UN says greenhouse gas concentrations hit record levels

[maidu]

Ok, put aside scientists and scientific data for a moment. What about the regular people who happen to reside near arctic regions and alongside mountains.

I watch nature shows on TV, and many times (from a variety of different programs) there have been interviews with people from those regions mentioned in the previous sentence. Without exception, they're all saying that ice cover is lessening, winters are warmer, and glaciers are receding year by year - and not getting replaced. This affects ski resorts and fishing, buildings (and pipelines) built upon permafrost and a lot more. These are real people reporting issues that directly affect their lives and livelihoods. Are the global warming deniers claiming that ALL those people are lying. Why would they all lie?

Just because all the people shown in the program agree there is a problem doesn't prove that everyone thinks there is a problem. Maybe the producers already had their minds made up the direction they wanted to go and only used people who gave the answers they wanted? Sort of like those funny man-on-the-street videos where no one can find countries on a map. They don't use the people who actually know geography in the video because it would go against what they were trying to "prove".

National Geographic, History Channel, Discovery and Animal Planet are all advocates of the global warming hoax.

You won't see any differing opinions on any of their shows. I just tune them out when they start beating the drum.

Yes, they are the best examples of nature shows on TV, and yes they do tend to come up with similar conclusions on global warming. However, I've seen shows hosted by other networks, both commericial and non-profit, and they all tend to agree that the earth is warming, particularly near the poles and at higher elevations.

So, if twenty people are standing around a campfire, and each of those people say something like, "wow, this fire is quite warm." Then the global warming deniers might hear about that and say, "Perhaps every person there said the fire was warm, but did we hear from everyone in the entire region? Did they talk to the 20,000 others who weren't standing near the fire? There may have been one person who said the campfire wasn't warm. We don't know unless we've interviewed everyone in a 200 mile radius."

Give it up, GW deniers. Even when you see all the reasoned commentators agree there's a problem, you still insist there isn't. It's as though you're so manically fixated on denying GW that you're determined nothing whatsoever will ever sway your opinion.

If you read my earlier post, I mention I'm influenced by more than the dozens of TV specials I've watched - and dozens of well-thought-out magazine and journal articles (many of which were published in science mags). As much as anything, I'm influenced by regular people who actually reside and/or work near the polar regions or in mountains or have some involvement with things like the NW Passage (north Canada) or Greenland. GW deniers would say all those people must be telling lies when they say they notice their regions getting warmer each year. My question is: WHY WOULD THEY LIE ABOUT THAT?

[Jingthing]

Best to look more closely at the true MOTIVATIONS behind the denial. Hint -- it ain't about the truth and it ain't about science.

Sorry to mention someone so unpopular to many, but Al Gore was spot on calling his film An INCONVENIENT Truth. To change our lives to the degree necessary to have a chance of changing this would be very inconvenient indeed. The denial people not only don't WANT to see a need to change, but they selfishly don't want to feel any responsibility for NOT changing. So they lash out at the messengers.

Edited November 28, 2011 by Jingthing

[RickBradford]

GW deniers would say all those people must be telling lies when they say they notice their regions getting warmer each year.

No, we wouldn't. We know there has been gentle warming over the past 150 years or so; we just don't agree that humanity should go into a collective mindless panic over a rise in temperature of a few tenths of a degree over this time.

And if we're talking about motivations, the Climategate e-mails clearly display what motivates the alarmists -- greed, vanity, ego, fame, money -- it ain't about saving the planet,

Edited November 28, 2011 by RickBradford

[Jingthing]

And if we're talking about motivations, the Climategate e-mails clearly display what motivates the alarmists -- greed, vanity, ego, fame, money -- it ain't about saving the planet,[/color][/size]

Yes, they are human beings. We all are. Those emails were cherry picked to create a message catered to people who have already decided to reject the consensus opinion of modern science. I think you are intelligent enough to know they were cherry picked but still choose to take that propaganda seriously.

About fame: IF a scientist did a study that had the potential to change the consensus of modern science on this issue definitively, now that would be major league fame (and greed, vanity, ego, money, etc.).

[RickBradford]

Those emails were cherry picked to create a message catered to people who have already decided to reject the consensus opinion of modern science....

