No more Global Warming...

[Hondo]

The good news is there is no more "Global Warming". Bad news is that government still wants your fear, reliance, and most of all, your money, so say hello to "Global Climate Change".

Global Climate Change will be the new crusade phrase. Don't let the fact that in spite of tons (or tonnes, if you prefer) of money being consumed, the government has been unable to control or induce rain, divert or destroy hurricanes and cyclones, do away with poverty, provide uniform quality education, or even predict the next day's weather with 100% accuracy sway you in the least. With your sacrifice and your money, they will conquer the forces of nature that control the planet and the sun in order to provide you with the kind of climate stability you have a right to expect from your government.

Global Climate Change, appearing soon in a journal near you.

[BDunnell]

Which other scientific research do you dispute in a similar fashion — or is it only this research? After all, some still dispute the link between smoking and cancer, just as some dispute climate change research. What makes you dispute one and not the other? Or are you only concerned about climate change research because it might have a bearing on one of your areas of interest?

[Hondo]

I don't dispute the link between smoking and cancer at all. I do, however, acknowledge that smoking is not the exclusive cause of lung cancer.

Without travelling down the same beaten path again, It's also true I don't believe climate changes have been caused by humans, especially as climate changes have been going on since long before humans were a factor in anything. I also note how many that toot the horn for man made change, rely upon government (taxpayer) funding for their living.

But to each his own. Despite more studies now proclaiming a link between cell phone radiation and brain tumours people choose to dismiss it. Fine.

If global climate change is caused by man, then it should be able to be proved as fact. It hasn't been and won't be. If it were factual, there would be no dissent on it at all.

It comes as no surprise to me that government loves the issue. It's a money tree for them, allows them to grow ever larger with more agencies, more oversight, more control and deludes the public that once again their government will save them.

[Mark in Oshawa]

But you see Fiero, Mr. Dunnell and other people who grow up with the idea that Government can help all and has that duty don't see it that way.

Personally, I do know there is global warming but I can honestly say that the amount of temperature changes that this rock has endured in the last 200000 years are greater and more stunning than the small increments we have seen, and the last time I looked, 20000 years ago the people of this planet didn't burn massive amounts of gas in their SUV's.

I like you Fiero just object to the way this issue has been used to try and grab increasing amounts of tax money and power away from the citizens that the government is trying to "protect".

There is no coping with the change...just the naive fiction we can stop it....

[Hondo]

Continuing along the line of thought of an additional theory, before you can have your basic "new world order, global economy, one world government, et al" You have to get people to unite willingly. The EU is a great start. When was the last time in the history of the world that 16 countries agreed to a common currency, the Euro, with 5 or 6 more also using it? 27 count 'em, 27 nations united for a common cause. Most of the countries in the EU support man made Global Climate Change, the politicians that do not are dismissed as unrealistic. What better way to unite the people of the world than to invent a devastating enemy that will wipe them out if they don't all work together to resolve the crisis.

It's working better than religion. For some, it has become their religion.

[BDunnell]

There is no coping with the change...just the naive fiction we can stop it....

But this is no justification for not seeking to live more efficiently and responsibly.

[BDunnell]

Continuing along the line of thought of an additional theory, before you can have your basic "new world order, global economy, one world government, et al" You have to get people to unite willingly. The EU is a great start. When was the last time in the history of the world that 16 countries agreed to a common currency, the Euro, with 5 or 6 more also using it? 27 count 'em, 27 nations united for a common cause. Most of the countries in the EU support man made Global Climate Change, the politicians that do not are dismissed as unrealistic. What better way to unite the people of the world than to invent a devastating enemy that will wipe them out if they don't all work together to resolve the crisis.

It's working better than religion. For some, it has become their religion.

This sort of paranoia and conspiracy theorising ill becomes someone of your intellect.

[Hondo]

This sort of paranoia and conspiracy theorising ill becomes someone of your intellect.

I used to laugh at it myself. Now, I'm not so sure.

[steve_spackman]

however you view global warming..its happening man made or not..

[Mark in Oshawa]

But this is no justification for not seeking to live more efficiently and responsibly.

RIght...and who defines what Efficiently and Responsibly is? You? Me? The reason right wing trogdolytes have a point is this Global Warming business is the Al Gore's of this world have used this as a hammer to dictate how the common man should give up most of the things he has lived with all his life while sitting back in his ivory tower holding us in judgement.

Most enviromentalists talk as if we just make a few changes (nothing minor, just forget your car, keep your house at 65 degrees, recycle your own poop, never fly in a plane again) and everything will be great. The third world isn't going to go along with this. They want what we all have now. They wont be dictated to like they are children and you watch what China is doing in their growth you cannot be serious in this line of thinking. We would be better to take the money we are spending on trying to dictate to the world how they should live and spend money on new research into solar, fusion energies and take steps to protect sensitive areas from rising sea's and more practical stuff.

Carbon offsets and feel good measures at the point of the gun mean crap...

You want to know where my cynicism comes from? Hollywood enviromentalists who fly on private jets and then give money to some "carbon offset" company to plant trees. People buying Hybrids to save 20% of their petrol costs while the car is made with preciously rare bits of titatium and other exotic metals which by the way are just toxic to deal with when the car is worn out.

Global warming is happening..but lets stop the arrogance that us men have started it. As Steve Spackman has pointed out (first time in a week I have agreed with him) it is happening...man made or not....

[BDunnell]

RIght...and who defines what Efficiently and Responsibly is? You? Me? The reason right wing trogdolytes have a point is this Global Warming business is the Al Gore's of this world have used this as a hammer to dictate how the common man should give up most of the things he has lived with all his life while sitting back in his ivory tower holding us in judgement.

Most enviromentalists talk as if we just make a few changes (nothing minor, just forget your car, keep your house at 65 degrees, recycle your own poop, never fly in a plane again) and everything will be great. The third world isn't going to go along with this. They want what we all have now. They wont be dictated to like they are children and you watch what China is doing in their growth you cannot be serious in this line of thinking. We would be better to take the money we are spending on trying to dictate to the world how they should live and spend money on new research into solar, fusion energies and take steps to protect sensitive areas from rising sea's and more practical stuff.

Carbon offsets and feel good measures at the point of the gun mean crap...

You want to know where my cynicism comes from? Hollywood enviromentalists who fly on private jets and then give money to some "carbon offset" company to plant trees. People buying Hybrids to save 20% of their petrol costs while the car is made with preciously rare bits of titatium and other exotic metals which by the way are just toxic to deal with when the car is worn out.

Global warming is happening..but lets stop the arrogance that us men have started it. As Steve Spackman has pointed out (first time in a week I have agreed with him) it is happening...man made or not....

I generally agree with you, in fact, though I do think certain activities are unsustainable at current rates of growth, and not just in terms of global warming. Air travel is an example of this, because quite apart from its environmental impact, there is a finite amount of reasonable physical space for airport development.

[chuck34]

Has any Global Warming supporter looked at the output from the sun and tried to factor that into their computer models? Or how about the fact that the Earth's orbit is not constant? There was a good article in Pravda the other day that (in my mind at least) made a really compelling case for the Earth slipping into another Ice Age because of how the Earth's orbit changes. The last time the orbit and wobble lined up they way they are getting ready to we went into the last ice age.

