Global Warming

[cmcdougle]

I read an interesting article online today:


http://www.canadafreepress.com/2007/global-warming020507.htm

Global Warming is not due to human contribution of Carbon Dioxide
Global Warming: The Cold, Hard Facts?

By Timothy Ball

Monday, February 5, 2007

Global Warming, as we think we know it, doesn't exist. And I am not the only one trying to make people open up their eyes and see the truth. But few listen, despite the fact that I was the first Canadian Ph.D. in Climatology and I have an extensive background in climatology, especially the reconstruction of past climates and the impact of climate change on human history and the human condition. Few listen, even though I have a Ph.D, (Doctor of Science) from the University of London, England and was a climatology professor at the University of Winnipeg. For some reason (actually for many), the World is not listening. Here is why.

What would happen if tomorrow we were told that, after all, the Earth is flat? It would probably be the most important piece of news in the media and would generate a lot of debate. So why is it that when scientists who have studied the Global Warming phenomenon for years say that humans are not the cause nobody listens? Why does no one acknowledge that the Emperor has no clothes on?

Believe it or not, Global Warming is not due to human contribution of Carbon Dioxide (CO2). This in fact is the greatest deception in the history of science. We are wasting time, energy and trillions of dollars while creating unnecessary fear and consternation over an issue with no scientific justification. For example, Environment Canada brags about spending $3.7 billion in the last five years dealing with climate change almost all on propaganda trying to defend an indefensible scientific position while at the same time closing weather stations and failing to meet legislated pollution targets.

No sensible person seeks conflict, especially with governments, but if we don't pursue the truth, we are lost as individuals and as a society. That is why I insist on saying that there is no evidence that we are, or could ever cause global climate change. And, recently, Yuri A. Izrael, Vice President of the United Nations sponsored Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) confirmed this statement. So how has the world come to believe that something is wrong?

Maybe for the same reason we believed, 30 years ago, that global cooling was the biggest threat: a matter of faith. "It is a cold fact: the Global Cooling presents humankind with the most important social, political, and adaptive challenge we have had to deal with for ten thousand years. Your stake in the decisions we make concerning it is of ultimate importance; the survival of ourselves, our children, our species," wrote Lowell Ponte in 1976.

I was as opposed to the threats of impending doom global cooling engendered as I am to the threats made about Global Warming. Let me stress I am not denying the phenomenon has occurred. The world has warmed since 1680, the nadir of a cool period called the Little Ice Age (LIA) that has generally continued to the present. These climate changes are well within natural variability and explained quite easily by changes in the sun. But there is nothing unusual going on.

Since I obtained my doctorate in climatology from the University of London, Queen Mary College, England my career has spanned two climate cycles. Temperatures declined from 1940 to 1980 and in the early 1970's global cooling became the consensus. This proves that consensus is not a scientific fact. By the 1990's temperatures appeared to have reversed and Global Warming became the consensus. It appears I'll witness another cycle before retiring, as the major mechanisms and the global temperature trends now indicate a cooling.

No doubt passive acceptance yields less stress, fewer personal attacks and makes career progress easier. What I have experienced in my personal life during the last years makes me understand why most people choose not to speak out; job security and fear of reprisals. Even in University, where free speech and challenge to prevailing wisdoms are supposedly encouraged, academics remain silent.

I once received a three page letter that my lawyer defined as libellous, from an academic colleague, saying I had no right to say what I was saying, especially in public lectures. Sadly, my experience is that universities are the most dogmatic and oppressive places in our society. This becomes progressively worse as they receive more and more funding from governments that demand a particular viewpoint.

In another instance, I was accused by Canadian environmentalist David Suzuki of being paid by oil companies. That is a lie. Apparently he thinks if the fossil fuel companies pay you have an agenda. So if Greenpeace, Sierra Club or governments pay there is no agenda and only truth and enlightenment?

Personal attacks are difficult and shouldn't occur in a debate in a civilized society. I can only consider them from what they imply. They usually indicate a person or group is losing the debate. In this case, they also indicate how political the entire Global Warming debate has become. Both underline the lack of or even contradictory nature of the evidence.

