The Green Agenda - What's Up? In Their Own Words . . .

1. 67

   AnnCeeposted 12 years ago

   "The common enemy of humanity is man.
   In searching for a new enemy to unite us, we came up
   with the idea that pollution, the threat of global warming,
   water shortages, famine and the like would fit the bill. All these
   dangers are caused by human intervention, and it is only through
   changed attitudes and behavior that they can be overcome.
   The real enemy then, is humanity itself."
   - Club of Rome,
   premier environmental think-tank,
   consultants to the United Nations
   
   ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
   
   ''We need to get some broad based support,
   to capture the public's imagination...
   So we have to offer up scary scenarios,
   make simplified, dramatic statements
   and make little mention of any doubts...
   Each of us has to decide what the right balance
   is between being effective and being honest.''
   - Prof. Stephen Schneider,
   Stanford Professor of Climatology,
   lead author of many IPCC reports
   
   ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
   
   ''We've got to ride this global warming issue.
   Even if the theory of global warming is wrong,
   we will be doing the right thing in terms of
   economic and environmental policy.''
   - Timothy Wirth,
   President of the UN Foundation
   
   ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
   
   'The models are convenient fictions
   that provide something very useful.'
   - Dr David Frame,
   climate modeler, Oxford University
   
   ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
   
   ''I believe it is appropriate to have an 'over-representation' of the facts
   on how dangerous it is, as a predicate for opening up the audience.''
   - Al Gore,
   Climate Change activist
   
   ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
   
   ''The only way to get our society to truly change is to
   frighten people with the possibility of a catastrophe.''
   - emeritus professor Daniel Botkin
   
   ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
   
   ''We are getting close to catastrophic tipping points,
   despite the fact that most people barely notice the warming yet.''
   - Dr James Hansen,
   NASA researcher
   
   ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
   
   ''Climate change makes us all global citizens,
   we are truly all in this together.''
   - Gordon Brown,
   British Prime Minister
   
   ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
   
   ''We have reached the critical moment of decision on climate change.
   Failure to act to now would be deeply and unforgivably irresponsible.
   We urgently require a global environmental revolution.''
   - Tony Blair,
   former British PM
   
   ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
   
   
   ''The concept of national sovereignty has been immutable,
   indeed a sacred principle of international relations.
   It is a principle which will yield only slowly and reluctantly to
   the new imperatives of global environmental cooperation.''
   - UN Commission on Global Governance report
   
   ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
   
   
   ''The emerging 'environmentalization' of our civilization
   and the need for vigorous action in the interest of the entire global community will inevitably have multiple political consequences.
   
   Perhaps the most important of them will be a gradual change
   in the status of the United Nations. Inevitably, it must
   assume some aspects of a world government.''
   - Mikhail Gorbachev,
   State of the World Forum
   
   ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
   
   
   ''In my view, after fifty years of service in the United Nations system,
   I perceive the utmost urgency and absolute necessity for proper
   Earth government. There is no shadow of a doubt that the present
   political and economic systems are no longer appropriate
   and will lead to the end of life evolution on this planet.
   We must therefore absolutely and urgently look for new ways.''
   - Dr Robert Muller,
   UN Assistant Secretary General,
   
   ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
   
   ''Nations are in effect ceding portions of their sovereignty
   to the international community and beginning to create a
   new system of international environmental governance
   as a means of solving otherwise unmanageable crises.''
   - Lester Brown,
   WorldWatch Institute
   
   ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
   
   ''A keen and anxious awareness is evolving to suggest that
   fundamental changes will have to take place in the world order
   and its power structures, in the distribution of wealth and income.
   Perhaps only a new and enlightened humanism
   can permit mankind to negotiate this transition.''
   - Club of Rome,
   Mankind at the Turning Point
   
   ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
   
   ''Effective execution of Agenda 21 will require a profound
   reorientation of all human society, unlike anything the world
   has ever experienced a major shift in the priorities of both
   governments and individuals and an unprecedented
   redeployment of human and financial resources. This shift
   will demand that a concern for the environmental consequences
   of every human action be integrated into individual and
   collective decision-making at every level.''
   - UN Agenda 21
   
   ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
   
   ''The goal now is a socialist, redistributionist society,
   which is nature's proper steward and society's only hope.''
   - David Brower,
   founder of Friends of the Earth
   
   ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
   
   ''If we don't overthrow capitalism, we don't have a chance of
   saving the world ecologically. I think it is possible to have
   an ecologically sound society under socialism.
   I don't think it is possible under capitalism''
   - Judi Bari,
   principal organiser of Earth First!
   
   ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
   
   ''Isn't the only hope for the planet that the
   industrialized civilizations collapse?
   Isn't it our responsiblity to bring that about?''
   - Maurice Strong,
   founder of the UN Environment Programme
   
   ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
   
   ''A massive campaign must be launched to de-develop the
   United States. De-development means bringing our
   economic system into line with the realities of
   ecology and the world resource situation.''
   - Paul Ehrlich,
   Professor of Population Studies
   
   ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
   
   ''The only hope for the world is to make sure there is not another
   United States. We can't let other countries have the same
   number of cars, the amount of industrialization, we have in the US.
   We have to stop these Third World countries right where they are.''
   - Michael Oppenheimer,
   Environmental Defense Fund
   
   ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
   
   ''Global Sustainability requires the deliberate quest of poverty,
   reduced resource consumption and set levels of mortality control.''
   - Professor Maurice King
   
   ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
   
   ''We must make this an insecure and inhospitable place
   for capitalists and their projects. We must reclaim the roads and
   plowed land, halt dam construction, tear down existing dams,
   free shackled rivers and return to wilderness
   millions of acres of presently settled land.''
   - David Foreman,
   co-founder of Earth First!
   
   ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
   
   ''Complex technology of any sort is an assault on
   human dignity. It would be little short of disastrous for us to
   discover a source of clean, cheap, abundant energy,
   because of what we might do with it.''
   - Amory Lovins, Rocky Mountain Institute
   
   
   
   Hope ya'll like camping out and eating twigs. 

   replyreport
2. 67

   AnnCeeposted 12 years ago

   Seems to me Barack Obama is doing a good job forwarding the agenda.  Money and permits for Brazil to drill in the Gulf of Mexico.  But no permits for companies that would make jobs for Americans.   What's up with that?  What IS up with that?  Ever ask yourself?
   
   "The only hope for the world is to make sure there is not another
   United States. We can't let other countries have the same
   number of cars, the amount of industrialization, we have in the US.
   We have to stop these Third World countries right where they are."
   - Michael Oppenheimer,
   Environmental Defense Fund
   
   ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
   
   "Global Sustainability requires the deliberate quest of poverty, reduced resource consumption and set levels of mortality control."
   - Professor Maurice King

   replyreport
3. 60

   HattieMattieMaeposted 12 years ago

   ''The only way to get our society to truly change is to
   frighten people with the possibility of a catastrophe.''
   - emeritus professor Daniel Botkin
   Don't like this one very much! lol I don't believe you have to threaten people or harm others to change society! Force never works!

   replyreport
   1. 83

      kerrygposted 12 years agoin reply to this

      That's actually a huge debate within the environmental community right now.
      
      The truth is that the latest IPCC report greatly underestimates the potential consequences of global warming, and there are really quite heated arguments over whether scientists should be doing a better job of getting the direr (and probably more likely) scenarios out into the public eye or not.
      
      Some people think we need to scare people with the true extent of what we face or nothing will ever get done (bear in mind that by most scientific models, we need to stabilize CO2 emissions within 10 years, and possibly as few as 3, in order to prevent runaway climate change); and others think that they'll just create mass hysteria and fatalism, which would be counter-productive at a time when we still do have a slim possibility of saving our skins.
      
