It's as much horseshit today as it was in 1969.
Global warming warnings were debated in President Richard Nixon's administration as early as 1969, according to newly released documents examined by The Orange County Register.
The 100,000 pages of presidential records made available by the Nixon Presidential Library and Museum on Friday also portray former Nixon's inner circle as being out of touch with the American people and their sentiments against the Vietnam War.
Most of the archived documents released Friday came from the files of Nixon's Democratic adviser Daniel Patrick Moynihan.
Moynihan wrote in a September 1969 memo that it was "pretty clearly agreed" that carbon dioxide content would rise 25 percent by 2000,
"This could increase the average temperature near the earth's surface by 7 degrees Fahrenheit," he wrote. "This in turn could raise the level of the sea by 10 feet. Goodbye New York. Goodbye Washington, for that matter."
"I would think this is a subject that the Administration ought to get involved with," Moynihan wrote to John Ehrlichman, who in 1975 was convicted of conspiracy, perjury and obstruction for his role in the Watergate break-in and cover-up.
Bob
That Republicans are full of horseshit comes as no surprise. They are not scientists though.
"The scientific consensus is that global warming is occurring and is mostly the result of human activity. This finding is recognized by the national science academies of all the major industrialized countries and is not rejected by any scientific body of national or international standing.[7][8][9]"
That tells me more than an opinion of some politician or blog. The nice thing about science is that it's not about opinions, but about measuring and reproducable results.
Actually Moynihan was one of the liberal icons of the Democrat Party. He served in several administrations, Repub and Dem, was Ambassador to the UN and a multi-term Senator from New York.
After reading his writings I expect to find that Al Gore is his bastard son.
Bob
Your reasoning, it it can be called that, is a bafflement. One of the most respected liberal Democrats of the second half of the 20th century writes a paper to the President of the United States contending that New York and DC will be underwater by 2000 and you claim that Republicans are full of horseshit ?
If it makes you feel any better horseshit is a commodity that is completely non-partisan and always in abundant supply in DC.
Bob
Quote from: NIHILIST on May 20, 2011, 08:02:51 PM
Actually Moynihan was one of the liberal icons of the Democrat Party. He served in several administrations, Repub and Dem, was Ambassador to the UN and a multi-term Senator from New York.
As I wrote, no scientist. So what's your point? CO2 has been increasing, and global warming is happening.
The point is that none of Moynihan's dire predictions have come to pass in the intervening 40 years. It's the same chicken little rhetoric that's being peddled today.
The UN committee predicted years ago that global warming would displace 50 million people by now.............WRONG !
The UN committee predicted the Himalayan glaciers woold melt causing catastrophies in surrounding countries..........WRONG !
Prince Philip predicted the effects would be irreversible in 8 years, time's about up.
Al Gore gave a similar prediction but with a 10 year time frame.
When will the global warming contingent give a realistic time frame for their dire predictions and when they don't occur, say, at long last, " OOPS, WE WERE WRONG. TIME TO MOVE ON TO SOMETHING ELSE. ?
BTW, since the world has done virtually nothing to stem or reverse the warming trend, when
do they plan to issue evacuation and relocation plans for residents of cities doomed to be submerged by rising seas ?
Bob
(http://libertypundits.net/wp-content/uploads/2010/05/tin-foil-hat.jpg)
Quote from: NIHILIST on May 22, 2011, 10:27:17 PM
The point is that none of Moynihan's dire predictions have come to pass in the intervening 40 years.
He is not a scientist and neither are you, so again, what is your point? He wasn't predicting by the way, just giving one extreme scenario to grab people's attention.
CO2 has been rising considerably since 1970, and global warming has happened. Moynihan's memo argued for setting up monitoring systems to measure CO2 levels, hard to see your problem with that. He also argued that increasing dust in the atmosphere might be a countervailing effect, something that actually happened in Europe. All in all, he was a pretty knowledgeable man for the time, unlike you in 2011 digging your head in the sand.
Moynihan wrote in a September 1969 memo that it was "pretty clearly agreed" that carbon dioxide content would rise 25 percent by 2000,
"This could increase the average temperature near the earth's surface by 7 degrees Fahrenheit," he wrote. "This in turn could raise the level of the sea by 10 feet. Goodbye New York. Goodbye Washington, for that matter."