I am not alone in this journey against the prevalent myth. Several well-known names have also raised their voices. Michael Crichton, the scientist, writer and filmmaker is one of them. In his latest book, "State of Fear" he takes time to explain, often in surprising detail, the flawed science behind Global Warming and other imagined environmental crises.

Another cry in the wildenerness is Richard Lindzen's. He is an atmospheric physicist and a professor of meteorology at MIT, renowned for his research in dynamic meteorology - especially atmospheric waves. He is also a member of the National Academy of Sciences and has held positions at the University of Chicago, Harvard University and MIT. Linzen frequently speaks out against the notion that significant Global Warming is caused by humans. Yet nobody seems to listen.

I think it may be because most people don't understand the scientific method which Thomas Kuhn so skilfully and briefly set out in his book "The Structure of Scientific Revolutions." A scientist makes certain assumptions and then produces a theory which is only as valid as the assumptions. The theory of Global Warming assumes that CO2 is an atmospheric greenhouse gas and as it increases temperatures rise. It was then theorized that since humans were producing more CO2 than before, the temperature would inevitably rise. The theory was accepted before testing had started, and effectively became a law.

As Lindzen said many years ago: "the consensus was reached before the research had even begun." Now, any scientist who dares to question the prevailing wisdom is marginalized and called a sceptic, when in fact they are simply being good scientists. This has reached frightening levels with these scientists now being called climate change denier with all the holocaust connotations of that word. The normal scientific method is effectively being thwarted.

Meanwhile, politicians are being listened to, even though most of them have no knowledge or understanding of science, especially the science of climate and climate change. Hence, they are in no position to question a policy on climate change when it threatens the entire planet. Moreover, using fear and creating hysteria makes it very difficult to make calm rational decisions about issues needing attention.

Until you have challenged the prevailing wisdom you have no idea how nasty people can be. Until you have re-examined any issue in an attempt to find out all the information, you cannot know how much misinformation exists in the supposed age of information.

I was greatly influenced several years ago by Aaron Wildavsky's book "Yes, but is it true?" The author taught political science at a New York University and realized how science was being influenced by and apparently misused by politics. He gave his graduate students an assignment to pursue the science behind a policy generated by a highly publicised environmental concern. To his and their surprise they found there was little scientific evidence, consensus and justification for the policy. You only realize the extent to which Wildavsky's findings occur when you ask the question he posed. Wildavsky's students did it in the safety of academia and with the excuse that it was an assignment. I have learned it is a difficult question to ask in the real world, however I firmly believe it is the most important question to ask if we are to advance in the right direction.

Dr. Tim Ball, Chairman of the Natural Resources Stewardship Project (www.nrsp.com), is a Victoria-based environmental consultant and former climatology professor at the University of Winnipeg. He can be reached at [email protected]


miracle 2

This page printed from: http://www.canadafreepress.com/2007/global-warming020507.htm

[C. Senor]

damn although he does have a very nice backround, what i think the main focaus on global warming, is that the co2 and smog and all that crap, is that it is going to make the climate worse, and will affect our atmosphere, but as far as humans being at fault completely, i would agree with him, since earth has under gone, times of heat and times of cold, it will happen over and oer again, due to our unique place in the universe, but i would say he's half right, but that's just my opinion

[hitman]

there are no scientific journals saying global warming doesnt exist. scientific journals are scholarly. i dont know what else to say.

[RJF]

Right now there is no definitive proof that Global Warming exists, it's all speculation (and about as accurate as your 7-day weather forecast). What you don't hear are facts like the ice-cap in Antarctica is actually growing.

Here's an article I found:

Suspending Disaster: The Myth Of Global Warming
Green groups such as Friends of the Earth, Greenpeace, the World Wildlife Fund and Earth First are using their influence to persuade people that an environmental disaster of historic proportions is just around the corner. As Barbara Mass of the Pan African Conservation Group succinctly puts it: "I think we're going to drown in our own muck."

Environmentalist thinking is now widely accepted in the West. However, many scientists argue that what the Greens say about global warming and pollution is wrong. Professor Wilfred Beckerman, a former member of the Royal Commission on Environmental Pollution, was himself an enthusiastic environmentalist until he started examining the facts. He told Against Nature: "Within a few months of looking at the statistical data, I realised that most of my concerns about the environment were based on false information and scare stories."