      Here's a recent debate from Grist: http://www.grist.org/climate-change/201 … f-security

      replyreport
      1. 60

         TMMasonposted 12 years agoin reply to this

         They lose the people when they spout the human impact and influence BS lines.
         
         If they would simply say, -look it is a natural cycle and we need to be prepared for major changes if and when the occur, not the false reports of changes of the UN -(the ones they fabricated by changes the findings of)-, then they might get a lil somewhere a lot faster. But they are so caught up in their scare tactics and BS that they cannot even be honest.

         replyreport
         1. 83

            kerrygposted 12 years agoin reply to this

            You can't be honest, you mean. Barring some completely unknown climate factor at work, there is no reason to believe that "natural cycles" are the primary factor at work here.
            
            Of course, there is a possibility that there is some unknown factor at work, but the simplest explanation is usually the correct one.
            
            1. CO2 is a greenhouse gas, and has been known to be such for over 100 years.
            2. Atmospheric CO2 levels have risen by more than 100 ppm since the late 18th century, mainly as a result of human activities such as fossil fuel burning and deforestation.
            3. Ergo, in the absence of other known climate influences, the rise in CO2 levels is responsible for the recent warming.

            replyreport
            1. 60

               TMMasonposted 12 years agoin reply to this

               Co2 is not a toxic pollutant, and is vital for life on this earth... so try again. Can too much of it cause changes in our atmosphere... yes... but that doesn't make your case at all.
               
               Agricultural experts claim there has been a 10% increase in plant and forest growth in the last decades due to the increased fertilization effect of the Co2 in the air.
               
               Our atmosphere is a filtration system which does work.
               
               There is no way one can compare the effects of man's activities, and claim such a dire outcome based solely from it,
               
               This atmosphere has over the millenium filtered more than we have ever put into it. ie; massive eruptions from super-volcanoes and massive volcanoes such as Toba, Krakatua, etc... which shoveled more than man has ever put into the atmosphere in one shot... and it filtered them just fine.
               
               Even the National Academy of Sciences has stated that there is no conclusive link that mans' activities have contributed to global warming.
               
               There is no evidence that global warming is anything other than a natural cycle.

               replyreport
               1. 83

                  kerrygposted 12 years agoin reply to this

                  I didn't say CO2 was a toxic pollutant. I said it was a greenhouse gas. Entirely different thing. Without CO2, the planet would be a ball of ice, but that doesn't mean too much of it isn't equally harmful to life on earth.
                  
                  The effects of CO2 on plants are also much more complicated than a "10% increase in forest and plant growth." I have an entire hub on this, in fact, but to summarize, increased atmospheric CO2 affects plants to different degrees and is favorable only to a point. Unfortunately, it currently appears to benefit weeds more than more desirable plants, which could cause major increases in crop loss from weed invasions.
                  
                  Rising temperatures from increased CO2 levels could also have a devastating impact on food supplies. For example, studies have found that rice yields decline 10% for every 1 degree C rise in average nighttime temperature. Also bear in mind that photosynthesis is a temperature-sensitive process. It begins to shut down at temperatures above 95 degrees F and shuts down completely at temps over 105. With the expected increase in extreme heat waves in many regions of the globe, crop yields could decrease dramatically.
                  
                  You're really obsessed with volcanoes, aren't you? Unfortunately, you're dead wrong about how much CO2 they release into the atmosphere. You'd need a volcano big enough to spew out 200 cubic miles of ejecta in order to match humanity's annual emissions. That's almost twice as big as Tambora, the only volcano of the last 1000 years that even approached it, and 40 times greater than Krakatoa. In fact, there are only about six volcanoes on the planet known to be capable of that.
                  
