Hi Philip Benjamin 

My view is that we constantly need to discern and separate science from 
politics, where 
global warming, alternative energy, and evolution/creationism are prime 
examples of such a confusion.

----- Receiving the following content ----- 
From: Philip Benjamin 
Receiver: MindBrain MindBrain 
Time: 2013-02-01, 12:26:37
Subject: RE: [Mind and Brain] The El Nino, not auto fumes,is the main driver of 
global temperatures.

The attachments of the original message is as following:
  (1). 20130131071848872.jpg

[Philip Benjamin]  Which is better? Call the leftist politicians? Marxist 
housewives? Liberal Progressives? Anarchist globalists? They all have one thing 
in common. Their zeal to silence the real scientists.

Best regards
Philip Benjamin

"Spiritual Body or Physical Spirit? Your Invisible Doppelg?ger". Sunbury Press 
Jan 2013
Trade paperback ISBN: 978-1-62006-182-4  Mobipocket format (Kindle) ISBN: 
ePub format (Nook) ISBN: 978-1-62006-184-8  Materialism/Physicalism 
"Bio Dark-Matter Chemistry", International Journal of Current Research and 
Reviews Vol 4 issue 20, 2012


To: mindbr...@yahoogroups.com
From: silva_c...@yahoo.com
Date: Thu, 31 Jan 2013 15:47:09 -0800
Subject: Re: [Mind and Brain] The El Nino, not auto fumes, is the main driver 
of global temperatures.

All we need to do is look out our window to see or hear about changing weather 
patterns.  We don't need science to confirm this.  Those that fail to accept 
this are probably placing their trust in their god.

From: Robert Karl Stonjek <ston...@ozemail.com.au>
To: mindbr...@yahoogroups.com 
Sent: Friday, 1 February 2013 12:08 AM
Subject: Re: [Mind and Brain] The El Nino, not auto fumes, is the main driver 
of global temperatures.

----- Original Message ----- 
From: Roger Clough 
To: everything-list ; - mindbr...@yahoogroups.com 
Cc: Will.Steffen ; Nico.Grasselt ; gerstengarbe 
Sent: Thursday, January 31, 2013 11:42 PM
Subject: [Mind and Brain] The El Nino, not auto fumes, is the main driver of 
global temperatures.

There does not seem to be any correlation of earth climate with solar activity, 
especially the 11 year solar cycle
or sunspots. 

Instead, the El Nino is the main driver of global temperatures, and no doubt is 
reponsible for the melting of glaciers etc over 
the past decade. With this new understanding  the rise in CO2 levels levels is 
not the CAUSE of the warming, it is
the RESULT of the warming.  As the oceans warm, CO2 becomes less soluble in the 
warmer waters and is emitted by the oceans.


The above figure shows global average temperature from five data sets since the 
start of the satellite temperature
data era in 1979 (RSS MSU and UAH MSU are satellite data, HadCRUT3, NCDC and 
GISS are surface station data sets ? 
graph from http://climate4you.com/GlobalTemperatures.htm). From 1979 to 1997 
there was no warming trend. 
The major El Nino then resulted in a residual warming of about 0.3 degrees. 
Since the 1998 end of the El Nino there has also been no warming trend 
? all of the warming in the last 30 years occurred in a single year.
DreamMail - New experience in email software  www.dreammail.org

