Must see: The Great Global Warming Swindle

[dcraig]

Quote from atozcom:

There is huge different between science facts and clandestine intelligent collection.

There is no scientific measurement the accuracy of clandestine intelligent collection. A spy could play one side, other side or both sides and whatever intelligent information could pass through many spies that also could play one or both sides. The info could be wrong.

Lets not forget that Iraqi WMD is not only confirmed by U.S. intelligence who determine the existence, it is also confirmed by similar intelligence agency in Britain, German, France, Russian, Egypt, Jordan... to name a few. Plus the U.N. also determined and firm that Iraq did have WMD. Lets also don't forget the U.N. security council did come up with resolution on mandating Iraqi dismantle and surrender of Iraqi WMD. If it is a mistake, it is more than the U.S. that made the mistake. I do believe WMD was removed from Iraq to else where (possibly Syria or Iran) before the war was started.

Global warming is entirely different. It is not scientifically proven.

What lot of nonsense. There were no significant WMDs in Iraq. There was no credible intelligence. Basically, it was just plain old LIES - pure and simple.

So you reckon that a bunch of war mongering propaganda with no factual basis at all is more credible than the overwhelming concensus of all the climate scientists in the world ? Unbelievable.

 

[dcraig]

Quote from deviltrader:

I've read countless technical journals and textbooks on climate and GW. While Im not an expert, I probably know more than 95% of the population (who get their facts from a 2-paragraph story in the paper.) I will say this: there is no scientific evidence that GW is caused by CO2. In fact there are just as many facts to the contrary. GW is a political event, not a scientific one. Anyone who says there is conclusive scientific evidence has conveniently left out contrarian facts.

People will argue that it's better to be safe than sorry, but what about the cost of being wrong? It's easy for us in a rich country like the US to reduce CO2 use by spending more on expensive alternatives like wind power, but what about poorer nations? If we only get a fraction of our power from "green" sources because they're so expensive, how can you expect a poorer nation to adopt them? It's selfish for industrialized nations who already have everything to tell others they can't.

Perhaps you should extend your reading to this rather straightforward summary of the issues published by that well known group of radical environmentalists - the Australian Government.

Climate Change Science - Q & A

http://www.greenhouse.gov.au/science/qa/pubs/science-qa.pdf

 

[atozcom]

It is amazing to me why global warming must be harmful. Here is some example:

1) Warmer is harmful itself. No so, there was new that, for whatever reason some north west region in China is getting warmer for the last few years, that much less domesticated animals got freeze to death in the winter. Guess what? People like it there. People can now start planting much earlier. The same will apply to all other region to the world. We will have longer growing season.

2) Lost of Ice cap/Glacier. We would have MORE water. And, where is water going if the earth get warmer, if re-cycle just like right now: rain or snow to mountain, get down to river, to lake to the ocean. We now have more land to live and grow food.

3) Sea level will rise. And when do we run out of land. We have never run out of dry level. OK, at time of Noah, we did run of dry land, but just once ever. If sea level rise, we go inland. OK, if we lost Los Angeles to the ocean, Vega will become a beach city. Scientist did discover the Himalayas was once at the bottom of the ocean! And who caused that!

The Global warming monger only think about the bad on one side and never think the good that could be on the other side.

 

[Cesko]

Scientist did discover the Himalayas was once at the bottom of the ocean! And who caused that!
Humans. They were hunting too much.

 

[Arnie]

I have a couple of questions and I would really appreciate sincere answers.

1. How much CO2 is there in the atmosphere i.e what percent is CO2?

2. What/who are the largest producers of CO2. I know CO2 is priduced from decaying vegatation etc...?

3. If we had high levels of CO2 in past, then what happened to the CO2 to cause a decrease. Where does CO2 go?

 

[FightTheFuture]

Of the 186 billion tons of CO2 that enter earth's atmosphere each year from all sources, only 6 billion tons are from human activity. Approximately 90 billion tons come from biologic activity in earth's oceans and another 90 billion tons from such sources as volcanoes and decaying land plants.

At 368 parts per million CO2 is a minor constituent of earth's atmosphere-- less than 4/100ths of 1% of all gases present. Compared to former geologic times, earth's current atmosphere is CO2- impoverished.

