A listener writes the Con Man as follows:
Michael- Please forgive my continued penchant for rolling emails your way…I am well aware that you are a very busy person, and I have little doubt but that your email “inbox” is brimming over with sundry fact and fantasy. I am sending this page along (I have a dozen others I could have easily sent either as separate statements, or as a constipating factoid blob intoto.
The man referred to in this press release (Monsieur Claude Allegre) was one of the first Europeans to publically express concern for the human caused global warming phenomenon. In the 90′s he was leading the charge as it were. He has however as a result of subsequent research on his part and on the part of others, come full circle and now feels that the problem, while certainly physically extant, is not the threat it first seemed, nor is it measureably attributable to humans and their so-called “carbon footprint.”
I only send this along to emphasize that the discussion is not at all “over” and “settled.” At this point in time, notwithstanding the protestations of Mr. Gore, there is still a lot left up in the air. There is really no firm evidence (short of the theories spewed forth from computer models that are seriously, at least so far, flawed) of whether or not human activity is in fact at the bottom of the problem. And as I ever so hurriedly mentioned to you on the phone during one of your breaks recently, if one were to consult the footnotes on the NASA global temperature analysis, one would read words and phrases referring to the possiblity of “substantial errors,” …temperature “belt” observations that are “not actually representative of the whole belt,” and “temperature weighted averages generated by general circulation [computer*] models, and on and on, with a good deal of repetition of words like “estimate,” “model,” “error,” “observational limitations,” and yada, yada.
These footnotes are replete with all manner of qualification, himming and hawwing, and equivocating…as in “we are presenting this analysis, but the data are not solid enough for an unqualified imprimatuer on our part.” Or words to that effect. And this concerns only the basis (temperature readings) from which has sprung the large scale invasion of “scientists” armed with their computers and predictive software. Who am I to say that one cannot trust the temperature readings, after all…what could I possibly know? But, it’s obvious that they are not in every case, the “actual” readings, but rather in many cases, due to limitations in sampling, and in more than few other cases, only predictions built upon other predictive data. Hardly iron clad…except perhaps to Mr. Gore, and we all know that he is a clever fellow, given that he is the inventor of the internet and all.
You are, despite your unfortunately left leaning inclinations, a demonstrably fair-minded individual, and you are also, decidedly, not stupid, Hence it is with some confidence that I trust you will at least glance at this press release, and if nothing else allow that it is indeed another piece of the growing body of protest from the “other side” in the global-warming-and-who-caused-it brouhaha.**
Ps*my interjection, not theirs
**I have a growing list of highly qualified and credentialed climate scientists, with bona fides from the best universities and high placings in the government’s own meteorological establishment who are taking serious issue with the notion that humans are causing all the trouble. My information has it that all the planets in our solar system are experiencing temperature rises, and not one of them has a drilling rig from Exxon erected upon it’s surface.
Attachment:
U_S_ Senate Committee on Environment and Public Works
Majority Press Release
Contact: MARC MORANO (202) 224-5762 (marc_morano@epw.senate.gov), MATT DEMPSEY (202) 224-9797 (matthew_dempsey@epw.senate.gov)
Renowned Scientist Defects From Belief in Global Warming – Caps Year of Vindication for Skeptics
October 17, 2006
Washington DC – One of the most decorated French geophysicists has converted from a believer in manmade catastrophic global warming to a climate skeptic. This latest defector from the global warming camp caps a year in which numerous scientific studies have bolstered the claims of climate skeptics. Scientific studies that debunk the dire predictions of human-caused global warming have continued to accumulate and many believe the new science is shattering the media-promoted scientific “consensus” on climate alarmism.
Claude Allegre, a former government official and an active member of France’s Socialist Party, wrote an editorial on September 21, 2006 in the French newspaper L’Express titled “The Snows of Kilimanjaro” (For English Translation, click here: http://epw.senate.gov/fact.cfm?party=rep&id=264835 ) detailing his newfound skepticism about manmade global warming. See: http://www.lexpress.fr/idees/tribunes/dossier/allegre/dossier.asp?ida=451670 Allegre wrote that the “cause of climate change remains unknown” and pointed out that Kilimanjaro is not losing snow due to global warming, but to local land use and precipitation changes. Allegre also pointed out that studies show that Antarctic snowfall rate has been stable over the past 30 years and the continent is actually gaining ice.
“Following the month of August experienced by the northern half of France, the prophets of doom of global warming will have a lot on their plate in order to make our fellow countrymen swallow their certitudes,” Allegre wrote. He also accused proponents of manmade catastrophic global warming of being motivated by money, noting that “the ecology of helpless protesting has become a very lucrative business for some people!”
Allegre, a member of both the French and U.S. Academy of Sciences, had previously expressed concern about manmade global warming. “By burning fossil fuels, man enhanced the concentration of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere which has raised the global mean temperature by half a degree in the last century,” Allegre wrote 20 years ago. In addition, Allegre was one of 1500 scientists who signed a November 18, 1992 letter titled “World Scientists’ Warning to Humanity” in which the scientists warned that global warming’s “potential risks are very great.” See: http://homepages.ihug.co.nz/~sai/sciwarn.html
Allegre has authored more than 100 scientific articles, written 11 books and received numerous scientific awards including the Goldschmidt Medal from the Geochemical Society of the United States.
Allegre’s conversion to a climate skeptic comes at a time when global warming alarmists have insisted that there is a “consensus” about manmade global warming. Proponents of global warming have ratcheted up the level of rhetoric on climate skeptics recently. An environmental magazine in September called for Nuremberg-style trials for global warming skeptics and CBS News “60 Minutes” correspondent Scott Pelley compared skeptics to “Holocaust deniers.” See: http://www.epw.senate.gov/fact.cfm?party=rep&id=264568 & http://www.cbsnews.com/blogs/2006/03/22/publiceye/entry1431768.shtml In addition, former Vice President Al Gore has repeatedly referred to skeptics as “global warming deniers.”
This increase in rhetorical flourish comes at a time when new climate science research continues to unravel the global warming alarmists’ computer model predictions of future climatic doom and vindicate skeptics.
60 Scientists Debunk Global Warming Fears
Earlier this year, a group of prominent scientists came forward to question the so-called “consensus” that the Earth faces a “climate emergency.” On April 6, 2006, 60 scientists wrote a letter to the Canadian Prime Minister asserting that the science is deteriorating from underneath global warming alarmists.
“Observational evidence does not support today’s computer climate models, so there is little reason to trust model predictions of the future…Significant [scientific] advances have been made since the [Kyoto] protocol was created, many of which are taking us away from a concern about increasing greenhouse gases. If, back in the mid-1990s, we knew what we know today about climate, Kyoto would almost certainly not exist, because we would have concluded it was not necessary,” the 60 scientists wrote. See: http://www.canada.com/nationalpost/financialpost/story.html?id=3711460e-bd5a-475d-a6be-4db87559d605
“It was only 30 years ago that many of today’s global-warming alarmists were telling us that the world was in the midst of a global-cooling catastrophe. But the science continued to evolve, and still does, even though so many choose to ignore it when it does not fit with predetermined political agendas,” the 60 scientists concluded.
