Global warming BS?
shadowcast
Posts: 2,231
Now, before I get lambasted here I would like to say that the more research I do the more I think nobody knows what the hell they are talking about on Global warming. I'll tell you what though, there is more and more evidance saying it is BS though.
http://english.pravda.ru/science/earth/106922-0/
http://english.pravda.ru/science/earth/106922-0/
Post edited by Unknown User on
0
Comments
*NYC 9/28/96 *NYC 9/29/96 *NJ 9/8/98 (front row "may i play drums with you")
*MSG 9/10/98 (backstage) *MSG 9/11/98 (backstage)
*Jones Beach 8/23/00 *Jones Beach 8/24/00 *Jones Beach 8/25/00
*Mansfield 8/29/00 *Mansfield 8/30/00 *Nassau 4/30/03 *Nissan VA 7/1/03
*Borgata 10/1/05 *Camden 5/27/06 *Camden 5/28/06 *DC 5/30/06
*VA Beach 6/17/08 *DC 6/22/08 *MSG 6/24/08 (backstage) *MSG 6/25/08
*EV DC 8/17/08 *EV Baltimore 6/15/09 *Philly 10/31/09
*Bristow VA 5/13/10 *MSG 5/20/10 *MSG 5/21/10
I don't claim to have all the answers and yeah, we are experiencing some crazy shit right now but if Mars is experiencing 'climate change' too, I can't help but wonder why.
You are not your job.
You are not how much money you have in the bank.
You are not the car you drive.
You are not the contents of your wallet.
You are not your fucking khakis.
To be honest, I could use a little warming right now
They claim the 90's was the hottest decade on record..Well first of all, that record is very very short. We hadn't really had a means to measure tempurature until more recent times. second, when you shut down hundreds of measuring stations, all in the colder regions, worldwide..in't common sense that the new readings coming in are gonna show a sharp upturn in the heat? LoL...
second, I have a couple of solid sources, not a russian website LoL..that show Gore and the greens are lying. I mean flat out lying, well-knowingly. The first is in regards to their love of touting how the snows of Kilimanjaro are disappearing. Pay attention to them..They never say melting. It is disappearing, and it isn't melting. There were 2 major articles published in 2 seperate international journals (you don't get it published in a scientific journal unless an international panel of scientists in the feild pertaining to the article agree with it...in this case, it's geophysicists) showing how the temp on the volcano has actually been getting colder over the past century. It is disappearing moisture that is causing the snow to dissipate(sp?).
There was also an article published in either early 2006 or late 2005 showing how 2005 was the hottest on record due to the sun having the worst storm season on record.
And the second of the 2 sources is straight from Gore and the greens beloved IPCC. In one single report they disproved the global warming theory, and that carbon dioxide could have anything to do with tempuratural changes. It showed that co2 levels have risen equally in both the northern and southern atmospheres, but that the southern atmosphere has been growing colder for a century. Now unless you don't include the entire southern hemisphere as part of the globe, than there isn't any global warming. And cos it was/is getting colder despite having the same rising quantity of co2, it proves co2 is not effecting the temps in either hemisphere.
Oh and the IPCC also said late last year, in their typical doom and gloom tone, that "this year was the second lowest on record [for sea ice], second only to last year"
Meaning 2007 was the lowest, and last year, there was more. The ice is building up again. We need to stop trying to play God and pretending we know more about the earth than mother nature. she knows what she's doing.
I'll post what journals the two articles on Kilimanjaro are in later..
My hands are too freezing to keep typing..
most of the scientific community agree that global warming is real. the dissenters are in the minority.
but say for a second it isn't, that all of those scientist who spend years researching the data, lets just say for a second they are all wrong. does that mean we should continue to pump out harmful pollutants into the atmosphere? if mother nature "fixes" everything does that mean its ok to dump toxic waste into the local stream? mercury lead, fuck it lets just dump all that shit into our resevoirs, since its all going to work itself out eventually, right.
since global warming is a lie we should continue to pollute and dump toxic chemicals into the environment with no regard for future generations...does that about sum up the right's position?
Even Gore's hero credited with "showing him the way to global warming" had come out and say no he didn't, he did the opposite, warning him to be careful. suddenly Gore's hero was a senile old man who doesn't know what he's saying anymore.
Yea, so senile he remained very active in his field till the day he died.
Besides, like I said, even their own reports disprove the theory. Kinda hard to argue with that one.
