What Do We Think About Climate Change

There is no way for me to gracefully back out other than to say I will endeavor to 'play the ball, not the man'.

Cheers your self!

 

Agreed. If you want to go that route, then the AGW crowd better run and hide because their camp has a lot of real ani-human wackos; the stuff they say when they think nobody is listening (but their own) could peel paint, so let's just not go there. Stick to the science.

Jimbo

 

The UAH website has this which I feel is a balanced summary of Dr. Spencers thoughts on the topic of climate change:

http://www.uah.edu/News/climatebackground.php

To the Senate he allows:

"And given that virtually no research into possible natural explanations for global warming has been performed, it is time for scientific objectivity and integrity to be restored to the field of global warming research."

This comment is the broadest possible misrepresentation of this field of study.

 

Pretty interesting link, bntii, thanks.

From there:

"If artificially-enhanced global warming at potentially damaging levels isn't happening, what might that mean in terms of environmental and conservation priorities?

At hearings before Congressional committees and in other settings, we have often been asked the hypothetical question: "If you were in charge, what would you do about climate change and the environment?"

The first thing is to do no harm. With the threat of catastrophic climate change, many proposals have been put forward to limit energy use.

A fundamental point that needs to be understood is that if any of these proposals (including the Kyoto protocol) are implemented, they will have an effect on the climate so small that it cannot be detected.

None of these proposals will change what the climate is doing enough to notice.

Those are good reasons not to artificially force energy prices up. While raising energy costs might damage the economy, it would disproportionately hurt the poor, especially those people living on the world's social and economic fringes.

While no direct evidence of ecological damage from carbon dioxide has been found, that is no excuse for reducing environmental protection.

We shouldn't undo the good things that have been done to clean the air and water. More should be done, especially in developing countries.

Beyond quality of life issues, human life itself is significantly more threatened by polluted water, polluted air, habitat destruction, unbridled population growth and a host of related ecological problems than it is by global climate change on the scales that we have seen in the past 28 years.

Millions of children around the world die every year due to water borne diseases. Tens of millions of people are forced to breathe air that is blackened and made toxic by fumes from leaded gasoline, industrial pollution and cooking fires.

Women and girls in some developing countries are forced to walk miles each day from their villages to the receding edges of the forests to harvest green wood and other low-energy biomass for the fires they use to cook their meals and heat their homes.

A U.N. report estimated that 1.6 million people — most of them women and children — die each year due to indoor pollution from cooking fires

While the extent of human impacts on global climate change remains uncertain, research by our colleagues at UAH confirms that deforestation and land conversion are changing regional weather patterns and the local climate over some parts of the world.

We should also do what the U.S. does best: We should encourage and support the scientists and engineers who will develop new sources of low-cost energy. Just as transportation was "de-horsified" in the last century, we believe energy in the 21st century will continue to be de-carbonized.

Ironically, actions that artificially inflate the cost of energy might hamper those efforts, as healthy economies can better afford to find and develop alternative energy sources and cleaner energy technologies.

We should also enhance the national and international infrastructure for dealing with climate and weather events, including droughts, floods, hurricanes and tornadoes. We know these events will continue to happen whether the climate changes or not. Everyone would benefit if we were better prepared when they happen.

Finally, we recognize that climate change is real and that human activities are probably contributing to that change. We should continue to devote resources to monitoring and studying the climate system, so we can develop the systems that will let us know what the climate is doing and respond appropriately. Perhaps, at some point in the future, we might even be able to reliably forecast what the climate will do in future generations."

— Dr. John R. Christy & Dr. Roy Spencer
Earth System Science Center
The University of Alabama in Huntsville

Amen.
Cheers.

 

I'm taken aback by this comment. After all, AGW proponents have all but admitted that they look at climate processes that they now understand (like the GH effect) and make predictions as to what the earth's temperature "should be" given their current understanding of those natural processes. Any temperature they observe that is "excess" to their predicted temperature is AUTOMATICALLY attributed to anthropogenic causes! If that's not both bias and hubris, I don't even know what is

Imagine if we did that with ALL natural phenomena we don't understand? Oh wait; the greens already do that Remember DDT VS bald eagles? The deformed frogs? Now we have the decline in bee popuations. The first two are now known positively NOT attributable to anthropogenic causes; third item is still pending but the greens have already weighed in with their opinion, LONG before the science is anything like conclusive-as usual.

