Earth Watch, Climate Wars & an ozone map from 1979-2008

[stog]

worryingly i have witnessed folks talking of "no climate change etc (where co2 mechanism is perhaps questionable and western temperatures don't show increase etc) however.........

polar melt and sea level rise is a reality + the ozone hole over Antarctica (accepted by most to be man induced), is much increased since 1979 - by a lot -- see attached map

ozone map 1979-2008

http://cires.colorado.edu

http://earthobservatory.nasa.gov/IOTD/view.php?id=38835


good info on arctic ice here .. http://nsidc.org/arcticseaicenews/faq.html

[stog]

[stog]

see the Earth Art Photo gallery Art of a Changing World here

[spielberg]

Anyone still a denier has not read (or oftentimes understood!) the arguments. Best recent precis is here on the Beeb.
(Slang guide for non Brits: "Beeb" = BBC)

[stog]

Earth Watch http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/thereporters/richardblack/

[stog]

good factual but accessible & watchable BBC programme Hot Planet available to view for next 6 days..........

http://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/b00jf6md

[stog]

also
Earth: The Climate Wars
http://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/b00djvq9

the 2 nd program is available for 7 days

Dr Iain Stewart investigates the counter-attack launched by global warming sceptics in the 1990s.

[stog]

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/europe/8421935.stm#id8420000/8421900/8421918

[stog]

[stog]

What will happen when oil runs out? The thoughts of some Year 9 science pupils in Loreto College Coleraine

nice link on oil supplies
http://www.lcc.ukf.net/KS3Work/oilrunsout.htm

[stog]

i read with alarm one fibsters interpretation of current conditions of cold in the populous northern hemisphere as further proof of his scepticism re 'warm earth'. but as he has me gagged (perhaps his only sensible action!) i did not bother engaging in the shouts - though a lot did thank heavens..

it is a fact that newfoundland greenland etc are way warmer than usual while we in uk and northern states are colder than usual....

here are some more informative articles

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/sci/tech/8451756.stm#

http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/thereporters/richardblack/2010/01/arctic_conditions_arctic_cause.html

http://dotearth.blogs.nytimes.com/2010/01/04/polar-pressure-pattern-driving-chill-nearly-off-chart/

[stog]

Please take 5 minutes to listen to the words of Severine Suzuki, the then 12 year old daughter of a famous environmentalist professor, making a speech in front of the United Nations.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5JvVf1piHXg#

[socksey]

Wow!  Out of the mouths of babes!     She really put us in our place, didn't she?!   

Thanks for sharing this, stog.  It was quite riveting.  I think I'm gonna clean out my closets and get rid of a lot of excess clothing and other things that someone less fortunate than me can use.   

socksey



I don't know why we are here, but I'm pretty sure that it is not in order to enjoy ourselves. - Ludwig Wittgenstein

[stog]

[NIHILIST]

Very impressive, I'm going out and buy a new watch, a pair of alligator shoes, and the largest, gas-guzzling SUV i can find. I just don't know any other way to overcome my sorrow.

Bob

[NIHILIST]

The ozone hole the child refers to is repairing itself, something scientists told us wasn't supposed to happen. Polar bear populations are INCREASING. The mass of Antarctic ice is INCREASING, contrary to what the global warmists would have you believe. The Nobel Prize winning climate panel of the international body the child is addressing has been completely discredited as has their Nobel co-winner Al Gore. The single most important climate scientist on the planet has been caught cooking the books, has been forced to step down from his lofty position, and in testimony before Parliament admitted there hasn't been any warming in 15 years.

If you were to feel any outrage at all, I suggest it should be directed toward the "scientists" who have perpetrated this colossal swindle. Yet, too many of you continue to look under your pillows expecting the tooth fairy's leavings.

If the UN were to truly be effective it should concentrate on real pollution issues; the fouling of our rivers, lakes and oceans. Each nation of the world should act similarly. If big companies persist in dumping waste into our rivers, SHUT THEM DOWN !!!

The social ills the child speaks of in Latin America and Africa are largely the result of centuries of despotic rule . The Brazilian government allows the deforestation of the Amazon rainforest, supposedly in the interest of making more land available for growing food, and, ergo, a better future for its children. At the same time, approximately 2 million homeless children live on the streets of Sao Paulo. I have seen this first hand.

Now we learn that Colombia's deforestation to clear land for planting coca contributes to global warming.

In the great cities of Europe, young children who have been sold to modern-day Fagins by their parents, form gangs and pick pockets. I have encountered this personally in Paris and Rome.

In Africa and Asia, parents intentionally maim their children so as to make them more sympathetic as street beggars. The civilized world has poured billions into famine relief in Africa only to see it looted by the politicians charged with their childrens' futures.

It's certainly noble to feel sympathy, but guilt ? I think not. Civilization has been on the road to self-destruction since the beginning of time, whether its the Inquisition, institutionalized slavery, witch burnings or the Holocaust. Each generation must make of it what it can and , hopefully, improve things for the next. This has occurred in some parts of the world, but sadly not in others.

