The environment's back on the agenda - New England Patriots Forums

***Patters*** · 11-18-2006, 06:29 AM

After 6 years of the Republican ignoring the environment so much so that even some hunting and fishing groups complained, it looks like the new Congress will begin addressing issues like global warming much more seriously.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn...111701770.html

Dramatic changes in congressional oversight of environmental issues may pump new life into efforts to fight global warming, activist groups and lawmakers said yesterday.

Sen. John W. Warner (R-Va.) announced his intention to become the top Republican on the Senate Environment and Public Works Committee, now headed by Sen. James M. Inhofe (R-Okla.), who has said that global warming is a hoax. Warner has called for action against climate change, and his ascension to a leadership post would accelerate significant changes already underway.

Sen. Barbara Boxer (D-Calif.) -- a liberal who has called global warming a dire threat -- is in line to chair the committee in the next Congress as a result of last week's elections, which will give Democrats the Senate majority. Environmentalists have been hailing her impending replacement of Inhofe as chairman. Warner's takeover of the ranking minority member's slot, they said yesterday, would raise even greater hopes for advancing their agenda.

"That could drastically change the way that committee operates," said Karen Steuer, government affairs chief at the National Environmental Trust. "We might see, on a number of issues, bipartisan legislation coming out of that committee, and that would be a huge step forward. . . . In one fell swoop, it's gone from the Dark Ages to the Space Age."

***BelichickFan*** · 11-18-2006, 10:05 AM

Hopefully the Republicans will stand up to any nonsense, there's enough Republicans to filibuster any crap.

***patsfan13*** · 11-19-2006, 08:16 PM

I laugh when we have pols most with no background in science trying to set policy based on an unproven scientific theory. BTW I wonder how many members of congress have even taken a partial diff eq course? I'm guessing Arnold S & Boxer haven't.

A new paper on global warming here is the executive summary with a link. This a not for profit org. that allows printing of the exec summary. Please visit the sitee for the complete paper.

Quote:

The Earth currently is experiencing a warming trend, but there is scientific evidence that human activities have little to do with it. Instead, the warming seems to be part of a 1,500-year cycle (plus or minus 500 years) of moderate temperature swings.

It has long been accepted that the Earth has experienced climate cycles, most notably the 90,000-year Ice Age cycles. But in the past 20 years or so, modern science has discovered evidence that within those broad Ice Age cycles, the Earth also experiences 1,500-year warming-cooling cycles. The Earth has been in the Modern Warming portion of the current cycle since about 1850, following a Little Ice Age from about 1300 to 1850. It appears likely that warming will continue for some time into the future, perhaps 200 years or more, regardless of human activity.

Evidence of the global nature of the 1,500-year climate cycles includes very long-term proxies for temperature change — ice cores, seabed and lake sediments, and fossils of pollen grains and tiny sea creatures. There are also shorter-term proxies — cave stalagmites, tree rings from trees both living and buried, boreholes and a wide variety of other temperature proxies.
Scientists got the first unequivocal evidence of a continuing moderate natural climate cycle in the 1980s, when Willi Dansgaard of Denmark and Hans Oeschger of Switzerland first saw two mile-long ice cores from Greenland representing 250,000 years of Earth’s frozen, layered climate history. From their initial examination, Dansgaard and Oeschger estimated the smaller temperature cycles at 2,550 years. Subsequent research shortened the estimated length of the cycles to 1,500 years (plus or minus 500 years).

Other substantiating findings followed:
An ice core from the Antarctic’s Vostok Glacier — at the other end of the world from Greenland — showed the same 1,500-year cycle through its 400,000-year length.

The ice-core findings correlated with known glacier advances and retreats in northern Europe.

Independent data in a seabed sediment core from the Atlantic Ocean west of Ireland, reported in 1997, showed nine of the 1,500-year cycles in the last 12,000 years.

Other seabed sediment cores of varying ages near Iceland, in the Norwegian and Baltic seas, off Alaska, in the eastern Mediterranean, in the Arabian Sea, near the Philippines and off the northern tip of the Antarctic Peninsula all also showed evidence of the 1,500-year cycles. So did lake sediment cores from Switzerland, Alaska, various parts of Africa and Argentina, as did cave stalagmites in Europe, Asia and Africa, and fossilized pollen, boreholes, tree rings and mountain tree lines.

