Global Warming News

[dave1949]

The spin masters walk among us.

It's Freezing: Must Be Global Warming - Yahoo! News

I saw a program by The History Channel. It was titled "How The Earth Was Formed"

It showed the extreme tempertures the earth has endured. From being a molten ball of liquid, to having a mile thick crust of ice. Many theories, as well as plausible scientific explainations are given for these wide swings. One stuck in my mind....the narrator stated, "If the temperture of the earth was 2 degrees cooler, (didn't say either F or C scale) then we would have glaicers down over New York City"

Now that senairo is a bit chilling. He also went on to state that the glaciers would be twice as high as the Empire State Building, grinding the city into the ocean.

That shows scenario, even it is only half correct, is why seemingly minor global temperature changes are of a concern and have been for the entire life of the climatology studies. Now, it would be hard to not want to see NYC ground down a bit, but
Dave.

 

[Stimw]

Why aren't the global warming believers spending their own money to solve the problem?
You want an old growth forest, start your own, don't spend my money for it!
Al Gore is said to be worth $100 million ( his worth was $2 million when he left office) why doesn't he invent a car that runs on wishful thinking and start passing them out for free? After all from his own lips, he invented the Internet!
As for scientists, it was scientists of their time who preached that the earth was flat.
Personally, I want to wear shorts all year and would love water front property!
Eddie is the only one here offering common sense, believable references and not hyped up propaganda from people with a vested interest.

 

[dave1949]

Why aren't the global warming believers spending their own money to solve the problem?
You want an old growth forest, start your own, don't spend my money for it!
Al Gore is said to be worth $100 million ( his worth was $2 million when he left office) why doesn't he invent a car that runs on wishful thinking and start passing them out for free? After all from his own lips, he invented the Internet!
As for scientists, it was scientists of their time who preached that the earth was flat.
Personally, I want to wear shorts all year and would love water front property!
Eddie is the only one here offering common sense, believable references and not hyped up propaganda from people with a vested interest.

This is a nice, civil discussion with an honest exchange of views about global warming. Sorry to see you feel the need to stomp all over that.
Dave.

 

[IH3444]

From what I have also read Eddie, if all the dranconian proposed fixes were to be imposed. From reduction of CO2, to "Cap and Trade" gone wild. The influence on global temperture rise, optimised to the max by computer modeling, would only be 0.2 degrees C for the next 100 years. That's 1/5, one fifth of a degree. If all countries participated, to the max.

John Stossel had an exellent program on Climate Change a few weeks ago. Even an open forum where the audience asked questions to the guest speakers. Both sides were represented. It was very civil. Not a debate, just speakers from both sides.

It was very informative.

 

[EddieWalker]

You bring up a good point about the solution and the best case scenerio to fix a problem that they cannot even prove exists. The price is so high and the result is so minimal that doing nothing will have the same results without the added taxes that we'll have to pay.

It reminds me of the windmill controversy. Build them now just in case they "might" be able to help recude energy consumption. So far, the technology doesn't exist to justify windmills and just to have them, we're paying more in taxes. The only people benifitting from windmills are those selling them, those installing them and those receiving rents for the windmills being there. The energy they generat is minimal and sporadic, so you are still required to keep a power plant running in addition to having the windmills. It's a very big example of why government should not be involved with this. When windmill technology gets to the point that it's viable, then they will be used because their is a financial advantage to do so. Since taxpayers are subsidizing this technology that cannot support itself, there is no insentive to make windmills better.

When something works, or is verifiable, there is no debate. Since man made global warming is a hypothisis that has not been proven and relies on fabricating evidence, I'm not buying it, and I don't want tax dollars being used to support it.

Eddie

 

[Pilot]

Whether or not human caused global warming exists, technology will eventually come to the rescue, despite all the doomsday prediction. It will take some time.

Windmills, solar, they all have problems. We all know they only work part time, when the wind is blowing or when the sun is shining. But calculations have shown that given enough solar panels, the heat absorbed by the black panels will actually increase global warming.

But think back 50 or 100 years about all the new technology that has come along. My wife's grandmother was born in about 1880, horse and buggy days and lived to ride in a jet plane to fly from southern California to Indiana in a few hours, and lived to see people walk on the moon. One person's lifetime.

