Here Today... Gone To Hell!

The Amazing Story Behind the Global Warming Scam

By John Coleman, founder of the Weather Channel

The key players are now all in place in Washington and in state governments across America to officially label carbon dioxide as a pollutant and enact laws that tax we citizens for our carbon footprints. Only two details stand in the way, the faltering economic times and a dramatic turn toward a colder climate.  The last two bitter winters have led to a rise in public awareness that there is no runaway global warming. The public is now becoming skeptical of the claim that our carbon footprints from the use of fossil fuels is going to lead to climatic calamities.

How did we ever get to this point where bad science is driving big government to punish the citizens for living the good life that fossil fuels provide for us? 

The story begins with an Oceanographer named Roger Revelle. He served with the Navy in World War II.  After the war he became the Director of the Scripps Oceanographic Institute in La Jolla in San Diego, California. Revelle saw the opportunity to obtain major funding from the Navy for doing measurements and research on the ocean around the Pacific Atolls where the US military was conducting atomic bomb tests. He greatly expanded the Institute's areas of interest and among others hired Hans Suess, a noted Chemist from the University of Chicago, who was very interested in the traces of carbon in the environment from the burning of fossil fuels. Revelle tagged on to Suess studies and co-authored a paper with him in 1957. The paper raises the possibility that the carbon dioxide might be creating a greenhouse effect and causing atmospheric warming.  It seems to be a plea for funding for more studies. Funding, frankly, is where Revelle's mind was most of the time.

Next Revelle hired a Geochemist named David Keeling to devise a way to measure the atmospheric content of Carbon dioxide. In 1960 Keeling published his first paper showing the increase in carbon dioxide in the atmosphere and linking the increase to the burning of fossil fuels.
These two research papers became the bedrock of the science of global warming, even though they offered no proof that carbon dioxide was in fact a greenhouse gas. In addition they failed to explain how this trace gas, only a tiny fraction of the atmosphere, could have any significant impact on temperatures.

Now let me take you back to the1950s when this was going on.  Our cities were entrapped in a pall of pollution from the crude internal combustion engines that powered cars and trucks back then and from the uncontrolled emissions from power plants and factories. Cars and factories and power plants were filling the air with all sorts of pollutants. There was a valid and serious concern about the health consequences of this pollution and a strong environmental movement was developing to demand action. Government accepted this challenge and new environmental standards were set.  Scientists and engineers came to the rescue.  New reformulated fuels were developed for cars, as were new high tech, computer controlled engines and catalytic converters. By the mid seventies cars were no longer big time polluters, emitting only some carbon dioxide and water vapor from their tail pipes.  Likewise, new fuel processing and smoke stack scrubbers were added to industrial and power plants and their emissions were greatly reduced, as well.

But an environmental movement had been established and its funding and very existence depended on having a continuing crisis issue. So the research papers from Scripps came at just the right moment. And, with them came the birth of an issue; man-made global warming from the carbon dioxide from the burning of fossil fuels.

Revelle and Keeling used this new alarmism to keep their funding growing. Other researchers with environmental motivations and a hunger for funding saw this developing and climbed aboard as well. The research grants began to flow and alarming hypothesis began to show up everywhere.

The Keeling curve showed a steady rise in CO2 in atmosphere during the period since oil and coal were discovered and used by man. As of today, carbon dioxide has increased from 215 to 385 parts per million. But, despite the increases, it is still only a trace gas in the atmosphere. While the increase is real, the percentage of the atmosphere that is CO2 remains tiny, about 41 hundredths of one percent.

Several hypothesis emerged in the 70s and 80s about how this tiny atmospheric component of CO2 might cause a significant warming. But they remained unproven.  Years have passed and the scientists kept reaching out for evidence of the warming and proof of their theories.  And, the money and environmental claims kept on building up.

Back in the 1960s, this global warming research came to the attention of a Canadian born United Nation's bureaucrat named Maurice Strong.  He was looking for issues he could use to fulfill his dream of one-world government. Strong organized a World Earth Day event in Stockholm, Sweden in 1970.  From this he developed a committee of scientists, environmentalists and political operatives from the UN to continue a series of meeting.

Strong developed the concept that the UN could demand payments from the advanced nations for the climatic damage from their burning of fossil fuels to benefit the underdeveloped nations, a sort of CO2 tax that would be the funding for his one-world government.  But, he needed more scientific evidence to support his primary thesis.  So Strong championed the establishment of the United Nation's Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change.  This was not a pure climate study scientific organization, as we have been led to believe.  It was an organization of one-world government UN bureaucrats, environmental activists and environmentalist scientists who craved the UN funding so they could produce the science they needed to stop the burning of fossil fuels.  Over the last 25 years they have been very effective.  Hundreds of scientific papers, four major international meetings and reams of news stories about climatic Armageddon later, the UN IPCC has made its points to the satisfaction of most and even shared a Nobel Peace Prize with Al Gore.

At the same time, that Maurice Strong was busy at the UN, things were getting a bit out of hand for the man who is now called the grandfather of global warming, Roger Revelle.  He had been very politically active in the late 1950's as he worked to have the University of California locate a San Diego campus adjacent to Scripps Institute in La Jolla.  He won that major war, but lost an all important battle afterward when he was passed over in the selection of the first Chancellor of the new campus.

He left Scripps finally in 1963 and moved to Harvard University to establish a Center for Population Studies.  It was there that Revelle inspired one of his students to become a major global warming activist.  This student would say later, "It felt like such a privilege to be able to hear about the readouts from some of those measurements in a group of no more than a dozen undergraduates.  Here was this teacher presenting something not years old but fresh out of the lab, with profound implications for our future!"  The student described him as "a wonderful, visionary professor" who was "one of the first people in the academic community to sound the alarm on global warming," That student was Al Gore.  He thought of Dr. Revelle as his mentor and referred to him frequently, relaying his experiences as a student in his book Earth in the Balance, published in 1992.

So there it is, Roger Revelle was indeed the grandfather of global warming.  His work had laid the foundation for the UN IPCC, provided the anti-fossil fuel ammunition to the environmental movement and sent Al Gore on his road to his books, his move, his Nobel Peace Prize and a hundred million dollars from the carbon credits business.
What happened next is amazing.

The global warming frenzy was becoming the cause celeb of the media. After all the media is mostly liberal, loves Al Gore, loves to warn us of impending disasters and tell us "the sky is falling, the sky is falling". The politicians and the environmentalist loved it, too.

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

(Continued below)......

But the tide was turning with Roger Revelle. He was forced out at Harvard at 65 and returned to California and a semi retirement position at UCSD. There he had time to rethink Carbon Dioxide and the greenhouse effect. The man who had inspired Al Gore and given the UN the basic research it needed to launch its Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change was having second thoughts. In 1988 he wrote two cautionary letters to members of Congress. He wrote, "My own personal belief is that we should wait another 10 or 20 years to really be convinced that the greenhouse effect is going to be important for human beings, in both positive and negative ways." He added, "?we should be careful not to arouse too much alarm until the rate and amount of warming becomes clearer."

And in 1991 Revelle teamed up with Chauncey Starr, founding director of the Electric Power Research Institute and Fred Singer, the first director of the U.S. Weather Satellite Service, to write an article for Cosmos magazine. They urged more research and begged scientists and governments not to move too fast to curb greenhouse CO2 emissions because the true impact of carbon dioxide was not at all certain and curbing the use of fossil fuels could have a huge negative impact on the economy and jobs and our standard of living. I have discussed this collaboration with Dr. Singer. He assures me that Revelle was considerably more certain than he was at the time that carbon dioxide was not a problem.

