Rapid Global Climate Shift and its socio-economic effects

so your insisting that the process of combustion does not produce CO2 as a byproduct?

okie dokie then but you expect people to offer an equal level of respect for your opinion ?

What if someone came on here and insisted 1+1=3. How much respect could you muster for there opinion?

 

Thats correct. In your younger , innocent, , ignorant years, you could behave without thought. Now that things have become clear, the response of the educated citizen is to act responsibly..... Think globally act locally. Solutions will then become clear...no laws need be debated , no taxes levied......and Hopefully everyone figures this simple rule out

 

There are 10 types of people in this world Boston, those that understand binary and those that don't.

Get it?

-Tom

 

and that contributes what to our topic Tom

What effective changes can we make to forestall the effects of climate change?

 

Think locally, type globally.

 

Here's a good read for you, it's a bit more should I say balanced point of view.

The increase in atmospheric carbon dioxide has, however, had a
substantial environmental effect. Atmospheric CO2 fertilizes plants.
Higher CO2 enables plants to grow faster and larger and to live in
drier climates. Plants provide food for animals, which are thereby
also enhanced. The extent and diversity of plant and animal life have
both increased substantially during the past half-century. Increased
temperature has also mildly stimulated plant growth.

Does a catastrophic amplification of these trends with damaging
climatologically consequences lie ahead? There are no experimental
data that suggest this. There is also no experimentally validated theoretical
evidence of such an amplification.

Predictions of catastrophic global warming are based on computer
climate modeling, a branch of science still in its infancy. The empirical
evidence – actual measurements of Earth’s temperature and climate
shows no man-made warming trend. Indeed, during four of
the seven decades since 1940 when average CO2 levels steadily
increased, U.S. average temperatures were actually decreasing.
While CO2 levels have increased substantially and are expected to
continue doing so and humans have been responsible for part of this
increase, the effect on the environment has been benign.

Source: http://www.petitionproject.org/gw_article/GWReview_OISM150.pdf

 

Signatories are approved for inclusion in the Petition Project list if they have obtained formal educational degrees at the level of Bachelor of Science or higher in appropriate scientific fields. The petition has been circulated only in the United States.

The current list of petition signers includes 9,029 PhD; 7,157 MS; 2,586 MD and DVM; and 12,715 BS or equivalent academic degrees. Most of the MD and DVM signers also have underlying degrees in basic science.

All of the listed signers have formal educations in fields of specialization that suitably qualify them to evaluate the research data related to the petition statement. Many of the signers currently work in climatological, meteorological, atmospheric, environmental, geophysical, astronomical, and biological fields directly involved in the climate change controversy.

The Petition Project classifies petition signers on the basis of their formal academic training, as summarized below. Scientists often pursue specialized fields of endeavor that are different from their formal education, but their underlying training can be applied to any scientific field in which they become interested.

Outlined below are the numbers of Petition Project signatories, subdivided by educational specialties. These have been combined, as indicated, into seven categories.

1. Atmospheric, environmental, and Earth sciences includes 3,805 scientists trained in specialties directly related to the physical environment of the Earth and the past and current phenomena that affect that environment.

2. Computer and mathematical sciences includes 935 scientists trained in computer and mathematical methods. Since the human-caused global warming hypothesis rests entirely upon mathematical computer projections and not upon experimental observations, these sciences are especially important in evaluating this hypothesis.

3. Physics and aerospace sciences include 5,812 scientists trained in the fundamental physical and molecular properties of gases, liquids, and solids, which are essential to understanding the physical properties of the atmosphere and Earth.

4. Chemistry includes 4,822 scientists trained in the molecular interactions and behaviors of the substances of which the atmosphere and Earth are composed.

5. Biology and agriculture includes 2,965 scientists trained in the functional and environmental requirements of living things on the Earth.

6. Medicine includes 3,046 scientists trained in the functional and environmental requirements of human beings on the Earth.

7. Engineering and general science includes 10,102 scientists trained primarily in the many engineering specialties required to maintain modern civilization and the prosperity required for all human actions, including environmental programs.

