Global warming

[Marigold2]

Do you believe in global warming?

[blue]

No, but I believe in the Great Global Warming Swindle (http://greatglobalwarmingswindle.co.uk/dvd.html)

[Randi]

The question is not whether we believe in global warming or not, it is happening right now! The question is, how fast will it destroy the life on Earth we know, and can we do something about it, or is it too late? it certainly seems to be going faster than anyone expected 10-15 years ago.

See some facts here:

http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2004/12/1206_041206_global_warming.html


I’m sure if people had had computers a few hundred years ago, and had there been Forums like this, there most likely would have been a thread called: Do you believe the Earth is round? :rolleyes:

[Asiel]

Ditto the above post

[Karen]

Global warming isn't a theory, it is a sad fact. It exists whether you believe in it or not. And while the Earth has warmed up and cooled down several times over its history, from what we can tell, this one is the "fault" of humanity. I am, however, hopeful that humanity can act to slow its progress before life become unsustainable.

I have, out of curiosity, checked, living two towns in from the ocean as we do, what would happen if sea levels rose dramatically. My house would still be fine, and on dry land, but I'd need a boat to get to church, and my alma mater would be flooded, but that part is no surprise, as Boston's "Back Bay" was created from swamp in the first place.

[Pembroke_Corgi]

It's not a matter of believing it or not, it is a theory based on lots and lots of hard data and research. It would be like choosing not to believe in Gravitational Theory.

I think we need more science education in this country so people understand the scientific method- scientists don't arrive at conclusions based on a whim, it takes years of valid testing and retesting hypotheses to arrive at a theory. That is actually what I am completing my master's thesis on- science education for the first 3 chapters and for my project, a unit on the scientific method and global warming. I will hopefully be done shortly! :)

[Randi]

I have, out of curiosity, checked, living two towns in from the ocean as we do, what would happen if sea levels rose dramatically. My house would still be fine, and on dry land, but I'd need a boat to get to church, and my alma mater would be flooded, but that part is no surprise, as Boston's "Back Bay" was created from swamp in the first place.
Karen, that's interesting. John did the same about 8-9 years ago. The map he came up with looked pretty scary - Denmark under 10 meters of water. :eek:

[Lady's Human]

When's that ice age going to start?

[cassiesmom]

I understood it better after I saw a documentary on PBS about the glaciers that showed pictures of them "calving". My mom and dad went on a cruise to Alaska and saw glaciers. Previous generations might not have been aware of the impact of modern living on the environment; I'm glad there has been "consciousness raising" about it.

[blue]

The Earth has been warming and cooling since its begining. Humans have very little impact on the warming or cooling cycles, especialy when it comes to CO2 emissions.

In the mid 70's we were warned that CO2 was going to plunge us into a new Ice Age, so we started curbing our CO2 output. So, since we have curbed our emissions more and more since the dire predictions of the 70's, why is a warming trend in climate change happening? It couldnt possibly have anything to do with solar activity could it?

One of the co founders of Green Peace left the orginization because of GP's participation in the global warming movement. GW is big business, and gets big money. It is also holding back third world nations from developing. Keeping third world nations as third world nations is killing people.

Ill make it easy for all of you to watch The Great Global Warming Swindle, link (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6TqqWJugXzs&feature=PlayList&p=16EB5FDEA5FF30E6&index=0).

[pomtzu]

The Great Global Warming Swindle is just about as credible as "Loose Change" - the documentary about the 9/11 conspiracy theory.

[Edwina's Secretary]

Too many people consuming too many resources and producing too much waste.

Why does someone have to "believe" in Global Warming? Isn't the evidence of the damage we are doing to this planet apparent to those without blindfolds on?

I don't "believe" in electricity, or flight of heavier than air crafts or that the earth is round.

Somethings just "are" and don't, in my opinion, require belief or non-belief.

Global Warming is one of those.

[Cinder & Smoke]

Global warming isn't a theory, it is a sad fact.
It exists whether you believe in it or not.

And while the Earth has warmed up and cooled down several times over its history,
from what we can tell, this one is the "fault" of humanity.

:(
It's too bad we can't convince EVERYone that Global Warming IS a FACT;
and needs EVERYone in the World to get together and turn the temperature down.
We seem to *burn* everything in sight - Oil, Coal, Trees, and even our Garbage! :(

Burn Less ~ Breathe Better. ;)

[kokopup]

Global warming is a fact and putting our head in the sand and coming up with
these conspiracies to deny it is not responsible. Blue you probably still have a
W sticker on your jeep. You sound like you are cut from the same stock anyway. Living in Alaska the proof is all around you. Have you been outside lately.

[Catty1]

Okay, the climate IS changing and causing bad effects.

To heck with whatever is causing it - that argument is a waste of time.

The main point is - WHAT ARE WE DOING/GOING TO DO ABOUT IT????

JMO

[Edwina's Secretary]

Okay, the climate IS changing and causing bad effects.

To heck with whatever is causing it - that argument is a waste of time.

The main point is - WHAT ARE WE DOING/GOING TO DO ABOUT IT????

JMO

JMO...you are wrong to think "to heck with whatever is causing it".

If you cannot determine what is "causing it" you do not know what to do differently.

To solve a problem it is not enough to define the problem - you must also determine "probable cause." Else you will spend time, energy and resources chasing the wrong solution.

[Cinder & Smoke]

Okay, the climate IS changing and causing bad effects.

To heck with whatever is causing it - that argument is a waste of time.

The main point is - WHAT ARE WE DOING/GOING TO DO ABOUT IT????


:confused:

"What's causing it ... is a waste of time" ????????

The steps in Problem Solving are usually:

1) Identify the problem = Global Warming - the evidence is everywhere

2) Determine the Cause = WHY is the Ice melting and the Planet warming?

3) Knowing the Cause(s) - develop plans to eliminate or minimize the "Causes".

I think determining WHAT's causing the Global Warming is kinda *important*.

