Say it isn't so! Global cooling next?
These cooling cycles in the past have led to crop failures and famine on a worldwide scale. I hope this isn't where we're heading anytime soon ...
http://ibdeditorial.com/IBDArticles.aspx?id=287279412587175
The following thread was started by Sweevil on Lopez Island, 8b on February 08, 2008 at 9:46 am PST
Hmmmm ...
The above followup was added by Sweevil on Lopez Island, 8b on February 08, 2008 at 9:48 am PST.
Not sure who to believe.
The above followup was added by yougotthatright on February 08, 2008 at 10:07 am PST.
Global warming is debatable. You rock Sweevil!
The above followup was added by uninformed, but concerned on February 08, 2008 at 10:20 am PST.
It could be the case that a solar winter might offset the effects of increased CO2 emissions. However the historical data does indeed suggest a correlation between CO2 and global temperature.
The above followup was added by Eric Eug. on February 08, 2008 at 11:12 am PST.
Please leave me out of it, troll-who-won't-even-give-his name. I don't need or want you to "agree" with me.
I was just linking to a science story concerning solar cycles, not making a political statement. Your pix of Laura Bush and Cheney are silly to the point of camp.
It's a shame that global climatology has become such a partisan issue. All that should matter is the science.
The above followup was added by Sweevil on Lopez Island, 8b on February 08, 2008 at 11:35 am PST.
Coldest day for the date ever, i think they said. If not a record, then,what a waste of brisk weather..
The above followup was added by Stan on February 08, 2008 at 11:40 am PST.
Unfortunately, this issue has become politicized, the evidence is that this article shows up in Investor's Business Daily rather than in a science journal.
Personally, I don't know who to believe anymore, and given the large amount of contradictory data, I find it's best not to believe anything. I don't need to know if global warming is real or not to get motivated to reduce my carbon footprint. The fact that it is possible that it might warm up, and the fact that we're already paying through the roof for petroleum based power is enough of a motivator for me. And it's only going to get worse as the Chinese each start driving their own cars. I feel sorry for the poor guys who have to fill up their giant SUVs, talk about a hit on the wallet.
I think that not going green these days is just simply poor financial planning.
As far as the climate is concerned, it's best to hedge your bets both ways. Learn to garden with palms and learn to ski. The odds that Americans are going to give up their love affair with gas guzzlers is slim and none and slim just left town.
The above followup was added by Axel on February 08, 2008 at 11:13 pm PST.
Taking ice cores from up to 100,000 years ago ,its been possible for scientists to explain every single rise and fall in temperature over the last 100,000 years, EXCEPT this latest one.
Yes solar activity affects temperature.
Yes its true that CO2 is linked to temperature.
The change in temperature from solar activity is easily predicatable so this is just another red herring thrown out by some scientist involved with oil, gas, or coal.
The relationship with CO2 is more difficult to understand but clearly the key factor in global warming today, not sun activity.
The above followup was added by Nigel on February 09, 2008 at 1:07 am PST.
its gonna happen ..(global warming) or (global cooling) if we like it or not. The thing I dont like is having a world organization such as the UN demanding that we start paying a "Carbon Tax"..F that...and now our President who is a basic moron as it is..I call him "King George II" and I might be a minority on this ..but I dont think hes going to leave office, some new "911" like event will transpire and he will throw the switch of "martial law" into effect..of which he cant do as it is..Congress can only throw martial law,..but he will try..look up "Directive 51" thats an eye opener...anyway off the subject...regardless of what happens..there is nothing we can do about it..so if its cooling..or warming..just adjust and go forward..btw..that picture of Cheney is hella funny...lol
John in Beaverton
The above followup was added by John in Beaverton on February 09, 2008 at 1:19 am PST.
They said the same thing back in the 80's, that we were heading for another Ice age. I guess I will have to wait and see what happens.
The above followup was added by Roger Oly, 8b on February 09, 2008 at 7:26 am PST.
Buy property that is 50 feet above the current sea level, so if global warming does happen and sea levels rise, you will have water front property.
The above followup was added by Issaquah John on February 09, 2008 at 8:10 am PST.
9 Out of ten who post say their areas are warmer than 20-30 years ago. That's from the whole internet..Japan,Europe,Mexico,republic of Berkeley(lol). The other one in ten are in areas that seem to be very isolated.
That's my second contention..urban warming is a huge impact thats really ignored. Without the big Arctic freezes,citys are puffing up winter temps all over.
Los Angeles, i read,is seven degrees warmer in winter than 60 years ago. I dont remember the whole stat story,other than much warmer than global or the state on average. Yet,they are also having less spikes of hot mid winter temps..less upper 80's 90+,nowadays..and i have to wonder if the more warmer,but moderate temps is because of Californias strict smog emission controls?..L.A. was the ultimate greenhouse effect model for the mid 20th century. Now,the air quality is much better.