‘Climate Change is Nothing New’
In addition, an October 16, 2006 Washington Post article titled “Climate Change is Nothing New” echoed the sentiments of the 60 scientists as it detailed a new study of the earth’s climate history. The Washington Post article by reporter Christopher Lee noted that Indiana University geologist Simon Brassell found climate change occurred during the age of dinosaurs and quoted Brassell questioning the accuracy of computer climate model predictions.
“If there are big, inherent fluctuations in the system, as paleoclimate studies are showing, it could make determining the Earth’s climatic future even harder than it is,” Brassell said. See: http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/10/15/AR2006101500672.html
Global Cooling on the Horizon?
In August, Khabibullo Abdusamatov, a scientist who heads the space research sector for the Russian Academy of Sciences, predicted long-term global cooling may be on the horizon due to a projected decrease in the sun’s output. See: http://en.rian.ru/russia/20060825/53143686.html
Sun’s Contribution to Warming
There have also been recent findings in peer-reviewed literature over the last few years showing that the Antarctic is getting colder and the ice is growing and a new 2006 study in Geophysical Research Letters found that the sun was responsible for up to 50% of 20th-century warming. See: http://www.agu.org/pubs/crossref/2006/2006GL027142.shtml
“Global Warming” Stopped in 1998
Paleoclimate scientist Bob Carter has noted that there is indeed a problem with global warming – it stopped in 1998. “According to official temperature records of the Climate Research Unit at the University of East Anglia in the UK, the global average temperature did not increase between 1998-2005. “…this eight-year period of temperature stasis did coincide with society’s continued power station and SUV-inspired pumping of yet more carbon dioxide into the atmosphere,” noted paleoclimate researcher and geologist Bob Carter of James Cook University in Australia in an April 2006 article titled “There is a problem with global warming… it stopped in 1998.” See: http://www.telegraph.co.uk/opinion/main.jhtml?xml=/opinion/2006/04/09/do0907.xml&sSheet=/news/2006/04/09/ixworld.html
“Global?” Warming Misnamed – Southern Hemisphere Not Warming
In addition, new NASA satellite tropospheric temperature data reveals that the Southern Hemisphere has not warmed in the past 25 years contrary to “global warming theory” and modeling. This new Southern Hemisphere data raises the specter that the use of the word “global” in “global warming” may not be accurate. A more apt moniker for the past 25 years may be “Northern Hemisphere” warming. See: http://motls.blogspot.com/2006/09/southern-hemisphere-ignores-global.html
Alaska Cooling
According to data released on July 14, 2006 from the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), the January through June Alaska statewide average temperature was “0.55F (0.30C) cooler than the 1971-2000 average.” See: http://www.publicaffairs.noaa.gov/releases2006/jul06/noaa06-065.html
Oceans Cooling
Another bombshell to hit the global warming alarmists and their speculative climate modeling came in a September article in the Geophysical Research Letters which found that over 20% of the heat gained in the oceans since the mid-1950s was lost in just two years. The former climatologist for the state of Colorado, Roger Pielke, Sr., noted that the sudden cooling of the oceans “certainly indicates that the multi-decadal global climate models have serious issues with their ability to accurately simulate the response of the climate system to human- and natural-climate forcings.“ See: http://climatesci.atmos.colostate.edu/2006/09/
Light Hurricane Season & Early Winter
Despite predictions that 2006 would bring numerous tropical storms, 2006’s surprisingly light hurricane season and the record early start of this year’s winter in many parts of the U.S. have further put a damper on the constant doomsaying of the global warming alarmists and their media allies.
Droughts Less Frequent
Other new studies have debunked many of the dubious claims made by the global warming alarmists. For example, the claim that droughts would be more frequent, severe and wide ranging during global warming, has now being exposed as fallacious. A new paper in Geophysical Research Letters authored by Konstantinos Andreadis and Dennis Lettenmaier finds droughts in the U.S. becoming “shorter, less frequent and cover a small portion of the country over the last century.” http://www.worldclimatereport.com/index.php/2006/10/13/where-are-the-droughts
Global Warming Will Not Lead to Next Ice Age
Furthermore, recent research has shown that fears that global warming could lead to the next ice age, as promoted in the 2004 Hollywood movie “The Day After Tomorrow” are also unsupportable. A 2005 media hyped study “claimed to have found a 30 percent slowdown in the thermohaline circulation, the results are published in the very prestigious Nature magazine, and the story was carried breathlessly by the media in outlets around the world…Less than a year later, two different research teams present convincing evidence [ in Geophysical Research Letters ] that no slowdown is occurring whatsoever,” according to Virginia State Climatologist Patrick Michaels, editor of the website World Climate Report. See: http://www.worldclimatereport.com/index.php/2006/10/13/overturning-ocean-hype
‘Hockey Stick’ Broken in 2006
The “Hockey Stick” temperature graph’s claim that the 1990’s was the hottest decade of the last 1000 years was found to be unsupportable by the National Academy of Sciences and many independent experts in 2006. See: http://www.epw.senate.gov/pressitem.cfm?party=rep&id=257697
Study Shows Greenland’s Ice Growing
A 2005 study by a scientist named Ola Johannessen and his colleagues showed that the interior of Greenland is gaining ice mass. See: http://www.co2science.org/scripts/CO2ScienceB2C/articles/V8/N44/C1.jsp Also, according to the International Arctic Research Institute, despite all of the media hype, the Arctic was warmer in the 1930’s than today.
Polar Bears Not Going Extinct
Despite Time Magazine and the rest of the media’s unfounded hype, polar bears are not facing a crisis, according to biologist Dr. Mitchell Taylor from the Arctic government of Nunavut. “Of the 13 populations of polar bears in Canada, 11 are stable or increasing in number. They are not going extinct, or even appear to be affected at present,” Taylor wrote on May 1, 2006. See: http://www.thestar.com/NASApp/cs/ContentServer?pagename=thestar/Layout/Article_Type1&c=Article&cid=1146433819696&call_pageid=970599119419
Media Darling James Hansen Hypes Alarmism
As all of this new data debunking climate alarmism mounts, the mainstream media chooses to ignore it and instead focus on the dire predictions of the number-one global warming media darling, NASA’s James Hansen. The increasingly alarmist Hansen is featured frequently in the media to bolster sky-is-falling climate scare reports. His recent claim that the Earth is nearing its hottest point in one million years has been challenged by many scientists. See: http://www.co2science.org/scripts/CO2ScienceB2C/articles/V9/N39/EDITB.jsp Hansen’s increasingly frightening climate predictions follow his 2003 concession that the use of “extreme scenarios” was an appropriate tactic to drive the public’s attention to the urgency of global warming. See: http://naturalscience.com/ns/articles/01-16/ns_jeh6.html Hansen also received a $250,000 grant form Teresa Heinz’s Foundation and then subsequently endorsed her husband John Kerry for President and worked closely with Al Gore to promote his movie, “An Inconvenient Truth.” See: http://www.heinzawards.net/speechDetail.asp?speechID=6 & http://www.columbia.edu/~jeh1/dai_complete.pdf
American People Rejecting Global Warming Alarmism
The global warming alarmists may have significantly overplayed their hand in the climate debate. A Los Angeles Times/Bloomberg poll this August found that most Americans do not attribute the cause of any recent severe weather events to global warming, and the portion of Americans who believe that climate change is due to natural variability has increased over 50% in the last five years.
