Scientist reverses position on Global Warming

[ntdz]

Originally posted by: foghorn67

Originally posted by: ntdz

Originally posted by: thraashman
I do think it's funny that the conservatives that agree with him would also be the ones most likely to disagree with him on other cases on the basis that he's French.

And whether or not you agree that global warming is man-made, why is it even an argument? Because quite frankly it seems to me that pollution is a bad thing that we should make all efforts to reduce even if it doesn't actually add to global warming. Why do so many people argue against taking measures to curb global warming? Even if those measures won't stop global warming, they'll lessen pollution overall, so what's the issue? Do we like being stupid that much in this nation?

Co2 isn't really pollution in the sense that it's dirty or anything.

Tell that to the People's Republic of Kalifornia.

I live in California. The pollution isn't Co2, it's smog, among other things.

 

[daniel49]

Originally posted by: Whoozyerdaddy
Link
And he's a socialist to boot. (So no right wing whacko comments please) And he's not sponsored by Exxon or some other evil corporation. He's just a guy who can see that the science doesn't work when you try to blame the actions of man for what is being observed in our climate.

Allegre's second thoughts
The Deniers -- The National Post's series on scientists who buck the conventional wisdom on climate science
LAWRENCE SOLOMON, Financial Post
Published: Friday, March 02, 2007

Claude Allegre, one of France's leading socialists and among her most celebrated scientists, was among the first to sound the alarm about the dangers of global warming.

"By burning fossil fuels, man increased the concentration of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere which, for example, has raised the global mean temperature by half a degree in the last century," Dr. Allegre, a renowned geochemist, wrote 20 years ago in Cles pour la geologie.." Fifteen years ago, Dr. Allegre was among the 1500 prominent scientists who signed "World Scientists' Warning to Humanity," a highly publicized letter stressing that global warming's "potential risks are very great" and demanding a new caring ethic that recognizes the globe's fragility in order to stave off "spirals of environmental decline, poverty, and unrest, leading to social, economic and environmental collapse."

In the 1980s and early 1990s, when concern about global warming was in its infancy, little was known about the mechanics of how it could occur, or the consequences that could befall us. Since then, governments throughout the western world and bodies such as the United Nations Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change have commissioned billions of dollars worth of research by thousands of scientists. With a wealth of data now in, Dr. Allegre has recanted his views. To his surprise, the many climate models and studies failed dismally in establishing a man-made cause of catastrophic global warming. Meanwhile, increasing evidence indicates that most of the warming comes of natural phenomena. Dr. Allegre now sees global warming as over-hyped and an environmental concern of second rank.

His break with what he now sees as environmental cant on climate change came in September, in an article entitled "The Snows of Kilimanjaro" in l' Express, the French weekly. His article cited evidence that Antarctica is gaining ice and that Kilimanjaro's retreating snow caps, among other global-warming concerns, come from natural causes. "The cause of this climate change is unknown," he states matter of factly. There is no basis for saying, as most do, that the "science is settled."

Dr. Allegre's skepticism is noteworthy in several respects. For one, he is an exalted member of France's political establishment, a friend of former Socialist president Lionel Jospin, and, from 1997 to 2000, his minister of education, research and technology, charged with improving the quality of government research through closer co-operation with France's educational institutions. For another, Dr. Allegre has the highest environmental credentials. The author of early environmental books, he fought successful battles to protect the ozone layer from CFCs and public health from lead pollution. His break with scientific dogma over global warming came at a personal cost: Colleagues in both the governmental and environmental spheres were aghast that he could publicly question the science behind climate change.

But Dr. Allegre had allegiances to more than his socialist and environmental colleagues. He is, above all, a scientist of the first order, the architect of isotope geodynamics, which showed that the atmosphere was primarily formed early in the history of the Earth, and the geochemical modeller of the early solar system. Because of his path-breaking cosmochemical research, NASA asked Dr. Allegre to participate in the Apollo lunar program, where he helped determine the age of the Moon. Matching his scientific accomplishments in the cosmos are his accomplishments at home: Dr. Allegre is perhaps best known for his research on the structural and geochemical evolution of the Earth's crust and the creation of its mountains, explaining both the title of his article in l' Express and his revulsion at the nihilistic nature of the climate research debate.


