Global Warming ‘Greatest Scam in History’


Walter
#31
Quote: Originally Posted by Cobalt_Kid View Post

I'm not playing with words like them, that's the real situation. The Fossil Fuel lobby is also fueling the Global Warming debate to protect profits just like Big Tobacco did.

Rothmans declares 16% increase to regular quarterly dividend and reports strong results for second quarter of fiscal 2008




07:00 EDT Friday, October 26, 2007

http://www.globeinvestor.com/servlet...cnw&slug=C8541
 
EagleSmack
#32
Quote: Originally Posted by Tonington View Post

Don't feed the conspiracists with language like that. That language is hedging. Say that the current working theory has working science, and those opposing it are still looking for that silver bullet, without luck.

Is there truly a silver bullet for either side? There are arguments for both sides.
 
Cobalt_Kid
#33
Quote: Originally Posted by EagleSmack View Post

Is there truly a silver bullet for either side? There are arguments for both sides.

Silver bullet? We're talking science here not werewolves. There is clear evidence for Global Warming and a link to releases of greenhouse gases from human activities.
 
Tonington
#34
Quote: Originally Posted by EagleSmack View Post

Is there truly a silver bullet for either side? There are arguments for both sides.

No, there is no silver bullet. The case is, there are mounds of evidence from Physicists, Chemists, Biologists, Climatologists, even Mathematicians and Statisticians. It's all converging, multiple lines of work that have built up the theory. That's why it's called a theory.

There are scientists who are trying to pick away at it, like any other theory in the history of science. Very notable if you can, highly unlikely.

All the newspapers that talk endlessly about Gore this and Gore that, and the scientists who are saying he's wrong. Well there is no liability in the print for things like that. The public relies on a media that makes it's living at showing you what they think is the story. It's a distraction that has been perverted into truth. Media= editorial, always.

After years of this being in the news, and people witnessing changes around the world, public opinion has embraced that theory which shows we are at least part of the cause, and most likely the largest single contributor right now. So there are those in the media and their friends who have tried to campaign against it since the issue first arose, and they will continue to do so.

Change is a coming. Carbon taxes will be a reality. Standardized renewable portfolios will be mandatory. Cap and trades will be mandatory. Those with the trillion dollar infrastructure will have to take a hit, after decades of growing fat.

At this point now, it is they who need the silver bullet.
 
Walter
#35
Quote: Originally Posted by Cobalt_Kid View Post

Some effects of global Warming:

Melting sea ice at both poles.

http://www.climate-skeptic.com/2007/...tic-sea-i.html
 
Cobalt_Kid
#36
Quote: Originally Posted by Walter View Post

Rothmans declares 16% increase to regular quarterly dividend and reports strong results for second quarter of fiscal 2008




07:00 EDT Friday, October 26, 2007

http://www.globeinvestor.com/servlet...cnw&slug=C8541

So?

Big Tobacco has moved offshore to countries where there is little or no regulation and is enjoying the same kind of profits it did before the real hazards of smoking became known here.

You're making my point about how immoral corporations will do anything to turn a profit despite the negative effects to large numbers of people. The cancer rates in these countries is going to increase just as it did in North America due to tobacco smoke. Or maybe you want to deny that link also.
Last edited by Cobalt_Kid; Nov 9th, 2007 at 05:32 PM..
 
Cobalt_Kid
#37
Quote: Originally Posted by Walter View Post

http://www.climate-skeptic.com/2007/...tic-sea-i.html

Like I said, you're presenting a fringe view that isn't backed up by the majority of the evidence. I can look out my window and see all the dead pines from the beetle kill because we haven't had a decent cold snap since 1986 here. One where the temperature goes down to bellow 40C for more than a week. Instead we get mild winters and impressive heat waves in the summer that lead to massive forest fires.

That's just from looking out my window, scientists at both poles are seeing rapidly retreating ice packs, melting permafrost and the detatchment of entire ice shelfs like the Larsen B in Antarctica.
 
EagleSmack
#38
Quote: Originally Posted by Cobalt_Kid View Post

Silver bullet? We're talking science here not werewolves. There is clear evidence for Global Warming and a link to releases of greenhouse gases from human activities.

Hey the silver bullett part came from one of your allies.

