Russian Expert Predicts Global Cooling from 2012

swede · Post by **swede** » Tue Mar 13, 2007 1:08 pm

Yeah, Lord Suzuki is a prime example of an elitist of the nth degree. The guy has done nothing to stop fish farming. This is an environmental catastophe in the making in his own back yard. A high profile Lord like him should be able to shut them down in a heart beat. But instead, he chooses the macro issues like "man made global warming", (which as opposed to fish farming is impossible to halt) and the tree huggers jump in, because it's the cause celebre. The movers and shakers who sign Suzuki's cheques have obviously made it clear to him that he needs to keep his mitts off the fish farm issue. Regarding green house gas, such as the effluent that spews from the granola crowd, I think everyone is in favor of a reduction of man made pollution, who wouldnt be? Question is, are we going to jump like lemmings on the most Reverend Al Gore's band wagon. This wagon has become a religion, and dogma is supposed to have no place in science (but I disgress because that issue is a joke as well, dogma has everything to do with science and the global warming flap proves it). Global warming may well be a fact, the cause of it is next to impossible to determine, and the very Reverend Al Gore should shut his lips on the subject. The guy is nothing more than a social engineer and a diehard communist elitist, always was, always will be. He has no objectivity, and is grinding an axe for an agenda which has far more to do with social control, than reducing green house gas.

the_professor · Post by **the_professor** » Tue Mar 13, 2007 1:26 pm

Glen Quagmire wrote:the professor, Hedley and dust devil, what is your belief on the age of the planet and the universe, also where do you think humans originated. Designed or evolved? Bit of both? Answer truthfully, I am honestly curious.

I have a theory that the above questions are directly linked to an individual’s opinion of climate change.

Exact ages of the earth and universe? Not really sure, but older than 6,000 years, or whatever the bible claims. Humans evolved into what we are today, and were not planted here (Poof! Like some magic trick) by God. There was absolutely no design whatsoever. I'm an athiest, by the way.

the_professor · Post by **the_professor** » Tue Mar 13, 2007 1:32 pm

corporate joe wrote:Furthermore, saying that science has been wrong in the past therefore we can not trust today's results is not a valid argument, because under that same logic we could never again trust any conclusion reached by anything. Everything is imperfect, and everything has at one time made a mistake, does that mean that nothing is true because of that? Of course not.

Something may seem true at a given point in time, based on the data available, but that does not necessarily make it true. There are dozens of scientific theories that, when originally conceived, made sense based on the data available and were subsequently disproved as time went on. People once thought the earth was flat, based on the data available. People thought a new sun was created each day, and fell into the sea at night.

Of course those theories seem ridiculous now, based on the data we have available to us today. But at the time they probably seemed as "true" as your beloved man-induced global warming theory.

Regarding gravity, I still don't think any reasonable person would try and debate it's existence or "truth", so the analogy remains flawed in my mind: Gravity is indisputable, climate change is not.

MUSKEG · Post by **MUSKEG** » Tue Mar 13, 2007 2:09 pm

Blah-blah-blah-blah-blah-Shut up. All of you.

goates · Post by **goates** » Tue Mar 13, 2007 2:27 pm

Goates: That's an interesting theory: Large businesses all over the world cutting into their profits and failing their shareholders, as well as politicians passing laws because they are affraid of "extremist environmentalists" forcing them to pass harsh laws. Don't you think it's a bit far stretched? Is it that hard to believe that we are having an impact on our environment to a point where we need to act? Does the truth really seem easier to believe that this is a large scale conspiracy of modern science, the largest mistake of modern man to date, rather than to consider that we as humans are affecting our environment? As far as Kyoto goes, you'll notice I NEVER mentioned it in any of my posts, and there is a reason for that.

Large businesses will cut into their profits now if it means reducing or eliminating an even bigger hit to their profits later on. It's all about cost to benefit analysis. Until recently many thought that it would blow over or they could persuade people it wasn't a problem. Now that neither is going to happen, the next best plan is to come up with something that works better for them now, rather than wait for someone to come along and tell them what to do. And considering how alarmist many in the environmental movement are becoming, the odds are any laws that are passed are likely to be somewhat biased against them.

