Global Warming? WHAT global warming?

[Yes.2]

Watch this.HAARP

This is real stuff. I use to live next to a fat old bald computer genius that had government tys to raytheon and TI....And he told me about this when I was real young back in the late 80s...He wrote all the software drivers for their custom linux basses software hardware iterfaces. He'd been to Haarp....Many times. Had some very interesting pictures and charts. Told me not to worry about nuclear war. He said haarps the real monster.

He was vary vary vary worried about this thing/place/project called Haarp....

[Yes.2]

Look up!

[pianozach]

I first heard about the Chem trail issue a few years ago from the Art Bell show - scary, ain't it?

Likewise with the subject of HAARP.

And don't forget our underwater sonar experiments that are have considerable impact on the hydroshpere, including the unusual beaching of whales.

As we continue in our baby steps in understanding and coping with the results of our impact on our environment, there will eventually be some spotlights focused on these issues as well.

[sissywoods]

Questions I've been asking myself lately about Global Warming..
Do you think it's too late?
Is society too passive about the environment?
What will the environment be like in 10 years (based on my theory of the domino/exponentional possibility of changes)

I think there's this mentality that people look out their front doors and think 'well, the trees are still producing, my grass is still growing. Oh, it's just a hotter summer this year.' Or 'they know what they're doing and they'll fix it (government, society, whoever you want to label as 'them').

thanks for listening to me rattle on.

[pianozach]

Originally Posted by sissywoods

Questions I've been asking myself lately about Global Warming..
Do you think it's too late?
Is society too passive about the environment?
What will the environment be like in 10 years (based on my theory of the domino/exponentional possibility of changes)

I think there's this mentality that people look out their front doors and think 'well, the trees are still producing, my grass is still growing. Oh, it's just a hotter summer this year.' Or 'they know what they're doing and they'll fix it (government, society, whoever you want to label as 'them').

thanks for listening to me rattle on.

Too late? We'll see.
Society passive? Many are. Some are not.

Right now I'm a little peaved that there's another anti-Global Warming Theory article out on a hyper-conservative website - it sounds so "reasonable" - comparing Global warming to the Piltdown Man Hoax in the early 1900's. It trots out the names of "scientists" and quotes, such as,

"As Dr. David Wojick recently noted, “In short, there is no evidence for human-induced global warming in the U.S. temperature record.”"

and

""Anthropogenic (man-made) global warming bites the dust,” declared astronomer Dr. Ian Wilson."

and

"paleoclimate scientist, Bob Carter, noted in a June 18, 2007 essay that "global warming has stopped""

These kind of tactics (blanket statements by unknown scientific "experts" with no corrorating evidence or citations) are surprisingly effective. People that already think, for whatever reasons, that Global Warming is a hoax, feel vindicated by what is an opinion peice. Those that have made up their minds that Global Warming is a very real current phenomenon will rightly dismiss the sloppy logic in this piece of propaganda.

But it's those folks that are sitting on the fence that are given the false impression that Global Warming may be, perhaps, a hoax, and may delay their badly needed actions to help deal with it.

You're right - there is a large segment of society that has been convinced that Global Warming is a hoax thrust upon a "gullible" public by bunch of "liberal Chicken Littles".

Some people just cannot imagine that corporate America is engaged in some for-profit conspiracy and lying to them about the existence of Climate Change on a global level, and at the same think that there IS a conspiracy created by the United Nations Environmental Program (straight from the article! http://newsbyus.com/more.php?id=9489_0_1_0_M ) to fool us all.

Take a look through all of the posts in this thread - the evidence supporting Global Warming is overwhelming......

[Terry Shea]

Originally Posted by kirk

Terry Shea, meet Terry Chea!-

Bush Must Release Global Warming Reports
By TERENCE CHEA, Associated Press Writer
1 hour ago

SAN FRANCISCO - A federal judge ordered the Bush administration to issue two scientific reports on global warming, siding with environmentalists who sued the White House for failing to produce the documents.

Who's attempting to run the government here? The White House or some power hungry judge?