Or if you don't like that then someone needs to explain to me why it is that CO2 concentrations go up about 800 years AFTER temperatures rise.

And while we're at it just why is global warming a bad thing? Just think about all the land in Western Canada that we'll be able to grow crops in.

For me to buy into any of this 3 things need to be proven.
1) The temperature of the Earth is rising SIGNIFICANTLY.
2) This temperature rise is because of man alone, nothing else.
3) This temperature rise is a bad thing.

All that being said, being cleaner is not a bad thing. As long as it doesn't make thing worse (remember corn based ethanol was supposed to save us all). It also must make sence economically. Even with gas at $4 a gallon, the math on a hybrid is a bit off

[BDunnell]

Has any Global Warming supporter looked at the output from the sun and tried to factor that into their computer models? Or how about the fact that the Earth's orbit is not constant?

'Supporters'? How about 'scientists'? I suggest asking them.

[chuck34]

'Supporters'? How about 'scientists'? I suggest asking them.

What about the scientists that don't buy into this? Are they not also scientists?

[BDunnell]

What about the scientists that don't buy into this? Are they not also scientists?

Where did I suggest which scientists to ask? And, in any case, how would you know which ones to believe when they answered? I suspect, like most people, you would decide based not on your ability to interpret the science involved, but based on your existing opinions and the extent to which measures to counter climate change will affect activities in which you participate or have an interest.

[chuck34]

Where did I suggest which scientists to ask? And, in any case, how would you know which ones to believe when they answered? I suspect, like most people, you would decide based not on your ability to interpret the science involved, but based on your existing opinions and the extent to which measures to counter climate change will affect activities in which you participate or have an interest.

How do you know which scientists to believe?

I am an engineer, and as such I believe in the scientific method. Bascially you have to put forth a hypothesis, then test it agains known data. I have done that by looking at the availible data, a lot of which is not really all that reliable.

Like I said, if you look at global temperatures and compare that to CO2 levels, you will see about an 800 year lag from the time that temperatures go up to when the CO2 levels peak. So that doesn't really give too much support for global warming, quite the opposite really.

Then you have the orbit of the earth. Again as I said previously, last time things lined up this way was the last ice age.

Don't get me wrong, I'm not convinced that we are going into another ice age. I'm just saying that there may be evidence as to that.

If you want to go out and by a hybrid car, or ride your bike everywhere, by all means do it, more power to you. Just don't make me do those things as well.

[Mark in Oshawa]

Mr. Dunnell...of course Chuck might have in interest in fighting global warming if it is taking something away from him. That is the point. You cannot ask people to give up anything unless it is 100% proven that that sacrifice will effect the change. The problem with the global warming advocates is they think they know..but there is a lot of scientests who are NOT climbing on board with the IPCC findings.

The thing is...this isn't about a democracy. ONE scientest can say it isnt happening due to mankind and all the others could disagree...but science doesn't pick people, it is what it is.

Solar fluctuation, orbital wobbles, increased pollution effecting solar effects and CO2 are all possible reasons that may cause temps to go up or down. A majority of scientests in the 70's were calling for the next ice age. Now they have realized it is getting warmer and are using the same data. Well...it may not be for any of those reasons.

Again...when someone shows me how the human race in 20000 years BC caused the Ice Age, then I can buy into how we are now causing a warming.
Until then, lets be sensible and live our lives with some freedom to enjoy and not feel guilty for what is going on.

OH yes..one more thing. Mr. Dunnell...you talk like air travel should be restricted? It is unsustainable? IT is plenty sustainable if we allow technology and research to build better and large capacity airplanes, and not just throw air travel on the dustbin of history...

[BDunnell]

How do you know which scientists to believe?

I'm not saying that I do. What I am saying is that I am convinced by the majority view within the scientific community, in so far as I can interpret it.



If you want to go out and by a hybrid car, or ride your bike everywhere, by all means do it, more power to you. Just don't make me do those things as well.

Well, in turn, you shouldn't expect your chosen activities to remain as cheap as they are at present.

[steve_spackman]

Mr. Dunnell...of course Chuck might have in interest in fighting global warming if it is taking something away from him. That is the point. You cannot ask people to give up anything unless it is 100% proven that that sacrifice will effect the change. The problem with the global warming advocates is they think they know..but there is a lot of scientests who are NOT climbing on board with the IPCC findings.

The thing is...this isn't about a democracy. ONE scientest can say it isnt happening due to mankind and all the others could disagree...but science doesn't pick people, it is what it is.

Solar fluctuation, orbital wobbles, increased pollution effecting solar effects and CO2 are all possible reasons that may cause temps to go up or down. A majority of scientests in the 70's were calling for the next ice age. Now they have realized it is getting warmer and are using the same data. Well...it may not be for any of those reasons.

Again...when someone shows me how the human race in 20000 years BC caused the Ice Age, then I can buy into how we are now causing a warming.
Until then, lets be sensible and live our lives with some freedom to enjoy and not feel guilty for what is going on.

OH yes..one more thing. Mr. Dunnell...you talk like air travel should be restricted? It is unsustainable? IT is plenty sustainable if we allow technology and research to build better and large capacity airplanes, and not just throw air travel on the dustbin of history...

lets say if there was solid proof that we humans are the main cause of global warming...what would you do in order to help fight it??

[BDunnell]

OH yes..one more thing. Mr. Dunnell...you talk like air travel should be restricted? It is unsustainable? IT is plenty sustainable if we allow technology and research to build better and large capacity airplanes, and not just throw air travel on the dustbin of history...

It is not a question of throwing it in the dustbin of history. Larger capacity aircraft will have no effect in terms of reducing the overall number of flights being taken — this much is already true. But I am in favour of the continued research and development you suggest.

[chuck34]

I'm not saying that I do. What I am saying is that I am convinced by the majority view within the scientific community, in so far as I can interpret it.



Well, in turn, you shouldn't expect your chosen activities to remain as cheap as they are at present.

You are perfectly within your rights to believe whatever you want. Just be aware that there is a growing number within the scientific community that do not believe that man is the cause of global warming, or even that the last couple of "warm" years are any indication of a long term trend.

Why on earth should my "chosen activities" not remain as cheap as tehy are at present? And actually if enough people start riding bikes to work, then my "chosen activity" of driving 20 miles to work should get cheaper, right? Supply and Demand for gas being what it is and all.

[Hondo]

For what it's worth, I'm all for investing in alternative energy and cleaner energy. Amongst some of the larger benefits would be the potential for many countries to become less energy dependant on others.

I ride my bicycle a couple of times a day. I enjoy it and so does my dog because she gets a chance to stretch out and run.

[BDunnell]

Why on earth should my "chosen activities" not remain as cheap as tehy are at present?

Do you seriously expect fossil fuels to become cheaper as they start to be replaced by alternative energy sources?

[BDunnell]

For what it's worth, I'm all for investing in alternative energy and cleaner energy. Amongst some of the larger benefits would be the potential for many countries to become less energy dependant on others.

Absolutely.

