[ RadSafe ] OT: Global Warming

Thu May 22 08:42:30 CDT 2014

WOW
"What is crafted to be in question here is if humans can adversely change that. The answer is NO."
That is a pretty bold statement.  And I am not sure justifiable or accurate.

I think everyone just needs to agree to disagree.  My personal opinion is that we should do what we can to maintain the balance that has been shown to work over the last few billion years.  Minimize what impact humans have that result in changes in natural state of affairs.

Marty  

-----Original Message-----
From: radsafe-bounces at health.phys.iit.edu [mailto:radsafe-bounces at health.phys.iit.edu] On Behalf Of Dixon, John E. (CDC/ONDIEH/NCEH)
Sent: Thursday, May 22, 2014 9:29 AM
To: The International Radiation Protection (Health Physics) Mailing List
Subject: Re: [ RadSafe ] OT: Global Warming

All,
You do not have to be a climate scientist to understand that Earth's climate WILL ALWAYS BE CHANGING. That is a fact and we neither have enough data, nor have we been on this planet long enough to make reasonable judgments about the causes of this change . What is crafted to be in question here is if humans can adversely change that. The answer is NO. The IPCC IS a POLITICAL organization. It's reports are flawed and biased for a reason: to take the wealth of richer nations and give that wealth to poorer nations. 

See the following analysis report about the flaws in such reports:

GLOBAL WARMING: FORECASTS BY SCIENTISTS
VERSUS SCIENTIFIC FORECASTS*
Kesten C. Green1 and J. Scott Armstrong2† 1Business and Economic Forecasting Unit, Monash University, Victoria 3800, Australia.
Contact: PO Box 10800, Wellington 6143, New Zealand. kesten at kestencgreen.com; T +64 4 976 3245; F +64 4 976 3250 2The Wharton School, University of Pennsylvania 747 Huntsman, Philadelphia, PA 19104, USA. armstrong at wharton.upenn.edu

Human activity is insignificant when it comes to global climate. Why is everyone concerned about the US when nations like China or India contribute far more greenhouse gasses and/or have far more people "polluting" the Earth's atmosphere? The answer to that question is wealth redistribution under the guise or "concern" over "climate change." This hysteria is not based upon science.

Regards,
John E. Dixon

-----Original Message-----
From: radsafe-bounces at health.phys.iit.edu [mailto:radsafe-bounces at health.phys.iit.edu] On Behalf Of Estabrooks, H Bates (IHK)
Sent: Thursday, May 22, 2014 6:39 AM
To: The International Radiation Protection (Health Physics) MailingList
Subject: Re: [ RadSafe ] OT: Global Warming

Theo,

Good summary of the issue.  The distinction you make re. the IPCC Summary and the rest of the reports is helpful.

Thanks.

Bates Estabrooks
Y-12

-----Original Message-----
From: radsafe-bounces at health.phys.iit.edu [mailto:radsafe-bounces at health.phys.iit.edu] On Behalf Of Theo Richel
Sent: Wednesday, May 21, 2014 4:55 PM
To: The International Radiation Protection (Health Physics) MailingList
Subject: Re: [ RadSafe ] OT: Global Warming

I object, the Summary for Policymakers is a bad start, since it is not a scientific but a political document. I'd say start with the IPCC-reports themselves and combine that with the report from the NON-Governmental International Panel on Climate Change (http://nipccreport.org/ ) .
Personally I have stopped wasting my time on the climate. Main reason:
no warming for 13-17 years despite a continuing increase of CO2 (but which did cause a greening of the planet according to NASA, since CO2 is plant food). And if you want to see how SCIENCE behaves in this field then check the adventures of Steven McIntyre (www.climateaudit.org ) and Anthony Watts (http://wattsupwiththat.com/) .
I am not a climate scientist (Just like Al Gore), but a science journalist. In the past 40 years I have seen science - or at least the environmental/health related parts of it -  change from a group of very modest people, always critical about their own work, and always afraid to say/claim something that was outside their expertise to  people who have lost any sight of the borders of their knowledge. No matter how specialized their original area of study was, you can ask them about other areas as well and they will give the politically correct answers, you can ask them how the future is going to be and they will tell you, because they KNOW! 
The science with regard to global warming is not settled. Yes it is true that CO2 in the atmosphere has a warming effect, yes it is true that CO2-concentrations are increasing, yes it is true that this is because we burn so much fossil fuels. That has long been known and is not controversial. The only real point of debate is climate sensitivity, how much will the earth warm. That simply is not known, but there is every reason to think that this will not be a problem. IE: The warming will ne very limited (it hasn't warmed for the past 13-15 years) and its effects will be for a large part beneficial. Many of these things are said in the larger IPCC report, but NOT in the Summary for Policy Makers. 
In the seventies and eighties I was an enthousiastic member of the environmental movement in the Netherlands. Then the fight against nuclear energy was most important.  My former friends now have policy positions in Greenpeace, WNF etc and very heavily influence the IPCC (google Donna Laframboise). To end on a positive note: every poll these days shows that people just do not worry about the climate anymore, the economy is much more important.
Science is still the only way to solve the problems of humanity, but not in its current politicized form.

Theo Richel

 Message-----
From: radsafe-bounces at health.phys.iit.edu
[mailto:radsafe-bounces at health.phys.iit.edu] On Behalf Of S L Gawarecki
Sent: woensdag 21 mei 2014 9:40
To: RadSafe
Subject: Re: [ RadSafe ] OT: Global Warming

I continue to be amused by the opinions on climate change by scientists who are not climate scientists or even earth scientists.  To understand the SCIENCE behind the conclusions about global warming, spend some time with the publications by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change at http://www.ipcc.ch/ .  The Summary for Policy Makers of the 2013 report is a good place to start at http://www.climatechange2013.org/images/report/WG1AR5_SPM_FINAL.pdf .

Regards,
*Susan Gawarecki*

ph: 865-494-0102
cell:  865-604-3724
SLGawarecki at gmail.com
_______________________________________________
You are currently subscribed to the RadSafe mailing list

Before posting a message to RadSafe be sure to have read and understood the RadSafe rules. These can be found at:
http://health.phys.iit.edu/radsaferules.html

For information on how to subscribe or unsubscribe and other settings
visit: http://health.phys.iit.edu
_______________________________________________
You are currently subscribed to the RadSafe mailing list

Before posting a message to RadSafe be sure to have read and understood the RadSafe rules. These can be found at: http://health.phys.iit.edu/radsaferules.html

For information on how to subscribe or unsubscribe and other settings visit: http://health.phys.iit.edu _______________________________________________
You are currently subscribed to the RadSafe mailing list

Before posting a message to RadSafe be sure to have read and understood the RadSafe rules. These can be found at: http://health.phys.iit.edu/radsaferules.html

For information on how to subscribe or unsubscribe and other settings visit: http://health.phys.iit.edu _______________________________________________
You are currently subscribed to the RadSafe mailing list

Before posting a message to RadSafe be sure to have read and understood the RadSafe rules. These can be found at: http://health.phys.iit.edu/radsaferules.html

For information on how to subscribe or unsubscribe and other settings visit: http://health.phys.iit.edu