There is only clear evidence that the earth is warming. That is all. Nobody debates the warming trend but the debate is over how much is the responsibilty of man.

Do you agree that there has always been warming and cooling trends in the history of the earth? Why is it suddenly man's fault?
 
EagleSmack
#39
Quote: Originally Posted by Cobalt_Kid View Post

Like I said, you're presenting a fringe view that isn't backed up by the majority of the evidence. I can look out my window and see all the dead pines from the beetle kill because we haven't had a decent cold snap since 1986 here. One where the temperature goes down to bellow 40C for more than a week. Instead we get mild winters and impressive heat waves in the summer that lead to massive forest fires.

That's just from looking out my window, scientists at both poles are seeing rapidly retreating ice packs, melting permafrost and the detatchment of entire ice shelfs like the Larsen B in Antarctica.

Now you are doing what GW people say NOT to do which is chose local weather patterns. For example last year was one of the coldest in the midwest of the US. When that was brought into the debate...

"STOP! THAT IS LOCAL WEATHER! IRRELEVANT!"
 
Tonington
#40
Quote: Originally Posted by EagleSmack View Post

Do you agree that there has always been warming and cooling trends in the history of the earth? Why is it suddenly man's fault?

Last I checked the previous swings were the Earth releasing greenhouse gases in response to physical changes in the climate system. Is the Earth releasing the stored greenhouse gases from it's sinks? No, we are liberating those sinks. The strongest correlation to greenhouse gas increases is our industrial activity. It's more than that even, there is causation. That applies equally to greenhouse induced global warming.

It's very simple, you release more greenhouse gases, and less radiation is reflected back to space. It's called the heat balance. That is an oversimplification of the entire climate system, but it is a strong forcing, and one of those convergent properties that make up the larger global warming theory.
 
EagleSmack
#41
Quote: Originally Posted by Walter View Post

Warming to debate the art of hypocrisy

By Andrew Bolt
November 09, 2007 12:00am
Article from: </IMG>
Font size: + -
Send this article: Print Email

THE telling thing about the global warming faith is that it's preached almost entirely by hypocrites. As you're about to see in tropical technicolour next month.

You see, more often than not a global warming prophet is a frequent flyer who's just stepped out of business class to demand you cut the very gases he's just blasted out the back of his jet.

http://www.news.com.au/story/0,23599...07146,00.html#

Do you see the absolute hypocrisy in these people!

It isn't just Gore...there are thousands of them. Crisscrossing the globe, gobbling up large chunks of energy more than I will ever use. I love how one of the GW Crusaders was questioned on her use of private jets...

"Yes I use a private jet for holidays...but I feel guilty about it."

Come on now! Where is this sense of urgency? We are (supposedly) in a planetary emergency and these folks are living it up. Gore is living it up on Carbon Credit CASH that good intentioned people are buying from his company. Meanwhile he allows one of the most destructive mining to happen on his lands with his permission. His lands in Tennessee are rich with Zinc and he allows a mining company to strip the lands clean of forest and vegetation. Why does he do that? He'll give you half a million reasons with the $$$ symbol in front of it because that is his take for this.

Have any of you made yourself carbon neutral? If not... why?
 
Cobalt_Kid
#42
Quote: Originally Posted by EagleSmack View Post

Hey the silver bullett part came from one of your allies.

There is only clear evidence that the earth is warming. That is all. Nobody debates the warming trend but the debate is over how much is the responsibilty of man.

Do you agree that there has always been warming and cooling trends in the history of the earth? Why is it suddenly man's fault?

Allies? I wasn't aware we were at war.

Yes the globe is warming and we need to look for a cause. It could be from solar activity, or even cosmic rays affecting the creation of clouds as one researcher believes. The way science works is to find the best explanation for the evidence and the best explantion right now is that the release of excess CO2 and other greenhouse gases from human activity is leading to the current trend in increasing temperatures and such things as increasing pH in the oceans.

There have been many changes in the global environment in the past. About 250 million years ago most of the life on the planet was erradicated from what scientist now think was the greatest release of CO2 ever. A massive collection of volcanoes in what now is Siberia probably burned equally massive deposits of coal turning it into atmospheric CO2. Water holds less oxygen as it heats and it's thought that the seas became anoxic killing most life there. Sulfur loving bacteria thrived however and in turn released massive amounts of H2S that killed most of the life on land. It took millions of years for life to recover on the planet.

