Global Warming ‘Greatest Scam in History’
- Thread starter Locutus
- Start date
- Status
For Kyoto's champions, the meetings never end
Lorne Gunter, National Post Published: Monday, December 17, 2007
Sonny Tumbelaka, AFP, Getty ImagesThe UN climate change conference in Bali -- the 13th Kyoto-related conference -- concluded last Friday.
If you want an indication of just how utterly meaningless the "historic" Bali global warming deal was, consider this: The UN climate change meeting that concluded on Friday was officially the 13th conference of the parties (COP) to the Kyoto accords. It was the 10th since the international greenhouse gas treaty was created more than a decade ago.
Every year, these same signatories meet. Every year, they go over (and over) the same territory. Every year, they dicker, blather, preach, assail, negotiate, draft and redraft (not to mention flying from one exotic location to another eating, drinking and living off fat publicly funded expense accounts). And every year, they leave claiming to have reached an historic consensus to save the UN climate change process.
There is never any "final" deal. The goalposts move at every conference, and often three or four times during the pre-negotiations that occur between COPs. Don't like a COP agreement? Wait a few months. It'll change.
You may remember that COP-11 was held in Montreal in December, 2005, during the first two weeks of Canada's last general election. It, too, was hailed as historic. Stephane Dion, then the Liberal environment minister, was praised as the saviour of the Kyoto process for having hammered out some last-minute deal that kept negotiations alive through COP-12. But just what bargaining catastrophe Mr. Dion is supposed to have averted can no longer be recalled -- just as the "historic" achievements of Bali will quickly be lost in the mists -- because the substance of the agreement was completely meaningless.
Achievement means little to the UN's climate crusaders. It's the appearance of activity that counts. Keep moving, keep meeting, keep the shrimp toast and single malts coming, and the need actually to accomplish some tangible environmental outcome becomes inconsequential.
The Kyoto process is the ultimate triumph of symbolism over substance.
Consider the reception for Kevin Rudd, the new Australian prime minister. He wins power on the eve of the Bali conference and announces his first act
as PM will be to sign the Kyoto accord and agree to deep emissions cuts --perhaps as much as 60% by 2020. He then flies off to the Indonesia resort where the 15,000 delegates and hangers-on welcome him as a conquering hero.
But three days into the UN gathering, Australia's electricity commission tells the new prime minister that his government's proposals will lead to a rise in electrical bills of at least 30%, perhaps more. Such an increase would almost surely stunt Australia's booming economy. So Mr. Rudd backs down. He announces his country will not agree to immediate cuts, but rather now favours cuts of 50-60% by 2050.
These are the same levels and deadline that have been advocated by Canada's Conservative government for more than a year. But because our Tories refuse to pay homage to Kyoto as the be-all and end-all of environmental compassion, they are vilified by delegates while the Rudd government is celebrated. Symbolism over substance.
Our own Liberals, while they were in government, presided over as large a percentage increase in greenhouse gas emissions as produced by any country with binding limits under the Kyoto accord. From 1997 through 2005, our emissions rose by more than 25%. The Americans, who everyone at UN climate conferences likes to malign as the world's climate baddies, raised theirs only 17%.
If the UN climate process were about results rather than rhetoric, the Americans would be praised for slowing the pace of their emissions, while our Liberals would be held up as the worst failures and hypocrites on the planet. Instead, of course, because our Liberals never failed to pledge fealty to Kyoto, they were heroes, while the Americans were bums. Form over function.
My sneaking suspicion is that this reality finally dawned on the Americans, who agreed to sign onto the process at Bali because they realized just how hollow the whole exercise is.
The "historic" Bali agreement is no agreement at all. Rather, it is a compromise on a promise to negotiate an actual deal within the next two years. It contains no emissions quotas on any countries, developed or developing.
All it does is assure onlookers that there will be a COP-14 and a COP-15, and a whole bunch of lavish sub-committee meetings in between, at which all these full-time cause-pleaders can indulge their canape-consuming addictions and bow down before the totems of Kyoto.
Lorne Gunter, National Post Published: Monday, December 17, 2007
If you want an indication of just how utterly meaningless the "historic" Bali global warming deal was, consider this: The UN climate change meeting that concluded on Friday was officially the 13th conference of the parties (COP) to the Kyoto accords. It was the 10th since the international greenhouse gas treaty was created more than a decade ago.
Every year, these same signatories meet. Every year, they go over (and over) the same territory. Every year, they dicker, blather, preach, assail, negotiate, draft and redraft (not to mention flying from one exotic location to another eating, drinking and living off fat publicly funded expense accounts). And every year, they leave claiming to have reached an historic consensus to save the UN climate change process.
There is never any "final" deal. The goalposts move at every conference, and often three or four times during the pre-negotiations that occur between COPs. Don't like a COP agreement? Wait a few months. It'll change.
You may remember that COP-11 was held in Montreal in December, 2005, during the first two weeks of Canada's last general election. It, too, was hailed as historic. Stephane Dion, then the Liberal environment minister, was praised as the saviour of the Kyoto process for having hammered out some last-minute deal that kept negotiations alive through COP-12. But just what bargaining catastrophe Mr. Dion is supposed to have averted can no longer be recalled -- just as the "historic" achievements of Bali will quickly be lost in the mists -- because the substance of the agreement was completely meaningless.
Achievement means little to the UN's climate crusaders. It's the appearance of activity that counts. Keep moving, keep meeting, keep the shrimp toast and single malts coming, and the need actually to accomplish some tangible environmental outcome becomes inconsequential.
The Kyoto process is the ultimate triumph of symbolism over substance.
Consider the reception for Kevin Rudd, the new Australian prime minister. He wins power on the eve of the Bali conference and announces his first act
as PM will be to sign the Kyoto accord and agree to deep emissions cuts --perhaps as much as 60% by 2020. He then flies off to the Indonesia resort where the 15,000 delegates and hangers-on welcome him as a conquering hero.
But three days into the UN gathering, Australia's electricity commission tells the new prime minister that his government's proposals will lead to a rise in electrical bills of at least 30%, perhaps more. Such an increase would almost surely stunt Australia's booming economy. So Mr. Rudd backs down. He announces his country will not agree to immediate cuts, but rather now favours cuts of 50-60% by 2050.
These are the same levels and deadline that have been advocated by Canada's Conservative government for more than a year. But because our Tories refuse to pay homage to Kyoto as the be-all and end-all of environmental compassion, they are vilified by delegates while the Rudd government is celebrated. Symbolism over substance.