For example, oil companies in Alberta are looking at capturing all CO2 emissions from the oil sands, power plants across the province and industrial plants around Edmonton, and then pumping it to older oil fields. This would eliminate many of the biggest polluters, which they could then use an example as to why imposing carbon taxes that would probably cost more are not necessary. It also has the benefit of increasing production from these older resevoirs and boosting their bottom line.

Publicly traded corporations are going to do what they can to give their shareholders the highest return on their investment possible. If that means spending a little money now on their terms, rather than later on someone else's, I don't think it's hard to see which way they will go. Of course, if they had the chance, they would prefer to not have to do anything at all...

benoit.baril · Post by **benoit.baril** » Tue Mar 13, 2007 2:47 pm

Is this thread a new form of this scientific «theory» or what?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/In_Soviet_Russia

http://uncyclopedia.org/wiki/Russian_reversal

goates · Post by **goates** » Tue Mar 13, 2007 4:55 pm

Sure doesn't sound like all scientists agree 100% with Mr. Gore. And some are even concerned with the message that is being portrayed, as are some people here.

http://www.nytimes.com/2007/03/13/scien ... nd&emc=rss

With science the debate is never over as they are learning new things every day.

Hoov · Post by **Hoov** » Tue Mar 13, 2007 6:53 pm

I know all of you observe weather on a daily basis, more so then most non pilots. Can you honestly tell me you personally havent noticed wacky weather in the past few years? I dont know how many times I have heard in the past few years that it was the "warmest in so and so years" or "the worst in so and so years", not just from scientists, not just from journalists but from actual people that have been on the earth for 60-80 yrs. This weather will eventually cuase a new depression, I hope your investing in gold bars.

corporate joe · Post by **corporate joe** » Wed Mar 14, 2007 7:35 am

goates wrote:Sure doesn't sound like all scientists agree 100% with Mr. Gore. And some are even concerned with the message that is being portrayed, as are some people here.

http://www.nytimes.com/2007/03/13/scien ... nd&emc=rss

With science the debate is never over as they are learning new things every day.

From the article quoted:

"Typically, the concern is not over the existence of climate change, or the idea that the human production of heat-trapping gases is partly or largely to blame for the globe’s recent warming. The question is whether Mr. Gore has gone beyond the scientific evidence."

"Bjorn Lomborg, a statistician and political scientist in Denmark long skeptical of catastrophic global warming, said in a syndicated article that the panel, unlike Mr. Gore, had refrained from scaremongering. “Climate change is a real and serious problem” that calls for careful analysis and sound policy, Dr. Lomborg said. “The cacophony of screaming,” he added, “does not help.” "

Not everyone likes Al Gore and his movie, including me. The hollywoodian sensationalism in it does not help the credibility or the seriousness of the research done, and does not help skeptics realize how conservative the actual research done was. Scientists are skeptics, unbelievers who like to dispute everything. Hang around the science department at any University long enough and you'll notice that. To think they are being bribed for their research or pressured by the general public is ludicrous. Believe me, for them to claim consensus, their needs to be undeniable proof.
However, does Gore's movie change the reality of the current situation and the need to act? No it doesn't.

Kelly Harmsworth · Post by **Kelly Harmsworth** » Wed Mar 14, 2007 8:59 am

corporate joe wrote:
goates wrote:Sure doesn't sound like all scientists agree 100% with Mr. Gore. And some are even concerned with the message that is being portrayed, as are some people here.

http://www.nytimes.com/2007/03/13/scien ... nd&emc=rss

With science the debate is never over as they are learning new things every day.
From the article quoted:

"Typically, the concern is not over the existence of climate change, or the idea that the human production of heat-trapping gases is partly or largely to blame for the globe’s recent warming. The question is whether Mr. Gore has gone beyond the scientific evidence."

"Bjorn Lomborg, a statistician and political scientist in Denmark long skeptical of catastrophic global warming, said in a syndicated article that the panel, unlike Mr. Gore, had refrained from scaremongering. “Climate change is a real and serious problem” that calls for careful analysis and sound policy, Dr. Lomborg said. “The cacophony of screaming,” he added, “does not help.” "

Not everyone likes Al Gore and his movie, including me. The hollywoodian sensationalism in it does not help the credibility or the seriousness of the research done, and does not help skeptics realize how conservative the actual research done was. Scientists are skeptics, unbelievers who like to dispute everything. Hang around the science department at any University long enough and you'll notice that. To think they are being bribed for their research or pressured by the general public is ludicrous. Believe me, for them to claim consensus, their needs to be undeniable proof.
However, does Gore's movie change the reality of the current situation and the need to act? No it doesn't.

