Global Warming Deniers- On the rise

[Guest]

More and more scientists are coming out against the Global Warming Myth. Some scientist are relieved that it is safe to come out against it now. Could this be the reason Obama wants to hurry this bill through congress?
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB124597505076157449.html

[Guest]

Global warming has got to be one of the biggest scams ever. Follow the money.

[Guest]

I believe its a big joke and a way for Gore the bore to make some money.

[Guest]

legislation like the cap tax rush job, just what would any of them know about global warming?

It....has been CLEARLY a political manifestation to get money for the special interest lobbyists.....BOTH PARTIES.

Just one more check mark for the ever growing list of testimony to incompetence in Washington and the braying of the sheeple.

btk

[Guest]

Every 1500 years:

http://www.rightwingnews.com/mt331/2007/02/a_miniinterview_with_dennis_av.php

[Guest]

Just one winter in Michigan....is all it takes for me to be a non-believer!:beer3:

[Guest]

I have not had the time and do not have it today to really check this article out , but throw this out for information...

"If the Obama administration gets its way, Americans will not become aware of the scientific evidence: Obama's EPA suppressed the Carlin/Davidson report and tried to keep it secret for political reasons. The emails obtained by the CEI are revealing. Here, the two scientists' superior declines to make their report public because "the administration has decided to move forward on endangerment."

"In their report, Carlin and Davidson point out that the EPA has not done its own evaluation of the global warming theory. Rather, it has relied on analyses by others, mostly the U.N.'s IPCC (Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change) report. That report, however, was a political document, not a scientific one. Knowing that current scientific research disproves the anthropogenic global warming theory, the U.N. ordered that no recent research be considered in the IPCC report. This is a scandal of which too few people are aware. As science, the U.N. report is a bad joke."

http://www.powerlineblog.com/archives/2009/06/023915.php

[Guest]

Bucco...you have just revealed a blockbuster of a time bomb. The Obama administration, tree huggers and libs are going nuts trying to suppress the Carlin/Davidson Report. I hope and pray the media has the intestinal fortitude (guts) to give the American people the details and let them make their own decisions instead of having global warming, cape and trade and expanded EPA harassment rammed down their unwitting throats in the name of saving the planet by way of a contrived political hoax.

Sally Jo hit it on the head...just follow the money

Thanks Bucco....score a big one for the people.

[Guest]

I have not had the time and do not have it today to really check this article out , but throw this out for information...

"If the Obama administration gets its way, Americans will not become aware of the scientific evidence: Obama's EPA suppressed the Carlin/Davidson report and tried to keep it secret for political reasons. The emails obtained by the CEI are revealing. Here, the two scientists' superior declines to make their report public because "the administration has decided to move forward on endangerment."

"In their report, Carlin and Davidson point out that the EPA has not done its own evaluation of the global warming theory. Rather, it has relied on analyses by others, mostly the U.N.'s IPCC (Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change) report. That report, however, was a political document, not a scientific one. Knowing that current scientific research disproves the anthropogenic global warming theory, the U.N. ordered that no recent research be considered in the IPCC report. This is a scandal of which too few people are aware. As science, the U.N. report is a bad joke."

http://www.powerlineblog.com/archives/2009/06/023915.php


To be clear,Carlin is an economist, and Davidson is an ex-member of the Carter administration Council of Environmental quality...and to be clear niether of the men are scientists. There paper is basically a review of articles that are for the most part not even peer reviewed.
Is global warming real? I don't know for sure, I strongly suspect our greenhouse gas problems contribute, it is basic chemistry. Still, with good theories on both sides of the fence it can certainly be argued either way. I doubt most intelligent people would argue though that we haven't have dirtied up our world to some extent in the post industrial age. Would be nice to leave things in good shape for our kids and grandkids etc.
The point of this reply is that this "smoking gun" is no different that any number of other politically motivated papers on either side of the argument, perhaps different in that it is not done by scientists, has no real research, and is just a selective review of "un-peer reviewed" papers to a large extent. It did not, by most scientific standards warrant publishing.
To try to lay this off as some Obama administration cover up is ridiculous and simply more political BS and sensationalism from the media and politicians.
Perhaps it is better to put efforts into more real unbiased research and try to find out to what extent we do or do not need to make changes. That this is politicized at all is pretty indicative of peoples priorities.

[Guest]

The citizenry has been bombarded by the media that the consensus of man-made global warming was fact. The media has been telling us that there is no debate because the consensus said so.

Well, consensus means opinion. It has been drummed into our heads that it cannot be debated. Period. Scientists have been silent to escape ridicule.
Well, the so-called consensus has been shifting the other way and the main stream media doesn't like it.
EPA is a government agency. Think about it. Environment Protection means that they have a vested interest. After all, they do need a boogie man as to have a reason to protect us.
Respected scientists have been coming out of the closest in droves in recent months. Follow the money.. especially taxpayer's money...most of it goes to prove there is man made climate changes....not the other way around. IMHO

[Guest]

The citizenry has been bombarded by the media that the consensus of man-made global warming was fact. The media has been telling us that there is no debate because the consensus said so.