Senator Inhofe Chastises Media For Unscientific & Unprincipled Climate Reporting
Senator James Inhofe (R-Okla.) Chairman of the Environment and Public Works Committee, commented last week on the media’s unfounded global warming hype and some of the recent scientific research that is shattering the so-called “consensus” that human greenhouse gas emissions have doomed the planet.
“The American people are fed up with media for promoting the idea that former Vice President Al Gore represents the scientific ‘consensus’ that SUV’s and the modern American way of life have somehow created a ‘climate emergency’ that only United Nations bureaucrats and wealthy Hollywood liberals can solve. It is the publicity and grant seeking global warming alarmists and their advocates in the media who have finally realized that the only “emergency” confronting them is their rapidly crumbling credibility, audience and bottom line. The global warming alarmists know their science is speculative at best and their desperation grows each day as it becomes more and more obvious that many of the nations that ratified the woeful Kyoto Protocol are failing to comply,” Senator Inhofe said last week. See: http://www.epw.senate.gov/pressitem.cfm?party=rep&id=264616
“The mainstream media needs to follow the money: The further you get from scientists who conduct these alarmist global warming studies, and the further you get from the financial grants and the institutions that they serve the more the climate alarmism fades and the skepticism grows,” Senator Inhofe explained.
Eco-Doomsayers’ Failed Predictions
In a speech on the Senate floor on September 25, 2006, Senator Inhofe pointed out the abject failure of past predictions of ecological disaster made by environmental alarmists.
“The history of the modern environmental movement is chock-full of predictions of doom that never came true. We have all heard the dire predictions about the threat of overpopulation, resource scarcity, mass starvation, and the projected death of our oceans. None of these predictions came true, yet it never stopped the doomsayers from continuing to predict a dire environmental future. The more the eco-doomsayers’ predictions fail, the more the eco-doomsayers predict,” Senator Inhofe said on September 25th. See: http://epw.senate.gov/speechitem.cfm?party=rep&id=263759
Related Links:
For a comprehensive review of the media’s embarrassing 100-year history of alternating between promoting fears of a coming ice age and global warming, see Environment & Public Works Chairman James Inhofe’s September 25, 2006 Senate floor speech debunking the media and climate alarmism. Go to: (epw.senate.gov/speechitem.cfm?party=rep&id=263759)
To read and watch Senator Inhofe on CNN discuss global warming go to: (http://www.epw.senate.gov/pressitem.cfm?party=rep&id=264308 )
To Read all of Senator Inhofe’s Speeches on global warming go to: (http://epw.senate.gov/speeches.cfm?party=rep)
“Inhofe Correct On Global Warming,” by David Deming geophysicist, an adjunct scholar with the Oklahoma Council of Public Affairs (ocpathink.org), and an associate professor of Arts and Sciences at the University of Oklahoma. (http://epw.senate.gov/fact.cfm?party=rep&id=264537)
OK, anyone read all that? Thought so…
Look, we can debate all of the above, and most scientists are.
However, one piece of data is pretty much held as true, and that is that the amount of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere is growing at an alarming rate. There is no way to explain it other than human produced.
Everything else is a sympton of the increased levels of carbon dioxide.
OK, anyone read all that? Thought so…
Look, we can debate all of the above, and most scientists are.
However, one piece of data is pretty much held as true, and that is that the amount of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere is growing at an alarming rate. There is no way to explain it other than human produced.
Everything else is a sympton of the increased levels of carbon dioxide.
Up until I saw An Inconvenient Truth, I would’ve debated the idea that global warming was entirely manmade. As a student of earth science I looked at all of the warming and cooling periods the earth has gone through for millenia and figured the earth was warming anyway, maybe we were contributing some.
But the graph in the movie that Al Gore illustrates so well with the forklift convinced me. I defy anyone to explain away the clear trend of rising carbon dioxide levels paralleling industrialization. If you haven’t seen the movie, you have no business debating global warming.
Up until I saw An Inconvenient Truth, I would’ve debated the idea that global warming was entirely manmade. As a student of earth science I looked at all of the warming and cooling periods the earth has gone through for millenia and figured the earth was warming anyway, maybe we were contributing some.
But the graph in the movie that Al Gore illustrates so well with the forklift convinced me. I defy anyone to explain away the clear trend of rising carbon dioxide levels paralleling industrialization. If you haven’t seen the movie, you have no business debating global warming.
THIS GUY IS RIGHT ON
YOU AND THE LEFT QUIT SCARING OUR KIDS TO DEATH!!!!!!!
THIS GUY IS RIGHT ON
YOU AND THE LEFT QUIT SCARING OUR KIDS TO DEATH!!!!!!!
G and all who worship at Gore’s throne, what ever happened to working for world peace and solving world hunger? Now it’s just global warming this and global warming that, blah blah blah. No doubt the planet is warming. Probably at least partially human caused. Impossible to stop because doing so requires (according to pundits) at least a 50 PERCENT reduction in human carbon production. Tell that to China. Tell that to all the developing countries in the world. Heck, tell that to Gore, is he making 50% less carbon? Tell that to yourself if you’re becoming a global warming evangelist — are you making 50% less carbon? And study up on those stupid carbon offsets rich people like Gore can use as valium for guilt. They’re a joke.
Also, let’s not let wallowing in guilt get in the way of logic. One can make a graph of anything compared to anything. Gore can make a graph. I can make a graph of how many times I go shopping in a year, and compare to a graph of how many times I laugh during the same period. It might show I laughed more, or laughed less — neither thing would have anything to do with how many times I went shopping. Ditto for CO2 graphs. Sure, CO2 might cause global warming, but then, there have been times in earth’s history when we’ve had MUCH MORE CO2 in the atmosphere and these were times of global cooling!
The biggest joke in all this is if so many people believe global warming is happening, why are they doing nothing to prepare for it? Do they really think it’s just going to stop? Aspen Skiing Company is a good example. If they really believe everything they blather about, they’d be developing more mid-mountain and mountain top facilities, even moving ski lift loading stations higher up the mountains and building roads higher. And they should be converting lower elevation ski runs to real estate and homes since those areas will be devoid of snow much of the winter. Instead they stick signs on their lift towers. LOL, looking at actions I doubt SkiCO believes warming is really happening, they just talk about it for PR value and to keep all the Aspen liberal politicians bowing to the only corporation they’ll ever love.