/s/ Phred

[Edwina's Secretary]

For example - you define the problem as "the house is too cold".

To heck with the cause!

I'll put in a new furnace.

But the problem is - there is no insulation in the house.

So it is still too cold.

You have bought a new furnace and been cold for three more weeks. With no improvement in the problem. And now you must spend more money and time getting insulation put in the house.

Identification of the cause of a problem is crucial to solving it. The first time.

[blue]

The fact that there is evidence of tropical forests in AK? Yes that was many millions of years ago but it shows that the Earth was once much warmer then it is now. Its also true that back in the 80's we would have had snow on the ground by now, but we now have much more severe and longer cold spells in Jan and Feb then we did back then.

Putting your head in the sand is on both sides of the Globull Warming debate. Its Climate Change and its natural, and its been going on since the begining without our help.

Ill take the scientists and researchers in The Great Global Warming Swindle over Al Gores hot air or the scientists and researchers cashing in on Globull Warming on the billions in grants.

I dont put political stickers on my Jeep, I dont need a lefty nut trashing it.

[Catty1]

What I meant was - to argue whether it is a natural event, or caused by humans, the actions to slow and even reverse it would be the same, no?

I tend to think that it may well be a natural event, but made far more severe by the crap that has been poured into the environment since the advent of the Industrial Revolution in the mid-1800's.

Let's remove all the human factors possible and see if that helps. How can it not?

[pomtzu]

I tend to think that it may well be a natural event, but made far more severe by the crap that has been poured into the environment since the advent of the Industrial Revolution in the mid-1800's.

Let's remove all the human factors possible and see if that helps. How can it not?

Remove the human factors??? - impossible - unless you remove humans!

At best, they might be modified. This would have to be a worldwide cooperative effort, and just one industrial nation and it's people, is not going to make a difference. All - or nothing at all. And which way do you think it would go???

[Pembroke_Corgi]

The fact that there is evidence of tropical forests in AK? Yes that was many millions of years ago but it shows that the Earth was once much warmer then it is now. Its also true that back in the 80's we would have had snow on the ground by now, but we now have much more severe and longer cold spells in Jan and Feb then we did back then.

Putting your head in the sand is on both sides of the Globull Warming debate. Its Climate Change and its natural, and its been going on since the begining without our help.

Ill take the scientists and researchers in The Great Global Warming Swindle over Al Gores hot air or the scientists and researchers cashing in on Globull Warming on the billions in grants.

I dont put political stickers on my Jeep, I dont need a lefty nut trashing it.

Why do people like to pick and choose when to "believe" in scientific evidence? We know that our climate has changed over the course of the earth's history due to scientific evidence. Likewise, we know that that it is now warming as result of human activities from scientific evidence.

[Catty1]

"all the human factors possible" I didn't say ALL. ;)

[kokopup]

It is true that there is evidence that a tropical rain forest existed on the east shore of the gulf of Alaska. That was 40-50 million years ago. It took millions of years to go from that tropical age to the cold climate of just 50 years ago. The problem is we are seeing warming in just a few decades not thousands of millions of years as would be the norm. The change we are seeing today is very rapid and accelerating at an alarming rate. Warming is real and worsening much to fast. It will take a Global change in how we use our resources or we will pay the consequences in our lifetime.

[pomtzu]

It will take a Global change in how we use our resources or we will pay the consequences in our lifetime.

I don't think that I'll ever see it in what's left of my lifetime, and maybe not even that of my children's. Certainly I feel that it will impact my grandchildren and beyond. It's going to be a long, hard sell, to convince people to change. Everyone has gotten too comfortable with the way of life that progress has afforded them, and unfortunately, most will not want to make any sacrifices to turn this all around. I feel that too many take the "I'm not going to be around for it to affect me, so why should I bother to make a change?" attitude, or the attitudes such as "blue's" who believe that, we the people, are not the cause, and it's just the natural course of events.
It saddens me to say this, but I'm glad I won't be around to see the results, if we continue on this destructive course. :mad:

[Edwina's Secretary]

What I meant was - to argue whether it is a natural event, or caused by humans, the actions to slow and even reverse it would be the same, no?



No, the actions to slow or reverse would not be the same. If it is naturally occurring how could you slow or reverse it?

[RICHARD]

Steve Mc Queen would have been a wonderful spokesman for the Global Warning Movement..........


Watch the last five minutes of "The Blob".

[Catty1]

If it IS natural, we could keep working towards cutting CO2 emissions and everything else we are doing. I can't help but think it will have some effect, natural causes or not.

To clarify further, merely arguing about the chicken or egg cause takes energy we could be putting towards cleaning up after ourselves, commercially, internationally, and personally.

[Puckstop31]

Global "warming". Follow the money. How much is Al Gore worth now?


The science I have read, from various sources is far from conclusive. Seems to be that that enourmous ball of fire in the sky has something to do with it. Something that contemporary science cares little about.

I care about the environment MORE than the average person. Call me on it. The "answers" proposed... "Cap and Trade...." Discuss?


Cap and Trade. Ready to live in the 18th century? I am. How about you?

[blue]

Why do people like to pick and choose when to "believe" in scientific evidence?:eek:

Ask Al Gore and every scientist with their hands out for Globull Warming grant money.


It is true that there is evidence that a tropical rain forest existed on the east shore of the gulf of Alaska. That was 40-50 million years ago. It took millions of years to go from that tropical age to the cold climate of just 50 years ago. The problem is we are seeing warming in just a few decades not thousands of millions of years as would be the norm. The change we are seeing today is very rapid and accelerating at an alarming rate. Warming is real and worsening much to fast. It will take a Global change in how we use our resources or we will pay the consequences in our lifetime.

It didnt take millions of years to go from the Medieval Warm Period to the Little Ice Age, or the 1940s warming to the cooling in the 1970s. Neither of us is going through million years of tempurature records without being paid to do so for the sake of an intardnet discussion. The world has been cutting its emissions for 3 decades and climate change is still rapidly accelerating. The problem is we started cutting our emissions to stave off another cooling period and caused a warming period?