Until only the last decade or so, the GH effect was the only known driver of global temps; no other mechanisms were even acknowledged to exist, let alone understood. ALL temperature fluctuation past and present were said to be explainable through this effect.

Jimbo

 

I'm so glad that global warming stopped in 1998, it means I won't have to throw away a couple of nice wooly jumpers I have! Probably also explain this absolutly 'shiite' summer we're having

 

Maybe all you northerners will enjoy the freezing zone and us clever dicks will bask in the warmth of the southern oceans? 'cause it is warming down this way - slowly and steadily.....

 

"Taken aback"

Oh my!

How you doing Jimbo?- been awhile but figured I was missing the fun here at the old global warming thread.

Still checking your facts I see:

http://www.inchem.org/documents/ehc/ehc/ehc83.htm#SectionNumber:6.2
http://www.colorado.edu/news/releases/2007/366.html

 

Maybe Mas, there again if it gets that good down there maybe we'll all come down and the world will turn upside down and you'll be a Northener and we can all start again? confused? You will be!!

 

From the frog deformity study, study italics mine:

"This is the first study to show that nutrient enrichment drives the abundance of these parasites, increasing levels of amphibian infection and subsequent malformations," said Johnson. "The research has implications for both worldwide amphibian declines and for a wide array of diseases potentially linked to nutrient pollution, including cholera, malaria, West Nile virus and diseases affecting coral reefs."

Many hundreds of studies have been done on this subject since the late '80's and until this Sept 2007 study NOT ONE could make such a link, though many have tried. Which do you believe, the one or the many? You are always touting the importance of concensus, after all. I know this takes a bit more digging and reading than you are probably willing to invest (one good dig leads to another) but the trouble with this particular study is that it fails to show how all these nutrients got into streams and lakes at the tops of mountains and high plains where there is no farm runoff. It is those locations where the problem has been particularly acute. Of course the authors did not mention this; why should they knock their own work?. I'm mentioning it. Their work doubtless does increase our understanding of what is happening, but the 'blame the humans' mantra is still just indicative of a particular philosophical outlook rather than a useful tool let alone an acceptable bias for a scientist.

The paper on DDT which you linked was not a study but some sort of assessment paper based on the works of others, namely the Dewitt, Hill and Hudson. Of course this paper took all the assertions of these studies as Gospel from Jesus, which of course it is not. In fact, these studies are largely discredited now because of the following: (Some of these were even contemporaneous.)

The big problem with these studies is that they consistently dosed birds with DDT to achieve serum concentrations from hundreds to several thousand times higher than ever recorded in any wild birds known to have been exposed to DDT from agricultural or mosquito control uses. [J Toxicol Environ Health 1977 Nov;3(4):699-704 (50 ppm for 6 months); Arch Environ Contam Toxicol 1978;7(3):359-67 ("acute" doses); Acta Pharmacol Toxicol (Copenh) 1982 Feb;50(2):121-9 (40 mg/kg/day for 45 days); Fed Proc 1977 May;36(6):1888-93 ("In well-controlled experiments using white leghorn chickens and Japanese quail, dietary PCBs, DDT and related compounds produced no detrimental effects on eggshell quality. ... no detrimental effects on eggshell quality, egg production or hatchability were found with ... DDT up to 100 ppm)]

In even these studies, egg shell thinning was consistently less than in affected birds found in the wild. So how could DDT be the cause?

[Hazeltine, WE. 1974. Statement and affidavit, EPA Hearings on Tussock Moth Control, Portland Oregon, p. 9 (January 14, 1974)]

Subsequent research proved that many other factors influenced this phenomena and that ultimately DDT was not the cause. Years of carefully controlled feeding experiments involving levels of DDT as high as present in most wild birds resulted in no tremors, mortality, thinning of egg shells nor reproductive interference.

[Scott, ML et al. 1975. Poultry Science 54: 350-368 (Egg production, hatch ability and shell quality depend on calcium, and are not effected by DDT and its metabolites)]

Furthermore, egg shell thinning is not correlated with ANY pesticide residues.

[Krantz WC. 1970 (No correlation between shell-thinning and pesticide residues in eggs) Pesticide Monitoring J 4(3): 136-141; Postupalsky, S. 1971. Canadian Wildlife Service manuscript, April 8, 1971 (No correlation between shell-thinning and DDE in eggs of bald eagles and cormorants); Anon. 1970. Oregon State University Health Sciences Conference, Annual report, p. 94. (Lowest DDT residues associated with thinnest shells in Cooper's hawk, sharp-shinned hawk and goshawk); Claus G and K Bolander. 1977. Ecological Sanity, David McKay Co., N.Y., p. 461. (Feeding thyreprotein causes hens to lay lighter eggs, with heavier, thicker shells)]


Thomas , you better check your own facts before you go after mine.