[chuck34]

For what it's worth, I'm all for investing in alternative energy and cleaner energy. Amongst some of the larger benefits would be the potential for many countries to become less energy dependant on others.

I ride my bicycle a couple of times a day. I enjoy it and so does my dog because she gets a chance to stretch out and run.

I am also for investing in alternative energy. Nukes are great. If people would get over their irrational fear of them, we cold cut a lot of pollution by using them, and electricity might become a bit cheaper.

But you cannot force feed people alternative energies that make no sence. Just look at corn based ethanol. The government was trying to spoon feed us that and all it did was make demand for oil go up right along with our food prices. There are types of ethanol that may work much better and I hope that we explore those options.

Speaking of food prices, has anyone heard about the tax they want to put on cows now? There's another bright idea from our brain trust in DC. (that was sarcasm if you couldn't tell)

[chuck34]

Do you seriously expect fossil fuels to become cheaper as they start to be replaced by alternative energy sources?

So you have never heard of the law of supply and demand?

Short answer to your question is yes I do expect them to go down.

Long answer is, they probably won't come down because our "fearless leaders" in DC and elsewhere will probably tax the heck out of it.

[BDunnell]

I am also for investing in alternative energy. Nukes are great. If people would get over their irrational fear of them, we cold cut a lot of pollution by using them, and electricity might become a bit cheaper.

I agree absolutely with you there. Opinions on nuclear energy are so often based on Chernobyl, rather than modern-day western nuclear technology.



But you cannot force feed people alternative energies that make no sence.

Again, agreed.

[chuck34]

I agree absolutely with you there. Opinions on nuclear energy are so often based on Chernobyl, rather than modern-day western nuclear technology.



Again, agreed.


Stop the presses!

[BDunnell]

chuck34, I am not someone who will always come up with a counter-argument in order to disagree with someone, I hope.

[chuck34]

chuck34, I am not someone who will always come up with a counter-argument in order to disagree with someone, I hope.

I know. You seem quite reasonable. I was just trying to have a bit of fun. It's not often that people agree with me 'round here.

[Easy Drifter]

Probably the loudest proponent of global warming in Canada is Dr. David Suzuki. He is a scientist. He specialty is genetics. He is not a climatoligist.
He is extremely good at self promotion, but his area of expertiest is not the climate. It doesn't seem to matter what area of science he expounds upon (many) his word is taken as gospel by the chattering classes and most politicians.
His pronouncements are taken as gospel even when other scientists, whose field is whatever he is talking about, disagree. They are ignored.
How many of the scientists that are proclaiming global warming and that it is caused by man are in fields that relate to the climate? From what I have read the majority are in other fields and have just jumped on the bandwagon.
I know several Genecists (not Suzuki) and many Icktholygists. All are scientists but I have had a couple say they know no more about climate change than the next person.
None, and some have huge egos, have ever expressed an opinion on climate change that I am aware of.
Maybe we have global warming and maybe we don't. The artic ice cap is shrinking but some reports say the antartic cap is growing. Other disagree.
Whatever happens will be decided by Mother Nature and mankind will at best only have a tiny impact. By Mother Nature I mean forces beyond our control.

[Mark in Oshawa]

Probably the loudest proponent of global warming in Canada is Dr. David Suzuki. He is a scientist. He specialty is genetics. He is not a climatoligist.
He is extremely good at self promotion, but his area of expertiest is not the climate. It doesn't seem to matter what area of science he expounds upon (many) his word is taken as gospel by the chattering classes and most politicians.
His pronouncements are taken as gospel even when other scientists, whose field is whatever he is talking about, disagree. They are ignored.
How many of the scientists that are proclaiming global warming and that it is caused by man are in fields that relate to the climate? From what I have read the majority are in other fields and have just jumped on the bandwagon.
I know several Genecists (not Suzuki) and many Icktholygists. All are scientists but I have had a couple say they know no more about climate change than the next person.
None, and some have huge egos, have ever expressed an opinion on climate change that I am aware of.
Maybe we have global warming and maybe we don't. The artic ice cap is shrinking but some reports say the antartic cap is growing. Other disagree.
Whatever happens will be decided by Mother Nature and mankind will at best only have a tiny impact. By Mother Nature I mean forces beyond our control.

You would bring up Suzuki. I want to like the man, but he is out of his mind to promote this cause in the fashion he has. I admire him not flying, drinking out of his own mug no matter where he goes and all the little things he does, but he stands on stage with the likes of an Al Gore or Paul Martin and he completely has no crediblity with me.

The minute science people start standing with politicians is when I know I am about to be screwed over.

As for him being a genetics expert, and now being against climate change, I chuckle. He is likely smarter than you and I Drifter...but that said, he has forgotten the scientific method on this one. There are many out there just as passionate with more background on this topic who could tear his arguments apart and he wont debate them in the open despite being invited to do so. Says all we need to know about this movement...it is politically motivated as much as any concern for the earth.

[Daniel]

Probably the loudest proponent of global warming in Canada is Dr. David Suzuki. He is a scientist. He specialty is genetics. He is not a climatoligist.
He is extremely good at self promotion, but his area of expertiest is not the climate. It doesn't seem to matter what area of science he expounds upon (many) his word is taken as gospel by the chattering classes and most politicians.
His pronouncements are taken as gospel even when other scientists, whose field is whatever he is talking about, disagree. They are ignored.
How many of the scientists that are proclaiming global warming and that it is caused by man are in fields that relate to the climate? From what I have read the majority are in other fields and have just jumped on the bandwagon.
I know several Genecists (not Suzuki) and many Icktholygists. All are scientists but I have had a couple say they know no more about climate change than the next person.
None, and some have huge egos, have ever expressed an opinion on climate change that I am aware of.
Maybe we have global warming and maybe we don't. The artic ice cap is shrinking but some reports say the antartic cap is growing. Other disagree.
Whatever happens will be decided by Mother Nature and mankind will at best only have a tiny impact. By Mother Nature I mean forces beyond our control.


The problem I see is carefully gathered and reported data.

For instance did you see this reported?
http://www.dailytech.com/Sea+Ice+Ends+Year+at+Same+Level+as+1979/article13834.htm

*puts tinfoil hat on*
It does seem the media pic and choose what they report and how they report it and are in a sense trying to convince people that Climate Change is happening when there are more and more scientists coming out of the woodwork against climate change and heck some of them even study the climate!!!!!

Mr Asher who writes this little blog is a little one eyed but I think he makes some good points.
http://www.dailytech.com/A+Funny+Thing+Happened+on+the+Way+to+the+Climate+F orum/article13816.htm

It's great that everyone agrees that we should become more efficient :up: If the science is right we win and if the science is wrong we win also :up:

[rah]

I see a lot of muddy water around here.

Can someone point me in the direction of a climatologist that a) does not support the AGW theory and b) still has a good reputation.

I currently support the theory of AGW but I am always happy to read contrary views on the subject that are done by highly regarded scientists.

I regularly read what I can on AGW but I have seen no data that shows AGW does not exist or has stopped.

And yes there have been many studies into solar radiation and the effects of the earths orbit on climate. None that I know of have so far disproved the AGW theory.

