Forum

TruthMove Forum

TruthMove Forum » TruthMove Main Forum

Global Warming is Real and it's a Big Deal (so are other environmental issues) (41 posts)

  1. truthmod
    Administrator

    Global Warming is Real and it's a Big Deal

    Some alarmism is possible, and I could imagine deception by certain forces to put forth exaggerated claims to make environmentalists look extreme or ridiculous. But take a look at mass extinction if you think everything is just fine and dandy with the environment.

    http://www.truthmove.org/content/mass-extinction

    The facts are pretty dire. Deal with it.

    http://rawstory.com/news/2007/CNN_Leaked_report_pr...

    http://observer.guardian.co.uk/international/story...

    Now the Pentagon tells Bush: climate change will destroy us

    · Secret report warns of rioting and nuclear war
    · Britain will be 'Siberian' in less than 20 years
    · Threat to the world is greater than terrorism

    Mark Townsend and Paul Harris in New York
    Sunday February 22, 2004
    The Observer

    Climate change over the next 20 years could result in a global catastrophe costing millions of lives in wars and natural disasters..

    A secret report, suppressed by US defence chiefs and obtained by The Observer, warns that major European cities will be sunk beneath rising seas as Britain is plunged into a 'Siberian' climate by 2020. Nuclear conflict, mega-droughts, famine and widespread rioting will erupt across the world.

    Posted 17 years ago #
  2. truthmod
    Administrator

    Inhofe and Gore

    Sen. Inhofe says Gore will 'absolutely' run for president

    http://rawstory.com/news/2007/Sen._Inhofe_says_Gor...

    Boxer Tells Inhofe “An Inconvenient Truth” VIDEO http://www.crooksandliars.com/2007/03/21/boxer-tel...

    Posted 17 years ago #
  3. truthmod
    Administrator

    Reminders

    Gore urges quick U.S. action to avert global warming catastrophe http://www.northjersey.com/page.php?qstr=eXJpcnk3Z...

    Save forests to fight global warming: Stern http://news.yahoo.com/s/afp/20070323/sc_afp/climat...

    Posted 17 years ago #
  4. truthmover
    Administrator

    Whatever the cause, suffering will be the result.

    I wish people would recognize more clearly, that the environmental movement is very much about saving lives. Without huge environmental reforms on a global scale, hundreds of millions of people will starve, and die of common diseases. Between continued industrialization, and the growth of global population, something is going to give.

    The empty factories will still be standing. The people will be gone.

    Posted 17 years ago #
  5. truthmover
    Administrator

    A solid article that tries to separate fact from fiction

    "Myths and falsehoods about global warming"

    http://mediamatters.org/items/200703230007

    I thought this article was an honest attempt to look at both sides of this debate surrounding Gore's movie and this issue, and figure out what is more reasonable. We are talking about an issue that does not lend itself to clean science. As I've said, no one understands the environment well enough to perfectly predict what will come of both natural and human-caused factors.

    While we may not be able to predict exactly what our impact will result in, our over-consumption and waste are most certainly leading to the degradation of our biosphere in many ways. Natural causes of environmental change can not be discounted, but neither can our impact on the planet.

    Posted 17 years ago #
  6. truthmod
    Administrator

    rigorous thinking...

    http://www.washingtontimes.com/national/20070211-1...
    "Global-warming skeptics cite being 'treated like a pariah'"

    http://www.sciencemag.org/cgi/content/full/306/570...

    Others agree. The American Meteorological Society (6), the American Geophysical Union (7), and the American Association for the Advancement of Science (AAAS) all have issued statements in recent years concluding that the evidence for human modification of climate is compelling (8).

    The drafting of such reports and statements involves many opportunities for comment, criticism, and revision, and it is not likely that they would diverge greatly from the opinions of the societies' members. Nevertheless, they might downplay legitimate dissenting opinions. That hypothesis was tested by analyzing 928 abstracts, published in refereed scientific journals between 1993 and 2003, and listed in the ISI database with the keywords "climate change" (9).

    The 928 papers were divided into six categories: explicit endorsement of the consensus position, evaluation of impacts, mitigation proposals, methods, paleoclimate analysis, and rejection of the consensus position. Of all the papers, 75% fell into the first three categories, either explicitly or implicitly accepting the consensus view; 25% dealt with methods or paleoclimate, taking no position on current anthropogenic climate change. Remarkably, none of the papers disagreed with the consensus position.

