Username:


Password:

Remember Me On This Computer


Create An Account!

 
Poker Forums: :Events Calendar: :Poker Glossary: :Live Poker Chat: :
 


Click on the player below to listen to the latest show. If you would like to have this weekly radio broadcast posted on your website contact me at admin@drcheckraise.com for the code.

.

Your DrCheckRaise Staff

Your Administrators

DrCheckRaise

Axman

oklajohnny45

Monmiss

Your Moderators

Monmiss - Poker Clinic

Monmiss - FaceBook Member Page

Global Warming

Global Warming
avatar Subject :  Global Warming
Date:       August 23, 2009 05:04PM
While I was in school in the late 60's and all of the 70's, we had been taught that the world and the western hemisphere was coming out of an ice age. That most of the mountainous ranges in the United States had been developed by a glacier that moved from north to south 10,000 years prior.
A natural conclusion to draw was that if we were coming out of a previous ice age, then the world must have been warming. And it must have been warming well before the industrial revolution, that is now touted as the cause of global warming. How did we get away from that simple fact that IF the world was in an ICE AGE, then it must have been colder, and it must have been getting warming already.

The theory of global warming when it was first presented was initially thought to be bad science. Over the years the study of global warming has in itself become big business. From government grant to creating new jobs to develop everything from light bulbs that meet new standards to new refrigeration and air conditionaing units.

The science of global warming has found a connection between the warming of the Earth's atmosphere, to the release of CO2. And there is a relation. But that relation is that there is an 800 year lag behind the heat to the CO2. So it is not that CO2 causes the Earth to warm, it is that the Earth warming causes more CO2 to be released into the atmosphere. Why? Well simply because the warmer the Earth is, the more evaporation of the ocean, and the ocean is by bar the greatest source of CO2. Why do you ask is it that a poker player can understand that better than a scientist. Well... I doubt I understand it better, but I do understand greed. If it is declared that man is not the cause of global warming then grants that fund studies for scientists to live and work are eliminated, because why bother.

There is a very good documentary on this subject that was not the least bit boring to me. It was well presented, and put together, and puts much of this boondoggle into perspective. If you get a chance... watch it.


























Re: Global Warming
avatar Subject :  Re: Global Warming
Date:       August 23, 2009 07:50PM
But what will Al Gore's claim to fame be? That he was just another "trust fund" guy, with way to much time on his hands, and way to undereducated?

Kathleen
Re: Global Warming
avatar Subject :  Re: Global Warming
Date:       August 26, 2009 11:16PM
This polemic was widely dismissed by scientists and one of the scientists featured won misrepresentation claims. he was edited in a way to be seen that anthroprogenic activity was not adding to climate change,

[en.wikipedia.org]

[www.durangobill.com]


Me, I really dont care, except for facts. Something that this polemic was short off.
Re: Global Warming
avatar Subject :  Re: Global Warming
Date:       August 26, 2009 11:35PM
Actually I understand that what happened was that one of the scientists were edited out because they believed that Humans contributed to global warming, and honestly were I making a film to prove otherwise I think I would have edited him out as well.... So I understand that only one side of the issue is presented fairly in this film, but it is the side that has been hushed for years.
Re: Global Warming
avatar Subject :  Re: Global Warming
Date:       August 27, 2009 10:52AM
So why edit him and at the same time use his comments, the fact that that is what happened is indeed probably the only fact to emerge from the film means that the entirety is erroneous.

[www.medialens.org]


I am just pointing out that the polemic that you have brought to peoples attention is roughly the equivalent of the tobacco industry telling people that cigarettes are not harmful.
Re: Global Warming
avatar Subject :  Re: Global Warming
Date:       August 27, 2009 11:10AM
[en.wikipedia.org]

Is a work that I like, because it neither says that climate change is happening or not but states that the current money spent by the yays or the nays on climate change and environmental impact is wasted in the grand scheme of things. Accept that climate change is happening, seek to resolve it if it is anthroprogenic, plan if it is solar but stop wasting billions every year having the same debate. Put the money to better use.
Re: Global Warming
avatar Subject :  Re: Global Warming
Date:       August 27, 2009 02:28PM
Humor me. In that the debate presented is not the question as to whether the film is 78% accurate or 98% accurate. The debate itself is.... Is global warming a man made effect on the earth, or is it a natural phenomenon that we have absolutely no control over and to produce global industrial restrictions that allow countries like ours to continue, yet hold down 3rd world countries from catching up on such basic things as electricity is absurd,
Re: Global Warming
avatar Subject :  Re: Global Warming
Date:       August 27, 2009 06:09PM
I have humoured you with my last post. Which rather ties back into your original post. My first post related a website which discussed the '70's thinking on the New Ice age. My issue was with that stupid polemic which was villified by most people including a scientist who appeared in the Great Global Warming Swindle.

As for developing nations or Africa in particular, Africa has a fantastic resource called the Sun. Solar Furnaces, microgeneration and various other non-fossil fuel based solutions are available but getting investment is the problem, which China is happily seeking to resolve.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 08/27/2009 06:10PM by Tachycardia.
Re: Global Warming
avatar Subject :  Re: Global Warming
Date:       August 28, 2009 02:07AM
If we are in global warming, Then why on earth is it 70 degrees in august here in Nebraska when the last 20 years were well into the 90s in the same month? I think the climate is actually cooling down not warming up. If this is true then shouldn't we be calling it global cooling rather than global warming? Just my perspective.
Re: Global Warming
avatar Subject :  Re: Global Warming
Date:       November 21, 2009 07:51AM
October 20th, Gordon Brown, the Prime Minister of the United Kingdom, declared that the world only had 50 days left to save itself from a complete catastrophe if carbon dioxide output and global warming weren't curtailed In making this "50 day" statement, he was referring to the climate change summit that would be held in Copenhagen in December.

Well, I guess we're all doomed. Last Sunday it was reported that Obama and other world leaders have decided to put saving the planet on the back burner for now ..

I think we should all assume a fetal position and just wait for either H1N1, the 2012 end of the world, the recession, or global warming to kill us! I can't remember any time in the history of mankind when our society was so completely in danger of extinction. And, remember, when they're throwing dirt on your coffin -- if there is anyone left to throw dirt on it -- it was Gordon Brown that warned us all! God save the Queen!
Re: Global Warming
avatar Subject :  Re: Global Warming
Date:       August 28, 2009 02:38AM
Well I think it is warming, I just don't buy the accusation that humans are the cause. you see I don't think we can save the Earth, and I don't think we could destroy it. We could destroy ourselves, but the Earth would continue to live.

I also know that in the United states, the air and water are cleaner now than it was 30 years ago. plus there are more tress in the Unisted States than there were 200 years ago, mostly because we extinguish forest fires where in the past our forefathers did not have that ability.
Re: Global Warming
avatar Subject :  Re: Global Warming
Date:       August 28, 2009 08:59AM
Not really a question of thinking it is warming, the Empirical evidence is that warming is a fact. The empirical evidence also is that climate change is an anthropogenic cause and by altering our management of CO2 and other gases we can potentially avert disaster, but in no way does that mean there are not other factors involved such as solar activity.

Sorry, you are having bad weather in Nebraska; the UK has been appalling this summer. Apparently the jet stream has shifted up a couple of hundred miles and we are paying the price of that and currently we have the remnants of Hurricane Bill, however a lot of Southern Europe had been on fire due to an excesssive prolonged heat wave. Southern Europe where it is normally hot, has become consistently very hot.

And Doc, the Earth will indeed continue - but when you save survive will that be with or without plant and animal life?
Re: Global Warming
avatar Subject :  Re: Global Warming
Date:       August 28, 2009 01:40PM
That's a different debate altogether. I am convinced that global warming causes the increase of CO2, not that CO2 causes global warming. Higher temperatures cause ocean evaporation which releases more CO2 than we as humans could ever think about producing.
Re: Global Warming
avatar Subject :  Re: Global Warming
Date:       August 28, 2009 06:37PM
DrCheckRaise Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------

> Higher temperatures cause ocean evaporation which
> releases more CO2 than we as humans could ever
> think about producing.


And the higher temperatures are caused by anthropogenic Co2 as is widely believed although not proven but most science finds a direct link to that assertion, so in that statement you perfectly encapsulate why anthropogenic Co2 production is damn interesting if it does cause rising temperatures (which they are rising). A case of QED, the one cause creates a massive effect.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 08/28/2009 06:39PM by Tachycardia.
Re: Global Warming
avatar Subject :  Re: Global Warming
Date:       August 28, 2009 06:57PM
Evidence has shown that the Earth has gone through much more drastic changes in temperature well before the industrial revolution. In the past studies have shown that those changes in temperature on the Earth were attributed to a myriad of things from the Earth's molten core to activity on the Sun.
It is just how I think, but I just feel that for us as human's to think that we can save or destroy the Earth is akin to the story in the bible of the Tower of Babel. Yes we can make it a horrible place to live, and we can make it a very clean place to live.. It is certainly a much cleaner place than it was some 35-40 years ago. But to me I think it arrogant for me to think that I have the ability to save or destroy the Earth, which will be here and operating as usual long after me and my children are gone.
Re: Global Warming
avatar Subject :  Re: Global Warming
Date:       August 28, 2009 07:16PM
Bizarre, this has to do with arrogance, this is because people are trying to be like god. the only arrogance is people not tolerating the notion that this is happening and then running to the default hills of "not in my lifetime" and "mother nature will take care of it".

Oh well, there is bliss somewhere.
Re: Global Warming
avatar Subject :  Re: Global Warming
Date:       October 14, 2010 10:59PM
Well Doc, you said, "It is cleaner than it was some 35-40 years ago". I can agree and disagree with that statement. About 5 years ago, I took a trip through Idaho and Utah, traveling out in the middle of nowhere where the only significant population was probably 100 miles away. I was out on a high plains area, and you could (almost) see forever; If it hadn't been for the dirty smog in the air. I have no idea where it came from, but probably drifted from some highly populated area (over) 100 miles away. I have to believe when the cowboys and indians roamed that land, they really could see forever.

However, I moved to Littelton, CO, about 20 miles South of Denver in 1985. On a (sort of) clear day, I could see downtown Denver from where I lived. Denver is down in a valley between the foothills to the West and the plains to the Ease. However, on most days, the "brown cloud" over Denver was so thick you could just barely see the tops of the taller buildings. As the day went on, you could watch that brown cloud slowly drift down the valley well south of where I lived. I was just barely out on the plains, and some days, that cloud even engulfed the area where I lived. Now, starting in the late 80's early 90's, Denver started regulating automobile emmissions and other industrial emmisions. When I left in 2004, you could actuall see Denver most days of the month. There was still the occasional brown cloud, but it was not nearly as bad as when I moved there in 1985.

So, in my mind the title "Global Warming" is missleading. The real debate should be; Has mankind gotten so industrialized and so careless whith it's air polution that we (our childrens, childrens, children; If we/they can avert WW III and live that long) will sufficate from the air polution. Remember, the Bible predicts (something like) "mankind will perish in a poluted wateland".
Re: Global Warming
avatar Subject :  Re: Global Warming
Date:       August 28, 2009 07:30PM
You are obviously a well educated well spoken person. I find that when discussing subjects with you I notice myself using phases like "I feel" or "I think" and "I believe" . This in itself is an excuse for not being as knowledgeable on a subject as the person you are debating. With that being said, I would submit that were this a debate that we were to be awarded a winner....You win hands down.

I love to debate.... on subjects I believe in and sometimes on the side that I do not believe in. I think it is a great mental exercise, as well as an opportunity to learn. I thank you for taking part. You are certainly a great debater....

I encourage others to practice this sort of cordial debate without getting angry at one another and without losing resoppect for one another.
Re: Global Warming
avatar Subject :  Re: Global Warming
Date:       August 29, 2009 12:52AM
I have a non-poker playing friend who wipes the floor with anyone who tries to argue for anthropogenic global warming being a fact, and he works (part-owns) in a company dedicated to energy management and reduction of Co2 emissions for large corporations (in the UK not less than a FTSE100) and I dont mean carbon offsetting (scam that it is).


Myself, I really see no reason for countries quite equipped to decrease C02 not wanting to do so and I see no reason why the emerging economies should not have access to endless Co2 producing power in their start-up period, and I really do believe that the alledged $40 billion a year on research into either proving or disproving global warming as an utter waste. It certainly pisses me off when I see oceanographers swanning about on a well equipped luxury ship (science vessel??!!) catching fishes and making extravagant claims about climate change.

As far as electricity goes, wonderful stuff - pity it transmits so badly.

With the next round of global discussions on CO2 after Kyoto it will be interesting to see what happens.

I enjoy this new section.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 08/29/2009 12:54AM by Tachycardia.
Re: Global Warming
avatar Subject :  Re: Global Warming
Date:       September 04, 2009 01:35AM
aaArticle rank 3 Sep 2009 Boston HeraldBy JONAH GOLDBERG Sun may set on alarmists On the last day of August, scientists spotted a teenyweeny sunspot, breaking a 51-day streak of blemish-free days for the sun. If it had gone just a bit longer, it would have broken a 96year record of 53 days without any the magnetic disruptions that cause solar flares. That record was nearly broken last year as well.

Wait, it gets even more exciting.

During what scientists call the Maunder Minimum — a period of solar inactivity from 1645 to 1715 — the world experienced worst of the cold streak dubbed Little Ice Age. At Christmastime, Londoners ice-skated on the Thames, and New Yorkers (then Amsterdamers) sometimes walked over the Hudson from Manhattan to Staten Island.