Our own Liberals, while they were in government, presided over as large a percentage increase in greenhouse gas emissions as produced by any country with binding limits under the Kyoto accord. From 1997 through 2005, our emissions rose by more than 25%. The Americans, who everyone at UN climate conferences likes to malign as the world's climate baddies, raised theirs only 17%.
If the UN climate process were about results rather than rhetoric, the Americans would be praised for slowing the pace of their emissions, while our Liberals would be held up as the worst failures and hypocrites on the planet. Instead, of course, because our Liberals never failed to pledge fealty to Kyoto, they were heroes, while the Americans were bums. Form over function.
My sneaking suspicion is that this reality finally dawned on the Americans, who agreed to sign onto the process at Bali because they realized just how hollow the whole exercise is.
The "historic" Bali agreement is no agreement at all. Rather, it is a compromise on a promise to negotiate an actual deal within the next two years. It contains no emissions quotas on any countries, developed or developing.
All it does is assure onlookers that there will be a COP-14 and a COP-15, and a whole bunch of lavish sub-committee meetings in between, at which all these full-time cause-pleaders can indulge their canape-consuming addictions and bow down before the totems of Kyoto.
Delegates depart Bali talks on a lot of hot air
By Christopher Booker
Last Updated: 12:01am GMT 16/12/2007
Commentary
As those 10,000 weary delegates were at last able to jet off home from 10 days on their holiday isle, perhaps the best summing up of what they had achieved came from Humberto Rosa, head of the delegation representing the European Union.
"It is exactly what we wanted," he said. "We are very pleased. We will now have two tremendously demanding years, starting in January. Many meetings, many discussions, many people passing many hours doing things."
The basic purpose of Bali, as we were tirelessly reminded by the BBC, Al Gore, old Uncle Ban Ki-moon and pretty well everyone else, was that this vast assemblage of people should gather together to vilify George Bush.
It was he alone who stood in the way of saving the planet, by refusing even to sign Kyoto into law, let alone participate in the new historic agreement which is to follow, and to discuss which Bali was all about.
(It is conveniently forgotten that it was the US Senate which unanimously voted not to ratify Kyoto in 1998, when the vice-president of the USA was Al Gore).
In the end, as in all good comedies, the "baddies" came round to the side of light, the US representative made her "climbdown" by saying that her country was now ready to join the "consensus", and everyone could go home happy.
The reality of Bali, however, was that all this vilification of America as the "world's worst polluter" was only displacement activity - to disguise the fact that, when it comes to the crunch, no one is really prepared to step off the bandwagon of economic growth, by making the unthinkable sacrifices which would be required if any of them actually meant what they said.
They are all happy to work themselves into an intense state of excitement by chanting their quasi-religious mantra: that there is now "absolute scientific consensus" that Planet Earth is doomed unless we cut our carbon emissions by 50 per cent by 2050.
But no one is prepared to take any serious step towards that inconceivable goal unless everyone else jumps too.
America refused to ratify Kyoto because it didn't include the "developing countries" such as China, still building a new coal-fired power station every four days and about to overtake the US as the world's leading CO2 emitter.
China and India say they cannot be expected to cut their emissions until they have caught up economically with the already industrialised nations which caused all that rise in CO2 in the first place.
The European Union likes to claim that it is "leading the world on climate change", while Germany builds 26 new coal-fired power stations, Britain plans to double its number of air passengers and the EU's emissions continue to rise (just when America's last year actually fell).
Thus Bali ends in a wonderfully meaningless compromise, whereby everyone, including America, agrees that they want their carbon-free pie-in-the-sky, so long as they don't yet have to sign up to actual figures and mandatory targets.
The only people really rejoicing in Bali were all those beady-eyed businessmen who have sussed out that the "carbon trading schemes" set up under Kyoto are turning into the most colossal commercial racket of our day.
As for the armadas of politicians and officials, as the man from the EU said, they can look forward to "many meetings, many discussions, many people passing many hours doing things", lasting from here to the crack of doom (which incidentally may never arrive, because, though CO2 levels are still rising, global temperatures are not - a fact mentioned in Bali by precisely no one).
By Christopher Booker
Last Updated: 12:01am GMT 16/12/2007
Commentary
As those 10,000 weary delegates were at last able to jet off home from 10 days on their holiday isle, perhaps the best summing up of what they had achieved came from Humberto Rosa, head of the delegation representing the European Union.
"It is exactly what we wanted," he said. "We are very pleased. We will now have two tremendously demanding years, starting in January. Many meetings, many discussions, many people passing many hours doing things."
The basic purpose of Bali, as we were tirelessly reminded by the BBC, Al Gore, old Uncle Ban Ki-moon and pretty well everyone else, was that this vast assemblage of people should gather together to vilify George Bush.
It was he alone who stood in the way of saving the planet, by refusing even to sign Kyoto into law, let alone participate in the new historic agreement which is to follow, and to discuss which Bali was all about.
(It is conveniently forgotten that it was the US Senate which unanimously voted not to ratify Kyoto in 1998, when the vice-president of the USA was Al Gore).
In the end, as in all good comedies, the "baddies" came round to the side of light, the US representative made her "climbdown" by saying that her country was now ready to join the "consensus", and everyone could go home happy.
The reality of Bali, however, was that all this vilification of America as the "world's worst polluter" was only displacement activity - to disguise the fact that, when it comes to the crunch, no one is really prepared to step off the bandwagon of economic growth, by making the unthinkable sacrifices which would be required if any of them actually meant what they said.
They are all happy to work themselves into an intense state of excitement by chanting their quasi-religious mantra: that there is now "absolute scientific consensus" that Planet Earth is doomed unless we cut our carbon emissions by 50 per cent by 2050.
But no one is prepared to take any serious step towards that inconceivable goal unless everyone else jumps too.
America refused to ratify Kyoto because it didn't include the "developing countries" such as China, still building a new coal-fired power station every four days and about to overtake the US as the world's leading CO2 emitter.
China and India say they cannot be expected to cut their emissions until they have caught up economically with the already industrialised nations which caused all that rise in CO2 in the first place.
The European Union likes to claim that it is "leading the world on climate change", while Germany builds 26 new coal-fired power stations, Britain plans to double its number of air passengers and the EU's emissions continue to rise (just when America's last year actually fell).
Thus Bali ends in a wonderfully meaningless compromise, whereby everyone, including America, agrees that they want their carbon-free pie-in-the-sky, so long as they don't yet have to sign up to actual figures and mandatory targets.
The only people really rejoicing in Bali were all those beady-eyed businessmen who have sussed out that the "carbon trading schemes" set up under Kyoto are turning into the most colossal commercial racket of our day.
