[wdm2291]

Here's a wonderful link I found that gives "global warming" the seriousness it deserves. .




here's another enjoyable (and hilarious) one.

Minnesotans for Global Warming song (they wish global warming was real)




and, of course, a grease parody starring Al Gore




and lastly: here's one that highlights the consequences of a lot of the foolishness being proposed (and acted on) because so many people have been duped into buying the whole global warming myth hook, line and sinker:



the moral of the story [besides the obvious], from this last video, is "don't break one of those new CFL light bulbs (supposedly "environmentally friendly") in your home or you'll pay a fortune t' have the hazmat team come and clean it up . .


enjoy (I sure did )

[wdm2291]

It seems there are a lot more scientists speaking out against the fraud and hysteria of "global warming" than I thought (or, it seems than anyone else on this board thought) . . . .

19,000 scientists have spoken out, but the media ignores them. .

this is on TOP of four of the very top and venerable names in the world of meteorology and weather science. .

but I guess amateurs (with an eye on getting rich quick) like Al Gore get their lies heard, but those who know their stuff don't even get a voice in the debate . . .

typical liberal media-controlled world

had you ever heard of that great a number in the media stories on it?. .

I sure hadn't, til I saw the interview of John Coleman (founder of the weather channel and a man with several decades' experience of watching and forcasting the weather) . .

so I thought I'd do some looking and found out about the group he was talking about:

http://www.oism.org/pproject/

http://www.oism.org/pproject/s33p357.htm

and here's a letter from Frederick Seitz (past president of the National Academy of Sciences (ahh, but what would he know??. . he's not a "real" scientist, he wouldn't know anything about science!! )

http://www.oism.org/pproject/s33p41.htm

here's another link that includes a reference to them . .

http://www.numberwatch.co.uk/ten_fac...al_warming.htm

Of course, with the cold year we've had. . this almost isn't needed anymore. .

I think most Americans know what a croc "global warming" really is. .

If your carbon output continues to increase (as it is every year (we are told) because more people are driving (and breathing), etc. . .

and we are also told that that increases the temperature. .

Then how can it be so much colder if there is more carbon in the atmosphere than last year??

either the reasoning is wrong (that increased carbon increases the temperature)

or it really is only an ILLUSION that it's been a cold winter. . those ice storms in Missouri must be a made up media lie. . along with the incredible cold snaps in the South, NorthEast and Midwest. . along with China, Greece and Baghdad. .

that must all be an illusion, because we know global warming is real, and we know that more carbon into the atmosphere increases the temps. . so that all has to be a lie about the cold winter. .

if you have snow in Baghdad, then it isn't warmer, it's cooler. . colder even. .

[wdm2291]

I don't know if this link has been posted or not, so herewith. .

John Stossel examines and interviews scientists who are being persecuted for not buying into the global "warming" nonsense. .

including a couple of award-winning NASA scientists and one of the IPCC scientists ( you know, the group that shared the Nobel prize with the prevaricating inventor of the internet ??). .

one of them had to threaten to sue to get his name off the IPCC report on global warming because he didn't agree with its assertions (but til he threatened to sue, they refused to remove his name). .

we also find that a good number of the IPCC people were not scientists at all, but "green" activists, etc, most of whom know nothing about science (go figure). .

here's the link to the John Stossel show from 10-20-07:



He does a pretty good job of boiling it down . . .

very worth watching if you haven't seen it.

[lotuseclat79]

Behind the Scenes: Fossil Hunt Finds Warning for Warming Earth
Article here.

This article is about a PhD candidate doing the field work to compare global warming in the Paleocene-Eocene Thermal Maximum (PETM) period, a rapid warming of 5-10oC that was caused by the release of at least 4,000 gigatons of carbon into the earth’s atmosphere over less than 10,000 years - and a cooler period to determine is there is a decrease in insect damage to leaves which is a marker for global warming.

Her research should be available in late Spring this year when she defends her PhD thesis.

-- Tom

[Stoner]

Sorry Tom.......that article goes over the heads of those that believe the Earth is younger than 10,000 years in age. The Devil must have put those fossils there

Interesting how a couple of snow storms is seen as a reversal of global warming and these new believers in science turn it off when it invades their own religious space

[valis]

more interesting when you look into the cause of the late snow storms and see that it tracks back to global climate instability.

[LANMaster]

Originally Posted by Stoner

Sorry Tom.......that article goes over the heads of those that believe the Earth is younger than 10,000 years in age. The Devil must have put those fossils there

Interesting how a couple of snow storms is seen as a reversal of global warming and these new believers in science turn it off when it invades their own religious space

A couple?

[Stoner]

Well, mostly only one big storm for my area.
So I guess I should down grade that to 'one'.

[LANMaster]

I'm reading about record snowfall amounts on a very wide scale, globally this season.

[Stoner]

Originally Posted by LANMaster

I'm reading about record snowfall amounts on a very wide scale, globally this season.

How come you didn't apply that philosophy on a global scale in the past?
Uncomfortable with the results and now see an anomaly as an excuse to speak out?

[sy2]

I read a very interesting article in the Magazine Skeptical Inquirer by Bjørn Lomborg.

The article isn't online (yet) so I can't post it all, but I'll recap some of the most interesting points. It's titled "Let's Keep Our Cool about Global Warming."

