Will true global warming alarmist give me one secound?

Question

http://www.larouchepub.com/eiw/

Go down the page to the interview section and read the entire interveiw with the sea level guy, Nils-Axel. Then let me know why he is wrong and why he would be saying the gospel of the IPCC is wrong. I don't know how is guy is still alive. How dare he speak his mind like that.

Read about the part where the IPCC kids rip up a tree that doesn't fit the the conclusions they want. Read how they use these models instead of observational data. In short they are totally political. He says the sea may rise 5cm in 100 years not 60 foot in 100 years like Dana and other alarmist would like you to beleive.

AAawwww, I think firstythirty is crying. Do I see a tear. Let me get you a blanket little baby. Answer the question and stop whining.

Answer 1

Thank you John.

I could not find the interview.

However I think one issue that is not being discussed is that if we assume that everything that we are told about Global Warming is true, what would it take to actually do something about it and stop Global Warming.

If the IPCC is correct, we would have to cut back carbon dioxide emissions by at least 85% or more worldwide to stop Global Warming.

That would mean a worldwilde ban on the use of fossil fuels.

We would have to shut down all transportation worldwide. There could be no automobiles, trucks, buses. trains, planes or shipping.

We would have to shut down all manufacturing, steelmaking and cement making.

We would have to stop the generation of electricity using fossil fuels.

We would have to stop the cooking of all food, the heating and cooling of all homes, offices and factories.

We would have to stop the heating of water.

We would have to learn to bathe in cold water.

The People's Republic of China has already stated publicly they will not go along with any reduction in their use of fossil fuels, not to mention an outright ban on their use of fossil fuels.

If we do not have the cooperation of China, we cannot get sufficient reductions in tha amount of co2 production even if we managed to get a complete ban on fossil fuel use worldwide with the exception of China..

China alone generates enough co2 by itself to cause Global Warming if the IPCC report is correct.

We do not have the political will or the military ability to enforce a worldwide ban on the use of fossil fuels.

If the IPCC report is correct, Global Warming is a problem without a politically or militarily feasible solution.

It is physically impossible for us to cut back enough fossil fuel use to stop Global Warming.

Therefore all the talk about Global Warming and the importance of cutting back fossil fuel use is pointless if it will not achieve the goal of stopping Global Warming.
.

Answer 2

It doesnt require a degree in oceanographics to see that half a foot a year is an exaggeration, however, the fact is that the ocean is going up more like a centimeter a year now. The fact is that the ice caps are melting at an alarming rate.

This report has an agenda, ie, it is not a consensus based on the reports of various experts. I also seriously doubt anyone at the IPCC has nothing better to do than to rip down trees to change evidence. If you can prove that the tree was torn down then I might believe you.

Maybe the IPCC is panning for money, Im not going to say their not. I will have to do more research. All I know is hundreds of researchers, many that have nothing to do with the IPCC, have said global warming is a reality, and have other resluts like ice core tests from the ice caps, which tell no lies.

I guess what you are saying is basically these "groups" who sing the praises ogf global warming research are just pining for research money to support they cause. Well, you could say the same thing for the AMA , the FDA, and the American Cancer Assoc.

One group's theories do not a crisis make. Global warming is a reality, not a farce. If you did any proper research, instead of just poo-pooing the IPCC, you might see this.

I know one thing: I'm not gambling on the "tested theory" of a one Nils-Axel who I have never heard of to decide whether global warming is a problem. I KNOW its a problem, but Im going to do research and not take ONLY the testimony of the IPCC or Nils-Axel!!

Answer 3

Tbe page must have been updated or your link is wrong, the only interview is one with Dr. Shaddad Attili. Makes it hard to comment.

By 'Nils-Axel' I have to assume you mean the Geologist Nils Axel Morner, he is a fringe climate change skeptic, I beleive he's Swedish and was a professor Karlskrona and Stockholm Universities until his department was closed down.

If this is the guy then he's THE self-styled expert on sea levels. This strikes me as odd considering he's a geologist and therefore studies the land. If he was a hydrologist of oceanographer it would have been more credible. In any event, although he may know about sea levels, he most definitely is not THE expert.

Some of his work has been produced for some very questionable journals including a report he wrote for the Intelligent Executive Review (or something like that). I hope this isn't the one you're referring to as the editor is perhaps not the best person to be producing what he purports are scientific journals. He is a convicted criminal who would like to see a global dictatorship and seems susceptible to having the wool pulled over his eyes, so much so that he beleives we have been invaded by aliens and that they're living amongst us.