Well, consensus means opinion. It has been drummed into our heads that it cannot be debated. Period. Scientists have been silent to escape ridicule.
Well, the so-called consensus has been shifting the other way and the main stream media doesn't like it.
EPA is a government agency. Think about it. Environment Protection means that they have a vested interest. After all, they do need a boogie man as to have a reason to protect us.
Respected scientists have been coming out of the closest in droves in recent months. Follow the money.. especially taxpayer's money...most of it goes to prove there is man made climate changes....not the other way around. IMHO

The knife cuts both ways and neither "side" participating in BS pseudoscience can claim the moral high ground. This should be about science, and real research thus far has compelling arguments for each side of the debate. Depending on your knowledge, interest, and interpretations one side may have a more compelling argument than the other. There is a plethora of information out there for those that are truly interested in actually learning rather than towing one political line or the other.

[Guest]

The knife cuts both ways and neither "side" participating in BS pseudoscience can claim the moral high ground. This should be about science, and real research thus far has compelling arguments for each side of the debate. Depending on your knowledge, interest, and interpretations one side may have a more compelling argument than the other. There is a plethora of information out there for those that are truly interested in actually learning rather than towing one political line or the other.

Understood..But the majority of news sources and talk shows have taken the Al Gore stance that consensus only leans one way. Al Gore and his ilk has said many times that there is no more argument. It is his way or the highway. To be so arrogant is beyond words.
That is like saying "The earth is flat and there will be no more debate". Scientists are now having the nerve to say...I think the earth is round and want to debate it.

[Guest]

Understood..But the majority of news sources and talk shows have taken the Al Gore stance that consensus only leans one way. Al Gore and his ilk has said many times that there is no more argument. It is his way or the highway. To be so arrogant is beyond words.
That is like saying "The earth is flat and there will be no more debate". Scientists are now having the nerve to say...I think the earth is round and want to debate it.

Absolutely no different than those claiming it is all a hoax.

[Guest]

Absolutely no different than those claiming it is all a hoax.

You still don't seem to understand what I am saying. The people who say different want a debate but the Gore crowd said debate is over because of the consensus. They are too arrogant to debate the scientific facts. Or they are afraid they will lose the debate. Gore said the majority of his consensus (poll) has to be right....end of debate. Do you think that is right?????:shrug:

[Guest]

You still don't seem to understand what I am saying. The people who say different want a debate but the Gore crowd said debate is over because of the consensus. They are too arrogant to debate the scientific facts. Or they are afraid they will lose the debate. Gore said the majority of his consensus (poll) has to be right....end of debate. Do you think that is right?????:shrug:

Let me get this straight. The people that believe global warming is an issue refuse to debate, but those that think it is not are the only ones willing to debate scientific facts? I just don't buy that, a rather absolute statement.

Where did Gore or other people, more appropriately scientists, say "end of debate"? I think I missed that.

The point is what you are doing is nothing more than the continued politicizing of the issue, really no different from those you are attempting to debunk. IMHO.

[Guest]

Let me get this straight. The people that believe global warming is an issue refuse to debate, but those that think it is not are the only ones willing to debate scientific facts? I just don't buy that, a rather absolute statement.

Where did Gore or other people, more appropriately scientists, say "end of debate"? I think I missed that.

The point is what you are doing is nothing more than the continued politicizing of the issue, really no different from those you are attempting to debunk. IMHO.

Then your not paying attention. Last night for an example, they had a women on the show and was asked point blank about the man made global warming issue. She said there is no issue because the consensus says that man made global warming is a scientific fact. When the host said that there should be a debate...she said there is no need for debate.
There are many scientists who do not believe there is a man made global warming trend.
http://www.rightwingnews.com/mt331/2007/02/a_miniinterview_with_dennis_av.php

[Guest]

Well, if this were a human caused warming, it should have started about 1940 and trended strongly upward as global industrialization followed World War 2. That isn't what happened. The warming started about 1850. We had a surge of warming from about 1850 to 1870. We had another surge from 1916 to 1940 and then, when the greenhouse gasses began to spew from the factories, the temperatures went down for 35 years. 1976 to 1998, we had another surge of warming, but we've had no warming in the last 8 years. So, what we have is an erratic warming that started too soon to be blamed on humans and is not following in the footsteps of the CO2 levels in the atmosphere.
Also, take note that they are starting to call it "global change" instead of global warming..as they can't make up their minds if we need to wear skimpier bathing suits or stock up on insulated underwear.

[Guest]

To be clear,Carlin is an economist, and Davidson is an ex-member of the Carter administration Council of Environmental quality...and to be clear niether of the men are scientists. There paper is basically a review of articles that are for the most part not even peer reviewed.

The point of this reply is that this "smoking gun" is no different that any number of other politically motivated papers on either side of the argument, perhaps different in that it is not done by scientists, has no real research, and is just a selective review of "un-peer reviewed" papers to a large extent.

It did not, by most scientific standards warrant publishing.
To try to lay this off as some Obama administration cover up is ridiculous and simply more political BS and sensationalism from the media and politicians.
Perhaps it is better to put efforts into more real unbiased research and try to find out to what extent we do or do not need to make changes. That this is politicized at all is pretty indicative of peoples priorities.

