Skip to content or view screen version

Worst Case Climate Scenario? We've Got It! Times 2

Don Beck | 26.06.2007 18:22 | Climate Chaos | Ecology | World

Two paragraphs from the British newspaper The Observer
about a Pentagon study:

"A secret report, suppressed by US defense
chiefs and obtained by The Observer, warns
that major European cities will be sunk beneath
rising seas as Britain is plunged into a 'Siberian'
climate by 2020. Nuclear conflict, mega-droughts,
famine and widespread rioting will erupt across
the world."

"The [secret] document predicts that abrupt
climate change could bring the planet to the
edge of anarchy as countries develop a nuclear
threat to defend and secure dwindling food, water
and energy supplies. The threat to global stability
vastly eclipses that of terrorism, say the few experts
privy to its contents."

This study was conducted in 2003, and the Pentagon has since refuted
it to be only a 'worst case scenario'. Well, guess what. This past year, the
data that has been flowing in is showing that the climate is changing as fast
as the worst case scenarios of our climate scientists!

- The rise in CO2 is above what they thought it would be.
- The increase in global and regional mean temperatures is breaking every
record, and is higher than they predicted it would be.
- The melting at the poles is more and faster than they thought it would be.
- The sea level rise is higher than they thought it would be.

In the past few years, everywhere the scientists look they find that things are
happening at or faster than the upper ranges of their previous predictions.(1)
The scientific reports from around the world about the accelerating changes
have not made it to the US corporate media, though.

US Chief Climatologist Dr. James Hansen released a report last week which
stated grave consequences for the human race if the gigantic task of reducing
green house gas is not quickly tackled.(2) He used stronger than usual
language about the severity of the looming climate change in an effort to get
things moving. His report was given little if any print in the US corporate media,
of course.

The subtitle of the report is "The Earth Today: Imminent Peril". It states "Instead
of sea levels rising by about 40 centimeters, as the IPCC predicts....... the true
rise might be as great as several meters by 2100." The huge difference here is
because the models have no data for the recent discovery of accelerating glacier
movements to the oceans caused by increased melt water at the glacier's bases

Climate is in a crisis

Global warming deniers are starting to move from "There is no global warming"
to "OK, the earth is warming, but it isn't caused by man". They are now trying
to convince us that the warming is natural, but these are just a few who are
being funded by the energy giants. They are succeeding, however, in clouding the
issue enough that the changes that need to be made are not happening.

It actually matters very little whether the warming of the Earth's climate is
caused by solar activity, or the Earth's orbital variations, or man's emissions
of CO2. There is not just one thing affecting the climate. There are many, and
they all contribute to the state of our changing climate.

Worst case scenario made even worse!

The situation is made extremely dire because of some disturbing circumstances
here in the US:

-The climate is very slow to react to the forces acting on it. And,
even if the entire world stopped using fossil fuels, the CO2 that is
in the atmosphere now has the power to accelerate the warming for
many decades. But most of us feel no change in the climate, so most
are not concerned.
- We hear conflicting reports (like we did from the tobacco companies)
being spewed from paid hacks that are essentially working for the
energy giants to keep the public ignorant.
- We would prefer to believe that it is not serious and that we do not
have to give up our gas guzzling cars.
- Our own government is watering down the scientists' reports, even
altering them to make the situation sound benign.
- The US media is not delivering the news on climate science from
from around the world that is telling us that the changes are happening
as fast as the worst predictions.
- China and India are thumbing their noses at us. They refuse to give
up the opportunity to make mega profits from their masses by curtailing
their industrial growth.
- The American people ARE becoming aware that the Halliburtons and
ExxonMobiles are in complete control of the US Government, and that
the wishes of the people along with the Constitution and the Bill of Rights
are not in the thoughts of our elected leaders.

