View Full Version : Giant Ice Shelf Breaks Off in Canadian Arctic
Alonzo
01-01-2007, 11:05 PM
A huge Canadian ice shelf 500 miles (800 kilometers) from the North Pole has disintegrated, leaving a large floating island of ice stranded 30 miles (48 kilometers) offshore, scientists reported yesterday.
The entire 25.5-square-mile (66-square-kilometer) Ayles Ice Shelf broke free from the northern coast of Ellesmere Island on August 13, 2005 (map of Canada).
The event registered as a small earthquake on instruments stationed 150 miles (250 kilometers) away, Warwick Vincent of Quebec's Laval University told the CanWest News Service.
"It's like a cruise missile came down and hit the ice shelf," Vincent said. "It no longer exists."
The breakup was spotted on satellite photos shortly after it occurred, but scientists have held back until now to make an announcement.
"We've spent the last year reconstructing exactly what happened," said Luke Copland, a geographer with the University of Ottawa in Ontario, Canada.
Sixteen months of study led Copland and colleagues to the conclusion that several factors were at work, mostly related to global warming.
Long-Term Trend
Ice shelves are floating tongues of glaciers that fill bays in the Arctic and Antarctic. The shelves are attached to land and are much thicker than pack ice—freely floating masses of sea ice.
The Ayles ice shelf was believed to be 3,000 to 4,500 years old.
Before the breakup the Canadian Arctic had six ice shelves.
"Now there are five," Copland said. In the past hundred years, he added, Canada's ice shelves have shrunk by 90 percent.
"We can't say that this [specific] event is due to global warming, but it definitely fits the long-term trend."
The summer of 2005, Copland said, had the lowest amount of Arctic Ocean sea ice ever recorded.
Pack ice normally buffers the ice shelf from ocean movement. But with little ice and strong offshore winds, waves were able to batter the ice shelf, weakening it.
In addition, 2005 was the warmest summer recorded on Ellesmere Island since 1960, with temperatures about 3.8°F (2.1°C) above average.
And the ice shelf breakup wasn't the only geologic disturbance on the island that summer.
Antoni Lewkowicz, a geography professor at the University of Ottawa, happened to be on the island when the ice shelf disintegrated, although he was unaware of the event at the time.
For nearly 20 years Lewkowicz has been studying landslides triggered by melting permafrost.
The overall warm summer thawed out the island significantly, he said, and a week of strong sun at the end of July set off massive numbers of landslides.
"You need a blast of heat," he said. "And that's what happened—a week of clear weather and warm temperatures, which triggered a whole bunch of landslides literally all around us."
In one 3.5-square-mile (9-square-kilometer) tract he counted 50 landslides during the warming period.
"So there were reactions to that warm period on the land as well," he said.
Lost Treasure
The broken ice shelf and Lewkowicz's landslides are important indicators of global climate change and its effects on the polar ice caps.
Earlier this month scientists reported that global warming may mean that the Arctic Ocean's summer sea ice will be completely gone by 2040.
And recent studies have shown that a loss of Arctic ice is causing polar bear populations to plummet, leading to a proposal to include the bears on the U.S. endangered species list.
Copland adds that the ice shelves are valuable because they offer a variety of historical and ecological insights.
Creatures that survive in such extreme environments, for example, could be analogues for life on other planets.
Arctic ice shelves are "not as sexy as polar bears," Copland said.
"But these are very unique environments, and we just lost one of them."
http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2006/12/061229-arctic-ice.html
According to the Bush admistration, it never happened. Only what President Bush thinks is true.
According to Al Gore, this is EXACTLY what happens when the temperature of the world rises. If you haven't seen An Inconvenient Truth, you are still in the dark.
BoogyMan
01-01-2007, 11:25 PM
According to the Bush admistration, it never happened.Â*Â*Only what President Bush thinks is true.
Link? Proof? I won't hold my breath.
Your breath doesn't matter - only the administration's views matters.
According to the Bush admistration, it never happened.Â*Â*Only what President Bush thinks is true.
Link?Â*Â*Proof?Â*Â*I won't hold my breath.
I'll take that challenge.
For example, our useful efforts to reduce sulfur emissions may have actually increased warming, because sulfate particles reflect sunlight, bouncing it back into space.Â*Â*And, finally, no one can say with any certainty what constitutes a dangerous level of warming, and therefore what level must be avoided.
Because when you only listen to the Oil Barons and the fossil fuel producers you don't hear anything about the destructive nature of global warming.
Even with the best science, even with the best technology, we all know the United States cannot solve this global problem alone.Â*Â*We're building partnerships within the Western Hemisphere and with other like-minded countries.Â*Â*Last week, Secretary Powell signed a new CONCAUSA Declaration with the countries of Central America, calling for cooperative efforts on science research, monitoring and measuring of emissions, technology development, and investment in forest conservation.