As for the armadas of politicians and officials, as the man from the EU said, they can look forward to "many meetings, many discussions, many people passing many hours doing things", lasting from here to the crack of doom (which incidentally may never arrive, because, though CO2 levels are still rising, global temperatures are not - a fact mentioned in Bali by precisely no one).
I posted this on another thread, but it relates here too.
Seems like the activists are coming up against reality.
Seems like the activists are coming up against reality.
Article published Dec 19, 2007
Year of global cooling
December 19, 2007
By David Deming - Al Gore says global warming is a planetary emergency. It is difficult to see how this can be so when record low temperatures are being set all over the world. In 2007, hundreds of people died, not from global warming, but from cold weather hazards.
Since the mid-19th century, the mean global temperature has increased by 0.7 degrees Celsius. This slight warming is not unusual, and lies well within the range of natural variation. Carbon dioxide continues to build in the atmosphere, but the mean planetary temperature hasn't increased significantly for nearly nine years. Antarctica is getting colder. Neither the intensity nor the frequency of hurricanes has increased. The 2007 season was the third-quietest since 1966. In 2006 not a single hurricane made landfall in the U.S.
South America this year experienced one of its coldest winters in decades. In Buenos Aires, snow fell for the first time since the year 1918. Dozens of homeless people died from exposure. In Peru, 200 people died from the cold and thousands more became infected with respiratory diseases. Crops failed, livestock perished, and the Peruvian government declared a state of emergency.
Unexpected bitter cold swept the entire Southern Hemisphere in 2007. Johannesburg, South Africa, had the first significant snowfall in 26 years. Australia experienced the coldest June ever. In northeastern Australia, the city of Townsville underwent the longest period of continuously cold weather since 1941. In New Zealand, the weather turned so cold that vineyards were endangered.
Last January, $1.42 billion worth of California produce was lost to a devastating five-day freeze. Thousands of agricultural employees were thrown out of work. At the supermarket, citrus prices soared. In the wake of the freeze, California Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger asked President Bush to issue a disaster declaration for affected counties. A few months earlier, Mr. Schwarzenegger had enthusiastically signed the California Global Warming Solutions Act of 2006, a law designed to cool the climate. California Sen. Barbara Boxer continues to push for similar legislation in the U.S. Senate.
In April, a killing freeze destroyed 95 percent of South Carolina's peach crop, and 90 percent of North Carolina's apple harvest. At Charlotte, N.C., a record low temperature of 21 degrees Fahrenheit on April 8 was the coldest ever recorded for April, breaking a record set in 1923. On June 8, Denver recorded a new low of 31 degrees Fahrenheit. Denver's temperature records extend back to 1872.
Recent weeks have seen the return of unusually cold conditions to the Northern Hemisphere. On Dec. 7, St. Cloud, Minn., set a new record low of minus 15 degrees Fahrenheit. On the same date, record low temperatures were also recorded in Pennsylvania and Ohio.
Extreme cold weather is occurring worldwide. On Dec. 4, in Seoul, Korea, the temperature was a record minus 5 degrees Celsius. Nov. 24, in Meacham, Ore., the minimum temperature was 12 degrees Fahrenheit colder than the previous record low set in 1952. The Canadian government warns that this winter is likely to be the coldest in 15 years.
Oklahoma, Kansas and Missouri are just emerging from a destructive ice storm that left at least 36 people dead and a million without electric power. People worldwide are being reminded of what used to be common sense: Cold temperatures are inimical to human welfare and warm weather is beneficial. Left in the dark and cold, Oklahomans rushed out to buy electric generators powered by gasoline, not solar cells. No one seemed particularly concerned about the welfare of polar bears, penguins or walruses. Fossil fuels don't seem so awful when you're in the cold and dark.
If you think any of the preceding facts can falsify global warming, you're hopelessly naive. Nothing creates cognitive dissonance in the mind of a true believer. In 2005, a Canadian Greenpeace representative explained “global warming can mean colder, it can mean drier, it can mean wetter.” In other words, all weather variations are evidence for global warming. I can't make this stuff up.
Global warming has long since passed from scientific hypothesis to the realm of pseudo-scientific mumbo-jumbo.
David Deming is a geophysicist, an adjunct scholar with the National Center for Policy Analysis, and associate professor of Arts and Sciences at the University of Oklahoma.
Year of global cooling
December 19, 2007
By David Deming - Al Gore says global warming is a planetary emergency. It is difficult to see how this can be so when record low temperatures are being set all over the world. In 2007, hundreds of people died, not from global warming, but from cold weather hazards.
Since the mid-19th century, the mean global temperature has increased by 0.7 degrees Celsius. This slight warming is not unusual, and lies well within the range of natural variation. Carbon dioxide continues to build in the atmosphere, but the mean planetary temperature hasn't increased significantly for nearly nine years. Antarctica is getting colder. Neither the intensity nor the frequency of hurricanes has increased. The 2007 season was the third-quietest since 1966. In 2006 not a single hurricane made landfall in the U.S.
South America this year experienced one of its coldest winters in decades. In Buenos Aires, snow fell for the first time since the year 1918. Dozens of homeless people died from exposure. In Peru, 200 people died from the cold and thousands more became infected with respiratory diseases. Crops failed, livestock perished, and the Peruvian government declared a state of emergency.
Unexpected bitter cold swept the entire Southern Hemisphere in 2007. Johannesburg, South Africa, had the first significant snowfall in 26 years. Australia experienced the coldest June ever. In northeastern Australia, the city of Townsville underwent the longest period of continuously cold weather since 1941. In New Zealand, the weather turned so cold that vineyards were endangered.
Last January, $1.42 billion worth of California produce was lost to a devastating five-day freeze. Thousands of agricultural employees were thrown out of work. At the supermarket, citrus prices soared. In the wake of the freeze, California Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger asked President Bush to issue a disaster declaration for affected counties. A few months earlier, Mr. Schwarzenegger had enthusiastically signed the California Global Warming Solutions Act of 2006, a law designed to cool the climate. California Sen. Barbara Boxer continues to push for similar legislation in the U.S. Senate.
In April, a killing freeze destroyed 95 percent of South Carolina's peach crop, and 90 percent of North Carolina's apple harvest. At Charlotte, N.C., a record low temperature of 21 degrees Fahrenheit on April 8 was the coldest ever recorded for April, breaking a record set in 1923. On June 8, Denver recorded a new low of 31 degrees Fahrenheit. Denver's temperature records extend back to 1872.