Regarding doing right by the planet. You are right. It is one potentially good outcome of it. However, it's misuse is leading to more harm than good. Take E85 for example. We'd never be fully sustained on it. Demand for it and freeing up crop space for the corn has caused a rise in price for every form of food and cotton. It is not renewable. After 7-8 crops, the soil is so depleted it must be replaced. There is a worldwide soil shortage, and now more than ever, we are using it faster than the earth can replenish it. And then here is the kicker..this "cleaner" fuel produces 20x more acetaldehyde than regular petrol. Meaning, it's 2.5x more damaging to the environment than petrol. All biofuel has this nasty side effect.
Or take the trend for bamboo. They insist you use bamboo instead of trees cos we're killing the trees. Except they are the ones who passed laws 20 years ago making it so that all paper and wood products made in the U.s. must be made from trees grown on tree farms. The result of these laws is a 40% growth in the tree population.
Bamboo, on the other hand, is shipped in primarily from south America..where they are cutting down rainforest to use the weak soil to grow the bamboo. But because it's weak, it depletes very quickly, so they cut down more when the old soil is rendered worthless.
Get my drift. A little honesty would lead to real ways to help the environment.
And core samples taken by geophysicists in the arctic show the melting is periodical. That is what I meant about mother nature knowing what she's doing. There was nothing to fix, it's a natural process. When the ice gets so built up, there isn't any more moisture to evaporate and come back down as the snow that insulates the ice. Without the snow, the ice melts. And melts. And melts. Until nature knows there is enough to insulate the ice for another 1300-1500 years.
you do know that warmer weather equals calmer weather? and colder weather equals wilder air patterns, such as those causing the increased turbulence?
Do you believers ever actually bother to research what you are being force fed? Cos I mean, if you did, you would notice all the contradicitions that are constantly put out there by the greens. What is with you two, you bosom buddies or sumthin?
Does have a PhD in Biological Sciences count as something? Or having colleagues who are actually looking at marine life with respect to climate change? After reading many of your so called "facts" in the discussion in the other thread I really can't be bothered to listening to more of these "facts".
"Pilots around the world report increased frequencies of, among other things, furious storms and alarmingly high winds." Many reports have attributed this to global climate change. If you do not believe in global climate change then perhaps its because the birds are farting too much, who knows.
The two articles I mentioned were published in 2004 in the International Journal of Climatology, and the other in the Journal of Geophysical Research.
Biology and marine life don't count. If you don't know the science, you have no authority, plain and simple.
If earning a PhD in biology meant you somehow magically knew about the climate without studying that field, you would have already known that its cold weather that makes the air less stable. LoL..you honestly thought parading around a PhD was going to make you more credible in this subject? lmfao..hilarious. I am chair of a foundation that builds schools..does that make me a teacher?
Climate change, you changing your tune from global to climate change? Of course there is climate change. The climate has always been changing. Different parts of the planet are always getting colder or warmer, wetter or drier, etc..The sun has cycles, producing less or more energy(the most on record, the worst sun storm season, was in 2005...which also happens to be the hottest year on record). The earth’s wobble and eccentric orbit mean that different parts of the planet will be exposed to varying amounts of heat over different periods. If more snow or land is exposed to the sun, more heat will be reflected. If more water is exposed, more heat will be absorbed. If the sky gets darkened by dust -caused by a volcano, a meteor, or pollution- it can make the planet colder. Land use changes, manmade or otherwise, greatly impact local climate, especially in cities where a lot of them are now re-paving roads with the black pavement, which absorbs more heat, making for a much hotter local climate..The earth’s climate is, and has always been, constantly changing.
Read the 2 articles published in the journals. Read the 2005 and 2007 and 2008 reports published by the IPCC. Have a look at some NOAA data regarding cold weather = more turbulent weather. sure it's "climate change"..towards the colder, not warmer. Look up the newest reports on the sea ice published in a geophysical journal..any of them, take your pick.
Reports that have not been up for scrutiny by legitimate scientists are worthless crap. Journals are what count. They show real theories and data accepted by real scientists in the field that's in question. All else is total crap. Including the reports you have not listed sources for.
I just listed 7 solidly accepted sources you can check out with your own eyes.