The Globull Warming Scare tactic is already killing people in developing nations.

So more mining is now the answer on using our resources to help stop climate change?


Global "warming". Follow the money. How much is Al Gore worth now?

Al Gore the limo riding private jet flying Climate Commando!


The science I have read, from various sources is far from conclusive. Seems to be that that enourmous ball of fire in the sky has something to do with it. Something that contemporary science cares little about.

There is no grant money for solar activity studies when it come to Globull Warming.


I care about the environment MORE than the average person. Call me on it. The "answers" proposed... "Cap and Trade...." Discuss?


Cap and Trade. Ready to live in the 18th century? I am. How about you?

Not ready to live like its 1799, and I doubt neither are the Globull Warming alarmists.

[Willow Oak]

I am glad that everyone has the benefit of listening finally to what is really going on: the earth is in fact overall cooling down. Warming and cooling cycles have existed since the earth was formed some 5.5 billion years ago, but at one time the temperature on the surface of the earth was thousands of degrees F! We are probably in a localized "warming" period that may or not be affected by humans, but on the scale of billions of years the earth will in fact one day become unihabitable, not because of excessive heat, but due to excessive cold! The earth's surface heat, generated by its enormously hot, molten core, is being radiated into outer space. Due to solar activity, and the complex and convoluted nature of earth's continents, et al, earth experiences climate cycles. But the reality is that on the largest scale possible, the earth is cooling down and will one day become a solid block of frozen rock -- if not consumed by an expanding sun, which will in most likelihood become a red giant star. Whether or not that happens, it cannot be denied that given enough time the earth will cool down overall.

There is plenty of credible, scientific information available on the web (I am talking about abstracts and reports written by Harvard, MIT, Cal Tech, et al, scientists -- not "wannabe" scientists) to support what I have posted.

[Randi]

There are undoubtedly scientists who don’t agree about global warming, and while some would call global warming a theory, others would call it a proven set of facts. Opinions differ vehemently.

It’s true that the earth is cooling down if we count millions of years, but I do believe people who say that at the moment we are in a warming period! Whether it’s entirely human activity that are causing it, I’m not sure. The environment of the world as we know it is slowly, but very surely increasing in overall air and water temperature, and a promise that if whatever is causing this is not interrupted or challenged, life on earth will dynamically be affected.

The prevailing counter opinion is that all that is presently perceived to be global warming is simply the result of a normal climactic swing in the direction of increased temperature. Most proponents of this global warming ideology have definitive social and financial interests in these claims!

I assume that the conflicting facts between scientists has to do with how they define the period they refer to.

On the web there are countless articles about global warming, but it’s just too time consuming to keep up with who says what. I’ve seen some programmes about global warming on National Geographic, and I believe they are trustworthy. :)


The U.S. Global Change Research Program says:

Observations show that warming of the climate is unequivocal. The global warming observed over the past 50 years is due primarily to human-induced emissions of heat-trapping gases. These emissions come mainly from the burning of fossil fuels (coal, oil, and gas), with important contributions from the clearing of forests, agricultural practices, and other activities.

The report, which is about the effects that climate change is having in the United States, also says:

Climate-related changes have already been observed globally and in the United States. These include increases in air and water temperatures, reduced frost days, increased frequency and intensity of heavy downpours, a rise in sea level, and reduced snow cover, glaciers, permafrost, and sea ice. A longer ice-free period on lakes and rivers, lengthening of the growing season, and increased water vapor in the atmosphere have also been observed. Over the past 30 years, temperatures have risen faster in winter than in any other season, with average winter temperatures in the Midwest and northern Great Plains increasing more than 7°F. Some of the changes have been faster than previous assessments had suggested.

[smokey the elder]

The real question about climate change is: is it anthropogenic? We know, for example, of a cause-and-effect relationship between CFCs and the ozone hole: when CFC emissions dropped, the ozone hole got smaller. The whole CO2 debate is a lot tougher; in my opinion it's a good idea to reduce pollution of all types just to make life easier for all who live on Earth.

There is some evidence of rapid (decades-scale) climate change in the past. Some suspects have been: solar cycles (the Sun is a variable star); volcanic activity (the Year without a Summer in the early 1800s); and even asteroid impacts!

Both sides of the debate have an axe to grind. The oil companies want to continue to explore for, drill for and sell oil. The solar, wind, biomass, hydrogen, etc. sides want funding (Federal or otherwise) to fund their research.

People want to improve their standard of living; this is natural. Heinlein said it best: There ain't no such thing as a free lunch. This TANSTAAFL principle must be kept in mind; everything we do takes resources, energy and has an impact on the planet.

[Willow Oak]

There are undoubtedly scientists who don’t agree about global warming, and while some would call global warming a theory, others would call it a proven set of facts. Opinions differ vehemently.

It’s true that the earth is cooling down if we count millions of years, but I do believe people who say that at the moment we are in a warming period!

Well, how would you go about discounting "millions (billions, actually) or years?"

I agree and believe that we are in a warming period. It is probably, equally true that this warming period is being adversely affected by mankind; however, no amount of heeding of the facts will change the immutable fact that the earth will eventually lose all of its heat, its molten inner core will eventually cool down, and sometime in the far distant future will become a solid, frozen rock, totally devoid of life.

__________________

[kokopup]

By Willow oak
Well, how would you go about discounting "millions (billions, actually) or years?"

I agree and believe that we are in a warming period. It is probably, equally true that this warming period is being adversely affected by mankind; however, no amount of heeding of the facts will change the immutable fact that the earth will eventually lose all of its heat, its molten inner core will eventually cool down, and sometime in the far distant future will become a solid, frozen rock, totally devoid of life.