This child is saying nothing different than my generation said to our parents, only the topics are different. I wish that what she's urging could be made to happen, unfortunately I've lived long enough to know it's not very likely.


Bob

[dorbel]

Polar bear populations are INCREASING.

This myth is comprehensively dealt with at http://www.grist.org/article/will-polar-bears-go-extinct-by-2030-part-i/
Their final argument is the most chilling, which is that Arctic ice is diappearing at a great and increasing rate, as one can see on http://nsidc.org/ , the USA's own snow and ice date center. The arctic seals breed and raise their young on arctic sea ice and it is on seals that polar bears depend for their food supply. No habitat, no seals, no bears.

If the UN were to truly be effective it should concentrate on real pollution issues; the fouling of our rivers, lakes and oceans. Each nation of the world should act similarly. If big companies persist in dumping waste into our rivers, SHUT THEM DOWN !!!

There are two inconsistencies here. First. one can't logically say that it is wrong to pollute the oceans but ok to pollute the air. The atmosphere and the ocean are interdependent parts of a global system. Either pollution matters or it doesn't. Second, who is to shut down the polluting companies? Government? How does the writer, implacably opposed to governement interference in any sphere, square that circle?

Finally, global warming itself. Governments worldwide have asked scientists to set up bodies to gather data to see whether global warming is happening, and if it is happening, why. All of these bodies arrive at the same conclusion, which is that it is happening and that greenhouse gases produced by humans are the prime cause. The only matter for serious debate is how fast it is happening, but as even the most conservative estimates will have very serious consquences action is obviously necessary. It is however clear that the process is extremely complex, non-linear and subject to wide local variations, viz the entirely correct observation that the Antartic is colder than "usual" with the result that Southern Polar Ice is actually increasing at present. Obviously, only observing the global picture over periods as long as possible can produce meaningful data. To point to one area of the planet or one year and say that results there disprove the long term global outlook is not scientific.
Shooting the messenger when the news is bad is an old trick. Not trusting the scientists that one has chosen to write the message and relying instead on populist broadcasters for one's opinion is indeed believing in the tooth fairy.

[Zorba]

The ozone hole the child refers to is repairing itself, something scientists told us wasn't supposed to happen.

Wrong.

The ozone hole has merely stabilized, after decreasing rapidly until the 1990s. It's interesting to note that in 1987 the Montreal Protocol was signed, which came into effect on Jan 1 1989. This is an international treaty designed to protect the ozone layer by phasing out the production of a number of substances believed to be responsible for ozone depletion.



So, the world acted on a global threat, and it's showing results in as much as it seems to have halted the ozone depletion. We're still not back on the levels as seen before 1980 though.

The mass of Antarctic ice is INCREASING, contrary to what the global warmists would have you believe.

Twice wrong.

Global warming science expects more precipitation in general. This can also mean more snow, in certain areas. Whether this balances against higher temperatures causing more melting or rain is dependent on many (local) factors.

Science would not have you believe something false; it's simply your own lack of scientific knowledge and logical reasoning skills that's causing you problems here.

Furthermore, there is (yet) no way that we can actually even measure the mass of Antarctic ice with good accuracy. Recent data actually suggests the Antarctic ice mass is decreasing over the past few years:

A 2002 analysis of NASA satellite data from 1979-1999 showed that areas of Antarctica where ice was increasing outnumbered areas of decreasing ice roughly 2:1. [7] The general trend shows that a warming climate in the southern hemisphere would transport more moisture to Antarctica, causing the interior ice sheets to grow, while calving events along the coast will increase, causing these areas to shrink. However more recent satellite data, which measures changes in the gravity  of the ice mass, suggests that the total amount of ice in Antarctica has begun decreasing in the past few years. [8] Another recent study compared the ice leaving the ice sheet, by measuring the ice velocity and thickness along the coast, to the amount of snow accumulation over the continent. This found that the East Antarctic Ice Sheet was in balance but the West Antarctic Ice Sheet was losing mass. This was largely due to acceleration of ice streams  such as Pine Island Glacier. These results agree closely with the gravity changes. [9] [10]

The Nobel Prize winning climate panel of the international body the child is addressing has been completely discredited

Wrong again, the bulk of IPCC's scientific conclusions are still endorsed by nearly all national science associations and an overwhelming majority of relevant scientists.

Various scientific bodies have issued official statements praising the IPCC and endorsing their findings.