According to Piers Corbyn, Director of Weather Action, many scientists do not accept the idea that pollution is causing global warming. Environmentalists claim that world temperatures have risen one degree Fahrenheit in the past century, but Corbyn points out that the period they take as their starting point — around 1880 — was colder than average. What's more, the timing of temperature changes does not appear to support the theory of global warming. Most of the rise came before 1940 —before human-caused emissions of 'greenhouse' gases became significant.

According to the Greens, during the post-war boom global warming should have pushed temperatures up. But the opposite happened. "As a matter of the fact, the decrease in temperature, which was very noticeable in the 60s and 70s, led many people to fear that we would be going into another ice age," remembers Fred Singer, former Chief Scientist with the US Weather Program.

Even in recent times, the temperature has not behaved as it should according to global warming theory. Over the last eight years, temperature in the southern hemisphere has actually been falling. Moreover, says Piers Corbyn, "When proper satellite measurements are done of world temperatures, they do not show any increase whatsoever over the last 20 years."

But Greens refuse to accept they have could have been proved wrong. Now they say global warming can involve temperature going both up and down.

"Global warming is above all global climatic destabilisation," says Edward Goldsmith, editor of the Ecologist, "with extremes of cold and heat when you don't expect it. You can't predict climate any more. You get terrible droughts in certain cases; sometimes you get downpours. In Egypt, I think, they had a rainfall for the first time in history — they suddenly had an incredible downpour. Water pouring down in places where it's never rained before. And then you get droughts in another area. So it's going to be extremely unpredictable."

Scientists also point out that nature produces far more greenhouse gases than we do. For example, when the Mount Pinatubo volcano erupted, within just a few hours it had thrown into the atmosphere 30 million tonnes of sulphur dioxide— almost twice as much as all the factories, power plants and cars in the United States do in a whole year. Oceans emit 90 billion tonnes of carbon dioxide, the main greenhouse gas, every year. Decaying plants throw up another 90 billion tonnes, compared to just six billion tonnes a year from humans.

What's more, 100 million years ago, there was six times as much carbon dioxide in the atmosphere as there is now, yet the temperature then was marginally cooler than it is today. Many scientists have concluded that carbon dioxide doesn't even affect climate.

Although many environmentalists have been forced to accept much of the scientific evidence against global warming, they still argue that it is better to be safe than sorry. So they continue to use global warming as a reason to oppose industrialisation and economic growth. ( Further Reading )

Clearing The Air: Growth, Technology And Pollution
The industrial First World represents the Greens' worst nightmare. More economic growth, they say, can only mean more pollution and environmental degradation. But others argue that, on the contrary, over the past half century the environment in the advanced industrial world has actually improved.

"Air pollution has been falling in modern industrialised countries for the last 40 years," says Steve Hayward. "And it's been falling precisely because of economic growth and improvements in technology. Even in Los Angeles, which has the worst smog in the United States, air pollution levels have fallen by about half in the last 25 years — and that's at a time when the area's population has doubled and its economy has tripled."

In the United States as a whole, over the past quarter of a century, the population has increased by 30 per cent, while the number of cars and the size of the economy has nearly doubled. And yet, during the same period, emissions of the six main air pollutants have decreased by 30 per cent. In addition, says Gregg Easterbrook, Americans have stopped pumping waste water from cities into lakes and streams, stopped dumping untreated sewage in the sea and toxic wastes on land, and eliminated the use of CFCs.

"Lake Erie 30 years ago was virtually dead," adds Steve Hayward. "Today you can fish in it, you can swim in it. The statistics on the amount of pollution in the food chain have shown dramatic improvement in the last 30 years."

Western cities such as London are cleaner today than they have been for centuries. In the mid 1900s, before cars were even invented, air and water quality was so poor that many thousands of people died each year from typhus and Tuberculosis.