Earth can and does become hostile to life, is it worth taking the chance and screwing around with nature on such a wide scale when we really don't know wht the longterm consequences will be. The heads of most of the oil companies will be dead when the most severe effects of global warming occure, maybe we need to take the choices they're making for all of us out of their hands now rather than later.
 
EagleSmack
#43
Quote: Originally Posted by Tonington View Post

Last I checked the previous swings were the Earth releasing greenhouse gases in response to physical changes in the climate system. Is the Earth releasing the stored greenhouse gases from it's sinks? No, we are liberating those sinks. The strongest correlation to greenhouse gas increases is our industrial activity. It's more than that even, there is causation. That applies equally to greenhouse induced global warming.

It's very simple, you release more greenhouse gases, and less radiation is reflected back to space. It's called the heat balance. That is an oversimplification of the entire climate system, but it is a strong forcing, and one of those convergent properties that make up the larger global warming theory.

If that is the case why did the Kyoto signers give India, China, and Russia a pass while singling out the US for ridicule? China has a booming economy and were given a developing nation status. A country that has a manned space program suddenly is a developing company. Those countries NEVER would have signed that treaty and it is easy to attack the US. China and the Russians would have laughed in your face if you put pressure on them. Now good hard earned Canadian cash is going to Russia to help boost their economy. There was an article in the paper not too long ago on how the Russians will get a little monetary boost from full Kyoto members. It is also up to the "developing" countries on how that money will be invested.

As far as your scientific presentation I can easily go out on the web and find a counter to that and cut and paste.
 
EagleSmack
#44
[quote=Cobalt_Kid;902269]Allies? I wasn't aware we were at war.

quote]

You know what I meant. Tonnington brought up that people who oppose the GW hype are seeking a silver bullett.
 
EagleSmack
#45
Quote: Originally Posted by Cobalt_Kid View Post

Allies? I wasn't aware we were at war.


Earth can and does become hostile to life, is it worth taking the chance and screwing around with nature on such a wide scale when we really don't know wht the longterm consequences will be. The heads of most of the oil companies will be dead when the most severe effects of global warming occure, maybe we need to take the choices they're making for all of us out of their hands now rather than later.

Well that is what it is all about right? Taken power/money from the oil companies. Making them squirm like they make us squirm every time we fill up. That is what it has always been about. No one likes the oil companies. I hate paying all of that cash everytime there is a storm in the Gulf of Mexico. Seeing prices rise and stay even though the storm did nothing.

But I will not bow down to wealthy hypocrits who do absolutley nothing to curb their usage and have done nothing. I will not tow the GW line for them either.

Here in Massachusetts there is a movement to build a wind farm (Cape Winds) off Cape Cod. It will provide electricity, clean power to many on the Cape. However it happens to be right smack in the middle of where the wealthy GW advocates like the Kennedys and Kerrys sail their yachts. All of a sudden clean energy is not such a good idea...not in their back yard anyways.
 
Locutus
#46
Quote: Originally Posted by Tonington View Post

You're not entrenched in the orthodoxy yet? Our Kool-aid tastes better

Nah. We'll probably be hit by a killer asteroid or BJ and the Bear will be syndicated. Either way, I'll be long gone even if something happens. I blame the damnable english and their industrial revolution at any rate.
 
Tonington
#47
Quote: Originally Posted by EagleSmack View Post

If that is the case why did the Kyoto signers give India, China, and Russia a pass while singling out the US for ridicule?

Strawman, I'm not arguing the merits of Kyoto.


Quote: Originally Posted by EagleSmack View Post

As far as your scientific presentation I can easily go out on the web and find a counter to that and cut and paste.

Lol, that was all my own words. I actually do read up on this stuff. Post anything you'd like.

Quote: Originally Posted by Locutus View Post

Nah. We'll probably be hit by a killer asteroid or BJ and the Bear will be syndicated. Either way, I'll be long gone even if something happens. I blame the damnable english and their industrial revolution at any rate.