There is no doubt the earths core is cooling and in a million or so years will be a solid frozen chunk. I'm not really going to worry about this event. i am concerned about the warming that is happening right now that is thawing mountain tops, melting Glaciers, and changing ocean currents. This will bring about an early end to life as we know it. Until we change how we treat our environment this trend will continue to accelerate. I have seen major changes in my lifetime, I am 69 years old not .69 million years old. We can try to justify what is happening with a lot of technobabble, the fact remains the problem is here now and it is real.

[smokey the elder]

I think it will take a lot longer than a million years for the Earth's core to freeze. There's a pretty big insulating layer around it!

[kokopup]

Smokey the elder
I think it will take a lot longer than a million years for the Earth's core to freeze. There's a pretty big insulating layer around it!

Whether it is a million, 10 million , or 100 million will not matter because man
would have been gone for a while before this happens. Our decades are numbered.

[Puckstop31]

Mr. Gore's face is priceless. The comments are even better. LOL

I love it when "Progressives" get spanked and then all they can do is attack the messenger. Priceless.

http://thinkprogress.org/2009/11/03/sawyer-beck-gore/

[Cinder & Smoke]

There is no doubt the earths core is cooling and in a million or so years
will be a solid frozen chunk. I'm not really going to worry about this event.

I am concerned about the warming that is happening right now
that is thawing mountain tops, melting Glaciers, and changing ocean currents.

This [near-term warming] will bring about an early end to life as we know it.

Until we change how we treat our environment this trend will continue to accelerate.

I have seen major changes in my lifetime, ...

We can try to justify what is happening with a lot of technobabble,
the fact remains the problem is here now and it is real.

Well said!!

Now, WHY is that so hard for so many to understand? :confused:

:(

[blue]

Does post #39 give me license to use The Onion as a "news" source?

[Puckstop31]

Well what do ya know?

"Manipulation of evidence"
"Suppression of evidence"
etc...

http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/news/jamesdelingpole/100017393/climategate-the-final-nail-in-the-coffin-of-anthropogenic-global-warming/

http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2009/nov/24/hiding-evidence-of-global-cooling/

And for the LOL moment...

http://epw.senate.gov/public/index.cfm?FuseAction=Minority.Blogs&ContentRecord_id=2188feb3-802a-23ad-4de4-3fbc0a92e126&Issue_id

[Red 46]

I have not posted on here for months... too busy worrying about what Obama is going to CHANGE next and how bad it will be for all of us when it happens. Blue seems to be the only one who has a clue about this 'global warming hoax'. What is the matter with all the rest of you? It is junk science! The REAL scientists have been disputing the whole thing for years now, but the mainstream media will NOT print their results for us to read. Same old same old.....

[Puckstop31]

The silence from some is interesting....

http://wattsupwiththat.com/2009/12/01/lord-moncktons-summary-of-climategate-and-its-issues/

Key points...

The Climate Research Unit at East Anglia had profited to the tune of at least $20 million in “research” grants from the Team’s activities.

The Team had tampered with the complex, bureaucratic processes of the UN’s climate panel, the IPCC, so as to exclude inconvenient scientific results from its four Assessment Reports, and to influence the panel’s conclusions for political rather than scientific reasons.

The Team had conspired in an attempt to redefine what is and is not peer-reviewed science for the sake of excluding results that did not fit what they and the politicians with whom they were closely linked wanted the UN’s climate panel to report.

They had tampered with their own data so as to conceal inconsistencies and errors.

They had emailed one another about using a “trick” for the sake of concealing a “decline” in temperatures in the paleoclimate.

They had expressed dismay at the fact that, contrary to all of their predictions, global temperatures had not risen in any statistically-significant sense for 15 years, and had been falling for nine years. They had admitted that their inability to explain it was “a travesty”. This internal doubt was in contrast to their public statements that the present decade is the warmest ever, and that “global warming” science is settled.

They had interfered with the process of peer-review itself by leaning on journals to get their friends rather than independent scientists to review their papers.

They had successfully leaned on friendly journal editors to reject papers reporting results inconsistent with their political viewpoint.

They had campaigned for the removal of a learned journal’s editor, solely because he did not share their willingness to debase and corrupt science for political purposes.

They had mounted a venomous public campaign of disinformation and denigration of their scientific opponents via a website that they had expensively created.

Contrary to all the rules of open, verifiable science, the Team had committed the criminal offense of conspiracy to conceal and then to destroy computer codes and data that had been legitimately requested by an external researcher who had very good reason to doubt that their “research” was either honest or competent

[Puckstop31]

Hello?

No comments?

"The question is not whether we believe in global warming or not, it is happening right now! The question is, how fast will it destroy the life on Earth we know, and can we do something about it, or is it too late."


"Global warming isn't a theory, it is a sad fact. It exists whether you believe in it or not. And while the Earth has warmed up and cooled down several times over its history, from what we can tell, this one is the "fault" of humanity. I am, however, hopeful that humanity can act to slow its progress before life become unsustainable."

"It's not a matter of believing it or not, it is a theory based on lots and lots of hard data and research. It would be like choosing not to believe in Gravitational Theory."


Maybe that big ball of fire in the sky had something to do with it afterall... Who knew?

[RICHARD]

Maybe that big ball of fire in the sky had something to do with it afterall... Who knew?

Dude, you scaring me.....You mean the sun is made of FIRE?:eek:

[blue]

Even Jon Stewart gets it, Link (http://bighollywood.breitbart.com/bighollywood/2009/12/02/climategate-when-the-left-loses-jon-stewart/).

[Alysser]

Even Jon Stewart gets it, Link (http://bighollywood.breitbart.com/bighollywood/2009/12/02/climategate-when-the-left-loses-jon-stewart/).

Oh boy does that comfort me. :D

Anyway, I don't see why this thread has turned to politics yet again. But anywho, I don't see why people choose to ignore scientific evidence. It's pretty laughable in that aspect. I have not studied Global Warming to an extreme degree but I do believe it is happening.

