Global Warming News

[IH3444]

Hundreds brave extreme cold to protest Global Warming:

 

[CRJCaptain]

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

Here's a link to the actual petition.

Global Warming Petition Project

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

Global Warming Petition Project

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



31,000 scientists reject 'global warming' agenda

Eddie

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

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


April 20, 1998



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

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

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

 

[Gator6x4]

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

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

 

[dave1949]

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

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

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

Eddie

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

 

[IH3444]

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

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

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

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

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

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

 

[keegs]

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

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

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

 

[LMTC]

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

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

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

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

 

[EddieWalker]

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

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


April 20, 1998



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

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

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

Help me out here.

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

How is this relevant?

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

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

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

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

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

Eddie

 

[Gator6x4]

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

NRDC: Global Warming Puts the Arctic on Thin Ice

 

[IH3444]

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

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

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

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

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