An excellent expose' of the Bush Administration's efforts at mis-informing the public
by Tim Dickinson is published in the current issue of the Rolling Stone magazine.
It tells in great detail the extent of their willingness to keep the truth away from us.(3)

From Emails made public by a recent FOIA request, the article in the Rolling Stone
said the "industry-formulated disinformation campaign designed to actively mislead the
American public on global warming and to forestall limits on climate polluters" was
"sanctioned at the highest levels of our government, in a policy formulated by the vice
president, implemented by the White House Council on Environmental Quality and
enforced by none other than Karl Rove."

If the American people were informed about the severity of the future climate change
they would be marching in the streets in the millions. But they are under-informed,
misinformed, and they seem not to care that they are being led off a devastating cliff by the
corporate world with the help of paid political hacks and a docile media.

Europeans are much more informed about the climate. Last year in England, 50,000
people marched in London in the largest ever demonstration against global warming.
Even that, though, is not enough to bring about the changes needed.

There is a huge, slow moving monster approaching that is barely visible. And to make
things twice as bad, the people are being kept in the dark by the energy industry and
their despicable minions. Dr. Hansen told us we have ten years to start reducing
CO2 emissions or the Earth will become "a different planet".

He said that three years ago.

*************

1) Why the recent Climate Report was so Harsh
 http://www.indybay.org/newsitems/2007/04/09/18392772.php

2) Climate Change and trace gases, {full text] 6/19/07
 http://www.journals.royalsoc.ac.uk/content/l3h462k7p4068780/fulltext.pdf

also:
The Earth today stands in imminent peril
 http://environment.independent.co.uk/climate_change/article2675747.ece

3) The Secret Campaign of President Bush's Administration To Deny Global Warming
 http://www.rollingstone.com/politics/story/15148655/the_secret_campaign_of_president_george_bushs_administration_to_deny_global


Don Beck

Additions

Comments

Hide 1 hidden comment or hide all comments

Hidden Comment

This posting has been hidden because it breaches the Indymedia UK (IMC UK) Editorial Guidelines.

IMC UK is an interactive site offering inclusive participation. All postings to the open publishing newswire are the responsibility of the individual authors and not of IMC UK. Although IMC UK volunteers attempt to ensure accuracy of the newswire, they take no responsibility legal or otherwise for the contents of the open publishing site. Mention of external web sites or services is for information purposes only and constitutes neither an endorsement nor a recommendation.

Evolution

26.06.2007 20:19

has decided humans are unsuitable for nature and is making them extinct.

Ghia


CO2

26.06.2007 21:44

You say CO2 in the atmosphere is rising faster than expected and that this is causing global warming.

So what proportion of gases in the atmosphere is CO2?

How much CO2 does there need to be in the atmosphere to start the process of global warming?

insidejob


Nice News

26.06.2007 23:15

The Observer says climate change will push us to the edge of Anarchy. Presumably they mean into Chaos. What now has to be done is to change the Climate of Opinion, so that when the Catastrophe hits and created Chaos, everyone understands that Anarchy can work and is the only answer.

There are much worse gases than CO2, and we are now causing immense amounts of them to be released. Enjoy Life.

ilyan


and they don't mention the amplification effect

27.06.2007 17:26

The IPCC - comprised of scientists and diplomats - are working with ostensibly the same superficial agenda, but with widely divergent applications. The scientists gather and analyse and model the data and the diplomats find ways of expressing this to their own nations in ways that won't cause panic and alarm, economic meltdown or international chaos. On the strength therefore of the diplomatic agenda, the AR4 has excluded any mention of positive feedback (or amplification events). For example, permafrost melts as temperatures over the higher latitudes increase, exposing the peat bogs beneath. Once exposed to air and atmospheric pressure, the bogs offgas methane (CH4), a greenhouse gas reputed to be up to 30 times as potent as CO2. With all our attention on carbon emissions - important enough as that is - the positive feedback loop is beginning to kick in, amplifying the increase in temperature, which amplifies the loss of permafrost and offgassing, which increases global warming, which ... etc. An escalation of intensity that will only pick up speed like a chain reaction closing down on critical mass.

