100 Reasons Why Climate Change is NATURAL

[fivepoint]

Interesting information... your thoughts?
Also, any comments regarding Al Gore's assertion that the entire Northern Ice Cap could be melted within 5-10 years?

http://www.dailyexpress.co.uk/posts/view/146138

1) There is “no real scientific proof” that the current warming is caused by the rise of greenhouse gases from man’s activity.

2) Man-made carbon dioxide emissions throughout human history constitute less than 0.00022 percent of the total naturally emitted from the mantle of the earth during geological history.

3) Warmer periods of the Earth’s history came around 800 years before rises in CO2 levels.

4) After World War II, there was a huge surge in recorded CO2 emissions but global temperatures fell for four decades after 1940.

5) Throughout the Earth’s history, temperatures have often been warmer than now and CO2 levels have often been higher – more than ten times as high.

6) Significant changes in climate have continually occurred throughout geologic time.

7) The 0.7C increase in the average global temperature over the last hundred years is entirely consistent with well-established, long-term, natural climate trends.

8) The IPCC theory is driven by just 60 scientists and favourable reviewers not the 4,000 usually cited.

9) Leaked e-mails from British climate scientists – in a scandal known as “Climate-gate” - suggest that that has been manipulated to exaggerate global warming

10) A large body of scientific research suggests that the sun is responsible for the greater share of climate change during the past hundred years.

11) Politicians and activiists claim rising sea levels are a direct cause of global warming but sea levels rates have been increasing steadily since the last ice age 10,000 ago

12) Philip Stott, Emeritus Professor of Biogeography at the School of Oriental and African Studies in London says climate change is too complicated to be caused by just one factor, whether CO2 or clouds

13) Peter Lilley MP said last month that “fewer people in Britain than in any other country believe in the importance of global warming. That is despite the fact that our Government and our political class—predominantly—are more committed to it than their counterparts in any other country in the world”.

14) In pursuit of the global warming rhetoric, wind farms will do very little to nothing to reduce CO2 emissions

15) Professor Plimer, Professor of Geology and Earth Sciences at the University of Adelaide, stated that the idea of taking a single trace gas in the atmosphere, accusing it and finding it guilty of total responsibility for climate change, is an “absurdity”

16) A Harvard University astrophysicist and geophysicist, Willie Soon, said he is “embarrassed and puzzled” by the shallow science in papers that support the proposition that the earth faces a climate crisis caused by global warming.

17) The science of what determines the earth’s temperature is in fact far from settled or understood.

18) Despite activist concerns over CO2 levels, CO2 is a minor greenhouse gas, unlike water vapour which is tied to climate concerns, and which we can’t even pretend to control

19) A petition by scientists trying to tell the world that the political and media portrayal of global warming is false was put forward in the Heidelberg Appeal in 1992. Today, more than 4,000 signatories, including 72 Nobel Prize winners, from 106 countries have signed it.

20) It is claimed the average global temperature increased at a dangerously fast rate in the 20th century but the recent rate of average global temperature rise has been between 1 and 2 degrees C per century - within natural rates

21) Professor Zbigniew Jaworowski, Chairman of the Scientific Council of the Central Laboratory for Radiological Protection in Warsaw, Poland says the earth’s temperature has more to do with cloud cover and water vapor than CO2 concentration in the atmosphere.

22) There is strong evidence from solar studies which suggests that the Earth’s current temperature stasis will be followed by climatic cooling over the next few decades

23) It is myth that receding glaciers are proof of global warming as glaciers have been receding and growing cyclically for many centuries

24) It is a falsehood that the earth’s poles are warming because that is natural variation and while the western Arctic may be getting somewhat warmer we also see that the Eastern Arctic and Greenland are getting colder

25) The IPCC claims climate driven “impacts on biodiversity are significant and of key relevance” but those claims are simply not supported by scientific research

26) The IPCC threat of climate change to the world’s species does not make sense as wild species are at least one million years old, which means they have all been through hundreds of climate cycles

27) Research goes strongly against claims that CO2-induced global warming would cause catastrophic disintegration of the Greenland and Antarctic Ice Sheets.

28) Despite activist concerns over CO2 levels, rising CO2 levels are our best hope of raising crop yields to feed an ever-growing population

29) The biggest climate change ever experienced on earth took place around 700 million years ago

30) The slight increase in temperature which has been observed since 1900 is entirely consistent with well-established, long-term natural climate cycles

31) Despite activist concerns over CO2 levels, rising CO2 levels of some so-called “greenhouse gases” may be contributing to higher oxygen levels and global cooling, not warming

32) Accurate satellite, balloon and mountain top observations made over the last three decades have not shown any significant change in the long term rate of increase in global temperatures

33) Today’s CO2 concentration of around 385 ppm is very low compared to most of the earth’s history – we actually live in a carbon-deficient atmosphere

34) It is a myth that CO2 is the most common greenhouse gas because greenhouse gases form about 3% of the atmosphere by volume, and CO2 constitutes about 0.037% of the atmosphere

35) It is a myth that computer models verify that CO2 increases will cause significant global warming because computer models can be made to “verify” anything

36) There is no scientific or statistical evidence whatsoever that global warming will cause more storms and other weather extremes

37) One statement deleted from a UN report in 1996 stated that “none of the studies cited above has shown clear evidence that we can attribute the observed climate changes to increases in greenhouse gases”

38) The world “warmed” by 0.07 +/- 0.07 degrees C from 1999 to 2008, not the 0.20 degrees C expected by the IPCC

39) The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change says “it is likely that future tropical cyclones (typhoons and hurricanes) will become more intense” but there has been no increase in the intensity or frequency of tropical cyclones globally

40) Rising CO2 levels in the atmosphere can be shown not only to have a negligible effect on the Earth’s many ecosystems, but in some cases to be a positive help to many organisms

41) Researchers who compare and contrast climate change impact on civilizations found warm periods are beneficial to mankind and cold periods harmful

42) The Met Office asserts we are in the hottest decade since records began but this is precisely what the world should expect if the climate is cyclical

43) Rising CO2 levels increase plant growth and make plants more resistant to drought and pests

44) The historical increase in the air’s CO2 content has improved human nutrition by raising crop yields during the past 150 years

45) The increase of the air’s CO2 content has probably helped lengthen human lifespans since the beginning of the Industrial Revolution

46) The IPCC alleges that “climate change currently contributes to the global burden of disease and premature deaths” but the evidence shows that higher temperatures and rising CO2 levels has helped global populations

47) In May of 2004, the Russian Academy of Sciences published a report concluding that the Kyoto Protocol has no scientific grounding at all.

48) The “Climate-gate” scandal pointed to a expensive public campaign of disinformation and the denigration of scientists who opposed the belief that CO2 emissions were causing climate change

49) The head of Britain’s climate change watchdog has predicted households will need to spend up to £15,000 on a full energy efficiency makeover if the Government is to meet its ambitious targets for cutting carbon emissions.

50) Wind power is unlikely to be the answer to our energy needs. The wind power industry argues that there are “no direct subsidies” but it involves a total subsidy of as much as £60 per MWh which falls directly on electricity consumers. This burden will grow in line with attempts to achieve Wind power targets, according to a recent OFGEM report.

[fivepoint]

The second 50 reasons:

51) Wind farms are not an efficient way to produce energy. The British Wind Energy Association (BWEA) accepts a figure of 75 per cent back-up power is required.

52) Global temperatures are below the low end of IPCC predictions not at “at the top end of IPCC estimates”

53) Climate alarmists have raised the concern over acidification of the oceans but Tom Segalstad from Oslo University in Norway , and others, have noted that the composition of ocean water – including CO2, calcium, and water – can act as a buffering agent in the acidification of the oceans.

54) The UN’s IPCC computer models of human-caused global warming predict the emergence of a “hotspot” in the upper troposphere over the tropics. Former researcher in the Australian Department of Climate Change, David Evans, said there is no evidence of such a hotspot

55) The argument that climate change is a of result of global warming caused by human activity is the argument of flat Earthers.

56) The manner in which US President Barack Obama sidestepped Congress to order emission cuts shows how undemocratic and irrational the entire international decision-making process has become with regards to emission-target setting.

57) William Kininmonth, a former head of the National Climate Centre and a consultant to the World Meteorological Organisation, wrote “the likely extent of global temperature rise from a doubling of CO2 is less than 1C. Such warming is well within the envelope of variation experienced during the past 10,000 years and insignificant in the context of glacial cycles during the past million years, when Earth has been predominantly very cold and covered by extensive ice sheets.”

58) Canada has shown the world targets derived from the existing Kyoto commitments were always unrealistic and did not work for the country.

59) In the lead up to the Copenhagen summit, David Davis MP said of previous climate summits, at Rio de Janeiro in 1992 and Kyoto in 1997 that many had promised greater cuts, but “neither happened”, but we are continuing along the same lines.

60) The UK ’s environmental policy has a long-term price tag of about £55 billion, before taking into account the impact on its economic growth.

61) The UN’s panel on climate change warned that Himalayan glaciers could melt to a fifth of current levels by 2035. J. Graham Cogley a professor at Ontario Trent University, claims this inaccurate stating the UN authors got the date from an earlier report wrong by more than 300 years.

62) Under existing Kyoto obligations the EU has attempted to claim success, while actually increasing emissions by 13 per cent, according to Lord Lawson. In addition the EU has pursued this scheme by purchasing “offsets” from countries such as China paying them billions of dollars to destroy atmospheric pollutants, such as CFC-23, which were manufactured purely in order to be destroyed.

63) It is claimed that the average global temperature was relatively unchanging in pre-industrial times but sky-rocketed since 1900, and will increase by several degrees more over the next 100 years according to Penn State University researcher Michael Mann. There is no convincing empirical evidence that past climate was unchanging, nor that 20th century changes in average global temperature were unusual or unnatural.

64) Michael Mann of Penn State University has actually shown that the Medieval Warm Period and the Little Ice Age did in fact exist, which contrasts with his earlier work which produced the “hockey stick graph” which showed a constant temperature over the past thousand years or so followed by a recent dramatic upturn.

65) The globe’s current approach to climate change in which major industrialised countries agree to nonsensical targets for their CO2 emissions by a given date, as it has been under the Kyoto system, is very expensive.

66) The “Climate-gate” scandal revealed that a scientific team had emailed one another about using a “trick” for the sake of concealing a “decline” in temperatures when looking at the history of the Earth’s temperature.

67) Global temperatures have not risen in any statistically-significant sense for 15 years and have actually been falling for nine years. The “Climate-gate” scandal revealed a scientific team had expressed dismay at the fact global warming was contrary to their predictions and admitted their inability to explain it was “a travesty”.

68) The IPCC predicts that a warmer planet will lead to more extreme weather, including drought, flooding, storms, snow, and wildfires. But over the last century, during which the IPCC claims the world experienced more rapid warming than any time in the past two millennia, the world did not experience significantly greater trends in any of these extreme weather events.

69) In explaining the average temperature standstill we are currently experiencing, the Met Office Hadley Centre ran a series of computer climate predictions and found in many of the computer runs there were decade-long standstills but none for 15 years – so it expects global warming to resume swiftly.

70) Richard Lindzen, Professor of Atmospheric Sciences at Massachusetts Institute of Technology, wrote: “The notion of a static, unchanging climate is foreign to the history of the Earth or any other planet with a fluid envelope. Such hysteria (over global warming) simply represents the scientific illiteracy of much of the public, the susceptibility of the public to the substitution of repetition for truth.”

71) Despite the 1997 Kyoto Protocol’s status as the flagship of the fight against climate change it has been a failure.

72) The first phase of the EU’s Emissions Trading Scheme (ETS), which ran from 2005 to 2007 was a failure. Huge over-allocation of permits to pollute led to a collapse in the price of carbon from €33 to just €0.20 per tonne meaning the system did not reduce emissions at all.

73) The EU trading scheme, to manage carbon emissions has completely failed and actually allows European businesses to duck out of making their emissions reductions at home by offsetting, which means paying for cuts to be made overseas instead.

74) To date “cap and trade” carbon markets have done almost nothing to reduce emissions.

75) In the United States , the cap-and-trade is an approach designed to control carbon emissions and will impose huge costs upon American citizens via a carbon tax on all goods and services produced in the United States. The average family of four can expect to pay an additional $1700, or £1,043, more each year. It is predicted that the United States will lose more than 2 million jobs as the result of cap-and-trade schemes.

76) Dr Roy Spencer, a principal research scientist at the University of Alabama in Huntsville, has indicated that out of the 21 climate models tracked by the IPCC the differences in warming exhibited by those models is mostly the result of different strengths of positive cloud feedback – and that increasing CO2 is insufficient to explain global-average warming in the last 50 to 100 years.

77) Why should politicians devote our scarce resources in a globally competitive world to a false and ill-defined problem, while ignoring the real problems the entire planet faces, such as: poverty, hunger, disease or terrorism.

78) A proper analysis of ice core records from the past 650,000 years demonstrates that temperature increases have come before, and not resulted from, increases in CO2 by hundreds of years.

79) Since the cause of global warming is mostly natural, then there is in actual fact very little we can do about it. (We are still not able to control the sun).

