Does it seems that a house of cards is collapsing here?
Claude Allegre, one of France's leading socialists and among her most celebrated scientists, was among the first to sound the alarm about the dangers of global warming.
"By burning fossil fuels, man increased the concentration of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere which, for example, has raised the global mean temperature by half a degree in the last century," Dr. Allegre, a renowned geochemist, wrote 20 years ago in Cles pour la geologie.." Fifteen years ago, Dr. Allegre was among the 1500 prominent scientists who signed "World Scientists' Warning to Humanity," a highly publicized letter stressing that global warming's "potential risks are very great" and demanding a new caring ethic that recognizes the globe's fragility in order to stave off "spirals of environmental decline, poverty, and unrest, leading to social, economic and environmental collapse."
In the 1980s and early 1990s, when concern about global warming was in its infancy, little was known about the mechanics of how it could occur, or the consequences that could befall us. Since then, governments throughout the western world and bodies such as the United Nations Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change have commissioned billions of dollars worth of research by thousands of scientists. With a wealth of data now in, Dr. Allegre has recanted his views. To his surprise, the many climate models and studies failed dismally in establishing a man-made cause of catastrophic global warming. Meanwhile, increasing evidence indicates that most of the warming comes of natural phenomena. Dr. Allegre now sees global warming as over-hyped and an environmental concern of second rank.
His break with what he now sees as environmental cant on climate change came in September, in an article entitled "The Snows of Kilimanjaro" in l' Express, the French weekly. His article cited evidence that Antarctica is gaining ice and that Kilimanjaro's retreating snow caps, among other global-warming concerns, come from natural causes. "The cause of this climate change is unknown," he states matter of factly. There is no basis for saying, as most do, that the "science is settled."(emphasis added)
Ok, so he's French (therefor all wise in the view of the left), he's a socialist (can't be in the hip pocket of Big Oil), he's a climate scientist of unscotchable reputation (he helped start to global warming ball rolling) and he's got strong doubts about anthropogenic global warming.
It is good to keep in mind that even in its infancy, global warming was presented as established fact...I know, I'm old enough to remember...but, then again, so was global cooling presented in the 1970's, as were theories that we'd run out of oil by 1980, or starve to death by 1974. Suppose we hadn't waited for all the data to come in when global cooling was all the rage? We might have started programs to put more CO2 into the atmosphere to warm us up!
My view on global warming: cool it. The world isn't going to die - lets just clean up the air, water and land because that is good stewardship of the earth, and leave aside end of the world scenarios.
Posted by Mark Noonan at March 6, 2007 07:43 AM
Track
del.icio.us
digg it
IM
Facebook
Comments
Mark, the real trick is going to be developing technology for clean energy that can be implemented in developing countries in as economical a way as possible. As I said in a previous GW thread, I think we're on the verge of an energy revolution, and I fully expect the U.S. to lead the way.
Posted by: Retired Spook at March 6, 2007 09:16 AM
Mark, "The world isn't going to die"??? maybe not via GW.
If we leave it to the terrorists and kook libs in this world, they'll drum up enough hoohaaa to force the demise of life as we know it.
For example: Algore and the like have convinced themselves that "terrorism is a police matter" and that "Iraq wasn't responsible for 911" and "if we would focus on capturing UBL, we'd win the WOT".
All of these are quotes from prominent lib leaders...what do they tell us???? That half this country is whacked out.
Posted by: navydad at March 6, 2007 09:42 AM
it is IMPOSSIBLE to prove that current "warming" isn't just another natural cycle.
IMPOSSIBLE!
the global cattle herd (~1.5 BILLION HEAD), not even counting swine, emit more "warming" emmisions than all forms of transport COMBINED per the recent UN Food & Agricultural Rpt.
and KYOTO has been reduced to a joke by the very EU nations that "approved" it. plus it excludes China.
man-caused warming fetish consists of junk science, political shills echoing environmental jihadists, media chattering, & naked profiteers.
Posted by: OhioOrrin at March 6, 2007 09:54 AM
Mark, when I was a kid, the big alarm was that we were heading into another ice age. Also, the remember the alarm about how we were destroying the ozone layer with aerosol cans. We never hear about that now. What ever happened with that?
Posted by: james allegro at March 6, 2007 10:32 AM
Dammit I can't hear a thing over the din of all these kooky lib crickets chirping.
just like the GWOT the left is completely off base here and their attempt to use GW as cover for their anti-business and anti-capitalism agenda is becoming more and more obvious.