I do agree with you on this point

Transformers are pretty cool. Atleast untill around the time the insectacons came around then they kind of went down hill with the cheap plastic.

And since the hell when is bumble bee not a VW Bug?

cyyz · Post by **cyyz** » Wed Mar 14, 2007 9:26 am

/sigh

the_professor · Post by **the_professor** » Wed Mar 14, 2007 11:20 am

Hoov wrote:I dont know how many times I have heard in the past few years that it was the "warmest in so and so years" or "the worst in so and so years", not just from scientists, not just from journalists but from actual people that have been on the earth for 60-80 yrs. This weather will eventually cuase a new depression, I hope your investing in gold bars.

How often are records broken on a given day? Contrary to what you are suggesting, I'm trying to think of a season in my lifetime where there hasn't been a record broken at least once a season, which satisfies the "warmest in so and so years".

But of course, that is weather-related and not an indication of the climate changing one way or another.

I think what you are seeing the is media seizing upon every possible opportunity to try and propegate the Next Big Crisis scenario, because suddenly in the last few years every weather event is somehow portrayed as being related to human-induced climate change.

the_professor · Post by **the_professor** » Wed Mar 14, 2007 11:25 am

corporate joe wrote:To think they are being bribed for their research or pressured by the general public is ludicrous. Believe me, for them to claim consensus, their needs to be undeniable proof.

How much new research money has been funneled into climate change research in the past ten years? There's your answer right there.

corporate joe wrote:However, does Gore's movie change the reality of the current situation and the need to act? No it doesn't.

Gore's movie changes how the reality is portrayed, and that's the difference. There are scientists with graphs showing data almost the complete opposite of his. Where did that data come from, and why is Gore's data correct and theirs incorrect, according to you?

And again, had Gore made this movie in the 70's, when he claims he began studying the climate (probably while he was simultaneously "inventing" the Internet), he would have been warning of the next ice age according to the consensus of the day. He would have been wrong then, and he's wrong today.

JakeYYZ · Post by **JakeYYZ** » Fri Mar 16, 2007 4:53 am

Anybody got right handed Carbon Foot prints? All we got out here is lefts..........PM me if you wanna' trade.

corporate joe · Post by **corporate joe** » Fri Mar 16, 2007 5:07 am

the_professor wrote: How much new research money has been funneled into climate change research in the past ten years? There's your answer right there.

No there's your answer. Mine is that since this is a problem with dire consequences, the world's scientific and business communities need to be sure of what is really happening before making any decisions. Wouldn't want to be wrong about this one, and we need to be damn sure before acting or not acting. So a lot of different interests invested a lot of money, some to prove the existence of global warming, the others to deny it.
However, the end result was the same for everyone, as we very well know. It's real, we're causing, and we need to act. Pretty simple actually.

swede · Post by **swede** » Fri Mar 16, 2007 4:08 pm

Watch the following, it offers proof that CO2 emissions are a product of global warming, not a cause. The whole argument is a scam, volcanoes produce more CO2 in one day than all of human activity since history began.

http://video.google.ca/videoplay?docid= ... ng+Swindle

corporate joe · Post by **corporate joe** » Sat Mar 17, 2007 6:12 am

swede wrote:Watch the following, it offers proof that CO2 emissions are a product of global warming, not a cause. The whole argument is a scam, volcanoes produce more CO2 in one day than all of human activity since history began.

http://video.google.ca/videoplay?docid= ... ng+Swindle

"According to data collected from Volcanoes, on an average the entire volcanic activity is adding less than 0.05 Giga tons of carbon dioxide to the atmosphere annually. On the other hand human contribution is more than 8 Giga tons. World volcanic activity has not seen an increase for past couple of centuries. Volcanic eruptions releases tons of dust and other particulates to the atmosphere which gives a cooling effect. Hence volcanic activity has in no way contributed much to the global warming."

http://www.globalwarmingawareness.info/ ... lieve.html

Idriveplane · Post by **Idriveplane** » Sat Mar 17, 2007 6:43 am

Look at it this way, 3 percent of the atmosphere is comprised of CO2. Of that number its a proven hard fact that humans account for only 3 percent of it. The end numbers are rather so unspectaclular. In the end CO2 doesnt even regulate temperatures. There is a several century lag between world temps and atmosphereic CO2 concentration. I constantly wonder what all this hype is about

