Ice Cores Show Global Warming Natural

by **scollon** » Sun Jan 08, 2006 10:42 pm

Global Warming, Yes - But Is It A 'Normal' Cycle? Ice Cores Show Global Warming 'Natural' By Brendan O'Keefe The Australian 1-8-5 Hundreds of thousands of years worth of climate records in ice cores show there is nothing unusual in a global warming trend over the past 25 years. Marine geophysicist Bob Carter, a professor at Queensland's James Cook University and leading climate change sceptic, said the effects of human activity would barely register in the long-term history of climate change. He told The Weekend Australian that ice cores from Antarctica "tell us clearly that in the context of the meteorological records of 100 years, it is not unusual to have a period of warming like the one we are in at the moment". Dr Carter disputed the theory that human activity was making a current - natural - warm period hotter: "Atmospheric CO2 is not a primary forcing agent for temperature change." He argues that "any cumulative human signal is so far undetectable at a global level and, if present, is buried deeply in the noise of natural variation". Fellow sceptic William Kininmonth, a former director of the Bureau of Meteorology's National Climate Centre, agreed. He wrote in a 2004 book, Climate Change: A Natural Hazard that there was "every reason to believe that the variabilities in global temperature and other climate characteristics experienced over the past century are part of the natural variability of the climate system and are not a consequence of recent anthropogenic activities". But other leading scientists, who blame human activity for climate change, say the "denialists" are a one-to-99 minority. Will Steffen, director of the Centre for Resource and Environmental Studies at the Australian National University, said: "There is no debate. The debate is over." The evidence that human activity had increased emissions of carbon dioxide into the atmosphere, adding to natural warming, was "overwhelming", he said. For scientist and University of Adelaide academic Tim Flannery there was also no argument: humans had turned up the heating and only humans could keep a lid on it. The argument that human activity did not contribute to global warming was "not a credible hypothesis to build policy on", he said. <a href="http://www.theaustralian.news.com.au/common/story_pa">www.theaustralian.news.co...n/story_pa</a> ge/0,5744,17752119%255E601,00.html

by **marykmusic** » Sun Jan 08, 2006 10:58 pm

Here's a site that pretty much supports this: <a href="http://www.borderlands.com/newstuff/research/cycle23/warming.htm" target="top">www.borderlands.com/newstuff/research/cycle23/warming.htm</a> --MaryK

by **Synthetic Zero** » Mon Jan 09, 2006 2:16 am

Right. Humanity should still put a huge priority on getting away from fossil fuels. Maybe harnessing the raw energy this planet produces could be a long-term goal. Natural or not, our pollution cannot be of benefit to the planet (if we are to view that in terms of a planet that we can exist on). ---- The best way to keep a secret is to tell everyone.

by **wintler** » Mon Jan 09, 2006 1:40 pm

Bob Carter is a geologist, not a climatologist (see <a href="http://www.es.jcu.edu.au/publication/author.html),">www.es.jcu.edu.au/publica...hor.html),</a> and not widely read, except when periodically resurrected in climate-sceptic mouthpieces like Rupert Murdoch/NewsCorp's FoxNews-in-print, The Australian. Quickest debunk is <a href="http://timlambert.org/2005/06/bobcarter4/">timlambert.org/2005/06/bobcarter4/</a> How often can they recycle the same waste?

by **scollon** » Mon Jan 09, 2006 2:05 pm

Tim Lambert is a computer graphics lecturer <img src=http://www.ezboard.com/images/emoticons/roll.gif ALT=":rollin"> By all accounts, he's some kind of fanatical internet demon who attacks people on science forums on climate related threads. He is very politically motivated. I have debated with a real climatologist, they really don't have a clue when it comes to this issue., there are thousands upon thousands of sensitive parameters. Scaremongering pleases their poltical masters and keeps them in a job. . By the way, what will the weather be like in Glasgow next Tuesday ? Edited by: <A HREF=http://p216.ezboard.com/brigorousintuition.showUserPublicProfile?gid=scollon>scollon</A> at: 1/9/06 11:06 am

by **wintler** » Mon Jan 09, 2006 9:17 pm

Well Scollon, have a look here <a href="http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/thread.asp?article=3813">forum.onlineopinion.com.a...ticle=3813</a> for a nice l-o-n-g list of people tearing shreds off Carters 'science'. Does the very active support of the pro-'free market'/ corporate-globalisation think tank, the Institute for Public Affairs, affect your views any? They're not known for covering science, but hey if it helps their sponsors (BHP, RioTinto, Phizer, Exxon...). <a href="http://www.ipa.org.au/publications/pubsbyauth.asp?authorid=156">www.ipa.org.au/publicatio...thorid=156</a> Hope you're getting a cut too Scollon, you're a fool both ways if not.

