Global Warming = Cult, scam, take your pick

[AshtrayKitten]

Global Warming (or "Climate Change") can be summed up as various governments and other organizations telling people that if they don't give up even more of their already-pitiful savings, the planet will explode.

That would be the 'scam' part. The 'cult' part comes from hippies who think they finally 'have something' on those darn people who don't care about the planet.

The switch to the phrase "Climate change" instead of "Global Warming" does not obfuscate the fact that for the last 7 years while the cultists were screaming, "Global Warming", the Earth actually cooled. Nor did pictures of Polar Bears in summer alter the fact that this last year the arctic ice cap grew in size. Nor did it help when one of the cult's chief science promoters was caught using September temperature data to claim October a record hot month. And temperature data collected from sensors sited in the outflow from building air conditioners (and in one case right next to a trash incinerator) proved yet another embarrassment.

So, the cult has changed the label to hedge their bets. The globe isn't warming; it's just changing, and it's your fault, and you must be made to pay for it.

Probably the reason that public support to fight climate change is waning is the recognition that climate change is the natural order of things on Earth. Earth has never in its 4 billion year history maintained a stable climate over any significant period of time. Earth has been much warmer and much colder than it is today, with long period fluctuations in the Earth's orbit and solar output the chief determinants. As the ice melted in Greenland, remains of ancient human habitations have been exposed, proving that the Earth has been warmer in human history, and humans seemed to have survived it just fine.

Don't support or join this cult before knowing the facts!

[Geoluhread]

When you are presented with facts and shown photos of polar bears that are dying, people respond, it has made people more aware. It hasn't done that big change but it did make a change.

Second thing, it's true that the earth was more hot in the past, and ice ages have come after that. But it was all in fixed rates. Everyone is worrying because it's all rapidly increasing so that you can't predict what's gonna come next because it isn't at the same rate as the previous climate changes have occured.

[Albert Mond]

Originally Posted by AshtrayKitten

The switch to the phrase "Climate change" instead of "Global Warming" does not obfuscate the fact that for the last 7 years while the cultists were screaming, "Global Warming", the Earth actually cooled. Nor did pictures of Polar Bears in summer alter the fact that this last year the arctic ice cap grew in size. Nor did it help when one of the cult's chief science promoters was caught using September temperature data to claim October a record hot month. And temperature data collected from sensors sited in the outflow from building air conditioners (and in one case right next to a trash incinerator) proved yet another embarrassment.

So, the cult has changed the label to hedge their bets. The globe isn't warming; it's just changing, and it's your fault, and you must be made to pay for it.

The phrase never changed, for one thing. "Climate Change" is just a broader term which can be used to refer to "Global Warming". It's not like that evil cult called the "General Scientific Community" suddenly switched to term 2.0.

[Albert Mond]

Also, here's a graph:
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedi...ure_Record.png

[Utho]

May I take my own pick?
I am not one of the most trusting persons this planet has produced.

To me this is a battle of opinions which is faught with emotionally laden images and messages. Due to the fact that I have no possibility of verifying the available informations on the topic, I´d say "maybe"(?).

I see no reason to decisively conclude for either one of the points "natural circle " or "manmade", although latter argument appears somewhat more credible.
For the further question possible, if the whole thing is artificially launched, one would simply need to have clear details about the financing of the "warming" propaganda/PR.

This thing looks like a popular scare-crow. It has all the characteristics a popular scare-crow should have. - So I see no reason to reliably exclude the possibility that the whole thing could be artificially inflated.

[Godslayer Jillian]

Originally Posted by AshtrayKitten

Don't support or join this cult before knowing the facts!

Damn straight. Support this 'cult' after you know the overwhelming facts!
The only thing that remotely looked like a fact that you said was that the earth has never a stable temperature.
However, this global temperature average that does vary (no one disputes that) is directly proportional to the levels of CO2 in the atmosphere
http://www.shrani.si/pics/slika3yvv68.jpg
Today, the amount of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere is an all-time-high 387 parts per million, and everyone's saying that we have to reduce that quantity to 350 ppm, which is still much higher than any fluctuation in temperature caused by the earth without us
http://ryanthibodaux.greenoptions.co...emperature.gif

There is consensus within scientists of this. People that try to make global warming seem like it's just an empty theory are exactly in the same level than creationists: both deny scientific consensus and overwhelming evidence and try to appeal to the crowds about their point not by statistics, but by flooding communication with rhetoric.

[Necrophagist]

Logic is the answer!

[Beneath the Shadows]

I'm not sure who's the bigger conspiracy theorist: the guy who says "9/11 was an inside job," or the guy who says "global warming is a hoax."

[Jonathan]

Warm air expands, cold air contracts.
We are pretty sure that the average global temperature is increasing.
We also have good scientific data that the moon is receding from the earth at an increasing rate.
Clearly, the warming air and expanding atmosphere is pushing the moon away.

By reducing carbon emissions, we can halt this alarming trend.

Save the moon!