Lol. Don't forget pandemics, could catch the bird flu
 
Locutus
#48
Quote: Originally Posted by Tonington View Post

Lol. Don't forget pandemics, could catch the bird flu

Jeezus H. Christ! We're all gonna die!
Run for your lives.

Btw, what was his middle name anyway?
 
Tonington
#49
Hector
 
Cobalt_Kid
#50
Quote: Originally Posted by EagleSmack View Post

Now you are doing what GW people say NOT to do which is chose local weather patterns. For example last year was one of the coldest in the midwest of the US. When that was brought into the debate...

"STOP! THAT IS LOCAL WEATHER! IRRELEVANT!"

The entire western half of North America is more than local. Looking at individual years isn't going to tell you much but like I said we haven't had winters cold enough to cause major die-offs in the pine beetle population for two decades. It requires several weeks of of -35C to -40C to kill large numbers of the insects which produce natural antifreeze to survive the winter.
 
Cobalt_Kid
#51
Quote: Originally Posted by EagleSmack View Post

Well that is what it is all about right? Taken power/money from the oil companies. Making them squirm like they make us squirm every time we fill up. That is what it has always been about. No one likes the oil companies. I hate paying all of that cash everytime there is a storm in the Gulf of Mexico. Seeing prices rise and stay even though the storm did nothing.

But I will not bow down to wealthy hypocrits who do absolutley nothing to curb their usage and have done nothing. I will not tow the GW line for them either.

Here in Massachusetts there is a movement to build a wind farm (Cape Winds) off Cape Cod. It will provide electricity, clean power to many on the Cape. However it happens to be right smack in the middle of where the wealthy GW advocates like the Kennedys and Kerrys sail their yachts. All of a sudden clean energy is not such a good idea...not in their back yard anyways.

I'm not big on hypocrisy either, but it's a matter of scale. Gores chunk of the Global warming problem is tiny when compared to men who are making $billions selling products that put even more billions of tons of greenhouse gas into the air every year. I say tax the hell out of the petrochemical industry to fund the research on alternative energy that should have been done decades ago.

I don't really care who takes the lead, it's time to stop the greed and think longterm for all our sakes.
 
Walter
#52
Quote: Originally Posted by Cobalt_Kid View Post

Like I said, you're presenting a fringe view that isn't backed up by the majority of the evidence.

How is record Antarctic ice a fringe view? Is the record amount of ice taking sides in this debate?
 
MikeyDB
#53
I appreciate the impetus for this thread...climate change is occurring and whether or not the contribution made to this current change is human or not, factions arise that will take one side or the other and if popular sentiment can be aligned with one side or the other...well gosh....won't that make a huge difference...???

The seminal argument is however fundamentally flawed.

The issue of global warming as anthropocentric effect isn't the greatest hoax ever perpetrated.

The greatest hoax ever perpetrated was that industrialization would bring prosperity to the world....

It brought better manufacturing practices in terms of production yields but it's never brought prosperity to the "world". An argument could be made that the only prosperity brought to anyone were those willing and prepared to sacrifice the young men and women of many nations to protect the wealth power and "prosperity" of the few. The greatests hoax is that anything that humankind meddles with...will have lasting beneficial effects for the entire species....

The hoax is that abandoning our bonds with the earth and our nature will make the "world" a "better" place....

Whether it's religion or ideology, industrialization or pursuit of the unknown.... relinquishing and denying our critical relationship with nature and the planet upon which we all live is the greatest hoax and one need only look to world wars and abject poverty throughout the world to see the results of this "wisdom".
 
Walter
#54
Quote: Originally Posted by MikeyDB View Post

The greatest hoax ever perpetrated was that industrialization would bring prosperity to the world.....

You must live in a unheated wood shack with no running water. Your life will be short and miserable. The rest of us will enjoy the fruits of industrialization, thank-you very much.
 
Zzarchov
#55
Quote: Originally Posted by EagleSmack View Post

Hey I saw that video as well.

Im not really sure what video you are talking about,

But oh man, if there is a video with at circumstance I guess it could never happen. I once saw a video where a guy got robbed because he left his door unlocked and a box that a bigscreen tv came in , visibile by the trash in front of his building in downtown new york. I guess that too could never happen, since its been put in a video.