U.S. District Court Judge Saundra Armstrong ruled Tuesday that the Bush administration had violated a 1990 law when it failed to meet deadlines for an updated U.S. climate change research plan and impact assessment.

Really? Specifically, which law was violated?

Armstrong set a March 1 deadline for the administration to issue the research plan, which is meant to guide federal research on climate change. Federal law calls for an updated plan every three years, she said. The last one was issued in 2003.

Really? Specifically, which law is this?

The judge set a May 31 deadline to produce a national assessment containing the most recent scientific data on global warming and its projected effects on the country's environment, economy and public health. The government is required to complete a national assessment every four years, the judge ruled.

Once again, the judge is attemtping to legislate law from the bench and usurp power away from The Whitehouse.

The last one was issued by the Clinton administration in 2000.

The administration had claimed that it had discretion over how and when it produced the reports _ an argument the judge rejected Tuesday.

"The defendants are wrong," Armstrong wrote in the 38-page ruling. "Congress has conferred no discretion upon the defendants as to when they will issue revised Research Plans and National Assessments."

Oh, Congress hasn't set a timetable, but some power hungry judge has, eh? Nice!

The plaintiffs _ the Center for Biological Diversity, Friends of the Earth and Greenpeace _ said the ruling was a rebuke to an administration that has systematically denied and suppressed information on global warming.


"It's a huge victory holding the administration accountable for its attempts to suppress science," said Kassie Siegel, an attorney for the Center for Biological Diversity, one of the plaintiffs that filed suit in Oakland federal court in November.

Suppressed? You can't suppress what isn't there. There isn't one shred of evidence that man has had anything to do with global warming. A vast majority of scientists, and meteorologists in particular, don't believe global warming is man-made (see below).

K

This from AMS certified meteorologist James Spann:

http://epw.senate.gov/public/index.c...5-7dc37ec39adf

"I have been in operational meteorology since 1978, and I know dozens and dozens of broadcast meteorologists all over the country. Our big job: look at a large volume of raw data and come up with a public weather forecast for the next seven days. I do not know of a single TV meteorologist who buys into the man-made global warming hype. I know there must be a few out there, but I can't find them."

And this from retired tv meteorologist Dan Webster:

http://www.crainscleveland.com/apps/.../70213008/1010

"Mr. Webster observed that in his dealings with meteorologists nationwide, "about 95%" share his skepticism about global warming."

What about the UN IPCC report that listed a plethora of scientists as supporting the man-made global warming theory? Well, it seems they deliberately edited out any dissenting scientist but still listed them as participants, giving the illusion that every scientist listed supported the nonsensical claims of man-made global warming. Lying and deception are nothing new to the IPCC.

...the IPCC’s conclusion was politically driven and they deliberately censored any dissenting scientists while still listing them as participants.

The IPCC has a history of publishing misleading reports. For example, in a 1996 report, it edited out these two statements, according to Fred Singer, founder of the Science and Environmental Policy Project.
“None of the studies cited has shown clear evidence that we can attribute the observed climate changes to increases in greenhouse gases,” and “No study to date had positively attributed all or part of the climate changes … to man-made causes.”


http://www.queensjournal.ca/story/20...rming-swindle/

And as for the Associated Press, they too have severe credibility problems. I just stumbled across this:

http://freeworldsurvey.blogspot.com/...x-exposed.html

[yesyadda]

Cartographers are having to redraw maps.

[kirk]

http://www.ucsusa.org/news/press_rel...g-tobacco.html

Sad, Terry that you've swallowed this so deeply.

Even George admits the problem...!
Is he wrong too?

"We recognize our responsibility and will meet it -- at home, in our hemisphere, and in the world. My Cabinet-level working group on climate change is recommending a number of initial steps, and will continue to work on additional ideas. The working group proposes the United States help lead the way by advancing the science on climate change, advancing the technology to monitor and reduce greenhouse gases, and creating partnerships within our hemisphere and beyond to monitor and measure and mitigate emissions."

Wake up and smell the catfood....or drink the Kool-Aid.

k

[Terry Shea]

Originally Posted by Frosted Sun

There problem solved. Next debate. BTW where is the link that Al Gore uses more electricity in his home than a small city? And the one about NOAA also, and we are living greener and cleaner....and ....