The global, longer hotter summer heatwaves could be global warming with so much summer solar energy..so the different L.A. winters might be more urban caused?
Just my idea..never read any proof.
The above followup was added by Stan on February 09, 2008 at 8:13 am PST.
Glad you mentioned the heating effect of urbanization, Stan. Examining the data on global temps I've wondered if this could be the principal cause of the slight warming trend Al Gore gets so excited about.
Just read an article about 2007 being the warmest year recorded in Shanghai. Yes, and that city has, what, 20 million people now? Could there be a connection?
For over a century, the effects of urban warming (caused by vehicles, machines, power plants, factories, heating systems, and especially the heat-trapping and radiating properties of brick and pavement) have been noticed. In the early 19th century the Thames used to freeze over regularly in London until the city began generating enough heat to prevent it.
Since most weather stations are located in towns and cities, it can hardly be denied that urbanization has driven temp readings upwards. The moment you pave over a former meadow or forest, you raise the average temperature of the area.
Even in Seattle, the mid-sized city I grew up in, I used to notice as a child on winter days that it would be raining in the city but snowing as soon as we were a few miles out into the country. Long before I knew about urban heating, I noticed its effects.
Since the global warming "crisis" consists of a mere 1 degree C average rise over the past 150 years, urbanization, deforestation, and paving may be enough to account for the change all by themselves.
(Note to Nigel) Now I'm out the door to collect my fat checks from the oil companies who paid me to post this. :-)
The above followup was added by Sweevil on Lopez Island, 8b on February 09, 2008 at 9:20 am PST.
Like i said..Sweevil, we could be going into a global warming period, of which as of recent we have seen a huge flair up in solar flares that is also effecting the plant, but
i have heard these arguments for the longest time "urban heat islands, asphalt, concrete, factories pumping warmer air or 'CO2' " into the air..etc...
I heard a friend of mine who commented that the population of the earth is too big (of which I do agree..6 billion is a lot) but he also commented that others have said their needs to be a population of only 500 million and that since (they claim) humans are the "cause" of global warming that they need to be ...well essentially 'eliminated" because of "global warming" ..
now there are freaks in this world...do i believe the popularion is too big? of course...do i believe "something" is happening to the earth? of course..be it global cooling or warming...but as Roger commented in the 80s they were talking about "global warming"..and even in the 70's they were claiming "global cooling"
personally the planet is going to do what it will regardless of "human intervention"...so if you are one of those that believe in "global warming" and put out the aspect of "blaming humans" for "CO2" and "urban heat islands"..you need to reexamine your argument ..
John in Beaverton
The above followup was added by John in Beaverton on February 09, 2008 at 9:31 am PST.
I agree with what you write, John. There is a lunatic fringe of environmentalism that actually seems to endorse genocide as a way to "save the planet".
I don't think anyone knows where temps will be in fifty or 100 years and serious climatologists (as opposed to U.N bureaucrats) are making this point over and over in their peer-reviewed papers . So few of the millions of factors affecting weather are understood or quantified. One or two major volcanic eruptions could plunge the globe into a cold period, causing famines that could kill millions.
Even with the warming trend of the past century, the globe is still considerably cooler than its mean temperature over the past millennia. We're still emerging from the last ice age. For humans, as well as other species, global cooling would be much more catastrophic than warming.
Personally I'd like to see us get off foreign oil because it makes us pour billions into the pockets of tyrannies that would like to see us all dead. That, for me, is a much more compelling reason to conserve and develop alternative energy sources than global warming.
Have you noticed that even the most zealous disciples of Gore are abandoning the term "global warming" for the much vaguer "climate change"? This is a dead give-away of the fact many of them don't believe their own rhetoric. If Gore really believed CO2 was dooming the planet, he'd stop flying around in his private jets.
"Climate change" has joined "family values" and "national security" as an all-purpose term to justify whatever tax, policy, or regulation a politician feels like pushing.
John Kerry's recent blaming of the recent spate of tornadoes on "climate change" was immediately ridiculed by climatologists. I'm glad these normally reticent researchers are becoming less afraid to speak out when the powerful falsify and prostitute their science for political ends.
The above followup was added by Sweevil on Lopez Island, 8b on February 09, 2008 at 10:38 am PST.
Sweevil
The above followup was added by Barb on February 09, 2008 at 10:39 am PST.
Sweevil..
I hear ya..there is a lunatic fringe out there. Seriously if you look at the planet in past eras..the freakin Artic areas were even tropical..so its pretty obvious through "scientific" study of the earth that it has been much warmer here, but we have those that believe that we are in a "global warming" scenario, that I believe, no matter how "mild" your argument is for the issue, will blame human beings for it no matter what. Like I said..be it global warming or cooling..alot of the changing enviroment has to be of "natural" influences strictly in my opinion..I do believe man has some aspect of this "influence" on whatever side of the issue you are on..be it global warming or cooling, but not too much.