I could not disagree with you more emphatically. I suspect that you have never read the 98 page report in its entirety or else you would not have been so erroneously judgemental. This is a link to the actual report. I did read it and could find no correlation to your misleading judgemental analysis about the Carlin-Davidson report. Here is a link to the actual report. I would be interested in opinions from anyone who takes the time to read it.

http://cei.org/cei_files/fm/active/0/DOC062509-004.pdf

The "smoking gun" you cavalierly dismiss is rooted in the suggestion that the Obama administration and the EPA relied on the "U.N.'s IPCC (Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change) report. That report, however, was a political document, not a scientific one. Knowing that current scientific research disproves the anthropogenic global warming theory, the U.N. ordered that no recent research be considered in the IPCC report."

The IPCC is a scientific intergovernmental body set up by the World Meteorological Organization (WMO) and by the United Nations Environment Programme (UNEP).

Here is the "smoking gun", in my opinion, based on my own amateur, independent cursory research on the subject. There is a virtual dearth of information about the latest IPCC authors report that in fact is critical of its own 2007 report. The authors of the UN's IPCC 2007 report....connect the dots.....have in a follow-up report suggested a "10 year postponement of global warning". Further, they state their 2007 report to the UN, did not take into account regional climate oscillations in the Atlantic Ocean since these are/may now be turning toward a "cooler" mode". They now believe that a global warning "postponement" appears likely. Please remember that this revelation is from the authors of the IPCC report that is the basis for all the global warning gymnastics, including Cap and Trade, we are now going through. You won't be reading about that in the Times or the rest of the elite media. However, if you wish, you can peruse it right here on TOTV the truly independent source for political news.....well.....opinions anyway. "Smoking gun anyone ?"

http://cei.org/cei_files/fm/active/0/DOC062509-004.pdf page 89 of 98.

Regarding your somewhat cheap shot at the authors, you state, "To be clear,Carlin is an economist, and Davidson is an ex-member of the Carter administration Council of Environmental quality...and to be clear neither of the men are scientists. " You perpetuate an omission of convenience and that is that Carlin and Davidson work for the EPA in the EPA's National Center for Environmental Economics. They are superbly credentialed as noted below to comment with authority on the subject matter in issue. Concurrently while you diminish their stellar work as "politically motivated" papers, you overtly give the IPCC 2007 report, the mother of all GW reports, a pass even though it is de facto, a political paper.

Even further, you omit and mislead with their credentials to speak to the subject. To correct the record:

Dr. Carlin, got his undergraduate degree in physics from CalTech and his PhD in economics from MIT,

Dr. John Davidson has a Ph.D., Physics, 1972, University of Michigan

If you read my original post, I think we are somewhat in agreement as I clearly stated I just wanted to see all the facts made public so that the American public can make their own conclusions and choices....notwithstanding my straightforward disapproval of the current administration agenda.

On another note, I appreciate the time you take to offer your articulate professional insights into the National Health Care debate.

Have a good evening.

[Guest]

Al Gore has refused to debate time and time again. He said the debate is over. There are many articles on Google confirming this fact.

[Guest]

Trying to debate Global Warming with some is like trying to debate the people that still believe the Holocaust never happened. Here's an article that might shed some light to otherwise dim views...

http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2004/12/1206_041206_global_warming.html

[Guest]

Chelsea...how unlike you to hip shoot without doing your homework. The "dimmest" view is the posting of a link to a publication that uses the "suspect" IPCC 2007 report, currently under scrutiny, to make a point. Here's a bright flash for you, having crossed sabers with you before, I doubt reasoned opinions that conflict with your own will convert the tenacious, applaudable defense of your viewpoint.

The authors of the 2007 report your source relies on, have acknowledged they may have erred about global warming. You must have missed that in my long of wind post above. I could swamp you with links to opposing opinions but wouldn't have as much fun.

The bright spot is having engaged you in the debate.

Have a good evening.

[Guest]

NATIONAL GEOGRAPHIC , ISN'T THAT LIKE THE NEW YORK TIMES WITH PICTURES.........LETS TRY TO PICK READING MATERIAL THAT DOESN'T HAVE AN AGENDA.........

FUMAR ..:girlneener:

[Guest]

I could not disagree with you more emphatically. I suspect that you have never read the 98 page report in its entirety or else you would not have been so erroneously judgemental. This is a link to the actual report. I did read it and could find no correlation to your misleading judgemental analysis about the Carlin-Davidson report. Here is a link to the actual report. I would be interested in opinions from anyone who takes the time to read it.

http://cei.org/cei_files/fm/active/0/DOC062509-004.pdf

The "smoking gun" you cavalierly dismiss is rooted in the suggestion that the Obama administration and the EPA relied on the "U.N.'s IPCC (Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change) report. That report, however, was a political document, not a scientific one. Knowing that current scientific research disproves the anthropogenic global warming theory, the U.N. ordered that no recent research be considered in the IPCC report."