Ditto for Aspen city gov. They spend a fortune on their stupid Canary Initiative, while private jets make at least 40% of the town’s C02, and much of the rest is created by the traffic jam every morning and evening that they refuse to remedy. I think I hear the sound of a canary tweeting, or is that a canary laughing? At least it’s not the sound of Al Gore droning.
G and all who worship at Gore’s throne, what ever happened to working for world peace and solving world hunger? Now it’s just global warming this and global warming that, blah blah blah. No doubt the planet is warming. Probably at least partially human caused. Impossible to stop because doing so requires (according to pundits) at least a 50 PERCENT reduction in human carbon production. Tell that to China. Tell that to all the developing countries in the world. Heck, tell that to Gore, is he making 50% less carbon? Tell that to yourself if you’re becoming a global warming evangelist — are you making 50% less carbon? And study up on those stupid carbon offsets rich people like Gore can use as valium for guilt. They’re a joke.
Also, let’s not let wallowing in guilt get in the way of logic. One can make a graph of anything compared to anything. Gore can make a graph. I can make a graph of how many times I go shopping in a year, and compare to a graph of how many times I laugh during the same period. It might show I laughed more, or laughed less — neither thing would have anything to do with how many times I went shopping. Ditto for CO2 graphs. Sure, CO2 might cause global warming, but then, there have been times in earth’s history when we’ve had MUCH MORE CO2 in the atmosphere and these were times of global cooling!
The biggest joke in all this is if so many people believe global warming is happening, why are they doing nothing to prepare for it? Do they really think it’s just going to stop? Aspen Skiing Company is a good example. If they really believe everything they blather about, they’d be developing more mid-mountain and mountain top facilities, even moving ski lift loading stations higher up the mountains and building roads higher. And they should be converting lower elevation ski runs to real estate and homes since those areas will be devoid of snow much of the winter. Instead they stick signs on their lift towers. LOL, looking at actions I doubt SkiCO believes warming is really happening, they just talk about it for PR value and to keep all the Aspen liberal politicians bowing to the only corporation they’ll ever love.
Ditto for Aspen city gov. They spend a fortune on their stupid Canary Initiative, while private jets make at least 40% of the town’s C02, and much of the rest is created by the traffic jam every morning and evening that they refuse to remedy. I think I hear the sound of a canary tweeting, or is that a canary laughing? At least it’s not the sound of Al Gore droning.
Have you seen the movie Jeff? Or are you one of those who refuses to get informed because you prefer to keep your belief system intact?
Have you seen the movie Jeff? Or are you one of those who refuses to get informed because you prefer to keep your belief system intact?
G, yes I’ve seen the movie. Did you read my post? To what belief system do you refer? Is climate change some sort of religion…? I believe global warming is happening. Is that enough, or do I need to drink some Gore coolaid so I can sit there in his slideshow and clap at his anti Bush jokes?
Again, if so many people believe global warming is happening, what are they doing about it? At least half the voting population of our country is of the somewhat liberal persuasion and most of those probably believe we have a global warming problem. Many on the other side believe we do as well.
If that’s the case, where is the carbon mitigation? Or is all the talking producing so much CO2 it’s canceling out any gains in reduction (grin)?
G, yes I’ve seen the movie. Did you read my post? To what belief system do you refer? Is climate change some sort of religion…? I believe global warming is happening. Is that enough, or do I need to drink some Gore coolaid so I can sit there in his slideshow and clap at his anti Bush jokes?
Again, if so many people believe global warming is happening, what are they doing about it? At least half the voting population of our country is of the somewhat liberal persuasion and most of those probably believe we have a global warming problem. Many on the other side believe we do as well.
If that’s the case, where is the carbon mitigation? Or is all the talking producing so much CO2 it’s canceling out any gains in reduction (grin)?
This guy says it better than me, way better:
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/07/04/AR2006070400789.html
This guy says it better than me, way better:
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/07/04/AR2006070400789.html
From the link above;
“No government will adopt the draconian restrictions on economic growth and personal freedom (limits on electricity usage, driving and travel) that might curb global warming…
The trouble with the global warming debate is that it has become a moral crusade when it’s really an engineering problem. The inconvenient truth is that if we don’t solve the engineering problem, we’re helpless.”
The premise is flawed because we have solved the engineering problem. The perfect electric car came out decades ago but production was stifled by the oil companies. The answer lies not in government’s putting restrictions on its citizens energy use, but in restricting oil companies abilities to control what technology is available to us.
From the link above;
“No government will adopt the draconian restrictions on economic growth and personal freedom (limits on electricity usage, driving and travel) that might curb global warming…
The trouble with the global warming debate is that it has become a moral crusade when it’s really an engineering problem. The inconvenient truth is that if we don’t solve the engineering problem, we’re helpless.”
The premise is flawed because we have solved the engineering problem. The perfect electric car came out decades ago but production was stifled by the oil companies. The answer lies not in government’s putting restrictions on its citizens energy use, but in restricting oil companies abilities to control what technology is available to us.
Toyota, Honda, Ford and General Motors all produced Electric Vehicles in the 90s, but with minor exceptions those models were withdrawn from the market, recalled from their owners and destroyed by their manufacturers. Yes, they actually destroyed the evidence that a successful technology existed.
Meanwhile in China; a factory capable of producing 20,000 electric powered vehicles a year is now under construction in the northern port city of Tianjin. The plant will produce cars powered by battery, hybrid power and fuel cells.
Toyota, Honda, Ford and General Motors all produced Electric Vehicles in the 90s, but with minor exceptions those models were withdrawn from the market, recalled from their owners and destroyed by their manufacturers. Yes, they actually destroyed the evidence that a successful technology existed.
Meanwhile in China; a factory capable of producing 20,000 electric powered vehicles a year is now under construction in the northern port city of Tianjin. The plant will produce cars powered by battery, hybrid power and fuel cells.
G, so, the evil corporations are to blame for global warming, and China is now the enlightened motherland of transportation technology? Such delusions don’t deserve dialog. I will say one thing, however, where exactly is the electricity coming from for all those electric cars? Hint, the word starts with a “C,” and involves producing massive amounts of C02.
G, so, the evil corporations are to blame for global warming, and China is now the enlightened motherland of transportation technology? Such delusions don’t deserve dialog. I will say one thing, however, where exactly is the electricity coming from for all those electric cars? Hint, the word starts with a “C,” and involves producing massive amounts of C02.
Yeah, you got me there. I was just trying to show that there is technology available; we have it and China has it. Of course cars aren’t the only problem. An alternative to oil is key. But who’s to say there isn’t one out there alraedy? Maybe when the oil runs out EXXON and SHELL wil go, “TA DA! here’s your new fuel folks!”
Your posts seem to bely a pessimism about our ability to address the global warming issue. It sounds like you’re saying, “Yeah we have a problem that’ might kill us all, but there’s no sense talking about it, because we can’t fix it.”