    * Joint science academies' statement-2001

    The work of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) represents the consensus of the international scientific community on climate change science. We recognise IPCC as the world's most reliable source of information on climate change and its causes, and we endorse its method of achieving this consensus.[98]

    * Canadian Foundation for Climate and Atmospheric Sciences

    We concur with the climate science assessment of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) in 2001 ... We endorse the conclusions of the IPCC assessment...[99]

    * Canadian Meteorological and Oceanographic Society

    CMOS endorses the process of periodic climate science assessment carried out by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change and supports the conclusion, in its Third Assessment Report, which states that the balance of evidence suggests a discernible human influence on global climate.[100]

    * European Geosciences Union

    The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change...is the main representative of the global scientific community....IPCC third assessment report...represents the state-of-the-art of climate science supported by the major science academies around the world and by the vast majority of scientific researchers and investigations as documented by the peer-reviewed scientific literature.[101]

    * National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (US)

    Internationally, the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC)... is the most senior and authoritative body providing scientific advice to global policy makers.[102]

    * National Research Council (US)

    The IPCC's conclusion that most of the observed warming of the last 50 years is likely to have been due to the increase in greenhouse gas concentrations accurately reflects the current thinking of the scientific community on this issue.[103]

    * Network of African Science Academies

    The IPCC should be congratulated for the contribution it has made to public understanding of the nexus that exists between energy, climate and sustainability.[104]

    * Royal Meteorological Society

    In response to the release of the Fourth Assessment Report, the Royal Meteorological Society referred to the IPCC as “The world's best climate scientists”.[105]

    * Stratigraphy Commission of the Geological Society of London

    The most authoritative assessment of climate change in the near future is provided by the Inter-Governmental Panel for Climate Change.[106]

The single most important climate scientist on the planet has been caught cooking the books,

Wrong twice.

There is no "single most important climate scientist". Science, especially one like this, is a massive co-production.

Second, Mr. Mann has actually been cleared of most charges, by several independent reviews:

Pennsylvania State University announced in December 2009 it would review the work of Michael Mann, in particular looking at anything that had not already been addressed in an earlier National Academy of Sciences review which had found some faults with his methodology but agreed with the results.[46][47][48]  In response, Mann said he would welcome the review.[48]  As a result of the inquiry, the investigatory committee determined there was no credible evidence Mann suppressed or falsified data, destroyed email, information and/or data related to the IPCC Fourth Assessment Report, or misused privileged or confidential information.

If you were to feel any outrage at all, I suggest it should be directed toward the "scientists" who have perpetrated this colossal swindle. Yet, too many of you continue to look under your pillows expecting the tooth fairy's leavings.

As shown above, the only swindler here is you.

[NIHILIST]

I never stated it's OK TO POLLUTE THE AIR and challenge dorbel to produce any such quote.

I never made any reference to Michael Mann, though his HOCKEY STICK GRAPH has been discredited. I don't think professors at Penn State testify before Parliament.

Bob

[NIHILIST]

Just a few final points here.

The embattled ex-head of the research center at the heart of the Climate-gate scandal, Dr Phil Jones, dropped a bombshell over the weekend, admitting in an interview with the BBC that there has been no global warming over the past 15 years.

Soooooooooooooo, If greenhouse gases produced by humans are the prime cause, and more and more of these gases have been discharged into the atmosphere in recent years, why no concominant increase in temperature ?

Scientists at the heart of the Climategate row were yesterday accused by a leading academic body of undermining science's credibility.

The Institute of Physics said 'worrying implications' had been raised after it was revealed the University of East Anglia had manipulated data on global warming.

This, to me, is the essence of the issue. If the issue is so clear, why the need to manipulate data ? It's this and the laughable, flagrant errors in the UN's Climate Panel Report that destroy any credibility these alleged scientists might once have had.

See, guys, once the top scientist admits to cooking the books to suit his own agenda, and breaking British law by refusing Freedom Of Information Act requests by other scientists to release the CRU data, and admitting after years of statements to the contrary, that there's been NO GLOBAL WARMING in the last 15 years, the jig is up.


Bob

PS I certainly don't want to neglect the poor Polar bears.   

Though polar bears are uniquely adapted to the Arctic region, they are not wedded solely to its coldest parts nor are they restricted to a specific Arctic diet. Aside from a variety of seals, they eat fish, kelp, caribou, ducks, sea birds and scavenged whale and walrus carcasses. In addition, Arctic air temperatures were as high as present temperatures in the 1930s and polar bears survived.

The World Wildlife Fund (WWF), an international organization that has worked for 50 years to protect endangered species, has also written on the threats posed to polar bears from global warming. However, their own research seems to undermine their fears. According to the WWF, about 20 distinct polar bear populations exist, accounting for approximately 22,000 polar bears worldwide. WWF figures show population patterns do not show a temperature-linked decline:

•Only two of the distinct population groups, accounting for about 16.4 percent of the total population, are decreasing.
•Ten populations, approximately 45.4 percent of the total number, are stable.
•Another two populations - about 13.6 percent of the total number of polar bears - are increasing.
The status of the remaining six populations (whether they are stable, increasing or decreasing in size) is unknown

[Zorba]

These episodes of Bob's Global Warming Skepticism are brought to you by Exxon, General Motors and the Car Salesmen Union
I'm sorry, do you actually have any facts that are not lies?

