I may be wrong on this, but didn't even the Bush Administration take steps to curb man-made global warming? I thought I remember sgallan posting examples.
If you have never been to Glacier National, it's a must do vacation. Even if you are not a backpacker, there are plenty of inexpensive places to stay just outside the park and a gazillion day hikes. There is a bus service that can drop you off and pick up at many of the trailheads.
Also, take the whitewater rafting trip down the Flathead. It has plenty of grade 3 and 4 rapids, bald eagles, elk and there's a good chance you'll float past a griz streamside. Do it before you are too old because most of the hikes are physically challenging.
You will be awed and humbled by it's presence.
Got kids, try an RV trip from Utah over to the Tetons, a short hop north to Yellowstone then follow the Rockies up into Montana and Glacier. Another two hours north and you can take in the Waterton Canadian Rockies.
Life's not the breaths you take, the breathing in and out that gets you through the day ain't what it's all about. It's the moments that take your breath away.
There's no such thing as a pretty good aligator wrestler.
Or maybe I'll listen to these guys....This was signed by all of these different scientific societies, from around the world, before Al Gore took up the cause. But feel free to make up BS rationale if you want. I know you will. Funny you point out the evolution thing, because much like that, the scientific world in pretty close agreement. Granted, evolution is known fact, and this has more room for error, but that doesn't change the current scientific consensus.
THE SCIENCE OF CLIMATE CHANGE
A joint statement issued by the Australian Academy of Sciences, Royal Flemish Academy of Belgium for
Sciences and the Arts, Brazilian Academy of Sciences, Royal Society of Canada, Caribbean Academy of
Sciences, Chinese Academy of Sciences, French Academy of Sciences, German Academy of Natural Scientists
Leopoldina, Indian National Science Academy, Indonesian Academy of Sciences, Royal Irish Academy,
Accademia Nazionale dei Lincei (Italy), Academy of Sciences Malaysia, Academy Council of the Royal Society
of New Zealand, Royal Swedish Academy of Sciences, and Royal Society (UK).
The work of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) represents the consensus of the
international scientific community on climate change science. We recognise IPCC as the world’s most
reliable source of information on climate change and its causes, and we endorse its method of achieving this
consensus. Despite increasing consensus on the science underpinning predictions of global climate change,
doubts have been expressed recently about the need to mitigate the risks posed by global climate change.
We do not consider such doubts justified.
There will always be some uncertainty surrounding the prediction of changes in such a complex system as
the world’s climate. Nevertheless, we support the IPCC’s conclusion that it is at least 90% certain that
temperatures will continue to rise, with average global surface temperature projected to increase by
between 1.4 and 5.8oC above 1990 levels by 21001. This increase will be accompanied by rising sea levels,
more intense precipitation events in some countries, increased risk of drought in others, and adverse effects
on agriculture, health and water resources.
In May 2000, at the InterAcademy Panel (IAP) meeting in Tokyo, 63 academies of science from all parts of
the world issued a statement on sustainability in which they noted that “global trends in climate change …
are growing concerns” and pledged themselves to work for sustainability – meeting current human needs
while preserving the environment and natural resources needed by future generations2. It is now evident
that human activities are already contributing adversely to global climate change. Business as usual is no
longer a viable option.
We urge everyone - individuals, businesses and governments - to take prompt action to reduce emissions of
greenhouse gases. One hundred and eighty-one governments are Parties to the 1992 UN Framework
Convention on Climate Change, demonstrating a global commitment to ‘stabilising atmospheric
concentrations of greenhouse gases at safe levels’. Eighty-four countries have signed the subsequent 1997
Kyoto Protocol, committing developed countries to reducing their annual aggregate emissions by 5.2% from
1990 levels by 2008-2012.
The ratification of this Protocol represents a small but essential first step towards stabilising atmospheric
concentrations of greenhouse gases. It will help create a base on which to build an equitable agreement
between all countries in the developed and developing worlds for the more substantial reductions that will
be necessary by the middle of the century.
There is much that can be done now to reduce the emissions of greenhouse gases without excessive cost.
We believe that there is also a need for a major co-ordinated research effort focusing on the science and
technology that underpin mitigation and adaptation strategies related to climate change. This effort should
be funded principally by the developed countries and should involve scientists from throughout the world.
The balance of the scientific evidence demands effective steps now to avert damaging changes to
the earth’s climate.
1 Climate Change 2001: The Scientific Basis Contribution of WG1 to the IPCC Third Assessment Report
http://www.ipcc.ch. The average global surface temperature is predicted to increase by between 1.4oC and 3oC above
1990 levels by 2100 for low emission scenarios, and between 2.5oC and 5.8oC for higher emission scenarios.
2 Transition to Sustainability in the 21st Century: The Contribution of Science and Technology. A Statement of the
World's Scientific Academies (May 2000). http://interacademies.net/intracad/tokyo2000.nsf
Sources of information about the signatories:
Australian Academy of Sciences
Royal Flemish Academy of Belgium for Sciences and the Arts
Brazilian Academy of Sciences
Royal Society of Canada
Caribbean Academy of Sciences
Chinese Academy of Sciences
French Academy of Sciences
German Academy of Natural Scientists Leopoldina
Indian National Science Academy
Indonesian Academy of Sciences
Royal Irish Academy
Accademia Nazionale dei Lincei (Italy)
Academy of Sciences Malaysia
Academy Council of the Royal Society of New Zealand
Royal Swedish Academy of Sciences
Royal Society (UK)
17 May 2001
ISBN 0 85403 558 3
Does Global Warming mean that the price of beer will go up or down??