[SKULHEDFACE]

Originally Posted by Jonathan

Warm air expands, cold air contracts.
We are pretty sure that the average global temperature is increasing.
We also have good scientific data that the moon is receding from the earth at an increasing rate.
Clearly, the warming air and expanding atmosphere is pushing the moon away.

By reducing carbon emissions, we can halt this alarming trend.

Save the moon!

The moon has had enough of our shit and decided she'll be on her way. I'm not gonna try and stop her.

[††BlackRose††]

Global Warming is a serious issue as we are the ones who helped push it along. Though it can be argued that our impact is minimal compared to the trend that this planet has shown through the past so many years, we have still caused some impact.
It is evident through a lot of aspects in our society. And if we do not try to take action on at some time, we are allowing us to set ourselves up for disaster.

For example, the climate changes causes shifts in various things, including more precipitation in some places and more droughts in others. It causes water distribution to change. If you do not believe this, then think of this. Canada and America have both seen record amounts of precipitation this year. Also, there have been more storm occuring recently.

I can go on and on but you see where i'm going with this.
Don't go around and throwing all ideas away that the media puts up. I agree that they do show us a lot of bullshit but you have to filter out the facts from that pile garbage.

[AshtrayKitten]

Originally Posted by Geoluhread

When you are presented with facts and shown photos of polar bears that are dying, people respond, it has made people more aware. It hasn't done that big change but it did make a change.

Second thing, it's true that the earth was more hot in the past, and ice ages have come after that. But it was all in fixed rates. Everyone is worrying because it's all rapidly increasing so that you can't predict what's gonna come next because it isn't at the same rate as the previous climate changes have occured.

More accurately, presenting people with bullshit and pictures of "stranded" polar bears is meant to both scare them and tug on their heartstrings. I will demonstrate down the line why the second part of your post is incorrect.


----------

Originally Posted by Albert Mond

The phrase never changed, for one thing. "Climate Change" is just a broader term which can be used to refer to "Global Warming".

No shit? That was in reference to the fact that, with the advent of global cooling, the alarmists and crooks must resort to the new term more and more to ensure the scam doesn't explode in their faces.

Originally Posted by Albert Mond

Also, here's a graph:
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedi...ure_Record.png

Insignificant in the face of the temperature upheavals the Earth has experienced in the past.


----------

Originally Posted by Utho

--snip--
This thing looks like a popular scare-crow. It has all the characteristics a popular scare-crow should have. - So I see no reason to reliably exclude the possibility that the whole thing could be artificially inflated.
--snip--

Although a stronger propaganda effort doesn't invalidate the claims of whatever it's intended to promote, it is, unfortunately, all Global Warmists have to lean on.


----------

Originally Posted by Godslayer Jillian

Damn straight. Support this 'cult' after you know the overwhelming facts!
The only thing that remotely looked like a fact that you said was that the earth has never a stable temperature.

As always, I come to educate well-meaning but uninformed youths about the world they inhabit. Do you wish to revise the assertion that everything in my initial post, aside from that statement, is false?

However, this global temperature average that does vary (no one disputes that) is directly proportional to the levels of CO2 in the atmosphere
http://www.shrani.si/pics/slika3yvv68.jpg
Today, the amount of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere is an all-time-high 387 parts per million, and everyone's saying that we have to reduce that quantity to 350 ppm, which is still much higher than any fluctuation in temperature caused by the earth without us
http://ryanthibodaux.greenoptions.co...emperature.gif

Here is a short lesson for you.

Water vapor is the single most potent greenhouse gas in the atmosphere, trapping more heat than carbon dioxide and methane put together. Estimates of the impact of water vapor on global warming vary widely from a minimum of 60% of all greenhouse effect to 98% of all greenhouse effect, but even at the minimum of 60%, that leaves 40% of greenhouse effect to be shared by all other chemicals combined, including carbon dioxide and methane (which has ten times the greenhouse capacity pound for pound as carbon dioxide).

http://i366.photobucket.com/albums/o...ykitten/g1.gif

Looking at Carbon Dioxide, we find that only .117% of atmospheric carbon dioxide is directly attributable to human technology such as automobiles. That's a rather small amount. If we were to measure out .117% of a football field, it comes out to about 4 inches inches, barely long enough to get off the touchdown line. If humans ceased all technological activity, we would still see 99.883% of the carbon dioxide remain in the atmosphere, assuming all other factors remain stable (which is silly, of course.)

Over the last few years, there have been studies in Antarctica which clearly show global temperatures rising together with atmospheric carbon dioxide. Global warmists like citing these studies as proof of a direct causation and not correlation, but examination of their claims shows the global warmists stopping at the abstract, because what these recent studies show is that Carbon Dioxide levels increased after the rise in global temperature. Studies of Antarctic ice show that the Earth would get warmer, and then carbon dioxide levels would increase.

There is consensus within scientists of this.

"Historically, the claim of consensus has been the first refuge of scoundrels; it is a way to avoid debate by claiming that the matter is already settled."