The problem remains, our entire infrastructue is based on the climate being stable. Our cities are coastal and our cropland does not extend too far northward.
 
Tonington
#56
If Rush Limbaugh is any indication of why misinformation abounds on this issue, here's a post from the fellows at Grist magazine.
Quote:


UPDATE:
I have to put this up top, because it's so deliciously delightful. Turns out Rush Limbaugh fell for this scam, hook, line, and sinker. He bought it because he misunderstood a warning from notorious skeptic crank Roy Spencer -- he thought Spencer was calling climate change
, not the paper, a hoax. Spencer subsequently apologized for, um, Limbaugh's stupidity and gullibility. Wow. I hardly know what to do with all this schadenfreude.

The world hardly needs any more proof that the remaining climate change "skeptics" (who among other things have ruined the perfectly respectable term "skeptic" for the rest of us) are ideologues who will believe anything that supports their position and disbelieve anything that refutes it. They keep offering us proof anyway.


Last week a paper was drifting around the tubes that allegedly showed that ocean bacteria, not humans, are responsible for most global warming. It was published in a heretofore never-heard-of online journal called Journal Of Geoclimatic Studies . It contained charts and graphs and other scientistical-type stuff, but what really gave the skeptics a stiffy was this passage toward the end:

Quote:

But we recognise that in [overturning anthropogenic climate change] we lay our careers on the line. As we have found in seeking to broach this issue gently with colleagues, and in attempting to publish these findings in other peer-reviewed journals, the "consensus" on climate change is enforced not by fact but by fear. We have been warned, collectively and individually, that in bringing our findings to public attention we are not only likely to be deprived of all future sources of funding, but that we also jeopardise the funding of the departments for which we work.

We believe that academic intimidation of this kind contradicts the spirit of open enquiry in which scientific investigations should be conducted. We deplore the aggressive responses we encountered before our findings were published, and fear the reaction this paper might provoke. But dangerous as these findings are, we feel we have no choice but to publish.

Brave scientists battling the "consensus" cabal! This played perfectly to the fruitloop paranoia of the skeptics, so naturally they ate it up.


And naturally it's a complete hoax.


DeSmogBlog has a detailed account of who created the hoax and who fell for it. Amusing stuff.
Postscript: The founder of the Weather Channel, who's been a TV weatherman since 1952, says global warming is a scam. How does he -- without, you know, practicing science or having a degree in the relevant disciplines -- know this? He thought hard about it:
Quote:

I have read dozens of scientific papers. I have talked with numerous scientists. I have studied. I have thought about it. I know I am correct.

You really can't make this stuff up.

 
Locutus
#57
I thought, therefore I am correct. Cool.
 
gopher
+1
#58
http://www.usatoday.com/news/militar...-wacosts_N.htm


``The cost of the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan could total $2.4 trillion through the next decade, or nearly $8,000 per man, woman and child in the country, according to a Congressional Budget Office estimate scheduled for release Wednesday.
A previous CBO estimate put the wars' costs at more than $1.6 trillion. This one adds $705 billion in interest, taking into account that the conflicts are being funded with borrowed money.
The new estimate also includes President Bush's request Monday for another $46 billion in war funding ...



The number is so big, it boggles the mind,"









The right wing's continued hostilities towards global warming serve as a convenient distraction from the war mess they have created. But the facts are there: the BIGGEST scam in history is Bush's treasonous war of imperialistic terrorism.
 
mrmom2
#59
No one can deny that in recent years the need to "save the planet" from global warming has become one of the most pervasive issues of our time. As Tony Blair's chief scientific adviser, Sir David King, claimed in 2004, it poses "a far greater threat to the world than international terrorism", warning that by the end of this century the only habitable continent left will be Antarctica.


Government told to aim higher with emissions targets
Antarctic ice sheets may grow
Hempleman-Adams' experience of climate change | Video Inevitably, many people have been bemused by this somewhat one-sided debate, imagining that if so many experts are agreed, then there must be something in it. But if we set the story of how this fear was promoted in the context of other scares before it, the parallels which emerge might leave any honest believer in global warming feeling uncomfortable.