Yeah, you got me there. I was just trying to show that there is technology available; we have it and China has it. Of course cars aren’t the only problem. An alternative to oil is key. But who’s to say there isn’t one out there alraedy? Maybe when the oil runs out EXXON and SHELL wil go, “TA DA! here’s your new fuel folks!”
Your posts seem to bely a pessimism about our ability to address the global warming issue. It sounds like you’re saying, “Yeah we have a problem that’ might kill us all, but there’s no sense talking about it, because we can’t fix it.”
G, I value dialog but feel it can easily morph to endless yammer. Is that not a verity of life? There is a season for talk when one has a problem, and a season for action. By action I don’t necessarily mean changing my light bulbs (though we do live in an efficient house and do use quite a few energy saver bulbs) but rather adapting to global warming which I indeed feel is inevitable. Heck, it’s already happening, how inevitable is that!
I believe we have global warming and that it will continue. I believe we need to adapt to it. You of all people know there are thousands of scientific studies that show we have global warming and that it doesn’t show any sign of stopping. Talking about those studies is fun in a let’s talk about the end of the world kind of way, but how about we start talking about adapting?
BTW, I don’t believe global warming has even a remote possibility of killing us all.
G, I value dialog but feel it can easily morph to endless yammer. Is that not a verity of life? There is a season for talk when one has a problem, and a season for action. By action I don’t necessarily mean changing my light bulbs (though we do live in an efficient house and do use quite a few energy saver bulbs) but rather adapting to global warming which I indeed feel is inevitable. Heck, it’s already happening, how inevitable is that!
I believe we have global warming and that it will continue. I believe we need to adapt to it. You of all people know there are thousands of scientific studies that show we have global warming and that it doesn’t show any sign of stopping. Talking about those studies is fun in a let’s talk about the end of the world kind of way, but how about we start talking about adapting?
BTW, I don’t believe global warming has even a remote possibility of killing us all.
[BTW, I don't believe global warming has even a remote possibility of killing us all. ]
Whew! That’s a relief.
I’m intrigued by your suggestion of adapting to global warming. I assume this means more than just relocating all of our coastal cities and reforming the entire agriculture industry?
[BTW, I don't believe global warming has even a remote possibility of killing us all. ]
Whew! That’s a relief.
I’m intrigued by your suggestion of adapting to global warming. I assume this means more than just relocating all of our coastal cities and reforming the entire agriculture industry?
Jeff,
electric vehicles being on the grid has at least two other factors; the first and positive is that the grid is not all fossil fuel based, there is some nuclear and other non fossil fuel contributing factors. There is also the conversion from thermal, kinetic, mechanical, electric to chemical and then electric, and the loss of energy with each conversion, obviously negative. The question is; Is that loss less than the contribution of non fossil fuel sources?
Global warming, could crush the desperate grasping to retain the rigidity of nation states, as the highest order of human organisation. We already have a serious problem with the border, due to misadministration of citizens of Mexico, and the resultant lack of developing them into competitive global workers.
Jeff,
electric vehicles being on the grid has at least two other factors; the first and positive is that the grid is not all fossil fuel based, there is some nuclear and other non fossil fuel contributing factors. There is also the conversion from thermal, kinetic, mechanical, electric to chemical and then electric, and the loss of energy with each conversion, obviously negative. The question is; Is that loss less than the contribution of non fossil fuel sources?
Global warming, could crush the desperate grasping to retain the rigidity of nation states, as the highest order of human organisation. We already have a serious problem with the border, due to misadministration of citizens of Mexico, and the resultant lack of developing them into competitive global workers.
Yes, exactly, we adapt. Along with that, we do what carbon mitigation is economically and politically viable, and politely request that China and others do the same. If you guys think that getting the whole world to produce 50% less C02 in just a few years is any easier than adapting to global warming, then I’d suggest a reality check.
By the way, when it comes to carbon mitigation I’m not talking about signing treaties or passing resolutions, I’m talking about actually doing it.
As for what in the future could crush us, start with asteroid impacts then go down the list through pandemics. and don’t forget world war (which I seem to recall happened once or twice) All are quite probable. Global warming is a problem as well….
Yes, exactly, we adapt. Along with that, we do what carbon mitigation is economically and politically viable, and politely request that China and others do the same. If you guys think that getting the whole world to produce 50% less C02 in just a few years is any easier than adapting to global warming, then I’d suggest a reality check.
By the way, when it comes to carbon mitigation I’m not talking about signing treaties or passing resolutions, I’m talking about actually doing it.
As for what in the future could crush us, start with asteroid impacts then go down the list through pandemics. and don’t forget world war (which I seem to recall happened once or twice) All are quite probable. Global warming is a problem as well….
Such cheery thoughts to begin our weekend!
[If you guys think that getting the whole world to produce 50% less C02 in just a few years is any easier than adapting to global warming, then I'd suggest a reality check. ]
Hmmm…reality check; moving several thousand cities dozens of miles inland and developing drought resistant crops and livestock versus reducing our CO2 emissions. Yeah I guess you’re right it’s easier to keep pumping out the CO2 and adapt to the consequences.
Such cheery thoughts to begin our weekend!
[If you guys think that getting the whole world to produce 50% less C02 in just a few years is any easier than adapting to global warming, then I'd suggest a reality check. ]
Hmmm…reality check; moving several thousand cities dozens of miles inland and developing drought resistant crops and livestock versus reducing our CO2 emissions. Yeah I guess you’re right it’s easier to keep pumping out the CO2 and adapt to the consequences.
G, read what I wrote, I’m not advocating either-or, just a realistic view that includes adaptation based on how much carbon mitigation we actually accomplish. Give it 12 months, if carbon emissions worldwide have not gone down, what say you then? How about 24 months? When is your tipping point? I’m curious. After all, wasn’t it quite a few years ago that many people started to believe this was happening? So years have already gone by, and virtually nothing has been accomplished as Gore’s graph shows so well in his movie. Perhaps now is the time to plan for adaptations, and start a few? I can’t believe a person as smart and well read as you would, in terms of preparation and adaptation, advocate just waiting to see what happens when what happens depends on the whole world to make this huge reduction in carbon emissions. I just don’t get it. Do you have some agenda I’m not clear on?
I thought preemptive caution was the name of the game here. With a modicum of logic one would conclude that adaptation would be included in the preemption. (don’t know how to spell that, sorry )
G, read what I wrote, I’m not advocating either-or, just a realistic view that includes adaptation based on how much carbon mitigation we actually accomplish. Give it 12 months, if carbon emissions worldwide have not gone down, what say you then? How about 24 months? When is your tipping point? I’m curious. After all, wasn’t it quite a few years ago that many people started to believe this was happening? So years have already gone by, and virtually nothing has been accomplished as Gore’s graph shows so well in his movie. Perhaps now is the time to plan for adaptations, and start a few? I can’t believe a person as smart and well read as you would, in terms of preparation and adaptation, advocate just waiting to see what happens when what happens depends on the whole world to make this huge reduction in carbon emissions. I just don’t get it. Do you have some agenda I’m not clear on?