Not that you are a scoundrel but I always liked that quote.

People that try to make global warming seem like it's just an empty theory are exactly in the same level than creationists: both deny scientific consensus and overwhelming evidence and try to appeal to the crowds about their point not by statistics, but by flooding communication with rhetoric.

You will hurt yourself jumping to conclusions, young man!

----------

Originally Posted by Beneath the Shadows

I'm not sure who's the bigger conspiracy theorist: the guy who says "9/11 was an inside job," or the guy who says "global warming is a hoax."

If governments, mainstream media outlets, big business etc, present you with an apple and claim it's an orange, me pointing out to you that it's really an apple doesn't make me a conspiracy theorist; it makes me your friend.


----------

Originally Posted by ††BlackRose††

Don't go around and throwing all ideas away that the media puts up. I agree that they do show us a lot of bullshit but you have to filter out the facts from that pile garbage.

As it stands, Global Warming belongs in the pile of garbage. Have some links:

Global warning: We are actually heading towards a new Ice Age, claim scientists

The world has never seen such freezing heat

Planet Has Cooled - Gore Admits ‘I’ve failed badly’ - Global Sea Ice Grows
^That's got lots of stuff.

Sunspots spell end of climate myth

Scientific Blunder has put Credibility of Global Warming Alarm in Jeopardy!


"The greatest enemy of knowledge is not ignorance, but illusion of knowledge." - Stephen Hawking

[Godslayer Jillian]

Originally Posted by AshtrayKitten

Water vapor is the single most potent greenhouse gas in the atmosphere, trapping more heat than carbon dioxide and methane put together.

And scientists don't deny that: it is single-handedly responsible for 60%-70% of the greenhouse effect. If it weren't for water vapor, the earth's temperature would be around -5 Fahrenheit.

Estimates of the impact of water vapor on global warming vary widely from a minimum of 60% of all greenhouse effect to 98% of all greenhouse effect

Now, the 98% is ridiculous. Try to find a source for that number. If you do, you will inevitable fall into quoting Richard Lindzen, who was heavily criticized for mentioning this number and saying it came from an IPCC report, which actually didn't contain a word resembling that percentage. He also denies the effects of smoking and second-hand smoking, and it's very hard for me not to think that it's because he receives so much money out of companies like ExxonMobil.

but even at the minimum of 60%, that leaves 40% of greenhouse effect to be shared by all other chemicals combined

And when ten Fahrenheit in difference would create a catastrophe, and the greenhouse effect must be responsible for an average temperature of about 57 F, your belief that just because man-made gases are a minority (which isn't even minimal as CO2 is 25%) is an obvious fallacy.

carbon dioxide and methane (which has ten times the greenhouse capacity pound for pound as carbon dioxide)

And again, no one denied that. In fact, this is the reason the bovine industry is now known as the single most impacting industry in regards to global warming.

"Historically, the claim of consensus has been the first refuge of scoundrels; it is a way to avoid debate by claiming that the matter is already settled."

If you believe consensus and scientific consensus are the same thing, then either admit something's wrong with you, or at least avoid a double standard by then beginning to quote studies of a 'consensus' of your selected scientific minority.

[AshtrayKitten]

Originally Posted by Godslayer Jillian

And scientists don't deny that: it is single-handedly responsible for 60%-70% of the greenhouse effect. If it weren't for water vapor, the earth's temperature would be around -5 Fahrenheit.

That fact was included to illustrate its importance.

And when ten Fahrenheit in difference would create a catastrophe,

I'll assume this is at least partly in regards to the expected rise in sea levels.

However, the Greenland ice sheet rests in a depression in the bedrock created by its own weight, wherefore “dynamical ice flow” is impossible, and the IPCC says that temperature would have to be sustained at more than 5.5 degrees C above its present level for several millennia before half the Greenland ice sheet could melt, causing sea level to rise by some 3 m (10 ft).

Finally, the IPCC’s 2007 report estimates that the likelihood that humankind is having any influence on sea level at all is little better than 50:50.

http://scienceandpublicpolicy.org/mo...oreerrors.html

Since Global Warming's impact would not be limited to rising sea levels I'll also assume this isn't the only catastrophe you have in mind. Please expand on this.

and the greenhouse effect must be responsible for an average temperature of about 57 F,

Please explain the relevance of this.

your belief that just because man-made gases are a minority (which isn't even minimal as CO2 is 25%) is an obvious fallacy.

If the influence of man-made hydrocarbons weren't so negligible I see how that might be a fallacy. Please elaborate on what CO2 is 25% of.

If you believe consensus and scientific consensus are the same thing, then either admit something's wrong with you, or at least avoid a double standard by then beginning to quote studies of a 'consensus' of your selected scientific minority.

You know full well what I was referring to. You're the one who mentioned it as though if it held any weight.

[AshtrayKitten]

Here's a more interesting post for anyone detached enough to approach the topic with an open mind:

Disproof of Global Warming Hype Published


A mathematical proof that there is no “climate crisis” has been published in debate on global warming in Physics and Society, a scientific publication of the 46,000-strong American Physical Society.