Right. The worst polluters and ozone destroyers are located in Central America. Clueless Chimp.
Kyoto is, in many ways, unrealistic.Â*Â*Many countries cannot meet their Kyoto targets.Â*Â*The targets themselves were arbitrary and not based upon science.Â*Â*For America, complying with those mandates would have a negative economic impact, with layoffs of workers and price increases for consumers. And when you evaluate all these flaws, most reasonable people will understand that it's not sound public policy.
And, yet, those targets were met by almost every country that signed the treaty. The only unsound public policy comes from a president that does not recognize that his buddies in the oil and coal business are the leading cause of the problem. He's loyal, if nothing else. But he's also clueless.
Words of the Chimpster (http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2001/06/20010611-2.html)
Labrocca
01-02-2007, 12:30 AM
Well 3000 years ago this ice shelf didn't even exist. So now it's gone...so what.Â*Â*3000 years is nothing to this planet.
And from that article...
"We can't say that this [specific] event is due to global warming...
No one with certainty can prove that global warming isn't something that's naturally part of the earths cycle.
Alonzo
01-02-2007, 12:45 AM
Global warming is part of the earths cycle, but not this rapidly. Rapid temperature increases of 4 or 5 celsius have been associated with previous mass extinctions. If additional pressures are in place (such as there is now from humans), it can be catastrophic.
There have been 928 articles written on global warming and everyone of them agrees that what is going on now is a direct result of our pollution of the planet. You really need to stop listening to oil company executives or Sen Imhoff for your scientific data.
That ice shelf detached itself from the land mass because ice melted and flowed under the ice mass warming up the base of the ice shelf. Once it got warm enough, it broke away. In a colder climate without global warming, that water would have refrozen once it hit the bottom of the ice shelf. If this happens enough times all over the world, the seas will rise.
If you think Katrina was a disaster, wait until THAT happens. You'll have ocean front property there in Nevada. (j/k)
BoogyMan
01-02-2007, 12:57 AM
For example, our useful efforts to reduce sulfur emissions may have actually increased warming, because sulfate particles reflect sunlight, bouncing it back into space.Â*Â*And, finally, no one can say with any certainty what constitutes a dangerous level of warming, and therefore what level must be avoided.
Because when you only listen to the Oil Barons and the fossil fuel producers you don't hear anything about the destructive nature of global warming.
Even with the best science, even with the best technology, we all know the United States cannot solve this global problem alone.Â*Â*We're building partnerships within the Western Hemisphere and with other like-minded countries.Â*Â*Last week, Secretary Powell signed a new CONCAUSA Declaration with the countries of Central America, calling for cooperative efforts on science research, monitoring and measuring of emissions, technology development, and investment in forest conservation.
Right. The worst polluters and ozone destroyers are located in Central America. Clueless Chimp.
Kyoto is, in many ways, unrealistic.Â*Â*Many countries cannot meet their Kyoto targets.Â*Â*The targets themselves were arbitrary and not based upon science.Â*Â*For America, complying with those mandates would have a negative economic impact, with layoffs of workers and price increases for consumers. And when you evaluate all these flaws, most reasonable people will understand that it's not sound public policy.
And, yet, those targets were met by almost every country that signed the treaty. The only unsound public policy comes from a president that does not recognize that his buddies in the oil and coal business are the leading cause of the problem. He's loyal, if nothing else. But he's also clueless.
Words of the Chimpster (http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2001/06/20010611-2.html)
Once again you seem not to be able to get the gist of my question ECW. Nemo claimed the administration denied this ice shelf break and I asked for proof. You charge in with the childish names and completely avoid my question in order to toss out the rubber stamp "I hate Bush" hoohah.
Once again you seem not to be able to get the gist of my question ECW.Â*Â*Nemo claimed the administration denied this ice shelf break and I asked for proof.Â*Â*You charge in with the childish names and completely avoid my question in order to toss out the rubber stamp "I hate Bush" hoohah.
Sweet Jesus, man. Are you so in love with George W Bush that you fail to see a sarcastic comment like this? To quote someone I know, "Egads!"
PS- for future reference, I do not hate the Chimpster. That very powerful emotion is reserved for a select few political personages of which our coke-snorting Andover cheerleader is not one. Sorry to burst your bubble.
Well 3000 years ago this ice shelf didn't even exist. So now it's gone...so what.Â*Â*3000 years is nothing to this planet.
And from that article...
"We can't say that this [specific] event is due to global warming...
No one with certainty can prove that global warming isn't something that's naturally part of the earths cycle.