I agree with you Sweevil that we could go "green" to get off of oil spicket and have an energy source that our country can use without having to deal with the OPEC nations. Brazil is a good example of using new types of plants for "ethanol", and im not talking about corn per se, but another plant that actually puts out more ethonol than corn does. Brazil is basically off of oil now. Brazil has offered to export this source of ethanol for use here in the United States, but for whatever reason, and the paradox of "faith based free trade" from this administration doesnt apply to this situation. The United States has a 100 percent tariff on imported sources of ethenol by this plant for use in our country...ok then King George II, a free trader only "when it benefits me personally or the special interests that we support with US tax dollars". ...lol
The oil influences within ours country want us to continue our dependence of oil so they can suck our coffers dry.
Personally Oil companies can go suck an egg, they suck, and they are benefiting from King George II and Prince Cheney that are in office from "catering" policies for the 2000's to what oil and gas companies needed... having gone through a "tormented" time during the 1990's with "10 dollar barrels of oil", they wanted conpensation, and they wanted it with King George II. Remember before King George II coming to office that the cost of a gallon of gas was $1.25?
Barb, with all due respect, I think you need to get a life and start explaining your "argument" instead of being a "johnny come lately" and posting a "poster" of supposed "global warming" That picture looks like a poster child of a "corporate planet" the way it looks. Sorry it doesnt do you any benefit.......at all.......
Anyway Sweevil, sorry for going off track, I do agree with you on a number of things that you did point out..hope your doing dandy
John in Beaverton
The above followup was added by John in Beaverton on February 09, 2008 at 7:53 pm PST.
Yes, I don't like to get in an argument over global warming because -- like most political issues -- it produces arguments that quickly get homicidal without anyone ever changing anyone else's mind.
The ethanol tariff is a shame, but you won't see anyone, Republican or Democrat, touching it. It's not just George W. Those corn farmers in Iowa (as in first primary Iowa) and the mid-west know they have more clout than they deserve, and they make sure the government gives them what they want: subsidies, protectionist legislation, tariffs, etc.
The above followup was added by Sweevil on Lopez Island, 8b on February 09, 2008 at 11:19 pm PST.
That ANYBODY can still deny the relationship between CO2 and climate change.
BTW, back in prehistoric times the world was much hotter and the air was full of CO2 and there was far more life on earth.
More CO2 = more life, not less life.
Over the millenium as the carbon was locked away in fossil fuel deposits the world was gradually starved of life giving CO2 and temperatures fell.
Putting CO2 back into the atmosphere will ( in the long term ie thousands of years) increase the sustainable level of plants and life on earth.
The problem is that its happening so fast that plants and mankind cant evolve and adapt fast enough to keep pace with it .
The above followup was added by Nigel on February 10, 2008 at 0:52 am PST.
I know its said you cant blame people for global change..yet,people have driven most of Earths surviving life forms to the brink of extinction..most of the sea's fish stock is depleted.If we can do that, we can raise the Earths temperature one degree...at the least.
Unless you think the sea and animals are just dandy.Then i guess your mind is made up!-lol.
The above followup was added by Stan on February 10, 2008 at 7:50 am PST.
I have trouble understanding why people are so resistant to the findings of the vast majority of the worlds scientists. It's scary, we do have an effect on our fragile earth. One new animal/plant/ect can be introduced onto a once seperate island, and the whole island's balance is thrown off like a chain reaction. The earth as a whole isn't that much different.
Since there is an oceans worth of scientists that have accepted global warming, maybe when antartica melts we can tie them all together and create a new floating continent.
The above followup was added by whitney on February 10, 2008 at 5:37 pm PST.
I like Barb's chart because it includes sources and graphic depictions. Sweevil's point about cities contributing are an important possible factor. In addition, chopping down most forests worldwide means heat and carbon don't go into the trees, they stay for a longer period of time in the atmosphere. I also think John in Beaverton's point about ineffective political selfishness has hurt us all.
I don't know if global warming is partly due to CO2, partly to pavement, partly to chopping down forests, and partly to other stuff we haven't figured out yet. That is the nature of science. When we see the dramatic effects they are having and are likely to have in the future, we need to see what we can do to adjust to it. I think there are a lot of things we can do. One of them is to plant more trees. Another is to bicycle and walk more. Another is to work with other countries to make sure that China's mercury and lead stop poisoning our farms, rivers and lakes.
John S
PDX OR
The above followup was added by John S on February 10, 2008 at 9:03 pm PST.