    Admittedly, authors evaluating impacts, developing methods, or studying paleoclimatic change might believe that current climate change is natural. However, none of these papers argued that point.

    This analysis shows that scientists publishing in the peer-reviewed literature agree with IPCC, the National Academy of Sciences, and the public statements of their professional societies. Politicians, economists, journalists, and others may have the impression of confusion, disagreement, or discord among climate scientists, but that impression is incorrect

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

    A 2004 essay by Naomi Oreskes in the journal Science reported a survey of abstracts of peer-reviewed papers related to global climate change in the ISI database.[15] Oreskes stated that of the 928 abstracts analyzed, "none contradicted" the view of the major scientific organizations that "the evidence for human modification of climate is compelling." Benny Peiser claimed to have found flaws in her work, writing
    “ Oreskes, a professor of history, claims to have analyzed 928 abstracts on global climate change, of which 75% either explicitly or implicitly accept the view that most of the recent warming trend is man-made. When I checked the same set of abstracts [plus an additional two hundred found in the same ISI data bank], I discovered that just over a dozen explicitly endorse the "consensus," while the vast majority of abstracts does not mention anthropogenic global warming. [16] ”

    In order to include only "hard science" papers rather than opinion pieces or editorials, Oreskes excluded the Social Sciences Citation Index and the Arts & Humanities Citation Index and set the search to include only Articles, while Peiser searched for all document types in all indexes,[17][18] and the interpretation of the remaining parts of his attempted refutation is further disputed.[19] In a later op-ed piece in Canada's National Post, Peiser makes no further reference to his review, instead asserting,[20]
    “ An unbiased analysis of the peer-reviewed literature on global warming will find hundreds of papers (many of them written by the world’s leading experts in the field) that have raised serious reservations and outright rejection of the concept of a "scientific consensus on climate change." The truth is, there is no such thing. ”

    Peiser also stated:
    “ ...the overwhelming majority of climatologists is agreed that the current warming period is mostly due to human impact. However, this majority consensus is far from unanimous.[18

    Skeptics, such as John Daly and Vincent Gray, questioned the accuracy of the temperature records on the basis of the Urban heat island effect, contending that stations located in more populated areas could show warming due to increased heat generated by cities, rather than a global temperature rise.[31] The IPCC Third Assessment Report acknowledges that the urban heat island is an important local effect, but cites analyses of historical data indicating that the effect of the urban heat island on the global temperature trend is no more than 0.05 °C (0.09 °F) degrees through 1990.[32] More recently, Peterson (2003) found no difference between the warmings observed in urban and rural areas.[33]


    The observed global warming may be explained by increased solar activity, the present level of solar activity is historically high as determined by sunspot activity and other factors. Solar activity could affect climate either by variation in the sun's output or by an indirect effect on the amount of cloud formation. Solanki et al. (2004 - Max Planck Institute, Germany) suggest that solar activity for the last 60 to 70 years may be at its highest level in 8,000 years; Muscheler et al. disagree, suggesting that other comparably high levels of activity have occurred several times in the last few thousand years.[35] Both Muscheler et al. and Solanki et al. conclude that "solar activity reconstructions tell us that only a minor fraction of the recent global warming can be explained by the variable Sun." "Solanki concluded based on their analysis that there is a 92% probability that solar activity will decrease over the next 50 years.

    Posted 17 years ago #
  7. Re: A solid article that tries to separate fact from fiction

    truthmover Wrote:

    "Myths and falsehoods about global warming"

    http://mediamatters.org/items/200703230007

    I thought this article was an honest attempt to look at both sides of this debate surrounding Gore's movie and this issue, and figure out what is more reasonable. We are talking about an issue that does not lend itself to clean science. As I've said, no one understands the environment well enough to perfectly predict what will come of both natural and human-caused factors.

    While we may not be able to predict exactly what our impact will result in, our over-consumption and waste are most certainly leading to the degradation of our biosphere in many ways. Natural causes of environmental change can not be discounted, but neither can our impact on the planet

    I totally agree with that comment, it's just we have to watch where things like "Global Warming" are going in terms who's using it for what, what everyone's being asked to do and what's the consequence or likelihood of mass manipulation if everyone does comply with the proposed "solutions".

    I'm with you guys 100% in sentiment.

