Global Warming? WHAT global warming?

[Buglunch]

Alberta's 1200-odd glaciers in the Rockies are shrinking so fast they'll be in trouble soon for fresh water at a time of uncontrolled growth and industrial boom.
I probably wouldn't recognize the old scenic spots from my youth but the change is dead obvious to anyone with photos/memories of the 20th century- it's not a theory there, it's obvious and winds have always been very strong with wildly fluctuating temperatures year round.

Extreme weather events that used to be rare are common every year and trees are knocked down far faster and become fuel for fires when things are drying out severely. And Man is using too much fresh water for nature to protect itself.

[Terry Shea]

Actually, I am moderately liberal. I have a few fairly conservative views that might actually surprise you.

I think that most media is biased. But it's biased on both the liberal and conservative sides. It's up to the public to consider the source and to derive their own conclusions, instead of allowing the media to fleece us.

If there were such a thing as "the liberal media" there would be no Rush Limbaugh, Sean Hannity, et al. If there were such a thing as "the liberal media" we would see our boys being shipped home from Iraq in flagged draped coffins, we would hear about the unconstitutionality of The Military Commissions Act, et al, instead of having to scour the internet trying to find even one media article on the thing.

If NewsBusters had said that they were trying to find the truth in "media" verses "the liberal media" (as they have that mantra painted all over their website) I would be much less guarded about their opinions.Actually conservatives do "own" the radio waves, but the liberals "own" the print media and the most of the tv newscasts. But once again, what do you have against the reporting of bias of any kind and exposing frauds? More to the point, what do you have against "insightful analysis, constructive criticism and timely corrections to news media reporting."?

It seems to me, Sheila, that you'll support any site that touts your agenda, even if they have to lie, cheat and steal to do so, but you dis any site that purports to be telling the truth if it doesn't fit your agenda.

Oh and BTW, I guess I may have used Newsbusters as a source. I didn't recognize the name, but I know I've used Media Research Center and Noel Sheppard as sources, so shoot me.:drummer:

[Terry Shea]

Alberta's 1200-odd glaciers in the Rockies are shrinking so fast they'll be in trouble soon for fresh water at a time of uncontrolled growth and industrial boom.
I probably wouldn't recognize the old scenic spots from my youth but the change is dead obvious to anyone with photos/memories of the 20th century- it's not a theory there, it's obvious and winds have always been very strong with wildly fluctuating temperatures year round.

Extreme weather events that used to be rare are common every year and trees are knocked down far faster and become fuel for fires when things are drying out severely. And Man is using too much fresh water for nature to protect itself.You seem to be a little confused. When a glacier melts it produces fresh water, unless it melts directly into the sea, but the Canadian Rockies are at least several hundred miles from the coast. And how can things be drying out if you have such a severe glacier melt going on? No one is denying that we are going though a warming cycle. We've had warm periods and cool periods thoughout history and man has had absolutely nothing to do with it! Weather and the climate have always been in a state of flux. Better get used to it. Change is natural and unavoidable.

[Terry Shea]

Actually, I am moderately liberal. I have a few fairly conservative views that might actually surprise you.
Okay, we're getting off the subject here, but I'd really like to know what your "few fairly conservative views" are. I haven't seen any evidence of this.

[Sheerah]

It seems to me, Sheila, that you'll support any site that touts your agenda, even if they have to lie, cheat and steal to do so, but you dis any site that purports to be telling the truth if it doesn't fit your agenda.


I didn't realize I had an agenda.

But anyway, I think that primarily I use the Associated Press as my source.

[Sheerah]

Okay, we're getting off the subject here, but I'd really like to know what your "few fairly conservative views" are. I haven't seen any evidence of this.

You've been reading my posts with a tainted eye then.

[Terry Shea]

I didn't realize I had an agenda.

But anyway, I think that primarily I use the Associated Press as my source.
I'm pretty sure everyone else here knows that you have an agenda and stating that you use the AP as your primary source is quite telling. Here's a small sampling of the numerous lies the AP has been caught at:

http://www.powerlineblog.com/archives/007712.php

The AP ran this story:
WEST ALLIS, Wis. - President Bush (news - web sites) on Friday wished Bill Clinton (news - web sites) "best wishes for a swift and speedy recovery." "He's is in our thoughts and prayers," Bush said at a campaign rally. Bush's audience of thousands in West Allis, Wis., booed. Bush did nothing to stop them.Bush offered his wishes while campaigning one day after accepting the presidential nomination at the Republican National Convention in New York. Clinton was hospitalized in New York after complaining of mild chest pain and shortness of breath. Bush recently praised Clinton when the former president went to the White House for the unveiling of his official portrait. He lauded Clinton for his knowledge, compassion and "the forward-looking spirit that Americans like in a president." A number of people who were at the rally and didn't hear any boos sent angry emails to the AP, which resulted in a rewrite of the story. If you follow the link to the original story, this (http://news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&u=/ap/20040903/ap_on_el_pr/bush_clinton_1:) is what you get. Nothing.
The AP put up a revised version (http://news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&u=/ap/20040903/ap_on_el_pr/bush_clinton_2) which is exactly the same as the original, except that it omits the two sentences about the crowd booing and Bush "doing nothing to stop them." No explanation and, as of yet, no apology.
Meanwhile, someone came up with an audio of the President Bush's speech, which is linked to by Drudge. Listen to it here (http://homepage.mac.com/mkoldys/bush.mp3). The audio is stunning. When the President says that he's just received word that Clinton had been hospitalized, you can hear the crowd react with sympathy and dismay. When Bush goes on to say that President Clinton is in our thoughts and prayers, and we send him our best wishes for a speedy recovery, the crowd applauds and cheers enthusiastically. No booing. None.
Note that the AP didn't say "there were scattered boos" (there weren't) or even "one guy booed." The AP reported, falsely, that "Bush's audience of thousands in West Allis, Wis., booed." That isn't spin; it's a flat-out lie. And the AP writer added the malicious embellishment that Bush did nothing to stop the (nonexistent) booing.



http://www.themediareport.com/sep2004/applause.htm
Associated Press Lies and Gets Caught
Anti-Bush AP reported that a crowd booed at a Bush event, when an audiotape clearly shows it did not.
- September 5, 2004 -




http://mediamatters.org/items/200709290002

AP misrepresented context of Limbaugh "phony soldiers" comment



http://michellemalkin.com/2005/12/14/jimmy-masseys-lies-the-ap-finally-wakes-up/

JIMMY MASSEY’S LIES: THE AP FINALLY WAKES UP

By Michelle Malkin • December 14, 2005 09:01 AM
More than a month after Ron Harris of the St. Louis Post-Dispatch exposed (http://www.stltoday.com/stltoday/news/stories.nsf/nation/story/51DC19D72A063D2F862570B00067A5B7?OpenDocument)the fraudulent anti-war veteran Jimmy Massey’s lies (http://michellemalkin.com/archives/003841.htm) about alleged atrocities committed by him and his fellow Marines, the Associated Press (http://www.journalnow.com/servlet/Satellite?pagename=WSJ%2FMGArticle%2FWSJ_BasicArti cle&c=MGArticle&cid=1128768647666&path=%21localnews&s=1037645509099) has finally, finally acknowledged its own role in spreading Massey’s unsubstantiated smears:



http://www.talkingpointsmemo.com/archives/008619.php

By Josh Marshall (http://talkingpointsmemo.com/joshmarshall.php) Wow. Bizarre and sad as it is, this is almost kind of fun.
The AP sent out a detailed response to our reporting and that of Media Matters (http://mediamatters.org/) on John Solomon's piece on Harry Reid (http://www.boston.com/news/nation/washington/articles/2006/05/29/senate_leader_took_free_boxing_tickets/?rss_id=Boston.com+%2F+News+%2F+National+news). Paul Kiel, over at TPMmuckraker, had intended to respond to it today. But he got so bogged down with the new distortions and bamboozlement in Solomon's follow-up reporting that he didn't get to it.
Now, I just noticed that Media Matters has their response (http://mediamatters.org/items/200606010009) to the AP, along with the AP's original defense of its reporting, posted at their site.
So this gave me a chance to glance over some of the AP's claims about TPMmuckraker's reporting. And most of the assertions are so demonstrably false that it's hard for me even to figure what sort of meltdown is going on over there.



http://gatewaypundit.blogspot.com/2006/03/ap-pops-another-bogus-anti-bush-story.html
Friday, March 17, 2006

AP Pops Another Bogus Anti-Bush Story on America



http://worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=54254
The bright, shining lies continue

http://hotair.com/archives/2007/01/24/shameless-ap-journalistic-crime-of-the-day/
Shameless AP journalistic crime of the day; Update: AP changes headline

U.S., Iraqi troops clash in Baghdad

What does that headline make you think? That American troops are fighting against Iraqi troops, right? That the very army we’re training to take on the terrorists and insurgents has turned on us. That’s the plain meaning of that headline.
But that’s not what’s going on, at all.

Update: There’s more to the story. Note the byline. Kim Gamel. Who’s that? Why, none other than… (http://www.signonsandiego.com/news/world/iraq/20061207-0851-gamel-appointment.html)
NEW YORK – Kim Gamel, a veteran correspondent and editor for The Associated Press, has been appointed to the new position of news editor in Baghdad.
She’s the news editor in Baghdad. Which means she probably wrote that devious headline, knowing full well that it didn’t match the story at all. A reputable news organization would fire her for incompetence, but we’re talking about the AP here so she can probably expect a bonus in her next check. Employee of the Month can’t be far behind that.



http://www.nypost.com/seven/01212007/postopinion/opedcolumnists/destroyed___not_opedcolumnists_michelle_malkin.htm ?page=1
January 21, 2007 -- WELL, the Iraqi Ministry of Interior says disputed Associated Press source Jamil Hussein does exist. But at least one story he told the AP just doesn't check out: The Sunni mosques that as Hussein claimed and AP reported as "destroyed," "torched" and "burned and up" are all still standing. So the credibility of every AP story relying on Jamil Hussein remains dubious.

http://www.strategypage.com/htmw/htiw/articles/20070105.aspx
[B] Mass Media Caught Lying About Iraq

January 5, 2007: The Associated Press has again put out an Iraq story detailing events that did not happen. This time, it involves an airstrike that, " killed a family of four during a firefight." However, according to the press desk of Multi-National Forces-Iraq, no air strike happened during that firefight, and MNF-I also reported that which six insurgents were killed by American troops in Baghdad on January 1. This is the second time in roughly six weeks that the AP has been caught fabricating events.

http://www.tulsatoday.com/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=623&Itemid=2
Associated Press Lies About Tulsa

Associated Press (AP) Writer Clayton Bellamy wants the world to think Tulsa is at war. Apparently with malice and forethought and for the purpose of advancing his career, Bellamy lied in a story distributed worldwide claiming there is “vigilante justice” against the homeless in Tulsa.

[Terry Shea]

You've been reading my posts with a tainted eye then.Not at all. What are your "few fairly conservative views"?

[TRUEYOUTRUEME]

I dont want to speak for Sheila at all but I have read posts she has written on some subjects that gave a conservative opinion, imo. I think that she is more left-leaning on most issues but not on all. She also is for a large part one of the better posters here that I have debated at all on an issue in regards to having a respectful back and forth although she doesn't post as much on political issues as compared to myself or others here.

[Altres]

She also is for a large part one of the better posters here that I have debated at all on an issue in regards to having a respectful back and forth although she doesn't post as much on political issues as compared to myself or others here.
Nice tits, too. :D

Brian

[TRUEYOUTRUEME]

If it is scientifically proven that so-called catastrophic global warming is man-made then why doesn't anyone from the great scientific 'consensus' come up and claim this prize money?

Where are you Al Gore???

Where are any of the IPCC?

If you think it's a no-brainer that humans are causing catastrophic global warming, here's your opportunity to earn an easy US $125,000.00!
That's right, the prize money has increased as we seek warming advocates' price threshold!

The prize has gone unclaimed for 64 days!

Click the graphic to go to JunkScience.com's ULTIMATE GLOBAL WARMING CHALLENGE!



http://www.junkscience.com/

For the challenge and contest rules see UltimateGlobalWarmingChallenge.com.

Nobody, even the top scientists have no proof of this right now. That's why the leftwing always fall back on consensus. They falsely believe that if a majority of the population believe in global warming, then it must be a scientific fact. But they call Conservatives Religious fanatics???

[Altres]

Sorry, I meant she seems like a lovely person and she has a lovely smile, too.

What was I thinking about?

Brian

[tommyhawk]

Actually, I am moderately liberal. I have a few fairly conservative views that might actually surprise you.

I think that most media is biased. But it's biased on both the liberal and conservative sides. It's up to the public to consider the source and to derive their own conclusions, instead of allowing the media to fleece us.

If there were such a thing as "the liberal media" there would be no Rush Limbaugh, Sean Hannity, et al. If there were such a thing as "the liberal media" we would see our boys being shipped home from Iraq in flagged draped coffins, we would hear about the unconstitutionality of The Military Commissions Act, et al, instead of having to scour the internet trying to find even one media article on the thing.

If NewsBusters had said that they were trying to find the truth in "media" verses "the liberal media" (as they have that mantra painted all over their website) I would be much less guarded about their opinions.The New York Times has supported every war this country has ever been in. They are hardly a liberal media.

Media has lost their way in the US. They want to sell papers, thus the sensationalism. Sensationalism has no political ideology. Why else is Paris Hilton and Mel Gibson constantly fed to the public while the goverment is corrupt to the core.

I contend that the media is controlled by big business fascists which is why Palast, the best American born reporter of the generation is forced to go to the BBC with his work. They also pass debunked frauds on the public as experts. One oil industry mouthpiece stooge was even referred to as a 'scientist.' Can you believe that?

[TRUEYOUTRUEME]

Nice tits, too.

Brian

Yea but I wasn't trying to get Terry to ask Sheila out on a date or something just only to back up what she said about her political posts.

[yesyadda]

One oil industry mouthpiece stooge was even referred to as a 'scientist.' Can you believe that?

Who's this? Just askin'.

[TRUEYOUTRUEME]

The New York Times has supported every war this country has ever been in. They are hardly a liberal media.

Media has lost their way in the US. They want to sell papers, thus the sensationalism. Sensationalism has no political ideology. Why else is Paris Hilton and Mel Gibson constantly fed to the public while the goverment is corrupt to the core.

I contend that the media is controlled by big business fascists which is why Palast, the best American born reporter of the generation is forced to go to the BBC with his work. They also pass debunked frauds on the public as experts. One oil industry mouthpiece stooge was even referred to as a 'scientist.' Can you believe that?


The democrat party has also supported every war this country has ever been in. So that hardly makes the NY Times non-liberal. As a matter of fact they flip-flopped on this war right in tune with the democrats.

[pianozach]

http://worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=54254

WorldNet Daily, Terry? Oh, yes, your "evidence" come from unbiased sources, doesn't it, now?


http://hotair.com/archives/2007/01/24/shameless-ap-journalistic-crime-of-the-day/

Hot Air describes itself as "the world’s first full-service conservative Internet broadcast network!"


http://www.nypost.com/seven/01212007/postopinion/opedcolumnists/destroyed___not_opedcolumnists_michelle_malkin.htm ?page=1


The NYPost?! Look, FoxNewsCorp's Rupert Murdoch has owned the NYPost since 1976.

Murdoch's publications worldwide tend to adopt conservative views. I don't remember the exact number of newspapers he now owns, but in 2003 he owned 175.

Actually conservatives do "own" the radio waves, but the liberals "own" the print media and the most of the tv newscasts.

Liberals don't own the print media.

[Terry Shea]

WorldNet Daily, Terry? Oh, yes, your "evidence" come from unbiased sources, doesn't it, now?

Yes, I've found WorldNetDaily to be a wondeful source. It's not very popular with liberal leftists because it debunks all their lies.




Hot Air describes itself as "the world’s first full-service conservative Internet broadcast network!"

Oh no, it's conservative? We can't have that now, can we? How are we gonna brainwash the world with lies and propaganda if we keep having these conservative publications to deal with?





The NYPost?! Look, FoxNewsCorp's Rupert Murdoch has owned the NYPost since 1976.

Murdoch's publications worldwide tend to adopt conservative views. I don't remember the exact number of newspapers he now owns, but in 2003 he owned 175.

Well, I guess you favor biased, brainwashed and bullied over fair and balanced, eh?



Liberals don't own the print media.

Yes they do!Bold.

[Terry Shea]

The New York Times has supported every war this country has ever been in. They are hardly a liberal media.
I don't know if that statement is true or not, but they surely don't seem to support this war. Then again, this is one of those rare wars that was actually started by a Republican. If our involvement were started by a Democrat like Viet Nam, Korea and both World Wars were the NY Times would no doubt throw their support behind this war effort. But to get back to the point, how does supporting a war or even several wars determine if one is liberal or conservative? It doesn't. The NY Times is a lying, leftist, liberal piece of crap.

[pianozach]

Bold.

Terry, there's no way to put this gently, but you have truly been brainwashed.

FoxNews has constantly been exposed as being so far away from "fair and balanced" that it's laughable.

And WorldNetDaily is nothing more than a neocon mouthpiece, often spouting nuggets of shear fabrication and innuendo. If you think that the WND debunks lies, you are way more naive than any of us here ever thought.

If these are the publications you rely on then you have truly jumped the shark.

Bush and Co. have sold the USA down the river socially, economically, ethically, internationally, and economically. And publications like the ones you think are unbiased have helped him get away with it.

And, to try to get this particular thread back on topic, Bush & his cronies have done everything they can to try to smear the whole concept of enviromental awareness, from ignoring clear evidence and fabricating their own, to attacking those that attempted to deliver the message.

And now, in a 180° change in policy rhetoric, back on May 31st, Bush announced his own climate change inititiative, which calls on the leaders of the 15 leading producers of the heat-trapping gases to develop long term voluntary emission-reduction goals.

And, strangly enough, in June 2007, he acknowledged that "global temperatures are rising and that this is caused largely by human activities," which include burning gasoline to power our cars and trucks and coal and natural gas to heat our homes.

He then proposed an international fund to pay for research into clean-energy technologies and to help developing nations deploy those innovations to decrease emissions.

But back in June 2001 he said this:

I've just met with senior members of my administration who are working to develop an effective and science-based approach to addressing the important issues of global climate change.

This is an issue that I know is very important to the nations of Europe, which I will be visiting for the first time as President. The earth's well-being is also an issue important to America. And it's an issue that should be important to every nation in every part of our world.

The issue of climate change respects no border. Its effects cannot be reined in by an army nor advanced by any ideology. Climate change, with its potential to impact every corner of the world, is an issue that must be addressed by the world.

President Bush has acknowledged to the world that global warming is real and that human activity is contributing to it.

And you're still clinging to your conviction that it's all a big fraud?

Unfortunately, global warming is moving much faster than the president, and much faster than scientists originally predicted. This summer, Arctic ice sheets that have been frozen solid for more than a century have been disappearing rapidly. Droughts and heat waves are becoming more frequent and severe, endangering poor and wealthy nations alike.

Terry, if your opinions of global warming were based on credible sources I'd address them. But your objections are so numerous and so full of holes that they can't be addressed quickly.

Needless to say, you have belittled or ignored every shred and every mountain of evidence that indicates that there is, indeed, a climate change of global proportions in the works.

The signs are already here:

Carbon dioxide is increasing in the atmosphere
Methane is increasing in the atmosphere
We're experiencing more frquent extreme weather (how could you not have noticed?)
Glaciers are disappearing
Arctic sea ice is melting
Antarctic sea ice is melting
Greenland's ice sheet is melting
Tropical diseases are spreading
Oceans are warming


And . . . records show that for the past 50 years or so, the warming trend has sped up due to the atmospheric burden of greenhouse gases produced by everything industrial, from power plants burning fossil fuels to gas-guzzling cars. The effects are clear.

There is clearly no evidence that will change your position on the concept of global climate change - your mind is made up and locked up tight, and you feel that you know better than hundreds of scientists that have been studying the subject for years. You know better than your precious worst President ever. No, your precious right wing propanda rags have told you it's a "liberal" conspiracy, and that's enough for you.

But, here's a challenge for you, Terry: Instead of your constant stream of posts filled with malicious rhetoric gleaned from spurious sources, howsabout you take your "Nonconservatives are evil" sunglasses off and do some real unbiased research into the subject? :shrug:

[Sheerah]

Nice tits, too. :D

Brian

I'm glad that you don't love me just for my brains. ;)

[Altres]

I'm glad that you don't love me just for my brains. ;)
I'm not that shallow. ;)

Brian

[tommyhawk]

Wing Nut Daily (WND) must be experts at controlling the brainwashed right wing mind. They recycle long ago debunked screeds or run with fishy press releases that can't be found in the legitimate media and then turn their dittiots loose to flood the internet with vitriolic bile.

The result is every few weeks we get a flood of right wing idiocy, lies, and unsubstantiated bullsh1t in our otherwise pristine forum. The seepage from internet sewers like wnd and the freeperverted republics bring that unmistakable odor of intolerance mixed with highly partisan fabrications.

I'm thankful for all the righteous thinking yesfans that are able to call them on it and take the time to do so.

Once in awhile, someone has to grab the mop around here and clean up the muck.

[Enoch]

Wing Nut Daily (WND) must be experts at controlling the brainwashed right wing mind. They recycle long ago debunked screeds or run with fishy press releases that can't be found in the legitimate media and then turn their dittiots loose to flood the internet with vitriolic bile.

The result is every few weeks we get a flood of right wing idiocy, lies, and unsubstantiated bullsh1t in our otherwise pristine forum. The seepage from internet sewers like wnd and the freeperverted republics bring that unmistakable odor of intolerance mixed with highly partisan fabrications.

I'm thankful for all the righteous thinking yesfans that are able to call them on it and take the time to do so.

Once in awhile, someone has to grab the mop around here and clean up the muck.

The New York Times, Sept. 18, 1924, issue headlined "Arctic Explorer Donald MacMillan Reports signs of New Ice Age."

By 1933, The New York Times had switched to a different campaign, global warming. In fact, 1934 was actually the warmest year in the history of recorded temperature since 1888.

By 1975 The New York Times was back promoting another ice age. Time Magazine and Newsweek were in lock-step as other major publications of the dominant media joined in the chorus.

The founders of Earth Day in April 1970 began a watershed period for a new breed of envirocrat, fresh out of the hippie era of the 1960s. This new breed engineered an "ice age" scenario of major proportions.
The Washington Post headline “Colder winters herald dawn of new Ice Age” led into an article by Climatologist Reid Bryson, who said, “There’s no relief in sight.”
The "ice age" lasted until the late 1980s when the present global warming movement took hold.
The theory in back of the man-made present day global warming that carbon dioxide is the main cause was developed more than 100 years ago in 1896 by Swedish professor Svente Arthenius, who reasoned that increases in carbon dioxide in the atmosphere might have effects on temperature at ground level. An increase of 50 percent would raise temperatures by 7 degrees Fahrenheit over a 100-year period. The actual increase in temperature was about 1 degree Fahrenheit.
Carbon dioxide has never been proved to be the cause of global warming. At present, it comprises only .038 (38 thousandths of 1 percent) of the atmosphere, rising some 33 percent from .028 to .038 in nearly 150 years, most of which occurred before 1940 and the onslaught of motor vehicular traffic.
Water vapor has been shown to be the principal greenhouse gas and comprises 95 percent of all greenhouse gases, according to U.S. government research.

[TRUEYOUTRUEME]

Wing Nut Daily (WND) must be experts at controlling the brainwashed right wing mind. They recycle long ago debunked screeds or run with fishy press releases that can't be found in the legitimate media and then turn their dittiots loose to flood the internet with vitriolic bile.

The result is every few weeks we get a flood of right wing idiocy, lies, and unsubstantiated bullsh1t in our otherwise pristine forum. The seepage from internet sewers like wnd and the freeperverted republics bring that unmistakable odor of intolerance mixed with highly partisan fabrications.

I'm thankful for all the righteous thinking yesfans that are able to call them on it and take the time to do so.

Once in awhile, someone has to grab the mop around here and clean up the muck.

I have to admit that even though I completely disagree with your post I still do find your writing style very colorful and entertaining. You definetaly let loose and get all of your emotion out on the issue!

:beerchugr:

[inside_out]

The New York Times, Sept. 18, 1924, issue headlined "Arctic Explorer Donald MacMillan Reports signs of New Ice Age."

By 1933, The New York Times had switched to a different campaign, global warming. In fact, 1934 was actually the warmest year in the history of recorded temperature since 1888.

By 1975 The New York Times was back promoting another ice age. Time Magazine and Newsweek were in lock-step as other major publications of the dominant media joined in the chorus.

The founders of Earth Day in April 1970 began a watershed period for a new breed of envirocrat, fresh out of the hippie era of the 1960s. This new breed engineered an "ice age" scenario of major proportions.
The Washington Post headline “Colder winters herald dawn of new Ice Age” led into an article by Climatologist Reid Bryson, who said, “There’s no relief in sight.”
The "ice age" lasted until the late 1980s when the present global warming movement took hold.
The theory in back of the man-made present day global warming that carbon dioxide is the main cause was developed more than 100 years ago in 1896 by Swedish professor Svente Arthenius, who reasoned that increases in carbon dioxide in the atmosphere might have effects on temperature at ground level. An increase of 50 percent would raise temperatures by 7 degrees Fahrenheit over a 100-year period. The actual increase in temperature was about 1 degree Fahrenheit.
Carbon dioxide has never been proved to be the cause of global warming. At present, it comprises only .038 (38 thousandths of 1 percent) of the atmosphere, rising some 33 percent from .028 to .038 in nearly 150 years, most of which occurred before 1940 and the onslaught of motor vehicular traffic.
Water vapor has been shown to be the principal greenhouse gas and comprises 95 percent of all greenhouse gases, according to U.S. government research.

dude, I'm sweating my ass off here and I run the air conditioning all day long so as to suit myself so I can look a lot like Hillary without the makeup, man I'm freezin.

[TRUEYOUTRUEME]

dude, I'm sweating my ass off here and I run the air conditioning all day long so as to suit myself so I can look a lot like Hillary without the makeup, man I'm freezin.

I live in an attic apartment and can't sleep even in the winter time because of all of the CO2 coming from the people downstairs and have to put on the A/C for most of the winter. But thank goodness I do not have to pay for it at all.

[yesyadda]

There was a South Park episode where Kyle's dad won the Nobel Prize for his research into free-farting (or something like that). He was a hero until it was blamed for global warming. It was funny.

[Buglunch]

You seem to be a little confused. .. Change is natural and unavoidable.

Nope, permanent snow and ice is part of Canada's climate and moisture control and has been since the last ice age; rain and natural melt from the Rockies feeds the main riverways east through southern Alberta.
This is water in the terrestrial bank and tradi-
tionally the yearly rain and melt is what you
live on, and not the one-shot principal of frozen water-
once that's gone you have no buffers and the bank evaporates.

Ridiculously-rapid spring melt has caused washout flooding in Calgary and area, damaging trout hatching and endangering livestock and people plus carrying away arable soil. Snowpack has been too low/absent SW of Calgary in foothills lately making for great instability in summer water for irrigation and drinking.
Meanwhile the oilpatch, ranching and farming and other industry expect massive amounts of cheap or free water when population is skyrocketing due to the very industries that exacerbate rapid climate change: petroleum/logging/mining/ and such. A few years of wonky weather aren't climate change
but unbelievably fast change unknown even to longterm aboriginal memory is.

You are bent on denying man's effect on nature when it does not serve us but I see it every day, do my longterm homework
and have a massive memory. Simple fact with only the welfare
of all life involved, not politics or profit or "control" of nature.

[inside_out]

Nope, permanent snow and ice is part of Canada's climate and moisture control and has been since the last ice age; rain and natural melt from the Rockies feeds the main riverways east through southern Alberta.
This is water in the terrestrial bank and tradi-
tionally the yearly rain and melt is what you
live on, and not the one-shot principal of frozen water-
once that's gone you have no buffers and the bank evaporates.

Ridiculously-rapid spring melt has caused washout flooding in Calgary and area, damaging trout hatching and endangering livestock and people plus carrying away arable soil. Snowpack has been too low/absent SW of Calgary in foothills lately making for great instability in summer water for irrigation and drinking.
Meanwhile the oilpatch, ranching and farming and other industry expect massive amounts of cheap or free water when population is skyrocketing due to the very industries that exacerbate rapid climate change: petroleum/logging/mining/ and such. A few years of wonky weather aren't climate change
but unbelievably fast change unknown even to longterm aboriginal memory is.

You are bent on denying man's effect on nature when it does not serve us but I see it every day, do my longterm homework
and have a massive memory. Simple fact with only the welfare
of all life involved, not politics or profit or "control" of nature.

Of course you "man" have effect. would you like to not be here?

[TRUEYOUTRUEME]

if nature changes without man then it is natural?

but if it changes because of man then it is un-natural?

Why do some view mankind this way?

[podo]

if nature changes without man then it is natural?

but if it changes because of man then it is un-natural?

Why do some view mankind this way?

Its not man that is the problem,, its mans machinery that is the problem

Machinery is not natural

[TRUEYOUTRUEME]

Its not man that is the problem,, its mans machinery that is the problem

Machinery is not natural


mankind acts within the same laws of chemistry and physics as does all of the rest of nature,

you try to claim that you are not accusing man of being the problem but then go on to say that the result of man is a problem

the result of man is not natural you say?

is not a virus a machine that may spring up and attack us?

or a hurricane?

or an earthquake?

So many forces besides man are creating change but yet they are all natural in your defintion but yet man creates a change and you label it machinery and call it not natural?

you are splitting hairs by saying that man is not the problem as if he should live a certain way that you demand or else you will call his results not natural

man is natural, imo

[podo]

mankind acts within the same laws of chemistry and physics as does all of the rest of nature,

you try to claim that you are not accusing man of being the problem but then go on to say that the result of man is a problem

the result of man is not natural you say?

is not a virus a machine that may spring up and attack us?

or a hurricane?

or an earthquake?

So many forces besides man are creating change but yet they are all natural in your defintion but yet man creates a change and you label it machinery and call it not natural?

you are splitting hairs by saying that man is not the problem as if he should live a certain way that you demand or else you will call his results not natural

man is natural, imo

Man is natural,, cars are not

[Terry Shea]

Terry, there's no way to put this gently, but you have truly been brainwashed.

FoxNews has constantly been exposed as being so far away from "fair and balanced" that it's laughable.

I'll agree they aren't nearly as fair and balanced as I'd like them to be...they still lean way too far to the left, just not as far to the left as other tv news organizations do. I've never seen where they've reported anything dishonestly though.

And WorldNetDaily is nothing more than a neocon mouthpiece, often spouting nuggets of shear fabrication and innuendo. If you think that the WND debunks lies, you are way more naive than any of us here ever thought.

