100 Nobel Laureates' Message to the World

[Ranger_X]

I did a search and it appears this has never been mentioned here. I heard about this from one of my professors late in 2001. Here is a warning to the developed world that we need to wake up and stop living so high at the expense of the rest of the world, from some of our most educated and highly celebrated people. Why has hardly anyone heard of this? Easy, after sept 11, anyone that didn't hop on the bandwagon of pro american sentiment was immediatly told to shut up or labelled as a traitor. Land of the free indeed. Didn't we see this happen at the start of the cold war? Or even witch trials in colonial times? What I find particularily sickening is how this message was only published in one CANADIAN newspaper I could find.... it was stashed in some back page of the Globe and Mail.

THE STATEMENT
The most profound danger to world peace in the coming years will stem not from the irrational acts of states or individuals but from the legitimate demands of the world's dispossessed. Of these poor and disenfranchised, the majority live a marginal existence in equatorial climates. Global warming, not of their making but originating with the wealthy few, will affect their fragile ecologies most. Their situation will be desperate and manifestly unjust.
It cannot be expected, therefore, that in all cases they will be content to await the beneficence of the rich. If then we permit the devastating power of modern weaponry to spread through this combustible human landscape, we invite a conflagration that can engulf both rich and poor. The only hope for the future lies in co-operative international action, legitimized by democracy.

It is time to turn our backs on the unilateral search for security, in which we seek to shelter behind walls. Instead, we must persist in the quest for united action to counter both global warming and a weaponized world.

These twin goals will constitute vital components of stability as we move toward the wider degree of social justice that alone gives hope of peace.

Some of the needed legal instruments are already at hand, such as the Anti-Ballistic Missile Treaty, the Convention on Climate Change, the Strategic Arms Reduction Treaties and the Comprehensive Test Ban Treaty. As concerned citizens, we urge all governments to commit to these goals that constitute steps on the way to replacement of war by law.

To survive in the world we have transformed, we must learn to think in a new way. As never before, the future of each depends on the good of all.

http://www.cam.net.uk/home/nimmann/peace/nobel.htm

Support Kyoto,
Oppose war.

Cheers

[Murco]

Originally posted by Ranger_X
I did a search and it appears this has never been mentioned here. I heard about this from one of my professors late in 2001. Here is a warning to the developed world that we need to wake up and stop living so high at the expense of the rest of the world, from some of our most educated and highly celebrated people. Why has hardly anyone heard of this? Easy, after sept 11, anyone that didn't hop on the bandwagon of pro american sentiment was immediatly told to shut up or labelled as a traitor. Land of the free indeed. Didn't we see this happen at the start of the cold war? Or even witch trials in colonial times? What I find particularily sickening is how this message was only published in one CANADIAN newspaper I could find.... it was stashed in some back page of the Globe and Mail.




http://www.cam.net.uk/home/nimmann/peace/nobel.htm

Support Kyoto,
Oppose war.

Cheers

Probably the "global warming" B/S... It's junk science, a theory never proven true even though it's a banner for many, and the majority of world scientists discount it entirely!!
I would like to raise the standards of living for those in undeveloped countries as well. Only problem is my charitable giving to world hunger and education campaigns will do only so much... We need the world to come together on this one.

[Ranger_X]

Originally posted by Murco


Probably the "global warming" B/S... It's junk science, a theory never proven true even though it's a banner for many, and the majority of world scientists discount it entirely!!

That is outright wrong. In fact, it is an absolute insult to me. I took 2 semesters worth of courses themed on global change. I have spoken with researchers who have devoted thier careers to find evidence that global change IS NOT occuring, but evidence suggests the opposite. Unlike politicians though, most scientists don't lie. Nobel prize winners are like the cream of the crop of scientists. They are like superscientists.... do you think they'd sign something based on "junk science??????????????" The evidence is unbelievably overwhelming for occurence of global warming, go to your local university and ask ecology and geography profs if you don't believe me. I've seen all sorts of graphs correlating increase of CO2 with increase of temperature, of ice core samples, of certain polar regions diminishing. Sources that tell you otherwise are almost certainly funded by an industry like oil, which would be like going somewhere funded by a tobacco company to obtain information on harmfulness of smoking.

want a couple unbiased links on global warming??

http://www.wri.org/

http://www.davidsuzuki.org/Climate_...yoto&Beyond.asp

http://www.ipcc.ch/pub/spm22-01.pdf (if you can't get to this link directly, click and download this article: WG I "Climate Change 2001: The Scientific Basis" from the homepage)

http://www.ipcc.ch

[Cbass]

Ah, but Ranger_X, now you have brought up university professors, people who have devoted their lives to learning, understanding, and intellectualism... These are the enemies of the republican party, and their blind followers such as Murco.