Did Roger Revelle attend the Summer enclave at the Bohemian Grove in Northern California in the Summer of 1990 while working on that article? Did he deliver a lakeside speech there to the assembled movers and shakers from Washington and Wall Street in which he apologized for sending the UN IPCC and Al Gore onto this wild goose chase about global warming? Did he say that the key scientific conjecture of his lifetime had turned out wrong? The answer to those questions is, "I think so, but I do not know it for certain". I have not managed to get it confirmed as of this moment. It?s a little like Las Vegas; what is said at the Bohemian Grove stays at the Bohemian Grove. There are no transcripts or recordings and people who attend are encouraged not to talk. Yet, the topic is so important, that some people have shared with me on an informal basis.

Roger Revelle died of a heart attack three months after the Cosmos story was printed. Oh, how I wish he were still alive today. He might be able to stop this scientific silliness and end the global warming scam.

Al Gore has dismissed Roger Revelle?s Mea culpa as the actions of senile old man. And, the next year, while running for Vice President, he said the science behind global warming is settled and there will be no more debate, From 1992 until today, he and his cohorts have refused to debate global warming and when ask about we skeptics they simply insult us and call us names.

So today we have the acceptance of carbon dioxide as the culprit of global warming. It is concluded that when we burn fossil fuels we are leaving a dastardly carbon footprint which we must pay Al Gore or the environmentalists to offset. Our governments on all levels are considering taxing the use of fossil fuels. The Federal Environmental Protection Agency is on the verge of naming CO2 as a pollutant and strictly regulating its use to protect our climate. The new President and the US congress are on board. Many state governments are moving on the same course.

We are already suffering from this CO2 silliness in many ways. Our energy policy has been strictly hobbled by no drilling and no new refineries for decades. We pay for the shortage this has created every time we buy gas. On top of that the whole thing about corn based ethanol costs us millions of tax dollars in subsidies. That also has driven up food prices. And, all of this is a long way from over.

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 highjacking of public policy. It is no joke. It is the greatest scam in history.

To email John Coleman, click here.

For more info on the global warming scam, check out Coleman's Corner.

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

Well they could just let us use the water engines they bought out n hid to avoid this emergency so then they wouldnt have to tax us at all....


But no, cant have that can we.

Sorry Drew...anthropogenic warming is real.  Yes, it sucks to have to deal with it during a recession...but it's the responsible thing to do.   :peace:

Some scientist say it does and some scientist say it doesn't. The earth's temperatures have continued to rise and fall over the past 4.5 billion years.

Oh Drew you heathen, everybody knows God created the Earth about 10,000 years ago!  :rofl: just kidding.

Seriously though, with the exception of times in our past, times of cataclysmic change like the massive meteor collision in the Yucatan that helped to take out the dinosaurs, the rise in global temps has never occurred so fast...this corresponds with the rise of the industrial revolution in the 19th century...and has been rising rapidly over the past century and a half.  Yes, there have been many ice ages and warmer ages, but the difference is with the time frame.  We are helping to accelerate the warming in hundreds of years when in the past it was millions.   :(

Some scientists funded by BP....

There are also some scientists who don't recognize the existence of evolution.   ::)

"Scientists"

Why the other scientist are funded by Al Gore and his Liberal Democrats.

 I am one of those that see Global Warming as another scare tactic to control you


The other day, My professor at college was talking about how now, they have shown women are having  more heart attacks after child birth!

OH MY GOD, better not have babies, u will die!!!!!!!!!! bullshit scare tactic to control the population, those studies don't take into account that the heart attacks are probably from very old women who shouldn't have babies that late.


Same with Global Warming. Hell in the 70's I think it was, the earth was getting colder and they thought we were headed for another ice age.

The earth revolves around the sun, at certain points, the earth revolves a little closer.


whatever happened to the Ozone Layer and the big hole in it? that was over 20 years ago. shouldn't it be completely fucked by now?

U don't hear much about the ozone layer anymore.

Global Warming is a political tool, to have some cause to rally behind.

the earth is gonna get .5 degrees warmer over the next 100 years.

The weatherman can't predict what its gonna do tomorrow, how the fuck can they 100 years from now?

"The weatherman can't predict what its gonna do tomorrow, how the fuck can they 100 years from now?"


...so, you'll agree with the weatherman in the article Drew posted?  Kinda ironic.   :hihi:

D, tell me what the ulterior motive is here for the "global warming alarmists."  We all know why the oil companies pay scientists to poke holes in the theory of global warming just like the churches pay scientists to try and poke holes in evolution.  Is it fear for the sake of fear?

Honestly, I've never seen Gore's movie.  Personally, I don't buy the extent of all the doom and gloom (I'll agree with you there)...I do think though, that yes, the greenhouse effect is real.  The changes occurring did not happen this rapidly in Earth's 4 1/2 billion years.  Why are they occurring now?  I think the answer is obvious.  You can't keep sending this shit into the atmosphere and think it has no effect.  That's lunacy. 

we agree on this Axl4prez. I have never claimed that the earth could not be warming but the whole idea of the earth exploding and the doom and gloom stuff just isn't something I believe.

Look at the weather for instance, it isn't like record highs are being recorded every single day or even every single week.

I just believe the earth is cylical in nature. Its only discussed now cause people have instruments etc to gauge things


what do u mean, what motive does someone have?

Scientist get PAID right? If u keep scaring people with global warming, u will get "MORE MONEY" to do research with.

If they come out tomorrow and say GW is bullshit, guess what? they stop getting paid.

U use the trick of fear into getting people to make u rich. Its the oldest scam in the book.

Hell Bush used it to get re elected.

D, the way you talk makes you sound very unintelligent.

If you would maybe, not post swear words and actually research what you are saying, then maybe you wouldn't come off so...naive.

Scientists, and experts, may differ on when exactly the o-zone layer will be completely depleted, but global warming is a very inconvenient truth (lol) and if people want to just ignore the truth on this subject, and our species will perish if we don't recognize what we our doing to our planet.

So are you saying the fact that mankind puts all kinds of shit in the air, sea and on land can't affect the climate?




/jarmo

Not in the scare tactic and scam alarming method people want to make it out to be.

What was the premise of his statement? What was his point? Do you really believe that he was trying to find a way to scare you? What was the context of the discussion?

Behind the method of "scare tactics" must lay a motive, reveal to us all what it is.

Everything that comes out of Gore's mouth is a scare tactic. Him saying last week that the time is now to pass this "stimulus" bill or it will be too late! More money for his pet projects.

So because Gore thinks money should be spent on Global Warning, it must be a scam?


You don't think it would be a good idea to cut down on putting shit in the atmosphere or oceans?





/jarmo

Yes, I believe it's a scam and so is Gore. Nothing wrong with trying to slow pollution but not in the scare tactic form Gore and so many other people around the world want to use.

Did you ever think that people need a wake up call to react?

So they might exaggerate things in some cases, but that's only because they know that otherwise people will be indifferent.




/jarmo

So if you're wrong, what happens?

If those who believe that global warming is man made are wrong, what happens?

Yes, I believe people have received their wake up call and reacted. Reacted to the idea that "global warming" is not 100% fact and that scientist both agree and disagree with the idea.

If I'm wrong or right the earth eventually dies. I know that may be an insane way of thinking but that's just how I see it. The earth has been around a lot longer than we have and has gone though so much change. Earth has been around for 4.5 billion years and it's got a life expectancy of another 5 billion years. Earth has survived a lot more bigger tragedies than this supposed man made "global warming."