I think data bases must have ran out of space to store it all,,,... this could go on forever.

http://www.cei.org/gencon/003,05340.cfm
"While the CEI video pokes fun at Mr. Gore's profligate consumption of the world's petroleum resources, we don't begrudge his lifestyle that requires using as much energy as a small village in America or a medium-sized town in Africa,” Ebell explained. “The mobility that jet fuel and gasoline provide is a good thing and the benefits of abundant energy should be available to all people, not just the elite. CEI calls on Mr. Gore to stop preaching against the petroleum products he uses so lavishly and instead join us in promoting access to energy," Ebell concluded.

http://www.tennesseepolicy.org/main/...article_id=367

The average household in America consumes 10,656 kilowatt-hours (kWh) per year, according to the Department of Energy. In 2006, Gore devoured nearly 221,000 kWh—more than 20 times the national average.

Last August alone, Gore burned through 22,619 kWh—guzzling more than twice the electricity in one month than an average American family uses in an entire year. As a result of his energy consumption, Gore’s average monthly electric bill topped $1,359.

Since the release of An Inconvenient Truth, Gore’s energy consumption has increased from an average of 16,200 kWh per month in 2005, to 18,400 kWh per month in 2006.

Gore’s extravagant energy use does not stop at his electric bill. Natural gas bills for Gore’s mansion and guest house averaged $1,080 per month last year.

...and that's not even taking into consideration the massive amount of fuel he wastes jetting all over the world.

As for the NOAA, it's a governmental agency, specifically it's part of the Dept of Commerce. It's a political organization. Need I say more?

As for living greener, just use a little common sense and logic. We've drastically cut carbon monoxide emissions due to catalytic convertors and other pollution control devices on cars. There may be more CO2 in the air now, but CO2 is not a pollutant! In fact, plant life relies on CO2, so a higher CO2 content in the atmosphere leads to a greener earth.

[BlueEagle]

Interesting article, Gary. Not only those changes in topography mentioned, but retreating (melting) glaciers have changed the coastline of Greenland and Ellismere island in the arctic and exposed miles of previously buried ground in Patagonia. But hey- who needs facts when you have the opinions of tv weathermen, huh?

[pianozach]

Originally Posted by Terry Shea

http://www.cei.org/gencon/003,05340.cfm
[COLOR=black][FONT=Arial][I]"While the CEI video pokes fun at Mr. Gore's profligate consumption of the world's petroleum resources,

. . . . .


As for living greener, just use a little common sense and logic. We've drastically cut carbon monoxide emissions due to catalytic convertors and other pollution control devices on cars. There may be more CO2 in the air now, but CO2 is not a pollutant! In fact, plant life relies on CO2, so a higher CO2 content in the atmosphere leads to a greener earth.

Terry, the whole "Al Gore is a energy waster" subject has been debunked - The consumption figures are concocted, he runs his business out of his home, complete with employees, and he's been constantly making changes to make his own footprint smaller.

And we've been over the CO2 issue before, as well. Yes, we are all well aware that CO2 is a naturally occurring gas. You're still missing the point that too much of it causes problems. It's the balance of gasses in the atmosphere.

Look, Carbon dioxide is a greenhouse gas; it traps heat radiation that is attempting to escape from Earth.

So, yes you're correct about it being a natural component of the atmosphere and needed by plants in order to carry out photosynthesis.

And no one would argue the fact that carbon dioxide is a necessary component of the atmosphere any more than one would argue the fact that Vitamin D is necessary in the human diet. However, excess Vitamin D in the diet can be extremely toxic.

You see, if the present amount of carbon dioxide taken out of the atmosphere every year by plants and was almost perfectly balanced by amount of carbon dioxide put back into the atmosphere by respiration and decay, then everything would be just fine.

Well, guess what? Human activity has been increasing the concentration of greenhouse gases in the atmosphere (mostly carbon dioxide from combustion of coal, oil, and gas; plus a few other trace gases, with a minor contribution from deforestation).

There is no scientific debate on this point.