    Posted 17 years ago #
  8. Mankind 'can't influence' climate

    Simon Kirby AAP Friday April 13, 2007

    MANKIND is naive to think it can influence climate change, according to a prize-winning Australian geologist.

    Solar activity is a greater driver of climate change than man-made carbon dioxide, argues Ian Plimer, Professor of Mining Geology at the University of Adelaide and winner of several notable science prizes.

    “When meteorologists can change the weather then we can start to think about humans changing climate,” Prof Plimer said.

    “I think we really are a little bit naive to think we can change astronomical and solar processes.”

    Continued: http://www.news.com.au/story/0,23599,21542564-421,...

    Posted 17 years ago #
  9. truthmod
    Administrator

    Stop wasting our time.

    Oooohhh a "prize-winning" Australian geologist says it ain't so; I guess the ENTIRE SCIENTIFIC ESTABLISHMENT AFTER DECADES OF STUDY AND RESEEARCH MUST BE WRONG.

    I guess we'd also be naive to think that we've created enough nuclear weapons to kill most of the life on earth or that habitat erosion and pollution are causing the 6th and fastest mass extinction of species in the history of the earth. Oh, and oil? There's plenty of it; we puny humans can barely use a tiny percentage.

    Dem, is this really the extent of your thinking on environmental issues? That we are too small to make global changes?

    Here's a dose of reality for you:

    http://www.commondreams.org/headlines05/0219-01.ht...

    Tim Barnett, a marine physicist at the Scripps Institution of Oceanography in San Diego and a leading member of the team, said: "We've got a serious problem. The debate is no longer: 'Is there a global warming signal?' The debate now is what are we going to do about it?&quot[/i]

    Posted 17 years ago #
  10. Re: Stop wasting our time.

    No, this isn’t a discussion about a "Nuclear Winter" is it? This is about CO2 and the even smaller percentage emitted by mankind in comparison to the natural output. Of course if we wanted to we could set about suicidaly destroying the planet, but you’re deliberately confusing the issue. What's being submitted in that article is the fundamental role of the Sun in relation to climate change, and how it's completely omitted from the media propaganda every time a "Polar bear in distress" is shown, when Polar bears have survived much warmer climates in Earths history. Or "Ice falling into the sea", when Ice falling into the sea is as natural as leaves falling in the Autumn.

    Also this idea that - “ the ENTIRE SCIENTIFIC ESTABLISHMENT AFTER DECADES OF STUDY” etc etc, is a mythical media provoked perception, and is akin to the idea that “all structural engineers and physicists accept the official explanation for the Towers’ collapse”. It’s junk, there’s plenty of genuine and valid of dissent from the “man-made Global warming theory”, there’s little doubt that the planet is heating up but it’s about what’s the true cause and what the real outcome. I.e. is it natural/cyclical, and the apocalyptic hysteria manipulative and cynical propaganda?

    Posted 17 years ago #
  11. truthmod
    Administrator

    i saw that one coming

    Global warming and 9/11 do not equate. Thousands of scientists, worldwide do not dedicate their careers to studying 9/11 and publish and critique each other's work to come to a consensus. If they did, I thoroughly believe the consensus would be that it was an inside job.

    US answer to global warming: smoke and giant space mirrors http://environment.guardian.co.uk/climatechange/st...

    Posted 17 years ago #
  12. Victronix
    Member

    Yes, the danger is to equate something like Global Warming with 9/11 - they really are not the same game because scientists don't have a political agenda in this case, whereas a shocking traumatic attack like 9/11 appealed to everyone's emotions and scientists had to "wake up" after a few years.

    There is no such equivalent for GW. And wikipedia subtly attacks it, so it's got to be good.

    BTW, there was a reasonable NOVA on last night about solar - pretty good because it compared Germany's policies to the US's. Germany pays people to develop solar, so panels are popping up everywhere. No such thing in the US -- it costs $20k - 50k to power your house, so even if states pay half, most can't afford $10k - $25k to dump into it.

    Posted 17 years ago #
  13. truthmod
    Administrator

    EU Pushes Countries on Global Warming

    http://www.cfnews13.com/News/Science/2007/5/2/eu_p...

    The global warming report being debated this week stresses the world must quickly embrace a basket of technological options -- including investing in energy efficiency, shifting away from coal, and reforming the agriculture sector -- to avert the worst impacts of climate change leading to global warming.

