Global Warming

[Exterminator]

As early as 1959, scientists were predicting that in the 150 year period from 1850-2000, carbon dioxide levels in the atmosphere would increase by 25% with a consequent increase in temperature.  In fact, those levels increased by 29% during that period.  In the 70's, when 'me' claims there was a global cooling scare, they were already starting to sound the alarm about global warming.  The World Meteorological Organization issued a warning in June 1976 that a very significant warming of global climate was probable.

[Sandy Eggo]

@ Lolly

[Locutus]

As early as 1959, scientists were predicting that in the 150 year period from 1850-2000, carbon dioxide levels in the atmosphere would increase by 25% with a consequent increase in temperature.  In fact, those levels increased by 29% during that period.  In the 70's, when 'me' claims there was a global cooling scare, they were already starting to sound the alarm about global warming.  The World Meteorological Organization issued a warning in June 1976 that a very significant warming of global climate was probable.

Bingo!!  I read that EXACT same thing earlier.  The whole "Global Cooling" was bullshit then and it's bullshit now.

[Sandy Eggo]

So, the fact that global cooling made more sense to "me" means.....what?

[Locutus]

So, the fact that global cooling made more sense to "me" means.....what?

Wat'chu' tryin' ta' say Sandy?? 

[me]

So, the fact that global cooling made more sense to "me" means.....what?

Where did I say global cooling made sense?  Hell they can't even predict the weather accurately in a week long forecast how are they going to say whats going to happen 5 or 10yrs from now let alone 100?  That one guy that contributed to the global warming study is a science fiction writer for pete's sake. Does that make him knowledgeable than someone who might have read one or two of his books?  Good grief people get a grip. 

[The Troll]

Where did I say global cooling made sense?  Hell they can't even predict the weather accurately in a week long forecast how are they going to say whats going to happen 5 or 10yrs from now let alone 100?  That one guy that contributed to the global warming study is a science fiction writer for pete's sake. Does that make him knowledgeable than someone who might have read one or two of his books?  Good grief people get a grip.

  Baby Cakes yuse nead som real edgycation on seeince.  A brite bullb you aint.   

[me]

Quote from: Palehorse on August 09, 2010, 07:25:37 PM

    Here's a list of the officers from my source:

    Frances Beinecke, Executive Director; Co-founder, The New York League of Conservation Voters
    Robert Redford, Trustee and Director; Film actor & director; Manager, the Redford Foundation
    Laurance Rockefeller, Trustee; Private philanthropist; Former chairman, Rockefeller Brothers Fund; Former chairman, Citizens Advisory Committee on Environmental Quality; Trustee, the Laurance Rockefeller Charitable Trust
    John H. Adams, President & Co-founder; Former Assistant US Attorney (New York)
    Adam Albright, Vice Chair; Board member, Redefining Progress; Board Chair, Population Communications International; Program Chair, Conservation International
    Richard E. Ayres, Co-founder & Treasurer; Partner, Howrey & Simon; Former chairman, National Clean Air Coalition
    Linda Geer, Health & Environment Program Director; Former staff scientist, Environmental Defense; Former technical director, Hazardous Waste Treatment Council
    Alan Horn,Vice Chair; Chairman & Chief Operating Officer, Warner Brothers
    Burks Lapham, Vice Chair; Chairman, Concern Inc.; Director, Chesapeake Bay Foundation
    Alan Metrick, Director of Communications; Former Partner, The PR Consulting Group (New York City); Former Exec VP, David M. Grant Inc.
    Kathleen Scheg, Legislative Director
    Frederick A. O. Schwartz, Jr., Chairman of the Board; Partner, Cravath Swaine & Moore; Former NYC corporation counsel (under Mayor Ed Koch)
    Gregory Wetstone, Legislative Director; Former environmental chief counsel, US Congressional Health and Environment Subcommittee; Author, "Acid Rain in Europe and North America"
    George Woodwell; Vice Chair; Founding Director, Woods Hole Research Center

    The trustees

Richard E. Ayres
Background
Partner, Howrey & Simon; Former chairman, National Clean Air Coalition

Associated Organizations and Foundations
Natural Resources Defense Council    Organization: Natural Resources Defense Council
Position: Co-founder & Treasurer
The Natural Resources Defense Council (NRDC) is the utility infielder of nanny groups. Because its name implies a wide-ranging universe of issues, the...
find out more »   http://activistcash.com/biography.cfm/b/1399-richard-e-ayres

We're gettin' off to a good start here....

[Palehorse]

Richard E. Ayres
Background
Partner, Howrey & Simon; Former chairman, National Clean Air Coalition

Associated Organizations and Foundations
Natural Resources Defense Council    Organization: Natural Resources Defense Council
Position: Co-founder & Treasurer
The Natural Resources Defense Council (NRDC) is the utility infielder of nanny groups. Because its name implies a wide-ranging universe of issues, the...
find out more »   http://activistcash.com/biography.cfm/b/1399-richard-e-ayres

We're gettin' off to a good start here....