I was going to stay out of this -- the same melodramatic claims, no facts, no data -- until this silly troll, "Whitney", decided to hop in to insult me.
Nigel, you're right that when the ice cores were first studied in the early '90s, the relationship between warming and CO2 became clear. Scientists naturally presumed a causal relationship -- this set the bandwagon rolling that Gore, most environmental groups, and the U.N. bureaucrats jumped on.
Environmental activists had been looking for a disaster scenario to inflame the apathetic public ever since the 1970s, when their earlier campaign -- pollution is causing a new Ice Age! -- hadn't panned out.
The AGW panic was masterfully orchestrated: horrifying projections made headlines month after month. The ice caps would melt. Continents would flood. Famine. Disease. Extinction of species. Exactly how or why these things would occur was rarely specified, but they sure made great headlines. And the public was duly frightened.
Then came the big oops. Further research showed that rises in CO2 *followed* warming trends, rather than preceding them. Which meant the AGW theory had the causal relationship backwards.
Existing science explained what was really going on: a warming earth causes the oceans to release large amounts of CO2; in cooler periods oceans absorb the gas. This mechanism has been understood for decades and is now the obvious explanation for the ice core data.
You'd think that would be that ... the theory was debunked, so back to the drawing board. The trouble is, the U.N. and environmental groups, bankrolled by vast grants from governments, George Soros, the Heinz and Ford Foundations, etc., had put all their eggs in this basket: AGW was bringing huge sums of money to green causes and huge prestige (and money) to politicians who championed it. The public hadn't been so stirred up over an environmental issue since the '70s.
Al Gore alone made a fortune on his movie, won an Oscar and even a Nobel Prize. He was poised to make millions, maybe billions more with his hush-hush "carbon offsets" investments. He and his allies weren't about to go quietly.
The press may know little about science, but their fondest dream is a doomsday scenario they can run with. Look at the money they made off Legionnaire's Disease, poisoned Tylenol, Bird flu, and killer bees. AGW was bigger than all of those put together so they sensationalized it to the max, printing ridiculous predictions that must even have embarrassed Mr. Gore.
Meanwhile AGW advocates carried on a brilliant and ruthless propaganda campaign, attacking "dissident" scientists, comparing them to "holocaust deniers", and stripping them of their grants and funding.
Not since Joe McCarthy has there been such a successful campaign to silence the opposition. The U.N.'s mysterious and murky IPCC committee began issuing reports and the press took every word as gospel -- in spite of the fact the successive reports contradicted *each other*.
We heard endlessly repeated the claim that "over 2,000 of the world's top scientists" had signed off on these reports.
Only it turns out they hadn't. Only a few of these scientists were actually named, and when some who *were* named began to ask publicly why they were credited with reports they'd never even been given to read, they were attacked as shills for the oil industry. Only a few had the courage to sue to have their names removed. Climatologists who spoke out against the snowballing scam were blacklisted, denied funding, mocked and insulted. It was like HUAC in the 1950s all over again.
Mainly older and retired climatologists continued to speak out, since they had no academic positions or funding to lose. Recently, as more and more research is being published contradicting AGW, more researchers are finding the courage to speak the truth: that, as one meteorologist recently put it, AGW is the "the biggest scam in the history of science".
We now know know the U.N. reports were NOT written by 2,000 scientists, but by some 13 in-house activists, most of them bureaucrats with no scientific background.
The IPCC itself has begun back-tracking, quietly retracting the dire, headline-making predictions they issued earlier. For instance, the initial claim of a 20 feet sea level rise over the next century has now been "revised" to a matter of inches.
Even in 2008, years after the first report was released, the IPCC refuses to release the names of their supposed "top scientists". Whitney, if "oceans of scientists" agree, how come they won't give us their names?
A study of peer-reviewed papers on global warming has revealed that only something like a quarter of them even suggested human activity might be a significant factor. The press buried it: no one buys a newspaper to read that global warming is no big deal ... Fear and Disaster are what sells.
Then the U.N. and our gov't admitted a calculation error had led to the hugely-publicized claim that 8 of the hottest years on record were in the 1990s. Turns out more were in the 1920s and 1930s, when human CO2 emissions were a tiny fraction of post-war quantities.
Then research was published proving that global warming STOPPED in 1998. There has been no global warming detected in the past decade. With admirable cunning, AGW zealots side-stepped this by quietly changing their rallying cry from "global warming" to the all-purpose "climate change". Which can mean anything.
Record heat! GLOBAL WARMING. Record cold? Same thing ... only we call it "climate change" now. Floods? It's that CO2. Drought? Same thing. Too many hurricanes? Not enough hurricanes? No hurricanes? It's all because of global warming, get it?
The situation has become laughable, as virtually every weather phenomenon is now blamed by some jack-ass on global warming or the wonderfully vague new bumper sticker: "climate change".