Supporters of economic development don't just argue that the industrial world is getting cleaner, they also say that industrial progress has transformed our lives for the better. "We live longer, we are healthier, we are better educated, we know ourselves better and we are much more able to take control over our destiny than any other time in the past," says Dr Frank Furedi, author of the book Population and Development. "Yes, industrialisation is often exploitative, often leads to the uprooting of people. But at the same time it adds to human civilisation and means progress for all."

[irax]

tell farmers in california who lost crops due to frost bite about global warming.

[jrmiller84]

It's obvious that losing our dependence on fossil fuels is a must. We can argue all we want about whether or not it is harming the environment but we all know we need to work towards eliminating it. If not for the environment, for the economy and progression of mankind.

This is the beginning of an era, many people will look back and say this is when the search for alternative energies started getting serious.

[Kn1ves]

tell farmers in california who lost crops due to frost bite about global warming.

Global warming is a misnomer, its more accurate to say 'Global climate change'

[BLITZZZ]

Either way, oil won't last forever, and the polar ice caps are melting, and less trees = less O2 = More CO2

its kindof an obvious truth...

[Dorifto89]

Global climate collapse.

[EchoOfSilence]

A lot of info on both sides of the issue.

Greenhouse effect has ties to reality, and I heard the ice caps are melting. People have lost crops, sea level is reportedly rising, etc. However, acid rain is a real issue, and air quality is no joke. With China still going crazy about oil (and not to mention 85% of its energy still comes from COAL) pollution, at least over there, is rising without restriction. Breathing Hong Kong air is worse than smoking menthols :keke:

on the other hand, people say the climate change is actually not due to global warming, or 'global climate change.' Sun spots, solar wind, etc. OR that climate changes have always been happening.

People use both sides to battle for and against the pollution issue around the globe, in an attempt to justify emissions, smog, and pollution laws. But both sides may be fabricating evidence, or 'selectively researching.'

damnit, what happened to cold hard facts?
The world is due for a flip in its magnetic poles, and THAT is something to fear.... even though they think it may happen near the end of the next millenium :-X

[irax]

what ever, the world will end on 12/12/12 we all know this

[DoriftoPnoy]

what ever, the world will end on 12/12/12 we all know this

wait it was 12/12/12? i thot it was another date...

im goin thru articles and i find 12/12/12, 12/21/12, 12/22/12, 12/30/12, 12/23/12. well something is pose to happen in december of 2012. one article says its not the end of the world, but the beginning of the "golden era" *shrugs*

but yea global warming. i wanna see more facts. like polar caps getting bigger and etc.

[s13gold]

how can you summarize that article....?

[cmcdougle]

how can you summarize that article....?

Read it, take out the key points, and write a shorter version



Either way, oil won't last forever, and the polar ice caps are melting, and less trees = less O2 = More CO2

its kindof an obvious truth...

Right now there is no definitive proof that Global Warming exists, it's all speculation (and about as accurate as your 7-day weather forecast). What you don't hear are facts like the ice-cap in Antarctica is actually growing.

And, there are more trees now on North America than there were when Columbus stepped foot here (or something like that, maybe it was the Declaration of Independence). And besides, what do the trees have to do with Global Warming?




tell farmers in california who lost crops due to frost bite about global warming.

Haven't you ever heard the prase from like the 18th and 19th centuries, "It was a cold winter"? It happens every now and then.

[hitman]

haha, you guys clearly dont read scientific journals.
there is no debate. the debate is in the media whether it exists or not. or maybe in an article, not a peer reviewed scientific journal.

people who dont beleive in global warming were the same as the people who didnt beleive the earth is round or the earth rotates around the earth.

[Kn1ves]

haha, you guys clearly dont read scientific journals.
there is no debate. the debate is in the media whether it exists or not. or maybe in an article, not a peer reviewed scientific journal.

people who dont beleive in global warming were the same as the people who didnt beleive the earth is round or the earth rotates around the earth.

its not that we dont believe in it, its that, is it caused by fossil fuels or not.

throughout the history of the world, climates has changed.

look up little(mini?) ice age in the middle ages. there was far less pollution then but climate still changed.

were all concerned, but from what im seeing, its just alot of FUD


<3 wiki
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Little_Ice_Age

[hello]

has anyone seen "an inconvenient truth"?? with al gore. it totally contradicts that guy. hahaha!

who should we believe in this mad world???