Recent weeks have seen the return of unusually cold conditions to the Northern Hemisphere. On Dec. 7, St. Cloud, Minn., set a new record low of minus 15 degrees Fahrenheit. On the same date, record low temperatures were also recorded in Pennsylvania and Ohio.
Extreme cold weather is occurring worldwide. On Dec. 4, in Seoul, Korea, the temperature was a record minus 5 degrees Celsius. Nov. 24, in Meacham, Ore., the minimum temperature was 12 degrees Fahrenheit colder than the previous record low set in 1952. The Canadian government warns that this winter is likely to be the coldest in 15 years.
Oklahoma, Kansas and Missouri are just emerging from a destructive ice storm that left at least 36 people dead and a million without electric power. People worldwide are being reminded of what used to be common sense: Cold temperatures are inimical to human welfare and warm weather is beneficial. Left in the dark and cold, Oklahomans rushed out to buy electric generators powered by gasoline, not solar cells. No one seemed particularly concerned about the welfare of polar bears, penguins or walruses. Fossil fuels don't seem so awful when you're in the cold and dark.
If you think any of the preceding facts can falsify global warming, you're hopelessly naive. Nothing creates cognitive dissonance in the mind of a true believer. In 2005, a Canadian Greenpeace representative explained “global warming can mean colder, it can mean drier, it can mean wetter.” In other words, all weather variations are evidence for global warming. I can't make this stuff up.
Global warming has long since passed from scientific hypothesis to the realm of pseudo-scientific mumbo-jumbo.
David Deming is a geophysicist, an adjunct scholar with the National Center for Policy Analysis, and associate professor of Arts and Sciences at the University of Oklahoma.
He's a fine one to talk about mumbo jumbo. Nine years ago was not the warmest year, 2005 gets the title. 2007 is on pace to come in at second place, and this comes as the Pacific was cooler than it has been in the past couple years, and we've made the transition into lower solar irradience.
I don't believe in Gore's hyped up Global Warming scam and it's not because I'm scared of the future or something, but rather, I have been following pollution, weather patterns and effects since I was 6 or 7.... (86-87') and I was recycling long before most knew what they ment.
But the main reasons why I don't believe in "Global Warming" is because during this time when I was a kid, they were talking about all this disasterous effects and flooding, melting of ice caps, people starving, etc.... all back in the late 70's and 80's.... and all this crap was predicted to occur in the mid/late 90's.
Now it's the 2000's and although they have reported things have gotten much worse then better since the 80's.... now this prediction has been pushed another 30-50 some odd years down the road..... WTF? How does that logically work?
I'll tell you how it works.... these scientists get paid to do this... they throw out some prediction which can not be proven until decades later either after they died and got all the money they needed, or decades later when everybody forgets about the predictions (Much like the one's back in the 80's)
But the other factor would be the 100 years or so of studies and predictions where scientists were predicting a massive Ice Age occuring.... oh but now in the last 5 years.... it's Global Warming?
Why?
Because in the last couple of decades our global tempratures have been increasing.... fine and dandy. That's not Global Warming though....
If anybody checks out studied from 1885-1900's you will see there was also a similar peak at that time in tempratures, then for most of the 1900's there were major cooling trends which made them think of an Ice Age coming.
But also, let's not forget the "Calm before the Storm" theory. It's been getting quite warm in the last couple of decades.... but have you also noticed at the same time Hurricanes have reduced in yearly ammount, but increased in size and power? Hurricanes are Nature's Air Conditioners and help keep the planet cooled down. The warmer it get's the bigger the hurricanes. It maybe getting warmer then normal, but Nature and the Earth will basically smash us with the possibility of an Ice Age to counter the effects for it's own survival (Humans be damned)
In other words.... I fully believe there is a "Climate Change" occuring.... but it's got nothing to do with "Global Warming" As if GW was the true case.... then why is Canada being smacked with the coldest winter in years/decades as we speak?
I also believe Human pollution has an effect on what is coming our way.... but what's coming our way has been coming long before we became industrialized and started spewing smog and garbage. All that our pollution will do is perhaps prolong and intensify what's already coming our way.
The other aspect to pay attention to, is that scientists are telling us all that we "MUST ACT NOW BEFORE IT'S TOO LATE" ~ Well that's what they were saying in the 80's.... we were supposed to act then to prevent what was to occur in the 90's...... if something is on it's way to lay the smack down on us all.... it's already too late to make a difference by their original predictions.
Us humans can not continue to worry about loosing species and our current habitats.... the planet is alive, it is ment to change over time, and we are supposed to survive as the fittest. Species die, and new ones are created based on the enviroment. We're already discovering new species around the world as we speak.... the cycle continues.
And if we attempt to keep the planet as it currently is and forcing our preferred climate on the globe, then in turn we will be our own destruction.
Big climate change is coming our way.... but it's got nothing to do with Global Warming.
But the main reasons why I don't believe in "Global Warming" is because during this time when I was a kid, they were talking about all this disasterous effects and flooding, melting of ice caps, people starving, etc.... all back in the late 70's and 80's.... and all this crap was predicted to occur in the mid/late 90's.
Now it's the 2000's and although they have reported things have gotten much worse then better since the 80's.... now this prediction has been pushed another 30-50 some odd years down the road..... WTF? How does that logically work?
I'll tell you how it works.... these scientists get paid to do this... they throw out some prediction which can not be proven until decades later either after they died and got all the money they needed, or decades later when everybody forgets about the predictions (Much like the one's back in the 80's)
But the other factor would be the 100 years or so of studies and predictions where scientists were predicting a massive Ice Age occuring.... oh but now in the last 5 years.... it's Global Warming?
Why?
Because in the last couple of decades our global tempratures have been increasing.... fine and dandy. That's not Global Warming though....
If anybody checks out studied from 1885-1900's you will see there was also a similar peak at that time in tempratures, then for most of the 1900's there were major cooling trends which made them think of an Ice Age coming.
But also, let's not forget the "Calm before the Storm" theory. It's been getting quite warm in the last couple of decades.... but have you also noticed at the same time Hurricanes have reduced in yearly ammount, but increased in size and power? Hurricanes are Nature's Air Conditioners and help keep the planet cooled down. The warmer it get's the bigger the hurricanes. It maybe getting warmer then normal, but Nature and the Earth will basically smash us with the possibility of an Ice Age to counter the effects for it's own survival (Humans be damned)
In other words.... I fully believe there is a "Climate Change" occuring.... but it's got nothing to do with "Global Warming" As if GW was the true case.... then why is Canada being smacked with the coldest winter in years/decades as we speak?