In our own time, most of us remember when PC's were rare or non-existent, much less popular use of the internet. A few years earlier, when I was a senior in college, my wife showed me this great new invention, an oven that cooks with radar waves, now known as a microwave. Cost three thousand bucks. My master's thesis was typed, yes, typed, going thru many, many revisions, on a typewriter that was built in about 1960; computers weren't used for writing papers. My '56 Ford got a whopping 10 miles per gallon on a good day with a tailwind and died at about 80K miles. My next car, a '58 Chevy was worn out at 106K, but at least it got 16 on the highway. My 2002 Saab gets 24 around town and 30 on the highway with 115K miles on it and doesn't burn any oil and doesn't pollute nearly as much. Times have changed.

Given a little time and profit incentives, solutions will come along. In 20 years or so, fuel cells will be practical; some day someone will invent synthetic photosynthesis. Fusion will some day work. The gloomsday predictions are simply to get headlines and scare the folks. Next time you hear that the world will end next week if we don't send $100 billion to the 3rd world so their leaders can put more money in their Swiss bank accounts, grab a beer, kick back and think about how the world has improved in your lifetime before you panic.

 

[Loren49]

Oil companies have received and are receiving billions of dollars of tax payer money. They are making record profits. The long term cost of the pollution from these power plants is still unknown. Many billions of tax payer dollars have been invested in the nuclear industry and we currently have tons of high level radioative wastes to be dealt with. (will remain lethal for 100s of years)
There are countries where incentives are available to the little guy instead only for big business where a significant portion of the power is being generated by renewable sources.
Governments have serious problems at times but big business is driven by greed for profits and has little conscience for pollution if they can get away with it.
My question is - "who has the most to gain by sticking with the status quo?"

Loren

 

[LMTC]

Oil companies have received and are receiving billions of dollars of tax payer money. They are making record profits. The long term cost of the pollution from these power plants is still unknown. Many billions of tax payer dollars have been invested in the nuclear industry and we currently have tons of high level radioative wastes to be dealt with. (will remain lethal for 100s of years)
There are countries where incentives are available to the little guy instead only for big business where a significant portion of the power is being generated by renewable sources.
Governments have serious problems at times but big business is driven by greed for profits and has little conscience for pollution if they can get away with it.
My question is - "who has the most to gain by sticking with the status quo?"

Loren

How about a few documenting links or sources for these claims?
*Oil companies have received and are receiving billions of dollars of tax payer money.
*They are making record profits.
*There are countries where incentives are available to the little guy instead only for big business where a significant portion of the power is being generated by renewable sources.

Profits is a good thing. And of course "business" has no conscience....business is a concept. People have consciences. Part of the problem, IMO, comes from personifying things that are not persons. A business is simply a commercial venture operated by people...sometimes one, sometimes a few, and sometimes tens of thousands. Big business is simply a collection of a lot of little guys.

 

[IH3444]

Extremes:
Interesting United States Weather Facts and Extremes

 

[IH3444]

Hundreds brave extreme cold to protest Global Warming:

 

[CRJCaptain]

I read your link and had to laugh. I hope you didn't actually read it and believe it, but instead found the link on a googe search and posted it without looking it over. LOL

Here's a link to the actual petition.

Global Warming Petition Project

If you take a quick look at it, you can decide for yourself if they are real scientists or not. This link breaks them down by their specialty.

Global Warming Petition Project

And here's a story fron WND that talks about it.



31,000 scientists reject 'global warming' agenda

Eddie

The National Academy of Science's official response to the petition:

STATEMENT BY THE COUNCIL
OF THE NATIONAL ACADEMY OF SCIENCES
REGARDING GLOBAL CHANGE PETITION


April 20, 1998



The Council of the National Academy of Sciences (NAS) is concerned about the confusion caused by a petition being circulated via a letter from a former president of this Academy. This petition criticizes the science underlying the Kyoto treaty on carbon dioxide emissions (the Kyoto Protocol to the Framework Convention on Climate Change), and it asks scientists to recommend rejection of this treaty by the U.S. Senate. The petition was mailed with an op-ed article from The Wall Street Journal and a manuscript in a format that is nearly identical to that of scientific articles published in the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences. The NAS Council would like to make it clear that this petition has nothing to do with the National Academy of Sciences and that the manuscript was not published in the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences or in any other peer-reviewed journal.