None of these pieces of evidence would be convincing in and of themselves. However, to dismiss the evidence of the 1,500-year climate cycle, it is necessary to dismiss not only the known human histories from the past 2,000 years but also an enormous range and variety of physical evidence found by a huge body of serious researchers.

http://www.ncpa.org/pub/st/st279/

***Patters*** · 11-19-2006, 10:53 PM

While you're laughing at pols for making policy by relying on the vast majority of scientists, the vast majority of scientists are laughing at people like you for relying on people who worked for oil companies and tobacco companies (S. Fred Singer) and who wrote discredited claims about organic foods (Dennis T. Avery). If you want to make a case against global warming, stop posting information by corporate hacks and liars. And also stop suggesting that you are somehow superior to politicians on this subject, unless in fact you are a scientist in a relevant field.

http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php...S._Fred_Singer
http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php..._organic_foods

***patsfan13*** · 11-20-2006, 12:13 AM

Define the "vast majority" of scientist. I have seen no such poll of scientist.

Are these 'social scientist'? Physicist? Chemist?

Have they corrected the falwed computer models?

Singer is a trained physicist. BTW how objective are the scientist who rely on politicans (who want to promote man made global warming) for their funding?

I note you have no coherent response to the data collected by Singer from a variety of sources. Are all these scientist in on a conspiracy of some sort? Did they all fake their findings?

Arracking the individual without addressing the data is a cop out.

***Patters*** · 11-20-2006, 07:26 AM

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scienti...climate_change
http://www.sciencemag.org/cgi/conten.../306/5702/1686

Check out Al Gore's book, An Inconvenient Truth, which is more convincing than anything you've posted, though has simply too much to put in message here. While I wouldn't be surprised if scientists agree that there are natural events at play, too, the fact that global warming has increased dramatically since the Industrial Revolution is what leads most scientists to believe that humankind is a contributing factor to global warming. As I've said all along, even if global warming is a natural phenomenon, there is the danger that it could kill millions of people, and we should do all we can to address it.

As far as scientists associated with politicians vs. scientists associated with business, I think the ideal is to find simply honest scientists associated with academic and research institutions. Peer reviewed papers are probably the most accurate measure of scientific thought, and there too global warming skeptics lose badly (see the second link above). As far as trusting people with a commercial interest in pretending pollution has no effect on global warming vs. people who work for those elected to serve, I would lean towards trusting the latter. Tell me, how long did it take before you came to believe that cigarettes don't cause cancer? Did you only change your views once the big companies admitted they were lying?

***patsfan13*** · 11-20-2006, 04:28 PM

The computer midels relied on by the CO2 global warming enthuiast have been shown to be wrong. ie, whne you plug in the past measured CO2 levels the temps should be higher than what we currently observed.

Gore's movie has been debunked as being factually challenged.

Here is some reading to help educate you:

from a goverment source, non copyright:

Quote:

Contact: MARC MORANO (marc_morano@epw.senate.gov) 202-224-5762,

June 27, 2006
The June 27, 2006 Associated Press (AP) article titled “Scientists OK Gore’s Movie for Accuracy” by Seth Borenstein raises some serious questions about AP’s bias and methodology.

AP chose to ignore the scores of scientists who have harshly criticized the science presented in former Vice President Al Gore’s movie “An Inconvenient Truth.”

In the interest of full disclosure, the AP should release the names of the “more than 100 top climate researchers” they attempted to contact to review “An Inconvenient Truth.” AP should also name all 19 scientists who gave Gore “five stars for accuracy.” AP claims 19 scientists viewed Gore’s movie, but it only quotes five of them in its article. AP should also release the names of the so-called scientific “skeptics” they claim to have contacted.

The AP article quotes Robert Correll, the chairman of the Arctic Climate Impact Assessment group. It appears from the article that Correll has a personal relationship with Gore, having viewed the film at a private screening at the invitation of the former Vice President. http://www.junkscience.com/feb06.htm

The AP also chose to ignore Gore’s reliance on the now-discredited “hockey stick” by Dr. Michael Mann, which claims that temperatures in the Northern Hemisphere remained relatively stable over 900 years, then spiked upward in the 20th century, and that the 1990’s were the warmest decade in at least 1000 years. Last week’s National Academy of Sciences report dispelled Mann’s often cited claims by reaffirming the existence of both the Medieval Warm Period and the Little Ice Age.

Gore’s claim that global warming is causing the snows of Mt. Kilimanjaro to disappear has also been debunked by scientific reports. For example, a 2004 study in the journal Nature makes clear that Kilimanjaro is experiencing less snowfall because there’s less moisture in the air due to deforestation around Kilimanjaro.

Here is a sampling of the views of some of the scientific critics of Gore:

Professor Bob Carter, of the Marine Geophysical Laboratory at James Cook University in Australia, on Gore’s film:

“Gore’s circumstantial arguments are so weak that they are pathetic. It is simply incredible that they, and his film, are commanding public attention.”

