Royal Society Lecturer says CO2 not Affecting Earth Temperature
Why don't we hear of "Man Made Global Warming" anymore?
Simple. Because global warming is not and never was caused by man and his CO2 emissions.
Now even the Royal Society, a staunch man-made global warming proponent, is starting to discredit this lie.
http://www.activistpost.com/2012/06/glo … .html#more
Wake up people!. Carbon footprint offsets and carbon credits are a monumental scam, a hoax, a fraud!How on earth can you trust someone named Valdemort? It's character from the Harry Potter books/movies. ;-)
Maybe* the offsets are a scam, but the pollution, compromised air quality, compromised water quality and the compromised overall quality of life are not scams.
I grew up in L.A. during the seventies. I remember walking down the street when there was a heavy marine layer and having those tiny water droplets sting my eyes. That doesn't happen anymore even though the air quality here could still be improved.
* Maybe means maybe, as in maybe yes, maybe no.Perhaps they will switch back to the global cooling theory. Of course then the cooling effect must cancel out the warming effect, and those junk science theories will fall back into the natural cooling and warming cycles that have occurred on the Earth since before the human race even existed.
I certainly agree carbon offsets are a scam! I would never, ever dream of paying these.
I don't have the physics knowledge to follow the global warming debate. I limit my energy use as far as I can, because it saves me money.The LIE is that people believe that they are more superior than the planet we rely on for life, yet state they care for the planet! The LIE is that Fracking does not F**k the environment or earth's natural balance! The LIE is that hundreds of thousands of people have died in wars that were created solely for the purpose of securing fossil fuel resources, yet sold to their parents as being justifiable for 'other' reasons! The LIE is that dumping our trash in the sea, does no damage! The LIE is that people are in control of their eating habits and attitudes towards obesity, or the ever increasing negative medical effects of that obesity!
The LIE is Man! Aren't You proud to have such 'power' over other species?The author of the hub didn't read that the guy he's talking about is on the payroll of the energy industry. With all the crazy weather that's been happening lately, how can anybody say that climate change isn't happening?
Weather is not climate. The scientific argument for human caused climate change is bankrupt - you can believe it if you want, as long as you don't support rationing my energy and taxing it.
I personally think whether the climate is affected by CO2 is irrelevant. There are clear, indisputable environmental damages like deforestation, oil spills, and air pollution. Why it's getting warmer is a good question, but whatever the answer is we should still go greener. In the long term, sustainability will be the only, um, sustainable solution. Love the world, and peace from California!
Amen. Whether there is hard indisputable data to support either side is irrelevant to me. The bottom line is mankind does produce toxic by-products from the things that are used for modern conveniences. Deforestation just cannot be good, period. So, what can it hurt to find alternative means of energy? Go green or go home.
A contrarian opinion from a questionable source doesn't change the science. Ideologies and conspiratorial thinking don't trump science.
Here's the science: http://dels-old.nas.edu/climatechange/
Bob Zermop, you make a good point and I'd like to add that we need to transition away from fossil fuels soon and we need to do it quickly or it's game over and lights out.Oh so we should really be sending Al Gore our money every time we run the air conditioner?
I wonder how much offset he has to pay for that honkin big jet he flies to his conferences in?My point being that the leaders of the global climate change movement lead you to wonder. Because they don't exhibit signs in their personal behavior that a problem actually exists. That tends to breed doubt.
What does Al Gore have to do with the science? Or his position or lifestyle? Nothing. He's a popularizer, not a scientist.
Are you telling me you can't read the body of evidence for yourself without bringing in politics and ideologies?
I'll repeat what I just posted before: Ideologies and conspiratorial thinking don't trump the science.Why can't I bring politics and ideologies into when the leaders of the movement do just that and would be nowhere without it?
It's cyclical. Now last year it was hotter than blazes where I am. This year it's cool and it's hot somewhere else.What does that have to do with the science? Nothing.
Weather is cyclical, global warming isn't. That's why it's global. Show me evidence to the contrary that warming isn't occurring.Not globally. Show me the data that support your position. Otherwise, it's just an argument from incredulity.
That's it?
1. Easterbrook is a contrarian and he cooked his data:
http://scienceblogs.com/deltoid/2010/05 … -the-incl/
2. DuHamel is obviously a GW denier and not a scientist. He's cherry picking quotes. The article he cites doesn't say what he claims it says. The article states, "However, a new force for change has arisen: humans. After the industrial revolution, humans introduced increasing amounts of greenhouse gases into the atmosphere, and changed the surface of the landscape to an extent great enough to influence climate on local and global scales. By driving up carbon dioxide levels in the atmosphere (by about 30 percent), humans have increased its capacity to trap warmth near the surface." Climate scientists are familiar with forcing.
3. A blog post from the communications director for the Republican minority on the Senate Environment and Public Works Committee isn't science. Republicans are known to shoehorn data so it conforms with their biases. The long term trend in temps is still shows warming. That post was debunked when it was written: http://www.nytimes.com/2008/03/02/scien … wanted=all
And recent evidence from NASA: http://earthobservatory.nasa.gov/IOTD/view.php?id=76975 "Nine of the top ten warmest years in the modern meteorological record have occurred since the year 2000. Last year was another one of them, coming in at 9th warmest since 1880."
Oh, and May of 2012 was the 2nd warmest ever according to the NOAA. Not evidence for warming per se, but it's following the trend: http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/sotc/global/Of course, i knew before I did all that it would be denied.
You didn't disappoint.
The sky is falling.The sky isn't falling, the planet's warming.
Not to worry. A couple more layers of foil will protect you.
Yes, Google is great. Try Google Scholar next time.
You wanted stuff...I got you stuff now didn't I.
You only kicked a few of those to the curb and some just cause you didn't like the messenger.
Of course I know you don't want to talk about how people were busted falsifying the data and then damage control came FRANTICALLY in.
It's a scam. A hoax. A way for the left to try and get more and more and more and more and more tax dollars. That's all.I kicked them to the curb because they're not science. It's that simple. There's no scam, no hoax. Science trumps ideology and conspiratorial thinking.
Tell that to the left.
If you really feel that way you should take l Gore and the others to task for their scam but you won't because you agree with it.
Well even the president has to ignore pesky things like facts and figures if he wants to convince the people that he didn't contribute to the debt crisis, that he didn't waste billions of dollars on alternate energy solutions that don't work, that food, gas prices, and welfare checks are on the rise while jobs and the housing market are on the decline, the government is more transparent, etc...
I didn't see any facts, just lame assertions ITG. An easy takedown.
You didn't take anything down and you know it. The left will lie with great fervor if they think they can first get your money and then alter your behavior patterns to suit their purposes.
That's why so many scientists go along because you get fired if you don't . Just happened the other day.
It's sociology plain and simple. As I say the leaders of the movement don't behave like they have a problem...therefore no problem.
1. Watts is in the pay of the oil companies and his conclusions are fishy at best.
2. Taylor is a lawyer, not a scientist, and his bogus argument has been refuted on these boards before.
3. Samuel Todd is an economist, not a scientist. He cites a letter from 16 non-climate scientists, an article from the DailyFail (not a peer reviewed science journal), a petition signed by a bunch of geologists and other non-climate scientists, the thoroughly debunked film The Great Global Warming Swindle, and other nonsense that nobody with the slightest understanding of the science takes seriously.
4. This was published in 2009, so it is quite out of date, for starters, and was misleading even based on what we knew in 2009. In short, it compares the warmest year on record at that time based on that particular data set (even in 2009, other data sets suggested that 1998 had already been surpassed by 2005) with the temperature in a year with the lowest solar minimum in centuries (2008). Despite the low solar minimum, 2008 is still in the top 15 warmest years on record thanks to the effects of CO2 cancelling out some of the drop in solar energy. 2010 tied 2005 for warmest year on record, 2011 is in the top 10 warmest years on record, and 2012 is so far keeping up the trend.
A small smattering of science that might give some hints as to the massive fraud that is going on pertaining to 'climate change'.
GLOBAL WARMING SCIENCE
EARTH GETTING COOLER
Earth is Cooling, Sea Levels Not Rising, Scientists Say, W. F. Jasper, 20 May 2010, New American
“Rather than global warming at the rate of 1 degree fahrenheit per decade, records of past natural cycle indicate there may be global cooling for the first few decades of the 21st Century, to about 2030.” Dr. Don Easterbrook
SEA LEVELS NOT RISIN
No statistically significant rise since 1930
“Yes it might be 1.1mm per year, but absolutely not more. It could be less, because there could be other factors affecting the Earth, but it certainly could not be more...it was up until 1930, and then down again. There’s no trend...”
“From 1992 to 2002, [the graph of the sea level] was a straight line, variability along a straight line, but no trend whatsoever.”
Levels in the Maldives, Tavalu Islands, Venice, Vanuatu and Tegua (which apparently had to evacuate due to sea-level rise) have shown no trend.
‘Claim That Sea Level Rising is a Total Fraud’, Gregory Murphy interviews Dr. Nils-Axel Morner. Pg. 1/2
NO SIGNIFICANT ICE MELTING
“Some Alpine glaciers are melting, others are advancing. Antarctic ice is certainly not melting; all the Antarctic records show expansion of ice. Greenland is the dark horse for sure; the Arctic may be melting, but it doesn’t matter, because it is already floating, and it has not effect. A glacier like Kilimanjaro, which is important, on the Equator, is only melting because of deforestation.”