If you are wrong, then we face catastrophic consequences that generations will have to deal with. Our children, grandchildren and great grand children.

If I'm wrong....nothing.

Given the options, don't you think it may be more logical to explore what scientists from around the world believe is a threat to our way of life and our fragile ecosystems?

I understand how you look at. I just look at it completely different.

Yes, one day the earth will die. But while we live here for the many years to come we can take care of it, or shit all over it.

You choose to take scientific method and discard it in the name of partisan buffoonary, and in turn shit on our planet.

I'll take my option instead, thanks.

No, i also take a scientific method as well. Do not forget that there are a lot of scientist all over the world that disagree on this "global warming" idea. What "partisan buffoonary" side are you taking?

So it's ok to spend money on something because it might be a threat to your country, but it's not ok to spend way less on something that might be a threat to the whole planet?




/jarmo

You make a mistake once. Why not try and not make another mistake just like it?

The repercussions of what certain politicians have advocated to deal with man-made global warming would be devastating.  It certainly worth being sure, or at least pretty damn sure that global warming is in fact caused by man before pushing such extreme measures.

Given that the evidence is currently very lacking and very flawed, I don't see how anyone can advocate those types of agendas.

Certainly doing healthy things for our planet is a good thing, but we need to do a cost/benefit analysis before going forward with the extreme ideas.

I am not scientist.  I've heard very smart people say that man-made global warming is absolutely real, and very smart people say the opposite is true.   I don't know enough science to know the truth absolutely, but I do know that only one side tries to shut down the other side, to "expel" them.  The pro-global warming people are not unlike the Catholic Church of old and it's ex-communicating of Galileo.

I, and many people in our society, will continue to fight for real science and real truth to be explored, and we WILL NOT succumb to the attempts on the other side to dismiss us, or insult us, or whatever arrogant plan you guys are preparing next.

Edit:  Honestly, I would you pro-Global Warming people a lot more credit if you weren't so eager to overlook the current holes and problems with the current man-made global warming theories.  It's like, you want to pretend it's an absolute proven truth, but we all know that isn't true.  To think you can just say "it's absolutely true" and everyone is too stupid to realize it is insulting, and it speaks volumes about that argument.  I usually find that people that overlook the problems with their own viewpoints have overlooked a lot more.

Cheers.  : ok:

Wasn't that the excuse used to make the mistake in the first place?  :hihi:


I don't know the deal with Global Warming.

I think it needs to be researched.

But, common sense tells me you can't put shit in the atmosphere or oceans and nothing will happen.

You think smog appears by magic in places like Los Angeles?

Did smog exist in the stone age?


Mankind has created a lot of problems for ourselves.

You can't just say that everything is natural.



If you can build engines, power plants etc that generate less "waste" that's let out into the air we breathe, what's so bad about that?





/jarmo

Even Salt Lake City has horrible smog now in the winter. People are warned to stay inside when it happens. And that's a small city....common sense would dictate that this pollution is equally destructive to the planet as it is to the human body.

But if you'd rather follow alarmist literature, and conspiracy theory non-sense then don't let me stop you.

For a long time people thought you could just flush all the crap into rivers, lakes and oceans.

Then they realized it wasn't so smart. So they started treating the sewage....


I don't know about you, but something tells me the same could apply to what you let out into the atmosphere.


It took a while to realize CFCs harm the ozone layer. Maybe you didn't believe it at the time either.




/jarmo

nobody is claiming Pollution isn't bad and that taking care of the planet isn't important.

I just don't believe the doom and gloom Global Warming propaganda.

Maybe we can effect the climate, maybe we can't. I am just saying, from what I have read, I just believe the earth goes in cycles. the last time we all argued this, I saw where the earth had warmed up something like .4 degrees *don't quote me on that* but it was something like that since 1928.

I just don't think it is cause to panic, that's all.

Taking care of the enviroment, hugging a tree, decreasing our use of oil and using less electricity is important and I'm all for it.

but don't try and act like the world will cease to exist or explode if we don't.

Yeah, whatever u may say, I am just tired of the news reporting scare tactic bullshit and people running for their steel bomb shelters.

I remember when I was a kid and the big scare was a paper cut that turned into a flesh eating disease

remember mad cow disease, sars?

my professor was talking about the news and she said "I saw on the news where more women are dying of heart attacks shortly after pregancy and no one can figure out why!


what does this do? It immediately places that seed of fear in girl's heads and makes them more afraid to get pregnant, thinking they could die.

U scare enough naive girls, that controls the population.

I just don't believe everything i hear.

Because you know nothing will happen?





/jarmo

Drew, there was one publishing climatologist whose data seemed to contradict what has been observed recently, but he later acknowledged the flaws in his methods. You claim that there are some that support GW, and some that refute it, however, that is disingenuine. There is pretty much a concensus among climate scientists that global warming is real, and is the result of increases in CO₂ due to the burning of fossil fuels.

 In the last 150 years the CO₂ constituent of the atmosphere has increased from around 200ppm to >300ppm- a 50% increase in on a relatively short time. The last time the atmosphere saw these kinds of increases was when the Indian sub-continent was colliding with Asia, and then it occurred over millenia, not decades.This time also corresponds to the second greatest extinction the planet has ever experienced.

 You are correct, in that, the climate has been atypical for the past one million years, and it would eventually return to what is normal, the problem is the exponential rates of warming that the Earth is now experiencing. 25 years ago scientist didn't think it was possible for an entire ice shelf to break up within a life time, but today, the Ross Shelf is in eminent danger of collapse... it will probably happen this year. Too, there have been other massive losses shelf along Antarctic Peninsula over the last several years, but nothing like the Ross.

Someone mentioned cyclical variations. I assume that they were referring to variations due to the mechanics of orbit. Yes, they are well known, but the affects appear to be restricted to temporal locals in that they have little effect in changing the climate(if the climate was on the verge of glacial advances, then yes, but otherwise...) The cycles have been with the planet since it's formation, but there have only been 5 glacial periods documented though out the entire history of the planet(the record for the Phanerozioc is well known).

The climate would have returned to "normal" anyway, but the rate of change that the planet is experiencing is going to be catastrophic to future generations. Many alive today, or their kids, will know the effects of sea-level rise, and change of crop patterns. All that can be done at this point is to mitigate the affects. Continued release of these gases will only exasperate an already dire situation.



Oh, the ozone hole: The world banned the use of chloroflourocarbons. As a result, the "hole" is being repaired... naturally.

oh yeah, the world will "Explode' but it will be from a nuclear war long before us polluters destroy it.

ok .. say your right . GW is " bullshit " .polluting is still bad.we can give it our all and not give a shit and sure it may not be real,but your still doing maximum damage to our mother eart we should love and take care of . but we should still try to burn less fossil fuels and slow down the process we have started . personally I believe in global warming.. a few weeks ago it was -14 on a tuesday and by thursday it was +2 .. thats extremely messed up..

wether or not you believe you should still try not to kill Earth not only for you but for your family and for millions of other people like me you don't know that have to live here too :)

-14 degrees to +2!!!

Shit dude, u better grab the astronaut suit before u melt!

Global warming deniers are little different than creationists, IDiots, flat earthers, 9/11 truthers, geocentrists, and other crack pots in that they rely on half-truths, mis-truths, and out rights lies to deceive a public that is generally ignorant of scientific methods. One need look no further than this thread to recognize that they are succeeding in their agenda.

Perhaps anecdotal, but is it a coincidence that vast majority of all "deniers" are godbotting morons?

Food for thought...