I thought preemptive caution was the name of the game here. With a modicum of logic one would conclude that adaptation would be included in the preemption. (don’t know how to spell that, sorry )
You’re right, in the event that there is nothing we can do to stop global warming, we should prepare for an alternative. Which is one of the reasons I moved from the coast to the mountains. I’ve been taking steps for the last ten years to live simpler and become more self-sufficient. That said, I still don’t see any harm in discussing our options. After all, every great societal change has been preceded by long periods of discussion and usually vehement opposition to differing viewpoints. At one time people believed the world was flat, women were inferior, blacks were second class.
Change doesn’t happen over night, and it doesn’t happen without a lot of argument. So twenty years ago we realized there might be such a thing as global warming, it might be related to industrialization and there might be something we can do about it. Many innovations have arisen because of burgeoning awareness. We’ve got a long way to go but people like Al Gore are helping us along the path.
You’re right, in the event that there is nothing we can do to stop global warming, we should prepare for an alternative. Which is one of the reasons I moved from the coast to the mountains. I’ve been taking steps for the last ten years to live simpler and become more self-sufficient. That said, I still don’t see any harm in discussing our options. After all, every great societal change has been preceded by long periods of discussion and usually vehement opposition to differing viewpoints. At one time people believed the world was flat, women were inferior, blacks were second class.
Change doesn’t happen over night, and it doesn’t happen without a lot of argument. So twenty years ago we realized there might be such a thing as global warming, it might be related to industrialization and there might be something we can do about it. Many innovations have arisen because of burgeoning awareness. We’ve got a long way to go but people like Al Gore are helping us along the path.
G, well said. Though I wish Gore would spend more time talking about how we can adapt, rather then sitting there staring at his oh so obviously Macintosh computer .
I have to riff on you . Can’t resist: Now don’t we believe that men are inferior, and Republicans are second class ?
G, well said. Though I wish Gore would spend more time talking about how we can adapt, rather then sitting there staring at his oh so obviously Macintosh computer .
I have to riff on you . Can’t resist: Now don’t we believe that men are inferior, and Republicans are second class ?
Sadly and to our detriment, humans will always judge each other by their differences instead of uniting around our commonalities. Makes for spirited conversation though!
Sadly and to our detriment, humans will always judge each other by their differences instead of uniting around our commonalities. Makes for spirited conversation though!
G, I somewhat agree, but I think there might be more good in the world than you imply. As for spirited conversation, bring it on!
G, I somewhat agree, but I think there might be more good in the world than you imply. As for spirited conversation, bring it on!
I was going to jump into this, but when I read this from the second comment… “If you haven’t seen the movie, you have no business debating global warming.” I first fell off my chair laughing and then realized that those arguing the point would be the same ones saying you can’t talk about how to be a parent unless you watch the Simpson’s.
Hello?? You can’t be serious to think that this bit of self serving propaganda is the basis for any kind of intelligent discussion. Thats like getting your nutrition information from the back of a box of Captain Crunch Peanut Butter cereal. Give me a break….
Followed by this comment “Have you seen the movie Jeff? Or are you one of those who refuses to get informed because you prefer to keep your belief system intact?” Gee, the only way I can be informed is to watch this bit of film…that is being informed, watching a movie??
On top of that, that pretty much is a Stalinist approach to dialog, last time I checked, you can be informed by other ways then the parties propaganda… comarade “G”.
I was going to jump into this, but when I read this from the second comment… “If you haven’t seen the movie, you have no business debating global warming.” I first fell off my chair laughing and then realized that those arguing the point would be the same ones saying you can’t talk about how to be a parent unless you watch the Simpson’s.
Hello?? You can’t be serious to think that this bit of self serving propaganda is the basis for any kind of intelligent discussion. Thats like getting your nutrition information from the back of a box of Captain Crunch Peanut Butter cereal. Give me a break….
Followed by this comment “Have you seen the movie Jeff? Or are you one of those who refuses to get informed because you prefer to keep your belief system intact?” Gee, the only way I can be informed is to watch this bit of film…that is being informed, watching a movie??
On top of that, that pretty much is a Stalinist approach to dialog, last time I checked, you can be informed by other ways then the parties propaganda… comarade “G”.
Once again my tone provokes anger. I sure have a way! Well your defensive diatribe certainly conveys one thing alpha6; you haven’t seen the movie.
What is the point of discussing this topic with anyone who can’t put aside their prejudices long enough to take a look at what might be the most comprehensive review of global warming for the layperson ever created? There’s a reason why it’s called “An Inconvenient Truth.”
Let me guess…your next move will be to cherrypick a bunch of reports commissioned by the oil companies that support your beliefs and offer them up to us as legitimate sources of information. I guess the title of that piece of propaganda would be; “A Convenient Lie.”
Once again my tone provokes anger. I sure have a way! Well your defensive diatribe certainly conveys one thing alpha6; you haven’t seen the movie.
What is the point of discussing this topic with anyone who can’t put aside their prejudices long enough to take a look at what might be the most comprehensive review of global warming for the layperson ever created? There’s a reason why it’s called “An Inconvenient Truth.”
Let me guess…your next move will be to cherrypick a bunch of reports commissioned by the oil companies that support your beliefs and offer them up to us as legitimate sources of information. I guess the title of that piece of propaganda would be; “A Convenient Lie.”
alpha, the movie is indeed mostly slick packaged propaganda but I you haven’t seen it you owe it to yourself to check out Gore’s movie. If viewed objectively much of it is quite a laugh, especially the sappy preacher stuff. And it gives you a good idea of where all these global warming evangelists are coming from, that they go around yelping about the end of the world yet really don’t do much about it other than talk. It totally reminds me of all those cartoons where the preacher is on a street corner with his sign “the end is near.”
alpha, the movie is indeed mostly slick packaged propaganda but I you haven’t seen it you owe it to yourself to check out Gore’s movie. If viewed objectively much of it is quite a laugh, especially the sappy preacher stuff. And it gives you a good idea of where all these global warming evangelists are coming from, that they go around yelping about the end of the world yet really don’t do much about it other than talk. It totally reminds me of all those cartoons where the preacher is on a street corner with his sign “the end is near.”
Some people should just take a pledge of ignorance. Why bother with science? Yet science brought the medium that the ignorant are using. Are all the extremes likely? I don’t think so. There are questions about the timeline and the amplitude of change. There are those who think the reduction of glaciers and melting of glaciers means that the planetary climate is getting colder. There are those who think nothing will happen. There are those who think Global warming will happen with no meaningful effects on humanity. At some point brutal choices will have to be made as to who lives and who dies. I will not fight, or expend energy, trying to save those who have acted throughout their lives as though this were not a problem. With the way they think, I am certain they have already decided they don’t and won’t give a crap. I just wish they would sign up for frontline duty in Baghdad, and show that special devotion to their fearless battle hardened leader — Bush.
