posted April 16, 2006 02:11 AM            

quote:

---

The American Meteorological Society (AMS), the nation's leading professional society for those involved in the atmospheric and related sciences, has endorsed a recent statement on climate change by the 11 national science academies.

The “Joint Academies’ Statement: Global Response to Climate Change,” released on 7 June by the U.S National Academy of Science and 10 other national science academies, calls on world leaders to acknowledge the threat of climate change, address its causes, and prepare for its consequences.
http://www.ametsoc.org/amsnews/jointacademies.pdf

---

Los Alamos National Laboratory

quote:

---

In a seminar sponsored by Los Alamos National Laboratory's Energy and Environment Council and College of Santa Fe, economist and climate change expert Jae Edmonds will discuss some of the most promising technological solutions for climate change and the economic implications of applying environmentally-friendly energy technologies.
http://www.lanl.gov/news/index.php?fuseaction=home.story&story_id=1495

---

University of Virginia

Patrick Michaels, right? The senior fellow at the Cato Insititute. Expert? Sort of. Yes, he's a climatologist, and yes he makes a ton of money being an opponent of global warming, but it turns out his big argument against global warming is incorrect. He based it on satellite assessments of the earth's temperature. The satellites were wrong, and they've corrected that situation. As such, he's had to admit that humans are indeed contributing to the planet's warming:

quote:

---

So, now having proven humans are warming the atmosphere,
http://washingtontimes.com/commentary/20031015-085235-5134r.htm

---

He still tries to spin it, so that government doesn't have to get involved. Global warming is good he says.

Arizona State University

I don't have anything on them other than their funding by Bush in the specific field of climate change.

Colorado State University

This school also seems to profit from it's opposition attitude on climate change. They get funding from NASA to develop cloud watching satellites. Pielke, Sr. does a good job keeping the funds coming in, however even Pielke, Sr. agrees with the common assessment to a certain degree as evidenced here:
http://ccc.atmos.colostate.edu/pdfs/CommentsonStrategic%20PlanCCSP.pdf

quote:

---

Human activities have an influence on the climate system. Such activities, however, are not limited to greenhouse gas forcing and include changing land cover and aerosol emissions

---

quote:

---

A lack of an ability to generate accurate projections should not be used as a justification to ignore the policy challenges presented by climate variability and change.

---

U.S. Water Conservation Laboratory

It's clear from looking around their site that they'd prefer to disregard climate change (they call it 'global change'). However, they do reluctantly acknowledge the science.

quote:

---

General circulation models (GCMs) used to simulate climate responses to rising greenhouse gas concentrations project changes in precipitation will accompany rising temperatures, but will vary regionally. Some GCMs also predict that weather variability will increase with global warming, introducing yet more uncertainty and risk into agricultural production.
http://www.ars.usda.gov/research/programs/programs.htm?npnumber=204&docid=855#cwwcfrrs

---

posted April 16, 2006 04:26 AM              

quote:

---

How many nuts buying into the global warming baloney are hairdressers?--jwhop

---

well jwhop, at least theyre better educated on the subject than those dentists and nutritionists who signed your 1992 oism petition

**********

The gossip on global warming - Bold Strokes - environmental education for hairdressers - Brief Article
Sierra, July-August, 2002

posted April 17, 2006 12:49 PM            

To that end, the crackpots of the global warming community may feel free to use this one.

TO THE PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES

We, the undersigned scientists engaged in climate research stake our business and professional reputations on the following statements.

1. The earth is warming beyond the normal range of known cyclic warming behavior.

2. The increased radiation output of the sun is not a significant factor in the current warming.

3. The rapidly rising levels of CO2 in the atmosphere are the cause of the current warming of the earth's atmosphere.

4. The current rising levels of CO2, in the atmosphere are caused by human activity, mainly burning of fossil fuels.

5. If present CO2 upward trends continue, CO2 levels in the atmosphere will double in the foreseeable future.

6. If CO2 levels double, temperatures will correspondingly rise further and the polar ice caps will melt.

7. If the Polar Ice caps melt coastal areas will be inundated and uninhabitable.

8. If the Polar Ice caps melt, ocean current patterns will be disturbed and parts of the world will lose their ability to produce crops for human consumption, causing widespread starvation.

9. If CO2 levels double, many species will become extinct.

10. If CO2 levels double, violent storms of unimaginable intensity, including hurricanes, tornados and cyclones will result.

11. If CO2 levels double it will have cause irreparable physical harm to humans, animals and plant life.

We urge you to sign the Kyoto Treaty and shepherd the Treaty through the Senate of the United States to ratification.

Failure to do so may spell the extinction of all life on earth.

So say we all, the undersigned:

posted April 24, 2006 02:03 PM            

BY MARK STEYN SUN-TIMES COLUMNIST

Do you worry? You look like you do. Worrying is the way the responsible citizen of an advanced society demonstrates his virtue: He feels good by feeling bad.