Allright, please dispense with neocon references and other insulting statements. And you're showing yourself to be very, very prejuidiced against anyone and anything that doesn't lean way, way, way to the left like you do. I've used a multitude of sources and references...how many times have I used WND and Fox News? Not very much! I've exposed the AP for telling numerous lies and documented such. If you have a particular problem with Fox News and/or WND or any other source then please document it like I did. Just making general off the wall statements to slander the source won't cut it!

If these are the publications you rely on then you have truly jumped the shark.

Bush and Co. have sold the USA down the river socially, economically, ethically, internationally, and economically. And publications like the ones you think are unbiased have helped him get away with it.

And, to try to get this particular thread back on topic, Bush & his cronies have done everything they can to try to smear the whole concept of enviromental awareness, from ignoring clear evidence and fabricating their own, to attacking those that attempted to deliver the message.

And now, in a 180° change in policy rhetoric, back on May 31st, Bush announced his own climate change inititiative, which calls on the leaders of the 15 leading producers of the heat-trapping gases to develop long term voluntary emission-reduction goals.

And, strangly enough, in June 2007, he acknowledged that "global temperatures are rising and that this is caused largely by human activities," which include burning gasoline to power our cars and trucks and coal and natural gas to heat our homes.

He then proposed an international fund to pay for research into clean-energy technologies and to help developing nations deploy those innovations to decrease emissions.

But back in June 2001 he said this:



President Bush has acknowledged to the world that global warming is real and that human activity is contributing to it.

I don't know how President Bush got into this argument, or why you felt desperate enough to bring him into it, but what does he have to do with anything? You just made several references to him being a bad president, and on many levels I agree with you. He's clueless about a great many things. He contradicts himself a lot. What does that have to do with global warming being manmade or not? Nothing!

And you're still clinging to your conviction that it's all a big fraud?

Unfortunately, global warming is moving much faster than the president, and much faster than scientists originally predicted. This summer, Arctic ice sheets that have been frozen solid for more than a century have been disappearing rapidly. Droughts and heat waves are becoming more frequent and severe, endangering poor and wealthy nations alike.

Read my previous posts. Ice and glaciers once covered most of North America. We've been warming up for about 20,000 years overall. It's had nothing to do with car emissions, jets, industrialization or increased CO2 levels! We may have more heat waves now than we did 100 years ago, but as for droughts and famines your analysis is way off base. We have 3 times as many people on the planet to feed than we did 100 years ago and yet our food supply has never been so abundant! And you're wrong about most of the arctic ice sheets having been there for more than a century. Many didn't appear until the severe cooling period we had from the 1940's-1970's. And how did this cooling period come about? We were certainly putting more CO2 and other "greenhouse gasses" into the atmosphere than in previous periods. Cars were becoming much more abundant and jets started taking to the air in 1939, plus we had the baby boom during this period putting many more people on the planet putting even more CO2 and "greenhouse gasses" into the atmosphere! How do the manmade global warming nuts explain that? They don't! They ignore it and try to sweep it under the rug!

Terry, if your opinions of global warming were based on credible sources I'd address them. But your objections are so numerous and so full of holes that they can't be addressed quickly.

I've used credible sources. I've used numerous sources. There are no holes in my objections. The holes are in the theory of manmade global warming itself. It's a croc, and it will certainly prove itself to be as laughable as the flat-earth theory or the earth being the center of the universe theory given time. It is scientifically unsound and ignores climate history up until about 30 years ago. It has to because the previous history of the climate doesn't fit the theory.

Needless to say, you have belittled or ignored every shred and every mountain of evidence that indicates that there is, indeed, a climate change of global proportions in the works.

Wrong! I totally agree that global warming is happening. It's been happening for some 20,000 years!

The signs are already here:

Carbon dioxide is increasing in the atmosphere
Methane is increasing in the atmosphere

Yup. And they were increasing between the 40's and 70's when we experienced severe cooling.

We're experiencing more frquent extreme weather (how could you not have noticed?)

More frequent extreme weather? As opposed to what? Our records only go back 100 years or so. No one can say for sure what extreme weather was encountered before this time...But it seems quite obvious that glaciers covering most of North America and then receding would bring about some rather extreme weather of proportions we cannot even imagine.

Glaciers are disappearing


As they have been doing for 20,000 years.

Arctic sea ice is melting

As it's been doing for 20,000 years.

Antarctic sea ice is melting

As it's been doing for 20,000 years.

Greenland's ice sheet is melting

As it's been doing for 20,000 years.

Tropical diseases are spreading

As it's probably been doing for 20,000 years. Of course, we have more people spreading these diseases now and if they're being carried by mosquitos or other bugs that indicates more abundant rainfall, not drought!

Oceans are warming

As they have been for 20,000 years!


And . . . records show that for the past 50 years or so, the warming trend has sped up due to the atmospheric burden of greenhouse gases produced by everything industrial, from power plants burning fossil fuels to gas-guzzling cars. The effects are clear.

Wrong! This warming trend has lasted for about 30 years and followed a 30 year cooling period. We had even more extreme gas guzzling cars (and they burned leaded gas at that) and had industrialized power plants with few, if any, emission controls from the period from the 40's through the 70's. The result? A severe cooling period that caused scientists to believe that we were entering another ice age because these "greenouse gasses" were causing global cooling! That's the "liberal scientific method": Assume that any hair-brained, unscientific assumption between 2 totally unrelated scenarios is true until it proves itself to be false, then assume the opposite to be true, ignoring the history of the subject matter, and brainwash the public into believing such nonsense by throwing a lot of money at it and villifying any opposition.

There is clearly no evidence that will change your position on the concept of global climate change - your mind is made up and locked up tight, and you feel that you know better than hundreds of scientists that have been studying the subject for years. You know better than your precious worst President ever. No, your precious right wing propanda rags have told you it's a "liberal" conspiracy, and that's enough for you.

Actually, if there were any credible evidence presented I'd be willing to give the theory a chance. But you can't just assume some looney theory to be true based on 30 years of coincidence that ignores at least 20,000 years of history, and presents no scientific facts whatsoever.

But, here's a challenge for you, Terry: Instead of your constant stream of posts filled with malicious rhetoric gleaned from spurious sources, howsabout you take your "Nonconservatives are evil" sunglasses off and do some real unbiased research into the subject? :shrug:

I have. How about if you remove your bias and quit assuming manmade global warming to be a fact when there is indeed nothing factual or even probable about it?Bold.

[Terry Shea]

Wing Nut Daily (WND) must be experts at controlling the brainwashed right wing mind. They recycle long ago debunked screeds or run with fishy press releases that can't be found in the legitimate media and then turn their dittiots loose to flood the internet with vitriolic bile.

The result is every few weeks we get a flood of right wing idiocy, lies, and unsubstantiated bullsh1t in our otherwise pristine forum. The seepage from internet sewers like wnd and the freeperverted republics bring that unmistakable odor of intolerance mixed with highly partisan fabrications.

I'm thankful for all the righteous thinking yesfans that are able to call them on it and take the time to do so.

Once in awhile, someone has to grab the mop around here and clean up the muck.I guess you saying that it's so must somehow make it so. Thanks for documenting your hatred.:drummer:

[Terry Shea]

Nope, permanent snow and ice is part of Canada's climate and moisture control and has been since the last ice age; rain and natural melt from the Rockies feeds the main riverways east through southern Alberta.
This is water in the terrestrial bank and tradi-
tionally the yearly rain and melt is what you
live on, and not the one-shot principal of frozen water-
once that's gone you have no buffers and the bank evaporates.

Ridiculously-rapid spring melt has caused washout flooding in Calgary and area, damaging trout hatching and endangering livestock and people plus carrying away arable soil. Snowpack has been too low/absent SW of Calgary in foothills lately making for great instability in summer water for irrigation and drinking.
Meanwhile the oilpatch, ranching and farming and other industry expect massive amounts of cheap or free water when population is skyrocketing due to the very industries that exacerbate rapid climate change: petroleum/logging/mining/ and such. A few years of wonky weather aren't climate change
but unbelievably fast change unknown even to longterm aboriginal memory is.

You are bent on denying man's effect on nature when it does not serve us but I see it every day, do my longterm homework
and have a massive memory. Simple fact with only the welfare
of all life involved, not politics or profit or "control" of nature.Well thanks for editing out over 90% of my post to hide the context! I don't deny that man has an effect on nature...but you and I or any other humans had absolutely nothing to do with your glaciers melting away. They've been melting away for 20,000 years. If we have had an effect then I guess we'd better all just commit mass genocide to save the glaciers.

According to your profile you're 54 years old, or were born around 1953. You were born right in the middle of the cooling period and grew up during this period. That was all you knew; cold and glaciers. About 30 years ago we entered an inevitable warming period. I'm sure this must seem rather strange and unnatural to you, but the earth has been warming up naturally for about 20,000 years. The period you and I were born in and grew up in was merely a blip on the radar screen. It was a "correction" such as the stock market goes through from time to time. Cars, jets, power plants and other industries were putting record amounts of CO2 and other "greenhouse gasses" into the atmosphere during this period, yet it cooled considerably compared to the previous or subsequent period. It's a natural cycle. CO2 and other "greenhouse gasses" have no effect. We go through warming periods and cooling periods, but the overall trend is warmer and has been for about 20,000 years.

[Terry Shea]

Terry, there's no way to put this gently, but you have truly been brainwashed.

FoxNews has constantly been exposed as being so far away from "fair and balanced" that it's laughable.

And WorldNetDaily is nothing more than a neocon mouthpiece, often spouting nuggets of shear fabrication and innuendo. If you think that the WND debunks lies, you are way more naive than any of us here ever thought.

If these are the publications you rely on then you have truly jumped the shark.

Bush and Co. have sold the USA down the river socially, economically, ethically, internationally, and economically. And publications like the ones you think are unbiased have helped him get away with it.

And, to try to get this particular thread back on topic, Bush & his cronies have done everything they can to try to smear the whole concept of enviromental awareness, from ignoring clear evidence and fabricating their own, to attacking those that attempted to deliver the message.

And now, in a 180° change in policy rhetoric, back on May 31st, Bush announced his own climate change inititiative, which calls on the leaders of the 15 leading producers of the heat-trapping gases to develop long term voluntary emission-reduction goals.

And, strangly enough, in June 2007, he acknowledged that "global temperatures are rising and that this is caused largely by human activities," which include burning gasoline to power our cars and trucks and coal and natural gas to heat our homes.

He then proposed an international fund to pay for research into clean-energy technologies and to help developing nations deploy those innovations to decrease emissions.

But back in June 2001 he said this:



President Bush has acknowledged to the world that global warming is real and that human activity is contributing to it.

And you're still clinging to your conviction that it's all a big fraud?

Unfortunately, global warming is moving much faster than the president, and much faster than scientists originally predicted. This summer, Arctic ice sheets that have been frozen solid for more than a century have been disappearing rapidly. Droughts and heat waves are becoming more frequent and severe, endangering poor and wealthy nations alike.

Terry, if your opinions of global warming were based on credible sources I'd address them. But your objections are so numerous and so full of holes that they can't be addressed quickly.

Needless to say, you have belittled or ignored every shred and every mountain of evidence that indicates that there is, indeed, a climate change of global proportions in the works.

The signs are already here:

Carbon dioxide is increasing in the atmosphere
Methane is increasing in the atmosphere
We're experiencing more frquent extreme weather (how could you not have noticed?)
Glaciers are disappearing
Arctic sea ice is melting
Antarctic sea ice is melting
Greenland's ice sheet is melting
Tropical diseases are spreading
Oceans are warming


And . . . records show that for the past 50 years or so, the warming trend has sped up due to the atmospheric burden of greenhouse gases produced by everything industrial, from power plants burning fossil fuels to gas-guzzling cars. The effects are clear.

There is clearly no evidence that will change your position on the concept of global climate change - your mind is made up and locked up tight, and you feel that you know better than hundreds of scientists that have been studying the subject for years. You know better than your precious worst President ever. No, your precious right wing propanda rags have told you it's a "liberal" conspiracy, and that's enough for you.

But, here's a challenge for you, Terry: Instead of your constant stream of posts filled with malicious rhetoric gleaned from spurious sources, howsabout you take your "Nonconservatives are evil" sunglasses off and do some real unbiased research into the subject? :shrug:Malicious rhetoric? I think you're somehow confusing me with you. Everything you've posted above is nothing but malicious rhetoric with absolutely no facts or documentation whatsoever to back you up. You've attacked my sources, you've attacked our president (and how that can figure into this argument is beyond me-nice cheap shot though) and you've attacked me, yet you haven't documented any of your attacks nor have you shown any cause-effect relationship between increased CO2 or other "greenhouse gas" levels and global warming. Yes, "greenhouse gasses" have been increasing lately and the temp has been rising. So what? That hardly proves any cause-effect relationship, especially when put into historical perspective! We've been warming up for 20,000 years! It started long before "greenhouse gasses" began to increase. And we've gone through extreme cooling periods, such as the one between the 40's and the '70's, during periods of high "greenhouse gas" emissions. Quit ignoring the facts and making up your own!

[Enoch]

Man is natural,, cars are not

Beavers are natural. Beaver Dams are not. The lakes they produce reak havoc on alot of others habitats. Maybe we should de-tooth the beaver.

[Enoch]

I don't see why everyones so scared of global warming anyway. The increased water and heat will serve to create an environment that is conducive for the expansion of the ever popular rain-forrest. This is great! We are actually doing our part in saving the rain-forrest. So please stop bickering!http://bp1.blogger.com/_pOgXe-xTThQ/Rw6tt1ByaUI/AAAAAAAAAFs/KGeWqZpJPME/s1600-h/9errorsDM_468x720.jpghttp://bp1.blogger.com/_pOgXe-xTThQ/Rw6tt1ByaUI/AAAAAAAAAFs/KGeWqZpJPME/s1600-h/9errorsDM_468x720.jpg

[pedro skychaser]

yeah enoch-keep the air-con on buddy! ya f*ckin' legend!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

[podo]

yeah enoch-keep the air-con on buddy! ya f*ckin' legend!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Nice work mate !

[podo]

well, seems that someone thinks Al Gore is doing the right thing

Al Gore joint winner of Nobel Peace Prize

""The 2007 Nobel Peace Prize was jointly awarded today to former US vice president Al Gore and the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), the Norwegian Nobel committee announced in Oslo.
It said they had been awarded the prize "for their efforts to build up and disseminate greater knowledge about man-made climate change, and to lay the foundations for the measures that are needed to counteract such change."

http://www.smh.com.au/news/world/al-gore-joint-winner-of-nobel-peace-prize/2007/10/12/1191696167302.html

[BrianD]

You beat me to it Rog!

[Terry Shea]

well, seems that someone thinks Al Gore is doing the right thing

Al Gore joint winner of Nobel Peace Prize

""The 2007 Nobel Peace Prize was jointly awarded today to former US vice president Al Gore and the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), the Norwegian Nobel committee announced in Oslo.
It said they had been awarded the prize "for their efforts to build up and disseminate greater knowledge about man-made climate change, and to lay the foundations for the measures that are needed to counteract such change."

http://www.smh.com.au/news/world/al-gore-joint-winner-of-nobel-peace-prize/2007/10/12/1191696167302.html
Yup. A liar with zero credibility and an entire organization of liars with zero credibility jointly win the award. How nice.

[pianozach]

Yup. A liar with zero credibility and an entire organization of liars with zero credibility jointly win the award. How nice.

No, no, no, Terry. Gore and the UN panel on climate change won the award, not Bush and his administration of lying cronies.

[pianozach]

. . . They are hardly a liberal media.

Media has lost their way in the US. They want to sell papers, thus the sensationalism. Sensationalism has no political ideology. Why else is Paris Hilton and Mel Gibson constantly fed to the public while the goverment is corrupt to the core.

I contend that the media is controlled by big business fascists . . .

There is a large amount of truth in this.

I'm always hearing conservatives complaining about the "liberal" news media (or just "The Liberal Media"), while the liberals and progressives complain the media are conservative and fluffy "infotainment", leaving real news unreported or underinvestigated.

The truth is, newspapers, radio and television are, to a large degree, advertising delivery systems. TV and radio especially tend to play to the lowest common denominator by relying on sensationalism and sex to keep you watching or listening so the cycle of capitalism can continue unabated.

So, in effect, the media are often not inherently liberal or conservative, merely capitalist. They'll jump on whatever bandwagon the public can be lured with.

Think fishing: For awhile the fish can't help themselves - they'll bite at whatever the new shiny or wiggly dangly thing is. When the fish stop biting the fisherman changes lures.

It matters not whether the new thing is "Patriotism" or "Impeachment" or "Brittney" or "Phil Spector" or "plane crashes into house" or "Tornado in New York", what matters is that the media relies heavily on the human "rubbernecker" instinct to "lure" you in so that you can be inundated with messages from advertisers.

I just love the teasers too: "When we return: Will the latest recall affect your baby?" followed by four minutes of commercials. If it's that important, how about they tell us NOW?! OMG! don't feed the baby! No, don't give it a toy!! Keep junior away from everything until they tell us what's been recalled!!!

BTW, a friend of mine just invested in a company that makes chopsticks, drumsticks and guitar picks out of wheat.

They call it "Wheatware". They make other wheat-based biodegradable products as well, such as golf tees, hangers and coasters.

[YYY]

BIG AL wins big prize

HEY HAIL AL GORE - NOBEL PRIZE

WOOF WOOF AL GORE AL GORE AL GORE
WOOF WOOF AL GORE AL GORE AL GORE
WOOF WOOF AL GORE AL GORE AL GORE
WOOF WOOF AL GORE AL GORE AL GORE
WOOF WOOF AL GORE AL GORE AL GORE
WOOF WOOF AL GORE AL GORE AL GORE
WOOF WOOF AL GORE AL GORE AL GORE
WOOF WOOF WOOF WOOF WOOF WOOF

[Imperatrix]

BIG AL wins big prize

HEY HAIL AL GORE - NOBEL PRIZE

WOOF WOOF AL GORE AL GORE AL GORE
WOOF WOOF AL GORE AL GORE AL GORE
WOOF WOOF AL GORE AL GORE AL GORE
WOOF WOOF AL GORE AL GORE AL GORE
WOOF WOOF AL GORE AL GORE AL GORE
WOOF WOOF AL GORE AL GORE AL GORE
WOOF WOOF AL GORE AL GORE AL GORE
WOOF WOOF WOOF WOOF WOOF WOOF

:lmao: YOU so crazy. :hearts:

[podo]

Yup. A liar with zero credibility and an entire organization of liars with zero credibility jointly win the award. How nice.

only in your world

The rest of use will give credit where credit is due

[Senor Mono]

I heard Bill Gates and Steve Jobbs are presenting Al with an award for inventing the internet..

and dont forget Bush is a liar.

and Media Matters is not a left wing propaganda machine that does NOT make up stories.

How much do they commision you per week for the same old banging of the drum around here guys?!

Now, back to Yes related stuff!

[Terry Shea]

http://www.smh.com.au/news/world/al-gore-joint-winner-of-nobel-peace-prize/2007/10/12/1191696167302.html
"My wife, Tipper, and I will donate 100 per cent of the proceeds of the award to the Alliance for Climate Protection, a bipartisan non-profit organisation that is devoted to changing public opinion in the US and around the world about the urgency of solving the climate crisis."

Isn't that nice...donating the proceeds to an organization that he founded, serves as Chairman of the Board, and no doubt commands a handsome salary from. An organization that he accepts donations from and uses the proceeds to bully individuals and corporations into submitting to his will! Here's some more dirt on Gore and and his companies:

http://www.humanevents.com/article.php?id=22663#continueA

The Money and Connections Behind Al Gore’s Carbon Crusade
by Deborah Corey Barnes

Posted: 10/03/2007

Part 1 (excerpt)



Al Gore is chairman and founder of a private equity firm called Generation Investment Management (GIM). According to Gore, the London-based firm invests money from institutions and wealthy investors in companies that are going green. “Generation Investment Management, purchases -- but isn’t a provider of -- carbon dioxide offsets,” said spokesman Richard Campbell in a March 7 report by CNSNews.

GIM appears to have considerable influence over the major carbon-credit trading firms that currently exist: the Chicago Climate Exchange (CCX) in the U.S. and the Carbon Neutral Company (CNC) in Great Britain. CCX is the only firm in the U.S. that claims to trade carbon credits.

CCX owes its existence in part to the Joyce Foundation, the Chicago-based liberal foundation that provided $347,000 in grant support in 2000 for a preliminary study to test the viability of a market in carbon credits. On the CCX board of directors is the ubiquitous Maurice Strong, a Canadian industrialist and diplomat who, since the 1970s, has helped create an international policy agenda for the environmentalist movement. Strong has described himself as “a socialist in ideology, a capitalist in methodology.” His former job titles include “senior advisor” to UN Secretary General Kofi Annan, “senior advisor” to World Bank President James Wolfensohn and board member of the United Nations Foundation, a creation of Ted Turner. The 78-year-old Strong is very close to Gore.

CCX has about 80 members that are self-confessed emitters of greenhouse gases. They have voluntarily committed themselves to reduce their emissions by the year 2010 to a level 6% below their emissions in 2000. CCX members include Ford Motor Company, Amtrak, DuPont, Dow Corning, American Electric Power, International Paper, Motorola, Waste Management and a smattering of other companies, along with the states of Illinois and New Mexico, seven cities and a number of universities. Presumably the members “purchase” carbon offsets on the CCX trading exchange. This means they make contributions to or investments in groups or firms that provide forms of “alternative,” “renewable” and “clean” energy.

CCX also has “participant members” that develop the carbon-offset projects. They have names like Carbon Farmers and Eco-Nomics Incorporated. Still, other participant member groups facilitate, finance and market carbon-offset projects to “sequester, destroy or displace” greenhouse gases. CCX aspires to be the New York Stock Exchange of carbon-emissions trading.

Along with Gore, the co-founder of GIM is Treasury Secretary and former Goldman Sachs CEO Hank Paulson. Last September, Goldman Sachs bought 10% of CCX shares for $23 million. CCX owns half the ECX, so Goldman Sachs has a stake there as well.

GIM’s “founding partners” are studded with officials from Goldman Sachs. They include David Blood, former CEO of Goldman Sachs Asset Management (GSAM); Mark Ferguson, former co-head of GSAM pan-European research; and Peter Harris, who headed GSAM international operations. Another founding partner is Peter Knight, who is the designated president of GIM. He was Sen. Al Gore’s chief of staff from 1977-1989 and the campaign manager of the 1996 Clinton-Gore re-election campaign.

Like CCX, the ECX has about 80 member companies, including Barclays, BP, Calyon, Endesa, Fortis, Goldman Sachs, Morgan Stanley and Shell, and ECX has contracted with the European Union to further develop a futures market in carbon trading. What’s in it for the companies? They will benefit either by investing in carbon credits or by receiving subsidies for doing so.

Front and Center

Clearly, GIM is poised to cash in on carbon trading. The membership of CCX is currently voluntary. But if the day ever comes when federal government regulations require greenhouse-gas emitters -- and that’s almost everyone -- to participate in cap-and-trade, then those who have created a market for the exchange of carbon credits are in a position to control the outcomes. And that moves Al Gore front and center. As a politician, Gore is all for transparency. But as GIM chairman, Gore has not been forthcoming, according to Forbes magazine. Little is known about his firm’s finances, where it gets funding and what projects it supports.

We do know that Goldman Sachs has commissioned the World Resources Institute (affiliated with CCX), Resources for the Future, and the Woods Hole Research Center to research policy options for U.S. regulation of greenhouse gases. In 2006, Goldman Sachs provided research grants in this area totaling $2.3 million. The firm also has committed $1 billion to carbon-assets projects, a fancy term for projects that generate energy from sources other than oil and gas. In October 2006, Morgan Stanley committed to invest $3 billion in carbon-assets projects. Citigroup entered the emissions-trading market in May, and Bank of America got in on the action in June.

Some environmentalist groups disparage Gore and his investment banker friends. They say the Gore group caters to others who share their financial interest in the carbon-exchange concept. The bulletin of the World Rainforest Movement says that members of a United Nations-sponsored group called the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) stand to gain by approving Gore’s carbon-trading enterprise. The IPCC has devised what it says is a scientific measure of the impact of greenhouse gases on global warming. In fact, the critics charge, the IPCC sanctions a mechanism that mainly promotes the sham concept of carbon exchange.

The global non-profit organization Winrock International is an example of one IPCC panel member that seeks out groups and individuals with an interest in carbon trading. Arkansas-based Winrock provides worldwide “carbon-advisory services.” Winrock has received government grants from the EPA, USAID and the Departments of Labor, State and Commerce, as well as from the Nature Conservancy (whose chairman used to be Henry Paulson). Winrock argues that cap-and-trade carbon trading is the best way to prevent a climate change crisis. But consider this: When a non-profit group takes money from oil companies and advocates drilling for oil as a solution to energy shortages, it is certain to be attacked as a tool of Big Oil. So far, the groups linked to Al Gore have avoided similar scrutiny.

Then there’s the World Resources Institute (WRI). It was the first nongovernmental group to join CCX as an associate member (a designation for virtuous groups whose greenhouse-gas emissions are negligible). Many of its donors are CCX members or otherwise support carbon exchanges, including the Shell Foundation, Whole Foods Market, the Nature Conservancy, American Forest and Paper Association, and the Pew Center for Climate Change, as well as the Rockefeller Brothers Fund and the Ford Foundation.

Connect the Dots

In June 2006, the World Bank announced that it, too, had joined CCX, saying that it intended to offset its greenhouse gas emissions by purchasing emission credits through CCX. The bank says its credits would contribute to restoring 4,600 hectares of degraded pastureland in Costa Rica. Somehow, CCX has figured out that this is an amount equivalent to 22,000 metric tons of emission that the bank calculates are created by its activities.

A World Bank blog called the Private Sector Development Blog regularly features items touting Al Gore and the concept of carbon credits. Its articles typically announce corporate “green” initiatives in which carbon credits are said to cancel out “bad” CO2 emissions released by a company’s activities.

In fact, the World Bank now operates a Carbon Finance Unit that conducts research on how to develop and trade carbon credits. The bank works with Italy, the Netherlands, Denmark and Spain to set up carbon-credit funds in each country to purchase emission credits from firms for use in developing countries. In addition, it runs the Carbon Fund for Europe helping countries meet their Kyoto Protocol requirements. These funds are traded on the ECX (half of which is owned by CCX, itself a creature of Al Gore’s firm, Generation Investment Management). Can we connect the dots?

A website affiliated with An Inconvenient Truth invites concerned citizens to personally fight global warming by offsetting their “carbon footprint.” The ways to do that include changing over to fluorescent light bulbs and turning down your thermostat at home. But the website also urges Americans to offset their personal CO2 emissions by “buying” carbon offsets from a native-American-owned company called Native Energy. Native Energy promotes “renewable” wind energy by buying and selling carbon-emission credits and futures for wind turbine projects on Indian reservations.

What the website doesn’t mention is that that the founder of Native Energy, energy industry veteran Tom Boucher, also founded a marketing company called Green Mountain Energy, a CCX associate partner that describes itself as “the nation’s leading retail provider of cleaner energy and carbon-offset solutions. Green Mountain offers residential, business, institutional and governmental customers an easy way to purchase cleaner, affordable electricity products, as well as the opportunity to offset their carbon footprint.” In other words, Green Mountain sells advisory services to energy users, alerting them to opportunities to contribute to or invest in groups like Native Energy.

So it seems banks and investment houses are going green, eager to enter an emerging emissions market. Meanwhile, environmentalists are discovering new ways to get rich while believing they are saving polar bears and rainforests.

[Terry Shea]

http://www.humanevents.com/article.php?id=22663#continueA

Part 2 (excerpt)

In 2006 Al Gore established his own global-warming non-profit group, the Alliance for Climate Protection, a 501(3)(c) charitable organization. The group favors more stringent environmental policy regulations on the private sector and especially wants cap-and-trade legislation so that companies will be forced to lower their greenhouse gas emissions and buy carbon credits.

The alliance CEO is Cathy Zoi, a former environmental advisor to President Bill Clinton. Gore is chairman of the board, which also includes environmental activist Theodore Roosevelt IV, Clinton EPA Director Carol Browner, the President George H.W. Bush’s National Security Advisor Brent Scowcroft and Reagan-era EPA Director Lee Thomas. Gore has reportedly given the alliance $250,000 and has said he will donate his share of the profits from An Inconvenient Truth to the group.

Last September, the alliance cheered as California Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger (R.) signed into law the Global Warming Solutions Act of 2006. California has the world’s sixth-largest economy and is the world’s 12th-largest source of CO2 emissions. The mandate promises to cut emissions by 25% by 2020. Unlike other state and regional programs to cut carbon emissions and promote alternative energy, the California law is the first to embrace a cap-and-trade program. It has won the support of litigious environmental groups and business and financial groups that want to buy and sell pollution credits.

Force Everyone to Play

This year Congress is considering a slew of cap-and-trade bills to reduce carbon emissions. The bill getting the most attention is sponsored by Senators John McCain (R.-Ariz.) and Joseph Lieberman (ID.-Conn.). It would apply to the entire economy, would reduce emissions in stages (to 2004 levels by 2012, 1990 levels by 2020, and 60% below 1990 by 2050) and would set up a cap-and-trade market for emission credits.

The push is now on to force action from the Bush Administration. On May 14 of this year, President Bush signed an executive order directing federal agencies to craft regulations by the end of next year that will “cut gasoline consumption and greenhouse-gas emissions from motor vehicles.” His “20 in 10” plan to cut gas consumption by 20% in the next 10 years focuses on increasing the fuel economy standards for cars and light trucks and mandating increased use of alternative fuels.

But the President is unwilling to call for mandatory nationwide emissions rules and instead favors voluntary carbon-emission cuts in the private sector. This is deeply frustrating to all the brokers, wheeler-dealers and interest groups that want to jump on the cap-and-trade bandwagon. There are billions of dollars to be made in trading emissions credits. But first the federal government must force everyone to play the game.

As for Al Gore, the former Vice President brings emotional fervor to his carbon crusade. He travels the country displaying charts and graphs, quoting scientific experts and appealing to philosophers and religious leaders to save the planet from global warming. But he says nothing about his business partners who yearn to trade on the emerging carbon market. And the media pay no attention to the companies offering “carbon advisory services” that will profit from federal carbon emission controls.

Perhaps it’s about time they did.

[Terry Shea]

No, no, no, Terry. Gore and the UN panel on climate change won the award, not Bush and his administration of lying cronies.


More undocumented malicious rhetoric? Ok, I'll give you a pass on that one...Bush has lied about a great many things (as it seems all politicians do). But it would make about as much sense for him to win the Nobel Peace Award as it does for Al Gore and the UN to win it!