Some people should just take a pledge of ignorance. Why bother with science? Yet science brought the medium that the ignorant are using. Are all the extremes likely? I don’t think so. There are questions about the timeline and the amplitude of change. There are those who think the reduction of glaciers and melting of glaciers means that the planetary climate is getting colder. There are those who think nothing will happen. There are those who think Global warming will happen with no meaningful effects on humanity. At some point brutal choices will have to be made as to who lives and who dies. I will not fight, or expend energy, trying to save those who have acted throughout their lives as though this were not a problem. With the way they think, I am certain they have already decided they don’t and won’t give a crap. I just wish they would sign up for frontline duty in Baghdad, and show that special devotion to their fearless battle hardened leader — Bush.
So Edward, is there a registry some where so we can register as “global warming believers” so you’ll fight or expend energy for us later, or do you have some kind of psychic power that will allow you to know who the chosen are and who they are not when the knowing is required? Perhaps we should get stamps on our foreheads or something to show we’re worthy?
So Edward, is there a registry some where so we can register as “global warming believers” so you’ll fight or expend energy for us later, or do you have some kind of psychic power that will allow you to know who the chosen are and who they are not when the knowing is required? Perhaps we should get stamps on our foreheads or something to show we’re worthy?
Listen to yourself Reckless, I haven’t even entered into the debate and you already are attempting to lessen the argument and saying that whatever I bring in would be “cherry picked.” Your assertion that Al’s movie is the truth and all other information is weighed against it is absurd. It’s a movie, a one sided documentary. It has an agenda!! Talk about not informing oneself, the pretense of using one source as the all knowing and all ending is the height of ignorance.
Here is something to add to your bank of knowledge…
In 2004, Al Sets up an “Investment Company” with offices in England called Generation Investment Management.
http://www.generationim.com/
Of which Al is the Chairman.
Lots of companies have placed money with GIM and according to their own documents, GIM intends to invest in, or buy companies poised to cash in on Global Warming concerns.
Currently, the latest gimmick being pushed by Al and gang is for “Carbon Offset Credits”
What is Interesting is how Gore buys his “carbon offsets,” as revealed by The Tennessean; According to the newspaper’s report, Gore buys his carbon offsets through Generation Investment Management.
(hmmm…interesting..remember cult members, follow the money)
And since Gore is chairman of the firm and, presumably, draws an income or will make money as its investments prosper he stands to make a large amount of money. So, he “buys” his “carbon offsets” from himself, through a transaction designed to boost his own investments and return a profit to himself.
I’ll give it to Al, he is one smart cookie….he stands to make hundreds of millions… but I am sure he made this movie just because he is really concerned about the environment…as he is using 20 times the national average and zips around in a private jets that in one flight put more carbon into the air then most of you will in ten years driving your car.
More “Inconvenient Truth” to come.
Listen to yourself Reckless, I haven’t even entered into the debate and you already are attempting to lessen the argument and saying that whatever I bring in would be “cherry picked.” Your assertion that Al’s movie is the truth and all other information is weighed against it is absurd. It’s a movie, a one sided documentary. It has an agenda!! Talk about not informing oneself, the pretense of using one source as the all knowing and all ending is the height of ignorance.
Here is something to add to your bank of knowledge…
In 2004, Al Sets up an “Investment Company” with offices in England called Generation Investment Management.
http://www.generationim.com/
Of which Al is the Chairman.
Lots of companies have placed money with GIM and according to their own documents, GIM intends to invest in, or buy companies poised to cash in on Global Warming concerns.
Currently, the latest gimmick being pushed by Al and gang is for “Carbon Offset Credits”
What is Interesting is how Gore buys his “carbon offsets,” as revealed by The Tennessean; According to the newspaper’s report, Gore buys his carbon offsets through Generation Investment Management.
(hmmm…interesting..remember cult members, follow the money)
And since Gore is chairman of the firm and, presumably, draws an income or will make money as its investments prosper he stands to make a large amount of money. So, he “buys” his “carbon offsets” from himself, through a transaction designed to boost his own investments and return a profit to himself.
I’ll give it to Al, he is one smart cookie….he stands to make hundreds of millions… but I am sure he made this movie just because he is really concerned about the environment…as he is using 20 times the national average and zips around in a private jets that in one flight put more carbon into the air then most of you will in ten years driving your car.
More “Inconvenient Truth” to come.
If Al Gore didn’t piggyback on the basic science, someone els could have and probably would have. If Bush had rebelled against the slick oil lobby and made the exact same movie, I imagine that most conservatives would go with him on this.
40 years ago, the component financiers of the Tobacco Institute, had already “freebased” the nicotine in tobacco, and had also found an exceedingly miniscule minority of cancer researchers on the take, who could hog much of the mediascape, way out of proportion to numbers, to keep restrictions, regulations, warnings and accountability at bay.
This scenario is being repeated, by the flat earth types who simply want global warming to not exist, click their heels three times, and it is gone. Alpha says look at the money — not a bad idea. Consider the vast amount of money spent on a per dissenting scientist person basis. Do I have numbers? No. But the amount is enough to get a place in the mediascape, to provide packaged misinformation, to declare that the complexity is beyond the scope of humanity’s ability to understand, and on that basis create a “reason” to do nothing. Just because we don’t understand how to create life due to extreme complexity doeas not mean that we don’t know how to kill. There is nothing that anyone can do to prove we have nothing to do with global warming. The planet exists, due to a set of physical realities, obeying physical laws, in time and space, anything we do has some effect on it, even if it is small, and when compared to the mass of the planet the atmosphere is very small. We don’t have a major effect on the core, or the mantle of the planet as of yet, to a degree that is understood, but it is very likely to be very small. Not so the atmoshere and the biosphere.
Jeff sadly there is no system in place to identify those who are willful parts of the problem. My hope is; that we as Americans, can once again be leaders of a world charge, to tackle planetary problems, as we did in WWII, instead of being some barbaric ignorant retrograde caricature, of what this country was founded on; a human organization emodied in a nation state, to enable the ascent of humanity. We must do better because we can do better.
If Al Gore didn’t piggyback on the basic science, someone els could have and probably would have. If Bush had rebelled against the slick oil lobby and made the exact same movie, I imagine that most conservatives would go with him on this.
40 years ago, the component financiers of the Tobacco Institute, had already “freebased” the nicotine in tobacco, and had also found an exceedingly miniscule minority of cancer researchers on the take, who could hog much of the mediascape, way out of proportion to numbers, to keep restrictions, regulations, warnings and accountability at bay.
