Global warming

[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?

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.

__________________

[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/

[Puckstop31]

Well what do ya know?

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

http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/news/ja...lobal-warming/

http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/...lobal-cooling/

And for the LOL moment...

http://epw.senate.gov/public/index.c...2e126&Issue_id

[Puckstop31]

The silence from some is interesting....

http://wattsupwiththat.com/2009/12/0...nd-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