For Your Reading Pleasure (http://www.hokeg.dyndns.org/AITruth.htm)
No one with certainty can prove that global warming isn't something that's naturally part of the earths cycle.
I'm going to have to agree with you on this statement. For every one person that says global warming is the problem, there is another person that says it isn't. I have to admit that I'm on the fence on this one...........BUT......I also don't see the harm in erring on the side of caution. Better to be safe, than sorry.
Read the above cited transcript and see if you are still sitting on that fence that is sinking into the permafrost.
BoogyMan
01-02-2007, 02:02 AM
No one with certainty can prove that global warming isn't something that's naturally part of the earths cycle.
I'm going to have to agree with you on this statement. For every one person that says global warming is the problem, there is another person that says it isn't. I have to admit that I'm on the fence on this one...........BUT......I also don't see the harm in erring on the side of caution. Better to be safe, than sorry.
If more global warming advocates would approach the topic with this kind of attitude I think there would be a much better chance of their thoughts being taken seriously, and there would be a more congenial mood for compromise.
BoogyMan
01-02-2007, 02:14 AM
Sweet Jesus, man. Are you so in love with George W Bush that you fail to see a sarcastic comment like this? To quote someone I know, "Egads!"
If someone smacked me down for that hogwash you posted I might have posted something like this too ECW.
It will be interesting to see what else happens in the area in the near future. Will we see more of this type of activity? Possibly. I have to commend Lily for a well thought out and reasoned take to this whole idea.
Alonzo
01-02-2007, 02:16 AM
The thing is, I don't see a whole lot of scientists saying global warming isn't an issue, or that humans aren't the likely cause. I see a few, and they do get a lot of airtime, but the major debate seems to be in the public realm, not the scientific one.
BoogyMan
01-02-2007, 02:20 AM
The thing is, I don't see a whole lot of scientists saying global warming isn't an issue, or that humans aren't the likely cause. I see a few, and they do get a lot of airtime, but the major debate seems to be in the public realm, not the scientific one.
Even the UN has backed off a bit on its stance on humans being the cause of any warming that might be going on.
Alonzo
01-02-2007, 02:27 AM
They revised their predictions. I don't see anything where their reports have backed off on humans being the cause. They just lowered their predictions to the amount of change in the next 100 years. And I don't see anything coming out of the scientific world that suggests humans aren't the cause. I do see repeated studies suggesting that humans are the probabe cause (proving causation is a rare thing in science, as I'm sure you're aware of), and then various arguments to the degree of our impact and how fast things will occur.
There's always a loss of accuracy when the non scientific world tries to understand science. And this becomes more dramatic due to the complexity of the situation.
BoogyMan
01-02-2007, 02:36 AM
They revised their predictions. I don't see anything where their reports have backed off on humans being the cause. They just lowered their predictions to the amount of change in the next 100 years. And I don't see anything coming out of the scientific world that suggests humans aren't the cause. I do see repeated studies suggesting that humans are the probabe cause (proving causation is a rare thing in science, as I'm sure you're aware of), and then various arguments to the degree of our impact and how fast things will occur.
I think we are probably wrestling with semantics here Zo. When I say backed off, I mean the same as you when you say revised predictions. It is very important to understand that they revised their predictions downwards, not upwards.
Read the above cited transcript and see if you are still sitting on that fence that is sinking into the permafrost.
ECW......I'm still not convinced that it is global warming, or normal weather patterns. I'm still not convinced that it is man made. As I said what I am convinced about is, whether or not the above mentioned is the cause, it is better to do something about it now , than to sit back and say there is nothing to worry about, and find out later it was.
In all the years I have been on this planet, I have never heard of an ice shelf breaking off like that. Seven of the hottest years on the planet have occured in the last ten years. Trouble is that this administration is not in the mood to fix anything concerning global warming because they don't actually believe it is for real. They are talking about doing crap in Central America and ignoring the "elephant In the room" (their buddies in the oil bidnez) but not fixing what can be fixed. There are billions more dollars to be made in cleaning up the environment than there are in polluting it. The fact is that Chimpy's friends are all on the Polluters side of the fence.
Flea_Bit_Monkey
01-02-2007, 07:40 AM
In all the years I have been on this planet, I have never heard of an ice shelf breaking off like that.
Yea, cause if it happened a lot big chunks of ice would be floating around, and ships would run into them...
Seven of the hottest years on the planet have occured in the last ten years.
Not even close.
In all the years I have been on this planet, I have never heard of an ice shelf breaking off like that.
Yea, cause if it happened a lot big chunks of ice would be floating around, and ships would run into them...
Seven of the hottest years on the planet have occured in the last ten years.