The petition does not reflect the conclusions of expert reports of the Academy.

In particular, the Committee on Science, Engineering, and Public Policy of the National Academy of Sciences, the National Academy of Engineering (NAE), and the Institute of Medicine (IOM) conducted a major consensus study on this issue, entitled Policy Implications of Greenhouse Warming (1991,1992). This analysis concluded that " ...even given the considerable uncertainties in our knowledge of the relevant phenomena, greenhouse warming poses a potential threat sufficient to merit prompt responses. ... Investment in mitigation measures acts as insurance protection against the great uncertainties and the possibility of dramatic surprises." In addition, the Committee on Global Change Research of the National Research Council, the operating arm of the NAS and the NAE, will issue a major report later this spring on the research issues that can help to reduce the scientific uncertainties associated with global change phenomena, including climate change.

 

[Gator6x4]

Look into the eyes of a five year old a say there is no such thing as Global Warming, the earth will be here as is for your children and grand children.

We are famous for ignoring facts and then convening a body to determine "What Did They Know And When Did They Know It."

 

[dave1949]

You bring up a good point about the solution and the best case scenerio to fix a problem that they cannot even prove exists. The price is so high and the result is so minimal that doing nothing will have the same results without the added taxes that we'll have to pay.

It reminds me of the windmill controversy. Build them now just in case they "might" be able to help recude energy consumption. So far, the technology doesn't exist to justify windmills and just to have them, we're paying more in taxes. The only people benifitting from windmills are those selling them, those installing them and those receiving rents for the windmills being there. The energy they generat is minimal and sporadic, so you are still required to keep a power plant running in addition to having the windmills. It's a very big example of why government should not be involved with this. When windmill technology gets to the point that it's viable, then they will be used because their is a financial advantage to do so. Since taxpayers are subsidizing this technology that cannot support itself, there is no insentive to make windmills better.

When something works, or is verifiable, there is no debate. Since man made global warming is a hypothisis that has not been proven and relies on fabricating evidence, I'm not buying it, and I don't want tax dollars being used to support it.

Eddie

Would this be verifiable?
FOXNews.com - Wind Farms Could Power all of U.K.

 

[IH3444]

For more in depth discussion on "The Medieval Warming Period" as well as the so-called "hockey stick", I strongly recommend you watch this:

YouTube - Climate Denial Crock of the Week - "The Medieval Warming Crock"

2,000 year history. IPCC is a United Nations Panel. The pravda article takes millions and millions of years into account. A russian solar scientist predicted back in 2005 that the planet would start cooling down, and continue to cool for the next 20-30 years. Why? Because his lifetime (he's about 63years old) study of the sun. He said that the sun will enter a minimal period, and put out about 0.5% less energy. I'll look for his name and article. Post when found.

Let's say you IPCC report is absolutely correct Captain, for sake of any debate of it.

Can you answer me then, why are the other planets in our solar system also warming up at our same rate during the last 2 decades?

What is causing that? Could it possibly be that fusion engine we call the sun?

 

[keegs]

Look into the eyes of a five year old a say there is no such thing as Global Warming, the earth will be here as is for your children and grand children.

We are famous for ignoring facts and then convening a body to determine "What Did They Know And When Did They Know It."

I don't think someone who questions climate change loves children any less than someone who doesn't.

 

[LMTC]

Look into the eyes of a five year old a say there is no such thing as Global Warming, the earth will be here as is for your children and grand children.

We are famous for ignoring facts and then convening a body to determine "What Did They Know And When Did They Know It."

OK. I don't have a five year old anymore, but I'll gladly look one in the eye and say "global warming is not what it is alleged to be and it will not have any impact on the condition of the earth for your children and grandchildren."

Who is "We" and what facts (of the same grand scale as GW is claimed to be) have been famously ignored and then had a body convened to determine what did they know, etc.?