Of course, CO2 isn't the only greenhouse gas that we should be worried about . . . . For instance, methane, another greenhouse gas, can come from landfills, animal waste, the melting of permafrost and fossil fuel burning. And CFC's are also considered a greenhouse gas, although their levels are no longer rising, as we no longer use them in air conditioners and refriderators.

[pianozach]

Here's another effect of Global Warming: Increased allergies.

Higher carbon dioxide levels and warmer temperatures associated with global warming prod plants to bloom earlier and produce more pollen. With more allergens produced earlier, allergy season can last longer.

Of course, general exposure to pollution ultimately leaves people more vulnerable to the airborne allergens they breathe in in the first place.

[Terry Shea]

Originally Posted by kirk

http://www.ucsusa.org/news/press_rel...g-tobacco.html

Sad, Terry that you've swallowed this so deeply.

Even George admits the problem...!
Is he wrong too?

"We recognize our responsibility and will meet it -- at home, in our hemisphere, and in the world. My Cabinet-level working group on climate change is recommending a number of initial steps, and will continue to work on additional ideas. The working group proposes the United States help lead the way by advancing the science on climate change, advancing the technology to monitor and reduce greenhouse gases, and creating partnerships within our hemisphere and beyond to monitor and measure and mitigate emissions."

Wake up and smell the catfood....or drink the Kool-Aid.

k

Ho ho ho! Old, unreliable information (Jan.3, 2007), essentially the same thing Newsweek printed last month...and got blasted for...by one of their own editors!

Here's what Newsweek editor Robert Samuelson said about the Newsweek article in reference to ExxonMobil's input:


"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.)"

Furthermore:

http://epw.senate.gov/public/index.c...c-d9f7facb61a7

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.



And comparing ExxonMobil's input to tobacco industries lying about tobacco products causing lung cancer is just plain a downright invalid comparison! They've made the statement but they offer no supporting evidence for such a claim. They never connected the dots! Here's what Noel Sheppard had to say about similar statements in the Newsweek article:



"How utterly disgraceful. So, scientists all around the world who have devoted their lives and their careers to studying and writing about climate and related issues who don't feel man can or is impacting such are akin to folks who misled the public about the potential dangers of cigarette smoking.

How disgusting. Frankly, these "journalists" should be asked by every skeptical scientist on the planet for an immediate apology."

But it's even worse than Mr. Sheppard stated here. Not only are they making an outrageous and unfounded accusation and comparison, but they're making the assumption that manmade global warming is an indisputable fact, when in fact there is not one shred of evidence that man has caused any global warming whatsoever!

Your link further claims that ExxonMobil "raised doubts about even the most indisputable scientific evidence". What kind of popycock is that? There is no such "indisputable scientific evidence", and if there are doubts they certainly should be raised and ExxonMobil, or any other person or organization has every right to raise them!

Your so called scientific report offers nothing scientific on the matter, resorts to slandering techniques, makes bogus, unfounded, undocumented and illogical comparisons and attempts to take away the oppositions right to free speech! Pathetic!

[Terry Shea]

Originally Posted by pianozach

Terry, the whole "Al Gore is a energy waster" subject has been debunked - The consumption figures are concocted, he runs his business out of his home, complete with employees, and he's been constantly making changes to make his own footprint smaller.

And we've been over the CO2 issue before, as well. Yes, we are all well aware that CO2 is a naturally occurring gas. You're still missing the point that too much of it causes problems. It's the balance of gasses in the atmosphere.

Look, Carbon dioxide is a greenhouse gas; it traps heat radiation that is attempting to escape from Earth.

So, yes you're correct about it being a natural component of the atmosphere and needed by plants in order to carry out photosynthesis.

And no one would argue the fact that carbon dioxide is a necessary component of the atmosphere any more than one would argue the fact that Vitamin D is necessary in the human diet. However, excess Vitamin D in the diet can be extremely toxic.

You see, if the present amount of carbon dioxide taken out of the atmosphere every year by plants and was almost perfectly balanced by amount of carbon dioxide put back into the atmosphere by respiration and decay, then everything would be just fine.

