~ politics petitions pollution and pop culture

Do you believe global warming is good for us? …Union of Concerned Scientists

10 Comments

      Who Will Check Their Facts ?

 

I believe we stand at a critical time in the fight against global warming, and against those who cynically deny it is happening and say there is nothing we can do to mitigate its effects.

 

“The net effect of continued warming and rising carbon dioxide concentrations in the atmosphere is most likely to be beneficial to humans, plants, and wildlife.”
—Heartland Institute, August 2011.

Let’s end the disinformation on climate change.

Help UCS expose and challenge attacks on science.

That’s why I’m asking you to become a member of the Union of Concerned Scientists (UCS) today.         www.ucsusa.org

Don’t you ever wonder when the denial and disinformation about climate change will end? Make no mistake. This is an all-out attack on science. It’s well coordinated and funded, and it’s backed by opponents who are putting near-term fossil fuel profits ahead of protections for human health.

Opponents like the Heartland Institute continue to mislead the public into thinking that global warming isn’t a problem. In a recent report they even went so far as to claim that the net effects of climate change will be good for people and the environment.

But we’re not that easily fooled. We remember this same organization, that has accepted funding from the tobacco company Philip Morris, made headlines in the 1990s trying to downplay the dangers of second-hand smoke.

When you become a member of UCS, you’ll help us face down attacks on science and blatant disinformation about global warming.  www.ucsusa.org

You’ll also help us move forward to build a healthier environment during our lifetime, and those of our children and grandchildren.

Consider that, in the past few months alone, UCS has:
Won historic changes in fuel economy standards for cars and trucks that will dramatically lower global warming emissions and help our economy for decades to come—preventing some 280 million tons of climate emissions from being released into our atmosphere by 2030. That’s the equivalent of shutting down 72 coal-fired power plants.
Helped design and win passage of California’s landmark Renewable Energy Standard—the toughest in the nation—mandating that one third of all the state’s energy will be produced from renewable sources by 2020.

You are a key partner in all our work.

We need your help to combat attacks on science and to move forward with positive changes to forestall the worst effects of global warming.

That’s why I’m counting on you to act now. Please don’t put it off, the stakes are too high. Become a member today.

I look forward to hearing from you and working alongside you to build a healthy environment and a safer world.

Thank you for all your help and support.

Sincerely,

Kevin Knobloch
President

10 thoughts on “Do you believe global warming is good for us? …Union of Concerned Scientists”

  1. There are many hundreds perhaps thousands of published, peer reviewed scientific papers which contradict the unproven “Anthropogenic CO2 causes Global Warming” hypothesis.

    Here is a sample.

    An assessment of validation experiments conducted on computer models of global climate using the general circulation model of the UK’s Hadley Centre
    (Energy & Environment, Volume 10, Number 5, pp. 491-502, September 1999)
    – Richard S. Courtney

    An Alternative Explanation for Differential Temperature Trends at the Surface and in the Lower Troposphere (PDF)
    (Journal of Geophysical Research, Volume 114, November 2009)
    – Philip J. Klotzbach, Roger A. Pielke Sr., Roger A. Pielke Jr., John R. Christy, Richard T. McNide

    Altitude dependence of atmospheric temperature trends: Climate models versus observation (PDF)
    (Geophysical Research Letters, Volume 31, Issue 13, July 2004)
    – David H. Douglass, Benjamin D. Pearson, S. Fred Singer

    A test of corrections for extraneous signals in gridded surface temperature data (PDF)
    (Climate Research, Volume 26, Number 2, pp. 159-173, May 2004)
    – Ross McKitrick, Patrick J. Michaels

    – Are temperature trends affected by economic activity? Reply to Benestad (2004) (PDF)
    (Climate Research, Volume 27, Number 2, pp. 175–176, October 2004)
    – Ross McKitrick, Patrick J. Michaels

    A null hypothesis for CO2 (PDF)
    (Energy & Environment, Volume 21, Number 4, pp. 171-200, August 2010)
    – Roy Clark

    A natural constraint to anthropogenic global warming
    (Energy & Environment, Volume 21, Number 4, pp. 225-236, August 2010)
    – William Kininmonth

    A comparison of tropical temperature trends with model predictions (PDF)
    (International Journal of Climatology, Volume 28, Issue 13, pp. 1693-1701, December 2007)
    – David H. Douglass, John R. Christy, Benjamin D. Pearson, S. Fred Singer