The IPCC is a scientific intergovernmental body set up by the World Meteorological Organization (WMO) and by the United Nations Environment Programme (UNEP).

Here is the "smoking gun", in my opinion, based on my own amateur, independent cursory research on the subject. There is a virtual dearth of information about the latest IPCC authors report that in fact is critical of its own 2007 report. The authors of the UN's IPCC 2007 report....connect the dots.....have in a follow-up report suggested a "10 year postponement of global warning". Further, they state their 2007 report to the UN, did not take into account regional climate oscillations in the Atlantic Ocean since these are/may now be turning toward a "cooler" mode". They now believe that a global warning "postponement" appears likely. Please remember that this revelation is from the authors of the IPCC report that is the basis for all the global warning gymnastics, including Cap and Trade, we are now going through. You won't be reading about that in the Times or the rest of the elite media. However, if you wish, you can peruse it right here on TOTV the truly independent source for political news.....well.....opinions anyway. "Smoking gun anyone ?"

http://cei.org/cei_files/fm/active/0/DOC062509-004.pdf page 89 of 98.

Regarding your somewhat cheap shot at the authors, you state, "To be clear,Carlin is an economist, and Davidson is an ex-member of the Carter administration Council of Environmental quality...and to be clear neither of the men are scientists. " You perpetuate an omission of convenience and that is that Carlin and Davidson work for the EPA in the EPA's National Center for Environmental Economics. They are superbly credentialed as noted below to comment with authority on the subject matter in issue. Concurrently while you diminish their stellar work as "politically motivated" papers, you overtly give the IPCC 2007 report, the mother of all GW reports, a pass even though it is de facto, a political paper.

Even further, you omit and mislead with their credentials to speak to the subject. To correct the record:

Dr. Carlin, got his undergraduate degree in physics from CalTech and his PhD in economics from MIT,

Dr. John Davidson has a Ph.D., Physics, 1972, University of Michigan

If you read my original post, I think we are somewhat in agreement as I clearly stated I just wanted to see all the facts made public so that the American public can make their own conclusions and choices....notwithstanding my straightforward disapproval of the current administration agenda.

On another note, I appreciate the time you take to offer your articulate professional insights into the National Health Care debate.

Have a good evening.

Your comments are misleading an do not address with accuracy the things I refer too. Superbly credentialed, for what? You are quite off base. If your political leanings are more important than validated science and researchers so be it, but do not presume that the rest of us will blindly aquiesce , and do not presume to know the extent of my readings and research which on this subject likely exceed yours.
In the end it is of no matter. Most of you are concerned with the political leanings of this much more than the possible effects to the planet. An open and inquisitive mind is required, as is holding people to scientific methods and standards. The very fact that there is controversy would indicate a detailed and open mined view of ALL of the evidence as it continues to become known is required.
Perhaps I can put it in a way that is more palatable to you. If there was a 1% chance that a certain building was likely to collapse, or that a terrorist attack would occur during a certain time frame would you take precautions? If there is even a small chance the the theories regarding global warming on on track, shouldn't we take precautions until we can be more certain either way? You would do well to spend as much time on the science of the issue as the political aspects.
I am frankly insulted by your crass and innaccurate comments concerning me (cheap shots etc) but it is what goes on in here, and expected.
You are welcome to the rest of the thread, it's all yours.

Oh, and have a good evening.

[Guest]

Take the test:

http://www.geocraft.com/WVFossils/GlobWarmTest/start.html

[Guest]

NATIONAL GEOGRAPHIC , ISN'T THAT LIKE THE NEW YORK TIMES WITH PICTURES.........LETS TRY TO PICK READING MATERIAL THAT DOESN'T HAVE AN AGENDA.........

FUMAR ..:girlneener:

:a20: Good one.

[Guest]

serenityseeker....thank you for confirming that you never read the 98 page report prior to commenting with such authority on its relevancy, context and authors. Further thanks are in order for the privilege of your intellectually stimulating response.

As to your questions to me regarding collapsing buildings, terrorist attacks and global warming precautions...the answer lies in the scale of the response relative to the scale of the threat, ergo the crux of the debate you seem to take offense and umbrage to.

The thread was not started by me, hence, I do not claim ownership so you can't really give it to me. In retrospect, I may have over personalized my argument.

Really...have a nice evening.

[Guest]

serenityseeker....thank you for confirming that you never read the 98 page report prior to commenting with such authority on its relevancy, context and authors. Further thanks are in order for the privilege of your intellectually stimulating response.

As to your questions to me regarding collapsing buildings, terrorist attacks and global warming precautions...the answer lies in the scale of the response relative to the scale of the threat, ergo the crux of the debate you seem to take offense and umbrage to.

The thread was not started by me, hence, I do not claim ownership so you can't really give it to me. In retrospect, I may have over personalized my argument.

Really...have a nice evening.

Again, your inaccuracies, if not downright lies abound. At no point did I confirm I never read the report, quite the contrary actually.This of course speaks to the validity and/or credibility of your comments as a whole.
The only things I typically take umbrage with are unsolicited attacks and inaccurate, slanted information. As I said, you would do well to research and understand a little science to counterbalance the political rhetoric.