From your source:. . ."NRDC joined forces again with Fenton Communications in 1998 to promote a food-scare campaign called "Give Swordfish a Break!" which was operated by SeaWeb, an organization created by Fenton specifically for this campaign. Nearly all of the funding for this effort came from pass-through grants solicited by NRDC on behalf of SeaWeb. Two years later the anti-swordfish campaign folded, with both groups claiming victory. The whole promotion was based on the myth that Atlantic swordfish were being over-fished to the point of extinction. But according to the National Marine Fisheries Service, that simply wasn't true."

Now, according to UC Davis. . ."Prior to 1996, the ICAAT had not established an effective compliance program to ensure that nations honored their harvest quotas in the Atlantic. A few nations ignored their allotted quotas and minimum size regulations, resulting in overfishing. These few nations undermined conservation efforts in the Atlantic. . . ."

http://ca-seafood.ucdavis.edu/news/swftruth.htm

and according to NOAA:. . .In November 1999, ICCAT established a 10-year rebuilding plan that has protected juvenile swordfish, helping the population to rebuild. The rebuilding plan was initiated in 2000, with a goal for the stock to be rebuilt by 2010. In 2006, 3 years ahead of schedule, biomass was at 99% of target levels. A Final Consolidated Atlantic Highly Migratory Species FMP was published in July 2006. Current swordfish regulations for U.S. fishermen include quotas, time area closures, retention limits, and size limits. According to the 2009 assessment, swordfish is now considered fully rebuilt. . .
. . .
1992 – NOAA Fisheries Service creates the HMS Management Division to manage Atlantic tunas, sharks, swordfish, and billfish
1999 – FMP for Atlantic Tunas, Swordfish, and Sharks replaces 1985 FMP, still utilizing many of the initial management measures; also calls for U.S. to negotiate international rebuilding plan
1999 – ICCAT establishes a 10-year rebuilding program for North Atlantic swordfish
2000/2001 – NOAA Fisheries Service implements several large time and area closures for pelagic longline fishing to reduce bycatch of juvenile swordfish and billfish (DeSoto Canyons: year-round, starting Nov 2000; Florida East Coast: year-round, starting March 2001; Charleston Bump: Feb-April; starting March 2001
2002 – Stock assessment determines that North Atlantic swordfish stock biomass is 94% of levels needed for maximum sustainable yield (BMSY)
2004 – NOAA Fisheries Service implements several bycatch reduction measures in the commercial fishery, such as mandatory use of "circle hooks"; circle hooks reduce the amount of bycatch and allow for easier release of swordfish and other species (such as sea turtles and marine mammals) in comparison to the traditional "J" hook
2006 – Consolidated Atlantic Highly Migratory Species FMP is approved, which allows the use of buoy gear in the commercial swordfish fishery, requires reporting of swordfish caught recreationally outside of a fishing tournament, creates closed areas, and shifts the fishing year to a calendar year for all HMS species
2006 – October stock assessment estimates that biomass of North Atlantic swordfish is approximately 99% of BMSY . . .

http://www.nmfs.noaa.gov/fishwatch/species/n_atl_swordfish.htm

So, given the facts above from validated and credentialed sources to which I have supplied links, it appears your source is spinning the facts in an effort to dismiss the NRDC as some type of extremist group, which it clearly is not. There indeed was a drastic problem with North Atlantic Swordfish population and overfishing, which the NRDC spotlighted and helped to bring about a solution to; which clearly worked.

Now, that is not to say that their tactics were 100% correct, but clearly boycotting is a measure that gets the attention of people and works. BP can probably tell you a lot about that.

However, a little research into YOUR source clearly demonstrates they are far less than reliable, and in fact more than likely far worse than the organizations which they like to target, further eroding what little, if any, credibility of this source:

http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=A_visit_to_the_ActivistCash.com_web_site

[Sandy Eggo]

Where did I say global cooling made sense?  Hell they can't even predict the weather accurately in a week long forecast how are they going to say whats going to happen 5 or 10yrs from now let alone 100?  That one guy that contributed to the global warming study is a science fiction writer for pete's sake. Does that make him knowledgeable than someone who might have read one or two of his books?  Good grief people get a grip. 

You didn't, I misread this:

Which political party I'm in has nothing to do with whether I suck into the global warming thing or not.  I would be just as against it if it were a dem out there stumping it.  I just flat don't go for it anymore than I suckered in on the global cooling scare of the 70's.  Now when they were all about cleaning up the rivers and lakes, recycling to preserve, cleaning up factory emissions, and more fuel economic vehicles  I went for that because it made sense but all this other bull shit is just that...bull shit. 