by **scollon** » Mon Jan 09, 2006 10:59 pm

<blockquote>Quote:<hr>Does the very active support of the pro-'free market'/ corporate-globalisation think tank, the Institute for Public Affairs, affect your views any? They're not known for covering science, but hey if it helps their sponsors (BHP, RioTinto, Phizer, Exxon...).<hr></blockquote> Sure, that's really SMART working out these people are sponsored by Exxon etc. It makes take a REAL genius to find that out. You are just so much cleverer than these multi million dollar oil executives. They must be plain kicking themslves there are people like you out there tripping them up. Exxon, BP and the Pew Foundation (Sun oil company owning fascists) sponsor gobal warming research to the tune of billions as does the British government. Great Britain has a much higher stake in global oil business pro rata than any other country on earth. Britain was responsible for pushing through Kyoto and is Global Environment Central. Oil companies LOVE global warming, that's what they're going to use (along with peak oil) to get the price of oil up to $200 a barrel in a few years time (restricted supply through OPEC). Yes and we all believe OPEC are a cartel against the Anglo American empire don't we, those Saudis would nuke us if we messed with them, they aren't under total US domination at all. Pew Foundation and global warming <a href="http://www.pewtrusts.com/ideas/index.cfm?issue=19">www.pewtrusts.com/ideas/i...m?issue=19</a> This right wing piece is complaining about the Pew Founation unaware they are owned by the aforementioned oil company fascists (literally). <a href="http://www.cato.org/dailys/07-08-99.html">www.cato.org/dailys/07-08-99.html</a> The story was rooted in a recent study by Tom Wigley, introduced as "a respected climatologist." Wigley's study was financed by the Pew Foundation, which is running a multi-million-dollar campaign to hype global warming. <a href="http://www.pewclimate.org/">www.pewclimate.org/</a> The Pew family (Sun Ol) Pew - Facing the Corporate Roots of American Fascism <a href="http://coat.ncf.ca/our_magazine/links/53/pew.html">coat.ncf.ca/our_magazine/...3/pew.html</a> BP Climate Change Speech By John Browne, Group Chief Executive, British Petroleum (BP America) <a href="http://dieoff.org/page106.htm">dieoff.org/page106.htm</a> "But there is now an effective consensus among the world's leading scientists and serious and well informed people outside the scientific community that there is a discernible human influence on the climate, and a link between the concentration of carbon dioxide and the increase in temperature. The prediction of the IPCC is that over the next century temperatures might rise by a further 1 to 3.5 degrees centigrade, and that sea levels might rise by between 15 and 95 centimetres. Some of that impact is probably unavoidable, because it results from current emissions. " Exxon <a href="http://www2.exxonmobil.com/corporate/Campaign/Campaign_energysaving_research.asp">www2.exxonmobil.com/corpo...search.asp</a> In addition to our own extensive research activities, ExxonMobil sponsors a wide range of energy research programs at universities and other institutions. For example, we are a cofounder and plan to invest up to $100 million in the Global Climate and Energy Project (GCEP) at Stanford University. The GCEP initiative unites scientific and engineering researchers with private industry in the search for new, commercially viable energy technologies that can substantially reduce greenhouse gas emissions on a world scale. This effort includes identifying the most promising technologies, accelerating their commercial applications, and overcoming cost, performance, and safety issues. Yes all the major oil players accept human created global warming !!! Edited by: <A HREF=http://p216.ezboard.com/brigorousintuition.showUserPublicProfile?gid=scollon>scollon</A> at: 1/9/06 8:07 pm

by **scollon** » Mon Jan 09, 2006 11:17 pm

What's happened here is that the oil companies lost the global warming argument and decided to use it to their advantage. They continue to sponsor the right wing loonies that EVERYONE knows are connected to oil and the Bush gang. Global warming is now being wildly over sold to force the rationing of oil (Peak oil is an even smarter scam) and the hiking of the price to around $200. <a href="http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/business/3777413.stm">news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/business/3777413.stm</a> Oil is far too cheap at the moment," says Mr Simmons. "The figure I'd use is around $182 a barrel. We need to price oil realistically to control its demand. That is because global production is peaking." "If we price oil correctly," Mr Simmons says, "it could give us time to find bridge fuels, fuels to fill the gap between an oil economy and a renewable economy. But I don't see that happening."

by **wintler** » Mon Jan 09, 2006 11:55 pm

R-i-g-h-t, so the oil companies deny and ignore climate change for three decades, now they're pushing it you say (while still funding 'debunkers') because.. they want to ration oil? Seems you have an excellent win-win argument there, enjoy your logic loop, i've got better things to do with my time.

by **scollon** » Tue Jan 10, 2006 12:03 am

<blockquote>Quote:<hr>the oil companies deny and ignore climate change for three decades<hr></blockquote> Yes, just like the tobacco companies did with smoking - do they still say it doesn't cause lung cancer ? "i've got better things to do with my time. " I'm sure you do. You must have a lot of exciting things to do with that million dollar a year salary you earn 'coz you're so obviously smarter than an oil executive. You found an anti GW website that publishes articles that disprove GW. How many oil executives could do that ? You beat them in two minutes flat. What a guy !! <img src=http://www.ezboard.com/images/emoticons/roll.gif ALT=":rollin"> Edited by: <A HREF=http://p216.ezboard.com/brigorousintuition.showUserPublicProfile?gid=scollon>scollon</A> at: 1/9/06 9:06 pm

by **sceneshifter** » Thu Jan 19, 2006 4:34 am

is that there is so much likelihood of information being 'politicised' ie disinformation, that we cannot be sure of anything except that, give a man a billion and he'll use disinformation to protect it or increase it, thus rendering science suspect and therefore useless moral: dont give a man a billion

Ice Cores Show Global Warming Natural

Ice Cores Show Global Warming Natural

Re: Ice Cores Show Global Warming Natural

Re: Ice Cores Show Global Warming Natural

sigh

Re: sigh

..

Re: ..

plus peak oil

-

Re: -

so what it boils down to

Who is online