[EchoOfSilence]

ScienceDirect to the rescue

Referred to by: “Thermal pollution causes global warming”, by B. Nordell [Global Planet. Change 38 (2003), 305–312], Global and Planetary Change, Volume 47, Issue 1, May 2005, Pages 72-73
Curt Covey, Ken Caldeira, Martin Hoffert, Michael MacCracken, Stephen H. Schneider and Tom Wigley

Abstract

Over longer time-scales there is no net heat inflow to Earth since incoming solar energy is re-emitted at exactly the same rate. To maintain Earth's thermal equilibrium, however, there must be a net outflow equal to the geothermal heat flow. Performed calculations show that the net heat outflow in 1880 was equal to the geothermal heat flow, which is the only natural net heat source on Earth. Since then, heat dissipation from the previous termglobalnext term use of nonrenewable energy sources has resulted in additional net heating. In, e.g. Sweden, which is a sparsely populated country, this net heating is about three times greater than the geothermal heat flow. Such thermal pollution contributes to previous termglobal warmingnext term until the previous termglobalnext term temperature has reached a level where this heat is also emitted to space. Heat dissipation from the previous termglobalnext term use of previous termfossil fuelsnext term and nuclear power is the main source of thermal pollution. Here, it was found that one third of current thermal pollution is emitted to space and that a further previous termglobalnext term temperature increase of 1.8 °C is required until Earth is again in thermal equilibrium.




I think this artice is from '01

[EchoOfSilence]

InfroTrac time

"Mitigating the rate and extent of global warming.(Abstract)." Climatic Change 52.3 (Feb 2002): 255(8). Expanded Academic ASAP. Thomson Gale. Univ of California Santa Cruz. 7 Feb. 2007
<http://find.galegroup.com/itx/infomark.do?&contentSet=IAC-Documents&type=retrieve&tabID=T002&prodId=EAIM&docId=A95553366&source=gale&srcprod=EAIM&userGroupName=ucsantacruz&version=1.0>

Mitigation, in the sense of slowing the rate of C[O.sub.2] emission, can reduce the rate of rise of C[O.sub.2] and global warming and limit peak C[O.sub.2] concentration and global warming. However, it will have little effect on the near steady state C[O.sub.2] concentration and corresponding global warming achieved on a millennial timescale once emissions are negligible and the added carbon has been distributed between the ocean, atmosphere and land. Using a simple model with mid-range climate sensitivity, we estimate that the maximum rate of global warming can be limited to <0.2[degrees]C/decade by limiting the rate of increase in fossil fuel emissions this century to <0.03 GtC/yr/yr. However, regardless of the emissions pathway, if the known fossil fuel resource of ~4000 GtC is emitted, C[O.sub.2] will reach ~1000 ppmv and the Earth will be warmed by >5[degrees]C by the end of the millennium. The more carbon emitted, the greater the fraction that remains in the atmosphere, because of positive feedbacks in the carbon cycle-climate system. Less carbon must be emitted to lessen eventual warming. Early consideration should therefore be given to leaving a fraction of fossil carbon unused, and/or to carbon capture and storage.

[HalveBlue]

Global Warming? Who cares?

I live at an elevation of over 5,000 feet. All global warming will do is bring the beach closer to me.

I hate humanity.

From what I've been able to gather, even if (and right now that's a big if) global warming is caused by human activity there are so many factors involved that the ability to pinpiont the cause and solution to the problem probably still evades us.

Also, if I read correctly, if the climate data models hold true and we start working on reducing greenhouse emissions, results will not be seen until 2100.

Not to mention that there is contradicting evidence out there. For instance, while the northern polar ice is melting at an increasing pace, Antarctica has actually seen an increase in ice volume.

Oh well, I'll let the scienticians and my kids figure it out.

[RJF]

Wonder what Al Gore has to say about this?

Antarctic temperatures disagree with climate model predictions

COLUMBUS , Ohio – A new report on climate over the world's southernmost continent shows that temperatures during the late 20th century did not climb as had been predicted by many global climate models.