Of course, it could have been a coincidence. The Little Ice Age began before the onset of the Maunder Minimum. Many scientists think volcanic activity was a more likely culprit. Or perhaps the big chill was, in the words of scientist Alan Cutler, a ‘‘one-two punch from dimmer sun and a dustier atmosphere.’’

Well, we just might find out. A new study in the American Geophysical Union’s journal Eos suggests that we may be heading into another quiet phase similar to the Maunder Minimum.

Meanwhile, the journal Science reports that National Center for Atmospheric Research, or NCAR, has finally figured out why increased sunspots have a dramatic effect on the weather. Apparently, sunspots heat the stratosphere, which in turn amplifies the warming of climate.
Scientists have known for centuries that sunspots affected the climate; they just never understood how. Now, allegedly, the mystery has been solved.

What is significance of all this? To say I have no idea is quite an understatement, but it will to do.

Nonetheless, what I find interesting is the eagerness of the authors and media to make it clear that this doesn’t have any particular significance for the debate over climate change. ‘‘For those wondering how the (NCAR) study bears on global warming, Gerald Meehl, lead author on the study, says that it doesn’t — at least not directly,’’ writes Moises Velasquez-Manoff of the Christian Science Monitor. ‘‘Global warming is a long-term trend, Dr. Meehl says.’’

No, I’m not denying that man-made activity has played a role in planetary warming since the Industrial Revolution.

But we live in a moment when are told, nay lectured and harangued, that if we use the wrong toilet paper or eat cereal, are frying the planet. But never mind that sunspot activity doubled during the 20th century, when bulk of global warming has taken place.

What does it say that the modeling that guaranteed disastrous increases in global temperatures never predicted the halt in planetary warming since the late 1990s? (MIT’s Richard Lindzen says that ‘‘there has been no warming since 1997 and statistically significant 1995.’’) What does it say that the modelers have only just discovered how sunspots make the Earth warmer?

It tells me that maybe we should study a bit more before we spend billions to ‘‘solve’’ a problem we don’t understand so well.
Re: Global Warming
avatar Subject :  Re: Global Warming
Date:       September 04, 2009 07:51AM
I am by no means a great debater but i have something to say about this subject. To me global warming is just an excuse for polititians to create more ways to put money in their pockets! Does it really matter that the earth is warming, getting colder, or keeping a sustained temperature? Does it matter if the icebergs are melting? Does it matter how much CO2 is released each week, month, or year? Its just a big waste of time and money to worry about such useless things. Lets all face the fact that sooner or later a enormous disaster will wipe humanity to near extinction. Weather it be a meteor hitting the earth, a supervolcanoe erupting, a man-made disaster such as a nuclear holocaust, or other man made or natural disasters. We don't know when or what will actually take place to take out the human race, We don't even know where to begin to stop it from happening. All we can be certain of is, Life on this planet will eventually end and then eventually begin again. Will we be here to see it happen? Maybe, or maybe not. Will we and i mean humans be the cause of it? Maybe, maybe not. ALL WE CAN BE CERTAIN OF IS IT WILL HAPPEN!!!
It is hard to believe that we can make artificial intelligence, create laser weaponry, and build a space station that can sustain life in outer space. We can see further into the universe than ever before and can track moving objects in space. BUT WE STILL WASTE TIME AND MONEY ON THINGS THAT ARE NOT OF IMPORTANCE LIKE GLOBAL WARMING, AMONG OTHER USLESS THINGS. Here is an idea. Lets take all the money spent on useless projects of research and development and put it to use researching and developing space exploration. Who knows, we might find a planet that we can live on that can sustain our life neccesseties and we may even be able to prevent human extinction when life on earth ceases to exist.
Re: Global Warming
avatar Subject :  Re: Global Warming
Date:       September 06, 2009 10:39PM
Thanks everyone for the effort you have all put into this discussion. It has been quite edifying. I'll have to give it a bit more thought.

Kathleen
Re: Global Warming
avatar Subject :  Re: Global Warming
Date:       September 13, 2009 12:52AM
Here is an idea. Lets take
> all the money spent on useless projects of
> research and development and put it to use
> researching and developing space exploration.


It should come as no surprise to you that indeed there is a lot of money spent on the ideals of space exploration, and if you want to know about the holy grail of space exploration/exploitation then please use a search engine to discover about the Carbon Nano Tube Elevator. I would recommend a book to read on this subject. . . but it would only piss you off
Re: Global Warming
avatar Subject :  Re: Global Warming
Date:       September 20, 2009 06:55AM
To the gentleman who stated global warming is a money scam I have read a few things one by a Japanese professor Kunihiko Takeda quote for millions solar activities have been controlling tempetures on Earth even now,the sun controls how high the Mercury goes CO2 emissions have nothing to do one way or another. Soon it will cool down once again regardless of what we do, EVERY scientist knows this but it doesn't pay to say. global warming as a political vehicle keeps Europeans in the drivers seat and up and coming nations barefoot. This is my first time writing on a blog so I do not know how to put links up it is from the Japan Times July22,2008 Paradigms of Fear here is more [www.examiner.com]
Re: Global Warming
avatar Subject :  Re: Global Warming
Date:       September 20, 2009 07:02AM
[www.examiner.com] [scienceandpublicpolicy.org]-
I don't know how to make these links clickable but I can tell you where to find them
Re: Global Warming
avatar Subject :  Re: Global Warming
Date:       September 20, 2009 07:05AM
wow they are accessible I just wrote out the link or http:// whatever you call it I'm not familiar with internet lingo
Re: Global Warming
avatar Subject :  Re: Global Warming
Date:       September 20, 2009 09:47AM
The book The First Global Revolution by The Club of Rome would be highly recommended
Re: Global Warming
avatar Subject :  Re: Global Warming
Date:       September 20, 2009 10:29AM
Re: Global Warming
avatar Subject :  Re: Global Warming
Date:       September 21, 2009 12:51AM
"EVERY scientist knows this but it doesn't pay to say. global warming as a political vehicle keeps Europeans in the drivers seat and up and coming nations barefoot."

I don't understand the basis of this statement, every scientist does not know this, I doubt the physicists give a damn one way or another nor the mathematicians. Europeans in the drivers seat, for what purpose and is that all Europeans or some Europeans, there are only about 750 million Europeans in some 40 odd countries. And far from keeping nations barefoot most rational argument in regard to anthropogenic climate change is that developing nations be allowed to develop.
Re: Global Warming
avatar Subject :  Re: Global Warming
Date:       September 21, 2009 05:57AM
I think he was implying all scientists who get their funding from this agenda.Did you read the article? His statements about recycling are insightful as well. If the article is not in full there I can give you the place where I found it.
Re: Global Warming
avatar Subject :  Re: Global Warming
Date:       September 21, 2009 06:34AM
Speaking of people who are rather short sided to say the least when it comes to some subjects but may be geniuses in one thing. I listened to a podcast where someone said he read an article about these investors from N.America and the U.K. imagining if the polar ice shelves melted they foresaw a possibility of snatching up previously frozen ports, not knowing that if the ice shelves started melting at that rate investing would probably be the last thing on anyones mind. Showing some people have the ability to make or invest vast sums of money but can't see other major glaring issues in other fields here's the podcast if your interested, it's not about global warming but a insiders take on the economic situation from 2005 [www.sott.net]
Re: Global Warming
avatar Subject :  Re: Global Warming
Date:       September 21, 2009 07:14AM
some quotes from big wigs on the development of third world nations The only hope for the world is to make sure there is not another United States. We can’t let other countries have the same number of cars, the amount of industrialization, we have in the US. We have to stop these Third World countries right where they are.”
- Michael Oppenheimer, Environmental Defense Fund
Global Sustainability requires the deliberate quest of poverty, reduced resource consumption and set levels of mortality control.”
- Professor Maurice King here's two Gem Dandies frpm Mr. TNT Dynomite himself a link [www.lifesitenews.com] a quote: A total population of 250-300 million people, a 95% decline from present levels, would be ideal.”
- Ted Turner, founder of CNN and major UN donor
Re: Global Warming
avatar Subject :  Re: Global Warming
Date:       September 21, 2009 07:24AM
here's some quotes that are unsettling Humans on the Earth behave in some ways like a pathogenic micro-organism, or like the cells of a tumor.”
- Sir James Lovelock, Healing Gaia The Earth has cancer and the cancer is Man.”
- Club of Rome, Mankind at the Turning Point If I were reincarnated I would wish to be returned to earth as a killer virus to lower human population levels.”
- Prince Philip, Duke of Edinburgh, patron of the World Wildlife Fund The extinction of the human species may not only be inevitable but a good thing.”
- Christopher Manes, Earth First This is the quote where I am told started by the top U.N. think tank to get the agenda going it was in the book I mentioned in an earlier post In searching for a new enemy to unite us, we came up with the idea that pollution, the threat of global warming, water shortages, famine and the like would fit the bill.”
- Club of Rome, The First Global Revolution nice job “We need to get some broad based support, to capture the public’s imagination… So we have to offer up scary scenarios, make simplified, dramatic statements and make little mention of any doubts… Each of us has to decide what the right balance is between being effective and being honest.”
- Stephen Schneider, Stanford Professor of Climatology, lead author of many IPCC reports Unless we announce disasters no one will listen.”
- Sir John Houghton, first chairman of IPCC

“It doesn’t matter what is true, it only matters what people believe is true.”
- Paul Watson, co-founder of Greenpeace

We've got to ride this global warming issue. Even if the theory of global warming is wrong, we will be doing the right thing in terms of economic and environmental policy."
- Timothy Wirth, President of the UN Foundation

"No matter if the science of global warming is all phony, climate change provides the greatest opportunity to bring about justice and equality in the world."
-Christine Stewart, fmr Canadian Minister of the Environment

"The climate crisis is not a political issue, it is a moral and spiritual challenge to all of humanity. It is also our greatest opportunity to lift Global Consciousness to a higher level."
- Al Gore, accepting the Nobel Peace Prize

"The only way to get our society to truly change is to frighten people with the possibility of a catastrophe."
- emeritus professor Daniel Botkin

"We are on the verge of a global transformation. All we need is the right major crisis."
- David Rockefeller, Club of Rome executive manager

"Humanity is sitting on a time bomb. If the vast majority of the world's scientists are right, we have just ten years to avert a major catastrophe that could send out entire planet's climate system into a tail-spin of epic destruction involving extreme weather, floods, droughts, epidemics and killer heat waves beyond anything we have ever experienced - a catastrophe of our own making."
- Al Gore, An Inconvenient Truth

"By the end of this century, climate change will reduce the human population to a few
"By the end of this century, climate change will reduce the human population to a few breeding pairs surviving near the Arctic."
- Sir James Lovelock, Revenge of Gaia

"Climate Change will result in a catastrophic, global seal level rise of seven meters. That's bye-bye most of Bangladesh, Netherlands, Florida and would make London the new Atlantis."
- Greenpeace International

"Climate change is real. Not only is it real, it's here, and its effects are giving rise to a frighteningly new global phenomenon - the man-made natural disaster."
- Barack Obama, US Presidential Candidate

"We are close to a time when all of humankind will envision a global agenda that encompasses a kind of Global Marshall Plan to address the causes of poverty and suffering and environmental destruction all over the earth."
- Al Gore, Earth in the Balance

"In Nature organic growth proceeds according to a Master Plan, a Blueprint. Such a 'master plan' is missing from the process of growth and development of the world system. Now is the time to draw up a master plan for sustainable growth and world development based on global allocation of all resources and a new global economic system. Ten or twenty years from today it will probably be too late."
- Club of Rome, Mankind at the Turning Point

"The concept of national sovereignty has been immutable, indeed a sacred principle of international relations. It is a principle which will yield only slowly and reluctantly to the new imperatives of global environmental cooperation."
- UN Commission on Global Governance report

"Democracy is not a panacea. It cannot organize everything and it is unaware of its own limits. These facts must be faced squarely. Sacrilegious though this may sound, democracy is no longer well suited for the tasks ahead. The complexity and the technical nature of many of today's problems do not always allow elected representatives to make competent decisions at the right time."
- Club of Rome, The First Global Revolution

"In my view, after fifty years of service in the United National system, I perceive the utmost urgency and absolute necessity for proper Earth government. There is no shadow of a doubt that the present political and economic systems are no longer appropriate and will lead to the end of life evolution on this planet. We must therefore absolutely and urgently look for new ways."
- Dr. Robert Muller, UN Assistant Secretary General

"Nations are in effect ceding portions of their sovereignty to the international community and beginning to create a new system of international environmental governance as a means of solving otherwise unmanageable crises."
- Lester Brown, WorldWatch Institute

"A keen and anxious awareness is evolving to suggest that fundamental changes will have to take place in the world order and its power structures, in the distribution of wealth and income."
- Club of Rome, Mankind at the Turning Point

"Adopting a central organizing principle means embarking on an all-out effort to use every policy and program, every law and institution, to halt the destruction of the environment."
- Al Gore, Earth in the Balance

"Effective execution of Agenda 21 will require a profound reorientation of all human society, unlike anything the world has ever experienced - a major shift in the priorities of both governments and individuals and an unprecedented redeployment of human and financial resources. This shift will demand that a concern for the environmental consequences of every human action be integrated into individual and collective decision-making at every level."
- UN Agenda 21

"The earth is literally our mother, not only because we depend on her for nurture and shelter but even more because the human sepcies has been shaped by her in the womb of evolution. Our salvation depends upon our ability to create a religion of nature."
- Rene Dubos, board member Planetary Citizens
Re: Global Warming
avatar Subject :  Re: Global Warming
Date:       October 06, 2009 01:56AM
These are tough times for loony Lefties who fantasize about mankind being wiped out by an overheated Mother Nature. These folks are so twisted that, when presented with facts proving that we are not in fact doomed, it puts them in a sour mood.