This scenario is being repeated, by the flat earth types who simply want global warming to not exist, click their heels three times, and it is gone. Alpha says look at the money — not a bad idea. Consider the vast amount of money spent on a per dissenting scientist person basis. Do I have numbers? No. But the amount is enough to get a place in the mediascape, to provide packaged misinformation, to declare that the complexity is beyond the scope of humanity’s ability to understand, and on that basis create a “reason” to do nothing. Just because we don’t understand how to create life due to extreme complexity doeas not mean that we don’t know how to kill. There is nothing that anyone can do to prove we have nothing to do with global warming. The planet exists, due to a set of physical realities, obeying physical laws, in time and space, anything we do has some effect on it, even if it is small, and when compared to the mass of the planet the atmosphere is very small. We don’t have a major effect on the core, or the mantle of the planet as of yet, to a degree that is understood, but it is very likely to be very small. Not so the atmoshere and the biosphere.
Jeff sadly there is no system in place to identify those who are willful parts of the problem. My hope is; that we as Americans, can once again be leaders of a world charge, to tackle planetary problems, as we did in WWII, instead of being some barbaric ignorant retrograde caricature, of what this country was founded on; a human organization emodied in a nation state, to enable the ascent of humanity. We must do better because we can do better.
Remember alpha6, I’m a sceptic, and rarely trust sources I see as the propaganda of those with an agenda. I purposely stayed away from Al Gore’s movie and until recently I was one of those who pooh-poohed the idea that the main cause of global warming washuman activity. It wasn’t until I saw the evidence presented in that wretched movie (which I was tricked into seeing), that I came around. One movie doesn’t an argument make, but in conjunction with all of the other evidence being presented by world scientists, it did help to swing my opinion.
Remember alpha6, I’m a sceptic, and rarely trust sources I see as the propaganda of those with an agenda. I purposely stayed away from Al Gore’s movie and until recently I was one of those who pooh-poohed the idea that the main cause of global warming washuman activity. It wasn’t until I saw the evidence presented in that wretched movie (which I was tricked into seeing), that I came around. One movie doesn’t an argument make, but in conjunction with all of the other evidence being presented by world scientists, it did help to swing my opinion.
The two sides of this global warming argument are; over 99% supporting the theory vs. less than 1% against the theory. 50 years ago almost no one thought about this in the various scientific disciplines, although Carl Sagan, Cornell University did come up with the idea of terrafication for Mars, a ten thousand year plan to produce an atmosphere dense enough for humanity to breathe. There may also have been considerations during International Geophysical Year in 1957. The point being the vast body of scientists agree that humans are creating anthropogenic climactic changes. The ignorant and those who claim no agenda are assuming that analog empirical data does not exist. Silly stuff, like they didn’t know how to make thermometers a hundred years ago. Deep down I think they are playing devils advocate, are full of crap and have a financial agenda, or are genuinely unable to comprehend the information. While it hasn’t reached the point of how to stop a person from lighting a cigarette in a stuck elevator and a can of gas, I feel quite certain that some coercion and legal duress will have to be employed, and hope it goes no further.
The two sides of this global warming argument are; over 99% supporting the theory vs. less than 1% against the theory. 50 years ago almost no one thought about this in the various scientific disciplines, although Carl Sagan, Cornell University did come up with the idea of terrafication for Mars, a ten thousand year plan to produce an atmosphere dense enough for humanity to breathe. There may also have been considerations during International Geophysical Year in 1957. The point being the vast body of scientists agree that humans are creating anthropogenic climactic changes. The ignorant and those who claim no agenda are assuming that analog empirical data does not exist. Silly stuff, like they didn’t know how to make thermometers a hundred years ago. Deep down I think they are playing devils advocate, are full of crap and have a financial agenda, or are genuinely unable to comprehend the information. While it hasn’t reached the point of how to stop a person from lighting a cigarette in a stuck elevator and a can of gas, I feel quite certain that some coercion and legal duress will have to be employed, and hope it goes no further.
The Earth goes in cycles dude, lets just ride this one out.
The Earth goes in cycles dude, lets just ride this one out.
Ed,
I think your figures are off. Take a look at an at what some in the science community are saying about “the movie” and the “evidence” presented by our buddy “Al”.
http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,258462,00.html
Ed,
I think your figures are off. Take a look at an at what some in the science community are saying about “the movie” and the “evidence” presented by our buddy “Al”.
http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,258462,00.html
This is for Jeff, who thinks we (humans) are all talk and no action…
Study: Aerosol Ban Slowed Down Global Warming
“Global warming would be substantially worse right now if not for an international agreement in the 1980s that banned the use of ozone-destroying chemicals, a new study finds.
Nations around the world signed the Montreal Protocol in 1987 to control the production and use of substances that deplete the ozone layer, which shields the Earth from harmful ultraviolet radiation.
While these chemicals, such as chlorofluorocarbons (formerly used in air conditioners), eat up ozone, they also act as greenhouse gases.
By curbing their use, the pact has also cut in half the amount of greenhouse warming that would have occurred by 2010 had these substances continued to build unabated in Earth’s atmosphere, according to the study published in the this week’s online issue of the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences.”
http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,258092,00.html
This is for Jeff, who thinks we (humans) are all talk and no action…
Study: Aerosol Ban Slowed Down Global Warming
“Global warming would be substantially worse right now if not for an international agreement in the 1980s that banned the use of ozone-destroying chemicals, a new study finds.
Nations around the world signed the Montreal Protocol in 1987 to control the production and use of substances that deplete the ozone layer, which shields the Earth from harmful ultraviolet radiation.
While these chemicals, such as chlorofluorocarbons (formerly used in air conditioners), eat up ozone, they also act as greenhouse gases.
By curbing their use, the pact has also cut in half the amount of greenhouse warming that would have occurred by 2010 had these substances continued to build unabated in Earth’s atmosphere, according to the study published in the this week’s online issue of the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences.”
http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,258092,00.html
Unless scientists have 100% agreement on something, I’d say there is room for doubt. Likewise for anything.
For example, if 99% of voters had voted for Bush, and you had not, would you immediately start believing in Bush even though you hadn’t voted for him?
As for things we’ve fixed, G, great. Meanwhile global warming continues.
Unless scientists have 100% agreement on something, I’d say there is room for doubt. Likewise for anything.
For example, if 99% of voters had voted for Bush, and you had not, would you immediately start believing in Bush even though you hadn’t voted for him?
As for things we’ve fixed, G, great. Meanwhile global warming continues.
dear alpha,
Three people, one of whom is a former environmentalist, and the other two dissent in degree only.
The Galilean challenge to the flat earth orthodoxy of the church has not been reversed and is still with us. I doubt the near consensus within the scientific community on global warming will be reversed either.
dear alpha,
Three people, one of whom is a former environmentalist, and the other two dissent in degree only.
The Galilean challenge to the flat earth orthodoxy of the church has not been reversed and is still with us. I doubt the near consensus within the scientific community on global warming will be reversed either.
Frank,
the earth does have cycles, we just happen to be adding to the warm interglacial we are in.
Frank,
the earth does have cycles, we just happen to be adding to the warm interglacial we are in.
Pingback: May Andersen
Pingback: May Andersen