Jimbo

 

DDT is the cause because egg shells get thin from the absence of calcium,,,and ddt kills insects at MUCH lower levels then birds and humans,,,therefore the birds dont have the calcium from the insects they used to.to go even further,,,look at the average weights of birds 50 years ago,,,and their average now.
and malformations are a genetic trait,,, which means its been passed onto the "young ones",,,what we're seeing now in malformations waqs a problem that "originated" in the grandparents.not many diseases cause malformations in animals,,,,it poisons with certain chemical's cause genetic defects,,,,ddt is full of em. and YES i KNOW im talking FACTS,,,,or at least the genetics lab i worked in said they were,,hehe

and i think we all should join PETA. ,, sad thing is we already missed their march on bearskin hats,,,,damit

 

OooOOooH, I love that dress style - "Thongs and a banner" - suits me fine - I like to wear a "lungi & a polo-shirt".....

 

i'd wear seal skin if it gave me THEIR attention,,hehe

 

“Thomas , you better check your own facts before you go after mine.”

The material you provided on this issue from junkscience.org are not "facts". You might look at the name of the site- it indicates what it contains.

The association of DDT and its metabolite derivative DDE with reproductive success in raptors is solid established science. This association is represented by THOUSANDS of research papers spanning forty years. Please read the overview I provided and then go here to fill out your knowledge on the strength of these scientific findings:

http://scholar.google.com/scholar?q=DDE egg&hl=en&lr=&btnG=Search

Frogs–

Please review the available body of scientific work to gain an understanding of how the consensus is being formed on this issue.
Better yet, take a look at nutrient loading and the associated eutrophication of aquatic ecosystems. You will find that this process, and its destructive consequences are profound. So profound that the premise of overreaction by “greens” to the deleterious consequences on a relatively peripheral topic such as amphibian mutation is absurd.

 

NOAH II

In the year 2008, the Lord came unto Noah, who was now living in England, and said:
Once again, the earth has become wicked and over-populated, and I see the end of all flesh before me.

Build another Ark and save 2 of every living thing along with a few good humans.

He gave Noah the blueprints, saying: You have 6 months to build the Ark before I will start the unending rain for 40 days and 40 nights.

Six months later, the Lord looked down and saw Noah weeping in his yard - but no Ark.

Noah! He roared, I'm about to start the rain! Where is the Ark?
Forgive me, Lord, begged Noah, 'but things have changed.

I needed a building permit.

I've been arguing with the inspector about the need for a sprinkler system.

My neighbours claim that I've violated the neighbourhood zoning laws by building the Ark in my yard and exceeding the height limitations.
We had to go to the Appeal Board for a decision.

Then the Department of Transport demanded a bond be posted for the future costs of moving power lines
and other overhead obstructions, to clear the passage for the Ark's move to the sea.
I told them that the sea would be coming to us, but they would hear nothing of it.

Getting the wood was another problem. There's a ban on cutting local trees in order to save the spotted owl.

I tried to convince the environmentalists that I needed the wood to save the owls - but no go!

When I started gathering the animals, an animal rights group sued me.
They insisted that I was confining wild animals against their will.
They argued the accommodations were too restrictive, and it was cruel and inhumane
to put so many animals in a confined space.

Then the Environmental Agency ruled that I couldn't build the Ark until they'd conducted an impact study on your proposed flood.

I'm still trying to resolve a complaint with the Human Rights Commission on how many minorities I'm supposed to hire for my building crew.

Immigration and Naturalization are checking the green-card status of most of the people who want to work.

The trades unions say I can't use my sons. They insist I have to hire only Union workers with Ark-building experience.

To make matters worse, the HM Customs seized all my assets, claiming I'm trying to leave the country illegally with endangered species.

So, forgive me, Lord, but it would take at least 10 years for me to finish this Ark.

Suddenly the skies cleared, the sun began to shine, and a rainbow stretched across the sky.

Noah looked up in wonder and asked,
'You mean you're not going to destroy the world?'

'No,' said the Lord.
'The government beat me to it.'