03 Jan 07
Originally posted by der schwarze RitterFrom realclimate.org:
CO2 and glaciers: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Wq_Bj-av3g0
A recent movie, 'Thank You for Smoking', amusingly highlighted the lengths that PR reps for the tobacco companies would go to distort the public discourse on the health effects of smoking. Lest you thought that was of merely historical relevance, we would like to draw your attention to two of the funniest videos around. Lifting a page straight out of the Nick Naylor playbook, the CEI (an industry-funded lobby group) has launched a new ad campaign that is supposed to counteract all those pesky scientific facts about global warming.
The first ad (both available here) deserves to become a classic of the genre. It contains the immortal lines 'CO2: they call it pollution, we call it Life!' - it is beyond parody and without content - and so you should definitely see it. The second ad has a little more substance - but is as misleading as you might expect.
They only discuss one scientific point which relates to whether 'glaciers are melting'. Unsurprisingly, they don't discuss the dramatic evidence of tropical glacier melting, the almost worldwide retreat of other mountain glaciers, the rapid acceleration of fringing glaciers on Greenland or the Antarctic peninsula. Neither do they mention that the preliminary gravity measurements imply that both Antarctica and Greenland appear to be net contributors to sea level rise. No. The only studies that they highlight are ones which demonstrate that in the interior of the ice shelves, there is actually some accumulation of snow (which clearly balances some of the fringing loss). These studies actually confirm climate model predictions that as the poles warm, water vapour there will increase and so, in general, will precipitation. In the extreme environments of the central ice sheets, it will not get warm enough to rain and so snowfall and accumulation are expected to increase.
To be sure, calculating the net balance of the ice sheets is difficult and given the uncertainties of different techniques (altimeters, gravity measurements, interferometers etc.) and the shortness of many of the records, it's difficult to make very definitive statements about the present day situation. Our sense of the data is that Greenland is probably losing mass - the rapid wasting around the edge is larger than the accumulation in the center, whereas Antarctica in toto is a more difficult call.
However, one should step back a bit from what has been going on in recent years, and consider what is likely to happen in the future. The last time the planet may have been a degree or so warmer than today (about 120,000 years ago), sea level was around 5 to 6 meters higher - and that water must have come from Greenland and (probably) the West Antarctic ice sheet. With projected future rises in emissions of 'Life!' (though we like to call it 'carbon dioxide'😉, these sorts of temperature rises are clearly possible, and the danger that would eventually pose to the continued existence of some ice sheets is clearly cause for concern.
To summarise, while CEI clearly demonstrate that their job (paraphrasing Nick Naylor again) "requires a certain .... moral flexibility", the rest of us can be grateful for the amusement they appear to have accidently bestowed on the world.
03 Jan 07
According to the Washington Times (Marlo Lewis, "Energy Diet for a Starving World?" Washington Times, January 2, 2007.): …The real inconvenient truth is that nobody knows how to meet current, much less future, global energy needs with low- and non-emitting technologies. Indeed, the only proven "method" for making deep emission cuts is that of the former Soviet Union and Eastern Europe: economic collapse.
http://www.washingtontimes.com/commentary/20070101-111214-3977r.htm
Here is the summarized version for those of you without a subscription:
http://www.ncpa.org/sub/dpd/index.php?page=article&Article_ID=14022
03 Jan 07
Originally posted by der schwarze RitterThe media has a history of posting mis-information and lies on gloabl warming - just the sort of stuff you ignorant contrarians lap up:
According to the Washington Times (Marlo Lewis, "Energy Diet for a Starving World?" Washington Times, January 2, 2007.): …The real inconvenient truth is that nobody knows how to meet current, much less future, global energy needs with low- and non-emitting technologies. Indeed, the only proven "method" for making deep emission cuts is that of the ...[text shortened]... hout a subscription:
http://www.ncpa.org/sub/dpd/index.php?page=article&Article_ID=14022
http://www.realclimate.org/index.php?p=285
http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2006/09/sachs-wsj-challenge/
http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2006/11/broadly-misleading/
03 Jan 07
Originally posted by ElleEffSeeeYou never did tell me, is this the blog you produce from your basement?
The media has a history of posting mis-information and lies on gloabl warming - just the sort of stuff you ignorant contrarians lap up:
http://www.realclimate.org/index.php?p=285
http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2006/09/sachs-wsj-challenge/
http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2006/11/broadly-misleading/
03 Jan 07
1 edit
Originally posted by der schwarze RitterAren't you religious? 🙄
So is that fact that you and so many others on this site have been seduced by nonesense.
Faith is one of the world's great evils, comparable to the smallpox virus but harder to eradicate." ~ Richard Dawkins 😛
04 Jan 07
Originally posted by eldragonflySo, if we resist the American stereotype that bigots around the world like to place on us we are being seduced by the Corporate America (capitalized why?) propaganda machine?
Open your eyes and stop being seduced by the Corporate America propaganda machine.
It is funny, you spread propaganda accusing us of being seduced by propaganda.
Wow, that is such a strong argument (*insert sarcasm here*).
04 Jan 07
Originally posted by DraxusYou should be able to figure the first one out for yourself. I find it more than a little interesting that you rely upon calling those who disapprove of the Hummer lifestyle as bigots. Even you should be able to recognize that these miserable souls are nothing more than a hollow shell of a person with nothing inside, unable to rationally think out even the most simple of things out for themselves. They let the Talking Heads do their thinking for them, as far too many Americans do today. I do hope you do know what i mean when i use the term propaganda and by extension Corporate America propaganda.
So, if we resist the American stereotype that bigots around the world like to place on us we are being seduced by the Corporate America (capitalized why?) propaganda machine?
04 Jan 07
Originally posted by eldragonflyYou mention that you only "disaprove" of a certain lifestyle, yet in the post before you refer to Americans as blind by saying that we need to "open our eyes." You continue to categorize large groups of Americans as "not being able to think for themselves" and only able to listen to the "talking heads." People who stereotype and judge an entire nation based upon circumstantial or no evidence at all are in fact bigots.
You should be able to figure the first one out for yourself. I find it more than a little interesting that you rely upon calling those who disapprove of the Hummer lifestyle as bigots. Even you should be able to recognize that these miserable souls are nothing more than a hollow shell of a person with nothing inside, unable to rationally think out even t ...[text shortened]... o know what i mean when i use the term propaganda and by extension Corporate America propaganda.
I would like to ask from what moral standpoint and credentials are you able to make such a judgement upon such "miserable souls?"
Sorry if I seem disagreeable, my question is genuine. 🙂