Global Warming is a Hoax!

Ironic that those who are using a phony scare campaing (the phony war on terror) balk when honorable people point out a legit threat.

 

No, I am LINKING two themes that are actually facets of one larger issue. Your tactic of trying to split them up and deal with them piecemeal is the one adding to confusion.

 

Sorry Dan, but you have your science backwards. Volcanic aerosols reflect radiation and actually tend to cool climate temporarily. If you're going to talk science, you might want to actually do some research before making such blatantly erroneous statements.

 

Oh, I don't mind being called a greenie or a treehugger except when the speaker says it in a tone of voice that is dripping with venom. I do, in fact, enjoy hugging trees... especially ones I've planted myself... and I take great pleasure in the growing of green things.

"Spittle-licking lapdogs" hmmm... yes... that might have been a bit harsh. Perhaps I should simply have said "sycophants". Spittle-licking lapdogs is more fun though... and gives the proper image of lively cocker spaniel jumping up and licking the face.

 

You go right ahead and play with you'r 'jimmy'! I guess with all the practice you just have to be good at something!

 

Sorry Tom, but I'm not talking about volcanic aerosols, but the ash and Carbon dioxide that is produced when there is an eruption. You might want to stop reading between the lines and stay with the text.

 

There you go folks, you got it from our one ane only Arkansas blacksmith here on Coin Talk.
Hey Moen, Where is that Moderator when you want one?

 

Right here Dan & I see no reason to interfere as no one is using foul or abusive language towards any members, slo lets keep it that way shall we.

 

Hmmm, yes, and you, you poor sot, cant help but having diarrhea of the mouth. that wasnt quite your usual comeback. Feeling ill? Or are you busy thinking of some more derogatory names for Jews?

 

Keep it on topic guy's and cool it with any personal attacks

 

Boy oh boy, eight minutes after typing the question, you were here. Now that is what I call speed. You guys are good.

Sorry to have bothered you as it was only a joke.:kewl:

 

And as you see Im smiling LOL :hug:

 

It really shows that this is an emotional issue.

 

Admittedly, and as my old friend Tom Maringer pointed out, I possess no expertise in science. That puts me in exactly the same level as 99.9% of you dogmatic environmentalists who want to craft public policy around global warming fears.

Article from the “Denver Post”
The only inconvenient truth about global warming, contends Colorado State University's Bill Gray, is that a genuine debate has never actually taken place. Hundreds of scientists, many of them prominent in the field, agree.

Gray is perhaps the world's foremost hurricane expert. His Tropical Storm Forecast sets the standard. Yet, his criticism of the global warming "hoax" makes him an outcast.

"They've been brainwashing us for 20 years," Gray says. "Starting with the nuclear winter and now with the global warming. This scare will also run its course. In 15-20 years, we'll look back and see what a hoax this was."

Gray directs me to a 1975 Newsweek article that whipped up a different fear: a coming ice age.

"Climatologists," reads the piece, "are pessimistic that political leaders will take any positive action to compensate for the climatic change. ... The longer the planners delay, the more difficult will they find it to cope with climatic change once the results become grim reality."

Thank God they did nothing. Imagine how warm we'd be?

Another highly respected climatologist, Roger Pielke Sr. at the University of Colorado, is also skeptical.

Pielke contends there isn't enough intellectual diversity in the debate. He claims a few vocal individuals are quoted "over and over" again, when in fact there are a variety of opinions.

I ask him: How do we fix the public perception that the debate is over?

"Quite frankly," says Pielke, who runs the Climate Science Weblog (climatesci.atmos.colostate.edu), "I think the media is in the ideal position to do that. If the media honestly presented the views out there, which they rarely do, things would change. There aren't just two sides here. There are a range of opinions on this issue. A lot of scientists out there that are very capable of presenting other views are not being heard."

Al Gore (not a scientist) has definitely been heard - and heard and heard. His documentary, "An Inconvenient Truth," is so important, in fact, that Gore crisscrosses the nation destroying the atmosphere just to tell us about it.

"Let's just say a crowd of baby boomers and yuppies have hijacked this thing," Gray says. "It's about politics. Very few people have experience with some real data. I think that there is so much general lack of knowledge on this. I've been at this over 50 years down in the trenches working, thinking and teaching."

Gray acknowledges that we've had some warming the past 30 years. "I don't question that," he explains. "And humans might have caused a very slight amount of this warming. Very slight. But this warming trend is not going to keep on going. My belief is that three, four years from now, the globe will start to cool again, as it did from the middle '40s to the middle '70s."

Both Gray and Pielke say there are many younger scientists who voice their concerns about global warming hysteria privately but would never jeopardize their careers by speaking up.

"Plenty of young people tell me they don't believe it," he says. "But they won't touch this at all. If they're smart, they'll say: 'I'm going to let this run its course.' It's a sort of mild McCarthyism. I just believe in telling the truth the best I can. I was brought up that way.

 

Author of article since that was ignored in original posting...
http://www.frontpagemag.com/Articles/ReadArticle.asp?ID=18526

 

Carbon dioxide is not pollution. Carbon monoxide IS buddy. Look it up.

 

not quite as legit a sorce as the Guardian Unlimited

 

Oh... and here I thought Old Dan had actually written that. Sorry Dan, for blasting you on the mistake about volcanoes. (which is still a mistake by the way, volcanic eruptions have a net cooling effect) I guess I should have blasted you for plagiarism instead, since you didn't reference your paste source.

Well, aside from being an Arkansas bladesmith, coiner, educator, and public servant, I am also a scientist. I have personally looked at a vast array of the data on climate change during several years of work in Environmental Dynamics, and I have concluded that the consensus opinion is very likely the correct one.

Cloudsweeper and others keep demanding "proof" and hammering about uncertainty. Yes there is always a certain amount of uncertainty. But as Moen pointed out, when the actions that need to be taken to solve three distinct yet interrelated problems are the same, then only a fool would refuse to take action.

There is no such thing as "proof" in science as there is in mathematics... there is only the assignment of very high probabilities. If your general came to you and said that because of enemy troop movements he thought there was a 90% chance that your fort would be attacked tonight, would you ignore him? If your fire marshal told you that there was a 90% chance that a forest fire would sweep through your neighborhood, would you blithely close the curtains and turn on the TV? If your weatherman came on the TV with a tornado warning and said there was a 90% probablility it would come right through your neighborhood, would you begin to argue that there was no proof? All such reactions would be sheer idiocy, and yet there could be no proof of any of them. Actions and policies are routinely taken based on probabilities.

Yet several people here continue to advocate doing nothing in the face of mounting probabilities that such inaction could be a serious problem. We have everything to gain and little to lose.

 

Gee, they were wrong then, theyre wrong now. Why would anyone bother to be a scientist? I bet someone here can come up with an article showing the exact opposite. Like I asked you before; What would it hurt to cleab up this planet?