“In 5000 years, the whole of the Northern Hemisphere experienced warming, the Holocene Warm Optimum, and it was 2.5 degrees warmer than today. And still, no problem with Antarctica, or with Greenland; still, no higher sea level”
‘Claim That Sea Level Rising is a Total Fraud’, Gregory Murphy interviews Dr. Nils-Axel Morner. Pg. 4
GLOBAL WARMING FRAUD
DODGY TEMPERATURE DATA
“The popular data sets show a lot of warming but the apparent temperature rise was actually caused by local factors affecting the weather stations, such as land development” John Christ, Professor of Atmospheric Science, University of Alabama
World may not be warming, say scientists, Jonathon Leake, The Times
COOKED SEA-LEVEL STATISTICS
Selective data taking
IPCC Using tide gauges to measure sea-level.
“...the IPCC, choose Hong Kong, which has six tide gauges, and they choose the record of one, which gives 2.3mm per year rise of sea level. Every geologist knows that this is a subsiding area. It’s the compaction of sediment; it is the only record which you shouldn’t use.”
‘Claim That Sea Level Rising is a Total Fraud’, Gregory Murphy interviews Dr. Nils-Axel Morner. Pg. 2
Dodgy computer models
IPCC using tide gauge levels in their computer models for sea-level
“...[the IPCC’s sea-level data set] was a straight line - suddenly it changed, and showed a very strong line of uplift, 2.3 mm per year...It looked as though they had recorded something; but they hadn’t recorded anything. It was the original one which had suddenly twisted up, because they had entered a ‘correction factor’, which they took from the tide gauge...a figure introduced from the outside
‘Claim That Sea Level Rising is a Total Fraud’, Gregory Murphy interviews Dr. Nils-Axel Morner. Pg. 2
POLITICAL CENSORSHIP
1. Banned TV programmes
Maldives’ government banned sceptical television programme about their sea-levels.
“Because they thought they would lose money. They accuse the West for putting out carbon-dioxide, and therefore we have to pay for our damage and the flooding. So they wanted the flooding scenario to go on.”
‘Claim That Sea Level Rising is a Total Fraud’, Gregory Murphy interviews Dr. Nils-Axel Morner. Pg. 3
SCIENTIFIC BIAS
“If you want a grant for a research project in climatology, it is written into the document that there must be a focus on global warming.”
‘Claim That Sea Level Rising is a Total Fraud’, Gregory Murphy interviews Dr. Nils-Axel Morner. Pg. 4
DESTRUCTION OF EVIDENCE
IPCC sea-level team pull down tree to signify that it had been destroyed by sea-level rise
“Then the students pull down the tree by hand!”
‘Claim That Sea Level Rising is a Total Fraud’, Gregory Murphy interviews Dr. Nils-Axel Morner. Pg. 3/4
HYPOCRISY
Al Gore buys house in area threatened by ‘sea-rise’
“In 2005, Al and Tipper Gore purchased an ocean-front penthouse at San Francisco St. Regis condo/hotel tower, one of the most expensive addresses in the world, apparently unconcerned that rising sea levels might soon deluge the hotel lobby, if not their own dining room”
Earth is Cooling, Sea Levels Not Rising, Scientists Say, W. F. Jasper, 20 May 2010, New American
BILIOGRAPHY
‘Claim That Sea Level Rising is a Total Fraud’, Gregory Murphy interviews Dr. Nils-Axel Morner.
Available at: [www.climatechangefacts.info/ClimateChangeDocuments/NilsAxelMornerinterview.pdf]
Accessed on 19th September 2011
Earth is Cooling, Sea Levels Not Rising, Scientists Say, W. F. Jasper, 20 May 2010, New American
Available at: [thenewamerican.com/tech-mainmenu-30/environment/3583-earth-is-cooling-sea-levels-not-rising-scientists-say]
Accessed on 19th September 2011A small smattering is right. What 'massive fraud' are you talking about? Once again, a climate change sceptic chooses to highlight a minority opinion as indisputable *fact* while completely ignoring the fact that there is a consensus among the world's climate scientists that climate change is real and humans are contributing to it.
There's nothing wrong with airing dissenting opinions but there is something wrong with presenting them as evidence that the mainstream climate science is somehow fraudulent. Why are you so hell bent on believing the minority must be right and the majority wrong? And who is behind this supposed fraud? Every major scientific body in the US and around the world? The IPCC? What's the motivation? Why do you assume the vast bulk of mainstream climate scientists to be fraudulent and the climate sceptics legitimate and trustworthy? It makes no sense. It's possible the majority of climate scientists may turn out to have got it wrong..but fraudulent'? I can see no logic in that...they'd all have to be in on it and that's just not credible.
The truth is that governments hate having to do anything about climate change - but they are being forced to by the scientific consensus. Yes there is one, despite what sceptics would have you believe. Among the world's climate scientists, there is really very little dissent.The truth is that there is a lot of political and corporate interest in getting everyone to buy into the idea of man-made climate change and the "need" for carbon tax, carbon offsets, carbon trading etc. etc. Governments get more control over us peasants as a result of the tax, and corporations make lots of moolah from the offsets and the trading.
Even if such measures had any beneficial effects on climate (which I doubt), such effects would be minuscule and would cost an incredible amount of money.
650 and counting according to this:
http://epw.senate.gov/public/index.cfm? … 63dc2d02cb
And that's not including the ones who secretly agree with them, but are too afraid to come out and say so.So respected scientific bodies around the world are in cahoots with governments in order to *control us and steal our money*. Such paranoia. Climate change is hugely problematic for government, economically and politically. Corporate interests? The powerful fossil fuel industry has no no axe to grind I suppose?
Afraid of what? The science establishment? As to the 650.
Over 58% of the names listed had no climate related qualifications whatsoever and so lacked the knowledge to effectively judge the results. Less than 16% were qualified in climate science to even voice an opinion on the matter and many of those had quibbles over minor matters which did not contradict the global warming theory. At least one of these scientists publicly complained that his name was included against his knowledge and wishes and in contradiction to his own opinion
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Global_war … acy_theoryNot paranoia at all, just observation of the way the world works - and not just in this arena.
Governments love us to be scared, or hadn't you noticed? It gives them the excuse to snoop and take away our rights, and a lot of people are happy to buy into it. Including you by the sounds of things.
Corporate interests? Well, apart from carbon offset companies, the biggest one is Wall Street, the City of London etc. - anyone who can do emissions trading. Nice money earner for them. I should imagine that the companies who are selling off their "surplus" carbon credits can also make a killing if the timing is right, or take advantage of the tax breaks.
As other people have pointed out: when it comes to any regulations (not just climate-related ones), large corporations tend to be less affected overall. They have the infrastructure, staff and financing to be able to deal with implementing the regulations. It's the small companies that find it a struggle.
Assuming this is true, it tells us that there is intellectual dishonesty going on on both sides of the argument. We've ended up in a cul de sac.Well capitalism will attempt to capitalise wont it? None of this negates the science.
Wow, way to brush aside my point lol.
It doesn't negate the science, but it doesn't confirm it either.What would you think if I told you the science exists for the purpose of the other?
Oh no that can't be because they are scientists.
You know back a number of years some scientists came out with a paper stating they had discovered a physical difference between straight and gay people. Some difference in a lobe in the brain or other.
Then you know what came to light. All the lead scientists were gay. Invalidated the paper.
These folks have an agenda.That's because the progressive left always wants control my friend.
And everyone on the left wants to ignore the Godfather of the climate movement who now says"Hey I guess it isn't that bad after all".
Can't control people if they aren't scared.and there is some more of the same rubbish, you don't know the first thing about climate warming or gaseous shied temperature etc. but you are more than happy to accept whoever told you that there is nothing to it and then jump to the further conclusion that it's a conspiracy, I am not convinced either way but it does not take a genius to see that the big interests are in suppressing the idea of climate change not supporting them.
In 1993, the Club published The First Global Revolution.[5] According to this book, divided nations require common enemies to unite them, "either a real one or else one invented for the purpose."[6] Because of the sudden absence of traditional enemies, "new enemies must be identified."[6] "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."[7]
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Club_of_Rome
Imagine that "or one invented for the purpose".
Socialism right Josak?we came up with the idea that pollution, the threat of global warming, water shortages, famine and the like would fit the bill...
Yes my friend....nothing but conspiracy theories.Hey did you read what the man said? Bear in mind who that is now.......
Let's have some quotes because you won't willingly read it:
Lovelock still believes anthropogenic global warming is occurring and that mankind must lower its greenhouse gas emissions, but says it’s now clear the doomsday predictions, including his own (and Al Gore’s) were incorrect.
He responds to attacks on his revised views by noting that, unlike many climate scientists who fear a loss of government funding if they admit error, as a freelance scientist, he’s never been afraid to revise his theories in the face of new evidence. Indeed, that’s how science advances.
(1) A long-time supporter of nuclear power as a way to lower greenhouse gas emissions, which has made him unpopular with environmentalists, Lovelock has now come out in favour of natural gas fracking (which environmentalists also oppose), as a low-polluting alternative to coal.
As Lovelock observes, “Gas is almost a give-away in the U.S. at the moment. They’ve gone for fracking in a big way. This is what makes me very cross with the greens for trying to knock it … Let’s be pragmatic and sensible and get Britain to switch everything to methane. We should be going mad on it.” (Kandeh Yumkella, co-head of a major United Nations program on sustainable energy, made similar arguments last week at a UN environmental conference in Rio de Janeiro, advocating the development of conventional and unconventional natural gas resources as a way to reduce deforestation and save millions of lives in the Third World.)
(2) Lovelock blasted greens for treating global warming like a religion.
“It just so happens that the green religion is now taking over from the Christian religion,” Lovelock observed. “I don’t think people have noticed that, but it’s got all the sort of terms that religions use … The greens use guilt. That just shows how religious greens are. You can’t win people round by saying they are guilty for putting (carbon dioxide) in the air.”
