nuke-u-lar get it right
I for one feel they (scientific community) have not spent nealy enough time on this topic to say deffinitely one way or another.Originally Posted by Spyder Jerusalem
Is the climate going through changes?? Yes! Are we to blame?? Some!! Are we the sole problem?? NO!
Every day new research come to light that disproves this or proves that. There just is not enough unbiased information. If we want to get to the real issues politcs needs to be removed from the equation..
Experience is what you get when you don't get what you want." -Dr. Randy Pausch
Death is lighter than a feather, Duty is heavier than a mountain
Senior Member
Global Warming Update: First Snow in Johannesburg and Pretoria Since 1981 and 1968
By Noel Sheppard | June 27, 2007 - 23:10 ET
As the worm has clearly turned on all this global warming hooey, it seems appropriate to begin recording COLD events across the planet not just to highlight the foolishness, but also to infuriate those still buying into the junk science.
With that in mind, it snowed in parts of South Africa Tuesday that haven’t seen the frosty white stuff in many decades.
Thanks, global warming!
As deliciously (and frigidly) reported by Bloomberg Wednesday (emphasis added to really irk the alarmists):
Johannesburg recorded its first confirmed snowfall for almost 26 years overnight as temperatures dropped below freezing in South Africa's largest city, grounding flights at its main airport...Snow last blanketed Johannesburg for a single day on Sept. 11, 1981.
[…]
Light snowfall was also recorded in Pretoria, the capital, which last had snow on June 11, 1968, the newswire said.
June 1968! Most of the hyperventilating hysterical probably weren't born yet!
So, do you figure that alarmists like soon-to-be-Dr. Al Gore will admit they’re wrong when cities around the world start reporting record snows and lows on a regular basis as this new cooling trend -- which began in 1998, for those that might actually being interested in facts! -- continues?
Or, will they maintain that colder weather and rare snowfalls are all part of “climate change” which is tied directly to CO2 emissions?
Yes…that was rhetorical.
http://newsbusters.org/node/13787
How do you tell a communist? Well, it's someone who reads Marx and Lenin. And how do you tell an anti-Communist? It's someone who understands Marx and Lenin.
Ronald Reagan
Senior Member
Do Warming Advocates Care About Results?
By Debra Saunders
If you really believe that the planet is at the tipping point on global warming and the consequences will be fatal for people around the world, especially the poor, then all industrialized nations need to curb their greenhouse gas emissions. If the United States must sacrifice, so must China, which is fast emerging as the largest producer of industrial greenhouse gases on Earth.
Yet U.N. Secretary Ban ki-Moon, in a breakfast meeting with the San Francisco Chronicle editorial board Friday, suggested that industrialized nations -- read the United States -- have a "historical responsibility" to cut emissions, which are "almost to the saturation point," while China and India, two superpowers that were not bound to reduce emissions as part of the 1997 Kyoto global warming pact, "have their own positions."
As for the Democratic Congress, Ban said: "They have already begun moving. It's only the (Bush) administration" that has not. And, while he said he is not a scientist or economist: "The science is very clear. The economics is very clear."
I understand the social justice argument. America has produced more industrial greenhouse gases than any other nation, hence Americans should have to cut back more than other countries. But who knew in 1910 that global warming would be an issue?
"The few who did know about it thought it was a good thing," noted the Cato Institute's Pat Michaels. "And when global surface temperature declined from 1945 through the mid-1970s, the feeling was one of absolute alarm. The world was going to have a food crisis. The shipping lanes in the North Atlantic were cluttered with ice."
Remember global cooling? That's what the -- all bow -- scientists warned about 30 years ago. Now, bygone Americans are to blame for not foreseeing science's current end-of-the-world scenario, global warming.
Unlike Ban, I know many scientists who don't think the science is conclusive as to whether global warming is caused by man. But if the tipping point is near, you'd think Ban would talk as tough on China as he does with George W. Bush. According to the Netherlands Environmental Assessment Agency, China's coal-fired plants are increasing their emissions annually by double the total emissions growth of all the world's industrialized economies combined. China's about to be Hertz, and Ban's focused on Avis.
"Given the emissions growth rate of China, if the United States drops its emissions 25 percent over the next 20 years, it simply won't be noticed," Cato's Michaels noted. "Everyone who's looked at this knows that." Everyone, perhaps except the U.N. secretary-general.
Greenhouse gases will have the same effect, whether they emanate from San Francisco or Shanghai. But politics, not science, keeps the focus on Bush, not Beijing.
You see, Bush had the audacity to refuse to support Kyoto. If he had been all lip service, like President Clinton -- if Bush had signed the treaty but not asked the Senate to ratify it, while U.S. greenhouse gas emissions rose to 14 percent higher than 1990 levels when he left office -- then the vaunted international community would approve.
