"Monitoring stations across the Arctic this spring are measuring more than 400 parts per million of the heat-trapping gas in the atmosphere. The number isn’t quite a surprise because it’s been rising at an accelerating pace. Years ago, it passed the 350 ppm mark that many scientists say is the highest safe level for carbon dioxide. It now stands globally at 395."
"Before the Industrial Age, levels were around 275 parts per million."
"It’s been at least 800,000 years — probably more — since Earth saw carbon dioxide levels in the 400s, Butler and other climate scientists said."
No comment...
...except you'd have to be stupid to not see what's going on.
Nero - this one absolutely busts chops!!! Good find! Of course when you rebuke religion, the followers find a way to attack. MMGW just has to be burning up the planet... no matter who says what!!!
Green ‘drivel’ The godfather of global warming lowers the boom on climate change hysteria
By
Lorrie Goldstein ,Toronto Sun
First posted: Saturday, June 23, 2012 06:03 PM EDT
James Lovelock is a world-renowned scientist and environmentalist.
Two months ago, James Lovelock, the godfather of global warming, gave a startling interview to msnbc.com in which he acknowledged he had been unduly “alarmist” about climate change.
The implications were extraordinary.
Lovelock is a world-renowned scientist and environmentalist whose Gaia theory — that the Earth operates as a single, living organism — has had a profound impact on the development of global warming theory.
Unlike many “environmentalists,” who have degrees in political science, Lovelock, until his recent retirement at age 92, was a much-honoured working scientist and academic.
His inventions have been used by NASA, among many other scientific organizations.
Lovelock’s invention of the electron capture detector in 1957 first enabled scientists to measure CFCs (chlorofluorocarbons) and other pollutants in the atmosphere, leading, in many ways, to the birth of the modern environmental movement.
Having observed that global temperatures since the turn of the millennium have not gone up in the way computer-based climate models predicted, Lovelock acknowledged, “the problem is we don’t know what the climate is doing. We thought we knew 20 years ago.” Now, Lovelock has given a follow-up interview to the UK’s Guardian newspaper in which he delivers more bombshells sure to anger the global green movement, which for years worshipped his Gaia theory and apocalyptic predictions that billions would die from man-made climate change by the end of this century.
Lovelock still believes anthropogenic global warming is occurring and that mankind must lower its greenhouse gas emissions, but says it’s now clear the doomsday predictions, including his own (and Al Gore’s) were incorrect.
He responds to attacks on his revised views by noting that, unlike many climate scientists who fear a loss of government funding if they admit error, as a freelance scientist, he’s never been afraid to revise his theories in the face of new evidence. Indeed, that’s how science advances.
Among his observations to the Guardian:
(1) A long-time supporter of nuclear power as a way to lower greenhouse gas emissions, which has made him unpopular with environmentalists, Lovelock has now come out in favour of natural gas fracking (which environmentalists also oppose), as a low-polluting alternative to coal.
As Lovelock observes, “Gas is almost a give-away in the U.S. at the moment. They’ve gone for fracking in a big way. This is what makes me very cross with the greens for trying to knock it … Let’s be pragmatic and sensible and get Britain to switch everything to methane. We should be going mad on it.” (Kandeh Yumkella, co-head of a major United Nations program on sustainable energy, made similar arguments last week at a UN environmental conference in Rio de Janeiro, advocating the development of conventional and unconventional natural gas resources as a way to reduce deforestation and save millions of lives in the Third World.)
(2) Lovelock blasted greens for treating global warming like a religion.
“It just so happens that the green religion is now taking over from the Christian religion,” Lovelock observed. “I don’t think people have noticed that, but it’s got all the sort of terms that religions use … The greens use guilt. That just shows how religious greens are. You can’t win people round by saying they are guilty for putting (carbon dioxide) in the air.”
(3) Lovelock mocks the idea modern economies can be powered by wind turbines.
As he puts it, “so-called ‘sustainable development’ … is meaningless drivel … We rushed into renewable energy without any thought. The schemes are largely hopelessly inefficient and unpleasant. I personally can’t stand windmills at any price.”
(4) Finally, about claims “the science is settled” on global warming: “One thing that being a scientist has taught me is that you can never be certain about anything. You never know the truth. You can only approach it and hope to get a bit nearer to it each time. You iterate towards the truth. You don’t know it.”
I don't know why you're saying Lovelock is saying anything surprising. I happen to agree with what he's saying. "Catastrophe" is usually an overstatement of the problem. Responsible scientists don't use that word in a global context. It is indeed a catastrophe for some low lieing areas but the Earth as a whole system, nah. In fact, in northern climes warming is a good thing for people...not so much for evolved wildlife. Russia wants warming (and to pump all the oil they can) - that's why they knowingly lie about the problem (very Russian).
China/coal is the absolute biggest threat there is - if that doesn't change, anything else that is done is meaningless. But there are many angles to this - there are reasonable things that can be done to mitigate the rise in temperature. It isn't and will never be a solid "we must change everything". That's unrealitic and overly expensive. In the coming decade I think many other "believers" will come around to the more realistic side of what we should do and what we shouldn't do (many already have). But deniers are indeed in denial and and see this as a political war - that's where their heads are...in other words, basically, up their asses...or up Inhoffs ass.