[Guest]

The knife cuts both ways and neither "side" participating in BS pseudoscience can claim the moral high ground. This should be about science, and real research thus far has compelling arguments for each side of the debate. Depending on your knowledge, interest, and interpretations one side may have a more compelling argument than the other. There is a plethora of information out there for those that are truly interested in actually learning rather than towing one political line or the other.

Nobody doubts that there is a plethora of information out there. Information is not scientific evidence. Consenses is not scientific proof. Scientific proof is repeatable. It "is". It doesn't require a bunch of people to agree and argue. It stands on its own merit.

Thus far, the case for global warming, caused by man and repairable by man is not supported by scientific evidence. It is be political in nature. If it is ever proven, I will support reasonable measures, shared by the efforts of the nations of the world. Until then I will fight to be sure that our nation is not destroyed by a bunch of guilty feeling self flaggelating people.

Yoda

A member of the loyal opposition

[Guest]

Nobody doubts that there is a plethora of information out there. Information is not scientific evidence. Consenses is not scientific proof. Scientific proof is repeatable. It "is". It doesn't require a bunch of people to agree and argue. It stands on its own merit.

Thus far, the case for global warming, caused by man and repairable by man is not supported by scientific evidence. It is be political in nature. If it is ever proven, I will support reasonable measures, shared by the efforts of the nations of the world. Until then I will fight to be sure that our nation is not destroyed by a bunch of guilty feeling self flaggelating people.

Yoda

A member of the loyal opposition
Wow...That,my man, was a home run!!! I wish I said all that!!!:coolsmiley:

[Guest]

Nobody doubts that there is a plethora of information out there. Information is not scientific evidence. Consenses is not scientific proof. Scientific proof is repeatable. It "is". It doesn't require a bunch of people to agree and argue. It stands on its own merit.

Thus far, the case for global warming, caused by man and repairable by man is not supported by scientific evidence. It is be political in nature. If it is ever proven, I will support reasonable measures, shared by the efforts of the nations of the world. Until then I will fight to be sure that our nation is not destroyed by a bunch of guilty feeling self flaggelating people.

Yoda

A member of the loyal opposition


As I said, inaccurate and slanted information.
Of course it is supported by scientific evidence, just as it is refuted by the same thus far, depending on a myriad of factors. You are crackin me up.
This really is a waste of time. Good luck with "the fight". Hopefully while that has you occupied those with scientific training and knowledge will continue working towards sorting out some answers of substance as research continues.

[Guest]

As I said, inaccurate and slanted information.
Of course it is supported by scientific evidence, just as it is refuted by the same thus far, depending on a myriad of factors. You are crackin me up.
This really is a waste of time. Good luck with "the fight". Hopefully while that has you occupied those with scientific training and knowledge will continue working towards sorting out some answers of substance as research continues.

You are missing the key issue here. If there were scientific evidence of global warming caused and fixable by man, it would just be so. Global warming caused and fixable by man would be fact. Once it is refuted by any of the myriad of factors, it is reduced to the level of a theory. A flat earth was a theory that was supported my the Catholic church. Global warming is a theory supported my the "Liberal" church.

As a side note, your statement, "This really is a waste of time. Good luck with "the fight." Seems to support a previous statement by a poster that Pro global warming supporters seem to thing that the subject has been decided.

Yoda

A member of the loyal opposition

[Guest]

serenityseeker....I am surprised that someone as well read as you have acknowledged yourself to be, cannot distinguish between tongue in cheek sarcasm and abounding "downright lies". Less I digress further into the low road you seem to want to take this, perhaps from the perspective of your lofty scientific training and knowledge, you will enlighten us on the 98 page report you have acknowledged reading in its entirety. Inquisitive minds would appreciate your scientific insights.

What specific empirical data and information in the report is invalid?

What offended you about the report?

Does the report contain any redeeming data that is useful to defining the global warming issue?

Perhaps you can cite the specific political rhetoric in the report. I couldn't find much, but, than again, I don't have your discriminating perspective.

Is the holder of a Ph.D in physics a scientist?

Is a medical doctor a scientist?

Do you need a degree to be a scientist?

Good evening....make that good morning.

[Guest]

Chelsea...how unlike you to hip shoot without doing your homework. The "dimmest" view is the posting of a link to a publication that uses the "suspect" IPCC 2007 report, currently under scrutiny, to make a point. Here's a bright flash for you, having crossed sabers with you before, I doubt reasoned opinions that conflict with your own will convert the tenacious, applaudable defense of your viewpoint.

The authors of the 2007 report your source relies on, have acknowledged they may have erred about global warming. You must have missed that in my long of wind post above. I could swamp you with links to opposing opinions but wouldn't have as much fun.

The bright spot is having engaged you in the debate.

Have a good evening.

Wowser! I guess you told me! Yes, I miss many things in your long-winded dissertations. But! You are right about one thing. There is nothing that can be said here that is going to change my opinion. I have my beliefs and you have yours. Time will tell the answer.