Accusations are easy to make. So far however, all your accusations lack any evidence and are based on hearsay. Most of what you post here I already debunked in my earlier reply, I suggest you read up on the subject through a credible source, rather than rely on political blogs and talk radio for your "information".

Here's what REALLY happened:

The report submitted by the Institute of Physics expresses concern about the CRU's scientific integrity.[37]  According to this report, the emails reveal evidence of "determined and coordinated refusals" to comply with scientific traditions through "manipulation of the publication and peer-review system" and "intolerance to challenge".[38]  This report was used by climate sceptics to bolster claims that the problem of global warming is exaggerated. This forced the Institute of Physics to confirm that its position was that "the basic science is well enough understood to be sure that our climate is changing, and that we need to take action now to mitigate that change."[39]  Many experts considered that the correction was still inadequate, with climatologist Andy Russell describing the allegation of data suppression as "incorrect and irresponsible". The institute said that the statement had been prepared by their energy subcommittee, but would not reveal who had produced it. It did say that the subcommittee included an IOP official named Peter Gill, whose company provides services to the energy industry[/i][/b]

Yes, the jig is up for Peter Gill, just as the jig was up for all those cancer skeptics in the eighties, who didn't believe (passive) smoking caused lung cancer. Just like NIHo, they also produced random quotes ("my uncle smoked every day and lived into his nineties") and so-called scientific research, or claims of discrediting evidence, despite the scientific consensus about the subject. Are we really surprised this operation was all funded by tobacco companies, as a class-act lawsuit revealed many years later? Some people never learn from history, it seems.

I'll give you one free lesson on climatology, the rest you'll have to look up yourself. Climate is not measured on a per year basis, nor does global warming mean or predict that every year will be hotter than the previous one. Climate is not even measured on a 15 year basis. A common standard is to use a 30 year period. This is done to reduce the effects of short(er) term fluctuations, such as the irregular El Nino/La Nina cycle and the solar activity cycle. Looking at the 30-year moving average, we're definitely still on the rise in global temperature, and it's a steep slope.

These episodes of Bob's Global Warming Skepticism are brought to you by Exxon, General Motors and the Car Salesmen Union

[NIHILIST]

You still haven't dealt with the fact that the scientist in charge of gathering all the data that AGW is premised on has admitted theres been NO GLOBAL WARMING IN FIFTEEN YEARS. If you took his word for all these years, why don't you accept it now ?

Why haven't the multitude of scientists out there come forward to refute Dr Jones ? The reason they can't is that they've relied on his admittedly rigged data.

BTW, you and Professor Dorbel need to get your stories straight.........he agrees with me that Antarctic ice is INCREASING.


Bob

[NIHILIST]

New reports from the Australian Antarctic Division Glaciology Program indicates that ice is expanding in most of Antarctica. The area designated as Western Antarctica is seeing some ice loss. The area known as the Eastern Antarctica is seeing ice expansion.

Eastern Antarctica is four times the size of Western Antarctica. The increasing ice in the Eastern portion of the continent has "more than offset" the ice losses in West Antarctica, according to Dr. Ian Allison of the Australian Antarctic Division. "Sea ice conditions have remained stable in Antarctica," said Allison. The Scientific Committee on Antarctic Research told a meeting of Antarctic Treaty nations last week that the South Pole had shown "significant cooling in recent decades."

Not heard on Australian talk radio.

Bob

[ah_clem]

So how did I know that as soon as shouts went down this board would be inundated with the usual misinformation re climate change that bores everyone to tears on shouts?

[NIHILIST]

Because your intuition is as finely honed as your backgammon skills.

Bob

[diane]

Looking at the 30-year moving average, we're definitely still on the rise in global temperature, and it's a steep slope.

Yes 30 years is definitely representative of a planet 4.54 billion years old....

It will cycle, it will change and you cant measure any of that over 30 years, or a 100 years, or a 1000 years - so to cite evidence like that will just cause endless cyclic debate and give everyone planet sized loop holes to wiggle out of.

The facts are: we need an ozone layer for our species to survive, lots of things that we produce react with and remove ozone - is it therefore wise to keep pumping them into the atmosphere if we can do something else??

In each case, lets assess it on the facts - do we know this is interfering with something we need? Can we do something else? Then lets do that - and maybe we will give our species a better chance for longer.

I love the argument that nuclear power is the cleanest energy source we can use...and if you look only at certain facts...it is.  The problem is we don't look at the big picture, we always look at the most profitable option, not all the costs incurred further down the line that we can shuffle to somewhere else..

[Zorba]

You still haven't dealt with the fact that the scientist in charge of gathering all the data that AGW is premised on has admitted theres been NO GLOBAL WARMING IN FIFTEEN YEARS. If you took his word for all these years, why don't you accept it now ?

