Global Warming News

[20 20]

If you can say what the best temperature is, and explain why, I'd sure apreciate it. Right now, I think the planet would be better off if it was about five degrees warmer. We'd have more farmland, more growing days, less energy needed to warm homes and more rain water because of more evaporation.

Eddie

A best temperature to a human would be only of their personal opinion. I personally like the cold winters, snow and warm summer{75F tops}. The reason being is that with the cold we get rid of bugs and I personally like snow. With the warmth things can come to life plants animals etc. The north doesn't have all the nasty little critters{fire ants poison spiders etc.} you have south because of cold climate. We do get black flys{nasty little monsters, usually only last a few weeks} but once it warms and DRIES out they disappear until the next circle of temps goes around.

So to answer your question with MY honest opinion, no I do not want the climate to warm up by 5 degrees. Don't forget a warm up of 5 degrees will flood out most coastal cities. What is the perfect temp? I don't think that is up to the government or any other human. The planet will change with or without us.

My question/concern is not with all the hype or garbage being used for money scams, but has to do with our {human society} waste. We say we are getting greener but we live in a throw away world . We say cars are being built better and stronger{bwahahahahaha} but a majority of folks buy new every 2 years{imagine grandpa doing that?}. We say use less energy but we keep inventing crap that eats energy for no reason other then making us lazy. We say we're eating better and live longer{this is far from truth} but obesity is a huge{no pun intened} problem. The list goes on but I don't want to get off topic{ what is the topic again } I just wanted to answer your question with my opinion and give a couple of reasons why.

 

[Bird]

help me out here....don't federal government retirees receive a pension?

Yes, they do. And in many cases, they've also worked other jobs for many years, paying into social security, so they would be entitled to full social security benefits base on their own record. In other cases, they'd be entitled to social security benefits based on their spouse's record.

In either case, their benefits may be reduced if they receive a government pension (not only federal government, but state and local governments as well). Depending on the size of the government pension and the size of the otherwise social security benefits, the reduction may be such that the pensioner receives no social security payments at all, as in my case.

If you'd like to learn details, go to social security's website.

 

[Barton]

I'm a firm believer in climate change. Well, at least here in southwest Georgia, umm, for today. Pics attached... Poor azaleas...

 

[mostly_gas]

So to answer your question with MY honest opinion, no I do not want the climate to warm up by 5 degrees. Don't forget a warm up of 5 degrees will flood out most coastal cities. What is the perfect temp? I don't think that is up to the government or any other human. The planet will change with or without us.

That is the kind stuff the IPCC put out but cannot prove. Others repeat it as fact but no body has the slightest idea as to fact or fancy. Saw some research the other day that was looking into if the oceans capacity was changing due to the movement of the Teutonic plates. Just remember the "hockey stick" has not happened, and no one forecasted the moderation in the warming trend. I have yet to hear about any coordinated effort to clean or repair the temp data and models can not be debugged on faulty data.

 

[Pilot]

There was the assertion that melting of the Greenland icecap and the glaciers would raise the ocean levels by several feet, flooding many coastal cities. That was another "oops!"

Calculations show melting of all that ice would only have a minimal impact on ocean levels. Warming of the oceans, however would have a bigger impact as the water expanded as it warmed. Total rise according to the 2007 IPCC prediction is between 7 and 82 centimeters--less than 3 feet at maximum by the year 2100. Another overstatement to get the folks churned up about global warming.

 

[keegs]

The governor has some common sense ideas for healthcare reform IMO. Could be the basis for a compromise. Thought I'd pass on:

washingtonpost.com

 

[IH3444]

U.N. climate panel admits Dutch sea level flaw | Reuters

http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2010/feb/12/utah-climate-alarmists

And this one.....whoooooo-weeeee! It's a bit scary.

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/wor...ebt-bailout-EU-leaders-split-euro-crisis.html

 

[Loren49]

Just a short recap of the following:

U.N. climate panel admits Dutch sea level flaw | Reuters

1) 55% of Netherlands is prone to flooding - 26% below sea level and 29% prone to river flooding.

2) Instead of stating in the report that rising sea level could effect 26% of the country, it was stated it could effect all of the flood prone area.

Quote from article:
"The United Nations has said errors in the 2007 report of about 3,000 pages do not affect the core conclusions that human activities, led by burning fossil fuels, are warming the globe."

The other obvious error was 2035 when 2300 was intended.

Just because lazy or careless or overzealous people have restated these errors has little to do with the other 2998 pages of the report. Those errors in conclusions are not rational reasons to invalidate the entire report.

Also a 3 ft increase in sea level over the next 90 years would cause enormous damage to property world wide and affect millions of people.

Its lots easier to tear something down than it is to build it.

Loren

 

[Pilot]

Their proposed restatement is also misleading: 'because 55 percent of the Netherlands is at risk of flooding', is an accurate statement but is implies that the flooding potential is related to climate change, when only a portion, the area near or below sea level is.

It's more than errors on a couple pages. Their data base is poor (see: Home for how poor their database is and how it is biased to state warming that isn't there) and has been manipulated. Everything is based on models that involve numerous assumptions, many of which if wrong could lead to major changes in conclusions. They are asking, no, demanding major financial concessions in our way of life and in our economy to effect a "cure" that will have minimal benefit.

Our way of life and our place in the world is a result of a strong economy. Complying with IPCC proposals would be a huge cost to our economy, the second "great recession" but much longer lasting and would likely elevate China to a greater status as a world power. The US might become #2.

Before they ask for that, they need to get the "science" right and they haven't done so.

 

[Axe Man]

Large corporations can influence government driven agendas and institutions such as the IPCC through the use of lobbyists and funding.
In 2005 members of the IPCC met with Shells international climate change team to discuss a stratigic partnership to fund a program. In these meetings the climate change team let it be known they were not interested in the basic science.Any work they support must have clear and immediate relevance to " real world activities " They are particularly interested in emmissions trading and CDM ( clean development mechanism )
CDM is a subset of flexible mechanisms controlled by the world trade organization. Why would Shell be interested in this?
The CRU produces data saying we're going to die. Then works on policies to keep us alive. Then the CRU accepts funding from corporations, in this case Shell, that want to affect how those policies are written.
So yes big oil and big business want to influence the AGW issue just not in the way AGW believers would have you believe.
There's billions of dollars to be made by the oil companies in the trading of carbon credits.