(3) Lovelock mocks the idea modern economies can be powered by wind turbines.
Now that's not coming from some Conservative ideologue. Right? Right.There's that silence again.
I had some ammo that time.Amen to that. I for one would be far happier with methane than nuclear power.
Building nuclear power stations to reduce greenhouse gas emissions is like spraying your runner beans with neat bleach to kill slugs.
The *Godfather of the climate movement* is just a media term. Why do you so readily assume Lovelock knows what he's talking about but are convinced the majority of climatologists don't? Whether Lovelock is is right or wrong, you seem only interested in scientific opinion when it suits.
But it 'came to light' didn't it? (assuming it's true) As I said before, scientists caught fudging their research will inevitably be caught out. That's how it works. It's why there's peer review.
Science is not 'left-winged motivated' - it's neutral. Individuals may have agendas but the scientific data is apolitical. In order for your conspiracy theory to be correct, the vast majority of climatologists would have to be a party to the agenda. That means around 97% would have to be ferocious left-wing extremists willing to throw scientific integrity down the toilet for the sake of allowing the government to *grab our tax dollars* . Is that credible? No it's not.
Seems to me JSChams, that you've bought into every piece of anti-climate change propaganda ever to come out of a right-wing think tank. You insist on making political something which is at rock bottom, a question of science. Disputing the science is one thing but when you and others prattle on about left-wing government conspiracies backed by the scientific community, I know you're talking through your neck.Talking a from a little lower down than his neck I think
Indeed, but he knows what he likes to hear and avoids that which he doesn't. A true conservative, no doubt.
That an interesting comment considering all here have ignored one of the original proponents of the movement who no longer agrees with them fully.
Of course he is disgraced now because he dare fall out of line.No, he is disgraced because he sold out to those you agree with. Have you examined the leading world scientist's views on Global Warming or merely those which you agree with? Conservatives tend to ignore facts in favor of hyperbole if it fits their agenda, such as you have so aptly demonstrated for us. What state do you reside in? This usually makes some difference in one's political views.
Depends on what the word traitor means to you. I suppose you are okay with propaganda being spread which my affect the future of the entire planet if it prevents something being done to try and neutralize the effects of global warming?
I just know from my observations of the left.....and having been in that ideology myself at one point...that you go from being a hero to being hated in about three seconds.
Pay any attention the the thrashing Richard Muller received on denier blogs after he dared break with the denier "consensus" on temperature stations?
No but I don't doubt that happened. I am not into that I just am in Lovelock's court and think 99.9999999999% of it is overblown.
When the people who are the mouthpieces who garner the most attention and have the most physiological impact of the perception of this actually start behaving as though there is a serious problem instead of acting like it's a problem for us but not for them I might actually pay way more attention. However I live in the world where the proof is in the pudding and when Al Gore rants about Climate Change and gets Oscars for his ridiculous film and then spews untold amounts of carbon into the air jetting about to be seen I tend to take a dim view if it.
It's an issue of perception. He's not helping you.
Perhaps but I brought in one who almost completely started the whole thing and now has backed away a bit and even mentions sientisits losing thier funding for not going along. He is the one everyone here mostly want to ignore.
Science is not conducted by consensus - if there is proven contrary evidence to a particular hypothesis (look above), the hypothesis needs to be adjusted or thrown out. The IPCC, the UN and the majority of governments around the world seem to believe that the science is settled when that simply is not the case. What is more incredible to me is that AGW peddlers completely dismiss contrary evidence, which suggests to me that they are not interested in hearing contrary opinions. It is as if they want to believe in the catastrophic hypothesis. And with that point I can hopefully give you a hint as to the motivation behind believing in such a thing:
What the IPCC and the UN suggest to tackle climate change is tantamount to Marxism through de-industrialisation. It is simply the anti-capitalist mentality manifested through 'science'. Leading voices on the issue already talk about this as an "opportunity", advocating heavy government control on the population to tackle "shopping culture", in tandem with "sustainability". You will simply not find a AGW advocate who is not an authoritarian by nature. Authorities with the power to control a population also have the power to give and take privileges at will. It is very profitable for Al Gore and anybody else associated with the IPCC and the UN to go along with. Big corporations, perhaps surprisingly, love authoritarian control as their incredible monetary influence can push legislation that benefits them ahead of their competitors (what is called crony capitalism). What a better way for some energy companies to get ahead of their rivals by funding ideas like this, and consequently regulating their competitors out of existence (it is these competitors that have been funding people with contrary views, as would be expected). Also, the extremely expansive government programs put forward by AGW advocates are giving business to a number of special energy, human resource and military interests. There is lots of money to be made out of this, especially when the consumers are scared for their lives.
It's all about self-interest. The average liberal likes global warming too because it gives them a good opportunity for moral posturing - it's not about science at all.
Science is science, and the science simply does not add up. But why do these conferences roll ahead whilst banning contrary voices? Why is it so important so as to create a kind of fascism to tackle it? These people admit that civil liberties have to take a back seat to save the planet. The fact that it rolls on, and responds aggressively to contrarians suggests to me that science is not the primary motivator.Ok so despite a near universal consensus on anthropomorphic climate change, you maintain it's a left-wing conspiracy?
This is a common fantasy theme - that the traditional allies of the environmental movement (Labour parties, the Greens and in some scenarios, the UN) have concocted climate change as a means to scare the public into a mass redistribution of wealth or some such evil thing. Climate scientists are drawn as elitist, self-serving opportunists.
In this theme, those actively concerned about climate change tend to be portrayed as conspirators, environmental cultists, or even 'religious fundamentalists', despite the fact that there are many on the politically right who accept the mainstream science.
Where did this idea come from? Right-wing think tanks? Largely, yes. Sceptics seem much more concerned with turning climate change into an ideological battle than they are with the actual science.
That is not the opinion of the vast majority of climatologists.I'm saying the AGW movement is based in Marxism but is politically convenient for higher-ups on any 'wing' because it excuses greater government controls if cited in any circumstance. I don't buy the 'right/left wing' dichotomy usually. The science supporting it is very flimsy (look up), regardless of consensus. Flat-Earth was consensus, but that does not make Flat-Earth scientific.
It is this lack of scientific evidence that leads peddlers into propagating an ideology. The latest climate change conferences focus more on ideology and censorship, and getting stuff done as fast as possible rather than debating the science, despite challenging evidence being available all the time. All the ideology is coming from the AGW proponents, even if they think they're being bi-partisan.Yes.....those are exactly the people walking around telling you that you must pay carbon credits....buy insanely priced light bulbs...buy vehicles that are impractical and don't help the problem....yet they don't do these things. It's a lot like Michelle Obama telling you to eat vegetables while she dines on prime rib. Which has happened.
WOW - I agree with something you said
I might take issue with the origin of the Anti Global Warming stuff in that it stemmed almost entirely from the oil sector, which by definition makes it political and right wing and ideological.Deleted
Just a little joke, the chances of agreement are very slim I would say.
To be honest I can't remember what we debated about before. Are you an Obama supporter, per chance?
No Obama, not even American, just a supporter of peace, people being able to live their lives without fear, fair lives for everyone over the globe, freedom from those who try to impose controls on others for their own selfish benefit, marriage between anyone who wants to be married regardless of race, creed, colour or gender, and freedom from the intolerance of religion, freedom of speech with ten years mandatory jail sentence for anyone proved to be lying and so freeing the world of most politicians, religious figures, and other parasites - so yes - we probably diagreed over something.
Hijacking the thread here... who is going to implement this idea of yours, if all the politicians are locked up?
Sounds like lawyers and privatised prisons would be quids in thoughI don't know where you've pegged me, but I wonder how you can say you're for freedom of speech when you advocate putting people in prison for lying?
Very simple - freedom of speech comes with responsibilities, the biggest danger to free speech in the electronic age is the abuse of htat freedom and the abdication of responsibility - you may note I did not advocate any penalties for being wrong, just deliberate lying.
Of course it does, that is why it isn't necessary to inflict legal responsibilities. We have the right to lie, and we also have the right to point out when people do lie, and we accept the personal consequences of our speech. There is simply no room for exceptions in freedom of speech: it really means what it says.
You don't believe in freedom of speech, you believe in censorship.Trying to make this black and white is just a cover.
The world is going to have to grow up one day and the right is going to have to stop lying its face off to control the masses. Voluntary responsibility has never worked, from press behaviour to christians abusing kids in their care.
The right to control the masses through free speech and telling truths is never likely to be an issue, the right to deliberately lie is not the same thing at all and is in iteself the biggest threat to freedom itself, never mind to free speech.
Due punishment for lying is already in law, if you slander someone they have the right to retribution, it is time the people as a whole had this basic right to do the same thing.
A cover for what exactly? Censorship is the antithesis of freedom, there's nothing complicated about it.
But it seems that you only support censorship when it benefits your particular biases. However, once you have set the precedent that censorship is okay, you can't really complain when a right-wing politician censors your speech. Maybe you're the one who needs to grow up and realise that other people are going to have different views to yours and are going to disseminate them.
Lying in itself is not a threat to free speech unless opposing views are censored
I think that a lot of well-meaning (but non-authoritarian) people have been sucked in too, but yes, there is a disturbing undercurrent of authoritarianism to it all.
Believe it or not, I used to actually be an (amateur) environmental campaigner back in the late Eighties. But even then, I was always slightly disquieted by the underlying strains of "eco fascism" implicit in the drive for more top-down control over people's behaviour.
I've now changed my mind on a lot of issues.