At the risk of sounding too alarmist, I think that we are very likely fucked in a very short space of time. I wouldn't advocate party till it happens, but I would advocate that this issue be raised up the agenda to the highest priority - more than warfare (of which there will be lots until every resource is depleted), injustice (ditto), and Paris fucking Hilton's stoopid sojourn in "jail". I don't know how to do that ... and I am also aware that to raise the alarm louder than the politicians, media, celebrities, businesses and even NGOs like Greenpeace and FoE is to risk looking like a doomsayer. Perhaps that is what this is really about? We need to stop all non-essential work and start local meetings: the government needs to be able to provide all with provisions (ration book?) for the duration of the working groups, and we need to stop this world long enough to figure out what we as a people ... locally, and building upwards and outwards to other localities and networking. We need to have people work their way through the networks with locally generated solutions and commitments, and these need to be locally funded and supported wherever possible by local authorities.

I know that I am being idealistic, but does anyone have any better ideas?

a concerned citizen


Now it's methane!

27.06.2007 18:53

They are telling us disaster is going to happen becaus of CO2. Now, we're told they're not alarmist enough and we're going to be stuffed by Methane.

Most people who believe tha Man-made global warming is happening are clueless about two vital questions. I asked two peope recently and they both said CO2 was 33% of all gases in the atmosphere. Are they right?

Can anyone tell us:

i. what proportion of gases in the atmosphere is CO2?

ii. how much CO2 does there need to be in the atmosphere to start the process of global warming?

insidejob


The answers

27.06.2007 20:19

Two Questions, two answers:

Carbon dioxide makes up a tiny proportion of atmospheric gases, currently something under 400 parts per million. This is increasing at about 2 parts per million per year. That's easy!

Unfortunately, the second question makes no sense. The question "How much CO2 does there need to be in the atmosphere to start the process of global warming?" fails miserably to appreciate the huge extent to which carbon dioxide and other gases contribute to the Earth already being hugely warmer than it would otherwise be. About 15 degrees centigrade hotter on average than without an atmosphere in fact.

Think about it; in the "recent" geological history of the Earth (say half a million years or so), atmospheric concentrations of carbon dioxide have fluctuated in the 200 - 300 parts per million range. Our habit of taking carbon out of the ground and putting it into the air is on the way to doubling that figure.

It's tiresome to have to refute people who don't understand the science and fight against reality because of some weird ideology - but I guess we just have to keep telling the truth.

Wake Up And Smell What You Shovelin'.


Sam Nexter
- Homepage: http://www.climatecamp.org.uk


re: now it's methane

27.06.2007 23:25

Yes it is methane in the not so distant future. And here is another thing that will no doubt cause you to throw a shit fit.

When I started writing the article above, I intended to inform people about a recent discovery that knocked me down for three days. The southern oceans have lost their ability to absorb any more carbon........in fact it is starting to release it. This is very very bad news, and I eventually took that segment out of this piece because it is soo disturbing that it is happening so soon. The scientists feard that would happen but they didn't expect it for several decades.

But people are not feeling much of global warming effects so people like you have a reason (un-informed) to make it look like these scientists are doomsdayers. You have a right to say what you want, as ignorant as it may be. Go ahead, and instead of catching up on the current science, just spew out your stupidity to the world like you really know something.

Ocean 'less effective at absorbing climate change gases', 5/18/07
www.dailymail.co.uk/pages/live/articles/technology/technology.html

also:
The WORST thing that could possibly happen to climate has begun
 http://dc.indymedia.org/newswire/display/139176/index.php

Here are scientific reports from the past several months......catch up!
Why the IPCC Report Was So Harsh
nyc.indymedia.org/en/2007/04/85020.shtml

Don Beck


0.5% is not going to ruin the Earth

28.06.2007 20:43

Sam, Don,

OK. I’ll be honest. I knew the answer.