I also believe Human pollution has an effect on what is coming our way.... but what's coming our way has been coming long before we became industrialized and started spewing smog and garbage. All that our pollution will do is perhaps prolong and intensify what's already coming our way.
The other aspect to pay attention to, is that scientists are telling us all that we "MUST ACT NOW BEFORE IT'S TOO LATE" ~ Well that's what they were saying in the 80's.... we were supposed to act then to prevent what was to occur in the 90's...... if something is on it's way to lay the smack down on us all.... it's already too late to make a difference by their original predictions.
Us humans can not continue to worry about loosing species and our current habitats.... the planet is alive, it is ment to change over time, and we are supposed to survive as the fittest. Species die, and new ones are created based on the enviroment. We're already discovering new species around the world as we speak.... the cycle continues.
And if we attempt to keep the planet as it currently is and forcing our preferred climate on the globe, then in turn we will be our own destruction.
Big climate change is coming our way.... but it's got nothing to do with Global Warming.
What effect do you think this is having on the overall scheme of things?
http://www.nasa.gov/mission_pages/hurricanes/archives/2007/hurricane_dust.html
http://www.nasa.gov/mission_pages/hurricanes/archives/2007/hurricane_dust.html
Has global warming stopped?
David Whitehouse
Published 19 December 2007
'The fact is that the global temperature of 2007 is statistically the same as 2006 and every year since 2001'
Global warming stopped? Surely not. What heresy is this? Haven’t we been told that the science of global warming is settled beyond doubt and that all that’s left to the so-called sceptics is the odd errant glacier that refuses to melt?
Aren’t we told that if we don’t act now rising temperatures will render most of the surface of the Earth uninhabitable within our lifetimes? But as we digest these apocalyptic comments, read the recent IPCC’s Synthesis report that says climate change could become irreversible. Witness the drama at Bali as news emerges that something is not quite right in the global warming camp.
With only few days remaining in 2007, the indications are the global temperature for this year is the same as that for 2006 – there has been no warming over the 12 months.
But is this just a blip in the ever upward trend you may ask? No.
The fact is that the global temperature of 2007 is statistically the same as 2006 as well as every year since 2001. Global warming has, temporarily or permanently, ceased. Temperatures across the world are not increasing as they should according to the fundamental theory behind global warming – the greenhouse effect. Something else is happening and it is vital that we find out what or else we may spend hundreds of billions of pounds needlessly.
Complete article: http://www.newstatesman.com/200712190004
David Whitehouse
Published 19 December 2007
'The fact is that the global temperature of 2007 is statistically the same as 2006 and every year since 2001'
Global warming stopped? Surely not. What heresy is this? Haven’t we been told that the science of global warming is settled beyond doubt and that all that’s left to the so-called sceptics is the odd errant glacier that refuses to melt?
Aren’t we told that if we don’t act now rising temperatures will render most of the surface of the Earth uninhabitable within our lifetimes? But as we digest these apocalyptic comments, read the recent IPCC’s Synthesis report that says climate change could become irreversible. Witness the drama at Bali as news emerges that something is not quite right in the global warming camp.
With only few days remaining in 2007, the indications are the global temperature for this year is the same as that for 2006 – there has been no warming over the 12 months.
But is this just a blip in the ever upward trend you may ask? No.
The fact is that the global temperature of 2007 is statistically the same as 2006 as well as every year since 2001. Global warming has, temporarily or permanently, ceased. Temperatures across the world are not increasing as they should according to the fundamental theory behind global warming – the greenhouse effect. Something else is happening and it is vital that we find out what or else we may spend hundreds of billions of pounds needlessly.
Complete article: http://www.newstatesman.com/200712190004
A beautiful co-host and a brain.
Man-Made Global Warming: 10 Questions
by Pat Sajak (more by this author)
Posted 12/20/2007 ET
Updated 12/20/2007 ET
The subject of man-made global warming is almost impossible to discuss without a descent into virulent name-calling (especially on the Internet, where anonymity breeds a special kind of vicious reaction to almost any social or political question), but I’ll try anyway. I consider myself to be relatively well-read on the matter, and I’ve still come down on the skeptical side, because there are aspects of the issue that don’t make a lot of sense to me. Though I confess to have written none-to-reverentially on the subject, I want to try to put all that aside and ask ten serious questions to which I have been unable to find definitive answers:
1. What is the perfect temperature?
If we are to embark on a lifestyle-altering quest to lower the temperature (or at least minimize its rise), what is our goal? I don’t ask this flippantly. Can we demonstrate that one setting on the global thermostat is preferable over another? If so, what is it, and how do we get there? And, once there, how do we maintain it? Will we ever have to “heat things up” again if it drops below that point?
2. Just what is the average temperature of the earth?
At any one time there are temperature extremes all over the planet. How do we come up with an average, and how do those variations fit in with our desire to slow global warming?
3. What factors have led to global warming in the past, and how do we know they aren’t the causes of the current warming trend?
Again, I don’t ask this in a judgmental way. There is no argument that warming cycles (or cooling, for that matter) have been a part of earth’s history. Why are we so sure this one is different?
4. Why is there such a strong effort to stifle discussion and dissent?
I’m always troubled by arguments that begin, “Everybody agrees...” or “Everyone knows...” In fact, there is a good deal of dissent in the scientific world about the theory of man-made global warming. A large (and growing) segment of those who study such things are questioning some of the basic premises of the theory. Why should there be anything wrong with that? Again, this is a big deal, and we should have the best information and opinion from the best minds.
5. Why are there such dramatically different warnings about the effects of man-made global warming?
Predictions of 20-foot rises in ocean levels have given way to talk of a few inches over time. In many cases, those predictions are less than the rises of the past few centuries. Whatever the case, why the scare tactics?
6. Are there potential benefits to global warming?
Again, I don’t ask this mockingly. Would a warmer climate in some areas actually improve living conditions? Would such improvement (health, crop production, lifestyle) balance any negative impact from the phenomenon?
7. Should such drastic changes in public policy be based on a “what if?” proposition?
There are some who say we can’t afford to wait, and, even if there’s some doubt, we should move ahead with altering the way we live. While there are good arguments for changing some of our environmental policies, should they be based on “what it?”
8. What will be the impact on the people of the world if we change the way we live based on man-made global warming concerns?
Nothing happens in a vacuum; there are always unintended consequences to our actions. For example, if we were to dramatically reduce our need for international oil, what happens to the economies of the Middle East and the populations that rely on oil income? There are thousands of other implications, some good and some bad. What are they? Shouldn’t we be thinking about them and talking about them?
9. How will we measure our successes?
Is the measuring stick going to be temperature, sea level, number of annual hurricanes, rainfall, or a combination of all those things? Again, do we have a goal in mind? What happens when we get there?