[Mark in Oshawa]

The problem I see is carefully gathered and reported data.

For instance did you see this reported?
http://www.dailytech.com/Sea+Ice+Ends+Year+at+Same+Level+as+1979/article13834.htm

*puts tinfoil hat on*
It does seem the media pic and choose what they report and how they report it and are in a sense trying to convince people that Climate Change is happening when there are more and more scientists coming out of the woodwork against climate change and heck some of them even study the climate!!!!!

Mr Asher who writes this little blog is a little one eyed but I think he makes some good points.
http://www.dailytech.com/A+Funny+Thing+Happened+on+the+Way+to+the+Climate+F orum/article13816.htm

It's great that everyone agrees that we should become more efficient :up: If the science is right we win and if the science is wrong we win also :up:



It has been my point all along. There is no conclusive arguments one way or the other. I believe there is some measure of warming that has happened in the last 20 years but I can also say ancedotallly that the last 3 years I have lived through some miserable winters that I didn't put up with 10 years ago. Now what does that mean? Nothing...because the world is too large and there are so many variables. Ice can be retreating in one area and increasing in another. We have no idea what causes all of it 100% for sure and there are scientests on both sides of the issue.

In short...it is too soon to panic and start making radical change on maybes....but don't tell Al Gore that...he said the debate is over. Worst thing he could have done if if truly believed in Man Made Climate change...

[Hondo]

rah, I don't believe anybody who has posted so far is in disagreement about the facts that the climate is changing. The disagreement is the cause of the change.

[Mark in Oshawa]

Fiero..as they say...it is fine until you make it political....

[Hondo]

or a religion.

[Easy Drifter]

Climate change has been around long before man.
The area where I live has been sub tropical, and some indication of being tropical. It has also being covered with a huge glacier.
Real climate records have only being kept for a couple of hundred years. Even that is a stretch because of many parts of the globe not being settled or even known. Quite a bit can be decuded though.
I do not question climate change. I just do not know which way it is going long term!
The one thing I believe, and I know many will not agree with me, is that the forces of nature are influenced only slightly, if at all, by mankind.
I am not saying we should not try and conserve and not pollute, just that I do not think man can really make a major difference to climate change.
Mankind can certainly slow down his contribution to pollution and waste and needs to do so.
That is my opinion and arrived at after reading a lot of history and studying geography as related to the development of land structure.
Like everything else relating to climate change at this point in time my opinion is theory.

[Alexamateo]

Can someone point me in the direction of a climatologist that a) does not support the AGW theory and b) still has a good reputation.



http://epw.senate.gov/public/index.cfm?FuseAction=Files.View&FileStore_id=83947f5d-d84a-4a84-ad5d-6e2d71db52d9&CFID=11596249&CFTOKEN=57357685

This might be a good place to start.

My interpretation is that more and more scientist and others are joining the list of doubters because when push comes to shove, the data that comes back does not match the climate model predictions. In other words, some are questioning the validity of the inputs.

Some variables are not being assigned their proper weight, be it atmospheric CO2, water vapor, ocean currents, solar activity, cloud cover, wind currents, and who knows what else. The computer models then fail to accurately predict what is happening.

Another reason to have doubt is sociological, i. e. the doomsdayers are never right. If predictions that were made when I was a kid had come true, we would already be completely out of oil, there would be widespread famine and the earth would be unable to feed itself, and we would be in the aforementioned ice age.

As it turns out, they continued to make discoveries of oil, Norman Borlaug and the Green Revolution feeds the world, and we're worried about global warming.

To be sure, oil is finite, but you know technology could make oil shale feasible and we'd have enough for hundreds of years. Famines exist, but often their cause is politic due to the breakdown of rule of law and property rights and free markets in the areas affected. As for global warming, warming is better than cooling to be sure, but if it's a problem human ingenuity will solve it by dealing with the carbon dioxide after it has been emitted because I don't think there's any way to stop it.

[Hondo]

Sorry, no link, but I remember reading recently where a small but growing group of scientists are starting to think that the production of oil has nothing to do with decayed bio-mass (dinosauers and such) and more to do with the heat and pressure on hydrocarbons in the planet core. They base this on finding large oil reserves much deeper than the bio-mass.

The Nazis were quite successful in making synthetic fuel from coal.

Regardless of whether we are running out of oil or not, I still believe we should be working harder on alternative and less polluting energy sources.

[Roamy]

Ha and you Euro's just keep believing anything the Gov tells you. Because they take care of you !!

John Tomlinson
Read more by him

If you're wondering why North America is starting to resemble nuclear winter, then you missed the news.

At December's U.N. Global Warming conference in Poznan, Poland, 650 of the world's top climatologists stood up and said man-made global warming is a media generated myth without basis. Said climatologist Dr. David Gee, Chairman of the International Geological Congress, "For how many years must the planet cool before we begin to understand that the planet is not warming?"

I asked myself, why would such obviously smart guy say such a ridiculous thing? But it turns out he's right.
The earth's temperature peaked in 1998. It's been falling ever since; it dropped dramatically in 2007 and got worse in 2008, when temperatures touched 1980 levels.

Meanwhile, the University of Illinois' Arctic Climate Research Center released conclusive satellite photos showing that Arctic ice is back to 1979 levels. What's more, measurements of Antarctic ice now show that its accumulation is up 5 percent since 1980.

In other words, during what was supposed to be massive global warming, the biggest chunks of ice on earth grew larger. Just as an aside, do you remember when the hole in the ozone layer was going to melt Antarctica? But don't worry, we're safe now, that was the nineties.

Dr. Kunihiko, Chancellor of Japan's Institute of Science and Technology said this: "CO2 emissions make absolutely no difference one way or the other ... every scientist knows this, but it doesn't pay to say so." Now why would a learned man say such a crazy thing?

This is where the looney left gets lost. Their mantra is atmospheric CO2 levels are escalating and this is unquestionably causing earth's temperature rise. But ask yourself -- if global temperatures are experiencing the biggest sustained drop in decades, while CO2 levels continue to rise -- how can it be true?

Ironically, in spite of being shown false, we must now pray for it. Because a massive study, just released by the Russian Government, contains overwhelming evidence that earth is on the verge of another Ice Age.

Based on core samples from Russia's Vostok Station in Antarctica, we now know earth's atmosphere and temperature for the last 420,000 years. This evidence suggests that the 12,000 years of warmth we call the Holocene period is over.

Apparently, we're headed into an ice age of about 100,000 years -- give or take. As for CO2 levels, core samples show conclusively they follow the earth's temperature rise, not lead it.

It turns out CO2 fluctuations follow the change in sea temperature. As water temperatures rise, oceans release additional dissolved CO2 -- like opening a warm brewsky.

To think, early last year, liberals suggested we spend 45 trillion dollars and give up five million jobs to fix global warming. But there is good news: now that we don't have to spend any of that money, we can give it all to the banks.

John Tomlinson is a local conservative columnist for The Flint Journal. He lives in the Genesee County area. You can e-mail him. Read more columns by John Tomlinson.

[Daniel]

Ha and you Euro's just keep believing anything the Gov tells you.