CO2 makes up 0.5% of gases in the atmosphere. And we are supposed to believe this is getting us to runaway global warming that’s going to ruin our lives and drown human settlements around the workld. That’s right, 0.5%. Now, the reason why people who absorb the man-made global warming propaganda would say 30% if asked is because they find it difficult to believe that 0.5% of gas is going to ruin the Earth. And if people were told it was 0.5%, they’d probably stop believing the man-made global warming nonsense. (If you don’t believe me try it.)

But Sam, you’re right. I don’t know what on Earth you’re talking about.

‘Unfortunately, the second question makes no sense. The question "How much CO2 does there need to be in the atmosphere to start the process of global warming?" fails miserably to appreciate the huge extent to which carbon dioxide and other gases contribute to the Earth already being hugely warmer than it would otherwise be.’

What? Wait a minute, we are told time and time again by the IPCC and scientists that the big problem is CO2. It’s CO2 that we must reduce. Now you’re telling me it’s all the fault of other gases? What gases? And it’s not methane because there is even less methane in the atmosphere than CO2, which is why the IPCC is not making a fuss about it.

And, of course, you still haven’t answered the question. What proportion of CO2 does there need to be in the atmosphere to lead to a global warming problem? Or just to satisfy you, what proportion of greenhouse gases (excluding water vapour) does there need to be in the atmosphere to lead to a global warming problem?

Actually this is not easy to answer. But because I “spew out my stupidity” and you find it “tiresome to have to refute people who don't understand the science and fight against reality”, I ought to turn to a paleoclimatologist who has studied CO2 and the geological record.


 http://66.102.9.104/search?q=cache:fjQFYnNgsp4J:www.geocraft.com/WVFossils/Reference_Docs/The_Geologic_Record_and_Climate_Change.pdf+proportion+of+CO2+in+the+atmosphere&hl=en&ct=clnk&cd=6&gl=uk
THE GEOLOGIC RECORD AND CLIMATE CHANGE
By Tim Patterson : 01 Jan 2005
The following remarks were delivered at the Risk: Regulation and Reality Conference by Dr. Tim Patterson, Professor of Geology at Carleton University. The conference was co-hosted by Tech Central Station and was held on October 7, 2004 in Toronto, ON.

He says:
‘…the varying amounts of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere through the last 500 million years. At times in the past co2 levels have been up to 16 times higher than at present...'

‘…. There is no statistical correlation between the level of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere through the last 500 million years and the temperature record in this interval. In fact, one of the highest levels of carbon dioxide concentration occurred during a major ice age that occurred about 450 million years ago. Carbon dioxide concentrations at that time were about 15 times higher than at present…'

insidejob


relpy to insidejob

29.06.2007 15:59

There is one simple answer to people who say,

'how can carbon dioxide, at less than 0.5% of the Earth atmosphere, and only increasing by about 2 parts per million per year, cause serious effects?'.

Please drink 0.5 % of your own body weight of radioactive Polonium. Then you will see how very small relative amounts of something can have catastrophic effects.

The point thats often forgotten is the *speed* of climate change. We all ultimately rely on agriculture, which is dependent on the climate this year being more-or-less the same as last year (so you know what species to plant when and how to look after them). This is not the case anymore. Insidejob and everybody else should be seriously concerned about climate change for this reason alone.

Incidently, it really is mostly about CO2, and the cumulative totals of emissions that count. Which is why we need very deep emissions cuts, fast.

climate camper


@ insidejob

29.06.2007 18:06

At the risk of regretting joining in with this issue insidejob, because I can't tell if you are coming from a denier's position, a sceptic's position, or one of genuine curiosity and even concern, I am going to offer a few thoughts which, take 'em or leave 'em, have met the criteria of scientific methodology for both validity and reliability.