Many of you keep spouting off about your children and grandchildren's economic futures, but you turn away from their environmental futures. Guess what! Mother Nature is bigger than the economy... and she's p'oed! Let's hope there is a future for all of our young ones if global warming continues to be ignored. As I said... time will tell... tick, tock...

And a good evening to you too sir. Let me know the next time you win a Nobel Prize.

[Guest]

NATIONAL GEOGRAPHIC , ISN'T THAT LIKE THE NEW YORK TIMES WITH PICTURES.........LETS TRY TO PICK READING MATERIAL THAT DOESN'T HAVE AN AGENDA.........

FUMAR ..:girlneener:


How would you know Fumar dahling? You never got past the pictures of natives breast feeding their young??? The National Geographic does have an agenda. It's to educate.

Why not stick to your usual -- Dr. Seuss. I believe you left off as The Cat was about to get into the Hat... or was that the rat??? :laugh:

Now, you have to be a very good boy or you won't get your bedtime story! :girlneener:

[Guest]

Wowser! I guess you told me! Yes, I miss many things in your long-winded dissertations. But! You are right about one thing. There is nothing that can be said here that is going to change my opinion. I have my beliefs and you have yours. Time will tell the answer.

Many of you keep spouting off about your children and grandchildren's economic futures, but you turn away from their environmental futures. Guess what! Mother Nature is bigger than the economy... and she's p'oed! Let's hope there is a future for all of our young ones if global warming continues to be ignored. As I said... time will tell... tick, tock...

And a good evening to you too sir. Let me know the next time you win a Nobel Prize.

The earth has a fever..... Nobody is deny global warming....The earth has been warming and cooling for millions of years before man could even stand on two feet. How do you think the Grand Canyon got there? And you know something? Earth will continue to warm and cool when all traces of mankind disappear.

[Guest]

A flat earth was a theory that was supported my the Catholic church.

Yoda

A member of the loyal opposition

Yoda....are you saying the earth isn't flat and a flat earth is just a theory? That explains so much that has been confusing me. Your insights continue to amaze and enlighten.

[Guest]

There will always be a disagreement when the cause cannot be specified followed by a myriad of non specific cures and even more just in case solutions.

Much will be written and discussed. But significantly less will be done....unless there is a political or financial gain. Then we can hope for either or both to have any impact.

When something that takes centuries to manifest in commencing, who will be responsible how many years from now to show progress or lack thereof?

btk

[Guest]

There will always be a disagreement when the cause cannot be specified followed by a myriad of non specific cures and even more just in case solutions.

Much will be written and discussed. But significantly less will be done....unless there is a political or financial gain. Then we can hope for either or both to have any impact.

When something that takes centuries to manifest in commencing, who will be responsible how many years from now to show progress or lack thereof?

btk

My suggestion is to wait until the problem clearly and with scientific proof manifests itself, rather than some political or social motovation. Saying it doesn't make it so.

Yoda

[Guest]

http://www.rasmussenreports.com/public_content/politics/environment/42_say_climate_change_bill_will_hurt_the_economy

He thinks were stupid

http://www.powerlineblog.com/archives/2009/06/023883.php

[Guest]

My suggestion is to wait until the problem clearly and with scientific proof manifests itself, rather than some political or social motovation. Saying it doesn't make it so.

Yoda

I wish we had some warming here in Massachusetts. June was the coldest, rainiest month I can remember. Today is the 1st of July and it is still raining and cool. We are still in the 60's!!!!




Massachusetts For Global Warming:bowdown:

[Guest]

31,000 scientists signed this partition.
http://www.petitionproject.org/
http://www.oism.org/pproject/

[Guest]

I wish we had some warming here in Massachusetts. June was the coldest, rainiest month I can remember. Today is the 1st of July and it is still raining and cool. We are still in the 60's!!!!




Massachusetts For Global Warming:bowdown:

Tonight, my wife asked me, "Do you think we'll see the sun before we sell the house?"

Keedy, do you remember the year with no Summer?

Yoda

[Guest]

Tonight, my wife asked me, "Do you think we'll see the sun before we sell the house?"

Keedy, do you remember the year with no Summer?

Yoda

I heard that 1816 there was no summer because of volcanic activity. Holy mackeral, how old are you Yoda?

[Guest]

The citizenry has been bombarded by the media that the consensus of man-made global warming was fact. The media has been telling us that there is no debate because the consensus said so.

......
EPA is a government agency. Think about it. Environment Protection means that they have a vested interest. After all, they do need a boogie man as to have a reason to protect us.....

Do you really believe that about the EPA? DO you think there aren't enough things on their platter already to protect us from like oil spills, contaminated water supplies, air quality, and more? They certainly don't have to conjure up new environmental hazards to spread their thin resources on.

[Guest]

Do you really believe that about the EPA? DO you think there aren't enough things on their platter already to protect us from like oil spills, contaminated water supplies, air quality, and more? They certainly don't have to conjure up new environmental hazards to spread their thin resources on.

