwell, formerly known as pop singer Ginger Spice of the Spice Girls. Halliwell's field of scientific specialization was listed as "biology." Even in 2003, the list was loaded with misspellings, duplications, name and title fragments, and names of non-persons, such as company names.
...

http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=Oregon_Institute_of_Science_and_Medicine#Case_Study:_The_Oregon_Petition



Fake research paper mass mailed to 10s of thousands of scientists of all walks (bet that cost Moon/Scaife/Forbes some $$$) and all to get 15,000 non-climatologists to sign an anti-Kyoto petition.

Only goes to show that advanced degrees doesn't inoculate you from bullshit.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
jpak Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Jan-13-06 07:18 PM
Response to Original message
12. All the peer reviewed scientific evidence sez it's anthropogenic
Detection of a Human Influence on North American Climate.
David J. Karoly, Karl Braganza, Peter A. Stott, Julie M. Arblaster, Gerald A. Meehl, Anthony J. Broccoli, and Keith W. Dixon
Science 14 November 2003 302: 1200-1203

Anthropogenic Warming of Earth's Climate System
Sydney Levitus, John I. Antonov, Julian Wang, Thomas L. Delworth, Keith W. Dixon, and Anthony J. Broccoli
Science 13 April 2001 292: 267-270

Detection of Anthropogenic Climate Change in the World's Oceans
Tim P. Barnett, David W. Pierce, and Reiner Schnur
Science 13 April 2001 292: 270-274

Interpreting Differential Temperature Trends at the Surface and in the Lower Troposphere
B. D. Santer, T. M. L. Wigley, D. J. Gaffen, L. Bengtsson, C. Doutriaux, J. S. Boyle, M. Esch, J. J. Hnilo, P. D. Jones, G. A. Meehl, E. Roeckner, K. E. Taylor, and M. F. Wehner
Science 18 February 2000 287: 1227-1232

Causes of Climate Change Over the Past 1000 Years
Thomas J. Crowley
Science 14 July 2000 289: 270-277

Contributions of Anthropogenic and Natural Forcing to Recent Tropopause Height Changes
B. D. Santer, M. F. Wehner, T. M. L. Wigley, R. Sausen, G. A. Meehl, K. E. Taylor, C. Ammann, J. Arblaster, W. M. Washington, J. S. Boyle, and W. Brüggemann
Science 25 July 2003 301: 479-483

J. E. Harries, H. E. Brindley, P. J. Sagoo, R. J. Bantges (2001).
Increases in greenhouse forcing inferred from the outgoing longwave radiation spectra of the Earth in 1970 and 1997. Nature Vol. 410 pp 355 - 357

to name a few...

The only people questioning the "science of global warming" right wing wackjobs.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
LisaL Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Jan-13-06 07:26 PM
Response to Reply #12
15. There have been climate cycles long before humans appeared
on the planet. Ice periods, etc.
I am not exactly convinced we are causing it, but it regardless, something is causing it.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
jpak Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Jan-13-06 07:41 PM
Response to Reply #15
16. The recent rise in global mean temperature
is clearly due to the build-up anthropogenic greenhouse gases in the atmosphere - there is no evidence that it's due to natural forcings.

Them's the data.

...and all the feedbacks are positive too.


Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Sal Minella Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Jan-13-06 07:19 PM
Response to Original message
13. We are pulling carbon from underground and putting it into the atmosphere
as carbon dioxide at an amazing rate, and there are still people who think global climate change may not be influenced by human activity? Glaciers all over the world are melting at an alarming rate, the polar ice thinning and disappearing, the Larsen-B ice shelf in Antarctica collapsed MUCH faster than anyone predicted, desertification is swallowing up continents, including the American southwest, and there are still people wanting MORE PROOF? wtf???
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
LisaL Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Jan-13-06 07:24 PM
Response to Original message
14. Maybe it's both?
It seems very clear the world is warming. What is causing it-I am not exactly sure, but something sure as hell does.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
slackmaster Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Jan-13-06 08:19 PM
Response to Reply #14
17. NO! THAT MAKES WAY TOO MUCH SENSE!!!
How DARE you say something that reasonable on DU Forums?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
DU AdBot (1000+ posts) Click to send private message to this author Click to view 
this author's profile Click to add 
this author to your buddy list Click to add 
this author to your Ignore list Tue May 07th 2024, 06:49 PM
Response to Original message
Advertisements [?]
 Top

Home » Discuss » Archives » General Discussion (01/01/06 through 01/22/2007) Donate to DU

Powered by DCForum+ Version 1.1 Copyright 1997-2002 DCScripts.com
Software has been extensively modified by the DU administrators


Important Notices: By participating on this discussion board, visitors agree to abide by the rules outlined on our Rules page. Messages posted on the Democratic Underground Discussion Forums are the opinions of the individuals who post them, and do not necessarily represent the opinions of Democratic Underground, LLC.

Home  |  Discussion Forums  |  Journals |  Store  |  Donate

About DU  |  Contact Us  |  Privacy Policy

Got a message for Democratic Underground? Click here to send us a message.

© 2001 - 2011 Democratic Underground, LLC