Ugh, sorry, dude, but this is mostly a lot of nonsense. The claims about bad temperature data have been refuted over and over, most recently by the BEST study conducted by a climate skeptic. The guy had the scientific integrity to do actual science and he discovered that scientists were not only not overestimating the temperature rise due to poorly sited temperature stations, in some cases they were actually underestimating it.
http://berkeleyearth.org/
Ice most definitely is melting in Greenland and the Artic, and at a much faster rate than predicted even as recently as the 2007 IPCC report. Some mountain glaciers are increasing in size due to increased snowfall from warmer air temperatures (warmer air holds more moisture, hence more snow) but the majority are declining. The Antarctic is also declining - any study claiming it's not is out of date.
I notice you quoting Nils Axel Morner a lot - his views have been repeatedly debunked by other scientists and are pretty much completely divorced from reality. Which is maybe no surprise from somebody who claims to be a dowser.The "Iceman" thawed out after being frozen for over 5,000 years of fluctuating climate until recently. This indicates our planet is indeed warming at a rather speedy rate than first thought. It amazes me how some folks can deny the obvious when it goes against their own political views. These types usually have little in the way of scientific knowledge nor education in the field. Usually they hail from the deep south or southwest because of the religious influence and poor science education in these areas.
Good afternoon from South East, slightly middle-class Britain and former lefty who adjusted his views based on the evidence.
Very few of us have the scientific qualifications to research with any great detail, so we have to make the best educated guess from the evidence available to us. There is a vast intellectual community with no political or financial agenda that does not believe in the catastrophic consequences suggested by the IPCC and others. The difference between the AGWs and sceptics in the ideological battle is that the sceptics are pegged as rednecks swayed by Big Oil, whereas AGWs lay out their political agenda as part of their plans to tackle climate change themselves. It is not about mildly inconveniencing energy companies with more regulation, it is about completely dismantling industry in the west, and preventing third-world countries from industrialising at all. Totalitarian control over the worlds resources. Do you think our liberty is a good sacrifice to make over this theory with extremely dodgy evidence to back it up?See the whole thing revolves around making people change their behavior. If they can make us buy useless cars and 50 dollar light bulbs they will have turned the sociological corner so to speak and the rest of it becomes easier.
Personally, I think that delaying action until the evidence is irrefutable is much more likely to result in major curtailing of liberty than taking more gradual action.
http://grist.org/climate-change/2011-12 … te-change/
TLDR version: we have a carbon budget for the next century if we want to keep warming below 2 degrees C. If emissions peak in 2015, it's painful but doable. If we wait until 2025, we'd need something close to the K-T impact to do it:
Of course, you can make the argument that we shouldn't even try for 2 degrees C but should aim instead for, say, 4, but that is territory uncharted since the dawn of civilization. At least at 2 degrees we have the Medieval Drought Period suggesting some places to start evacuating...Can you see how more sceptical people can become as soon as somebody says "there's no time, we have to act now otherwise you'll be in danger!"? Gradual curtailing of liberty is even more dangerous because the populace can not see it whilst it's happening. If we're getting to a point where we're fining people for criticising carbon taxes, we are truly living in a police state. I truly feel for Australians.
http://www.dailytelegraph.com.au/money/ … 6366534694
(If they prove it? Okay and who's going to do the checking? The government that profits from the taxes? Yes, that isn't going to be biased at all)Isn't it interesting how taxation seem to be their only solution?
LOL, have fun searching for anywhere where I have ever said I support carbon taxation.
My solution: http://kerryg.hubpages.com/hub/Global-W … ate-Change
(That will probably get removed by a moderator, so if it does, just search for "global warming solutions" on my profile.)Apologies. Maybe not you but the truly involved acolytes really are into it.
I have issue with the climate science, but the issue of finite resources and deforestation has some logic to it. The only issue I see is that the 'what you can do' section is not very detailed. Shouldn't that be the main section? I can not condone enforcing any program upon a populace, despite its apparently well-meaning aims - I'm a voluntarist.
I hope you can see the reasoning behind it too: energy companies want to make a profit from resources, correct? Well, if these resources are running out, they are running out of time in which they can make a profit from it. So, is there not an incentive to find new resources to make a profit from? (This is all assuming we have a free market however, which we do not).
Other problems can be solved by rolling back government too: fully legalise hemp to relieve the demand for paper, and stop charging around with drones in the middle-east so that the oil can go back to its natural price."I have issue with the climate science, but the issue of finite resources and deforestation has some logic to it. The only issue I see is that the 'what you can do' section is not very detailed. Shouldn't that be the main section?"
If you want to get told to turn off lights when they're not in use and bike instead of drive whenever possible, there are 76542157899754 other artcles on the web doing that. I'm more interested in inspiring people to fight for grand-scale solutions, like replanting an area the size of the continental US in trees.
"Other problems can be solved by rolling back government too: fully legalise hemp to relieve the demand for paper, and stop charging around with drones in the middle-east so that the oil can go back to its natural price."
Both sound good to me!But public or private funding? That's what I'm asking.
Whichever works best. If the free market can do it, I'm all for it.
My concern is that blind adherence to free market fundamentalism is just as damaging as any other form of fundamentalism. On the subsides issue, for example, I'm pleased that you are opposed to fossil fuel subsidies, but the truth of the matter is that not a single modern source of energy has ever passed into widespread use without significant government aid. Nuclear and large scale hydroelectric wouldn't even exist if government hadn't invested in their development.
If we suddenly cut fossil fuel subsidies without correspondingly increasing our support of renewables to replace them, we'll likely be looking at skyrocketing energy costs and a catastrophic depression. Believe it or not, that's not acceptable to this treehugger. The trick will be to learn from past mistakes and build in methods to phase out subsidies when the industry is well-established and profitable, instead of continuing to support them for decades beyond that as we've done with coal, oil, and natural gas.So can you tell me which government agency popularized the use of steam engines? Coal plants? Oil plants? Which government agency is pushing the use of nuclear power? I mean the plants we have online now are old (exhibit a) fukushima), used to make nuclear waste for use in nuclear weapons obsolete. There are plenty of new designs that don't produce the waste or have a danger of meltdown. If you don't believe me, research pebble bed reactors. Not to mention the possibility of using thorium as a fuel to produce energy. Look it up. Yet governments around the world are doing what they do best, giving tax money to the favored few to invest in failed "green" schemes. Obama's Solyndra is not the only one, Bush had his debacle with biodiesel. This is entirely due to governments interfering with the market.
I also think you're wrong about characterizing adherence to free markets as fundamentalist. What is a market anyway? People. Everyone is part of the market and it's the people who decide who and what to support. Unlike governments, corporations and other providers can't force you to pay for their services, they have to convince you.
At least until governments get involved. Many energy providers are so-called public-private institutions. They can and do limit your choice by denying the right of other providers to sell services in a particular geographic location. Or they grant control over the grid to a favored company which tends to price other providers out of the market because they can't afford to build a secondary system to provide power. That would just be wasteful.
In a truly free market you'd have people who build infrastructure, like power lines. Then you'd have the people who generate power buy the use of said lines in order to sell power to the masses. No monopoly, no force. Just people making choices.The technology needed for nuclear power follows on from government-funded research on splitting the atom and developing nuclear weapons. If it hadn't been for this research, any private company wanting to build and run a nuclear power station would have had to do the research themselves, and then stump up the cost of building a nuclear power station plus dumping facilities et al. It's a whole magnitude of extra cost and risk, above and beyond that needed to build coal- or oil-fired plants.
It's interesting to speculate whether nuclear power would ever have developed if governments hadn't been involved. My suspicion is no.
BTW, good to have you back on the forums LDT.Don't forget your history. The only reason governments subsidized the development of nuclear power was to make nuclear weapons. One of the things physicists were researching in the 1930's was application of nuclear physics to the generation of power. The War, as with so much else, twisted and corrupted that to evil ends. Don't forget also that many of the top nuclear physicists were expatriates from Germany as well as other parts of Europe. They did not have the instinctive distrust of the government as American physicists. In fact, many "native" physicists declined to participate in the Manhattan Project, at least initially.
As for current subsides on coal and oil, sure they get money now, but back in the day when they were just startups, they didn't. People weren't stupid enough to give government that much power. When you get right down to it we have many of the power sources we have because people who use energy, not governments, want the most bang for their buck. That's why gasoline was the chosen method for powering cars and until an alternative source comes around that can give us that much power or more, no investment in shoddy "green" companies will make any difference at all.
Kerry, the power line thing is called economy of scale. The reason it's so expensive right now is because public/private companies limit not only competition in their own field but in those fields that provide goods and services needed to transmit power. If there's only one energy provider demanding infrastructure in your territory, there's not much reason to start up a company that supplies them.
Believe me with the unemployment problem we have, taking down the public/private monstrosities would open up plenty of opportunity for people to start supplying goods and services to these new startups. The only reason governments want to control this stuff is because government is filled with people who get their kicks with telling other people what to do. Or who think they know everything and somehow that gives them the right to tell others how to live."As for current subsides on coal and oil, sure they get money now, but back in the day when they were just startups, they didn't. People weren't stupid enough to give government that much power. When you get right down to it we have many of the power sources we have because people who use energy, not governments, want the most bang for their buck. That's why gasoline was the chosen method for powering cars and until an alternative source comes around that can give us that much power or more, no investment in shoddy "green" companies will make any difference at all."
The US government has been directly subsidizing the oil industry since 1918. Prior to that, it supported the industry with land grants at below-market value and similar forms of aid. It did the same for coal and timber throughout the 19th century, and, as I mentioned earlier, put a tariff on foreign coal imports in order to support the domestic industry as early as 1789, when the founders themselves were still running the show.