This comes soon after the latest report by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change that strongly supports the conclusion that the Earth's climate as a whole is warming, largely due to human activity.

It also follows a similar finding from last summer by the same research group that showed no increase in precipitation over Antarctica in the last 50 years. Most models predict that both precipitation and temperature will increase over Antarctica with a warming of the planet.

David Bromwich, professor of professor of atmospheric sciences in the Department of Geography, and researcher with the Byrd Polar Research Center at Ohio State University, reported on this work at the annual meeting of the American Association for the Advancement of Science at San Francisco.

"It's hard to see a global warming signal from the mainland of Antarctica right now," he said. "Part of the reason is that there is a lot of variability there. It's very hard in these polar latitudes to demonstrate a global warming signal. This is in marked contrast to the northern tip of the Antarctic Peninsula that is one of the most rapidly warming parts of the Earth."

Bromwich says that the problem rises from several complications. The continent is vast, as large as the United States and Mexico combined. Only a small amount of detailed data is available – there are perhaps only 100 weather stations on that continent compared to the thousands spread across the U.S. and Europe . And the records that we have only date back a half-century.

"The best we can say right now is that the climate models are somewhat inconsistent with the evidence that we have for the last 50 years from continental Antarctica .

"We're looking for a small signal that represents the impact of human activity and it is hard to find it at the moment," he said.

Last year, Bromwich's research group reported in the journal Science that Antarctic snowfall hadn't increased in the last 50 years. "What we see now is that the temperature regime is broadly similar to what we saw before with snowfall. In the last decade or so, both have gone down," he said.

In addition to the new temperature records and earlier precipitation records, Bromwich's team also looked at the behavior of the circumpolar westerlies, the broad system of winds that surround the Antarctic continent.

"The westerlies have intensified over the last four decades of so, increasing in strength by as much as perhaps 10 to 20 percent," he said. "This is a huge amount of ocean north of Antarctica and we're only now understanding just how important the winds are for things like mixing in the Southern Ocean." The ocean mixing both dissipates heat and absorbs carbon dioxide, one of the key greenhouse gases linked to global warming.

Some researchers are suggesting that the strengthening of the westerlies may be playing a role in the collapse of ice shelves along the Antarctic Peninsula.

"The peninsula is the most northern point of Antarctica and it sticks out into the westerlies," Bromwich says. "If there is an increase in the westerly winds, it will have a warming impact on that part of the continent, thus helping to break up the ice shelves, he said.

"Farther south, the impact would be modest, or even non-existent."

Bromwich said that the increase in the ozone hole above the central Antarctic continent may also be affecting temperatures on the mainland. "If you have less ozone, there's less absorption of the ultraviolet light and the stratosphere doesn't warm as much."

That would mean that winter-like conditions would remain later in the spring than normal, lowering temperatures.

"In some sense, we might have competing effects going on in Antarctica where there is low-level CO2 warming but that may be swamped by the effects of ozone depletion," he said. "The year 2006 was the all-time maximum for ozone depletion over the Antarctic."

Bromwich said the disagreement between climate model predictions and the snowfall and temperature records doesn't necessarily mean that the models are wrong.

"It isn't surprising that these models are not doing as well in these remote parts of the world. These are global models and shouldn't be expected to be equally exact for all locations," he said.


###
Contact: David Bromwich (614) 292-6692; [email protected]

http://www.eurekalert.org/pub_releases/2007-02/osu-atd021207.php

[aa87]

I could make a million posts with evidence of global warming. Whats your point?

[McRussellPants]

heres a fun fact.

Plants grow better when theres more c02 in the air.

S13 with no cats, feedin africa, savin the babies, eat it Al Gore.


also a fun fact.

Prius batterys are as hazardous as nuclear waste, completely unrecycleable, bury it in the ground and cover it with concrete, you're saving the planet by getting 3mpg better than a civic.

[McRussellPants]

everyone can bitch until they're blue in the face. the fact is them using electricity causes more pollution than the shitty caddy running on 5 cylinders down the street.


There is no solution, cars may account for 10%, but donker coal plants account for 60%, and theres nothing feasible to replace it with.