Christopher Monckton, who once advised Margaret Thatcher, demonstrates via 30 equations that computer models used by the UN’s climate panel (IPCC) were pre-programmed with overstated values for the three variables whose product is “climate sensitivity” (temperature increase in response to greenhouse-gas increase), resulting in a 500-2000% overstatement of CO2’s effect on temperature in the IPCC’s latest climate assessment report, published in 2007.

The article, entitled Climate Sensitivity Reconsidered demonstrates that later this century a doubling of the concentration of CO2 compared with pre-industrial levels will increase global mean surface temperature not by the 6 °F predicted by the IPCC but, harmlessly, by little more than 1 °F. Lord Monckton concludes –

“… Perhaps real-world climate sensitivity is very much below the IPCC’s estimates. Perhaps, therefore, there is no ‘climate crisis’ at all. … The correct policy approach to a non-problem is to have the courage to do nothing.”

Larry Gould, Professor of Physics at the University of Hartford and Chair (2004) of the New England Section of the American Physical Society (APS), has been studying climate-change science for four years. He said:

“I was impressed by an hour-long academic lecture which criticized claims about ‘global warming’ and explained the implications of the physics of radiative transfer for climate change. I was pleased that the audience responded to the informative presentation with a prolonged, standing ovation. That is what happened when, at the invitation of the President of our University, Christopher Monckton lectured here in Hartford this spring. I am delighted that Physics and Society, an APS journal, has published his detailed paper refining and reporting his important and revealing results.

“To me the value of this paper lies in its dispassionate but ruthlessly clear exposition – or, rather, exposé – of the IPCC’s method of evaluating climate sensitivity. The detailed arguments in this paper, and, indeed, in a large number of other scientific papers, point up extensive errors, including numerous projection errors of climate models, as well as misleading statements by the IPCC. Consequently, there are no rational grounds for believing either the IPCC or any other claims of dangerous anthropogenic ‘global warming’.”

Lord Monckton’s paper reveals that –

• The IPCC’s 2007 climate summary overstated CO2’s impact on temperature by 500-2000%;
• CO2 enrichment will add little more than 1 °F (0.6 °C) to global mean surface temperature by 2100;
• Not one of the three key variables whose product is climate sensitivity can be measured directly;
• The IPCC’s values for these key variables are taken from only four published papers, not 2,500;
• The IPCC’s values for each of the three variables, and hence for climate sensitivity, are overstated;
• “Global warming” halted ten years ago, and surface temperature has been falling for seven years;
• Not one of the computer models relied upon by the IPCC predicted so long and rapid a cooling;
• The IPCC inserted a table into the scientists’ draft, overstating the effect of ice-melt by 1000%;
• It was proved 50 years ago that predicting climate more than two weeks ahead is impossible;
• Mars, Jupiter, Neptune’s largest moon, and Pluto warmed at the same time as Earth warmed;
• In the past 70 years the Sun was more active than at almost any other time in the past 11,400 years.

http://mensnewsdaily.com/2008/07/18/...ype-published/


I believe this is the paper itself:

http://www.aps.org/units/fps/newslet...7/monckton.cfm

Conclusion

Even if temperature had risen above natural variability, the recent solar Grand Maximum may have been chiefly responsible. Even if the sun were not chiefly to blame for the past half-century’s warming, the IPCC has not demonstrated that, since CO2 occupies only one-ten-thousandth part more of the atmosphere that it did in 1750, it has contributed more than a small fraction of the warming. Even if carbon dioxide were chiefly responsible for the warming that ceased in 1998 and may not resume until 2015, the distinctive, projected fingerprint of anthropogenic “greenhouse-gas” warming is entirely absent from the observed record. Even if the fingerprint were present, computer models are long proven to be inherently incapable of providing projections of the future state of the climate that are sound enough for policymaking. Even if per impossibile the models could ever become reliable, the present paper demonstrates that it is not at all likely that the world will warm as much as the IPCC imagines. Even if the world were to warm that much, the overwhelming majority of the scientific, peer-reviewed literature does not predict that catastrophe would ensue. Even if catastrophe might ensue, even the most drastic proposals to mitigate future climate change by reducing emissions of carbon dioxide would make very little difference to the climate. Even if mitigation were likely to be effective, it would do more harm than good: already millions face starvation as the dash for biofuels takes agricultural land out of essential food production: a warning that taking precautions, “just in case”, can do untold harm unless there is a sound, scientific basis for them. Finally, even if mitigation might do more good than harm, adaptation as (and if) necessary would be far more cost-effective and less likely to be harmful.

In short, we must get the science right, or we shall get the policy wrong. If the concluding equation in this analysis (Eqn. 30) is correct, the IPCC’s estimates of climate sensitivity must have been very much exaggerated. There may, therefore, be a good reason why, contrary to the projections of the models on which the IPCC relies, temperatures have not risen for a decade and have been falling since the phase-transition in global temperature trends that occurred in late 2001. Perhaps real-world climate sensitivity is very much below the IPCC’s estimates. Perhaps, therefore, there is no “climate crisis” at all. At present, then, in policy terms there is no case for doing anything. The correct policy approach to a non-problem is to have the courage to do nothing.