1. It is less about the amount (i.e. volume) of CO2 per se ... as in a summative amount where 3 is smaller than 4 by 1. It is rather more of an issue wherein the CO2 reaches a critical mass beyond which the stratosphere no longer releases heat into the coldness of outer space, but rather finds the heat trapped within what is, to all intents and purposes, a screen or a barrier to convection. The basic greenhouse effect is when objects of a lower temperature are heated by the sun, but when the objects heated re-radiate the heat, it is at a lower wavelength than the incoming solar radiation. The outward radiation cannot get through the molecular layers and hence bounces back, re-warming the already heated objects. As you can see, this process/mechanism is a closed positive feedback loop. It will reach critical mass over time. Basic law of physics: as objects heat up, they expand, gases are given off, heat has to go somewhere, so it begins to melt the object. The pressure begins to build and it all becomes rather messy because the sun will always be hotter than anything else and hence will keep trying to warm whatever is on the earth's surface.

2. CH4 (methane) is a gas with 140% more "effectiveness" in blocking outwards radiation than CO2 because CH4 triggers other effects, such as the production of stratospheric ozone (O3), which acts now as a mirror in addition to whatever is restrained from exiting the stratosphere as described above.

3. It is easy to understand that as the tundra heat up, and as the ice melts, and as the oceans begin to reject CO2 rather than keep absorbing it, as the Amazon continues to be decimated for short-lived attempts to grow vulnerable and fossil-fuel hungry monocultures, regardless of whether you think that it is anthropogenic or cyclical across geological time-frames, the holocene coming to a natural end, it just makes really good sense to recognise that our human activities are hindering not helping matters. If geoclimatic activity some 13,000 years ago are anything to go by, then we are likely to be in for a very rough ride. It would be the reasonable thing to do to not do more of that which is stopping the re-radiated sunlight from escaping.

Anyway, I'm sure that you can be resourceful enough to follow up these ideas yourself, if you are not already familiar with them. There comes a time for considering who and what is to blame, and while that is sometimes useful, it is never as useful as exploring solutions and not doing more of what isn't working. To turn this around, I have come across absolutely NO evidence, ever, that suggests that the more CO2 in the atmosphere the better, or that we should keep emitting CO2 or N2O or CH4 (or all 3 in varying concentrations) because they have no effect on the emerging pattern of climatic change on a global scale, the likes of which we are becoming rapidly less and less familiar with.

What would you do, if this were your decision to make?

gungadhin


Get up to date, please

30.06.2007 00:33

It's clear that you, not only, didn't read the current reports from the science community, but you did just the opposite. You are now citing from 500 million year old climate records (going backwards).

The Earth is 4.5 billion years old and it has gone through many, many very extreme changes. You may be able to find a time when the climate changed because of huge releases of methane from termites. I am not being cynical. About 4.5 million years ago the atmosphere was warm enough to melt the clathrates in the sea floor causing one of the largest extinction events ever and raising temps to near Venus like conditions.

We now have an enormous amount of data coming from an enormous number of scientists equipped with ever more sensitive instruments. Please read the linked article "why the recent climate report was so harsh". There are 24 reports from the past several months that we all should be aware of, even if we don't like them. They are not making this stuff up. It is the deniers who are doing that. The recent global warming hoax film stated that they checked their records of solar activity against the past temp. records back 6 million years. But THERE IS NO RECORD OF SOLAR ACTIVITY THAT GOES BACK 6 MILLION YEARS. I didn't catch it the first time I watched the film. It was cleverly done. At about 32 minutes in, they make three comparisons to their "solar records". The third one supposedly goes back 6 m years. HORSESHIT!

Also, here you will find an excellent explanation of the role of water vapor in the atmosphere.
 http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2007/06/a-saturated-gassy-argument/#more-455

Don Beck


Hey insidejob

30.06.2007 06:17

do you think it might be possible that an asteroid or comet could have hit the earth during an ice age?
or maybe even a supervolcanoe could have erupted during an ice age 500 million years ago?

there are so many possibilities it is nearly impossible to be accurate. but the data that is coming from measurments recently is accurate.

messenger


Climate change - a political campaign

30.06.2007 11:20

 http://www.prisonplanet.com/articles/february2007/130207Warming.htm
 http://www.etherzone.com/2007/bend021307.shtml
MAN-MADE GLOBAL WARMING IS POLITICS NOT SCIENCE

John Bender
Etherzone
Tuesday, February 13, 2007

On Friday, February 2, 2007 the U.N.’s Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change released a document titled: Climate Change 2007: The Physical Science Basis, Summary for Policymakers. This is a political document. It is not the supposedly scientific document which is titled: IPCC Working Group I Contribution to the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change Fourth Assessment Report: Climate Change 2007: The Physical Science Basis.

