It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.
Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.
Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.
Sadly your logic does not investigate the situation entirely.
Why is it - I've never reasoned against this concept before, it's new to me,
go figure - that people are using illogical situations based on nothing to
negate the reasoning behind this logic?
Originally posted by KineticFaction
reply to post by snusfanatic
You've missed the point of the video, its not whether or not global warming is human caused or not.
Its playing safe.
Originally posted by PurpleDog UK
This is one of my favourite videos on the Net.
Can anyone, after watching this argue against the logic presented. It is the strongest reason why we as the human race should act and change our ways !!!! Unfortunately, i don't think we will and hence I believe we are doomed to a radically altered world in the not too distant future......
Again - sound and solid logic presented in this video....
A WARNING that climate change will melt most of the Himalayan glaciers by 2035 is likely to be retracted after a series of scientific blunders by the United Nations body that issued it.
Two years ago the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) issued a benchmark report that was claimed to incorporate the latest and most detailed research into the impact of global warming. A central claim was the world's glaciers were melting so fast that those in the Himalayas could vanish by 2035.
In the past few days the scientists behind the warning have admitted that it was based on a news story in the New Scientist, a popular science journal, published eight years before the IPCC's 2007 report.
It has also emerged that the New Scientist report was itself based on a short telephone interview with Syed Hasnain, a little-known Indian scientist then based at Jawaharlal Nehru University in Delhi.
Hasnain has since admitted that the claim was "speculation" and was not supported by any formal research. If confirmed it would be one of the most serious failures yet seen in climate research. The IPCC was set up precisely to ensure that world leaders had the best possible scientific advice on climate change.
Professor Murari Lal, who oversaw the chapter on glaciers in the IPCC report, said he would recommend that the claim about glaciers be dropped: "If Hasnain says officially that he never asserted this, or that it is a wrong presumption, than I will recommend that the assertion about Himalayan glaciers be removed from future IPCC assessments."
After some prolonged deliberation, I have decided to withdraw from
participating in the Fourth Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel
on Climate Change (IPCC). I am withdrawing because I have come to view the
part of the IPCC to which my expertise is relevant as having become
politicized. In addition, when I have raised my concerns to the IPCC
leadership, their response was simply to dismiss my concerns.
With this open letter to the community, I wish to explain the basis for my
decision and bring awareness to what I view as a problem in the IPCC
process. The IPCC is a group of climate researchers from around the world
that every few years summarize how climate is changing and how it may be
altered in the future due to manmade global warming. I had served both as an
author for the Observations chapter and a Reviewer for the 2nd Assessment
Report in 1995 and the 3rd Assessment Report in 2001, primarily on the topic
of tropical cyclones (hurricanes and typhoons). My work on hurricanes, and
tropical cyclones more generally, has been widely cited by the IPCC. For the
upcoming AR4, I was asked several weeks ago by the Observations chapter Lead
Author---Dr. Kevin Trenberth---to provide the writeup for Atlantic
hurricanes. As I had in the past, I agreed to assist the IPCC in what I
thought was to be an important, and politically-neutral determination of
what is happening with our climate.
Shortly after Dr. Trenberth requested that I draft the Atlantic hurricane
section for the AR4's Observations chapter, Dr. Trenberth participated in a
press conference organized by scientists at Harvard on the topic "Experts to
warn global warming likely to continue spurring more outbreaks of intense
hurricane activity" along with other media interviews on the topic. The
result of this media interaction was widespread coverage that directly
connected the very busy 2004 Atlantic hurricane season as being caused by
anthropogenic greenhouse gas warming occurring today. Listening to and
reading transcripts of this press conference and media interviews, it is
apparent that Dr. Trenberth was being accurately quoted and summarized in
such statements and was not being misrepresented in the media. These media
sessions have potential to result in a widespread perception that global
warming has made recent hurricane activity much more severe.
Scientists warn: The globe may not be warming
John Christy, professor of atmospheric science at the University of Alabama in Huntsville, a former lead author on the IPCC, has his doubts about global warming.
Christy told the Times of London: “The temperature records cannot be relied on as indicators of global change.”
It has been compromised by urbanization and other factors. Christy has published research on stations in Africa, Alabama and California.
Christy: “The story is the same for each one. “The popular data sets show a lot of warming but the apparent temperature rise was actually caused by local factors affecting the weather stations, such as land development.”
He is not alone. Ross McKitrick, professor of economics at the University of Guelph, Canada, who was invited by the IPCC to review its last report.
McKitrick told the Times of London: “We concluded, with overwhelming statistical significance, that the IPCCs climate data are contaminated with surface effects from industrialization and data quality problems. These add up to a large warming bias.”
Terry Mills, professor of applied statistics and econometrics at Loughborough University, told the Times of London: “The earth has gone through warming spells like these at least twice before in the last 1,000 years.”