"Kerry, the power line thing is called economy of scale. The reason it's so expensive right now is because public/private companies limit not only competition in their own field but in those fields that provide goods and services needed to transmit power. If there's only one energy provider demanding infrastructure in your territory, there's not much reason to start up a company that supplies them."
Economy of scale is the point. Even if the price of raw materials dropped substantially, there still are not that many companies wealthy enough to build enough power lines to make it profitable, let alone interested in dealing with the hassle of trying to get a bunch of private landowners to all agree on where the lines should go and how much compensation they should expect for the use of their land. In rural areas, it likely wouldn't happen at all. Then, too, in your libertarian fantasyland, if the company that owns the power lines misbehaves and people want to voluntarily move their business elsewhere, what happens? Another company steps in and builds more power lines? Most people think they cause cancer - how many different sets do you think anybody's going to tolerate in a given neighborhood?Why is it so hard to believe that people can and do agree with each other to get stuff done. I also take offense at the fantasyland label. If collectivism is so great, why is Greece in particular and Europe in general in such dire straits?
In fact, show me where giving subsidies to these industries have made them better and more competitive than their free market counterparts. Subsidizing anything with tax money is a bad idea. All it does is lead to runaway costs as instead of being forced to drive down prices by competition, all someone has to do is lobby for more subsidies; usually with the very same tax money they get from the government. Tell me that is not an insane way to run things.I think we'd have to ask Goldman Sachs that question...right? Those "drunks on Wall Street" our ol buddy "W" spoke so eloquently about...
"Confessions of an Economic Hitman".....and Greece got wacked...and so did we..No Greece relied on the more sober Germans and French to keep the gravy train in the station. Sooner or later you run out of other people's money to spend. You also might want to ask Obama what he did with the almost 1 trillion he spent on unions and other Democratic supporters. You're appeals to Bush don't work on me. The sooner the government collapses, the better in my opinion. No matter the party, no matter the candidate, they all screw over the average American.
We're not talking about painting a house here. In addition to the expense, power generation and distribution require a lot of specialized knowledge and skills. A typical suburban neighborhood is not going to be able to just set itself up with a mini nuclear reactor, or even a coal plant.
Ironically, renewables such as wind, solar, and geothermal are much better suited than fossil fuels to the kind of decentralized local power systems you appear to want, and they'd be essentially the only viable modern energy option in a world where the government didn't step in to provide power in regions where it's not profitable for private industry.Look up nuclear batteries. It doesn't take that much special knowledge for power generation, people can and do read up on it. The only reason this applies to renewable power is because that's what people are allowed to do. You might be surprised at what people know that they don't have a degree in.
I'm a writer, so it's my job to be an expert on stuff I don't have a degree in, thanks.
Nuclear batteries are definitely a technology worth pursuing, but much farther from being ready for widespread implementation than renewables, which are already cost-competitive or near cost-competitive with fossil fuels in many parts of the world. Unless there's been some great technical leap forward that I missed in the last few years (which is certainly possible), nuclear batteries are still either big and expensive or small and weak, with nothing in between. If we want to keep temperature rise below 2 degrees C, we need to be deploying cleaner energy NOW, not at some vague point in the future when the perfect form of energy (hydrogen? nuclear batteries? algae biofuel?) is finally ready for mainstream.They've been using that tech for decades to power parts of the DEW line in Alaska. Don't crow too much about being a writer, we're all prisoners of our assumptions if we don't question them. Every house could have a battery buried in their back yard to power their house for 20 years if it were allowed.
DEW line $600 million worth of hazardous waste to clean up DEW line, or is there another one I don't know about?
That's the government for you, biggest polluters out there. Socialist governments are far, far worse than non-socialist governments. And you want them to protect us from polluters. All I'm saying is that the nuclear battery tech has been around since the 1950's. Add modern composite materials and other safety features and there won't be a problem with them supplying power.
Thorium too is a good alternative to uranium or plutonium plants:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thorium#T … clear_fuel
Empress Felicity already covered nuclear pretty well. Steam, coal, and oil have also received government subsidies and other aid that helped make them profitable, and thus encouraged their widespread adoption by industry and the general public. The US government slapped a tariff on imported coal to support the US coal industry as far back as 1789.
You might find this document illuminating:
http://www.dblinvestors.com/documents/W … ersion.pdf
"In a truly free market you'd have people who build infrastructure, like power lines. Then you'd have the people who generate power buy the use of said lines in order to sell power to the masses. No monopoly, no force. Just people making choices."
Power lines are expensive to build and maintain, not to mention the issue of where to put them. How many private organizations have the wherewithal? More likely you'd just end up with monopolies in most areas - monopolies where people didn't have the slightest influence on decisions, unlike today's public and private-public power companies, where we can at least vote on who's in charge. Rural and low income neighborhood would most likely not have any power at all.
Well, they have suggested heavy regulation and expensive programs into renewable energy resources, but the point is that none of the solutions seem to be voluntary. All of the proposed solutions use taxation or control over individuals. They would never even think to leave some responsibility to the individual, we're all smelly rednecks who don't know what's good for us or our precious Earth.
The people who advocate questioning authority never want to be questioned.
I'm much more interested in getting rid of expensive programs supporting fossil fuels, which are already plenty profitable without billions of dollars a year in subsidies.
I also fail to understand how oil, coal, and natural gas subsidies are somehow fine with all you free market types, while renewable subsides are some sort of crime against Adam Smith, blessed be His name.
Here's some stats for you:
Average annual energy subsidies in the US (adjusted for inflation) - oil and gas (1918-2009): $4.86 billion per year; nuclear (1947-1999) - $3.50 billion per year; renewables (1994-2009) - $0.37 billion per year.
http://www.dblinvestors.com/documents/W … ersion.pdfThey're not okay with me. Anybody who supports any kind of subsidy is not a free market type
Maybe it's because they don't believe someone who claims the scientific opinion on climate change is "morally bankrupt" and a "massive fraud" is likely to be motivated to take any personal responsibility on the issue.
Oh and by the way I don't think most of the folk here have the qualifications either. No matter what it seems. They are just as good at Google as I am.
Besides the evidence I've personally researched I also have over a half century of observing the weather in my part of the world first hand. I know for a fact the climate here in southern Georgia is different than when I was a child. As a farmer, one depends on the weather more than many other occupations and record keeping of rainfall and temperatures are taken as a matter of course.
This is the reason I mentioned the thawing of the "Iceman" as being extremely significant. For over 5,000 years this mummified human lay frozen through many periods of warming and cooling trends without the ice ever melting over him. In order for him to thaw out now the climate has to be averaging warmer than it has for over 50 centuries. Not exactly just a trend, I don't believe.
And if you don't believe removing a huge percentage of rainforests and other woodlands from the earth affects the carbon dioxide levels in our atmosphere--not to mention carbon monoxide being pumped into the mix by ever increasing internal combustion engines--isn't speeding up the process, then we just have to disagree on this one.
Were these fellas that made the determination about CO2 sitting for a long time in a sealed, poorly ventilated room? Co2 poisoning makes you delusional.
Even if this were true isn't it better to err on the side of caution?
Couple of great blogs to read:
1. Real Climate - written by real climate scientists. It's all about the data.
http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/ar … tart-here/
2. Skeptical Science - cheat sheet for gunning down the same tired zombie arguments GW "skeptics" make.
http://www.skepticalscience.com/A point of clarification . . .
There is an important difference between
1. Climate change (which is undeniably happening, always has and probably always will. Probably very little we can do about it).
2. MAN MADE GLOBAL WARMING caused by human CO2 emissions which IS A HUGE SCAM to garner billions of dollars from unwitting and gullible people and governments via carbon footprint offsets and carbon credit trading, neither of which will do nothing to halt the advance of global warming in any case.
3. Green, ecologically sound and sustainable living practises, which are undeniably a good thing and absolutely necessary.
By the way, when you look at the so called "concensus" amongst scientists on Man Made Global Warming (a term which I noted they don't actually use any more - I wonder why) you will see that they are all singing from the same song sheet, that is the same original data such as that fraudulently provided by Phil Jones, Mann and company of Climategate fame.
It is the INDEPENDENT scientists who for the most part are speaking out against the global warming fraud, and the scientists who are specifically funded to try and prove that global warmimg is man-made who form the so called "consensus". The Royal Society in England is a bedrock of that "concensus" which is why it is so interesting that even they appear to be breaking ranks now.
By the way, can anyone think of a rather large, very hot object in the vicinity of our planet, which might have something to do with the warming of our planet, and others close to it? Now what's it called again?
Myth
1. "Climate's changed before"
2. "It's the sun"
3. "There is no consensus"
4. "It's not happening"
5. "500 scientists refute the consensus"
6. "Climate 'Skeptics' are like Galileo"
Reality
1. Climate reacts to whatever forces it to change at the time; humans are now the dominant forcing.
2. In the last 35 years of global warming, sun and climate have been going in opposite directions
3. 97% of climate experts agree humans are causing global warming.
4. There are many lines of evidence indicating global warming is unequivocal.
5. Around 97% of climate experts agree that humans are causing global warming.
6. Modern scientists, not anti-science skeptics, follow in Galileo’s footsteps.Actually a skeptic looks at the fact that the Earth is billions of years old and the chart only goes back to 1973. One might consider the evidence of past ice ages followed by warming periods if one were not so ideologically driven. This quaint chart, in all it's simplistically smuggish captioning, is a superb example of liberal motivated science brought to you in high definition tunnel vision.