I just don't buy what the media is saying and why people support this human caused global warming shit.

the_professor · Post by **the_professor** » Sat Mar 17, 2007 9:20 am

Idriveplane wrote:Look at it this way, 3 percent of the atmosphere is comprised of CO2. Of that number its a proven hard fact that humans account for only 3 percent of it. The end numbers are rather so unspectaclular. In the end CO2 doesnt even regulate temperatures. There is a several century lag between world temps and atmosphereic CO2 concentration. I constantly wonder what all this hype is about I just don't buy what the media is saying and why people support this human caused global warming shit.

That is incorrect.

CO2 accounts for, according to most studies published recently, around 320-370 parts per million (0.03%), not 3%.

Any science textbook will say the atmosphere is 78% nitrogen, 18% oxygen, 3% water vapour, and the balance made up of traces of various other gases, including CO2.

It is the impact of that very small percentage of CO2 on the temperature of the atmosphere that is up for debate. Current popular science (Gore) claims that everything can be explained by increases in CO2. That is their theory. There are credible scientists who do not reach the same conclusion.

grimey · Post by **grimey** » Sun Mar 18, 2007 12:26 am

swede wrote:Watch the following, it offers proof that CO2 emissions are a product of global warming, not a cause. The whole argument is a scam, volcanoes produce more CO2 in one day than all of human activity since history began.

http://video.google.ca/videoplay?docid= ... ng+Swindle

Wrong. If volcanoes produced an environmentally significant amount of CO2 in a day, there's be a massive spike in CO2 levels every major eruption. This doesn't happen.

http://cdiac.esd.ornl.gov/trends/co2/sio-keel.htm

grimey · Post by **grimey** » Sun Mar 18, 2007 12:56 am

the_professor wrote: It is the impact of that very small percentage of CO2 on the temperature of the atmosphere that is up for debate. Current popular science (Gore) claims that everything can be explained by increases in CO2. That is their theory. There are credible scientists who do not reach the same conclusion.

Huh? Most claims of global warming that I've read add water vapour, nitrous oxide, CFCs and methane in there as well, with them accounting for a significant portion of the warming. The difference is that we can control our CO2 emissions and some methane emissions, and we've mostly eliminated CFC emissions. We can't stop cows from farting, or bogs or clathrate deposits from thawing, and we can't stop water from evaporating from the oceans. We're not going to stop using fertilizers. I don't think anyone is claiming that ALL global warming is caused by CO2. If you can show someone who is, I'd like to see it.

grimey · Post by **grimey** » Sun Mar 18, 2007 1:35 am

Hedley wrote:Where I am, Environment Canada said we had the coldest February in 28 years. And, the Rideau Canal was frozen and open for skating for only one day less than the all-time record.

And December of 2006 was one of the warmest. Your point?

http://www.on.ec.gc.ca/announce.cfm?ID=768&Lang=e

Hoov · Post by **Hoov** » Sun Mar 18, 2007 2:00 am

Sorry but the world is perfect, hummers are great for the economy(oil sector) and recycling is for left wing nut cases. Look at my sources all four of them, take the thousands of reports which go againts mine and shove them up your arse. It cant be true cuase I am quite comfortable with the rise in temperature, and my vehicle runs better in the warmer climates.

the_professor · Post by **the_professor** » Sun Mar 18, 2007 8:23 am

grimey wrote:Huh? Most claims of global warming that I've read add water vapour, nitrous oxide, CFCs and methane in there as well, with them accounting for a significant portion of the warming. The difference is that we can control our CO2 emissions and some methane emissions, and we've mostly eliminated CFC emissions.

Yes, I wasn't clear on that. I did mean to say that the Gore science attributes global warming to man's CO2 emissions, while there are other scientists who do not support that conclusion, or at least the degree for which CO2 might be responsible for the increase.

Dust Devil · Post by **Dust Devil** » Sun Mar 18, 2007 10:42 am

Hey Corporate Joe

Can you tell me how Kyoto and carbon taxes will reduce global warming?

Russian Expert Predicts Global Cooling from 2012

Russian reversal