Sprigg, adjunct research professor in the Institute of Atmospheric Physics at the University of Arizona, believes the planet is on a potentially dangerous warming path and atmospheric carbon dioxide is to blame. He also led the technical review of the first global warming report issued by the United Nations Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change in 1990. Clealry, Sprigg is no “outlier” or “rebel,” but one of the most respected and “mainstream” scientists in the field of climatology. So it came to a bit of shock to the audience when Sprigg expressed concerns about how contrarian scientists are treated with contempt by many of his colleagues.
Its not right, he said, that the game is rigged to keep skeptics out of peer-reviewed journals. It violates the scientific method to refuse to release raw data so others can test your theories. And its a big mistake to keep defending the likes of infamous “Hide the Decline” emailers Phil Jones and Michael Mann. The very credibility of the entire discipline of climate science is at stake, Sprigg said, and its time to stop ignoring this fact. As one might imagine, this all did not go over very well in the audience — who were undoubtedly expecting to hear a lecture ratifying their view that ClimateGate was no big deal when they saw Sprigg’s topic on the agenda.
I recorded Sprigg’s remarks on video for Heartland, and (from what I could tell) mine was the only camera in the room. The footage below features Taylor — who is also managing editor of Environment & Climate News — asking Sprigg what he thinks the future holds for the wholly corrupted IPCC. Sprigg nodded as Taylor referred to “mounting scandals” at the IPCC and then responded:
“There will be some reform. I think there are going to be big changes in the peer review process for the IPCC. There will be — there are — calls for the head of [IPCC Chairman Raj] Pachauri. Some of my colleagues have written letters saying that he needs to be taken off the job.”
Current warmth seems to be occurring nearly everywhere at the same time and is largest at high latitudes in the Northern Hemisphere. Over the last 50 years, the largest annual and seasonal warmings have occurred in Alaska, Siberia and the Antarctic Peninsula. Most ocean areas have warmed. Because these areas are remote and far away from major cities, it is clear to climatologists that the warming is not due to the influence of pollution from urban areas.
large climate changes in Europe/Near East during the last 15,000 calendar years (note that these dates are in 'real' years not radiocarbon years).
14,500 y.a. - rapid warming and moistening of climates. Rapid deglaciation begins.
13,500 y.a. - climates about as warm and moist as today's
13,000 y.a. 'Older Dryas' cold phase (lasting about 200 years) before a partial return to warmer conditions.
12,800 y.a. (+/- 200 years)- rapid stepwise onset of the intensely cold Younger Dryas.
"Historical records of solar activity indicate that solar radiation has been increasing since the late 19th century. If a trend, comparable to the one found in this study, persisted throughout the 20th century, it would have provided a significant component of the global warming the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change reports to have occurred over the past 100 years," he said.
In this study, Willson, who is also Principal Investigator of NASA's ACRIM experiments, compiled a TSI record of over 24 years by carefully piecing together the overlapping records. In order to construct a long-term dataset, he needed to bridge a two-year gap (1989 to 1991) between ACRIM1 and ACRIM2. Both the Nimbus7/ERB and ERBS measurements overlapped the ACRIM 'gap.' Using Nimbus7/ERB results produced a 0.05 percent per decade upward trend between solar minima, while ERBS results produced no trend. Until this study, the cause of this difference, and hence the validity of the TSI trend, was uncertain. Willson has identified specific errors in the ERBS data responsible for the difference. The accurate long-term dataset, therefore, shows a significant positive trend (.05 percent per decade) in TSI between the solar minima of solar cycles 21 to 23 (1978 to present). This major finding may help climatologists to distinguish between solar and man-made influences on climate.
* UN advisory group on climate change submits report
STAFF WRITER 14:17 HRS IST
United Nations, Nov 6 (PTI) Three weeks ahead of the Cancun Climate Change Conference, a high-level UN advisory group has presented a report with suggestions to come up with USD 100 billion a year by 2020, including tax on international flights, for poor countries to combat global warming.
The 21-member advisory group is co-chaired by Prime Ministers Meles Zenawi of Ethiopia and Jens Stoltenberg of Norway. The group was set up in February and includes Deputy Chairman of the Planning Commission Montek Singh Ahluwalia, philanthropist George Soros and British academic Nicholas Stern.
"The Advisory Group has given us a path. It is now up to Governments to consider the options and to act," UN Secretary-General Ban Ki-moon told journalists.
"This is not about charity. It is about doing the right thing for those who are suffering most from a crisis that they did least to cause," he said.
Published on 12-10-2009
By Jurriaan Maessen
“The governments of Europe, the United States, and Japan are unlikely to negotiate a social-democratic pattern of globalization – unless their hands are forced by a popular movement or a catastrophe, such as another Great Depression or ecological disaster“
Richard Sandbrook, Closing the Circle: Democratization and Development in Africa, Zed Books limited, London, 2000.