Calling the arguments of those who see catastrophe in climate change "simplistic and obscuring the true dangers," Dr. Allegre especially despairs at "the greenhouse-gas fanatics whose proclamations consist in denouncing man's role on the climate without doing anything about it except organizing conferences and preparing protocols that become dead letters." The world would be better off, Dr. Allegre believes, if these "denouncers" became less political and more practical, by proposing practical solutions to head off the dangers they see, such as developing technologies to sequester C02. His dream, he says, is to see "ecology become the engine of economic development and not an artificial obstacle that creates fear."

Lawrence Solomon@nextcity.com

- - -

- Lawrence Solomon is executive director of Urban Renaissance Institute and Consumer Policy Institute, divisions of Energy Probe Research Foundation.

CV OF A DENIER:

Claude Allegre received a Ph D in physics in 1962 from the University of Paris. He became the director of the geochemistry and cosmochemistry program at the French National Scientific Research Centre in 1967 and in 1971, he was appointed director of the University of Paris's Department of Earth Sciences. In 1976, he became director of the Paris Institut de Physique du Globe. He is an author of more than 100 scientific articles, many of them seminal studies on the evolution of the Earth using isotopic evidence, and 11 books. He is a member of the U.S. National Academy of Sciences and the French Academy of Science.

Is it me or is this becoming a trend? There have been a lot of stories like this recently. Maybe we're coming around to a more rational view on the issue? Recognizing the problems and inaccuracies with the science and the models that have been created with it thus far is the first step.

Science before politics.

here's some more fuel for the fire.
BBC channel 4 is airing a documentry about the Global warming hysteria.
afraid I can't view it maybe PBS will carry it later on?
http://www.lse.co.uk/ShowStory.asp?stor...ne=global_warming_is_lies_claims_docum

 

[sandorski]

Originally posted by: TehMac

Originally posted by: thraashman
I do think it's funny that the conservatives that agree with him would also be the ones most likely to disagree with him on other cases on the basis that he's French.

Only the ignorant liberals seem to think conservatives think the French are stupid for no reason. Many just don't trust them (rightfully) for their past actions. Would you trust the French?

The conservatives are not mindless like the liberals, as your post blatantly shows.

You're right, "Conservatives" have turned it into a Science! "Liberals" are still in the Artistic stage.

 

[nutxo]

Originally posted by: ntdz

Originally posted by: foghorn67

Originally posted by: ntdz

Originally posted by: thraashman
I do think it's funny that the conservatives that agree with him would also be the ones most likely to disagree with him on other cases on the basis that he's French.

And whether or not you agree that global warming is man-made, why is it even an argument? Because quite frankly it seems to me that pollution is a bad thing that we should make all efforts to reduce even if it doesn't actually add to global warming. Why do so many people argue against taking measures to curb global warming? Even if those measures won't stop global warming, they'll lessen pollution overall, so what's the issue? Do we like being stupid that much in this nation?

Co2 isn't really pollution in the sense that it's dirty or anything.

Tell that to the People's Republic of Kalifornia.

I live in California. The pollution isn't Co2, it's smog, among other things.

Smog is smoke and fog, literally.

 

[Whoozyerdaddy]

Originally posted by: DaveSimmons

Originally posted by: Whoozyerdaddy
His break with what he now sees as environmental cant on climate change came in September, in an article entitled "The Snows of Kilimanjaro" in l' Express, the French weekly. His article cited evidence that Antarctica is gaining ice and that Kilimanjaro's retreating snow caps, among other global-warming concerns, come from natural causes. "The cause of this climate change is unknown," he states matter of factly. There is no basis for saying, as most do, that the "science is settled."

Calling the arguments of those who see catastrophe in climate change "simplistic and obscuring the true dangers," Dr. Allegre especially despairs at "the greenhouse-gas fanatics whose proclamations consist in denouncing man's role on the climate without doing anything about it except organizing conferences and preparing protocols that become dead letters." The world would be better off, Dr. Allegre believes, if these "denouncers" became less political and more practical, by proposing practical solutions to head off the dangers they see, such as developing technologies to sequester C02. His dream, he says, is to see "ecology become the engine of economic development and not an artificial obstacle that creates fear."

