More than 600 self proclaimed climate skeptics are meeting in a New York Times Square hotel this week to state that Global Warming is either not real or if it is, is a benefit to the planet.
The three-day International Conference on Climate Change — organized by the Heartland Institute, brings together political figures, conservative campaigners, and the president of the Czech Republic, Vaclav Klaus.
But two years after the United Nations Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change concluded with near certainty that most of the recent warming was a result of human influences, global warming’s skeptics are showing signs of internal rifts and weakening support.
Large corporations like Exxon Mobil, which in the past financed the Heartland Institute and other groups that challenged the climate consensus, have reduced support. Many such companies no longer dispute that the greenhouse gases produced by burning fossil fuels pose risks.
Alan T. Jeffers, a spokesman for Exxon Mobil, said by e-mail that the company had ended support “to several public policy research groups whose position on climate change could divert attention from the important discussion about how the world will secure the energy required for economic growth in an environmentally responsible manner.”
But Kert Davies, a climate campaigner for Greenpeace, who is attending the Heartland event, said that the experts giving talks were “a shrinking collection of extremists” and that they were “left talking to themselves.”
I actually applaud those few people that are brave enough to stand in the face of science and common sense and show their ignorance. (Ignorance by the way, is the state of an uneducated mind) I takes a brave should to stand up to popular and accepted opinion.
Source: New York Times
photo credit: the mad LOLscientist
free viagra
buy viagra online
generic viagra
how does viagra work
cheap viagra
buy viagra
buy viagra online inurl
viagra 6 free samples
viagra online
viagra for women
viagra side effects
female viagra
natural viagra
online viagra
cheapest viagra prices
herbal viagra
alternative to viagra
buy generic viagra
purchase viagra online
free viagra without prescription
viagra attorneys
free viagra samples before buying
buy generic viagra cheap
viagra uk
generic viagra online
try viagra for free
generic viagra from india
fda approves viagra
free viagra sample
what is better viagra or levitra
discount generic viagra online
viagra cialis levitra
viagra dosage
viagra cheap
viagra on line
best price for viagra
free sample pack of viagra
viagra generic
viagra without prescription
discount viagra
gay viagra
mail order viagra
viagra inurl
generic viagra online paypal
generic viagra overnight
generic viagra online pharmacy
generic viagra uk
buy cheap viagra online uk
suppliers of viagra
how long does viagra last
viagra sex
generic viagra soft tabs
generic viagra 100mg
buy viagra onli
generic viagra online without prescription
viagra energy drink
cheapest uk supplier viagra
viagra cialis
generic viagra safe
viagra professional
viagra sales
viagra free trial pack
viagra lawyers
over the counter viagra
best price for generic viagra
viagra jokes
buying viagra
viagra samples
viagra sample
cialis
generic cialis
cheapest cialis
buy cialis online
buying generic cialis
cialis for order
what are the side effects of cialis
buy generic cialis
what is the generic name for cialis
cheap cialis
cialis online
buy cialis
cialis side effects
how long does cialis last
cialis forum
cialis lawyer ohio
cialis attorneys
cialis attorney columbus
cialis injury lawyer ohio
cialis injury attorney ohio
cialis injury lawyer columbus
prices cialis
cialis lawyers
viagra cialis levitra
cialis lawyer columbus
online generic cialis
daily cialis
cialis injury attorney columbus
cialis attorney ohio
cialis cost
cialis professional
cialis super active
how does cialis work
what does cialis look like
cialis drug
viagra cialis
cialis to buy new zealand
cialis without prescription
free cialis
cialis soft tabs
discount cialis
cialis generic
generic cialis from india
cheap cialis sale online
cialis daily
cialis reviews
cialis generico
how can i take cialis
cheap cialis si
cialis vs viagra
levitra
generic levitra
levitra attorneys
what is better viagra or levitra
viagra cialis levitra
levitra side effects
buy levitra
levitra online
levitra dangers
how does levitra work
levitra lawyers
what is the difference between levitra and viagra
levitra versus viagra
which works better viagra or levitra
buy levitra and overnight shipping
levitra vs viagra
canidan pharmacies levitra
how long does levitra last
viagra cialis levitra
levitra acheter
comprare levitra
levitra ohne rezept
levitra 20mg
levitra senza ricetta
cheapest generic levitra
levitra compra
cheap levitra
levitra overnight
levitra generika