80) A substantial number of the panel of 2,500 climate scientists on the United Nation’s International Panel on Climate Change, which created a statement on scientific unanimity on climate change and man-made global warming, were found to have serious concerns.

81) The UK’s Met Office has been forced this year to re-examine 160 years of temperature data after admitting that public confidence in the science on man-made global warming has been shattered by revelations about the data.

82) Politicians and activists push for renewable energy sources such as wind turbines under the rhetoric of climate change, but it is essentially about money – under the system of Renewable Obligations. Much of the money is paid for by consumers in electricity bills. It amounts to £1 billion a year.

83) The “Climate-gate” scandal revealed that a scientific team had tampered with their own data so as to conceal inconsistencies and errors.

84) The “Climate-gate” scandal revealed that a scientific team had campaigned for the removal of a learned journal’s editor, solely because he did not share their willingness to debase science for political purposes.

85) Ice-core data clearly show that temperatures change centuries before concentrations of atmospheric CO2 change. Thus, there appears to be little evidence for insisting that changes in concentrations of CO2 are the cause of past temperature and climate change.

86) There are no experimentally verified processes explaining how CO2 concentrations can fall in a few centuries without falling temperatures – in fact it is changing temperatures which cause changes in CO2 concentrations, which is consistent with experiments that show CO2 is the atmospheric gas most readily absorbed by water.

87) The Government’s Renewable Energy Strategy contains a massive increase in electricity generation by wind power costing around £4 billion a year over the next twenty years. The benefits will be only £4 to £5 billion overall (not per annum). So costs will outnumber benefits by a range of between eleven and seventeen times.

88) Whilst CO2 levels have indeed changed for various reasons, human and otherwise, just as they have throughout history, the CO2 content of the atmosphere has increased since the beginning of the industrial revolution, and the growth rate has now been constant for the past 25 years.

89) It is a myth that CO2 is a pollutant, because nitrogen forms 80% of our atmosphere and human beings could not live in 100% nitrogen either: CO2 is no more a pollutant than nitrogen is and CO2 is essential to life.

90) Politicians and climate activists make claims to rising sea levels but certain members in the IPCC chose an area to measure in Hong Kong that is subsiding. They used the record reading of 2.3 mm per year rise of sea level.

91) The accepted global average temperature statistics used by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change show that no ground-based warming has occurred since 1998.

92) If one factors in non-greenhouse influences such as El Nino events and large volcanic eruptions, lower atmosphere satellite-based temperature measurements show little, if any, global warming since 1979, a period over which atmospheric CO2 has increased by 55 ppm (17 per cent).

93) US President Barack Obama pledged to cut emissions by 2050 to equal those of 1910 when there were 92 million Americans. In 2050, there will be 420 million Americans, so Obama’s promise means that emissions per head will be approximately what they were in 1875. It simply will not happen.

94) The European Union has already agreed to cut emissions by 20 percent to 2020, compared with 1990 levels, and is willing to increase the target to 30 percent. However, these are unachievable and the EU has already massively failed with its Emissions Trading Scheme (ETS), as EU emissions actually rose by 0.8 percent from 2005 to 2006 and are known to be well above the Kyoto goal.

95) Australia has stated it wants to slash greenhouse emissions by up to 25 percent below 2000 levels by 2020, but the pledges were so unpopular that the country’s Senate has voted against the carbon trading Bill, and the Opposition’s Party leader has now been ousted by a climate change sceptic.

96) Canada plans to reduce emissions by 20 percent compared with 2006 levels by 2020, representing approximately a 3 percent cut from 1990 levels but it simultaneously defends its Alberta tar sands emissions and its record as one of the world’s highest per-capita emissions setters.

97) India plans to reduce the ratio of emissions to production by 20-25 percent compared with 2005 levels by 2020, but all Government officials insist that since India has to grow for its development and poverty alleviation, it has to emit, because the economy is driven by carbon.

98) The Leipzig Declaration in 1996, was signed by 110 scientists who said: “We – along with many of our fellow citizens – are apprehensive about the climate treaty conference scheduled for Kyoto, Japan, in December 1997” and “based on all the evidence available to us, we cannot subscribe to the politically inspired world view that envisages climate catastrophes and calls for hasty actions.”

99) A US Oregon Petition Project stated “We urge the United States government to reject the global warming agreement that was written in Kyoto, Japan in December, 1997, and any other similar proposals. The proposed limits on greenhouse gases would harm the environment, hinder the advance of science and technology, and damage the health and welfare of mankind. There is no convincing scientific evidence that human release of CO2, methane, or other greenhouse gasses is causing or will, in the foreseeable future, cause catastrophic heating of the Earth’s atmosphere and disruption of the Earth’s climate.”

100) A report by the Nongovernmental International Panel on Climate Change concluded “We find no support for the IPCC’s claim that climate observations during the twentieth century are either unprecedented or provide evidence of an anthropogenic effect on climate.”

[63dot]

I needed a good laugh.:D

The plain truth is our climate is getting warmer because of one primary reason:

cows

which are bred in record numbers...

for their hamburger meat...

which is mostly made for one client...

McDonalds...

The polar ice cap will not melt as fast as Al Gore says, it may take a decade more than that. The damage will not be in the hundreds of trillions, just a cool hundred trillion. And McDonald's will take over China. That is a fact. OK, I added in the last fact, but this was a conservative talk show's hosts idea on the whole thing.

[Eraserhead]

Ah, the Daily Express. Britains best newspaper.

On the day hurricane Katrina hit, and there was also a huge car bomb in Iraq guess what they had on the front cover as their headline?

1 Million immigrants

So they should be taken extremely seriously indeed.

And McDonald's will take over China.

Yep, there are lots of branches of McDonald's in China.

[fivepoint]

I needed a good laugh.:D

The plain truth is our climate is getting warmer because of one primary reason:

cows

which are bred in record numbers...

for their hamburger meat...

which is mostly made for one client...

McDonalds...

The polar ice cap will not melt as fast as Al Gore says, it may take a decade more than that. The damage will not be in the hundreds of trillions, just a cool hundred trillion. And McDonald's will take over China. That is a fact. OK, I added in the last fact, but this was a conservative talk show's hosts idea on the whole thing.

If only we could invent a way to keep everyone from farting and exhaling.



Ah, the Daily Express. Britains best newspaper.

On the day hurricane Katrina hit, and there was also a huge car bomb in Iraq guess what they had on the front cover as their headline?

1 Million immigrants

So they should be taken extremely seriously indeed.



Yep, there are lots of branches of McDonald's in China.

Excited to see your responses to the actual content of the 100 points, instead of your sad red herring argument. Unless of course you'd also agree that we eliminate all information posted to this forum from the Huffington Post or the Daily Kos?

[63dot]

If only we could invent a way to keep everyone from farting and exhaling.




And here's the kicker on the McDonald's cow theory.

I understand somebody from the far right saying this to diffuse the automobile/CO2 argument. But I have met some people from the far left who also believe this, and that McDonald's, who is the ultimate expression of capitalism, is going to end the world with CO2 from their cows. :)

[IntheNet]

Interesting information... your thoughts?

101. Forecast for Copenhagen: 'Heavy snowfall' (http://www.dmi.dk/eng/index/forecasts/forecast_for_copenhagen.htm). Since the dawn of recorded data on earth from man's perspective, we humans have witnessed both global cooling and global warming, in cycles, following roughly predictable cycles. Based on last years record cold spell in China, and this year's record cold so far in North America and in Europe, we are, in fact, in a cooling rather than a warming cycle. Despite this, loons flock to Copenhagen, in full view of stark evidence to the contrary, and promote some incoherent bunk about "global warming theory" to an assemblage of radical tree huggers and climatologists whose data has been shown to be fraudulent. Can we do anything else other than laugh at these eco-nuts?

Also, any comments regarding Al Gore's assertion that the entire Northern Ice Cap could be melted within 5-10 years?

As a snake oil preacher, the Goracle (aka ManBearPig) is a salesman par excellence; having lost the 2000 presidential election here in this nation, this failed politician with zero ecological, climatological, or environmental education or experience, hooked his huckster wagon to the European eco-movement lunacy and developed a PowerPoint presentation that led pathos and fiction to the plight of stranded polar bears in the Arctic (not telling everyone that polar bear populations were actually increasing) and assembled the very worst eco-terrorists behind his theoretical cause of 'global warming' to cash in on research and environmental grants. I admire the Goracle only his hutzpah - it is really quite amazing that the owner of the largest and most inefficient home in Tennessee could take a private jet around Europe and preach environmental bat crazyness... that takes guts to do it with a straight face!

The plain truth is our climate is getting warmer because of one primary reason:

cows...

Cow farts are heating the earth? You want time to work a less ridiculous theory or you want to stay with that absurd one?

[NT1440]

Well jeez, we start of with that for #1? :rolleyes:

I'm done with this crap, if you guys want to just deny everything even against a mountain of actual scientific data, I guess it just says a lot about you doesn't it?

[Peterkro]

Waste of bloody space.:mad:

[Eraserhead]

Excited to see your responses to the actual content of the 100 points,

I'm waiting for Windows to install so even though its a crazy right wing source I'll have a go at wading through some of the points.

2) Man has also been alive for only a tiny fraction of the 6 billion years the earth has been in existence, at most 1/6000th (or 0.0167%) of the Earth's lifetime. If you count our CO2 impact from when we invented farming we've only had the opportunity to pollute more than other animals for 0.000167% of the Earth's lifespan, and we've only been industrialised for 0.000004167% of the Earth's lifespan (assuming the lifespan of the Earth is 6 billion years). Compared to that humans producing 0.00022% of the worlds carbon emissions means that on average we've been producing more CO2 than nature has for the past 10000 years.

3 to 6) And? This doesn't disprove that humans caused the problems this time.

1, 7 to 11, 18, 24 and 25) Citation needed.

12, 15 to 17 and 21) This doesn't mean that humans aren't a major contributor - we don't just produce CO2 in harmful ways.

13 and 14) Irrelevant - even if true.

19) If you read the Wikipedia article this doesn't imply humans aren't responsible for climate change. Additionally 49 of the nobel prize winners who signed it also signed the World Scientists' Warning to Humanity (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/World_Scientists%27_Warning_to_Humanity)

20) Irrelevant - even if true (which I doubt). Just because temperature varies naturally doesn't mean humans aren't causing the rise now.

22) Citation needed - besides if you are going to believe the science here - why not believe the science on global warming too.

23) Not when most of them are shrinking at the same time.

instead of your sad red herring argument.

Good to know that you don't think Hurricane Katrina was worth reporting.

[bobber205]

I'm waiting for Windows to install so even though its a crazy right wing source I'll have a go at wading through some of the points.

2) Man has also been alive for only a tiny fraction of the 6 billion years the earth has been in existence, at most 1/6000th (or 0.0167%) of the Earth's lifetime. If you count our CO2 impact from when we invented farming we've only had the opportunity to pollute more than other animals for 0.000167% of the Earth's lifespan, and we've only been industrialised for 0.000004167% of the Earth's lifespan (assuming the lifespan of the Earth is 6 billion years). Compared to that humans producing 0.00022% of the worlds carbon emissions means that on average we've been producing more CO2 than nature has for the past 10000 years.


The OP probably believes that we've been here since "Day 1". :rolleyes:
Seeing how they deny science outright in this area, why not how long has the earth been long as well?

[Eraserhead]

The OP probably believes that we've been here since "Day 1". :rolleyes:
Seeing how they deny science outright in this area, why not how long has the earth been long as well?

Good point. I forgot the world was only 6000 years old.

[Iscariot]

13 and 14) Irrelevant - even if true.

The entire list is irrelevant, even if true. If anthropogenic climate change is in fact not happening, we still need to implement a strategic initiative for sustainable living simply because the Earths resources are finite and our population is exploding. What people fail to realize is that this isn't a crisis that's endangering the Earth, it's a crisis that's endangering human civilization. As you've rightly pointed out, we're but a tiny blip on the Earth's radar, and if we don't act soon that's all we'll ever be.

[quagmire]

I will say this again, why do people(especially politicians) take the extreme side of an issue? Instead of going, " We're causing our climate to change! We're doomed if we don't change!" or " The current climate change is natural. Don't listen to those communists about this green hippy crap".

How about we all go in the middle and say, " Hey, climate change is a natural cycle, but we may or may not be influencing it. And how about we clean up our act and reduce emissions to create jobs, improve technology, and improve ourselves and the world."

[63dot]

Cow farts are heating the earth?

Cow farts heat the world. They are the salvation of all, didn't you know that. I even thought of naming my first born, "cow fart".

[Thomas Veil]

So...how many of those 100 "reasons" are the conclusions of the majority of the world's top climate scientists?

Oh, that's right...none.