[D1champ]

I'll believe David Suzuki before I believe this bozo! Where did you dig up that trash?

[louis110]

I only read the original article and a couple of responses in this thread, but what I noticed is that the author of the article (no matter how qualified he is) just criticized and bashed on other researchers without supplying any evidence of his own argument. Not once did he provide any reason to believe that global warming is not caused by humans. Yes there's climate changes, but I think that with the industrial revolution and the sudden surge of emission gases from our technology, we actually acted as a catalyst to the climate change- that is to accelerate it and even make it more drastic. Just look at a city skyline on a hot summer day, you can literally see the shit that lingers in our atmosphere. You expect me to believe that that smog has absolutely nothing to do with the change in our climate?? bullshit.

[aa87]

Need more nuclear plants. Then we can send nuclear waste to space. The end.

[hitman]

solar energy

[theicecreamdan]

Yeah... until you start manufacturing solar cells... that's a pretty nasty process.

Windmills, well what happens when you start taking too much energy out of the earth's weather? Another ice age?

Fact is, wherever we get out energy from, it has to be converted and that costs more energy from somewhere else. I'm all for alternative energy but not for the environment's sake. Nature has had to adapt due to human intervention for a long time, I think she can handle us just fine.

Global climate is too HUGE to figure out how much of an effect we really have on it. All we have are speculations and theories.

[cmcdougle]

Fact is, wherever we get out energy from, it has to be converted and that costs more energy from somewhere else. I'm all for alternative energy but not for the environment's sake. Nature has had to adapt due to human intervention for a long time, I think she can handle us just fine.

Global climate is too HUGE to figure out how much of an effect we really have on it. All we have are speculations and theories.

:werd:

werd

werd

[enen11]

2012 based on mayan calender.

www.enterprisemission.com :a whole lot of intellectual stuff on all sorts of astronomy shit, based on scientific research/calculations.

haven't been on that site in a while so don't know all its contents

wait it was 12/12/12? i thot it was another date...

im goin thru articles and i find 12/12/12, 12/21/12, 12/22/12, 12/30/12, 12/23/12. well something is pose to happen in december of 2012. one article says its not the end of the world, but the beginning of the "golden era" *shrugs*

but yea global warming. i wanna see more facts. like polar caps getting bigger and etc.

[xcusememisswyn]

forget global warming, on Friday the 13th, 2029 an asteroid is going to come closer to the earth than any of the satellites... and seven years later, well it may just hit us...

http://science.nasa.gov/headlines/y2005/13may_2004mn4.htm

[cmcdougle]

lol at the 2012 thing. $1000 bucks it's not happening.

[xcusememisswyn]

lol at the 2012 thing. $1000 bucks it's not happening.

lets say i took your bet, what would i get to do with my winnings?

[fromxtor]

^^ I concour with the first post, "state of fear" was a very good book. Life is too short for me to worry about theories all day. I can only deal with facts that can be proven.

[240giiiirrrrl]

all i know is.. every year its just gonna get even more hotter in the summer and colder in the winter..maybe it might even snow in so cal

[Tenchuu]

more and more scientists are comeing out against this global warming political myth. the earth goes through climate changes naturally. saying that me drivieng an SUV is doing it is like saying that your kid can't scoop water out of the ocean with a toy pail because he is going to drain it.

and for the record, coldist summer i have lived thorough this last summer. when i was a kit it flooded every winter. then highschool it tapered off, now it is cooling back down and raining more. it is all give and take.

[illvialuver]

i thkn peopel just want to put a name on it, and now people want to argue about the name.
even if they are wronge about the emissions causeing it, we all need to be a little environmentaly concience. Like not burn down the rainforest, and recycle, and try not to leave lights and shit on when your not using them, just try no tto waste. and abou driving hybrid cars, fuck that. this is a car forum not lets drive a fuckin computer forum. if i wanted a car that ran off electricity I wouldnt need a license, its an rc car i drove them shits when i was 5.

[RJF]

more and more scientists are comeing out against this global warming political myth. the earth goes through climate changes naturally.