10. How has this movement gained such momentum?
We’ve faced environmental issues throughout our history, but it’s difficult to remember one which has gained such “status” in such a short time. To a skeptic, there seems to be a religious fervor that makes one wary. A gradual “ramping down” of the dire predictions has not led to a diminution of the doomsday rhetoric. Are these warning signs that the movement has become more of an activist cause than a scientific reality?
Just asking.
Man-Made Global Warming: 10 Questions
by Pat Sajak (more by this author)
Posted 12/20/2007 ET
Updated 12/20/2007 ET
The subject of man-made global warming is almost impossible to discuss without a descent into virulent name-calling (especially on the Internet, where anonymity breeds a special kind of vicious reaction to almost any social or political question), but I’ll try anyway. I consider myself to be relatively well-read on the matter, and I’ve still come down on the skeptical side, because there are aspects of the issue that don’t make a lot of sense to me. Though I confess to have written none-to-reverentially on the subject, I want to try to put all that aside and ask ten serious questions to which I have been unable to find definitive answers:
1. What is the perfect temperature?
If we are to embark on a lifestyle-altering quest to lower the temperature (or at least minimize its rise), what is our goal? I don’t ask this flippantly. Can we demonstrate that one setting on the global thermostat is preferable over another? If so, what is it, and how do we get there? And, once there, how do we maintain it? Will we ever have to “heat things up” again if it drops below that point?
2. Just what is the average temperature of the earth?
At any one time there are temperature extremes all over the planet. How do we come up with an average, and how do those variations fit in with our desire to slow global warming?
3. What factors have led to global warming in the past, and how do we know they aren’t the causes of the current warming trend?
Again, I don’t ask this in a judgmental way. There is no argument that warming cycles (or cooling, for that matter) have been a part of earth’s history. Why are we so sure this one is different?
4. Why is there such a strong effort to stifle discussion and dissent?
I’m always troubled by arguments that begin, “Everybody agrees...” or “Everyone knows...” In fact, there is a good deal of dissent in the scientific world about the theory of man-made global warming. A large (and growing) segment of those who study such things are questioning some of the basic premises of the theory. Why should there be anything wrong with that? Again, this is a big deal, and we should have the best information and opinion from the best minds.
5. Why are there such dramatically different warnings about the effects of man-made global warming?
Predictions of 20-foot rises in ocean levels have given way to talk of a few inches over time. In many cases, those predictions are less than the rises of the past few centuries. Whatever the case, why the scare tactics?
6. Are there potential benefits to global warming?
Again, I don’t ask this mockingly. Would a warmer climate in some areas actually improve living conditions? Would such improvement (health, crop production, lifestyle) balance any negative impact from the phenomenon?
7. Should such drastic changes in public policy be based on a “what if?” proposition?
There are some who say we can’t afford to wait, and, even if there’s some doubt, we should move ahead with altering the way we live. While there are good arguments for changing some of our environmental policies, should they be based on “what it?”
8. What will be the impact on the people of the world if we change the way we live based on man-made global warming concerns?
Nothing happens in a vacuum; there are always unintended consequences to our actions. For example, if we were to dramatically reduce our need for international oil, what happens to the economies of the Middle East and the populations that rely on oil income? There are thousands of other implications, some good and some bad. What are they? Shouldn’t we be thinking about them and talking about them?
9. How will we measure our successes?
Is the measuring stick going to be temperature, sea level, number of annual hurricanes, rainfall, or a combination of all those things? Again, do we have a goal in mind? What happens when we get there?
10. How has this movement gained such momentum?
We’ve faced environmental issues throughout our history, but it’s difficult to remember one which has gained such “status” in such a short time. To a skeptic, there seems to be a religious fervor that makes one wary. A gradual “ramping down” of the dire predictions has not led to a diminution of the doomsday rhetoric. Are these warning signs that the movement has become more of an activist cause than a scientific reality?
Just asking.
Because it is a way to squeeze money out of countries. It is a way to squeeze money that hasn't been squeezed yet. This is political and has very little to do with science at this point. It is about control and power. Special Interests groups putting the squeeze on big business because this is the biggest opportunity they have had in quite some time.
Oh yeah, let's also not forget that the polar axis has also shifted, as well our positioning compared to the Sun's location would also mess with studies and reports.
Bottom line, there are way too many factors that are currently in play, have always been in play, and will continue to be in play, that the only logical reason why these scientists are pulling such a massive fear mongering mission could be attributed to one or more of the following:
• Gore makes his movie based on the same studies I have studied, places his little twist of extreme worse case scenario, backs it up with many of his scientist buddies he has in his pocket to make it sound plausable..... But he and his movie completely ignore "Nature" and continues to think that pollution and man kind have some major influence on the planet..... sorry, we're not that special... the planet has major influences on us is more like it.... if we abuse it, it will abuse us.
• He leeches off old stale reports which never got anywhere in the last 20 some odd years, makes a movie with a lovely twist to it, his movie makes all kinds of money at the box offices and in DVD sales, so it MUST be true.
• Because the movie made a pile of money (Notice that until his movie came out, there's wasn't much of a boo about global warming) and it was a former vice president of the US, not to mention the runner up to being a president, the UN decides to throw in a circus of scientists to go over the details. What came to be out of those meetings was a statistical and majority conclusion.... not absolute truth..... As there were many scientists who opposed the final decision and with good reasons.... oh but did anybody get to hear their side of the argument?
And let's all remember, that 83.56% of all statistics are made up on the spot. Not to mention that statistics only focus on the thing it is ment to do.... not giving you an overall big picture of what's going on, as well, many many factors are not put into play in statistics because it makes the final answer clouded with uncertainty.... AKA: not the answers they want.
Sure hell.... we all know that reducing pollution and recycling helps not just the enviroment but our own health, and if we can change our ways to a better method of living.... sure why not?
But throwing all this BS out, twisting Climate Change into "Global Warming", trying to tell us we're all gonna die and humanity will be on the brink of destruction if we don't stop what we're doing right now, is blaitent fear mongering and Gore and his little money grubbing buddies can goto hell for all I care.
You want to change how we pollute and interact with nature and our planet, fine.... go right ahead.... but at least be honest about it and stop with this foolish witch hunt for something made up.
The funny thing is that with all this "Rush rush.... we gotta change right now or we're all dead" mentality, isn't gonna do anything in regards to the Enviroment.... people are going to rush and buy as many new lightbulbs and electric cars they can, these companies and Gore will be getting all their money loaded on themselves because of it.... Major Climate Change will be in full effect, and while they blow all their money they made on the fear mongering and to help them survive better then we will... they can always say "Well we warned you, now it's too late." and laugh all the way to the bank.