Not even close.
And ten of the hottest years ever have been in the last 14. Read for yourself. (http://www.hokeg.dyndns.org/AITruth.htm)
Flea_Bit_Monkey
01-02-2007, 08:06 AM
In all the years I have been on this planet, I have never heard of an ice shelf breaking off like that.
Yea, cause if it happened a lot big chunks of ice would be floating around, and ships would run into them...
Seven of the hottest years on the planet have occured in the last ten years.
Not even close.
And ten of the hottest years ever have been in the last 14. Read for yourself. (http://www.hokeg.dyndns.org/AITruth.htm)
No need to read your link, there have been times when the earth was so warm it was ice free, so obviously there have been much hotter years on the planet than the last decade or so.
Yeah, if you want to go back 10,000 years. Otherwise you are wrong and the link you refused to read proves it. Thank you. Have a nice day.
More proof...
The world's economy appears to be robust, but masks an approaching crisis -- the sustainability of future generations "can no longer be taken for granted." That's the opinion of the 1,300 scientists who participated in the Millennium Ecosystem Assessment, a four-year analysis of the world's ecosystems sponsored by the Worldwatch Institute and reported in Vital Signs 2006-2007.
Examining 24 major ecosystems that support human life, scientists found that 15 are "being pushed beyond their sustainable limits," toward a change that will be "abrupt and potentially irreversible." Humanity's genius at economic development has taxed our ecosystems to the point where we face "imminent ecological and economic crises."
Economically, the world is booming. Steel, aluminum, vehicle production and Gross World Product set records in 2005, as did Internet usage and cell phones. Unfortunately, the production of atmospheric CO2 concentrations, the main greenhouse gas, is also booming -- 2004 measured the highest annual increase ever. Average temperatures in 2005 were the hottest ever recorded on the earth's surface, the warmest in 10,000 years.
Warming has led to the destruction of 20 percent of the world's coral reefs and 25 percent of the world's mangrove forests. Sea ice fell to the lowest levels ever recorded and almost a third of the Arctic Ocean, normally covered by ice in the summer, has melted. Weather-related disasters, attributed to global warming, reached a record cost of $204 billion, with record hurricane, forest fire and tornado seasons in the US.
Global warming is here and scientists predict that the number and severity of weather-caused disasters will increase as the earth warms through the heat trapping effects of greenhouse gases created by burning oil, coal and natural gas, which accounts for 80 percent of the world's energy use. With the US consuming roughly a quarter of the world's oil and, along with automobile exhaust, creating almost a quarter of the world's greenhouse gases, pressure is mounting to switch to alternative sources of fuel to modify the amount of damage created by global warming in the future.
With the Bush Administration and the oil, gas and automobile conglomerates rejecting scientific findings of man-made global warming, how will the country take action to curb it?
American voters lurch from crisis to crisis, have a short attention span and get their information from a very fad-obsessed media, according to Daniel Press, professor and chair of Environmental Studies at UC Santa Cruz. Any crisis that requires a change in behavior or tremendous investment, such as global warming requires, will take a major upheaval to affect public policy -- a Pearl Harbor-type event in the environment.
"Unfortunately, we will have many disruptions with extreme climate events, rising sea levels and possibly some cascading collapses in various ecosystems," said Press.
Some states are not waiting for disasters. California recent adopted a global emissions bill, which could spur politicians to provide national leadership on the issue. Despite strong opposition from Republicans, California passed a bill requiring reduction of CO2 by 25 percent by 2020, with enforceable controls.
"California's global warming bill represents a complete break from federal policy and something unheard of in this country," said Press. "If the political stars can align for this to happen in California, moderate Republicans and Democrats could make this happen on the national level."
Businesses are beginning to find economic opportunities in energy efficiency and alternative forms of energy because competition demands it. Japanese cars are surpassing domestic auto companies; Finland uses less energy to produce paper than the US does; and manufacturing sectors around the world are more energy-efficient than the US.
"As energy costs go up, there's money to be made with renewal energy, managing conservation and reducing energy demands," Press said. "As energy costs become a larger part of manufacturing, the winners will be those who conserve energy."
One opportunity involves sequestering carbon, which currently costs $150 a ton, too expensive to be practical. If CO2 can be captured and injected underground, or otherwise prevented from accumulating in the atmosphere, many global warming problems could be alleviated.
"Americans are good at this sort of technological change," said Press. "The whole world is a market for fuel efficiency and renewable energy supplies."
Press advocates many off-the-shelf energy saving technologies that are immediately available such as solar energy, insulation and more fuel-efficient cars. This happened in 1974, when building codes were changed to require home insulation. Developers fought the change, claiming 200,000 Californian homebuyers wouldn't be able to afford the price increase. Instead, consumers appreciated cutting their energy bills in half and housing didn't experience a downturn.