“How can I be happy if we’re NOT all about to die?” is their message.

George Will gave the entire global warming movement an irrefutable takedown the other day. Now there’s this story from the inner workings of the scientific community: One of the lead global warming kooks has been cooking the books to spread panic and push their anti-capitalism agenda. He used findings from tree cores on the Yamal peninsula in Siberia to refute the otherwise unquestioned fact that we experienced a dramatic climate change in the Middle Ages. Instead, this kook claimed, all the temperature changes have been recent (a.k.a. “man made”).

For years, he refused to release his raw data. Now he’s been forced to and now we know: It was rigged.

From this we know that the Yamal data set uses just 12 trees from a larger set to produce its dramatic recent trend. Yet many more were cored, and a larger data set (of 34) from the vicinity shows no dramatic recent warming, and warmer temperatures in the middle ages.

In all there are 252 cores in the CRU Yamal data set, of which ten were alive 1990. All 12 cores selected show strong growth since the mid-19th century. The implication is clear: the dozen were cherry-picked.

Read the whole story. It’s important for several reasons.

First is reminds all rational people yet again that we need more evidence and less propaganda. The scientific end of this debate is still ongoing.

Second, data about the distant past is nearly always sketchy. By itself, it’s rarely going to be reliable enough to defend the Greenies’ call to spend $1 trillion and cripple our economy.

And finally the most crucial point of this story: Some global warming kooks are so “certain” of their beliefs they are willing to get aside the strict protocols of science in the name of the “greater good.”

Does that mean we’re not all gonna die? Of course not. We are. But the cause of death is NOT going to be the death fantasy shared by Al Gore and his global warming zombies
Re: Global Warming
avatar Subject :  Re: Global Warming
Date:       October 07, 2009 04:33AM
Aw, have some pity for Al Gore. After the money his family spent to try and have him become something, all he has to show for it is global warming. If global warming is not true, what a waste of family money.

Global warming is a fun topic. He gets to go to meetings all over the world in his private jet. The industrial world is able to tell 3rd world countries that they can't pollute, the way we did, in order to pull themselves up. Hey, who wants competion from labor that is even cheaper than China?

And think about all those poor souls who got all kinds of degrees in environmental issues. How will they pay their student loans if there is no global warming. Where will they get a job?

Global warming makes our government feel "clean" about their pork barrels attached to bills to finance global warming research. Do we want them to feel bad?

So, in spite of much research that questions the validity of the issue, we can expect it to be heavily supported in Gore's lifetime.

Kathleen
Re: Global Warming
avatar Subject :  Re: Global Warming
Date:       October 07, 2009 08:32PM
I read an article and saw a documentary of and such a few times and Gore also had a company in Tennessee that was either suspected or found to be engaged in major pollution I beleive via Waste Dumping, I cannot remember but yes he is doing what he has been groomed also he had a very interisting connection to Armand Hammer the Great Communist. This is not related to global warming but in reference to falsifying statistics to fit theories check out the Malthusian thoery written I beleive in the late 18th century that if I am mistaken is still somewhat used today where his statistics about overpopulation would suggest people would by now be stacked on top of each other i.e.Soylent Green
Re: Global Warming
avatar Subject :  Re: Global Warming
Date:       October 09, 2009 04:09AM
How big a dope is our senior senator? He’s pushing the idiotic, job-killing “cap and trade” (a.k.a. “tax and screw”) global-warming-panic proposal in the US Senate. And here’s what he had to say about it last week:

Let me emphasize something very strongly as we begin this discussion. The United States has already this year alone achieved a 6 percent reduction in emissions simply because of the downturn in the economy, so we are effectively saying we need to go another 14 percent.

Wow—President Obama is elected, we make no changes in our environmental policy, and carbon emissions plunge 6 percent! How did that happen? Hmmm, what ELSE has happened since President Obama took office that might have something to do with emitting carbon? What could it be….wait—something’s coming to me…Yes!

We also lost 2.5 million jobs! Hooray!

Under Kerry’s plan, that only got us about a quarter of the way to the 20% carbon cut we need. So once we’ve got 10 million Americans out of work, we’ll be all set.

Blogger Dan Calabrese makes an interesting observation:

What did Kerry just unwittingly admit? He admitted that cap-and-trade advocates and like-minded global warming believers see economic prosperity as a huge source of the supposed problem. That’s why they’re proposing the perfect solution – from their perspective – in the form of a massive tax increase directly on industry.

Nothing discourages productive economic activity like confiscatory taxes on said activity. The same people who lament the loss of manufacturing jobs in the United States now seek to multiply these losses many times over by making it economically impossible for manufacturers to operate.

And, interestingly, since becoming governor, Deval Patrick has slapped MA manufacturers with higher energy costs and taxes, in part to fight global warming. And in that same period, we’ve lost more than 25,000 manufacturing jobs.

Coincidence? Or something stupid
Re: Global Warming
avatar Subject :  Re: Global Warming
Date:       October 10, 2009 04:03AM
In the face of the mounting unemployment crisis, the Obama administration has no plans to offer serious relief to the 15 million workers out of work and the millions more facing job losses and economic ruin in the coming months.

Despite official claims that the economy is recovering, the Labor Department reported last week that a higher-than-expected 263,000 workers lost their jobs in September, with another 571,000 workers dropping out of the labor force after giving up looking for work.

The official jobless rate reached 9.8 percent last month - a 26-year high - and analysts predict unemployment will hover around 10 percent for most of 2010 and possibly for several years thereafter.

In his weekly address Saturday, President Obama almost casually remarked that "employment is often the last thing that comes back after a recession" and said the jobless figures were evidence that "progress comes in fits and starts." He added that his administration would "explore additional options to promote job creation," but offered no proposals.

The bulk of his address was focused on his plan to slash health care costs, which he claimed would lead to job creation. "Reforming our health insurance system will be a critical step in rebuilding our economy so our entrepreneurs can pursue the American Dream again," he declared.

Obama signaled with his lauding of "our entrepreneurs" that no measures would be taken to address the social crisis that impinged on the profit interests of big business.

News reports this week made it clear that the options the administration is considering center on another round of tax breaks and incentives for corporations. According to Tuesday's New York Times, "Among the options for additional steps is some variation on Mr. Obama's proposal during the stimulus debate to give employers a $3,000 tax credit for each new-hire, which Congress rejected last winter partly out of concern that businesses would manipulate their payrolls to claim the credit. Another option would allow more businesses to deduct their net operating losses going back five years instead of the usual two; Congress limited the break to small businesses as part of the economic stimulus law."

Such measures will reward corporations while doing virtually nothing to halt the economic slide being experienced by millions of workers. The most the administration and the Democratic congressional leadership are prepared to do is extend meager unemployment and health care subsidies that are scheduled to expire at the end of the year.

The administration has rejected out of hand the only means to provide immediate employment for jobless workers - a large-scale federally funded public works program. Obama has continually insisted that the private sector, not the government, is the "engine for economic growth."

At the same time, he has awarded the private sector "engine" trillions of dollars in government bailouts, while insisting that the resulting explosion in the budget deficit be reversed by drastically cutting social spending.

With great fanfare last February, Congress passed a $787 billion stimulus package, which the administration said would "save or create" 3.5 million jobs. At the time, the administration's so-called "left" supporters at publications like the Nation claimed the Recovery Act was a "21st Century New Deal" and that Obama was embarking on a massive program of public works and infrastructure investment.

It was nothing of the sort. Since the passage of the Recovery Act, two million jobs have been wiped out. Obama's apologists have been reduced to asserting that the situation could be worse.

The administration's refusal to address the unemployment crisis is consistent with all of its other economic policies. From the multitrillion-dollar Wall Street bailout, to the assault on General Motors and Chrysler workers, to health care "reform," the administration's central aim has been to secure the interests of the financial elite. Rather than reducing unemployment, the administration is seeking to use mass unemployment to blackmail workers into working harder and faster and accepting permanent cuts in their wages and benefits.

A recent article in Bloomberg News noted that the administration's economic policies have encouraged big investors to launch a new wave of corporate mergers and acquisitions, which will result in the destruction of many more jobs.

The article pointed out that such activity is being driven by the fact that billions in investment capital can find no productive outlet. It cited a note to investors by Credit Suisse Group saying, "M&A now looks ready to make a comeback."

Bloomberg News said a series of mergers in mining, telecommunications, airlines, food production and other industries is anticipated, guaranteeing big returns for investors who buy a company, "rationalize it, strip out costs and fire staff."

The prospect of bankers reaping huge fees for deals that result in job losses will cause an outcry, the article continued, "particularly as those fees will mostly be earned by banks that got taxpayer bailouts a year ago." Bloomberg warned, "The sight of financiers making fortunes while ordinary people lose their jobs will stoke a populist backlash that is already brewing."

In a similar vein, New York Times columnist Bob Herbert on Tuesday warned of growing popular anger over rising joblessness in an opinion piece entitled, "Does Obama get it?"

"While devoting enormous amounts of energy to health care, and trying now to decide what to do about Afghanistan," Herbert complained, "the president has not conveyed the sense of urgency that the crisis in employment warrants." If that didn't change, Herbert wrote, increasing joblessness could "cripple" the "political prospects of the president." He took note of recent polls in which substantial majorities said the government stimulus efforts had mostly helped "large banks" and "Wall Street investment companies."

Herbert lamented that the administration had never seriously considered a "massive long-term campaign to rebuild the nation's infrastructure" and large-scale public works programs. These ideas, he said, were dismissed as "the residue of an ancient, unsophisticated era." He went on to advise Obama to pursue job-creation programs similar to the New Deal programs under Franklin D. Roosevelt.

Herbert's wishful thinking collides with the economic and political realities of contemporary American capitalism. Faced with an insurgent movement of the working class in the 1930s, Roosevelt sought to save the profit system by using the enormous industrial and financial resources of the United States to provide some measure of relief to the unemployed. Programs like the Civil Works Administration, the Civilian Conservation Corps and the Works Progress Administration put an estimated 12 million people to work.

Today, such measures are precluded by the long-term decline of American capitalism and the domination of a financial aristocracy that controls both political parties and violently opposes the slightest impingement on its wealth and power.

The defense of jobs and living standards is the task of the working class itself. If workers are to prevent their destitution, they must take the initiative to launch a struggle against plant closings, mass layoffs and the wiping out of public service jobs.

Work place occupations, mass strikes and demonstrations should be launched independently of and in opposition to the trade union apparatus. Such actions must be the beginning of a political movement to unite workers in the US and internationally to put the major industries and banks under the public and democratic ownership of working people.

There are pressing social needs that must be addressed - new schools, hospitals, housing - and millions of unemployed workers ready and able to meet them. The argument that there is no money to put the unemployed to work is belied by the trillions the administration has spent to bail out the banks and continue the colonial wars in the Iraq and Afghanistan.

The Socialist Equality Party calls for a multitrillion-dollar public works program to provide good-paying jobs to rebuild the cities and social infrastructure and hire millions of construction workers, teachers, health care workers and others. At the same time, jobless workers must be guaranteed full pay, health benefits and housing for their families until they are reemployed.

The realization of such a program requires a complete break with Obama and the Democratic Party and a struggle against the profit system which both they and the Republicans defend Jerry White World Socialist website
Re: Global Warming
avatar Subject :  Re: Global Warming
Date:       October 11, 2009 12:16AM
If you embrace a free market economy, which gives the power to the individual why whine like stuck pigs when you finally realise that people cannot be trusted to do their best for others and government has to make the hard decisions that allows your society to continue. I actually think that Americans talk a good game of insurrection but they never change a damn thing, the writing was on the wall when the Democrats should have won in 2000. what was it 52% of Americans wanted Democrats and then you got a dead head for 8 years. lol



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 10/11/2009 12:17AM by Tachycardia.
Re: Global Warming
avatar Subject :  Re: Global Warming
Date:       October 11, 2009 03:14AM
What happened to global warming?

By Paul Hudson
Climate correspondent, BBC News



Average temperatures have not increased for over a decade
This headline may come as a bit of a surprise, so too might that fact that the warmest year recorded globally was not in 2008 or 2007, but in 1998.

But it is true. For the last 11 years we have not observed any increase in global temperatures.

And our climate models did not forecast it, even though man-made carbon dioxide, the gas thought to be responsible for warming our planet, has continued to rise.

So what on Earth is going on?

Climate change sceptics, who passionately and consistently argue that man's influence on our climate is overstated, say they saw it coming.

They argue that there are natural cycles, over which we have no control, that dictate how warm the planet is. But what is the evidence for this?

During the last few decades of the 20th Century, our planet did warm quickly.


Recent research has ruled out solar influences on temperature increases
Sceptics argue that the warming we observed was down to the energy from the Sun increasing. After all 98% of the Earth's warmth comes from the Sun.

But research conducted two years ago, and published by the Royal Society, seemed to rule out solar influences.

The scientists' main approach was simple: to look at solar output and cosmic ray intensity over the last 30-40 years, and compare those trends with the graph for global average surface temperature.

And the results were clear. "Warming in the last 20 to 40 years can't have been caused by solar activity," said Dr Piers Forster from Leeds University, a leading contributor to this year's Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC).

But one solar scientist Piers Corbyn from Weatheraction, a company specialising in long range weather forecasting, disagrees.

He claims that solar charged particles impact us far more than is currently accepted, so much so he says that they are almost entirely responsible for what happens to global temperatures.

