Global Warming News

[dave1949]

The spin masters walk among us.

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

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

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

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

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

 

[Stimw]

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

 

[dave1949]

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

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

 

[EddieWalker]

I've tried to express my views and personal opinions of what I belive. I appreciate that this has remained a civil discussion and I think that has allot to do with why the thread is still open when this topic has been closed so many times before.

What I think happens is the topic gets morphed into other things and those tother points are used to support a belief in man made global warming. Polution and the temperature of the planet have nothing to do with the argument about man made global warming. They are distractions and red herring's. I believe that almost all of us are for a cleaner environment, less litter and polution. On that toppic, we're all in agreement. From the early days of the industrial revolution, we've come a very long ways. That is when our government has done good and something that we should all be proud of. I'm all for future improvement along these lines and ultimately reaching a level of not burnign fossil fuel or dumping anything into our waters.

I also don't think anybody is denying that the average global temperature of the planet changes. It goes up and it goes down. It always has and it always will. This is all part of nature and cycles that are caused by our planets orbit and the variations in the suns output. The planet has been allot colder then it is now and it's been allot warmer. I don't think anybody disputes this.

The problem that I have with man made global warming has nothing to do with those things. It has to do with some very simple facts, and what is being proposed to deal with it. First, the scientist and supports of it are either fabricating their evidence and/or eliminating facts to support their claims. Things like lying about the medival warming period, the fact that greenland used to be farmed and wine grapes grew in Great Brittain. Things that are not done today because the planet is cooler then it was back then. What caused the planet to be warmer then? and why was it a natural event back then and not now?

Ice caps melt, glaciers receed and ocean levels rise. It's all part of nature. We know it's happened before, and we know that the polar bears made it through those times just fine. I'm not denying that it's happening, or that it's not happening. I do question the reports on it because those making the reports are corrupt to a degree that is almost impossible to comprehend. NASA has refused to open up their data under the freedom on information act. When scientist make a claim, it has to be verifiable by others. This is not happening and I question why. NASA has had to change their dates on the warmest years because when examined by others, it was proven that NASA got it wrong. East Anglia is the other leader in global warming research. They destroyed all their original data with a claim that it was too expensive to store it. There is no other informtion or data more important then the original data that they destroyed. This screams out to me that they are trying to hide something.

Their emails prove that they are changing data to get the results that they want. This is the smoking gun that utterly destroys all science that supported man made global warming. There is no longer any credible science to support their claims, and anything tha comes out now will have to be based on data that is verifiable by independent souces. They rubber stamped each others data and claimed otherwise. It truly is the biggest hoax played on the planet ever.

The question then becomes why? How much of it was for personal gain? In some cases, like Al Gore, I believe that it's all about money for him. I have a very low opinion of Mr. Gore, so that also influences my opinion of him. He's never done anything to disprove my opinion of him, and has done allot to support those views. If he ever debates global warming with somebody qualified to bebate him, I might change my mind. Until then, I'll base my opinion on his actions and the lies he tells.

If you have to tell a lie or hide the truth to support your point of view, then it's not for real. While the planet may or may not be warming or cooling, there is not evidence or proof that it's caused by what we are doing on the planet. Until there is, I'm of the opinion tha this is all a scam to enrich those supporting it.

Eddie

 

[IH3444]

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

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

It was very informative.

 

[EddieWalker]

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

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

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

Eddie

 

[Pilot]

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

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

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

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

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

 

[Loren49]

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

Loren

 

[LMTC]

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

Loren

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

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

 

[IH3444]

Extremes:
Interesting United States Weather Facts and Extremes