levitra kaufen
Related posts:
{ 1 trackback }
{ 13 comments… read them below or add one }
I’m glad the author is remaining objective and not resorting to sarcasm and name calling… oh wait… he isn’t. The idea that what science currently says is the unvarnished truth and will never change is ridiculous. Before Darwin had published his theory of evolution, Josiah Clark Nott’s and George Robins Gliddon’s Indigenous races of the earth (1857) used misleading imagery to suggest that “Negroes” had been created to rank between “Greeks” and chimpanzees. Seemed like good science at the time, and they could back it all up with evidence. But now we know this science of race inferiority to be totally bogus. (cited from Wiki)
One last thing. Everyone waves the Al Gore chart above as if it were the “Flag of the nation of reason” yet not one person I ask is able to do the following: Prove that the Rise in temerature on the charts was caused by the Rise in Carbon Dioxide levels, and that the Rise in Temperature did not cause the rise in CO2. You cannot. All you can do is look at Ice Core samples and say that when the temperature was this, the CO2 was this.
Actually Rob, I can show you the proof that the rise in temperature on the charts is caused by the rise in carbon dioxide levels. The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (or IPCC) has done a great job of making the science available. You can start here; http://www.ipcc.ch/ipccreports/ar4-wg1.htm.
As far as being sarcastic; I was being kind. Ignorance is defined as a state of uneducated being. I am ignorant on many subjects, as are all of us. The reason they are ignorant is because they refuse to look at the science. If however they have looked at the science and still hold their present views, then they are something else entirely.
Thanks for your comment.
Adam
Another good post Adam.
Kudos to you for answering with facts and not rhetoric. While I have not seen the information you cited, I will look at it and do so with an open mind. My biggest beef in the past has been with the extremes that both sides go to when they want to make a point. Limbaugh was an idiot when he claimed styrofoam (c) biodegrades to try to make a point and there have been wild claims on the environmentalist side as well.
The problem is that if either side goes forth with wild claims they stand to look foolish if (later) those claims are proven to not be the case.
Again, good job bringing facts to the table (I will look at the info) but even you must admit that comparing global warming theory non-believers to flat-earthers is a bit loaded
A very good read… of course I like science, so not everyone may appreciate the article. I was impressed with the objectivity of the Authors and the recognition of their own limitations based on current measurement techniques, models, etc. Case in point:
“In 1895, Svante Arrhenius (1896) followed with a
climate prediction based on greenhouse gases, suggesting that
a 40% increase or decrease in the atmospheric abundance of the
trace gas CO2 might trigger the glacial advances and retreats.
One hundred years later, it would be found that CO2 did indeed
vary by this amount between glacial and interglacial periods.
However, it now appears that the initial climatic change preceded
the change in CO2 but was enhanced by it .”
I fully concede that man affects the environment, you cant exist in a system without affecting it. ( Heisenberg anyone?)
They make a good case for Co2 levels having an effect in the climate system… saying to what degree is a bit more problematic. Others can read and decide for themselves, but at least the basic info is out there to read and look at.
Thanks for the link to the info and Good job voicing your beliefs. The end result of debate will be better understanding, and that is (I think) what both sides are really after.
Where would we be without you Adam. Good job
Cate,
Thank you! Were would you be without me? Where you were before me, and where you will be after me. Making choices, setting priorities and changing the world in your own (very cool may I say) way.
For those who don’t know Cate, she is over at http://alternativelifestylesite.com
Adam
adam – the 5-year line obviously trends upward but has anyone explained all the little ups and downs in temps? in generaly, it looks like temps rise for three or four years and then go back down for a year, then back up for a few years. does either side of the debate have an explanation for that?
-john miller GHHS ‘85
John, it’s good to hear from you, and thank you for your question. I apologize for not responding sooner.
The graph you are referring to is actually a 160 year graph. To answer your question, there are a number of reasons for natural CO2 rise and fall, which we see in the graph above.