He is so excited by what he has discovered that he plans to tell the international scientific community at a conference in London at the end of the month.

If proved correct, this could revolutionise the whole subject.

Ocean cycles

What is really interesting at the moment is what is happening to our oceans. They are the Earth's great heat stores.


In the last few years [the Pacific Ocean] has been losing its warmth and has recently started to cool down

According to research conducted by Professor Don Easterbrook from Western Washington University last November, the oceans and global temperatures are correlated.

The oceans, he says, have a cycle in which they warm and cool cyclically. The most important one is the Pacific decadal oscillation (PDO).

For much of the 1980s and 1990s, it was in a positive cycle, that means warmer than average. And observations have revealed that global temperatures were warm too.

But in the last few years it has been losing its warmth and has recently started to cool down.

These cycles in the past have lasted for nearly 30 years.

So could global temperatures follow? The global cooling from 1945 to 1977 coincided with one of these cold Pacific cycles.

Professor Easterbrook says: "The PDO cool mode has replaced the warm mode in the Pacific Ocean, virtually assuring us of about 30 years of global cooling."

So what does it all mean? Climate change sceptics argue that this is evidence that they have been right all along.

They say there are so many other natural causes for warming and cooling, that even if man is warming the planet, it is a small part compared with nature.

But those scientists who are equally passionate about man's influence on global warming argue that their science is solid.

The UK Met Office's Hadley Centre, responsible for future climate predictions, says it incorporates solar variation and ocean cycles into its climate models, and that they are nothing new.

In fact, the centre says they are just two of the whole host of known factors that influence global temperatures - all of which are accounted for by its models.

In addition, say Met Office scientists, temperatures have never increased in a straight line, and there will always be periods of slower warming, or even temporary cooling.

What is crucial, they say, is the long-term trend in global temperatures. And that, according to the Met office data, is clearly up.

To confuse the issue even further, last month Mojib Latif, a member of the IPCC (Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change) says that we may indeed be in a period of cooling worldwide temperatures that could last another 10-20 years.


The UK Met Office says that warming is set to resume


Professor Latif is based at the Leibniz Institute of Marine Sciences at Kiel University in Germany and is one of the world's top climate modellers.

But he makes it clear that he has not become a sceptic; he believes that this cooling will be temporary, before the overwhelming force of man-made global warming reasserts itself.

So what can we expect in the next few years?

Both sides have very different forecasts. The Met Office says that warming is set to resume quickly and strongly.

It predicts that from 2010 to 2015 at least half the years will be hotter than the current hottest year on record (1998).

Sceptics disagree. They insist it is unlikely that temperatures will reach the dizzy heights of 1998 until 2030 at the earliest. It is possible, they say, that because of ocean and solar cycles a period of global cooling is more likely.

One thing is for sure. It seems the debate about what is causing global warming is far from over. Indeed some would say it is hotting up.
Re: Global Warming
avatar Subject :  Re: Global Warming
Date:       October 13, 2009 10:49AM
lol, I was going to post the same article.
Re: Global Warming
avatar Subject :  Re: Global Warming
Date:       November 05, 2009 09:39AM
Someone wanted to know what a political vehicle Global Warming is Look into the site The Green Agenda I would suggest staarting with the subheading Global Revolution[www.green-agenda.com]
Re: Global Warming
avatar Subject :  Re: Global Warming
Date:       November 05, 2009 09:44AM
This has nothing to do with Global Warming this has been going on for a long time it is about total control and very much a smaller population therby depopulation. Sustainability and Interdependance or terms to familiarize yourself with
Re: Global Warming
avatar Subject :  Re: Global Warming
Date:       November 24, 2009 02:24AM
Global Warming is at Best a theory of Weather Models. The same weather models that were wrong about the last 11 years. Yes, for 11 consecutive years the Earth has been cooling. Now that is proof of nothing but this... That the models are only as good as the information put into them, and the last thing we need to do is to create policy for the next 50 years on the reccomendation of a weather model that is this unrelieable.

Things to ponder...

1975 NewsWeek Cover "The Cooling World"

The Current Waxman-Markey Bill endorsed by the House of Representatives calls for greenhouse gas reduction of 83% below 2005 by the year 2050.....

That was our greenhouse output in 1920 when only 92 Million Americans lived here.... 420 Million now..LOL

If you took todays population and regulated the emissions per person you would have to go back to 1875 to get to that level.... How easy is it to put these requirements in effect after they are long dead a burried....
Re: Global Warming
avatar Subject :  Re: Global Warming
Date:       November 25, 2009 06:40AM
More proof that the global-warming-panic kooks have been lying all along.

I’m not just talking about the emails in which “scientists” who have refused to allow public scrutiny of their data (a prime violation of the principles of legitimate science) urge the destruction of FOI’d documents. Or their fear of contrary analysis to the point of trying to re-define “peer-reviewed science” only in the case of climate science.

That scandal is huge. But I’m talking about the lying that’s going on every day from the Greenies among us. And at this point, it is lying. Every time some liberal claims the world hasn’t been cooling the past decade, he knows it’s a lie. This global cooling has been repeatedly reported across the media. The only people denying it are the nutjobs:

The planet's temperature curve rose sharply for almost 30 years, as global temperatures increased by an average of 0.7 degrees Celsius (1.25 degrees Fahrenheit) from the 1970s to the late 1990s. "At present, however, the warming is taking a break," confirms meteorologist Mojib Latif of the Leibniz Institute of Marine Sciences in the northern German city of Kiel. Latif, one of Germany's best-known climatologists, says that the temperature curve has reached a plateau. "There can be no argument about that," he says. "We have to face that fact."

Even this “admission” is partially bogus, because the dates chosen are arbitrary: 70s to the 90s? So what? Man was adding carbon to the atmosphere from 1930-1970 and temps went down. Then they went up. Now they’re going down, probably for another decade or two. Everybody knows it.

We’re dealing with an incomplete understanding of the way the earth system works… When we come to the last few years when we haven’t seen a continuation of that (warming) trend we don’t understand all of the factors that create earth’s climate...We just don’t understand the way the whole system works… See, these people work with models, computer modelling [sic]. So when the computer modelling and the real world data disagree you’ve got a very interesting problem… Sure for the last 10 years we’ve gone through a slight cooling trend.

That’s from far-Left greenie scientist Tim Flannery. He confirms what reasonable people haven known for years: The models don’t work. Temperatures are flat or falling. The people who want us to blow trillions on cap-and-screw—and put a million Americans out of work—can’t even predict temperatures 10 years out, much less 100.

Want more?

Just a few weeks ago, Britain's Hadley Centre for Climate Prediction and Research added more fuel to the fire with its latest calculations of global average temperatures. According to the Hadley figures, the world grew warmer by 0.07 degrees Celsius from 1999 to 2008 and not by the 0.2 degrees Celsius assumed by the United Nations Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. And, say the British experts, when their figure is adjusted for two naturally occurring climate phenomena, El Niño and La Niña, the resulting temperature trend is reduced to 0.0 degrees Celsius -- in other words, a standstill.

”Standstill.” As in “none.” Sadly, none of this actual science will matter to the Gore-ons, What they really hate is capitalism and, at some subconscious level, themselves and their own prosperity.
Re: Global Warming
avatar Subject :  Re: Global Warming
Date:       November 25, 2009 12:39PM
Well if we talk about air quality, the "insustrialised west" has far better air than it did when it was "industrialising". Yet our politicians want the rest of the world to somehow make the same progress pollution free? Al Gore and his cronies are frauds - his movie was full of fake science, dodgy graphs and ridiculously skewed statistics. The global warming "swindle" was a marginal improvement when it comes to the facts but was really just an antidote to Gore's nonsense and not a stone cold theory. One thing Gore did point out though, that has a relevance that he conveniently didn't mention, is that most of the east and west coast states (which tend to be richer in financial terms) had signed up to the global-whatever-climate-agreement-they-had-at-the-time (which they discussed at some "UN" type conference while eating lunch in a big conference centre close to or at their 5 star hotels) but the other states hadn't. Now which states do these big corporations that get tax breaks for going green have their production plants in? How many of their plants are in Mexico? How many big european corporations outsource their labour to their former colonies in the who-cares-what-air-they-breathe countries? If governments give us, their hardworking citizens, tax relief for sorting our trash into glass, paper, plastic etc and reduce taxes on cars and fuel if we use more efficient ones then we are talking green revolution. As it stands its just yet another money making scheme for the politicians and their mates in the big-in-size low-in-tax corporations. Gloabl warming has nothing to do with it.
Re: Global Warming
avatar Subject :  Re: Global Warming
Date:       November 27, 2009 06:57PM
The book "Super Freakenomics" has an interesting chapter on global warming. One of the funnier parts has to do with quality of the air. Before the car was invented, the smell from the horse manure in New York was so bad, that that is the reason the old brownstone homes had a long flight of stairs to the entrance. It was to get away from the stink of the manure, and the flies and rats that feasted on the manure.
It's a great book.

Kathleen
Re: Global Warming
avatar Subject :  Re: Global Warming
Date:       November 28, 2009 06:34PM
Re: Global Warming
avatar Subject :  Re: Global Warming
Date:       December 01, 2009 07:12AM
The Globe Isn't Warming! The Globe Isn't Warming!

Monday, November 30, 2009 8:58 AM

By: Pat Boone Article Font Size




In just a few days, President Obama will be in Copenhagen, Denmark, with a large group of influential people from around the world, discussing what to do to prevent our globe from frying like an egg on a hot sidewalk.

That last part is an exaggeration, of course, but the attitude among most of the attendees seems too similar to the fairy tale about Chicken Little, who ran around the barnyard screaming “The sky is falling! The sky is falling!”

Former Vice President Al Gore has spent eight years roaming the world with a message just about as dire, and received a Nobel Prize for his efforts. Now Bloomberg reports that Mr. Gore has seen his net worth soar from $2 million when he left office to more than $100 million now. He stands to make billions personally if “cap and trade” passes because of his stake in the newly created agency that will lay billions of penalties on entities that produce more carbon emissions than the agency deems allowable.

If this happens, it will make America’s fabled “robber barons” from another era look like neighborhood kids with a lemonade stand.

What makes this James Bond or Michael Crichton story so fascinating is that a growing majority of the world’s scientists are proclaiming loudly: “The sky is not falling!” The world is not frying in CO2! It’s actually cooling, and has been for some time!

I feel reasonably certain that our friend Al is truly persuaded that he’s telling the truth, or less likely, has persuaded himself of it. And of course, many of the pictures he shows and stats and figures he relates are factual. It’s just that he has drawn some wrong, and terribly damaging, conclusions from them. Just like Chicken Little, who saw dark and low-hanging clouds over her, and felt the sky was falling. Facts right, conclusion wrong.

Incontrovertible facts have now surfaced that contradict Gore’s conclusions. Hard evidence and common sense confirm that:


Solar energy is the real source of global warming — and it always has been cyclical. The world’s average temperature waxes and wanes according to activities on the sun, and there is no evidence using observed data over any time period you might choose, that carbon dioxide (CO2) has any effect on temperature or climate. A “greenhouse effect” linked to industrial emissions of CO2 is simply a myth.


As reported in the Tampa (Fla.) Tribune, oxygen isotope records from ice cores taken in Greenland show that planet Earth has had four major warm periods during the past 5,000 years. Three of those warm periods preceded industrial society, before man ever discharged CO2. Carbon dioxide had nothing to do with the warming. In fact, there have been periods when carbon dioxide has been present in the Earth’s atmosphere at 20 times today’s concentrations, with no dire consequences.


Carbon dioxide itself is not a pollutant; it’s a life-giving gas, tied intricately to the life of green plants. Plant life takes CO2 and uses it to produce oxygen. But even if it were a bad thing, it makes up just .0386 percent of the Earth’s atmosphere — of which one one-thousandth of a percent is from human activity.


As reported increasingly on factual news programs, and of great consternation to Gore and those who are still sounding alarms, the Earth is getting cooler, not warmer. The period from January 2007 through September 2009 show the sharpest drop in temperature in recorded history. The Arctic icepack grew by 370,000 square miles (1.5 times the size of Texas) in the past two years. The most recent Antarctic snowmelt during austral summer of 2007-2008 is the lowest ever recorded. The Antarctic ice cover is now 30% greater than its average over the last 30 years. And the polar bear population in the northern arena has increased, to a projected 32,000.


Even at the Kyoto convention, the Chicken Littles themselves projected that, if the whole world jumped on board and managed to reduce carbon emissions to zero — in a hurried 20 years of all-out commitment and urgency — the net effect on the world temperature would be about 1 degree. Can you spell "insignificant”?

So of course, our Nobel winner and his troop of scientists and enlightened world leaders are scrambling and trying to explain all of this. They’re saying all these things are just “temporary aberrations” and not relevant to their projections — which is exactly the point. Earth’s temperature is related to changes and aberrations on the sun, as it has always been, and is affected little if at all by man’s machinery.

I’ve heard one top solar physicist say, “It’s the height of presumption and hubris for man to think that he can affect or warp the temperature of this whole vast planet by his puny activities. The sun rules our climate, and the sun alone.”

What’s sinister about all this is that 67 senators are ready to vote for a cap-and-trade carbon tax that will cripple American industry and our own ability to produce essential oil and coal while we try to come up with alternatives — and make Gore the world’s first “carbon billionaire.” If drastically wrong decisions are made by our president in Copenhagen, we will likely lose our status as the world leader in productivity, and be drawn into a world governing body that will tell us what we can and cannot do.