[Senor Mono]

People round' here are not gonna dig or believe any of these facts...I am sure they have a report at media matters discrediting any true report that does not fit THEIR AGENDA..Thats what they do!

band the drumdrumdrumdumb.

[inside_out]

Fear solves everything. Or is it guilt? Either way it's so easy for people to understand. What do you expect them to do? They've been fed the same thing over and over and over and it 'works'. Fear (they have no other choice) Money $$$$$$$$$$$$$$$ will prevail.

I don't have a big problem with the whole thing. I'm just admitting it.

[podo]

Fear solves everything. Or is it guilt? Either way it's so easy for people to understand. What do you expect them to do? They've been fed the same thing over and over and over and it 'works'. Fear (they have no other choice) Money $$$$$$$$$$$$$$$ will prevail.

I don't have a big problem with the whole thing. I'm just admitting it.

why suddenly change the subject to Iraq ???

[pianozach]

http://www.smh.com.au/news/world/al-gore-joint-winner-of-nobel-peace-prize/2007/10/12/1191696167302.html
"My wife, Tipper, and I will donate 100 per cent of the proceeds of the award to the Alliance for Climate Protection, a bipartisan non-profit organisation that is devoted to changing public opinion in the US and around the world about the urgency of solving the climate crisis."

Isn't that nice...donating the proceeds to an organization that he founded, serves as Chairman of the Board, and no doubt commands a handsome salary from. An organization that he accepts donations from and uses the proceeds to bully individuals and corporations into submitting to his will! Here's some more dirt on Gore and and his companies:

http://www.humanevents.com/article.php?id=22663#continueA

The Money and Connections Behind Al Gore’s Carbon Crusade
by Deborah Corey Barnes

Posted: 10/03/2007



OK, Terry, I read both of your cut-n-pastes, and even went to the source link.

The article is meandering and weak, failing to make it's point that Gore has a conflict of interest by being an environmentalist simply to make a buck. For you to have posted such trivial goop as this tells me that you didn't really read the article all that well. Sorry, Terry, it's the other way around - he's been an environmentist, and an advocate for it for decades. Now he's part of the business that's been his passion.

The author of the article, Deborah Corey Barnes, is a blogger/author that's simply trying to drum up interest in her anti-Gore book, "Al Gore’s Carbon Crusade". It's published by CRC (Capital Research Center), whose chairman and CEO is Terrence Scanlon, formerly the Heritage Foundation's Vice President for corporate relations and a former Reagan appointee to the Consumer Product Safety Commission. BTW, the Heritage Foundation is a prominant Conservative Think Tank which has received support from nearly 100 major corporations, including Chase Manhattan Bank, Dow Chemical Company, Ford Motor Company, General Motors, GlaxoSmithKline, Mobil, and Procter & Gamble.

humanevents.com is an insulting, Clinton & Gore bashing, AnnCoulter-worshipping, name-calling ("If Democrats had brains, they'd be Republicans"), Gingrich and Ollie North-supporting Conservative blogsite with very little credibility.

Bloggers there "warn" that Speaker Pelosi's "back door" plan to kill the Iraq war will cost more American troops. This is blantant BS. Do you really think that getting the troops out will cost more lives of American personel there than leaving the troops there?

There's teaser links like "Hillary exposed!" and Obama exposed!"

There's numerous articles by convicted felon Oliver North and the bribe-taking John Boehner.

Some other non-useful articles on the site:

"Liberals Would Let Dogs Vote"

"New Poll Shows One in Five Dems Want U.S. to Lose in Iraq"

"Hillary Clinton: Still Socialist After All These Years"

"Why I Decided Not to Run For President" by Newt Gingrich 10/1/07

"Bush as Freedom Marcher"

"Corporate America’s Loyalty Now Global"

"Tase Him Bro!" by Ann Coulter

Find some credible and cogent sources for a change, Terry.

[Senor Mono]

Nothing wrong with fighting for our enviroment!

Too bad its a corrupt moron like Al Gore. Tipper and Al should go back to leading fights for censorship.

Al and Bill lifted the ban on the Makah Indians slaughtering Whales in Washinton state.. Surprisingly, it was Reagen that put it into effect. Then Bill and Al let it go...... Now he's gonna preach abput Global Wanking.. This planet has always been heating up and cooling down long before we started adding to it ! Come on.

[Mind Driver]

"Global Wanking".................I don't know if that was a typo, but with Slick Willie in the same sentence, it fit! :lmao:

[pianozach]

Al and Bill lifted the ban on the Makah Indians slaughtering Whales in Washinton state..

Technically, and historically as well, the Vice President has no sway, nor responsibility on administration policy. Until Cheney built the Veep post into a power base/shadow presidency the office of VP has been big fat nothing, relegating the office holder to minor diplomatic missions and ribbon-cutting ceremonies. (Rent the movie "Dave" - there's a very funny scene where the Vice President (played by Ben Kingsley) has come back from some public relations junket.)

Bill lifted the ban.

Further, is it possible that he could only do this with the express permission of Congress? Don't they have to Yay or Nay it?

Should Al somehow be elected Prez, he may very well reverse the non-ban, with a little encouragement from you.

[Enoch]

Technically, and historically as well, the Vice President has no sway, nor responsibility on administration policy. Until Cheney built the Veep post into a power base/shadow presidency the office of VP has been big fat nothing, relegating the office holder to minor diplomatic missions and ribbon-cutting ceremonies. (Rent the movie "Dave" - there's a very funny scene where the Vice President (played by Ben Kingsley) has come back from some public relations junket.)

Bill lifted the ban.

Further, is it possible that he could only do this with the express permission of Congress? Don't they have to Yay or Nay it?

Should Al somehow be elected Prez, he may very well reverse the non-ban, with a little encouragement from you.
Don't worry, I'm sure the historical signifcance of the VP will return to normal if a Dem wins in '08. It will only become a seat of evil should a conservative win office once again.

[Terry Shea]

OK, Terry, I read both of your cut-n-pastes, and even went to the source link.

The article is meandering and weak, failing to make it's point that Gore has a conflict of interest by being an environmentalist simply to make a buck. For you to have posted such trivial goop as this tells me that you didn't really read the article all that well. Sorry, Terry, it's the other way around - he's been an environmentist, and an advocate for it for decades. Now he's part of the business that's been his passion.

The author of the article, Deborah Corey Barnes, is a blogger/author that's simply trying to drum up interest in her anti-Gore book, "Al Gore’s Carbon Crusade". It's published by CRC (Capital Research Center), whose chairman and CEO is Terrence Scanlon, formerly the Heritage Foundation's Vice President for corporate relations and a former Reagan appointee to the Consumer Product Safety Commission. BTW, the Heritage Foundation is a prominant Conservative Think Tank which has received support from nearly 100 major corporations, including Chase Manhattan Bank, Dow Chemical Company, Ford Motor Company, General Motors, GlaxoSmithKline, Mobil, and Procter & Gamble.

humanevents.com is an insulting, Clinton & Gore bashing, AnnCoulter-worshipping, name-calling ("If Democrats had brains, they'd be Republicans"), Gingrich and Ollie North-supporting Conservative blogsite with very little credibility.

Bloggers there "warn" that Speaker Pelosi's "back door" plan to kill the Iraq war will cost more American troops. This is blantant BS. Do you really think that getting the troops out will cost more lives of American personel there than leaving the troops there?

There's teaser links like "Hillary exposed!" and Obama exposed!"

There's numerous articles by convicted felon Oliver North and the bribe-taking John Boehner.

Some other non-useful articles on the site:

"Liberals Would Let Dogs Vote"

"New Poll Shows One in Five Dems Want U.S. to Lose in Iraq"

"Hillary Clinton: Still Socialist After All These Years"

"Why I Decided Not to Run For President" by Newt Gingrich 10/1/07

"Bush as Freedom Marcher"

"Corporate America’s Loyalty Now Global"

"Tase Him Bro!" by Ann Coulter

Find some credible and cogent sources for a change, Terry.I use credible sources. You don't. Your sources (and you yourself) use the mindset that "manmade global warming is a fact because we say that it's a fact" and "if you tell a lie often enough people will believe it". There is absolutely no scientific evidence whatsoever to support this nonsense, even though these brainwashers keep claiming that it is a fact. They never present any factual evidence...in fact they willfully ignore the factual, historical record about the relationship between greenhouse gasses and temps, focusing only on the last 30 years! Why? Because no other time period fits their agenda! What about the previous 30 year period where temps cooled even though CO2 and other greenhouse gasses were increasing? Oh that's right...they said greenhouse gasses were causing global cooling then! Why? Because it fit their agenda! But it didn't stay cold so they had to reverse course and make up a new fairy tale. When temps moderate for 30 years we'll have a manmade global moderation panic!

Yup, no matter what the weather does, these climate nazis are going to blame it on human activity. You can try to belittle my sources all you want, but it changes nothing: Al Gore is a liar and a hypocrite! He's hellbent on acquiring power and manipulating people and prays on weak-minded individuals who either can't think for themselves or refuse to think for themselves. He's much more powerful making people believe that he's the weather god than he ever would have been as president, and that's why he won't ever run again. He's getting more powerful, richer and more famous by getting mindless zombies to believe this garbage.

Hail Gore!
Hail Gore!
Hail Gore!

Gorebull warming just caused it to hail!:drummer:

[Altres]

http://www.iceagenow.com/GoreAsJesus.jpg

[Altres]

I love the fact that saving life on Earth has become such a shallow political polemic issue. It entertains me no end.

Sting will write a song about how "Republicans love their childen too" one day, then we can all understand each other. Only, what is a Democrat?

Brian

[podo]

I love the fact that saving life on Earth has become such a shallow political polemic issue. It entertains me no end.

Sting will write a song about how "Republicans love their childen too" one day, then we can all understand each other. Only, what is a Democrat?

Brian

Nicely said my friend

Anyone would think that it was just Al Gore claiming global warming was man made... If that was the case, he would be quickly dismissed....problem is, its not just him.its lots of well informed people from different politicl sides all arriving at the same conclusion.

[yesyadda]

Class dismissed!

[Imperatrix]

I love the fact that saving life on Earth has become such a shallow political polemic issue. It entertains me no end.

Sting will write a song about how "Republicans love their childen too" one day, then we can all understand each other. Only, what is a Democrat?

Brian

:lmao: :appl[1]: :appl[1]: :appl[1]: :appl[1]: :appl[1]: :appl[1]: :appl[1]: :appl[1]: :appl[1]: :appl[1]: :appl[1]:

Damn, I do love you.

[Enoch]

Yup, no matter what the weather does, these climate nazis are going to blame it on human activity. You can try to belittle my sources all you want, but it changes nothing: Al Gore is a liar and a hypocrite! He's hellbent on acquiring power and manipulating people and prays on weak-minded individuals who either can't think for themselves or refuse to think for themselves. He's much more powerful making people believe that he's the weather god than he ever would have been as president, and that's why he won't ever run again. He's getting more powerful, richer and more famous by getting mindless zombies to believe this garbage.

Hail Gore!
Hail Gore!
Hail Gore!

Gorebal warming just caused it to hail!:drummer:

Remember. This is all coming from the exact same people who, in the eighties were running around saying that the rich were getting richer and the poor getting poorer. Some still believe it? Perhaps they should watch this:
http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=4237353244338529080&q=Hans+Rosling+Monterey&total=5&start=0&num=10&so=0&type=search&plindex=1

[podo]

Remember. This is all coming from the exact same people who, in the eighties were running around saying that the rich were getting richer and the poor getting poorer. Some still believe it? Perhaps they should watch this:
http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=4237353244338529080&q=Hans+Rosling+Monterey&total=5&start=0&num=10&so=0&type=search&plindex=1

Yu dont beleive that the gap between the rich and the poor is getting bigger, even today ??

[podo]

Yu dont beleive that the gap between the rich and the poor is getting bigger, even today ??

actually,, I withdraw that statement.. Im not going to get taken hook line and sinker onto some tangent that is completly unrelated

[pianozach]

I use credible sources. You don't. Your sources (and you yourself) use the mindset that "manmade global warming is a fact because we say that it's a fact" and "if you tell a lie often enough people will believe it". There is absolutely no scientific evidence whatsoever to support this nonsense, even though these brainwashers keep claiming that it is a fact.

Terry, you have just lost the last shred of credibility you may have had left with this opening volley.

You - credible sources? No. "Liberals Would let Dogs Vote" is not something I would expect from a credible source. Your sources of late tend towards the sensationalist checkout stand variety. It appears that you aren't able recognize a credible source.

""if you tell a lie often enough people will believe it"? I'm afraid that the bushies have a corner on that market:

"You see in my line of work you got to keep repeating things over and over and over again for the truth to sink in, to kind of catapult the propaganda." - GW Bush, May 24, 2005

And we all know who this sounds like, don't we?:

"If you tell a lie big enough and keep repeating it, people will eventually come to believe it."

Who said that?

Joseph Goebbels, Hiter's Nazi Propaganda Minister.


That's almost word for word what you've just posted about my sources (and me, myself).

Your sources (and you yourself) use the mindset that "manmade global warming is a fact because we say that it's a fact" and "if you tell a lie often enough people will believe it".

So, in your passive aggresive way, you're equating my thinking with that of the nazi movement. Your diplomacy methods and debate tactics need word, Terry. Try some of your methods and talking points rather than relying on tidbits of doo-doo garnered from your conservative hate sites.

:offtopic: You remind me of the mayor of the small mountain town in "Dante's Peak". He, too, was tired of hearing that "the volcano is about to blow" and "you'd better evacuate the town" . He felt that the scientist was full of hogwash. Besides, he wasn't about to cancel the "Mountain Days" festival - it's the biggest day of the year. Ah, but that's just a disaster flick starring Pierce Brosnan. Al Gore is no Pierce Brosnan.

Nor is Peirce Brosnan an Al Gore.

And lest you try to use the worn-out "You've taken my stuff out of context" routine again, here's the rest of your insulting diatribe:

They never present any factual evidence...in fact they willfully ignore the factual, historical record about the relationship between greenhouse gasses and temps, focusing only on the last 30 years! Why? Because no other time period fits their agenda! What about the previous 30 year period where temps cooled even though CO2 and other greenhouse gasses were increasing? Oh that's right...they said greenhouse gasses were causing global cooling then! Why? Because it fit their agenda! But it didn't stay cold so they had to reverse course and make up a new fairy tale. When temps moderate for 30 years we'll have a manmade global moderation panic!

Yup, no matter what the weather does, these climate nazis are going to blame it on human activity. You can try to belittle my sources all you want, but it changes nothing: Al Gore is a liar and a hypocrite! He's hellbent on acquiring power and manipulating people and prays on weak-minded individuals who either can't think for themselves or refuse to think for themselves. He's much more powerful making people believe that he's the weather god than he ever would have been as president, and that's why he won't ever run again. He's getting more powerful, richer and more famous by getting mindless zombies to believe this garbage.

Hail Gore!
Hail Gore!
Hail Gore!

Gorebal warming just caused it to hail!:drummer:

Terry, it appears that you will never understand. Your mind is closed and locked up tight.

In this one post alone you've called us all

nazis,
liars,
brainwashers,
mindless zombies,
weak-minded individuals and
ignorant.

You go on to accuse Al Gore of being "a liar and a hypocrite!" You accuse him of being "hellbent on acquiring power and manipulating people" and "prey[ing] on weak-minded individuals".

In other posts, and in this one, you accused us of worshipping Al Gore, and indicate that you think that we revere him as a "Weather God".

You've called the UN an "entire organization of liars with zero credibility".

You've called the theory of Global Warming "a croc", an "agenda", "garbage", "unsupported", "nonsense", and several other derogatory things.

Your attitude is blatantly cavalier: "Yes, "greenhouse gasses" have been increasing lately and the temp has been rising. So what?"

You are so off the mark, Terry.

[Terry Shea]

Terry, you have just lost the last shred of credibility you may have had left with this opening volley.

You - credible sources? No. "Liberals Would let Dogs Vote" is not something I would expect from a credible source. Your sources of late tend towards the sensationalist checkout stand variety. It appears that you aren't able recognize a credible source.

""if you tell a lie often enough people will believe it"? I'm afraid that the bushies have a corner on that market:

"You see in my line of work you got to keep repeating things over and over and over again for the truth to sink in, to kind of catapult the propaganda." - GW Bush, May 24, 2005

And we all know who this sounds like, don't we?:

"If you tell a lie big enough and keep repeating it, people will eventually come to believe it."

Who said that?

Joseph Goebbels, Hiter's Nazi Propaganda Minister.


That's almost word for word what you've just posted about my sources (and me, myself).



So, in your passive aggresive way, you're equating my thinking with that of the nazi movement. Your diplomacy methods and debate tactics need word, Terry. Try some of your methods and talking points rather than relying on tidbits of doo-doo garnered from your conservative hate sites.

:offtopic: You remind me of the mayor of the small mountain town in "Dante's Peak". He, too, was tired of hearing that "the volcano is about to blow" and "you'd better evacuate the town" . He felt that the scientist was full of hogwash. Besides, he wasn't about to cancel the "Mountain Days" festival - it's the biggest day of the year. Ah, but that's just a disaster flick starring Pierce Brosnan. Al Gore is no Pierce Brosnan.

Nor is Peirce Brosnan an Al Gore.

And lest you try to use the worn-out "You've taken my stuff out of context" routine again, here's the rest of your insulting diatribe:



Terry, it appears that you will never understand. Your mind is closed and locked up tight.

In this one post alone you've called us all

nazis,
liars,
brainwashers,
mindless zombies,
weak-minded individuals and
ignorant.

You go on to accuse Al Gore of being "a liar and a hypocrite!" You accuse him of being "hellbent on acquiring power and manipulating people" and "prey[ing] on weak-minded individuals".

In other posts, and in this one, you accused us of worshipping Al Gore, and indicate that you think that we revere him as a "Weather God".

You've called the UN an "entire organization of liars with zero credibility".

You've called the theory of Global Warming "a croc", an "agenda", "garbage", "unsupported", "nonsense", and several other derogatory things.

Your attitude is blatantly cavalier: "Yes, "greenhouse gasses" have been increasing lately and the temp has been rising. So what?"

You are so off the mark, Terry.No, I'm quite on the mark. I'm sorry if you find being referred to as a weak-minded individual insulting, but that's how I see it. That's not to say that you aren't intelligent-a lot of weak-minded individuals are-it's just that they tend to follow the crowd and let the leaders of "cults'" such as this do their thinking for them.

You haven't addressed any of my points, yet I believe I've addressed most if not all of yours. You've attacked my sources, but you never documented or substantiated any of your attacks. Your attacks on my sources seem to be based on the logical fallacy that my sources aren't mainstream news articles (and contrary to your beliefs), therefore they must be wrong. Actually my sources have proven your beliefs and your sources to be wrong. They've shown time and again that these manmade global warming zealots are telling blatant lies and falsehoods to acquire power and wealth, and they're praying off the gullibility of weak-minded individuals who who can't or won't think for themselves and challenge these liars. My sources have attacked the global warming zealots because it's all a lie and the leaders of this nonsense are liars and hypocrites. And if the mainstream media backs these liars and hypocrites than they need to be exposed too. That's all my sources are doing. You have no factual basis by which to attack these sources, so you have to resort to attacking them in general terms.

Your own credibility is really suffering too. Where did I say
"Liberals Would let Dogs Vote"? Why won't you address any of my points? If increased levels of CO2 (and other "greenhouse gasses") are causing global warming then why did the earth cool significantly from the 1940's-1970's despite increasing levels of these greenhouse gasses? How do you explain scientists during this time period attributing increased CO2 levels to global cooling and telling us we were on the verge of another ice age? How could there have been a 500 year period called the midievel warm period that saw temperatures much warmer than today despite much lower CO2 and other "greenhouse gas" levels? How can you explain that the earth has been warming for the past 20,000 years w/o any increase in CO2 levels or other "greenhouse gasses" until recent times? How do you explain why these zealots now focus on only the past 30 years or so and ignore the historical record for the past 20,000 years?

You haven't answered any of these questions, or in the rare case where you did you gave a very lame, non-scientific answer that skirted the issue. Why haven't you answered any of these questions? Because you aren't thinking for yourself, and Al Gore and these other manmade global warming nuts haven't told you how to answer any of these questions. They can't tell you how to answer these questions (honestly anyway) because the only answer they could possibly give would be to expose themselves as the frauds and liars they are!

I did not call you or anyone else here a liar, a nazi and/or a brainwasher. Those terms were reserved for Al Gore and the leaders of the manmade global warming cult! I do believe you're brainwashed and not thinking for yourself though, as is anyone who falls for this nonsense and refuses to even question or challenge it.

[podo]

If its impossible for man to have an impact on the atmosphere, I wonder why CFCs are responsible for the hole in the ozone layer

I guess thats just political nonsense too

[kirk]

You fuking kill me Terry :lmao:

You imagine yourself to be a free thinker, yet you spout the
rank and file BS verbatim on every subject.
Tell me, who's your favorite Democrat?
How many non-whites or Democrats are on your bowling team?

I know exactly how you feel on subjects we've never discussed,
because it's what everyone of your ilk spouts, line for line.
The only way you're thinking for yourself, is if you're Sean Hannity
using an alias. You're living, walking, breathing stereotypical
midwestern Repuglican, like it or not.

...And you haven't addressed all of Zach's questions, especially-
EVEN GW HAS ACKNOWLEDGED GLOBAL WARMING, TERRY!!!
Is he lying also? Is your man George caving in to AL Gore?

"The US president, George Bush, today acknowledged that human activity contributed to global warming as he prepared to debate climate change with other G8 leaders. Mr Bush spoke to the media in Denmark during a stop-off on his way to the G8 summit at Gleneagles, in Perthshire, Scotland.

He said he recognised "that the surface of the Earth is warmer and that an increase in greenhouse gases is contributing to the problem". However, he said the Kyoto treaty was not the answer."
full article here-
http://www.guardian.co.uk/g8/story/0,13365,1522499,00.html

Well? Is George "brainwashed"?

K

[podo]

Yu could read this.. Its a pdf file, so I cant supply snipits..

http://www.astro.columbia.edu/~roban/lab_2006_fall/hansen.pdf

Its written by Jim Hansan, Director of NASA Goddard Institute for space studies and Adjacent Professor of Earth and Environmental Sciences at Columbia University's Earth Institute...

He talks about Al Gore towards the end.. if your interested

Oh well, I guess he is just making it all up as well

[podo]

Those with entrenched environmental beliefs are being left behind, writes Tim Flannery.

http://www.smh.com.au/news/opinion/earth-needs-a-climate-of-change/2005/07/17/1121538862977.html

""When industrial chemists invented chlorofluorocarbons (CFCs) in 1928 no one imagined that they could threaten life on Earth. Instead, scientists were confident that these highly stable chemicals would not react with living things at all, and thus be entirely harmless. Yet within a few decades CFCs were destroying the ozone layer that protects us from ultraviolet radiation, and concerted international action was required to avert disaster. CFCs are toxic to our planet at densities in the atmosphere of just a few parts per billion, and we are fortunate indeed that good science led to early recognition of the threat.

Now the world is experiencing another air pollution disaster, this time caused by a build-up of planet-warming greenhouse gases, the most important of which is carbon dioxide. Its density is measured in parts per 10,000, and it is put into the atmosphere by the burning of fossil fuels.""

Dr Tim Flannery is director of the South Australian Museum.
He is also an Environmental Scientist.
He is also Australian of the Year.. as recognition of his work in Environmental Science.

I guess he doesnt know what he is talking about either

Struth Terry..............no proof ???? I simple, 5 minute google search brings up mountains of articles by respected individuals

[Enoch]

If its impossible for man to have an impact on the atmosphere, I wonder why CFCs are responsible for the hole in the ozone layer

I guess thats just political nonsense too

When you learn an ever changing fact, you must keep up with the facts and continue to learn:

05.26.2006. Earth's ozone layer appears to be on the road to recovery. ... By then even the Antarctic ozone hole might close--for good. ... (http://science.nasa.gov/headlines/y2006/26may_ozone.htm)

[podo]

When you learn an ever changing fact, you must keep up with the facts and continue to learn:

05.26.2006. Earth's ozone layer appears to be on the road to recovery. ... By then even the Antarctic ozone hole might close--for good. ... (http://science.nasa.gov/headlines/y2006/26may_ozone.htm)

From the article

""The good news: In the upper stratosphere (above roughly 18 km), ozone recovery can be explained almost entirely by CFC reductions. "Up there, the Montreal Protocol seems to be working," says co-author Mike Newchurch of the Global Hydrology and Climate Center in Huntsville, Alabama. ""

So, your point is ?????

[Enoch]

From the article

""The good news: In the upper stratosphere (above roughly 18 km), ozone recovery can be explained almost entirely by CFC reductions. "Up there, the Montreal Protocol seems to be working," says co-author Mike Newchurch of the Global Hydrology and Climate Center in Huntsville, Alabama. ""

So, your point is ?????

Point is, the ozone hasn't been an issue for a while now. So why bring it up unless (1) you haven't kept up with the times and still believe it's a problem, or (2) you know it's a non-issue but hope that you can bluff others by witholding the information to bolster your argument. which is it?

[podo]

Point is, the ozone hasn't been an issue for a while now. So why bring it up unless (1) you haven't kept up with the times and still believe it's a problem, or (2) you know it's a non-issue but hope that you can bluff others by witholding the information to bolster your argument. which is it?

I brought it up to show that man can most certainly have an impact on the atmosphere

It also shows that the impact can be identified and action to fix the problem can be taken.

Right now, a lot of people have identified the issue with global warming and are trying to do something about it..

Are you going to be like those people 60 odd years ago who thought that CFCs where completly safe ??

or havent you kept up with the times ??

[tommyhawk]

relying on tidbits of doo-doo garnered from your conservative hate sites.

Garnered...shoveled...pitchforked...sponged up, it's determined by how fresh it is, i suppose.

In this one post alone you've called us all

nazis,
liars,
brainwashers,
mindless zombies,
weak-minded individuals and
ignorant.

No, that vile, while spouted about all of us was all aimed at you.

Congratulations!!!

Take some credit for your own work, Zach. I was only told that I was pompous and 'documenting my hate.' I can see at least 7 or 8 badges of honor for you in just a short screed. The more ad homs you get, the better your arguement.

Just look at the ones that get to them the most, Al Gore, ANY of the Clintons, Media Matters, and Hollywood figures (except Mel Gibson, Fraud Thompson, Raygun, or Gov Gropenfurher.)

Wear it proud...I would.

[Terry Shea]

I brought it up to show that man can most certainly have an impact on the atmosphere

It also shows that the impact can be identified and action to fix the problem can be taken.

Right now, a lot of people have identified the issue with global warming and are trying to do something about it..

Are you going to be like those people 60 odd years ago who thought that CFCs where completly safe ??

or havent you kept up with the times ??You brought it up to confuse the issue. We certainly can and do pollute the atmosphere but there is no credible evidence to even suggest, much less state as fact, that any of it causes global warming (not to mention that CO2 is not a pollutant). It doesn't, it can't, and the historical record of earth's climate has not reflected the levels of CO2 in the atmosphere. Al Gore tried to show that it did, but once again he was outed as a liar.

[kirk]

http://www.guardian.co.uk/g8/story/0,13365,1522499,00.html

Well? Is George "brainwashed"?

:sleeping: :sleeping: :sleeping:

'Still waiting....

K

[kirk]

http://www.newsweek.com/id/42337

K

[kirk]

You Repuglicans are going to have a Helluva time finding
anyone to vote for...

"In November and December, the Mellman Group surveyed likely Republican and Democratic voters, 400 of each, for two climate awareness groups: Clear the Air and the New Hampshire-based Clean Air-Cool Planet. Seventy percent of Republicans and 94 percent of Democrats called global warming a serious threat, though smaller majorities in both parties said they believed it was a human byproduct. Ninety-six percent of Democrats and 82 percent of Republicans said the United States should take action now to reduce emissions.

As of yesterday, 143 New Hampshire communities had approved language calling on Washington to take action to slow U.S. emissions of greenhouse gases, including carbon dioxide. Eight towns had rejected it and at least 25 have yet to vote.

K

[kirk]

Add McCain to the "brainwashed"-

"Presiding over his final hearing as chair of the Senate Commerce, Science, and Transportation Committee last week, Sen. John McCain (R-Ariz.) delivered a feisty swan song assuring GOP colleagues and environmentalists alike that he won't be giving up his fight for climate-change regulations anytime soon -- even if the Bush administration and the 109th Congress seem likely to thwart his efforts.
Full article here- http://www.grist.org/news/muck/2004/11/24/little-mccain/

K

[kirk]

..and Guiliani-
http://pajamasmedia.com/2007/02/giuliani_criticizes_gore_for_n.php

He says Al didn't go far enough..!

K

[Altres]

'Warm wind' hits Arctic climate (http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/sci/tech/7050132.stm)


http://newsimg.bbc.co.uk/media/images/41860000/jpg/_41860782_ice.jpg
Sun-reflecting Arctic ice has traditionally cooled the whole planet

The Arctic is being hit by melting ice, hotter air and dying wildlife, according to a US government report on the impact of global warming there.

A new wind circulation pattern is blowing more warm air towards the North Pole than in the 20th Century, scientists found.

Shrubs are now growing in tundra areas while caribou herds are dwindling in Canada and parts of Alaska.

The report stresses that the fate of the Arctic affects the entire planet.

http://newsimg.bbc.co.uk/shared/img/o.gifhttp://newsimg.bbc.co.uk/nol/shared/img/v3/start_quote_rb.gif It looks like the beginning of a signal from global warming http://newsimg.bbc.co.uk/nol/shared/img/v3/end_quote_rb.gif
James Overland, US National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration

The US National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) report found that in 2007 winter and spring temperatures were "all above average throughout the whole Arctic and all at the same time" unlike in previous years.

"This is an unusual feature and it looks like the beginning of a signal from global warming," the NOAA's James Overland told reporters. Scientists have expected polar regions to feel the first impacts of global warming, and the 2006 US State of the Arctic report provided a benchmark for tracking changes, the Associated Press news agency notes. Wednesday's report was the first update on it.

[kirk]

No no...let me do it!

What part of "looks like" don't you understand??:winknudge

K

[podo]

You brought it up to confuse the issue. We certainly can and do pollute the atmosphere but there is no credible evidence to even suggest, much less state as fact, that any of it causes global warming (not to mention that CO2 is not a pollutant). It doesn't, it can't, and the historical record of earth's climate has not reflected the levels of CO2 in the atmosphere. Al Gore tried to show that it did, but once again he was outed as a liar.

I presume you didnt read my post.. Here is the important part again

"""Now the world is experiencing another air pollution disaster, this time caused by a build-up of planet-warming greenhouse gases, the most important of which is carbon dioxide. Its density is measured in parts per 10,000, and it is put into the atmosphere by the burning of fossil fuels.""