:hehehe:

[Murco]

Originally posted by Ranger_X

That is outright wrong. In fact, it is an absolute insult to me. I took 2 semesters worth of courses themed on global change. I have spoken with researchers who have devoted thier careers to find evidence that global change IS NOT occuring, but evidence suggests the opposite. Unlike politicians though, most scientists don't lie. Nobel prize winners are like the cream of the crop of scientists. They are like superscientists.... do you think they'd sign something based on "junk science??????????????" The evidence is unbelievably overwhelming for occurence of global warming, go to your local university and ask ecology and geography profs if you don't believe me. I've seen all sorts of graphs correlating increase of CO2 with increase of temperature, of ice core samples, of certain polar regions diminishing. Sources that tell you otherwise are almost certainly funded by an industry like oil, which would be like going somewhere funded by a tobacco company to obtain information on harmfulness of smoking.

I try to show my humanitarian side and get called out again...
I'm not trying to offend you, just offering an opinion based upon my own experiences at William & Mary (I got an education as well ). The problem with the "Gloabl Warming" theory is that carbon dioxide is a plant nutrient not a pollutant. If you think back to high-school biology, you'll recall that plants turn CO2, water, and sunlight into food and make oxygen as a byproduct. But some climatologists (not all) and some environmentalists believe that the buildup of CO2 threatens to overheat the earth's atmosphere. The problem with the theory is that the temperature record does not support it. The earth has actually cooled slightly in the recent past. Fear of global warming is based on imperfect computer models, not observation.

Economist Thomas Gale Moore says that global warming would be benign. Since CO2 is good for crops, agriculture would boom. People tend to live longer in warmer climates. Climatologist Patrick Michaels says that if warming occurs, it would be in the arctic during the polar night. Such warming would delay the first frost of winter and lengthen the growing season.
So why the attraction to the nightmare version of global warming? It could have something to do with its usefulness in the service of government regulation of the economy.
People with a visceral dislike of free markets and individual liberty have been adrift since the worldwide collapse of socialism. They can't oppose capitalism on economic or political grounds any longer. So they have turned to environmental grounds. Unsupervised free markets, they say, will destroy the earth.
The advocates of environmental regulation know, however, that people won't go for policies that will make them poor. So they promise that combatting global warming can be done painlessly. But that merely demonstrates economic illiteracy. Industry already has all the incentive it needs to develop and adopt worthwhile energy-saving technologies. No business wants to use more resources than necessary. Cutting costs increases profits. If capitalists are as "greedy" as their critics say, they can be counted on to be miserly with energy.
The problem for the preachers of apocalypse is that fossil fuels are the most economical fuels around. No synthetic or "green" form of energy can touch them for efficiency. So unless the government actually restricts their use, there will be no reduction beyond what would have occurred anyway. A carbon tax will be costly to everyone. The price of energy will rise dramatically, curtailing production and reducing living standards. The promise of green and rich will fade, and all of us will be poorer.
You must realize that politics play a huge role in science (grants - who's ear do you want to please?)!!
Here are some sites for you to peruse... I read yours, read mine!
Greenhouse warming - Fact or Myth
Global Warming.org
Sepp report

PS - I attended my local University... and graduated!!

[Murco]

Originally posted by Cbass
Ah, but Ranger_X, now you have brought up university professors, people who have devoted their lives to learning, understanding, and intellectualism... These are the enemies of the republican party, and their blind followers such as Murco.
:hehehe:

Hmmm, My masters degree in Economics and my wifes Doctorate would probably discount that theory.
If you want real discussions on Global Warming, go to the MIT website and contact the ecology professors their. I would never say there is no need to be smart and responsible about the environment, but the doom-sayers seem to have an agenda that they are trying to promote.
I live an environmentally responsible life and even my Camaro, which puts out over 480 hp, puts out less ppm of CO2 and NOX than a 1998 Geo Metro and gets 20 mpg!!
BTW - I am not a republican or democrat!!

[Cbass]

I apologize for my comment, it was somewhat rash. You struck me as the sort educated by republican pamphlets, I've had too much experience with them :hehehe:

I think the only agenda supporters of ecological actions like the Kyoto Protocal have is preserving the planet, which is a very good one in my eyes.

I have to say your opinion that global warming will not be harmful in many ways is somewhat foolish. It is pretty much universally agreed that when climates are shifted away from the equator, the resulting economic implications will be immense.

Agriculture will take a major hit, as the temperature ranges for crops will be drastically shifted. The thing is, if the polar ice caps melt, the sea level will rise drastically, swallowing up untold coastal lands.

[Murco]

Originally posted by Cbass
I apologize for my comment, it was somewhat rash. You struck me as the sort educated by republican pamphlets, I've had too much experience with them :hehehe:

I think the only agenda supporters of ecological actions like the Kyoto Protocal have is preserving the planet, which is a very good one in my eyes.

I have to say your opinion that global warming will not be harmful in many ways is somewhat foolish. It is pretty much universally agreed that when climates are shifted away from the equator, the resulting economic implications will be immense.

Agriculture will take a major hit, as the temperature ranges for crops will be drastically shifted. The thing is, if the polar ice caps melt, the sea level will rise drastically, swallowing up untold coastal lands.