As a snake oil preacher, the Goracle (aka ManBearPig) is a salesman par excellence; having lost the 2000 presidential election here in this nation, this failed politician with zero ecological, climatological, or environmental education or experience, hooked his huckster wagon to the European eco-movement lunacy and developed a PowerPoint presentation that led pathos and fiction to the plight of stranded polar bears in the Arctic (not telling everyone that polar bear populations were actually increasing) and assembled the very worst eco-terrorists behind his theoretical cause of 'global warming' to cash in on research and environmental grants. I admire the Goracle only his hutzpah - it is really quite amazing that the owner of the largest and most inefficient home in Tennessee could take a private jet around Europe and preach environmental bat crazyness... that takes guts to do it with a straight face!How much of that is the conclusion of the majority of the world's top climate scientists?

Oh, that's right...none.

[63dot]

So...how many of those 100 "reasons" are the conclusions of the majority of the world's top climate scientists?

Oh, that's right...none.

How much of that is the conclusion of the majority of the world's top climate scientists?

Oh, that's right...none.

I totally agree with you. But to be fair, IN THE NET did touch upon Gore's use of this for stretching the facts or for political gain. I think we are in deep trouble due to CO2 emissions, especially from automobiles. The evidence is pretty much there, but I think some on the left (I voted Green and/or Democrat for 20 years) have used this dire issue for political gain.

It's the concept of framing an already guilty man. The fingerprints are in and match (or should I say carbon footprint), the major players, including the Bush Administration have changed their views from ignoring the issue to putting it up front and center as an environmental threat, and most Democrats have worked toward an answer with their Republican colleagues. The politician I despise most, Californian Arnold the Govenator, has even repeatedly mentioned global warming and CO2 emissions, even if he had the gall to fly to Ohio, on Californian's taxpayer money, to stump for Bush in a closely contested election and closely contested state.

Gore has mostly used this as a neutral, non-political issue, but at times he has attacked the GOP. Hey, it's OK if he attacks big oil, but we should all keep politics out of this. Democrats have been in office many times while people in America put C02 into the air and nothing was said.

This is an issue both sides need to work on.

[tallguy]

I will say this again, why do people(especially politicians) take the extreme side of an issue? Instead of going, " We're causing our climate to change! We're doomed if we don't change!" or " The current climate change is natural. Don't listen to those communists about this green hippy crap".

How about we all go in the middle and say, " Hey, climate change is a natural cycle, but we may or may not be influencing it. And how about we clean up our act and reduce emissions to create jobs, improve technology, and improve ourselves and the world."

*applause* Those are my exact thoughts! And that should be the real question here. How can quagmire read my mind?

[stubeeef]

101) Gasps and sighs from PRSI - PRSI releases enough extra greenhouse gases each day to raise the earths temperature .0000000000000000001 degree F. Therefore a new tax should be levied on PRSI in the amount of $.10 per post on the Fat Cat posters who obviously are so rich they never work anyway, they live in PRSI doing nothing productive with their lives but consume resources without regard for the planet.

Instead, the city will be filled with gas-guzzling machines, most notably about 140 private jets and more than 1,200 limousines.

Ms Jorgensen reckons that between her and her rivals the total number of limos in Copenhagen next week has already broken the 1,200 barrier. The French alone rang up on Thursday and ordered another 42. "We haven't got enough limos in the country to fulfil the demand," she says. "We're having to drive them in hundreds of miles from Germany and Sweden."

And the total number of electric cars or hybrids among that number? "Five," says Ms Jorgensen. "The government has some alternative fuel cars but the rest will be petrol or diesel. We don't have any hybrids in Denmark, unfortunately, due to the extreme taxes on those cars. It makes no sense at all, but it's very Danish."

The airport says it is expecting up to 140 extra private jets during the peak period alone, so far over its capacity that the planes will have to fly off to regional airports – or to Sweden – to park, returning to Copenhagen to pick up their VIP passengers.

As well 15,000 delegates and officials, 5,000 journalists and 98 world leaders, the Danish capital will be blessed by the presence of Leonardo DiCaprio, Daryl Hannah, Helena Christensen, Archbishop Desmond Tutu and Prince Charles. A Republican US senator, Jim Inhofe, is jetting in at the head of an anti-climate-change "Truth Squad." The top hotels – all fully booked at £650 a night – are readying their Climate Convention menus of (no doubt sustainable) scallops, foie gras and sculpted caviar wedges.

Tonnes and Tonnes of Carbon struting about full of sound and fury signifying nothing.

(bold is mine)

[Schtumple]

Come on seriously, if you can source every one of those "reasons" down to a article written by an established scientist, and this article is hosted on a trusted and reliable source (wikipedia is neither), then, THEN, I will begin to take the list seriously, until then, it's just a bunch of drivel written by a sad minority of backwards thinkers in the media industry.

You do realise that the writers for the Daily Express know exactly what they're doing, putting out an almost completely fabricated piece like this causes a ruckus, which causes publicity, which causes sales. In a medium that is slowly dying on it's feet, a pathetic stab at being "edgy" is as good as it gets.

Maybe if they actually bothered to provide the details of all their sources, then it would be something more than an opinionated puff piece.

[Eraserhead]

Gore has mostly used this as a neutral, non-political issue, but at times he has attacked the GOP. Hey, it's OK if he attacks big oil, but we should all keep politics out of this.

Bush did pull out of Kyoto and the US is basically the only country to do so (and the only remotely stable country not to sign EDIT: that isn't a city state.). So I see his point. That said I doubt the US senate would have passed it anyway.

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/9/9d/Kyoto_Protocol_participation_map_2009.png

(source (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kyoto_Protocol))

[BoyBach]

What, no mention of Princess Diana? :rolleyes:

[djellison]

So hundreds of scientists, from dozens of coutries that wrote a report peer-reviewed by hundreds more scientists from over a hundred countries.....and they've got it wrong?

These
http://www.ipcc.ch/graphics/syr/fig1-1.jpg
changes
http://www.ipcc.ch/graphics/syr/fig1-2.jpg
are
http://www.ipcc.ch/graphics/syr/fig2-1.jpg
real
http://www.ipcc.ch/graphics/syr/fig2-3.jpg
and
http://www.ipcc.ch/graphics/syr/fig2-5.jpg
manmade

Those denying it are like people thrashing around in quick sand. You're making it worse for yourself.

There seems to be quite a large overlap between those who deny the science of anthropomorphic global warming, and those who deny the science of evolution. I am not surprised.

[Thomas Veil]

These

changes

are

real

and

manmadeThat's your opinion. Conservatives are still looking for a way to prove that that whole "Earth revolving around the sun" thing is a scam.

[Sky Blue]

Interesting information... your thoughts?


Looks like an interesting read! Let's have a look…


http://www.dailyexpress.co.uk/posts/view/146138

ah, joke post…ok.

[CarlisleUnited]

Well jeez, we start of with that for #1? :rolleyes:

I'm done with this crap, if you guys want to just deny everything even against a mountain of actual scientific data, I guess it just says a lot about you doesn't it?

I could write a paper using the same data which shows a link between computer power and temperature, even human faeces production which temperature We have been shown time and again that there is a relationship between CO2 levels and global temperature but that doesn't mean that CO2 is responsible for the temperature rise. If somebody shows me the cold hard facts that it is I will be happy to believe it but considering the secrecy involved in the data analysis of the IPCC I doubt we ever will. Considering there is a 300%+ spread in the predicted temperature rise I also question the reliability of their computer models.

[kavika411]

The OP probably believes that we've been here since "Day 1". :rolleyes:
Seeing how they deny science outright in this area, why not how long has the earth been long as well?

I disagree, seeing as how they deny forenscic (sp?) science in this area, why not question the motive of a "fed" worker's death, unlesss it is ... inconvenient. Sorry; no points for wit.

[bobber205]

I disagree, seeing as how they deny forenscic (sp?) science in this area, why not question the motive of a "fed" worker's death, unlesss it is ... inconvenient. Sorry; no points for wit.

Wow. Are you the only person still hung up on that? :eek:

When it looked very suspicious that it could have been anti-government hate that lead to that crime, I had my certain opinion on the matter. Now that the case has been officially resolved I no longer hold that opinion.

There. Does that settle it?
Jesus Christ...

[gibbz]

Again, I have still yet to see any denier specifically argue in a logical way the IPCC reports (http://www.ipcc.ch). The need for deniers to attack science and refute their credibility, yet rely on scientifically moronic politicians is beyond belief. Climate change is not a political issue, it is a physical process.

I was going to reply to these myself, but it was done for me. (http://www.newscientist.com/blogs/shortsharpscience/2009/12/50-reasons-why-global-warming.html)

1) There is "no real scientific proof" that the current warming is caused by the rise of greenhouse gases from man's activity.

Technically, proof exists only in mathematics, not in science. Whatever terminology you choose to use, however, there is overwhelming evidence that the current warming is caused by the rise in greenhouse gases due to human activities.

2) Man-made carbon dioxide emissions throughout human history constitute less than 0.00022 per cent of the total naturally emitted from the mantle of the Earth during geological history.

Misleading comparison. Since the industrial age began human emissions are far higher than volcanic emissions.

3) Warmer periods of the Earth's history came around 800 years before rises in CO2 levels.

In the past 3 million years changing levels of sunshine triggered and ended the ice ages. Carbon dioxide was a feedback that increased warming, rather than the initial cause. In the more distant past, several warming episodes were directly triggered by CO2.

4) After world war 2, there was a huge surge in recorded CO2 emissions but global temperatures fell for four decades after 1940.

In fact, temperatures fell during the 1940s and then remained roughly level until the late 1970s. The fall was partly due to high levels of pollutants such as sulphur dioxide counteracting the warming effect.

5) Throughout the Earth's history, temperatures have often been warmer than now and CO2 levels have often been higher - more than 10 times as high.

Which shows that higher CO2 means higher temperatures, taking into account the fact that the sun was cooler in the past. The crucial point is that civilisation is adapted to 20th century temperatures.

6) Significant changes in climate have continually occurred throughout geologic time.

Yes. And sea level has been up to 70 metres higher during warm periods. If that happens again, there'll be no more London or New York.

7) The 0.7 °C increase in the average global temperature over the past hundred years is entirely consistent with well-established, long-term, natural climate trends.

Wrong. The rapid warming since the late 1970s has occurred even though other factors that can warm the planet, such as the sun's intensity, have remained constant.


8) The IPCC theory is driven by just 60 scientists and favourable reviewers, not the 4000 usually cited.

Untrue, as even the briefest look at the scientific literature can establish.

9) Leaked e-mails from British climate scientists - in a scandal known as "climategate" - suggest that that has been manipulated to exaggerate global warming

Nothing in the emails undermines any of the key scientific conclusions. Independent groups have come to the same conclusions.

10) A large body of scientific research suggests that the sun is responsible for the greater share of climate change during the past hundred years.

The sun may have contributed to the warming in the first part of the 20th century but it has not caused the rapid warming since the late 1970s.

11) Politicians and activists claim rising sea levels are a direct cause of global warming, but sea levels have been increasing steadily since the last ice age 10,000 years ago.

Wrong. Sea level rose very rapidly as the North American ice sheet melted after the last ice age but levelled off and has been nearly stable for the past 2000 years or so. Now it is starting to rise rapidly again.

12) Philip Stott, emeritus professor of biogeography at the School of Oriental and African Studies in London says climate change is too complicated to be caused by just one factor, whether CO2 or clouds.

He is right. All sorts of factors affect climate, even the lead in petrol. However, the recent warming is mostly due to rising greenhouse gases, and if we pump out more CO2 it will get even hotter.

13) Peter Lilley MP said last month that "fewer people in Britain than in any other country believe in the importance of global warming. That is despite the fact that our government and our political class - predominantly - are more committed to it than their counterparts in any other country in the world".

Irrelevant and incorrect on all counts.

14) In pursuit of the global warming rhetoric, wind farms will do very little to nothing to reduce CO2 emissions.

There are arguments over how much wind power can contribute, but there is no doubt they are already helping reduce emissions in many countries.

15) Professor Plimer, professor of geology and earth sciences at the University of Adelaide, stated that the idea of taking a single trace gas in the atmosphere, accusing it and finding it guilty of total responsibility for climate change, is an "absurdity".

See (1). And note that Plimer is a geologist, not a climatologist.

16) A Harvard University astrophysicist and geophysicist, Willie Soon, said he is "embarrassed and puzzled" by the shallow science in papers that support the proposition that the Earth faces a climate crisis caused by global warming.

Many scientists think Soon should be embarrassed by some of the papers he has published.

17) The science of what determines the Earth's temperature is in fact far from settled or understood.

There are still lots of details to fill in but the big picture is increasingly clear. The uncertainties that do exist swing both ways: there could be more warming than predicted.

18) Despite activist concerns over CO2 levels, CO2 is a minor greenhouse gas, unlike water vapour, which is tied to climate concerns, and which we can't even pretend to control.

Water vapour is a feedback, not a cause of warming. The amount of water in the atmosphere depends on temperature; any excess rains out within days.

19) A petition by scientists trying to tell the world that the political and media portrayal of global warming is false was put forward in the Heidelberg Appeal in 1992. Today, more than 4000 signatories, including 72 Nobel prizewinners, from 106 countries have signed it.

That's not what the Heidelberg Appeal really said, and 1992 was a long time ago.

20) It is claimed the average global temperature increased at a dangerously fast rate in the 20th century but the recent rate of average global temperature rise has been between 1 and 2 °C per century - within natural rates.