I gave you a free lesson in climatology above. Go read it.

[Zorba]

Yes 30 years is definitely representative of a planet 4.54 billion years old....

Do you know what a "moving average" is? The idea is you compare the global temperature from 1979-2009 to 1978-2008, 1977-2007, etc. It's not even supposed to represent the entire history of the earth's temperature, quite the opposite in fact. You just compare different periods of 30 year to each other, and by doing this, we can measure climate change.

It will cycle, it will change and you cant measure any of that over 30 years, or a 100 years, or a 1000 years - so to cite evidence like that will just cause endless cyclic debate and give everyone planet sized loop holes to wiggle out of.

Actually you can measure this, and this is exactly what's being done and what has informed us about global warming in the first place. A picture says more than a thousand words:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Nasa-giss_1880-2009_global_temperature.svg

[diane]

I know exactly what a moving average is, what it can tell you, and what its limitations are. We use them in production all the time. It can very accurately tell how a process a few years old is changing - it can't tell you anything about what came before you started measuring though.

I like the 1880 - 2000 graph - very pretty.  Is it useful in terms of what we NEED to prove to a world who would watch a treasured possession burn, arguing over whether to put it out with water or foam? And which is cheapest... I think not.

My concern is that we do not, as a species, act, we procrastinate. And stats give you all the procrastination time in the universe.  Work with knowns, do REAL risk assessments - and if the outcome is EVER 'catastrophic', or 'terminal to life as we know it', then even if the likelihood is 'rare' or 'improbable', it still requires that we act on it.

[Zorba]

New reports from the Australian Antarctic Division Glaciology Program indicates that ice is expanding in most of Antarctica. The area designated as Western Antarctica is seeing some ice loss. The area known as the Eastern Antarctica is seeing ice expansion.

Eastern Antarctica is four times the size of Western Antarctica. The increasing ice in the Eastern portion of the continent has "more than offset" the ice losses in West Antarctica, according to Dr. Ian Allison of the Australian Antarctic Division. "Sea ice conditions have remained stable in Antarctica," said Allison. The Scientific Committee on Antarctic Research told a meeting of Antarctic Treaty nations last week that the South Pole had shown "significant cooling in recent decades."

Just in case you hadn't spotted the red herring this journalist produces above: The South Pole is not the Antarctic Continent, but a very small part of it. As you can read in the original reports, the continent as a whole is warming up.

It's good you mention the SCAR. Here's what they really write; original sources, not the mangled hearsay from under-educated journalists you always produce.


Temperatures reconstructed from ice cores show large inter-annual to decadal variability,
with the dominant pattern being anti-phase anomalies between the continent and the
peninsula, which is the classic signature of the SAM. The reconstruction suggests that
Antarctic temperatures increased on average by about 0.2°C since the late nineteenth
century.


and

The Antarctic ozone hole
27. Stratospheric ozone levels began to decline in the 1970s, following widespread releases of
CFCs and halons into the atmosphere that destroyed virtually all ozone between heights of
14 and 22 km over Antarctica. Owing to the success of the Montreal Protocol, the
amounts of ozone-depleting substances in the stratosphere are now decreasing by about
1% per year. As a result the size and depth of the ozone hole have stabilised; neither are
yet reducing.

and

30. Ice shelves in the Antarctic Peninsula have changed rapidly in recent decades. Warming has
caused retreat of ice shelves on both sides of the Peninsula. Loss of ice on the eastern side
results from warm air being brought over the Peninsula by the stronger westerlies forced
by changes in the SAM, driven ultimately by the development of the ozone hole. Ice-shelf
retreat results from increased fracturing via melt-water infilling of pre-existing crevasses,
and the penetration of warm ocean masses beneath ice shelves. Removal of ice shelves
has led to the speeding up of glacier flow from inland.
31. Some formerly snow- and ice-covered islands are now increasingly snow-free during the
summer. Glaciers on Heard Island reduced by 11% since the 1940s, and several coastal
lagoons have formed there. On South Georgia, 28 of 36 surveyed glaciers are retreating, 2
are advancing, and 6 are stable. On Signy Island ice cover has reduced by around 40%.
32. Of the 244 marine glaciers that drain the ice sheet and associated islands of the Antarctic
Peninsula, 212 (87%) have shown overall retreat since 1953. The other 32 glaciers have
shown small advances.

Yeah I could go on and on like this.

[jackdaddy]

So how did I know that as soon as shouts went down this board would be inundated with the usual misinformation re climate change that bores everyone to tears on shouts?

The nice thing clem, is it's easier to ignore here...   

[NIHILIST]

What part of Eastern Antarctica is four times the size of Western Antarctica. The increasing ice in the Eastern portion of the continent has "more than offset" the ice losses in West Antarctica, according to Dr. Ian Allison of the Australian Antarctic Division don't you understand ?