Wake up lefties your slips are beginning to show and show quite badly.
Posted by: GOP 4 ME at March 6, 2007 10:47 AM
Posted by: Bigfoot at March 6, 2007 11:56 AM
Mark, when I was a kid, the big alarm was that we were heading into another ice age. Also, the remember the alarm about how we were destroying the ozone layer with aerosol cans. We never hear about that now. What ever happened with that?
What if the "alarmists" are right on both counts? If the natural earth cycle was heading toward an ice age 40 years ago and the greenhouse effect is so profound as to not only stop but reverse this cycle, that's a possibility. As for the ozone layer, due to the efforts of the "alarmists" many of the chemicals causing the loss of the ozone layer are now not used. Didn't you hear about how the economy totally collapsed when these environmental measures were enacted?
Posted by: Aztec at March 6, 2007 12:28 PM
Why do nearly all arguements against global warming begin with a statement about "alarmists" "libs" "agenda" or some other ideological description
Since global warming is a climatic phenomena why is it always discuss by critics in ideological rather then scientific terms
Posted by: neologizer at March 6, 2007 02:45 PM
GW needs to be viewed on the whole as "the big picture" and when the GW proponents claim the sky is falling into an ice age as they did in the 70's, 80s', and 90's, they become branded as "chicken little" or the "boy who cried wolf" and without substantial evidence to prove their hypothesis, they look foolish and much like alarmists when it doesn't happen.
It wouldn't be so hilarious Neo, if someone with some real character stood up to support GW, but there is presently a large percentage of GW advocates that are doing an about face on the issue.
Posted by: navydad at March 6, 2007 03:20 PM
Navy Dad exactly what type of "character" is suppose to stand up for global warming? The scientists? (they've done that already)
The politicians? I wouldn't use the word character descriptively in the same sentence (BTW Allegre is a scientist turned politician and way past retirement age at that)
The moral conservatives? They are standing up for it with increasing numbers every day
So who exactly are you talking about?
Posted by: neologizer at March 6, 2007 03:37 PM
Since global warming is a climatic phenomena why is it always discuss by critics in ideological rather then scientific terms -- neo
Because it's part of an anti-capitalistic ideology. This is more about politics and economics than science. Maybe once the "indisputable evidence" starts cracking you'll be curious enough to take a peek at the man behind the curtain.
Yes, you definitely gotta step back to see "the big picture" to comprehend it all.
Posted by:
AEGeneral at March 6, 2007 03:52 PM
The moral conservatives? They are standing up for it with increasing numbers every day
You are correct on that one, unfortunately (for me & others). It really bothers me to see these Christian churches signing on to this to avoid being criticized, but going the non-confrontational route on this issue isn't going to stop the bombardment from all other directions.
Posted by:
AEGeneral at March 6, 2007 03:58 PM
Neo, when the majority of the American public learns about GW from movies such as Gore's, it presents an aura of "fact" and when presented to easily influenced elementary school age children, such as my grandson, without and opposing opinion, it detracts from, and inhibits their ability to process reality and filter the BS.
For example, and I believe you'll agree that if schools show this movie to nine-year olds, without offering an opposing opinion, the majority of them will develop the belief that they're going to die from GW. Sound like radical Islam by any chance?
As far as "character" goes, if there wasn't the opposing concensus that exists today on both sides of the argument, I'd side with, and Kahn and Spook will jump all over me for this...the "preponderance" of evidence. I know...I know, we said we weren't going top use the "P" word anymore, but I couldn't resist.
Posted by: navydad at March 6, 2007 04:58 PM
BTW Neo, I know lots of so-called high-powered scientists that can barely wipe their own arses, so if we're looking for character, let's wait a few more years and see how the GW issue pans out.
My bet is on the "not" theory.
Posted by: navydad at March 6, 2007 05:04 PM
Navydad,
Unfortunately alot of Americans gain awareness of important issues through entertainment venues. GW is one of many in this category. But does it matter that all of a sudden Al Gore made a movie about it when so many scientist have been saying this for decades and the data has been piling up?
On the other side would you oppose an educational video that describe the facts? What if they appear to an impartial viewer as overwhelmingly that man has a role in global warming? How about if the video was recommended by a large group of scientists inside and outside the field?