Since he wasn't a scientist it's a reasonable assumption that the data used for his warning did come from scientists.
He also stated the likelihood that New York and DC would be under water to to rising sea levels, likely also the conslusions of scientists he consulted with.
Since you seem to be in tune with this, maybe you could provide the current scientific community's rationale ( excuses ) for why, what they're predicting now, didn't occur according to the timetable in Moynihan's memo.
I think the scientific community is taking the same kind of Mulligan as the guy who wrongly predicted the rapture. He's now admitted he was off by 5 months and the world will actually end about 150 days from now. " Oh, we got global warming wrong by 30 years, no problem, we'll just regurgitate the same nonsense and put a different timetable to it. There's at least one Dutchman who swallows it hook, line and sinker."
Bob
I think the world has moved on a bit since since 1969. Computers with the power of a cheap laptop were the size of a house and climate modelling was in its infancy.
Global warming is happening and it seems perverse to deny it. Those who do adopt the same strategies as many other groups who deny scientific or historical conclusions for which the evidence is overwhelming. Typically they employ distortions, half-truths, misrepresentation of their opponents' positions and expedient shifts of premises and logic. Why they do this is actually quite interesting, but the "debate" is not. There isn't one, any more than one can debate the existence of natural selection or the Holocaust or Aids, to name but three examples of the same phenomenon.
This is absolutely hillarious. In 1969 high government officials were convinced global warming was happening too. I've stated the most dire predictions, none of which came to pass. This was 42 years ago, for Christ's sake. What happened ? Why did none of this come to pass ?
How about the scientists were JUST FLAT WRONG ? How in the world can anyone of your vast intelligence believe these same dire predictions simply because computer models have improved ?
The same nonsense continues. The UN claimed that the Himalayan glaciers were melting at an alarming rate and would inundate surrounding countries with flood waters of Biblical proportions............the UN was WRONG. The same UN claimed 5 years ago that by this time global warming would displace 50 million people, mostly in Africa............WRONG again; so wrong the UN quietly removed the dire warning from its website.
Instead of getting called accountable for their egregious errors, the UN climate jagoffs get awarded Nobel prizes.
To me, the past non-events provide ample proof that this is NOT happening. If it hasn't happened in 42 years, why would we accept the assertions of Prince Charles and Al Gore that impending doom is only 8-10 years away ?
I'll tell you what we can do in the way of a friendly wager. Supposedly this summer the polar icecap is expected to melt to its lowest mass ever. Based on your past statements this spells certain doom for the polar bears. I say it won't happen. You decide the amount of the wager.
Bob
if i tell you " the population of humans on this planet is increasing" - a variable many factored figure , difficult to measure, and open to ever changing trends, and then you ask me how many will there be in 10 years, and i do a rough estimate, which turns out subsequently to be an over estimate in your opinion, (although we or anybody can't really exactly measure these numbers), do we assume that population isn't rising. i think not.
similarly if i tell you " the population of idiots on this planet is increasing"........(also because 'idiot definition is human subjective)
this thread though may belong in our Campaigns Board, and i would suggest you read or re-read some of the sources there, that people have suggested in the thread "climate wars (http://www.fibsboard.com/campaigns/ozone-map-1979-2008/)"
polar bears are pressured by many factors, and may be having a short spike of high numbers for all i know -because maybe they are found more easily, because of the fact more folks are looking for them, or by our being in their areas more, or by the fact that they are having to come into contact with us more; but, that they, and thousands of other species are under threat, because of us and our further ingress into their worlds to extract more resources, is a fact understood by all who travel.
similiarly, weather patterns are altering fast - ask any land traveller or sailor; warm weather streams that have been constant for hundreds of years are shifting quickly; storm patterns are increased both here in the UK and the USA, and their annual or bi - annual occurrences are now spread more widely..
if i could recommend only one book for you or others to read -- not a big book , not an article, but a small accessible volume written by a scientist, many years ago - it would be james lovelock's Gaia.