"Transitions are scary, uncertain and possibly expensive, but the arguments for making energy investments are compelling," said Press. "You make money because, over the long run, you're saving energy."
The transition should have been begun 20 years ago: Every delay makes it more difficult.
"I don't think it is impossible for us to make substantial gains in reducing global warming," Press said. "We can't afford a defeatist attitude. We have to be forceful. If we throw up our hands and do nothing, we are accepting the worst-case scenario."
Link (http://www.alternet.org/envirohealth/45981/)
Flea_Bit_Monkey
01-02-2007, 08:17 AM
Yeah, if you want to go back 10,000 years. Otherwise you are wrong
That makes me right, you didn't say 10,000 years, you said "on this planet"
Also, reliable data points have not existed for much further back than a handful of decades, and even then data from different sources conflict with each other.
You post opinion and unsupported data and call it proof. That isn't science, it's faith.
Yeah, if you want to go back 10,000 years. Otherwise you are wrong
That makes me right, you didn't say 10,000 years, you said "on this planet"
Also, reliable data points have not existed for much further back than a handful of decades, and even then data from different sources conflict with each other.
You post opinion and unsupported data and call it proof. That isn't science, it's faith.
MWHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!
I post two sources that you even refuse to read that back up my point of view and you tell ME that I am posting "opinion and unsupported data and call it proof"?
MWHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!
And then you split hairs as if that's going to score you any debating points?
MWHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!
And then you tell me (without a source or citation) that "reliable data points have not existed for much further back than a handful of decades, and even then data from different sources conflict with each other" but you don't bring any PROOF to back up what you claim?
MWHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!
Shit. Go to bed, boyo. You got nothing tonight except neo-con smoke and mirrors and it's making you look real bad.
Opinion + no citation = nada + zip + squat
Nighty night!
Labrocca
01-02-2007, 10:11 AM
In all the years I have been on this planet, I have never heard of an ice shelf breaking off like that.
And you think the measly years you have been here amounts to anything in the span of the earths age?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thermometer
We have only been recording data for a couple hundred years. Most notably the last 50 or so. So now that someone looks deep into weather they see DOOM! That's not suprising to me at all. People like to see ghosts where there is only a shadow.
Even 10,000 years is a spit in comparison. Dinosaurs were here 65 MILLION years ago. I am sure the climate has changed since then. The earth went through an ice-age...obviously NOT caused by man. The earth may now be warming but the proof that it's entirely the fault of man doesn't exist. Sure...we may help speed it along and I am very environmental. I don't like trashing the planet as it's our only home.
We may have been recording data for the past 50 years like you claim but scientists can "see" much further in the past than that. Given where we are today and how things have changed as result of the pollution we have created in the last 50 years (that has never happened before in the history of the planet as far as we can tell) we are riding the horse off a very steep cliff.
Some folks may see ghosts. Some may see shadows. I just see death itself.
BoogyMan
01-02-2007, 05:37 PM
We may have been recording data for the past 50 years like you claim but scientists can "see" much further in the past than that. Given where we are today and how things have changed as result of the pollution we have created in the last 50 years (that has never happened before in the history of the planet as far as we can tell) we are riding the horse off a very steep cliff.
Some folks may see ghosts. Some may see shadows. I just see death itself.
ECW, you assume that the climatic changes we are seeing are caused by pollution in the last 50 years and thus your whole line of argumentation falls prey to a single assumption that is dubious in its inception.
micfranklin
01-02-2007, 05:59 PM
Icebergs break off all the time, but we really need to step our game up and find more ways to solve this problem if the ice chunks get to be that big.
Alonzo
01-02-2007, 05:59 PM
Icebergs yes, not ice shelves.
Flea_Bit_Monkey
01-02-2007, 07:10 PM
that has never happened before in the history of the planet as far as we can tell
This has happened in the history of the planet. Warmer than today, colder than today, it's all normal cyclic temperature for the earth.
Ice shelves break all the time. Huge icebergs the size of states have been reported since such reports started.
Labrocca
01-02-2007, 09:11 PM
Weathermen can't accurately predict future weather. I think scientists can't predict the future either. Sure they can see a trend in some weather changes but as stated...it's a full assumption that it's humans causing a global warming effect.
Almost all the reports I read have words like "maybe" or "might".