Incorrect. Over the past 1000 years temperature has never changed nearly as fast.

21) Professor Zbigniew Jaworowski, chairman of the scientific council of the Central Laboratory for Radiological Protection in Warsaw, Poland, says the Earth's temperature has more to do with cloud cover and water vapour than CO2 concentration in the atmosphere.

See (18). And why believe someone whose work was rejected by the scientific community?

22) There is strong evidence from solar studies which suggests that the Earth's current temperature stasis will be followed by climatic cooling over the next few decades.

The Earth is still warming and even if the sun's intensity does fall, it will not outweigh the effect of rising greenhouse gases.

23) It is a myth that receding glaciers are proof of global warming as glaciers have been receding and growing cyclically for many centuries.

Incorrect. The current retreat is unprecendented.

24) It is a falsehood that the Earth's poles are warming because that is natural variation and while the western Arctic may be getting somewhat warmer we also see that the Eastern Arctic and Greenland are getting colder.

Illogical and incorrect. Warming is warming whatever causes it. And all parts of the Arctic are warmer compared with the average from 1951 to 1980. The extent of the warming is contributing to the rapidly shrinking in the extent of sea ice cover during summer.

25) The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change claims climate-driven "impacts on biodiversity are significant and of key relevance", but those claims are simply not supported by scientific research.

There is already clear evidence that the distributions of many species are changing as the planet warms (PDF). If it gets much warmer, some will have nowhere to go.

26) The IPCC threat of climate change to the world's species does not make sense as wild species are at least 1 million years old, which means they have all been through hundreds of climate cycles.

Many species are less than 1 million years old. In any case, during the past 3 million years, the Earth has got a lot colder than it is now during ice ages but never much hotter.

27) Research goes strongly against claims that CO2-induced global warming would cause catastrophic disintegration of the Greenland and Antarctic ice sheets.

Depends on what timescale you are talking about. Scientists differ on how quickly they think the ice sheets will melt, but studies of warm periods leave no doubt that if the temperature gets much higher and stays higher, all the ice sheets will melt completely after several centuries or millennia, causing sea level to rise by 70 metres.

28) Despite activist concerns over CO2 levels, rising CO2 levels are our best hope of raising crop yields to feed an ever-growing population.

Higher CO2 levels do boost growth of some plants, but only if there's enough water throughout the growing season and the temperature is appropriate for particular plants. Overall, climate change is expected to reduce yields once the temperature rise exceeds 3 °C.

29) The biggest climate change ever experienced on Earth took place around 700 million years ago.

So what?

30) The slight increase in temperature which has been observed since 1900 is entirely consistent with well-established, long-term natural climate cycles.

Repetitive and incorrect. See (10).

31) Despite activist concerns over CO2 levels, rising CO2 levels of some so-called "greenhouse gases" may be contributing to higher oxygen levels and global cooling, not warming.

Burning fossil fuels produces CO2 and consumes oxygen, and thus lowers oxygen levels, though the decrease is too tiny to matter.

32) Accurate satellite, balloon and mountain-top observations made over the past three decades have not shown any significant change in the long-term rate of increase in global temperatures.

The rate of increase is in line with predictions.

33) Today's CO2 concentration of around 385 ppm is very low compared with most of the Earth's history - we actually live in a carbon-deficient atmosphere.

And when CO2 levels were higher there were no ice sheets and sea levels were 70 metres higher. Plus, the sun was cooler in the past.

34) It is a myth that CO2 is the most common greenhouse gas because greenhouse gases form about 3 per cent of the atmosphere by volume, and CO2 constitutes about 0.037 per cent of the atmosphere.

You can only get close to the 3 per cent figure by counting water vapour, which as we have already said is a feedback not a cause.

35) It is a myth that computer models verify that CO2 increases will cause significant global warming because computer models can be made to "verify" anything.

No, they can't, because climate models are based on the physical laws that apply in the real world. In any case, the crucial evidence that CO2 warms the planet comes from physics and chemistry, not from general climate models.

36) There is no scientific or statistical evidence whatsoever that global warming will cause more storms and other weather extremes.

Incorrect. For instance, while there is much uncertainty in this area, there is growing evidence that hurricanes will get stronger, though there may not be more of them.

37) One statement deleted from a UN report in 1996 stated that "none of the studies cited above has shown clear evidence that we can attribute the observed climate changes to increases in greenhouse gases".

Meaningless taken out of context, without knowing what studies the statement was referring to.

38) The world "warmed" by 0.07 +/- 0.07 °C from 1999 to 2008, not the 0.20 °C expected by the IPCC.

Actually temperature rose 0.19 ºC, but global warming does not mean natural variation goes away. Periods of cooling are still to be expected.

39) The IPCC says "it is likely that future tropical cyclones (typhoons and hurricanes) will become more intense" but there has been no increase in the intensity or frequency of tropical cyclones globally.

Incorrect. Some studies have found an increase.

40) Rising CO2 levels in the atmosphere can be shown not only to have a negligible effect on the Earth's many ecosystems, but in some cases to be a positive help to many organisms.

Incorrect and contradictory. Either the effect is negligible or helpful: it can't be both. In fact, rising CO2 will lead to big temperature increases, which will have a dramatic effect on Earth's ecosystems. Some species will benefit as their range expands, others will run out of suitable space. The speed of the change - far faster than natural climate change in the past - will make it very difficult for plants and animals to move fast enough.

41) Researchers who compare and contrast climate-change impact on civilisations found warm periods are beneficial to mankind and cold periods harmful.

Which researchers? Where were their findings published? In any case, over the past two millennia, warm periods have generally involved tiny changes compared with the changes we can expect over the next century.

42) The Met Office asserts we are in the hottest decade since records began but this is precisely what the world should expect if the climate is cyclical.

Er, why?

43) Rising CO2 levels increase plant growth and make plants more resistant to drought and pests.

Yet more repetition. See (28).

44) The historical increase in the air's CO2 content has improved human nutrition by raising crop yields during the past 150 years.

According to who? This statement is impossible to prove or disprove. What we can say is that the bulk of the increase in yields over this time are due to improved plant varieties and techniques, many of which are heavily reliant on the use of fossil fuels. If we don't start planning for the end of cheap oil, food prices could soar.

45) The increase of the air's CO2 content has probably helped lengthen human lifespans since the beginning of the industrial revolution.

How exactly, and according to who?

46) The IPCC alleges that "climate change currently contributes to the global burden of disease and premature deaths", but the evidence shows that higher temperatures and rising CO2 levels has helped global populations.

Incorrect. Excessive heat during summers is already killing more people than are being saved by milder winters.

47) In May of 2004, the Russian Academy of Sciences published a report concluding that the Kyoto protocol has no scientific grounding at all.

See here for the political background. Russia signed up to the Kyoto protocol later that year.

48) The "climategate" scandal pointed to a expensive public campaign of disinformation and the denigration of scientists who opposed the belief that CO2 emissions were causing climate change.

Or it points to a relatively cheap public education campaign and efforts by responsible scientists to ensure political decisions are based on sound science rather than on papers that have been shown to be flawed.

49) The head of Britain's climate change watchdog has predicted households will need to spend up to £15,000 on a full energy efficiency makeover if the government is to meet its ambitious targets for cutting carbon emissions.

Even if he has - no source is given - no one can be forced to spend money they don't have and such spending is an investment that will save householders thousands of pounds in the long term. If energy prices rise sharply as demand for oil and gas exceeds supply, we may all be wishing we had invested more in energy efficiency.

50) Wind power is unlikely to be the answer to our energy needs. The wind power industry argues that there are "no direct subsidies", but it involves a total subsidy of as much as £60 per MWh, which falls directly on electricity consumers. This burden will grow in line with attempts to achieve wind power targets, according to a recent OFGEM report.

Repetitive and incorrect. See (14). No, wind power is not the answer to our energy needs but it is one of the answers, and it would be very short-sighted not to invest in alternative energy sources as peak oil nears, even if there was no issue with global warming.

There are another 50 "reasons" listed but they are even less credible than the ones we've already dealt with...

[Gonzo3333]

Wow. I think the main reason for climate change is the way the Earth is spinning (think gyroscopic procession). That is all that I will elaborate on that.

I still think that is would be very responsible for the human race to find alternative fuel sources and to reduce our carbon footprint in general. It should in theory slow down the harmful effects of what most people refer to as "Global Warming".

That is my $.02.

Recycle! Take public transportation whenever it is possible, and don't litter.

[Counterfit]

101. Forecast for Copenhagen: 'Heavy snowfall' (http://www.dmi.dk/eng/index/forecasts/forecast_for_copenhagen.htm). Since the dawn of recorded data on earth from man's perspective, we humans have witnessed both global cooling and global warming, in cycles, following roughly predictable cycles. Based on last years record cold spell in China, and this year's record cold so far in North America and in Europe

Once again, you deliberately confuse "weather" and "climate".
WEATHER IS SHORT TERM, CLIMATE IS LONG TERM, AND REQUIRES AT LEAST SEVERAL YEARS FOR THERE TO BE ANY SORT OF GENERALIZATION MADE.

[Eraserhead]

I could write a paper using the same data which shows a link between computer power and temperature, even human faeces production which temperature

But that doesn't mean that it would get published in a peer reviewed scientific journal.

[CarlisleUnited]

But that doesn't mean that it would get published in a peer reviewed scientific journal.

The CRU e-mails show that the peer review system is corrupt.

[Eraserhead]

The CRU e-mails show that the peer review system is corrupt.

Source?

[dsnort]

Source?

The CRU is the source of the e-mails.

[Eraserhead]

The CRU is the source of the e-mails.

I want to see the email/emails in question which proves that the peer review process is corrupt - I haven't seen any evidence of that myself.

EDIT: If you are actually curious on how the peer-review process works (and some of the problems with it - it isn't perfect) take a look at: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Peer_review

[Capt Crunch]

For those that think global warming is some pseudo-scientific liberal conspiracy, I suggest you go to your local university, enter the library, go to the journal "Nature" and look up all scientific articles related to global warming. Once you get all those articles, be sure the check the references of each article for even more articles. Suddenly, you will find there is an absolute consensus in the scientific community.

It boggles my mind when people claim that there is some huge debate in the scientific community just because some idiot told them so. Just look at the articles yourself. Read the conclusions.

To preempt the hair-brained notion that scientific results are politically influenced, let me just make it clear: You cannot fake science (and get away with it).

Seriously, a scientist may want in the deepest part of his heart to prove global warming, but he does not have control over the results of his experiment. The results are what they are, and the conclusions speak for themselves. If a scientist does fake their work, it is quickly checked by other scientists who reproduce the experiments.

[BenEndeem]

I needed a good laugh.:D

The plain truth is our climate is getting warmer because of one primary reason:

cows

which are bred in record numbers...

for their hamburger meat...

which is mostly made for one client...

McDonalds...

The polar ice cap will not melt as fast as Al Gore says, it may take a decade more than that. The damage will not be in the hundreds of trillions, just a cool hundred trillion. And McDonald's will take over China. That is a fact. OK, I added in the last fact, but this was a conservative talk show's hosts idea on the whole thing.

I wonder how much dinosaur farts would have emitted :D .

[IntheNet]

If a scientist does fake their work, it is quickly checked by other scientists who reproduce the experiments.

Or covered up with a quick e-mail....

http://i46.tinypic.com/eqvyv7.jpg

Climategate: the final nail in the coffin of 'Anthropogenic Global Warming'
Telegraph
http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/news/jamesdelingpole/100017393/climategate-the-final-nail-in-the-coffin-of-anthropogenic-global-warming/
The conspiracy behind the Anthropogenic Global Warming myth (aka AGW; aka ManBearPig) has been suddenly, brutally and quite deliciously exposed after a hacker broke into the computers at the University of East Anglia’s Climate Research Unit (aka CRU) and released 61 megabytes of confidential files onto the internet. When you read some of those files – including 1079 emails and 72 documents – you realise just why the boffins at CRU might have preferred to keep them confidential. As Andrew Bolt puts it, this scandal could well be “the greatest in modern science”.

[yg17]

http://i46.tinypic.com/eqvyv7.jpg



Do you actually know why that screenshot from Fixed News has been floating around the internet? It's not because it validates your claims. It's because the numbers add up to 120, which is impossible for a poll. Those numbers are completely made up by Faux News, and when they pulled the numbers ouf of their ass, they couldn't even be bothered to verify they add up to 100. The morons at Faux News are the last people on earth who should be bitching about other people making stuff up.

[IntheNet]

Those numbers are completely made up by Faux News...

Proving you wrong is getting to be a full-time job...

Americans Skeptical of Science Behind Global Warming
Thursday, December 03, 2009
http://www.rasmussenreports.com/public_content/politics/current_events/environment_energy/americans_skeptical_of_science_behind_global_warming
Fifty-nine percent (59%) of Americans say it’s at least somewhat likely that some scientists have falsified research data to support their own theories and beliefs about global warming. Thirty-five percent (35%) say it’s Very Likely. Just 26% say it’s not very or not at all likely that some scientists falsified data.