I could go on and on here, but you can find all this on the net in peer-reviewed research by actual named scientists, not the mystery researchers whose identities the IPCC won't divulge.
Nigel and Whitney, I would say you're emotionally hanging onto the outmoded ideas of AN INCONVENIENT TRUTH because you've fallen victim to the emotional manipulation Gore, the IPCC, and the popular press have used so smartly against you: convincing you that you can't be a "good person", a person who cares about the earth, unless you accept whatever they say and ask no questions.
"The time for questioning is over!" Al Gore thunders. In science, the time for questioning is never over. The AGW carpetbaggers don't want you to ask questions because they have no answers for them.
The theory is outmoded -- contradicted by a growing mass of research. But Gore, governments, NGOs, and some scientists are making piles of money off it, so they'll keep up their emotional blackmail as long as they can, attacking and ridiculing anyone who questions their claims or their motives.
Just as those who questioned the Iraq invasion were attacked as unpatriotic by some, those who question AGW are attacked as stupid, pro-pollution, or paid-off by the oil companies.
But time is running out -- not for the planet, for the AGW theory.
And this, Nigel and Whitney, is GOOD news for the environment. Once this disproved theory is discarded, rather than pouring billions into the pockets of shady "carbon traders", we'll be able to spend that money on real environmental crises: overfishing, deforestation, endangered species, toxins, and polluted air and water ... rather than on trying to restrict CO2, a harmless, indeed beneficial gas.
If you truly care about the environment, you'll read more than just propaganda organs like NEW SCIENTIST and the NY Times and educate yourself about who's really making bucks off the global warming panic.
Track down the actual peer-reviewed research, the recent stuff, not just the old 1991 claims. Every time I get in an argument over this with someone, they start pulling out things like the infamous "hockey stick" graph that were debunked a decade ago.
Catch up, Nigel and Whitney, catch up ... :-)
The above followup was added by Sweevil on Lopez Island, 8b on February 10, 2008 at 9:39 pm PST.
I've written too much already, but John, your mention of China reminds me of the most obvious proof that the AGW campaign is politically-motivated.
Last year China passed the U.S. as the #1 emitter of greenhouse gases. Along with other Third World countries, China is pouring pollution into the air and water that, as you point out, is so appalling it's actually reaching Europe and the Americas.
Yet the Kyoto Accord and every other major proposal to curb global warming EXEMPTS CHINA and other "developing nations".
What's the point of a greenhouse gas accord that exempts the number one emitter? Something is rotten -- not in the state of Denmark, but in the U.N. and the NGOs that are pushing these agendas. Corruption, bribery, insider-trading doesn't begin to cover it ...
The above followup was added by Sweevil on Lopez Island, 8b on February 10, 2008 at 9:45 pm PST.
I said you striked out. And you did and do every time you bring this subject up. It's always the same every time you bring it up. More Gore this and Gore that. Your stubbornness is truly amazing. Keep watching Fox News for your reality, and you'll keep coming up with the same stuff. Or try turning the dial to ANY other the other stations, news papers, magazines, radio stations, and you'll find a different story.
Sincerly,
the wise troll
The above followup was added by whitney on February 11, 2008 at 10:26 am PST.
So basically your theory of why all these scientist's, news media, and other groups are making up global warming is to make money? Right?
The above followup was added by whitney on February 11, 2008 at 10:45 am PST.
I enjoy posting pictures on these global warming 'debates' to lower the whole discussion. So anyway, I was looking for a really disgusting picture of Ralph Reed to post here but found this guy instead. Enjoy!
The above followup was added by Rocko on February 11, 2008 at 1:25 pm PST.
Sorry, I deleted that pic because it came from an obituary. I don't have an issue with you posting funny pics of politicians, but let's respect the average joe.
I do agree, let's lighten up the discussion, please don't take yourselves so seriously, anyone who doesn't have a PhD in physics or meteorology has no business posting about what greenhouse theory is right or not, and I don't give a rats ass if you're republican or democrat, calling out others to be ignorant is definitely not appropriate in this forum. That goes for both sides, or any side in between.
The above followup was added by Axel on February 11, 2008 at 10:47 pm PST.
Quote Sweevil; Then came the big oops. Further research showed that rises in CO2 *followed* warming trends, rather than preceding them. Which meant the AGW theory had the causal relationship backwards.
So simple physics...Does a sail on a boat go in front of or behind the wind ?
So are you saying that the sailboat is causing the wind?
There is two ways to move something by pushing and by pulling.
The argument that co2 follows is the only straw that the oil company scientists can cling to.
The simple fact is that CO2 is DRIVING climate change ,not pulling it along in its wake.
Conasidering how much CO2 man has pumped into the atmosphere, maybe you have a theory of WHY the CO2 graph has not overtaken the temperature graph ?????