And as I said..this ice shelf was only 5000 years old at best. That's not that old for the planet. And less just say it was meant to fall about 5500 years...so what. So humans caused it to fall 10% faster. Big deal. I don't think the planet is gonna crack in half tomorrow.
piratemonkey
01-03-2007, 08:15 PM
Weathermen can't accurately predict future weather.Â*Â*I think scientists can't predict the future either.Â*Â*Sure they can see a trend in some weather changes but as stated...it's a full assumption that it's humans causing a global warming effect.Â*Â*
I assume the sun is going to rise tomorrow... shouldn't I?
Aren't I just following a trend? ;)
Almost all the reports I read have words like "maybe" or "might".
Any and every scientific journal article you read will have qualifiers like this.Â*Â*It's called humility and shows that scientists, even in their conclusions are open to being proved wrong.
I don't think the planet is gonna crack in half tomorrow.
If it does, I call "dibs" on the half with the land. You can have the water half.
Thirdparty
01-05-2007, 05:10 PM
We may have been recording data for the past 50 years like you claim but scientists can "see" much further in the past than that. Given where we are today and how things have changed as result of the pollution we have created in the last 50 years (that has never happened before in the history of the planet as far as we can tell) we are riding the horse off a very steep cliff.
Some folks may see ghosts. Some may see shadows. I just see death itself.
How much of this can just be attributed to normal weather cycles? It seems for many a lot of it can be.
I am not saying there are not pollution issues, but all climate change in the world is not due to global warming, some is normal cyclical change.
We may have been recording data for the past 50 years like you claim but scientists can "see" much further in the past than that. Given where we are today and how things have changed as result of the pollution we have created in the last 50 years (that has never happened before in the history of the planet as far as we can tell) we are riding the horse off a very steep cliff.
Some folks may see ghosts. Some may see shadows. I just see death itself.
How much of this can just be attributed to normal weather cycles? It seems for many a lot of it can be.
I am not saying there are not pollution issues, but all climate change in the world is not due to global warming, some is normal cyclical change.
A lot of it is because oil companies are running around plastering lies and half-truths everywhere to try and confuse the issue when the science is pretty clear about the damaging effects that fossil fuels have on our environment. Case in point:
A new report from the Union of Concerned Scientists offers the most comprehensive documentation to date of how ExxonMobil has adopted the tobacco industry's disinformation tactics, as well as some of the same organizations and personnel, to cloud the scientific understanding of climate change and delay action on the issue. According to the report, ExxonMobil has funneled nearly $16 million between 1998 and 2005 to a network of 43 advocacy organizations that seek to confuse the public on global warming science.
"ExxonMobil has manufactured uncertainty about the human causes of global warming just as tobacco companies denied their product caused lung cancer," said Alden Meyer, the Union of Concerned Scientists' Director of Strategy and Policy. "A modest but effective investment has allowed the oil giant to fuel doubt about global warming to delay government action just as Big Tobacco did for over 40 years."
Smoke, Mirrors and Hot Air: How ExxonMobil Uses Big Tobacco's Tactics to "Manufacture Uncertainty" on Climate Change details how the oil company, like the tobacco industry in previous decades, has
- raised doubts about even the most indisputable scientific evidence - funded an array of front organizations to create the appearance of a broad platform for a tight-knit group of vocal climate change contrarians who misrepresent peer-reviewed scientific findings - attempted to portray its opposition to action as a positive quest for "sound science" rather than business self-interest - used its access to the Bush administration to block federal policies and shape government communications on global warming
ExxonMobil-funded organizations consist of an overlapping collection of individuals serving as staff, board members, and scientific advisors that publish and re-publish the works of a small group of climate change contrarians. The George C. Marshall Institute, for instance, which has received $630,000 from ExxonMobil, recently touted a book edited by Patrick Michaels, a long-time climate change contrarian who is affiliated with at least 11 organizations funded by ExxonMobil. Similarly, ExxonMobil funds a number of lesser-known groups such as the Annapolis Center for Science-Based Public Policy and Committee for a Constructive Tomorrow. Both groups promote the work of several climate change contrarians, including Sallie Baliunas, an astrophysicist who is affiliated with at least nine ExxonMobil-funded groups.
Baliunas is best known for a 2003 paper alleging the climate had not changed significantly in the past millennia that was rebutted by 13 scientists who stated she had misrepresented their work in her paper. This renunciation did not stop ExxonMobil-funded groups from continuing to promote the paper. Through methods such as these, ExxonMobil has been able to amplify and prop up work that has been discredited by reputable climate scientists.
"When one looks closely, ExxonMobil's underhanded strategy is as clear and indisputable as the scientific research it's meant to discredit," said Seth Shulman, an investigative journalist who wrote the UCS report. "The paper trail shows that, to serve its corporate interests, ExxonMobil has built a vast echo chamber of seemingly independent groups with the express purpose of spreading disinformation about global warming."