[obeygiant]

^^^lol beat me.

Here is the text from Rasmussen:

But just in the last few days, White House spokesman Robert Gibbs seemed to reject any such disagreement in a response to a question about global warming, “I don't think … [global warming] is quite, frankly, among most people, in dispute anymore.”
Fifty-nine percent (59%) of Americans say it’s at least somewhat likely that some scientists have falsified research data to support their own theories and beliefs about global warming. Thirty-five percent (35%) say it’s Very Likely. Just 26% say it’s not very or not at all likely that some scientists falsified data.
This skepticism does not appear to be the result of the recent disclosure of e-mails confirming such data falsification as part of the so-called “Climategate” scandal. Just 20% of Americans say they’ve followed news reports about those e-mails Very Closely, while another 29% have followed them Somewhat Closely.rasmussenreports.com (http://www.rasmussenreports.com/public_content/politics/current_events/environment_energy/americans_skeptical_of_science_behind_global_warming)

Article about this subject on Politico (http://www.politico.com/blogs/michaelcalderone/1209/Fox_producer_No_error_in_graphic.html).

[yg17]

Proving you wrong is getting to be a full-time job...

Americans Skeptical of Science Behind Global Warming
Thursday, December 03, 2009
http://www.rasmussenreports.com/public_content/politics/current_events/environment_energy/americans_skeptical_of_science_behind_global_warming
Fifty-nine percent (59%) of Americans say it’s at least somewhat likely that some scientists have falsified research data to support their own theories and beliefs about global warming. Thirty-five percent (35%) say it’s Very Likely. Just 26% say it’s not very or not at all likely that some scientists falsified data.

Oh, I'm sorry. Faux News didn't make them up, Rasmussen, a right wing rag, made them up. Big difference :rolleyes:

You cannot have a poll add up to more than 100%. That's Math 101. I'm not sure which part of that you don't understand. The fact that Rasmussen would release a poll with those numbers means they have no credibility whatsoever.

[IntheNet]

Oh, I'm sorry.

You're forgiven....... Rasmussen clearly explains its accurate poll at the link above if you care to learn from your mistakes...

[yg17]

You're forgiven....... Rasmussen clearly explains its accurate poll at the link above if you care to learn from your mistakes...

No, the link does not explain how they came up with 120%

59% say it's somewhat likely. 35% say it's very likely. 26% say it's not likely.

The options are mutually exclusive. Someone cannot believe that it is both somewhat and very likely, or not likely and very likely, it is impossible for the poll to add up to more than 100%. Anyone who has taken a middle school level math class should be able to figure that out.

[obeygiant]

here is the actual poll...

rasmussen (http://www.rasmussenreports.com/public_content/business/econ_survey_toplines/december_2009/toplines_climate_change_december_1_2_2009)

National Survey of 1,000 Adults
Conducted December 1-2, 2009
By Rasmussen Reports

1* How closely have you followed news reports about e-mails from scientists involved in global warming research?

20% Very closely
29% Somewhat closely
32% Not very closely
16% Not at all
2% Not sure

2* Do scientists agree on global warming or is there significant disagreement within the scientific community?

25% Most scientists agree on global warming
52% There is significant disagreement within the scientific community
23% Not sure

3* In order to support their own theories and beliefs about global warming, how likely is it that some scientists have falsified research data?

35% Very likely
24% Somewhat likely
21% Not very likely
5% Not at all likely
15% Not sure

4* Is the United Nations a reliable source of information on global warming?

22% Yes
49% No
29% Not sure

5* Is global warming a serious problem?

46% Yes
36% No
18% Not sure

6* Which is a bigger priority for our national leaders—stopping global warming to save the environment or stimulating the economy to create jobs?

15% Stopping global warming to save the environment
71% Stimulating the economy to save jobs
14% Not sure

NOTE: Margin of Sampling Error, +/- 3 percentage points with a 95% level of confidence

BOLD - Thats why it said "Fifty-nine percent (59%) of Americans say it’s at least somewhat likely that some scientists have falsified research data to support their own theories and beliefs about global warming." Those two questions are combined.

[IntheNet]

No, the link does not explain...

Small suggestion... when you find yourself deep in a hole it is best first policy to stop digging!

BOLD - Thats why it said "Fifty-nine percent (59%) of Americans say it’s at least somewhat likely that some scientists have falsified research data to support their own theories and beliefs about global warming." Those two questions are combined.

Thank you... I was going to explain it as you did but it was comical watching the confusion...I did give the parent link to Rasmussen in the hopes of understanding...

[dsnort]

Oh, I'm sorry. Faux News didn't make them up, Rasmussen, a right wing rag, made them up. Big difference :rolleyes:

You cannot have a poll add up to more than 100%. That's Math 101. I'm not sure which part of that you don't understand. The fact that Rasmussen would release a poll with those numbers means they have no credibility whatsoever.

You're not seeing it. 59% say it is at least somewhat likely. 35% say very likely. The 35% is part of the 59%, not separate from it.

EDIT: obey beat me to it, and did it better.

[Eraserhead]

BOLD - Thats why it said "Fifty-nine percent (59%) of Americans say it’s at least somewhat likely that some scientists have falsified research data to support their own theories and beliefs about global warming." Those two questions are combined.

That's pretty dodgy journalism from Fox.

[yg17]

here is the actual poll...

rasmussen (http://www.rasmussenreports.com/public_content/business/econ_survey_toplines/december_2009/toplines_climate_change_december_1_2_2009)



BOLD - Thats why it said "Fifty-nine percent (59%) of Americans say it’s at least somewhat likely that some scientists have falsified research data to support their own theories and beliefs about global warming." Those two questions are combined.

Then it is terrible journalism on Faux's and Rasmussen's part to combine the numbers with no explanation. Especially Faux. Rasmussen put "at least" there, I can give them that, even though it is still bad reporting and typical right wing spin. But it is absolutely horrible journalism on Faux's part to not include "at least" and make it appear to the average viewer that does not have full poll results that 94% of Americans think it's likely that global warming data was falsified. It is extremely misleading. Again, terrible journalism by Faux but I expect nothing more than terrible journalism by then.

That's pretty dodgy journalism from Fox.
What, did you actually expect "fair and balanced" reporting from those morons?

[Eraserhead]

What, did you actually expect "fair and balanced" reporting from those morons?

No, I suppose not. I suppose its their usual "high" journalistic standards.

[yg17]

No, I suppose not. I suppose its their usual "high" journalistic standards.

The fact it even has to be clarified after the fact means it's dodgy journalism. Poll results should be obvious and if they add up to a number greater than 100, there should be a clear explanation. And then to make matters worse, the ever so stupid Steve Doocy said on air that 90% of people believe it's false. Idiots. Every one of them.

[IntheNet]

No, I suppose not. I suppose its their usual "high" journalistic standards.

The point, which you seem to be missing (or at very least blaming on "poor journalism" to sidestep the issue) is that most Americans now question climate researchers findings on global warming and indeed most now believe scientists have falsified research data. That is the main point...

[Eraserhead]

The point, which you seem to be missing (or at very least blaming on "poor journalism" to sidestep the issue) is that most Americans now question climate researchers findings on global warming and indeed most now believe scientists have falsified research data. That is the main point...

So what? Only 50% of Americans believe in evolution, so at least 50% of Americans are total morons.

[OllyW]

So what? Only 50% of Americans believe in evolution, so at least 50% of Americans are total morons.

What about the other 20%. ;)

[IntheNet]

So what?

It shows that the fraud that is "global warming" and its eco-theorists are being exposed... good deal methinks....

Only 50% of Americans believe in evolution...

Actually that's wrong too... less than 39% believe in evolution (http://firstread.msnbc.msn.com/archive/2009/02/12/1791814.aspx).

[OllyW]

Actually that's wrong too... less than 39% believe in evolution (http://firstread.msnbc.msn.com/archive/2009/02/12/1791814.aspx).

Are you one of the less educated?

As expected, Gallup notes, education plays a big role here: 74% of those with post-graduate degrees believe in evolution. That's compared with only 21% of high school grads (or those with less education) who believe in the theory.

[yg17]

It shows that the fraud that is "global warming" and its eco-theorists are being exposed... good deal methinks....



Actually that's wrong too... less than 39% believe in evolution (http://firstread.msnbc.msn.com/archive/2009/02/12/1791814.aspx).

So at least 61% of Americans are total morons. Great.

[Eraserhead]

It shows that the fraud that is "global warming" and its eco-theorists are being exposed... good deal methinks....

Or the Americans are being brainwashed - just like they are on Evolution.

Actually that's wrong too... less than 39% believe in evolution (http://firstread.msnbc.msn.com/archive/2009/02/12/1791814.aspx).

Actually there are quite a lot of "don't knows", so I was counting some of them for each side, that said it looks like only 40% are actual believers in the theory.

To find this I was going from the following data from New Scientist:

http://www.newscientist.com/data/images/archive/2565/25653701.jpg

So at least 61% of Americans are total morons. Great.

Sarah Palin has a chance yet :eek:.

[yg17]

Or the Americans are being brainwashed - just like they are on Evolution.



Actually there are quite a lot of "don't knows", so I was counting some of them for each side, that said it looks like only 40% are actual believers in the theory.

To find this I was going from the following data from New Scientist:

http://www.newscientist.com/data/images/archive/2565/25653701.jpg



Sarah Palin has a chance yet :eek:.

At least Greece can say they're fairly close to Iceland, even though they're right above us. All of the other countries are close, I would say Iceland all the way down to Ireland are almost in a statistical tie, and the others are still pretty close. But we're not even close. There's a steep drop off once it gets to the US. Say a lot about our education system :rolleyes:

[IntheNet]

Actually there are quite a lot of "don't knows", so I was counting some of them for each side, that said it looks like only 40% are actual believers in the theory

Although the secular have advanced compulsory "evolution theory" within science curricula in public schools as a means of adding gravitas to their evident fiction, I have yet to meet anyone that actually believes in it. I am sure, however, as the ranks of the secular grows larger I will, eventually, run afoul of one of these "evolutionists" but I have been spared, so far, the pleasure... I sense and suspect that the minority that actually believes in global warming theory is the same minority that believes in evolution theory...

[OllyW]

I sense and suspect that the minority that actually believes in global warming theory is the same minority that believes in evolution theory...

Look at the chart Eraserhead posted, it's your lot who are in the minority.

[Eraserhead]

Look at the chart Eraserhead posted, it's your lot who are in the minority.

Not in the US. And that's the only country that matters ;).

[iBlue]

Although the secular have advanced compulsory "evolution theory" within science curricula in public schools as a means of adding gravitas to their evident fiction, I have yet to meet anyone that actually believes in it. I am sure, however, as the ranks of the secular grows larger I will, eventually, run afoul of one of these "evolutionists" but I have been spared, so far, the pleasure... I sense and suspect that the minority that actually believes in global warming theory is the same minority that believes in evolution theory...

What are your thoughts on that big river in Africa?

[CaptMurdock]

Anyhoo, back on topic. I'm personally on the fence. I do feel that reducing greenhouse gases and CO2 levels is not a bad thing, but I'm not entirely convinced that the climate change is man-caused, or at least not due to factors that scientists have not taken into account. While I dismiss the notion that the entirety of climatologists have entered into this mass conspiracy that forms the basis of right-wing circle-jerk fantasties, all designed to Mislead The Public and Further Their Agenda, I find it hard to accept their conclusions 100% simply on authority ("It must be true -- they wouldn't have printed it otherwise!")

[Ish]

The entire list is irrelevant, even if true. If anthropogenic climate change is in fact not happening, we still need to implement a strategic initiative for sustainable living simply because the Earths resources are finite

Agreed, well said! :)

-------

Another thought (not related to above):

Better cut down on exercise, it increases your carbon footprint!

[IntheNet]

That way lies really bad ideas like teaching creationism in school ...

I long for the day when the secular permit full education of all subjects to occur in public schools; we have, for far too long, allowed the secular to impose discrimination first and foremost in their curricula, under the guise of political correct demagoguery, thus denying our youth full exposure to ideas and education. Very sad situation. Those among us that are fortune enough to avoid this trap by choosing home schooling, or sending our children to carefully-selected private schools, have an option to avoid these secular theorists but for the poor among us - whom the secular abuse with their contrived propaganda - we extend only remorse for their subjection at the hands of those denying them a full and open education.

[Eraserhead]

Those among us that are fortune enough to avoid this trap by choosing home schooling, or sending our children to carefully-selected private schools, have an option to avoid these secular theorists

So you're against all science teaching?

[gilkisson]

... we have, for far too long, allowed the secular to impose discrimination first and foremost in their curricula...

... by choosing home schooling, or sending our children to carefully-selected private schools...

So when you do it, it's "choosing", or "being careful". When someone does not agree with you, it's "discrimination". Got it. Thanks.

[bobber205]

So you're against all science teaching?

InTHENET You want a THEOCRACY (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Theocracy)

PLEASE MOVE TO IRAN WHERE THEY HAVE ONE.

KTHXBAI.

[Iscariot]

Better cut down on exercise, it increases your carbon footprint!

