Banned
Originally Posted by Act of God
Global warming hysteria: how the pendulum has swung
http://www.scoop.co.nz/stories/PO0805/S00122.htm
Surge in fatal shark attacks blamed on global warming
http://www.guardian.co.uk/environmen....climatechange
Link between shark attacks and global warming dismissed
http://sciencedude.freedomblogging.c...ing-dismissed/
Anabolic Member
These people are: the New Zealand Climate Science Coalition.
Who are they? According to
http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php...ence_Coalition
they are " a now defunct industry-funded PR front group run by the APCO Worldwide public relations firm. It worked to hang the label of "junk science" on environmentalists. Created in 1993, TASSC began as a front for Philip Morris which was attempting to discredit ETS (Environmental Tobacco Smoke) research as a long-term cause of increased cancer and heart problem rates in the community -- especially among office workers and children living with smoking parents. [1] It advanced industry-friendly positions on a wide range of topics, including global warming, smoking, phthalates, and pesticides. Later still, they extended the role of TASSC to Europe using Dr. George Carlo. [2]"
This doesn't smell good to me . . . I think this is some pretty slick Bollsheet, and I'm not buying it . . . not from these people, anyway . . .
I'd check out the other sources, but I don't have the time . . .
Member
Unfortunately, the only funding that is going to be available is from "industry". Governments are only granting money to further push AGW so only the private sector, "industry", really is going to have enough interest to fund these things.
Additionally, most environmentalists do practice "junk science". For example, we still have an Ozone layer and my house isn't underwater. The rainforests haven't disappeared (taught they'd be gone by now in middle school) either. Environmentalism = sensational science with an added dose of doomsday preaching.
Anabolic Member
That might or might not be, I don't know. I don't hobble with the environmentalist crowd.
As far as what you recall you were told about rainforest deforestation (what exactly were you told?), here's what I found on Wikipedia on the topic (does this seem unreasonable to you?)-- looks like half of the original rainforests are gone, and another huge chunk will be gone in 20 or 30 years. Some countries recognize it as a national problem. What do you think?
-----------------------------------------
Tropical and temperate rain forests have been subjected to heavy logging and agricultural clearance throughout the 20th century, and the area covered by rainforests around the world is rapidly shrinking. Biologists have estimated that large numbers of species are being driven to extinction (possibly more than 50,000 a year) due to the removal of habitat with destruction of the rainforests. Protection and regeneration of the rainforests is a key goal of many environmental charities and organizations. (It is doubtful that this rate will be sustained as the relative cost of logging rises with dwindling resources.[citation needed])
Another factor causing the loss of rainforest is expanding urban areas. Littoral Rainforest growing along coastal areas of eastern Australia is now rare due to ribbon development to accommodate the demand for seachange lifestyles.
About half of the mature tropical rainforests, between 750 to 800 million hectares of the original 1.5 to 1.6 billion hectares that once graced the planet have already fallen. The devastation is already acute in South East Asia, the second of the world's great biodiversity hot spots. Most of what remains is in the Amazon basin, where the Amazon rainforest covered more than 600 million hectares, an area nearly two thirds the size of the United States. The forests are being destroyed at an ever-quickening pace. Unless significant measures are taken on a world-wide basis to preserve them, by 2030 there will only be 10% remaining with another 10% in a degraded condition. 80% will have been lost and with them the natural diversity they contain will become extinct.
Many tropical countries, including Indonesia, Thailand, Malaysia, Bangladesh, China, Sri Lanka, Laos, Nigeria, Liberia, Guinea, Ghana and the Cote d'lvoire have already lost large areas of their rainforest. Eighty percent of the forests of the Philippine archipelago have already been cut down. In 1960 Central America still had four fifths of its original forest; now it is left with only two fifths of it. Half of the Brazilian state of Rondonia's 24.3 million hectares have been destroyed or severely degraded in recent years. Several countries, notably the Philippines, Thailand and India have declared their deforestation a national emergency
Banned
^^^As with most liberal arguements when you can not attack the science they attack the messenger. So allow me to give you another shot, please "debunk" this...
"It has become commonplace knowledge, and is unchallenged, that global average temperature has not increased since 1998. This corresponds to a 9-year period during which the level of atmospheric carbon dioxide, in contrast, did increase, and that by almost 5%.
The greenhouse hypothesis - which asserts that carbon dioxide increases of human origin will cause dangerous global warming - is clearly invalidated by these data.
As if that were not enough, a leading computer modelling team has recently published a paper in Nature which acknowledges what climate rationalists (the so-called “sceptics”) have always asserted. Which is that, contrary to IPCC assessments, any human influence on global temperature is so small that it cannot yet be differentiated from natural cycles of climate change. The same modellers have even predicted (after the start of the event, of course) that cooling will now occur for at least the next few years. Mortal strike two against dangerous, human-caused warming."
You do realise the periodical Nature is the leading scientific Bible.
Again, Tock, try just try to go after the facts. Of course when you can not you can go back to what all liberals do, name calling.