As a general summary, Lomborg believes that man-made climate change is certainly a problem, but we need to be more realistic in deciding how to combat it, and weigh the economic needs and costs vs. the desired and realistic outcomes. Notes and references are included in the article - I'll put a number next to the different statements as they appear in the original article. Just ask and I'll post the appropriate source or comment.

Man-made climate change is certainly a problem, but it is categorically not the end of the world. Take the rise in sea levels as one example of how the volume of the screaming is unmatched by the facts. In its 2007 report, the United Nations estimates that sea levels will rise about a foot over the remainder of the century.1 While this is not a trivial amount, it is also important to realize that it is not unknown to mankind: since 1860, we have experienced a sea level rise of about a foot without major disruptions.2
....
We will actually lose very little dry land to the rise in sea levels. It is estimated that almost all nations in the world will establish maximal coastal protection almost everywhere, simply because doing so is fairly cheap. For more than 180 of the world's 192 nations, coastal protections will cost less than 0.1 percent GDP and approach 100 percent protection.4
....
However, if we instead opt for cuts in carbon emissions and thus reduce both the sea level rise and economic growth, Micronesia will end up losing a larger land area. The increase in wealth for poor nations is more important than sea levels: poorer nations will be less able to defend themselves against rising waters, even if they rise more slowly. This is the same for other vulnerable nations: Tuvalu, the Maldives, Vietnam, and Bangladesh.
....
We should take action on climate change, but we need to be realistic. The UK has arguably engaged in the most aggressive rhetoric about climate change. Since the Labour government promised in 1997 to cut emissions by a further 15 percent by 2010, emissions have increased 3 percent.6 American emissions during the Clinton/Gore administrations increase 28 percent.
....
Many believe that dramatic political action will follow if people only knew better and elected better politicians.7 Despite the European Union's enthusiasm for the Kyoto Protocol on Climate Change - and a greater awareness and concern over global warming than in the United States - emissions per person since 1990 have remained stable in the U.S. while E.U. emissions have increased 4 percent (EIA 2006).
....
Even if the wealthy nations managed to reign in their emissions, the majority of this century's emissions will come from developing countries - which are responsible for about 40 percent of annual carbon emissions; this is likely to increase to 75 percent by the end of the century.8

He then proceeds to discuss a possible carbon tax meant to entice growth in alternate energy markets and lands at upper and lower bounds of $14/ton and $2/ton, respectively. This would, he argues, cut emissions by about 5 percent, but more importantly help fund new research.

Then he goes into an analogy which I think is pretty brilliant so I'm just going to bold it all :

When we talk about the environment, we know tougher restrictions will mean better protection, but this also comes with higher costs.
....
Consider traffic fatalities, which are one of the ten leading causes of death in the world... Globally, it is estimated that 1.2 million people die from traffic accidents and 50 million are injured every year.

About 2 percent of all deaths in the world are traffic-related and about 90 percent of the traffic deaths occur in third world countries. The total cost is a phenomenal $512 billion a year. Due to increasing traffic (especially in the third world) and due to ever better health conditions, the World Health Organization estimates that by 2020, traffic fatalities will be the second leading cause of death in the world, after heart disease.14

Amazingly, we have the technology to make all of this go away. We could instantly save 1.2 millions humans and eliminate $500 billion worth of damage. We would particularly help the third world. The answer is simply lowering the speed limits to 5 mph. We could avoid almost all of the 50 million injuries each year. But of course we will not do this. Why? The simple answer that almost all of us would offer is that the benefits from driving moderately fast far outweigh the costs. While the cost is obvious in terms of those killed and maimed, the benefits are much more prosaic and dispersed but nonetheless important - traffic interconnects our society by bringing goods at competitive prices to where we live and bringing people together to where we work, and lets us live where we like while allowing us to visit and meet with many others. A world moving only at 5 mph is a world gone medieval.
....
I suggest that the comparison with global warming is insightful; we have the technology to reduce it to zero, yet we seem to persist in going ahead and exacerbating the problem each year, causing temperatures to continue to increase to new heights by 2020. Why? Because the benefits from moderately using fossil fuels far outweigh the costs. Yes, the costs are obvious in the "fear, terror, and disaster" we read about in the papers every day.

But the benefits of fossil fuels, though much more prosaic, are nonetheless important.

He then lists some of these benefits, which I can detail more if anyone would like but which generally fall under low-cost electricity, heat, food, communication, and travel.

The whole article is wrapped up with this:

This is parallel to the debate we are having about global warming. We can realistically talk about $2 or even a $14 CO2 tax. But suggesting a $140 tax, as Al Gore does, seems to be far outside the envelope. Suggesting a 96 percent carbon reduction for the OECD by 2030 seems a bit like suggesting a 5 mph speed limit in the traffic debate. It is technically doable, but it is very unlikely to happen.

One of the most important issues when it comes to climate change is that we cool our dialogue and and consider the arguments for and against different policies. In the heat of a loud and obnoxious debate, facts and reason lose out.

This took longer to type out than I anticipated so I need to get some work done - but I'd love to hear some initial responses before I revisit this with my own thoughts later today.

Thanks.

[lotuseclat79]

Originally Posted by LANMaster

I'm reading about record snowfall amounts on a very wide scale, globally this season.

Hi LAN,

Now put your snow globe down and stop blogging about it!

-- Tom

[Gabriel]

It's the weather LAN

[Gabriel]

LAN, you are an absolute riot....I could not think like you if I took my head off and put it back on backwards

[LANMaster]

Originally Posted by Gabriel

It's the weather LAN

Yah ..... been a cold several months.