[Godslayer Jillian]

Originally Posted by AshtrayKitten

Please explain the relevance of this.

Too simple.
Average temperature: 57 F
Percentage of greenhouse by H2O: 70% tops
70% of 57F: 39.9
17F are still held unaccounted by water vapor's influence in the greenhouse effects.
This 30% of the greenhouse effect caused by other substances, mainly CO2 and methane, are affected by man and can cause a natural disaster.

[CptSternn]

There is a great documentary called 'The 11th Hour' which goes into detail of global warming around the world and shows the changes which have occurred.

Aside from the polar bears you have forests in Canada which now have certain types of beetles, for the first time in history. This is because of the warming there.

Also in Canada, they are losing MILES of coastline every year because of the warming - this coastline has been there since recorded history and is melting due to global warming.

There are glaciers in Sweden and Denmark that have thawed for the first time in history as well.

The funny thing is, only Americans seem to think its a hoax. This is funny mainly because America is in a position that will cause it to be greatly affected by global warming. Florida and California have already had issues with the rising temperature causing crop loss. Last year TWO playgrounds (one in Texas) burst into flames when the heat became so hot that the wood combusted - another first for history.

America will see its economy crash before the rest of the world. Feel free to stick your head in the sand and listen to right-wing propaganda about how its not happening.

Remember, these are the same people who said America was doing well, even after the economy started to collapse.

With the American economy now worth about 1/3rd of what it was just a year ago, I don't put much faith in the stuff spewed from the people who trumpeted it as a success.

[AshtrayKitten]

Wow.

Originally Posted by CptSternn

There is a great documentary called 'The 11th Hour' which goes into detail of global warming around the world and shows the changes which have occurred.

Aside from the polar bears you have forests in Canada which now have certain types of beetles, for the first time in history. This is because of the warming there.

Also in Canada, they are losing MILES of coastline every year because of the warming - this coastline has been there since recorded history and is melting due to global warming.

There are glaciers in Sweden and Denmark that have thawed for the first time in history as well.

Since anecdotal evidence is important enough to be mentioned, allow me to share my own:

Looking at annual global temperatures, it is apparent that the last decade shows no warming trend and recent successive annual global temperatures are well within each year's measurement errors. Statistically the world's temperature is flat. The world certainly warmed between 1975 and 1998, but in the past 10 years it has not been increasing at the rate it did. No scientist could honestly look at global temperatures over the past decade and see a rising curve.

It is undisputed that the sun of the later part of the 20th century was behaving differently from that of the beginning. Its sunspot cycle is stronger and shorter and, technically speaking, its magnetic field leakage is weaker and its cosmic ray shielding effect stronger. So we see that when the sun's activity was rising, the world warmed. When it peaked in activity in the late 1980s, within a few years global warming stalled. And now, sunspots have vanished entirely. Hmm.

China has had its coldest winter in 100 years.

Baghdad has seen its first snow in recorded history.

North America has the most snow cover in 50 years, with places like Wisconsin the highest since record-keeping began. Record levels of Antarctic sea ice, record cold in Minnesota, Texas, Florida, Mexico, Australia, Iran, Greece, South Africa, Greenland, Argentina, Chile - the list goes on and on. (Remember this hilarious expedition?)

No more than anecdotal evidence. But now, that evidence has been supplanted by hard scientific fact. All four major global temperature tracking outlets (Hadley, NASA's GISS, UAH, RSS) have released updated data. All show that over the past year, global temperatures have dropped precipitously, before St. Gore's utopia could be implemented.

The funny thing is, only Americans seem to think its a hoax. This is funny mainly because America is in a position that will cause it to be greatly affected by global warming. Florida and California have already had issues with the rising temperature causing crop loss. Last year TWO playgrounds (one in Texas) burst into flames when the heat became so hot that the wood combusted - another first for history.

I don't even know how to respond to such colossal ignorance. The entire world knows Global Warming to be true, except the United States?

This is the only thing I will give George Bush credit for; when he sells out, it's mostly to American cartels. When civilized nations want to cripple the developing world with 'green' standards, at least America will be able to undercut Kyoto by selling Africa useless windmills at discount price.

America will see its economy crash before the rest of the world. Feel free to stick your head in the sand and listen to right-wing propaganda about how its not happening.

Remember, these are the same people who said America was doing well, even after the economy started to collapse.

With the American economy now worth about 1/3rd of what it was just a year ago, I don't put much faith in the stuff spewed from the people who trumpeted it as a success.

As though if the United States is the exclusive subscriber of the Keynesian economics which brought about the crisis.

I'm sorry; there's a difference between being an idealistic young liberal, and being a fucking chump. At the very least, idealists want to find points to build around their fallacious, whimsical view of the world. Do you even have that?