ExxonMobil has used the laudable goal of improving scientific understanding of global warming-under the guise of "sound science"-for the pernicious ends of delaying action to reduce heat-trapping emissions indefinitely. ExxonMobil also exerted unprecedented influence over U.S. policy on global warming, from successfully recommending the appointment of key personnel in the Bush administration to funding climate change deniers in Congress.
"As a scientist, I like to think that facts will prevail, and they do eventually," said Dr. James McCarthy, Alexander Agassiz Professor of Biological Oceanography at Harvard University and former chair of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change's working group on climate change impacts. "It's shameful that ExxonMobil has sought to obscure the facts for so long when the future of our planet depends on the steps we take now and in the coming years."
The burning of oil and other fossil fuels results in additional atmospheric carbon dioxide that blankets the Earth and traps heat. The amount of CO2 in the atmosphere has increased greatly over the last century and global temperatures are rising as a result. Though solutions are available now that will cut global warming emissions while creating jobs, saving consumers money, and protecting our national security, ExxonMobil has manufactured confusion around climate change science, and these actions have helped to forestall meaningful action that could minimize the impacts of future climate change.
"ExxonMobil needs to be held accountable for its cynical disinformation campaign on global warming," said Meyer. "Consumers, shareholders and Congress should let the company know loud and clear that its behavior on this issue is unacceptable and must change."
Formed in 1969, the Union of Concerned Scientists is the leading science-based nonprofit working for a healthy environment and a safer world. UCS combines independent scientific research and citizen action to develop innovative, practical solutions and secure responsible changes in government policy, corporate practices, and consumer choices.
Disinformation campaign (http://www.energy-daily.com/reports/ExxonMobil_Disinformation_Campaign_On_Global_Warmi ng_Science_999.html)
BoogyMan
01-05-2007, 05:46 PM
I don't think the planet is gonna crack in half tomorrow.
If it does, I call "dibs" on the half with the land. You can have the water half.
Then he can get rich selling you water! :D
Thirdparty
01-06-2007, 04:51 AM
We may have been recording data for the past 50 years like you claim but scientists can "see" much further in the past than that. Given where we are today and how things have changed as result of the pollution we have created in the last 50 years (that has never happened before in the history of the planet as far as we can tell) we are riding the horse off a very steep cliff.
Some folks may see ghosts. Some may see shadows. I just see death itself.
How much of this can just be attributed to normal weather cycles? It seems for many a lot of it can be.
I am not saying there are not pollution issues, but all climate change in the world is not due to global warming, some is normal cyclical change.
A lot of it is because oil companies are running around plastering lies and half-truths everywhere to try and confuse the issue when the science is pretty clear about the damaging effects that fossil fuels have on our environment. Case in point:
A new report from the Union of Concerned Scientists offers the most comprehensive documentation to date of how ExxonMobil has adopted the tobacco industry's disinformation tactics, as well as some of the same organizations and personnel, to cloud the scientific understanding of climate change and delay action on the issue. According to the report, ExxonMobil has funneled nearly $16 million between 1998 and 2005 to a network of 43 advocacy organizations that seek to confuse the public on global warming science.
"ExxonMobil has manufactured uncertainty about the human causes of global warming just as tobacco companies denied their product caused lung cancer," said Alden Meyer, the Union of Concerned Scientists' Director of Strategy and Policy. "A modest but effective investment has allowed the oil giant to fuel doubt about global warming to delay government action just as Big Tobacco did for over 40 years."
Smoke, Mirrors and Hot Air: How ExxonMobil Uses Big Tobacco's Tactics to "Manufacture Uncertainty" on Climate Change details how the oil company, like the tobacco industry in previous decades, has
- raised doubts about even the most indisputable scientific evidence - funded an array of front organizations to create the appearance of a broad platform for a tight-knit group of vocal climate change contrarians who misrepresent peer-reviewed scientific findings - attempted to portray its opposition to action as a positive quest for "sound science" rather than business self-interest - used its access to the Bush administration to block federal policies and shape government communications on global warming
ExxonMobil-funded organizations consist of an overlapping collection of individuals serving as staff, board members, and scientific advisors that publish and re-publish the works of a small group of climate change contrarians. The George C. Marshall Institute, for instance, which has received $630,000 from ExxonMobil, recently touted a book edited by Patrick Michaels, a long-time climate change contrarian who is affiliated with at least 11 organizations funded by ExxonMobil. Similarly, ExxonMobil funds a number of lesser-known groups such as the Annapolis Center for Science-Based Public Policy and Committee for a Constructive Tomorrow. Both groups promote the work of several climate change contrarians, including Sallie Baliunas, an astrophysicist who is affiliated with at least nine ExxonMobil-funded groups.