Dr Tim Flannery is director of the South Australian Museum.
He is also an Environmental Scientist.
He is also Australian of the Year.. as recognition of his work in Environmental Science.

...greenhouse gases, the most important of which is cardon dioxide......


I'll stay with Tim Flannery

[tommyhawk]

http://www.cagle.com/working/071016/sack.jpg

[pedro skychaser]

I presume you didnt read my post.. Here is the important part again

"""Now the world is experiencing another air pollution disaster, this time caused by a build-up of planet-warming greenhouse gases, the most important of which is carbon dioxide. Its density is measured in parts per 10,000, and it is put into the atmosphere by the burning of fossil fuels.""

Dr Tim Flannery is director of the South Australian Museum.
He is also an Environmental Scientist.
He is also Australian of the Year.. as recognition of his work in Environmental Science.

...greenhouse gases, the most important of which is cardon dioxide......


I'll stay with Tim Flannery


so will president bang bang from indonesia...@ recent APEC summit in sydney ,the good general bought copies of all flannery's books from mcPhees in george st...now if only hu jintao would get between the covers...:headset: (i'm being literal people!!!)

[kirk]

http://www.cagle.com/working/071016/sack.jpg

:lmao: :appl[1]:

K

[Original_Shifty]

The bibel says, go forth and rape the earth to make money.

This is all gods will so don't worry.

[Altres]

Oceans are 'soaking up less CO2' (http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/7053903.stm)

http://newsimg.bbc.co.uk/media/images/42939000/jpg/_42939829_antar_bbc_203.jpg
The study was carried out over the course of a decade

The amount of carbon dioxide being absorbed by the world's oceans has reduced, scientists have said.

University of East Anglia researchers gauged CO2 absorption through more than 90,000 measurements from merchant ships equipped with automatic instruments.

Results of their 10-year study in the North Atlantic show CO2 uptake halved between the mid-90s and 2000 to 2005.

Scientists believe global warming might get worse if the oceans soak up less of the greenhouse gas.

Researchers said the findings, published in a paper for the Journal of Geophysical Research, were surprising and worrying because there were grounds for believing that, in time, the ocean might become saturated with our emissions.

'Saturated' ocean

BBC environment analyst Roger Harrabin said: "The researchers don't know if the change is due to climate change or to natural variations.

"But they say it is a tremendous surprise and very worrying because there were grounds for believing that in time the ocean might become 'saturated' with our emissions - unable to soak up any more."

He said that would "leave all our emissions to warm the atmosphere". Of all the CO2 emitted into the atmosphere, only half of it stays there; the rest goes into carbon sinks. There are two major natural carbon sinks: the oceans and the land "biosphere". They are equivalent in size, each absorbing a quarter of all CO2 emissions.

[pianozach]

Your own credibility is really suffering too. Where did I say
"Liberals Would let Dogs Vote"? Why won't you address any of my points?

Your comprehension of what you read is possibly not what it should be. Or perhaps you're not reading carefully because you think you already know what it says.

Suffice it say, I never said YOU said that. I said that you have quoted from a low-credibility website that posts articles of this ilk, specifically, one with this title.

Your "points", as you call them, have been answered. You just ignore, belittle or misinterpret them.

Your point about the CO2 has been answered several times, yet you keep bringing it up. It's not just the CO2 (and it's not just the CO2 that's increasing).

It's the rapid and sudden rate at which these greenhouse gasses are increasing.

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/1/1c/Carbon_Dioxide_400kyr.png

http://www.planetforlife.com/images/co2history.gif

http://earthguide.ucsd.edu/globalchange/images/raw/fig07.gif

http://earthguide.ucsd.edu/globalchange/images/raw/fig10.gif

You are also ignoring all of the other warning signs and evidence of climate change.

[Timmo]

I think we need to view global warming as a possible (note I said POSSIBLE) consequence of a larger issue, which is that our generation of wastes certainly has negative effects on the planet.

Pollution doesn't just cause an increase in CO2, but many other things...particulate matter, ozone (which ain't good down here, it belongs in the stratosphere), hydrocarbon byproducts, methane, etc.

What the conservatives seem to be saying is that we shouldn't reduce waste emissions if global warming proves to be false, despite the facts that it causes effects from the inability to see the other side of the Grand Canyon on many days of the year due to the aerosol of particulates to increased respiratory problems in major cities to, God knows what else. Pollution is OK, and not worth spending any resources to try and reduce.

Let's dismiss the ENTIRE environmental movement as a bunch of left-wing, if not SOCIALIST, craziness and keep fouling the planet. God forbid we have to spend MONEY on it...money better spent invading the Middle East, for example.

Did you know that discarded solid wastes, mostly plastics, have densely collected in a region known as the North Pacific Gyre which is twice the size of Texas? As it breaks down, the plankton die off, greatly reducing both carbon fixing and oxygen generation? and generates dangerous waste products like PCB's?

http://oceans.greenpeace.org/en/the-expedition/news/trashing-our-oceans/ocean_pollution_animation

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/North_Pacific_Gyre#Waste

http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2007/10/19/SS6JS8RH0.DTL

[kirk]

You forgetting Timmo, Jesus is returning soon , so it doesn't
matter what we do to the planet.
Only those awful sinners, fornicators, homos and Democrats
will be left after the rapture, and everyone knows, gosh darn it,
it was their choice.

Have a nice day!

This message brought to you by-

The Nationial Sarcasm Society
"Yeah, like we need your support"

[Terry Shea]

You Repuglicans are going to have a Helluva time finding
anyone to vote for...

"In November and December, the Mellman Group surveyed likely Republican and Democratic voters, 400 of each, for two climate awareness groups: Clear the Air and the New Hampshire-based Clean Air-Cool Planet. Seventy percent of Republicans and 94 percent of Democrats called global warming a serious threat, though smaller majorities in both parties said they believed it was a human byproduct. Ninety-six percent of Democrats and 82 percent of Republicans said the United States should take action now to reduce emissions.

As of yesterday, 143 New Hampshire communities had approved language calling on Washington to take action to slow U.S. emissions of greenhouse gases, including carbon dioxide. Eight towns had rejected it and at least 25 have yet to vote.

KYou could probably find a similar % of politicians who believed the earth was flat several hundred years ago! That is interesting though...apparently a much higher % of politicians believe this nonsense than do scientists. I doubt most of these politicians actually believe it though. Obviously a lot of these politicians aren't stupid enough to believe such nonsense but they'll say they do anyway because they're politicians and they'll "believe" whatever the latest polls tell them to believe. And such a "belief" will enable them to further raise taxes and fund programs to combat perceived "global warming". And then of course there will be riders on these bills to fund unrelated pet projects such as bridges to nowhere.

I have a hard time finding someone to vote for in every election, but it has nothing to do with "global warming". Both parties are full of scum that vote according to the latest poll instead of voting their conscience...but in some cases that isn't such a bad thing because many of these jackasses have no conscience.

[Altres]

No one ever really thought the world was flat. That's just a myth made up by people who have exausted all their excuses and had no other arguments to make.

Brian

[Altres]

http://img.slate.com/media/1/123125/122953/2139046/2145161/060717_GW_bushEX.jpg

"Go on Terry, keep telling 'em. Heh"

[Mind Driver]

Quit picking on Terry. Every one of us on this site is at least guilty of contributing to the methane gas problems on a daily basis.

[Terry Shea]

You fuking kill me Terry :lmao:

You imagine yourself to be a free thinker, yet you spout the
rank and file BS verbatim on every subject.
Tell me, who's your favorite Democrat?
How many non-whites or Democrats are on your bowling team?

My best friend on my bowling team is a staunch democrat! There are no non-whites on my team. If I knew I had a quota to meet I would have recruited a few just for you! Just kidding. I'm not the team captain so I have no control over who's on our team roster. I do bowl with a couple of jewish guys though, is that okay? Oh wait that was the wrong thing to say to a democrat wasn't it! We're supposed to hate the jews and love the arabs, right?

BTW, how many non-whites are members here at Yesfans?

I know exactly how you feel on subjects we've never discussed,
because it's what everyone of your ilk spouts, line for line.
The only way you're thinking for yourself, is if you're Sean Hannity
using an alias. You're living, walking, breathing stereotypical
midwestern Repuglican, like it or not.

No, you don't know exactly how I feel on subjects we've never discussed although you could probably make a pretty good educated guess about how I feel on many subjects because I take a logical approach and I'm consistent in my views and beliefs. It has nothing to do with what my "ilk spouts". In fact I was a registered Democrat up until about 10 years ago. Why are you spouting such hatred and bias, and what does any of this have to do with the discussion at hand?

...And you haven't addressed all of Zach's questions, especially-
EVEN GW HAS ACKNOWLEDGED GLOBAL WARMING, TERRY!!!
Is he lying also? Is your man George caving in to AL Gore?

Are you actually asking me to explain the words of someone else?

"The US president, George Bush, today acknowledged that human activity contributed to global warming as he prepared to debate climate change with other G8 leaders. Mr Bush spoke to the media in Denmark during a stop-off on his way to the G8 summit at Gleneagles, in Perthshire, Scotland.

He said he recognised "that the surface of the Earth is warmer and that an increase in greenhouse gases is contributing to the problem". However, he said the Kyoto treaty was not the answer."
full article here-
http://www.guardian.co.uk/g8/story/0,13365,1522499,00.html

Well? Is George "brainwashed"?

Who cares what George Bush thinks or says he thinks about global warming? I disagree with George about almost everything and he's told a multitude of lies while in office. About the only thing I agree with him on is the war on terror and the tax cuts. He's obviously just telling the masses what they want to hear and I don't even care if George Bush actually believes global warming is manmade or not. It doesn't affect me one way or the other. I'm not swayed or brainwashed by the words of the president or the masses.

You on the other hand seem to have a deep rooted hatred for George Bush, Republicans or anyone you perceive to be a Republican, so why would you believe the words of a man you despise so much?

K
Bold and italicized.

[Terry Shea]

http://www.newsweek.com/id/42337

K
Ha ha ha! Newsweek, eh?

08 Aug 2007
http://x.myspace.com/images/spacer.gif The Global Warming Hoax Part IV-Newsweek Rebuttal
Category: News and Politics (http://blog.myspace.com/index.cfm?fuseaction=blog.viewCategory&FriendID=81485964&BlogCategoryID=17)
Sharon Begley of Newsweek must have read my blogs on "global warming" before writing her article. Here's a link to the story in case you haven't yet read it:

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/20122975/site/newsweek/

This article represents irresponsible journalism at it's worst, but what else could we expect from Newsweek? Hopefully no one will get killed due to their irresponsible reporting this time. Remember their Quaran-being-flushed-down-the-toilet fiasco?

Let's take a look at Ms. Begley's first paragraph:

Sen. Barbara Boxer had been chair of the Senate's Environment Committee for less than a month when the verdict landed last February. "Warming of the climate system is unequivocal," concluded a report by 600 scientists from governments, academia, green groups and businesses in 40 countries. Worse, there was now at least a 90 percent likelihood that the release of greenhouse gases from the burning of fossil fuels is causing longer droughts, more flood-causing downpours and worse heat waves, way up from earlier studies. Those who doubt the reality of human-caused climate change have spent decades disputing that. But Boxer figured that with "the overwhelming science out there, the deniers' days were numbered." As she left a meeting with the head of the international climate panel, however, a staffer had some news for her. A conservative think tank long funded by ExxonMobil, she told Boxer, had offered scientists $10,000 to write articles undercutting the new report and the computer-based climate models it is based on. "I realized," says Boxer, "there was a movement behind this that just wasn't giving up."

Barbara Boxer, eh? She's about as credible as Newsweek! And a staffer gave her this news...does this staffer have a name or is this another Newsweek ploy using unnamed sources that either don't exist or have no credibility, which is the same method they used in the Quaran-toilet scandel. But this is neither here nor there. If ExxonMobil offered scientists money to write such articles (although I seriously doubt such offers were worded as above) they had every right to do so. They had to to try to compete with the other side! The environmental left has been doing exactly the same thing for years, granting research monies to proponents of manmade global warming while shunning and villifying anyone and everyone who disputes the theory (much like this Newsweek story). Here are a few excerpts from a recent blog by Sen. Inhofe (see link at bottom of page):

Newsweek knew better. Reporter Eve Conant, who interviewed Senator James Inhofe (R-Okla.), the Ranking Member of the Environment & Public Works Committee, was given all the latest data proving conclusively that it is the proponents of man-made global warming fears that enjoy a monumental funding advantage over the skeptics.

Newsweek reporter Eve Conant was given the documentation showing that proponents of man-made global warming have been funded to the tune of $50 BILLION in the last decade or so, but the Magazine chose instead to focus on how skeptics have reportedly received a paltry $19 MILLION from ExxonMobil over the last two decades.

"In one of the more expensive ironies of history, the expenditure of more than $US50 billion on research into global warming since 1990 has failed to demonstrate any human-caused climate trend, let alone a dangerous one," Carter wrote on June 18, 2007.


Meteorologist Dr. Roy W. Spencer, formerly a senior scientist for climate studies at NASA's Marshall Space Flight Center and currently principal research scientist at the University of Alabama in Huntsville, called the Newsweek article part of a "coordinated assault" on skeptics.
"[Newsweek] alleges that a few scientists were offered $10,000 (!) by Big Oil to research and publish evidence against the theory of manmade global warming. Of course, the vast majority of mainstream climate researchers receive between $100,000 to $200,000 from the federal government to do the same, but in support of manmade global warming," Spencer wrote in an August 15, 2007 blog post.

James Spann, a meteorologist certified by the American Meteorological Society, suggests scientific objectively is being compromised by the massive money flow to proponents of man-made climate fears.
"Billions of dollars of grant money is flowing into the pockets of those on the man-made global warming bandwagon. No man-made global warming, the money dries up. This is big money, make no mistake about it. Always follow the money trail and it tells a story," Spann wrote on January 18, 2007. (LINK (http://epw.senate.gov/public/index.cfm?FuseAction=PressRoom.Blogs&ContentRecord_id=3a9bc8a4-802a-23ad-4065-7dc37ec39adf)) "Nothing wrong with making money at all, but when money becomes the motivation for a scientific conclusion, then we have a problem. For many, global warming is a big cash grab," Spann added.
More credibility issues are also apparent. There is a report that is referred to, but no specifics are given and the report is undocumented (if it even exists). This report is unnamed, undated and basically undefined, which makes checking the reliability of the report difficult, if not impossible! Obviously that's what Newsweek wanted and this is one of the ploys the left uses to brainwash weak-minded individuals: Cite a report and/or study but don't give any specifics about the origin of the report so that it cannot be verified or refuted! All we know about this report was that it was comprised of "600 scientists from governments, academia, green groups and businesses in 40 countries" which sounds suspiciously like it was a hand-picked, biased group, not an objective think tank seeking the truth. And it doesn't state whether these scientists were paid or not for their input, but why would they participate if they were not paid? And if they were paid, how can anyone criticize ExxonMobil for doing the same thing? (edit: Or did ExxonMobil really offer money for articles refuting manmade global warming as alleged by Newsweek after all? See blog 5.)

I'm not going to dwell on this article because it's nothing but garbage. They insult everyone who disagrees that global warming is manmade, referring to them (several times) as "deniers" akin to holocaust deniers! They compare manmade global warming doubters to tobacco industry execs who lied to the public about the dangers of cigarets! This article brings no new stats, information or anything of substance to the manmade global warming argument. It's the old "I'm right and you're wrong because I can shout louder than you" argument! It's what Newsweek is becoming infamous for.

Here are a few links that refute the article, and they do a much better job of doing so than I ever could, so I'm going to leave it at that. If the links don't work, copy and paste them into your browser.

http://newsbusters.org/blogs/noel-sheppard/2007/08/05/newsweek-disgrace-global-warming-deniers-well-funded-machine

http://newsbusters.org/blogs/noel-sheppard/2007/08/06/senator-s-office-objects-disgraceful-newsweek-global-warming-article

http://epw.senate.gov/public/index.cfm?FuseAction=Minority.Blogs&ContentRecord_id=38d98c0a-802a-23ad-48ac-d9f7facb61a7 (http://blog.myspace.com/..ol%28%27http://epw.senate.gov/public/index.cfm?FuseAction=Minority.Blogs&ContentRecord_id=38d98c0a-802a-23ad-48ac-d9f7facb61a7%27%29;)

16 Aug 2007
http://x.myspace.com/images/spacer.gif The Global Warming Hoax Part V-Newsweek editor blasts Newsweek article
Category: News and Politics (http://blog.myspace.com/index.cfm?fuseaction=blog.viewCategory&FriendID=81485964&BlogCategoryID=17)
Robert Samuelson, a Newsweek editor, blasted his own magazine's article on global warming this week:

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/20226462/site/newsweek/page/0/

Here are some of his comments:

"...self-righteous indignation can undermine good journalism. Last week's NEWSWEEK cover story (http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/20122975/site/newsweek/) on global warming is a sobering reminder. It's an object lesson of how viewing the world as "good guys vs. bad guys" can lead to a vast oversimplification of a messy story..."

"The story's thrust: discredit the "denial machine," and the country can start the serious business of fighting global warming. The story was a wonderful read, marred only by its being fundamentally misleading."

"Against these real-world pressures, NEWSWEEK's "denial machine" is a peripheral and highly contrived story. NEWSWEEK implied, for example, that ExxonMobil used a think tank to pay academics to criticize global-warming science. Actually, this accusation was long ago discredited, and NEWSWEEK shouldn't have lent it respectability. (The company says it knew nothing of the global-warming grant, which involved issues of climate modeling. And its 2006 contribution to the think tank, the American Enterprise Institute, was small: $240,000 out of a $28 million budget.)"

"The alleged cabal's influence does not seem impressive. The mainstream media have generally been unsympathetic; they've treated global warming ominously..."

[Terry Shea]

http://www.newsweek.com/id/42337

K
Newsweek, eh? Would that be the same Newsweek that printed this article in 1975?

http://www.denisdutton.com/cooling_world.htm

A few excerpts:

The evidence in support of these predictions has now begun to accumulate so massively that meteorologists are hard-pressed to keep up with it. In England, farmers have seen their growing season decline by about two weeks since 1950, with a resultant overall loss in grain production estimated at up to 100,000 tons annually. During the same time, the average temperature around the equator has risen by a fraction of a degree – a fraction that in some areas can mean drought and desolation. Last April, in the most devastating outbreak of tornadoes ever recorded, 148 twisters killed more than 300 people and caused half a billion dollars’ worth of damage in 13 U.S. states.

To scientists, these seemingly disparate incidents represent the advance signs of fundamental changes in the world’s weather. The central fact is that after three quarters of a century of extraordinarily mild conditions, the earth’s climate seems to be cooling down. Meteorologists disagree about the cause and extent of the cooling trend, as well as over its specific impact on local weather conditions. But they are almost unanimous in the view that the trend will reduce agricultural productivity for the rest of the century. If the climatic change is as profound as some of the pessimists fear, the resulting famines could be catastrophic. “A major climatic change would force economic and social adjustments on a worldwide scale,” warns a recent report by the National Academy of Sciences, “because the global patterns of food production and population that have evolved are implicitly dependent on the climate of the present century.”

Just what causes the onset of major and minor ice ages remains a mystery. “Our knowledge of the mechanisms of climatic change is at least as fragmentary as our data,” concedes the National Academy of Sciences report. “Not only are the basic scientific questions largely unanswered, but in many cases we do not yet know enough to pose the key questions.”

Meteorologists think that they can forecast the short-term results of the return to the norm of the last century. They begin by noting the slight drop in overall temperature that produces large numbers of pressure centers in the upper atmosphere. These break up the smooth flow of westerly winds over temperate areas. The stagnant air produced in this way causes an increase in extremes of local weather such as droughts, floods, extended dry spells, long freezes, delayed monsoons and even local temperature increases – all of which have a direct impact on food supplies.

Climatologists are pessimistic that political leaders will take any positive action to compensate for the climatic change, or even to allay its effects. They concede that some of the more spectacular solutions proposed, such as melting the Arctic ice cap by covering it with black soot or diverting arctic rivers, might create problems far greater than those they solve. But the scientists see few signs that government leaders anywhere are even prepared to take the simple measures of stockpiling food or of introducing the variables of climatic uncertainty into economic projections of future food supplies. The longer the planners delay, the more difficult will they find it to cope with climatic change once the results become grim reality.

Ha ha ha! Just over 30 years ago they were talking about artificially melting Arctic ice because it was causing so many problems! There were record numbers of tornadoes, monsoons and "bad weather" during this cooler period. Growing seasons were shortened-food was more scarce! All because of a half a degree lower cooling period, eh? Oh BTW, CO2 and other "greenhouse gas" levels were increasing greatly during this period!

[kirk]

Oh no, not Blogs! Wow, that changes everything!!

I don't know how I could've been so turned around,
buit if it's in a blog, it must be so...
After all, it's so difficult to start a blog, what with the
paying back the student loans to the Harvard School of Blogging...

Anything can be "proven" from the internet...
type "dinosaurs alive today", or "Proof God exists" into a Google,
see what you get. There's a sit for every group of nutjobs out there.

Mainstream news sources only please.
And of course it's going to take monumental amounts
of cash to solve the problem on a planetary scale...
Prayer circles aren't going to do it.

[Terry Shea]

Add McCain to the "brainwashed"-

"Presiding over his final hearing as chair of the Senate Commerce, Science, and Transportation Committee last week, Sen. John McCain (R-Ariz.) delivered a feisty swan song assuring GOP colleagues and environmentalists alike that he won't be giving up his fight for climate-change regulations anytime soon -- even if the Bush administration and the 109th Congress seem likely to thwart his efforts.
Full article here- http://www.grist.org/news/muck/2004/11/24/little-mccain/

KIs that the same McCain who said he'd pay anyone $50 an hour to pick lettuce in Yuma, because Americans won't do that kind of work and we need the illegal aliens coming up from Mexico to do that kind of work?:beerchugr:

[kirk]

Exxon has actually flipped on the issue now.
Here's a link to MSNBC on the subject, but be sure to check
Billybob's Global Warming blog..
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/16593606/

K

[kirk]

Is that the same McCain who said he'd pay anyone $50 an hour to pick lettuce in Yuma, because Americans won't do that kind of work and we need the illegal aliens coming up from Mexico to do that kind of work?:beerchugr:

So, with all this disdain for Republicans, why are you a Republican?

K

[Terry Shea]

I presume you didnt read my post.. Here is the important part again

"""Now the world is experiencing another air pollution disaster, this time caused by a build-up of planet-warming greenhouse gases, the most important of which is carbon dioxide. Its density is measured in parts per 10,000, and it is put into the atmosphere by the burning of fossil fuels.""

Dr Tim Flannery is director of the South Australian Museum.
He is also an Environmental Scientist.
He is also Australian of the Year.. as recognition of his work in Environmental Science.

...greenhouse gases, the most important of which is cardon dioxide......


I'll stay with Tim FlanneryHow does CO2 pollute? It doesn't. He' assuming that greenhouse gasses cause global warming (unproven and unlikely) and he's referring to global warming as being a pollutant in and of itself. CO2 doesn't affect the air we breathe at all and it won't unless multiplied by an almost infinite factor. The air still consists of the same amount of oxygen and nitrogen and CO2 in the atmosphere has not been shown to cause any adverse health effects.

[YESYOUANDI]

In England we need MORE global warming.
Today, it's been brite and sunny and really quite warm for a change.
If this IS global warming........Bring it on I say.
I think I'll get me a gas guzzeling, CO2 blowing 6X6.
Cheers fans.

[kirk]

Terry, i don't think anyone wants this to degenerate into a brawl,
so here- http://lwf.ncdc.noaa.gov/oa/climate/globalwarming.html#Q1

I'm hoping NOAA's not a 'pack of lying commies" or something...?

We could get way more scientific, but it'll likely go over everyone's head-
http://environmentalchemistry.com/yogi/environmental/200611CO2globalwarming.html

The Bush administration in 2003 declassified CO2 as a pollutant
under pressure from automakers.
Of course, this is the same guy that called natural gas "hemispheric",
"because it's in our neighborhoods".

K

[kirk]

In England we need MORE global warming.
Today, it's been brite and sunny and really quite warm for a change.
If this IS global warming........Bring it on I say.
I think I'll get me a gas guzzeling, CO2 blowing 6X6.
Cheers fans.

I'm sure the hundreds of victims of Britain's recent heatwave's families
would disagree strongly. Please read the links provided, and
understand that global warming occurs in pockets, not uniformly.

K

[Terry Shea]

Your comprehension of what you read is possibly not what it should be. Or perhaps you're not reading carefully because you think you already know what it says.

Suffice it say, I never said YOU said that. I said that you have quoted from a low-credibility website that posts articles of this ilk, specifically, one with this title.

Your "points", as you call them, have been answered. You just ignore, belittle or misinterpret them.

Your point about the CO2 has been answered several times, yet you keep bringing it up. It's not just the CO2 (and it's not just the CO2 that's increasing).

It's the rapid and sudden rate at which these greenhouse gasses are increasing.

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/1/1c/Carbon_Dioxide_400kyr.png

http://www.planetforlife.com/images/co2history.gif

http://earthguide.ucsd.edu/globalchange/images/raw/fig07.gif

http://earthguide.ucsd.edu/globalchange/images/raw/fig10.gif

You are also ignoring all of the other warning signs and evidence of climate change.
Okay, which source did I use that stated: "Liberals Would let Dogs Vote"? If any source stated such it was no doubt a facetious comment taken out of context, probably in reference to the liberals in California who were trying to make it legal for 14 year olds to vote. Is that right, or was this merely a pure fabrication on your part?

You've hardly answered any of my points. The graphs you show look like the same charts Al Gore presented. He deliberately lied about the cause-effect relationship though! There is a relationship between CO2 levels and temperature, but it isn't what Al Gore presented. Increased CO2 levels have not cause the temperature to rise. The opposite is true. The rise in temperature causes more ice to melt which releases more CO2 into the atmosphere, but there is a 6-800 year lag factor involved! Al knew this but deliberately lied about it in his crocumentary!

[kingbee]

"Global warming" is simply propaganda for the left. Period. Al Gore is a genius of manipulation, to this day will not entertain any debates ON global warming, and has made a fortune with his "documentary"(I call it a movie). Makes ya wonder, eh?
ps. It snowed in May in Denver this year. Wow, its getting so warm out. Talk to the scientists NOT in Gore's propagandist film and you'll find weather is cyclical. PERIOD!
pps. Let's focus our energies on gettin YES into the Rock and Roll HOF. Why? Because John Cougar Mellancamp is being inducted this year. ...ughhhh....

[YESYOUANDI]

In England we need MORE global warming.
Today, it's been brite and sunny and really quite warm for a change.
If this IS global warming........Bring it on I say.
I think I'll get me a gas guzzeling, CO2 blowing 6X6.
Cheers fans.

Or maybe I won't........I'll just let America and China do it.
Cheers fans.

[Terry Shea]

No one ever really thought the world was flat. That's just a myth made up by people who have exausted all their excuses and had no other arguments to make.

Brian
Nice try (not really).
http://www.alaska.net/~clund/e_djublonskopf/Flatearthsociety.htm

"Deprogramming the masses since 1547"

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Flat_Earth

Belief in a flat Earth is found in mankind's oldest writings. In early Mesopotamian thought (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mesopotamian_mythology), the world was portrayed as a flat disk floating in the ocean, and this forms the premise for early Greek (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Greece) maps like those of Anaximander (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anaximander) and Hecataeus of Miletus (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hecataeus_of_Miletus).

[kirk]

Hi Kingbee, welcome to Yesfans. We're not actually like this
outside of the politics forum. Terry and i've known each other
back to the 1sound forum days, pre-YF (for me anyway).

Now that you're in the fray, NOAA is propagandists for the Left?!?
Another Fox News fan...great, all we need.
If Al Gore is the speaker for the left, then Exxon is speaking for the right.
Now, there's "trustworthy"!

Kirk

[Terry Shea]

Oh no, not Blogs! Wow, that changes everything!!

I don't know how I could've been so turned around,
buit if it's in a blog, it must be so...
After all, it's so difficult to start a blog, what with the
paying back the student loans to the Harvard School of Blogging...

Anything can be "proven" from the internet...
type "dinosaurs alive today", or "Proof God exists" into a Google,
see what you get. There's a sit for every group of nutjobs out there.

Mainstream news sources only please.
And of course it's going to take monumental amounts
of cash to solve the problem on a planetary scale...
Prayer circles aren't going to do it.Those are from my own blogs! I've used credible sources and I've debunked your precious Newsweek, which has no credibility whatsoever!

[kirk]

[QUOTE]Those are from my own blogs!

Hold on a sec....i'm going to start a blogsite so i can quote myself ;-).

k

[kirk]

You didn't read the NOAA link, did you?
At this point, you're arguing to be contentious, getting
off on your adrenalin. If you have some credible links to
rebuttals w/o "Fox" or "blog" in the addy, post 'em.

K

[kirk]

http://www.cnn.com/SPECIALS/2007/planet.in.peril/

[Terry Shea]

You didn't read the NOAA link, did you?
At this point, you're arguing to be contentious, getting
off on your adrenalin. If you have some credible links to
rebuttals w/o "Fox" or "blog" in the addy, post 'em.

K
Yeah, only use Newsweek or some other leftist propaganda source. Don't use anything that exposes these leftist sources as being the liars that they are.

[podo]

How does CO2 pollute? It doesn't. He' assuming that greenhouse gasses cause global warming (unproven and unlikely) and he's referring to global warming as being a pollutant in and of itself. CO2 doesn't affect the air we breathe at all and it won't unless multiplied by an almost infinite factor. The air still consists of the same amount of oxygen and nitrogen and CO2 in the atmosphere has not been shown to cause any adverse health effects.

So your saying that Tim Flannery doesnt know what he is talking about ?

[pianozach]

Well, Terry, there's just no pleasing you, is there?

Where to start . . .

Well first of all let's go back here . . .



http://www.newsweek.com/id/42337

K
Ha ha ha! Newsweek, eh?

08 Aug 2007
The Global Warming Hoax Part IV-Newsweek Rebuttal
Category: News and Politics
Sharon Begley of Newsweek must have read my blogs on "global warming" before writing her article. Here's a link to the story in case you haven't yet read it:

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/20122975/site/newsweek/

This article represents irresponsible journalism at it's worst, but what else could we expect from Newsweek? Hopefully no one will get killed due to their irresponsible reporting this time. Remember their Quaran-being-flushed-down-the-toilet fiasco?