And on the flip side of that, if climate change isn't that big of a thing and this century ends up much like last century, they could easily say "See, we did what was needed to be done and we stopped it from happening" ~ Either way, they end up making it appear that they were right.
Come on people.... all is required is to look at the evidence yourself, and use your own common sense to see the truth.
Yes the Ice caps are melting.... they always have, and they will expand again too.... See what happens when you put all your faith in Scientific Studies that never existed until recently about the millions of years our planet has existed?
Let's not forget... scientist also screwed up royally on Dinosaurs and how they were made up when they were first discovered.... anybody remember what T-Rex originally looked like? They had the friggin bones all over the damn place. Oh but they're scientists... they know best, so we shouldn't question them.... psssh.
Bottom line, there are way too many factors that are currently in play, have always been in play, and will continue to be in play, that the only logical reason why these scientists are pulling such a massive fear mongering mission could be attributed to one or more of the following:
• Gore makes his movie based on the same studies I have studied, places his little twist of extreme worse case scenario, backs it up with many of his scientist buddies he has in his pocket to make it sound plausable..... But he and his movie completely ignore "Nature" and continues to think that pollution and man kind have some major influence on the planet..... sorry, we're not that special... the planet has major influences on us is more like it.... if we abuse it, it will abuse us.
• He leeches off old stale reports which never got anywhere in the last 20 some odd years, makes a movie with a lovely twist to it, his movie makes all kinds of money at the box offices and in DVD sales, so it MUST be true.
• Because the movie made a pile of money (Notice that until his movie came out, there's wasn't much of a boo about global warming) and it was a former vice president of the US, not to mention the runner up to being a president, the UN decides to throw in a circus of scientists to go over the details. What came to be out of those meetings was a statistical and majority conclusion.... not absolute truth..... As there were many scientists who opposed the final decision and with good reasons.... oh but did anybody get to hear their side of the argument?
And let's all remember, that 83.56% of all statistics are made up on the spot. Not to mention that statistics only focus on the thing it is ment to do.... not giving you an overall big picture of what's going on, as well, many many factors are not put into play in statistics because it makes the final answer clouded with uncertainty.... AKA: not the answers they want.
Sure hell.... we all know that reducing pollution and recycling helps not just the enviroment but our own health, and if we can change our ways to a better method of living.... sure why not?
But throwing all this BS out, twisting Climate Change into "Global Warming", trying to tell us we're all gonna die and humanity will be on the brink of destruction if we don't stop what we're doing right now, is blaitent fear mongering and Gore and his little money grubbing buddies can goto hell for all I care.
You want to change how we pollute and interact with nature and our planet, fine.... go right ahead.... but at least be honest about it and stop with this foolish witch hunt for something made up.
The funny thing is that with all this "Rush rush.... we gotta change right now or we're all dead" mentality, isn't gonna do anything in regards to the Enviroment.... people are going to rush and buy as many new lightbulbs and electric cars they can, these companies and Gore will be getting all their money loaded on themselves because of it.... Major Climate Change will be in full effect, and while they blow all their money they made on the fear mongering and to help them survive better then we will... they can always say "Well we warned you, now it's too late." and laugh all the way to the bank.
And on the flip side of that, if climate change isn't that big of a thing and this century ends up much like last century, they could easily say "See, we did what was needed to be done and we stopped it from happening" ~ Either way, they end up making it appear that they were right.
Come on people.... all is required is to look at the evidence yourself, and use your own common sense to see the truth.
Yes the Ice caps are melting.... they always have, and they will expand again too.... See what happens when you put all your faith in Scientific Studies that never existed until recently about the millions of years our planet has existed?
Let's not forget... scientist also screwed up royally on Dinosaurs and how they were made up when they were first discovered.... anybody remember what T-Rex originally looked like? They had the friggin bones all over the damn place. Oh but they're scientists... they know best, so we shouldn't question them.... psssh.
Last edited:
ok people, Missing the point:
1.) observable proof the earth is warming (which you admit freely is true) is the Northern Passage is OPEN.
2.) Regardless of WHY the earth is warming and if its your fault or not, it is warming.
3.) A warmer earth, without any preparations for it will lead to mass civilian deaths around the world (shifting cities inland from the coast, irrigating farm land further north so we don't just suddenly run out of food, it takes lead time to get the infrastructure in place)
4.) Even if we didnt' cause it, we know exactly how to slow and or reverse it. We know how to cause global cooling if we wanted to.
So we know we have a problem (you admited this), we know how serious it is, we know how to fix it.
All of the complaining is on who's fault it is, which is slowing down the process (I'd imagine because they would be the ones stuck with the bill).
Fix the problem first, assign blame and liability after. This is literally like watching people whine about who is at fault in the car crash, before they bother dragging themselves out of the burning car.
1.) observable proof the earth is warming (which you admit freely is true) is the Northern Passage is OPEN.
2.) Regardless of WHY the earth is warming and if its your fault or not, it is warming.
3.) A warmer earth, without any preparations for it will lead to mass civilian deaths around the world (shifting cities inland from the coast, irrigating farm land further north so we don't just suddenly run out of food, it takes lead time to get the infrastructure in place)
4.) Even if we didnt' cause it, we know exactly how to slow and or reverse it. We know how to cause global cooling if we wanted to.
So we know we have a problem (you admited this), we know how serious it is, we know how to fix it.
All of the complaining is on who's fault it is, which is slowing down the process (I'd imagine because they would be the ones stuck with the bill).
Fix the problem first, assign blame and liability after. This is literally like watching people whine about who is at fault in the car crash, before they bother dragging themselves out of the burning car.
Walters article says warming stopped, that's incorrect. It doesn't even mention the true warmest year on record, which was 2005. Hansen and GISS crew will release the yearly report on temperature in January for 2007, and indications in early December were that 2007 would be second warmest, provided the world didn't have an anomalous December. Statistical tie nothing.
Praxius, the fundamentals in science that give todays scientists the tools they need to investigate further have been around long before Gore made his documentary and your attempt to use Gore solely as your lightning rod is bunk. Red herrings for breakfast? Yumm.
The earths axis is always shifting, as is the eccentricity and obliquity of our orbit. These give rise to the familiar 100,000 year cycles in the ice cores, and we're nowhere close to lining up the extreme ends of those cycles. That's why temperature leads carbon dioxide in the proxy records. There is no such warming before us that is increasing earth's emissivity. There is human caused land change use, there is human caused burning of stored hydrocarbons, and that does increase greenhouse gases. The science goes back to Tyndall.