    Posted 17 years ago #
  14. truthmod
    Administrator

    At what point do we come out and say that the people who are promoting "global warming is a hoax" and "the environmental movement is an elite rouse" right next to 9/11 truth are involved in DISINFORMATION or MISINFORMATION?

    It's a much more effective disinformation strategy than anti-semitism or no planes because it feeds into the natural distrust of authority within our movement, and it's not such an outrageously radioactive topic as holocaust denial or UFO's.

    I am sad and angry that many of the same people promoting 9/11 truth are also promoting the idea that the environment is just fine and we have nothing to worry about. This is a very alienating position to take up and it is also completely unsupported by the hard evidence. The best these people seem to be able to do for an argument, when it comes down to it, is "humans are too small to effect something like the climate or the earth as a whole." This is bullshit. And here at TruthMove, we're calling it out.

    The paradigm shift of coming to see the overwhelming evidence of US official complicity in 9/11 is very powerful, but it does not preclude the possibility that we are still open to yet other, perhaps bigger illusions and assumptions, and that perhaps we are sometimes in denial of facing more fundamental and difficult paradigm shifts.

    Posted 17 years ago #
  15. JobInside
    Member

    I'm very suspicious of this sudden "Global Warming" scare. It seems like a giant smokescreen to hide the real & immediate threat that the NWO & 911 perpetrators definitely pose to world safety.

    Gore "loses" the presidential election to Bush under very dubious circumstances in 2000. Instead of doing something about that, Gore goes off on this wild global-warming frenzy. Why didn't Gore fight the Bush regime, the illegal Iraq war, and/or 9-11 truth? Instead, Gore kept himself totally preoccupied & away from Bush, 9/11, & the war by delving headfirst into global warming. (Gore is a topnotch politician after all, not a scientist, correct?)

    Moreover, 20 years seems far, far too soon for any sort of man-made global warming to affect anything, let alone cause worldwide "catastrophes."

    Posted 17 years ago #
  16. truthmod
    Administrator

    Gore has spoken out very strongly against the Iraq war, even before it started.

    http://www.commonwealthclub.org/archive/02/02-09go...

    My problem is not with people who say that the elites and politicians may be manipulating environmental issues for their benefit and further control over society. It is with the people who say that these environmental issues are a "hoax" and aren't something we should worry about.

    And where does all this Al Gore hatred come from in the 9/11 truth movement? From Alex Jones? Because he's a member of the CFR?

    What about this, would you call this a worldwide "catastrophe?" http://www.truthmove.org/content/mass-extinction/ or this? http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_qn4159/is_20...

    Posted 17 years ago #
  17. truthmover
    Administrator

    FOX ATTACKS the ENVIRONMENT

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gnt3FWToSWs

    Funny/scary video produced by Robert Greenwald and BraveNew Films.

    Posted 17 years ago #
  18. truthmod
    Administrator

    Implicit support of the 'global warming is a hoax' meme on 911bloggger (from an infowars repost, of course)

    http://911blogger.com/node/9895

    Posted 17 years ago #
  19. truthmod
    Administrator

    Everybody should watch that FOX video. It really demonstrates the dishonesty and ignorance of all these people claiming that environmental issues are a "hoax."

    Posted 17 years ago #
  20. truthmod
    Administrator

    BBC 'No Sun link' to climate change A new scientific study concludes that changes in the Sun's output cannot be causing modern-day climate change.

    http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/6290228....

    It shows that for the last 20 years, the Sun's output has declined, yet temperatures on Earth have risen.

    It also shows that modern temperatures are not determined by the Sun's effect on cosmic rays, as has been claimed.

    Writing in the Royal Society's journal Proceedings A, the researchers say cosmic rays may have affected climate in the past, but not the present.

    "This should settle the debate," said Mike Lockwood, from the UK's Rutherford-Appleton Laboratory, who carried out the new analysis together with Claus Froehlich from the World Radiation Center in Switzerland.

    Posted 17 years ago #
  21. DBLS
    Inactive

    The truth is, we can't ignore the sun

    By David Whitehouse Last Updated: 12:01am BST 15/07/2007 http://www.telegraph.co.uk/opinion/main.jhtml?xml=...