you or I, may be able to say now with hindsight that this or that has not turned out like that yet, but what is for sure, and the above book illuminates this for us, the earth is a self regulating homoeostatic mechanism that will survive, with or without us.
what is very important, is that whatever your faith or non faith, we have a duty of stewardship (if not for our children's children , then for the creatues)
we affect the birds and beasts - we are indeed, by our ever increasing numbers, or intense use of areas, impacting their environment in such a strong way, that they cannot evolve, or find differing habits to suit, and that we will take many of them down with us, if we don't adjust the way in which we live and conduct ourselves.
where possible we must endeavour to 'see the wood for the trees'
The Arctic Ice cover is shrinking and the rate at which it is shrinking is increasing year on year. Global warming is not universally constant and the temperatures are rising faster in the Arctic than they are elsewhere. The main reason for this appears to be that ice reflects sunlight but water absorbs it, so that as the ice cover shrinks the Arctic Ocean absorbs more heat, which melts more ice. The National Snow And Ice Data Center publishes a daily update on http://nsidc.org/arcticseaicenews/ (http://nsidc.org/arcticseaicenews/)
Polar bears and seals (whose pups are their main food source) are dependent on sea-ice for foraging, resting, and reproduction. The Arctic ecosystem was shaped by climate and continues to be driven today by climate. Clearly a shrinking environment cannot fail to impact on their numbers and this is already happening.
According to a 2009 report by the IUCN Polar Bear Specialist Group, of the 19 recognised subpopulations of polar bears, 8 are in decline, 1 is increasing, 3 are stable and 7 don't have enough data to draw any conclusions. However, one thing is for sure, no sea ice, no bears!
The idea that if a politician says something about global warming, it must be based on rigid scientific results is misguided. It just shows Bob doesn't understand the difference between politics and science.
The idea that because of an exagerrated doom scenario uttered by a politician, the work of tens of thousands of scientists all over the world would be discredited, is another misguided conclusion showing Bob doesn't understand science.
Just curious, are you also a Creationist?
I think what is missing here is some context. What Moynihan wrote in that September 1969 memo was an argument advocating a world wide CO2 monitoring system. It sure would be nice to have more information about the CO2 in our atmosphere now.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Carbon_dioxide_in_Earth%27s_atmosphere (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Carbon_dioxide_in_Earth%27s_atmosphere)
I did the math. CO2 levels have risen by about 14% from 1970 to 2000. Lower than the 25% Moynihan mentioned, but it's anybody's guess how close to 25% (or over it) it would have been if no measures against carbon emission had been taken in the meantime. His figure is certainly in the ballpark.
i think the point here is - in 1969, they could have spent money on gathering information about a problem most scientists at the time agreed existed or you could do nothing. Of course, since repuglicans abhor knowledge, nothing got done.
STOG! I've never heard it so eloquently said! Well done! :yes:
This is extremely interesting stuff to me! I've been wondering about the latest, but I hadn't taken the time to research it.
Thanks to NiHo for starting the thread and offering his thoughts. ;) Speaking of which, I feel my world is far less interesting since NiHo's shouts are silent. :unhappy:
I think this is the first time I've felt like entering a scientific discussion on Fibsboard. :laugh:
My offering is............it's been fricking unseasonably HOT in Oklahoma so far this year, 105.1 F today, and I have noticed the gradual increase since I have been living here. :dry: Now, water aside, and whatever else aside, this I see as a trend, but who is to say the next x # of years will not go the other way? :unsure:
For those who would put down anothers views, please just keep to topic, and don't get abusively personal. Thx in advance. ;))xoxox
socksey
boop shouts: Adam tells God that Eve is having a wash in the river ....... God: NOOOOOOOOOOO!!!!! I'll never get the smell out of those fish!!
Maybe the polar bears will be relocated to the mainland when the ice is sufficiently gone? :unsure:
socksey
"What the scientists have in their briefcases is terrifying." – Nikita Khrushchev, Premier of the Soviet Union, born in 1894
Polar bears live on seal pups. Arctic seals depend on sea ice to give birth and wean their pups. Artic ice is now forming later and in the winter and melting earlier in the Spring, reducing the time available for seals to rear their pups. Seals, not being very good movers once out of the water, obviously don't travel too far from the open sea. If the ice melts under a pregnant or nursing female seal, the pup dies. This means fewer seal pups and of course less hunting time for polar bears to find and eat their primary food source, which is of course already in short supply.