Who else is up for a move to the moon? :D

[blue]

Oh boy does that comfort me. :D

Anyway, I don't see why this thread has turned to politics yet again. But anywho, I don't see why people choose to ignore scientific evidence. It's pretty laughable in that aspect. I have not studied Global Warming to an extreme degree but I do believe it is happening.

Who else is up for a move to the moon? :D

Politics has nothing to do with scientists falsifying data, its about getting research funding.

Gore may have to return his Oscar over this.

The up coming Global Warming summit, hundreds, maybe thousands of people flying in on private jets to cry crocodile tears over the rape of the environment while their bank accounts grow.

[RICHARD]

Did anyone read about all the carbon footprint/gases all the traveling to the conference will produce.

Those people have no fricking shame.:confused:

[smokey the elder]

Whether global warming, climate change or whateveryouwanttocallit is real, doesn't it make sense not to mess up the only planet we have?

[Edwina's Secretary]

Just as there continue to be Holocaust deniers - I suppose it is inevitable there are those who refuse to accept the results of our behavior on the planet.

This is just one example of the results of our behavior...


For the last 50-odd years, every piece of plastic that has made it from our shores to the Pacific Ocean has been breaking down and accumulating in the central Pacific gyre. Oceanographers like Curtis Ebbesmeyer, the world's leading flotsam expert, refer to it as the great Pacific Garbage Patch.

The problem is that it is not a patch, it's the size of a continent, and it's filling up with floating plastic waste.

I agree with Smokey...how can anyone not want to stop?? And how can it possibly be a political issue?

[Puckstop31]

I agree with Smokey...how can anyone not want to stop?? And how can it possibly be a political issue?

I agree 100% with the first part. We should absolutley do our SENSIBLE part to be good stewards of Creation. Priceless gifts should be taken lightly.

But it IS being made into a political issue. How? By wanting to spend TRILLIONS of dollars that nobody can afford... All based on what now is shown to be at best very erroneous science... And at worst, criminally negligent "science"...

Does it not mean anything to you that governments around the world continue to push forward with the economically disasterous plans to "save" us? From something that has finally been show to be a ruse?

That they are simply IGNORING what has come to light? That does not bother you?

[blue]

There is a reason some dont follow the Global Warming Religion.


A MINORITY VIEW

BY WALTER WILLIAMS

RELEASE: WEDNESDAY, DECEMBER 9, 2009



We've Been Had



Last year, my column "Global Warming Rope-A-Dope" (12/24/08) started out: "Americans have been rope-a-doped into believing that global warming is going to destroy the planet. Scientists who have been skeptical about manmade global warming have been called traitors or handmaidens of big oil." New evidence proves that climatologists and environmental policy advocates have not only fed us lies, engaged in scientific and academic fraud but committed criminal acts as well.

Last month, Russian computer hackers obtained thousands of e-mails from the Climate Research Unit (CRU) at the University of East Anglia (UEA) in England. CRU has the world's largest temperature data set. In collaboration with scientists around the world, including the U.S., its research and mathematical models form the basis of the United Nations Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change's (IPCC) 2007 global warming report.

The e-mails involved communication among climate researchers and policy advocates around the world who brazenly discuss both the destruction and hiding of data that does not support their global-warming claims. They discuss criminally deleting data rather than comply with Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) requests. There's also discussion of faking data for journals such as Nature, conspiring to keep opposing science out of peer-reviewed journals (which they controlled the editorial boards), and using statistical "tricks" to hide the cooling period of the last 10 years. One e-mail said, "The fact is we can't account for the lack of warming at the moment and it is a travesty that we can't." Another said, "it would be nice to try to 'contain' the putative 'MWP,' even if we don't yet have a hemispheric mean reconstruction available that far back." MWP refers to the Medieval Warm Period (800 A.D. to 1300 A.D.) when the Earth was much warmer than it is now. This bothers the global warmers because they can't blame the temperature increase a thousand years ago on SUVs, coal-burning power plants, incandescent bulbs and 60-inch TV screens.

Editors of professional journals, who were willing to publish articles that disagreed with the warmers, were forced to resign -- as was in the cases of editors at Climate Research and Geophysical Research Letters. A flagrant example of suppression is found in CRU director Phil Jones', letter to Pennsylvania State University's Michael E. Mann that questions whether the work of academics who question the link between human activities and global warming deserve to make it into the IPCC report, which represents the environmental extremist's view on climate science. Jones writes, "I can't see either of these papers being in the next IPCC report. Kevin and I will keep them out somehow -- even if we have to redefine what the peer-review literature is!"

The fact of the matter is an increasing amount of climate research suggests a possibility of global cooling. Geologist Dr. Don J. Easterbrook, Emeritus Professor at Western Washington University, says, "Recent solar changes suggest that it could be fairly severe, perhaps more like the 1880 to 1915 cool cycle than the more moderate 1945-1977 cool cycle. A more drastic cooling, similar to that during the Dalton and Maunder minimums, could plunge the Earth into another Little Ice Age, but only time will tell if that is likely." Geologist Dr. David Gee, chairman of the science committee of the 2008 International Geological Congress, currently at Uppsala University in Sweden asks, "For how many years must the planet cool before we begin to understand that the planet is not warming?"

Last year's column closed with my speculation that if ever "the permafrost returns to northern U.S., as far south as New Jersey as it once did, it's not inconceivable that Congress, caught in the grip of global warming zealots, would keep all the laws on the books they wrote in the name of fighting global warming. Personally, I would not put it past them to write more." This is confirmed by the Obama administration's climate czar, Carol Browner, who, despite dishonesty, fraud and criminality, says she considers the science on global warming settled.

Milly Vanilly had to give back their award, Al Gore and Obama have awards they need to give back for similar reasons.

[RICHARD]

LOL, I was looking at HLN and the story about all the protestors who were jailed for protesting in Copenhagen.

If the globe is warming, why are people dresssed in giant down jackets?
:confused:

[kokopup]

Richard
If the globe is warming, why are people dressed in giant down jackets?