Polar bears find the Arctic sea ice shrinking, but many scientists now predict that the world is about to cool again


The story of how the panic over climate change was pushed to the top of the international agenda falls into five main stages. Stage one came in the 1970s when many scientists expressed alarm over what they saw as a disastrous change in the earth's climate. Their fear was not of warming but global cooling, of "a new Ice Age".

For three decades, after a sharp rise in the interwar years up to 1940, global temperatures had been falling. The one thing certain about climate is that it is always changing. Since we began to emerge from the last Ice Age 20,000 years ago, temperatures have been through significant swings several times. The hottest period occurred around 8,000 years ago and was followed by a long cooling. Then came what is known as the "Roman Warming", coinciding with the Roman empire. Three centuries of cooling in the Dark Ages were followed by the "Mediaeval Warming", when the evidence agrees the world was hotter than today.

Around 1300 began "the Little Ice Age", that did not end until 200 years ago, when we entered what is known as the "Modern Warming". But even this has been chequered by colder periods, such as the "Little Cooling" between 1940 and 1975. Then, in the late 1970s, the world began warming again.

A scare is often set off - as we show in our book with other examples - when two things are observed together and scientists suggest one must have been caused by the other. In this case, thanks to readings commissioned by Dr Roger Revelle, a distinguished American oceanographer, it was observed that since the late 1950s levels of carbon dioxide in the earth's atmosphere had been rising. Perhaps it was this increase that was causing the new warming in the 1980s?


Stage two of the story began in 1988 when, with remarkable speed, the global warming story was elevated into a ruling orthodoxy, partly due to hearings in Washington chaired by a youngish senator, Al Gore, who had studied under Dr Revelle in the 1960s.

But more importantly global warming hit centre stage because in 1988 the UN set up its Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (the IPCC). Through a series of reports, the IPCC was to advance its cause in a rather unusual fashion. First it would commission as many as 1,500 experts to produce a huge scientific report, which might include all sorts of doubts and reservations. But this was to be prefaced by a Summary for Policymakers, drafted in consultation with governments and officials - essentially a political document - in which most of the caveats contained in the experts' report would not appear.

This contradiction was obvious in the first report in 1991, which led to the Rio conference on climate change in 1992. The second report in 1996 gave particular prominence to a study by an obscure US government scientist claiming that the evidence for a connection between global warming and rising CO2 levels was now firmly established. This study came under heavy fire from various leading climate experts for the way it manipulated the evidence. But this was not allowed to stand in the way of the claim that there was now complete scientific consensus behind the CO2 thesis, and the Summary for Policy-makers, heavily influenced from behind the scenes by Al Gore, by this time US Vice-President, paved the way in 1997 for the famous Kyoto Protocol.

Kyoto initiated stage three of the story, by formally committing governments to drastic reductions in their CO2 emissions. But the treaty still had to be ratified and this seemed a good way off, not least thanks to its rejection in 1997 by the US Senate, despite the best attempts of Mr Gore.

Not the least of his efforts was his bid to suppress an article co-authored by Dr Revelle just before his death. Gore didn't want it to be known that his guru had urged that the global warming thesis should be viewed with more caution.


One of the greatest problems Gore and his allies faced at this time was the mass of evidence showing that in the past, global temperatures had been higher than in the late 20th century.










Former US Vice-President Al Gore



In 1998 came the answer they were looking for: a new temperature chart, devised by a young American physicist, Michael Mann. This became known as the "hockey stick" because it showed historic temperatures running in an almost flat line over the past 1,000 years, then suddenly flicking up at the end to record levels.

Mann's hockey stick was just what the IPCC wanted. When its 2001 report came out it was given pride of place at the top of page 1. The Mediaeval Warming, the Little Ice Age, the 20th century Little Cooling, when CO2 had already been rising, all had been wiped away.

But then a growing number of academics began to raise doubts about Mann and his graph. This culminated in 2003 with a devastating study by two Canadians showing how Mann had not only ignored most of the evidence before him but had used an algorithm that would produce a hockey stick graph whatever evidence was fed into the computer. When this was removed, the graph re-emerged just as it had looked before, showing the Middle Ages as hotter than today.