Like I said...how can you argue when the greens own data prove what I'm saying is right, despite what they prefer you to believe.
ah but when faced with solid data, you "can't be bothered". A common trend I find in believers. You have all the arguements to cut down an opposing opinion, but when faced with opposing facts that are backed up, you pretend you're above it and the person presenting it is crazy/stupid/[enter other slanderous term here].
First of all, I did not back away. In the same post I said GLOBAL CLIMATE CHANGE if you actually read it carefully. Second, I can not be bothered because either you believe the data that supports or you don't so arguing the point will not change anything. Personally, I believe the data put forward by many top class science institutes among them NASA Earth Science. Third, you said "Do you believers ever actually bother to research what you are being force fed?" which is why I mentioned the PhD.
Biology and marine life do not count? Good argument. Look into the research into cyanobacterial blooms and water temperature changes over the recent years and tell me they "dont count".
In the other thread you said the UN was useless now you want to believe what the IPCC says. Nevertheless, these organisations are likely to be influenced by political powers (especially the NOAA). They are not Science institutes.
This is from one IPCC report you mention:
The Earth’s climate system has demonstrably changed on both global and regional scales since the pre-industrial era, with some of these changes attributable to human activities. Human activities have increased the atmospheric concentrations of greenhouse gases and aerosols since the pre-industrial era. The atmospheric concentrations of key anthropogenic greenhouse gases (i.e., carbon dioxide (CO2), methane (CH4), nitrous oxide (N2O), and tropospheric ozone (O3)) reached their highest recorded levels in the 1990s, primarily due to the combustion of fossil fuels, agriculture, and land-use changes (see Table SPM-1). The radiative forcing from anthropogenic greenhouse gases is positive with a small uncertainty range; that from the direct aerosol effects is negative and smaller; whereas the negative forcing from the indirect effects of aerosols on clouds might be large but is not well quantified.
An increasing body of observations gives a collective picture of a warming world and other changes in the climate system (see Table SPM-1). Globally it is very likely that the 1990s was the warmest decade, and 1998 the warmest year, in the instrumental record (1861–2000) (see Box SPM-1). The increase in surface temperature over the 20th century for the Northern Hemisphere is likely to have been greater than that for any other century in the last thousand years (see Table SPM-1). Insufficient data are available prior to the year 1860 in the Southern Hemisphere to compare the recent warming with changes over the last 1,000 years. Temperature changes have not been uniform globally but have varied over regions and different parts of the lower atmosphere.
There is new and stronger evidence that most of the warming observed over the last 50 years is attributable to human activities. Detection and attribution studies consistently find evidence for an anthropogenic signal in the climate record of the last 35 to 50 years. These studies include uncertainties in forcing due to anthropogenic sulfate aerosols and natural factors (volcanoes and solar irradiance), but do not account for the effects of other types of anthropogenic aerosols and land-use changes. The sulfate and natural forcings are negative over this period and cannot explain the warming; whereas most of these studies find that, over the last 50 years, the estimated rate and magnitude of warming due to increasing greenhouse gases alone are comparable with, or larger than, the observed warming.
Observed changes in regional climate have affected many physical and biological systems, and there are preliminary indications that social and economic systems have been affected. Recent regional changes in climate, particularly increases in temperature, have already affected hydrological systems and terrestrial and marine ecosystems in many parts of the world (see Table SPM-1). The observed changes in these systems are coherent across diverse localities and/or regions and are consistent in direction with the expected effects of regional changes in temperature. The probability that the observed changes in the expected direction (with no reference to magnitude) could occur by chance alone is negligible.
Enjoy.
But the main reason I wanted to respond was to ask a simple question: Why in the world do you want to deny global warming? Are companies making millions off of global warming? Sure. Are they capitalizing on fear? Maybe a bit. But for the love of god: we are polluting this planet to the point of an almost inevitable collapse. There is no question about that. So whether or not you believe global warming is real, surely you must believe we have to save the planet. And if so, so gives a crap how it gets done? Stop denying that we are pathetically ignoring the harm we are doing to this planet just so we can continue life as normal. Ignoring it, or in your case denying it, won't save us from ourselves.
It just rubs me the wrong eay to see posts like this. It's like the guy on the other board who tried to claim that stories of 6 millions jews being killed in the holocaust was an exaggeration and that some estimates have it as "low" as a million. First off, it was 6 million. Fact. And 2nd, even if it was over-stated...WHO CARES? I don't care if they somehow found out that 500K died. It wouldn't lessen my hatred for Hitler and the Nazis. There's no "agenda" in reporting 6 million Jews died.