Baliunas is best known for a 2003 paper alleging the climate had not changed significantly in the past millennia that was rebutted by 13 scientists who stated she had misrepresented their work in her paper. This renunciation did not stop ExxonMobil-funded groups from continuing to promote the paper. Through methods such as these, ExxonMobil has been able to amplify and prop up work that has been discredited by reputable climate scientists.
"When one looks closely, ExxonMobil's underhanded strategy is as clear and indisputable as the scientific research it's meant to discredit," said Seth Shulman, an investigative journalist who wrote the UCS report. "The paper trail shows that, to serve its corporate interests, ExxonMobil has built a vast echo chamber of seemingly independent groups with the express purpose of spreading disinformation about global warming."
ExxonMobil has used the laudable goal of improving scientific understanding of global warming-under the guise of "sound science"-for the pernicious ends of delaying action to reduce heat-trapping emissions indefinitely. ExxonMobil also exerted unprecedented influence over U.S. policy on global warming, from successfully recommending the appointment of key personnel in the Bush administration to funding climate change deniers in Congress.
"As a scientist, I like to think that facts will prevail, and they do eventually," said Dr. James McCarthy, Alexander Agassiz Professor of Biological Oceanography at Harvard University and former chair of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change's working group on climate change impacts. "It's shameful that ExxonMobil has sought to obscure the facts for so long when the future of our planet depends on the steps we take now and in the coming years."
The burning of oil and other fossil fuels results in additional atmospheric carbon dioxide that blankets the Earth and traps heat. The amount of CO2 in the atmosphere has increased greatly over the last century and global temperatures are rising as a result. Though solutions are available now that will cut global warming emissions while creating jobs, saving consumers money, and protecting our national security, ExxonMobil has manufactured confusion around climate change science, and these actions have helped to forestall meaningful action that could minimize the impacts of future climate change.
"ExxonMobil needs to be held accountable for its cynical disinformation campaign on global warming," said Meyer. "Consumers, shareholders and Congress should let the company know loud and clear that its behavior on this issue is unacceptable and must change."
Formed in 1969, the Union of Concerned Scientists is the leading science-based nonprofit working for a healthy environment and a safer world. UCS combines independent scientific research and citizen action to develop innovative, practical solutions and secure responsible changes in government policy, corporate practices, and consumer choices.
Disinformation campaign (http://www.energy-daily.com/reports/ExxonMobil_Disinformation_Campaign_On_Global_Warmi ng_Science_999.html)
Everyone has an agenda, ECW, including UCS.
Labrocca
01-06-2007, 05:50 AM
I hate ExxonMobil. Those bastards can suck my balls. If it wasn't for the oil companies we would be have more alternative energies today and maybe the middle east wouldn't be the problem it is today. Yeah...that's a lefty radical view but I had it for years.
Flea_Bit_Monkey
01-06-2007, 05:51 AM
All the alternative methods are available to you now. How many do you use?
Labrocca
01-06-2007, 05:57 AM
I am saving up for Solar Panels on my house. It will cost me about 30k but it will be worth it. Also I use pretty fuel efficient cars.Â*Â*I would buy a hybrid vehicle but they are too costly and I can get my Solar Panels installed instead.
Also one of the best sources of alternative fuel is HEMP which was made illegal by our government at the behest of the oil companies.
http://www.hemp4fuel.com/hughdowns.html
I've also looked at installing a turbine (wind mill). Where I live there is plenty of wind and it is free for the "harvesting." I'm looking at whether solar or wind is cheaper and once I go off the grid, it's gratis once the machinery is paid for. The only use I will have for the oil companies is a jar or two of grease to keep stuff running well.
Labrocca
01-06-2007, 06:31 AM
I would do a wind power as well but you do need more space for it. Since I live in Vegas though there is a LOT of sun (wind too really) and cost is about 15-20 years of fuel at current levels of increases to recover the cost. However if the shit ever hits the fan ($5 a gallon oil) it will be well worth it. And if the grid goes out...I still have power. :)
Anyways..this is a bit off-topic so let's either get back to the ice-shelf or start a new thread about alternative energy.
preservanation
06-17-2007, 04:01 PM
"But these are very unique environments, and we just lost one of them." http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/...c-ice.html
Because of an ice shelf collapsed, we lost an entire environment? How do they think that environment was created? Ice shelves falling helped create the very environment they are trying to save.
Some of these people are imbeciles.
micfranklin
06-17-2007, 04:13 PM
But what about the cute, widdle, polar bears?
preservanation
06-18-2007, 06:35 AM
But what about the cute, widdle, polar bears?
You mean the ones who eat the penguins?:D
vBulletin® v3.7.0, Copyright ©2000-2008, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.