Meeting for Global Warming cancled due to massive snow storms

Lawmakers Cancel Global Warming Hearing as Mammoth Snowstorm Heads East

STATE COLLEGE, Pa. — House lawmakers canceled a morning subcommittee meeting on global warming as the mammoth snowstorm that has caused chaos across the Midwest headed east. The Subcommittee on Energy and Air Quality hearing entitled "Climate Change: Are Greenhouse Gas Emissions from Human Activities Contributing to a Warming of the Planet?" will be rescheduled at a later time, the committee announced.

This also prompted a move to retitle the meeting "Climate Change" and keep the words 'Global Warming' off. Although "Climate Change" doesn't summon up the same sense of alarmism, sky is falling, the world is ending... that "Global Warming" does.
​

 

http://www.hindustantimes.com/news/181_1925164,0008.htm

Indian (Himalayan Mountains) experts question theory on Global Warming... On thing I didn't realize was there are 9,575 known glaciers in the country, fascinating

 

Rather ironic eh? Something like the fact that Al Gore was supposed to film a segment on the problem of hurricanes for his INCONVENIENT TRUTH movie in New Orleans... but that had to be cancelled due to Hurricane Katrina.

But you're right about the "climate change" and "global warming" labels. The term "climate change" is considered to be a scientific terms and encompasses all changes over a very long period of time... including ice ages and shorter term changes that occur for different reasons. "Global Warming" by contrast is a term that refers specifically to a small portion of the very large 'climate change' area... specifically, the recent dramatic warming and increase in greenhouse gases caused by human activity on massive global scales. "Global Warming" tends to be a politically charged term that often stimulates knee-jerk negative reactions among certain segments of the population. Since knee-jerk (or any other kind of jerk) reactions are not very constructive to efforts to actually respond to important issues, the term 'climate change' is often preferred.

On Bonedigger's article about the Indians... the article refers to "carbon dioxide radioactive forcing" which is completely idiotic. Radioactive forcing? I have to question the veracity of the article if the editing is so poor to let something like that through.

 

I wouldnt call 1 degree rise in average temperature dramatic...

 

It isn't surprising that the global warming fanatics are seeking to change the language of the discussion to further their cause. Too hot? The solution is government intervention. Too dry? The solution is government intervention. More hurricanes? Government intervention. Melting glaciers? Government intervention. Let's just call it climate change and get involved with everything. I've read that the amount of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere has been greater than current levels during past ice ages. About 20? years ago, Al Gore spoke at a sustainability conference hosted by Prince Charles where he was quoted as saying, "It is better for a child to die than to cut three trees to save him." Of course he received a thundering ovation from the audience of like-minded people who are now the vanguard of the climate change fanatics. They were impressed enough to nominate the man for an Oscar and Nobel Peace Prize.

 

I think I stopped caring about the Nobel Peace prize and who wins it when the terrorist Arafat won it...

 

It is rumored that the great state of Texas want government funding so that they may build a monument to him. To be built in front of the astro dome.:whistle:

 

I'm going to need to see some sort of documentation and context to regard the above quote as anything but a da#@ lie!

You guys are really grasping at straws here. You can't come up with anything better?

 

Ah yes, the Yew Tree incident, LOL...

 

The quote is:

The Pacific Yew can be cut down and processed to produce a potent chemical, Taxol, which offers some promise of curing certain forms of lung, breast and ovarian cancer in patients who would otherwise quickly die. It seems an easy choice -- sacrifice the tree for a human life -- until one learns that three trees must be destroyed for each patient treated.

refering to killing trees for medicine....