Typo Man: "Thanks kidz, but remembir, stay in skool!"
But this is really what bugs me. WHY DISPUTE THIS? Whether we go into another Ice Age or the planet gets too hot, who in their right mind thinks that the human civilization will outlive it? We will not. Why bother arguing when what we should be doing is considering our children's generation trying to deal with the symptoms when they'll be too fargone to solve. The time is now to take care of our environment and each other before things get to the point that we can't do anything. Continuing to deplete our natural resources isn't helping no one or no thing.
I'm sure someone's heard of the couple of Tennessee coal ash spills within the last few weeks contaminating and destroying 6 miles of communities. What - no one's heard about these? It's because the mainstream media doesn't report them, again, because planet destruction via fossil fuels is to kept under wraps by our gov't. After all, they don't want us to know so they can stay in business, keeping the idea of renewable energy out of the limelight. And why would we want healthier energy?
http://www.npr.org/templates/story/stor ... d=99192012
You said you can't be bothered..that to me says you aren't getting into it. Normally this is what that means. sorry I don't read opposite messages into a simple statement.
You are right, my apologies, it was commy who specified global warming.
Hmm, maybe you should ask deeply politically involved NAsA what they think of the satallite data that shows there is virtually no warming in the upper ozone tempurature in the southern hemisphere- 0.05 degrees celsius, which outside of greenieland is not a discernable, while the measuring station at the south pole shows a distinctive cooling trend in ground temps?
There are several potential causes for water tempurature to change. Volcanic activity, el nino, what position the earth is aimed towards the sun....
Nah, the UN is wonderful! Look how they saved hundreds of thousands of lives by immediately declaring genocide in Rwanda..Or how they rescued those foreigners in Congo..Or how their 17,000 troops in sierra Leone kept it free from violence after they 'fired' the less than 100 EO mercinaries who had kept peace there since their arrival..Oh..they are also preventing Italy from ethnic cleansing of Roma with their quick actions! Have declared Genocide in North Korea and have been occupying the region for a long time now saving countless lives..so useful, so brilliant.
They are influenced by political powers..deeply. But see, Government wants you to believe in Global Warming, a fantastic way to gain more control over you. With your consent no less! Yet they are still reporting the opposite of what the politicians and greens want you to believe. It's a curious thing, really. I'd even go far as to say that in this instance, the UN actually is worth something for a change.
Let's break down the report-
Yes, the climate has changed..Of course. Did you read what I wrote about how the climate has always been changing? And yes some of these changes are indeed attributed to man. Not saying anything I haven't said already...
We were responsable for raising GHG's..Now, you tell me...how much?
Cos you know, GHG's were already rising even before we went industrial.
Rising co2 due to agriculture and land use changes means we planted more plants and trees. Europe has cut down on pollutants massively, planted millions of trees, and cut energy use. The result? Higher co2 levels.
President Bush passed the clear skies initiative. It's goal was to reduce sulfer dioxide emissions by a projected 73%, mercury by 69%, and nitrogen oxides by 67%..As a result, 2003, 2004, and 2005 had the lowest ozone on record tho biofuels have ended that streak by bringing some of the smog-creating acetaldehyde back. You can thank the green's for that one. New technology has severely reduced acid rain. We find the acid rain in areas such as those excused from reducing their pollution in the Kyoto Agreement (China..).
so your doom and gloom input about human induced GHG's is excessive. Mind you, I said excessive..meaning, as "I've said before," we do contribute to some of the GHG's..But like I said...........
How much?
And I already clearly stated we have an impact on local climate..Read: black tar...
The portion with which they state about increasing body of observations, and 1998 being warmest..is irrelavent and should be ommitted.
1-if 1998 really was the warmest, then this means we've been cooling for the past decade..see how that works?
2-we have no idea if 1998 was the warmest. In fact, we have no idea what the collective global tempurature really is.
To claim "global warming" with any degree of accuracy, one must be referring to an increase in measured global mean surface tempurature- a quantity that has never actually been measured..surface temp is not measured globally, but rather haphazardly, wherever measuring stations have been placed.
In the 90's, hundreds of measuring stations were shut down, almost all in the colder regions. The rising "global" temps track nicely with these closures. so what little data we did have coming in was compromised and naturally, when abruptly ceasing to include temps in colder regions, data returning will show a sharp upturn in the heat.