To, once again, return to the irrefutable part of the saga, the guy who robbed the bank has confessed. There's no way around that. And the only one trying to come to his rescue is you.

The poor guy's career is in ruins, he's admitted to thoughts of suicide, he couldn't be questioned too vigorously by Parliament because he appeared on the edge of a nervous breakdown, and, as a "scientist", he's not fit to clean the crap from the guinea pig cages.

His actions have destroyed any credibility he and the AGW movement might have had. I hope it was worth it to him.

Bob

[stog]

a letter...

[Zorba]

What part of Eastern Antarctica is four times the size of Western Antarctica. The increasing ice in the Eastern portion of the continent has "more than offset" the ice losses in West Antarctica, according to Dr. Ian Allison of the Australian Antarctic Division don't you understand ?

You quote exactly three words here, out of context. The rest is some journalist's write-up, apparently. I'd like you to show me the data of these ice increases and losses: that's science; you're just posting journalist's impressions here.

To, once again, return to the irrefutable part of the saga, the guy who robbed the bank has confessed.

Confessed to what? And what does "robbing the bank" mean? The sentence above has zero factual, let alone scientific, content.

The poor guy's career is in ruins,

Really? Source?

His actions have destroyed any credibility he and the AGW movement might have had. I hope it was worth it to him.

As far as there is any AGW movement, that's a political thing and an entirely different subject.

The AGW theory we were discussing here is not a movement, it's just the scientifical consensus following tons of independent research by thousands of scientists all over the world.

There is a evangelicalish Global Warming Skeptics movement though, of which you seem to be a member. Driven by emotions, manipulations, outright lies, paranoia even, and political or even religious agendas, and not based on any scientific evidence. Their only method to pretend knowledge is to cherry-pick quotes out of context and make suggestive statemements, similar to what Creationists or the Intelligent Design movement do.


When it comes to Mr. Mann, his credibility is still pretty good with most people, and the whole hacking incident has not produced any evidence against the AGW theory, regardless of your wishful thinking and your own complete lack of credibility on this subject. Nearly the entire scientific community and many national governments have released statements to that effect.

[diane]

I am Zorba and Nihi are taking this on so seriously...maybe now something will finally get done...or will they just argue/debate for the next 16 years and fail to agree?

Still, as long as they cant agree on what needs to be done - we can carry on just as we are, over here, and close the doors so their discussion doesn't trouble us too much.

[stog]

UNIVERSAL DECLARATION OF THE RIGHTS OF MOTHER EARTH

[draft February 2010]

Spoiler

Preamble

We, the peoples of Earth:

gratefully acknowledging that Mother Earth gives us life, nourishes and teaches us and provides us with all that we need to live well;

recognizing that Mother Earth is an indivisible community of diverse and interdependent beings with whom we share a common destiny and to whom we must relate in ways that benefit Mother Earth;acknowledging that by attempting to dominate and exploit Mother Earth and other beings, humans have caused severe destruction, degradation and disruption of the life-sustaining communities, processes and balances of Mother Earth which now threatens the wellbeing and existence of many beings;

conscious that this destruction is also harmful to our inner wellbeing and is offensive to the many faiths, wisdom traditions and indigenous cultures for whom Mother Earth is sacred;

acutely conscious of the critical importance and urgency of taking decisive, collective action to prevent humans causing climate change and other impacts on Mother Earth that threaten the wellbeing and survival of humans and other beings;

accepting our responsibility to one another, future generations and Mother Earth to heal the damage caused by humans and to pass on to future generations values, traditions, and institutions that support the flourishing of Mother Earth;

convinced that in order for communities of humans and other beings to flourish we must establish systems for governing human behavior that recognize the inalienable rights of Mother Earth and of all beings that are part of her;

convinced that the fundamental freedoms and rights of Mother Earth and of all beings should be protected by the rule of law, and that the corresponding duties of human beings to respect and defend these rights and freedoms should be enforced by law;

proclaim this Universal Declaration of the Rights of Mother Earth to complement the Universal Declaration of Human Rights and to serve as a common standard by which the conduct of all human beings, organizations, and cultures can be guided and assessed; and

pledge ourselves to cooperate with other human communities, public and private organizations, governments, and the United Nations, to secure the universal and effective recognition and observance of the fundamental freedoms, rights and duties enshrined in this Declaration, among all the peoples, cultures and states of Earth.

Article 1.           Fundamental rights, freedoms and duties

(1)   Mother Earth is an indivisible, self-regulating community of interrelated beings each of whom is defined by its relationships within this community and with the Universe as a whole. Fundamental aspects of these relationships are expressed in this Declaration as inalienable rights, freedoms and duties.

(2)   These fundamental rights, freedoms and duties arise from the same source as existence and are inherent to all beings, consequently they are inalienable, cannot be abolished by law, and are not affected by the political, jurisdictional or international status of the country or territory within which a being exists.