Posted by: neologizer at March 6, 2007 06:10 PM
History seems to indicate that warming and cooling IS a natural process. It's the speed with which it's happening that is a problem.
And that is what all the fuss is about. It's been clear for several decades that man-made pollution affects the planet, globally. It's not a leftwing issue. It's just a fact.
Posted by: PM at March 6, 2007 06:48 PM
The engineero deluxe in my brain would most certainly go with the latter, however, after researching many GW theories and then going even deeper into the origination of issues such as the naturalization of certain non-indigenous plants that thrive on elevated co2 levels, as just one example, it brings me back to the question as to "who says co2 causes GW and why is an elevated climate bad when in my opinion, another ice age would be worse?"
Maybe you could point out a video that endorses facts for us all?? Seriously, I'll always be open to a legitimate argument, but presently, it's all Hollywierd.
Posted by: navydad at March 6, 2007 06:49 PM
PM, Talk about a broad brush!
OK, if man affects the planet, at what level and please provide evidence. Or do you mean "theory" not "fact". Fact that the planet is warming, or fact that man is causing it??
Either way it's probably true, but like I said, at what level and when am I gonna die? I've been told by Hollywierd for decades and I'm still here and ya know, I've been eating eggs, taking aspirin and even made anti-tank weapons with DU for years, and I'm still here.
We were also told twenty years ago that the sea would rise up and swallow the planet....hog wash! Maybe in 800 years like the scientists predict, it will naturally occur is more like it.
Posted by: navydad at March 6, 2007 09:07 PM
Here' what the EPA says (not exactly liberal alarmists over there)
http://www.epa.gov/climatechange/science/stateofknowledge.html
Posted by: neologizer at March 6, 2007 11:19 PM
Great link Neo!
Neither side can cherry-pik from the statements on this site, however, the "What's likely" and "What's not certain" aspects cetainly tilt towards "time required", rather than "we're all gonna die tomorrow" scenario as some pose.
In an earlier post, I stated, "The engineero deluxe in my brain would most certainly go with the latter" is how I would develop my opinion, however, if the so-called facts are disputed in the near future, let's say ten years from now, and the GW issue has died down due to planetary stabilization, then the point becomes moot.
No sarcasm intended, but if you're old enough to remember, we've gone thru a dozen or so planet threatening scenarios over the past thirty odd yeras and thus far, not much has changed. Except awarness that is.
I think the GW theory would be more plausible if there were actual accounts of GW effects that were significantly more visible, but a 3/8" rise in sea level over a half century doesn't quite cut it.
Check out this site Neo
http://www.worldclimatereport.com/index.php/2007/01/18/half-baked-reporting-on-greenland/
Posted by: navydad at March 7, 2007 10:04 AM
I looked a little at that one did a google search and it has a murky history - funded by western fuels association and some other fossil fuel interests also It doesn't allow a comment forum
which won't allow any outside opinions or corrections
I'm not saying there are good or bad but I'm suggesting the same point you seem to making also. Look for a balanced or unbiased source if you really want to know the facts
BTW
According to most scientists the slight rise in oceans isn't really a worry for us maybe our kids and grandkids. The big worry is feedback loops (ie CO2 and methane release from thawing biomass in the artic tundras and there is a tremendus amount locked up) and lower ice reflectivity of sun due to less artic ice will. These Feedback loops have the largest potential for a climate warming effect
These scenarios are not definites but very real possiblities. If these do happen our greatgrand/grandchildren will live a very different world.
Posted by: neologizer at March 7, 2007 11:15 PM
Ya know Neo, this was one of the best discussions I've had...thanks! Truly..I mean it.
If political arguments could be settled in a more honorable way, as we have attempeted here, this country would be even greater than it already is.
It's when people puff out their chests, dig in their heels and are unwilling to accept that there are alternate views, that life turns to sh*t. And, if we'd all do a better job of researching our political leaders, rather than by how they look or talk, we'd be much better off.
Even you would admit what Gore is doing is mostly for the recognition and for a level of political prowess...not so much for mankind.
Don't get me wrong, it happens on both sides, it just depends on who is the most gullible and as we both have proven, there are two sides to every story....eh??
Posted by: navydad at March 8, 2007 01:50 PM
Order Matt and Mark's book on Amazon or Barnes and Noble
Mark, the real trick is going to be developing technology for clean energy that can be implemented in developing countries in as economical a way as possible. As I said in a previous GW thread, I think we're on the verge of an energy revolution, and I fully expect the U.S. to lead the way.