It is hard to recall any scientific thesis ever being so comprehensively discredited as the "hockey stick". Yet the global warming juggernaut rolled on regardless, now led by the European Union. In 2004, thanks to a highly dubious deal between the EU and Putin's Russia, stage four of the story began when the Kyoto treaty was finally ratified


In the past three years, we have seen the EU announcing every kind of measure geared to fighting climate change, from building ever more highly-subsidised wind turbines, to a commitment that by 2050 it will have reduced carbon emissions by 60 per cent. This is a pledge that could only be met by such a massive reduction in living standards that it is impossible to see the peoples of Europe accepting it.

All this frenzy has rested on the assumption that global temperatures will continue to rise in tandem with CO2 and that, unless mankind takes drastic action, our planet is faced with the apocalypse so vividly described by Al Gore in his Oscar-winning film An Inconvenient Truth.

Yet recently, stage five of the story has seen all sorts of question marks being raised over Gore's alleged consensus. For instance, he claimed that by the end of this century world sea levels will have risen by 20 ft when even the IPCC in its latest report, only predicts a rise of between four and 17 inches.There is also of course the harsh reality that, wholly unaffected by Kyoto, the economies of China and India are now expanding at nearly 10 per cent a year, with China likely to be emitting more CO2 than the US within two years.

More serious, however, has been all the evidence accumulating to show that, despite the continuing rise in CO2 levels, global temperatures in the years since 1998 have no longer been rising and may soon even be falling.

It was a telling moment when, in August, Gore's closest scientific ally, James Hansen of the Goddard Institute for Space Studies, was forced to revise his influential record of US surface temperatures showing that the past decade has seen the hottest years on record. His graph now concedes that the hottest year of the 20th century was not 1998 but 1934, and that four of the 10 warmest years in the past 100 were in the 1930s.

Furthermore, scientists and academics have recently been queuing up to point out that fluctuations in global temperatures correlate more consistently with patterns of radiation from the sun than with any rise in CO2 levels, and that after a century of high solar activity, the sun's effect is now weakening, presaging a likely drop in temperatures.

If global warming does turn out to have been a scare like all the others, it will certainly represent as great a collective flight from reality as history has ever recorded. The evidence of the next 10 years will be very interesting.


http://www.telegraph.co.uk/earth/mai...104.xml&page=1
 
Extrafire
#60
Quote: Originally Posted by Cobalt_Kid View Post

Oil is almost $100 a barrel now, I want to know where that money is going. A few individuals are getting extremely wealthy as global warming is causing serious problems around the planet.

Ever look at the commodity market? It's going to speculators and investors. And if you take inflation into account, it was higher priced in the "70's.
Quote: Originally Posted by Cobalt_Kid View Post

Some effects of global Warming:

More frequent extreme weather- Droughts, flooding, tornados, hurricanes etc...

Nonsense. There were more hurricanes in the first half of the 20th century than the second half. Current droughts are small compared to historical events.
Quote: Originally Posted by Cobalt_Kid View Post

Disappearing glaciers worldwide

You like ice ages? Yes, when it warms in temperate areas, glaciers melt. And guess what's showing up under those glaciers? Remains of old growth forests! Seems it was much warmer in the past.
Quote: Originally Posted by Cobalt_Kid View Post

Melting sea ice at both poles

Wrong again. South pole ice is increasing. This year Antarctic sea ice was greatest since records have been kept.
Quote: Originally Posted by Cobalt_Kid View Post

Greenlands Icesheet melting

The southern end is melting, but still nowhere near as melted as it was 900 years ago when the Norse farmed there. The northern half is increasing.
Quote: Originally Posted by Cobalt_Kid View Post

Tropical diseases spreading

Nonsense. That's just Al Gore bullsh1t.
Quote: Originally Posted by Cobalt_Kid View Post

CO2 levels are up by 35% in the last 200 years and methane levels are up by 145%. It's mostly those who are determined to protect the fossil fuels industry and motivated by greed who are denying Global Warming.

You guys keep saying that. Please get your conspiracies straight. It's the cause of climate change that's in dispute, not climate change itself.

Quote: Originally Posted by Cobalt_Kid View Post

The fact that Gore and others are able to do anything against the most powerful and wealthy lobby in the world today shows their commitment to deal with this most serious of issues.

Al Gore IS one of the most powerful and wealthy lobby's in the world today.