[CptSternn]

Global warming does not mean that everywhere is going to increase in temperature. It means the overall global temperature will rise, however, some areas will have climate changes where they will get colder due to the changes in the gulfstream, and ocean currents.

But if you want more about this, why not check out the Pentagons report on this:

http://www.guardian.co.uk/environmen...ws.theobserver


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




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.

The document predicts that abrupt climate change could bring the planet to the edge of anarchy as countries develop a nuclear threat to defend and secure dwindling food, water and energy supplies. The threat to global stability vastly eclipses that of terrorism, say the few experts privy to its contents.

'Disruption and conflict will be endemic features of life,' concludes the Pentagon analysis. 'Once again, warfare would define human life.'

The findings will prove humiliating to the Bush administration, which has repeatedly denied that climate change even exists. Experts said that they will also make unsettling reading for a President who has insisted national defence is a priority.

The report was commissioned by influential Pentagon defence adviser Andrew Marshall, who has held considerable sway on US military thinking over the past three decades. He was the man behind a sweeping recent review aimed at transforming the American military under Defence Secretary Donald Rumsfeld.

Climate change 'should be elevated beyond a scientific debate to a US national security concern', say the authors, Peter Schwartz, CIA consultant and former head of planning at Royal Dutch/Shell Group, and Doug Randall of the California-based Global Business Network.

An imminent scenario of catastrophic climate change is 'plausible and would challenge United States national security in ways that should be considered immediately', they conclude. As early as next year widespread flooding by a rise in sea levels will create major upheaval for millions.

Last week the Bush administration came under heavy fire from a large body of respected scientists who claimed that it cherry-picked science to suit its policy agenda and suppressed studies that it did not like. Jeremy Symons, a former whistleblower at the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), said that suppression of the report for four months was a further example of the White House trying to bury the threat of climate change.

Senior climatologists, however, believe that their verdicts could prove the catalyst in forcing Bush to accept climate change as a real and happening phenomenon. They also hope it will convince the United States to sign up to global treaties to reduce the rate of climatic change.

A group of eminent UK scientists recently visited the White House to voice their fears over global warming, part of an intensifying drive to get the US to treat the issue seriously. Sources have told The Observer that American officials appeared extremely sensitive about the issue when faced with complaints that America's public stance appeared increasingly out of touch.

One even alleged that the White House had written to complain about some of the comments attributed to Professor Sir David King, Tony Blair's chief scientific adviser, after he branded the President's position on the issue as indefensible.

Among those scientists present at the White House talks were Professor John Schellnhuber, former chief environmental adviser to the German government and head of the UK's leading group of climate scientists at the Tyndall Centre for Climate Change Research. He said that the Pentagon's internal fears should prove the 'tipping point' in persuading Bush to accept climatic change.

Sir John Houghton, former chief executive of the Meteorological Office - and the first senior figure to liken the threat of climate change to that of terrorism - said: 'If the Pentagon is sending out that sort of message, then this is an important document indeed.'

Bob Watson, chief scientist for the World Bank and former chair of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, added that the Pentagon's dire warnings could no longer be ignored.

'Can Bush ignore the Pentagon? It's going be hard to blow off this sort of document. Its hugely embarrassing. After all, Bush's single highest priority is national defence. The Pentagon is no wacko, liberal group, generally speaking it is conservative. If climate change is a threat to national security and the economy, then he has to act. There are two groups the Bush Administration tend to listen to, the oil lobby and the Pentagon,' added Watson.

'You've got a President who says global warming is a hoax, and across the Potomac river you've got a Pentagon preparing for climate wars. It's pretty scary when Bush starts to ignore his own government on this issue,' said Rob Gueterbock of Greenpeace.

Already, according to Randall and Schwartz, the planet is carrying a higher population than it can sustain. By 2020 'catastrophic' shortages of water and energy supply will become increasingly harder to overcome, plunging the planet into war. They warn that 8,200 years ago climatic conditions brought widespread crop failure, famine, disease and mass migration of populations that could soon be repeated.

Randall told The Observer that the potential ramifications of rapid climate change would create global chaos. 'This is depressing stuff,' he said. 'It is a national security threat that is unique because there is no enemy to point your guns at and we have no control over the threat.'

Randall added that it was already possibly too late to prevent a disaster happening. 'We don't know exactly where we are in the process. It could start tomorrow and we would not know for another five years,' he said.

'The consequences for some nations of the climate change are unbelievable. It seems obvious that cutting the use of fossil fuels would be worthwhile.'

So dramatic are the report's scenarios, Watson said, that they may prove vital in the US elections. Democratic frontrunner John Kerry is known to accept climate change as a real problem. Scientists disillusioned with Bush's stance are threatening to make sure Kerry uses the Pentagon report in his campaign.

The fact that Marshall is behind its scathing findings will aid Kerry's cause. Marshall, 82, is a Pentagon legend who heads a secretive think-tank dedicated to weighing risks to national security called the Office of Net Assessment. Dubbed 'Yoda' by Pentagon insiders who respect his vast experience, he is credited with being behind the Department of Defence's push on ballistic-missile defence.