Please compare and seriously consider two statements:

1) “Few challenges facing America and the world are more urgent than combating climate change. The science is beyond dispute and the facts are clear.” — Barack Obama, Nov. 19, 2008

2) “With all due respect, Mr. President, that is not true. We, the undersigned scientists, maintain that the case for alarm regarding climate change is grossly overstated. Surface temperature changes over the past century have been episodic and modest and there has been no net global warming for over a decade now. After controlling for population growth and property values, there has been no increase in damages from severe weather-related events. The computer models forecasting rapid temperature change abjectly fail to explain recent climate behavior. Mr. President, your characterization of the scientific facts regarding climate change and the degree of certainty informing the scientific debate is simply incorrect.” — Signed by more than 100 of the world’s top scientists and researchers in an open letter to The New York Times, The Washington Post, and the L.A. Times, March 30, 2009.
Re: Global Warming
avatar Subject :  Re: Global Warming
Date:       December 09, 2009 07:28AM
Hurricane Expert Rips Climate Fears

Tuesday, December 8, 2009 8:10 PM

By: Dr. William Gray





The following commentary is from Atmospheric Scientist and Hurricane forecasting specialist Dr. William Gray. Gray is the renowned hurricane forecaster and Emeritus Professor of Atmospheric Science at Colorado State University (CSU) and originally published this artiucle on ClimateDepot.com.






Had I not devoted my entire career of more than half a century to the study and forecasting of meteorological and climate events, I would have likely been concerned over the possibility of humans causing serious global climate degradation.


There has been an unrelenting quarter century of one-sided indoctrination of the Western world by the media and by various scientists and governments concerning a coming carbon dioxide (CO2) induced global warming disaster. These warming scenarios have been orchestrated by a combination of environmentalists, vested interest scientists wanting larger federal grants and publicity, the media which profits from doomsday scenario reporting, governmental bureaucrats who want more power over our lives, and socialists who want to level-out global living standards. These many alarmist groups appear to have little concern over whether their global warming prognostications are accurate, however. And they most certainly are not. The alarmists believe they will be able to scare enough of our citizens into believing their propaganda that the public will be willing to follow their advice on future energy usage and agree to a lowering of their standard of living in the name of climate salvation.


Rising levels of CO2 are not near the threat these alarmists have portrayed them to be. There has yet to be a honest and broad scientific debate on the basic science of CO2's influence on global temperature. The global climate models predicting large amounts of global warming for a doubling of CO2 are badly flawed. They should never have been used to establish government climate policy.


The last century's global warming of about 1 degree Fahrenheit is not a consequence of human activities. This warming is primarily the result of a multi-century changes in the globe's deep ocean circulation. These ocean current changes have lead to a small and gradual increase in the globe's temperature. We are coming out of the Little Ice Age and into a generally warmer climate state. This is akin to the warmer global climate of the Medieval Period. We can do nothing but adapt to such long period natural temperature changes.


The recent "Climategate" revelations coming out of the University of East Anglia are but the tip of a giant iceberg of a well organized international climate warming conspiracy that has been gathering momentum for the last 25 years. This conspiracy would become much more manifest if all the e-mails of the publically funded climate research groups of the US and of foreign governments were ever made public.


The disastrous economic consequences of restricting CO2 emissions from the present by as much as 20 percent by 2020 and 80 percent by 2050 (as being proposed in Copenhagen) have yet to be digested by the general public. Such CO2 output decreases would cause very large increases in our energy costs, a lowering of our standard of living, and do nothing of significance to improve our climate.


The cap-and-trade bill presently before Congress, the likely climate agreements coming out of the Copenhagen Conference, and the EPA's just announced decision to treat CO2 as a pollutant represents a grave threat to the industrial world's continued economic development. We should not allow these proposals to restrict our economic growth. Any United Nations climate bill our country might sign would act as an infringement on our country's sovereignty.


© 2009 All Rights Reserved
Re: Global Warming
avatar Subject :  Re: Global Warming
Date:       December 16, 2009 01:35AM
HERE are the 100 reasons, released in a dossier issued by the European Foundation, why climate change is natural and not man-made:

1) There is “no real scientific proof” that the current warming is caused by the rise of greenhouse gases from man’s activity.



2) Man-made carbon dioxide emissions throughout human history constitute less than 0.00022 percent of the total naturally emitted from the mantle of the earth during geological history.

3) Warmer periods of the Earth’s history came around 800 years before rises in CO2 levels.

4) After World War II, there was a huge surge in recorded CO2 emissions but global temperatures fell for four decades after 1940.

5) Throughout the Earth’s history, temperatures have often been warmer than now and CO2 levels have often been higher – more than ten times as high.

6) Significant changes in climate have continually occurred throughout geologic time.

7) The 0.7C increase in the average global temperature over the last hundred years is entirely consistent with well-established, long-term, natural climate trends.





8) The IPCC theory is driven by just 60 scientists and favourable reviewers not the 4,000 usually cited.

9) Leaked e-mails from British climate scientists – in a scandal known as “Climate-gate” - suggest that that has been manipulated to exaggerate global warming

10) A large body of scientific research suggests that the sun is responsible for the greater share of climate change during the past hundred years.

11) Politicians and activiists claim rising sea levels are a direct cause of global warming but sea levels rates have been increasing steadily since the last ice age 10,000 ago

12) Philip Stott, Emeritus Professor of Biogeography at the School of Oriental and African Studies in London says climate change is too complicated to be caused by just one factor, whether CO2 or clouds

13) Peter Lilley MP said last month that “fewer people in Britain than in any other country believe in the importance of global warming. That is despite the fact that our Government and our political class—predominantly—are more committed to it than their counterparts in any other country in the world”.

14) In pursuit of the global warming rhetoric, wind farms will do very little to nothing to reduce CO2 emissions

15) Professor Plimer, Professor of Geology and Earth Sciences at the University of Adelaide, stated that the idea of taking a single trace gas in the atmosphere, accusing it and finding it guilty of total responsibility for climate change, is an “absurdity”

16) A Harvard University astrophysicist and geophysicist, Willie Soon, said he is “embarrassed and puzzled” by the shallow science in papers that support the proposition that the earth faces a climate crisis caused by global warming.

17) The science of what determines the earth’s temperature is in fact far from settled or understood.

18) Despite activist concerns over CO2 levels, CO2 is a minor greenhouse gas, unlike water vapour which is tied to climate concerns, and which we can’t even pretend to control

19) A petition by scientists trying to tell the world that the political and media portrayal of global warming is false was put forward in the Heidelberg Appeal in 1992. Today, more than 4,000 signatories, including 72 Nobel Prize winners, from 106 countries have signed it.

20) It is claimed the average global temperature increased at a dangerously fast rate in the 20th century but the recent rate of average global temperature rise has been between 1 and 2 degrees C per century - within natural rates

21) Professor Zbigniew Jaworowski, Chairman of the Scientific Council of the Central Laboratory for Radiological Protection in Warsaw, Poland says the earth’s temperature has more to do with cloud cover and water vapor than CO2 concentration in the atmosphere.

22) There is strong evidence from solar studies which suggests that the Earth’s current temperature stasis will be followed by climatic cooling over the next few decades

23) It is myth that receding glaciers are proof of global warming as glaciers have been receding and growing cyclically for many centuries

24) It is a falsehood that the earth’s poles are warming because that is natural variation and while the western Arctic may be getting somewhat warmer we also see that the Eastern Arctic and Greenland are getting colder

25) The IPCC claims climate driven “impacts on biodiversity are significant and of key relevance” but those claims are simply not supported by scientific research

26) The IPCC threat of climate change to the world’s species does not make sense as wild species are at least one million years old, which means they have all been through hundreds of climate cycles

27) Research goes strongly against claims that CO2-induced global warming would cause catastrophic disintegration of the Greenland and Antarctic Ice Sheets.

28) Despite activist concerns over CO2 levels, rising CO2 levels are our best hope of raising crop yields to feed an ever-growing population

29) The biggest climate change ever experienced on earth took place around 700 million years ago

30) The slight increase in temperature which has been observed since 1900 is entirely consistent with well-established, long-term natural climate cycles

31) Despite activist concerns over CO2 levels, rising CO2 levels of some so-called “greenhouse gases” may be contributing to higher oxygen levels and global cooling, not warming

32) Accurate satellite, balloon and mountain top observations made over the last three decades have not shown any significant change in the long term rate of increase in global temperatures

33) Today’s CO2 concentration of around 385 ppm is very low compared to most of the earth’s history – we actually live in a carbon-deficient atmosphere

34) It is a myth that CO2 is the most common greenhouse gas because greenhouse gases form about 3% of the atmosphere by volume, and CO2 constitutes about 0.037% of the atmosphere

35) It is a myth that computer models verify that CO2 increases will cause significant global warming because computer models can be made to “verify” anything

36) There is no scientific or statistical evidence whatsoever that global warming will cause more storms and other weather extremes

37) One statement deleted from a UN report in 1996 stated that “none of the studies cited above has shown clear evidence that we can attribute the observed climate changes to increases in greenhouse gases”

38) The world “warmed” by 0.07 +/- 0.07 degrees C from 1999 to 2008, not the 0.20 degrees C expected by the IPCC

39) The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change says “it is likely that future tropical cyclones (typhoons and hurricanes) will become more intense” but there has been no increase in the intensity or frequency of tropical cyclones globally

40) Rising CO2 levels in the atmosphere can be shown not only to have a negligible effect on the Earth’s many ecosystems, but in some cases to be a positive help to many organisms

41) Researchers who compare and contrast climate change impact on civilizations found warm periods are beneficial to mankind and cold periods harmful

42) The Met Office asserts we are in the hottest decade since records began but this is precisely what the world should expect if the climate is cyclical

43) Rising CO2 levels increase plant growth and make plants more resistant to drought and pests

44) The historical increase in the air’s CO2 content has improved human nutrition by raising crop yields during the past 150 years

45) The increase of the air’s CO2 content has probably helped lengthen human lifespans since the beginning of the Industrial Revolution

46) The IPCC alleges that “climate change currently contributes to the global burden of disease and premature deaths” but the evidence shows that higher temperatures and rising CO2 levels has helped global populations

47) In May of 2004, the Russian Academy of Sciences published a report concluding that the Kyoto Protocol has no scientific grounding at all.

48) The “Climate-gate” scandal pointed to a expensive public campaign of disinformation and the denigration of scientists who opposed the belief that CO2 emissions were causing climate change

49) The head of Britain’s climate change watchdog has predicted households will need to spend up to £15,000 on a full energy efficiency makeover if the Government is to meet its ambitious targets for cutting carbon emissions.

50) Wind power is unlikely to be the answer to our energy needs. The wind power industry argues that there are “no direct subsidies” but it involves a total subsidy of as much as £60 per MWh which falls directly on electricity consumers. This burden will grow in line with attempts to achieve Wind power targets, according to a recent OFGEM report.

51) Wind farms are not an efficient way to produce energy. The British Wind Energy Association (BWEA) accepts a figure of 75 per cent back-up power is required.

52) Global temperatures are below the low end of IPCC predictions not at “at the top end of IPCC estimates”

53) Climate alarmists have raised the concern over acidification of the oceans but Tom Segalstad from Oslo University in Norway , and others, have noted that the composition of ocean water – including CO2, calcium, and water – can act as a buffering agent in the acidification of the oceans.

54) The UN’s IPCC computer models of human-caused global warming predict the emergence of a “hotspot” in the upper troposphere over the tropics. Former researcher in the Australian Department of Climate Change, David Evans, said there is no evidence of such a hotspot

55) The argument that climate change is a of result of global warming caused by human activity is the argument of flat Earthers.

56) The manner in which US President Barack Obama sidestepped Congress to order emission cuts shows how undemocratic and irrational the entire international decision-making process has become with regards to emission-target setting.

57) William Kininmonth, a former head of the National Climate Centre and a consultant to the World Meteorological Organisation, wrote “the likely extent of global temperature rise from a doubling of CO2 is less than 1C. Such warming is well within the envelope of variation experienced during the past 10,000 years and insignificant in the context of glacial cycles during the past million years, when Earth has been predominantly very cold and covered by extensive ice sheets.”

58) Canada has shown the world targets derived from the existing Kyoto commitments were always unrealistic and did not work for the country.

59) In the lead up to the Copenhagen summit, David Davis MP said of previous climate summits, at Rio de Janeiro in 1992 and Kyoto in 1997 that many had promised greater cuts, but “neither happened”, but we are continuing along the same lines.

60) The UK ’s environmental policy has a long-term price tag of about £55 billion, before taking into account the impact on its economic growth.

61) The UN’s panel on climate change warned that Himalayan glaciers could melt to a fifth of current levels by 2035. J. Graham Cogley a professor at Ontario Trent University, claims this inaccurate stating the UN authors got the date from an earlier report wrong by more than 300 years.

62) Under existing Kyoto obligations the EU has attempted to claim success, while actually increasing emissions by 13 per cent, according to Lord Lawson. In addition the EU has pursued this scheme by purchasing “offsets” from countries such as China paying them billions of dollars to destroy atmospheric pollutants, such as CFC-23, which were manufactured purely in order to be destroyed.

63) It is claimed that the average global temperature was relatively unchanging in pre-industrial times but sky-rocketed since 1900, and will increase by several degrees more over the next 100 years according to Penn State University researcher Michael Mann. There is no convincing empirical evidence that past climate was unchanging, nor that 20th century changes in average global temperature were unusual or unnatural.

64) Michael Mann of Penn State University has actually shown that the Medieval Warm Period and the Little Ice Age did in fact exist, which contrasts with his earlier work which produced the “hockey stick graph” which showed a constant temperature over the past thousand years or so followed by a recent dramatic upturn.