Perhaps it's just me but I don't see any "Euro's" believing that global warming is caused by man :confused:

[BDunnell]

Perhaps it's just me but I don't see any "Euro's" believing that global warming is caused by man :confused:

Well, I do, for a start, and I don't think I'm the sort to believe everything I'm told, so fousto is wrong yet again with his xenophobic generalisations.

[rah]

rah, I don't believe anybody who has posted so far is in disagreement about the facts that the climate is changing. The disagreement is the cause of the change.

Thats why I always call it AGW - Anthropogenic Global Warming

[chuck34]

Thats why I always call it AGW - Anthropogenic Global Warming

Ok, call it AGW all you want. I still reject that, as do a growing number of scientist around the world.

Oh yeah, they don't count because they are not "respected" according to you.

[Daniel]

Well, I do, for a start, and I don't think I'm the sort to believe everything I'm told, so fousto is wrong yet again with his xenophobic generalisations.

Sorry I got confused between threads :crazy: I thought we were in the alternative energy thread :dozey: *bashes head into wall to knock some sense into himself*

[Daniel]

Thats why I always call it AGW - Anthropogenic Global Warming

My problem with that statement is that we've seen wilder temperature variations in the past and the models that we've got have not really predicted accurately any of the changes we've seen.

Then there's stuff like this which if you click the links contained, casts serious doubt on the "data" that is used to make the assumptions that are made and then presented as fact.
http://www.theregister.co.uk/2008/05/02/a_tale_of_two_thermometers/

See this as a prime example of NASA reworking data to suit the theories of the scientists. Now tell me that these graphs which are NASA's own don't show something a bit fishy. DATA should not change. Data is data and it is not something subjective. I just checked the temperature on the local weather website and it says it's 7 degrees celsius. In 5 minutes, 5 years or 500 years the temperature at that exact moment in time at the spot where that weather station is located will always have been 7 degrees, no more no less.

NASA's original data: 1999
http://regmedia.co.uk/2008/04/28/nasa-1999-version.jpg NASA's reworked data: 2007

http://regmedia.co.uk/2008/04/28/nasa_2007_version_small.jpg



My other issue is that anything that doesn't support global warming science doesn't get reported in the mainstream media. I'm not just talking about things like fact that we had unseasonal snow in October but the reversal of things which the media cite as proof of global warming. When something seems to fit in with the "science" it's reported ad nauseum in the media and used as evidence to support the theory of AGW. Then when something like the arctic ice levels returning to 1979 levels happens it conveniently gets missed out by the media which creates a somewhat false hysteria surrounding global warming by not giving a balanced picture of things. That really is my major issue with AGW. Only time will tell who is right and computer models are just guesses at the moment. I'll start believing when the models actually start matching up to what is being measured and I'm not talking NASA style measured and then fudged a few years later to fit with how they'd like things to be :laugh:

[Hondo]

Computer models are based on a software program developed by humans that may and probably do have an interest in one side or the other.

The biggest problem as I see it is exclusivity. There has not been an argument made yet for man made climate change that doesn't also have naturally occuring events capable of creating, and exceeding, the same condition.

[Hondo]

NASA, government (taxpayer) funded of course, says we have to act NOW to save our planet. Never mind how much crap spews into the atmosphere every time they launch something.

NASA is likely to lose quite a bit of budget under the Exalted Transparent One. When times are hard, who cares if a chicken can lay eggs in space?

NASA needs a crisis and public fear to maintain their budget.

[DonJippo]

Now tell me that these graphs which are NASA's own don't show something a bit fishy. DATA should not change.

NASA's original data: 1999
http://regmedia.co.uk/2008/04/28/nasa-1999-version.jpg NASA's reworked data: 2007

http://regmedia.co.uk/2008/04/28/nasa_2007_version_small.jpg


I'm sorry but what data has been changed?

[Daniel]

I'm sorry but what data has been changed?

if you look at the video on this site you'll see the two graphs overlaid :)

[Hondo]

if you look at the video on this site you'll see the two graphs overlaid :)

Of course it's NASA's (Government's (taxpayers)) data.

[rah]

Ok too many posts to respond to. This is my understanding of the theory. Now there is always new science coming out and some give some hope while others strip it away.

The reason I say AGW is because it is a much more specific name. To say AGW is to say man made global warming. To my knowledge there has been no climatologist that has said that natural global warmings is not also occuring, the bit that they are concerned about is the man made global warming on top of this.

CO2 is a greenhouse gas. This has been proven without a doubt. There are many other gases that also produce greenhouse effects however CO2 is the most abundant.

CO2 is on the rise. This has also been proven without a doubt. The current level of increase that atmospheric CO2 has not been seen to occur naturally before as far as science can tell us.

The average global temerature is still rising. I am yet to see any results that refute this. Please do not look at yearly averages, you must look long term to see trends. If the area you live in has been unseasably cold this year then that does not mean that AGW has ended.

The vast majority of climatologists agree on the AGW theory. There may be some differences of opinion on smaller issues but the overall theory is agreed upon.

There are many predictions of things that will happen if AGW proceeds at its present rate. One of the predictions that worries me most is the acidification of the oceans. This is happening at the moment and will continue for some time no matter what. AFAIK this will be one of the first major problems that arises from CO2 increase. Even if you do not believe in AGW you must be concerned with this as it will impact ecosystems and food chains throughout the entire ocean. It will effect all animals that take calcium from the ocean to use as exoskeletons and will have follow on effects for every other animal in the ocean. A lot of people rely on the ocean to feed themselves.

This is just a few things that come to mind. I may post more when I get a chance. this has just been of the cuff so if there are any errors I apologise and I will fix when I see it.

[Daniel]

CO2 is a greenhouse gas. This has been proven without a doubt. There are many other gases that also produce greenhouse effects however CO2 is the most abundant.

Your science appears to be broken. Water vapour is the most abundant greenhouse gas.

[rah]

Your science appears to be broken. Water vapour is the most abundant greenhouse gas.

See I said I might make a mistake. My science does not appear to be broken, just mistaken. CO2 is the second most abundant gas.

[chuck34]

See I said I might make a mistake. My science does not appear to be broken, just mistaken. CO2 is the second most abundant gas.

Your science is still broken. '98 was the warmest year and it's been cooling since. Is 10 years not enough? Ok let's start with the '30s, still cooler. Ok how about using the late 1700's (around the American Revolution). Ok now you're right we are warming up. Now how about using the time of Christ as a starting point? Now you're wrong, were cooling off. How about since the last ice age? You're right now, warming up. You see temperatures are never stable, never have been, never will be.

And CO2 LAGS the global temperature rise by about 800 years. It does not lead it.

Try again.

[donKey jote]

[credible] Link please ! (c) Valve :bounce: :p

[steve_spackman]

NASA, government (taxpayer) funded of course, says we have to act NOW to save our planet. Never mind how much crap spews into the atmosphere every time they launch something.

NASA is likely to lose quite a bit of budget under the Exalted Transparent One. When times are hard, who cares if a chicken can lay eggs in space?