    According to the headlines last week, the sun is not to blame for recent global warming: mankind and fossil fuels are. So Al Gore is correct when he said, "the scientific data is in. There is no more debate."

    Of that the evangelical BBC had no doubt. There was an air of triumphalism in its coverage of the report by the Royal Society.

    It was perhaps a reaction to the BBC Trust's recent criticism of the Corporation's bias when reporting climate change: but sadly, it only proved the point made by the Trust.

    advertisementThe BBC was enthusiastically one-sided, sloppy and confused on its website, using concepts such as the sun's power, output and magnetic field incorrectly and interchangeably, as well as not including any criticism of the research.

    But there is a deeper and more worrying issue. Last week's research is a simple piece of science and fundamentally flawed. Nobody looked beyond the hype; if they had, they would have reached a different conclusion...

    Continued…

    Posted 17 years ago #
  22. truthmod
    Administrator

    Your friends at the John Birch Society concur:

    "Global Warming Swindle" Filmmaker Responds to Critics

    http://www.jbs.org/node/4760

    http://www.jbs.org/node/4761

    Posted 17 years ago #
  23. Menocchio
    Blocked

    It is discouraging to see science become so politicized. I tend to believe Gore is sincere in his concern for the environment, and I also believe humanity needs to get real serious about what we are doing to the planet. It's clear that global warming is happening. Whether it is primarily caused by human activity or by something else is a matter of dispute among both honest scientist and dishonest opportunists. Unfortunately the dishonest opportunists don't hesitate to take shots at the honest scientists on the opposing side.

    I just read something which isn't to cheery. I'm reading the thermodynamics section of A Review of Undergraduate Physics by Benjamin F. Bayman, Morton Hamermesh and one of the exercises is to calculate the temperature as a function of altitude for an atmosphere in thermal equilibrium with respect to fast (adiabatic) vertical displacements of air. Putting 2 and 2 together, I realize the thermal convection in the atmosphere acts like a giant refrigerator for the upper atmosphere. As we all know, the back end of a refrigerator is hot because the heat pulled out by the pump is dissipated by the radiator coils.

    When air rises it expands. As it expands due to the lower pressure at greater heights, it cools. When air descends it contracts and heats up. The more convection there is, the more heat will be concentrated at lower elevations. Global warming will certainly increase the convection in the atmosphere. That means that the effect of a small change in average atmospheric temperature is likely to be amplified by convection near the surface.

    Posted 17 years ago #
  24. truthmover
    Administrator

    Menocchio, interesting post.

    The significance of air and water currents is poorly understood by most. Its a fairly complex topic. But it leads to a better understanding of the fragility of our ecosystem.

    HocusLocus posted a long cut and paste from an article at Breakfornews. I deleted it. We do not consider that source to be compatible with out project and thus our forum guidelines. And the article contained a number of points off topic at this forum.

    We are not debating the "Global Warming Hoax" here. That is not for being naive about the subject. We have looked at many of the videos and websites supporting this position. Obviously there are important facts being uncovered in this pursuit. And yet we have not found that we agree with any of the larger assumptions being made. Nor do we find them to be consonant with our priorities. None of these people have effectively proven a conspiracy by all the worlds top climate scientists to misrepresent their findings.

    We have been quite explicit in stating that we recognize that industry does utilize environmental issues to their advantage. Animal Planet is a good example. But that's a far cry from implying that we have proof of a international conspiracy to create a global warming hoax.

    If this proof emerges we will all be interested to see it. But otherwise this concern is off topic here.

    Posted 17 years ago #
  25. HocusLocus
    Member

    HocusLocus posted a long cut and paste from an article at Breakfornews. I deleted it. We do not consider that source to be compatible with out project and thus our forum guidelines. And the article contained a number of points off topic at this forum.

    'Pasted'??? Actually -- what you deleted was an original post, a series of points to ponder, mostly on climate, touching on topics raised by others, first. Written entirely by me for that post, this thread on truthmove.org. Why did you think it was a 'straight paste'? Which was oddly represented as an 'article'. Because it was long?

    (Yes there was a quote and a link at the end, I do that) Just a thread-topic in a discussion board. I see that despite the fact that breakfornews is a public forum, I am now 'characterized' as being a correspondent from a 'tainted source' ---?

    No, stuff like that doesn't make me feel compatible with this project 'tall 'tall.

    Posted 17 years ago #

Reply »

You must log in to post.