If they were not related then mans CO2 would have pushed the CO2 graph in advance, but the higher the CO2 graph escalates the faster the temperature is pushed up. The oil company scientists dont even dispute the link they simply say CO2 is caused by global warming nad not by man. What a complete load of nonsense that is.
The world was much hotter during prehistoric times simply because the carbon was not locked away in fossil fuels. The oil companies are releasing it and the temperature is going up.
The suns cycle is eminently predictable and always has been.
The above followup was added by Nigel on February 12, 2008 at 5:32 am PST.
Fox news?...lol whitney I think some of us out here look at "alternative media" I dont watch fox news, but if you do, you know their motto "We report, you comply"...you sound like the people out there that are listening to the major media and not looking at alternative sources for your information, only "doom and gloom" reports from the "major media" only. Thats too bad, and from the sounds of it, you dont have much to base your argument on global warming, you are an attack hound from your comments posted:
"Keep watching Fox News for your reality, and you'll keep coming up with the same stuff. Or try turning the dial to ANY other the other stations, news papers, magazines, radio stations, and you'll find a different story."
the story is..the story is the same with the ..again "major media types"...but the story also follows that you personally cant find any sources or which to only listen to stations such as "Fox news" and the "major media types"...all you do is just attack people that have alternative or information that contradicts "global warming", of which as Sweevil commented on, with Al Gore, is a way to bankroll a supposed "catastropy".
I believe one of the reasons to do this global warming scenario is to get the country off of oil, to "go green" and to promote new science and technology to get off of oil and dependence of OPEC, of which do not like us as it is, so furthering those "green technologies I believe will help us get off oil, I truely do and believe we can benefit greatly from it by moving in that direction.
We need to be ..basically better caretakers of the earth, Govt's and companies have to be more conserted in how far is "too far", pollution in water (making sure the US govt doesnt promote floride and chlorine in our water which are poisions out of our water), air, deforestation, solar energy, etc...there is a number of things that can be promoted of which are good and take consideration in the complex issues of our country and in our world
BTW, China is now the biggest emitter of CO2 on the planet along with other third world countries, do we need to take the blame for everything, even what other countries are doing?
Nigel, "the sun cycle is eminently predictable and always has been" so i guess with the cool summer that you had this last summer, you knew that was coming right? from your posts it didnt look that way, you seemed disappointed about it and frustrated.
Would you say that some "global warming" with the cool summer that you had in 07 would be included in that argument assumptively? And no the sun cyle is not "eminently predictable". 6 months or so ago they were predicting solar flare ups of which had never been seen before on the sun, now the sun is..or has been quieting down since "1998", but with periodic solar flare ups. I dont think so dude...you cant predict that stuff, I believe its much more difficult to predict, you might get possible solar flare-up generalities, but harder to predict
John in Beaverton
The above followup was added by John in Beaverton on February 12, 2008 at 9:56 am PST.
You maybe right, about me being too attack doggish, but he should expect it. He brings this subject up every so often with his "global warming isn't happening" slant, and the same arguments follow. With the same results, no minds are changed by anybodys posts. All he said she said, and everybodys getting their info from where they want to bolster their points.
The difference is where you get your info from. The mainstream media was very reluctant at first to do stories on global warming. It was more a fringe part of the media that was listening to what the scientific community was saying. After sometime the rest of mainstream media couldn't ignore the growing scientific communities findings. Now it seems there is again a fringe group on the global warming debate, only now that fringe isn't the early scientists, it's the global warming disbelievers, and some of them have been shown to be using info funded by Exxon Mobile think tanks, and other forces opposed to clean energy. After all when your the biggest money making corpiration in human history 4 years in a row, you do want to keep your spot at the top, no matter the cost.
Here's a link to where Exxon Mobiles money went. Do be afraid to look, your news source might be on that list.
The above followup was added by whitney on February 12, 2008 at 12:05 am PST.
Now if mother jones isn't your thing, here's CNN on Exxon handing out $10,000 checks to scientists that agree with them.
The above followup was added by whitney on February 12, 2008 at 12:11 am PST.
Here's a cool new website that links to articles and data supporting BOTH sides of this very partisan and politicized issue. It's great for once to have both sides in the same place, so people can compare and make up their own minds. Check it out.
http://climatedebatedaily.com/
So Whitney, Exxon's paying $10,000 to someone? Peanuts. Soros and the Heinz foundation have been paying into seven figures to people like NASA's James Hansen, the #1 global warming "expert", to push their line.
Hansen's the one the media uses to represent the world-wide "consensus" of scientists, and he's extremely well-paid to do so. Google and you'll find Hansen's pay-offs are bigger than all the anti-AGW pay-offs put together. $10,000? Please ...
