Originally Posted By Darkbeer <a href="http://www.forbes.com/feeds/ap/2007/05/15/ap3725193.html" target="_blank">http://www.forbes.com/feeds/ap /2007/05/15/ap3725193.html</a> >>The Senate, after one of its first full debates on global warming, on Tuesday defeated a proposal requiring the Army Corps of Engineers to consider the impact of climate change in designing water resources projects. The vote was 51-42 in favor of the amendment to a water projects bill, falling nine short of the 60 votes needed to approve it under the rules set for the debate.<<
Originally Posted By Darkbeer <a href="http://epw.senate.gov/public/index.cfm?FuseAction=Minority.Blogs&ContentRecord_id=927b9303-802a-23ad-494b-dccb00b51a12&Region_id=&Issue_id=" target="_blank">http://epw.senate.gov/public/i ndex.cfm?FuseAction=Minority.Blogs&ContentRecord_id=927b9303-802a-23ad-494b-dccb00b51a12&Region_id=&Issue_id=</a> >>Climate Momentum Shifting: Prominent Scientists Reverse Belief in Man-made Global Warming - Now Skeptics Growing Number of Scientists Convert to Skeptics After Reviewing New Research Following the U.S. Senate's vote today on a global warming measure, it is an opportune time to examine the recent and quite remarkable momentum shift taking place in climate science. Many former believers in catastrophic man-made global warming have recently reversed themselves and are now climate skeptics. The names included below are just a sampling of the prominent scientists who have spoken out recently to oppose former Vice President Al Gore, the United Nations, and the media driven “consensus†on man-made global warming. The list below is just the tip of the iceberg. A more detailed and comprehensive sampling of scientists who have only recently spoken out against climate hysteria will be forthcoming in a soon to be released U.S. Senate report. Please stay tuned to this website, as this new government report is set to redefine the current climate debate. In the meantime, please review the list of scientists below and ask yourself why the media is missing one of the biggest stories in climate of 2007. Feel free to distribute the partial list of scientists who recently converted to skeptics to your local schools and universities. The voices of rank and file scientists opposing climate doomsayers can serve as a counter to the alarmism that children are being exposed to on a daily basis. (See Washington Post April 16, 2007 article about kids fearing of a “climactic Armageddon†) The media's climate fear factor seemingly grows louder even as the latest science grows less and less alarming by the day. (See Der Spiegel May 7, 2007 article: Not the End of the World as We Know It ) It is also worth noting that the proponents of climate fears are increasingly attempting to suppress dissent by skeptics. (See UPI May 10, 2007 article: U.N. official says it's 'completely immoral' to doubt global warming fears ) << MUCH MORE at the link at the top of the page, including many more links...
Originally Posted By Darkbeer <a href="http://www.iht.com/bin/print.php?id=5732731" target="_blank">http://www.iht.com/bin/print.p hp?id=5732731</a> >>Czech President Vaclav Klaus on Wednesday called for a rational debate on global warming, rejecting what he called "hysteria" driven by enviromentalists. "Let's bring the debate to whether the 0.6 (degree Celsius warming over the last century) is much or little, how much Man has contributed to the warming and ... if there is anything at all Man can do about it," Klaus said when presenting his book "Blue, Not a Green Planet." He charged that groups other than scientists have now seized on the topic and ambitious environmentalists are fueling a global warming hysteria that has no solid ground in fact and allows manipulation of people. "It is about a key topic of our time, and that is the topic of human freedom and its curtailment," Klaus said. "The approach of environmentalists toward nature is similar to the Marxist approach to economic rules, because they also try to replace free spontaneity of the evolution of the world (and of mankind) with ... global planning of the world's development," Klaus writes in his book. "That approach ... is a utopia leading to completely other than wanted results," he says. Klaus, an economist by profession, has repeatedly warned that policy makers are pushed by the widespread fear of global warming to adopt enormously costly programs that eventually may have no positive effect.<<
Originally Posted By cmpaley >>The approach of environmentalists toward nature is similar to the Marxist approach to economic rules<< When in doubt, drag out the commie charge. LOL!!!
Originally Posted By jonvn Meanwhile, antartica is melting even more than they thought possible. Good work.
Originally Posted By ecdc What does Darkbeer think about all this? Here's his own insight: >>MUCH MORE at the link at the top of the page, including many more links...<< I, for one, am riveted!
Originally Posted By Disneyman55 Come on you silly Senators. Obviously you must have made this decision without any pertinent information, briefing or debate. Also, every single person who voted no must have been bought out by the "vast right-wing oil lobbby". Man, give the Democrats a majority and they can't even deliver a "slum-dunk" like this one.
Originally Posted By JohnS1 I'm curious what sort of newspaper this is with the article. Who publishes it? What is their editorial stance on a variety of key issues? Anybody know?
Originally Posted By Dabob2 <Man, give the Democrats a majority and they can't even deliver a "slum-dunk" like this one.> Actually, they won the vote 51-42, but needed 60 votes. <I'm curious what sort of newspaper this is with the article. Who publishes it? What is their editorial stance on a variety of key issues? Anybody know?> The link in #2 was from the senate itself, specifically the minority (i.e. Republican) page. (You can click on "majority page" to get another prespective, but Darkbeer didn't link to that.) The minority page was headed by the words "The Inhofe EPW Press Blog." Oklahoma Sen. Inhofe is the ranking GOP member on the EPW (Environment and Public Works) Committee and, if you didn't know, is pretty much the oil companies' primary shill, who has called global warming "the greatest hoax ever perpetrated on the American people." Much as I hate simple "dueling editorial" posts here, for another perspective on Inhofe, read <a href="http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2005/01/11/opinion/main666190.shtml" target="_blank">http://www.cbsnews.com/stories /2005/01/11/opinion/main666190.shtml</a>
Originally Posted By jonvn It's another pile of badly reported information from a certain poster. What else is new. The real news this week is that Antartica is melting faster and in areas previously not thought likely.