Here's a level-headed thing all interested parties might want to watch:
By the way, a decade without warming is not proof of anything. Ten year anomalies mean nothing in the long run context. There is probably a good reason why warming dropped off for a while. Lovelock knows this. Any good scientist knows this. Also worth noting that warming has picked up again. People, it's not going to be a linear rise. It's going to go up and down because we live in complex system. The overall trend though is up, both in temps and CO2. The only thing to change that would be clean energy in the developing world or possible increasing cloud cover...or maybe a long shot like magnetic varience or solar drop off, etc (except that solar variance is pretty well understood). So even if temps drop for a long time, that does not mean the problem, as it looks now, was a fake. Anything could happen and it probably will - there will be many changes in consesus over the coming decades but I believe the consensus will remain essentially intact and probably strengthened). Solar affect could even increase. What then? Higher solar output WITH more CO2...? Then we've got serious problems. Probably. On the other hand, there is a new ice age coming in a few thousand years. But according to Richard Muller, temp rise due to CO2 rise is going to override that slow-growing ice age.
It's complicated. It's also stupid to be in denial. The single greatest thing to do is to help developing countries develop cleanly, so they don't make the same mistakes we've made - because they have a hell of a lot more people than we did or do. What the developing world needs is environmentalism, the very thing that saves us from ourselves.
Here's a small example of how higher temperatures can decrease our GDP. It's a small example but there are many, many similar ones. You see, increased expense due to mitigating CO2 rise is not the only cost involved. An open mind sees both sides of the issue.
More warmth means that plants like marijuana will grow better meaning there will be more dangerous face eating potheads like turdboy51 to eat our faces.
I finally watched this and guess what?
At 1:08:30 you'll notice that Max says Dr. Jones published in Nature Magazine, 1998, the "trick" to "hide the decline". Tell me, does it sound like Dr. Jones was trying to keep a secret? IT WAS PUBLISHED, for crying out loud! And this whole "climategate" hystery was built around the accusation that Jones was attempting to keep it secret! Can you blelieve it? They didn't even have to steal emails, it was in Nature in 1998!
How embarrassing for the witch-hunting discredit-science denial conspiracy (the true religion).
Besides, who in their right mind disrespects science after all they accomplished over the centuries? Who?
Morons, that's who.
What a waste of time to even have to concern myself with this bullshit.
BTW, the videos I posted were shot only three months after "climategate" broke and BEFORE the inquiries. So it's understandable that the panel participants are denegrating Dr. Jones, etc. I suspect they'd have something much different to say now. Ironically, this whole "Climatgate" smokescreen only serves to strengthen the validity of the consensus that MMGW is real and growing. Tisk, tisk. Truth always rises from the darkness.
Farbeit from me to separate you from your earnest faith in mmgw with any logic, but do you really believe we might be the first people on earth to experience changing climate. Cooler or warmer. Since people living 1000 yrs ago or more did not have suvs we are led to a natural tidbit of LOGIC.
Climate on earth is dynamic and not necessarily or likely man-made at all.
You need only look up at mid day to see the culprit some 93 million miles distant.
We should study this more and reach theoretical "consensus" less.
Pre-industrial people did not produced much in the way of gases, true. But what if the same causes for that temperature rise were to again happen now? Ever thought of that? We would be toast...at least some of us would be. There would be wars over it. It's playing with fire. Just be honest and admit that you don't care. At this point that's about all you have left to do that makes any sense.
Secondly, the sun affect has been officially dismissed. That has been covered here and I believe you know that it has. Next topic.
"A prominent physicist and skeptic of global warming spent two years trying to find out if mainstream climate scientists were wrong. In the end, he determined they were right: Temperatures really are rising rapidly.
"One-quarter of the $600,000 to do the research came from the Charles Koch Foundation, whose founder is a major funder of skeptic groups and the tea party. The Koch brothers, Charles and David, run a large privately held company involved in oil and other industries, producing sizable greenhouse gas emissions."
Ouch, that bold has to hurt. Poor Kochies. Reality bites.
is probably nothing...it will all be back in just a few years, its cyclical you know..... just because a bunch of liberal ignorant wakos at Nasa just shit their pants when they saw the rate of melt, it doesnt mean that my gut feeling on this whole "climate change" thing is wrong.
its funny to me that theres so much proof of the actual anti-global-warming "agenda" and zero of the global-warming "agenda".
you can follow the money TRAILS from those that would benefit from debunking it, like energy/oil companies, large corporate owners like Koch bros that have donated 61 MILLION to debunking it. But, no one has pointed at any money trail for the other team yet (outside of the typical university backed studies for and against a subject, like all studies are) im giddy with anticipation here
its funny to me that theres so much proof of the actual anti-global-warming "agenda" and zero of the global-warming "agenda".
you can follow the money TRAILS from those that would benefit from debunking it, like energy/oil companies, large corporate owners like Koch bros that have donated 61 MILLION to debunking it. But, no one has pointed at any money trail for the other team yet (outside of the typical university backed studies for and against a subject, like all studies are) im giddy with anticipation here
A fine point was made by the female speaker in the panel discussion video I posted above.
She said she didn't understand the logic of the accusation about research funding driving global warming alarmism. She said, honestly, more money means better research. It means more truth.
You have to have the Evangelically driven anti-science mentality to think otherwise. Again, who distrusts science to such a degree after all it's done for us? Morons do.
"Iowa DNR officials said the sturgeon found dead in the Des Moines River were worth nearly $10 million, a high value based in part on their highly sought eggs, which are used for caviar. The fish are valued at more than $110 a pound."
More economic damage.
Global warming?
Maybe, maybe not.
The historic record includes midwest droughts that have lasted two to three decades. So who knows?
"3) In the past, scientists have underestimated the pace at which Arctic sea ice would disappear. In 2007, the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) figured we wouldn’t see ice-free summers in the Arctic until the end of the century or so. But later observations suggested that sea-ice extent is shrinking far more quickly than the IPCC had forecast."
UNDERESTIMATED
The IPCC said their reports have been conservative yet conservatives called them radical. Now they are clearly shown to be conservative and conservatives will do what...?
Say, "so?"
More sign of (barely minimal) intelligence on the right.
). 
. Reality bites
Linear Mode