Let's take a look at Ms. Begley's first paragraph:

Sen. Barbara Boxer had been chair of the Senate's Environment Committee for less than a month when the verdict landed last February. "Warming of the climate system is unequivocal," concluded a report by 600 scientists from governments, academia, green groups and businesses in 40 countries. Worse, there was now at least a 90 percent likelihood that the release of greenhouse gases from the burning of fossil fuels is causing longer droughts, more flood-causing downpours and worse heat waves, way up from earlier studies. Those who doubt the reality of human-caused climate change have spent decades disputing that. But Boxer figured that with "the overwhelming science out there, the deniers' days were numbered." As she left a meeting with the head of the international climate panel, however, a staffer had some news for her. A conservative think tank long funded by ExxonMobil, she told Boxer, had offered scientists $10,000 to write articles undercutting the new report and the computer-based climate models it is based on. "I realized," says Boxer, "there was a movement behind this that just wasn't giving up."

Barbara Boxer, eh? She's about as credible as Newsweek! And a staffer gave her this news...does this staffer have a name or is this another Newsweek ploy using unnamed sources that either don't exist or have no credibility, which is the same method they used in the Quaran-toilet scandel. But this is neither here nor there. If ExxonMobil offered scientists money to write such articles (although I seriously doubt such offers were worded as above) they had every right to do so. They had to to try to compete with the other side! The environmental left has been doing exactly the same thing for years, granting research monies to proponents of manmade global warming while shunning and villifying anyone and everyone who disputes the theory (much like this Newsweek story). Here are a few excerpts from a recent blog by Sen. Inhofe (see link at bottom of page):

Newsweek knew better. Reporter Eve Conant, who interviewed Senator James Inhofe (R-Okla.), the Ranking Member of the Environment & Public Works Committee, was given all the latest data proving conclusively that it is the proponents of man-made global warming fears that enjoy a monumental funding advantage over the skeptics.

Newsweek reporter Eve Conant was given the documentation showing that proponents of man-made global warming have been funded to the tune of $50 BILLION in the last decade or so, but the Magazine chose instead to focus on how skeptics have reportedly received a paltry $19 MILLION from ExxonMobil over the last two decades.

"In one of the more expensive ironies of history, the expenditure of more than $US50 billion on research into global warming since 1990 has failed to demonstrate any human-caused climate trend, let alone a dangerous one," Carter wrote on June 18, 2007.


Meteorologist Dr. Roy W. Spencer, formerly a senior scientist for climate studies at NASA's Marshall Space Flight Center and currently principal research scientist at the University of Alabama in Huntsville, called the Newsweek article part of a "coordinated assault" on skeptics.
"[Newsweek] alleges that a few scientists were offered $10,000 (!) by Big Oil to research and publish evidence against the theory of manmade global warming. Of course, the vast majority of mainstream climate researchers receive between $100,000 to $200,000 from the federal government to do the same, but in support of manmade global warming," Spencer wrote in an August 15, 2007 blog post.

James Spann, a meteorologist certified by the American Meteorological Society, suggests scientific objectively is being compromised by the massive money flow to proponents of man-made climate fears.
"Billions of dollars of grant money is flowing into the pockets of those on the man-made global warming bandwagon. No man-made global warming, the money dries up. This is big money, make no mistake about it. Always follow the money trail and it tells a story," Spann wrote on January 18, 2007. (LINK) "Nothing wrong with making money at all, but when money becomes the motivation for a scientific conclusion, then we have a problem. For many, global warming is a big cash grab," Spann added.
More credibility issues are also apparent. There is a report that is referred to, but no specifics are given and the report is undocumented (if it even exists). This report is unnamed, undated and basically undefined, which makes checking the reliability of the report difficult, if not impossible! Obviously that's what Newsweek wanted and this is one of the ploys the left uses to brainwash weak-minded individuals: Cite a report and/or study but don't give any specifics about the origin of the report so that it cannot be verified or refuted! All we know about this report was that it was comprised of "600 scientists from governments, academia, green groups and businesses in 40 countries" which sounds suspiciously like it was a hand-picked, biased group, not an objective think tank seeking the truth. And it doesn't state whether these scientists were paid or not for their input, but why would they participate if they were not paid? And if they were paid, how can anyone criticize ExxonMobil for doing the same thing? (edit: Or did ExxonMobil really offer money for articles refuting manmade global warming as alleged by Newsweek after all? See blog 5.)

I'm not going to dwell on this article because it's nothing but garbage. They insult everyone who disagrees that global warming is manmade, referring to them (several times) as "deniers" akin to holocaust deniers! They compare manmade global warming doubters to tobacco industry execs who lied to the public about the dangers of cigarets! This article brings no new stats, information or anything of substance to the manmade global warming argument. It's the old "I'm right and you're wrong because I can shout louder than you" argument! It's what Newsweek is becoming infamous for.

Here are a few links that refute the article, and they do a much better job of doing so than I ever could, so I'm going to leave it at that. If the links don't work, copy and paste them into your browser.

http://newsbusters.org/blogs/noel-sh...funded-machine

http://newsbusters.org/blogs/noel-sh...arming-article

http://epw.senate.gov/public/index.cfm?FuseAction=Minority.Blogs&ContentRecord_ id=38d98c0a-802a-23ad-48ac-d9f7facb61a7

16 Aug 2007
The Global Warming Hoax Part V-Newsweek editor blasts Newsweek article
Category: News and Politics
Robert Samuelson, a Newsweek editor, blasted his own magazine's article on global warming this week:

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/20226462...wsweek/page/0/

Here are some of his comments:

"...self-righteous indignation can undermine good journalism. Last week's NEWSWEEK cover story on global warming is a sobering reminder. It's an object lesson of how viewing the world as "good guys vs. bad guys" can lead to a vast oversimplification of a messy story..."

"The story's thrust: discredit the "denial machine," and the country can start the serious business of fighting global warming. The story was a wonderful read, marred only by its being fundamentally misleading."

"Against these real-world pressures, NEWSWEEK's "denial machine" is a peripheral and highly contrived story. NEWSWEEK implied, for example, that ExxonMobil used a think tank to pay academics to criticize global-warming science. Actually, this accusation was long ago discredited, and NEWSWEEK shouldn't have lent it respectability. (The company says it knew nothing of the global-warming grant, which involved issues of climate modeling. And its 2006 contribution to the think tank, the American Enterprise Institute, was small: $240,000 out of a $28 million budget.)"

"The alleged cabal's influence does not seem impressive. The mainstream media have generally been unsympathetic; they've treated global warming ominously..."

Well, I'm not sure what kind of grudge you have against Sharon Begley of Newsweek or Newsweek itself.

And yes, I'm familiar with the 1975 Global Cooling scare that Newsweek itself helped along by latching onto an unproven theory without checking into it. I've mentioned here in this thread several times. Some scientists proposed the theory, and it had not undergone any kind of peer review, nor was a favorable consensus ever reached supporting it.

I notice that you love bringing it up again and again, though. At least you found a new angle to frame it in.

Of course, that was over 30 years ago, and almost all mainstream publications and networks have made serious errors in reporting somewhere along the line.

I'll grant you that the "mainstream" media just ain't what it oughta be, but, like anything else you may find on the internet, you must question and corroborate most information.

So, why are you suddenly slamming Barbara Boxer ("as credible as Newsweek")? Why is her credibility in question? No links, no reasons, no support and no logic to your slander - just hit 'n' run her.

You mindless noodlings ruminating on why the article did not name a staffer is also a useless distraction. First you bring it up, then you say it's not important enough to discuss. That's a time tested dirty debate tactic, Terry. Drop a bomb, then move on. But your dirty "bomb" has been dropped and just lingers - your arrogant suggestion that we not discuss your slanted point because it's not important just leaves your unjustified stinky pseudo-allegation wafting its unchallenged stench across the discussion.

Look - the staffer wasn't named because it's completely superfluous to the story.

So on to Sen. Inhofe:

Inhofe often cites the Bible as the source for his stances on various political issues. He's viewed as one of the most conservative members of either house of Congress. When the Abu Graib prison scandal was revealed, he seemed more shocked that the public would be shocked in the first place.

As a senator, he voted against the McCain Detainee Amendment banning torture on individuals in U.S. Government custody.

As a matter of fact, it was Inhofe that you were parroting earlier in this thread when you were using the Goebbels philosophy to brand evironmentalists as Nazis. He said, "It kind of reminds... I could use the Third Reich, the Big Lie... You say something over and over and over and over again, and people will believe it, and that's their [the environmentalists'] strategy..." You just neglected to credit him for it.

Inhofe had previously compared the United States Environmental Protection Agency to the Gestapo. He had also made allegations that the Weather Channel is behind the alleged global warming hoax, so as to attract viewers.

Inhofe had previously claimed that Global Warming is "the second-largest hoax ever played on the American people, after the separation of church and state."

I think that Senator Inhofe's integrity has been compromised by the very large campaign donations he's received from the gas and oil industry.

Terry, I also love how you can object to useless details, like the failure of the Newsweek reporter to name the aide that handed Sen. Boxer a "report", then turn right around in the same post and do the same thing yourself:

Newsweek reporter Eve Conant was given the documentation showing that proponents of man-made global warming have been funded to the tune of $50 BILLION in the last decade or so, but the Magazine chose instead to focus on how skeptics have reportedly received a paltry $19 MILLION from ExxonMobil over the last two decades.

Who gave this reporter "documentation", and what did this "documentation" consist of? And by "documentation" do mean factual evidence or are you referring to your usual skewed and biased unsupported detritus that you usually post?

Your post left a bit to be desired in the formatting department - it's pretty hard to tell what part belongs to which source - It's pretty hard to pick out which parts are your own blog, which is Sen. Inhofe, which is the reporter . . .

Oh, and most of your links are useless, as they only take one to the home page of the link without a clue as to HOW to actually get to the article that you think we should take a gander at - no title, no byline, no date.

[pianozach]

Okay, which source did I use that stated: "Liberals Would let Dogs Vote"? If any source stated such it was no doubt a facetious comment taken out of context, probably in reference to the liberals in California who were trying to make it legal for 14 year olds to vote. Is that right, or was this merely a pure fabrication on your part?

Here. I'll hold your hand and put your finger directly ON it, since you evidently don't read responses to your posts very carefully.

. . . . Here's some more dirt on Gore and and his companies:

http://www.humanevents.com/article.php?id=22663#continueA


humanevents.com is an insulting, Clinton & Gore bashing, AnnCoulter-worshipping, name-calling ("If Democrats had brains, they'd be Republicans"), Gingrich and Ollie North-supporting Conservative blogsite with very little credibility.

Bloggers there "warn" that Speaker Pelosi's "back door" plan to kill the Iraq war will cost more American troops. This is blantant BS. Do you really think that getting the troops out will cost more lives of American personel there than leaving the troops there?

There's teaser links like "Hillary exposed!" and Obama exposed!"

There's numerous articles by convicted felon Oliver North and the bribe-taking John Boehner.

Some other non-useful articles on the site:

"Liberals Would Let Dogs Vote"

"New Poll Shows One in Five Dems Want U.S. to Lose in Iraq"

"Hillary Clinton: Still Socialist After All These Years"

"Why I Decided Not to Run For President" by Newt Gingrich 10/1/07

"Bush as Freedom Marcher"

"Corporate America’s Loyalty Now Global"

"Tase Him Bro!" by Ann Coulter

Find some credible and cogent sources for a change, Terry.

Where did I say
"Liberals Would let Dogs Vote"?



Your comprehension of what you read is possibly not what it should be. Or perhaps you're not reading carefully because you think you already know what it says.

Suffice it say, I never said YOU said that. I said that you have quoted from a low-credibility website that posts articles of this ilk, specifically, one with this title.

[Altres]

The flat Earth misconception. Terry, no one seriously believed the Earth was flat. The ancient Greeks knew it was an orb and had calculated its circumference to 23,000 miles. The arguements were always about the Earth going around the Sun, or the Sun around the Earth. Here's a link to the misconceptions.

http://www.bede.org.uk/flatearth.htm

[podo]

Struth, reading some posts here, anyone would think that Al Gore made up the theory of global warming. That he, and he alone was the only one saying it was a problem.

He simply brought it to the masses. He didnt invent it

Just incase you missed that headline

[pianozach]

Seriously, there's a growing number of Republicans that are now showing their support of action to address Global Climate Change.

Republican Sen. Judd Gregg says a new Senate bill to combat global warming "deserves serious consideration," even though one of the bill's sponsors says it goes beyond President Bush's proposals on global warming.

Leading environmentalists in New Hampshire also support the legislation, which has bipartisan support in Congress. Sens. Joseph Lieberman, I-Conn., and John Warner, R-Va., introduced the bill this week.

Besides Warner, Republican Sens. Elizabeth Dole of North Carolina, Norm Coleman of Minnesota and Susan Collins of Maine are co-sponsors.

On September 27 California Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger signed into law a sweeping global warming initiative that imposes United States' first cap on greenhouse gas emissions. New York Gov. George Pataki joined Schwarzenegger for the high-profile ceremony.

Senator John McCain of Arizona is calling for capping gas emissions linked to warming and higher fuel economy standards.

Former Gov. Mike Huckabee of Arkansas and Senator Sam Brownback of Kansas have called for strong actions to ease the effects of people on the climate.

Presidential candidate Fred Thompson, after mocking the threat in April, said more recently that “climate change is real”.

On the campaign trail, even former New York mayor Rudy Giuliani has said, “I do believe there’s global warming”.

House Science Committee Chairman Sherwood L. Boehlert (R-N.Y.) backs limits on carbon dioxide pollution.

Even President Bush has jumped onboard, although it may be nothing more than lip service and his intentions may be to merely engage in fruitless discussions until the very end of his administration.

Granted, some of these politicians may simply be jumping on the Global Warming bandwagon to please their constituents and potential voters.

[kirk]

Yeah, only use Newsweek or some other leftist propaganda source. Don't use anything that exposes these leftist sources as being the liars that they are.

??? What the Hell does Newsweek have to do with NOAA
(National Oceanic and Atmospheric Association), a goverment agency?
http://www.noaa.gov/

Ducked that one, didn't you?

K

[Terry Shea]

??? What the Hell does Newsweek have to do with NOAA
(National Oceanic and Atmospheric Association), a goverment agency?
http://www.noaa.gov/

Ducked that one, didn't you?

K
Actually, I've used the NOAA as a source in several previous posts. They don't present any scientific "facts" to show how increased CO2 levels or other "greenhouse gasses" cause global warming. They simply make the observation that it's been growing warmer and CO2 levels are increasing and conveniently piece the 2 together, making blanket statements with no scientific analysis such as this one:

"The greenhouse effect is unquestionably real and helps to regulate the temperature of our planet."

They further state:

Without a natural greenhouse effect, the temperature of the Earth would be about zero degrees F (-18°C) instead of its present 57°F (14°C). So, the concern is not with the fact that we have a greenhouse effect, but whether human activities are leading to an enhancement of the greenhouse effect.

I don't doubt this at all. What I have problems with are what they classify as "greenhouse gasses" and why they classify them as "greenhouse gasses" w/o any scientific analysis whatsoever. Obviously water vapor has such a regulating effect...no argument there. The other "greenhouse gasses" seem to have been hand-picked and assigned as "greenhouse gasses" merely as a scare tactic. While the NOAA does actually admit that water vapor is the most abundant "greenhouse gas", they failed to mention that water vapor constitutes 95% of these gasses! Now, if you'll excuse me, I'm going to repost one of blogs on this subject:

The Global Warming Hoax Part VII-A Brief Synopsis
Category: News and Politics (http://blog.myspace.com/index.cfm?fuseaction=blog.viewCategory&FriendID=81485964&BlogCategoryID=17)

(http://blog.myspace.com/index.cfm?fuseaction=blog.viewCategory&FriendID=81485964&BlogCategoryID=17)
Here is what Al Gore and the Manmade Global Warming Alarmist Conspiracy doesn't want you to know:

Our atmosphere is made up of 78% nitrogen and 21% Oxygen. The remaining 1% of our atmosphere is comprised of so-called "greenhouse gasses". Water vapor constitutes about 95% of these gasses, and 99.99% of water vapor is of natural origin.

CO2 is the next most abundant "greenhouse gas", but it accounts for only about 3.6% of all greenhouse gasses. Of this 3.6%, almost 97% of it occurs naturally, meaning that only about 3% of this small concentration is manmade.

So what does this all mean? It means that manmade CO2 emissions contribute about 0.117% of the atmospheric greenhouse effect, and all manmade greenhouse gases contribute a whopping 0.28% of the total! It means that even if an increase in greenhouse gasses were solely responsible for the temperature increasing about 1 degree in the last 150 years (which certainly has not been establsihed and never could be), human activities could only be responsible for about 1/400th of that 1 degree, which is rather amazing when you think about it since we've had a population increase of at least 400% since 1850!

So what does it really mean? It means the Manmade Global Warming Alarmist Thugs are creating much adieu about nothing! It means driving cars and flying jets doesn't amount to diddly squat, and reducing such activities won't amount to diddly squat! It means if you really want to send the earth back into an ice age (Al Gore probably has wet dreams about such a scenario) you need to get rid of a significant portion of the water vapor.

The following link was used as a source for much of this blog:

http://mysite.verizon.net/mhieb/WVFossils/greenhouse_data.html

I'll leave you with this quote from Dr. S. Fred Singer:

" There is no dispute at all about the fact that even if punctiliously observed, (the Kyoto Protocol) would have an imperceptible effect on future temperatures -- one-twentieth of a degree by 2050. "

Now that's assuming that the gasses they lumped together and called "greenhouse gasses" are actually greenhouse gasses which once again has not been established or proven scientifically.

Here's another interesting tidbit from the NOAA site:
Is sea level rising?

Global mean sea level has been rising at an average rate of 1 to 2 mm/year over the past 100 years, which is significantly larger than the rate averaged over the last several thousand years. Projected increase from 1990-2100 is anywhere from 0.09-0.88 meters, depending on which greenhouse gas scenario is used and many physical uncertainties in contributions to sea-level rise from a variety of frozen and unfrozen water sources.


A weeee bit short of the 20 foot figure Al Gore put out there!



The NOAA totally ignores the 20,000 year history of tempertaures rising. The NOAA totally ignores the Medeival Warm Period. The NOAA totally ignores the recent cooling period from 1940-1979! The NOAA uses The IPCC Special Report on Emission Scenarios which ignored scientists who disagreed with the manmade global warming scenario and yet listed them as contributors to the report, hand-picking what information to use and what info to discard in a very biased, unscientific and unprofessional manner. The NOAA presents no credible scientific information linking "greenhouse gasses" (other than water vapor) to global warming or how they determined that such gasses are indeed "greenhouse gasses"...they were lumped together merely for convenience sake. The NOAA has totally ignored the fact that we've had a 400% population increase in the last 150 years! That's 400% more people exhaling CO2 into the atmosphere and no doubt engaging in other activities that put more CO2 into the atmosphere, but have we had a 400% increase in CO2 levels? No! It's only been about a 30% increase. We should be commended for keeping the increase so low!

The NOAA is a politically driven organization with a clear agenda!

[kirk]

...and so does any source that fears an Al Gore presidency,
wants to continue polluting the atmosphere unabated for a
higher profit margin...such as Exxon-

"Singer, a leading climate change skeptic, is a frequent contributor to the Wall Street Journal and other publications.

In a February 2001 letter to the Washington Post, Singer denied receiving funding from the oil industry, except for consulting work some 20 years prior. SEPP, however, received multiple grants from ExxonMobil, including 1998 and 2000. In addition, Singer's current CV on the SEPP website states that he served as a consultant to several oil companies. The organizations Singer has recently been affiliated with - Frontiers of Freedom, ACSH, NCPA, etc. - have recieved generous grants from Exxon on an annual basis."

The fear we should all have, is something that requires
an immediate life or death decision, being filtered through
the political circus.
God help us if an asteroid's on the way.

K

[Terry Shea]

...and so does any source that fears an Al Gore presidency,
wants to continue polluting the atmosphere unabated for a
higher profit margin...such as Exxon-

"Singer, a leading climate change skeptic, is a frequent contributor to the Wall Street Journal and other publications.

In a February 2001 letter to the Washington Post, Singer denied receiving funding from the oil industry, except for consulting work some 20 years prior. SEPP, however, received multiple grants from ExxonMobil, including 1998 and 2000. In addition, Singer's current CV on the SEPP website states that he served as a consultant to several oil companies. The organizations Singer has recently been affiliated with - Frontiers of Freedom, ACSH, NCPA, etc. - have recieved generous grants from Exxon on an annual basis."

The fear we should all have, is something that requires
an immediate life or death decision, being filtered through
the political circus.
God help us if an asteroid's on the way.

K
What's your point? Are oil companies not allowed to send grants? Are individuals not allowed to consult with organizations that receive grants? Moreover, your blurb from above doesn't even tell us Singer's first name, what SEPP stands for or what your source is since no link is provided. About all we know from what you provided is that someone named Singer (is that Fred Singer from my post above?) wrote a letter to The Washington Post-the most liberal, treacherous, dishonest conglomeration of liars on the planet.

[pianozach]

What's your point? Are oil companies not allowed to send grants? Are individuals not allowed to consult with organizations that receive grants? Moreover, your blurb from above doesn't even tell us Singer's first name, what SEPP stands for or what your source is since no link is provided. About all we know from what you provided is that someone named Singer (is that Fred Singer from my post above?) wrote a letter to The Washington Post-the most liberal, treacherous, dishonest conglomeration of liars on the planet.

Ah, c'mon, Terry. Now you're just being thick. Really thick.

Of course Kirk is referring to the same Fred Singer that you quoted. Yep, the one that's an oil company tool. The one who founded SEPP (the "Science & Environmental Policy Project") in 1990.

Gawd, you are so annoying with your feigned ignorance of others' information. You quoted Singer, then you pretend that Kirk is trying to pull some sort of fast one on you by answering your post with a reference to Singer by taking him to task for not including Singer's first name.

And if you didn't know that Singer founded SEPP, you are then just quoting someone you know nothing about simply because you like the quote. Why would you quote from someone of whom you know nothing, other than you like that he agrees with you?

Terry, you are obviously NOT interested in actually discussing and listening to others' views on this subject. Your posts are far from being a constructive addition to the subject. Your listening skills are astoundingly poor, in fact, you deliberately misread others' posts, twisting their content into what you think you thought you read.

So, of course oil companies are allowed to give grants. But the problem you're ignoring here is that they unethically influence the results either overtly, or more subtly by simply being the source of the funding.

OK - you've slammed Newsweek, the Washingon Post, the AP (Associated Press), CNN and the UN as being unworthy sources. Whom may we use as sources, then?

You are of the opinion that you and your self-labelled "credible" sources like NewsMax, WorldNewsDaily, Newsbusters and Humanevents.com know better than the IPCC (The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change)? And part of your proof is that the weatherman from a conservative radio station in Sacramento says so?

The world scientific consensus is clearly expressed in the reports of the IPCC.

The IPCC is not alone in its conclusions. In recent years, all major scientific bodies in the United States whose members' expertise bears directly on the matter have issued similar statements, including:

The National Academy of Sciences,
The American Meteorological Society,
The American Geophysical Union, and
The American Association for the Advancement of Science.

Africa will be hardest hit. By 2020, up to 250 million people are likely to be exposed to water shortages.

There is a scientific consensus on the reality of anthropogenic climate change. Climate scientists have repeatedly made themselves quite clear about this.

You are under a mistaken impression that there is significant scientific disagreement about global climate change. A few noisy skeptics generating a lot of chatter in the mass media does not change this, it only changes some people's perception of it.

Sweet wounded Jesus, Terry - the proof is everywhere around you!: North America is already experiencing more severe storms with human and economic loss, and cultural and social disruptions. There are more numerous and more severe hurricanes, floods, droughts, heatwaves and wildfires. Europe is experiencing more heatwaves and drought, resulting in a reduction in crop productivity.

Asia is suffering frequent widespread flooding and avalanches from melting Himalayan glaciers. Alpine glaciers are disappearing.

It is time for the you to pay attention and listen.

[pianozach]

. . . The Washington Post-the most liberal, treacherous, dishonest conglomeration of liars on the planet.

Ah, now you're just being melodramatic . . .

[Sheerah]

Actually, I've used the NOAA as a source in several previous posts. They don't present any scientific "facts" to show how increased CO2 levels or other "greenhouse gasses" cause global warming. They simply make the observation that it's been growing warmer and CO2 levels are increasing and conveniently piece the 2 together, making blanket statements with no scientific analysis


:dog:

The NOAA is a politically driven organization with a clear agenda!

I used to be a marine biology student at a private University. The school of marine and atmospheric sciences worked closely with NOAA. At that time (late 70's) the only agenda that NOAA had was research.

NOAA is a political agency. They are now a part of Homeland Security, creation of the current Administration.

[kirk]

(oy) No, I was referring to the sewing machine company.
Don't flatter yourself that I care enough about changing your
set in stone opinions that I'd fabricate information.

Here you go-
S. Fred Singer

President, The Science & Environmental Policy Project.
Editorial Advisory Board Member, Cato Institute. Advisory Board Member, American Council on Science and Health. Adjunct Scholar, National Center for Policy Analysis. Research Fellow, Independent Institute. Distinguished Research Professor, Institute for Humane Studies, George Mason University. Former Adjunct Fellow, Frontiers of Freedom. Former Fellow, Hoover Institution. Former Fellow, Heritage Foundation. Former Fellow, The Advancement of Sound Science Coalition. Editor, Global Climate Change newsletter.

Singer, a leading climate change skeptic, is a frequent contributor to the Wall Street Journal and other publications.

In a February 2001 letter to the Washington Post, Singer denied receiving funding from the oil industry, except for consulting work some 20 years prior. SEPP, however, received multiple grants from ExxonMobil, including 1998 and 2000. In addition, Singer's current CV on the SEPP website states that he served as a consultant to several oil companies. The organizations Singer has recently been affiliated with - Frontiers of Freedom, ACSH, NCPA, etc. - have recieved generous grants from Exxon on an annual basis. Singer Letter to the Editor -Washington Post February 12, 2001 It is ironic that the attempt by two environmental activists to misrepresent my credentials [letters, Feb. 6] coincides with a sustained cold spell in the United States that set a 100-year record. As for full disclosure: My resume clearly states that consulted for several oil companies on the subject of oil pricing, some 20 years ago, after publishing a monograph on the subject. My connection to oil during the past decade is as a Wesson Fellow at the Hoover Institution; the Wesson money derives from salad oil. S. FRED SINGER Singer is listed as a $500 plus contributer to the Center for Individual Rights. Singer's publications include "The Scientific Case Against the Global Climate Treaty" (SEPP, 1997), "Hot Talk, Cold Science: Global Warming's Unfinished Debate" (The Independent Institute, 1997) Singer signed the Leipzig Delcaration.

Thanks for that Zach, Sheils. My son studied Marine Biology
at Pacific Hawa'ii, now works for subsidary of NASA in Lancaster Ca.
In the 6 years since he left the Marines, he's earned 4 degrees
in engineering. It's funny...they all think Global Warming's bearing
down on us...I'll have to mention they need to call Terry on the hotline
for the real scoop.:teach:


N a m a s t e

K

[kirk]

:dog:



I used to be a marine biology student at a private University. The school of marine and atmospheric sciences worked closely with NOAA. At that time (late 70's) the only agenda that NOAA had was research.

NOAA is a political agency. They are now a part of Homeland Security, creation of the current Administration.

Yeah, first he quotes them, then says they have a political agenda
after he realizes what "forced factors" are.:seesaw:

K

[Altres]

From Steve Kilbey's Blogg, The Time Being

Sunday, October 21, 2007

the antarcticans (http://stevekilbey.blogspot.com/2007/10/antarcticans.html)


earth is just warming up
and up
and up
first the equator
the tropics
qld
darwin boiled over
down to sydney
then south south
away from the heat
away from the fcuking searing blasting boiling sun
no respite
gippsland in victoria fries
melbourne a cinder
over the sea
but no respite
we weep for hobart blackened treeless dry and burnt
now we australians
we who are left
and the south americans
among them several magic realists
some new zealanders
we are antarcticans
3rd generation
domedwellers
ice men
but ice melting even here
glaciers flowing
the great shelves crashing in green warmer water
the mountains are re exposed
birds nesting
goats let loose
in summer
the young people walk in the mountains
many go missing
what strange menace lurks there
we who thought this place previously uninhabited
let me tell you how wrong we were
they were there
under the ice
we have seen their cities
at first only ruins we thought
weve seen their lights under ice
and now the ice is melting
their cities deep in the thawing ice
as the mercury moves up the glass
like a snake slithering up a tree
oh yes there are antarctic snakes now
and wolves too
set loose from a menagerie
other beasts unidentifiable
boss that was a dragon said a thai man
could they have unleashed these
those in the under-ice city
nevermind
the long summer comes
warmer and warmer
coming in from all sides of the sky
warmer and warmer
bunyips have appeared in the lake
they have taken several divers
jim who has koori blood identified them
life appears where it has no where else to go
but even the monsters
even the ones underground in the ice
all of them
all of us
all of it
must
will
burn

[podo]

THE most authoritative scientific report on the planet's health has found water, land, air, plants, animals and fish stocks are all in "inexorable decline" as 2007 became the first year in human history when most of the world's population lived in cities.

http://www.smh.com.au/news/environment/population-pressure-takes-earth-to-its-limits/2007/10/25/1192941241428.html

The United Nations' Global Environment Outlook-4 report, released in New York, reveals a scale of unprecedented ecological damage, with more than 2 million people possibly dying prematurely of air pollution and close to 2 billion likely to suffer absolute water scarcity by 2025.

Put bluntly, the report warns that the 6.75 billion world population, "has reached a stage where the amount of resources needed to sustain it exceeds what is available".

"Greenhouse gas concentrations are one third higher than 20 years ago""

I said some time ago that possibly the biggest issues facing the planet was the oversupply of people.. Far to many people for the planet to support. I seem to remember being labelled as anti children or some other such nonsense

I guess we better check with Terry to see if this is all just a political scare campaign

[inside_out]

THE most authoritative scientific report on the planet's health has found water, land, air, plants, animals and fish stocks are all in "inexorable decline" as 2007 became the first year in human history when most of the world's population lived in cities.

http://www.smh.com.au/news/environment/population-pressure-takes-earth-to-its-limits/2007/10/25/1192941241428.html

The United Nations' Global Environment Outlook-4 report, released in New York, reveals a scale of unprecedented ecological damage, with more than 2 million people possibly dying prematurely of air pollution and close to 2 billion likely to suffer absolute water scarcity by 2025.

Put bluntly, the report warns that the 6.75 billion world population, "has reached a stage where the amount of resources needed to sustain it exceeds what is available".

"Greenhouse gas concentrations are one third higher than 20 years ago""

I said some time ago that possibly the biggest issues facing the planet was the oversupply of people.. Far to many people for the planet to support. I seem to remember being labelled as anti children or some other such nonsense

I guess we better check with Terry to see if this is all just a political scare campaign

Got news for you. You are here to procreate.