NASA needs a crisis and public fear to maintain their budget.

same goes for the US defence budget LOL

[rah]

Your science is still broken. '98 was the warmest year and it's been cooling since. Is 10 years not enough? Ok let's start with the '30s, still cooler. Ok how about using the late 1700's (around the American Revolution). Ok now you're right we are warming up. Now how about using the time of Christ as a starting point? Now you're wrong, were cooling off. How about since the last ice age? You're right now, warming up. You see temperatures are never stable, never have been, never will be.

And CO2 LAGS the global temperature rise by about 800 years. It does not lead it.

Try again.

Nah mate your science is non existent. Firstly, no 10 years is not enough. Secondly the last decade has been the warmest in a century. 98 was the warmest year however only by a fraction above 34. 2005 is also very close. You cannot pick individual years and go off them, it is better to use larger periods of time.

Temperature over time have not been stable and the change at the moment is partially responsible for this. However because of human influences we are speeding up the warming and not letting the other life on the planet adapt. Adding lots of pollution to the atmosphere will do that.

The CO2 lag is a difficult one to explain, but recent research has shown a little less than a 200 year lag behind temps if we go back more than 200 years. But why is that an issue? It's been know for some time that CO2 in these circumstances acts as an amplifier rather than a cause. But I am yet to hear of a situation in the last 30,000 years or so that is similar to the situation we are in now.

The radiative effects of CO2 on climate have been know for over a 100 years.

[chuck34]

Nah mate your science is non existent. Firstly, no 10 years is not enough. Secondly the last decade has been the warmest in a century. 98 was the warmest year however only by a fraction above 34. 2005 is also very close. You cannot pick individual years and go off them, it is better to use larger periods of time.

Temperature over time have not been stable and the change at the moment is partially responsible for this. However because of human influences we are speeding up the warming and not letting the other life on the planet adapt. Adding lots of pollution to the atmosphere will do that.

The CO2 lag is a difficult one to explain, but recent research has shown a little less than a 200 year lag behind temps if we go back more than 200 years. But why is that an issue? It's been know for some time that CO2 in these circumstances acts as an amplifier rather than a cause. But I am yet to hear of a situation in the last 30,000 years or so that is similar to the situation we are in now.

The radiative effects of CO2 on climate have been know for over a 100 years.

So what is a suffecient period of time for you to base things off of? What ever proves your point right?

Prove to me that humans are "speeding up the warming" and please don't use the discredited hockey stick graph. We all know this is fake.

The CO2 lag is difficult to explain, only if it doesn't fit with your theory. It's really pretty simple. The oceans hold tons of CO2 in solution. Water can hold CO2 in solution much better if it is cold. Why do you keep your pop and beer cold? Answer: so it doesn't go flat as quickly.

Go take a look at the data from the Vostok Station ice core. That will give you a picture of the last 420,000 years as far as temp, CO2, and CH4. You'll see an nice little pattern there. Looks to me like we're about to take "the big plunge" right into another ice age.

[Easy Drifter]

I know very well 1 year, or 2, and one small area have no effect on climate change but mentioning Global warming around here this winter will likely earn you a pair of fives to the nose. Cold and snow. Snow and cold.
Just got my gas bill. Yikes! As I have tropical birds I cannot keep the place too cool.

[donKey jote]

I feel for you Drifter... my missus also keeps turning the heating up, and she's only sub-tropical :dozey:
http://smileys.smileycentral.com/cat/16/16_3_166.gif

[Rollo]

From this morning:
http://www.theaustralian.news.com.au/story/0,25197,24946666-2702,00.html
http://uk.reuters.com/article/environmentNews/idUKTRE50K5BM20090121
The scientists wrote that the Antarctic warming was "difficult to explain" without linking it to manmade emissions of greenhouse gases, mainly from burning fossil fuels.

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,481227,00.html
But climate researchers have now turned this notion on its head, with the first study to show that the entire continent is warming, and has been for the past 50 years.

http://www.sciencenews.org/view/generic/id/40111/description/Antarctica_is_getting_warmer_too
Now, to assess long-term climate trends for the entire icy continent, Steig and his colleagues blended meteorological data from 42 weather stations available since 1957 with satellite data gathered since 1982.

[Daniel]

The scientists wrote that the Antarctic warming was "difficult to explain" without linking it to manmade emissions of greenhouse gases, mainly from burning fossil fuels.

I don't mean to be silly but ****ing try harder.

[chuck34]

Here's a good read on the history behind Global Warming. Be sure to read the whole thing.

http://www.kusi.com/weather/colemanscorner/38574742.html

[donKey jote]

read the whole thing?

And, I am totally convinced there is no scientific basis for any of it.

Global Warming. It is the hoax. It is bad science. It is a high jacking of public policy. It is no joke. It is the greatest scam in history.

John Coleman
1-29-09

so sayeth the great John Coleman, and he's a famous meteorologist so read no further :dozey:

[chuck34]

read the whole thing?


so sayeth the great John Coleman, and he's a famous meteorologist so read no further :dozey:

He also founded the Weather Channel, and is a member of the International Climate Science Coalition. But I'm sure that none of those 197 climate scientists have any credibility what-so-ever.

[donKey jote]

I tend to attach more credibility to the IPCC than the ICSC (of the willing :p ), that's all.
http://www.epa.gov/climatechange/fq/science.html

Next show me a creationist site with 197 creation scientists... all those scientists can't be wrong now can they :dozey:

[Tomi]

creation scientists... all those scientists can't be wrong now can they :dozey:

There is no such thing as creation scientist :)

[donKey jote]

sorry, I meant to say creation scientologists :p

[chuck34]

I tend to attach more credibility to the IPCC than the ICSC (of the willing :p ), that's all.
http://www.epa.gov/climatechange/fq/science.html

Next show me a creationist site with 197 creation scientists... all those scientists can't be wrong now can they :dozey:

I could probably also find you 197 "scientists" that think we never went to the moon. What's your point?

Can you honestly say that after looking at all the data you don't have any doubt in your mind that the earth is warming uncontrolably and it it all due to man's influence? It couldn't be statistical anomolies, or cause by the sun, or the earth's orbit?

Again, I'm all for cleaning up the environment. Less polution is pretty much always a good thing. But why wreck the economy to do it, especially if there are questions about the motivation?

Oh I know there is no more room for debate.

[Tomi]

sorry, I was too lazy for "italics" :p

But there is "creation wannabee scientists", but in the real world people only laugh at them.

[Tomi]

scientologists :p another bunch of fools and misslead poor people.

[chuck34]

So who should we believe? The much cited James Hansen of NASA right? He's a great climate scientist.

Hold on a second, his degrees are in physics and astronomy.

Maybe Al Gore? No, his degree is in government.

Hmmmmm. Interesting.

[donKey jote]

I could probably also find you 197 "scientists" that think we never went to the moon. What's your point?
You said : "But I'm sure that none of those 197 climate scientists have any credibility what-so-ever." What was your point?
My point is: I don't believe climate change is a big bad conspiracy theory brought upon us by left-wing tree-hugging UN-loving socialists out to cripple the world economy.