Irreversible climate change due to carbon dioxide emissions
Susan Solomona1, Gian-Kasper Plattnerb, Reto Knuttic and Pierre Friedlingsteind

Abstract

The severity of damaging human-induced climate change depends not only on the magnitude of the change but also on the potential for irreversibility. This paper shows that the climate change that takes place due to increases in carbon dioxide concentration is largely irreversible for 1,000 years after emissions stop. Following cessation of emissions, removal of atmospheric carbon dioxide decreases radiative forcing, but is largely compensated by slower loss of heat to the ocean, so that atmospheric temperatures do not drop significantly for at least 1,000 years. Among illustrative irreversible impacts that should be expected if atmospheric carbon dioxide concentrations increase from current levels near 385 parts per million by volume (ppmv) to a peak of 450?600 ppmv over the coming century are irreversible dry-season rainfall reductions in several regions comparable to those of the ?dust bowl? era and inexorable sea level rise. Thermal expansion of the warming ocean provides a conservative lower limit to irreversible global average sea level rise of at least 0.4?1.0 m if 21st century CO2 concentrations exceed 600 ppmv and 0.6?1.9 m for peak CO2 concentrations exceeding ≈1,000 ppmv. Additional contributions from glaciers and ice sheet contributions to future sea level rise are uncertain but may equal or exceed several meters over the next millennium or longer.

Published recently in the Proceedings Of The National Academy Of Sciences (http://www.pnas.org/content/early/2009/01/28/0812721106.abstract)

A method called "Core Sampling" has proven to be pretty darn accurate.

Americans and conspiracy theories? Not suprised ::)

People living happy in a city or something won't notice much-
-up north people notice it, and people living in and of nature also will feel it everywhere.

It will be a catastrophy for people unless something is done.

Some people don't dare to talk about population growth in this context, it's sad.

Earth heals itself, it's just some some million years after our (imagined) extinsion it's fine.

Yea people say 'save the earth' but
it's not the mother earth who's in danger. It's us, life on her.

When considering the merits, motivations and evidence both camps have presented, it's always very  generous  towards the naysayers to actually give them enough credit to consider it some sort of a " maybee maybe not!!" -dilemma.
I-have-an-agenda - scientists denying it happening are very similiar to historians denying holocaust.About as credible too.

Exactly, you'd think in the 21st century that people would have advanced a bit intellectually, but I guess not.

On a side note, I caught a documentary on PBS last week about polar bears and it's very disheartening how their death rate is skyrocketing as the ice caps continue to melt.

More and more are having to swim longer distances to find stable ice, and most are dying before they get there..

Polar bear scam?



/jarmo

Rather than making people pay fines for the fuel used in technology the government has us use for transport.

Why dont they bring something better and healthier out?

Cause they dont wanna spend money.

Ethanol (made from corn) is being explored, but most humanitarians tend to frown on it's use as an alternate fuel source due to the amount of starvation that continues to exist in the world.

how did that Y2K workout for everybody?


My bank accounts are still frozen and I still don't have electricity!

Did u just compare the Holocaust to Global Warming? :nervous:

I don't think anyone is denying Global Warming. I just don't believe we are gonna walk outside one day and disintegrate.

Were there mounds of evidence backed with scientific method when such predictions were being made?

I just think GW is half truth mixed with a lot of paranoia and fear.

U can take any story, surround it with facts and it makes the entire story appear true because there are a lot of truth elements mixed in.

Sure there are truths in the GW, I agree about taking care of the environment and all that. To think the earth will cease to exist though, for me is hard to believe.

 

If you think more floods and different weather than what you're used to is not a big deal, then by all means keep making fun of it.


The so called paranoia and fear is the worst case scenario.

In some cases, even the worst case scenario didn't come close to reality. Remember Katrina?




/jarmo

With all due respect to the Katrina victims, most of that was due to the levee's breaking and not necessarily the actual hurricane. Correct me If I am wrong, but the weak levee's caused a lot of the havoc on Louisiana.

This isn't about the we or the now . It's about the future.

Think about all those half man / sheep grandkids of ur's

So? The point is, do you think the people responsible had seen that scenario coming or do you think everybody was thinking "what are the odds that'll happen?".


That's the thing. People don't react until the worst case scenario happens.




/jarmo

What a pile of crap this is...oil prices rise and this guy expects the oil companies to flood the market with supply, lowering prices and profits?   :rofl:  There are plenty of places they're allowed to explore and drill.  If they have more oil, they'll sit on it until the ideal time to maximize profit. 


But, of course, I'm sure we can agree that regardless of the fact that scientists are on both sides, only one side can be correct.  In other words, just because there are people on both sides, so long as it is an issue of fact and not of opinion, that doesn't mean that both positions are equally correct.  If I come up with science to disprove gravity, it doesn't make it correct.  I realize, of course, that you can make the exact same argument back at me, but I raise this because the ultimate defense of the anti-warming crowd seems to be "hey, we have scientists too!"


You want to see a scare tactic to control you?  Watch TV and count how many ads you see for medicines you don't need.  Seriously...where did all of these come from?  We're bombarded with messages letting us know we're about to fucking die.  Got a pain in your arm?  You may be having a heart attack, or you might have juvenile diabetes, or perhaps some bad psoriasis...BUT GET TO A DOCTOR AND ASK ABOUT OUR MEDICINE RIGHT NOW! 

Seriously, beyond that nutjob movie "Day After Tomorrow" I don't know anyone who thinks we're all about to die from global warming.  Personally, I think it will be a slow increase in the problem over the next couple of hundred years, much like the last couple of hundred years.  Increases in population will exacerbate the problem greatly, as will the expansion of fossil fuels use in countries like India and China. 

So, no, I don't think global warming will have any major impact on my life.  But if we feel in any way responsible for the lives of future generations (i.e. your children and grandchildren, for those incapable of sympathizing with anyone who isn't blood), then I think it important to begin to make the changes before the problem gets completely out of control.  And wouldn't that be nice for a change?  Can you imagine how nice it would have been if we had fixed those levies BEFORE they burst or repaired that bridge BEFORE it collapsed?  Being pro-active is behind many of the things I believe in, from global warming to universal healthcare.  A stitch in time, so to speak.


No.

If someone had definitive proof that global warming was either non-existent or not caused by man, and that person had a scientifically rigorous methodology, then that person would be making an enormous discovery.  That person would make shitloads of money giving speeches.  That person would get grants and an endowed chair.  Hell, Drew would probably tape together the ashes of his Bush-era stimulus check just to donate to the guy's kids' scholarship fund. 


What "extreme" ideas?  Driving cars that don't spew stinky gas into the air? 

Harvesting forms of energy that we don't have to burn?

I swear, some people would drink piss and dismiss water as "hype". 


Global average temperatures aren't what matters, really.  Temperatures at the poles are the most important, for now, because that's where all the ice is (ice that will melt, raise ocean levels, drown or displace millions who live along coasts, etc.). 


So...we're the boy who cried wolf.  No surprise there. 


I honestly don't know a single person who believed in Y2K. 

Nothing is as bad and nothing is as good as it seems.  Nature is much more powerful than man.  Man is harming the planet, but one tsunami or volcano can do in one day what man can't do without a nuclear bomb.

We need to clean the air.  We need to love our planet.  But Al Gore is pretty pathetic if you ask me.

New Orleans is a shit hole built below sea level.  We all know the dangers.

also there were bigger hurricanes in the 70's right?

Anyway, back to the discussion at hand, I just don't think anyone can predict the future. Hell in 20 years maybe something is invented that totally reverses all the damage.