Originally Posted By Darkbeer <a href="http://www.opinionjournal.com/best/?id=110010082" target="_blank">http://www.opinionjournal.com/ best/?id=110010082</a> >>Another example is a bit of "global warming" alarmism from LiveScience.com. The headline: "California-Sized Area of Ice Melts in Antarctica." The lead paragraph: >Warm temperatures melted an area of western Antarctica that adds up to the size of California in January 2005, scientists report. < But go a few paragraphs down, and you find that this is much less of a big deal than it sounds: >NASA's QuikScat satellite detected snowmelt by radar pulses that bounce off of ice that formed when snowmelt refroze (just as ice cream turns to ice when it is refrozen after being left out on the counter too long.) Maximum high temperatures of 41 degrees Fahrenheit that persisted for about a week in Antarctica caused a melt intense enough to create an extensive ice layer. < In other words, a summer heat wave caused snow on the surface to melt for a week or so, but it froze again when the weather cooled down. LiveScience quotes Konrad Steffen of the University of Colorado: "Increases in snowmelt, such as this in 2005, definitely could have an impact on larger scale melting of Antarctica's ice sheets if they were severe or sustained over time." Definitely! The only thing is, they weren't.<<
Originally Posted By jonvn Meanwhile, back in the real world: <a href="http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20070517/ap_on_sc/ocean_carbon;_ylt=AhMhoHzUpN31ElvlX6JyqoDMWM0F" target="_blank">http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/200 70517/ap_on_sc/ocean_carbon;_ylt=AhMhoHzUpN31ElvlX6JyqoDMWM0F</a>
Originally Posted By jonvn I'm also going to point this article out. Not because it speaks as to whether or not global warming is happening, but simply the consequences. It is not discussing if it is or is not. It is simply understood to be happening, and what the effects are going to be. There is really no more debate reagarding the existence of the problem. It's just taken as existing. Other than the ill-informed and meaningless junk articles as quoted in the first post on this thread, no one really argues the matter anymore at least with any credibility: <a href="http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20070517/ap_on_sc/global_warming_northwest;_ylt=AlsqdHRo42fIzr7y4jN8brLMWM0F" target="_blank">http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/200 70517/ap_on_sc/global_warming_northwest;_ylt=AlsqdHRo42fIzr7y4jN8brLMWM0F</a>
Originally Posted By jmoore1966 Note to self: Remove Yahoo.com from list of junk sites and at to list of peer reviewed proven sites.
Originally Posted By jonvn No. That's not it, either. The WSJ is presenting an opinion piece. The Yahoo site is reporting on a scientific paper, and as I mention, the quotes from it don't even argue about global warming existing. It simply does, and the results of which are now being reported. And you can make ridiculous off point posts all you want, but the main idea is that in scientific circles, it simply is a matter of yes, it is happening, and here is some further damage that is occuring, and some things that might help mitigate what is going on. But go on and feel free to ignore the information. This clown from the WSJ knows better than all of them.
Originally Posted By jonvn Furthermore, if you want what was really said about this at livescience.com, you can go there at this link: <a href="http://www.livescience.com/environment/070515_antarctic_melt.html" target="_blank">http://www.livescience.com/env ironment/070515_antarctic_melt.html</a> And read what it actually says, as opposed to how this nitwit from the WSJ has interpreted it for those who can't seem to think for themselves on the matter.
Originally Posted By jonvn In fact, here, I'll quote some of it for you, because obviously it's too difficult to bother looking it up for yourself. Why bother, when you have the WSJ (famous for its basic understanding of all things science) can tell you what it says: Satellite data collected by the scientists between July 1999 and July 2005 showed clear signs that melting had occurred in multiple distinct regions, including far inland and at high latitudes and elevations, where melt had been considered unlikely. "Antarctica has shown little to no warming in the recent past with the exception of the Antarctic Peninsula," said Konrad Steffen of the University of Colorado, Boulder. "But now large regions are showing the first signs of the impacts of warming as interpreted by this satellite analysis." Maximum high temperatures of 41 degrees Fahrenheit that persisted for about a week in Antarctica caused a melt intense enough to create an extensive ice layer. Evidence of melting was found up to 560 miles inland from the open ocean, farther than 85 degrees south (about 310 miles from the South Pole) and higher than 6,600 feet above sea level. Water from the melted snow can penetrate cracks and the ice, lubricating the continent's ice sheets, sending them toward the ocean faster and raising sea levels, the scientists said. "Increases in snowmelt, such as this in 2005, definitely could have an impact on larger scale melting of Antarctica's ice sheets if they were severe or sustained over time," Steffen said. No further melting has been detected through March 2007. <end quote> So what it's saying is that it got hot enough to melt stuff, whereas it had not been hot enough before. Not the vapid "summer heatwave" idea that the WSJ wants to portray it as. Sometimes I'm amazed that some people know which shoe to put on which foot....
Originally Posted By jmoore1966 It obviously is over my head. Please continue to point out which article is relevant and which one is not so I can stay correctly informed.