[crotale2112]

Long before man the area known as new england was a tropical paradise with coconuts palm trees and even reptiles of the orders saurischia and ornithischia.... oh dear.
feel good politics make me sick.Global warming my ass.
If anything go talk to china .... all that coal... all the smog. yet there are no palm trees in my back yard
fools!!

[podo]

Got news for you. You are here to procreate.

Got news for you. Natuaral selection and survival of only the fittest is no longer valid

[yesyadda]

feel good politics make me sick.Global warming my ass.
If anything go talk to china .... all that coal... all the smog. yet there are no palm trees in my back yard
fools!!

:thumbup:

[inside_out]

Got news for you. Natuaral selection and survival of only the fittest is no longer valid

Validity is man made.

[Wild Westie]

Got news for you. You are here to procreate.

Does this mean that my life has and will be worthless to the human race?

[inside_out]

Got news for you. Natuaral selection and survival of only the fittest is no longer valid

Man made as well. Tell me something new.

[Senor Mono]

Sting will write a song about how "Republicans love their childen too" one day, then we can all understand each other. Only, what is a Democrat?

Brian

A democrat is a young Republican without a lot of money.

[inside_out]

Does this mean that my life has and will be worthless to the human race?

Absolutely not, context is everything. That's a big part of the beauty of life. You know the difference. I would never imagine thinking that of you or anyone. I was just speaking in terms of my understanding of this life as I know it.

[Mind Driver]

A democrat is a young Republican without a lot of money.

:yikes:

[Frosted Sun]

Scientists Denounce Global Warming Report 'Edits'
Public Health Experts Say Edits Represent Censoring of Science
The original, unedited testimony presented to Congress by Dr. Julie Gerberding, director of the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) and obtained by ABC News was 14 pages long, but the White House Office of Management and Budget edited the final version down to a mere six pages.

http://www.abcnews.go.com/Health/GlobalHealth/Story?id=3775766&page=1 (http://www.abcnews.go.com/Health/GlobalHealth/Story?id=3775766&page=1)

Is ABC is the only media to cover this? But this is really a story about censorship, isn’t it. Quickly to hide the story. But then the people who don’t believe that there is global warming, the reply quickly turns back to Gore. Wait a minute, this is a story that comes from the CDC, not al gore. All they have is to mock those that prove global warming is real with real science.

[kirk]

Commies and liars, w/no credibility, the lot of 'em!
...just saving the Repuglicans some time :winknudge

I heard about this on Bill Maher last night.
Not only did the admin blackline over half the pages,
reportedly items about heart attacks and strokes,
but then Dana Marino gave a little spin about
"the benefits of global warming".

K

[pianozach]

Scientists Denounce Global Warming Report 'Edits'
Public Health Experts Say Edits Represent Censoring of Science
The original, unedited testimony presented to Congress by Dr. Julie Gerberding, director of the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) and obtained by ABC News was 14 pages long, but the White House Office of Management and Budget edited the final version down to a mere six pages.

http://www.abcnews.go.com/Health/GlobalHealth/Story?id=3775766&page=1 (http://www.abcnews.go.com/Health/GlobalHealth/Story?id=3775766&page=1)

Is ABC is the only media to cover this? But this is really a story about censorship, isn’t it. Quickly to hide the story. But then the people who don’t believe that there is global warming, the reply quickly turns back to Gore. Wait a minute, this is a story that comes from the CDC, not al gore. All they have is to mock those that prove global warming is real with real science.



Thanks, Frosty, for posting this link.

I think I heard this on the radio yesterday.

. . . . from the ABC News article:

The edits essentially deleted all sections that referred to climate change as a public health concern -- including the risks of increased food-borne and waterborne diseases, worsening extreme weather events, worsening air pollution and the effect of heat stress on humans.

The CDC report highlighted other issues . . . including how extreme weather events such as floods and hurricanes will cause deaths, large-scale population displacement and contamination of drinking water.

Other concerns included how increases in temperatures encourage the formation of ground level ozone, the primary ingredient of smog which can cause permanent lung damage and aggravate chronic lung diseases, such as asthma.

The article is pretty unusual for a mainstream media story in that it refrains from pussyfooting around the implications of WHY the White House felt so threatened that it needed to make significant deletions from the testimony presented to Congress by Dr. Julie Gerberding, director of the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, the premiere public health agency in the U.S.

The article continues . . .

There was overwhelming agreement in the scientific community that the information was in no way alarmist or controversial.

"This is really standard information available to anyone on the issue," said Dale Jamieson, director of environmental studies at New York University. "What was removed was an uncontroversial report of what is currently known and believed about the fact of climate change, its health effects and its likely impacts on the United States."

"All of these [topics] are routinely mentioned in public health coursework across the nation," agreed Dr. Alan Ducatman, a professor of community medicine at the West Virginia University School of Medicine. "Each can be found in the pages of leading journals, such as Science and Nature.

Censoring the Science

The problem, according to the unedited version of the testimony, is that climate change is likely to have a significant impact on health -- and not only due to heat waves and disease epidemics.

The CDC report highlighted other issues addressed in the IPCC report, including how extreme weather events such as floods and hurricanes will cause deaths, large-scale population displacement and contamination of drinking water. Other concerns included how increases in temperatures encourage the formation of ground level ozone, the primary ingredient of smog which can cause permanent lung damage and aggravate chronic lung diseases, such as asthma.

Also, climate change is predicted to alter agriculture, leading to the scarcity of some foods and increases in prices, a concern for the poor in America.

Following the deletion of these details, the remaining parts of the testimony discussed the CDC's preparedness measures -- but seemed to omit what it was they were preparing for.

"The redacted version just is a very strange document. It becomes a kind of recitation of what the CDC does in general," Jamieson said. "It becomes strangely decontextualized once you take out all the [relevant] material."

"We talk of the politicization of science," said Dr. Linda Rosenstock, dean of the UCLA School of Public Health. "In the politicization of this topic -- the science wasn't changed, it was deleted."

This really does beg the question of why the White House behaves in this way. Honestly, deleting relevent testimony from a report such as this only highlights and focuses attention on the very information they're removing when the content of those edits is reported.

Could Edits Hurt Disaster Response?

Public health experts also expressed their fear over the potential impacts of ignoring the deleted sections of the testimony.

"If communities -- states and counties -- aren't given the information and the resources -- if there isn't planning to be prepared for these global warming related disasters, then our governments won't be able to help us," said Knowlton.

Jamieson agreed. "By not informing the public or emphasizing preparedness, you set yourself up for a Katrina-like failure, but on a global scale."

Significant concerns were also raised that damaging the credibility of the CDC could threaten Americans' welfare in the long run.

"We know from previous health threats, for example anthrax, 9/11, and concerns about pandemic influenza, that having a credible and believable voice from our highest officials is the best way to inform the public and get a reasonable response," said Rosenstock.

"If we have antics -- and I mean the word antics -- where we undermine the credibility of the most credible public health official, then we hurt our ability to respond to health threats."

Knowlton also felt that if information is not forthcoming from public officials, Americans may need to educate themselves. "People really need to be reading and learning," she said. "Even if the White House doesn't want them to."

[The aforementioned Kim Knowlton is a science fellow on global warming and health at the National Resources Defense Council in New York.]

[pianozach]

Scientists Denounce Global Warming Report 'Edits'
Public Health Experts Say Edits Represent Censoring of Science
[/SIZE
[SIZE=2]http://www.abcnews.go.com/Health/GlobalHealth/Story?id=3775766&page=1 (http://www.abcnews.go.com/Health/GlobalHealth/Story?id=3775766&page=1)





There is already more than enough press focusing "on the handling of the testimony, and not enough on the important messages that Congress and the American public need to know about Global Warming. These are:

1) Our public’s health is indeed at risk from the effects of climate change acting via numerous hazardous exposure pathways, including: more intense and frequent heat waves and storms; ozone smog pollution and increased pollen allergens; insect-borne and water-borne infectious diseases; and disease risks from outside the US – afterall, we live in a globalized world. Some benefits from reduced cold and some decline in certain diseases can be expected, however, the scientific assessments have consistently found that, on balance, the health risks outweigh the benefits.

2) The Department of Health and Human Services, that includes CDC and NIH, are responsible for protecting the health of the American public. To the extent that extremes of climate can have broad population-wide impacts, neither the CDC nor NIH have directed adequate resources to address climate change, and to date, funding has been minimal compared to the size of the health threat.

3) There are potentially large opportunities and co-benefits in addressing the health risks of global warming. Certainly, our public health infrastructure must be strengthened, e.g, fortify water supply systems, heat and storm early warning and response programs, and enhance disease modeling and surveillance. However, energy policy now becomes one and the same as public health policy. Reducing fossil fuel burning will: (a) further reduce air pollution, (b) improve our fitness (e.g., if urban transportation planning allows for more Americans to travel by foot or bike, than by car), and (c) lessen potential greenhouse warming.

In short, the challenges posed by climate change urgently demand improving public health infrastructure AND energy conservation / urban planning policies – as such, climate change can present both enormous health risks and opportunities. But without funding from Congress to address climate change, [the] CDC has its hands tied."

- Professor Jonathan A. Patz, University of Wisconsin, Lead Author for the United Nations Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) reports of 1995, 1998, 2001, and 2007.

. . . . and this one statement, "energy policy now becomes one and the same as public health policy" conveys a great deal. While he means this in the context of it being a necessity in order to help deal with the effects and causes of global climate changes, this same duality is partially to blame for our crappy response in dealing with the issue.

The difference here, of course, is that he's referring to public health determining the course of energy policy, while I'm attempting to point out that a large part of the Global Warming denial movement is due to our Energy policies determing the course of Public Health policies.

When Dow Chemical, Exxon/Mobil and Glaxo/Smith/Kline and other corporate conglomerates are determining public policy it is often not in the public's best interest.

[inside_out]

Is there something that we can do with all this warmth? Other than giving it to Political purpose? If it's here and apparently we made it, then shouldn't we put it use? After all human beings are known for making money on everything. Wait never mind we are making money on it so it's ok.

[Terry Shea]

Ah, c'mon, Terry. Now you're just being thick. Really thick.

Of course Kirk is referring to the same Fred Singer that you quoted. Yep, the one that's an oil company tool. The one who founded SEPP (the "Science & Environmental Policy Project") in 1990.

Gawd, you are so annoying with your feigned ignorance of others' information. You quoted Singer, then you pretend that Kirk is trying to pull some sort of fast one on you by answering your post with a reference to Singer by taking him to task for not including Singer's first name.

And if you didn't know that Singer founded SEPP, you are then just quoting someone you know nothing about simply because you like the quote. Why would you quote from someone of whom you know nothing, other than you like that he agrees with you?

Terry, you are obviously NOT interested in actually discussing and listening to others' views on this subject. Your posts are far from being a constructive addition to the subject. Your listening skills are astoundingly poor, in fact, you deliberately misread others' posts, twisting their content into what you think you thought you read.

So, of course oil companies are allowed to give grants. But the problem you're ignoring here is that they unethically influence the results either overtly, or more subtly by simply being the source of the funding.

OK - you've slammed Newsweek, the Washingon Post, the AP (Associated Press), CNN and the UN as being unworthy sources. Whom may we use as sources, then?

You are of the opinion that you and your self-labelled "credible" sources like NewsMax, WorldNewsDaily, Newsbusters and Humanevents.com know better than the IPCC (The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change)? And part of your proof is that the weatherman from a conservative radio station in Sacramento says so?

The world scientific consensus is clearly expressed in the reports of the IPCC.

The IPCC is not alone in its conclusions. In recent years, all major scientific bodies in the United States whose members' expertise bears directly on the matter have issued similar statements, including:

The National Academy of Sciences,
The American Meteorological Society,
The American Geophysical Union, and
The American Association for the Advancement of Science.

Africa will be hardest hit. By 2020, up to 250 million people are likely to be exposed to water shortages.

There is a scientific consensus on the reality of anthropogenic climate change. Climate scientists have repeatedly made themselves quite clear about this.

You are under a mistaken impression that there is significant scientific disagreement about global climate change. A few noisy skeptics generating a lot of chatter in the mass media does not change this, it only changes some people's perception of it.

Sweet wounded Jesus, Terry - the proof is everywhere around you!: North America is already experiencing more severe storms with human and economic loss, and cultural and social disruptions. There are more numerous and more severe hurricanes, floods, droughts, heatwaves and wildfires. Europe is experiencing more heatwaves and drought, resulting in a reduction in crop productivity.

Asia is suffering frequent widespread flooding and avalanches from melting Himalayan glaciers. Alpine glaciers are disappearing.

It is time for the you to pay attention and listen.Now this is getting downright hilarious. You and Kirk are so desperate you take a post that contains several paragraphs of information you can't dispute and focus solely on a 2-line quote, villifying both the man who made the quote and the person who used the quote. Once again you have been unable to dispute any of the evidence I've presented and choose to attack the source in very general terms because you can't find any specific, detailed information to dispute. I've shown specific instances where your sources have told outlandish lies for no other reason than to fool the public at large and yet you support these liars w/o question! You haven't been able to demonstrate that any of my sources have lied or fudged information...you simply attack because they may have some loose tie to an oil company or you just plain don't like them because they've exposed your sources for being the frauds that they are. Put up or shut up! Either show how or why my sources have lied or quit slandering them!

I'd never heard of Fred Singer before. I'd never heard of SEPP before. I couldn't care less who he is or who he represents. I liked the quote so I used it. What are ya gonna do, sue me? The fact that you know who he is and what SEPP is seems to further my point that you're indeed a brainwashed, biased fanatic with an agenda!

And once again you used general, undocumented statements to present your biased opinion as being fact such as:

..."In recent years, all major scientific bodies in the United States whose members' expertise bears directly on the matter have issued similar statements..."

No quotes, no links, no documentation whatsoever! Obviously not all major scientific bodies support this gorebull warming madness. Of course you merely dismiss any dissenting opinion as being "unscientific" because it doesn't agree with the brainwashings that have been instilled in your head. You merely go into auto-attack against the source whenever it goes against your lord and master liar supreme Al Gore. You attack the sources but you never substantiate or document your attacks. I've documented my facts. I've documented my attacks against sources. You can't dispute any facts or information I've presented. You attack the source because it's all you can do, but you can't even document your own attacks. Meanwhile you present no credible information that proves or even suggests that any of gorebull warming is manmade. You simply post story after story about extreme weather conditions and try to pass it off as proof that it's being caused by manmade activities. It's been warming up for 20,000 years! Get used to it!

[Terry Shea]

:dog:



I used to be a marine biology student at a private University. The school of marine and atmospheric sciences worked closely with NOAA. At that time (late 70's) the only agenda that NOAA had was research.

NOAA is a political agency. They are now a part of Homeland Security, creation of the current Administration.So now you trust the current administration? When did that turnaround come about? And that may have been the only agenda the NOAA had during the '70's, but the gorebull warming theory didn't come about until at least the '80's.

[Terry Shea]

http://www.theguyfromboston.com/playvideo2.asp?video=9JoaS7CA03s
:beerchugr:

[The Whale]

Terry this is somthing you may not have heard of yet... its called
http://home.cfl.rr.com/marion/Reality1.gif

[Terry Shea]

Terry this is somthing you may not have heard of yet... its called
http://home.cfl.rr.com/marion/Reality1.gifSorry, I'm not the one living in Al Gore's fantasy world.

[kirk]

The reason I know who Singer is, I used this new-fangled
thing we have called "Gooo-gle" on him from your quote.
You should try it, especially to research the people you're quoting.

I guess this is one way to divert from your source being siht,
throwing your "Al Gore/brainwashing" bit around again.:sleeping:

K

[kirk]

Terry this is somthing you may not have heard of yet... its called
http://home.cfl.rr.com/marion/Reality1.gif

Hey Jerms-
it's hard to talk science w/ people that believe
a deity snapped his fingers and made every living thing.

Good luck w/ that.

k

[Terry Shea]

The reason I know who Singer is, I used this new-fangled
thing we have called "Gooo-gle" on him from your quote.
You should try it, especially to research the people you're quoting.

I guess this is one way to divert from your source being siht,
throwing your "Al Gore/brainwashing" bit around again.:sleeping:

K
My source is "----" because you and Zach say so? I don't see where he's ---- at all and calling him my "source" is a bit of a stretch to say the least. I used a 2 line quote that had no bearing on the rest of the post whatsoever, which was all factual, documented information that you cannot dispute. You ignored the rest of the post entirely and desperately tried to derail the entire post by villifying the speaker of this 2 line quote. And what did you and Zach come up with to vilify him? Oh, no he did some consulting work for Exxon and other companies with oil interests. Shame on him for not being more Gore-like and lying about global warming being caused by mankind!

No matter. You can call "my source" "----" all you want. You can remove the quote from the post if you'd like, and it changes absolutely nothing! The fact that you and Zach focused so much effort and posts into trying to villify Mr. Singer while not addressing the substance of the post (or any of my other posts for that matter) show just how desperate you 2 are and what levels you'll stoop to to try conning everyone into believing that global warming is manmade!

[Frosted Sun]

i'm losing my touch, i thought i killed this thread.

[Terry Shea]

Hey Jerms-
it's hard to talk science w/ people that believe
a deity snapped his fingers and made every living thing.

Good luck w/ that.

kUh, who believes that? I may believe in God but I haven't seen anything that would suggest he snapped his fingers and created everything. It sounds like you've been watching too many episodes of Bewitched.

[Enoch]

Is there something that we can do with all this warmth? Other than giving it to Political purpose? If it's here and apparently we made it, then shouldn't we put it use? After all human beings are known for making money on everything. Wait never mind we are making money on it so it's ok.
I've said it before, we can use it to encourage new and existing rain-forrest growth since the areas conducive for such will undoubtedly grow both north and south. One environmental fiasco solving another! I like it.

[Enoch]

Uh, who believes that? I may believe in God but I haven't seen anything that would suggest he snapped his fingers and created everything. It sounds like you've been watching too many episodes of Bewitched.
alright. I'll bite. Where did the Big Bang come from?

[Hex]

http://i65.photobucket.com/albums/h237/blurt1260/it_pays.gif

[Enoch]

Do you think those who have reservations about whether man is creating global warming should lose their jobs and be denied the right to present their views? Especially if those people are scientists in the field? Well it's happening. Dissent is increasingly becoming equivalent to "descent" both in funding, pier status and employment. Rather than dialogue and science, we're being faced with tyranny and a witch-hunt. The Oregon State climatologist was fired for disagreeing with the "conventional wisdom." A meteorologist with the weather channel demanded that dissenting views not be broadcast. CNN, in particular, has treated skeptics with great disdain. But the list goes on and on and continues to grow. I fully expect some here to acknowledge tacit apporoval of such apawling behavior; but it does start to look more like the Spanish Inquisition as time passes.

The doomsayers in the media and political classes were all atwitter last month when the most recent U.N. Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) report was released, saying humans were partly to blame for global warming -- so I decided to read the report.

Let's do a mind game. The authors of the report predict average temperature will increase between 3.2 and 7.8 degrees Fahrenheit over the next century, and that sea levels will rise between 7 and 23 inches. Assume, for the moment, that mankind can do nothing about this projected climate change. Given that information, how would you change your behavior? If you are like most people, you would do nothing but enjoy the few extra days of summer and swimming. If you were going to build a house on the sea, you might build it a couple of feet higher than the existing codes require -- no big deal. Unless you enjoy shoveling the snow, having a little less of if to contend with each winter probably would bring more pleasure than pain.

Now, let us assume mankind might be able to slowly reduce global warming by drastically reducing carbon emissions. This can be done by increasing the cost of power and fuel. How much would you be willing to pay to make these changes for something you would barely notice over your lifetime? Would you be willing to take on these extra costs, knowing they would accomplish very little if the citizens of the rest of planet did not do the same?

What do this and other reports about climate change tell us? A majority agrees the most notable temperature increases will be in upper Canada and Siberia, and the moisture these areas receive will increase -- which means much better and longer growing seasons in these areas. These favorable developments will be partially offset by longer droughts in some localities. But given that both these positive and negative changes will occur slowly over a century, humankind will have plenty of time to adapt, and on balance it will be easier and less costly to produce food. If you are a skier, your season will be shortened, but if you play baseball, football, golf or swim, your season will be longer.

However, if the politicians on the left operate true to course, they will propose even more costly regulations and higher taxes, without any offsetting tax reduction. This will unnecessarily make the poor poorer and reduce job creation. The brains of many on the left (and some on the right) seem unable to understand second-order effects of policies and actions, which tends to make them overstate problems and come up with solutions that do more harm than good.

[podo]

Terry
You really need to get over Al Gore

In terms of global warming, he is a nobody. All he did was bring it to the masses. He didnt invent it. I remember people talking about global warming in the 70s.. long before Al Gore came about

You do yourself no favours by harping on and on about Al Gore. None of us who accept the words of many many scietists hardly ever mention Al Gore. We dont care about him. He is the pop prince of global warming.

He is the "Owner of a lonely heart " of environmental science.

Those of us who take it seriously will continue to discuss Tales from Topographic Oceans

[Enoch]

Hey Jerms-
it's hard to talk science w/ people that believe
a deity snapped his fingers and made every living thing.

Good luck w/ that.

k
as a rebuttal, I submit this link: Of Al Gore, Global Warming and God
(http://www.discovery.org/scripts/viewDB/index.php?command=view&id=3672)

[Enoch]

Sen. Harry Reid this week managed to blame San Diego's wildfires on "global warming" at one moment, and to deny the next moment that he had said it. This gives new meaning to the term "spin". Namely; "'spin', to gyrate around inanely".
No matter, it seems that everything is indirectly the fault of global warming, when it is not directly the fault of George W. Bush.
Take hurricanes. Blame global warming and blame Bush. Post-Katrina, we saw various horrific models of how hurricanes were going to wreck our coastline and coastal cities. And those monster hurricanes the models predicted were coming at any moment. Few meteorologists, to their credit, took part in the hysteria, but that didn't diminish the fulminating media or the liberal pols.
It is interesting, therefore, to see that just as the big hurricane the 2007 season also has shaped up as something of a bore. Good thing, too, of course, unless you make your living covering such things. It appears that global warming has not yet suited up for the hurricane season. Facts is Facts

[inside_out]

Terry
You really need to get over Al Gore

In terms of global warming, he is a nobody. All he did was bring it to the masses. He didnt invent it. I remember people talking about glabal warming in the 70s.. long before Al Gore can about

You do yourself no favours by harping on and on about Al Gore. No of us who accept the words of many many scietists hardly ever mention Al Gore. We dont care about him. He is the pop prince of global warming.

He is the "Owner of a lonely heart " of environmental science.

Those of us who take it seriously will continue to discuss Tales from Topographic Oceans

It's where you belong that's why you are there.

[Imperatrix]

A democrat is a young Republican without a lot of money.

Considering I'm sick of both, this is priceless. :D

[Imperatrix]

the orders saurischia and ornithischia....

"By their hips, ye shall know them..." ;)

[inside_out]

Terry this is somthing you may not have heard of yet... its called
http://home.cfl.rr.com/marion/Reality1.gif

your pie chart has some issues dude. I know where you are going with it but it's incomplete.

[crotale2112]

"By their hips, ye shall know them..." ;)
Yup.... big ass hips. I can see some type of dinosaurian with a huge white diaper strapped to its butt.And a baby bottle the size of a mini van... I dont know why I see this in my mind, but I do.It must be all the talking I do with my oven. My refrigerator is such a pompous bastard...anyway...
It's kinda neat knowing there was a tropical climate in my area so long ago.I wish china would burn 1000 times the coal they do so maybe I can grow some palm trees in my back yard.Yey one good poof of a volcano should do the trick as well.
My love.... crotale oxoxoxo

[Terry Shea]

Terry
You really need to get over Al Gore

In terms of global warming, he is a nobody. All he did was bring it to the masses. He didnt invent it. I remember people talking about global warming in the 70s.. long before Al Gore came about

You do yourself no favours by harping on and on about Al Gore. None of us who accept the words of many many scietists hardly ever mention Al Gore. We dont care about him. He is the pop prince of global warming.

He is the "Owner of a lonely heart " of environmental science.

Those of us who take it seriously will continue to discuss Tales from Topographic OceansYou just mentioned Al Gore 3 times in this post alone! (Oops, my bad! Make that 4 times).

Nobody was talking about global warming in the '70's. The scientific fad of the '70's was global cooling which has already been discussed! I've cited 2 magazine articles (your precious Newsweek and Time) printed during the 70's that discussed global cooling at length. Scientists were convinced that we were on the verge of an ice age. But forget the documented evidence I presented...let's just believe that global warming was being discussed during the '70's because you say it was.
:drummer:

[Imperatrix]

But forget the documented evidence I presented

I still wonder---is all the "documented evidence" you have presented only available on paper, or do you have direct "if-then" proof? I sincerely doubt the latter, as you're not Nature herself...

I believe you do know that so-called "documented evidence", whether for or against in this issue, could be (and very likely is, in most cases) falsified. Scientific communities are largely the hushed-up and censored slaves of governments. The media is also a puppet of politics. Therefore, how can anyone have blind trust in what's on paper or fed to us by either the scientific community or the conservative OR liberal media?

And Enoch says "facts is facts". No. All of us are being fed a bunch of lies and half-truths. What matters is that the planet is warming---it doesn't matter how, really, whether from a Holocene warming trend or from our impact on the earth, or a combination of both. Sure, we should recycle and waste less, etc., etc., but there's no way that this warming is going to stop...nor can we reverse it. It goes as it must.

We, and other living things, are the parasites that cover this host called Earth. Has anyone ever considered that our contribution to global warming is part of what Nature intended?

[passionplay]

Is is happening!!!!!!!!!! like it or not. And the Stormwatch brews..........................

[podo]

You just mentioned Al Gore 3 times in this post alone! (Oops, my bad! Make that 4 times).

Nobody was talking about global warming in the '70's. The scientific fad of the '70's was global cooling which has already been discussed! I've cited 2 magazine articles (your precious Newsweek and Time) printed during the 70's that discussed global cooling at length. Scientists were convinced that we were on the verge of an ice age. But forget the documented evidence I presented...let's just believe that global warming was being discussed during the '70's because you say it was.
:drummer:

I vaguely remember some talk of global cooling in the 70s, but it didnt last long. I certainly remember people talking about warming, and that talk has gathered pace ever since..unlike the cooling that you harp on about, which lasted about a week

I have never read Newsweek or Time in my life

[Altres]

I still wonder---is all the "documented evidence" you have presented only available on paper, or do you have direct "if-then" proof? I sincerely doubt the latter, as you're not Nature herself...

I believe you do know that so-called "documented evidence", whether for or against in this issue, could be (and very likely is, in most cases) falsified. Scientific communities are largely the hushed-up and censored slaves of governments. The media is also a puppet of politics. Therefore, how can anyone have blind trust in what's on paper or fed to us by either the scientific community or the conservative OR liberal media?

And Enoch says "facts is facts". No. All of us are being fed a bunch of lies and half-truths. What matters is that the planet is warming---it doesn't matter how, really, whether from a Holocene warming trend or from our impact on the earth, or a combination of both. Sure, we should recycle and waste less, etc., etc., but there's no way that this warming is going to stop...nor can we reverse it. It goes as it must.

We, and other living things, are the parasites that cover this host called Earth. Has anyone ever considered that our contribution to global warming is part of what Nature intended?
You're a complete freak.

[Imperatrix]

You're a complete freak.

:winknudge

[podo]

http://www.csmonitor.com/2007/1011/p13s03-sten.html

""
Today, skeptics of global warming sometimes point to what they call the "global-cooling scare" of the 1970s as a reason to discount what they hear now. If the news media 30 years ago hyped "global cooling" and were wrong, skeptics say, doesn't it follow that "global warming" coverage might prove equally wrong?
But those who have looked closely at the two eras or have been part of the scientific community then and now say the comparison is unfair. William Connolley, a sort of self-appointed historian of the global-cooling theory, says that although global cooling was briefly but prominently covered in some speculative news articles,
the idea never got much traction within the scientific community. New data and research over the decades has convinced the vast majority of scientists that global warming is real and under way. """

""In the mid-1970s, scientists were researching the possibility that the nearly three decades of cooling experienced in the Northern Hemisphere since World War II might be the beginning of a new ice age (http://www.csmonitor.com/2004/0318/p13s01-sten.html). Data suggested that perhaps the huge increase in dust and aerosols (tiny airborne particles that reflect sunlight back into space) from pollution and human development might be stepping up the cooling process.
The investigation didn't last long. Temperatures began to rise. Improving climate methodologies revealed that, although aerosols did indeed have a cooling effect, CO2 and other greenhouse gases were more potent in bringing about atmospheric change on a global scale. Once this became known, scientists moved on to other things. ""


Fair dinkum Terry.. That took me 2 minutes to find using a simple google search.

The so called 'global cooling" theroy has been debunked, and is not supportive evidence to dismiss global warming.

Even my 10 year old understands that

[pedro skychaser]

....20 years ago the german director,werner herzog made a film in the australian outback called "where the green ants dream"...it concerned uranium mining in the northern territory...australia possesses 85% of all uranium in the world (known reserves--a site in SA ,olympic dam,possesses 46% alone)...the local kooris believed if the green ants were disturbed (by mining) the world would end...they also consider european settlement as a mere blip in time...

www.wernerherzog.com (http://www.wernerherzog.com)

[pianozach]

You just mentioned Al Gore 3 times in this post alone! (Oops, my bad! Make that 4 times).

Nobody was talking about global warming in the '70's. The scientific fad of the '70's was global cooling which has already been discussed! I've cited 2 magazine articles (your precious Newsweek and Time) printed during the 70's that discussed global cooling at length. Scientists were convinced that we were on the verge of an ice age. But forget the documented evidence I presented...let's just believe that global warming was being discussed during the '70's because you say it was.
:drummer:

You see, Terry, it's exactly this sort of post of yours that's driving us all to think of you as a brick wall.

First of all, you counting the number of times that Podo mentions Al Gore to try to infer that it's he, not you, that keeps bringing him up is disengenuous. He was pointing out that you have some sort of unhealthy obsessive focus on Al Gore, somehow linking Gore and the subject of Climate Change so closely that you seem to feel that your attempts to discredit Gore also discredit Global Warming.

Not so: The concept of Global Warming has been around since at least 1967, when scientists calculated that doubling CO2 would raise world temperatures a couple of degrees.

Which brings me to your incessant use of the Newsweek Global Cooling scare. Look, we've been over this time and time again, but let me explain it another way:

The concept of a Global Climate Change movement can be traced to a growing awareness of the public of environmental issues, culminating in Earth Day.

On April 22, 1970, 20 million Americans took to the streets, parks, and auditoriums to demonstrate for a healthy, sustainable environment. Denis Hayes, the national coordinator, and his youthful staff organized massive coast-to-coast rallies. Thousands of colleges and universities organized protests against the deterioration of the environment. Groups that had been fighting against oil spills, polluting factories and power plants, raw sewage, toxic dumps, pesticides, freeways, the loss of wilderness, and the extinction of wildlife suddenly realized they shared common values.