No, they weren't.

As the person who released them wrote:

This archive contains some 5.000 emails picked from keyword searches.

[Scott]

Rickbradford, so from my quote you found the word 'warming' once. I prefer to look at data and draw my own conclusions. This article is talking about the increase in certain gases.

I am certainly not jumping to any conclusions. I wonder what effect these gases are having on a whole host of things, including the climate.

[teatree]

Ok, put aside scientists and scientific data for a moment. What about the regular people who happen to reside near arctic regions and alongside mountains.

I watch nature shows on TV, and many times (from a variety of different programs) there have been interviews with people from those regions mentioned in the previous sentence. Without exception, they're all saying that ice cover is lessening, winters are warmer, and glaciers are receding year by year - and not getting replaced. This affects ski resorts and fishing, buildings (and pipelines) built upon permafrost and a lot more. These are real people reporting issues that directly affect their lives and livelihoods. Are the global warming deniers claiming that ALL those people are lying. Why would they all lie?

Just because all the people shown in the program agree there is a problem doesn't prove that everyone thinks there is a problem. Maybe the producers already had their minds made up the direction they wanted to go and only used people who gave the answers they wanted? Sort of like those funny man-on-the-street videos where no one can find countries on a map. They don't use the people who actually know geography in the video because it would go against what they were trying to "prove".

National Geographic, History Channel, Discovery and Animal Planet are all advocates of the global warming hoax.

You won't see any differing opinions on any of their shows. I just tune them out when they start beating the drum.

Yes, they are the best examples of nature shows on TV, and yes they do tend to come up with similar conclusions on global warming. However, I've seen shows hosted by other networks, both commericial and non-profit, and they all tend to agree that the earth is warming, particularly near the poles and at higher elevations.

So, if twenty people are standing around a campfire, and each of those people say something like, "wow, this fire is quite warm." Then the global warming deniers might hear about that and say, "Perhaps every person there said the fire was warm, but did we hear from everyone in the entire region? Did they talk to the 20,000 others who weren't standing near the fire? There may have been one person who said the campfire wasn't warm. We don't know unless we've interviewed everyone in a 200 mile radius."

Give it up, GW deniers. Even when you see all the reasoned commentators agree there's a problem, you still insist there isn't. It's as though you're so manically fixated on denying GW that you're determined nothing whatsoever will ever sway your opinion.

If you read my earlier post, I mention I'm influenced by more than the dozens of TV specials I've watched - and dozens of well-thought-out magazine and journal articles (many of which were published in science mags). As much as anything, I'm influenced by regular people who actually reside and/or work near the polar regions or in mountains or have some involvement with things like the NW Passage (north Canada) or Greenland. GW deniers would say all those people must be telling lies when they say they notice their regions getting warmer each year. My question is: WHY WOULD THEY LIE ABOUT THAT?

Do you really expect the climate to remain the same in perpetuity? You haven't considered that the Earth goes through warming and cooling periods and NEVER stays static.

The Earth warmed slightly from approx the late 70's to the late 90's and remained pretty flat for the following decade. So what? Exactly this pattern has been repeated many times on record - it is part of the natural cycle of the climate. Just as there was cooling from the late 40's until the 70's. It is all part of a 30 year warming and cooling cycle.

We are now due to enter a period of cooling in line with this cycle, perhaps the recent record cold winters around the globe are a sign of this.

And this is all set against the backdrop of a gradual warming period the Earth has been going through since the end of 'The Little Ice Age' a few hundred years ago.

But the key is that it is natural. People have got panicked into wetting their bed over something that is just a natural climate event by apocalyptic propaganda that that infests the whole of the mainstream output.

Edited November 28, 2011 by Scott
formatting

[MaxYakov]

I agree. The irrational denial and demonizing the consensus of modern science as being a left wing conspiracy indeed never stops. The consensus of modern science is the closest to truth that we will ever have.

My hypothesist-agitpropagandist can beat up your hypothesist-agitpropagandist.

Edited November 28, 2011 by MaxYakov

[teatree]

And if we're talking about motivations, the Climategate e-mails clearly display what motivates the alarmists -- greed, vanity, ego, fame, money -- it ain't about saving the planet,[/color][/size]

Yes, they are human beings. We all are. Those emails were cherry picked to create a message catered to people who have already decided to reject the consensus opinion of modern science. I think you are intelligent enough to know they were cherry picked but still choose to take that propaganda seriously.