With global warming the ocean currents that have a major effect on our climate are/'and will' be altered. Places in northern Europe and the British islands that are now still fairly warm will become colder because the course of the Gulf stream will be altered. Rather than warming these places will become colder.

Warming in the arctic will cause other places in the world to become colder
and the weather everywhere will become more unpredictable because of
ocean currents and jet streams being altered..

All of the naysayers need to read all of the evidence not just that written by
oil company lobbyist.

[Puckstop31]

All of the naysayers need to read all of the evidence not just that written by
oil company lobbyist.

I HAVE.

Is the climate changing? Yes. Is it mainly because of human activity? NO.

So, the daming nature of the recent discoveries of the PURPOSELY faulty pro-man made warming evidence does not move you?

And see... It IS being made a political issue. "Oil Company Lobbyist..."

Why don't you complain about Microsoft? KRAFT? They make a bigger profit margin than the oil companies.

Like it or not... Abundant and cheap energy is why we can live the way we do. Want to live in the 17th century? I can.... Did you ever stop to wonder why a gallon of gas costs LESS than a gallon of Lipton Iced Tea?

"Oil Company Lobbyist..." Please....

[kokopup]

Puckstop31 quote
I HAVE.

Is the climate changing? Yes. Is it mainly because of human activity? NO.

So, the daming nature of the recent discoveries of the PURPOSELY faulty pro-man made warming evidence does not move you?

And see... It IS being made a political issue. "Oil Company Lobbyist..."

Why don't you complain about Microsoft? KRAFT? They make a bigger profit margin than the oil companies.

Like it or not... Abundant and cheap energy is why we can live the way we do. Want to live in the 17th century? I can.... Did you ever stop to wonder why a gallon of gas costs LESS than a gallon of Lipton Iced Tea?

"Oil Company Lobbyist..." Please....

It is hard to believe that anyone can deny that man is not having a major role in creating Global warming. You can call it global trashing if you would like to. Man in concert with the Sun is wreaking havoc on this planet. You don't have to be a IPCC scientist to see the evidence, it is everywhere. I can not believe any recent discoveries brought forth by either side because both sides have been guilty of playing with the numbers to satisfy their agenda. It has been going on since the 70's when the Fed came up with emission standards. All Detroit did was stroke all their engines to improve volumetric efficiency but they were now polluting more than ever but on paper it looked better.

If there has been some big conspiracy to make money off of global warming as Blue contends then I guess there was an “OJ conspiracy” too.

Political issue? It has always been a political issue.

Why not complain about Kraft or MS? I haven't seen either polluting our planet. I am not against business making a good profit , I'm opposed to them making it at the expense of our planet. I realize the enormous price we all pay to have cheap everything. There is a cost to our environment when we get cheap gas or cheap electricity. I know that to correct the problem of trashing our planet we ALL have to pay a price, and I am on board with any move that will do that. I know that any action we take today may take even centuries to have an effect. That is no excuse for not doing anything. It seems the US is the only hold out toward make meaningful changes.

The Bush administration acknowledged early on that warming was a real problem but chose to take an adaptive approach rather than any proactive steps that would have cost to big business. It is easier and cheaper to stomp out the fires than to prevent them.

I am one who feels most of Washington's ills could be corrected by making all lobbying a crime. I retired from GE the company with more lobbyist than anyone. They were there looking out for GE and their interest. It is a well documented fact that during the Bush era he did have lobbyist writing bills for him so why would you doubt that oil company lobbyist had any influence on global warming propaganda, be it discrediting scientific data or any other tactic that can be conceived.

I have posted very little on this thread and it seems that all of the positions have been stated and restated and I have yet to see anyone change sides. It would seem that the original question of this thread has been addressed, let it die.

[Puckstop31]

Kokopup... I hear ya.

As I see it, the big focus right now is CO2 emissions are the big evil in the eyes of governments.

http://www.dailyexpress.co.uk/posts/view/146138


Why? Why when there are so many other things, things that are MUCH more damaging to the environment?

[kokopup]

I am still a believer in global warming. Whether co2 is the cause I am not in a position to say for sure. I do Know that our green house gases, which co2 is one of, are out of control. All of the gases carbon dioxide, methane, nitrous oxide, hydrofluorocarbons, perfluorocarbons and sulfur hexafluoride are now at an unprecedented levels.

I can't put to much stock in all the 100 rebuttals presented by the link you gave me since the European foundation has it'd on agenda. Any unified approval of ANY Proposal by the EC/EU will go against their agenda to reform the EC/EU into a community of free-trading, sovereign states.

The increase in co2 emissions can be blamed on the almost 7 billion inhabitant of our planet since we are the largest single source, we need to make the changes that will help balance this known increase. Clear cutting of forest is destroying just one of the co2 equilizers, and there are many more that man controls. If every one would only breath when their face starter turning blue, this would help also.

Whether they blame our current world conditions on co2 or methane is of little importance. The facts remain we are polluting our planet and MAN is the cause, so we have got to be the solution. If we make our planet unlivable by man, then the problem will work itself out in a million or so years while the cockroaches have free run.

Solving our current crisis is going to cost every one, since the problems have been ignored to long it may be very costly.

[Puckstop31]

I appreciate your candor. Your willingness to say it how you see it.

One way or the other, the only way to save ourselves is for there to be less of ourselves? Is that what you are saying? I ask this not out of spite... I am genuinely curious.

If less consumption is the way to saving ourselves... OK. But I grew up on a farm. I know it takes a LOT of fossil fuel and other rather nasty things to pull 150-190 bushells of corn/acre.

What happens when a excessive cost of energy makes food impossibly expensive for a large part of the world? Is this the cost you speak of?

Fear and hunger have been the weapons of despots since the dawn of man... I hope we are better than that. We did put a man on the moon after all.