Furthermore, stations in poorer countries are maintained differently than those in wealthier countries.
The data is biased, compromised, incomplete, and innacurate. To say there is a consensus that Global Warming is real is a farse. About the only things you find a consensus on in science are things like- the earth is round. The earth revolves around the sun. Heavy things drop. There is more ocean, than land on earth.
"likely to have been"...I love how they word that..Leaves it completely open. Could have been, could not have been..Do you have any clue? No, and neither do they. Hence why they worded it that way
I've made my point.
Like I said, you gotta pay attention, or you'll miss little details like that. Once you do you'll understand their reports better..what data it's really showing. And what parts of the report that aren't saying anything, really.
BTW, that is not nearly the entire report. There is much else that shows that backs the many climate scientists that say there is no global warming.
All data shows ice has been building up over the past year..not melting.
Glaciers are not receding all over the world. They are receding in the southern hemisphere, and data shows colder drier air is the culprit.
They are more than just slightly capitalizing on fear. Both companies and the goverment are using the fear to take away more of our freedoms, and force us into buying new, more expensive (ie: those light bulbs) products..The poor can't afford the change in costs, and noone should afford the change in freedom. Look how they attempted to turn Cali into a nanny state with a bill that, if passed, would regulate what the temp of you home a/c may be set to. Now they want to ban flat screen tv's. The de-evolutionising process they hail has begun, and every single law they have ever passed was to further limit our rights and freedom. Every...single...one.
The planet does not need saving, it's not in danger.
We can, however, do less things to give it "boo-boo's." As I illustrated in a previous post, there is much we can do. Unfortunately, the greens are both blocking the way to these incredible technologies that could immensly drop the amount of pollution humans emit, and stearing us towards more damaging, polluting "solutions."
Hence why I speak out against them and all the garbage they spew, literally and figuratively.
And lastly...which guy?!?! Not only 6 million in the camps, as you stated, but many millions more that never made it that far. 68 million people were killed throughout the entire course of WWII. Hitler nearly wiped out the entire Jewish, and Gypsy, populations.
http://www.extremeicesurvey.org/
http://www.nationalgeographic.com/adven ... ery-1.html
Really? Southern hemisphere only?
Typo Man: "Thanks kidz, but remembir, stay in skool!"
The weather is so whacky. And this planet has always changed. It is in a constant cycle of change.
Whether any of this has to do with Golbal Warming as aresult of human behavior, I don't know. I would have to at least suspect we have contributed to some of the whacky changes, though.
I think we can all agree that as human beings, we can do a better job of taking care of our own little portions of earth, air and water. Clean uncontaminated resources is always a smart and healthy approach.
You got it backwards..Big business is making big money off Global Warming fears, and the government finally has an excuse to scare you into wanting laws that limit your freedoms. The idea that there is no debate, and the massive campaign to slander the scientists who are debunking the theory, and silence them, is scary.
I've already gone into why we should dispute it and how what they are doing is harmful to the earth, not helpful. I'm not going to repeat it every single time someone poses the same question cos they can't be bothered to read the older posts from everyone else here.
I heard about the coal ash spills and 3 consecutive oil spills in another location within a week I believe..Heard that one just yesterday.
You heard about how it snowed for the first time since biblical times in Israel January last year..And how Canada had the first white Christmas coast-to-coast since 1971..And how it snowed in New Orleans, Georgia, and Vegas..And how Alaska was just in such a deep freeze that in some areas temps were as 60 below, and that was not due to the wind chill factor. There was no wind. That was dead still cold air..And how we just recently had a blizzard from seattle to NYC..And how there were 2 deep freezes before the official winter season even began..And how right now across the nation there are temps as low as 40 below..I could go on..really..
I stand corrected. I was not paying attention. For some reason I was thinking about ice capping mountains/volcanos. My apologies.
I know this wasn't directed to me, but have you ever been to Glacier National Park? 90% of the glaciers there (Montana) are GONE. And climatologists are forecasting no glaciers to be left at all by 2030.
http://www.livescience.com/environment/ ... _melt.html
The gov't is not behind going green at all, have you been paying attention at ALL during Bush's legacy? Do your research here. I'm afraid you may think that the gov't is behind this so called debate when they are the ones who do want us in fear, but also want our hands covered in fossil fuels. And the gov't is not behind the tv thing, that's just capitalism at its best, getting rid of the old and forcing consumers to buy into the new, which I guess can be tied into the gov't if you will.
