Global Warming


Published on

  • Nice !! Download 100 % Free Ebooks, PPts, Study Notes, Novels, etc @
    Are you sure you want to  Yes  No
    Your message goes here
  • This is a very informative and good presentation
    Are you sure you want to  Yes  No
    Your message goes here
  • Here’s some current information that I believe will enlighten the serious minded attempting to grapple with the complexities of global warming science.

    There is no doubt that the United Nations IPCC’s version of global warming is winning the public relations battle. The proof is that our governments are now implementing public policy intended to reduce the rise of the earth’s temperature.

    For those who are paying serious attention however, it is increasingly difficult to comprehend how they can justify discounting the growing chorus of dissenting views and agreeing with VP Gore that dissenters are corrupt quacks.

    Here are two current examples:

    UN Blowback: More Than 650 International Scientists Dissent Over Man-Made Global Warming Claims
    If all these guys are quacks, then Donald Duck deserves new respect.

    Then there’s this report that challenges the validity of IPCC’s climate models:

    The study’s conclusion is worthy of serious consideration:
    “Even if temperature had risen above natural variability, the recent solar Grand Maximum may have been chiefly responsible. Even if the sun were not chiefly to blame for the past half-century’s warming, the IPCC has not demonstrated that, since CO2 occupies only one-ten-thousandth part more of the atmosphere that it did in 1750, it has contributed more than a small fraction of the warming. Even if carbon dioxide were chiefly responsible for the warming that ceased in 1998 and may not resume until 2015, the distinctive, projected fingerprint of anthropogenic “greenhouse-gas” warming is entirely absent from the observed record. Even if the fingerprint were present, computer models are long proven to be inherently incapable of providing projections of the future state of the climate that are sound enough for policymaking. Even if per impossibilethe models could ever become reliable, the present paper demonstrates that it is not at all likely that the world will warm as much as the IPCC imagines. Even if the world were to warm that much, the overwhelming majority of the scientific, peer-reviewed literature does not predict that catastrophe would ensue. Even if catastrophe might ensue, even the most drastic proposals to mitigate future climate change by reducing emissions of carbon dioxide would make very little difference to the climate. Even if mitigation were likely to be effective, it would do more harm than good: already millions face starvation as the dash for biofuels takes agricultural land out of essential food production: a warning that taking precautions, “just in case”, can do untold harm unless there is a sound, scientific basis for them. Finally, even if mitigation might do more good than harm, adaptation as (and if) necessary would be far more cost-effective and less likely to be harmful.
    In short, we must get the science right, or we shall get the policy wrong. If the concluding equation in this analysis (Eqn. 30) is correct, the IPCC’s estimates of climate sensitivity must have been very much exaggerated. There may, therefore, be a good reason why, contrary to the projections of the models on which the IPCC relies, temperatures have not risen for a decade and have been falling since the phase-transition in global temperature trends that occurred in late 2001. Perhaps real-world climate sensitivity is very much below the IPCC’s estimates. Perhaps, therefore, there is no “climate crisis” at all. At present, then, in policy terms there is no case for doing anything. The correct policy approach to a non-problem is to have the courage to do nothing.”

    While the global warming alarmists have done a masterful public relations job in promoting their agenda, they are losing badly in the areas of science, logic and common sense.

    Are you sure you want to  Yes  No
    Your message goes here
  • Major parts of Antarctica are cooler! Wow! You found one place of the world that is getting cooler rather than warmer! If only the North American and European anomalies weren't looking at an average of +2 degrees centigrade per century over the last 25 years! And the Arctic Ice mass hadn't decreased by 1/3 last summer... I'm willing to look at the few places in the world that are getting cooler if you are willing to look at the majority of the places on the planet getting warmer!
    Are you sure you want to  Yes  No
    Your message goes here

Global Warming

  1. Global Warming Media vs. Scientific fact and the economics behind it
  2. Brought to you By….. <ul><li>Mike Voss Laura Miess Anna Stolarski </li></ul><ul><li>Rachel Biddle </li></ul><ul><li>Mitch Simon </li></ul><ul><li> </li></ul>TEAM TEAM!
  3. <ul><li>Our Problem: Why do media and Scientific fact contradict each other </li></ul><ul><li> </li></ul>
  4. <ul><li>Did you know…. </li></ul><ul><li>As The rest of the globe is warming, some major parts of Antarctica is actually cooling? </li></ul><ul><li> </li></ul>
  5. So….What should we ask? <ul><li>Why is the media so worried? </li></ul><ul><li>Are they telling the truth? </li></ul><ul><li>Where do the big celebrities get their knowledge? </li></ul><ul><li>Why do people listen to the media more than scientists? </li></ul><ul><li>How does all of this tie into economics? </li></ul><ul><li> </li></ul>
  6. Why is the media so worried? <ul><li>Global Warming is very controversial </li></ul><ul><li>Provides them with good stories </li></ul><ul><li>They don’t see the big picture </li></ul>
  7. Is The Media Telling the truth? <ul><li>Since the release of the film An Inconvenient Truth the issue of global warming has received increased attention in the popular media. </li></ul><ul><li>Yet numerous media figures have distorted the scientific studies they cite </li></ul><ul><li>They frequently draw criticism from the scientists who produced the studies . </li></ul>
  8. Glenn Becks Climate of Distortion <ul><li>Glenn Beck aired a special titled “Exposed: The climate of fear,” </li></ul><ul><li>He questioned scientific fact and didn’t support his Information </li></ul><ul><li>Glenn Beck Movie </li></ul>
  10. <ul><li> </li></ul>
  11. Media is more appealing……Why? <ul><li>They don’t need scientific evidence to appeal to the public </li></ul><ul><li>Journalists and workers in media are experts which is why people will listen to them </li></ul>
  12. So… How does this All tie into economics?
  13. <ul><li>The cost of energy has and will increase dramatically overtime </li></ul>
  15. How does the media affect economics? <ul><li>Wants will never be satisfied </li></ul><ul><li>Media Must constantly please the audience </li></ul><ul><li>They seize the opportunity to make profit </li></ul><ul><li>They play on curiosity and fear among public </li></ul><ul><li>One example would be The Day After Tomorrow </li></ul>
  16. The Day After Tomorrow <ul><li>There is little meteorological or climatological science in the actual events of the movie. </li></ul><ul><li>There was a large amount of falsehoods </li></ul><ul><li>D.A.T. Trailer </li></ul>
  17. Opportunity Cost or
  18. Supply and Demand <ul><li>One important resource for the future is water </li></ul><ul><li>As global temperatures increase, certain areas will experience drought while others will experience flooding, thus contaminating fresh water. </li></ul>
  19. Our Solution <ul><li>People must listen to experts </li></ul><ul><li>Help out in Environment </li></ul><ul><li>People must decide whether to believe the media or actually listen to the people who know what they are doing . </li></ul>
  20. As they say on “ ITS TIME TO SAVE THE WORLD !!”