About fame: IF a scientist did a study that had the potential to change the consensus of modern science on this issue definitively, now that would be major league fame (and greed, vanity, ego, money, etc.).

But that just won't happen because the mainstream will just call them a loony and they will be ignored. Simple.

There a too many powerful interests with too much too lose to let the AGW train run out of steam. We are getting carbon taxes and carbon rationing no matter what happens to the climate.

[Jingthing]

And if we're talking about motivations, the Climategate e-mails clearly display what motivates the alarmists -- greed, vanity, ego, fame, money -- it ain't about saving the planet,[/color][/size]

Yes, they are human beings. We all are. Those emails were cherry picked to create a message catered to people who have already decided to reject the consensus opinion of modern science. I think you are intelligent enough to know they were cherry picked but still choose to take that propaganda seriously.

About fame: IF a scientist did a study that had the potential to change the consensus of modern science on this issue definitively, now that would be major league fame (and greed, vanity, ego, money, etc.).

But that just won't happen because the mainstream will just call them a loony and they will be ignored. Simple.

There a too many powerful interests with too much too lose to let the AGW train run out of steam. We are getting carbon taxes and carbon rationing no matter what happens to the climate.

Total rubbish. There's A LOT more to lose if the fossil fuel economic engine gets derailed. Thus the resistance to the scientific reality.

[RickBradford]

^^The resistance to the man-made global warming scare comes from the fact that, even in a small country in the UK, people don't see why the economy should have to pay an estimated £734,000,000,000 (over 1 trillion dollars) between now and 2050 on a baseless scare cooked up by incompetent and venal "scientists" of the Left/Green persuasion.

[Jingthing]

^^The resistance to the man-made global warming scare comes from the fact that, even in a small country in the UK, people don't see why the economy should have to pay an estimated £734,000,000,000 (over 1 trillion dollars) between now and 2050 on a baseless scare cooked up by incompetent and venal "scientists" of the Left/Green persuasion.

That's rich. You attack based on a perceived political bias but your side has a quite obvious political bias -- rape the planet and don't even think about future generations.

[RickBradford]

^^The resistance to the man-made global warming scare comes from the fact that, even in a small country in the UK, people don't see why the economy should have to pay an estimated £734,000,000,000 (over 1 trillion dollars) between now and 2050 on a baseless scare cooked up by incompetent and venal "scientists" of the Left/Green persuasion.

That's rich. You attack based on a perceived political bias but your side has a quite obvious political bias -- rape the planet and don't even think about future generations.

Quite the opposite -- we can only solve the real and serious environmental problems facing the world if we stop wasting hundreds of billions of dollars every year chasing this global warming myth.

[Jingthing]

Some random person on an internet forum pronounces overwhelming global scientific consensus a myth. That's settled then.

[RickBradford]

I'm glad we agree -- the "overwhelming global scientific consensus" is most definitely a myth, as has been clearly demonstrated by people who have studied these matters in great depth.

[Jingthing]

I'm glad we agree -- the "overwhelming global scientific consensus" is most definitely a myth, as has been clearly demonstrated by people who have studied these matters in great depth.

The tiny select group that support what you want to believe. Denialists ignore the overwhelming majority that doesn't support what they want to believe. Classic.

[RickBradford]

I'm glad we agree -- the "overwhelming global scientific consensus" is most definitely a myth, as has been clearly demonstrated by people who have studied these matters in great depth.

The tiny select group that support what you want to believe. Denialists ignore the overwhelming majority that doesn't support what they want to believe. Classic.

The "overwhelming majority" a.k.a the "overwhelming global scientific consensus" -- it's still a myth, whatever you choose to call it.

EDIT: The myth is based on the paper Doran, P. T., and M. Kendall Zimmerman (2009), Examining the Scientific Consensus on Climate Change, Eos Trans. AGU, 90(3).

Worth a read to watch Green/Left myth-making at first hand.