I don't know how old you are but if you are over 35 you'll remember back in the late 70's when these same arguements were being had by the same scientists about the coming "Ice Age"!! The climate is cyclical, everybody agrees to that, and we are in a warming cycle. It will change in 10 years to cooling cycle.
The folks who brought us the ozone-hole in the early 1990's forgot to mention that Sir Edmund Hillary first detected it in 1946, long before mankind used CFC's in any quantity. If it occures only in the winter, only over the south pole, and only when the earth is farthest from the sun.... it's nature, not man-made! Ozone is created by sunlight warming oxygen and CO2 (I know, very basic explanation.)
CO2 also helps our crops, as I mentioned in my 2nd reply. I don't really think this is as dangerous as the Kyoto folks seems to think. Also, a 30% carbon tax will economically depress the world...

[Cbass]

While it is true that we are in a warming cycle, by adding to that, we will radically affect the earths climate.

The elevated levels of CO2 will make a major difference, as they unbalance ecosystems worldwide. The added CO2 will only benefit the plants if they have added sunlight and nitrogen to compensate, which they will not have.

Global warming is a bad thing.

[Ranger_X]

Good points Murco. You have much more knowledge than I gave you credit for on the subject. Your knowledge of biology however, is quite basic. CO2 is not a limiting factor in plant growth. Look at how much plant biomass there is in rainforests. They don't grow so lush because CO2 is in greater quantites there (if anything it would be less due to how much they would consume) they grow lush because they aren't limited by the main limiting factors in plant growth, which are soil nitrogen, and water availability (sunlight may be greatly limiting as well) of course there are many other factors. Anyway, there is no doubt that increased CO2 means increased atmospheric temperature. Its a fundamental greenhouse gas. The reprocussions of it increasing global temperature are many. For example, some places will become much drier and drought will continue, as well as increased desertification. What does this mean? Huge losses in agricultural growth!

As well, an uncountable number of people, particularily in developing nations, live within 1M of sea level. 17 million people in Bengladesh live within that range. I think something like 30% of the entire country is. Is it fair that our emissions will cause so much disaster for an already empoverished people? Rise in sea level happen twofold: melting of polar ice, and by thermal expansion. You'll remember that things expand with increased temperature?

Wait, it gets better.... gues what atmospheric CO2 is coverted to when reacting with gaseous H2O??? CO2 + H2O = H2CO3, or carbonic acid. What does this mean? Acid rain! We have seen the destructive effects of acid rain in many systems. Aquatic life is especially affected by this with the drop in pH for its environment. and its not just CO2, its SO2 and NO2 which also form sulfuric and nitric acid, respectively.

What else? Perhaps average temperatures will rise, but this may equate to a greater variety in temperature ranges, meaning more extreme temperatures will be felt, particularily at the higher lattitudes. Not great for agriculture.


The graph you showed was past temperatures recorded by sattelite imaging. I'm not sure how satellites can record past temperatures for the earth, but other forms of measurment that provide direct evidence of past tmeperatures generally correlate with each other, but all greatly conflict with the satellite measurments, usually you find a warming trend that has continued for well over 100 years, correlated with emissions increase. This warming trend has been far too rapid to be considered just a natural atmospheric trend, we must be having a bearing on it.

The problem for the preachers of apocalypse is that fossil fuels are the most economical fuels around. No synthetic or "green" form of energy can touch them for efficiency.

Thats because fossil fuels have had the advantage of hundreds of years of technological development. They are the most cost effective at the moment, so anything that tries to catch up is fighting an enormous uphill battle. I believe hydrogen fuel cell engines can put out over 50 Hp now. Shame that all the "research" being put into them is "funded" by the automotive industry, who all are bastards for resisting change. It probably costs ford a few cents to make a vulcan 3L at the moment. all the shit is there to make the cheap pushrod valvetrain, but at the cost of a little development, maybe reducing thier profits in the short term, they could be on top of the industry, putting electronically actuated valvetrains in... and don't say the technology doesn't exist. Of course, this would mean increase in cost of the final product with such rapid advancement (you made reference to it earlier) but probably not as much as expected. You are quite right when you say that an ecologically sensitive approach can not be done painlessly. But that's the thing that needs reworking, people's ability to deal with the fact that we NEED to give up some of our conveniences (not quality of life though, which isn't measured by material wealth) in order to keep this species afloat and productive for centuries to come. Unfortunatly the free market's fuel IS greed.


BTW, props on the degree.

[Murco]

Outstanding ecology lesson there, and props to your education!
All the same though, I really think there are 2 strong bodies of evidence to support both sides of the arguement.
I will stand by my premise, based on more economics than earth science, that the Kyoto accord would severely damage not only America's economy, but could cause a worldwide depression. Our economies are now so interlaced that it would cause a domino effect if America agreed to a carbon tax of 30%. That tax was multi-layered as well, meaning the tax would be on mining, refining, transportation, wholesaling, and finally the retail distribution of carbon pollutants. A gallon of gas would literally triple in price overnight.
Think about this.... Practically every product you buy, other than food, is made with, refined with, molded with, or simply transported with petro-chemicals. Imagine everything you buy doubling and tripling in price!
Kyoto was not the answer...