Here it is in context:

Most of the [tree] species unique to the rain forests are in imminent danger, partly because there is no one to speak up for them. In contrast, consider the recent controversy over the yew tree, a temperate forest species, one variety of which now grows only in the Pacific Northwest. The Pacific Yew can be cut down and processed to produce a potent chemical, Taxol, which offers some promise of curing certain forms of lung, breast, and ovarian cancer in patients who would otherwise quickly die. It seems an easy choice -- sacrifice the tree for a human life -- until one learns that three trees must be destroyed for each patient treated, that only specimens more than a hundred years old contain the potent chemical, and that there are very few of these Yews remaining on earth. Suddenly we must confront some very tough questions. How important are the medical needs of future generations? Are those of us alive today entitled to cut down all of those trees to extend the lives of a few of us, even if it means that this unique form of life will disappear forever, thus making it impossible to save human lives in the future?

Most people quote him out of context for obvious political reasons...he was not saying NOT to cut them down...he was saying that to cut them all down now and not think of how to make sure they will still exist in the future is irresponsible.

 

It is not possible that a person could be so ignorant that they do not realize that weather physics is a complex science? Could it be possible that you are that ignorant?

 

not possible

It was just a bit on irony fella...no need to be antagonistic and abrasive (more than usual)

 

Thank you Drusus for the CORRECT quote and full context. Yes I was aware of the difficult situation re the Pacific Yew. It is an example of just one of the sorts of choices that we face as we deplete the natural nd biological esources of the planet to the breaking point.

I consider Cloudsweeper's purposefully incorrect quote a contemptible attempt at character assassination of a good and honorable man. It is almost as low as those Swift Boat creeps who were paid to spread lies about John Kerry. That was proven to be a smear campaign orchestrated high in the Republican party... and NOT ONE SINGLE APOLOGY WAS EVER GIVEN.

NO MORE LIES!

 

Thanks Drusus. I accept that quote and context. Some see this as the words of a great man. I see it as the ravings of a lunatic. To let someone die who could be saved is contemptable, but that's just me.

 

The ravings of a lunatic??? Good grief man, can you not see the difficulty of the choices? It's like the choice faced by a ship captain who's been torpedoed. He's got men below decks who will drown, but if he opens the hatches to let them out, the ship will go down and everyone will drown. Instead of trying to undserstand the dilemma, you posted a cowardly lie intended to make Gore look like a child-killer. I submit that you simply can't face the truth and so you deny-deny-deny by hook or by crook, by lies, innuendo, and slander.... anything to stave off the moment when you have to look reality in the face and see that the world is in trouble.

So it comes down to whether you want to be part of the problem or part of the solution. All I've been arguing across these many threads is that it's time for us to step forward and be part of the solution. Our parents and grandparents did it in their time when fascism was the primary global threat. We can do no less.

 

Cloud...would it not be best for people to take the time to find a way to syth the drug from the yew tree, to find a way to mass produce this while we still have a good supply then to cut three down for every one person until there are no more left and we lose the ability to do make the drug at all? This is the point he was making. The tree is rare science can, most likely, find a way to make the drug for mass consumption with out destroying the full population of the tree if given time. I think this is reasonable in the long term.

 

I guess it depends on how well your moral compass works. I can't see the difficulty at all. If I could save a life or relieve the suffering of a person by cutting down three 100 year old trees, I'd do it in a heartbeat. The idea that this will somehow harm more people than it will help is pretty theoretical since all of the trees aged 1 through 99 will still be standing. I stand by my opinion that people who value the tree more than the man are lunatics.

 

The synthetic chemical is obviously the longer term solution, and no doubt the chemical compostion is already analyzed and known to science. All the more reason to use the present crop of 100 year old trees to save lives and relieve suffering as much as possible. Nobody is talking about cutting down the trees until no more are left since the original comment clearly indicated that only the trees at least 100 years old contain the compound. There is also the practical issue that unless and until trees are cut and the compound is used, there is no way to know if it works, how well it works, or if it would even be the preferred treatment. I think it's horrifying that anyone would even equate the life of a tree to the life of a human being.

 

see I dont think he was equating the life of trees to humans...He wasnt putting the concern out there as a 'save the trees' statement but more a dont kill all of these trees before a long term solution can be found...could be wrong.

 

Perhaps not, but the comment is too close to the line for comfort.