    A Climate of Doubt about Global Warming
    (Environmental Geosciences, Volume 7, Issue 4, December 2000)
    – Robert C. Balling Jr.
    A 2000-year global temperature reconstruction based on non-treering proxies (PDF)
    (Energy & Environment, Volume 18, Numbers 7-8, pp. 1049-1058, December 2007)
    – Craig Loehle

    An empirical evaluation of earth’s surface air temperature response to radiative forcing, including feedback, as applied to the CO2-climate problem
    (Meteorology and Atmospheric Physics, Volume 34, Numbers 1-2, pp. 1-19, March, 1984)
    – Sherwood B. Idso

    An upper limit to global surface air temperature
    (Meteorology and Atmospheric Physics, Volume 34, Number 2, pp. 141-144, June 1985)
    – Sherwood B. Idso

    As I said, for no good reason, these papers and many others like them are ignored by the IPCC and its followers. You may also read criticisms on the net about some of these authors, but you should also note that the criticisms are aimed at the person, not the work, and only rarely are there academic papers, that have been peer reviewed etc., published to contradict these authors, which of course is the proper scientific way to disagree in a situation like this.

    Therefore as there is no “strong, credible body of evidence” as the above sample of papers show, one needs to examine more closely what the IPCC is claiming.

    On one hand we have data that shows, or purports to show, that the climate is indeed warming unusually rapidly over the last 50 years or so. I say purports, as there is some
    doubt about the accuracy of the data, however the climate may well be warming.

    On the other hand, we have measurements of CO2 in the atmosphere that show that this has increased concentration has increased, as a portion of the atmosphere is only about 0.0213% since 1960, (dosn’t sound too much when you put it like that does it?).

    Nevertheless it is true that anthropogenic CO2 has increased.

    Now in order to prove that there is a connection between these two events that is proof of a causation factor, we need peer reviewed scientific publications that show this.

    Alas there appears to be none. All of the IPCC conclusions are based on 1. That this rather weak correlation is actual proof, and or 2. On scientific model results, which being only hypothesis in themselves, are not proof either.

    So one would expect something along the lines of the following:-

    Published academic papers using at least one of the following methods to show that the “Anthropogenic CO2 causes Global Warming” is more than just a possibility.

    1 Empirical proof that shows the causation factor of CO2 with respect of Global Warming.
    2. Statistical proof of Anthropogenic CO2. Im sure you know that correlations are never proof.
    3. Evidence for the “Anthropogenic CO2 causes Global Warming” hypothesis to be adopted over the null hypothesis?

    Now I’m sure you do not need it, but just in case, here is a little reading to understand what these things are. Here is a site which describes what is needed for #3 which might help. http://www.experiment-resources.com/null-hypothesis.html

    I think number three is the most important, because it means, that in order to consider the “Anthropogenic CO2 causes Global Warming” hypothesis as a better hypothesis over a null hypothesis (such as “The climate naturally changes anyway”) one has to explain how and why all the previous warmings occurred (At least three in historical times).

    Now check out my blog and then see if you can find any academic papers that explain why the planet has heated up before, even though there was zero anthropogenic CO2 in the atmosphere.

    If you or anyone else can address these short comings in the “official” science, then I would consider joining the UCS. You see, I respond to facts not political hype from interested minorities.

    Cheers Roger

    http://www.rogerfromnewzealand.wordpress.com

    Like

    1. I think the only thing that stood out from your lengthy comment is your nasty sign-off. I don’t even know you yet you’ve already decided to slap me verbally? You could have made a choice not to respond at all since you were feeling all nasty or ivy league like. If i could i would forward your info to UCS … their website is ucsusa.org … The article while not informative to you is one in which will at least will bring about a dialogue and yes, i definitely am an interested minority …I am, quite sure you meant that in a bad way. I however will assume you were sitting on your high horse while writing such a clever response. I get a lot of articles, newsletters and membership requests from interesting sources on things that have an impact on me or my family so i post them so that others might have some information and some i happen to love and some are just shit…. both get posted if the topic is in the current News cycle. I don’t like being patronized but i get it. i receive info from gore and ucs; if you have information you want posted i will but this long response does nothing for me personally good bad or ugly because it’s just your personal opinion.

      Like

  3. Pingback: mashup Monday & some News « Point/CounterPoint

  4. Nativegrl77

    ” i receive info from gore ….”

