Global Warming is a Hoax!

It's interesting that he comes to the conclusion that the only scenario with a positive outcome is if we do nothing, but he doesn't even recognize it. Too close to the forest to see the trees I guess.

 

I have viewed the graphs, forgiving the flatuance of the cows we are headed for real trouble. As far as I can determine it is like being on a seesaw in second grade. If your pardner jumps off the seesaw then you hit rock bottom. What I am trying to say that there is a trigger in the atmosphere concerning the mix of gasses that could go into overdrive.

 

Richard Lindzen, an atmospheric physicist and a professor of meteorology at MIT, renowned for his research in dynamic meteorology - especially atmospheric waves. He is also a member of the National Academy of Sciences and has held positions at the University of Chicago, Harvard University and MIT. Linzen frequently speaks out against the notion that significant Global Warming is caused by humans.

Aaron Wildavsky's book "Yes, but is it true?" The author taught political science at a New York University and realized how science was being influenced by and apparently misused by politics. He gave his graduate students an assignment to pursue, “the science behind a policy generated and highly publicised environmental concern, Global Warming”. To his and their surprise they found there was little scientific evidence, consensus and justification for the policy.

Apparently there are some of you who thinks if the fossil fuel companies pays, then you have an agenda. But if Greenpeace, Sierra Club or the governments pay, then there is no agenda and only truth and enlightenment? How comforting this must seem to people like Tom Maringer!
Politicians like Al Gore are being listened to, even though most of them have no knowledge or understanding of science, especially the science of climate and climate change.

 

If it walks like a duck and quacks like a duck, what is it?

 

I just want to point out that I'm the only person on this forum that posts under my right name. I personally stand behind every word I say without hiding behind pseudonyms.

Resource depletion and global warming are part and parcel of one large issue facing the entire human species. Perhaps you just don't care Dan, and that's fine. Go stick your head in the sand and play with your coins til the end comes. But there are those of us who love this little planet and all its silly foolish people enough to try to do something to keep it all going. If you're not going to try to be part of the solution, at least get out of the way and stop being part of the problem.

 

It's nice that you are who you say you are, so what? So far as being part of the problem goes, apparently you haven't been listening. You or I can not be part of what you are calling a 'problem', as it isn't the individual who causes what ever it is that is bothering you greenies. Read what is said and try and remember:
there is an old saying about, 'fool me once, shame on you! fool me twice, shame on me!

 

Answer: A duck!

 

Global warming is a classic scare campaign initiated by the Greens after a previous effort in the 1970s to influence public policy by declaring a coming Ice Age failed to generate any response. What we are seeing now is yet another worldwide coordinated campaign by the Greens to rescue the global warming theory from the junk heap to which it should be consigned.

We are going into ‘Global Worming’ yells such great scientific minds as Robert F. Kennedy, Jr., and Sen. John McCain in attempt to force the US to implement the United Nations Kyoto protocol on "climate control." Anyone who thinks humans have any control over the Earth's climate is willfully ignoring the evidence that has been proven and accepted.

The NRDC declared, "The world's leading scientists now agree that global warming is real and is happening right now. According to their forecasts, extreme changes in climate could produce a future in which erratic and chaotic weather, melting ice caps and rising sea levels usher in an era of drought, crop failure, famine, flood and mass extinctions."

Scary, eh? One huge volcanic eruption could do this. As to the weather, it is the very definition of chaos and has been for billions of years.

The good news is that leading climatologists and meteorologists are actively debunking this nonsense. One of them, Dr. F. Fred Singer, president of the Science and Environmental Policy Project, is in the forefront. He debunks a June 7 statement issued by several national academies of sciences just before Britain's Tony Blair arrived for talks with President Bush, saying, "The Statement simply regurgitates the contentious conclusions of the (UN) International Panel on Climate Change report of 2001, which has been disputed by credible scientists. The so-called scientific consensus is pure fiction."

Among the data he cites is the fact that, "Since 1940, there has been a 35-year-long cooling trend and not much warming in the past quarter-century, according to global data from weather satellites."

Moreover, "an extrapolation of the satellite data gives at most a fraction of a degree rise for the 2lst century," adding that, "The IPCC further claims that the 20th century was the warmest in the past 100 years, but this myth is based on a seriously flawed publication. The IPCC also claims that sea levels will rise by up to nearly a meter by 2100; but every indication is that they will continue to rise inexorably and much less, as they have for nearly 20,000 years since the peak of the last Ice Age."

Bear in mind that the IPCC is a creation of the United Nations and we have all seen how corrupt that institution has become, seeking to become a world government that would destroy the sovereignty of the United States and all other nations.

Other scientists have joined Dr. Singer to dispute the global warming claims. Paul Knappenberger of the University of Virginia, says of the claims made by the science academies that, "What is missing is the scientific assessment of the potential threat. Without a threat assessment, a simple scientific finding on its own doesn't warrant any change of action."

What passes for a threat assessment is simply the claim being made. Knappenberger noted, "The fact of the matter is that there does exist a growing body of scientific evidence that the climate changes in the coming decades will be modest and proceed at a rate that will lie somewhere near the low end of the IPCC projected temperature range."

Here's what you must keep in mind; the IPCC claims are based on what virtually every scientist knows to be seriously flawed computer models for its projections. In short, we are being asked to believe what computer engineers are telling us, not what credible climatologists and meteorologists are telling us.