Mark, "The world isn't going to die"??? maybe not via GW.
If we leave it to the terrorists and kook libs in this world, they'll drum up enough hoohaaa to force the demise of life as we know it.
For example: Algore and the like have convinced themselves that "terrorism is a police matter" and that "Iraq wasn't responsible for 911" and "if we would focus on capturing UBL, we'd win the WOT".
All of these are quotes from prominent lib leaders...what do they tell us???? That half this country is whacked out.
it is IMPOSSIBLE to prove that current "warming" isn't just another natural cycle.
IMPOSSIBLE!
the global cattle herd (~1.5 BILLION HEAD), not even counting swine, emit more "warming" emmisions than all forms of transport COMBINED per the recent UN Food & Agricultural Rpt.
and KYOTO has been reduced to a joke by the very EU nations that "approved" it. plus it excludes China.
man-caused warming fetish consists of junk science, political shills echoing environmental jihadists, media chattering, & naked profiteers.
Mark, when I was a kid, the big alarm was that we were heading into another ice age. Also, the remember the alarm about how we were destroying the ozone layer with aerosol cans. We never hear about that now. What ever happened with that?
Dammit I can't hear a thing over the din of all these kooky lib crickets chirping.
just like the GWOT the left is completely off base here and their attempt to use GW as cover for their anti-business and anti-capitalism agenda is becoming more and more obvious.
Wake up lefties your slips are beginning to show and show quite badly.
Toronto just had its coldest February in 28 years.
China just had its strongest snowstorm in 56 years.
Mark, when I was a kid, the big alarm was that we were heading into another ice age. Also, the remember the alarm about how we were destroying the ozone layer with aerosol cans. We never hear about that now. What ever happened with that?
What if the "alarmists" are right on both counts? If the natural earth cycle was heading toward an ice age 40 years ago and the greenhouse effect is so profound as to not only stop but reverse this cycle, that's a possibility. As for the ozone layer, due to the efforts of the "alarmists" many of the chemicals causing the loss of the ozone layer are now not used. Didn't you hear about how the economy totally collapsed when these environmental measures were enacted?
Why do nearly all arguements against global warming begin with a statement about "alarmists" "libs" "agenda" or some other ideological description
Since global warming is a climatic phenomena why is it always discuss by critics in ideological rather then scientific terms
GW needs to be viewed on the whole as "the big picture" and when the GW proponents claim the sky is falling into an ice age as they did in the 70's, 80s', and 90's, they become branded as "chicken little" or the "boy who cried wolf" and without substantial evidence to prove their hypothesis, they look foolish and much like alarmists when it doesn't happen.
It wouldn't be so hilarious Neo, if someone with some real character stood up to support GW, but there is presently a large percentage of GW advocates that are doing an about face on the issue.
Navy Dad exactly what type of "character" is suppose to stand up for global warming? The scientists? (they've done that already)
The politicians? I wouldn't use the word character descriptively in the same sentence (BTW Allegre is a scientist turned politician and way past retirement age at that)
The moral conservatives? They are standing up for it with increasing numbers every day
So who exactly are you talking about?
Since global warming is a climatic phenomena why is it always discuss by critics in ideological rather then scientific terms -- neo
Because it's part of an anti-capitalistic ideology. This is more about politics and economics than science. Maybe once the "indisputable evidence" starts cracking you'll be curious enough to take a peek at the man behind the curtain.
Yes, you definitely gotta step back to see "the big picture" to comprehend it all.
The moral conservatives? They are standing up for it with increasing numbers every day
You are correct on that one, unfortunately (for me & others). It really bothers me to see these Christian churches signing on to this to avoid being criticized, but going the non-confrontational route on this issue isn't going to stop the bombardment from all other directions.
Neo, when the majority of the American public learns about GW from movies such as Gore's, it presents an aura of "fact" and when presented to easily influenced elementary school age children, such as my grandson, without and opposing opinion, it detracts from, and inhibits their ability to process reality and filter the BS.
For example, and I believe you'll agree that if schools show this movie to nine-year olds, without offering an opposing opinion, the majority of them will develop the belief that they're going to die from GW. Sound like radical Islam by any chance?
As far as "character" goes, if there wasn't the opposing concensus that exists today on both sides of the argument, I'd side with, and Kahn and Spook will jump all over me for this...the "preponderance" of evidence. I know...I know, we said we weren't going top use the "P" word anymore, but I couldn't resist.