Seems their thin resources keep getting fatter. From 7.8 Billion to 10.5 Billion.

http://blog.heritage.org/2009/02/27/the-epa-the-budget-and-global-warming/

[Guest]

Seems their thin resources keep getting fatter. From 7.8 Billion to 10.5 Billion.

http://blog.heritage.org/2009/02/27/the-epa-the-budget-and-global-warming/

Since the EPA budget was cut under the Bush administration and Republican controlled congress, year after year, it makes sense that it be raised. The Democrats campaigned on taking the country in a new direction environmentally, and they are moving forward with that initiative.

[Guest]

Since the EPA budget was cut under the Bush administration and Republican controlled congress, year after year, it makes sense that it be raised. The Democrats campaigned on taking the country in a new direction environmentally, and they are moving forward with that initiative.

The democrats are taking us in a new direction...Total bankruptcy.
A 35% raise in a budget of bad science.

http://foxforum.blogs.foxnews.com/2009/04/20/ferrara_peter_epa/

[Guest]

You've conveniently turned the environmental discussion off topic, but I note - on the day President Bush took office, the National Debt stood at $5.7 trillion dollars. By 2007 the debt clocked in at a staggering $8.8 trillion – an increase of $3.1 trillion dollars since January 20, 2001. And that amounted to a jump of 54% during Mr. Bush's watch. The National Debt went up more on his watch than under any other president.

That means it took the Federal Government 225 years to accrue $5.5 trillion in debt under 42 U.S. presidents. But under President Bush alone, it soared another 35.2%.

It hardly gives the Republicans bragging rights about fiscal discipline.

And anyone who reads a newspaper will realize that Obama inherited a terrible mess: a $1.3 trillion deficit, two wars, rising unemployment and unprecedented crisis in our banking system. Based on the advice of the leading economic gurus he's implemented a plan to jumpstart the economy, and fight the housing crisis and reform the financial regulatory system. You may not agree with his plan, but I suspect you're not an economist, nor am I. I personally don't like the idea of more debt, but given the circumstances and depression era type economic problems that exist now, I think he had no choice. And that's what his economic advisors are telling him as well.

[Guest]

You've conveniently turned the environmental discussion off topic, but I note - on the day President Bush took office, the National Debt stood at $5.7 trillion dollars. By 2007 the debt clocked in at a staggering $8.8 trillion – an increase of $3.1 trillion dollars since January 20, 2001. And that amounted to a jump of 54% during Mr. Bush's watch. The National Debt went up more on his watch than under any other president.

That means it took the Federal Government 225 years to accrue $5.5 trillion in debt under 42 U.S. presidents. But under President Bush alone, it soared another 35.2%.

It hardly gives the Republicans bragging rights about fiscal discipline.

And anyone who reads a newspaper will realize that Obama inherited a terrible mess: a $1.3 trillion deficit, two wars, rising unemployment and unprecedented crisis in our banking system. Based on the advice of the leading economic gurus he's implemented a plan to jumpstart the economy, and fight the housing crisis and reform the financial regulatory system. You may not agree with his plan, but I suspect you're not an economist, nor am I. I personally don't like the idea of more debt, but given the circumstances and depression era type economic problems that exist now, I think he had no choice. And that's what his economic advisors are telling him as well.


Some of what you say is valid and some of what you say is grossly overeggarated, HOWEVER...you say the following...


"but given the circumstances and depression era type economic problems that exist now, I think he had no choice. And that's what his economic advisors are telling him as well."

You do realize I hope that over 40%. just about 50% of this spending bill was about social programs and had nothing to do with economic stimulus, and I also hope you know that NOBODY in congress actually ever read the bill and I could go on and on.

This is not about Bush and I am not making excuses..he was a big spender...but there were alternatives..they were never considered...and when you have a congress, and no matter how you say it the congress is encouraged and enabled by the current WH, who just passes bills to spend money and they do not even read them we should be very concerned.

I will also add but for no purpose because it, as what you are saying, doesnt matter...each new administration inherits something as did Bush....it is history now as we heard when critiquing Clinton during the Bush administration or we heard during the Clinton administration what he inherited from HW Bush, and on and on.

[Guest]

You've conveniently turned the environmental discussion off topic, but I note - on the day President Bush took office, the National Debt stood at $5.7 trillion dollars. By 2007 the debt clocked in at a staggering $8.8 trillion – an increase of $3.1 trillion dollars since January 20, 2001. And that amounted to a jump of 54% during Mr. Bush's watch. The National Debt went up more on his watch than under any other president.

That means it took the Federal Government 225 years to accrue $5.5 trillion in debt under 42 U.S. presidents. But under President Bush alone, it soared another 35.2%.

It hardly gives the Republicans bragging rights about fiscal discipline.