Edited November 29, 2011 by RickBradford

[TAWP]

As for so called global warming I'm agnostic as to the degree to which it contributes to climate change however living sustainably and treading lightly on the land is a separate philosophy

I agree.

I always try to take the nature friendly alternatives if there is options and are against the needless hunting of almost extinct animals.

But I am also against government oppression and have no doubt that those that preach the benefits of carbon credits are those that both make money from it and come from the group of people that love to dictate how you should live your life - even in those cases what you do have no effect on others.

[RickBradford]

^^^

But I am also against government oppression and have no doubt that those that preach the benefits of carbon credits are those that both make money from it and come from the group of people that love to dictate how you should live your life - even in those cases what you do have no effect on others.

Spot on. Yesterday, we read that....

SWISS banking giant UBS says the European Union's emissions trading scheme has cost the continent's consumers $287 billion for "almost zero impact" on cutting carbon emissions, and has warned that the EU's carbon pricing market is on the verge of a crash next year.

That's billion with a b, 287 of them wasted -- they could have bailed out Greece, Italy, Portugal, Ireland and Burkina Faso, with that lot, instead of wasting it on climate nonsense.

[maidu]

We know there has been gentle warming over the past 150 years or so; we just don't agree that humanity should go into a collective mindless panic over a rise in temperature of a few tenths of a degree over this time.

Do I sense a tiny crack in the hard veneer? We don't have to agree note for note, but I think the important thing is to be open minded and flexible enough to adjust one's thinking if/when added info comes in to view.

If I see qualified data that shows the planet is merely going through much the same cycles it ordinarily goes through (warm to cold, and back again), then I won't go in to a mindless panic. Come to think of it, it's not my style to go in to a mindless panic about anything. Even those times (yes, several) when a house I resided in started to burn down, I calmly did what needed to be done to put out the flames. Alas, I stray off-topic, pardonne moi.

However, from all I've observed thus far, I still believe that mankind's prodigious toxic output has a pronounced influence on warming. Even so, last time I checked, I'm not in a mindless panic about it.

[RickBradford]

@maidu

I didn't mean to suggest anything about your personal reaction to the climate debate.

But there is no doubt that some -- indeed many -- elements of the media and the NGOs go into a blubbering panic whenever given the chance by a Greenpeace press release or some new report.

To illustrate my case, take The Guardian newspaper in the UK, 18th Aug 2011:

Aliens may destroy humanity to protect other civilisations, say scientists

Rising greenhouse emissions may tip off aliens that we are a rapidly expanding threat, warns a report for NASA

When they see what a mess we've made of our planet, aliens may be forced to take drastic action. It may not rank as the most compelling reason to curb greenhouse gases, but reducing our emissions might just save humanity from a pre-emptive alien attack, scientists claim.

Now that is what I call a mindless panic.

[Pedzie]

@maidu

I didn't mean to suggest anything about your personal reaction to the climate debate.

But there is no doubt that some -- indeed many -- elements of the media and the NGOs go into a blubbering panic whenever given the chance by a Greenpeace press release or some new report.

To illustrate my case, take The Guardian newspaper in the UK, 18th Aug 2011:

Aliens may destroy humanity to protect other civilisations, say scientists

Rising greenhouse emissions may tip off aliens that we are a rapidly expanding threat, warns a report for NASA

When they see what a mess we've made of our planet, aliens may be forced to take drastic action. It may not rank as the most compelling reason to curb greenhouse gases, but reducing our emissions might just save humanity from a pre-emptive alien attack, scientists claim.

Now that is what I call a mindless panic.

Destroying humanity maybe the only way to save planet earth for future civilisations, this is the view of some people in very high places, Prince Philip for one, is in favour of massive de-population, he also wishes to come back as a virus to wipe out millions or perhaps billions of people after his death. His own words btw !

If the science is correct that says man contributes 10-15% of all greenhouse gases then how are we solely responsible for massive climate change ? It would be good to have the view of scientists whom are not employed by the UN and are completely independent in their findings.

[teatree]

And if we're talking about motivations, the Climategate e-mails clearly display what motivates the alarmists -- greed, vanity, ego, fame, money -- it ain't about saving the planet,[/color][/size]

Yes, they are human beings. We all are. Those emails were cherry picked to create a message catered to people who have already decided to reject the consensus opinion of modern science. I think you are intelligent enough to know they were cherry picked but still choose to take that propaganda seriously.