The facts:
Opinion: Is America Ready to Listen?
In the wake of Hurricane Sandy, climate scientists should make their consensus 
about climate change known to all who care to listen.
By Ashley A. Anderson, Edward W. Maibach and Anthony Leiserowitz | December 12, 
Flickr, jez.atkinson
When scientists communicate with the public, they can make a difference. This 
is particularly true for scientific issues that have significant societal 
implications and which have become polarized?such as climate change.
Despite the near-consensus among scientists that the climate is rapidly 
changing, and that human-generated carbon dioxide is a major cause, a majority 
of the American public remains largely disengaged. Moreover, among the minority 
who are actively engaged in the issue?.e. those people who consider and discuss 
the problem?pproximately half have reached conclusions consistent with climate 
science, while the other half have reached the opposite conclusion, choosing to 
believe that climate change is not occurring. Given the importance of managing 
the risks associated with climate change, there is an urgent need for 
heightened public engagement so that collectively our communities, states and 
nation can determine how to respond.
Fundamentally, the American public trusts scientists, with nearly 
three-quarters of adults in the U.S. reporting that they would take the word of 
climate scientists more than any other source for information on this issue. 
However, most can? name a single living scientist, much less a climate 
scientist. Without that name recognition and exposure, these researchers are 
not achieving their potential as public educators. Americans want to be 
informed by experts about the risks and realities of global warming, so they 
can make up their own minds about the proper course of action, consistent with 
their values.
One a major roadblock is that the public remains unconvinced that researchers 
agree about climate change, which impedes any sense of urgency about the issue. 
Social science research has shown that four key facts influence Americans? 
sense that as individuals, and as a nation, we should be doing more. The first 
is that climate change is happening; second, that is it? mostly human-caused; 
third, that it is harmful to humans as well as nature; and fourth, that the 
problem is solvable.
However, our research has shown that Americans are more likely to accept these 
facts when they realize that the large majority of scientists also subscribe to 
them. (Other groups have shown this to be true among Australians as well.) 
Alternatively, people who incorrectly believe there is considerable 
disagreement among scientists are much less likely to accept these four key 
facts. Furthermore, nearly half of all Americans said they would be more 
concerned about global warming if 90 percent of climate scientists were to 
agree and state publicly that global warming is happening. Moreover, a recent 
paper in Nature Climate Change reveals that, when presented with information 
about the widespread scientific consensus about climate change, people become 
more likely to accept the facts about human-induced climate change.
Yet, as of May 2011, only 13 percent of Americans correctly understood that the 
vast majority of climate scientists have no doubt that global warming is 
occurring and is caused by human actions. A number of studies have shown the 
rate of consensus among climate scientists about human-caused climate to be 95 
percent or higher. The conclusion is also endorsed by virtually every relevant 
scientific society in the United States, including the National Academies, the 
US Global Change Research Program, and the National Climate Assessment.
So, if nearly half of Americans said they would believe in climate change if 
they thought that 90 percent of researchers agreed it was happening, and we 
know that nearly 95 percent actually do agree, why are so many Americans still 
skeptical? The implications of this disconnect are clear: the single most 
important fact that America? climate scientists can share with the American 
people is that they have reached near-unanimous agreement?he climate is 
changing and human activity is the main cause. News events including extreme 
weather events such as Hurricane Sandy, create an opportunity for every climate 
scientist to make this important point during news media interviews, letters to 
the editor of their local newspaper, and calls to local TV and radio news and 
talk shows.
We encourage you, your professional societies, and your funding agencies to 
prioritize the debunking of this myth by creating simple clear messages about 
the scientific consensus, that get repeated often, by a variety of trusted 
voices including those of individual climate scientists in communities across 
America. This is a time-tested method of enhancing public engagement in 
important societal issues. Debunking the myth that there is a lot of 
disagreement about climate change among climate scientists can promote greater 
public engagement in climate science and solutions.
Ashley Anderson and Edward Maibach are at the George Mason Center for Climate 
Change Communication; Anthony Leiserowitz is at the Yale Project on Climate 
Change Communication.
Source: TheScientist
Posted by
Robert Karl Stonjek

__._,_.___Reply via web post Reply to sender Reply to group Start a New Topic 
Messages in this topic (6) 

Recent Activity: New Members 1 
Visit Your Group 
 Switch to: Text-Only, Daily Digest • Unsubscribe • Terms of Use • Send us 
Feedback .

You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
"Everything List" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email 
to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.

Reply via email to