(3)   All beings are entitled to all the fundamental rights and freedoms recognized in this Declaration without distinction of any kind, such as may be made between organic, living beings and inorganic, non-living beings, or on the basis of sentience, kind, species, use to humans, or other status.

(4)   Just as human beings have human rights, other beings may also have additional rights, freedoms and duties that are specific to their species or kind and appropriate for their role and function within the communities within which they exist.

(5)   The rights of each being are limited by the rights of other beings to the extent necessary to maintain the integrity, balance and health of the communities within which it exists.

Article 2.           Fundamental rights of Mother Earth

Mother Earth has the right to exist, to persist and to continue the vital cycles, structures, functions and processes that sustain all beings.

Article 3.           Fundamental rights and freedoms of all beings

Every being has:

(a)   the right to exist;

(b)   the right to habitat or a place to be;

(c)   the right to participate in accordance with its nature in the ever-renewing processes of Mother Earth;

(d)   the right to maintain its identity and integrity as a distinct, self-regulating being;

(e)   the right to be free from pollution, genetic contamination and human modifications of its structure or functioning that threaten its integrity or healthy functioning; and

(f)     the freedom to relate to other beings and to participate in communities of beings in accordance with its nature.

Article 4.           Freedom of animals from torture and cruelty

Every animal has the right to live free from torture, cruel treatment or punishment by human beings.

Article 5.           Freedom of animals from confinement and removal from habitat

(1)   No human being has the right to confine another animal or to remove it from its habitat unless doing so is justifiable with reference to the respective rights, duties and freedoms of both the human and other animal concerned.

(2)   Any human being that confines or keeps another animal must ensure that it is free to express normal patterns of behavior, has adequate nourishment and is protected from injury, disease, suffering and unreasonable fear, pain, distress or discomfort.

Article 6.           Fundamental duties of human beings

Human beings have a special responsibility to avoid acting in violation of this Declaration and must urgently establish values, cultures, and legal, political, economic and social systems consistent with this Declaration that:

(a)   promote the full recognition, application and enforcement of the freedoms, rights and duties set out in this Declaration;

(b)   ensure that the pursuit of human wellbeing contributes to the wellbeing of Mother Earth, now and in the future;

(c)   prevent humans from causing harmful disruptions of vital ecological cycles, processes and balances, and from compromising the genetic viability and continued survival of other species;

(d)   ensure that the damage caused by human violations of the freedoms, rights and duties in this Declaration is rectified where possible and that those responsible are held accountable for restoring the integrity and healthy functioning of affected communities; and

(e)   enable people to defend the rights of Mother Earth and of all beings.

Article 7.           Protection of the law

Every being has –

(a)   the right to be recognised everywhere as a subject before the law;

(b)   the right to the protection of the law and to an effective remedy in respect of human violations or attacks on the rights and freedoms recognized in this Declaration;

(c)   the right to equal protection of the law; and

(d)   the right to equal protection against any discrimination by humans in violation of this Declaration and against any incitement to such discrimination.

Article 8.           Human education

(1)   Every human being has the right to be educated about Mother Earth and how to live in accordance with this Declaration.

(2)   Human education must develop the full potential of human beings in a way that promotes a love of Mother Earth, compassion, understanding, tolerance and affection among all humans and between humans and other beings, and the observance of the fundamental freedoms, rights and duties in this Declaration.

Article 9.           Interpretation

(1)   The term "being" refers to natural beings which exist as part of Mother Earth and includes a community of other beings and all human beings regardless of whether or not they act as a corporate body, state or other legal person.

(2)   Nothing in this Declaration may be interpreted as implying for any State, group or person any right to engage in any activity or to perform any act aimed at the destruction of any of the rights and freedoms in it.

(3)   Nothing in this Declaration may be interpreted as restricting the recognition of other fundamental rights, freedoms or duties of all or specified beings.

[close]

DRAFT UNIVERSAL DECLARATION OF THE RIGHTS OF MOTHER EARTH
http://pwccc.wordpress.com/2010/02/07/draft-universal-declaration-of-the-rights-of-mother-earth-2/


see also
Earth spirits' twin visions on climate
http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/thereporters/richardblack/

[stog]

Worldwatch recently issued it's "Vital Signs" report for 2007-2008, including a set of "Vital Facts."

http://www.worldwatch.org/vs2007

Word Salad

          Read the text below out loud, going as fast as you can.

    I cdnuolt blveiee taht I cluod aulacitly mkae out waht I was rdanieg. The phaonmneal pweor of the hmuan mnid! Aoccdrnig to a rsceeeacrhr at Cmabrigde Uinervtisy, it deosn't mttaer in waht oredr the ltteers in a wrod are, the olny iprmoatnt tihng is taht the frist and lsat ltteer be in the rghit pclae. The rset can be a taotl mses and you can sitll raed it wouthit a porbelm. Tihs is bcuseae the huamn mnid deos not raed ervey lteter by istlef, but olny the wrod as a whlohe. It mkaes up waht the ohetr lerttees are. In the smae way, the huamn mnid mkeas up mnaegnig form the fgemratns of ifmaonitron it cllocets, and tihs tehn becmoes its peceporitn of tutrh. We mkae up in our haeds waht we see and prevecie, our mnaegnig of tnighs. And tehn we dnot uesdnatnrd why ohetr ppoele do not prevecie tnighs the smae way we do.