65) The globe’s current approach to climate change in which major industrialised countries agree to nonsensical targets for their CO2 emissions by a given date, as it has been under the Kyoto system, is very expensive.

66) The “Climate-gate” scandal revealed that a scientific team had emailed one another about using a “trick” for the sake of concealing a “decline” in temperatures when looking at the history of the Earth’s temperature.

67) Global temperatures have not risen in any statistically-significant sense for 15 years and have actually been falling for nine years. The “Climate-gate” scandal revealed a scientific team had expressed dismay at the fact global warming was contrary to their predictions and admitted their inability to explain it was “a travesty”.

68) The IPCC predicts that a warmer planet will lead to more extreme weather, including drought, flooding, storms, snow, and wildfires. But over the last century, during which the IPCC claims the world experienced more rapid warming than any time in the past two millennia, the world did not experience significantly greater trends in any of these extreme weather events.

69) In explaining the average temperature standstill we are currently experiencing, the Met Office Hadley Centre ran a series of computer climate predictions and found in many of the computer runs there were decade-long standstills but none for 15 years – so it expects global warming to resume swiftly.

70) Richard Lindzen, Professor of Atmospheric Sciences at Massachusetts Institute of Technology, wrote: “The notion of a static, unchanging climate is foreign to the history of the Earth or any other planet with a fluid envelope. Such hysteria (over global warming) simply represents the scientific illiteracy of much of the public, the susceptibility of the public to the substitution of repetition for truth.”

71) Despite the 1997 Kyoto Protocol’s status as the flagship of the fight against climate change it has been a failure.

72) The first phase of the EU’s Emissions Trading Scheme (ETS), which ran from 2005 to 2007 was a failure. Huge over-allocation of permits to pollute led to a collapse in the price of carbon from €33 to just €0.20 per tonne meaning the system did not reduce emissions at all.

73) The EU trading scheme, to manage carbon emissions has completely failed and actually allows European businesses to duck out of making their emissions reductions at home by offsetting, which means paying for cuts to be made overseas instead.

74) To date “cap and trade” carbon markets have done almost nothing to reduce emissions.

75) In the United States , the cap-and-trade is an approach designed to control carbon emissions and will impose huge costs upon American citizens via a carbon tax on all goods and services produced in the United States. The average family of four can expect to pay an additional $1700, or £1,043, more each year. It is predicted that the United States will lose more than 2 million jobs as the result of cap-and-trade schemes.

76) Dr Roy Spencer, a principal research scientist at the University of Alabama in Huntsville, has indicated that out of the 21 climate models tracked by the IPCC the differences in warming exhibited by those models is mostly the result of different strengths of positive cloud feedback – and that increasing CO2 is insufficient to explain global-average warming in the last 50 to 100 years.

77) Why should politicians devote our scarce resources in a globally competitive world to a false and ill-defined problem, while ignoring the real problems the entire planet faces, such as: poverty, hunger, disease or terrorism.

78) A proper analysis of ice core records from the past 650,000 years demonstrates that temperature increases have come before, and not resulted from, increases in CO2 by hundreds of years.

79) Since the cause of global warming is mostly natural, then there is in actual fact very little we can do about it. (We are still not able to control the sun).

80) A substantial number of the panel of 2,500 climate scientists on the United Nation’s International Panel on Climate Change, which created a statement on scientific unanimity on climate change and man-made global warming, were found to have serious concerns.

81) The UK’s Met Office has been forced this year to re-examine 160 years of temperature data after admitting that public confidence in the science on man-made global warming has been shattered by revelations about the data.

82) Politicians and activists push for renewable energy sources such as wind turbines under the rhetoric of climate change, but it is essentially about money – under the system of Renewable Obligations. Much of the money is paid for by consumers in electricity bills. It amounts to £1 billion a year.

83) The “Climate-gate” scandal revealed that a scientific team had tampered with their own data so as to conceal inconsistencies and errors.

84) The “Climate-gate” scandal revealed that a scientific team had campaigned for the removal of a learned journal’s editor, solely because he did not share their willingness to debase science for political purposes.

85) Ice-core data clearly show that temperatures change centuries before concentrations of atmospheric CO2 change. Thus, there appears to be little evidence for insisting that changes in concentrations of CO2 are the cause of past temperature and climate change.

86) There are no experimentally verified processes explaining how CO2 concentrations can fall in a few centuries without falling temperatures – in fact it is changing temperatures which cause changes in CO2 concentrations, which is consistent with experiments that show CO2 is the atmospheric gas most readily absorbed by water.

87) The Government’s Renewable Energy Strategy contains a massive increase in electricity generation by wind power costing around £4 billion a year over the next twenty years. The benefits will be only £4 to £5 billion overall (not per annum). So costs will outnumber benefits by a range of between eleven and seventeen times.

88) Whilst CO2 levels have indeed changed for various reasons, human and otherwise, just as they have throughout history, the CO2 content of the atmosphere has increased since the beginning of the industrial revolution, and the growth rate has now been constant for the past 25 years.

89) It is a myth that CO2 is a pollutant, because nitrogen forms 80% of our atmosphere and human beings could not live in 100% nitrogen either: CO2 is no more a pollutant than nitrogen is and CO2 is essential to life.

90) Politicians and climate activists make claims to rising sea levels but certain members in the IPCC chose an area to measure in Hong Kong that is subsiding. They used the record reading of 2.3 mm per year rise of sea level.

91) The accepted global average temperature statistics used by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change show that no ground-based warming has occurred since 1998.

92) If one factors in non-greenhouse influences such as El Nino events and large volcanic eruptions, lower atmosphere satellite-based temperature measurements show little, if any, global warming since 1979, a period over which atmospheric CO2 has increased by 55 ppm (17 per cent).

93) US President Barack Obama pledged to cut emissions by 2050 to equal those of 1910 when there were 92 million Americans. In 2050, there will be 420 million Americans, so Obama’s promise means that emissions per head will be approximately what they were in 1875. It simply will not happen.

94) The European Union has already agreed to cut emissions by 20 percent to 2020, compared with 1990 levels, and is willing to increase the target to 30 percent. However, these are unachievable and the EU has already massively failed with its Emissions Trading Scheme (ETS), as EU emissions actually rose by 0.8 percent from 2005 to 2006 and are known to be well above the Kyoto goal.

95) Australia has stated it wants to slash greenhouse emissions by up to 25 percent below 2000 levels by 2020, but the pledges were so unpopular that the country’s Senate has voted against the carbon trading Bill, and the Opposition’s Party leader has now been ousted by a climate change sceptic.

96) Canada plans to reduce emissions by 20 percent compared with 2006 levels by 2020, representing approximately a 3 percent cut from 1990 levels but it simultaneously defends its Alberta tar sands emissions and its record as one of the world’s highest per-capita emissions setters.

97) India plans to reduce the ratio of emissions to production by 20-25 percent compared with 2005 levels by 2020, but all Government officials insist that since India has to grow for its development and poverty alleviation, it has to emit, because the economy is driven by carbon.

98) The Leipzig Declaration in 1996, was signed by 110 scientists who said: “We – along with many of our fellow citizens – are apprehensive about the climate treaty conference scheduled for Kyoto, Japan, in December 1997” and “based on all the evidence available to us, we cannot subscribe to the politically inspired world view that envisages climate catastrophes and calls for hasty actions.”

99) A US Oregon Petition Project stated “We urge the United States government to reject the global warming agreement that was written in Kyoto, Japan in December, 1997, and any other similar proposals. The proposed limits on greenhouse gases would harm the environment, hinder the advance of science and technology, and damage the health and welfare of mankind. There is no convincing scientific evidence that human release of CO2, methane, or other greenhouse gasses is causing or will, in the foreseeable future, cause catastrophic heating of the Earth’s atmosphere and disruption of the Earth’s climate.”

100) A report by the Nongovernmental International Panel on Climate Change concluded “We find no support for the IPCC’s claim that climate observations during the twentieth century are either unprecedented or provide evidence of an anthropogenic effect on climate.”
Re: Global Warming
avatar Subject :  Re: Global Warming
Date:       December 18, 2009 12:59AM
Who are the people making this list? Please provide links to all the peer reviewed articles, Because even by the sceptics standards this is anecdotal in the extreme, it is not backed by empiric evidence.


Fact - CO2 is increasing (even the science sceptics cannot deny nor disprove this is empiric)
Fact - temperatures are increasing, they have acclerated in the latter part of the 20th century and in the 21st century greater than at any other time in the earths recent history. Again the evidence is empiric and has been verified even by the sceptics.
Fact - temperatures increase faster in a higher CO2 atmosphere
Fact- sun spots do not play a part in the heating of the earth, in fact the opposite is true when the sun is less active the earth is colder, during periods of intense activity the earth stays approximately the same. This is backed by over 300 years of sun spot observation
Fact - even the sceptics now accept more readily anthropogenic global warming, the argument now is had bad will this warming be and how fast is it happening. That is can 300 million Americans really drive that many SUVs doing 12mpg , can China keep burning so much coal when China is an engineering nuclear country and could easily build modern safe nuclear reactors.

The other parts about carbon trading etc well at least it is something.In terms of denying climate change you may as welll deny the existence of yourself the evidence is now pretty much all empiric. And if you think that we cannot make a change then you must remember banning lead in petrol, banning CFC's PFB and other gases have indeed made a difference.
Re: Global Warming
avatar Subject :  Re: Global Warming
Date:       December 18, 2009 01:15AM
Untrue...

Global cooling in the 1st Century so far.

Proven that Sun Spots DO effect weather on Earth...



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 12/18/2009 01:17AM by DrCheckRaise.
Re: Global Warming
avatar Subject :  Re: Global Warming
Date:       December 18, 2009 02:19PM
Sun Spots, as I say, do make a change to climate but not in the way that the climate sceptics have said it does. Lack of sun spots causes a cooling, normal sun spot activity does not add to temperature. Counterintuitive but true. It was yet another straw to clutch at by the sceptics but has been proven unworthy. NASA debated long and hard over this and created massive in-house fallouts, but they now accept anthropogenic warming and not sun activity. The evidence was empiric.

Rising temperatures, the hockey stick is still on the same curve, all further research still produces the same curve. Most of the research to disprove the hockey stick curve was carried out by "big business" funding "sceptics" but all studies agree with the original model.

Please look up DROUGHT and Lake Mead, as Lake Mead is fairly critical to our gambling haven.
Re: Global Warming
avatar Subject :  Re: Global Warming
Date:       December 18, 2009 09:03PM
The Hockey Stick That Wasn't. The "hockey stick" is a nickname for a chart prepared by Michael Mann, a Pennsylvania State University professor and leading warmist. The chart purports to show temperature levels for the past millennium, and consists of a straight line until it reaches the late 20th century, when it suddenly shoots upward, creating the "hockey stick" profile. This chart was a major feature of International Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) reports on global warming and is a commonly used media graphic.


This chart creates immediate doubt in anyone knowledgeable about the climate of the past millennium, which more resembles a roller coaster than a straight line. It developed -- in yet another impressive McIntyre takedown, this time with an assist from Ross McKitrick -- that Mann was utilizing an algorithm that would produce hockey sticks if you fed it telephone numbers. (Mann is the "Mike" mentioned in the CRU e-mails, and this is one of his "tricks."winking smiley Despite this disclosure, Mann has never withdrawn the chart, offered an explanation, or made a correction. The chart remains an accepted piece of evidence among warmists.
Re: Global Warming
avatar Subject :  Re: Global Warming
Date:       December 18, 2009 09:33PM
Bomb Shelters in the 50's and 60's, The MCarthy Hearings, Y2K. It is the sky is falling mentality.

I know you think you know what is happening, but we are simply saying that you are being fed bad science for the sake of the scientists to justify their continuing grants. If they find evidence to the contrary then there is no reason to continue the funding and they have to find a different need for their skills. It is not productive to good science.

We have been told for years that the planet is warming, it would have to be, considering that thousands of years ago the US had a glacier move south creating the Great Plains... That happened so long ago, and warmed well before industrialization...... So I don't dispute that the planet is warming, I dispute that being a bad thing and that humans have much of an impact on that warming. Over the past 40 years, we have cleaned our air and our water. Those are good things. But to think that we can actually control the temperature of the Earth is so arrogant in my mind. We just don't have that amount of power, and the solution that the politician has come up with is also unattainable and unrealistic.

Yes the Earth has a limited supply of resources, and someday they will be used is a fair assumption. Alternatives are a possibility, but you also have to accept the possibility that some day the Earth will simply wind down like a watch and no longer continue to support human life as we know it. To think that we have actually control over that is like the Tower of Babel, trying to be like God. I tend to think that this Earth can support life for thousands of years as long as a rogue asteroid does not hit it again as it has in the past.
Re: Global Warming
avatar Subject :  Re: Global Warming
Date:       December 19, 2009 02:30AM
Look again at the definition of science and peer reviewed, if people actually bothered you would realise that this is no longer scare mongering it is happening. Empiric evidence now supports anthropogenic global warming, the sceptics and charlatans have had their time. The truth is the truth, not like god and towers of babel.
Re: Global Warming
avatar Subject :  Re: Global Warming
Date:       December 19, 2009 04:56PM













Perhaps the most balanced program I have viewed in regard to AGW. I am sure that people will dispute the notion of balance, but at least it is not a polemic nor lacking in peer reviewed empiric facts.
Re: Global Warming
avatar Subject :  Re: Global Warming
Date:       December 19, 2009 05:03PM
part two

<embed id=VideoPlayback src=

style=width:400px;height:326px allowFullScreen=true allowScriptAccess=always type=application/x-shockwave-flash> </embed>
Re: Global Warming
avatar Subject :  Re: Global Warming
Date:       December 19, 2009 05:04PM
part three


<embed id=VideoPlayback src=

style=width:400px;height:326px allowFullScreen=true allowScriptAccess=always type=application/x-shockwave-flash> </embed>
Re: Global Warming
avatar Subject :  Re: Global Warming
Date:       December 20, 2009 07:48AM
Bottom line-US can't afford to fix it. Developing countries can't afford to fix it. And that is if I even agree that it is a linear event rather than a simple cyclical event.
Surprise gang, we're all broke!