About fame: IF a scientist did a study that had the potential to change the consensus of modern science on this issue definitively, now that would be major league fame (and greed, vanity, ego, money, etc.).

But that just won't happen because the mainstream will just call them a loony and they will be ignored. Simple.

There a too many powerful interests with too much too lose to let the AGW train run out of steam. We are getting carbon taxes and carbon rationing no matter what happens to the climate.

Total rubbish. There's A LOT more to lose if the fossil fuel economic engine gets derailed. Thus the resistance to the scientific reality.

Give someone power to decide how much carbon people use and they control every aspect of your life. Full spectrum contol.

This kind of power has the guys at the top of the tree salivating. The Aussies have already passed a carbon tax and that will quickly spread to other developed countries and then the rest of the world later.

After that will come the rationing where everyone will have a limit on how much they can use, how cool they can keep their house, where they can travel, what they can buy etc etc etc.

This is the kind of power is something we should be resisting but people are happily giving it up because they think they are being saved (from one of the building blocks of life, a plant fertilizer and something we actually exhale - its almost comical).

[maidu]

This is the first I've heard of rationing re; energy/power. We sometimes hear of rationing during times of war or extreme hardship. That's not the case for most of us now.

Rationing implies enforcement, and I'm not in favor of that. However, I do like the idea of everyone getting educated and (if you will) sensitized to where their electric power comes from, and its ramifications for the environment. It's somewhat like people getting educated on 'what democracy is.' Then hopefully, some or perhaps all those more aware people will voluntarily use less power. Example: drive or ride in combustion engine drive vehicles less, take less plane rides, buy locally produced items if given a choice, and use less air-con, etc. I have 5 houses I maintain in Thailand, and none have air-con, mainly because they're shaded (by trees) and also because the people who reside in them don't mind adjusting to hotter than average temperatures. In contrast, most businesses, public transport, and gov't offices seem to be fixated on having air-con turned up to ridiculously frigid levels, sometimes 24 hours/day! Not flying in jets unless it's necessary would help the environment. However, the #1 best thing a person can do to help the environment and lessen pollution, is not have babies.

Militaries are notorious for wasting resources. If the US or Thai army could get a good dependable vehicle for $50,000, they would go and contract to spend $250,000 for the same thing from a costlier supplier. It's as if they have a fixation for spending as much as possible (it's other peoples' money, so hey, why should they care?). Plus it allows for kickbacks, but I'm getting off-topic, sorry.

[maidu]

@maidu

I didn't mean to suggest anything about your personal reaction to the climate debate.

But there is no doubt that some -- indeed many -- elements of the media and the NGOs go into a blubbering panic whenever given the chance by a Greenpeace press release or some new report.

To illustrate my case, take The Guardian newspaper in the UK, 18th Aug 2011:

Aliens may destroy humanity to protect other civilisations, say scientists

Rising greenhouse emissions may tip off aliens that we are a rapidly expanding threat, warns a report for NASA

When they see what a mess we've made of our planet, aliens may be forced to take drastic action. It may not rank as the most compelling reason to curb greenhouse gases, but reducing our emissions might just save humanity from a pre-emptive alien attack, scientists claim.

Now that is what I call a mindless panic.

Destroying humanity maybe the only way to save planet earth for future civilisations, this is the view of some people in very high places, Prince Philip for one, is in favour of massive de-population, he also wishes to come back as a virus to wipe out millions or perhaps billions of people after his death. His own words btw !

If the science is correct that says man contributes 10-15% of all greenhouse gases then how are we solely responsible for massive climate change ? It would be good to have the view of scientists whom are not employed by the UN and are completely independent in their findings.

Come on dudes. The 'alien' thing and Prince Phillip thing are pap and don't add anything to the debate. If somebody is trying to be cute or witty, then that might explain it. Such silly items are more likely written and circulated by BW deniers - in order to muddy the waters on the real issues are. Anyone can write anything and post it on the web - does that give it credence? If I say snails are going to eat us from the inside out and take over the world and steal our wives and drive our cars, are you going to wave that around as pro-GW gospel? Get real, chumps.