Have to keep cool somehow during this event.
Will enviromental politics influence Piggly-Wiggly owner/operators??
In a study sure to ruffle the feathers of the Global Warming cabal, Professor Richard Lindzen of MIT has published a paper which proves that IPCC models are overstating by 6 times, the relevance of CO2 in Earth’s Atmosphere. Dr. Lindzen has found that heat is radiated out in to space at a far higher rate than any modeling system to date can account for.
The science is in. the scare is out. Recent papers and data give a complete picture of why the UN is wrong.
The pdf file located at the link above from the Science and Public Policy Institute has absolutely, convincingly, and irrefutably proven the theory of Anthropogenic Global Warming to be completely false.
Professor Richard Lindzen of MIT’s peer reviewed work states “we now know that the effect of CO2 on temperature is small, we know why it is small, and we know that it is having very little effect on the climate.”
The global surface temperature record, which we update and publish
every month, has shown no statistically-significant “global warming”
for almost 15 years. Statistically-significant global cooling has now
persisted for very nearly eight years. Even a strong el Nino – expected
in the coming months – will be unlikely to reverse the cooling trend.
More significantly, the ARGO bathythermographs deployed
throughout the world’s oceans since 2003 show that the top 400
fathoms of the oceans, where it is agreed between all parties that at
least 80% of all heat caused by manmade “global warming” must
accumulate, have been cooling over the past six years. That now prolonged
ocean cooling is fatal to the “official” theory that “global
warming” will happen on anything other than a minute scale.
- SPPI Monthly CO2 Report: July 2009
If for no other reason than this: the IPCC assumes that the concentration of CO2 in 2100 will be 836 ppmv (parts per million volume). However, current graphs based on real data show that CO2 concentrations will only be 570 ppmv in 2100, cutting the IPCC’s estimates in half right there.
Another nail in the coffin of Global Warming is the observed rate of temperature change from 1980, which is observed to be 1.5 degrees C per century. The IPCC modeling calls for a range of 2.4 to 5.3 degree increase per century, which is far above what is observed in real data collected between 1980 and 2009. The graph below clearly represents a far different reality as opposed to the predictions.
Not only is the IPCC basing its predictions on data that has been doubled from observed data, it is overstating the role of CO2 in Climate altogether. As the graph seen below shows, when charted for the years between 2002 and 2009, that solid red median line is going down, indicating global cooling.
As significant as the above results are, it is not the Pi?ce de r?sistance. What is - the curious minded what to know? It is the ERBE results. The Earth Radiation Budget Experiment with 15 years worth of data. The ERBE result is absolutely devastating to the entire Global Warming Theory.
The following graph (Graph C) shows the ERBE results in the upper left hand corner, which is real recorded data, not a computer model. The 11 other graphs are the results from the models used by the UN and everyone else which state that more radiation should be held within Earth’s system, thereby causing warming of the climate. More simply put, the UN results illogically predict that as the oceans got warmer, the earth would simply hold more heat. The UN explains that it is CO2 which is holding this extra energy. This theory is not supportable by the simple fact that CO2 cannot hold that much heat, it is a very poor greenhouse gas compared with water. If anything, more clouds -water vapor- would conceivably hold the extra heat, but the corresponding rise in global temperatures this would cause have not been observed. This leaves only one conclusion, the Earth is radiating the extra heat into space, and this is supported by the data.
The ERBE results, which are factual data from real measurements made by satellite, show the exact opposite result from the UN/IPCC Projections (computer models which are not real data). As seas warm on earth, the earth releases more heat into space and the satellite results prove it.
Observed reality vs. erroneous computer predictions:
The mismatch between reality and prediction is entirely clear. It is this
astonishing graph that provides the final evidence that the UN has
absurdly exaggerated the effect not only of CO2 but of all greenhouse
gases on global mean surface temperature. - Lindzen & Choi (2009).
For the sake of making the above graphs clear in their meanings, the term ?SST stands for Change in Sea Surface Temperature measured in Kelvin (A unit of temperature like to Celsius and Fahrenheit), and is a measurement of change in sea temperatures. A -1.0 number would indicate cooling, a zero reflects no temperature change, and a +1.0 would indicate an increase in temperature.
?Flux, The Vertical line in these graphs, measures the change in the amount of radiation released by the planet in the infra-red spectrum, heat in other words. From zero to +6 shows more heat radiated out into space. From zero to -6 shows less heat being radiated into space.
0 change in ?SST equals 0 change in ?Flux or no change. Less infra-red heat radiation going out into space should correlate to cooler sea surface temperatures, as there is less heat available to radiate out. More heat radiating out appears when sea surface temperature increases have occurred and more heat is available to radiate. Heat is radiated out into space as seas warm, and this overall maintains a climate equilibrium, This is proven by the ERBE graph in Graph C above as well as the other graphs presented in this article, which are based on observed data, not computer models.