The “scientific” document is still being edited and will not be issued for several months. Yet the buggy whip media is using the political document to gin up hysteria among the gullible masses.

None of the fear mongers in the buggy whip press are bothering to mention the fact that the political document says right in the beginning that the “scientific” document is being edited to conform to the already released summary. That’s right. The U.N. politicians and bureaucrats wrote and released a summary of a report that isn’t written yet and is being edited to conform to their political summary.

The political summary itself says: “Changes (other than grammatical or minor editorial changes) made after acceptance by the Working Group or the Panel shall be those necessary to ensure consistency with the Summary for Policymakers or the Overview Chapter.” There is no outcry about this among the fear mongers. Contrast the total lack of reportage on this with the huge outcry in the buggy whip press when some language (no data) was allegedly altered in some US government climate reports.

Nor are the purveyors of panic giving much notice to the scientists like Dr. Chris Landsea who in his own words, resigned from the IPCC because:

“I personally cannot in good faith continue to contribute to a process that I view as both being motivated by pre-conceived agendas and being scientifically unsound.”

That’s right. One of their own scientists who worked on the project for years wrote for it previously and was asked to write part of this report quit because the product is driven by pre-conceived agendas and is scientifically unsound.

It’s not part of the politically correct agenda so the buggy whip media relays only the apocalyptic view touted by media darlings like Al Gore rather than give a balanced report including all sides of the debate.

Dr. Timothy Ball’s excellent debunking of the IOOP political statement, Global Warming: The Cold, Hard Facts? was almost totally ignored by the environmentally correct old media. Dr. Ball’s excellent piece starts with his credentials: “Global Warming, as we think we know it, doesn't exist. And I am not the only one trying to make people open up their eyes and see the truth. But few listen, despite the fact that I was one of the first Canadian PhDs. in Climatology and I have an extensive background in climatology, especially the reconstruction of past climates and the impact of climate change on human history and the human condition. Few listen, even though I have a PhD, (Doctor of Science) from the University of London, England and was a climatology professor at the University of Winnipeg. For some reason (actually for many), the World is not listening. Here is why.”

Other prominent scientists ignored by the hysteria merchants include Edward Wegman. Dr. Wegman is a professor at the Center for Computational Statistics at George Mason University, chair of the National Academy of Sciences' Committee on Applied and Theoretical Statistics, and board member of the American Statistical Association. Dr. Wegman’s basic conclusion on the scientific basis for the hypothesis of man-made global warming boils down to; “junk in, junk out”.
Another prominent scientist ignored by the old media is Dr. Richard S.J. Tol who was an IPCC author, is Editor of “Energy Economics”, and board member of the Centre for Marine and Climate Research at Hamburg University. Dr. Tol believes global warming is real but believes it benefits mankind, especially in the short term.

Duncan Wingham, professor of climate physics at University College London and principal scientist of the European Space Agency's CryoSat Mission, which is designed to measure changes in the Earth's ice masses. Dr. Wigman’s findings show that the scientific evidence to date “is not favorable to the notion we are seeing the results of global warming.”

Dr. Henrik Svensmark of the Danish National Space Center, believes that changes in the sun's magnetic field, is the reason for global warming, not anything man has done. Dr. Nigel Weiss, past president of the Royal Astronomical Society and a mathematical aerophysicist at the University of Cambridge, also believes the Sun, not man is responsible for changes in the Earth's climate. Adding weight to this view of global warming is the findings of Dr. Habibullo Abdussamatov, head of the space research laboratory at Pulkovo Astronomical Observatoryin Russia, and others, that Mars is also undergoing global warming. Even Al Gore should know that Mars has no greenhouse conditions and there is no activity by Martians to blame the warming on. Dr. Abdussamatov believes this shows it is solar irradiance, not carbon dioxide, which accounts for the recent rise in temperature.

Nor has the rapidly disintegrating buggy whip media bothered to mention that the U.N. and Ted Turner’s $1 Billion gift to that organization fund the IPCC scientists. Yet, they went ballistic when it was reported that Exxon was offering small stipends to scientists who are not caught up in proving the preconceived agenda of the U.N. and the far left.

Of course, yellow journalism like that is the reason the buggy whip press and the old broadcast media are losing readership, and viewers. They’ve lost credibility with all but the most radical leftists and the Oprah watchers. Still, much of the new media has been slow in getting out the real facts. Giving the fear mongers a bigger edge in the debate than they deserve. One exception in broadcast media has been Rush Limbaugh. Mr. Limbaugh has done yeoman’s work exposing the junk science and the political nature of the hysteria.

None of this will matter to the radical left, the environmental wackos, or to the perpetually scared. The gullible masses who believed the junk science from the same sources now spewing tainted conclusions about global warming when they said the Earth was cooling.

Here are just a few quotes the press used to excite the gullible in the 1970’s:

The continued rapid cooling of the earth since WWII is in accord with the increase in global air pollution associated with industrialization, mechanization, urbanization and exploding population. -- Reid Bryson, "Global Ecology; Readings towards a rational strategy for Man", (1971)

The battle to feed humanity is over. In the 1970s, the world will undergo famines. Hundreds of millions of people are going to starve to death in spite of any crash programs embarked upon now. Population control is the only answer -- Paul Ehrlich - The Population Bomb (1968)

I would take even money that England will not exist in the year 2000 -- Paul Ehrlich in (1969)

In ten years all important animal life in the sea will be extinct. Large areas of coastline will have to be evacuated because of the stench of dead fish. -- Paul Ehrlich, Earth Day (1970)

Before 1985, mankind will enter a genuine age of scarcity . . . in which the accessible supplies of many key minerals will be facing depletion -- Paul Ehrlich in (1976)

This [cooling] trend will reduce agricultural productivity for the rest of the century -- Peter Gwynne, Newsweek 1976

There are ominous signs that the earth's weather patterns have begun to change dramatically and that these changes may portend a drastic decline in food production - with serious political implications for just about every nation on earth. The drop in food production could begin quite soon... The evidence in support of these predictions has now begun to accumulate so massively that meteorologist are hard-pressed to keep up with it. -- Newsweek, April 28, (1975)

This cooling has already killed hundreds of thousands of people. If it continues and no strong action is taken, it will cause world famine, world chaos and world war, and this could all come about before the year 2000. -- Lowell Ponte "The Cooling", 1976

If present trends continue, the world will be about four degrees colder for the global mean temperature in 1990, but eleven degrees colder by the year 2000...This is about twice what it would take to put us in an ice age. -- Kenneth E.F. Watt on air pollution and global cooling, Earth Day (1970)

Nor will it matter to the perpetually scared that many of the scientists contributing to the tainted reports are radical leftists. Many of them belong to the radical Union of Concerned Scientists, a far left-wing activist group. David Martosko, executive director of ActivistCash.com - a division of the Center for Consumer Freedom last month told Cybercast News Service the UCS would be "more aptly named the Union of Pro-Regulation, Anti-Business Scientists."

University of Virginia environmental scientist, Dr. Fred Singer, told Cybercast News Service that the union had "zero credibility as a scientific organization" and was more akin to "pressure groups like Greenpeace."

One example of the political agenda of the “scientists at the UCS is this quote from Helen Caldicott; “Free Enterprise really means rich people get richer. They have the freedom to exploit and psychologically rape their fellow human beings in the process . . . Capitalism is destroying the earth.” -- Helen Caldicott, Union of Concerned Scientists.