I work in a gym :p

http://scienceblogs.com/pharyngula/upload/2009/12/the_bottom_line/betterworld.jpeg

[IntheNet]

So you're against all science teaching?

Not at all; only the part that selectively embraces a single theory of life origin; i.e., evolution, without due consideration of other equally relevant life origin theories such as Creationism, Intelligent Design, et al. Complaining against such exclusive selectivism within science curricula unfairly labels one as against science when that is not the case; what I am against is discrimination in the instruction of life origin curricula.

[Eraserhead]

InTHENET You want a THEOCRACY (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Theocracy)

PLEASE MOVE TO IRAN WHERE THEY HAVE ONE.

KTHXBAI.

From the Wikipedia article "Science and technology in Iran (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Science_and_technology_in_Iran)"

Iran is an example of a country that has made considerable advances through education and training, despite international sanctions in almost all aspects of research during the past few decades. Iran's university population swelled from 100,000 in 1979 to 2 million in 2006. Seventy percent of its science and engineering students are women.

So I don't think Iran is theocratic enough :p.

Additionally:

In the 13th century, more than 600 years before Charles Darwin, Nasir al-Din Tusi developed a basic theory of evolution. Key differences exist between Tusi's approach and Darwin's The Origin of Species. While Darwin used deductive reasoning, gathering samples of plants and animals to work his way from facts to a theory, Tusi used a more theoretical approach. Tusi explained that "hereditary variability" was the leading force of evolution. He wrote that all living organisms were able to change and that the animate organisms developed owing to their hereditary variability, saying "the organisms that can gain the new features faster are more variable. As a result, they gain advantages over other creatures." This sounds remarkably like a simplistic form of Darwin's writings about mutations.

Oh noes :eek:.

Not at all; only the part that selectively embraces a single theory of life origin;

Why? Most other science is far less accepted than evolution...

[Iscariot]

Not at all; only the part that selectively embraces a single theory of life origin

Evolution is not a theory of life origin. It merely explains speciation and diversity. You are either incontrovertibly ignorant or willfully distorting information in an attempt to further your argument. As I think it's become obvious that you are the latter, I respectfully request you stop lying your ass off.

[djellison]

unfairly labels one as against science when that is not the case

Is is. You are wrong.

Thanks for playing.

[bobber205]

Evolution is not a theory of life origin. It merely explains speciation and diversity. You are either incontrovertibly ignorant or willfully distorting information in an attempt to further your argument. As I think it's become obvious that you are the latter, I respectfully request you stop lying your ass off.

I am a firm agnostic. I believe there could be a god of some sorts and evolution is my primary reason for believing in such a being.

It confirmed any spirituality I had left in me. Ironic huh how others handle it?

[Raid]

I like the pic Iscariot!


But how did we go from climate change to discussion about evolution and creationism????

Instead of attempting to defend a position I have not studied in depth, or post polls from others who are equally uneducated in such matters, I'd like to pose the question to those who believe (which is different from knowing) the current rate of climate change is part of a natural process:

What data are you using and data collection methods have you employed to come to a conclusion that will stand the test of experiment repetition?

Naysayers seem to think they have the ability to completely debunk a theory on the basis of faith (or lack thereof) of the current held theory. Scientific assertions are made based on the available evidence that has been observed, collected, quantified, qualified and tested. It is true that new evidence may come to light and a previous theory is overturned as a new theory evolves (or is created :) ) from the old. This is not a problem with science it is one of it's greatest strengths.

Now in terms of climate change or evolution that means an argument that boils down to the "I don't believe in it." is utterly impotent in terms of changing a theory. If we did not discriminate arguments lacking in observational data "in the instruction of life origin curricula" we'd be teaching everyone that the the flying spaghetti monster created all creatures with it's noodly appendage.

[Counterfit]

Although the secular have advanced compulsory "evolution theory" within science curricula in public schools as a means of adding gravitas to their evident fiction, I have yet to meet anyone that actually believes in it.
Reality is that which when you stop believing in it, doesn't go away.

Or something like that. You can "not believe" in evolution all you want, that doesn't make you right.
I am sure, however, as the ranks of the secular grows larger I will, eventually, run afoul of one of these "evolutionists" but I have been spared, so far, the pleasure...

I'd love to see that, if only so I can witness your ******** in person.
I long for the day when the secular permit full education of all subjects to occur in public schools; we have, for far too long, allowed the secular to impose discrimination first and foremost in their curricula, under the guise of political correct demagoguery, thus denying our youth full exposure to ideas and education. Very sad situation. Those among us that are fortune enough to avoid this trap by choosing home schooling, or sending our children to carefully-selected private schools, have an option to avoid these secular theorists but for the poor among us - whom the secular abuse with their contrived propaganda - we extend only remorse for their subjection at the hands of those denying them a full and open education.

I long for the day when you realize that what you advocate is unconstitutional. You seem to have several issues with the first amendment.
Let me make it clear for you: Creationism, now known as Intelligent Design, is not science, has never been science, and most likely will never be science. This has been established in a Federal court of law. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kitzmiller_v._Dover_Area_School_District)


First John Denver, now Thomas Jefferson...

[Eraserhead]

But how did we go from climate change to discussion about evolution and creationism????

Its my fault :o.

So what? Only 50% of Americans believe in evolution, so at least 50% of Americans are total morons.

[IntheNet]

You can "not believe" in evolution all you want, that doesn't make you right.

I am simply advocating teaching children all the education; not just what the secular humanists want them to hear....

Creationism, now known as Intelligent Design, is not science, has never been science, and most likely will never be science.

If you read my posts you see clearly I am not advocating that it is.

Kitzmiller v. Dover...

Activist federal judges preventing criticism of Darwinian theories is censorship.

[bobber205]

I am simply advocating teaching children all the education; not just what the secular humanists want them to hear....



If you read my posts you see clearly I am not advocating that it is.



Activist federal judges preventing criticism of Darwinian theories is censorship.

If you want ID taught in schools fine. But you have to have a lesson on evolution at least once a month in your religious ceremonies.

[Counterfit]

If you read my posts you see clearly I am not advocating that it is.
So then why bring it into the science class? It has no place there.


Activist federal judges preventing criticism of Darwinian theories is censorship.

There was no judicial activism here. The suit was brought against a school board that tried to force creationism into the classroom, not because they criticized Darwin's theory. In addition to that, the two major players on the defense perjured themselves. The finding wasn't to stifle criticism of Darwin, but to prevent one religion's view from being promoted in a public school science class, which would be an outright violation of the 1st amendment which you seem to have serious issues with.

[quagmire]

I am simply advocating teaching children all the education; not just what the secular humanists want them to hear....

What education? Creationism is a religious belief. It's not even a theory due to having no evidence at all to back it up saying god put us here, while evolution has some kind of hard evidence to suggest that theory is a fact. Even the big bang theory has some kind of evidence to back it up and suggests a big bang happened. All creationism has is a belief and that is it.

[bobber205]

"teaching all the education"

Way to use the English!

[Ish]

I work in a gym :p

Then I hold you personally responsible! :D

[nick9191]

I don't want to take the chance.

Scenarios:

Climate change isn't down to us, we do nothing.

Climate change is down to us, we do nothing, we die.

Climate change is down to us, we prepare, we live.

Climate change isn't down to us, we prepare anyway, we get a cleaner world, sustainable fuel, cleaner air, etc. etc.

So you see, even if it's nothing to do with us, we still get a better deal if we prepare for it.

[OutThere]

Quite simple: all of the models that predict Earth's climate patterns using natural cycles (sun activity, orbital changes, tectonics, changes in the ocean) fall within a range of predictions: the Earth, if left alone, should have shown a slight cooling or very slight warming, what we've seen is a much more marked warming.


http://www.americanprogress.org/cartoons/2009/12/img/120809.jpg

http://www.americanprogress.org/cartoons/2009/12/img/120809.jpg

[IntheNet]

http://i48.tinypic.com/x2q7x1.jpg

[zap2]

comic


Please, keep bring the debate away from how we can help solve climate change.
:rolleyes:

[IntheNet]

Please, keep bring the debate away from how we can help solve climate change.

zap... as I read about these "global warming/climate change crackpots" I sit and look out my window at two feet of new fallen snow and pray for some global warming! Matter of fact, in the last 24 hours, according to the news, we received more snow in a single day than at any time in history for this area! Global warming? Yeah I'd like some... got any?

[NT1440]

zap... as I read about these "global warming/climate change crackpots" I sit and look out my window at two feet of new fallen snow and pray for some global warming! Matter of fact, in the last 24 hours, according to the news, we received more snow in a single day than at any time in history for this area! Global warming? Yeah I'd like some... got any?

Yet again, you show your complete ignorance. Weather and climate are not the same. I'd elaborate but I'd be the hundredth in these forums and its clear you just ignore everything and continue living in your own little world.

[zap2]

zap... as I read about these "global warming/climate change crackpots" I sit and look out my window at two feet of new fallen snow and pray for some global warming! Matter of fact, in the last 24 hours, according to the news, we received more snow in a single day than at any time in history for this area! Global warming? Yeah I'd like some... got any?

:rolleyes::rolleyes:

That's an argument I hear as a joke from time to time, but I believe you are using it seriously....which concerns me greatly. However, it does show quite well that you don't have any real education on global climate change.

Thats fine, seriously, not having an education on a topic is not a terrible act, but not begin willing to look at evidence or read up on the topic , but to speak on the issue, is a negative thing.


Please read up on it...I'd suggest starting at wikipedia, it gives a nice outline.

[djellison]

, but not begin willing to look at evidence or read up on the topic , but to speak on the issue, is a negative thing..

He is ignorant on the issue. Unfortunately, he's the most dangerous of ignoramuses - one who is so, wilfully and intentionally.

[IntheNet]

Yet again, you show your complete ignorance. Weather and climate are not the same...

I am well aware of the differences... China's record cold winter last year (http://www.nationalpost.com/opinion/columnists/story.html?id=332289) and record breaking cold this year here in this nation (United States) and parts of Europe confirm a cooling rather than warming cycle! No surprise!

You want facts?

"According to the US National Climatic Data Center (NCDC), the average temperature of the global land surface in January 2008 was below the 20th century mean (-0.02°F/-0.01°C) for the first time since 1982 (http://www.telegraph.co.uk/earth/earthnews/3326813/Global-warming-sceptics-buoyed-by-record-cold.html)."

I also steer you to another article, this one more precise, in addressing the fiction that is global warming theory and its alarmists and their history of being wrong:

The Deceit Behind Global Warming
Telegraph
Christopher Booker and Richard North
Published: 12:01AM GMT 04 Nov 2007
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/earth/earthnews/3312921/The-deceit-behind-global-warming.html

[OutThere]

I am well aware of the differences... China's record cold winter last year (http://www.nationalpost.com/opinion/columnists/story.html?id=332289) and record breaking cold this year here in this nation (United States) and parts of Europe confirm a cooling rather than warming cycle! No surprise!

You want facts?

"According to the US National Climatic Data Center (NCDC), the average temperature of the global land surface in January 2008 was below the 20th century mean (-0.02°F/-0.01°C) for the first time since 1982 (http://www.telegraph.co.uk/earth/earthnews/3326813/Global-warming-sceptics-buoyed-by-record-cold.html)."

I also steer you to another article, this one more precise, in addressing the fiction that is global warming theory and its alarmists and their history of being wrong:

The Deceit Behind Global Warming
Telegraph
Christopher Booker and Richard North
Published: 12:01AM GMT 04 Nov 2007
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/earth/earthnews/3312921/The-deceit-behind-global-warming.html

Calendar year 2008 was the coolest year since 2000, according to the NASA Goddard Institute for Space Studies (GISS) analysis of worldwide temperature measurements, but it was still in the top ten warmest years since the start of record-keeping in 1880. Given the range of uncertainty in the measurements, the GISS team concluded that 2008 was somewhere between the seventh and the tenth warmest year on record. (The 10 warmest years have all occurred within the 12-year period from 1997-2008.)

At least tell the whole story.

[zap2]

I am well aware of the differences

Then why bring up the weather at all?

Unless to mislead



I'd point out again how you are being misleading(with your links), but OutThere did it so well!

[IntheNet]

I'd point out again how you are being misleading(with your links), but OutThere did it so well!

Since I seem to be so methodical in documenting my sources and referencing with links my opinions on this issue, it is no surprise that you question them yet provide none yourself. Moreover, I am aware that no amount of facts will dissuade your dogmatic support of the almost religion-like global warming alarmism; your advocacy for it is respectable but misguided in my opinion... But in terms of your "misleading" allegation I can only say that world opinion is turning and the collapse of the Copenhagen eco-fest, combined with recent fraud within the East Anglia's Climatic Research Unit, is simply the The Tip of the Climategate Iceberg (http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748704342404574576683216723794.html)... The world now knows the fiction that is climate change/global warming...