    So you believe Al Gore is a reliable source of information with regard to the unproven “Anthropogenic CO2 causes Global Warming” hypothesis then?

    Here are a few fact about good old Al that you may not have yet digested.

    Believe it or not, Al Gore is not a scientist, but he is a great speaker, just like Hitler was actually. But lets take a look at Al Gore’s personal life.

    Al Gore is not using his superior oratorial powers to help you and me from a failing planet, he is using them to enhance his investments. Doing rather well at it too I might say. http://www.telegraph.co.uk/earth/energy/6491195/Al-Gore-could-become-worlds-first-carbon-billionaire.html

    Al says that he is simply “putting his money where his mouth is”, well I don’t know about you but I would say that he is putting his mouth where his money is – especially when he actively urges Congress to adopt policies in his favour. In most parts of the world, most people who influence legislators in order to fill their pockets, go to gaol for considerable periods of time.

    Now Al urges everyone to take on vows of poverty in order to save the world. This link below says it all better than I can. What about his multiple mansions etc.?
    http://blogs.the-american-interest.com/wrm/2011/06/24/the-failure-of-al-gore-part-one/

    So Gore is :
    1) A God
    2) A Guru
    3) An idiot
    4) A money grubbing con man
    5) A fine upright guy.

    Check out the links above and then see which category you would like to assign him too.

    Cheers

    Roger

    http://www.rogerfromnewzealand.wordpress.com

    PS If I have not confined myself to reported facts, please point out the error of my ways.

    Like

    1. Roger Roger Roger
      I did not say i believe all of what Gore or UCS say but that i receive info from them and post it because they have information to share . I personally believe Global Warming or you are pushing Global Cooling is definitely a reality that is both environmental and man made that is enough for me to digest as a matter of fact. I am one of several in my family that grew up in a great area with clean air which has deteriorated and it can be felt by those of us who lived in this area prior to the industrial build up . I will say again, if you have a newsletter or action alerts to share i would but I think we are not on the same page. I do know that AL Gore is not a scientist silly but he has been an advocate with a big name that has people ask questions and demand more …even though our politicians who create and pass the laws don’t seem to be listening …his pluses are that he was a politician and knows people with information that should get debated … I get it you don’t like or respect his opinion. I want Republicans to accept we have air quality issues that are both environmenta and man made and act accordingly for the future of our kids here in the US and that unfortunately is being filibustered on all angles …I want cleaner air, stricter regs , i want those that dumped their shit on american indian land or created nasty landfils punished because the run off quite possibly is pooled or in our ground water;Corporations have gotten away with secret bs for years and while your focus is on legislators and lobbyists i really am more concerned about making the lives of people safer especially for those who almost always have corporations dumping their waste …sometimes secretly sometimes not so secretly in or near groundwater res and poor people who i guess they don’t care about …it all contributes to environmental changes. I am no expert and i never said i was, but as someone who is open to all information on global warming that will get Congress to do something ..Gore has money to do something … the info comes from scientists who cares. I say get involved and put the facts out there. I believe in the 1st Amendment and some come by money in varioius ways that can annoy, frustrate and offend us but i won’t hate on Gore for putting out info there or his ability to make $$$ that is the American way. I will say if there are facts out there that proves him wrong then i would discontinue posting info and or vote for his efforts but that has not happened for me persoally… yet. If I’ve learned anything since the days when Congress believed in the fact that there is an increase in asthmatics …clean air gives certain States big regulation worries and even if Gore were right we have too many climate deniers to move toward a cleaner USA . Again,i am not an expert so your abc thing is silly and just accept we willhave to agree to disagree. I did visit your blog and you don’t like President Obama so …that puts us at odds but thank you for the conversation.

      Like

  5. Nativegrl77

    Let me assist you to clarify your thinking a little.

    “I am one of several in my family that grew up in a great area with clean air which has deteriorated and it can be felt by those of us who lived in this area prior to the industrial build up”

    Firstly, you appear to be mixing anthropogenic CO2 with pollution. These are most certainly two different issues, although people who push the “Anthropogenic CO2 Causes Global Warming Hypothesis” do conveniently mix these things together which helps their cause unless you can see through the deception.

    First of all, for the record, I and others like me abhor pollution, we care for mother earth and incidently I personally used all my life savings in trying to replant a native forest here in my country.