Oh well yeah and they never notice how scientists who disagree are fired or have their funding removed. Good tactic for insuring compliance.
Say why DID Al Gore buy a mansion in what is a global warming flood plain?Science works by peer review not by forced consensus. Where's your evidence for that claim?
Frankly, I couldn't give a shit about Al Gore. Continually focusing on a single identity as some sort of all-important representative *bogeyman* of climate science is just an ideological red herring.Read the news. They have recent articles about people losing their jobs for not towing the line. I know I am not supposed to see these things and they aren't really even supposed to get reported but they do.
My point about Al Gore being if he is to be your great champion he should at least show some leadership and act like he believes what he preaches.Let me try once more to get you to pay attention to THIS:
http://www.marketwatch.com/community/gr … owers-boomYou're assuming it's damning evidence and she's frozen like a deer in the headlights after reading it aren't you? She probably went to bed.
I read it. It's a comment in a comment section, not science. It doesn't undermine the science. Big deal.Ah so the scientist involved is irrelevant?
Why because he disagrees with you? Even though he is hailed as the Gaodfather of Climate Change?
The proof is still in the pudding.Lovelock did some stuff related to the hole in the ozone, not global warming. Describing him as the "godfather of global warming" is just an attempt to make his views more credible, it doesn't have any basis in reality. For the godfather of global warming you'd probably want to be looking at someone like Arrhenius or Tyndall. They are the ones who did the science that's the real basis for AGW.
His Gaia Hypothesis is brilliant, but also only tangentially related to climate science.
Forgive me if I don't hang on your every post and respond immediately. Lovelock changed his mind but the scientific consensus is still in place. Lovelocks views were openly published - there was no *cover-up*, he wasn't sent to Siberia.
I said earlier "it's possible the scientific community has got it wrong". It's not my aim to claim eternal infallibility for science. Science can and does change and progress in accordance with available evidence at any given time...that's how its always worked and as imperfect as that may be, it's the best we've got. What I am claiming is that there IS a scientific consensus over climate change which has grown rather than diminished and that climatologists are not party to a left-wing conspiracy and not acting fraudulently. That idea simply makes no sense.Never said he was sent to Siberia...just that he changed his mind.
I wonder why? Oh well we will just dismiss this since it does not follow our agenda won't we?
The proof is still in the pudding.Here's a much more in despth version of the same article. No wonder you don't care for it...
http://www.torontosun.com/2012/06/22/green-drivel
"Liberal motivated science". Here we go again...fantasyland.
Here's some late breaking news posted just today:
http://www.marketwatch.com/community/gr … owers-boomOh yes.....Liberal motivated. They also don't have the intelligence to behave as though there is actually a problem.
See I believe the proof is in the pudding. If you think there is a grave danger you will alter your behavior to match. Nobody atop the green movement is doing so.
Therefore......
Trends are measured in 30 year increments. That's the purpose of the chart, to show the trend and the "skeptics" arguments that have been put forth for cooling during the time periods indicated in blue. It's all data and facts. Science isn't decided on personal incredulity or ideology. You can say liberal all you want, but the fact is that the facts have a liberal bias.
Myth
1. "Climate's changed before" discusses ice ages and warming periods and the fact that man is primarily responsible for climate forcing - global warming - today.
Reality
1. Climate reacts to whatever forces it to change at the time; humans are now the dominant forcing.
"It is obviously true that past climate change was caused by natural forcings. However, to argue that this means we can’t cause climate change is like arguing that humans can’t start bushfires because in the past they’ve happened naturally. Greenhouse gas increases have caused climate change many times in Earth’s history, and we are now adding greenhouse gases to the atmosphere at a increasingly rapid rate"I think everyone is aware of this and it is hard to disagree with such balanced stuff - however, I see much bigger overall problem in that the climate changes are of relatively small concern and long time periods and this whole argument is covering the other associated problems that are much more serious and immediate like extinction of species at a faster rate than at any time outside of the extinction of the dominant species of the times.
The flim-flam about climate is propogated by the same interests that are causing most of the rapid extinction of species, an effect with with the same basic causes.
And you think real scientists don't? Dude, they know how whale poop affects the climate. I think maybe just possibly they might have the brains to look at what caused previous warming cycles and try to determine if the same factors are at play now.
The scientists did, the usual suspects aren't, and that leaves either some completely unknown factor at play (possible, but unlikely), or the rapid rise in CO2, a known greenhouse gas.
Not sure what is doing it but I do know the earth is getting warmer. Each winter here in North Carolina is milder than the one before. And this year we had the earliest spring ever with only one frost in spring. I know the weather is changing. I just don't know what is causing it.
What I said was true. What is your point? That climate change is a global concoction so the Wall St. guys can make a buck? I don't think that's very likely.
Who's the scaremonger here? If that was the plan, government would have acted a lot sooner, rather than later. Why have governments been so reticent to act on climate change if it's such a great way to snoop on us and relieve us of our rights?Well, you were the one who originally asked which corporate interests would benefit from climate change regulations. I told you.
I suppose my overall point is that government and corporate interests often work together to their mutual benefit. It's known as crony capitalism. I highly doubt that a group of them got together in a darkened room and said "let's invent a thing called "global warming" and scare the sh1t out people and take away their freedoms and get all their money muhahahaha!" After all, there has been a hypothesis of man-made global warming since the 19th century. But having said that, at the top of the "power pyramid", there are interests that work together.
Speaking of political involvement, here is this rather interesting article about how the global warming debate came to prominence in Britain:
"Sir Crispin Tickell, UK Ambassador to the UN, suggested a solution to the problem. He pointed out that almost all international statesmen are scientifically illiterate, so a scientifically literate politician could win any summit debate on a matter which seemed to depend on scientific understandings. And Mrs Thatcher had a BSc degree in chemistry... Sir Crispin pointed out that if a ‘scientific’ issue were to gain international significance, then the UK’s Prime Minister could easily take a prominent role, and this could provide credibility for her views on other world affairs. He suggested that Mrs Thatcher should campaign about global warming at each summit meeting. She did, and the tactic worked. Mrs Thatcher rapidly gained the desired international respect and the UK became the prime promoter of the global warming issue."
http://www.john-daly.com/history.htm
If it's true, it will no doubt come as a bit of a shock to those who think of Margaret Thatcher as a beacon of conservatism.
The same reason that they've been gradually rather than suddenly stripping away our rights in other arenas.
If you stick a frog in boiling water, it jumps out again straight away. If you put it in cold water and gradually ramp up the temperature to boiling, the frog gets cooked.
It amazes me that people can't see this.is Margaret Thatcher the British Al Gore now? Show me some quotes from 1880 predicting global warming? The author of that article has a credibility issue. Again, not a climatologist but a media mouthpiece. Richard Courtney's credentials:
-a technical editor for CoalTrans International, a journal of the international coal trading industry
-a spokesperson for the British Association of Colliery Management, a coal industry union in the UK.
-a founding member of the think tank - European Science and Environment Forum (ESEF), an organisation that has not only published materials on climate denial, but studies attempting to discredit any link between second hand smoke and adverse health effects.
No special interests there then.
EmpressFelicity, are you debating that there is an overwhelming scientific consensus about climate change? Are you claiming it's a hoax..a conspiracy among scientists? What you have presented is politics, not science. There may be political opportunism at play here, there may be corporate interests willing to exploit the climate change debate but nothing you have presented challenges the fact that there is a scientific consensus, nor is any of it evidence of a scientific hoax.https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Svante_Arrhenius
If he has a credibility issue then you also have to accept that many people on the other "side" also have a credibility issue, for similar reasons (i.e. they derive material benefit - either in the form of increased opportunities to earn money (the City/Wall Street), increased powers (the government) or simply a greater likelihood of receiving research funding (the scientists)). Again, we've ended up down the same cul de sac as before.
The consensus isn't a universal one and in any case, consensus doesn't automatically equate to truth, as others here have pointed out.
Before Copernicus and Galileo came along, there was a "consensus" that the earth was flat.
The truth is that we don't know the truth about just how much (if at all) humans contribute towards global warming. My own suspicion is that it's either (a) very little or (b) nothing. But the only thing that will confirm this is time, or an experiment or model that can actually falsify the hypothesis of anthropogenic climate change. Do you know of such an experiment? If you do, share it here.Climate scientists get funding whether climate change is man-made or not and besides, any scientist who fudged evidence to acquire funding would eventually be outed. If they weren't then the whole scientific community would fall apart.
What does equal truth then - mouthpieces with vested interests? Non-scientific conspiracy theorists? I already said science progresses with the available evidence. I'm not arguing that the science is infallible. Just that an overwhelming consensus exists - one that is certainly near universal among climatologists. It doesn't equal truth but it's the usual indicator of the best available scientific opinion.
Then you are at odds with the science. Yes we might have to wait for disaster before confirmation...I agree with you there...and doesn't it make sense to risk catastrophe for lack of confirmation? I hope the scientists ARE wrong.Speaking of fudging evidence:
http://hotair.com/archives/2009/11/20/d … ing-fraud/
"Once Tim’s got a diagram here we’ll send that either later today or first thing tomorrow. I’ve just completed Mike’s Nature trick of adding in the real temps to each series for the last 20 years (ie from 1981 onwards) amd [sic] from1961 for Keith’s to hide the decline. Mike’s series got the annual land and marine values while the other two got April-Sept for NH land N of 20N. The latter two are real for 1999, while the estimate for 1999 for NH combined is +0.44C wrt 61-90. The Global estimate for 1999 with data through Oct is +0.35C cf. 0.57 for 1998."
Truth is just that... truth. Reality. What actually happens in the world, regardless of who believes it or doesn't believe it.