My apologies for the mistake, but I still don't think you know what you're talking about.

[The Troll]

You didn't, I misread this:

My apologies for the mistake, but I still don't think you know what you're talking about.

  She diffently not the brites bulb in the pack.  Just ain't to brite, Bubba.

[Palehorse]

It was 95 on Monday, 97 on Tuesday, 98 on Wednesday, 96 on Thursday and 96 on Friday.
The 96 degrees forecast for today would make it the sixth day in a row above 94 degrees, which only has occurred here in July 1881 and 1941.

[The Troll]

It was 95 on Monday, 97 on Tuesday, 98 on Wednesday, 96 on Thursday and 96 on Friday.
The 96 degrees forecast for today would make it the sixth day in a row above 94 degrees, which only has occurred here in July 1881 and 1941.

  NA, na, na, na, na, it's not Global warming.  It's because of all the well off Americans are pumping the hot air out of their houses and into the outside air.  By them using air conditioning.  Yup, that's the reason.  Turn off air conditioners and quit pumping out hot air.  Yup it's the hot air.

[Henry Hawk]

http://sg.news.yahoo.com/afp/20100908/tts-climate-warming-science-ice-c1b2fc3.html

New study slashes estimate of icecap loss

PARIS (AFP) - – Estimates of the rate of ice loss from Greenland and West Antarctica, one of the most worrying questions in the global warming debate, should be halved, according to Dutch and US scientists.
In the last two years, several teams have estimated Greenland is shedding roughly 230 gigatonnes of ice, or 230 billion tonnes, per year and West Antarctica around 132 gigatonnes annually.
Together, that would account for more than half of the annual three-millimetre (0.2 inch) yearly rise in sea levels, a pace that compares dramatically with 1.8mm (0.07 inches) annually in the early 1960s.
But, according to the new study, published in the September issue of the journal Nature Geoscience, the ice estimates fail to correct for a phenomenon known as glacial isostatic adjustment.
This is the term for the rebounding of Earth's crust following the last Ice Age.
Glaciers that were kilometers (miles) thick smothered Antarctica and most of the northern hemisphere for tens of thousands of years, compressing the elastic crust beneath it with their titanic weight.
When the glaciers started to retreat around 20,000 years ago, the crust started to rebound, and is still doing so.
This movement, though, is not just a single vertical motion, lead researcher Bert Vermeersen of Delft Technical University, in the Netherlands, said in phone interview with AFP.
"A good analogy is that it's like a mattress after someone has been sleeping on it all night," he said.
The weight of the sleeper creates a hollow as the material compress downwards and outwards. When the person gets up, the mattress starts to recover. This movement, seen in close-up, is both upwards and downwards and also sideways, too, as the decompressed material expands outwards and pulls on adjacent stuffing.
Often ignored or considered a minor factor in previous research, post-glacial rebound turns out to be important, says the paper.
It looks at tiny changes in Earth's gravitational field provided by two satellites since 2002, from GPS measurements on land, and from figures for sea floor pressure.
These revealed, among other things, that southern Greenland is in fact subsiding, as the crust beneath it is pulled by the post-glacial rebound from northern America.
With glacial isostatic adjustment modelled in, the loss from Greenland is put at 104 gigatonnes, plus or minus 23 gigatonnes, and 64 gigatonnes from West Antarctica, plus or minus 32 gigatonnes.
These variations show a large degree of uncertainty, but Vermeersen believes that even so a clearer picture is emerging on icesheet loss.
"The corrections for deformations of the Earth's crust have a considerable effect on the amount of ice that is estimated to be melting each year," said Vermeersen, whose team worked with NASA's Jet Propulsation Laboratory and the Netherlands Institute for Space Research.
"We have concluded that the Greenland and West Antarctica ice caps are melting at approximately half the speed originally predicted."
If the figures for overall sea level rise are accurate, icesheet loss would be contribute about 30 percent, rather than roughly half, to the total, said Vermeersen. The rest would come mainly from thermal expansion, meaning that as the sea warms it rises.
The debate is important because of fears that Earth's biggest reservoirs of ice, capable of driving up ocean levels by many metres (feet) if lost, are melting much faster than global-warming scenarios had predicted.
In 2007, the UN's Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) predicted oceans would rise by 18-59 centimeters (7.2 and 23.6 inches) by 2100, a figure that at its upper range means vulnerable coastal cities would become swamped within a few generations.
The increase would depend on warming estimated at between 1.1 and 6.4 degrees Celsius (1.98-11.52 degrees Fahrenheit) this century, the IPCC said. It stressed, though, the uncertainties about icesheet loss.

[me]

http://www.grit.com/daily-commute/Farmers-Almanac-Offers-Frigid-2010-Forecast.aspx