 

[EddieWalker]

The National Academy of Science's official response to the petition:

STATEMENT BY THE COUNCIL
OF THE NATIONAL ACADEMY OF SCIENCES
REGARDING GLOBAL CHANGE PETITION


April 20, 1998



The Council of the National Academy of Sciences (NAS) is concerned about the confusion caused by a petition being circulated via a letter from a former president of this Academy. This petition criticizes the science underlying the Kyoto treaty on carbon dioxide emissions (the Kyoto Protocol to the Framework Convention on Climate Change), and it asks scientists to recommend rejection of this treaty by the U.S. Senate. The petition was mailed with an op-ed article from The Wall Street Journal and a manuscript in a format that is nearly identical to that of scientific articles published in the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences. The NAS Council would like to make it clear that this petition has nothing to do with the National Academy of Sciences and that the manuscript was not published in the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences or in any other peer-reviewed journal.

The petition does not reflect the conclusions of expert reports of the Academy.

In particular, the Committee on Science, Engineering, and Public Policy of the National Academy of Sciences, the National Academy of Engineering (NAE), and the Institute of Medicine (IOM) conducted a major consensus study on this issue, entitled Policy Implications of Greenhouse Warming (1991,1992). This analysis concluded that " ...even given the considerable uncertainties in our knowledge of the relevant phenomena, greenhouse warming poses a potential threat sufficient to merit prompt responses. ... Investment in mitigation measures acts as insurance protection against the great uncertainties and the possibility of dramatic surprises." In addition, the Committee on Global Change Research of the National Research Council, the operating arm of the NAS and the NAE, will issue a major report later this spring on the research issues that can help to reduce the scientific uncertainties associated with global change phenomena, including climate change.

Help me out here.

In reply to a petition that is current and still being added to on a daily basis, you post a reply to a petition agains Kyoto dated 1998?

How is this relevant?

In 1998, I was one of those people that wasn't sure about global warming, or if it was caused by humans. I, like allot of people, didn't know anything about it. I had my concerns and wanted it fixed if it was something that we were causing. I also wondered why the US was the only country that was being penalized and if it was such a terrible thing, why wasn't the whole world working towards fixing the problem? Then there was the most obvious issue, why were the people telling us to not drive cars, heat our homes and fly, doing those things themselves.

If you truly believe that smoking is bad for you and causes cancer, will you start smoking? Some do, but most don't understand what that means when they start smoking. The same is true about so many things. When we know that it's a bad idea and doing so will cause allot of harm, we tend to not do it. So why is it that Al Gore and all of thise leading the Global Warming charge are the very worse offenders out there? Who creates more carbon then Mr Gore? While there are a few poeple that are worse than he is, they tend to pretend that they are also trying to stop global warming.

So my doubts grew. With the internet and the ability to check stories, read other stories and hear oposing views, my understanding of the scam grew. Unfortunately, the most honest newspaper is the UK Telegraph. It has more insite and investigative journalism about what's going on in our country then any of them that are here.

With the release of the emails from East Anglia, it's all become very obvious. It is a scam, it is a hoax and they have been lying. Why anybody would believe any of this after the emails is beyond me. Fortunately, those emails came out, and as a result, this is becoming a non issue.

I find it interesting that some of you still believe, but like so many of the other members here who used to jump into this topic, they are staying quiet about it now. Did they change their minds? Do they have doubts and no longer want to argue something that they no longer believe in? Maybe. The national polls say it's no longer an issue for the American People. Jobs, the Economy and Terrorism are what's important.

Eddie

 

[Gator6x4]

How do you explain the shrinking ice caps? Do the the NASA photos fall into the "Hoax" box?

NRDC: Global Warming Puts the Arctic on Thin Ice

 

[IH3444]

I explain melting ice caps, the same way that an ice cube melts on the side walk. It's above 32 degrees F. Why? Because the sun is heating the planet.

Another way that ice is removed is by winds, consisting of low humity air. A slower process, but none the less an effective methods of ice erosion.

God doesn't turn the wind off at night either, he has a big funding budget, bigger than the climate change hoaxters.

Now would you explain to me Gator, whay are some ice sheets thickening up, while others break off and fall into the ocean. Known as calfing.

Claiming that humans alone are causing either global warming, or global cooling is absurd. We all know for sure the only people who can cause climate change are the Genuine American Indians. I have seen it on TV. They do a little number called "The Rain Dance", powerful medicine. The Indians do the dancing, the clouds do the raining.