There isn't a computer model for the world's weather that can reliably predict the future by more than a week at best. This is why tracking the routes of hurricanes proves so difficult. This is why blizzards often turn out to be better or worse than initial projections.

Iain Murray, another scientist, laid into the statement of the national academies for having committed the sin of advocacy. "Climate alarmists in the scientific community now face a long retreat, while the victory of President Bush's position on the issue seems assured.

Even the hopes of European intervention are dashed." The U.S. Senate unanimously rejected signing the Kyoto protocol. "Rational nations will not take action if the costs of the action outweigh the benefits," said Murray of the protocol's demand for energy caps on emissions while exempting nations like China and India, each with more than a billion people.

There is no scientific consensus. There is only the manipulation of public opinion and the effort to influence public policy. There is no rapid global warming and no way that any limits on energy use could have any effect on it if it did exist. Global warming is a classic scare campaign and we may well be witnessing its last desperate gasps as more and more scientists step forward to debunk it.

 

I see where you mentioned see-saws in the second grade and was interested in knowing if school was out for the summer where you live. I'll bet your glad to be out and finding interesting things to be doing, aren't you?
Well, have fun and play nice!:hug:

 

I got the privelaged duty of mowing the grass. Then I went to work on a hog and sheep farm. Cows poop too much.

 

I can only see some of this debate here but I can guess at the rest, but look at this way for a moment. Suppose burning fossil fuel has absolutely nothing, zero, zilch to do with global warming or it contributes only slightly to an already warming planet or anywhere in between the two extremes. Every dollar we pump into the Middle East to purchase oil has the very real potential to fund Islamic radicalism. Whether the money makes it's way into terrorists hands through the government, such as in Iran, or whether private Saudis are funding terrorists under the radar, it still strengthens our enemies and we get to pay for our own destruction. If reducing oil consumption has no effect on global warming and we cut back anyway, we win by putting less money in the pockets of terrorists. It's a no-brainer and regardless of how you feel about global warming, you should be behind any effort to decrease our dependence on foriegn oil.
People have noted in the past that terrorists are using drugs to fund terrorism, a claim I am unlikely to believe, but that would be nothing compared to the countless millions we pay for oil that can easily end up in terrorists hands. The real addiction is to fossil fuel and this country needs to rehab itself by seriously looking at viable alternatives if for no other reason than national security. When conservation is framed in terms like this, it is hard to argue that we all need to burn less fossil fuel.

 

global warming is crap, not real, never will be, etc ad nauseum.

 

bqcoins, are you out of your mind? Denial is no way to fix the problem. And it is probably too late to stop.

 

Cutting back on the use of foreign oil, I can and will support whole heartedly. For the reason given. But this is another part ofwhat we need to do and has nothing to do with 'global warming" what so ever. They are two different subjects and you or I or anyone else isn't going to have any effect on the temperature here on earth.

 

Yep. youre right right. All that pollution in those cities come from somewhere else. That haze around L. A. came from Billings,MT. By your account, places like say St. Thomas. The folks there must be choking to death.

 

Arent you clever? The cartoon had nothing to do with the topic, Einstein. But you knew that. You just wanted to be witty. You throw up a topic so old in the news so you can see who will bite at it. My point is YOU. If some one here told you the sky was blue, you'd argue it was grey. And then throw in some little jabs so everyone can see how sardonic you are. If the solutions to all your grips like gun control, fossil fuel, Iraq, or any other mundane pseudo-intellectual topic was posted here, you'd still disagree with it. Just like every other old, old man who wishes things were back to the way they use to be. Youre such an expert on whats wrong with everyone and everything. I bet that when you get done typing your keen insight, you sit back and smile. "Gee aint I the snappy one.'', you must think to yourself. you read alot of text by people that you agree with and thats gospel to you. I watch a cartoon 40 years ago and I get insight to your personality. And at least I'm able to have ''jimmy'' come out and play.

 

http://www.nrdc.org/globalWarming/f101.asp

What causes global warming?
Carbon dioxide and other air pollution that is collecting in the atmosphere like a thickening blanket, trapping the sun's heat and causing the planet to warm up. Coal-burning power plants are the largest U.S. source of carbon dioxide pollution -- they produce 2.5 billion tons every year. Automobiles, the second largest source, create nearly 1.5 billion tons of CO2 annually.

Here's the good news: technologies exist today to make cars that run cleaner and burn less gas, modernize power plants and generate electricity from nonpolluting sources, and cut our electricity use through energy efficiency. The challenge is to be sure these solutions are put to use.


"
Carbon dioxide is present at a very small 383 ppm (.000383) of the volume of the earth's atmosphere, but it is a very powerful greenhouse gas and so has a large effect upon climate. It is also essential to photosynthesis in plants and other photoautotrophs.

Despite the low concentration, CO2 is a very important component of the Earth's atmosphere because it absorbs infrared radiation at wavelengths of 4.26 µm (asymmetric stretching vibrational mode) and 14.99 µm (bending vibrational mode) and enhances the greenhouse effect to a great degree.[8]
" -from Wkik

 

see my link on other post. ou have fallen for the Exxon lobbists.

 

ou lost the argument right there, that is a completely nonsensical statment.

 

not really a joke, the meat industry really are causing a huge part of the problem. Solution: vegitarianism.