“The man is an embarrassment to US science and its many fine practitioners, a lot of whom know (but feel unable to state publicly) that his propaganda crusade is mostly based on junk science.” – Bob Carter as quoted in the Canadian Free Press, June 12, 2006

Richard S. Lindzen, the Alfred P. Sloan Professor of Atmospheric Science at MIT, wrote:

“A general characteristic of Mr. Gore’s approach is to assiduously ignore the fact that the earth and its climate are dynamic; they are always changing even without any external forcing. To treat all change as something to fear is bad enough; to do so in order to exploit that fear is much worse.” - Lindzen wrote in an op-ed in the June 26, 2006 Wall Street Journal

Gore’s film also cites a review of scientific literature by the journal Science which claimed 100% consensus on global warming, but Lindzen pointed out the study was flat out incorrect.

“…A study in the journal Science by the social scientist Nancy Oreskes claimed that a search of the ISI Web of Knowledge Database for the years 1993 to 2003 under the key words “global climate change” produced 928 articles, all of whose abstracts supported what she referred to as the consensus view. A British social scientist, Benny Peiser, checked her procedure and found that only 913 of the 928 articles had abstracts at all, and that only 13 of the remaining 913 explicitly endorsed the so-called consensus view. Several actually opposed it.”- Lindzen wrote in an op-ed in the June 26, 2006 Wall Street Journal.

Roy Spencer, principal research scientist for the University of Alabama in Huntsville, wrote an open letter to Gore criticizing his presentation of climate science in the film:

“…Temperature measurements in the arctic suggest that it was just as warm there in the 1930’s…before most greenhouse gas emissions. Don’t you ever wonder whether sea ice concentrations back then were low, too?”- Roy Spencer wrote in a May 25, 2006 column.

Former University of Winnipeg climatology professor Dr. Tim Ball reacted to Gore’s claim that there has been a sharp drop-off in the thickness of the Arctic ice cap since 1970.

“The survey that Gore cites was a single transect across one part of the Arctic basin in the month of October during the 1960s when we were in the middle of the cooling period. The 1990 runs were done in the warmer month of September, using a wholly different technology,” –Tim Ball said, according to the Canadian Free Press.

From Space.com, Were you aware that the Sun's magnetic field has DOUBLED in the past 100 years? That the Sun's magnetic field effects cosmic rays reaching earth? That cosmic rays affect could formation? That water vapor in the atmosphere is the most powerful greenhouse gas?

Follow the link anbd learn"

http://www.space.com/scienceastronom...s_warming.html

Quote:

According to a theory proposed a decade ago, when a star explodes far away in the Milky Way, cosmic rays—high-speed atomic particles—go through the Earth’s atmosphere and produce ions and free electrons.

The released electrons act as catalysts and accelerate the formation of small clusters of sulfuric acid and water molecules, the building blocks of clouds. Therefore, cosmic rays would increase cloud cover on Earth, reflecting sunlight and keeping the planet relatively cool.

However, because the Sun’s magnetic field—which shields the Earth from these rays—doubled in intensity during the last century, there has been a reduction in cloudiness, a possible contributor to Earth’s warming.

Scientists at the Danish National Space Center mimicked chemistry of the lower atmosphere in a large reaction chamber. They created a mixture that contained gasses at realistic concentrations and used an ultraviolet lamp to act as the Sun.

Microscopic droplets, precursor to clouds, started floating in the air of the reaction chamber. “We were amazed by the speed and efficiency with which the electrons do their work of creating the building blocks for the cloud condensation nuclei,” said team leader Henrik Svensmark, Director of the Center for Sun-Climate Research at the Danish National Space Center. “This is a completely new result within climate science.”

Now from the leading climatologist at MIT:

[url]http://www.cato.org/pubs/regulation/regv15n2/reg15n2g.html[/utl]

Quote:

Summary of Scientific Issues

Before even considering "greenhouse theory,'' it may be helpful to begin with the issue that is almost always taken as a given--that carbon dioxide will inevitably increase to values double and even quadruple present values. Evidence from the analysis of ice cores and after 1958 from direct atmospheric sampling shows that the amount of carbon dioxide in the air has been increasing since 1800. Before 1800 the density was about 275 parts per million by volume. Today it is about 355 parts per million by volume. The increase is generally believed to be due to the combination of increased burning of fossil fuels and before 1905 to deforestation. The total source is estimated to have been increasing exponentially at least until 1973. From 1973 until 1990 the rate of increase has been much slower, however. About half the production of carbon dioxide has appeared in the atmosphere.

Predicting what will happen to carbon dioxide over the next century is a rather uncertain matter. By assuming a shift toward the increased use of coal, rapid advances in the third world's standard of living, large population increases, and a reduction in nuclear and other nonfossil fuels, one can generate an emissions scenario that will lead to a doubling of carbon dioxide by 2030--if one uses a particular model for the chemical response to carbon dioxide emissions. The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change Working Group I's model referred to that as the "business as usual'' scenario. As it turns out, the chemical model used was inconsistent with the past century's record; it would have predicted that we would already have about 400 parts per million by volume. An improved model developed at the Max Planck Institute in Hamburg shows that even the "business as usual'' scenario does not double carbon dioxide by the year 2100. It seems unlikely moreover that the indefinite future of energy belongs to coal. I also find it difficult to believe that technology will not lead to improved nuclear reactors within fifty years.

Nevertheless, we have already seen a significant increase in carbon dioxide that has been accompanied by increases in other minor greenhouse gases such as methane and chlorofluorocarbons. Indeed, in terms of greenhouse potential, we have had the equivalent of a 50 percent increase in carbon dioxide over the past century. The effects of those increases are certainly worth studying--quite independent of any uncertain future scenarios.

The rest of the article contains a lot of good information, not any of which is based on flawed computer models.

And for those interested in the latest in politically motivated science:

http://www.junkscience.com/

***DarrylS*** · 11-21-2006, 04:08 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by patsfan13

I laugh when we have pols most with no background in science trying to set policy based on an unproven scientific theory. BTW I wonder how many members of congress have even taken a partial diff eq course? I'm guessing Arnold S & Boxer haven't.

A new paper on global warming here is the executive summary with a link. This a not for profit org. that allows printing of the exec summary. Please visit the sitee for the complete paper.

This did not stop the pols who avoided the draft or any military experience, from leading us into a conflict that is more expensive than any other with no end in sight. The experience of the politicians in any area has never stopped them from legislating anything, in fact the opposite is the norm.

***Patters*** · 11-21-2006, 08:07 AM

I don't know where to begin, but Morano works for Inhofe, who even skeptics find extreme in his view of global warming. (I think he thinks there's no global warming whatsoever, not even the natural kind.) He's also a Swiftnboater and worked for Rush Limbaugh. With those credentials, he's not a credible source.

http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=Marc_Morano

Also, he's quoting from that small list of skeptics, most of whom are funded by polluting corporations. For instance,

http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php...ard_S._Lindzen

And see: http://thinkprogress.org/2006/06/26/wsj-gore/

For someone who accuses various parties of some sort of bizarre conspiracy to manufacture the idea that humans contribute to global warming, can't you find someone who's not on the take or not politically extreme to make your point?

Again, I don't deny the possibility that there are natural factors at play, too, but the fact is, from what I have read, since the Industrial Revolution we've pumped zillions of tons of pollutants into the atmosphere and the pace of global warming has increased.

Now, what I don't get is that regardless of the cause of global warming, it's dangers are clear. Is it worth investing in the kinds of alternative energy and environmental responsibility that will yield many different benefits, even if global warming is a natural phenomenon. Clearly, you are on the side of the companies that have fought alternative energy for years. I think there is no benefit whatsoever to your approach, except some sort of perverse nationalism where the United States should not be part of solving a global problem.

***patsfan13*** · 11-21-2006, 12:22 PM

Actually the temp has been increaseing since the Kittle ICe age and especially since the 3 year cold soike created by the Krakitoa (sp) volcano. Most of the increase in temp has occured before the largest increases in atmospeheric CO2.

I wish you would spend more time responding to specifics of the data presented and less attacking the people who bring up the data. Imhofe or his staffers don't do research, and their opinion doesn't affect the accuracy of the data one way or the other.

The fact is during geologic time frames the CO2 levels in the atmosphere have been far higher than the current levels. During these periods live on the planet thrived.

The fact is that during the midevil warming period temps were far higher than they currently are (Vikings were growing grapes in New Brunswick and farming on Greenland). This warming had nothing to do with domesticated primate CO2 emissions and everything to do with natural cycles. The fact is that the CO2 models espoused by Global warming enthuisast have been shown to be incorrect, Whne you apply past CO2 data to the model is doesn't predict the current temp, the predicted temps are much hogher than observed temps, ie the model is not accurate and need to be revised.

In science whne you develop a model and it doesn't correctly predict observed data tha model needs to be changed,