This is the same Helen Caldicott who in 1982 made the ridiculous claim that the Hershey Foods Corporation was producing chocolate carrying strontium 90 because of the proximity of the Three Mile Island incident to Hershey's factory. Her assertion was easily debunked and discredited but the fear mongers in the old media never gave the debunking the same coverage they gave the unfounded assertion. One can still find the claim on some environmentalists’ web sites along with the silliness about man-made global warming.

There is plenty of evidence that man-made global warming is no more real than man-made global cooling was. The people who believe professional wrestling is real will dismiss that evidence preferring to believe the tainted junk science put out by the U.N. and the radical left.

The more thoughtful among us will consider the source of the hysterical claims along with their record and their radical agenda and not join the gullible in believing the sky is falling.

(I am not as uncritical about capitalism and dismissive of the Left as he is, insidejob.)

 http://www.nasa.gov/centers/goddard/news/topstory/2004/0528earthshine.html
SCIENTISTS LOOK AT MOON TO SHED LIGHT ON EARTH'S CLIMATE
May 27, 2004 - (date of web publication)
Item 5
The research offers evidence Earth's average albedo varies considerably from year to year, and from decade to decade. "Our most likely contribution to the global warming debate is to emphasize the role of clouds in climate change must be accounted for, illustrating that we still lack the detailed understanding of our present and past climate system to confidently model future changes," said Enric Palle, a postdoctoral associate at NJIT, lead author of the paper. Pilar Montan~es-Rodriguez, a postdoctoral associate at NJIT, is another co-author.

"Even as the scientific community acknowledges the likelihood of human impact on climate, it must better document and understand climate changes," Koonin said. "Our ongoing earthshine measurements will be an important part of that process."


 http://www.mos.org/cst-archive/article/80/9.html
CURRENT SCIENCE AND TECHNOLOGY
Global Warming on Mars?

A study of the ice caps on Mars may show that the red planet is experiencing a warming trend.

After decades of thinking that the ice caps on Mars were mostly carbon dioxide (dry ice), planetary geologists are starting to think that those caps may be mostly fresh water ice instead.

Caltech planetary scientists have been keeping a close eye on the dozens of deep, wide pits in the southern martian ice caps. These pits have been growing larger every year, but they never get any deeper.

The scientists believe this means that there is a layer of dry ice that is evaporating off of a thicker layer of water ice. The yearly increases in evaporation may be caused by a global warming trend happening on Mars.

If both Mars and Earth are experiencing global warming, then perhaps there is a larger phenomenon going on in the Solar System that is causing their global climates to change.
end


 http://www.space.com/scienceastronomy/060504_red_jr.html
SPACE.COM
New Storm on Jupiter Hints at Climate Change
By Sara Goudarzi, Staff Writer, posted: 04 May 2006, 01:00 pm ET

A storm is brewing half a billion miles away and in a rare event, astronomers get to watch it closely…

…Little is known about how storms form on the giant planet. They are often described as behaving similar to hurricanes on Earth. Some astronomers believe that the spots dredge up material deep below Jupiter's clouds and lift it to where the Sun's ultraviolet light chemically alters it to give it a red hue.

The latest images could provide evidence that Jupiter is in the midst of a global change that can modify temperatures by as much as 10 degrees Fahrenheit on different parts of the globe.

The study was led jointly by Imke de Pater and Philip Marcus of University of California, Berkeley.

This growth signals a temperature increase in that region, she said…


insidejob


Wow, that says it all

30.06.2007 17:58

First, back in the fifties and sixties the atmosphere WAS cooling and a few scientists predicted it would continue. Here's why it didn't:
 http://dc.indymedia.org/newswire/display/138818/index.php

As for the global warming being caused by the sun and warming the other planets, ok. I haven't seen very much being reported, but I won't argue that. There could be several things contributing to the Earth's warming. It is you who seems to be saying that it is the sun only, not co2.

don beck


Hide 1 hidden comment or hide all comments