    The thing is, CO2 is not a pollutant. Like water, it is essential to life. Remove the current trace quantities of CO2 from the atmosphere and every living thing on earth will die, followed by every living thing in the sea some time later.
    Too much water? Yes you can drown. The same with CO2. However a toxic concentration of CO2 is about 100,000 ppm. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Carbon_dioxide

    Here is some data which may help you understand more about the non-toxicity of CO2

    A scientist untainted by the AGW lobby would say that a concentration of about 1,000ppmv would be beneficial to life on earth, this being the concentration that Glass House growers prefer, http://api.ning.com/files/X-APctmkiwvgEI5fT6iiGjWFvKNX*cWuzeO4qmDVbgA_/Greenhouses.CarbonDioxideInGreenhouses.pdf
    Our exhaled breath is about 4500ppmv http://www.biotopics.co.uk/humans/inhaledexhaled.html
    Up to 5000ppmv is acceptable for work places (American Conference of Governmental Industrial Hygienists.).
    Up to 3000ppmv for residences (Canadian exposure guideline for residential buildings)
    Medical oxygen has between 10,000 ppmv and 20,000 ppmv in it.

    Click to access 10_carbondioxide_oxygen.pdf

    Click to access 10_carbondioxide_oxygen.pdf

    Currently our atmosphere has about 390 ppmv of CO2 in it.
    Furthermore, some scientists credit the extra CO2 in our atmosphere as the reason for our increased food production.
    http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2009/02/090209205202.htm

    Also the pollution which you so rightly abhor, is unlikely to have very much CO2 in it. It will mainly consist of particulates, water vapour and other substances such as sulpur dioxide, nitrous oxides, hydrogen disulphide etc. Hopefully, for your sake, it does not carry mercury vapour or other heavy metals which are of course also possible pollutants. Also CO2 does not cause water pollution. Emission standards for motor vehicles actually increase CO2 production by burning off the CO produced by the car engine.

    So I support you in your fight against pollution!

    ” but i won’t hate on Gore for putting out info there or his ability to make $$$ that is the American way.”

    Likewise I have no problem with people who make money honestly, however if you read the links I gave you in a previous comment carefully, you will see that Gore has put money in certain investments, where , because of his contacts with current legislators, he either knows that your government is about to become a large customer, or he knows he can actually influence the legislators and their departments to actually buy from his companies.

    Now I am unfamilliar with current US legislation, but in most countries including my own, Gore’s activities are known as “Inside Trading” which usually carriy large fines and potential gaol terms for such people. And rightly so!

    So there is a little “information” for you. Perhaps those who you accuse of practicing “disinformation” do actually know a thing or two.

    Cheers

    Roger
    http://www.rogerfromnewzealand.wordpress.com

    PS Perhaps you should study what communism and socialism are and decide if they are the American way before you continue supporting your current White House occupant.

    Like

    1. Roger from NewZealand
      Your comments are getting creepy especially since they are now sounding personal, patronizing, and somewhat threatening what with a big effort to change my mind -which is not going to happen…
      I knew exactly what i was saying when i used “industrial build up” … which, included not only plants that create pollution but more hi-rises more people more cars more commuting. I normally like new information but you seem to be sitting on that high horse and since I responded, i am at fault for providing you a platform for offensive comments. I say take your fight with AL Gore and or UCS, as they are definitely a group of Concerned Scientists. I am no Scientist nor have i tried to be one. I am interested in Climate Change and how our Government plans on dealing with it knowing if in the hands of Republicans, we will be in a much worst state. I suggest you accept what I said two comments ago, which was that I am given information in the form of emails, newsletters, and action alerts, which are meant to stir up a dialogue, and while you happen to be rude you have an opinion but your style sucks because it is so patronizing which obviously you prefer. I have seen your website and your spoof on Gore and President Obama is not acceptable to me so i could not promote your view on my blog. In addition, I did not accuse anyone of practicing “disinformation” i stated that if Gore was proven to be giving misinformation or anyone else for that matter, I would discontinue posting the information. So, again, do not skew what i wrote and suggest you take up your fight against Gore and or President Obama with someone else because the 1st Amendment is big in the United States of America.

      Like

    1. uh no … and if you don’t know then i have nothing else to say. Again, you ought to be taking up your debate with Gore and or UCS .I didn’t dispute your information or facts it was how you deliver them.

      Like

Comments are closed.