Each year the concentration of CO2 rises and drops with changes in the seasons, this is due to the fact that most of Earth’s vegetation is above the equator.
During the summer when plant life thrives the concentration drops, this is because the plants are “breathing” in the CO2, each fall as the vegetation dies off and decomposes some, (not all) of the sequestered CO2 is released back into the atmosphere. Also, while the majority of plant life is dormant during the winter other processes which create CO2 have a change to “catch up”.
An excellent example of this seasonal trend can be found in the graph at http://earthguide.ucsd.edu/globalchange/keeling_curve/01.html
Other contributing factors to the natural rise and fall levels of CO2 are solar. The earth revolves around the sun on an elliptical orbit and year to year, is a different distance away from the sun, also traveling on a slight polar to polar tilt. The difference between the distance between the sun and the earth on different years can cause more or less amounts of melting and thawing of CO2 trapped permafrost (as an example) and CO2 release.
Volcanic activity in the past has also played into these small “blips” in the overall model.
However, none of these natural occurring events explains the huge overall increase that you you spoke of. This increase is of course cause by humans increased fossil fuel / energy and goods creation and consumption.
Thanks John, I hope I was able to explain (I’m not a scientist) well enough to answer your question.
Adam
Other contributing factors to the increase of CO2 are of course humans burning of fossil fuels, primarily petroleum and coal, and natural volcanic activity.
I hope this isn’t too much info. Have a great weekend, see my links below for some additional reading if you are interested.
The rise in temperature does not seem to be even loosely proportional to the amount of fossil fuel use, which is exponentially more now than it was in 1910. Why would there have been a spike in the early 1940’s? Could there have been THAT much of an increase in manufacturing (ostensively due to the war) to explain that? Seems to me there are more factors at work than simple CO2 emissions. There seems to be no corresponding spike during WWI. What was going on in the 1880’s to create a spike?
Hello all. I’ve done some investigating into the debate and I’ve arrived at a dead-end.
I’m sure you’ve heard of the “800 year gap” (which really is anywhere from 200-800) between the increase in temperature and CO2 levels. The common response, and one that is not satisfying to me, is that something caused the temperature to increase, and then the C02 helped it to continue (vice versa for the decrease). Looking at the other half’s side (solar rays and cloud formation), we get a wonderful match up until the early 70s when they completely branch off.
Trying to unite all the facts is what lead me to a dead end. I can’t imagine the extremely high correlation between solar activity and global temperature being a coincidence for as long as it was, and the currently accepted explanation for how C02 affects temperature seems very inconsistent with what historical data demonstrates. Of course it could be a very unique interaction that current models aren’t using (we aren’t anywhere near the severity predicted for 2010 from 10 years ago).
As you can see, I’m very torn on the issue. Part of me has even gone so far as to include a new mechanism into the fray. The solar activity proponents claim that extra solar activity decreases the amount of cloud-causing cosmic radiation, which would subsequently cool raise the temperature since more light would get through, however this idea falls apart in 1970s when the correlation leaves. However, the 1970s and onward saw the rise of satellite communication and increased electromagnetic radiation. Perhaps that has an affect on cloud cover….
Oh who knows? If you have better information on the 800 year gap, please share.
I’m not an expert on CO2 so don’t quote me on this but the ocean acts as a carbon sink, absorbing most of the CO2. Thus CO2 appears to lag the temperature rise.
At some point in time the ocean saturates and then CO2 in the atmosphere starts to dominate. So it appears to lag the temperature rise but in reality doesn’t.
The recent rise in temperatures (1970s and on) could be a result of air travel – greenhouse gases being directly deposited into the upper atmosphere.
The way the 800-year-gappers were using the Ocean was in a way beneficial to them and so I hadn’t heard of the saturation idea working on the traditional side. I do like it and will have to look at it more.
The explained the gap was explained by gappers was by saying that as temperature increased, the ocean’s ability to hold carbon dioxide decreased, thus releasing more C02 into the atmosphere. That mechanism makes sense to me, as well, but I’d like to look at the other one as well.