Both temperatures and CO2 have been steadily increasing for 18,000 years.Ignoring these 18,000 years of data "global warming activists" contend recent increases in atmospheric CO2 are unnatural and are the result of only 200 years or so of human pollution causing a runaway greenhouse effect.
Total human contributions to greenhouse gases account for only about 0.28% of the "greenhouse effect" (Figure 2). Anthropogenic (man-made) carbon dioxide (CO2) comprises about 0.117% of this total, and man-made sources of other gases ( methane, nitrous oxide (NOX), other misc. gases) contributes another 0.163% .

Approximately 99.72% of the "greenhouse effect" is due to natural causes -- mostly water vapor and traces of other gases, which we can do nothing at all about. Eliminating human activity altogether would have little impact on climate change.
http://www.clearlight.com/~mhieb/WVFossils/ice_ages.html



COLUMBUS, Ohio -- Global warming is a natural geological process that could begin to reverse itself within 10 to 20 years, predicts an Ohio State University researcher.
Robert Essenhigh, E.G. Bailey Professor of Energy Conservation in Ohio State's Department of Mechanical Engineering. It is the rising global temperatures that are naturally increasing the levels of carbon dioxide, not the other way around, he says.

Essenhigh believes these people fail to account for the much greater amount of carbon dioxide that enters -- and leaves -- the atmosphere as part of the natural cycle of water exchange from, and back into, the sea and vegetation.

He cites a 1995 report from the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), a panel formed by the World Meteorological Organization and the United Nations Environment Programme in 1988 to assess the risk of human-induced climate change. In the report, the IPCC wrote that some 90 billion tons of carbon as carbon dioxide annually circulate between the earth's ocean and the atmosphere, and another 60 billion tons exchange between the vegetation and the atmosphere.

Compared to man-made sources' emission of about 5 to 6 billion tons per year, the natural sources would then account for more than 95 percent of all atmospheric carbon dioxide, Essenhigh said.

As temperatures rise, the carbon dioxide equilibrium in the water changes, and this releases more carbon dioxide into the atmosphere. According to this scenario, atmospheric carbon dioxide is then an indicator of rising temperatures -- not the driving force behind it.
http://researchnews.osu.edu/archive/nowarm.htm

 

[biggerfish]

Gore's Faith Is Bad Science
By Michael Barone, March 26, 2007

Al Gore likes to present himself as a tribune of science, warning the world of imminent danger. But he is more like an Old Testament prophet, calling on us to bewail our wrongful conduct and to go and sin no more.

He starts off with the science. The world's climate, he reports, is getting warmer. This accurate report is, however, not set in historic context. World climate has grown warmer and cooler at various times in history. Climate change is not some unique historic event. It is the way the world works.

Not this time, Gore says. What's different is that climate change is being driven by human activity — to wit, increasing carbon dioxide emissions. Which means, he says, that we have to sharply reduce those emissions. But what the scientists tell us is that some proportion of climate change is caused by human activity and some proportion by natural causes — and that they can only estimate what those proportions are. The estimates they have produced have varied sharply. The climate change models that have been developed don't account for events of the recent past, much less predict with precision events in the future.

To which the prophet replies, with religious intensity, that all debate should be over. Those scientists with inconvenient views should be defunded and silenced. We should replace scientific inquiry with faith. We should have faith that climate change — "global warming" — is caused primarily by human activity. And we should have faith that the effects will be catastrophic, with rising oceans flooding great cities and pleasant plains and forests broiled by a searing sun.

Even The New York Times bridles at this. After Gore won the Academy Award for his film on climate change, the Times printed an article in which respected scientists — not Republicans, not on oil company payrolls — charged that Gore has vastly exaggerated the likelihood of catastrophic effects.

When you read the fine print of even the scientific reports that Gore likes to cite, you find the same thing. Gore foresees a 20-foot rise in sea level — 240 inches. The IPCC panel report foresees a maximum of 23 inches. Gore says that "our civilization has never experienced any environmental shift remotely similar to this." Geologist Don Easterbrook says there have been shifts up to "20 times greater than the warming in the past century."