Interesting that even the right wing now admits that climate change is occurring, despite earlier denials. Now their challenge to the orthodox scientists is how much is caused by humans and how much damage it will cause.

Not that many on the right seem willing to admit they've changed their minds and moved several steps closer to argeeing with the scientists they disparage.

That is exactly what I've been saying all along.

I'm not aware of anyone who has said that climate change isn't happening. The earth's climate is incredibly dynamic as evidenced by many ice ages and subsequent melt downs. You'd be a idiot to say otherwise. For that matter you only have to look back 300-700 years to see just how fickel the climate is. (Little Ice Age) In the late 1300's and early 1400's, temperature records show a very warm planet that was getting warmer fast... Then things cooled off, almost instantly in geologic scale. Then in the early/mid 1800's things started warming up again.

The part that I and many others have been screaming about is the exact opposite concept that you tried to lay out which is that many people on the GW side claim we are 100% responsible for the change. If anything this is a sign that people on both sides are beginning to see things in a more rational light. That being, man is not 100% responsible. There are other possibilities that are just as valid and just as worthy of research.

I think the real quesion is "What is our influence, if any, on the earth's climate?" To what degree are we influencing it and what are the actual forces at play right now?

 

[charrison]

Originally posted by: OrByte
sooo.. when are we going to move the argument from "who's causing global warming?" to "who is going to do something about it?"

Or do we just not care?

Or maybe it isn't even happening? :shocked:

Whenever your ready we can start building nuke plants and significantly reduce co2 in the near term in a cost effective manner.

 

[Acanthus]

Originally posted by: blackllotus

Originally posted by: NeoV
Certainly there are cycles in the Earth's weather patterns - cycles we really don't understand or have any accurate record of.

We may not understand the cycles, but we definately have a [partial] record of them. Link

And that follows one variable, and is no way tied in with historic temperature which cant be measured.

 

[Skotty]

CO2 concentrations in the atmosphere are increasing. Given that we generally like our world the way it is, we should really be looking at ways to balance our emissions to be more neutral. It's the smart thing to do.

Ignoring problems like this may one day lead to the downfall of the USA (and maybe even the entire planet). It's kind of like not eating healthy because little debbies are so cheap, with the insistence that changes to our weight and other health indicators are all just part of the natural cycle. If you don't care and just want to accept your coming fate, so be it, but to just blindly dismiss warning indicators is foolhardy.

 

[Czar]

Originally posted by: ntdz

Originally posted by: thraashman
I do think it's funny that the conservatives that agree with him would also be the ones most likely to disagree with him on other cases on the basis that he's French.

And whether or not you agree that global warming is man-made, why is it even an argument? Because quite frankly it seems to me that pollution is a bad thing that we should make all efforts to reduce even if it doesn't actually add to global warming. Why do so many people argue against taking measures to curb global warming? Even if those measures won't stop global warming, they'll lessen pollution overall, so what's the issue? Do we like being stupid that much in this nation?

Co2 isn't really pollution in the sense that it's dirty or anything.

so this
http://usinfo.state.gov/gi/Archive/2006/Mar/06-403759.html
is good for you?

 

[charrison]

Originally posted by: Czar

Originally posted by: ntdz

Originally posted by: thraashman
I do think it's funny that the conservatives that agree with him would also be the ones most likely to disagree with him on other cases on the basis that he's French.

And whether or not you agree that global warming is man-made, why is it even an argument? Because quite frankly it seems to me that pollution is a bad thing that we should make all efforts to reduce even if it doesn't actually add to global warming. Why do so many people argue against taking measures to curb global warming? Even if those measures won't stop global warming, they'll lessen pollution overall, so what's the issue? Do we like being stupid that much in this nation?

Co2 isn't really pollution in the sense that it's dirty or anything.

so this
http://usinfo.state.gov/gi/Archive/2006/Mar/06-403759.html
is good for you?

CO2 is not mentioned in that article. CO2 is a green house gas, but it is not a pollutant as our world cannot exist without it.

 

[imported_Shivetya]

thats okay, we can just buy carbon offsets and be guilt free!!!!


plant some trees, they should only take 40 to 50 years to offset the pollution caused by one cross country flight... but at least we can be guilt free