ETA: You are right, the planet does not need saving, as it knows how to adjust and survive. What's at stake is human civilization. We need to save ourselves, and that's the bottom line.
See, you're wrong here. Big Business is pro oil and coal, not pro renewables. Why do you think that it is so difficult to get going? You've really got it backwards and in return for that, you're licking up everything the corporations want you to. A NASA scientist was threatened with his job a couple years ago by George Bush if he released his findings on global warming to the public. Refusing to be be censored, he quit the job and went public. NASA is gov't related remember.
http://www.space.com/news/bush_warming_041027.html
And what do you think about these environmental disasters w/ coal ash? No reporting, no one knows, and nothing's done. And that's all you have to say about it?
I'm not a novice here, but your last paragraph shows just how much you are. Global warming and climate change have nothing to do with how warm or cold it is, it has to do with massive fluctuations in precipitation, more intense storms, unusual weather and, yes temperature. And when I say temperature, it has to do with extremes as in both cold and warm temps.
No Bush was not backing the greens. Bush, does not a government, make. The Democratic Congress, on the other hand...........................
Bush just quietly made a very large part of the ocean, located near Hawaii in what is the deepest part of the ocean, protected territory, despite how desperately his oil buddies want to drill for oil there.
They aren't as deep in his pockets as you are assuming.
And his doing this quietly shows he did it because he thought he should, not as a shallow ploy to better his image before dipping out of the white house.
His refusing to sign the Kyoto Protocol also was a good thing. It is taking power and money out of the hands of wealthier cleaner countries, and putting it into the hands of more polluted countries, giving these countries complete freedom to continue to pollute.
Read it...You'll see what I mean. It is one of the worst agreements I've seen. Lets hand power and wealth on a silver platter to red China to abuse as they destroy the environment..what a brilliant idea!
Big business is pro nuclear, and pro coal. Coal can run clean, and nuclear is clean. same with hydropower. All things the greens are either blocking, or trying to put an end to. Petrol is costly. It's eating into big business profits. Nuclear and/or recycling garbage into petrol are cheap. cheap enough that they can still make 2x more than their currently are with petrol, and that's even if they drop prices on the cheaper energy. Greens don't like cheap abundant energy. They think the more costly and difficult to come by it is, the better.
I said I heard about the disaster, amoung another one...hell amoung many others. It is reported.
Climate change has everything to do with how warm or cold it is. And in turn, the tempurature effects the weather. For instance, colder weather creates more turbulence, not only for planes, as mentioned earlier, but also when combined with the warm ocean, creates hurricanes. If the globe was warmer, that extreme hurricane season would never have occured. Without cooler air, it is physically impossible for a hurricane to form. And of course colder temps make extreme blizzards and ice storms possible..
Edit: I want to add that the dark ages are associated with a cold period. The age of reason, following the dark ages, led to gains in wealth, health, larger variety in crops and plants, and less death..............and was warmer than the 90's are claimed to have been.
That and I wanted to point out again that if 1998 was the hottest, then we have been cooling for the past decade. That's fantastic news yea?
http://scienceblogs.com/deepseanews/200 ... pacifi.php
Yes, that's human made.
I'm thinking that you defend Bush, which makes sense now when I think about it. Who else would put so much energy into unsustainability for future generations? Oh, and do some research on China, another pollution loving country. I don't think they signed Kyoto either.
Ok, then, how do you explain tornadoes in RI? How about tornadoes in upstate NY? Hurricanes do occur in warmer weather, what makes the difference is the presence of el nino and la nina in the Pacific. And their presence make them larger and more intense. A sign of global warming.
Cyclical. That's all you're pointing out. Yet we are in no way cooling. Where do you get that info that the last decade's been cooler? No so.
I hate Bush..But I have enough sense to know that life on earth is not black and white..He is actually capable of doing good things..And I stress that the good things he did for the environment, he did it quietly..Hate to repeat myself, but if it were merely for his image, he would have made a big to-do about it, not kept it quiet.
Nuclear is cheap abundant energy.
Recycling garbage by heating it in extreme indirect temps, a la mother earth, only faster..instead of making God aweful biofuel of it, is heaps of abundant and cheap as hell, and the only digging it requires is digging up landfills, and this process, while already being used in Japan, is blocked in the U.s. by environmentalist groups. Cheap and abundant equals bad according to them. And not because of coal..LoL..I have quotes from those folk that clarify their reasons. Coal was never mentioned.