[Don't panic]

Not at all; only the part that selectively embraces a single theory of life origin; i.e., evolution, without due consideration of other equally relevant life origin theories such as Creationism, Intelligent Design, et al. Complaining against such exclusive selectivism within science curricula unfairly labels one as against science when that is not the case; what I am against is discrimination in the instruction of life origin curricula.

you have been patiently demonstrated in more than one thread that this position of yours is ludicrous and based in untenable miscontructions of what science -and reality- is. the fact that you just keep pulling out the same crap in over and over again doesn't speak highly of your ability to understand and undermines the credibility of other posts of yours which might contains reasonable positions.

[zap2]

Since I seem to be so methodical in documenting my sources and referencing with links my opinions on this issue, it is no surprise that you question them yet provide none yourself.

:rolleyes:

You have not been, and while I have not posted as many links as you, quantity is not quality.

Moreover, I am aware that no amount of facts will dissuade your dogmatic support of the almost religion-like global warming alarmism;
Please point out where I have been an alarmist? Link the post.
I'm not a dogmatic support of any religion like thing. Disproving an accepted scientific theory isn't going to be one with one "fact", but a body of evidence that is peer reviewed...something you have lacked.


But in terms of your "misleading" allegation I can only say that world opinion is turning and the collapse of the Copenhagen eco-fest, combined with recent fraud within the East Anglia's Climatic Research Unit, is simply the The Tip of the Climategate Iceberg... The world now knows the fiction that is climate change/global warming..

That doesn't address your misleading post at all, it just says "I'm ignoring it and will post things that I think make me right".

The world doesn't "know the fiction that is climate change" because its not fiction. Scientific community is clear where it stands on the issue.

[Rampant.A.I.]

So you're against all science teaching?

Apparently he's against teachers teaching science, but is fine with using his Mac to access conspiracy blogs, Google statistics and scientific studies to misinterpret, and argue with people about climate change and the dangers of using science.

I have to wonder if he believes computers were created as part of the Secular Conspiracy, or if they're built by technology monks at Apple monasteries.

Uh-oh In The Net. Can you really support Apple any more? Looks like they believe in Global Warming too (http://www.apple.com/environment/reports/)! :eek:

http://img686.imageshack.us/img686/4605/screenshot20091220at336.png

[Eraserhead]

The thing is even if climate change was actually wrong preparing for it would bring enormous benefits in improved efficiency. And that has got to be a good thing. It is the key ingredient that let the US out-compete the rest of the world to become the worlds #1 country from the 1930's to the 1990's.

[zap2]

The thing is even if climate change was actually wrong preparing for it would bring enormous benefits in improved efficiency. And that has got to be a good thing. It is the key ingredient that let the US out-compete the rest of the world to become the worlds #1 country from the 1930's to the 1990's.

Agreed...we'd gain much from replacing coal, oil and natural gas.


But climate change is real....which just adds to the importance of our actions

[Eraserhead]

But climate change is real....which just adds to the importance of our actions

Agreed, but there are a lot of people in the world who don't believe in it for whatever reason, but I'm sure they believe in improving efficiency.

[Raid]

Agreed, but there are a lot of people in the world who don't believe in it for whatever reason, but I'm sure they believe in improving efficiency. Well some would see how new inventions and new products to help clean up, and maintain the environment would be good for the economy. However be careful about the word 'efficiency', some might construe that to mean a loss of jobs.


By the way I'm still waiting on data sources that prove that the current rate of climate change is natural. 100 or so years of data would be helpful, but I think I could model a trend based on around 60.

[NT1440]

Green tech is the next major industry, it will provide thousands/hundreds of thousands of jobs, why so many people are so reluctant to let it flourish is beyond me.

I think alot of those who oppose green tech for financial reasons aren't even looking at what this could be. If the USA would get off its ass and get back to making products (green tech is a whole new industry so no one has a lock on it yet) we could be the front runners yet again. EMBRACE THE GREEN MOVEMENT AND LET AMERICA BE GREAT AT SOMETHING ONCE AGAIN. If not for helping the earth out, then at least support it for the jobs and economic boom that is sure to follow.

[IntheNet]

Green tech is the next major industry, it will provide thousands/hundreds of thousands of jobs, why so many people are so reluctant to let it flourish is beyond me.

I've heard this several time; i.e., "green tech" being advocated by Democrats but it seems it is Democrats themselves that are killing green initiatives; i.e, the late Massachusetts Democrat Sen. Edward Kennedy's move to block the Nantucket wind farm (http://www.boston.com/news/nation/washington/articles/2006/04/27/kennedy_faces_fight_on_cape_wind/) and West Virginia Democrat Sen. Senator Robert Byrd's advocacy of increased coal production (http://climateprogress.org/2009/12/03/sen-byrd-wv-coal-environment-climate-mountaintop-removal). So if indeed "green tech" is the next major industry, could you be specific and highlight some of the potential job locations and let us know which Democrats favor it? Also, where do you get "thousands/hundreds of thousands of jobs" estimate?

EMBRACE THE GREEN MOVEMENT AND LET AMERICA BE GREAT AT SOMETHING ONCE AGAIN.

During the 2008 campaign, DRILL BABY DRILL was popular too... and it has greater potential in terms of natural gas use which is underused in this country...

[NT1440]

Why am I being asked which democrats support my own personal views?

[Eraserhead]

However be careful about the word 'efficiency', some might construe that to mean a loss of jobs.

People have said that about every improvement in production, from "automatic" weaving machines to desktop computers. Its always been proved to be false.

There are way, way more people in employment now, in decent jobs, than there were in 1800.

[lordhamster]

Green tech is the next major industry, it will provide thousands/hundreds of thousands of jobs, why so many people are so reluctant to let it flourish is beyond me.


I agree Green tech will be the next major industry, however I disagree on how to bring it about. I say let people use up all the oil. The faster it is used up, the more scarce it becomes.

Greater Scarcity = Higher Prices.

When prices rise people look for alternatives. You didn't notice people not buying SUVs when gas was at 4+ dollars a gallon? Thats part of the reason GM is in trouble. Problem is many people think that somehow centrally managing the economy by passing thousands of regulations on every aspect of life will make the economy go the way they want it to. Let the market do it's work and if those saying we are going to run out of oil are correct, then we'll all be green in no time.

[Iscariot]

Agreed, but there are a lot of people in the world who don't believe in it for whatever reason, but I'm sure they believe in improving efficiency.

I actually had a discussion with a very well educated friend of mine who has done significant research into the scientific research that's been done, and he raises some pretty strong questions. Nonetheless, despite being a professed skeptic, he's just as dedicated to going green as I am (if not more). I think that focusing on the subject of global warming was a poor and somewhat FUD-y choice; we have to tackle sustainability in a meaningful way to survive as a society regardless of the validity anthropogenic climate change. The focus should always have been one of resource management for the future.

[iBlue]

... I think that focusing on the subject of global warming was a poor and somewhat FUD-y choice; we have to tackle sustainability in a meaningful way to survive as a society regardless of the validity anthropogenic climate change. The focus should always have been one of resource management for the future.

This needed quoting. Could not agree more.

[imac/cheese]

I actually had a discussion with a very well educated friend of mine who has done significant research into the scientific research that's been done, and he raises some pretty strong questions. Nonetheless, despite being a professed skeptic, he's just as dedicated to going green as I am (if not more). I think that focusing on the subject of global warming was a poor and somewhat FUD-y choice; we have to tackle sustainability in a meaningful way to survive as a society regardless of the validity anthropogenic climate change. The focus should always have been one of resource management for the future.

Great post. I myself have quite a few questions about global warming but I decided years ago that no matter what, living a sustainable lifetyle and focusing my career on managing energy usage was this right thing to do. Whether or not global warming is the threat so many think it is does not change the fact that reducing our impact on the earth is essential.

[hulugu]

I actually had a discussion with a very well educated friend of mine who has done significant research into the scientific research that's been done, and he raises some pretty strong questions. Nonetheless, despite being a professed skeptic, he's just as dedicated to going green as I am (if not more). I think that focusing on the subject of global warming was a poor and somewhat FUD-y choice; we have to tackle sustainability in a meaningful way to survive as a society regardless of the validity anthropogenic climate change. The focus should always have been one of resource management for the future.

I'm less skeptical about the theory of anthropogenic climate change, but the often hysterical-sounding language used to support the case bothers me as well. What was once a wonky theory has become surrealist commercials with CG polar bears plummeting to their deaths. At the same time, something that is scary, the rising concentration of carbonic acid in the oceans, is widely ignored.

And, the case for sustainability and for "green" technology is, I think, a rather easy one to make. Oil will not last forever, potable water is not infinite, and we all need clear air to breathe. There will be hard choices, but quite simply, we need to deal with our profligate ways as our population increases and the "third-world" begins to want "first-world" luxuries.

[Raid]

<snip Democratic failure to promote green initiatives and then this...>
During the 2008 campaign, DRILL BABY DRILL was popular too... and it has greater potential in terms of natural gas use which is underused in this country... Wait if I understand you correctly (the republican chant of Drill Baby Drill shows a lack of regard for carbon emissions) you are then criticizing both political parties for failure to reduce carbon emissions and promote efficiency. How non partisan of you!


People have said that about every improvement in production, from "automatic" weaving machines to desktop computers. Its always been proved to be false.

There are way, way more people in employment now, in decent jobs, than there were in 1800.No and yes; First the no: There is pretty much always a short-run increase in unemployment when production efficiency increases (given a constant/capped output). As the displaced labour force is retrained, or absorbed into other industry the unemployment rate falls once again. Now the yes employment, poverty rates, and the standard of living has largely benefited over the long run your example of the 1800's (and the industrial revolution that falls neatly into that time frame is a clear example of this).

I think that focusing on the subject of global warming was a poor and somewhat FUD-y choice; we have to tackle sustainability in a meaningful way to survive as a society regardless of the validity anthropogenic climate change. The focus should always have been one of resource management for the future. I agree that the climate change warnings are alarmist, but sadly it seems the public needs a panic these days to come to a consensus. I also agree that the benefits of sustainable living reach far beyond that of combating climate change, but this really isn't really the topic of the thread...

Oh and I'm still waiting on data I can use to confirm or disprove an increasing trend; 60years, and one daily temperature, rainfall, humidity reading per 100km radius would help. Fivepoint? (if you ever read threads beyond your initial posts) InTheNet? Bueller?

[Eraserhead]

I agree that the climate change warnings are alarmist, but sadly it seems the public needs a panic these days to come to a consensus.

Was that ever different? Take the slave trade for example which the British outlawed, shock tactics were used then too:

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/2/27/Slaveshipplan.jpg

[Iscariot]

but this really isn't really the topic of the thread

Myopic OPs should not be grounds for limiting important discussions.

[IntheNet]

Wait if I understand you correctly (the republican chant of Drill Baby Drill shows a lack of regard for carbon emissions) you are then criticizing both political parties for failure to reduce carbon emissions and promote efficiency. How non partisan of you!

There are many conventional energy measures to pursue that are aligned with good environmental practice (as opposed to coal- and oil-fueled sources). Among these measures are natural gas (http://money.cnn.com/2009/07/14/news/economy/pickens_natural_gas.fortune/index.htm) (favored by T. Boone Pickens and many senators of both parties); nuclear power (http://www.nrdc.org/nuclear/pnucpwr.asp) (favored by European nations and many environmental spokesman as cleanest type of power); and wind farm energy (http://www.capewind.org/) (of the sort opposed by the late Sen. Kennedy). Moreover, there was a groundswell of support to harvest our own off-shore petroleum supplies to free us from foreign sources and I whole-heartedly agree with this approach.

[Eraserhead]

There are many conventional energy measures to pursue that are aligned with good environmental practice (as opposed to coal- and oil-fueled sources). Among these measures are natural gas (http://money.cnn.com/2009/07/14/news/economy/pickens_natural_gas.fortune/index.htm) (favored by T. Boone Pickens and many senators of both parties);

Natural gas is a) a carbon producer and b) a non-renewable. Its not a "good environmental practice" fuel, just that its a bit better for the environment than coal (which is why we switched).

[zap2]

There are many conventional energy measures to pursue that are aligned with good environmental practice (as opposed to coal- and oil-fueled sources). Among these measures are natural gas (http://money.cnn.com/2009/07/14/news/economy/pickens_natural_gas.fortune/index.htm) (favored by T. Boone Pickens and many senators of both parties); nuclear power (http://www.nrdc.org/nuclear/pnucpwr.asp) (favored by European nations and many environmental spokesman as cleanest type of power); and wind farm energy (http://www.capewind.org/) (of the sort opposed by the late Sen. Kennedy). Moreover, there was a groundswell of support to harvest our own off-shore petroleum supplies to free us from foreign sources and I whole-heartedly agree with this approach.

This is why the argument not focusing on climate change is dangerous, it moves the debate away from a huge reason why we need to focus on clean energies NOW.

If it just about sustainability, then oil, natural gas and coal have a place in our energy future. But the facts of climate change make it clear those energy sources need to get out of our energy future as quick as we can get them out(which I'll admit, is not all that quick)

[IntheNet]

Natural gas is a) a carbon producer and b) a non-renewable. Its not a "good environmental practice" fuel, just that its a bit better for the environment than coal (which is why we switched).