Retired: AR-Hall of Famer
I just looked at the nature article. Or atleast I hope its the one the article mentions because its the only one about climate that I could find in the may edition of nature.
The scientists has made a simplified model where they try to determine how what effect the temperature of the oceans have.
The climate of the North Atlantic region exhibits fluctuations on decadal timescales that have large societal consequences. Prominent examples include hurricane activity in the Atlantic1, and surface-temperature and rainfall variations over North America2, Europe3 and northern Africa4. Although these multidecadal variations are potentially predictable if the current state of the ocean is known5–7, the lack of subsurface ocean observations8 that constrain this state has been a limiting factor for realizing
the full skill potential of such predictions9. Here we apply a simple approach—that uses only sea surface temperature (SST) observations—to partly overcome this difficulty and perform retrospective decadal predictions with a climate model. Skill is improved significantly relative to predictions made with incomplete knowledge of the ocean state10, particularly in the North Atlantic and tropical Pacific oceans. Thus these results point towards the possibility of routine decadal climate predictions.
Using this method, and by considering both internal natural climate variations and projected future anthropogenic forcing, we make the following forecast: over the next decade, the current Atlantic meridional overturning circulation will weaken to its long-term mean; moreover, North Atlantic SST and European and North American surface temperatures will cool slightly, whereas tropical Pacific SST will remain almost unchanged. Our results suggest that global surface temperature may not increase over the next decade, as natural climate variations in the North Atlantic and tropical Pacific temporarily offset the projected anthropogenic warming.
Anabolic Member
When the "messenger" is routinely involved in distorting evidence and twisting facts, he becomes untrustworthy. These people are nothing but corporate PR prostitutes, paid to spread lies and disinformation. And they do so rather well, and do so without a moment of regret, even though their actions probably result in people taking up smoking and dying from lung cancer or emphezema.
Their only motivation is money.
F'in corporate lying prostitutes.
So, when they're called upon to write news releases about global warming, they don't deserve any credibility.
Look at what else they've been up to --
One of the forerunners of TASSC at Philip Morris was a 1988 "Proposal for the Whitecoat Project," named after the white laboratory coats that scientists sometimes wear. The project had four goals: "Resist and roll back smoking restrictions. Restore smoker confidence. Reverse scientific and popular misconception that ETS is harmful. Restore social acceptability of smoking."
To achieve these goals, the plan was to first "generate a body of scientific and technical knowledge" through research "undertaken by whitecoats, contract laboratories and commercial organizations"; then "disseminate and exploit such knowledge through specific communication programs." Covington & Burling, PM's law firm, would function as the executive arm of the Whitecoat Project, acting as a "legal buffer ... the interface with the operating units (whitecoats, laboratories, etc.)."
The effort to create a scientific defense for secondhand smoke was only one component in the tobacco industry's multi-million-dollar PR campaign. To defeat cigarette excise taxes, a Philip Morris strategy document outlined plans for "Co-op efforts with third party tax organizations"--libertarian anti-taxation think tanks, such as Americans for Tax Reform, Citizens for a Sound Economy, Citizens for Tax Justice and the Tax Foundation. Other third party allies included the National Journalism Center, the Heartland Institute, the Claremont Institute, and National Empowerment Television, a conservative TV network.
In one memo to Philip Morris CEO Michael A. Miles, vice president Craig L. Fuller noted that he was "working with many third party allies to develop position papers, op-eds and letters to the editor detailing how tobacco is already one of the most heavily regulated products in the marketplace, and derailing arguments against proposed bans on tobacco advertising." [8]
In April 1996, Milloy proclaimed himself a public health expert and began turning out a stream of anti-environmental, anti-public health commentary through his "Junk Science" homepage (www.junkscience.com). The site claims to debunk bad science used by lawsuit-happy trial lawyers, the 'food police,' environmental Chicken Littles, powerdrunk regulators, and unethical-to-dishonest scientists to fuel specious lawsuits, wacky social and political agendas, and the quest for personal fame and fortune. Although Milloy's Junk Science Home Page does not disclose its specific funding source, the website, Citizens for the Integrity of Science [in 1999], and the debunked TASSC share the same address at 1155 Connecticut Avenue, NW, Suite 300 in Washington, DC. [9]
The phone number for junkscience.com is registered to The Advancement of Sound Science Coalition (a well exposed corporate front group and a former project of the EOP Group) at 1155 Connecticut Ave NW, Suite 300 in Washington, DC. This is the same phone number and address Milloy has used for the Citizens for the Integrity of Science, Junkscience.com, NoMoresScares.com, and of course, the defunct The Advancement of Sound Science Coalition. The fax number used on numerous press releases over the years is "an interoffice fax" at 1155 Connecticut Ave NW,. according to a simple internet search.
Anabolic Member
There is a big difference between the periodical Nature and an anonymous "leading computer modelling team." Just because a popular magazine publishes someone's contrarian view, doesn't mean it is valid.
I thought you knew that . . .
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote