Global Warming - NOT

[swede]

Or as Tyra Banks said to the very Reverend Al Gore - kiss my fat @#$%


http://english.newslab.ru/news/226837

[grimey]

When you can figure out the difference between local weather and global climate, people might pay some attention to your ranting.

Til then, probably not.

[Bob A. Booey]

Are you for real?

I always understood that global warming didn't necessarily mean warm everywhere, but greater variations and larger extremes to these variations.

[corporate joe]

http://www.usatoday.com/weather/storms/ ... ther_N.htm


total cost: over 15 billion. It's just a start.

When it starts costing our economy double or triple what it would have cost to encourage initiatives (that would have been self sufficient and even profitable in the long run), then EVERYBODY will listen.

"Worldwide, last year was the sixth-warmest, according to the World Meteorological Organization (WMO) of the United Nations. Ten of the warmest years have been in the past 12.

Droughts have increased during the past 30 years and cost the European economy at least $138 billion, according to EU data."

Whether you believe or not (even though understand is the appropriate word), you will pay. When you're tired of paying, and if it's not too late, then, and maybe then, you'll act.

[desksgo]

Wow Swede, you've done it again.

[trancemania]

Im with Swede on this one.

Check this out:http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8f8v5du5_ag

This too:http://www.metatech.org/07/ice_age_global_warming.html

Im not sold on global warming.

[pika]

Whole show available on bt.

[trancemania]

Lets start this debate over after everyone watches the link!

[Sulako]

Dear sweet Jebus; global warming isn't still being debated is it? I mean really...we all know that our CO2 emissions are causing the planet to get warmer; anyone suggesting otherwise is a freakin' flat-earther and can be dismissed because their arguments aren't fundamentally logical.

The question is what do we as pilots do about it, and I guess my current answer is to be as fuel-conscious as possible, however that works out for you.

Other than that I guess we should all quit our jobs as pilots because we are complicit in a pretty frickin' huge environmental scandal; I generate about 3,300 lbs/hour of CO2 in a Citation II; your mileage may vary (it works that each pound of fuel generates around 3.3 lbs of CO2), but that tells me I'm not exactly kind to the environment.

So what should I do? Any suggestions welcome, I'm serious. I love flying, so is there a way I can do it in an environmentally-conscious way?

Really?

[trancemania]

No No,

This debate is just getting started.This is just the begining of the fight for the other side.
This is for those of us who believe we are NOT responsible for global warming.

See the problem is this:

The general public are very easy to convince of stuff(its scary actually)

Sceintists throw some irrelivant facts their way and they believe it without doing some more reading/research.

Question:How much CO2 do Volcanoes,the ocean,animals and plants
give off?

Go find the answer to then we can compare it to what we give off.

What you can do is watch all 8 video's(about 9 min each) then youll realize you cant do anything.

[corporate joe]

Dear sweet Jebus; global warming isn't still being debated is it? I mean really...we all know that our CO2 emissions are causing the planet to get warmer; anyone suggesting otherwise is a freakin' flat-earther and can be dismissed because their arguments aren't fundamentally logical.

The question is what do we as pilots do about it, and I guess my current answer is to be as fuel-conscious as possible, however that works out for you.

Other than that I guess we should all quit our jobs as pilots because we are complicit in a pretty frickin' huge environmental scandal; I generate about 3,300 lbs/hour of CO2 in a Citation II; your mileage may vary (it works that each pound of fuel generates around 3.3 lbs of CO2), but that tells me I'm not exactly kind to the environment.

So what should I do? Any suggestions welcome, I'm serious. I love flying, so is there a way I can do it in an environmentally-conscious way?

Really?

Finally, an intelligent question. The denial phase has been already been "debated" long and large not only on these boards, but also in the scientific community. The debate is over. Science, and now nature have spoken. Nothing more to be said about that. Go to your local university, read the extensive studies done, look at the evidence presented. No debate whatsoever about the foundation or the cause (even though there will always be some debate about some of the details, as no science is absolute).

Now once we leave the denial phase, the questioning phase can start. What am I doing wrong? What can I do right? As you pointed out Sulako, we as pilots are even bigger targets in this whole issue, because of the negative impact we have (especially corporate pilots).

IMHO, everything helps. For example, I have convinced my owners not to use the gpu/apu on the ground an hour before the flight just to cool the plane. The FBO guys we deal with all the time at home base DON'T leave all four fuel trucks running all day. It's not much compared to the waste generated, but it adds up on a large scale if everyone pitches in. You can also take the efforts out of the workplace and bring them home. Some simple minds here think that since your plane pollutes in the air, that means you can't conserve on the ground. It's non-sense. Just because one aspect is flawed does not mean the other aspects can not be correct. On the contrary, as pilots we should be making double the efforts in our personal lives, ESPECIALLY because we are polluting in our proffessional lives. It's not all or nothing, black and white, left or right.

It's a state of mind. It's being aware of the choices and decisions you make. It's about making that extra effort and that little sacrifice (which is not really a sacrifice, since something will give in the end). See it as an investment. What you willingly work on today, will not be imposed on you tenfold if things get out of hand tomorrow.

[the_professor]

The debate is over. Science, and now nature have spoken. Nothing more to be said about that. Go to your local university, read the extensive studies done, look at the evidence presented.

Wrong again.

Most climate change studies regarding warming have only been produced in the last ten years. (Any climate change studies produced before ten years ago were claiming that the earth was cooling and not warming)

We have not magically figured out how the climate works (beyond the shadow of a doubt, as Joe suggests) in the last ten years. That should be obvious to anyone.

So there's plenty of room for debate, and contradictory studies continue to be released that challenge the Gore wisdom on the matter.

[corporate joe]

As for that "documentary":

The programme has been criticised by scientists and scientific organizations.

The IPCC was one of the main targets of the documentary. In response to the programme's broadcast, John T. Houghton (co-chair IPCC Scientific Assessment working group 1988-2002) assessed some of its main assertions and conclusions. According to Houghton the program was "a mixture of truth, half truth and falsehood put together with the sole purpose of discrediting the science of global warming", which he noted had been endorsed by the scientific community including the Academies of Science of the major industrialized countries plus China, India and Brazil) along with the IPCC. Houghton rejected claims that observed changes in global average temperature are within the range of natural climate variability or that solar influences are the main driver; that the troposphere is warming less than the surface; that volcanic eruptions emit more carbon dioxide than fossil fuel burning; that climate models are too complex and uncertain to provide useful projections of climate change; and that IPCC processes were biased. Houghton acknowledges that ice core samples show CO2 driven by temperature, but then writes that the programmes assertion that "this correlation has been presented as the main evidence for global warming by the IPCC [is] NOT TRUE. For instance, I often show that diagram in my lectures on climate change but always make the point that it gives no proof of global warming due to increased carbon dioxide."[3]
The British Antarctic Survey released a statement about the The Great Global Warming Swindle. It is highly critical of the programme, singling out the use of a graph with the incorrect time axis, and also the statements made about solar activity: "A comparison of the distorted and undistorted contemporary data reveal that the plot of solar activity bears no resemblance to the temperature curve, especially in the last 20 years." Comparing scientific methods with Channel 4's editorial standards, the statement says: "Any scientist found to have falsified data in the manner of the Channel 4 programme would be guilty of serious professional misconduct." It uses the feedback argument to explain temperatures rising before CO2. On the issue of volcanic CO2 emissions, it says:
A second issue was the claim that human emissions of CO2 are small compared to natural emissions from volcanoes. This is untrue: current annual emissions from fossil fuel burning and cement production are estimated to be around 100 times greater than average annual volcanic emissions of CO2. That large volcanoes cannot significantly perturb the CO2 concentration of the atmosphere is apparent from the ice core and atmospheric record of CO2 concentrations, which shows a steady rise during the industrial period, with no unusual changes after large eruptions.[14]

Eigil Friis-Christensen's research was used to support claims about the influence of solar activity on climate, both in the programme and Durkin's subsequent defence of it. Friis-Christensen and colleague Nathan Rive have criticised the way the solar data were used:
We have concerns regarding the use of a graph featured in the documentary titled ‘Temp & Solar Activity 400 Years’. Firstly, we have reason to believe that parts of the graph were made up of fabricated data that were presented as genuine. The inclusion of the artificial data is both misleading and pointless. Secondly, although the narrator commentary during the presentation of the graph is consistent with the conclusions of the paper from which the figure originates, it incorrectly rules out a contribution by anthropogenic greenhouse gases to 20th century global warming.[15]

In response to a question from The Independent as to whether the programme was scientifically accurate, Friis-Christensen said: "No, I think several points were not explained in the way that I, as a scientist, would have explained them ... it is obvious it's not accurate." Durkin said in an email to Friis-Christensen that the error with the graph was "an annoying mistake", and that it didn't alter the programme's argument.[16]
Alan Thorpe, professor of meteorology at the University of Reading and Chief Executive of the UK Natural Environment Research Council, commented on the film in New Scientist. He wrote, "First, let's deal with the main thesis: that the presence or absence of cosmic rays in Earth's atmosphere is a better explanation for temperature variation than the concentration of CO2 and other gases. This is not a new assertion and it is patently wrong: there is no credible evidence that cosmic rays play a significant role...Let scepticism reign, but let's not play games with the evidence."[17]
The Royal Society has issued a press release in reaction to the film. In it, Martin Rees, the president of the Royal Society, shortly restates the predominant scientific opinion on climate change and adds:
Scientists will continue to monitor the global climate and the factors which influence it. It is important that all legitimate potential scientific explanations continue to be considered and investigated. Debate will continue, and the Royal Society has just hosted a two day discussion meeting attended by over 300 scientists, but it must not be at the expense of action. Those who promote fringe scientific views but ignore the weight of evidence are playing a dangerous game. They run the risk of diverting attention from what we can do to ensure the world's population has the best possible future.[18]

Thirty-seven British scientists signed a letter of complaint, saying that they "believe that the misrepresentations of facts and views, both of which occur in your programme, are so serious that repeat broadcasts of the programme, without amendment, are not in the public interest. In view of the seriousness of climate change as an issue, it is crucial that public debate about it is balanced and well-informed" [19].
On 5th July 2007, The Guardian reported that Professor Mike Lockwood, a physicist at the Rutherford Appleton Laboratory had carried out a study that disproved one of the key planks of The Great Global Warming Swindle's argument—namely that global warming directly correlates to solar activity. Lockwood's study showed that solar activity had diminished subsequent to 1987, despite a steady rise in the temperature of the Earth's surface. The study, to be published in a Royal Society journal, used temperature and solar data recorded from the last 100 years. [20]
In a BBC interview about this study, Lockwood commented on the graphs shown in the documentary:

All the graphs they showed stopped in about 1980, and I knew why, because things diverged after that...You can't just ignore bits of data that you don't like

Volume 20 of the Bulletin of the Australian Meteorological and Oceanographic Society presented a critique by David Jones, Andrew Watkins, Karl Braganza and Michael Coughlan.
The Great Global Warming Swindle does not represent the current state of knowledge in climate science… Many of the hypotheses presented in the Great Global Warming Swindle have been considered and rejected by due scientific process. This documentary is far from an objective, critical examination of climate science. Instead the Great Global Warming Swindle goes to great lengths to present outdated, incorrect or ambiguous data in such a way as to grossly distort the true understanding of climate change science, and to support a set of extremely controversial views.[21]

Carl Wunsch said "I'm somewhat troubled that TV companies around the world are treating it as though this were a science documentary. It's not. It's a tendentious political propaganda piece... It's not a science film at all. It's a political statement."

[trancemania]

So im assuming most have watched all the video's?

At the end of the day all the research is done by OTHER poeple and reported to us by OTHER people.

We have to keep that in mind.I wont be stubborn here because i know that these guys can "distort" what they believe to be the facts.(people on both sides)

Forget about what you read and think for yourself.Nothing we have can do the job the sun does.Maybe a couple Nukes but at what cost?

The sun is very very powerfull.From me watching that piece about the sun(and not even the sunspots)I believe that global warming is just part of nature.

There will always be some for and some against.I like to keep an open mind.

On a brighter note.What are we as Canadians worrying about?

Hell I could use a temperature increase here when its -40

[trancemania]

the_professor wrote

We have not magically figured out how the climate works (beyond the shadow of a doubt, as Joe suggests) in the last ten years. That should be obvious to anyone.

Eaxctly.With all of us been in aviation we should know the climate guys arent the most accurate.

Who the hell predicts 30% chance of rain anyways?Who the hell predicts rain and we dont even see a drop?Therefore how can they be 100% correct about global warming????

Impossible!!!

No hard feelings to anyone.I like a good debate/argument.......whatever you want to call it.

At the end of the day...........wait for it.........ill spark another debate with this one.

We are still the good guys right Maybe not if i dont stop using my DIESEL to work everyday

[the_professor]

As for that "documentary":

[EDITED: Seven pages of blathering]

Sweet Jesus.

Does anyone on here actually read each and every thesis posted on here by CJ? A seven page lecture is not going to change the mind of anyone who has doubts about the ridiculous slam-dunk claims about human-induced climate change.

He's like having a Jehovah's Witness on your doorstep at 10am on a Saturday morning; blind to obvious facts that contradict his long-winded (and scientifically-challenged) message. Ugh.

[2R]

Co2 emissions tax credits .Finally the Governments have figured out how to tax the air we breath

[grimey]

(Any climate change studies produced before ten years ago were claiming that the earth was cooling and not warming)

You are demonstrably full of shit. Any amount of research whatsoever would have made it clear that you're wrong.

The second important group analyzing global temperatures was the British government's Climatic Research Unit at the University of East Anglia, led by Tom Wigley and Phil Jones. Help in assembling data and funding came from American scientists and agencies. The British results agreed overall with the NASA group's findings — the world was getting warmer. In 1982, East Anglia confirmed that the cooling that began in the 1940s had turned around by the early 1970s. 1981 was the warmest year in a record that stretched back a century.(34*) Returning to old records, in 1986 the group produced the first truly solid and comprehensive global analysis of average surface temperatures (including the vast ocean regions, which most earlier studies had neglected). They found considerable warming from the late 19th century up to 1940, followed by some regional cooling in the Northern Hemisphere but roughly level conditions overall to the mid-1970s. Then the warming had resumed with a vengeance. The warmest three years in the entire 134-year record had all occurred in the 1980s.(35) Convincing confirmation came from Hansen and a collaborator, who analyzed old records using quite different methods from the British, and came up with substantially the same results. It was true: an unprecedented warming was underway, at least 0.5°C in the past century.(36)

http://www.aip.org/history/climate/20ctrend.htm#L_M017
http://ams.allenpress.com/perlserv/?req ... O%3B2&ct=1
http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v3 ... 430a0.html
http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/1987JGR....9213345H

All of these papers were published at least 20 years ago. It took me less than 5 minutes to look this shit up. Please think before posting next, rather than just pulling shit out of your ass.

[corporate joe]

(Any climate change studies produced before ten years ago were claiming that the earth was cooling and not warming)

You are demonstrably full of shit. Any amount of research whatsoever would have made it clear that you're wrong.

The second important group analyzing global temperatures was the British government's Climatic Research Unit at the University of East Anglia, led by Tom Wigley and Phil Jones. Help in assembling data and funding came from American scientists and agencies. The British results agreed overall with the NASA group's findings — the world was getting warmer. In 1982, East Anglia confirmed that the cooling that began in the 1940s had turned around by the early 1970s. 1981 was the warmest year in a record that stretched back a century.(34*) Returning to old records, in 1986 the group produced the first truly solid and comprehensive global analysis of average surface temperatures (including the vast ocean regions, which most earlier studies had neglected). They found considerable warming from the late 19th century up to 1940, followed by some regional cooling in the Northern Hemisphere but roughly level conditions overall to the mid-1970s. Then the warming had resumed with a vengeance. The warmest three years in the entire 134-year record had all occurred in the 1980s.(35) Convincing confirmation came from Hansen and a collaborator, who analyzed old records using quite different methods from the British, and came up with substantially the same results. It was true: an unprecedented warming was underway, at least 0.5°C in the past century.(36)

http://www.aip.org/history/climate/20ctrend.htm#L_M017
http://ams.allenpress.com/perlserv/?req ... O%3B2&ct=1
http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v3 ... 430a0.html
http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/1987JGR....9213345H

All of these papers were published at least 20 years ago. It took me less than 5 minutes to look this shit up. Please think before posting next, rather than just pulling shit out of your ass.

Napoleon can be ignored in these debates, or else the discussion never moves forward, it stagnates. He does not use facts for any of his posts, he uses his beliefs. When presented with facts, he does not read them. You can prove him wrong ten times, two pages later he is repeating what you have refuted. You'll have better success reasoning with a door knob.

That being said, trancemania presented "arguments" with the "global warming swindle". He claimed there should be "debate" and appeared to be genuinely interested in learning more. He and others should know that the points brought in this movie were addressed and refuted in the scientific community. The post I made was a quote from a nice synthesis of the arguments and counter arguments, and was for those who actually wanted to learn the facts, not put their fingers in their ears, close their eyes, and repeat the same non-sense while rocking back and forth franctically.

PS: trancemania: the sun has nothing to do with global warming. Also, even though these facts are reported to us by others and we need to think for ourselves, if your doctor tells you you need to stop eating salt because your blood pressure is high, do you not think it would be quite unintelligent to ignore his recommendation under the pretext that you are thinking for yourself?

[cyyz]

Who can sleep at night knowing they're going to Drive a car to the airport and fly a plane for work today???? Raise your hand.

Who can sleep at night their childrens childrens children(great-great-grand kids) might have a slightly warmer earth?

Who can sleep at night knowing their great great great great great great grand kids won't be able to find florida or california on an atlas because they'll be in the sea?

I can.

If you can't, please, don't go to work today, take a knife and hari-kari because you're breathing that "precious" air we need to save for those kids.

Honestly, nice of the pre-boomers, rockafellers, bushes and fords who made a killing off oil and cars.

Nice of the boomers who invested in Exxon, BP, Shell and drove to work in those lincoln town cars, buick centuries and all the other 30l/100k gass guzzlers.

Nice of all of them making a dime off polluting and now they're telling the rest of us it's to hot down in florida and we need to cut down on emissions because their vacation homes are to hot...

Well they can sod off and my kids and their kids can all go and do as they please and let the next generation deal with it as every other generation has done before them.