But what to worry about? Iranian nukes? Nah, that's just some racket cooked up by the Christian fundamentalist Bush and his Zionist buddies to give Halliburton a pretext to take over the Persian carpet industry. Worrying about nukes is so '80s. "They make me want to throw up. . . . They make me feel sick to my stomach," wrote the British novelist Martin Amis, who couldn't stop thinking about them 20 years ago. In the intro to a collection of short stories, he worried about the Big One and outlined his own plan for coping with a nuclear winter wonderland:

"Suppose I survive," he fretted. "Suppose my eyes aren't pouring down my face, suppose I am untouched by the hurricane of secondary missiles that all mortar, metal and glass has abruptly become: Suppose all this. I shall be obliged (and it's the last thing I feel like doing) to retrace that long mile home, through the firestorm, the remains of the thousands-miles-an-hour winds, the warped atoms, the groveling dead. Then -- God willing, if I still have the strength, and, of course, if they are still alive -- I must find my wife and children and I must kill them."

But the Big One never fell. And instead of killing his wife Martin Amis had to make do with divorcing her. Back then it was just crazies like Reagan and Thatcher who had nukes, so you can understand why everyone was terrified. But now Kim Jong-Il and the ayatollahs have them, so we're all sophisticated and relaxed about it, like the French hearing that their president's acquired a couple more mistresses. Martin Amis hasn't thrown up a word about the subject in years. To the best of my knowledge, he has no plans to kill the present Mrs. Amis.

So what should we worry about? How about -- stop me if you've heard this one before -- "climate change"? That's the subject of Al Gore's new movie, ''An Inconvenient Truth.'' Like the trailer says: "If you love your planet -- if you love your children -- you have to see this movie." Even if you were planning to kill your children because you don't want them to live in a nuclear wasteland, see this movie. The mullahs won't get a chance to nuke us because, thanks to rising sea levels, Tehran will be under water. The editor of the New Yorker, David Remnick, says the Earth will "likely be an uninhabitable planet." The archbishop of Canterbury, in a desperate attempt to cut the Anglican Communion a slice of the Gaia-worship self-flagellation action, demands government "coercion" on everything from reduced speed limits to ending cheap air travel "if we want the global economy not to collapse and millions, billions of people to die."

Environmentalism doesn't need the support of the church, it's a church in itself -- and furthermore, one explicitly at odds with Christianity: God sent His son to Earth as a man, not as a three-toed tree sloth or an Antarctic krill. An environmentalist can believe man is no more than a co-equal planet dweller with millions of other species, and that he's taking up more than his fair share and needs to reduce both his profile and his numbers. But that's profoundly hostile to Christianity.

Oh, and here's my favorite -- Dr. Sue Blackmore looking on the bright side in Britain's Guardian:

"In all probability billions of people are going to die in the next few decades. Our poor, abused planet cannot take much more. . . . If we decide to put the planet first, then we ourselves are the pathogen. So we should let as many people die as possible, so that other species may live, and accept the destruction of civilization and of everything we have achieved.

"Finally, we might decide that civilization itself is worth preserving. In that case we have to work out what to save and which people would be needed in a drastically reduced population -- weighing the value of scientists and musicians against that of politicians, for example."

Hmm. On the one hand, Dr. Sue Blackmore and the bloke from Coldplay. On the other, Dick Cheney. I think we can all agree which people would be "needed" -- Al Gore, the guy from the New Yorker, perhaps Scarlett Johansson in a fur-trimmed bikini paddling a dugout canoe through a waterlogged Manhattan foraging for floating curly endives from once-fashionable eateries.

Here's an inconvenient truth for "An Inconvenient Truth": Remember what they used to call "climate change"? "Global warming." And what did they call it before that? "Global cooling." That was the big worry in the '70s: the forthcoming ice age. Back then, Lowell Ponte had a huge best seller called The Cooling: Has the new ice age already begun? Can we survive?

The answer to the first question was: Yes, it had begun. From 1940 to 1970, there was very slight global cooling. That's why the doom-mongers decided the big bucks were in the new-ice-age blockbusters.

And yet, amazingly, we've survived. Why? Because in 1970 the planet stopped its very slight global cooling and began to undergo very slight global warming. So in the '80s, the doom-mongers cast off their thermal underwear, climbed into the leopardskin thongs, slathered themselves in sun cream and wired their publishers to change all references to "cooling" to "warming" for the paperback edition. That's why, if you notice, the global-warming crowd begin their scare statistics with "since 1970," an unlikely Year Zero which would not otherwise merit the significance the eco-crowd invest in it.

But then in 1998 the planet stopped its very slight global warming and began to resume very slight global cooling. And this time the doom-mongers said, "Look, do we really want to rewrite the bumper stickers every 30 years? Let's just call it 'climate change.' That pretty much covers it."

Why did the Earth cool between 1940 and 1970?

Beats me. Hitler? Hiroshima? Maybe we need to nuke someone every couple of decades.

Meanwhile, Blackmore won't have to worry about whether to cull Jacques Chirac in order to save Sting. Given the plummeting birthrates in Europe, Russia, Japan, etc., a large chunk of the world has evidently decided to take preemptive action on climate change and opt for self-extinction. Pace the New Yorker, much of the planet will be uninhabited long before it's uninhabitable. The Belgian climate specialist will be on the endangered species list with the spotted owl. Blue-state eco-bores will be finding the international sustainable-development conferences a lot lonelier.

posted April 24, 2006 06:33 PM              

Always nice to hear about the weather changes off the equator and in the Arctic Circle from people that actually LIVE there.