                  Additionally, though it is true that the Earth "filtered them just fine," it takes anywhere from decades to centuries to do so, and periods of high volcanic activity are believed to be responsible for several mass extinctions, plus humanity's own near-extinction following the Toba supervolcano (one of the six capable of matching humanity's annual emissions) 74,000 years ago, so suggesting that we can continue to behave like the equivalent of a Toba every single year without consequence is laughable.

                  replyreport
                  1. 60

                     TMMasonposted 12 years agoin reply to this

                     You could write 20 hubs on it and it doesn't change tyhe fact that global warming as is being pushed is a BS agenda.
                     
                     100 hubs wouldn't change the fact.
                     
                     And to state that the disastrers which have3 occurred in the last years is due to man ,made global warnming ios BS... there is no causal link to be found in any of the sciences.
                     
                     You all just rejuect the science you do not agree with and embrace the science you do... as if that proves or nullifies anything.
                     
                     The global warming agenda is a transfer of wealth... period.
                     
                     Sure our climate changes... anyone with common sense understands that. There are natural cycles which run decades, centuries, and millenia... meanwhile our records go back about a century. You can claim ice cores and all the other stuff.. but that doesn't prove your case.
                     
                     Does the climate run in cycles... yes... do we know what those cycles are... very lil about them... so it is all another over-application and exagerration of another theory which is not even adequately supported by science... as the other two they contiue to throw around on here like they are fact.
                     
                     You could write 20 hubs on it and it doesn't change the fact that global warming as is being pushed, is a BS agenda.
                     
                     100 hubs wouldn't change the fact.
                     
                     And to state that the disasters which have occurred in the last years is due to man made global warnming is BS... there is no causal link to be found in any of the sciences.
                     
                     You all just reject the science you do not agree with and embrace the science you do... as if that proves or nullifies anything.
                     
                     The global warming agenda is a transfer of wealth and power... period.
                     
                     And I am not obsessed with volcanoes... they are simply a great example of the capabilities of our atmosphere. And your time table may be true for some... but not all. Look at iceland's volcano not more than a couple years ago... I would say our atmosphere has done quite well.
                     
                     Again... the Global Warming Agenda as the Left and Progressives pushes it, is simply a transfer of wealth and power. 
                     
                     And nothing speaks louder to the fact of it... than their own e-mails... laughing at all the lil people.
                     
                     Hood-winked.
                     
                     And the earth is getting hotter because of the sun and solar activity... not global warming. The sun tends to do that you know... warm the earth.

                     replyreport
                     1. 83

                        kerrygposted 12 years agoin reply to this

                        "And to state that the disastrers which have3 occurred in the last years is due to man ,made global warnming ios BS... there is no causal link to be found in any of the sciences. "
                        
                        Actually, they're inseparable. Global warming is already happening, so while it's impossible to link any single extreme weather event exclusively to global warming, it's quite safe to point out that the increase in severity and frequency of extreme weather events is due to global warming.
                        
                        The "causal links" are the most basic science possible. For example, warmer air holds more moisture, allowing it to suck up more moisture from soil and plants in one region, causing drought, and dump bigger payloads of rain and snow on others, causing flooding.
                        
                        "You can claim ice cores and all the other stuff.. but that doesn't prove your case. "
                        
                        LOL, that's rich coming from someone who just accused me of rejecting the science I don't agree with! Paleoclimate research is pretty sophisticated these days, and based on far more than just ice cores.

                        replyreport
                     2. 83

                        kerrygposted 12 years agoin reply to this

                        "And the earth is getting hotter because of the sun and solar activity... not global warming. The sun tends to do that you know... warm the earth."
                        
                        Heh, I knew it! You deniers are so predictable.
                        
                        In 2010, the sun was in its deepest solar minimum in decades, yet we still managed to tie 2008 for the hottest year ever recorded.
                        
                        "It's the sun" also fails to account for the following phenomena:
                        
                        1. If the warming were the result of increased solar irradiance, you would expect the atmosphere to warm fairly evenly. Instead, the troposphere (bottom layer) is warming while the stratosphere is cooling. To oversimplify somewhat, this is because radiation that would normally be reflected back into space, warming the stratosphere on its way out, is being trapped in the troposphere by rising concentrations of greenhouse gases.
                        
                        2. If global warming were caused by the sun, you would also expect nighttime temperatures to increase less than daytime temperatures. Instead, nighttime temperatures have increased more than daytime temperatures. Again, this is because rising atmospheric concentrations of greenhouse gases trap heat that would otherwise be released.

                        replyreport
4. 60

   TMMasonposted 12 years ago

   The green agenda is nothing but a way to cripple America and the West, and transfer our wealth and power to second and third world countries.

   replyreport
5. 83

   kerrygposted 12 years ago

   

   replyreport
6. 60

   knolyourselfposted 12 years ago

   The latest hypothesis: the universe is heating up.

   replyreport
7. 67

   AnnCeeposted 12 years ago

   What's the difference between the Master Class amongst the Global Warmists and a high priest who convinces the people he can control nature with spells and sacrifices? 
   
   There IS no difference.   The Warmists have even made a religion of their "movement."
   
   "OOGA BOOGA!   We can save the world!  And we will sacrifice you economy to do it."

   replyreport
   1. 83

      kerrygposted 12 years agoin reply to this

      A respected study by the McKinsey Global Institute found the net cost of global warming prevention would be somewhere in the range of 0.6–1.4 percent of global GDP by 2030.
      
      http://www.mckinsey.com/mgi/publication … /index.asp
      
      In 2005, we spent 3.3% of global GDP on insurance, a figure that can be expected to rise dramatically in the face of more frequent extreme weather events.
      
      The US is already in the hole to the tune of billions of dollars this year due to extreme weather events linked to global warming. $1-3 billion for the Joplin tornadoes, $1 billion in levee repairs along the Mississippi River, $125 million in firefighting costs in Texas (a state where the annual wildfire budget is $15.5 million)... Add in Missouri River flooding, wildfires in AZ and NM, the Texas drought, the tornadoes over most of the eastern half of the US, etc and we've had quite an expensive spring. And that's on top of what happened last year:
      
      http://www.wunderground.com/blog/JeffMa … rynum=1831
      
      Every one of those types of disasters is projected to become more frequent and more severe thanks to global warming. In fact, they already have.

      replyreport
8. 43

   Mikeydoesposted 12 years ago

   The people need to take care of the green issues, not the gov't.

   replyreport
   1. 61

      Moderndayslaveposted 12 years agoin reply to this

      Exactly

      replyreport
9. 67

   AnnCeeposted 12 years ago

   http://www.mindspring.com/~macjohnson/id21.html

   replyreport
10. 60

    knolyourselfposted 12 years ago

    Seems to me that people who deny global warming, see the admission of such a phenomenon, as an impediment to their continued wealth or becoming rich to begin.

    replyreport
    1. 60

       TMMasonposted 12 years agoin reply to this

       There is a big difference between "global Warming " as a natural cycle, and "Man Made" global warming.
       
       And that is a fact.

       replyreport
       1. 83

          kerrygposted 12 years agoin reply to this

          LOL, true! One happened in the past and one is happening now! I knew we could bring you around!
          
          Btw, I'm taking your dead silence on the volcano issue to be an admission of defeat. What's it gonna be now? The sun?

          replyreport
       2. 67

          AnnCeeposted 12 years agoin reply to this

          Absolutely right, Tom.  That climate "changes" is not in question.
          
          That man is responsible is in question.
          
          The Warmist high priests are trying to lasso the phenomenon and with it take ownership of the world.
          
          We can husband and respect the resources of this world with decent laws.   As we have done in this country.
          
          This move to destroy capitalism and demodernize humananity (ALL EXCEPT THEMSELVES WHO WILL CONTINUE IN THEIR PRIVATE JETS FLITTING AROUND LIKE THE GODS THEY THINK THEY ARE!) is a sinister and evil thing.
          
          It must be exposed and understood.

          replyreport
          1. 60

             TMMasonposted 12 years agoin reply to this

             It is the game they play with Evolution... wide unbrella term, then try to apply it in specific un-supported ways to cover all and everything.
             
             BS plain and simple.

             replyreport
             1. 67

                AnnCeeposted 12 years agoin reply to this

                “If you tell a lie big enough and keep repeating it, people will eventually come to believe it. The lie can be maintained only for such time as the State can shield the people from the political, economic and/or military consequences of the lie. It thus becomes vitally important for the State to use all of its powers to repress dissent, for the truth is the mortal enemy of the lie, and thus by extension, the truth is the greatest enemy of the State.”  ~ Joseph Goebbels

                replyreport
    2. 83

       kerrygposted 12 years agoin reply to this

       

       replyreport
11. 60

    knolyourselfposted 12 years ago

    Yes I have followed the transition. First there was no global warming, but then when it could no longer be denied except on Fox news, it became a natural phenomenon - not my fault.

    replyreport
12. 60

    TMMasonposted 12 years ago

    The evidence begs to differ, Kerry.
    
    But you and Al carry on...
    
    http://abcnews.go.com/US/TenWays/story? … amp;page=1
    
    http://www.humanevents.com/article.php?id=37402
    
    http://whatreallyhappened.com/WRHARTICL … rming.html
    
    They are busted kerry... the e-mails alone screwed them in their fairy-tale.

    replyreport
    1. 83

       kerrygposted 12 years agoin reply to this

       http://abcnews.go.com/US/TenWays/story? … amp;page=1
       
       Al Gore is not a scientist, so why on earth would you take his word for anything climate science related?
       
       http://www.humanevents.com/article.php?id=37402
       
       Multiple independent investigations have absolved the scientists involved in so-called ClimateGate of any wrongdoing.
       
       http://whatreallyhappened.com/WRHARTICL … rming.html
       
       This article's claim of post-2007 "global cooling" is laughable given that 2008 and 2010 are the two hottest years since reliable temperature measurements began.

       replyreport
13. 60

    knolyourselfposted 12 years ago

    Personally I decided that the 'What Really Happened' site is an FBI disinformation front. Awful big operation for one little guy.

    replyreport
14. 60

    TMMasonposted 12 years ago

    Since they began?... Ahhh?... the Climate has been going on a lot longer than that, kerry... and the data we have collected is perfectly acceptable... two hot years in a row, does not a global boiling point make.
    
    The 30s had some of the hotest on record.... and then it cooled again... a cycle.
    
    And?...
    
    There have been such huge, over-whelming, immense, natural disasters throughout history, Kerry.
    
    To argue there have not been is just?...
    
    Is that your position?
    
    That never before have storms and natural disasters been so large and destructive?
    
    That is pretty weak...
    
    Thus the term, "Of Biblical Proportions"...
    
    Remember that one?
    
    And to be honest... I do not think we have seen one of, "Biblical Proportions"... yet. Japan was as close as you could get to that disciption in the near past, and I think bigger than that are coming.
    
    But that is another thread...

    replyreport
    1. 83

       kerrygposted 12 years agoin reply to this

       Can't get me on the science, so you have to resort to twisting my words, eh? I'll mark that down as another clear admission of defeat.
       
       I NEVER, in this thread or any other, said that climate did not change in the past, or that natural disasters did not happen in the past.
       
       My arguments are:
       
       1. None of the usual suspects (solar irradiance, Milankovitch cycles, cosmic rays, volcanic activity, etc.) can account for the currently observed warming, except the observed rise in atmospheric CO2 levels as a result of human activities such as fossil fuel burning and deforestation.
       
       2. Ergo, there is either some unknown factor at work, or the warming is the result of the observed rise in atmospheric CO2 levels. (See: Occam's Razor.)
       
       3. The observed increase in the frequency and severity of extreme weather events is consistent with the projected effects of the observed warming.

       replyreport
       1. 60

          TMMasonposted 12 years agoin reply to this

          And there is no science to support two years of heat, and several natural storms, are anything but natural.
          