Science is supposed to be about results, but global warming is about belief. President Clinton is good because he said he believed. If you say you believe, you don't have to deliver.
If global warming is facing the tipping point, then the United Nations should lean on China. Believers shouldn't put their politics -- United States a must, China a maybe -- before the planet.
If undeveloped countries will pay the biggest price for global warming, as Ban said, then that's more reason to make them curb their emissions -- not less.
If the economics are clear, as Ban said, he should not have to pressure countries and businesses, execs would be making the right changes without government pressure. And Ban would not have to ask the media for help, as he did Friday.
If results matter, Ban ought to be hectoring Democrats in Congress, who are about as likely as Bush to pass a carbon tax. But he's not.
And if results really were paramount, why aren't global warming advocates talking about the sacrifices necessary to meet their goal of 50 percent to 90 percent fewer emissions? Instead, they talk as if Americans can change their light bulbs, or drive a hybrid, not an SUV -- and that will do the trick.
It's as if they don't care about results, they only care if you believe.
dsaunders@sfchronicle.com
http://www.realclearpolitics.com/art...atters_to.html
How do you tell a communist? Well, it's someone who reads Marx and Lenin. And how do you tell an anti-Communist? It's someone who understands Marx and Lenin.
Ronald Reagan
Senior Member
Media Misrepresent Senators’ Global Warming Trip to Greenland
By Noel Sheppard | July 31, 2007 - 18:19 ET
As NewsBusters reported Monday, Sen. Barbara Boxer (D-California) was quoted in an Orange County Register article as saying about a recent trip by Senators to investigate Greenland's glaciers, "I think everyone who has seen this is changed."
On Tuesday, the Washington Post reported:
"There is absolutely no disagreement that the greenhouse gas emissions are adding to climate change and global warming," [Sen. Ben Cardin (D-Maryland)] said. "No one disagrees that it would be a healthy thing for our world to have less greenhouse gas."
Sadly, neither of these articles chose to get opinions from the two Republican senators on the trip. If they had, another picture might have been presented, as reported by the Associated Press Monday (emphasis added):
Senator Johnny Isakson of Georgia traveled to Greenland over the weekend to get a firsthand glimpse at the effects of global warming.
The first-term Republican said the trip reinforced his belief that the United States should gradually move away from fossil fuels like oil and coal. But it didn't convince him that more urgent steps are needed.
Isakson said he remains unconvinced that the current warming is a departure from long-term natural cycles.
E&E News offered more of Isakson's views Monday (emphasis added, subscription required):
"Senator Isakson believes it's premature to start talking about any carbon cap proposal since we have not fully addressed the development of all renewable resources, especially nuclear and cellulose-based ethanol," Isakson spokeswoman Joan Kirchner said today. Isakson's office also released a statement that noted climate change "is natural and has occurred before."
Isakson added, "The question is: To what extent is carbon accelerating the changes? The answer to that question is: No one knows for sure."
Understand why the Post and the Register chose not to quote Isakson?
Not interviewing Bob Corker (R-Tennessee), the other Republican on the trip, was also a wise decision (also from E&E News):
"We're digging in to understand this issue in great detail so that we can play a meaningful role as it is debated," Corker said. "We don't want to react impulsively and enact something that we can't reverse in the future if there are unintended negative consequences or our understanding of this issue evolves."
The Shelbyville Times-Gazette published more of Corker's skeptical views Tuesday that the Post and the Register certainly wouldn't have been interested in (emphasis added):
Getting an energy policy in place "that is right" regardless of the impact climate change has is a goal that Sen. Bob Corker expressed upon returning from a trip to Greenland this past weekend.
But while they viewed glaciers and ice sheets that make up 10 percent of the world's fresh water, nothing he saw surprised him, saying instead it was the scientists that were the most informative.
"I am at the same place [opinion] when returning from the trip than I was going on the trip," Corker said.
That certainly wouldn't have supported Boxer's "I think everyone who has seen this is changed" claim highlighted by the Register, would it? Nor would the following:
"I don't think there's any question that our climate is changing, but that's been going on for thousands of years," Corker explained. He also reminded reporters that the country was first called Greenland by Viking explorers who farmed there.
Yes, the global warming alarmists all seem to conveniently forget that fact, don't they?
But, that's not the only thing ignored in this discussion, for in her press release concerning this trip, Boxer stated the following (emphasis added):
Here it is, straight from Arkalo Abelsen, the Greenlandic Minister of the Environment, who spoke to us on Saturday morning:
"Looking back at my own life, I can only confirm that the climate in Greenland today is very different from the time when I was a child. I was born and raised in the southern part of Disko Bay. The sea ice closed the bay... from December until the end of May. The hunters went on the sea ice with their dog teams to catch food. These days the sea ice is formed in March, and disappears just a few weeks later. Some years it is not possible to go by dog team on the ice at all."