It was also around this time that scientists discovered that mankinds overuse of aerosols were eating away at, indeed, in danger of putting a hole in the ozone layer. It was this, they calculated, that could produce either lowered or raised temperatures.

In the 70's, the public's enlighted awareness about the Earth's fragile ecosystem (partially in light if that photo of earth from space) resulted in the concern with Climate Change.

http://www.princeton.edu/~willman/Earthrise.jpg

But Podo's correct in his recollection that Global Warming was a concern in the 70's: By 1977 scientific opinion converged on global warming, not cooling, as the chief climate risk in the 21st century.

In 1977, the National Academy of Sciences weighed in with a major study by a panel of experts who warned that temperatures might rise to nearly catastrophic levels during the next century or two. (See the NY Times, July 25, 1977)

You see, an increasing number of scientists, given a choice between warming and cooling, had logically decided that it was the greenhouse effect that would dominate sooner or later. Theoretical work on aerosols suggested that human smog and dust might not cool the atmosphere very much after all. At most, the increased pollution might bring a mild cooling that would only temporarily mask greenhouse warming.

Even anecdotal evidence from the '30s supported the concept: Grandfathers would reminisce that the early frosts and daunting blizzards of their own youth were gone. The press began to publish articles, pointing out that in fact rivers were not freezing over as formerly and so forth. Science reporters found experts who confirmed that crops and codfish were now harvested in northern zones where they had not been seen for centuries. When meteorologists scrutinized the records, they confirmed that a warming trend was underway.

Hell they were talking about the threat of deserts spreading and oceans rising back in the 50's.

So, by the end of the 1970s, scientific opinion had settled on warming as most likely, probably becoming evident around the year 2000. (Hansen, James E., et al. (1981). "Climate Impact of Increasing Atmospheric Carbon Dioxide." Science 213: 957-66., Gilliland, Ronald L. (1982). "Solar, Volcanic, and CO2 Forcing of Recent Climatic Changes." Climatic Change 4: 111-31., and Madden, Roland A., and V. Ramanathan (1980). "Detecting Climate Change Due to Increasing Carbon Dioxide." Science 209: 763-68.)

But, here's where it got political: Reagan's election in 1981 brought a backlash against the environmental movement. Political conservatism ended up linked to skepticism about global warming.

(. . . . and socialized medicine . . . !)

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/theblog/archive/reagan%20against%20socialized%20medicine.jpg

Conservatives denied nearly every environmental worry, global warming included. They lumped all such concerns together as the rants of business-hating liberals, a Trojan Horse for government regulation.

Reagan's administration laid plans to cut funding for CO2 studies in particular, deeming such research unnecessary. Everything connected with the subject became politically sensitive.

So, to bring it around full circle, this total gutting of greenhouse effect research was narrowly averted when scientists rallied behind Representative Albert Gore, Jr. As a student at Harvard a quarter-century back, Gore had been impressed by lectures given there

"We were looking at only eight years of information," Gore recalled, "but if this trend [rising CO2] continued, human civilization would be forcing a profound and disruptive change in the global climate." It came as a shock to him, exploding his childhood assumption that "the Earth is so vast and nature so powerful that nothing we do can have any major or lasting effect on the normal functioning of its natural systems."

Over the years Gore had kept abreast of the technical issues as they developed, and he shared the concern about global warming as it grew among scientists.

Gore joined a few other Congressmen to embarrass the administration with hearings on the proposed cuts. The hearings won a smattering of attention in the press, including an editorial in the Washington Post saying that global warming had moved outside the "sandals and granola crowd" to mainstream science.

But again, the concerns about Global Warming took a back seat to worries about a nuclear war bringing on a "nuclear winter".

Science may be slow, but it's relentless, and even as early as 1979 the National Academy of Sciences, at the behest of the President's Science Adviser announced that they were confident in the validity of computer models that predicted that doubling of CO2 would bring substantial warming (1.5-4.5°C) by the middle of the 21st century. Indeed, heat was already building up in the atmosphere-ocean system, they concluded, so that "A wait-and-see policy may mean waiting until it is too late." (National Academy of Sciences (1979))

And in 1980, Congress passed an Energy Security Act which included a section directing the administration to hire the Academy to carry out a comprehensive study on the impacts of rising CO2.

It took until 1983 (well into Reagan's presidency) until a watered down report was issued by the Academy.

But the EPA issued their own report, almost simultaneously. "Substantial increases in global warming may occur sooner than most of us would like to believe," the EPA authors warned. Since a ban on fossil fuels seemed out of the question on both economic and political grounds, they saw no practicable way to avoid a rise of temperature, perhaps a big rise. There could be "a change in habitability in many geographic regions" within a few decades, with potentially "catastrophic" consequences. (Seidel, Stephen, and Dale Keyes (1983). Can We Delay a Greenhouse Warming? (2nd, Corrected Ed.). Washington, DC: Environmental Protection Agency.) The New York Times took notice in a front-page story. This EPA report was the first time a Federal agency declared that global warming was, as the reporter put it, "not a theoretical problem but a threat whose effects will be felt within a few years." Emphasizing the worst, the Times warned of damage to food production and a rise of sea level within decades. (Philip Shabecoff, "E.P.A. Report Says Earth Will Heat Up Beginning in 1990's," New York Times, Oct. 18, 1983, p. 1.)

http://www.worldviewofglobalwarming.org/images/posterglacier.jpg

And indeed, it is happening, noticeable and inexorably.

Terry, your quotes from hack publications and oil company schills pales when held up to real science.

You can slam the EPA, the National Academy of Sciences, the UN, the IPCC, the NY Times, Newsweek all you want. But the overwhelming consenses by scientists is and has been for decades that we are definitely facing a Climate crisis.

Global Warming is here. Expect that weather patterns will continue to change and the seas will continue to rise, in an ever worsening pattern, through our lifetimes and on into our grandchildren's.

The question has moved from the scientific communityto becoming a major social, economic, and political issue. Nearly everyone in the world will need to adjust.

So it is an important job, in some ways our top priority, to improve the communication of knowledge, and to strengthen democratic control in governance everywhere.

The spirit of fact-gathering and rational discussion, which has characterized the climate science community, can serve well as a model.

[pianozach]

Supreme Court Rejects Bush in Global Warming Debate
Court Says Environmental Protection Agency May Determine Effect of New Car Emissions on Global Warming

By JENNIFER PARKER
April 2, 2007—


For the first time in its history, the U.S. Supreme Court has waded into the political debate on global warming.

Under the Bush administration, the Environmental Protection Agency or EPA has argued that carbon dioxide and the like aren't pollutants under the Clean Air Act, and therefore, the agency has no power to regulate them.

In a sweeping 5-4 decision released Monday, the Supreme Court rejected that position, declaring that Clean Air Act gives the Environmental Protection Agency the authority to regulate the emissions of carbon dioxide and other greenhouse gases from cars.

Supreme Court Justice John Paul Stevens wrote the majority opinion, and was joined by Justices Anthony Kennedy, David Souter, Ruth Bader Ginsburg and Stephen Breyer.

The Supreme Court majority decided US motor-vehicle emissions make a "meaningful contribution to greenhouse gas concentrations" and hence, to global warming.

"A well-documented rise in global temperatures has coincided with a significant increase in the concentration of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere. Respected scientists believe the two trends are related," Justice Stevens wrote.

[pianozach]

I vaguely remember some talk of global cooling in the 70s, but it didnt last long. I certainly remember people talking about warming, and that talk has gathered pace ever since..unlike the cooling that you harp on about, which lasted about a week

Indeed.

But Podo's correct in his recollection that Global Warming was a concern in the 70's: By 1977 scientific opinion converged on global warming, not cooling, as the chief climate risk in the 21st century.

In 1977, the National Academy of Sciences weighed in with a major study by a panel of experts who warned that temperatures might rise to nearly catastrophic levels during the next century or two. (See the NY Times, July 25, 1977)

[pianozach]

http://www.csmonitor.com/2007/1011/p13s03-sten.html

That took me 2 minutes to find using a simple google search.

The so called 'global cooling" theroy has been debunked, and is not supportive evidence to dismiss global warming.

Thank you.

[Yes.2]

We, and other living things, are the parasites that cover this host called Earth. Has anyone ever considered that our contribution to global warming is part of what Nature intended?

I've often thought this myself....

[Imperatrix]

I've often thought this myself....

Interesting that it seems that no one here other than ourselves, whether they are liberal or conservative, wants to bite re: this concept.

[pianozach]

We, and other living things, are the parasites that cover this host called Earth. Has anyone ever considered that our contribution to global warming is part of what Nature intended?

Interesting that it seems that no one here other than ourselves, whether they are liberal or conservative, wants to bite re: this concept.

Ki-i-i-irk! You task me, you task me.

No, Tas, I won't bite it - it's a matter of philosophical perspective, don't ya think?

Life as a parasite - where do you draw the line, then? Humans? Animals? Plants? Fungi? Algae? Micororganisms?

If it's all parasitical, and the parasites are removed, then you're talking about the Earth as a dead planet - no life, just a rock spinning in space.

Earth without "parasites" would also be Earth without Nature.

One cannot pretend to second guess Nature - Is our contribution to global warming part of what Nature intended, or is our fight to reign in our contribution to global warming part of what Nature intended?

Besides, does Nature intend?

I think of it as rather an "is".

I prefer the Native American and other aboriginal views that we and the Earth are one, or intertwined. It is, and we are all part of the Whole. We are the universe. The Universe is us.



DISCLAIMER: The preceding post is not an endorsemnent of Peyote, nor its use. I'd really rather not get into a discussion of whether or not peyote is the heart, soul, and memory of the Creator. OR whether a Democrat is a young Republican without a lot of money. This just isn't the place, yes?

[Imperatrix]

[FONT="Comic Sans MS"]

Ki-i-i-irk! You task me, you task me.

No, Tas, I won't bite it - it's a matter of philosophical perspective, don't ya think?

I don't know.

Life as a parasite - where do you draw the line, then? Humans? Animals? Plants? Fungi? Algae? Micororganisms?

I meant all of it.

If it's all parasitical, and the parasites are removed, then you're talking about the Earth as a dead planet - no life, just a rock spinning in space.


Exactly. Is that so bad?

Earth without "parasites" would also be Earth without Nature.

You're getting warmer (no pun intended).

One cannot pretend to second guess Nature - Is our contribution to global warming part of what Nature intended, or is our fight to reign in our contribution to global warming part of what Nature intended?


"Pretend to second-guess Nature"? How about thinking out of the box---is that permitted?

How far do you want to take the "fighting" to "reign in our contribution"? Is that meddling, too? Is it not?

Besides, does Nature intend?


Oh, I think Nature damn well intends.

I prefer the Native American and other aboriginal views that we and the Earth are one, or intertwined.

(patting Zach on his pointed little head) Of course you do, dear.

[pianozach]

I don't know.



I meant all of it.



Exactly. Is that so bad?



You're getting warmer (no pun intended).



"Pretend to second-guess Nature"? How about thinking out of the box---is that permitted?

How far do you want to take the "fighting" to "reign in our contribution"? Is that meddling, too? Is it not?



Oh, I think Nature damn well intends.



(patting Zach on his pointed little head) Of course you do, dear.

Aren't you in a feisty mood this morning!

Here, dwell on this;


Kittens!

http://fridgeday.com/blog/data/upimages/funny-kittens.jpg

http://us3kids.com/cblog/uploads/kittens.jpg

http://www.cats-central.com/cat-pictures/cute_k6.jpg

[podo]

Thank you.

no, thank you sir

[gathernear]

Interesting that it seems that no one here other than ourselves, whether they are liberal or conservative, wants to bite re: this concept.

Oh yeah, one day the earth is going to shake us off like fleas on a dog. Save the earth, eh?

[podo]

Interesting that it seems that no one here other than ourselves, whether they are liberal or conservative, wants to bite re: this concept.

I'll bite, but its a whole other subject.

Im of the opinion that only recenlty (say 100 years...200 at most) that man has indeed become a parasite of the planet.

The Australian Aboriginal people have lived on this land for 40,000 years and the only trace they leave behind is some cave paintings and collections of shells. Hardly an environmental disaster.

However the technelogical improvements we now enjoy mostcertainly have a downside, and its the planet that wears that cost. Thankfully, people are now realising that fact and are trying to do something about it..

When does a symbiot become a parasite..when one gains at the expense of the other

[Yes.2]

http://i96.photobucket.com/albums/l178/dblacklab/unclesamoil.jpg

[Imperatrix]

Aren't you in a feisty mood this morning!

Here, dwell on this;


Kittens!

http://fridgeday.com/blog/data/upimages/funny-kittens.jpg

http://us3kids.com/cblog/uploads/kittens.jpg

http://www.cats-central.com/cat-pictures/cute_k6.jpg



:lmao: I got two of my own at home, doll. So, come on---answer me this:

Can you get out of the common mindset and think out of the box on this one? Is humanity's survival on this hunk of rock really so important? Is it not rather egotistical to think that it is?

And again...how far do you want to take the "fighting" to "reign in our contribution"? Let's say, for example, we all get so remorseful about what we've done to the planet that we develop some "miracle" technology to cool down the planet, or we perfect the technology to restore extinct species to the earth or to beef up the numbers of those that are endangered. Would that be right? If we could do this, and did, what do you think would happen?

Even our smallest efforts to change things for the better have the chance of backfiring, and badly. The best thing we could do for Earth---nay, the entire cosmos!---is to stop meddling with Nature altogether, by either ruining it or making amends for what we've done. You will probably be able to easily guess how that could be achieved, and you know what? It's not a bad idea, IMHO.

Podo said:

The Australian Aboriginal people have lived on this land for 40,000 years and the only trace they leave behind is some cave paintings and collections of shells. Hardly an environmental disaster.

It was the beginning of one.

However the technelogical improvements we now enjoy mostcertainly have a downside, and its the planet that wears that cost. Thankfully, people are now realising that fact and are trying to do something about it..

See my last paragraph above in response to Zach's post.

[Imperatrix]

Oh yeah, one day the earth is going to shake us off like fleas on a dog. Save the earth, eh?

Well, exactly. We are just a great big pain in the ass to this planet.

[pedro skychaser]

tasmania brown is right about 1 thing...often the cure is worse....we had insects that layed eggs in our sugar cane farms in QLD so the scientists advised the govt to import cane toads from south america...now we have a plague of huge cane toads...descending south...if they cross the bridge i'm movin back to YASS in the safe southern tablelands...

so the actions must be sensible....solar power,wind farms,wave farms still look like the best cards in the pack....there is no such thing as clean coal and uranium should stay in the ground...sorry tory investors...

[pianozach]

:lmao: I got two of my own at home, doll. So, come on---answer me this:

Can you get out of the common mindset and think out of the box on this one? Is humanity's survival on this hunk of rock really so important? Is it not rather egotistical to think that it is?

And again...how far do you want to take the "fighting" to "reign in our contribution"? Let's say, for example, we all get so remorseful about what we've done to the planet that we develop some "miracle" technology to cool down the planet, or we perfect the technology to restore extinct species to the earth or to beef up the numbers of those that are endangered. Would that be right? If we could do this, and did, what do you think would happen?

Even our smallest efforts to change things for the better have the chance of backfiring, and badly. The best thing we could do for Earth---nay, the entire cosmos!---is to stop meddling with Nature altogether, by either ruining it or making amends for what we've done. You will probably be able to easily guess how that could be achieved, and you know what? It's not a bad idea, IMHO.

Podo said:



It was the beginning of one.



See my last paragraph above in response to Zach's post.

Hey dollface!

We have two new ones here, too. Coal and Ginger, two brothers that are running circles around the 16 year old Scottie.

So.

Outside of the box? To what end? for what purpose? To ponder the question "Is humanity's survival on this hunk of rock really so important? Is it not rather egotistical to think that it is?"

If we were all removed from this plane of existence, who would be around to marvel at how adorable kittens are? Would kittens even exist or would they be gobbled up by dingos and coyotes?

Well, the box doesn't matter. We matter, and we don't matter.

It is in our Nature to ponder, to meddle, and be curious enough to wonder, "What if?" We care, we love. We build, we create. We create beautiful melodies, astounding portraits, wonderful poetry. And it's all in balance with that which we call evil and ugly and useless, else we'd have no stick to measure beauty with.

Wisdom.

"Even our smallest efforts to change things for the better have the chance of backfiring, and badly."

Have you watched a toddler with the first glass of milk? The first steps of a child?

Of course you have. I think mankind may very well still be in its formative years, fumbling around putting mudpies in its mouth, frogs in its pockets and tacks on teachers' chairs.

We're falling off of bicycles, breaking arms jumping off the roof with an umbrella, and attempting to jump from the high dive for the first time.

We've invented the "Knock, knock" joke, the joy buzzer, the whoopee cushion and the printing press.

We've stopped putting lead in our paint, stopped using Mercury to turn fur into hats, and put Gilbert O'Sullivan on the list of "Worst Artists Ever".

We're making mistakes, and we're learning along the way.

And what we're learning . . . . tolerance, wisdom, science, art, Art Garfunkel, Disco dancing, hot pants, the mellotron, phone booth stuffing, tattoos, beehive hairdos, hitting watermelons with sledgehammers, alternating current, and the courage to risk sailing off the edge of the world.

As we live and learn, what if we learned to truly live in balance with our environment and our universe? Hundreds or thousands of years from now will our progeny look back and snicker, absentmindedly wondering "Can you believe they thought they were onto something with that silly telegraph?", "Man, they thought they were really something with that lever and wheel, didn't they?" and "Wow, they really thought digital watches were a good idea?"

Hope

Hope is like a lighthouse keeper's beam
Hope the master cobbler of our dreams
For Hope believes in desert streams
The mightiest of stars
The microcosm in a jar
Vast or small they all revolve on Hope

Hope the guardian angel of the dove
Hope a gift of guidance from above
For Hope is the heart in mother's love
No plans could be conceived
No ships could fare the seas
For there would be no courage were it not for Hope

Now the path before us lies before our very eyes
Don't you see
And it leads up to the gateway
Lead me through
Don't you see

Then come and take my hand
Raise up your head
And dry your eyes
For up ahead I see
Woh woh yeah
A ray of peace
A-shining on me

So let us feel Hope
And feel the sunrise in our minds
To give Hope is to enlighten all mankind
Ah but lose Hope and life seems black as blind
When faith gives way to fear
When motivation disappears
All is lost if one abandons Hope
All is lost
If one abandons Hope



Soon


Soon oh soon the light
Pass within and soothe the endless night
And wait here for you
Our reason to be here

Soon oh soon the time
All we move to gain will reach and calm
Our heart is open
Our reason to be here

Long ago, set into rhyme

Soon oh soon the light
Ours to shape for all time, ours the right
The sun will lead us
Our reason to be here
The sun will lead us
Our reason to be here

[Imperatrix]

Hey dollface!

We have two new ones here, too. Coal and Ginger, two brothers that are running circles around the 16 year old Scottie.

How old are the little bitties?

Outside of the box? To what end? for what purpose? To ponder the question "Is humanity's survival on this hunk of rock really so important? Is it not rather egotistical to think that it is?"


Yes. For sh!ts and giggles. Why the hell not? Most people see things as absolute, and we can see a lot of that kind of thinking already on this board from people like you and Terry, for example. There are more than merely two ways of perceiving things.

If we were all removed from this plane of existence, who would be around to marvel at how adorable kittens are? Would kittens even exist or would they be gobbled up by dingos and coyotes?

Well, the box doesn't matter. We matter, and we don't matter.

The kittens don't matter, or the dingos or the coyotes, either. And of COURSE the box doesn't matter---sheesh. But we don't matter and not matter simultaneously...we just don't matter, period.

It is in our Nature to ponder, to meddle, and be curious enough to wonder, "What if?"

And most of the time, this is destructive.

We care, we love. We build, we create. We create beautiful melodies, astounding portraits, wonderful poetry. And it's all in balance with that which we call evil and ugly and useless, else we'd have no stick to measure beauty with.

So? None of this really, truly matters either, Zach. You know this.

Have you watched a toddler with the first glass of milk? The first steps of a child?

Of course you have. I think mankind may very well still be in its formative years, fumbling around putting mudpies in its mouth, frogs in its pockets and tacks on teachers' chairs. We're falling off of bicycles, breaking arms jumping off the roof with an umbrella, and attempting to jump from the high dive for the first time. We've invented the "Knock, knock" joke, the joy buzzer, the whoopee cushion and the printing press. We've stopped putting lead in our paint, stopped using Mercury to turn fur into hats, and put Gilbert O'Sullivan on the list of "Worst Artists Ever". We're making mistakes, and we're learning along the way.

Naaah. I'm willing to bet that we're pretty much done, kid. And that ain't a bad thing. I know it makes you and others feel uncomfortable to even consider this idea, because people feel the need to have some sort of significance---some lasting legacy---to satisfy some need for security.

And what we're learning . . . . tolerance, wisdom, science, art, Art Garfunkel, Disco dancing, hot pants, the mellotron, phone booth stuffing, tattoos, beehive hairdos, hitting watermelons with sledgehammers, slternating current, and the courage to risk sailing off the edge of the world.

:winknudge Yes, we should all pat ourselves on the back for all these, and more, eh?

Tolerance? Well, you would believe we've become more tolerant; after all, you are free, white, eighteen, and male.

As we live and learn, what if we learned to truly live in balance with our environment and our universe? Hundreds or thousands of years from now will our progeny look back and snicker, absentmindedly wondering "Can you believe they thought they were onto something with that silly telegraph?", "Man, they thought they were really something with that lever and wheel, didn't they?" and "Wow, they really thought digital watches were a good idea?"[/QUOTE]

Ah---an excellent example of the legacy ideal. Why is it so important? Why cling to it?

As for hope--it is not everything, or even anything, one may think it is. I like to think that very often we pin our hopes on hope, so to speak. Waste of time, I say.

[Roan's Lady]

I don't think we as a human race are "pretty much done" at all. I think that perhaps being a parent predisposes me to think this way. I also don't think that I personally am "done" growing, changing, developing. I'm certainly not the person I was ten years ago, five years ago, one year ago. I don't imagine I'll be the same person in all those years from now. I don't want to be.

I like hope. I like "what if" - very much. It's about possibility - the "you never knows" in life. Very important to me.

[Imperatrix]

I don't think we as a human race are "pretty much done" at all. I think that perhaps being a parent predisposes me to think this way. I also don't think that I personally am "done" growing, changing, developing. I'm certainly not the person I was ten years ago, five years ago, one year ago. I don't imagine I'll be the same person in all those years from now. I don't want to be.

I like hope. I like "what if" - very much. It's about possibility - the "you never knows" in life. Very important to me.

Oh, don't get me wrong---I love the "you never know", because we don't really ever know. But I do believe that we're seeing the last of us, and I find that rather enjoyably interesting.

No, you yourself are not done changing, growing, developing; neither am I, or Zach, or anyone----but I believe that we as a whole, as a species, are. There's really nothing wrong or terrifying about that.

[Roan's Lady]

Oh, don't get me wrong---I love the "you never know", because we don't really ever know.

But am I correct in understanding your post two above, in which you seem to imply that hope is a waste of time? If you think so, how can you love the "you never know", as hope is tied into that?

But I do believe that we're seeing the last of us, and I find that rather enjoyably interesting.

Why is it "enjoyably interesting" to you?

No, you yourself are not done changing, growing, developing; neither am I, or Zach, or anyone----but I believe that we as a whole, as a species, are. There's really nothing wrong or terrifying about that.

But if no one is done changing, how are we "as a whole" done changing?

Hope you don't mind the brain-pick, Tasia. You're a smart cookie. I think you can handle it. :D

[pianozach]

How old are the little bitties?

We figure they're a little over six months now.




So? None of this really, truly matters either, Zach. You know this.

It matters to me . . .



Naaah. I'm willing to bet that we're pretty much done, kid. And that ain't a bad thing. I know it makes you and others feel uncomfortable to even consider this idea, because people feel the need to have some sort of significance---some lasting legacy---to satisfy some need for security.


Not at all . . . It's a good day to die.

i seriously doubt we're "pretty much done, kid." The species is learning and evolving - it's just that the growth is so glacial that we're too close to see it.


:winknudge Yes, we should all pat ourselves on the back for all these, and more, eh?


You betcha. I'm still proud of my opposable thumbs . . . :winknudge

Tolerance? Well, you would believe we've become more tolerant; after all, you are free, white, eighteen, and male.

Age flattery will get you nowhere. sure, we've got miles to go in the tolerance department, but we've also come miles as well.


As we live and learn, what if we learned to truly live in balance with our environment and our universe? Hundreds or thousands of years from now will our progeny look back and snicker, absentmindedly wondering "Can you believe they thought they were onto something with that silly telegraph?", "Man, they thought they were really something with that lever and wheel, didn't they?" and "Wow, they really thought digital watches were a good idea?"

Ah---an excellent example of the legacy ideal. Why is it so important? Why cling to it?

Ah, grasshoppa, do not mistake humor for clingyness.


As for hope--it is not everything, or even anything, one may think it is. I like to think that very often we pin our hopes on hope, so to speak. Waste of time, I say.

Perhaps "we are all in the gutter, but some of us are looking at the stars." - Oscar Wilde

Hope is not a dream but a way of making dreams become reality . . .

Your matter-of-fact dismissal (or rather, indifference) of humanity bespeaks a depressing cynicism that needs more kittens:

http://kitten-pictures.com/images/Kitten-Pictures-81.jpg

http://kitten-pictures.com/images/Kitten-Pictures-79.jpg

http://www.thefunnycats.com/wp-content/uploads/2007/01/four-cute-kittens.jpg

Cheer up. Put another quarter in the jukebox.

[Imperatrix]

But am I correct in understanding your post two above, in which you seem to imply that hope is a waste of time? If you think so, how can you love the "you never know", as hope is tied into that?

Because, for me, hope is not tied into "you never know". When we thought, for example, that Matt might not survive his ITP---that is, when it was a "you never know" situation---I did not put my time into hoping for a miracle, or even hoping, period. I dove into what was happening and worked with it and helped Matt and myself through it.

Actually, when I think of it, giving up the idea of hope was the best thing I ever did for myself. Hope, especially under adverse conditions, isn't the best way to help one's self. It has the propensity to create additional stress via the anxiety of mental or outright pleading for resolution to a bad scene, whether subconsciously or otherwise. In other words, it muddles a mind that should be clear in times of trouble.

Why is it "enjoyably interesting" to you?

I love to watch. :winknudge

But if no one is done changing, how are we "as a whole" done changing?

I knew someone would ask this. Can you guess? It's a sly tip of the hat to the Banach-Tarski Theorem. Here---I'll throw out a hint:

It is not an absolute that a particular _______ is equal to ___ ___ __ ___ _______.

We, each of us, can change. But that does not guarantee that it changes the whole---that is to say, all of us. It most likely wouldn't, as none of us as individuals are exactly the same in our thoughts, philosophies, etc.

Hope you don't mind the brain-pick, Tasia. You're a smart cookie. I think you can handle it. :D

:lmao: Lord, girl---I'm not so smart; but thank you very much for the compliment! :D

[Imperatrix]

We figure they're a little over six months now.

:hearts: Their version of the terrible twos! Quick, nail everything down NOW!

Brooklyn at six months was trying to inflict grievous bodily harm on my mother-in-law. Nice kitty. :winknudge

It matters to me . . .

How egocentric! :winknudge

Not at all . . . It's a good day to die.
i seriously doubt we're "pretty much done, kid." The species is learning and evolving - it's just that the growth is so glacial that we're too close to see it.

The growth is glacial because we are too cocky, too full of hubris, too meddlesome, and we still think we are the next best thing to sliced bread. What, us wrong? WE make mistakes? And when it enters the thick skulls of humanity that duh, yes, we do err...all we can do is hurriedly think of ways to "fix it"...which only means more meddling in the end. These are the things that makes us done.

Age flattery will get you nowhere. sure, we've got miles to go in the tolerance department, but we've also come miles as well.

I beg to differ---we really haven't. What was that that you said in the marijuana thread about the residents of our charming prison system (and with which I wholly agree, mind you)?

Ah, grasshoppa, do not mistake humor for clingyness.

:lmao: Are you yourself certain that you were employing humor in that case? Not so fast, Zach....!

Perhaps "we are all in the gutter, but some of us are looking at the stars." - Oscar Wilde

Hope is not a dream but a way of making dreams become reality . . .


Rather impractical, these. They seem to come from a relatively helpless "Oh, whatever are we to do?" mindset.

Your matter-of-fact dismissal (or rather, indifference) of humanity bespeaks a depressing cynicism...

It is not cynicism; that's the dreamer in you talking. You merely see it as such through lotus-eater eyes...and, especially, through fear. I see it as welcome reality.

:thinking: That reminds me---dude, you gotta get out of the one-dimensional white suburban prison called Newbury Park, where even the liberals aren't even liberal. Please...do it now. I...I think it's helping to warp your fragile little mind! :winknudge


Oh! These kitties are my faves! I could just...eat them up. :gok:

http://www.thefunnycats.com/wp-content/uploads/2007/01/four-cute-kittens.jpg

[pianozach]

I beg to differ---we really haven't. What was that that you said in the marijuana thread about the residents of our charming prison system (and with which I wholly agree, mind you)?

Ah. Yes.

Well . . .

For the lousiness of the American prison complex, it's an improvement over the lunatic asylums and workhouses of the Victorian age, debtor's prison, the Spanish Inquisition, the Crusades or any number of human historical events unnamed or even before recorded history.

Not all is bad today. There is love, charity, talent, Genesis, dinner, kittens, dancing dogs, oranges, wool sweaters, shorn sheep, hairbrushes and chopsticks.

Finding all the faults of humanity and condeming humanity for them is like creating conspiracy theories: You can always find something lousy if that's what you're looking for. You can find the good if you look for it as well, which is more comforting than the former.

As for the kittens, Coal is black, bright and energetic, while Ginger is orange and tan, hyper, and affectionate. Ginger also has not figured out his name yet.

[Imperatrix]

Ah. Yes.

Well . . .

For the lousiness of the American prison complex, it's an improvement over the lunatic asylums and workhouses of the Victorian age, debtor's prison, the Spanish Inquisition, the Crusades or any number of human historical events unnamed or even before recorded history.

Workhouses of the Victorian age? To name just one example, do you know what really happens on those Oxnard farms--- despite all the best efforts of Cesar Chavez?

It's all still slavery---just in different guises.

Not all is bad today. There is love, charity, talent, Genesis, dinner, kittens, dancing dogs, oranges, wool sweaters, shorn sheep, hairbrushes and chopsticks.

Yes...so? They're not forever. The best thing, I think, is to appreciate good moments as they happen.