It's a misconception that scientists are prevented from speaking their mind. One of the best ways for science to progress is for people to question it and this is actively encouraged. With global warming and climate change there are very few scientists who do question it.

Can't comment on kids ripping up trees as haven't read the article so don't know what this refers to.

Models are based on observed data as far as is possible, any suggestion to the contrary quite clearly comes from someone who doesn't understand them and certainly has no first hand experience of them.

Nobody has ever said that sea levels will rise 60 feet in 100 years, this is something that has been made up by climate change skeptics. The most detailed report ever conducted into climate change concludes that sea levels are expected to rise by 300 to 500mm (12 to 20 inches) in the next 100 years with a worst case scenario of 900mm (30 inches).

Answer 4

There's one problem with his data, and that is it all takes place fairly high in the northern hemisphere. The centrifugal force of the Earth rotation, along with the fluidity of water, will bring the water to the equator first. And as far as test in Venice, are you kidding. Venice is at least two tidal pools inland. The Mediterranean sea, and the Adriatic sea. First the water would have to rise through the Straights of Gibraltar, the through the Mediterranean, around Italy, up the Adriatic, and finally into Venice. The flooding of Venice is due to many factors; tides, winds, humidity, and a little bit from rain. Having lived my whole life in an area with tidal bay, you learn that the draining water of rivers keeps an out flow of water holding back tides. For sea level to affect the Venetian Lagoon, The levels around Spain and Italy would have to rise first. Showing sea level rise in Venice is like trying to pump water up stream.

EDIT:
Standing on the jetties of the Moriches Inlet, from the Atlantic Ocean to Moriches Bay, you can see that the ocean is between 1 and 2 feet higher than the bay. So why doesn't the ocean come rushing in and fill to one equal level? It's because of water pressure. The bay is feed from rivers and streams that keep a constant water pressure against the ocean. The tides bring the bay up and down, but never to the same level as the ocean.
I don't doubt that the IPCC's data is tainted in one direction, however, the Nils- Axel report is obviously tainted in the other direction. These tests need to be done on the Equator, and neither side of the fence will do it in fear of being proven wrong.

Answer 5

Yeah, let's use Lyndon Laruche as our moral compass. That's a great plan.

I've given you a second, the source you quote is hardly credible, and if it was word for word truth, it still didn't say that sea levels are falling.

We don't know what will happen as glaciers start melting, but if the world keeps getting hotter, we do know that the sea level rise won't remain constant.

The sea level, in a hotter world, will rise at a faster rate, until the glaciers are melted and we can regain balance.

That's just common sense. It's easy enough for an idiot to calculate and say, "the sea level rise was 1/30 of an inch," but that doesn't mean an inch every 30 years.

Answer 6

The Larsen ice shelf started the main mass melt and slide of the Eastern glacier's, slideing as a start. I do not envy your position as a doubter of a physical happening, that scientist's are not even able to evaluate. I feel it will happen soon, (main antarctic ice slide into sea) takeing day's to year's, most likely about a score of year's. Your future is resting on that ice, so your doubt's will fog your safety (mankind's in the same boat as you-doubter's). I cannot lead the blind (tin brained doubter's) so if you go with the flow, you swim also.

Answer 7

I have reviewed so much conflicting information on global warming that I'm not sure whether I believe it or not anymore. But what I do believe, is that we would be and are being fools to take such a gamble. I understand that people are worried that this a tactic being used by government and big business to hype up a "green revolution" and steal more of the consumers hard earned dollars. But I think that we as a society and as consumers, need to set the gound rules for how this "going green" is going to work. We have to use our money spending power to back products and ideas that will actually work. I dont see how any sane person would be willing to roll the dice on this issue. We cant afford to not believe in global warming.

Answer 8

Awake: check out the latitude of the Maldives. How much closer do you want to get to the equator?

And russ, read again. He agreed with the 1.1 mm rise up to 1940. Whether he is right or wrong, don't claim something he did not.

Answer 9

Here is the actual article http://www.larouchepub.com/eiw/public/2007/2007_20-29/2007-25/pdf/33-37_725.pdf

If you read it, he agrees the sea is rising at 1.1mm per year. Fine, we all agree the sea must rise if the ice is melting. Regardless of the figure, if there is a tipping point for CO2, where the ice caps melt, he also agrees the sea will rise to catastrophic levels.

http://www.aip.org/pt/vol-55/iss-3/p35.html

Answer 10

Ya, well, the truth of the matter doesn't fit the GW Alarmist/Carbon Credit sales agenda.
Sorry about that.