Can you honestly say that after looking at all the data you don't have any doubt in your mind that the earth is warming uncontrolably and it it all due to man's influence? It couldn't be statistical anomolies, or cause by the sun, or the earth's orbit?
I can honestly say that there is no way I (or you) can look at all the data, let alone understand it. Climate change is surely due to many things, and there is healthy debate going on amongst the climate scientists.



Again, I'm all for cleaning up the environment. Less polution is pretty much always a good thing. But why wreck the economy to do it, especially if there are questions about the motivation?
Show me where your feared climate change policies have wrecked/will wreck the economy, and I'll question the motivation of your sources :)



Oh I know there is no more room for debate.
John Coleman and Fox News say global warming is a hoax and is bad and is crippling your economy. No, there is no more room for debate.

[donKey jote]

Hold on a second, his degrees are in physics and astronomy.
I don't know what he studied exactly but what's wrong with physics?
Climate science is a branch of physics - Atmospheric physics.
An old friend of mine also works for NASA after studying atmospheric physics - they're not just "rocket scientists" over there. (In fact he was involved with the failed Mars Observer (http://mars.jpl.nasa.gov/missions/past/observer.html), but that's another story :laugh: )


Maybe Al Gore? No, his degree is in government.
I for one wouldn't believe a word from Al Gore, even if he were on the global hoax side. :)

[Rollo]

so sayeth the great John Coleman, and he's a famous meteorologist so read no further :dozey:

http://news.bbc.co.uk/olmedia/350000/images/_353365_kara_jono300.jpg

I remember him, he used to be on Virgin Radio and then Heart FM in London. He's now on WSFM in Sydney with the Jono and Dano Show.
http://www.jonoanddano.com.au/

[Rollo]

I don't mean to be silly but ****ing try harder.

You're right, we need MORE global warming. Britain should be one country that actually advocates climate change.
Everyone, it's your duty to get into your cars and create as much greenhouse gas as possible. Preferably within the London congestion charge zone, because there's no other way Boris is going to be able to pay for the Olympics unless you do.

Think about it - 90% of the population spends half of their lives frantically saving up to go somewhere nice and warm for their holidays. If the planet heats up sufficiently, then it actually reduces greenhouse emissions because it requires less energy driving to the south of England than flying to Ibiza.

Just imagine a tropical resort in Poole or Bournemouth, it'd be megabrill. Sure, Portsmouth and Southampton may be 40ft underwater but I seriously don't think that that's a real loss, is it? How about bananas in Blackpool, and no more old age pensioners whinging about how they can't pay their gas bills to heat their houses? Aren't old people brilliant? Old ladies really are bonkers. You seem them on hot days wearing coats, sometimes two coats at a time, imagine that! What they do is, they cackle, moan about the war, and then they die! Fantastic!

And as for those island nations in the Pacific having a whinge: the climate gave you your place in the sun; the climate will take it away. Praise be the climate! How difficult is it to push a lean-to up a hill anyway?
If you have to take the good with the total flooding of your home then so be it. Besides, we're all waiting the return of Cloister the Stupid anyway.

[leopard]

The heating earth wouldn't mean that we can save from producing emission resulted by less drive to look for warm place, but it more will cause climate disability, the atmosphere temperature may run higher or lower than normally acceptable.

Rollo, global warming is an international concern,

[BDunnell]

Again, I'm all for cleaning up the environment. Less polution is pretty much always a good thing. But why wreck the economy to do it, especially if there are questions about the motivation?

I don't understand why cleaning up the environment automatically wrecks the global economy whereas polluting it is automatically economically beneficial?

[Daniel]

I don't understand why cleaning up the environment automatically wrecks the global economy whereas polluting it is automatically economically beneficial?
I think he means reducing CO2 emissions. CO2 is not a pollutant Chuck :)

[Mark in Oshawa]

I don't understand why cleaning up the environment automatically wrecks the global economy whereas polluting it is automatically economically beneficial?

You are I think not understanding something. It isn't a simple matter of reducing CO2. You just don't make it go away. If you shut down plants producing the stuff, the products they make whether they be cars, steel or even making electricity has to be made somewhere. If you pass a law saying you cant produce CO2 at the amounts you did before, then the factory owner needs to spend money on sometimes unproven technology to reduce his CO2 emissions. Where does that money come from? The consumer in the end...which the last time I looked was US. Oh ya....if you say the government should help, that is great, raise my taxes so we can have less CO2? Which is great in theory but again, there is a lot of dispute on whether man made CO2 is actually the cause of global warming. Of course, there are others disputing that this warming spell is even happening.

Face it Mr. Dunnell, it isn't a simple solution and with people losing their jobs left and right, to toss in tons of regulation and laws making everyone produce less CO2 over a short term is just another rock in the hull of a sinking boat.

I think carbon capture projects and research should be done, and I don't think for a second there should be research done to be absolutely sure on the effects or non effects of CO2 on our climate. That said, if all of this is so obvious, why is Obama's stimulus package in the US spending billions on more climate modelling and research on global warming. Al Gore says we are all doomed are we not? Maybe other people are not so sure.

Chuck isn't wrong in saying that to "Clean up" our CO2 emissions it will hurt the economy. It will in an economic jump off the cliff the world is going on right now. I will guess that CO2 emissions are dropping 2 to 5% in North America this year as plants close and freight is dropping off.......THAT is a more effective measure in limiting CO2 than anything else.

[Hondo]

I don't understand why cleaning up the environment automatically wrecks the global economy whereas polluting it is automatically economically beneficial?

It doesn't, if done over a long term. Polluting is economically beneficial right now because that is the technology in place. The problem is both business and government. Left to it's own, government often comes up with standards that cannot be reasonably met, in a favorable or at least break even cost, within the given time period. On the other hand, when given too much time, business will do nothing different and then scream like a stuck pig as the deadline approaches for compliance. After the appropriate amount of threatening and dealing, an extension will be granted. Everybody in the USA sees the headlines where the EPA fined this company or that company huge amounts of money for violations but the truth is most fines are reduced or forgiven once the company comes into compliance.

Britain and the EU are going through something similar right now with air pollution.

Alternative energy development would attract risk venture capitalists if they thought they were on a level playing field. Few want to gamble their money going up against big oil. In an ideal world, the government could help with this. In the real world, well, let's just say I've never seen a politician leave office in a worse financial position than he was in when he took office, amongst taking other things.

I remember when it was said computers will do away with paper....lol, hell, we're drowning in paper now.

The serious pursuit of alternative energy technology now would probably help jump start everybody's economy and create jobs, just as the oil fields did. If BDunnell's Advanced Automobile Company develops a car that can go 500 miles at 70 mph on one charge or 3 gallons of gas or whatever, I don't care if it's a threat to GM or the oil companies. The automakers and oil companies have both had years of profits where they could have explored these technologies on their own. In the above example, I would have no problems with the government (taxpayers) providing loans to BDunnell to help him build the market for his product.

Alternative energy will be a good thing.

[Daniel]

I think we're all getting slightly sidetracked here. Reducing pollution has next to nothing to do with stopping any possible climate change that we're causing.

Pollution is smog and so on and pollution in waterways, CO2 is what is (supposed to be) causing climate change and you can get a rid of all the smog and all the pollution in waterways and so on and it won't make a lick of difference to climate change.......