Symons, who left the EPA in protest at political interference, said that the suppression of the report was a further instance of the White House trying to bury evidence of climate change. 'It is yet another example of why this government should stop burying its head in the sand on this issue.'

Symons said the Bush administration's close links to high-powered energy and oil companies was vital in understanding why climate change was received sceptically in the Oval Office. 'This administration is ignoring the evidence in order to placate a handful of large energy and oil companies,' he added.

[AshtrayKitten]

Well, this should discredit the mathematical proof that anthropogenic global warming is not occurring I linked to:

Originally Posted by CptSternn

Global warming does not mean that everywhere is going to increase in temperature. It means the overall global temperature will rise, however, some areas will have climate changes where they will get colder due to the changes in the gulfstream, and ocean currents.

Except when citing exploding playgrounds. If by "some areas," you mean the entire globe cooling, then I concur.

But if you want more about this, why not check out the Pentagons report on this:

Makes sense - the Pentagon is never wrong.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/environmen...ws.theobserver


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


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.

Even when entertaining this ridiculous fairy tale, I see nothing which supports the theory of anthropogenic global warming. Rather, the postulations of a "Siberian climate" in Britain only support current scientific trends of global cooling, albeit to a very extreme degree.

The document predicts that abrupt climate change could bring the planet to the edge of anarchy as countries develop a nuclear threat to defend and secure dwindling food, water and energy supplies. The threat to global stability vastly eclipses that of terrorism, say the few experts privy to its contents.

As though if terrorism is a genuine threat to civilization. Anything about carbon emissions here? I don't see it.

'Disruption and conflict will be endemic features of life,' concludes the Pentagon analysis. 'Once again, warfare would define human life.'

The findings will prove humiliating to the Bush administration, which has repeatedly denied that climate change even exists. Experts said that they will also make unsettling reading for a President who has insisted national defence is a priority.

Since Bush disagrees, it must be correct.

The report was commissioned by influential Pentagon defence adviser Andrew Marshall, who has held considerable sway on US military thinking over the past three decades. He was the man behind a sweeping recent review aimed at transforming the American military under Defence Secretary Donald Rumsfeld.

And we Americans know how successful Rummy's wannabe blitzkrieg strategies worked out.

Climate change 'should be elevated beyond a scientific debate to a US national security concern', say the authors, Peter Schwartz, CIA consultant and former head of planning at Royal Dutch/Shell Group, and Doug Randall of the California-based Global Business Network.

An imminent scenario of catastrophic climate change is 'plausible and would challenge United States national security in ways that should be considered immediately', they conclude. As early as next year widespread flooding by a rise in sea levels will create major upheaval for millions.

Unless God decides to open the floodgates once again, this won't be happening. Unfortunately for this prediction, there is absolutely no scientific evidence to back it up. Without an island sinking into the sea, this idea is science fiction, Sternn.

Last week the Bush administration came under heavy fire from a large body of respected scientists who claimed that it cherry-picked science to suit its policy agenda and suppressed studies that it did not like. Jeremy Symons, a former whistleblower at the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), said that suppression of the report for four months was a further example of the White House trying to bury the threat of climate change.

Like the major proponents of the 'Global Warming movement' haven't been caught with their fingers in the cookie jar. I'd start listing them, but I don't want to embarrass anyone. Too much.

Senior climatologists, however, believe that their verdicts could prove the catalyst in forcing Bush to accept climate change as a real and happening phenomenon. They also hope it will convince the United States to sign up to global treaties to reduce the rate of climatic change.

A group of eminent UK scientists recently visited the White House to voice their fears over global warming, part of an intensifying drive to get the US to treat the issue seriously. Sources have told The Observer that American officials appeared extremely sensitive about the issue when faced with complaints that America's public stance appeared increasingly out of touch.

One even alleged that the White House had written to complain about some of the comments attributed to Professor Sir David King, Tony Blair's chief scientific adviser, after he branded the President's position on the issue as indefensible.

Among those scientists present at the White House talks were Professor John Schellnhuber, former chief environmental adviser to the German government and head of the UK's leading group of climate scientists at the Tyndall Centre for Climate Change Research. He said that the Pentagon's internal fears should prove the 'tipping point' in persuading Bush to accept climatic change.

Sir John Houghton, former chief executive of the Meteorological Office - and the first senior figure to liken the threat of climate change to that of terrorism - said: 'If the Pentagon is sending out that sort of message, then this is an important document indeed.'

Bob Watson, chief scientist for the World Bank and former chair of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, added that the Pentagon's dire warnings could no longer be ignored.

'Can Bush ignore the Pentagon? It's going be hard to blow off this sort of document. Its hugely embarrassing. After all, Bush's single highest priority is national defence. The Pentagon is no wacko, liberal group, generally speaking it is conservative. If climate change is a threat to national security and the economy, then he has to act. There are two groups the Bush Administration tend to listen to, the oil lobby and the Pentagon,' added Watson.