[Steely Dan]

Carbon credits are just one aspect of the non-science politicization of climate variation, Methane is actually far more important than CO2 as a cause of manmade greenhouse gas emissions. Getting rid of landfill sites is one way to address this, but far more effective would be to encourage vegetarianism and reduce the number of flatulent cows we farm. The one track focus on CO2 emissions is potentially ruinous to the economy and doesn't even make sense according to it's own terms, if these are truly to reduce man-made contributions to the so called greenhouse effect.

http://www.earthsave.org/globalwarming.htm

The conclusion is simple: arguably the best way to reduce global warming in our lifetimes is to reduce or eliminate our consumption of animal products. Simply by going vegetarian (or, strictly speaking, vegan), , , we can eliminate one of the major sources of emissions of methane, the greenhouse gas responsible for almost half of the global warming impacting the planet today.

Now who is prepared to give up on the odd steak and hamburger to save the planet?

Edited November 30, 2011 by Steely Dan

[RickBradford]

@maidu

"Personal carbon rationing" is a policy being seriously considered in some of the major bedwetting countries of the world:

UK climate targets impossible without individual carbon budgets

Royal Society reports warns personal carbon allowances will be needed to meet emission targets

Targets set out in the climate change bill will not be met without the introduction of personal carbon allowances, according to a new report for the The Royal Society for the encouragement of Arts, Manufactures and Commerce (RSA).

If someone controls your energy expenditure, they effectively control your entire life, in a much more detailed and restrictive way than even the Soviets managed.

This is the kind of strangulation of personal liberty which many people of the Left/Green persuasion want to force on everybody.

Edited November 30, 2011 by RickBradford

[ExpatOilWorker]

Current CO2 concentrations in the atmosphere is about 450 ppm.

Now imagine we over night burn all or known coal, gas and oil reserved, then tomorrow morning CO2 concentration will be 5,000 ppm.

5,000 ppm is also OSHA's maximum allowable concentration in a work environment for a 8 hours exposure.

Soon we might have AC and CO2 scrubbers on our houses.

[Steely Dan]

This is the kind of strangulation of personal liberty which many people of the Left/Green persuasion want to force on everybody.

They are indeed active on many fronts and using phrases such as 'socially unacceptable' to silence contrary views is eerily similar to their use of the label 'hate speech' to suppress freedom of speech.

[thaibeachlovers]

Also interesting: bit by bit, some of the naysayers, who insisted human abetted global warming was a hoax, are coming around to reason. I don't know their individual reasons, but it's been clear to me, ever since (years ago) I started hearing stories of retreating glaciers and less ice cover in the Arctic and Antarctic - much of which is not recovering when their winters roll around. Similar stories keep gaining light. I don't think it's a conspiracy of thousands of scientists and observers. I think it's real. Closer to home, it's yet another reason why Bangkok should cut its losses and relocate as much as possible to higher ground. This year's flood, as bad as it is, will pale in comparison to floods coming in the not-too-distant future.

Global warming is real, but what are humans doing to stop it? NOTHING that will work. Building a few windmills is just pointless.

The only thing that might work is to replace fossil fuel electricity generation with nuclear, but of course they re trying to get rid of it everywhere.

The only long term solution is to reduce the human population to at least half of what it currently is. If that doesn't happen then kiss the world as we know it goodbye.

Pointless to relocate Bkk. Once the world is sufficiently warm, the methane release from the tundra will cause fire storms that will destroy life as we know it.

If governments were serious about it, which they aren't, they would-

replace all fossil fuel electricity generation with nuclear

mandate sterilisation of people after 1 child

stop air travel for holidays

replace diesel powered trains with electrical powered ones

stop private car ownership

ban unnecessary fossil fuel use for such things as motor sport and travelling to stadiums for sporting activities

replace animal farming with horticulture food production

make people live next to their work place to eliminate travel to work

only allow human powered transportation ( bicycles ) in cities, plus electrical powered trams and buses

etc

etc.

I don't think there is any chance that any western government could do what is necessary, so it's pointless to even bother trying.

I just watched a tv article about the huge V8 cars coming onto the American market- if warming is caused by humans, with that sort of attitude by the biggest polluter in the world, we are all doomed!