Polar bears can walk on ice and snow deposited on land and they can swim vast distances to get to it if they have to, but there isn't anything there for them to eat, because there isn't enough space for the seals to get out of the water and raise their young.
In the Arctic, as in all nature, everything is linked and dependent on something else. The loss of the Arctic ice will be tragic for the seals and the bears, but the global effects are going to be even more tragic for humans. I won't be around to see the worst of it, but my grandchildren will. We can alter the way we live and try to influence what is happening in a positive way for a change, or we can do nothing and hope that it gets better by itself.
Hoping that the Polar bears will all move to Canada and find an alternative food source is not an option.
Here's an article on polar bears re: global warming:
http://www.associatedcontent.com/article/8087845/global_warming_affecting_polar_bears.html?cat=58 (http://www.associatedcontent.com/article/8087845/global_warming_affecting_polar_bears.html?cat=58)
A quote from this article:
"Is Global Warming as dangerous and fast-approaching as the public is lead to believe? Are polar bears in danger? My guess is that the rise in temperature will hurt them and us, but we'll all adapt over time. Rises in temperature are natural parts of earth's cycles. The earth is simply entering a stage of warming and will one day cool down."
socksey
"The thing about Reggie (Jackson) is that you know he's going to produce. And if he doesn't, he's going to talk enough to make people think he's going to produce." Catfish Hunter, American baseball player, born in 1946
I'm not sure how much value one should put in the "guess" of that article's author "DesiGirl4111". Might as well ask the 8-ball then.
I prefer to hear from experts on the subject, people that actually know what they're talking about: academically schooled and using facts and logic to arrive at their conclusions.
Quote from: socksey on May 30, 2011, 09:25:33 PM
Rises in temperature are natural parts of earth's cycles. The earth is simply entering a stage of warming and will one day cool down."
We live in an ice age, and the warming mankind produces will not create a new jurassic. That's not the point anyway, earth has been both a lot warmer and a lot cooler in the past. The problem is the speed of the change. Courtesy of man-made factors, the warming takes place in what in geological terms is "blindlingly fast", means within centuries. We are only at the beginning of a process of which nobody of us will live to see the results. And to work around such a process also takes more than one generation. Earth-scale processes are beyond what is readily grasped. Same trap as the exponential growth or random, which fool common sense as easily.
The consequences of global warming are complex, and not limited to spectacular natural desaster pictures. That probably is the exception even, desertification does not yield spectacular images and is painfully slow a process.
For example a draught, which could make millions of people want to move an already conflicted area, leading to a war. Or a sharp rise in wheat prices which will cause a revolution on the other side of the planet. A river drying up leading to the overuse of ground water, eventually leading to losing a whole city to the desert.
Global warming is like dice, you can not predict the actual event. But you know that each roll contributes to moving forward. Just because the complexity is too overwhelming to grasp easily doesn't mean it doesn't exist.
Will it be your ass suffering the consequences? Probably not. You live in a rich country with a powerful army. The western countries will do whatever it is required to stay in the comfort zone despite the changes and desasters elsewhere. Thus I am so glad that for you personally earth "simply entering a stage of warming". Just as on the other side of the planet a few million "simply enter a stage of war", "a stage of starvation" or a "stage of being refugees". So glad it is not your ass.
Will mankind cease to exist, or polar bears die out? Probably neither. Will earth be able to feed less people? Probably. Will the changes cause major migrations and wars? Almost certainly. Is this something we want? Probably not. Do we need to change our behaviour sooner or later anyway? Yes, the current resource consumption is unmaintainable. So why not just end debating and start changing? Beyond me what this whole climate change denial and downplaying is good for. Unless, of course, you want to procastinate the problem and hand it over to your children, along with a few trillion debt to make it harder to solve.
P.S. The polar bears better adapt within 100 years by growing gills. That is the latest when the north pole will be completely ice free in the winter. Maybe they also learn to hibernate while swimming 6 months. We will see how evolution reacts, 100 years are plenty of time ... not.