The pay-offs
The above followup was added by Sweevil on Lopez Island, 8b on February 13, 2008 at 10:50 am PST.
Nigel, I don't understand your sailboat metaphor. The ice core data shows that CO2 rises hundreds of years or more AFTER the globe, so CO2 obviously CAN'T be the cause of global warming.
That would be like saying the War of 1812 was *caused* by the depression of the 1930s.
Next question: Nigel, do you realize CO2 makes up only .03 *percent* of the earth's atmosphere? That makes it barely detectable in the mix. So the quantity could double or even triple without significantly changing the make-up of the atmosphere.
The geological record shows there have been epochs when the atmosphere contained ten or more times as much Co2 as it does now, and surface temperatures don't seem to have been influenced even by that.
Whitney ... -- oh, why bother. lol
The above followup was added by Sweevil on Lopez Island, 8b on February 13, 2008 at 11:03 am PST.
Whitney, set your $10,000 against the trillion plus dollars regulating CO2 will produce, and you'll see where the big money really is.
No wonder sleazy *Enron Corperation* was pushing hard for Kyoto and the global warming agenda before they self-destructed. Like so many sleazeballs, Enron saw the limitless profits to be made by manipulating the emotions of people like yourself.
If you ever read anything *not* published in MOTHER JONES (a journal about as reasonable and objective as a Ku Klux Klan newsletter), check out a *real* climatologist's latest demolition of the Global Warming movement, here at ecoworld.com.
I would be happy to hear you refute any of the points made by Lindzen in this article. Or you can just close your eyes, stick your fingers in your ears and scream: "Anyone who disagrees with me about anything is just quoting lies from Fox News!" :-)
The above followup was added by Sweevil on Lopez Island, 8b on February 13, 2008 at 11:24 am PST.
I'd shut this down if it wasn't for the fact that you're (Whitney and Sweevil) both posting real interesting stuff. So as long as you keep it civil, I'll leave it as it is even though it's going way off topic.
"Civil" here means don't make this personal, and stop making references to the KKK as well and posting comments that you know will inflame th other side.
Thank you.
The above followup was added by Axel on February 13, 2008 at 1:06 pm PST.
Thanks, Axel. It was in the spirit of civility that I posted this link to a much-need new site where the best arguments pro and con AGW are linked. Finally people can find both sides intelligently presented and make up their own minds.
The above followup was added by Sweevil on Lopez Island, 8b on February 13, 2008 at 2:02 pm PST.
I looked at your sites and some of the links from those. With all the contradictory info floating around over the web, radio, and some TV(Fox) .This argument could never be solved, because it comes down basically to right wing ideologies, versus progressive ideologies.
For instance I would rather "be in bed" with a corporation that is funding Nasa (which in my view is a more relyable source of scientific data than most).
If what you say is true and there is money being made on both sides, and they are both crooks, I would still rather be on the side with the crooks that are cleaning up the air, water, and earth. If there was a corpiration that was making tons of money on green energy, I'd say more power to them if the result is a cleaner earth.
And your claim about Enron manipulating the emotions of people like myself, hardly. I've seen the movie on them and have read up on them too. The reason that they were backing the Kyoto treaty, was................. They are a natural gas company first and foremost. If Bush had pushed through the request of his NO 1 career contributer(enron up till 2001), and gone along with Kyoto, this would have hurt the coal industry terribly, and lined the pockets of Enron(natural gas). Nothing new there, just another crooked company trying to get rich.
I find it amusing that your sources are trying to drag Nasa scientists through the muck.
The above followup was added by whitney on February 13, 2008 at 8:05 pm PST.
Global warming isn't an issue that people have to be convinced of one way or another. It's not subjective like voting for someone in office.
The more important issue obviously revolves around reducing our consumption of fossil fuel and reducing our carbon foot print. Let me list some obvious reasons:
1) Fossil Fuel costs continue to increase
2) Fossil fuel will eventually run out
3) Who knows what pumping tonns of CO2 will do to the planet, safest bet is to not pump it into the atmosphere to begin with so we don't screw up the natural order of things.
4) Using fossil fuels means pumping more money that gets used for weapons in the middle east.
Bottom line is you don't need irrefutable proof for global warming to be convinced that we need to reduce our carbon footprint. Because neither side knows beyond reasonable doubt whether global warming will happen or not. Why? Because to know, you'd have to have multiple planets earths, pump CO2 in, and then wait 10, 20 or maybe 100 years to see what happens. And we can't afford to do this experiment, because we only have one planet earth.
What should be in public debate is what is the best way of accomplishing the reduction in carbon footprint. Done, end of debate of the greenhouse effect, because it just doesn't matter which way it will go. It's just plain stupid to sit back and debate until you're blue in the face on an issue for which there isn't a clear cut answer until it might be too late.