[Mark in Oshawa]

Daniel...you are not wrong but reducing pollution is not a bad thing for greenhouse gases. You don't think for a second that pollutants don't help trap heat? Of course....maybe we should pollute more with the theory now out there that the burning of soft coal by the Chinese has created a bit of solar reflection that rebounds some of the solar radiation back out to space which in time will reduce the amount of heat on the ground.

I am not sure if I am willing to buy that 100% or not but it makes as much sense as anything else out there. I really think we are just guessing and spending a TON of money on guesses is a dangerous game. I think CO2 emissions should in time be reduced but I also think all pollutants should be reduced. The key is for Governments everywhere to realize the goals have to be realistic and doable. Not everyone in industry is fighting them for spite, most multinationals realize that going green is good for their bottom line if it is done in such a way that they can find new revenue streams.

Lets face it, if one of the big 3 had a design for a car that got 90 mpg and emitted only water vapour (as some conspiracy theorists have always argued) then this last year would have been the time to put it on the market. Big business knows that if they have a product that is green and profitable, that will hit a home run with everyone and if Government can frame the legislation that will encourage the private sector to go this way, then it will work. The problem is right now the governments of the world have never really understood this and keep insisting that business are to be the trained seals jumping through their regulatory hoops.

[chuck34]

You're right, we need MORE global warming. Britain should be one country that actually advocates climate change.
Everyone, it's your duty to get into your cars and create as much greenhouse gas as possible. Preferably within the London congestion charge zone, because there's no other way Boris is going to be able to pay for the Olympics unless you do.

Think about it - 90% of the population spends half of their lives frantically saving up to go somewhere nice and warm for their holidays. If the planet heats up sufficiently, then it actually reduces greenhouse emissions because it requires less energy driving to the south of England than flying to Ibiza.

Just imagine a tropical resort in Poole or Bournemouth, it'd be megabrill. Sure, Portsmouth and Southampton may be 40ft underwater but I seriously don't think that that's a real loss, is it? How about bananas in Blackpool, and no more old age pensioners whinging about how they can't pay their gas bills to heat their houses? Aren't old people brilliant? Old ladies really are bonkers. You seem them on hot days wearing coats, sometimes two coats at a time, imagine that! What they do is, they cackle, moan about the war, and then they die! Fantastic!

And as for those island nations in the Pacific having a whinge: the climate gave you your place in the sun; the climate will take it away. Praise be the climate! How difficult is it to push a lean-to up a hill anyway?
If you have to take the good with the total flooding of your home then so be it. Besides, we're all waiting the return of Cloister the Stupid anyway.

Been gone for the weekend myself. Went somewhere warm actually.

And I do think Londoners would probably welcome some global warming this morning. Hear they had 4-5 inches of the white stuff. Busses and taxis are sidelined. Sounds like a mess!

[chuck34]

I don't understand why cleaning up the environment automatically wrecks the global economy whereas polluting it is automatically economically beneficial?

It doesn't have to wreck the economy. But they way people (most politicians) have been proposing it will. This cap and trade crap is just that, crap. You tax a company here in the States for making a product that "crates too much CO2". So they have to buy offset credits from somewhere. After a while the company will do what's best for it's bottom line. That would be move somewhere that doesn't have any silly cap and trade legislation in the first place, and as an added bonus the labor is probably cheaper too.

And polluting is not automatically economically beneficial. In fact it is quite the oposite. If a car company could make a car that goes 200 miles on, say a charge of electricty or whatever, their economy would be greatly inproved.

[Mark in Oshawa]

Cap and trade don't work Chuck, I agree. Of course no one in the enviro movement will admit that.

They also wont admit the theory that solar radiation is up and the power of the sun is a fraction higher now than it was a few decades ago. Apparently Mars and Venus have slightly higher temps compared to readings calculated a few decades ago. Last time I looked, the only SUV on Mars was a battery powered rover that the Americans landed. No Greenhouse gases on that....

[chuck34]

Cap and trade don't work Chuck, I agree. Of course no one in the enviro movement will admit that.

They also wont admit the theory that solar radiation is up and the power of the sun is a fraction higher now than it was a few decades ago. Apparently Mars and Venus have slightly higher temps compared to readings calculated a few decades ago. Last time I looked, the only SUV on Mars was a battery powered rover that the Americans landed. No Greenhouse gases on that....

What gets me is that if you really think the environment is being wrecked by CO2 then shouldn't you just want a cap system? The cap and trade hoopla doesn't actually cut any CO2 from the air, just moves money around. That's the dirty little secret no one wants you to know about.

[Mark in Oshawa]

What gets me is that if you really think the environment is being wrecked by CO2 then shouldn't you just want a cap system? The cap and trade hoopla doesn't actually cut any CO2 from the air, just moves money around. That's the dirty little secret no one wants you to know about.


Dirty little secret eh? It is very much in the open now. The Nancy Pelosi's and Harry Reid's LOVE moving that money around...mainly in Robin Hood fashion. That would be fine if the money was stolen, but it was earned. Well...maybe in the case of a few CEO's it was stolen, but that is up to the shareholders of the company in question to take care of THAT....

[Hondo]

Maybe you do have to be a rocket scientist to figure it out. Former moon walker says global warming isn't because of us....

http://news.bostonherald.com/news/national/general/view/2009_02_15_Former_astronaut_speaks_out_on_global_w arming/srvc=home&position=recent

Way to go Harrison!! Tell it like it is!

[rah]

Maybe you do have to be a rocket scientist to figure it out. Former moon walker says global warming isn't because of us....

http://news.bostonherald.com/news/national/general/view/2009_02_15_Former_astronaut_speaks_out_on_global_w arming/srvc=home&position=recent

Way to go Harrison!! Tell it like it is!

Not surprising, there are a fair amount of geologists that are AGW skeptics. Just part of the science that they study I guess. His quotes in the article leave a little to be desired.

Oh and an Astronaut is not a rocket scientist. You can be both, but one does not make you the other.

[Hondo]

Not surprising, there are a fair amount of geologists that are AGW skeptics. Just part of the science that they study I guess. His quotes in the article leave a little to be desired.

Oh and an Astronaut is not a rocket scientist. You can be both, but one does not make you the other.

Oh I know that, It's easy to miss the tone when reading text.

[Daniel]

Found this interesting :)

http://www.metoffice.gov.uk/corporate/pressoffice/2009/pr20090211.html

[rah]

Found this interesting :)

http://www.metoffice.gov.uk/corporate/pressoffice/2009/pr20090211.html

Its nice to read an article with common sense. Nice link.

[Daniel]

Its nice to read an article with common sense. Nice link.
Rather. It's just so annoying to see everything slightly out of the ordinary that happens being blamed on global warming by the media. We even had someone blame the recent snow on global warming when the snow is actually rarer than it used to be :mark:

[chuck34]

Sorry to drag up an old thread, but I found this rather interesting.

http://wattsupwiththat.com/2009/03/20/dr-syun-akasofu-on-ipccs-forecast-accuracy/

Basically we are bouncing around a trend line that is rising at 0.5 deg per century (warming from the Little Ice Age).