Kathleen
Re: Global Warming
avatar Subject :  Re: Global Warming
Date:       January 09, 2010 09:31AM
This morning, a research group released data that may actually show that EMF radiation from cellphones could possibly impede and reverse the development of Alzheimers disease

Aside from the amazing conclusions of this research, there is a more important lesson to be learned here.

The group doing the research initially set out to prove that Alzheimers patients would suffer additional deteriorating effects if they were exposed to cellphone radiation. But, the results showing an improvement in those patients was a complete surprise. They now have pressed forward in seeing if there is actually a cure that could come out of their research.

This is so contrary to the research being done by the AGW Climate Change scientific community. In the case of global warming research, if the data contradicted the results they were looking for, they changed the data and not their opinions. As the President always likes to say, the Alzheimer scientists have truly provided a "teaching moment". Of course, the Global Warming scientists and Obama probably aren't listening.
Re: Global Warming
avatar Subject :  Re: Global Warming
Date:       January 11, 2010 11:47AM
umustmuck13 Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> This morning, a research group released data that
> may actually show that EMF radiation from
> cellphones could possibly impede and reverse the
> development of Alzheimers disease
>
> Aside from the amazing conclusions of this
> research, there is a more important lesson to be
> learned here.
>
> The group doing the research initially set out to
> prove that Alzheimers patients would suffer
> additional deteriorating effects if they were
> exposed to cellphone radiation. But, the results
> showing an improvement in those patients was a
> complete surprise. They now have pressed forward
> in seeing if there is actually a cure that could
> come out of their research.
>
> This is so contrary to the research being done by
> the AGW Climate Change scientific community. In
> the case of global warming research, if the data
> contradicted the results they were looking for,
> they changed the data and not their opinions. As
> the President always likes to say, the Alzheimer
> scientists have truly provided a "teaching
> moment". Of course, the Global Warming scientists
> and Obama probably aren't listening.

So, you will happily accept the results of a preliminary test of EMF on proteins in lab "genetically modified" mice, but cannot bother to watch video which destroys your case and indeed shows a famous sceptic backing down on his opinion on anthropogenic global warming. The best fact you highlight is that the EMF study was set up to prove that EMF had a detrimental effect on the human brain, which is rather how the notion of global warming came about, the scientists were initially trying to show global cooling. Which is rather why science exists, to ask questions of complex issues and provide evidence. Evidence is something that you constantly do not provide in your non-argument regarding this subject and your default mode is now just random ad hominem attacks on science and your President.
Re: Global Warming
avatar Subject :  Re: Global Warming
Date:       January 25, 2010 09:46AM
Re: Global Warming
avatar Subject :  Re: Global Warming
Date:       January 25, 2010 02:19PM
umustmuck-You are my web surfing hero. I have traveled North to South and East to West in England. My daughter in law is English. The English have a very different lifestyle and value structure than most Americans. I said different, not better or worse. It's hard for them to understand why Americans value what they value. It is equally hard for Americans to understand English values.
Thus, I think that "across the pond" arguments fail because of a lack of understanding of the American system and values.
I think the same is true of America and Europe's relationships with the middle east. They are again a very different culture. Trying to impose our value structure on them is doomed to failure. They have tribal and religous loyalties that run very deep and are well beyond most people''s understanding.
Global warming is the hot issue of the day. Follow the money. You don't get much funding these days if your research involves disproving the theory. You get a lot of funding if your research is to prove global warming.

Kathleen
Re: Global Warming
avatar Subject :  Re: Global Warming
Date:       January 26, 2010 10:47AM
1) The Daily Mail is a joke - you should read the same article that has been reported on by all the UK media. Then you will realise why the Daily Mail is a joke.

2) Kathleen, your last statement regarding funding is incorrect. All the large companies (oil companies) are providing the funding to discredit or disprove AGW.

3) Cultural difference has nothing to do with SCIENCE, the evidence is the evidence. Maths transcends culture.
Re: Global Warming
avatar Subject :  Re: Global Warming
Date:       January 26, 2010 04:48PM
GlacierGate - a mistake not a disproving of AGW

[www.bloomberg.com]

various other articles are at various news agencies explaining the TRUTH are to be found quite easily. In fact you have to go out of your way to find the Daily Mail's version of the truth, although we in britain know the Daily Mail never tells the truth. As one of its famous columnists says "You couldn't make it up" , he usually uses this phrase when he has made it up from his imagination, so the only thing true is "You could not make it up, because I did".

If you read left wing, centre bias, right wing press - sometimes you can work out the truth.

As for debating AGW with Umustmuck, no response yet from his mythical 100 list to my questions.
Re: Global Warming
avatar Subject :  Re: Global Warming
Date:       January 26, 2010 05:08PM
[en.wikipedia.org]

The highest paid "journalist?" for the UK Daily Mail. Hates immigrants born in the UK and lives in Florida. Please go round and burn his house down the fecking furrinoor

[www.angrymob.uponnothing.co.uk]

His making it up, is an endless task. So, if you want to quote a newspaper Umustmuck please find a newspaper to quote from and not the hideous garbage that is the Daily Mail.
Re: Global Warming
avatar Subject :  Re: Global Warming
Date:       January 26, 2010 07:24PM
Tach, scientists are not always right. The earth is not flat, etc. I'm not knowledgeable enough to have a scientific opinion on global warming. It seems to me that both sides of the issue make some valid points, so I really question anyone's ability to say that it is absolutely true, or untrue. My personal opinion is that weather seems to be cyclical in nature. Problem is that nobody seems to have a firm grasp on what causes the cycles. When I was at NASA's Advanced Space Studies, I was involved in Tiros, which was the first weather sattellite. We know more now than we did before Tiros, but there are still great mysteries to solve.

Kathleen
Re: Global Warming
avatar Subject :  Re: Global Warming
Date:       January 27, 2010 11:31AM
IrishQueeen Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Tach, scientists are not always right. The earth
> is not flat, etc. I'm not knowledgeable enough to
> have a scientific opinion on global warming. It
> seems to me that both sides of the issue make some
> valid points, so I really question anyone's
> ability to say that it is absolutely true, or
> untrue. My personal opinion is that weather seems
> to be cyclical in nature. Problem is that nobody
> seems to have a firm grasp on what causes the
> cycles. When I was at NASA's Advanced Space
> Studies, I was involved in Tiros, which was the
> first weather sattellite. We know more now than
> we did before Tiros, but there are still great
> mysteries to solve.


My point has always been that science is not always right, however when faced with overwhelming Empiric evidence then one cannot still place your fingers in your ears and go "la la la la la, the earth is flat"

1) Watch the videos I posted
2) Weather is not climate change
3) Great mysteries are the nature of science - thus far AGW is explaining more than the skeptics NAY saying
4) NASA accepts AGW, after great ructions with the solar debate. Again, this is in the video

ps. Pity about Littlejohns house it was, of course, tongue in cheek.

pps. Swighey, the Daily Mail is the paper of people who thnk they are middle class, and are actually poorly educated knee jerk reactionaries.
Re: Global Warming
avatar Subject :  Re: Global Warming
Date:       January 26, 2010 07:27PM
I don't think I should burn his house down. I would like to make you happy, but prison just doesn't appeal to me.

Kathleen
Re: Global Warming
avatar Subject :  Re: Global Warming
Date:       January 26, 2010 09:52PM
The Middle East is indeed a place with (varied )cultures very different from our own. The media in most middle eastern countries paints both sides of our "pond" as pretty much the same - and with some merit because many of our (pseudo-Christian) values are the same or similar. And that's just their media in English and French (the choice languages of the educated classes). The Arabic press is even more partisan. Under the skin of a place, the cultures are all pretty much the same anyway and it is people who are attached to the surface reality and "habits" as opposed to "customs" of their place that find it most difficult to adapt to other places. I'm sure you all know a truckload of people who have roots in your area but have long forgotten the customs associated with it. The global warming debate is indeed media led and is skewed to fit the political landscape of Europe and North America (nobody else cares - the Aussies have an open sky, the South East Asian powerhouses will sign up to any agreement if it saves them face and they gain kudos in the eyes of the lands of English Premier League Football and the National Basketball Association, Japan and Korea have always had a more sensible approach to waste and pollution, the gulf states are too busy trying to find another paycheck when the oil runs out, and everybody else is too poor to care about "global what?"winking smiley. Personally, I don't trust the climate scientists as far as I could throw a bean as we can't predict the weather acurately four days in advance anyway and most of the data they use is location specific and ignores physics (the science of the climate) and I don't trust mathematical models other than those based on probability (which make me a kind of scientific lawyer omg!!!).
Re: Global Warming
avatar Subject :  Re: Global Warming
Date:       January 26, 2010 09:54PM
And yes the Daily Mail is a hate-rag disguised as a national newspaper.
Re: Global Warming
avatar Subject :  Re: Global Warming
Date:       February 16, 2010 04:57PM
Wesley Pruden

You can fool some of the people some of the time, as Abraham Lincoln observed, and you even can fool all the people some of the time. But you can't fool all the people all the time. Al Gore and his friends got so excited about points one and especially point two that they forgot point three.

Not everybody is on to the global-warming scam, not yet, but all the people — or enough of them — are getting there. "Global warming," or even "climate change" as Al's marketing men now insist that it be called, is becoming the stuff of jests and jokes. Sen. James M. Inhofe of Oklahoma, a Republican, built an igloo of that hot stuff that buried Washington last week on the Capitol lawn and dubbed it "Al Gore's new home."

Across the Potomac, the Republicans in Virginia filmed a television commercial called "12 inches of global warming" and invited two Virginia congressmen, both Democrats who voted for the infamous cap-and-trade legislation, to help with the shovel that will become the official state tool before the streets thaw.

One day this week, there was measurable snow on the ground in 50 states. (No report yet from the other seven of the "57 states" President Obama once said he was campaigning to be the president of.) Even Hawaii reported snow on some of its mountain peaks, and several towns in northwestern Florida were lightly dusted, like the powdered sugar on a cop's doughnut.

A few snowflakes, or even a lot of snowflakes, is hardly proof that the great global-warming scare is a fraud and a swindle, but the collapse of the "science" of global warming is transforming even the sheep into skeptics. Jeff Masters of the Weather Underground — an Internet blog and not to be confused with the violent underground Weathermen of the sordid '60s — observes that characteristics of climate must be measured carefully over the decades and even centuries, not by occasional blizzards and storms.

But political fraud and scientific swindle can be measured by collapsing "science." The University of East Anglia's Climatic Research Unit in Britain was regarded as the leader in climate research and the fount of raw data on which the science was based until leaked e-mails between researchers revealed evidence of doctoring of data and manipulation of evidence. The director of the research unit, professor Phil Jones, was regarded as an archbishop in the Church of Global Warming. He was pressured to resign in the wake of the scandal. Now he has conceded to an interviewer from the BBC that based on the evidence in his findings, the globe might have been warmer in medieval times. If so, the notion that fluctuations in earthly temperatures are man-made is rendered just that, a man-made notion.

The learned professor told his interviewer that for the past 15 years there has been no "statistically significant" warming. He conceded that he has lost track of many of the relevant papers — that his office was overwhelmed by the clutter of paper. Some of the crucial data to back up scare stories might be lying under other stuff, but he's not sure. An environmental analyst for the BBC said the professor told him that his "strengths" include "integrity" and "doggedness" but not record-keeping and "office tidying." He's just not dogged about keeping things straight.

This was good enough in the early years of the scam, but not any longer. John Christy, a professor of atmospheric science at the University of Alabama at Huntsville and once a ranking member of the United Nation's Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, says the temperature records have been compromised and cannot be relied on. The findings of weather stations that collected temperature data were distorted by location. Several were located near air-conditioning units and on waste-treatment plants; one was next to a waste incinerator. Still another was built at Rome's international airport and catches the hot exhaust of taxiing jetliners.

Terry Mills, a professor of applied statistics at Britain's Loughborough University, looks at the U.N. panel's data and applies a little skepticism. "The earth," he told London's Daily Mail, "has gone through warming spells like these at least twice before in the last thousand years."

The global-warming hysteria, on which the Obama administration wants to base enormous new tax burdens, is just about as reliable as the weather hysteria presented nightly on your favorite television channel. Man is driven by his ego and finds it impossible to think even the weather is not all about him.
Re: Global Warming
avatar Subject :  Re: Global Warming
Date:       February 16, 2010 05:04PM
Climate alarmists conjured a world where nothing was certain but death, taxes and catastrophic global warming. They used this presumed scientific certainty as a bludgeon against the skeptics they deemed "deniers" -- a word meant to have the noxious whiff of Holocaust denial.

All in the cause of hustling the world into a grand carbon-rationing scheme. Any questions about the evidence for the cataclysmic projections, any concerns about the costs and benefits were trumped by that fearsome scientific "consensus," which had "settled" the important questions.


Jones: Key climatologist softening claims.
A funny thing happened to this "consensus" on the way to its inevitable triumph, though: Its propagators have been forced to admit fallibility.