"Until 15 years ago, the hunters in the Thule region could hunt walrus on the sea ice during a period of 6 months each year - today if they are lucky they can hunt on the sea ice for just 2 months. [W]e have had to give permission to kill polar bears, and polar bears with cubs, because they have wandered into towns and villages to seek food, because they cannot hunt on the sea ice."
Nothing like the views of locals that have been alive for about 60 years to impact a debate about centuries of climate data, wouldn't you agree? After all, according to the Greenland government's website, Abelsen was born in 1946.
Maybe Boxer would have gotten a better perspective of climate change in Greenland if she spoke to Abelsen's father and grandfather, assuming they're still alive.
http://newsbusters.org/blogs/noel-sh...trip-greenland
How do you tell a communist? Well, it's someone who reads Marx and Lenin. And how do you tell an anti-Communist? It's someone who understands Marx and Lenin.
Ronald Reagan
Senior Member
I think your analysis is briliant. And I really appreciate it.
nuke-u-lar get it right
Thanks I think if you poll most people you will find that a vast majority of them feel the same way.
I am not talking about the fanatics like Al Bore or his ilk or the complete other end of the spectrum that feel absolutely nothing is going on.
I think it is very unlikely that "we" have that big of an influence. I dont say we have none, but I think we need to do a whole lot more research unincumberd by politics to make "rational" and well thought out decissions...
Experience is what you get when you don't get what you want." -Dr. Randy Pausch
Death is lighter than a feather, Duty is heavier than a mountain
Senior Member
Hey Red States.......
Get with it, didn't you know the fanatics have canned the whole "global warming" slogan and updated it to " Global Climate Change". This way they get to capitalize on the idiocy you hear every year from all of the nimrods that say each summer...... "Wow, it's really hot, I don't remember it ever being this hot!"........or in the winter......."Wow, it's cold, I don't remember it ever being this cold!". It's always been hot during the summer and cold during the winter....... at least in my lifetime.
Nuke is correct, follow the money and you will see what is behind the alarmist machine.
Gunny's nightmare
Excellent slap down and follow through!
Gunny's nightmare
I agree, and am willing to err on the side of caution while we wait for the facts to come to light. That is why I'm an ardent supporter of nuclear energy.
Senior Member
First it was global cooling. Then it was global warming. Now it is climate changeHey Red States.......
Get with it, didn't you know the fanatics have canned the whole "global warming" slogan and updated it to " Global Climate Change". This way they get to capitalize on the idiocy you hear every year from all of the nimrods that say each summer...... "Wow, it's really hot, I don't remember it ever being this hot!"........or in the winter......."Wow, it's cold, I don't remember it ever being this cold!". It's always been hot during the summer and cold during the winter....... at least in my lifetime.
Nuke is correct, follow the money and you will see what is behind the alarmist machine.
Libs can't keep their lies straight
How do you tell a communist? Well, it's someone who reads Marx and Lenin. And how do you tell an anti-Communist? It's someone who understands Marx and Lenin.
Ronald Reagan
Senior Member
Every Earth Day I drive around all day with my muffler off
Does that count?
How do you tell a communist? Well, it's someone who reads Marx and Lenin. And how do you tell an anti-Communist? It's someone who understands Marx and Lenin.
Ronald Reagan
Gunny's nightmare
I drove from Boston to The Cape one night like that. That must have been 1980 or so, in my 1972 Ford with the 351W V8, tuned to perfection. It was a warm summer night, so I had both windows rolled all the way down. I'd get it up to 80 or so, relatively quiet, then let off the gas next to a fancy little foreign job. The full throated backfiring would scare the bejesus out of them. The experience was truly exhillerating.
Senior Member
I would love to drive by a bunch of protesting enviro wackos and let them see the muffler off. They would try to come after me
Hey, I hear they do make great speed bumps
How do you tell a communist? Well, it's someone who reads Marx and Lenin. And how do you tell an anti-Communist? It's someone who understands Marx and Lenin.
Ronald Reagan
Gunny's nightmare
They use to make a cast iron tee with a butterfly valve on the branch that you could install on the exhaust, operate via cable from the driver's seat and bypass the muffler. It would work well for you, I think.
Senior Member
If it gets me more warmth and love from the left - I will try it
How do you tell a communist? Well, it's someone who reads Marx and Lenin. And how do you tell an anti-Communist? It's someone who understands Marx and Lenin.
Ronald Reagan
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote