Global Warming News

[kyspartan]

keeg, i am a democrat that voted for clinton but i did not vote for gore i did not vote for w and did not vote for obama, i also believe in the 2nd amendment, the extreme left scares me as much as the right does.
i also have some common sense and don't take everthing at face value.

there is not a consensus because all the desenting scientist are black balled and forced from the major peer review processes and publications. i urge you to go back and read throught the links that has been posted in this thread.
no one here is advocating cutting the cats off their cars, but turning the u.s. into a third world country and putting us under the boot heel of a nonelected world goverment scares me a helluve a lot more than global warming

please read here where the climategate emails are being released the Air Vent

List of scientists opposing the mainstream scientific assessment of global warming - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Global warming consensus? 31,000 scientists disagree
Global warming 祖onsensus? 31,000 scientists disagree Tad Cronn

Home - Global Warming Petition Project

the only consensus among scientists is the goverment payroll scientists are full of shi7 and makeing up data.

 

[dave1949]

Oh? More extreme than what? Looking at long term cycles, we are no where near extremes. Those that claim we are having extremes are cherry picking the data.



The problem with common sense is that it's not very common

While I agree that something will change (with CO2), it is not clear:
1-- that mankind can have a significant affect on the globe (especially compared to natural processes like volcanoes)
2-- that it is a good or bad change. More CO2 will encourage plant growth (e.g. trees). Is that good or bad?

The one point that screams to me that all of this is a scam is that the proposals will NOT make a difference globally. If the U.S. destroys it's economy, all the dirty industries will move to China, India, etc. where there will be even MORE pollution created! China is adding a coal fired power plant every day, and each one of them is dirtier than the U.S. power plants. How is it helping the global environment to move industries to countries with less controls and restrictions? It doesn't! This is just a scam to destroy the developed economies. Somebody is going to get rich off of this scam, the economic health of the U.S. be damned!

If China, etc. had to meet the same requirements, it would be a different story. But that has never been in the plan. This is nothing more than a redistribution of wealth plan, dressed up in hysteria.

Ken

I guess it comes down to the definition of 'extreme'. I am not talking about catastrophies. I don't think the early climatologists were either. Something like the current cold snap across the US south, the UK, etc. is an extreme. Comparable weather only has been recorded a few times since records began.

Since you ask is more CO2 good or bad, it would be nice to have a definitive answer before having a whole lot more CO2. It is so complex we will never be able to answer the question. We will be good at cataloging the obvious effects as they happen I fear.

If the globe is warming, will the response be ineffectual? Probably. Aside from a few brighter spots such as WHO, there aren't many global cooperation successes to look at. As a species, we don't know how to do it.

Commericial globalization of economic activity as practised by multinational corporations is shifting around the globe wherever feasible like water seeking it own level. Unfortunately for us in the US, we have a lot to loose in that process. I'm not sure it is exactly a zero-sum game, but it could be close.

Standardizing regulations around the globe is about the only way I can think of to prevent this. We don't know how to do that either. Whole cultures would have to change. In at least one-third of the world, the regulations don't matter as long as a good bribe can be paid.
Dave.

 

[EddieWalker]

ISince you ask is more CO2 good or bad, it would be nice to have a definitive answer before having a whole lot more CO2. It is so complex we will never be able to answer the question. We will be good at cataloging the obvious effects as they happen I fear.

If the globe is warming, will the response be ineffectual? .

If CO2 is causing the planet to warm up, then why has the planet been cooling for the past decade? One of the more reveiling emails that came out in the climategate scandal is they one complaining about not understanding why the planet is cooling. They don't have a clue what is going on, and are desperate to keep the hoax going in the hopes that the planet will start warming again. For them, it's a waiting game until their predictions come true. Until then, they will fabricate and change the evidence to support thier theories.

A simple question to ask yourself. If CO2 leads to an increase in global temperatures, and CO2 is a result of human activity, why is the planet cooling while human activity is increasing. The Chinese are doing allot to put out CO2, but the planet isn't warming.

Is it possible that the scientist who disagree with man made global warming might be correct in their theory that CO2 levels follow planet temperatures? Could it be possible that CO2 levels have nothing to do with global tempertures? The answer to both questions is yes. It is possible, and that's just as good a guess as CO2 being responsible. Since nobody knows what the answer is, the only thing left to conclued is the motivation for making the claims without any evidence. Is it for personal gain? Prestige? Power?

Since they don't know what CO2 does, or it's effect, what makes you think that they know how to stop it or change it? Giveing third world countries billions of dollars is the UN's answer, but nobody has been able to explain how that actually cools the planet.

Then there is the question that nobody will answer. What temperature is the right one? the best one? With everything, there is good and bad. Global Warming people have been very outspoken on all the bad that can happen. It might even be their downfall, because I feel that they went too far and became silly in their predictions. Oceans rising 30 feet is pretty absurd.

What are the benifits of a warmer planet? More farmland? Less energy used to heat homes? Longer growing seasons? More rain? Fewer people freezing to death? There has to be a positive side to a warmer planet. Where are the pros and cons to this?

I feel that the sun is what decided what the temperature on the planet will be. There is nothing that we can do to change this. We cannot make it warmer and we cannot make it cooler. All we can do is be good shepards of what we have and leave the planet a better place for our children.

Eddie

 

[buckeyefarmer]

We got another 2" of global warming overnight.

I've heard the claim that global warming will increase the ocean depths, yet I know of places along the England coast that were under water 100 yrs ago, and now are not. Either the land rose or the water level has dropped in the last 100 years. If the water goes back up, I'm sure global warming will get blamed, but it appears there are long term cycles in weather. There was once an ice age, so I'm told, so apparently there has been global warming going on for a long time. Today's global warming "crisis" is just a political game. Tomorrow another crisis will come along to make us forget this one.

 

[buckeyefarmer]

It boggles my mind that there is nothing in it that addresses the reasons for the high costof medical treatment. If you don't fix the problem, then it's not going to get any better. And there is a list of why we should be very afraid of what is going on with health care. They are forced to bribe members of their own party to vote for it. They refuse to share what's actually in the bill, and they are rushing it through like there is some emergancy to pass a bill that won't go into effect until 2011. Since it doesn't do anything until then, why not debate what's in it and make it public so everyone can read it?

AMEN!

 

[EddieWalker]

Sorry, I just noticed that I got the date wrong. The bill goes into effect in 2013.

If it's so important to pass health care, why is it ok to wait until 2013 to put it into effect?

Why couldn't it be debated until 2012, and then pass it and spend a full year getting it into place?

Eddie

 

[kenstrac]

Because by 2013 thats when the country will be bankrupt and SOL.

 

[keegs]

Good try, but in your accusations, you expose yourself.

Debate is what is missing and we are all responsible for learning as much about it as possible. While I agree with you that there are two sides to every issue, there is one side who wants to debate it, and another side that refuses to do so.

I'm on the side that wants to debate global warming.

I'm also of the opinion that we need to debate and analyze what is in the health care bill.

It boggles my mind that there is nothing in it that addresses the reasons for the high costof medical treatment. If you don't fix the problem, then it's not going to get any better. And there is a list of why we should be very afraid of what is going on with health care. They are forced to bribe members of their own party to vote for it. They refuse to share what's actually in the bill, and they are rushing it through like there is some emergancy to pass a bill that won't go into effect until 2011. Since it doesn't do anything until then, why not debate what's in it and make it public so everyone can read it?

Eddie,

To imply there's not been a debate is just incorrect. Public debate on climate change has been underway for at least two decades.

There's enough consensus now on this issue that countries arround the world are committing significant resources to it.

There is also consensus that there are significant consequences to delaying remediation efforts.

As the world's largest emitter of CO2 on a per-capita basis, we need to be part of this effort.

I don't doubt your sincerity in beleiving that more examination is warranted but belief isn't knowledge.

 

[Ken45101]

I guess it comes down to the definition of 'extreme'. I am not talking about catastrophies. I don't think the early climatologists were either. Something like the current cold snap across the US south, the UK, etc. is an extreme. Comparable weather only has been recorded a few times since records began.

"Comparable weather only has been recorded a few times....."????

I remember in the 60's and 70's when we had two weeks that never got above zero (Cincinnati). So far, 8 ABOVE zero is our coldest this winter. In 1937 and 1976, the Ohio River froze at Cincinnati. This is NOT an extreme winter, at least not yet.

It is normal for weather to fluctuate. It's also pretty well known that the forecasters can't forecast two weeks with accuracy. We should believe they can forecast 50 or 100 years?

How can you claim this is one of the coldest winters on record.....and claim that "Global Warming" is a real issue????

Eddie Walker is on target.

Ken

 

[20 20]

They are supposedly related to grizzly bears. Maybe one day we will be seeing pie-bald 'grizzpoles'.
Dave.

Funny you mentioned this, quess what that day is allready here. There was a story about a guy that shot what he thought was a polar bear. Well it wasn't, infact he even got in trouble for shooting an illegal bear. After many brains came together they finally decided it was a cross breed between polar and grizz. The bear was beautifull.