Fair enough and I don't dispute what you allege; issue is, however, nothing else practical is being advanced by the green lobby that is a valid energy choice now or in the near term... I proposed (1) natural gas* since it's in good supply and it taps our own sources rather than foreign sources (even though it may still be a "carbon producer"), (2) renewed nuclear energy development; and (3) wind farm production. What else is available that is practical to use now (home heating and vehicle transport) for use in the near term without decades of redevelopment?

*See natural gas 'cleal energy' technology still advanced by US EPA (http://www.epa.gov/rdee/energy-and-you/affect/natural-gas.html).

[zap2]

Fair enough and I don't dispute what you allege; issue is, however, nothing else practical is being advanced by the green lobby that is a valid energy choice now or in the near term... I proposed (1) natural gas* since it's in good supply and it taps our own sources rather than foreign sources (even though it may still be a "carbon producer"), (2) renewed nuclear energy development; and (3) wind farm production. What else is available that is practical to use now (home heating and vehicle transport) for use in the near term without decades of redevelopment?

*See natural gas 'cleal energy' technology still advanced by US EPA (http://www.epa.gov/rdee/energy-and-you/affect/natural-gas.html).

"the green lobby" is a pretty sensationalist name, no?

I think wind is certainly being suggested by the far of left green. And I'd say nuclear is a good energy source to replace coal based power plants. Are they risks and negatives to it? Yes, but at this point, due to climate change, its our best pick at this point.

One of the things our energy policies need to focus on is a replacement for oil for transportation....we've seen some promising electric cars, but we'll need to see a lot more if we want to get away from oil for transportation

[Counterfit]

Cool thing about hydrogen: current internal combustion cars can run on it without major modifications. Stainless steel exhaust, additional fuel system* not unlike that in cars/trucks converted to run on veggie oil, and a new tank.

*: once the infrastructure is in place, you can probably ditch the gas tank and lines.

[Badandy]

I think that focusing on the subject of global warming was a poor and somewhat FUD-y choice; we have to tackle sustainability in a meaningful way to survive as a society regardless of the validity anthropogenic climate change. The focus should always have been one of resource management for the future.

IntheNet, I'm interested as to how you'd respond to this point. I know it wasn't aimed directly at you, but I think it's pretty interesting. Would you take additional measures to reduce our impact on the environment irrespective of the validity of current climate change theory? Surely it can't be bad to wean ourselves off of a limited resource that funnels money to governments and companies in the Middle East, right?

[quagmire]

Cool thing about hydrogen: current internal combustion cars can run on it without major modifications. Stainless steel exhaust, additional fuel system* not unlike that in cars/trucks converted to run on veggie oil, and a new tank.

*: once the infrastructure is in place, you can probably ditch the gas tank and lines.

But, they are horribly inefficient compared to hydrogen fuel cells( even worse then gas). GM had a H2 hydrogen concept using the 6.0 V8 in it. It made a whopping 180 HP. :cool::p

[MorphingDragon]

Were not causing it but were not helping it either.

I blame Texas oil for the Helping part. If it weren't for them we would probably be decades ahead in alternative research.

So really, greed.

[CaptMurdock]

But, they are horribly inefficient compared to hydrogen fuel cells( even worse then gas). GM had a H2 hydrogen concept using the 6.0 V8 in it. It made a whopping 180 HP. :cool::p

Pretend, just for a second, that I know nothing of physics and auto mechanics. How does that translate into miles per hour?

[quagmire]

Pretend, just for a second, that I know nothing of physics and auto mechanics. How does that translate into miles per hour?

MPH? You mean MPG? I can only imagine what the H2H would get on hydrogen if it gets 10 MPG at best city( as you can tell I don't know that much about this stuff. I just remembered the H2H concept making a pathetic amount of HP).

Here are the details about it.

http://www.myh2hummer.com/the-hydrogen-powered-hummer-h2h/

[Counterfit]

Were not causing it but were not helping it either.

I blame Texas oil for the Helping part. If it weren't for them we would probably be decades ahead in alternative research.

So really, greed.
The oil fields or the companies?
Pretend, just for a second, that I know nothing of physics and auto mechanics. How does that translate into miles per hour?

Depends on the aerodynamics and gearing mostly. 173HP gets my car moving pretty quickly. :D

[CaptMurdock]

MPH? You mean MPG? I can only imagine what the H2H would get on hydrogen if it gets 10 MPG at best city( as you can tell I don't know that much about this stuff. I just remembered the H2H concept making a pathetic amount of HP).

Here are the details about it.

http://www.myh2hummer.com/the-hydrogen-powered-hummer-h2h/

No, I meant miles-per-hour. One complaint about non-gasoline-powered cars was that they were considered too slow, IIRC. I was wondering how fast a car that was able to produce 180 horsepower (I assume that's what HP stands for) would go.

[quagmire]

No, I meant miles-per-hour. One complaint about non-gasoline-powered cars was that they were considered too slow, IIRC. I was wondering how fast a car that was able to produce 180 horsepower (I assume that's what HP stands for) would go.

Oh. In a vehicle like the H2, 180 HP would struggle to get it moving. In a Civic, 180 HP would be plenty, but packaging a V8 into a Civic would be costly...... That is why an internal combustion engine converted to burn hydrogen instead of gasoline is not ideal. Hydrogen fuel cells are better. Where it takes hydrogen and converts it to electricity. GM and Honda both have prototypes on the road( 100 Equinox fuel cells and I believe Honda has 200 FCX Clarity's).

http://deceiver.com/wp-content/uploads/2009/01/chevroletequinox-fuelcell.jpg

http://www.autospectator.com/cars/files/images/FCX-Clarity.jpg

The Equinox uses GM's older Gen IV fuel cell system. GM's Gen V fuel cell system can go up to 300 miles per tank. Since these vehicles use electric motors, 100% of its torque is made at 0 RPM and will move these vehicles nicely.

For electric vehicles there is the Tesla Roadster and to a lesser extent Chevy Volt( it is a hybrid technically, but the electric motors power the wheels 100% of the time. The ICE just provides the electricity when the battery reaches 30%).

[MorphingDragon]

The oil fields or the companies?


Depends on the aerodynamics and gearing mostly. 173HP gets my car moving pretty quickly. :D

Companies.

Oh. In a vehicle like the H2, 180 HP would struggle to get it moving. In a Civic, 180 HP would be plenty, but packaging a V8 into a Civic would be costly...... That is why an internal combustion engine converted to burn hydrogen instead of gasoline is not ideal. Hydrogen fuel cells are better. Where it takes hydrogen and converts it to electricity. GM and Honda both have prototypes on the road( 100 Equinox fuel cells and I believe Honda has 200 FCX Clarity's).

http://deceiver.com/wp-content/uploads/2009/01/chevroletequinox-fuelcell.jpg

http://www.autospectator.com/cars/files/images/FCX-Clarity.jpg

The Equinox uses GM's older Gen IV fuel cell system. GM's Gen V fuel cell system can go up to 300 miles per tank. Since these vehicles use electric motors, 100% of its torque is made at 0 RPM and will move these vehicles nicely.

For electric vehicles there is the Tesla Roadster and to a lesser extent Chevy Volt( it is a hybrid technically, but the electric motors power the wheels 100% of the time. The ICE just provides the electricity when the battery reaches 30%).

Tesla KNOW how to make good looking cars.

[djellison]

Lotus know how to make good looking cars. Tesla just tweaked the Elise to fit the batteries :)

A fuel-cell Tesla would be awesome. Battery tech isn't going to last for that long. H2 fuel cells will be the cars of tomorrow, because you can fill them up just like the cars of today.

[MorphingDragon]

Lotus know how to make good looking cars. Tesla just tweaked the Elise to fit the batteries :)

A fuel-cell Tesla would be awesome. Battery tech isn't going to last for that long. H2 fuel cells will be the cars of tomorrow, because you can fill them up just like the cars of today.

And they go BOOOM!!!
http://img412.imageshack.us/img412/3056/nuclearxdwt4.jpg

[quagmire]

And they go BOOOM!!!
http://img412.imageshack.us/img412/3056/nuclearxdwt4.jpg

So does gasoline. If the tank ruptures, the hydrogen gas will escape pretty fast minimizing risk of it igniting.

[Raid]

Myopic OPs should not be grounds for limiting important discussions. Not only is the subject myopic, my point is that it's misleading and mal-intended! At the very crux of the thread's title there is a grain of truth (that climate change is natural...like how we aren't in an ice age anymore...), but at the same time it ignores the rapid rate of climate change, and implies that the human race is somehow devoid of responsibility. Many of the 'reasons' Fivepoint posted do not have anything to do with climate change, anonymously quote detractors of climate change studies, and have more to do with our lack of ability to affect true change... which I guess is what Fivepoint is applauding and supporting in the first place.

Moreover, there was a groundswell of support to harvest our own off-shore petroleum supplies to free us from foreign sources and I whole-heartedly agree with this approach. Well then in an attempt to reduce dependency on foreign energy sources and to help American jobs; wouldn't it then be prudent to practice more energy efficient lifestyle choices and support government initiatives to work on the creation of new efficient technologies and products?

[IntheNet]

Well then in an attempt to reduce dependency on foreign energy sources and to help American jobs; wouldn't it then be prudent to practice more energy efficient lifestyle choices and support government initiatives to work on the creation of new efficient technologies and products?

To answer your question; yes, it would be prudent - not feasible mind you but prudent just the same! Trouble is, we can't overnight switch to some magical pie-in-the-sky clean energy that quick! Even the best hybrids use half petroleum and our economy is set up so that internal combustion engines running petroleum set the standard for our work. Therefore let us first switch from foreign oil dependency to our own from our own sources - drill baby drill - and then once we are energy dependent on our own sources of petroleum, then we can wean ourselves, little by little, onto alternate sources, all electric cars, wind power for homes, nuclear plants in every town, etc. But doing it all at once is impossible and could shatter our economy.

[Eraserhead]

To answer your question; yes, it would be prudent - not feasible mind you but prudent just the same! Trouble is, we can't overnight switch to some magical pie-in-the-sky clean energy that quick!

Noone is suggesting that is done, at most we are suggesting that 1 - 2% of GDP is spent on conversion.

[skunk]

Therefore let us first switch from foreign oil dependency to our own from our own sources - drill baby drill - and then once we are energy dependent on our own sources of petroleum, then we can wean ourselves, little by little, onto alternate sources, all electric cars, wind power for homes, nuclear plants in every town,If you think for one moment that you could make yourselves self-sufficient in petroleum without vastly reducing usage, you are seriously misinformed.

[bobber205]

If you think for one moment that you could make yourselves self-sufficient in petroleum without vastly reducing usage, you are seriously misinformed.

Hey! InTheNet has that phrased trademarked. You owe him or her a nickel.

[hulugu]

If you think for one moment that you could make yourselves self-sufficient in petroleum without vastly reducing usage, you are seriously misinformed.

Absolutely. Oil is priced and sold on a global marketplace.

[Raid]

To answer your question; yes, it would be prudent - not feasible mind you but prudent just the same! Trouble is, we can't overnight switch to some magical pie-in-the-sky clean energy that quick! Even the best hybrids use half petroleum and our economy is set up so that internal combustion engines running petroleum set the standard for our work. Therefore let us first switch from foreign oil dependency to our own from our own sources - drill baby drill - and then once we are energy dependent on our own sources of petroleum, then we can wean ourselves, little by little, onto alternate sources, all electric cars, wind power for homes, nuclear plants in every town, etc. But doing it all at once is impossible and could shatter our economy. Not feasible in what sense? As far as I've read no one posting here has said anything about rapid change, infrastructure and lifestyle choices will certainly take time and it's about time to begin! In an economic sense oil is simply a factor of production, developing alternative energy sources or more efficient means of production will not disrupt any western economy and actually could reduce inflationary pressures that oil brings.

Those who thought "drill baby drill" was the answer may have found their own pie-in-the-sky answer. Even if you disregard the environmental/ecological impacts that add to the domestic costs of drilling, there is no evidence that any domestic drilling in the US will have a significant impact on the cost of oil. Even if the US doubled their oil producing infrastructure (which would take a while too) they still would be in the top 3 nations of oil importers. (check here if you want (https://www.cia.gov/library/publications/the-world-factbook/rankorder/rankorderguide.html))

[Rampant.A.I.]

Those who thought "drill baby drill" was the answer may have found their own pie-in-the-sky answer. Even if you disregard the environmental/ecological impacts that add to the domestic costs of drilling, there is no evidence that any domestic drilling in the US will have a significant impact on the cost of oil. Even if the US doubled their oil producing infrastructure (which would take a while too) they still would be in the top 3 nations of oil importers. (check here if you want (https://www.cia.gov/library/publications/the-world-factbook/rankorder/rankorderguide.html))

It's hilarious that the same people who are terrified of Big Government haven't given any real thought to where exactly all that oil is going to go as soon as it's drill-baby-drilled out of the ground.

It's going to go to the highest bidder, globally.

It's not as if Big Oil companies are going to give it all up to the American people out of the goodness of their hearts. :rolleyes:

[yg17]

All the proof you need of global warming right here:

http://www.mywebpower.com/graphics/comments//thumbnails/funny_pictures/9_funny_global_warming.jpg