My grandad was a coal miner, and my fam on my dad's side live right near a coal mine in PA. Do you really want to take it there?
Regarding the hurricanes..sources? I really gotta see this bs.
It's simple science, no friction in the air equals no hurricanes/tornados. What causes friction, periodic el nino and la nina as you mentioned, that have been occuring since long before we went industrial, and....cold air.
Considering there was no el nino or la nina during the most recent freak hurricane season, guess whats left as the cause...
Cyclical, it's all I'm pointing out? Are you serious..Try cyclical since before the industrialised world, which leaves us out as the culprit. Common sense.
You know what else is common sense? If 1998 was the hottest, and today is not, then we are cooler today than in 1998. I don't need a bloody source for that one. You got to be right fucking retarded to not figure that out.
Regarding what "experts" are predicting-
Experts also predicted that hundreds of millions of people would soon perish in smog disasters in NY and LA (said in 1969). The also predicted the oceans would die of DDT poisoning by 1979, and the U.s. life expectancy would drop to 42 years by 1980 due to cancer epidemics..
so much for predictions. If they could predict the future so good, why aren't they making big money in the psychic and palm reading industry?
In twenty years since the Chernobyl tragedy, the world's worst nuclear accident, there have been nearly [FILL IN ALARMIsT AND ARMAGEDDONIsT FACTOID HERE].
Greenpeace press release...prematurely released 24 May 2006.
source- J.shields, "Greenpeace's fill-in-the-blank public relations meltdown" Philadelphia Inquirer, 29 May 2006
http://www.philly.com/mld/philly/news/14691089.htm
They drew up a press release to steer Reporters to base their stories on fear. But imagine their surprise when Greenpeace was apprised they'd forgotten to put "[ALARMIsT FACTOID HERE]!"
Jon sanders, John Locke Foundation, posted on The Locker Room blog.
source- http://www.johnlocke.org/lockerroom/loc ... ml?id=8090
To capture the public imagination, we have to offer up some scary scenarios, make simplified dramatic statements and little mention of any doubts one might have. Each of us has to decide the right balance between being effective, and being honest.
Climate Alarmist stephen schneider
scientists who want to attract attention to themselves, who want to attract great funding to themselves, have to find a way to scare the public...and this you can achieve only by making things bigger and more dangerous than they really are.
Petr Chylek, professor of Physics and Atmospheric science, Dalhousie University, Halifax, Nova scotia. Commenting on reports by other researchers that Greenland's glaciers are melting.
In the long run, the replacement of the precise and disciplined language of science, by the misleading language of litigation and advocacy, may be one of the more important sources of damage to society incurred in the current debate over global warming.
MIT sloan Professor of Meteorology, Dr.Richard Lindzen. Testimony before the U.s. senate Committee on Environmental and Public Works.
The greenhouse effect might play some role. But those who are absolutely certain that the rise in temperatures is due solely to carbon dioxide have no scientific justification. It's pure guesswork.
Henrik svensmark, director of the Centre for sun-Climate Research, Danish National space Centre, as quoted by the Copenhagen Post, 4 Oct 2006
The advent of a new ice age, scientists say, appears to be guaranteed. The devastation will be astonishing.
Gregg Easterbrook, "Return of the Glaciers," Newsweek 23 Nov 1992
Wait...whah? I thought the 90's were the hottest decade..Why can't these people make their minds up? Are we all going to freeze to death...or fry to death?
James Inhofe, Chairman of the Committee on Environment and Public Works, describes global warming as the greatest hoax ever perpetrated on the American people, and it uses McCarthy-like tactics to threaten and intimidate scientists.
oh how I love this one...namely cos of who it came from!-
Greenpeace co-founder, and former leader [and now noted skeptic of climate alarmism and modern green pressure groups] Dr.Patrick Moore said the United Kingdom's Royal society should stop playing the blame game on global warming and retract it's recent letter that smacks of repressive and anti-intellectual attitude. "It appears to be the policy of the Royal society to stifle dissent and silence anyone who may have any doubts about the connection between global warming and human activity. That kind of repression seems more suited to the Inquisition, than to a modern, respected scientific body."
Newswire 21 sept 2006
I have plenty more..I'm tired.
ach, true..I think I'll pretty well stick to posting more quotes instead..It's more fun