Well, guess what? Human activity has been increasing the concentration of greenhouse gases in the atmosphere (mostly carbon dioxide from combustion of coal, oil, and gas; plus a few other trace gases, with a minor contribution from deforestation).

There is no scientific debate on this point.

Of course, CO2 isn't the only greenhouse gas that we should be worried about . . . . For instance, methane, another greenhouse gas, can come from landfills, animal waste, the melting of permafrost and fossil fuel burning. And CFC's are also considered a greenhouse gas, although their levels are no longer rising, as we no longer use them in air conditioners and refriderators.

Well once again you haven't offered any supporting documentaion. I have. Here's some more. "Balance" isn't balance just because you say it is. You aren't the balance god.

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/WVFo...ouse_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. "

[Terry Shea]

Originally Posted by pianozach

Here's another effect of Global Warming: Increased allergies.

Higher carbon dioxide levels and warmer temperatures associated with global warming prod plants to bloom earlier and produce more pollen. With more allergens produced earlier, allergy season can last longer.

Of course, general exposure to pollution ultimately leaves people more vulnerable to the airborne allergens they breathe in in the first place.

Well I guess we should go back to leaded gas, DDT and other pollutants and kill off all these nasty plants and trees that cause allergens then. You seem to be desperately reaching with that statement. That's a side-effect of a greener planet. Yup, having a greener planet means more weeds too! Oh, the horrors.

Interestingly, I'm am allergy sufferer and I've had far fewer problems the last few years. And last year I had several bad asthma attacks. This year, not a one.

[Terry Shea]

Originally Posted by pianozach

Terry, the whole "Al Gore is a energy waster" subject has been debunked - The consumption figures are concocted, he runs his business out of his home, complete with employees, and he's been constantly making changes to make his own footprint smaller.

This is just blatantly false! Al Gore is a well documeted energy waster! The energy figures are not concocted. He even admitted to being an energy waster...that's why he came up with the idea for carbon credits...so he could continue to waste energy. He sugested the carbon credits so he could simply pay more for his excessive energy use, since he can afford to do so. He may have cut his energy use in the last year or so, but as of 2006 his energy useage was still increasing...and he's still jetting all over the world!

[YYY]

GORE is GOD!!! and you are going to HELL! Terry.
I stopped fartin last year after seeing Gore's film but here's one just for you. flflflflflfllll

Take that from an agnostic tree hugger

BTW Love your enthusiasm, hate your relentless determination to convert the converted

[podo]

Originally Posted by Terry Shea

This is just blatantly false! Al Gore is a well documeted energy waster! The energy figures are not concocted. He even admitted to being an energy waster...that's why he came up with the idea for carbon credits...so he could continue to waste energy. He sugested the carbon credits so he could simply pay more for his excessive energy use, since he can afford to do so. He may have cut his energy use in the last year or so, but as of 2006 his energy useage was still increasing...and he's still jetting all over the world!

[podo]

With son of shrub in Sydney this week for OPEC,,,,sorry,, APEC, its been determined that with the numerous planes, cars, helecopters etc required by him for 6 days, has the same carbon footprint as 2000 cars for a whole year.

Why someone needs to bring his own cars to to another country Im not quite sure.. We do have cars here, and even some bulletproof ones too Im sure.

Then there is his own cook.. We know how to cook ribs here you know

[pedro skychaser]

Originally Posted by podo

With son of shrub in Sydney this week for OPEC,,,,sorry,, APEC, its been determined that with the numerous planes, cars, helecopters etc required by him for 6 days, has the same carbon footprint as 2000 cars for a whole year.

Why someone needs to bring his own cars to to another country Im not quite sure.. We do have cars here, and even some bulletproof ones too Im sure.

Then there is his own cook.. We know how to cook ribs here you know

now,now podoffsky the cars+chefs+helicopters came over in planes....
"car-pooling"!!!!...high5!!!!!

the OPEC slip was deliciously freudian,no???? that boy's got oil on the brain...

cook ribs,maybe(?)...definately a char-grilled tasmanian salmon with a vinaigrette of bok choy,barrosa valley chardonnay+pine nuts...but i suppose dubya is a ribs+taters guy...