You have a twisted view of statistics. I hope you realize that scientists used statistics in measuring the "polar axis has also shifted, as well our positioning compared to the Sun's location".
You compare recreating dinosaurs images to climate science, no scientist knows everything, in fact they know very little. They do know quite a bit about narrow subjects. Scientists talk in the most careful hedging language, while some people seem to think they know it all, and have it all figured out. Kudos chap, can you sell me the book?
Praxius, the fundamentals in science that give todays scientists the tools they need to investigate further have been around long before Gore made his documentary and your attempt to use Gore solely as your lightning rod is bunk. Red herrings for breakfast? Yumm.
The earths axis is always shifting, as is the eccentricity and obliquity of our orbit. These give rise to the familiar 100,000 year cycles in the ice cores, and we're nowhere close to lining up the extreme ends of those cycles. That's why temperature leads carbon dioxide in the proxy records. There is no such warming before us that is increasing earth's emissivity. There is human caused land change use, there is human caused burning of stored hydrocarbons, and that does increase greenhouse gases. The science goes back to Tyndall.
You have a twisted view of statistics. I hope you realize that scientists used statistics in measuring the "polar axis has also shifted, as well our positioning compared to the Sun's location".
You compare recreating dinosaurs images to climate science, no scientist knows everything, in fact they know very little. They do know quite a bit about narrow subjects. Scientists talk in the most careful hedging language, while some people seem to think they know it all, and have it all figured out. Kudos chap, can you sell me the book?
Yar.... now answer this question... did the Earth warm in the past like this... say back in the middle ages? Has the Northern Passage open in the past? Of course, you can not accurately answer these two questions, because current studies are based on what has accurately been studied since science was created.... which wasn't really that long ago.
You and I can not say that the N.Passage never opened before, nor can we say for sure that the Earth never warmed like this in the past and then cooled. These scientists are jumping to conclusions in which they can not prove.
Not this year it isn't.... at least not where I live.... it's fricking cold.... not to mention we have already had at least 2 major winter storms over a week before Winter actually hits us.... one would have to question that.
Oh... but we can't put judgement on a small example compared to the larger examples.... well that's the same mentality of trying to put judgement on this global warming compared to the overall millions of years these scientist have very little of a clue about.... so where does one draw the line?
Agreed, which is why I have been saying we're already screwed before we start.... There's already mass human deaths around the world for many various reasons, both natural and man made.... with nations and societies being destroyed and destabalized because of the future weather patterns, will just be balanced out death tolls, compared to what normally would have occured if these organized nations were able to just continue killing one another anyways as they currently are.... I see no difference, except now it will be indiscriminate.
Also there are additional studies stating that if the sea levels do rise, it will thus reduce our global tempratures, cause larger Hurricanes, which in turn would be an ample enviroment to begin the next ice age.... so while we're all scattering around worrying about what to do with global warming.... if the other possibility occurs of an Ice Age... then we're really more screwed then before.
That is if we want to..... who is to say we have that right to start further screwing with the enviroment because we think we know best? We don't.
Anybody here about the lame ass idea of filtering CO2 into rivers and streams which disapate into the Oceans, therefore reducing the ammount of CO2 in the atmosphere? Yeah, that's a smooth ass plan, remove it from one area, and shove it somewhere else so that nobody notices again for another couple of decades, meanwhile killing off sea life and altering the envrionment in the oceans... that's a great idea.
Not at all... I'm not trying to place blame on anybody, nor am I saying I recycled in the past therefore it's not my fault....
I'm just saying instead of blame shifting.... instead of trying to figure out what we can to to fix it.... perhaps we should finally accept responsibility in what we have collectively help create, stop trying to interfeer with how the planet works and regulates.... and accept the consiquences of our own actions for once and stop playing the game that we're so innocent.
Honestly, there isn't one thing we can do if Global Warming is real.... There isn't a thing we can do if it's Climate Change.... the process is already in motion and we're about to ride the big wave as a species. We have lived our lives for so many centuries, so many generations thinking we're so important and the world is for us to take and change as we see fit, and even when we're faced with the concept that our own actions may cause most of our species' destruction, we still think we can do something at the last minute to prevent what we may or may not have created....
The only thing that is going to destroy humanity is our own egos.
Oh, you're so full of it. You've said this stuff before and I've pointed out how wrong you are. Get real.
"Earth is warming if you measure from 30 years ago. Or from 200 years ago. Or from 16,000 years ago. Earth is cooling if you measure from 900 years ago, or from 1000 years ago, or from 2000 years ago, or from 8000 years ago, or from 400,000 years ago, or from millions of years ago.
So where do you pick your point to start measuring, and why? What's so special about the last 200 years? The beginning of the industrial era that you're measuring from just happens to be the coldest point since the last ice age. What makes that the ideal, how can you determine what an ideal temperature is anyway?
As pointed out, it depends where you measure from.
BS! Warmer earth was much better for humanity in the past. Only nut-bars really think the coasts will flood, all scientists know better. And warmer climate means more food production, less famine and disease. That's already been proved by history.
I asked you this before: You know how to cause global cooling??? Please tell, because no-one else does.
The only problem is the unending gullibility of the human mind, and no, there is no fix for that.
It's just a wealth transfer. Open your eyes!
Yes, even warmer. It's well known historical fact.
Yes, in the 1930's when the temps were as warm as now it was open, as well as at the end of the 19th century, and the arctic was also known to be open just before the historical "little ice age". Also well known historical fact.
Scientists have proven that the earth has warmed and cooled many times in the past, for millions of years.
{...}
Nonsense. Ice ages are a natural recurring fluctuation, and scientists have been warning for decades that we're due, if not overdue for another one. And there's nothing we can do except prepare for it. Of course, for the last few years we haven't heard that anymore because of the frenzy over "global warming".
Hey, you're right about that. Climate is an immensely complex system, and trying to control it by adjusting one tiny element of it is impossible. We know that from past meddling in complex systems, but some people just won't learn.....
Never heard of that one. Not possible, the streams won't absorb it. There is talk of sequestering it deep underground, which would work. And it would also work if it was pumped deep into the ocean, where pressure and cold would turn it to solid form (dry ice) which is heavier than water, and it would sink to the bottom and never be released. But it would make no difference to climate anyway.
That is so very true. Glad to see you're facing reality honestly.
Well, thermonuclear war could do us in. But global warming won't. Global cooling would be a disaster, but we've survived that before, albeit with major destruction and loss of life.
- Status