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 Philip Benjamin PhD.MSc.MA Evidentialist "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: 978-1-62006-183-1 ePub format (Nook) ISBN: 978-1-62006-184-8 Materialism/Physicalism Extraordinaire. http://biodarkmatter.webs.com/index.htm "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. Cass 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. http://www.appinsys.com/globalwarming/GlobalElNino.htm 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, 2012 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 http://www.the-scientist.com/?articles.view/articleNo/33644/title/Opinion--Is-America-Ready-to-Listen-/ 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.