And anyone who reads a newspaper will realize that Obama inherited a terrible mess: a $1.3 trillion deficit, two wars, rising unemployment and unprecedented crisis in our banking system. Based on the advice of the leading economic gurus he's implemented a plan to jumpstart the economy, and fight the housing crisis and reform the financial regulatory system. You may not agree with his plan, but I suspect you're not an economist, nor am I. I personally don't like the idea of more debt, but given the circumstances and depression era type economic problems that exist now, I think he had no choice. And that's what his economic advisors are telling him as well.
If you look at the projected deficit under Obama...it is going to make the previous deficit look rather quaint. And don't forget that we have had a democratic dominated congress for the last 2 1/2 years. 98 % of small business has received nothing from this bailout.
And please....when is Obama going to accept some responsibility... The blame Bush crap is getting old. Even the mainstream media is getting cranky.
http://www.realclearpolitics.com/video/2009/07/01/cbs_helen_thomas_challenge_gibbs_on_controlled_tow n_hall_meeting.html

[Guest]

I am not an educated or very smart person but I do remember burning coal in the fireplace and/or furnace and fuel oil in a space heater. It all added to the dirty atmosphere and contributed to fouling the air as did the unfiltered smokestacks of the foundaries and tanneries and the trains that burned coal and wood. During my lifetime, there has been regulated cleanup of air quality and filtering of those smokestacks. I dont think global warming is manmade but a natural part of the chain of events in the passage of time.
My lawn and flowers are burning up here in the deep swamp but I dont blame man for that. It is due to the lack of rain and intense heat and lack of cloud cover.

[Guest]

I heard that 1816 there was no summer because of volcanic activity. Holy mackeral, how old are you Yoda?

Within the past 10 or so years we had a Summer that was too cool to enjoy our pool. That one.

Yoda

A member of the loyal opposition

[Guest]

As we know from our scientists explorations, The Earth was hot and it cooled. It warmed up and then cooled again. All this climate change, global warming and global cooling happened with very little help from man.

What is the appropriate temperature for the Earth? Do you know? If you don't know, how do you know that global warming or cooling is bad?

CO2 is said to be very bad. Should we all hold our breath? Obviously not. There is 0.038% CO2 in the air. Every air breathing animal produces CO2. They have been producing it since time began. When there is too much CO2, plants grow more to clean the air. When there is less CO2, plants grow less for the lack of it. That is a good system when you consider thatCO2 is toxic in higher concentrations: 1% will make some people feel drowsy. Concentrations of 7% to 10% cause dizziness, headache, visual and hearing dysfunction, and unconsciousness within a few minutes to an hour.

I won't even ask if YOU have any empirical evidence that man caused climate change now or ever has existed, I will ask you, does any empirical evidence that man caused climate change now or ever has existed.

That said, why are some people so invested in this cause?

Oh well. I will now wait for the spears and barbs. I would rather see proof, or not.

Yoda

A member of the loyal opposition

[Guest]

From what I can understand, it is some kind of religion for these people to feel morally superior. It doesn't matter that there is no proof of man-made global warming...they have a closed mind. Since they are superior and we are inferior , there is no need for them to listen.
I read a great article about it that explains it better then I can say it. I'll try to find it.

[Guest]

There just seems to be no way to have a discussion without bashing, name calling or slandering. A good discussion will always have a difference of opinion...at least the last time I checked the 1st amendment. Or has that been CHANGED too? :jester:

btk

[Guest]

Those who deny the reality of global warming/oops/climate change today will be thought of with the total disdain now reserved for those miscreants who doubted global cooling of the 70's, yet another product of overwhelming scientific consensus. If such people continue to question government scientists, next thing you know someone will raise doubts about the sacred food pyramid on which we've raised a generation of children. http://tinyurl.com/ml7ryg




`

[Guest]

So what are we to do about it? All this scientific research you talk about and not one suggestion about what we are to do to change things. Tell me in layman's language what I can do to stop what you consider more threatening than terrorism. I dont really care what next generations think about this generation but I sure am concerned about missiles pointing in my direction.

[Guest]

for the millions, if not billions of HUMANS who have died of malaria because DDT was killing some BIRDS.

Yoda

A member of the loyal opposition

[Guest]

The Christian Aid organization you rely so heavily on for information, has an interesting political track record in the Arab-Israeli conflict. Do you share their position there as well?



Thank you CABO...you inspired me to check a bit on this group !!!

Seems yet another "charitable" organization that acts as a front for political activism !

[Guest]

for the millions, if not billions of HUMANS who have died of malaria because DDT was killing some BIRDS.

Yoda

A member of the loyal opposition

Yep, Rachel Carson's book Silent Spring is probably the inspiration for all the Tom, Dick and Harrys that write a book nowadays. Her book started a wave that didn't begin with science and didn't end with science. Because of that book DDT was eventually banned. It is believed that DDT was responsible for saving 40 million American lives. Unfortunately, the ban also caused the death of untold millions. Thank-you EPA!!!!!!!!

[Guest]

Here's the answer!!!

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dJfSS0ZXYdo

[Guest]

I don't understand people who are hysterical about global warming. They claim it is caused by humans producing carbon but they never suggest population control as a way of reducing the number of human producers. Instead their other "social" policies encourage more carbon polluters. According to them, if there is a forest fire, let it burn. It is nature's way of thinning the forest, (and polluting the planet but they never mention that). Go Figure.
Of course we need to protect our environment, but as my mom always said, everything in moderation.

[Guest]

Al Gore is the answer........


wherever he travels,it gets colder. Let's just send him on a worldwide trip.