Finding all the faults of humanity and condeming humanity for them is like creating conspiracy theories: You can always find something lousy if that's what you're looking for. You can find the good if you look for it as well, which is more comforting than the former.

Despite what you may think, I find both.

Comforting? Do you need to be comforted? About what?

I don't see the good in order to obtain some sort of comfort---good merely exists as the opposite of lousy, and lousy merely exists as the opposite of good.

As for the kittens, Coal is black, bright and energetic, while Ginger is orange and tan, hyper, and affectionate. Ginger also has not figured out his name yet.


(in best mock British manner) Well, that's 'cos he's a ginge, mate. :winknudge

[Roan's Lady]

Because, for me, hope is not tied into "you never know". When we thought, for example, that Matt might not survive his ITP---that is, when it was a "you never know" situation---I did not put my time into hoping for a miracle, or even hoping, period. I dove into what was happening and worked with it and helped Matt and myself through it.

Actually, when I think of it, giving up the idea of hope was the best thing I ever did for myself. Hope, especially under adverse conditions, isn't the best way to help one's self. It has the propensity to create additional stress via the anxiety of mental or outright pleading for resolution to a bad scene, whether subconsciously or otherwise. In other words, it muddles a mind that should be clear in times of trouble.





When Matt was going through this ordeal, in the midst of your diving in and getting busy in helping him, you didn't have any hope that he would get better?
Hope doesn't have to occur at the exclusion of productivity and pragmatism. All of this can happen together. It has for me, at many points in my life. Hope isn't something you "put time into". Shutting oneself down because of overwhelming feelings of helplessness is something you put time into; that "whatever are we to do" mindset you mentioned in a post above. That is what muddles the mind.
Hope isn't a weakness, an easy way out, a copout, a refusal to see and deal with reality. It's simply - hope.

And it's also the thing with feathers. :D

[Imperatrix]

When Matt was going through this ordeal, in the midst of your diving in and getting busy in helping him, you didn't have any hope that he would get better?
Hope doesn't have to occur at the exclusion of productivity and pragmatism. All of this can happen together. It has for me, at many points in my life. Hope isn't something you "put time into". Shutting oneself down because of overwhelming feelings of helplessness is something you put time into; that "whatever are we to do" mindset you mentioned in a post above. That is what muddles the mind.

Looks like we will have to agree to disagree on this; I simply see it differently than you do. No, I had no hope for Matt, and didn't engender any, because there was no point to it, IMHO. It didn't mean I loved him any less---it meant I was free to help him absolutely mindfully. That is, to me, more loving than having hope.

From what I have seen, hope can, and generally does, lead to that kind of shutting down...and, as a result, pragmatism, productivity, and mindfulness are severely compromised or eradicated. It's probably happened to you; I must admit that I honestly wouldn't believe you if you said otherwise, for you're human, and shutting down is a human reaction---but it is a human reaction that one can learn to control in one's self. I've shut down quite a few times in my own life, even a few years after Matt went into remission, but for another reason entirely. I am not sure if I ever will shut down again, but it doesn't look very likely at this moment.

And it's also the thing with feathers. :D

No. YOU are the thing with feathers, Mam'selle de Bawk-Bawk. :winknudge

(do you still have that pic?)

[Mind Driver]

Did we stop discussing global warming?

It is November 5th in Chicagoland and, for the first time since I moved to Illinois in 2000, I haven't yet seen a snowflake.

[pedro skychaser]

err i'd like to see the pic of mamoiselle de BawkBawk...

[Roan's Lady]

err i'd like to see the pic of mamoiselle de BawkBawk...


No! Now get back to the topic of Global Warming!

[pedro skychaser]

THANKS RL...mother clucker looks like a hectoring chook!!!

[Roan's Lady]

THANKS RL...mother clucker looks like a hectoring chook!!!

Wassa hectoring chook?
Is it politically correct? Does Al Gore endorse it?

[Imperatrix]

No! Now get back to the topic of Global Warming!

:lmao: YEAH!!!! You put it back up! :appl[1]: :appl[1]: :appl[1]:

Amy, this is really the best avatar I've ever seen.

[Imperatrix]

Wassa hectoring chook?
Is it politically correct? Does Al Gore endorse it?

:lmao: A chook is slang for a chicken!

Frank Perdue endorsed it when he was alive. :D

[Roan's Lady]

:lmao: A chook is slang for a chicken!

Frank Perdue endorsed it when he was alive. :D

Ohh, I see - and here I thought I knew all the slang words for chicken. Thanks for the ed-chick-ation, Tasia! :winknudge

[Imperatrix]

Ohh, I see - and here I thought I knew all the slang words for chicken. Thanks for the ed-chick-ation, Tasia! :winknudge

:D You're welcome! The only reason I know this, really, is due to The Thorn Birds...Meggie, the main character, used to feed the family's "chookies"... :lmao:

[podo]

:D You're welcome! The only reason I know this, really, is due to The Thorn Birds...Meggie, the main character, used to feed the family's "chookies"... :lmao:

So it wasnt you running the chook raffle down at the local ?

[pedro skychaser]

:D You're welcome! The only reason I know this, really, is due to The Thorn Birds...Meggie, the main character, used to feed the family's "chookies"... :lmao:

...and didn't she also seduce a priest, amongst all this chook-feeding???:xolicon42:

[pianozach]

Did we stop discussing global warming?

It is November 5th in Chicagoland and, for the first time since I moved to Illinois in 2000, I haven't yet seen a snowflake.

Ah yes, more local anecdotal evidence that the climate has "gone troppo".

No we haven't really stopped discussing global climate change, but we have become temporarily distracted.

Seriously, when we start seeing trends like this in our own lifetimes, you can bet that we're gonna notice.

I previously posted references to old anecdotal stories of how there are articles from the 30's from old geezers decrying how young'ns today have it so easy - no killer frosts, no snow till September, etc.

Climate change is here, and noticeable in our own backyards.

Out here on the left coast we just had our first twice-in-the-same-year fire season.

The pooch has been scr - er, that is, um, . . . SNAFU!

Why are some people still pretending there's not a climate problem?

[kirk]

Interesting that it seems that no one here other than ourselves, whether they are liberal or conservative, wants to bite re: this concept.

I'm with ya Tash. I've been taking a few days off.

One day, this living planet will shake us off, like a dog does fleas.

Howzat?

K

[kirk]

Hope isn't a weakness, an easy way out, a copout, a refusal to see and deal with reality. It's simply - hope.

Hi Ames & Tash-

Off topic i know, you thread wreckers (you're probably doing
it a favor), but i don't see the absence of hope, as being "hopelessness".

"Hope" is a great thing, much like prayer. It works best when
not depended on heavily imo. I can't hope say, my music, will
turn out well, it requires effort and action. You can't hope/wish
cancer not to kill someone. To do so, results in "false hope".

It's not possible to hope, wish, pray, depend on serendipity,
something into, or out of existence.

As we'd say in Hoosierland, " Take a wish in one hand..." ;)

K

[pianozach]

I don't even know how much press the flooding in Mexico has gotten here, but this is the first I've heard of it.

Related to Global Warming? Maybe.


Floods trap 20,000 in Mexico
By The Associated Press and Los Angeles Times


EDUARDO VERDUGO / AP
Flood victims evacuate Monday in Villahermosa, Mexico. Desperation is growing among residents unable to get their hands on food, water and medical supplies.
How to help

World Vision, the Federal Way-based Christian humanitarian organization, has sent emergency teams to areas in Mexico that have been hard hit by floods. World Vision is accepting donations of cash to help provide aid. Each gift of $100 will fund a Family Survival Kit, which contains such items as food rations, water-purification tablets and blankets.Visit the World Vision Web site at www.worldvision.org or call 888-56-CHILD.
VILLAHERMOSA, Mexico -- A massive wave of mud and water swept through a Mexican village Monday and as many as 16 people were feared buried, officials said, as rescuers elsewhere worked furiously to deliver aid to victims of flooding in Southern Mexico.

More than a week after rain-swollen rivers in neighboring Tabasco state burst their banks, an estimated 20,000 people remained trapped on rooftops. The Los Angeles Times reported that at least 30 bodies had been recovered from the fetid water that has covered two-thirds of the state, swallowed tens of thousands of homes and displaced an estimated 1 million residents. The Associated Press, however, put the death toll at 10.

The Mexican public has been horrified at televised images of desperate residents fighting over relief supplies and of sick, hungry victims packed into poorly equipped emergency shelters.

In Chiapas state, Monday's village landslide blocked an already swollen river and pushed a wall of water and debris over remote San Juan Grijalva, home to about 600 people, most of whom fled into the hills ahead of the advancing wave.

"This village practically disappeared," said Chiapas Gov. Juan Sabines, who was at the scene where rescue workers were digging for possible victims.

Residents said they were awakened by a rumbling roar and the sound of rocks rolling down from surrounding mountaintops.

"We didn't know what was happening, and then we went outside, and there were cracks opening the earth," said Domingo Sanchez, 21."We ran up the hill ... but soil kept coming down on us."

For several hours, Sanchez, his wife, mother and cousin fought for their lives in a valley where the only salvation lay in getting to higher ground.

They reached a hilltop just in time to look across the valley and see a landslide cover his grandparents' home. Sanchez believes at least nine of his relatives were buried.

In the capital of Villahermosa, 45 miles northeast, shelter supervisor Hortensia Carmona spoke of appalling conditions at a school where 900 people have taken refuge.

"The authorities sent us only enough food for 300 people," she told the daily newspaper Tabasco Today. "The situation is very serious. ... There is no medicine. It's terrible."

Gov. Andrés Granier ordered central streets in the capital closed to all but rescue workers to prevent looting.

President Bush expressed his sympathy Monday to Mexican President Felipe Calderón. Gordon Johndroe, a spokesman for the National Security Council, said Bush told Calderón the United States was ready to help the Mexican people meet their immediate needs and rebuild their lives and communities . . . .

[edit]

[BrianD]

I still wonder---is all the "documented evidence" you have presented only available on paper, or do you have direct "if-then" proof? I sincerely doubt the latter, as you're not Nature herself...

I believe you do know that so-called "documented evidence", whether for or against in this issue, could be (and very likely is, in most cases) falsified. Scientific communities are largely the hushed-up and censored slaves of governments. The media is also a puppet of politics. Therefore, how can anyone have blind trust in what's on paper or fed to us by either the scientific community or the conservative OR liberal media?

And Enoch says "facts is facts". No. All of us are being fed a bunch of lies and half-truths. What matters is that the planet is warming---it doesn't matter how, really, whether from a Holocene warming trend or from our impact on the earth, or a combination of both. Sure, we should recycle and waste less, etc., etc., but there's no way that this warming is going to stop...nor can we reverse it. It goes as it must.

We, and other living things, are the parasites that cover this host called Earth. Has anyone ever considered that our contribution to global warming is part of what Nature intended?

I fully agree that what matters is that the planet is warming - we can debate endlessly what might cause it and get nowhere.

"nature' intending something is nonsense - 'nature' is not an entity so it can intend nothing.

But if you mean that global warming could be part of some type of natural cycle - yes I think thats possible.

The key question is whether a warmer planet remains habitable for the large human population on it. If it isn't, then we either have a massive population reduction (presumably mainly thru decreased fertility secondary to starvation) or we try to maintain our population by cooling the planet. I suspect that the former situation will occur over this century.

[Imperatrix]

"nature' intending something is nonsense - 'nature' is not an entity so it can intend nothing.

Actually, Brian, we really don't know if it is or not.

[Imperatrix]

So it wasnt you running the chook raffle down at the local ?

Would you like a few eggs? :D

...and didn't she also seduce a priest, amongst all this chook-feeding???:xolicon42:

Well, you know women...first they're scattering seed to chickens, then some chicken is scattering seed in them. :winknudge

[Terry Shea]

Did we stop discussing global warming?

It is November 5th in Chicagoland and, for the first time since I moved to Illinois in 2000, I haven't yet seen a snowflake.I find that very hard to believe. I'm right across the lake from you and about 100 miles further north, meaning we're much more susceptible to lake effect snow, and we don't usually get our first snow until just before Thanksgiving. It's usually around Christmas or after before the ground is covered for the duration.

[Terry Shea]

I still wonder---is all the "documented evidence" you have presented only available on paper, or do you have direct "if-then" proof? I sincerely doubt the latter, as you're not Nature herself...

What I meant was I posted documented articles from Time and Newsweek, printed in the mid '70's, that clearly showed that we were in a cooling period and that the scientific community thought we were on the verge of an ice age. Interestingly, they blamed global cooling for many of the same things they're now blaming global warming for, such as famines in certain areas. Here are the links:

http://www.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,944914,00.html

http://www.denisdutton.com/cooling_world.htm

[Terry Shea]

I vaguely remember some talk of global cooling in the 70s, but it didnt last long. I certainly remember people talking about warming, and that talk has gathered pace ever since..unlike the cooling that you harp on about, which lasted about a week

I have never read Newsweek or Time in my lifeGlobal cooling lasted for about 40 years, and there was no talk about global warming during the 70's! How could there be? The earth had cooled a whopping 2.7 degrees from 1940 through the mid 70's!

[podo]

http://www.aip.org/history/climate/summary.htm

A nice history leason

[pianozach]

Global cooling lasted for about 40 years, and there was no talk about global warming during the 70's! How could there be? The earth had cooled a whopping 2.7 degrees from 1940 through the mid 70's!

Beg to differ, Terry.

In 1977, the National Academy of Sciences weighed in with a major study by a panel of experts who warned that temperatures might rise to nearly catastrophic levels during the next century or two. (See the NY Times, July 25, 1977)

You see, an increasing number of scientists, given a choice between warming and cooling, had logically decided that it was the greenhouse effect that would dominate sooner or later. Theoretical work on aerosols suggested that human smog and dust might not cool the atmosphere very much after all. At most, the increased pollution might bring a mild cooling that would only temporarily mask greenhouse warming.


The whole Newsweek "global cooling" scare has been debunked. There's been several posts delivering this late-breaking news to you - perhaps you could be so kind as to actually READ others' posts here rather than beating that dead global cooling horse some more. :horse:

[Terry Shea]

http://www.csmonitor.com/2007/1011/p13s03-sten.html

""
Today, skeptics of global warming sometimes point to what they call the "global-cooling scare" of the 1970s as a reason to discount what they hear now. If the news media 30 years ago hyped "global cooling" and were wrong, skeptics say, doesn't it follow that "global warming" coverage might prove equally wrong?
But those who have looked closely at the two eras or have been part of the scientific community then and now say the comparison is unfair. William Connolley, a sort of self-appointed historian of the global-cooling theory, says that although global cooling was briefly but prominently covered in some speculative news articles,
the idea never got much traction within the scientific community. New data and research over the decades has convinced the vast majority of scientists that global warming is real and under way. """

""In the mid-1970s, scientists were researching the possibility that the nearly three decades of cooling experienced in the Northern Hemisphere since World War II might be the beginning of a new ice age (http://www.csmonitor.com/2004/0318/p13s01-sten.html). Data suggested that perhaps the huge increase in dust and aerosols (tiny airborne particles that reflect sunlight back into space) from pollution and human development might be stepping up the cooling process.
The investigation didn't last long. Temperatures began to rise. Improving climate methodologies revealed that, although aerosols did indeed have a cooling effect, CO2 and other greenhouse gases were more potent in bringing about atmospheric change on a global scale. Once this became known, scientists moved on to other things. ""


Fair dinkum Terry.. That took me 2 minutes to find using a simple google search.

The so called 'global cooling" theroy has been debunked, and is not supportive evidence to dismiss global warming.

Even my 10 year old understands thatDebunked? How so? By a "self-appointed historian of the global-cooling theory"? That's rich! And so is this manmade global warming scam! The only reason it's got any legs is because it's being funded to the tune of tens of billions of dollars. The global cooling theory of the mid '70's didn't have that luxery. But the comments and the time period involved are nearly identical! 3 decades of cooling folowed by 3 decades of warming!

This from the Newsweek article:

To scientists, these seemingly disparate incidents represent the advance signs of fundamental changes in the world’s weather. The central fact is that after three quarters of a century of extraordinarily mild conditions, the earth’s climate seems to be cooling down. Meteorologists disagree about the cause and extent of the cooling trend, as well as over its specific impact on local weather conditions. But they are almost unanimous in the view that the trend will reduce agricultural productivity for the rest of the century. If the climatic change is as profound as some of the pessimists fear, the resulting famines could be catastrophic. “A major climatic change would force economic and social adjustments on a worldwide scale,” warns a recent report by the National Academy of Sciences, “because the global patterns of food production and population that have evolved are implicitly dependent on the climate of the present century.”

Sound familiar? In both articles you can simply substitute global warming for global cooling and get the exact same sceanario and scare tactics that are being used today! It's all hogwash and anyone with a brain that hasn't been brainwashed should be able to see that!

This from the Time article:

Man, too, may be somewhat responsible for the cooling trend. The University of Wisconsin's Reid A. Bryson and other climatologists suggest that dust and other particles released into the atmosphere as a result of farming and fuel burning may be blocking more and more sunlight from reaching and heating the surface of the earth.

and:

The earth's current climate is something of an anomaly; in the past 700,000 years, there have been at least seven major episodes of glaciers spreading over much of the planet. Temperatures have been as high as they are now only about 5% of the time. But there is a peril more immediate than the prospect of another ice age. Even if temperature and rainfall patterns change only slightly in the near future in one or more of the three major grain-exporting countries—the U.S., Canada and Australia —global food stores would be sharply reduced. University of Toronto Climatologist Kenneth Hare, a former president of the Royal Meteorological Society, believes that the continuing drought and the recent failure of the Russian harvest gave the world a grim premonition of what might happen. Warns Hare: "I don't believe that the world's present population is sustainable if there are more than three years like 1972 in a row."

I already know what your defense is going to be. It's going to be something along the lines of science not being scientific until at least 1980 and all previous science (at least as it applies to the climate) was simply science fiction! The fact is there has been little if any scientific evidence to support the manmade global warming theory! It's been about 99% hype and hysteria with 10s of billions of dollars backing this hype and hysteria. Everything that has been said about the global cooling period is now being said about the global warming period. It's all hype and nonsense and science never even enters the picture!

[podo]

Global cooling lasted for about 40 years, and there was no talk about global warming during the 70's! How could there be? The earth had cooled a whopping 2.7 degrees from 1940 through the mid 70's!

I guess you wherent at the science lectures I attended in high school in 1974. That was the series of lecture given by the CSIRO where predictions of warming where talked about. At the time it was more about possible rises in global temperatures due to greenhouse gasses, rather than evidence of actual warming.

It was during the late 70s where article began to agree and gain traction


"""Swedish chemist [/URL]Svante Arrhenius (http://www.britannica.com/eb/topic?idxStructId=36084&typeId=13) and American geologist Thomas C. Chamberlin (http://www.britannica.com/eb/topic?idxStructId=104976&typeId=13) had independently hypothesized that increasing the atmospheric concentration of greenhouse gases could raise the atmosphere's temperature by leading to a greater absorption of solar radiation that would otherwise be reflected from the Earth's surface back into space. In the 1970s and 1980s, scientific opinion turned in support of this hypothesis as data gathered since the 1950s showed a steady increase in the amount of greenhouse gases in the atmosphere, and early modeling efforts supported the greenhouse hypothesis. The attention of the public became focused on the idea of rising temperatures worldwide, and the issue has since been referred to as “global warming.”

[URL]http://www.britannica.com/eb/article-9037044/global-warming

[Terry Shea]

Beg to differ, Terry.



The whole Newsweek "global cooling" scare has been debunked. There's been several posts delivering this late-breaking news to you - perhaps you could be so kind as to actually READ others' posts here rather than beating that dead global cooling horse some more. :horse:Yes, it's been debunked...and been replaced by the global warming scare...which will itself be debunked in the next generation or so. Thanks for making my point for me.

[Terry Shea]

"""Swedish chemist Svante Arrhenius (http://www.britannica.com/eb/article-9009618/Svante-August-Arrhenius) and American geologist Thomas C. Chamberlin (http://www.britannica.com/eb/article-9022316/Thomas-Chrowder-Chamberlin) had independently hypothesized that increasing the atmospheric concentration of greenhouse gases could raise the atmosphere's temperature by leading to a greater absorption of solar radiation that would otherwise be reflected from the Earth's surface back into space. In the 1970s and 1980s, scientific opinion turned in support of this hypothesis as data gathered since the 1950s showed a steady increase in the amount of greenhouse gases in the atmosphere, and early modeling efforts supported the greenhouse hypothesis. The attention of the public became focused on the idea of rising temperatures worldwide, and the issue has since been referred to as “global warming.”

http://www.britannica.com/eb/article-9037044/global-warming

That's interesting. If "greenhouse gasses" showed a steady increase since the 1950's then what caused such severe cooling during the period? Space aliens?

[podo]

Debunked? How so? By a "self-appointed historian of the global-cooling theory"? That's rich! And so is this manmade global warming scam! The only reason it's got any legs is because it's being funded to the tune of tens of billions of dollars. The global cooling theory of the mid '70's didn't have that luxery. But the comments and the time period involved are nearly identical! 3 decades of cooling folowed by 3 decades of warming!

snip

The fact is there has been little if any scientific evidence to support the manmade global warming theory! It's been about 99% hype and hysteria with 10s of billions of dollars backing this hype and hysteria. Everything that has been said about the global cooling period is now being said about the global warming period. It's all hype and nonsense and science never even enters the picture!



possiblly the most ridiculous statement I have ever read anywhere.

""Little if any scientific evidence to support the manmade global warming theory""

:dog:

[inside_out]

Debunked? How so? By a "self-appointed historian of the global-cooling theory"? That's rich! And so is this manmade global warming scam! The only reason it's got any legs is because it's being funded to the tune of tens of billions of dollars. The global cooling theory of the mid '70's didn't have that luxery. But the comments and the time period involved are nearly identical! 3 decades of cooling folowed by 3 decades of warming!

This from the Newsweek article:

To scientists, these seemingly disparate incidents represent the advance signs of fundamental changes in the world’s weather. The central fact is that after three quarters of a century of extraordinarily mild conditions, the earth’s climate seems to be cooling down. Meteorologists disagree about the cause and extent of the cooling trend, as well as over its specific impact on local weather conditions. But they are almost unanimous in the view that the trend will reduce agricultural productivity for the rest of the century. If the climatic change is as profound as some of the pessimists fear, the resulting famines could be catastrophic. “A major climatic change would force economic and social adjustments on a worldwide scale,” warns a recent report by the National Academy of Sciences, “because the global patterns of food production and population that have evolved are implicitly dependent on the climate of the present century.”

Sound familiar? In both articles you can simply substitute global warming for global cooling and get the exact same sceanario and scare tactics that are being used today! It's all hogwash and anyone with a brain that hasn't been brainwashed should be able to see that!

This from the Time article:

Man, too, may be somewhat responsible for the cooling trend. The University of Wisconsin's Reid A. Bryson and other climatologists suggest that dust and other particles released into the atmosphere as a result of farming and fuel burning may be blocking more and more sunlight from reaching and heating the surface of the earth.

and:

The earth's current climate is something of an anomaly; in the past 700,000 years, there have been at least seven major episodes of glaciers spreading over much of the planet. Temperatures have been as high as they are now only about 5% of the time. But there is a peril more immediate than the prospect of another ice age. Even if temperature and rainfall patterns change only slightly in the near future in one or more of the three major grain-exporting countries—the U.S., Canada and Australia —global food stores would be sharply reduced. University of Toronto Climatologist Kenneth Hare, a former president of the Royal Meteorological Society, believes that the continuing drought and the recent failure of the Russian harvest gave the world a grim premonition of what might happen. Warns Hare: "I don't believe that the world's present population is sustainable if there are more than three years like 1972 in a row."

I already know what your defense is going to be. It's going to be something along the lines of science not being scientific until at least 1980 and all previous science (at least as it applies to the climate) was simply science fiction! The fact is there has been little if any scientific evidence to support the manmade global warming theory! It's been about 99% hype and hysteria with 10s of billions of dollars backing this hype and hysteria. Everything that has been said about the global cooling period is now being said about the global warming period. It's all hype and nonsense and science never even enters the picture!

The very people who are speaking and shouting about global warming are exactly the one's who need to turn off their air-conditioner and feel this world with their own bodies, without the use of man made devises. It's all political and is an exact response to their inability to be themselves because they do not have on original thought. The world (man) will die from over-civilization. You can interpret that anyway you chose, just like life. I'm not going to "save the world". I have no interest in it. My life is of utmost importance to me and those whom I love and that I can promote and be the human being that my body and (mind) will allow.

[podo]

That's interesting. If "greenhouse gasses" showed a steady increase since the 1950's then what caused such severe cooling during the period? Space aliens?


""In the early 1970s, the rise of environmentalism raised public doubts about the benefits of human activity for the planet. Curiosity about climate turned into anxious concern. Alongside the greenhouse effect, some scientists pointed out that human activity was putting dust and smog particles into the atmosphere, where they could block sunlight and cool the world. Moreover, analysis of Northern Hemisphere weather statistics showed that a cooling trend had begun in the 1940s.""

http://www.aip.org/history/climate/summary.htm


next time,, read the articles that are posted

[inside_out]

""In the early 1970s, the rise of environmentalism raised public doubts about the benefits of human activity for the planet. Curiosity about climate turned into anxious concern. Alongside the greenhouse effect, some scientists pointed out that human activity was putting dust and smog particles into the atmosphere, where they could block sunlight and cool the world. Moreover, analysis of Northern Hemisphere weather statistics showed that a cooling trend had begun in the 1940s.""

http://www.aip.org/history/climate/summary.htm


next time,, read the articles that are posted

Reading an article is like watching a commercial. It's has heavy intention. Be and know if you will.

[inside_out]

possiblly the most ridiculous statement I have ever read anywhere.

""Little if any scientific evidence to support the manmade global warming theory""

:dog:

Stop reading and live. Take your self and move it around and find yourself if you will. All within your evidence.

[Altres]

Stop reading and live. Take your self and move it around and find yourself if you will. All within your evidence.
I've started by never reading your posts again. :D

[pedro skychaser]

I've started by never reading your posts again. :D

that is a strategy ,but "the fortune-cookie-platitude-factory" never shuts down...:xolicon42:

[pedro skychaser]

Would you like a few eggs? :D



Well, you know women...first they're scattering seed to chickens, then some chicken is scattering seed in them. :winknudge

hahahahah first the self -deprecating joke ,followed by the wicked double entendre!!!

you are truly Queen mumTAS of the taj Mahal!!!!!!!!!!:headset:

[pianozach]

Yes, it's been debunked...and been replaced by the global warming scare...which will itself be debunked in the next generation or so. Thanks for making my point for me.

I made no such point. You're just dreamin' now, Terry.

The Global "Cooling" scare did not last very long because it had no traction. And trying to use it as a rationale for Global Warming also being wrong is an argument that also has no traction.

This would be like infering that the notion that the Sun is at the center of the solar system will also be debunked because scientists had previously believed that the Earth was the center, and they were proved wrong. Yep, this whole "Sun-at-the-Center" thing is just another scare to make money: "Earth-at-the-Center lasted for centuries, and there was no talk about Sun-at-the-Center during that time! How could there be?"

Besides, the scientists weren't "wrong" about global cooling. That proposed theory never gained any consensus in the scientific community. What was "wrong" was that some media outlets ran with the story believing that there was significant scientific support for the theory. Please read previous posts explaining how this happened - Even though you seem to enjoy repeating the same claptrap over and over doesn't mean that any of us enjoy explaining the flaws in your claptrap to you over and over.

BTW, another research group has weighed in on the UN backed IPCC report. This group thinks that things will actually be getting MUCH worse before they get better:

Breaking News / World

http://newsinfo.inquirer.net/breakingnews/world/
Inquirer.net is the official news website of the Philippine Daily Inquirer

Global-warming gases set to rise by 57% by 2030--IEA

Agence France-Presse

November 07, 2007


PARIS -- Emissions of greenhouse gases will rise by 57 percent by 2030 compared to current levels, leading to a rise in Earth's surface temperature of at least three degrees Celsius (5.4 degrees Fahrenheit), the International Energy Agency (IEA) said on Wednesday.

In its annual report on global energy needs, the Paris-based agency projected greenhouse-gas pollution would rise by 1.8 percent annually by 2030 on the basis of projected energy use and current efforts to mitigate emissions.

The IEA saw scant chance of bringing this pollution down to a stable, safer level any time soon.

It poured cold water on a scenario sketched earlier this year by the Nobel-winning Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), the UN's paramount authority on global warming and its effects.

The IPCC said that to limit the average increase in global temperatures to 2.4 C (4.3 F) -- the most optimistic of any of its scenarios -- the concentration of greenhouse gases would have to stabilize at 450 parts per million (ppm) of carbon dioxide (CO2) in the atmosphere.

The IPCC warned that, to achieve this goal, CO2 emissions would have to peak by 2015 at the latest and then fall between 50 and 85 percent by 2050.

But the 2007 edition of the IEA's World Energy Outlook saw no peak in emissions before 2020.

To achieve the 450ppm target would mean that CO2 from energy sources would have to peak by 2012, and this would require a massive drive in energy efficiency and switch to non-fossil fuels, the report said.

"Emissions savings (would have to) come from improved efficiency in fossil-fuel use in industry, buildings and transport, switching to nuclear power and renewables, and the widespread deployment of CO2 capture and storage in power generation and industry," the IEA said.

"Exceptionally quick and vigorous action by all countries and unprecedented technological advances, entailing, substantial costs, would be needed to make this case a reality."

Under the IEA's most optimistic scenario, which takes into account measures that are currently in the planning stage for tackling emissions, greenhouse-gas pollution would rise by one percent per year, rather than 1.8 percent on present trends.

Emissions would decline steadily beyond 2030, translating into an eventual rise in temperatures of "about" three C (5.4 F), IEA analyst Trevor Morgan said.

In contrast, under the IEA's most pessimistic scenario, warming could reach six C (10.8 F) if China and India continue their strong growth relentlessly, using coal as a principal energy source.

By 2030, the biggest polluters would be China, the United States, India, Russia and Japan, the IEA said.

In a massive report issued this year, the IPCC said that since 1900, the mean global atmospheric temperature had risen by 0.8 C (1.44 F) and levels of CO2, which account for about three-quarters of greenhouse-gas output, are now at their highest in 650,000 years.

This temperature rise has already caused glaciers, snow and ice cover to fall back sharply in alpine regions, reduced the scope of Arctic sea ice and caused Siberian and Canadian permafrost to retreat.

By 2100, global average surface temperatures could rise by between 1.1 C (1.98 F) and 6.4 C (11.52 F) compared to 1980-99 levels, the IPCC said.

Heatwaves, flooding, drought, tropical storms and surges in sea level are among the events expected to become more frequent, more widespread and/or more intense this century, the scientists said.