So talk about how to reduce the carbon foot print, not about whether global warming is real. If Carbon credits are a bad idea, then what are the alternatives? How do we do it? The more important question is how to do this in a way that does the least amount of harm, to people, to economies.
As long as people debate the unresolvable debate of whether global warming is real or not, we'll never make any progress.
The above followup was added by Axel on February 13, 2008 at 8:14 pm PST.
Whitney, you're missing my main point. These billions going into the pockets of crooked carbon traders, to restrict emissions of harmless CO2, are NOT being spent on tangible environmental action.
So the AGW scam is ROBBING the environmental movement. You of all people should be incredibly angry at this nonsense that has hijacked environmentalism and bled its coffers dry.
Here is how carbon credits work: a government or corporation wants to pollute, so they buy "carbon credits" from some shady outfit like Gore's. They take the money and claim they've planted trees or something, somewhere, to "offset" the increased pollution.
How does this help the environment? Especially since the carbon trading industry has been repeatedly shown to be corrupt and phony. Google and see for yourself. Case after case of carbon credits being sold for huge sums, then the seller did nothing -- not even plant a single tree.
It's amazing to me that any environmentalist could approve the entire movement being hijacked to enrich millionaire con artists ... but it's a sign of how well they've done their propaganda.
What disturbs me is how gullible so many "progressive" people seem to be. If ANYONE says "I'm helping save the earth", they're willing to start funneling millions of dollars their way, with no guarantee that it's doing anything but enriching these scam artists.
If the billions being wasted on bogus carbon credits were applied to, say, stopping the destruction of the Amazon basin -- by buying rain forest lands and preserving them -- imagine how much real good could be done.
But it won't happen as long as we let Global Warming opportunists steal all the money.
The above followup was added by Sweevil on Lopez Island, 8b on February 14, 2008 at 9:04 am PST.
Whitney, could you at least read my posts before snidely responding? No one is funding "NASA" or trying to "drag NASA scientists through the muck".
We're talking about ONE guy who used to work for NASA who is being paid millions to promote a particular ideology.
But I think I'll stop trying to have a rational discussion with someone who spells corporation "corpiration" and thinks "striked" is the past tense of "strike" ...
These must be new "progrisive" spellings used in MOTHER JONES ... :-)
The above followup was added by Sweevil on Lopez Island, 8b on February 14, 2008 at 9:11 am PST.
Axel asked you guys to knock off the personal attacks and it just continues.
The last two posts are just insulting all the way around to a wide spectrum of people and does not reflect well on the person posting.
The above followup was added by Steve in Portland z8b on February 14, 2008 at 12:49 am PST.
I can't see why you should take offense, Steve, when nothing written here is directed at you or your intelligent contributions to this and other threads.
This was a civil thread until W, in classic troll fashion, jumped in out of nowhere to insult me and get nasty. After being called a right-winger and worse names, I think my mild sarcasm was a model of restraint.
It's a shame we can't discuss this issue calmly without it degenerating into partisan politics -- I don't play that. But I will respond if a troll grossly insults me, and if that makes me a bad guy, Axel can kick me off the board.
The above followup was added by Sweevil on Lopez Island, 8b on February 14, 2008 at 1:48 pm PST.
did I spell that right?
The above followup was added by whitney on February 14, 2008 at 4:23 pm PST.
It's obvious that you will defend your position, and take any criticism of your ideas as a personal insult.
I didn't miss your point about carbon trading, ect. I understand the premise of it and what a joke it is, and how it does nothing to solve pollution, and could possibly increase it.
What I don't understand is how you think you(your sources of info) can link corporations like Enron to the global warming movenment. These carbon trading scemes where thought up by "big coal" and other big business polluters so they could look good and get away with polluting.
This Hansen(Nasa) you speak of is the same one who has accused the Bush administration of suppressing goverment findings of the effect humans are having on global warming. Personally I'd hear out what our scientists have to say, over what big business' and Oil politicians from Texas want us to believe.
You should go through this thread again, and see if I have called you any names, if not you should take a look in that thing hanging on the wall in your bathroom.
The above followup was added by whitney on February 14, 2008 at 6:02 pm PST.
To me, if I was a Mother Jones reading liberal (I might be, and I might not be), the words "These must be new "progrisive" spellings used in MOTHER JONES ... :-)" definitely sounds like you are very partisan and you are trying to bate someone.
So please, cut it out. Other than that, the info you post is interesting, except for you claiming to be non-partisan, which is about as far from the truth as it gets. Talk about the kettle calling the pot black.
All you have to do is be civil, that includes putting yourself into the shoes of your audience and knowing you've not put down any words that might bate either side.
The above followup was added by Axel on February 14, 2008 at 10:49 pm PST.