Science says that we should learn more about possible bad effects of climate change and calculate rationally how we can mitigate them. As the economic journalist Robert Samuelson points out, there is little that we can feasibly do in the short term to reduce carbon emissions, though over the long term we may be able to develop substitutes for carbon fuels.

As the environmentalist Bjorn Lomberg points out, the Kyoto Treaty that Gore helped to write (but which the Clinton administration never asked the Senate to ratify) would produce very little reduction in climate change at very high cost.

But religious prophets are not concerned about costs. Gore calls for an immediate cessation of new carbon-burning facilities. In other words, stop economic growth. But stopping economic growth in the developing world means consigning millions to miserable poverty. And we know what stopping economic growth in the developed world can mean.

Read the history of the 1930s: fascism, communism, world war. There are worse things than a rise of 1 or 2 degrees Centigrade.

The natural human yearning for spirituality has produced in many people educated in secular-minded universities and enveloped in an atmosphere of contempt for traditional religion a faith that we vulgar human beings have a sacred obligation not to inflict damage on Mother Earth. But science tells us that the Earth and its climate have been constantly changing.

Gore and his followers seem to assume that the ideal climate was the one they got used to when they were growing up. When temperatures dropped in the 1970s, there were warnings of an impending ice age. When they rose in the 1990s, there were predictions of disastrous global warming. This is just another example of the solipsism of the baby boom generation, the pampered and much-praised age cohort that believes the world revolves around them and that all past history has become irrelevant.

We're told in effect that the climate of the late 1950s and early 1960s was, of all those that have ever existed, the best of all possible climates. Not by science. But as a matter of faith.

To read more political analysis by Michael Barone, visit www.usnews.com/baroneblog.

 

[murray t turtle]

Quote from Bitstream:

i am a skeptic and no...i am not on the oils payroll.

=================
Exactly and much of it is junk science piled on junk science;
typical -they use a small sample of polar bears around Husdon Bay to pretend polar bear population is threatened.Actually ''there is a stable population of20,ooo-25,000 bears. [NRA magazine , page 20 March 2007.]

Like M. Ramerez political cartoon in
investors.com. It follows next paragraph.

That Investors Business Daily website had 2 stretch limos, on a street named Hollywood.
1 stretch limo had liscense plate customed named GAS, 2nd stretch limo had custom plate named GUZZLER. Punchline has 1 limo saying to 2nd limo ''i voted for Inconvenient Truth oscar''


Actually do think Algore has a right to outrageous POWERBILLS ;
but dont want the gov regulatin on that either. Prefer powerbills not outrageous myself;
just dont need big gov regulation on it.

 

[murray t turtle]

Quote from atozcom:

"They were experiencing temperatures that weren't expected with global warming," Atwood said. "But one of the things we see with global warming is unpredictability."

We absolutely positively must not do anything if Global Warming is so unpredictable. How do we know we don't do exactly the wrong thing!!! What if we decrease CO2 and make the green house effect worst!!! It is unpredictable!

Then there is the blame EVERYTHING on Global Warming game:

Too hot, it is Global Warming.
Too cold, it is Global Warming.
Katrina, it is Global Warming.
Draught, it is Global Warming.
Flood, it is Global Warming.
Anna Nicole Smith's body deteriorate too fast, it is Global Warming.

....... because you get a herd of sheep to make a consensus to fool the unsophisticated, un-informed and simple minded other herd of sheep.

==============
Good sarcastic points

There is a occasional needle of truth in the haystack of climate change lies;
trees are natural creative air conditioners, but that is not the main reason i planted dozens of fruit trees,

And the global cooling scare of the 1970's ,well come to find out;
there was a year or 2 in 1970 's where a Canadian river[ strangly] froze in the summertime. Hardly ever happed before or since that!!!Saw that on PBS-TV [ Cool ]]

 

[atozcom]

Let see, the CO2 contain in air, according to Wikipedia, is 0.03-0.05%. What can I do to decrease my CO2 output?

I am going to decreasing my breathing rate from 15/min to 14/minute. I am going to hold my breath for 30 second everything I go the ANY public bathroom. I am going to eat less "gas producing" food like beans.

I am calling all human to do the same!!!