A 1991 policy paper prepared for the United Nations Conference on Environment and Development (UNCED) by self-described ‘ecosocioeconomist’ professor Ignacy Sachs outlines a strategy for the transfer of wealth in name of the environment to be implemented in the course of 35 to 40 years. As it turns out, it is a visionary paper describing phase by phase the road to world dictatorship. As the professor states in the paper:
“To be meaningful, the strategies should cover the time-span of several decades. Thirty-five to forty years seems a good compromise between the need to give enough time to the postulated transformations and the uncertainties brought about by the lengthening of the time-span.“
In his paper “The Next 40 Years: Transition Strategies to the Virtuous Green Path: North/South/East/Global“, Sachs accurately describes not only the intended time-span to bring about a global society, but also what steps should be taken to ensure “population stabilization”:
“In order to stabilize the populations of the South by means other than wars or epidemics, mere campaigning for birth control and distributing of contraceptives has proved fairly inefficient.“
In the first part of the (in retrospect) bizarrely accurate description of the years to come, Sachs points out redistribution of wealth is the only viable path towards population stabilization and- as he calls it- a “virtuous green world”. The professor:
“The way out from the double bind of poverty and environmental disruption calls for a fairly long period of more economic growth to sustain the transition strategies towards the virtuous green path of what has been called in Stockholm ecodevelopement and has since changed its name in Anglo-Saxon countries to sustainable development.”
“(…) a fair degree of agreement seems to exist, therefore, about the ideal development path to be followed so long as we do not manage to stabilize the world population and, at the same time, sharply reduce the inequalities prevailing today.”
“The bolder the steps taken in the near future”, Sachs asserts, “the shorter will be the time span that separates us from a steady state. Radical solutions must address to the roots of the problem and not to its symptoms. Theoretically, the transition could be made shorter by measures of redistribution of assets and income.”
Sachs points to the political difficulties of such proposals being implemented (because free humanity tends to distrust any national government let alone transnational government to redistribute its well-earned wealth). He therefore proposes these measures to be implemented gradually, following a meticulously planned strategy:
“The pragmatic prospect is one of transition extending itself over several decades.”
In the second sub-chapter “The Five Dimensions of Ecodevelopment”, professor Sachs sums up the main dimensions of this carefully outlined move to make Agenda 21 a very real future prospect. The first dimension he touches upon is “Social Sustainability“:
“The aim is to build a civilization of being within greater equity in asset and income distribution, so as to improve substantially the entitlements of the broad masses of population and of reduce the gap in standards of living between the have and the have nots.”
This of course means, reducing the standards of living in “The North” (U.S., Europe) and upgrading those of the developing nations (”The South and The East”). This would have to be realized through what Sachs calls “Economic Sustainability“: “made possible by a more efficient allocation and management of resources and a steady flow of public and private investment.”
The third dimension described by the professor is “Ecological Sustainability” which, among other things, limits “the consumption of fossile fuels and other easily depletable or environmentally harmful products, substituting them by renewable and/or plentiful and environmentally friendly resources, reducing the volume of pollutants by means of energy and resource conservation and recycling and, last but not least, promoting self-constraint in material consumption on part of the rich countries and of the privileged social strata all over the world;”
In order to make this happen Sachs stresses the need of “defining the rules for adequate environmental protection, designing the institutional machinery and choosing the mix of economic, legal and administrative instruments necessary for the implementation of environmental policies.”
Does your stance against the logic in the video and in favour of
your believed logic induce fear in others whom worry about loss of freedom ??
to all those people worrying about loss of freedom
Originally posted by PurpleDog UK
reply to post by ElectricUniverse
Thankyou for your last post as it would appear you have spent Significant time researching, reading, collecting and cutting and pasting more information than I have ever seen before on this topic.... You are obviously passionate about your views and position on this subject....
As you might have realised, I am no expert on global warming and all the science around it..... I make no claims on it at all but there is a sense inside me that tells me Human activities must have an affect in some way to the environment around us.... Our urgency to cover large sways of the planet in concrete, to dump our effluent in treated or raw form into the sea's. To burn oil and associated compounds into the atmosphere to provide our species with power, light, heat etc etc....... all in a short time frame that is human exsistence so far !!!!
Your right, the planet is a larger 'system' than we can ever try to understand BUT like a spinning top being ever so faintly pushed by a shallow breath, it's trajectory and other variables are altered and it's outcome has changed.....
Bottom Line ..... is that You, I, Mr Bucket, All the F****** scientists (paid or not to say what they should or shouldn't) DO NOT REALLY KNOW........ it's all a best guess scenario....
But do you Really think that Humans have NOT left a ''footprint'' which has changed the world........
For all your Doubt and evidence and support of the fact that we Humans have not done anything to affect the world..... do you honestly really ''FEEL'' that ????
Originally posted by cushycrux
Originally posted by cluckerspud
Fun video. But I see nothing terrifying or that shocking.
Why did it take 10 minutes to explain the consequences of not taking action VS. taking action?!
We messed it up - we have to fix it now.
edit on 21-11-2010 by cushycrux because: (no reason given)