For the cause of genuine science, this is a small step forward; for the cause of climate alarmism, it's a giant leap backward. The rush to "save the planet" can't accommodate any doubt, or it loses the panicked momentum necessary for a retooling of modern economic life.

Phil Jones is the director of the Climate Research Unit at the University of East Anglia, a key "consensus" institution that has recently been caught up in an e-mail scandal revealing a mind-set of global-warming advocacy rather than dispassionate inquiry.

Asked by the BBC what it means when scientists say "the debate on climate change is over," the keeper of the flame sounded chastened. "I don't believe the vast majority of climate scientists think this," Jones said. "This is not my view. There is still much that needs to be undertaken to reduce uncertainties, not just for the future, but for the . . . past as well."

Jones discussed the highly contentious "medieval warming period." If global temperatures were warmer than today back in 800-1300 AD -- about 1,000 years before Henry Ford's assembly lines began spitting out cars -- it suggests that natural factors have a large hand in climate change, a concession that climate alarmists are loath to make.

Jones said we don't know if the warming in this period was global in extent since paleoclimatic records are sketchy. If it was, and if temperatures were higher than now, "then obviously the late 20th century warmth would not be unprecedented."

Jones also noted that there's been no statistically significant warming since 1995, although the cooling since 2002 hasn't been statistically significant, either.

All of this is like a cardinal of the Catholic Church saying the evidence for apostolic succession is still open to debate.

The other main organ of the climate "consensus" is the UN's Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. It won the Nobel Peace Prize for its 2007 report -- which turns out to have been so riddled with errors it could have been researched on Wikipedia.

It said Himalayan glaciers would melt by 2035, warned that global warming could reduce crop yields in Africa by 50 percent by 2020, and linked warming to the increased economic cost of natural disasters -- all nonsense.

These aren't random errors. As former head of the IPCC, the British scientist Robert Watson notes, "The mistakes all appear to have gone in the direction of making it seem like climate change is more serious by overstating the impact."

Too many creators and guardians of the "consensus" desperately wanted to believe in it. As self-proclaimed defenders of science, they should have brushed up on their Enlightenment. "Doubt is not a pleasant mental state," said Voltaire, "but certainty is a ridiculous one."

The latest revelations don't disprove the warming of the 20th century or mean that carbon emissions played no role. But by highlighting the uncertainty of the paleoclimatic data and the models on which alarmism has been built, they constitute a shattering blow to the case for radical, immediate action.

In The Boston Globe, MIT climate scientist Kerry Emanuel marshals a new argument for fighting warming: "We do not have the luxury of waiting for scientific certainty, which will never come." Really? That's not what we were told even a few months ago -- before climate alarmism acknowledged doubt.
Re: Global Warming
avatar Subject :  Re: Global Warming
Date:       February 16, 2010 05:06PM
Re: Global Warming
avatar Subject :  Re: Global Warming
Date:       February 17, 2010 11:37AM
Yet more posts of nothingness Umustmuck13, hack writers mis-quoting scientists. The absurdists cyclical points of view you keep on publishing like these are facts. Can you at least engage in conversation or will you just rely on wholly unreliable tales to tell your point of view; although this method is at best tiresome and at worst like teaching creationism.

By the way, you can search forever and a day finding naysayer articles, but you will not find one Empiric peer reviewed article that disproves AGW.
Re: Global Warming
avatar Subject :  Re: Global Warming
Date:       February 18, 2010 05:34AM
[www.oism.org] empiric enough?
Re: Global Warming
avatar Subject :  Re: Global Warming
Date:       February 18, 2010 12:30PM
No, not really, as those claims have been refuted by the empiric evidence of others including AGW skeptic research.
Re: Global Warming
avatar Subject :  Re: Global Warming
Date:       February 19, 2010 06:08PM
[www.americanthinker.com] Bottom line the science is not definite. Much more study needed before we are forced to spend so much money we don't have, and the loss of millions of more jobs.
Re: Global Warming
avatar Subject :  Re: Global Warming
Date:       February 19, 2010 07:53PM
Have I reduced you to hyperbole? AGW costs millions of jobs and billions of dollars, now there is a leap of faith. A bit like saying destroy computers because they have cost millions of jobs and cost billions of dollars. If job loss and cost is how you view AGW then we are not nor will ever be on the same page, your view is that of self-importance and ego start a SUBJECT OF CONTROVERSY about your NEEDS/BELIEFS, I can't argue with you then but don't obfuscate subjects with your romantic unscientific drivel.

The science is sounder and more proven than any of the payrolled oil company skeptics can argue against. As I said ages ago, the question on the lips of reasoned scientists is "how bad is AGW going to be".

I won't engage on this anymore, because your mind is set. Wrongly so.
Re: Global Warming
avatar Subject :  Re: Global Warming
Date:       February 19, 2010 08:03PM
[www.astronomynotes.com]

[www.skepticalscience.com]

Go and argue with these people, lol
Re: Global Warming
avatar Subject :  Re: Global Warming
Date:       February 22, 2010 07:39AM
Re: Global Warming
avatar Subject :  Re: Global Warming
Date:       February 22, 2010 04:57PM
The study was more than likely retracted because it did not scare enough people. Don't you know MUCK, the sky is falling, the sky is falling.

Since the beginning of time on this Earth, the climate has been changing, the ocean levels have been rising and falling, sea temperatures, changing, glaciers, increasing and decreasing, species dieing off, some species adapting, animals migrating to climates more amiable to them.

Each species has some impact on the the survival on another species. Are we no less a species and a part of that evolution. If we have had a large negative impact on any one thing on this Earth we have had a negative effect on the evolution due to our negating the survival of the fittest. We now set out to protect the weak,, the unintelligent.

Nature caused species to survive by survival of the fittest. Survival of the fittest ensured that only the healthiest, only the strongest reproduced causing those with the best genes to be the ones to reproduce making their species stronger over time and able to survive and adapt. But now we protect the weak and the unintelligent and permit them to reproduce resulting in a weaker species, a species less likely to survive over time.

The only constant in this world is the constant of change and the ability of a strong species to adapt to that change along with the dieing off of the weak species. A calculated plan to protect the weak actually throws off the eco-system more than if they were not protected at all.

Governments need a crisis, they need an enemy in order to be needed themselves. The best enemy is one that is not real, one that cannot be seen, but will still be feared, so that they can control the masses. Thoughtful concerned people have bought right into the scam. The scientific community played right into their hands, bought by the grants that give them purpose. As long as there is a crisis there is need for the next study. Global warming grants,hush money if you will. And global warming makes such good movies as well, playing right into the farce....

Change the cry from the sky is falling the sky is falling to.................
The emperor has no clothes.... The emperor has not clothes
Re: Global Warming
avatar Subject :  Re: Global Warming
Date:       February 23, 2010 09:52PM
DrCheckRaise Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> The study was more than likely retracted because
> it did not scare enough people. Don't you know
> MUCK, the sky is falling, the sky is falling.

As ever the picking of one incident PLEASE READ what the scientific community says especially Climate Scientists as opposed to the none Climate Scientist Skeptics. The results are skewed but not withdrawn because they are wrong just not accurate enough! Good Science.
>
> Since the beginning of time on this Earth, the
> climate has been changing, the ocean levels have
> been rising and falling, sea temperatures,
> changing, glaciers, increasing and decreasing,
> species dieing off, some species adapting, animals
> migrating to climates more amiable to them.

Glad you said that because, with nearly 22,000 years of data it is known that the earth has never warmed as it is doing now, nor has the atmosphere contained more CO2.
>
> Each species has some impact on the the survival
> on another species. Are we no less a species and
> a part of that evolution. If we have had a large
> negative impact on any one thing on this Earth we
> have had a negative effect on the evolution due to
> our negating the survival of the fittest. We now
> set out to protect the weak,, the unintelligent.
>
You mention evolution but no doubt you will bring a deity back into the argument at some point. The point is this, AGW is not part of a evolutionary process. Evolution really dictates survival of the species, not the destruction of the species. Please look up the Darwin Awards to see the subtle but major differerence.
>
> Nature caused species to survive by survival of
> the fittest. Survival of the fittest ensured that
> only the healthiest, only the strongest reproduced
> causing those with the best genes to be the ones
> to reproduce making their species stronger over
> time and able to survive and adapt. But now we
> protect the weak and the unintelligent and permit
> them to reproduce resulting in a weaker species, a
> species less likely to survive over time.

Ah, eugenics Dr. Mengle and wandering off the AGW agenda just a little bit.
>
> The only constant in this world is the constant of
> change and the ability of a strong species to
> adapt to that change along with the dieing off of
> the weak species. A calculated plan to protect
> the weak actually throws off the eco-system more
> than if they were not protected at all.

See evolution and protecting the species as opposed to destroying the species via crass uninhibited stupidity.
>
> Governments need a crisis, they need an enemy
> in order to be needed themselves. The best enemy
> is one that is not real, one that cannot be seen,
> but will still be feared, so that they can control
> the masses. Thoughtful concerned people have
> bought right into the scam. The scientific
> community played right into their hands, bought by
> the grants that give them purpose. As long as
> there is a crisis there is need for the next
> study. Global warming grants,hush money if you
> will. And global warming makes such good movies as
> well, playing right into the farce....
>
I think after reading some of the comments made in "Subjects of Controversy", that some people see fears everywhere and the governments have little to do with such paranoia. But, lets be brutally honest most AGW research is funded by GLOBAL COMPANIES hoping to make all these "stupid" scientists with their EMPIRIC evidence go away!

> Change the cry from the sky is falling the sky is
> falling to.................
The SKY has fallen
> The emperor has no clothes.... The emperor has not
> clothes
It was one wise boy whose opinion broke the spell of the Emperors clothes!

If we like using these parables then lets look at the "Boy who cried wolf". Eventually the wolf got the sheep and the boy, so who was really wrong.
Re: Global Warming
avatar Subject :  Re: Global Warming
Date:       February 25, 2010 06:56AM
All of the observed climate changes are gradual, moderate, and entirely within the bounds of ordinary natural changes that have occurred during the benign period of the past few thousand years.

There is no indication whatever in the experimental data that an abrupt or remarkable change in any of the ordinary natural climate variables is beginning or will begin to take place
Re: Global Warming
avatar Subject :  Re: Global Warming
Date:       February 25, 2010 12:25PM
umustmuck13 Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> All of the observed climate changes are gradual,
> moderate, and entirely within the bounds of
> ordinary natural changes that have occurred during
> the benign period of the past few thousand years.
>
>
> There is no indication whatever in the
> experimental data that an abrupt or remarkable
> change in any of the ordinary natural climate
> variables is beginning or will begin to take place

Well, as you say ALL THE OBSERVED CLIMATE CHANGES ARE GRADUAL etc., please point me in the direction of peer reviewed empiric studies that reach YOUR conclusion (I provided a link to a blog which contained plenty of well researchedx references to science papers). Good luck, because to my knowledge skeptic scientists when double checking data get the same results, which is why they spend so much time attacking the smallest of errors which in turn fuels opinions such as yours.
Re: Global Warming
avatar Subject :  Re: Global Warming
Date:       February 26, 2010 05:49PM
AGW denier at the oft quoted University of Alabama and one of the main opponents of the hockey stick issues retractions and his latest data from satellites says January was hottest global temperature rise in 30 years accepting El Nino and that we are in a solar cooling period. See a CREATIONIST SCIENTIST FUNDED BY OIL finally comes clean and issues EMPIRIC results, thanks Roy Spencer.

[climateprogress.org]


[climateprogress.org]
Re: Global Warming
avatar Subject :  Re: Global Warming
Date:       March 11, 2010 11:17PM
Always believe the media, the media are the most trustworthy organisations.

[www.badscience.net]
Re: Global Warming
avatar Subject :  Re: Global Warming
Date:       March 12, 2010 03:37AM
Rather we trust the scientists that when they come up with evidence that is contrary to their grant supported goals try to bury that evidence? There is enough fact manipulation blame to go around....
Re: Global Warming
avatar Subject :  Re: Global Warming
Date:       March 12, 2010 10:54AM
Now you really are just waving your hands in the air, shouting "ad hominem". I will repeat for the second time, science discovered AGW whilst trying to prove global cooling - how does your statement begin to make sense in that context.
Re: Global Warming
avatar Subject :  Re: Global Warming
Date:       April 19, 2010 02:30PM
Scientists probably wouldn't go along with a scam you know working hard independently to expose the truth no matter what the cost, since science is funded by ...I don't know? I guess!.. I would think it not to far out the box to assume that the brightest scientist are picked early from university or before and trained by who?Maybe... again at a loss, and would it be a stretch to say wow Global Warming if true falls right in line with the overpopulation agenda, The Peak Oil Theory, The Kyoto Protocol and all energy related issues and taxes in the future such as Carbon Tax, which leads to Carbon credits, etc. And then getting the information independently to the people through the free press. Yes that must be it I had it right the first time scientist are uncorruptable, along with the press, and Maurice Strong . quote: “The common enemy of humanity is man.
In searching for a new enemy to unite us, we came up
with the idea that pollution, the threat of global warming,
water shortages, famine and the like would fit the bill. All these
dangers are caused by human intervention, and it is only through
changed attitudes and behavior that they can be overcome.
The real enemy then, is humanity itself."
- Club of Rome

The First Global Revolution

Online Users

Guests: 13
Record Number of Users: 5 on November 28, 2013
Record Number of Guests: 265 on November 12, 2013
Poker Forums | Poker Glossary | Top Users | Terms of Service
Copyright © 2014 DrCheckRaise.com

Created by Design Magic and powered by Phorum.