Im not saying Global Warming isn't necessarily important, maybe it is, I for one wish these politicians would really focus on REAL pressing matters like maybe, poverty, education, Cancer, Alzheimer's, Parkinson's, Aids


instead we are worried about the earth getting a degree hotter? Please

Maybe in 20 years we cure AIDS, but that doesn't mean you disregard AIDS prevention measures in the present, does it? 

Fortunately, work on Climate change has other benefits, such as cleaning up OBVIOUS environmental impacts we've had (smog n' stench) and disentangling us from a region of the world that's troublesome. 

Hurricaines are not the sole barometer for global warming by the way.

So they deserved what was coming to them?




Yeah but how can you invent something when people like yourself is saying it's not a real threat?





And you know what effects that degree will have?





/jarmo

Sure they did.  It was punishment for homosexuality and a gay pride parade.  Duh.

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/worldnews/article-1133799/Cleric-said-Hurricane-Katrina-Gods-punishment-homosexuality-bishop-Vatican.html

http://thinkprogress.org/2008/04/23/hagee-katrina-mccain/


I suppose global warming is a threat in the same sense as overexerting ourselves by blowing out candles?  I never thought of it as a threat, but someone invented the candle snuffer.   :hihi:

We all know the Earth has a molten core which is seriously hot.  By the laws of physics, as the atmosphere temperature rises, so does the temperature of the Earth itself.  This rise in temperature is replicated through to the middle of the Earth.  Each layer will get a little bit hotter.  Finally, the temperature of the molten core at the middle of the Earth will rise.  You've seen volcanos.  Now imagine what happens when the temperature at the centre of the Earth gets so great that the core begins to melt the layer around it.  Or worse, that the expansion due to the heat becomes so great that the outer layers begin to crack and the world becomes one huge volcano. 

Yes, this may take several hundreds of years to happen.  But the further along in the 'heating-up' process the Earth is, the harder it will be to moderate the temperature.  This is why people worry about GW now. 

I'm assuming that is hyperbole, otherwise... whoa!

all these years and i still don't know how to do the quote thing

anyway, I don't know but everyone else seems to think they do.

Who really knows what 1 degree will do to the earth

I will give u that one degree can be a significant in body temperature but I don't know if 1 degree will make the world a raging volcano.

There is a critical flaw in your thinking. Just because you can't understand what a 1? increase in temperature will do to the planet, you seem to assume that no one can. STOP IT-your embarrassing yourself!

Here is a link that might help explain the consequences... don't worry, there are lots of pretty pictures.
http://rst.gsfc.nasa.gov/Sect16/Sect16_2.html

embarrassing myself cause I don't share your point of view?

U can show me whatever u want to show me, I don't believe the earth will be melted by the sun and it will snow at the equator and iceland will become Florida.

I don't believe it.

Like I said, the world will explode in less than 100 years more than likely due to nuclear warfare. so turn off the faucet while u brush your teeth, drive a hybrid, turn off the light when u get through using a room, only drive when necessary, use candle light when possible, don't use plastic



Global Warming people are starting to get a PETA like mentality and it is just going overboard.

Why?

Half the people that bitch and believe in this shit, are worse than the people they talk bad about.

If u aren't using solar power, electric cars, and all this other shit, frankly, i don't wanna hear it.

well I just saw "The day the Earth Stood Still" and Keanu Reeves gave Jennifer Connelly a stern talking to about how humans are destroying the earth...so i'm sold on global warming...I don't care what you right wing nuts say...

Dude, first of all, it is not an opinion, it is scientific fact.

Secondly, a little tutorial on logic, because you ain't doin it right.
http://www.nizkor.org/features/fallacies/

Thirdly, I guess it is true- ignorance IS bliss.

You quoted the wrong person. That is not my post.

For the Reading impaired, I apologize for not having posts on tape.

I said that I concur Global Warming is real

I said, I don't think it is as doom and gloom as others do.

If u are gonna insult somebody, and I don't mind being insulted, but just please don't look like a naked fat guy humping a fire hydrant by misquoting what i say.


For every scientific fact, i can pull up something from the other side.

Secondly, if u aren't living in a tent in the woods, living off the land and u own a car and u are on a computer right?

So why are u talking shit to me?

Shouldn't u be out saving the environment or something?


Al Gore, what a laugh, dude is out saving the world in his private plane and WAS * I know he isn't now* but WAS using like 30 times more electricity than the average Tennessee resident.

build your bomb shelters and get your radioactive suit ready, cause we are gonna fry in 2100!

Only one side can be called "fact".  It is either man caused or not.  It either exists or it doesn't.  Just because there's "science" on both sides doesn't mean both side have objective, truthful "facts". 


While I wholeheartedly support the idea of individuals doing it on their own, do you honestly believe that we can count on every individual to participate to do something, even if it's 100% proven and everyone knows it's good?  It's a collective action problem, as are most things that need changed, and if you rely solely on people to do it for themselves you'll have free-riders who want the benefits but not the costs.  And, of course, if there are enough free riders, then the problem won't go away.  The biggest problem facing global environmental issues will be convincing countries like India and China to avoid being free riders...if they ever consume fossil fuels at the rate the US does, we're all fucked (both environmentally and in the wallet). 

And why must you constantly exaggerate our position to make it seem outrageous?  People who believe in man caused global warming aren't survivalists who want everyone to live in the hollowed out trunk of a tree, using rotting vegetation for insulation whilst raiding the cities to throw green, eco-friendly paint on Humvee driving idiots.  The vast majority of us believe that a few lifestyle changes and a lot of technological changes can help to clean up what we've caused.

But that's just crazy talk.  It's not like man has ever fucked up anything, right?

I can see both sides of this. I find Al Gore a little difficult to take seriously, with the pitifully moronic Live Earth gigs as evidence of that... so some 'rock stars' sold a Hummer and turned off a lightswitch... big deal! Most of the music those clowns made was the real waste of electricity, but that's another rant altogether.

Whether or not you 'believe' in 'global warming' (or 'climate change' as it is more accurately referred to), I think it's pretty indisputable that humanity is having a catastrophic effect on the planet. Like the floating island of plastic in the Pacific Ocean, like the gender-bending chemicals in the water that are destroying ecosystems, like the coming extinction of bees, the fallout of which will threaten the core foodstuffs of humans and animals...

We got big problems. And the time to face up to them is now, quite honestly.

Global warming is a load of crap. The earth's temperatures and climates have constantly changed, ever since it's formation. We've had Ice Ages and all that, and hell, even Antartica used to be a tropical climate. It's unfair to say, without huge, impending evidence, that humans are causing global warming.

However, that's not to say I'm not for ECO-friendly fuels; I'm all for it. Let's stop using unrenewable resources.

Global warming changing birds' habits
Study: Many North American species spending winters farther north (http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/29104238/)

WASHINGTON - When it comes to global warming, the canary in the coal mine isn't a canary at all. It's a purple finch.

As the temperature across the U.S. has gotten warmer, the purple finch has been spending its winters more than 400 miles farther north than it used to.

And it's not alone.

An Audubon Society study released Tuesday found that more than half of 305 birds species in North America, a hodgepodge that includes robins, gulls, chickadees and owls, are spending the winter about 35 miles farther north than they did 40 years ago.

The purple finch was the biggest northward mover. Its wintering grounds are now more along the latitude of Milwaukee, Wis., instead of Springfield, Mo.

Bird ranges can expand and shift for many reasons, among them urban sprawl, deforestation and the supplemental diet provided by backyard feeders. But researchers say the only explanation for why so many birds over such a broad area are wintering in more northern locales is global warming.