[kokopup]

I do believe that we all will have to make sacrifices if we are to emerge from this crisis. I'm not advocating going back to horse and buggy or tilling our crops by mule and plow, but there are ways to improve how our resources are being used. If you want to drive a gas hog , ok, we can have a gas guzzeler tax but lower the mpg that qualifies for gas guzzler. With the bailout that our government gave the US auto industry you would think they would change their tactics, but it is just business as usual so we are damned to repeat. Unfortunately the average American just doesn't get it. If they can afford to drive a big car it's their right. Right?

We did put men on the moon , and i can say I was among those that made it possible. I am a believer that given the right incentives our men of science can find better ways of utilizing our resources, and finding sources that are today not known.

I guarantee you if we were faced with fossil fuel being depleted in 10 years there would be a break through in alternative energy before that happened.

When it comes to having enough food to feed the world because of the cost of producing enough, nature has always had a remedy for such eventualities. Rather than say "survival of the fittest" you can say survival will depend on your ability to adapt. Today we have thousands of people dieing of starvation all over the world purely because they are unable to adapt through no fault of their own. We have people dieing because of the despot or Warlord and we are helpless to assist. If new methods and energy are not found man is going to out grow this planet. Soon! We are destined to repeat history.

[blue]

I do believe that we all will have to make sacrifices if we are to emerge from this crisis. I'm not advocating going back to horse and buggy or tilling our crops by mule and plow, but there are ways to improve how our resources are being used.

Something we all can agree on.


If you want to drive a gas hog , ok, we can have a gas guzzeler tax but lower the mpg that qualifies for gas guzzler. With the bailout that our government gave the US auto industry you would think they would change their tactics, but it is just business as usual so we are damned to repeat. Unfortunately the average American just doesn't get it. If they can afford to drive a big car it's their right. Right?

My 12mph gas guzzler is paid for. I cannot now or in the near future afford to buy outright or even afford payments on an econo-box that can get me around when the weather turns bad around here. I do wish I still had my Samurai for when the winter roads are good and for during the summer, I just cant afford to buy another Sammy in good reliable shape at the moment. So I should pay more in taxes because I cant afford a econ-box?


We did put men on the moon , and i can say I was among those that made it possible. I am a believer that given the right incentives our men of science can find better ways of utilizing our resources, and finding sources that are today not known.

One of my uncles worked with NASA on some project or other, when we talk over Christmas Ill ask which one. I do find it funny that a jet and rocket propulsion scientist cant work a VCR and the internet is still a mystery to him.


I guarantee you if we were faced with fossil fuel being depleted in 10 years there would be a break through in alternative energy before that happened.

Why not work towards cleaner energy with the existing resources, while simultaneously working towards alternative and renewable energies? Or is the agenda to damn all fossil fuels regardless of the costs? 1st world countries could ween themselves of fossil fuels and could afford to help 2nd and third world countries clean up their fossil fuel emissions. Or does that go against the Global Warming Agenda agenda?


When it comes to having enough food to feed the world because of the cost of producing enough, nature has always had a remedy for such eventualities. Rather than say "survival of the fittest" you can say survival will depend on your ability to adapt. Today we have thousands of people dieing of starvation all over the world purely because they are unable to adapt through no fault of their own. We have people dieing because of the despot or Warlord and we are helpless to assist. If new methods and energy are not found man is going to out grow this planet. Soon! We are destined to repeat history.

The USA has had a habit for many years, even decades, of paying farmers and Big Corps, not to grow various crops. By past estimates we should already have mass starvations do to worldwide population growth, yet that hasent happened yet. One of Obama's appointee's even suggested that forced sterilization was the answer for the "over population" problem.

Despite dire past predictions we have adapted and we continue to adapt, when government has allowed us to.

Ill start worrying about Globull Warming when Gore lives up to the example ShrubCo has set in his own residence.

[RICHARD]

Go Copenhagen PD!!!!!!:D

[kokopup]

By Blue
My 12mph gas guzzler is paid for. I cannot now or in the near future afford to buy outright or even afford payments on an econo-box that can get me around when the weather turns bad around here. I do wish I still had my Samurai for when the winter roads are good and for during the summer, I just cant afford to buy another Sammy in good reliable shape at the moment. So I should pay more in taxes because I cant afford a econ-box?


I can understand how you can have a vehicle that you can’t afford to replace, I have been there myself. In Europe and the US where a gas guzzler tax is imposed it is usually done when you buy the vehicle new. You can change how this guzzler is driven to obtain the most MPG, drive with an easy pedal and keep you tires well inflated


Why not work towards cleaner energy with the existing resources, while simultaneously working towards alternative and renewable energies? Or is the agenda to damn all fossil fuels regardless of the costs? 1st world countries could ween themselves of fossil fuels and could afford to help 2nd and third world countries clean up their fossil fuel emissions. Or does that go against the Global Warming Agenda agenda?


This has supposedly been the plan for sometime. The big 3 in Detroit have always been able to find holes in the plan so no progress has really come from them to speak of. The Hybrid technology has been used for some time in the commercial market but Detroit had no incentive until $4 gasoline hit. We can do better than rehashed 80’s technology. GE developed Fords system back in the 80’s but was only used in the commercial Bus market. Natural gas and now even Diesel is cleaner than a hybrid gas engines. If the Government wants to give out incentives it should be to anyone developing good alternatives. They need to develop a true Battery that doesn’t weigh a ton and will hold a charge more than 2 hours. The solution is out there we just need the right minds working on the problem rather than how to get around a definition.


The USA has had a habit for many years, even decades, of paying farmers and Big Corps, not to grow various crops. By past estimates we should already have mass starvations do to worldwide population growth, yet that hasent happened yet. One of Obama's appointee's even suggested that forced sterilization was the answer for the "over population" problem

Despite dire past predictions we have adapted and we continue to adapt, when government has allowed us to.

I have spent enough time in India, Africa, Pakistan, and America to tell you
there are people starving. The World Health Organization estimates that one-third of the world is well-fed, one-third is under-fed one-third is starving- Since you started readiing this post at least 200 people have died of starvation, and Over 4 million will die this year. Most of these starving people
can be attributed to failed crops because of severe drought. Yes we do have people starving while the US government pays farmer not to grow crops.