The following outline gives a more detailed analysis of the signers' educations.

Read and weep here: http://www.petitionproject.org/qualifications_of_signers.php

 

Proclaiming that “climate change is real” is a nonsensical statement and ignores the Earth’s continual natural warming and cooling cycles. Vikings settled in Greenland and raised crops and cattle 1000 years ago, while Britons grew grapes in England. Four hundred years later, Greenland froze and the Vikings starved. Europe was gripped in a Little Ice Age. The Thames froze all the way up to London. Another surge in temperatures saw widespread global droughts in the mid-1600s. Temperatures plunged again around 1700’s. The globe warmed in 1800-1940, cooled for the next 35 years, then warmed again. The 1940-1975 cooling period occurred despite the fact that industrial production and release of CO2 vastly accelerated during this time. This led to political and media scaremongering about Global Cooling, and the threat of a new ice age.

Again, this arose out of a misunderstanding of long term temperature fluctuations. Scientists have discovered that the sun not only has a regular 11 year cycle of sunspot activity. They have now discovered a significant 200 year cycle. Sunspot and solar radiation activity almost exactly parallel temperature changes on the Earth. It correlates well with the anomalous post-war temperature dip, when global carbon dioxide levels were rising very fast. The increase in solar radiation prevents the formation of clouds, which have a cooling effect on the planet, therefore the temperature rises.

Other recent studies, published in Nature and other leading journals, conclude that the sun’s radiant heat and solar radiation levels affect planetary warming and cloud formation more strongly than acknowledged by Global Warming alarmists. After all, why would natural forces that caused the climate to change in past centuries suddenly stop now? And how does man-made Global Warming explain why every planet in our solar system appears to be simultaneously warming up? Does this not suggest that Global Warming is a natural cycle as a result of the dynamic nature of the sun?

http://green-agenda.com/science.html

 

You can't seriously expect us to buy into the petition projects propaganda can you.

its been debunked about a hundred times. If you want to look at some of the flaws in it just check some of these sites found here

http://debunking.pbworks.com/w/page/17102969/Oregon Petition

calling the petition project balanced is a lot like calling Reorge Bush smatt

 

George Bush is smart compared to those he ran against.

 

No, you didn't get it. Let me explain: There are other perspectives than yours. You challenged me that 1 + 1 = 3. You are assuming a great deal of clarity and black & white here.

10 in binary is two in our widely accepted Dewey Decimal system.

You argue science against science but who is right and who is wrong? Maybe neither, maybe both but likely somewhere in between. If there is so much conflicting evidence, then none of it can be admissible.

It doesn't really matter what is right and what is wrong it's what people perceive and feel compelled to act on.

Ahh, the penny drops. You're trying to convince us to believe you and act in the way you want us to.

If it makes you feel any better my dear Boston, I feel the same way about the conflicting viewpoint. I think you all made fools arguing away while the barn burns down. (Good pun that one!)

-Tom

 

wrong, I'm trying to start a thread concerning the social political and economical aspects of climate change.

we're discussing denial over on the other thread.

I don't recall suggesting a course of action.

Thought you were smart Tom, hows it so hard for you to figure that out.

 

Thank you Boston.

I do have it figured out.

I have two words for you: Cognitive dissonance.

-Tom

 

do you even know what cognitive dissonance means Tom

say one thing and do another implies that I'm not walking my talk. I am, almost done with my alternative fuels truck restoration and am hoping to begin the alternative fuels boat soon. Can you say carbon neutral ?

 

Now don't be silly Boston. Why would a "smart" guy through a couple of words out to you if I didn't know what they meant. My hope was that you would (or find out) and read what was tactfully implied. I thought you were smart too.

"Alternative fuels truck", I love it. Are you sure it's carbon neutral? I doubt it, remember, you have to look at the whole picture now, including what you do with it when it's no longer serviceable.

It makes me ask: Do you even know what carbon neutral means?

You're certainly caught up in the hype. I'll bet it makes you feel really good doesn't it.

Carry on, your barn's nearly out.

-Tom