Over the 40 years covered by the study, the average January temperature in the United States climbed by about 5 degrees Fahrenheit. That warming was most pronounced in northern states, which have already recorded an influx of more southern species and could see some northern species retreat into Canada as ranges shift.

"This is as close as science at this scale gets to proof," said Greg Butcher, the lead scientist on the study and the director of bird conservation at the Audubon Society. "It is not what each of these individual birds did. It is the wide diversity of birds that suggests it has something to do with temperature, rather than ecology."

Changing migration habits
The study provides compelling evidence for what many birders across the country have long recognized ? that many birds are responding to climate change by shifting farther north.

Previous studies of breeding birds in Great Britain and the eastern U.S. have detected similar trends. But the Audubon study covers a broader area and includes many more species.

The study of migration habits from 1966 through 2005 found about one-fourth of the species have moved farther south. But the number moving northward ? 177 species ? is twice that.

The study "shows a very, very large fraction of the wintering birds are shifting" northward, said Terry Root, a biologist at Stanford University. "We don't know for a fact that it is warming. But when one keeps finding the same thing over and over ... we know it is not just a figment of our imagination."

The research is based on data collected during the Audubon Society's Christmas Bird Count in early winter. At that time of year, temperature is the primary driver for where birds go and whether they live or die. To survive the cold, birds need to eat enough during the day to have the energy needed to shiver throughout the night.

Milder winters mean the birds don't need to expend as much energy shivering, and can get by eating less food in the day.

General biology aside, the research can't explain why particular species are moving. That's because changes in temperature affect different birds in different ways.

Some birds will expand their range farther north. For example, the Carolina wren ? the state bird of South Carolina ? has turned into a Yankee, based on Audubon's calculations. It is now commonly seen in the winter well into New England, as well as its namesake state of South Carolina.

"Twenty years ago, I remember people driving hours to see the one Carolina wren in the state," said Jeff Wells, an ornithologist based in southern Maine. "Now, every year I get two or three just in my area," he said. "Obviously, things have changed."

Climate change
Other species, such as the purple finch and boreal chickadee, spend their summers in the forests of Canada and fly south into the U.S. for the winter. Climate change could be playing a role in why they are not flying as far south as they used to, and are no longer as common as they were in states like Maine, Vermont and Wisconsin.

For other species, global warming may not be a major factor in the movements measured by Audubon at all. The wild turkey was second only to the purple finch in miles moved north ? about 400. But it's likely due to efforts by hunters and state wildlife managers to boost its population.

In other cases, the range shifts are prompting calls to cull some bird populations.

The sandhill crane, a large gray bird that migrates to the southern U.S. for the winter, has a range that expanded about 40 miles north in the last 40 years. This small movement has likely contributed to the bird's population explosion in Tennessee. The sandhill population has grown to a point that state wildlife officials are considering allowing the bird to be hunted.

"You are seeing it all across the state," said Richard Connors, president of the Tennessee Ornithological Society. "As it increases, there is going to be pressure to hunt it. The bird watchers of Tennessee don't want that."

Al Gore forced those birds further north!



/jarmo

He may have threatened to eat them.  :hihi:

Either that or Tipper had them censored for being too colorful.

More scare tactics from the Environmental Nazi's!


UK environment czar looking at limiting holiday trips to save CO2

Monday February 9, 2009

The UK's so-called "environment czar" last week raised the possibility of rationing air travel, limiting UK citizens to just a few vacation trips abroad by air per year in order to reduce the impact of carbon dioxide emissions.

Adair Turner, chairman of the independent Committee on Climate Change that advises UK Prime Minister Gordon Brown, made the proposal before Parliament's Environmental Audit Select Committee on Feb. 5. In remarks widely reported by UK media, Turner said, "We will have to constrain demand in an absolute sense with people not allowed to make as many journeys as they could in an unconstrained manner."

The proposal was strongly condemned by FlyingMatters, a UK-based coalition of airlines, airports, aerospace manufacturers and other aviation- and tourism-related groups. "One always suspects with these half-baked proposals that the people who put them forward really intend them to apply to ordinary people, many of whom have only recently gained access to air travel, rather than to themselves," the organization said in a statement.

Source: http://www.atwonline.com/news/story.html?storyID=15528


From The Sunday Times
February 1, 2009
Two children should be limit, says green guru

Sarah-Kate Templeton, Health Editor

Novelist Jenny Colgan: Go on, guess how many children Jonathan Porritt has

COUPLES who have more than two children are being ?irresponsible? by creating an unbearable burden on the environment, the government?s green adviser has warned.

Jonathon Porritt, who chairs the government?s Sustainable Development Commission, says curbing population growth through contraception and abortion must be at the heart of policies to fight global warming. He says political leaders and green campaigners should stop dodging the issue of environmental harm caused by an expanding population.

?I am unapologetic about asking people to connect up their own responsibility for their total environmental footprint and how they decide to procreate and how many children they think are appropriate,? Porritt said.

?I think we will work our way towards a position that says that having more than two children is irresponsible. It is the ghost at the table. We have all these big issues that everybody is looking at and then you don?t really hear anyone say the ?p? word.?

The Optimum Population Trust, a campaign group of which Porritt is a patron, says each baby born in Britain will, during his or her lifetime, burn carbon roughly equivalent to 2? acres of old-growth oak woodland - an area the size of Trafalgar Square.

The British population, now 61m, will pass 70m by 2028, the Office for National Statistics says. The fertility rate for women born outside Britain is estimated to be 2.5, compared with 1.7 for those born here. The global population of 6.7 billion is expected to rise to 9.2 billion by 2050.

Porritt, who has two children, intends to persuade environmental pressure groups to make population a focus of campaigning.

?Many organisations think it is not part of their business. My mission with the Friends of the Earth and the Greenpeaces of this world is to say: ?You are betraying the interests of your members by refusing to address population issues and you are doing it for the wrong reasons because you think it is too controversial,? he said.

Porritt, a former chairman of the Green party, says the government must improve family planning, even if it means shifting money from curing illness to increasing contraception and abortion.

He said: ?We still have one of the highest rates of teenage pregnancies in Europe and we still have relatively high levels of pregnancies going to birth, often among women who are not convinced they want to become mothers.

Source: http://women.timesonline.co.uk/tol/life_and_style/women/families/article5627634.ece

^A few thoughts.

#1: I oppose the measures in both of those pieces.

#2: Funny that conservatives moan about crack babies on welfare for years, but when some nutty green brings it up they're "Natzis".

#3: Don't get me started on scare tactics.

What comes around, goes around. Environmentalist work overtime on their tactics.

Umm...neither of the pieces are scare tactics.  One is about limiting travel.  The other is someone complaining because the green movement DOESN'T pursue a child-limiting policy.     

Both of them are scare tactics of "global warming." Why else would Adair Turner want to start rationing air travel and why else would Jonathon Porritt want to limit families to only two children? It's all in the name to stop "global warming" and curbing this ideology of a carbon footprint.

I heard squirrels are becoming addicted to nicotine because people smoke too much. Some squirrels have been spotted on street corners trading large amounts of nuts for cigarettes. It's a strange and alarming epidemic, an inconvenient truth if you will.

 

Don't know anything about that, but have you seen those vids where monkeys near touristy beaches snag peoples' adult beverages?  :beer:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vsmrWT6iNC0

Not really.

A scare tactic would be telling you that your house will be under water in a year if you don't stop flying right now!



You're saying it's a scam because there are people who think extreme measures need to be taken to solve the problem.

So what exactly is a scam about global warming? It's not happening? Mankind has had no effect on the environment of the planet?




It seems like you've missed all the good things these "scam artists" have actually done.

The ozone layer is in better shape today thanks to them.

The damages done by acid rain have gone back due to less use of coal power etc.





/jarmo

Not too long ago, Doctors appeared in ads telling us how good smoking was for us.

Didn't people also used to believe that the earth was flat...???

Still do, mon frere ;)

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Flat_earth_society (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Flat_earth_society)

Holy SHit!!!!

Never drink anything those people may be handing out.

Are they all registered Republicans by chance?

If 7 mechanics tell you to replace your braking system in your car at a $2000 cost because your brakes are likely to fail and kill yourself and your friends......and then 3 mechanics say ' nah thats rubbish they are tip top'.

What would you do??

The wise person would fix the brakes and think better safe than sorry.

Surely?? Especially if doing so made the car run more efficiently (Dont ask me how, it's a flawed metaphor :)

We'll just disagree because a scare tactic is exactly what I think it is. Putting more fear into people's minds so billions and billions of more dollars can be summoned from the government. It's working quite well in the U.S. sadly.

Yes, I think it's a scam and not to the level that 'the world is going to end' these people are screaming at and making it out to be.

Despite thinking that global warming is a scam, do you see no other benefits to reducing our consumption of fossil fuels, from either a security/foreign entanglements or "my air doesn't stink" perspective?  Because I think you can fail to believe in global warming and still see that there are benefits to moving away from unrenewable fuels that are going to continually increase in price (and, eventually, cripple any economy).  Working on harvesting renewable resources in the US for US consumption would create jobs, would take the money we spend on oil and keep it here, and would insulate our economy from the problems that come from being chained to a certain fuel that is limited in supply and controlled by a cartel.  Even if you think global warming is a scam, I can't imagine how you look at those options and say they're not better than the way it is now.

We have immense deserts and, having lived in Illinois for a few years, I can personally attest to what I'll quantify as a shit-ton of wind.  Both can be harnessed to great benefit.

That worked quite well for your previous president and I bet it cost way more.



/jarmo

As I said previously before, what comes around goes around and now the Liberals and Environmental Nazis have center stage and are forging their way forward. This is only the beginning of wasteful money on "global warming."

I have no problem with using renewable fuels and resources. Not at all. But I'm not going to jump onto this 'scare everyone into global warming' bandwagon. I think it's asinine what some of these 'green guru's' are suggesting, just like the ones in the articles I posted. And this is only the beginning. No telling what these people are going to come up with next. We can't even get people to stop throwing their trash out the window driving down the road. Instead of just throwing billions and billions of dollars shoved into this pork bill on the fire, the country should be trying to figure out what's really best do get this economy straightened out.

Empty rhetoric and tired old strawman arguments. A few whack-jobs don't represent the whole lot and you know it. Taking care of the planet is common sense and is our duty while we are here. I'm sorry that mindfulness towards the planet on which we reside may have offended you.

When it comes to continuing the wasteful spending in the shape this countries economy is in right now, yes it offends me.

Do you know what a nazi is?





/jarmo

Yes. And my description was an extreme comparison. I never remember you asking those here who compared Bush to a Nazi and if they knew what a Nazi was. That was another extreme comparison just as mine.

It seems that some of you aren't aware of the fact that, an overwhelming majority of the worlds scientists agree that the level of global warming we're experiencing is 100% man-made.... 

100%??? What about all the cows? They are animals. Did the majority of scientist miss that?

What about them?

Yeah, this is a scam...and others believe terror-attacks is some bush-conspiracy ::)


Socialists, we thought we'd got rid of them in the 40's but no.

Not exactly the same.

Bush was the leader of the most powerful nation on the planet. He was being compared to the nazi leader of Germany.

Not that I agree with it.



You're comparing people who want to save the planet (and you too) to a regime that murdered lots of people.



/jarmo

Not exactly sure what you're gettin at....  If your reffering to the mass-production of cows for meat, milk and other food-products, which again is transported around the world using fossile-fuled transportation ....  Then, yes some would say that's a man-made problem!   :)

Or maybe you were thinking about the farts from these mass-produced cows....    :-\


 

I just don't understand why you wouldn't ask regarding the comparison. In war, lots of innocent people die which is a real shame. I just hope your not suggesting that Bush was killing innocent people on purpose as Hitler did. There's a big difference and I hope you see the difference.



That would be the study I remember reading about which would debunk your '100% theory.' Unless the study was proven wrong. But anyways, I still would disagree with the theory in saying that man is the 100% cause for "global warming" this planet is experiencing now. What about "global warming" five millions years ago and the times before that? When humans were not even around?

I said I didn't agree with it!

I never made the comparison to begin with.

You're the one using the term nazis.

You're comparing people who are trying to save the planet to a regime that killed innocent people.

Doesn't that make you an extremist too?

Since you use the word nazis to describe these environmentalists, isn't that a scare tactic?





/jarmo

It has been mentioned many, many times already alone in this thread it's not the level of warming...it's the rate of increase that is unprecedented.  Drew, you are letting politics get in the way of logic. 

...and when you mention the effect of cows' methane on global warming, you are actually agreeing with us.  Livestock is plentiful for one big reason...man.  "Beef...it's what's for dinner."  (remember those tv commercials?) 

I didn't say you made the comparison. I said many people here have used the comparison many many times but I'm the one you call out and question when I compare Environmentalist to Nazi's.


Yes, I guess it could make me an extremist using a scare tactic. But difference is, I'm not scamming people out of billions and billions and billions of dollars.

Hey Drew, care to make a retraction?  It doesn't make you any less of a man to admit your mistakes.  I do it all the time.  ;)

Was the study proven false?

So?

Maybe I didn't see it.





Doesn't it make you a hypocrite then?

 ;)



/jarmo

To some I would suppose so and to others no, but what's new? I just know that I'm not scamming billions and billions and billions of dollars away from people.  ;)

the study that showed cows contribute lots of methane to the atmosphere?  you asked about the cows.  we are the reason so many cows exist.  That is considered man-made global-warming.  Correct?

I guess it would determine how many cows it takes to effect the atmosphere. I wonder if there has been other studies on other animals and their contribution. As in animals man doesn't eat or populate to a high rate.

I propose we move to a cow based world economy.  How many cows does it take to screw in a lightbulb?

You're forgetting the scientific studies performed by Exxon and BP, which claim global warming is little more than an imaginary figment. Kind of like WMD, but not really...

Other studies... Like what? The bad breath of ants?   :-\   C'mon man, you've painted yourself into a corner with these arguments. You should let it go!

Actually there has been (if I've understood correctly), and appearently termites are the biggest producers of methane...

Whoever thought cows could produce so much methane before a study was actually done? And no, not your sarcastic answer regarding the breath of ants. Perhaps similar animals such as water buffaloes, hippos, rhinos, elephants, etc., etc., etc.

Water buffaloes?  Wait...what?

Yes. Have you not heard of them before?

Seems like you're grasping for straws here.... ::)    Like I said, you should let this one go, Drew. No shame in that, man    : ok:

Maybe "they" didn't think of the harm the mass-production of cows (and their farts) would cause the enviroment. But that doesn't make it any less of a man-made problem, so I don't see your argument there, sorry....   :-\

You know, I've seen lots of "documentaries" about scams and other conspiracy theories. Some interesting and some not so much. But people who believe that global warming is a scam, is not even something to be worried about, cause you are defenitely a small small SMALL group of people.... 