It has to be true....Hollywood says so :bs:

And to prove it they gave the loser an Academy Award.

http://www.drudgereport.com/gore.jpg

I wish I could have put money on that in Vegas....that award was the biggest sure thing since Fat-Ass won his Academy Award for Fahrenheit 911

[klohiq]

all i know is.. every year its just gonna get even more hotter in the summer and colder in the winter..maybe it might even snow in so cal

Do a google search and look for global cooling, it was a theory in the 70s...there's also several books dispelling the myths and hype around global warming.

I honestly don't know what to think, but trying to make cars that don't pollute while china is burning coal and we have nukes doesn't make any sense to me. Pollution is a fact of human existence...we are not like other animals and nearly everything we do creates waste the evironment isn't designed for. Look at all of our landfills, housing developments, etc etc etc

We will eventually destroy the planet one way or another, if we don't pollute it to destruction I'm sure WW3 will break out someday and everyone will have a nuke orgy...

[theicecreamdan]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Zeitgeist

[Farzam]

I'm probably gonna die next week, so whatever.

[RJF]

Seems Gore doesn't practice what he preaches.


POWER: GORE MANSION USES 20X AVERAGE HOUSEHOLD; CONSUMPTION INCREASE AFTER 'TRUTH'Mon Feb 26 2007 17:16:14 ET

The Tennessee Center for Policy Research, an independent, nonprofit and nonpartisan research organization committed to achieving a freer, more prosperous Tennessee through free market policy solutions, issued a press release late Monday:



Last night, Al Gore’s global-warming documentary, An Inconvenient Truth, collected an Oscar for best documentary feature, but the Tennessee Center for Policy Research has found that Gore deserves a gold statue for hypocrisy.

Gore’s mansion, [20-room, eight-bathroom] located in the posh Belle Meade area of Nashville, consumes more electricity every month than the average American household uses in an entire year, according to the Nashville Electric Service (NES).

In his documentary, the former Vice President calls on Americans to conserve energy by reducing electricity consumption at home.

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

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

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

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

“As the spokesman of choice for the global warming movement, Al Gore has to be willing to walk to walk, not just talk the talk, when it comes to home energy use,” said Tennessee Center for Policy Research President Drew Johnson.

In total, Gore paid nearly $30,000 in combined electricity and natural gas bills for his Nashville estate in 2006.

For Further Information, Contact:
Nicole Williams, (615) 383-6431
[email protected]

[koukimonster139]

i think this why we have global warming. We're like 1/2 inch from the sun

http://i57.photobucket.com/albums/g210/driftgay/SUN.jpg

[cmcdougle]

Seems Gore doesn't practice what he preaches.


POWER: GORE MANSION USES 20X AVERAGE HOUSEHOLD; CONSUMPTION INCREASE AFTER 'TRUTH'Mon Feb 26 2007 17:16:14 ET

The Tennessee Center for Policy Research, an independent, nonprofit and nonpartisan research organization committed to achieving a freer, more prosperous Tennessee through free market policy solutions, issued a press release late Monday:



Last night, Al Gore’s global-warming documentary, An Inconvenient Truth, collected an Oscar for best documentary feature, but the Tennessee Center for Policy Research has found that Gore deserves a gold statue for hypocrisy.

Gore’s mansion, [20-room, eight-bathroom] located in the posh Belle Meade area of Nashville, consumes more electricity every month than the average American household uses in an entire year, according to the Nashville Electric Service (NES).

In his documentary, the former Vice President calls on Americans to conserve energy by reducing electricity consumption at home.

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

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

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

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

“As the spokesman of choice for the global warming movement, Al Gore has to be willing to walk to walk, not just talk the talk, when it comes to home energy use,” said Tennessee Center for Policy Research President Drew Johnson.

In total, Gore paid nearly $30,000 in combined electricity and natural gas bills for his Nashville estate in 2006.

For Further Information, Contact:
Nicole Williams, (615) 383-6431
[email protected]



I was just going to post this. I don't think any of the political leaders practice what they preach; they just want to make life miserable for the rest of us.

Did you see Gore and his speech with Leo and the band about global warming during the Oscars? I thought it was pretty funny.