So do I. Even if they're not wrong, I personally think that our best hope is to adapt to changes in the climate rather than impose draconian legislation and taxes in the hope of reversing the change by 0.1% or whatever. All that will do is leave us virtually where we started but under the heel of a powerful central bureaucracy.
It's kind of the same thing with Reagan in this country. Most people think of him as some sort of grand savior when all he really did was get massive taxation off our back. He could have really set us free by destroying the spending that's killing us but chose instead the international stage and increase spending in the warfare portion of the welfare-warfare state.
I pretty much agree with the view that most people are scientifically illiterate and wouldn't know a natural law if it fell out of the sky and hit them on the head. I did see an article recently that is both hopeful and disturbing. Hopeful in the fact that intelligent people don't seem to by the whole "humans are responsible for global warming" nonsense but the response is more indoctrination of the ignorant masses:
http://www.kurzweilai.net/the-more-scie … ut-climate
So basically if you're a communal hippie, you're more likely to drink the kool-aid and if you're intelligent, you're able to discern the BS.Nope. If you're disinclined to accept the possibility that 7 billion humans dumping 30 billion tons of CO2 into the atmosphere annually could have an affect on the climate, you'll come up with better excuses not to believe it the more educated you are. Hardly surprising stuff.
http://earthguide.ucsd.edu/virtualmuseu … 06_3.shtml
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Milankovitch_cycles
http://www.aip.org/history/climate/cycles.htm
Now here's science also explaining climate change.Dude, are you reading your own articles?
From the first: "In any case, the conclusion that can be taken from this discussion is that the warming since 1975 is outside the range of a purely solar effect and may safely be ascribed to a strong anthropogenic component. "
The other two are also clearly pro-AGW.Dude...I notice you and all the rest are ignoring or poo-pooing James Lovelock.
Right?A few years ago, Lovelock was predicting the complete destruction of life on earth as the result of climate change, which went way, way beyond what most actual climate scientists suggest might happen. Now, he's saying he was wrong about total climatic apocalypse but that AGW is still happening and we still need to reduce emissions.
First of all, I don't think that's nearly as significant a reversal as you right-wingers are making it out to be. Second, impressive as he is in other fields, Lovelock is not a climate scientist, and his predictions of apocalypse were not given much attention by any scientists when he was making them, so why should they pay any more attention now that he's recanted and is saying something more in line with what they were saying to begin with? And third, his personal prejudices about different energy sources are just that, personal prejudices. If he'd talked to some Pennsylvanians or Ohioans seeing their drinking water destroyed by fracking, he might be less eager to embrace it for Britain. He's always been pro-nuclear, so that position hasn't changed a bit, and his objection to wind farms appears to be primarily aesthetic.I have absolutely no doubt in my mind that as early as a month or two ago he would have been someone you held up as a visionary.
He is very correct in saying the climate change movement borders on a religion.
And by the way I never said NOTHING was going on. I just don't think 50 dollar light bulbs are the answer.
Lovelock no longer follows the scientific literature nor does he publish for peer review. The fact that he moderated his position at the age of 92 isn't even relevant to the debate on what to do about AGW.
Most climate scientist didn't hold Lovelock's doomsday position and most would disagree with his comments on climate modeling and temperature data.
Is there AGW? Yes.
Should we do something about it? Yes.
Is it cost effective to do something about it? Yes.
97% of all climate scientists agree that man-made forcing is driving global warming in addition to natural forcing. Do lay conservatives really think climate scientists don't understand natural forcing?Yep. I knew it. He's disgraced.
You guys are very predictable.I think most Conservatives like me think about 99% of the Climate Change stuff is a scam for tax dollars. Pure and simple. Most of what Lovelock says backs that up and I think he knows what he is talking about.
Lovelock is a world-renowned scientist and environmentalist whose Gaia theory — that the Earth operates as a single, living organism — has had a profound impact on the development of global warming theory.
Unlike many “environmentalists,” who have degrees in political science, Lovelock, until his recent retirement at age 92, was a much-honoured working scientist and academic.
His inventions have been used by NASA, among many other scientific organizations.
Having observed that global temperatures since the turn of the millennium have not gone up in the way computer-based climate models predicted, Lovelock acknowledged, “the problem is we don’t know what the climate is doing. We thought we knew 20 years ago.” Now, Lovelock has given a follow-up interview to the UK’s Guardian newspaper in which he delivers more bombshells sure to anger the global green movement, which for years worshipped his Gaia theory and apocalyptic predictions that billions would die from man-made climate change by the end of this century.
Lovelock still believes anthropogenic global warming is occurring and that mankind must lower its greenhouse gas emissions, but says it’s now clear the doomsday predictions, including his own (and Al Gore’s) were incorrect.
He responds to attacks on his revised views by noting that, unlike many climate scientists who fear a loss of government funding if they admit error, as a freelance scientist, he’s never been afraid to revise his theories in the face of new evidence. Indeed, that’s how science advances.
Sounds to me as though this man was established pretty well and kept up with things until very and I mean very recently. But hew no longer carries water for the movement so he is in exile.(3) Lovelock mocks the idea modern economies can be powered by wind turbines.
As he puts it, “so-called ‘sustainable development’ … is meaningless drivel … We rushed into renewable energy without any thought. The schemes are largely hopelessly inefficient and unpleasant. I personally can’t stand windmills at any price.”
(4) Finally, about claims “the science is settled” on global warming: “One thing that being a scientist has taught me is that you can never be certain about anything. You never know the truth. You can only approach it and hope to get a bit nearer to it each time. You iterate towards the truth. You don’t know it.”
Hmm....I believe this man knows what he's talking about."The climate is doing its usual tricks. There's nothing much really happening yet. We were supposed to be halfway toward a frying world now," Lovelock told MSNBC.com in an interview.
'[The temperature] has stayed almost constant, whereas it should have been rising - carbon dioxide is rising, no question about that
Read more: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article … z1yiQWPIcyThere's about a 20-40 year lag between when emissions are released and when they actually start affecting the climate, thanks mainly to the ocean's role in the carbon cycle. The extra carbon being released by human activities is now causing problems of a different sort in the ocean.
In 2006 Dr Lovelock predicted the Earth “would catch a morbid fever” that would destroy six billion people - "the few breeding pairs of people that survive will be in the Arctic where the climate remains tolerable,” he predicted. In 2009, he was telling the Guardian that "we may face planet-wide devastation worse even than unrestricted nuclear war between superpowers".
"I made a mistake," the 92-year-old scientist now says.
“We were supposed to be halfway toward a frying world now,” Dr Lovelock reflects. “The world has not warmed up very much since the millennium. Twelve years is a reasonable time. It [the temperature] has stayed almost constant, whereas it should have been rising - carbon dioxide is rising, no question about that.This puts Lovelock in the same territory as scientists such as MIT's Professor Richard Lindzen.
"A doubling of CO2, by itself, contributes only about 1°C to greenhouse warming," Prof Lindzen explained [PDF].
Positive feedback from water vapour and clouds are posited (and programmed into climate models) to provide the "runaway" warming. But these are poorly understood, and observational evidence suggests this feedback has been wildly exaggerated. Lindzen finds around 0.8°C of warming is consistent with a doubling of CO2.James Lovelock was even described a an "apostate" in one article. How religious can you get?
At this point, CO2 forcing is strong enough that we could literally have another Maunder Minimum and the temperatures would still keep rising, albeit slower.
http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/ar … d-minimum/
How do you create a Global Warming panic when the weather isn't cooperating?
http://www.lifeissues.net/writers/mos/m … rming.htmlPublication date: Dec 15 2009
Speaking of cherry-picking data...You replied so quickly you could not possible have read the document.
http://www.lifeissues.net/writers/mos/m … rming.html
If you ever do, you will see that the document does indeed prove that the data is cherry-picked - the data which is falsified and misinterpreted deliberately to try to prove AGW at any cost.
Oh, and since when does a document lose its validity because it is over 2 years old? I did not realise that truth has an expiration date.I scanned it quickly. It doesn't contain anything I haven't already seen 100 times and is full of misleading statements and outright inaccuracies.
As for why it is significant that it was published in 2009, the first sentence states "how do you create a Global Warming panic when the weather isn't cooperating?" but you might have noticed that the weather has been "cooperating" quite well for the last 2 1/2 years: record-setting heat waves, severe droughts, severe floods, massive wildfires, strange jet stream behavior, mudslides, enormous cyclones, unusually early tornadoes, and plenty more.Please do not confuse Climate Change - which is happening, always has and always will, with Man Made Global Warming, and its associated carbon taxes.
This is the issue.
Carbon offsets and carbon credits are a SCAM, a hoax, a fraud, and will do nothing at all to help the planet.Why do you think you understand natural forcing better than climate scientists understand it? A data-driven analysis is acceptable, a histrionic ideological rant isn't.
Tax policies are used to create incentives and disincentives in the marketplace. Lowering income taxes and implementing carbon taxes would do this and help us move away from fossil fuels. Rants about Ayn Rand, socialism, marxism, liberalism, Christianity, big government and Ronald Reagan are irrelevant to the debate.I'm sure she's not confusing them sannyasinman. Why don't we, just for a moment, cut all the politics and extraneous debate about taxes etc.and get down to basics here. You, me, politicians, bloggers, conspiracy theorists, think-tanks...none of us have any credibility when it comes to what's really happening to the climate. Only the scientists have the expertise and the data to really have an authoritative say and this is what they say :
"Scientific opinion on climate change is that the Earth's climate is unequivocally warming and it is more than 90% certain that humans are causing it.."
"No scientific body of national or international standing has maintained a dissenting opinion".