I bet if you surf the net, you'll probably find someone who thinks Iraq still have WMD's and the war was not just an "excuse" to establish a base in the middle-east and secure "our" way of life.   ;)

My argument is, what other animals could be also producing such high levels of methane? This theory of "global warming" is completely man-made raises doubts.

Yes, I've heard of them.  :P

I just haven't a clue how we got there. 

It would help to go back and read then.

Reading is a scam and fear mongering by the radical right.

Jesus to f***in' christ, Drew!!  When you're reffering to global warming as "global warming" and even using the word 'theory' infront of it, you're coming across as VERY uninformed. You should really stop watching those Exxon or BP "documentaries".... 

You don't believe evolution is a theory, right? (oops sorry, that was a low shot...)

And spamming by the liberal left?  ::)

Why even ask how a topic got somewhere then?

Do they make documentaries like Owl Gore too? If you'll read the original title and message of this thread you'd see BP and Exxon had nothing to do with my post.

They probably do, but for VERY different reasons, mate!    ;)

And I wouldn't doubt it. I agree.

You dismiss the effects of 1 Billion automobiles on the Earth,  but stand solidly on water buffalo farts.   : ok:  Roll those eyes all you want. 

No, I base my argument on the idea of global warming every five millions years or so. Way before man walked the earth. If you'll go back and read you'll see that part of my argument was a rebuttal to the idea that "global warming" is 100% man-made.

Maybe that's a scam!

Let's blame the life forces that existed back then for global warming!

 :yes:




/jarmo

I'd tend to believe that for the most part earth was nothing but molten lava with very few life present.

I know it wasn't your comment but would you agree then that this wouldn't be 100% man-made?

Drew, you are incorrect.  Seriously, do a little bit of research here.  It is the rate of increase that is unprecedented with the exception of periods of known cataclysms. 

I do research but it gets blown off instead as some 'oil company scientist' or what have you.

Few of us are old enough to remember, but back in the 70s Global Cooling was a "fact" too.

Don't believe any consensus coming from the corporate structure. The majority is always wrong.

I rarely ever do and I feel scientist will only continue to differ on their studies.

That's the thing you don't seem to grasp. The worlds scientists hardly differ on this matter.

In fact, the IPCC recently published that their previous assesment on the consequensis, is in fact underestimatet.

In case you don't know, the IPPC (Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change) consists of leading scientists from all over the world.

If NASA and other organizations like them from all over the world, came out and said a giant meteorite is heading straight for earth and will most likely cause massive havoc on our planet upon inpact. Would you then blow it of and say; "I call bullshit!! Meteorites hit the planet almost on a daily basis, this is just a scare tactic for more funding!!!"

Blown out of proportion, this was never as big a deal back then, NEVER.

I think that you are referring to "Nuclear Winter", not global cooling. ;)

You are correct that methane is a better agent in "absorbing" heat... around 35 times more efficient than CO₂, but the methane only comprises about 1/350th the mass of the atmosphere as CO₂, so it is negligible. Though, there are studies that suggest that with increased warming of the seas, hydrates that are currently trapped in sea-floor sediments will be released exasperating the situation.

excellent post and analogy.  This is what drives me INSANE with the average person and politician.

Almost every economist says the gov has to put money back into the system (like the stimulus bill) yet d-bag politicians say there is another view point....

Almost every scientist will tell you the age of the earth is more than 6,000 years old and that evolution is the real deal - yet religions a-holes and moron politicians will tell you differently...

Almost every scientist says global warming is happening and the rate of it is staggering - yet some idiots with a high speed internet connection seem to know more than the scientific community.

its staggering how WILLFULLY ignorant people are of scientific knowledge that is readily available to the average person.  The problem is the average person is unable to comprehend most if it, they don't want to take the time - it's too hard.  Rather than take the time to understand it, they dismiss it by coming up with their own misinformed, asinine assumptions and "conclusions". 

My favorite in the evolution "argument" is "I don't see how all of the life on earth can just be by chance, it's just too amazing of a thing... blah blah blah I'm a fucktard".

its infuriating and maddening to people who "get it".  What the FUCK is wrong with people in this country?!?!?!  only 4 out of 10 people in America today believe in evolution?  Wha!?!??! 

We are fucking doomed.

I've always preferred the "watermelons and rainclouds are both 98% water, but no one claims they're related!" argument.  And anything with Kirk Cameron.

Yea, he's an effin' keeper ^^

Him and his damn silly banana talk.



We now have an entire generation that uses youtube as a fucking source, and doesn't think twice about it bro.

No shit it was blown out of proportion. It wasn't as big of a deal, but big enough to end up in some of my early school books (thank you Rockefeller Foundation).

Then when it became obvious that the scientists were full of shit they moved on to Nuclear Winters, the rain forest and holes in the Ozon layer. Where did those consensuses go?

But now it's for real right? Finally the media has managed to report objective projections to the people? For once the scientists are not restricted by politics, career and money? I think not. If anything those kind of corruptions have only become worse.

It's pretty obvious to me what's going on, what has been going on for decades. Humanity is a vermin on the face of the earth and something really needs to be done about our destructive nature. But since the corporations doesn't want to pay for these changes themselves they use their media cohorts to scare the public into paying for it. We're talking what, 600 billion dollars? I wouldn't want to pay that either if my name was John D.

They can't even predict the weather a week from now, but I guess I'll have to take their word for it if they're suddenly able to predict it a hundred years from now.

No genius, I'm saying the argument is blown out of proportion. In fact I don't remember it at all, or my older brothers talking about it, anybody in my family discussing it, and NEVER saw it on the news as a kid. NEVER.

I'm too young to remember the 70s, but I do remember clearly the Ozon scares of the 80s and warnings about a new ice age. That was definitely a big deal. So the argument still stands. It's not the first time "everybody" has "known" something.

A meteorite's trajectory is an exact science. Climate is not.

All we know for sure is that there's an increase in temperature and CO2. That can have many contributing factors, mainly the activity of our biggest power source, the Sun. We've had high levels of CO2 in the past, meaning pre 1750s. Those cave men sure must have had some polluting factories.

A more appropriate analogy would be: Scientists discover that there are something called meteorites and that they could at some point hit earth, which in turn becomes: A meteorite will hit earth next month! We're all going to die unless we pay this new tax!

After a little searching it became clear that you are wrong about "global cooling"! It was never anything more that a fringe hypothesis(right up your alley).

The solar hypothesis for global warming has been thoroughly debunked. The only ones still propagating this nonsense are frauds and shysters out to make a buck by selling books. When considering these kinds of fringe shit THINK OF YOUR SOURCES!!!. Who has the most to gain? An academic making $75k a year, or someone with no background in the science selling books???

If there was a solar component to global warming, then all of the planets would be experiencing a proportional heating. Guess what? They are not!

Do you remember anything like this back in the day growing up? Because I sure don't. I only see right wing peeps (or other in this case) bring it up as some sort of counterweight argument.

Vaguely??? But, I do remember Sagan's theory of nuclear winter. That being "said", as a youngster studying climatology in the 80s, I had those same opinions, but there wasn't much supporting data, and the data that was out there definitely wasn't very well circulated in the media. In fact, it was based more on comparisons of past paleo-climate trends than actual models. Of course, now it is apparent that with all the data supporting current trends that the hypothesis was wrong.

In 30 years, everyone will be fearing dangerously moderate temperatures around the globe.

I've got kind of an agenda...I want global warming to be true so that chick in Brossard's pic finally takes off the top!!  :rant:  ;D