'You've got a President who says global warming is a hoax, and across the Potomac river you've got a Pentagon preparing for climate wars. It's pretty scary when Bush starts to ignore his own government on this issue,' said Rob Gueterbock of Greenpeace.

Well, if the Pentagon is no wacko, liberal group, then we can be sure their predictions of a Mad Max future within the next 2 decades will be accurate. Too bad this has more to do with sociology, and absolutely nothing to do with human chemical emissions.

Already, according to Randall and Schwartz, the planet is carrying a higher population than it can sustain.

More science fiction.

By 2020 'catastrophic' shortages of water and energy supply will become increasingly harder to overcome, plunging the planet into war. They warn that 8,200 years ago climatic conditions brought widespread crop failure, famine, disease and mass migration of populations that could soon be repeated.

Randall told The Observer that the potential ramifications of rapid climate change would create global chaos. 'This is depressing stuff,' he said. 'It is a national security threat that is unique because there is no enemy to point your guns at and we have no control over the threat.'

Randall added that it was already possibly too late to prevent a disaster happening. 'We don't know exactly where we are in the process. It could start tomorrow and we would not know for another five years,' he said.

'The consequences for some nations of the climate change are unbelievable. It seems obvious that cutting the use of fossil fuels would be worthwhile.'

So dramatic are the report's scenarios, Watson said, that they may prove vital in the US elections. Democratic frontrunner John Kerry is known to accept climate change as a real problem. Scientists disillusioned with Bush's stance are threatening to make sure Kerry uses the Pentagon report in his campaign.

The fact that Marshall is behind its scathing findings will aid Kerry's cause. Marshall, 82, is a Pentagon legend who heads a secretive think-tank dedicated to weighing risks to national security called the Office of Net Assessment. Dubbed 'Yoda' by Pentagon insiders who respect his vast experience, he is credited with being behind the Department of Defence's push on ballistic-missile defence.

Symons, who left the EPA in protest at political interference, said that the suppression of the report was a further instance of the White House trying to bury evidence of climate change. 'It is yet another example of why this government should stop burying its head in the sand on this issue.'

Symons said the Bush administration's close links to high-powered energy and oil companies was vital in understanding why climate change was received sceptically in the Oval Office. 'This administration is ignoring the evidence in order to placate a handful of large energy and oil companies,' he added.

An overall entertaining read. Were it not for the hysterically alarmist tone, I would have given it a second reading, and perhaps taken it seriously after that.

That and the unfortunate lack of evidence that humanity, in its infinite arrogance, can affect the climate on a global scale whatsoever, makes it a hard pill to swallow.

[CptSternn]

You have to love someone who discounts the experts and even their own government to stay in a state of disbelief of reality.

I must ask, what makes you such an expert on the topic that you can discount the various experts and even your own government on this topic?

What exactly do you have your doctorate in?

[ArtificialOne]

Cooling/warming/cooling/warming Most of you hopefully realize that there are many more things that could kill all of us before worrying about climate change.

http://dsc.discovery.com/convergence...der/under.html

http://www.cnn.com/2003/TECH/space/0...eut/index.html

http://www.who.int/csr/sars/en/

last, but not least.. Stupidity.

Unfortunately I believe the global warming crowd had legitimacy at one point. Then, the cult monkey (political groups) grabbed the banana and ran with it.

[Albert Mond]

Originally Posted by ArtificialOne

Cooling/warming/cooling/warming Most of you hopefully realize that there are many more things that could kill all of us before worrying about climate change.

*Gasp*
You're right! We should worry about things we have virtually no control over (with the exception of SARs) before worrying about something we could prevent from continuing with an obvious solution!

[ArtificialOne]

You do realize there are no viable ways to scrub that evil co2 out of the air in time to actually make a difference. Nor can we stop countries like India, China, Indonesia or an emerging African continent curb their pollution short of war right?

SO if one was to believe in global warming there is little we can do about that would actually fix it in enough time to make any difference.

Also in an interesting show on the history channel http://www.history.com/content/life_...about-the-show
I believe the said it would take 300+ yrs to start to see a change in the earth after we go extinct.

[Albert Mond]

Originally Posted by ArtificialOne

You do realize there are no viable ways to scrub that evil co2 out of the air in time to actually make a difference.

Yep.

Nor can we stop countries like India, China, Indonesia or an emerging African continent curb their pollution short of war right?

More likely than deflecting a hypothetical asteroid.

SO if one was to believe in global warming

...Like most of the scientific community.

there is little we can do about that would actually fix it in enough time to make any difference.

Better than doing nothing.

Also in an interesting show on the history channel http://www.history.com/content/life_...about-the-show
I believe the said it would take 300+ yrs to start to see a change in the earth after we go extinct.

This is about life after people? You do realize that if people suddenly no longer existed, there would be no regular use of polluting substances. What's more, since people wouldn't multiply, there wouldn't be a constant increase in such use.