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific … ate_change
The above statements are indisputable and can be checked out by anyone. So, there's one of two possibilities at play.
a) it's likely anthropogenic (man-made) climate change is really happening
b) the worlds climate scientists are lying
Take your pick but remember what's at stake..So, in other words, you don't like the polices proposed to fight AGW, therefore you choose to believe that the science is wrong, too. Brilliant, dude! I can't imagine why more people haven't thought of making our problems go away just by pretending they don't exist.
As a matter of fact, I happen to agree with you that carbon offsets and carbon credits are scams. However, all policy disputes aside, the scientific evidence overwhelmingly points to anthropogenic causes for the recent warming, and frankly, I find it ludicrous that anyone could believe that dumping 30 billion extra tons a year of CO2 into the atmosphere wouldn't have an effect on the climate. We've known CO2 is a greenhouse gas since the mid-19th century, it's not exactly new or controversial science.
Furthermore, the exact effects of all that extra carbon are only as uncertain as they are because they're spread out over the entirety of the planet. If you concentrated all the forcing from anthropogenic CO2 in one small area, human activities are adding enough extra heat to the atmosphere to boil Sydney Harbor dry every 12 hours.
Here's another of my favorite visualizations to help you understand the extent of humanity's impact on the planet:
One gallon of gasoline contains the equivalent of 98 tons of ancient plant matter. That's the equivalent of stopping every 25 miles or so and shoving 40 acres worth of wheat (grain, stems, roots, and all) into your gas tank. Moreover, since the Industrial Revolution began about 260 years ago, humanity has burned the equivalent of every single scrap of plant life, from redwoods to microscopic algae, grown on this planet for the last 13,300 years.
The most common policy solutions proposed to mitigate AGW are mostly stupid and counter-productive, but that unfortunately does not mean that the science itself is wrong.
This guy seems to be an honest skeptic in the climate change debate so his position should be respected.
Most of the 'sun cycle not CO2' adherents have fallen away as the evidence has mounted against their case. Fritz Vahrenholt may well change his mind again.Texas seems to be burning up first--over 100 degress all week.
It would depend on who's sounding the warning. If it's a guy in a raincoat on a street corner holding a *the end is nigh* sign then yes, I'd be sceptical but if it's a warning backed by every major scientific body in the world, I'd take it seriously. If there is really a problem you'd expect dire warning bells to sound, so the negative message is unavoidable.
The blame for all the World's hysteria about manmade global warming can be laid at the feet of one woman: Margaret Thatcher, Prime Minister of Great Britain 1979-1990.
She was engaged in a war with one Arthur Scargil, militant socialist leader of the National Union of Mineworkers. A previous Tory government had been brought down by the miners and now it was payback time. She set about dismantling the UK coal mining industry by closing pits whilst importing cheap Polish coal to run the coal fired power stations.
She also had another plan: to change our energy mix away from coal to nuclear power. However this being rather unpopular in itself she sought out some "scientific" rationale. She found some Swedish scientist who had a rather obscure idea that manmade pollution could cause global warming. This was at a time where the accepted belief was we were going to have a global freezing which was based upon a shed load of scientific research from around the world. Margaret Thatcher saw the potential global warming idea as a good spin for nuclear power, and so she got the UK gov and scientific community to back the idea with nice research grants.
When it was realised that the grant money was in global warming instead of freezing, global warming theory began to snowball. Soon governments around the world realised the tax potential behind green agendas, carbon footprints etc etc, and the rest is history.Whether or not Thatcher seized on the idea in pursuit of one of her political goals (it's quite likely she did - she was certainly that kind of person), Svante Arrhenius proposed that changing CO2 levels in the atmosphere could change the climate back in 1896, and to call his idea obscure in the 1980's is misleading. You could make the case that it was still obscure among the general public, but in the scientific community, it's been discussed widely since at least the 1950's, decades before Thatcher's rise to power. Contrary to popular belief, there was no "coming ice age" scare in the scientific community during the 70's - that was almost entirely manufactured by the popular press.
Exxon-Mobil CEO Rex Tillerson Acknowledges that CO2 is Causing Global Warming, but says it's no big deal.
In a speech Wednesday to the Council on Foreign Relations, Tillerson acknowledged that burning of fossil fuels is warming the planet, but said society will adapt. The risks of oil and gas drilling are well understood and can be mitigated, he said. Dependence on other nations for oil is not a concern as long as access to supply is certain, he said.
Tillerson blamed a public he called illiterate in science and math, a lazy press, and advocacy groups that "manufacture fear."
The oil executive questioned the ability of climate models to predict the magnitude of the impact, and said that people would adapt to rising sea levels and changing climates that may force agricultural production to shift.
"We have spent our entire existence adapting. We'll adapt," he said. "It's an engineering problem and there will be an engineering solution."
Andrew Weaver, chairman of climate modeling at the University of Victoria in Canada, disagreed with Tillerson's characterization of climate modeling, warning that adapting to those changes will be much more difficult and disruptive than Tillerson seems to acknowledge.
Steve Coll, author of the recent book "Private Empire: ExxonMobil and American Power," said he was surprised Exxon would talk about ways society can adapt to climate change when there is time to try to avoid its worst effects. Coll said research suggests that adapting to climate change could be far more expensive than reducing emissions now. "Moving entire cities would be very expensive," he said.
Jonathan Fahey, Associated Press, 6-28-12The oil executive questioned the ability of climate models to predict the magnitude of the impact, and said that people would adapt to rising sea levels and changing climates that may force agricultural production to shift.
"We have spent our entire existence adapting. We'll adapt," he said. "It's an engineering problem and there will be an engineering solution."
Ugh... where do I even start?
We're looking at the possibility of temperature changes unprecedented since the dawn of civilization. Biologically modern humans have been around for 200,000 years. Civilization has been around for 10,000. There is a reason for this and it's called climate. An unstable climate is not conducive to civilization. We've seen this over and over again throughout history as a result of small-scale climate changes at the local level, and now we're stupid enough to be playing with it on a global level. The survivors of past civilizations destroyed by climate changes could just move to neighboring areas - does Tillerson really believe that we can just ship off to Mars if the going gets bad here on Earth?
Secondly, forcing "agricultural production to shift" is not as simple as this idiot's making it out to be. Temperature is not the only factor involved in making certain regions better for crops than others. Currently, the breadbaskets of the world are primarily former grasslands with deep, rich, loamy soils. If these turn to deserts or scrubland (the US Midwest, for example, is predicted to see some of the highest temperature increases in the lower 48 states - 10 degrees F or more in Kansas and Nebraska by 2100 under the business-as-usual emissions scenario, which isn't even the worst case scenario), the correct temperature zone will move north and start smacking up against the shallow, rocky, acidic soils of the taiga. Have fun trying to be a breadbasket with those...
Thirdly, I'm sure his opinion has absolutely nothing to do with the $40+ billion in profits Exxon took in last year, or his own almost $35 million annual salary. It's not like it's in his best interest for people to keep burning fossil fuels regardless of consequences or anything.
Fourthly, his timing is interesting considering how much fun the people of Colorado and the Gulf Coast are currently having "adapting" to climate change. I have a friend in Colorado Springs who tells me the fires there burned another 9000 acres overnight. Want to see what 1 degree C of global average temperature rise does to wildfire frequency in the Mountain West?
Sure will be fun "adapting" to a six-fold increase in wildfires! And of course, that's just for 1 degree C. We're looking at a potential rise of 6 degrees or more by 2100.Right...well that's comforting. As comforting as when Big Tobacco said the effects of smoking on health were no big deal.
Nice Post Ralph...
I wonder.... Does Exxon-Mobil CEO Rex Tillerson Acknowledge that within the terms of the original 1928 'marriage' that resulted in the formation and domination of the 'Seven Sisters' that the Oil Coys have no intention of relinquishing anything until the last drop of oil has been drawn and sold?
Such a pity that God created Oil solely for such a corrupt and self righteous bunch of global rapists and their political/military minions!
Amazing what a US$100 mil can do for a politician/or so called 'leader'...
Related Discussions
- 289
The Great Global Warming Scam - The Ice Age is Coming
by sannyasinman 13 years ago
An independent weather forecaster who tells the truth - a rare commodity . . . http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hwyjsJJr … ded#at=164
- 55
Fun in the Global Warming Debate
by Will Apse 11 years ago
The Koch brothers are climate change skeptics, Their business is chemicals, coal and transportation- three areas likely to be hit hard by any moves to a low carbon economy.They have respect for science, though, and decided to partly fund a new study at Berkeley run by a climate skeptic Professor,...
- 166
Does Global Warming or Climate Change Really Exist?
by ThunderKeys 12 years ago
I'm confused. I've read and heard arguments that global warming is really just part of a natural temperature change process for the earth. I've also read that it's completely man-made? Is it one or both of these? Please explain.
- 322
Did you see this research on global warming??
by Holle Abee 7 years ago
http://opinion.financialpost.com/2011/0 … w-settled/
- 207
Can the Earth Survive Four Years of a Trump Presidency?
by Scott Belford 7 years ago
There are two major would shaping forces at risk with a Trump presidency; an economic meltdown brought on by a sharp decline in American productivity, and, a much more important one, the environment. I will leave the economy to another forum, for it is the environment I am much more worried...
- 32
is this new info. on climate change...?
by SparklingJewel 7 years ago
from the patriotpost:::a new study out of England, where scientists are relying not on computer-generated models of the Earth, but the real thing.Wolfgang Knorr of the University of Bristol's Department of Earth Sciences has found that in the past 160 years the Earth's absorption of carbon dioxide...