    Aimd goirnwg edinevce taht smoe of the tinsiet maraleits eevr ergeinened psoe petillontay big emovinertnel, hlateh and setafy rskis, menomutm is bindiulg in Cesgrons, in emovinertnel crelcis and in the irtundsy isetlf to beef up faredel orvishegt of the new maraleits, wchih are arealdy sowhnig up in deznos of cemunosr podcurts.

Think About

    *
      What struck you most while you were doing this exercise?
    *
      What does it suggest regarding the internal human thought process?

Copyright 2006 The Trouser Rollers. All Rights Reserved.
www.callipygia600.com

[stog]

Europe debates climate 'ambition

[stog]

Created with 20,000 photographs and a haunting soundtrack, Airsick plays out like an unsettling dream. Photographer Lucas Oleniuk examines our addiction to fossil fuel - and its consequences. See the project at http://mediastorm.com/publication/airsick

[PersianLord]

The adverse effects of the industrial society on climate & environment is quite well known. But the real question is this: how we can SOLVE the problem?

As far as I see, all the solutions proposed so far have been of a rather temporary nature, repeatedly failing to provide a meaningful solution and often-times leading to even more adverse side-effects. I think as far as the basic driver of the modern economy is based on 'saturating consumption', there will be always room to abuse the mother-nature. So, a basic solution must include a structural modification in the economic model of the modern society. (I have a copy of T.K's book on the destructive effects of the industrial society and am willing to give it to anyone interested. Just drop me a line and I'll e-mail it to you)

Another problem contributing to the escalation of the climatic malady is the issue of 'over-population' of our beloved planet. I blame modern medicine and vaccination for this problem. Not only modern medical science has let the human population to literally 'explode', (and you know that a good proportion of this new people are weaklings who'd have been wiped out if we had let the mother-nature to do her job properly) but it also has started a survival war with the micro bio-organisms that we have NO chance to win. Face it; we really can't out-power the bacteria and virus with our dysfunctional drug industry, as they have a tremendous capacity to cope and adapt genetically with the antibiotics and other medic tools. New strings of flu that are resistant to drugs AND inflict MORE damage & pain to the human body is a clear proof to this claim. (alongside with hundreds of mysterious new diseases appearing here and there.) So, I think that in this regard, we should cut this bullshit a break and return to the 'natural' way of life we've been genetically programmed to live.

Regards,

PL 

[stog]

HOME (English with subtitles)


http://www.homethemovie.org/
http://www.goodplanet.info/
http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2011/mar/20/yann-arthus-bertrand-photographer

[diane]

This is an excellent movie, the visuals are breathtaking, I barely recognised the planet I live on from the air.

It is several years old now, but has lost nothing in terms of message - except there is more positive news, documented on the website.

I still think it is foolish to sell global protection as a means to stop climate change....but simply of itself, the right thing to do. From the starting point that one does not sh** in ones own backyard..thus it expands out. Building the most dangerous thing known to mankind, on an area known to be vulnerable to unpredictable earth movements is about the most arrogant and insane thing I can think of.

To wipe out species and creatures we do not even know exist, and those we do not understand is folly of the worst kind, we do not deserve any kind of credit for intelligence.  To wipe out species adapted over millions of years to an environment, then force creatures we bred to not 'fit anywhere' to live in their place...leading to, for just one example, the barbaric practice of mulesing, is only testament to our cosmic childishness.

Hands up anyone who knows how a sealion can travel 200 Ks out to sea for days on end and find its way back to exactly where it left it's pup...
Or how a penguin can lay an egg, go off finding food for weeks, and come back to a hatched chick and know which one is hers, amongst hundreds of thousands...
Does anyone know if the cure for cancer is under a tree in the amazon...or the cure for the general malaise causing us to systematically kill ourselves whilst simutaneously patting ourselves on the back and saying, man, aint we smart - look what we can do....

And they wondered why so many people wanted to move to Pandora and leave this nonsense behind...no wonder at all.

*climbs off soapbox*

[jaytourist]

Climate wars or climate change really affects the earth's stable condition.But I think the whole world is also acting on it before it's too late. And, we are also responsible to do our part in giving mother earth a clean environment for the future of our children.

[stog]

 

Everything you need to know about climate change - interactive

The Guardian's one-stop guide to the facts of global warming, from the science and politics to economics and technology, drawn from their ultimate climate change FAQ.

[stog]

http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2011/aug/25/how-talk-climate-sceptic