Ill start worrying about Globull warming when Gore lives up to the example ShrubCo has set in his in his own residence.

This is a portion of an article on Al Gores Manson.

NASHVILLE, Tenn. - Al Gore, who was criticized for high electric bills at his Tennessee mansion, has completed a host of improvements to make the home more energy efficient, and a building-industry group has praised the house as one of the nation's most environmentally friendly.

The former vice president has installed solar panels, a rainwater-collection system and geothermal heating. He also replaced all incandescent lights with compact fluorescent or light-emitting diode bulbs.

"Short of tearing it down and staring anew, I don't know how it could have been rated any higher," said Kim Shinn of the U.S. Green Building Council, which gave the house its second-highest rating for sustainable design.

[blue]

I can understand how you can have a vehicle that you can’t afford to replace, I have been there myself. In Europe and the US where a gas guzzler tax is imposed it is usually done when you buy the vehicle new. You can change how this guzzler is driven to obtain the most MPG, drive with an easy pedal and keep you tires well inflated

Im not so trusting in our current leaders to tax gas guzzlers that way.


This has supposedly been the plan for sometime. The big 3 in Detroit have always been able to find holes in the plan so no progress has really come from them to speak of. The Hybrid technology has been used for some time in the commercial market but Detroit had no incentive until $4 gasoline hit. We can do better than rehashed 80’s technology. GE developed Fords system back in the 80’s but was only used in the commercial Bus market. Natural gas and now even Diesel is cleaner than a hybrid gas engines. If the Government wants to give out incentives it should be to anyone developing good alternatives. They need to develop a true Battery that doesn’t weigh a ton and will hold a charge more than 2 hours. The solution is out there we just need the right minds working on the problem rather than how to get around a definition.

What long time plan, and how has the Big 3 dug holes in it? Maybe Big .gov limiting diesel engines in the US? I would love a VW or BMW diesel swap into my ZJ, actually where I live I can do it I just cant afford it.

Hybrid and electric car technology is more destructive then the traditional gasoline engine. Until all the metal in those cars come from completely recycled sources and not from mines, and arent getting the electricity from fossil fuels, hybrids and electrics are placebos. LNG, and propane wont work well here for most of the year because of the temps, diesel would be better but still is impeded by the cold. Even if the right minds can develop a battery that dosent weigh a ton, it would still require metal, metals need to be mined. Every hybrid vehicle should have a "I :love: Strip Mining" bumper sticker on it from the factory.


I have spent enough time in India, Africa, Pakistan, and America to tell you
there are people starving. The World Health Organization estimates that one-third of the world is well-fed, one-third is under-fed one-third is starving- Since you started readiing this post at least 200 people have died of starvation, and Over 4 million will die this year. Most of these starving people
can be attributed to failed crops because of severe drought. Yes we do have people starving while the US government pays farmer not to grow crops.

2 of my uncles spent many years in the Peace Corps, one is still active just not directly, Im well aware people are starving though out the world. Less people would starve to death if our .gov would stop paying farmers not to farm and pay them to farm to export as gifts to areas of the world suffering from droughts. But wait there is a problem with that idea isnt there? Many of the areas of the worlds suffering from droughts also suffer the rule of tyrants that would horde the foods and goods for themselves and their countries elites. You will have to forgive me for not trusting the WHO numbers.


This is a portion of an article on Al Gores Manson.

NASHVILLE, Tenn. - Al Gore, who was criticized for high electric bills at his Tennessee mansion, has completed a host of improvements to make the home more energy efficient, and a building-industry group has praised the house as one of the nation's most environmentally friendly.

The former vice president has installed solar panels, a rainwater-collection system and geothermal heating. He also replaced all incandescent lights with compact fluorescent or light-emitting diode bulbs.

"Short of tearing it down and staring anew, I don't know how it could have been rated any higher," said Kim Shinn of the U.S. Green Building Council, which gave the house its second-highest rating for sustainable design.

So maybe Gore did learn a lesson from GWshruBco's Texas ranch, it still dosent give him a pass on his hypocrisy.

The mention of CFLs makes me mention another problem. CFLs have mercury in them. Burned out or defective CFLs will wind up in our land fills leading to more mercury leaking into our ground water. Banning incandescent light bulbs to save on electricity, is that a good payoff to have more mercury in our soils and waters? That worries me more than Co2.

[RICHARD]

The mention of CFLs makes me mention another problem. CFLs have mercury in them. Burned out or defective CFLs will wind up in our land fills leading to more mercury leaking into our ground water. Banning incandescent light bulbs to save on electricity, is that a good payoff to have more mercury in our soils and waters? That worries me more than Co2.

Thank you.

I got a flyer from the city of Lost Angeles about sorting out the trash, food, recyclables, etc.

I cannot recycle any bulbs, of any type. Either I take them to a 'roundup' or toss them into the trash. So, now? I get the goofy "I am polluting the planet" guilty trip when I toss one into the trash..

Aside from getting ANOTHER bin to put out on trash day? How many light bulbs does the average home toss out a month?:o:confused:


I remember 'back in the day' when you either tossed your motor oil into the street drain or dug a hole in the backyard and dumped it there.:eek: How many jillion gallons of water does one quart, let alone the 4-5 in an engine crankcase, pollute when turned loose on the planet.:mad:

[smokey the elder]

TANSTAAFL. Everything we do has an environmental impact. All we can do is to try to minimize it as much as possible.

[kokopup]

Smokey the Elder
TANSTAAFL. Everything we do has an environmental impact. All we can do is to try to minimize it as much as possible.

Amen Smokey!
That says it all. EVERYTHING we do has an environmental impact. All we can do is to try to minimize it as much as possible.

[critters]

http://www.fredericksburg.com/News/FLS/2009/122009/12202009/514036/index_html