BTW Neo, I know lots of so-called high-powered scientists that can barely wipe their own arses, so if we're looking for character, let's wait a few more years and see how the GW issue pans out.
My bet is on the "not" theory.
Navydad,
Unfortunately alot of Americans gain awareness of important issues through entertainment venues. GW is one of many in this category. But does it matter that all of a sudden Al Gore made a movie about it when so many scientist have been saying this for decades and the data has been piling up?
On the other side would you oppose an educational video that describe the facts? What if they appear to an impartial viewer as overwhelmingly that man has a role in global warming? How about if the video was recommended by a large group of scientists inside and outside the field?
History seems to indicate that warming and cooling IS a natural process. It's the speed with which it's happening that is a problem.
And that is what all the fuss is about. It's been clear for several decades that man-made pollution affects the planet, globally. It's not a leftwing issue. It's just a fact.
The engineero deluxe in my brain would most certainly go with the latter, however, after researching many GW theories and then going even deeper into the origination of issues such as the naturalization of certain non-indigenous plants that thrive on elevated co2 levels, as just one example, it brings me back to the question as to "who says co2 causes GW and why is an elevated climate bad when in my opinion, another ice age would be worse?"
Maybe you could point out a video that endorses facts for us all?? Seriously, I'll always be open to a legitimate argument, but presently, it's all Hollywierd.
PM, Talk about a broad brush!
OK, if man affects the planet, at what level and please provide evidence. Or do you mean "theory" not "fact". Fact that the planet is warming, or fact that man is causing it??
Either way it's probably true, but like I said, at what level and when am I gonna die? I've been told by Hollywierd for decades and I'm still here and ya know, I've been eating eggs, taking aspirin and even made anti-tank weapons with DU for years, and I'm still here.
We were also told twenty years ago that the sea would rise up and swallow the planet....hog wash! Maybe in 800 years like the scientists predict, it will naturally occur is more like it.
Here' what the EPA says (not exactly liberal alarmists over there)
http://www.epa.gov/climatechange/science/stateofknowledge.html
Great link Neo!
Neither side can cherry-pik from the statements on this site, however, the "What's likely" and "What's not certain" aspects cetainly tilt towards "time required", rather than "we're all gonna die tomorrow" scenario as some pose.
In an earlier post, I stated, "The engineero deluxe in my brain would most certainly go with the latter" is how I would develop my opinion, however, if the so-called facts are disputed in the near future, let's say ten years from now, and the GW issue has died down due to planetary stabilization, then the point becomes moot.
No sarcasm intended, but if you're old enough to remember, we've gone thru a dozen or so planet threatening scenarios over the past thirty odd yeras and thus far, not much has changed. Except awarness that is.
I think the GW theory would be more plausible if there were actual accounts of GW effects that were significantly more visible, but a 3/8" rise in sea level over a half century doesn't quite cut it.
Check out this site Neo
http://www.worldclimatereport.com/index.php/2007/01/18/half-baked-reporting-on-greenland/
I looked a little at that one did a google search and it has a murky history - funded by western fuels association and some other fossil fuel interests also It doesn't allow a comment forum
which won't allow any outside opinions or corrections
I'm not saying there are good or bad but I'm suggesting the same point you seem to making also. Look for a balanced or unbiased source if you really want to know the facts
BTW
According to most scientists the slight rise in oceans isn't really a worry for us maybe our kids and grandkids. The big worry is feedback loops (ie CO2 and methane release from thawing biomass in the artic tundras and there is a tremendus amount locked up) and lower ice reflectivity of sun due to less artic ice will. These Feedback loops have the largest potential for a climate warming effect
These scenarios are not definites but very real possiblities. If these do happen our greatgrand/grandchildren will live a very different world.
Ya know Neo, this was one of the best discussions I've had...thanks! Truly..I mean it.
If political arguments could be settled in a more honorable way, as we have attempeted here, this country would be even greater than it already is.
It's when people puff out their chests, dig in their heels and are unwilling to accept that there are alternate views, that life turns to sh*t. And, if we'd all do a better job of researching our political leaders, rather than by how they look or talk, we'd be much better off.
Even you would admit what Gore is doing is mostly for the recognition and for a level of political prowess...not so much for mankind.
Don't get me wrong, it happens on both sides, it just depends on who is the most gullible and as we both have proven, there are two sides to every story....eh??