          Your science?...
          
          I haven't seen any that wasn't reduced to wishful thinking...
          
          And I really thought you were trying to state that those storms were a direct result of man made global warming, and that cannot be established.
          
          There have been massive and super-massive storms and disasters all throughout history.

          replyreport
          1. 83

             kerrygposted 12 years agoin reply to this

             "it's impossible to link any single extreme weather event exclusively to global warming"
             
             Maybe you should get your glasses checked.
             
             "Your science?... I haven't seen any that wasn't reduced to wishful thinking..."
             
             Your only surviving "explanation" is "mysterious natural cycles" and you accuse me of wishful thinking?

             replyreport
15. 60

    knolyourselfposted 12 years ago

    "Eighty-four percent (scientists) say they personally believe human-induced warming is occurring, and 74% agree that “currently available scientific evidence” substantiates its occurrence. Only 5% believe that that human activity does not contribute to greenhouse warming; the rest are unsure." That is from George Mason University your namesake so must credible.

    replyreport
16. 0

    PrettyPantherposted 12 years ago

    Message to kerryg and other progressives:
    
    I now live in the midst of the Bible Belt, in a county that voted over 80% Republican in the last election.  I have been here about 9 months.  Today, I attended the first session of an 11-day training program for entrepreneurs that was partially sponsored by a governmental organization and which was given at a much-reduced rate, due to government funding.  In fact, quite a few attendees paid nothing at all. While there, many wisecracks were made about the evil government, including one person who haughtily insisted they were starting their own business because they didn't want a dime from the government.  Meanwhile, we are all sitting in a meeting room provided free of charge by a regional governmental organization and munching on our free BBQ pork lunch complete with beverages and dessert.  The fee charged for this training was $125 for 38 hours of instruction provided by a multitude of experts in various subjects pertinent to successfully operating a small business, including marketing, legal issues, taxes, and financing. If an entrepreneur paid for this expert advice on their own, it would easily top several thousand dollars.
    
    My point?  While the people here possess many admirable qualities, one of them is NOT an ability to see their own hypocrisy.  Nor is it an ability to assimilate facts that don't fit into the niche they have carved for themselves as independent (oh, except for that government-subsidized training they're receiving), anti-government (unless it benefits them personally; then it's okay), self-sufficient (hah!) mavericks who take nothing from the government.
    
    People like TM will ignore the evidence for global warming until the effects become so dramatic and unmistakable that it can no longer be denied.  Then, true to form, they will be the first to re-write history to claim that it was conservatives who tried to save the planet and liberals who ruined it.
    
    Sorry, just had to get that off my chest. 

    replyreport
    1. 83

       kerrygposted 12 years agoin reply to this

       I mostly argue with guys like TM in the hope that somebody who's on the fence might read and learn something. I know he's a lost cause.

       replyreport
       1. 0

          PrettyPantherposted 12 years agoin reply to this

          I know.  I've done the same thing many times. 

          replyreport
17. 60

    knolyourselfposted 12 years ago

    Or I would say just plain dumb.

    replyreport
18. 60

    TMMasonposted 12 years ago

    Now now pretty... people like me?
    
    ?... What Govt. Subsidized training?
    
    And all you liberal and Leant Leftists are the same...
    
    Ague and state your flawed assumptions repeatedly, while you wave your suppossed proof around...
    
    ... then when that doesn't work... scream and insult... repeatedly... then when that doesn't work, dismiss as stupid and act as if you actually won the debate.... repeatedly...
    
    Cause we all know if you repeat it enough times it must be true.
    
    Jolly good show girls!

    replyreport
    1. 0

       PrettyPantherposted 12 years agoin reply to this

       Let's simplify it for you and make it more personal.  If you had chest pains and you went to 10 different doctors for an opinion of what was causing those pains, and 8 of them said (based upon evidence from numerous tests) that it was your heart and you should take action to treat your heart problem or you will die in X amount of years, and 2 of them said the evidence shows nothing and your pains are all in your head, what would you do?
       
       Would you ignore the majority opinion of the experts and do nothing?
       
       Essentially, that is what global climate change deniers are doing.  They are ignoring the majority opinion of the experts, so they can justify continuing on their merry way doing nothing.

       replyreport
    2. 83

       kerrygposted 12 years agoin reply to this

       By all means enlighten me with your superior knowledge, oh conservative one.
       
       Atmospheric concentrations of CO2 have increased about 30% since the late 18th century. Can we agree on that?
       
       If so, what do you think it's doing up there? Just floating around?

       replyreport
       1. 60

          TMMasonposted 12 years agoin reply to this

          http://a-sceptical-mind.com/co2-the-basic-facts

          replyreport
          1. 83

             kerrygposted 12 years agoin reply to this

             Yay, finally some actual science! Sort of.
             
             The article starts out with the misleading claim that CO2 levels have been both higher and lower in the past. They have, but the article neglects to mention that when C02 was at higher levels in the past, the sun was 4% dimmer, so much more CO2 would be required to produce a comparable effect to that seen today. (Also, the highest known levels in the geologic past - 20 times higher than today - occurred before the evolution of plants.) At several points in the past when the sun was comparable to that of today AND the CO2 levels were higher, the earth has experienced mass extinctions - hardly reassuring!
             
             Additionally, the article repeats the misleading claim that CO2 lags temperature. What has happened in the past, is that changes in the Earth's orbit (the Milankovitch cycles) at the end of ice ages increased the amount of sunlight hitting the earth, warming it. This warmth then caused the release of CO2 and methane from thawing permafrost and other sources, which started a positive feedback cycle that accelerated the warming and spread it around the globe more evenly, thus warming the earth more, leading to the release of more CO2 and methane, leading to more warmth, and so forth, ultimately bringing the Earth out of the ice age.
             
             As you may have figured out, the key difference between that scenario and the current one is that changes in the Earth's orbit are not initiating the current warming trend, CO2 is. When you claim that CO2 lags temperature, you're actually making my argument for me, because this particular positive feedback cycle is one that scares a lot of scientists absolutely s***less. The warming of the last 100 years is already starting to melt the Arctic and Siberian permafrost, and methane was recently discovered bubbling up from the East Siberian Arctic Shelf, which contains twice as much frozen carbon as is currently contained in the entire atmosphere. If this positive feedback loop is allowed to continue, we have no hope of keeping atmospheric CO2 levels lower than 1000ppm, which would collapse ecosystems on land and sea alike and lead to mass extinction and probably thousands of years of climate chaos.
             
             The CO2 effect is not saturated, as claimed by the article. This is something that was actually disproved back in Arrhenius's time, so it's a little silly that an almost 100 year old fallacy keeps getting revived by deniers today. See this paper for details: http://geosci.uchicago.edu/~rtp1/papers … RT2011.pdf
             
             The claim that CO2's relation to temperature is logarithmic is also misleading. First of all, climate forcing isn't even measured in degrees C, as the article implies, it's measured in Watts per square meter, and projected temperature increases are calculated from that. Secondly, the article ignores feedbacks, which are calculated into models such as that of the IPCC. For example, as mentioned elsewhere in this thread, warmer temperatures result in more water vapor in the atmosphere. Water vapor is a powerful greenhouse gas and higher levels of water vapor in the atmosphere would increase warming. However, it also increases the number, size, and frequency of clouds, which increase the planet's albedo, reflecting more sunlight back into space and causing an overall cooling effect. Debates over which effect will win out (this debate is one small part of the much greater ongoing debate over calculating climate sensitivity, the formula used to convert Watts per square meter to degrees C) account for the wide range in projected temperature increases as a result of global warming.

             replyreport