I bet Bear thinks it is supposed to get warm in Canada's far north regions.
Absolute faith has been shown, consistently, to breed intolerance. And intolerance, history teaches us, again and again, begets violence.
---------------------------------- The duty of a patriot in this time and place is to ask questions, to demand answers, to understand where our nation is headed and why. If the answers you get do not suit you, or if they frighten you, or if they anger you, it is your duty as a patriot to dissent. Freedom does not begin with blind acceptance and with a flag. Freedom begins when you say 'No.'
posted on December 29, 2006 05:32:59 PM new
When 41 square miles of ice shelf in Canada's artic breaks off into the ocean causing earthquake monitors to pick up the tremors 155 miles away, I do believe that anyone who fails to recognize that as global warming or calls it a hoax has rocks for brains.
posted on December 29, 2006 05:44:33 PM new
Here's an interesting opinion--one of many with the same line of thinking- but Holy Ozone, Batman--This one has Bush's name attached!:
Federal Climate Change Science Program, 2006
On May 2, 2006, the Federal Climate Change Science Program commissioned by the Bush administration in 2002 released the first of 21 assessments that concluded that there is clear evidence of human influences on the climate system (due to changes in greenhouse gases, aerosols, and stratospheric ozone) [6]. The study said that observed patterns of change over the past 50 years cannot be explained by natural processes alone, though it did not state what percentage of climate change might be anthropogenic in nature
posted on December 29, 2006 05:47:28 PM new
The problem with what helen posts is that the wacko eco's
just take ONE place to use as their supposed 'evidence'.
When anyone who actually reads all the facts will find out in other places that ISN'T occurring.
But, of course, they don't mention THAT FACT.
"While the democratic party complains about everything THIS President does to protect our Nation": "What would a Democrat president have done at that point?"
"Apparently, the answer is: Sit back and wait for the next terrorist attack."
posted on December 29, 2006 05:52:24 PM new
Tell you what....because you can't change the unwilling who refuse to open their minds to what they've read in the NYT's....lol lol anyway.....
When the day comes that this President signs the kyoto treaty....I'll believe you that he's 'flip-flopped' or has backpeddled on his original position.
Until THEN....you're not going to even consider the 'other' side of this issue so there's just NO point in trying to convince you otherwise.
"While the democratic party complains about everything THIS President does to protect our Nation": "What would a Democrat president have done at that point?"
"Apparently, the answer is: Sit back and wait for the next terrorist attack."
posted on December 29, 2006 06:42:53 PM newyou're not going to even consider the 'other' side of this issue so there's just NO point in trying to convince you otherwise.
Spoken like a true believer in what she preaches.
Linda you should first take your own advice before you start preaching it to others.
When was the last time you tried to listen to the other side? You are the biggest phony here.
Absolute faith has been shown, consistently, to breed intolerance. And intolerance, history teaches us, again and again, begets violence.
---------------------------------- The duty of a patriot in this time and place is to ask questions, to demand answers, to understand where our nation is headed and why. If the answers you get do not suit you, or if they frighten you, or if they anger you, it is your duty as a patriot to dissent. Freedom does not begin with blind acceptance and with a flag. Freedom begins when you say 'No.'
posted on December 29, 2006 06:51:49 PM new
Oh....lol....the delusional one call me a phoney.
That's sweet....and oh so incorrect.
I read what posters write...then usually I post the other side. Post FACTS....not some made up propoganda by some IDIOT like gore.
"While the democratic party complains about everything THIS President does to protect our Nation": "What would a Democrat president have done at that point?"
"Apparently, the answer is: Sit back and wait for the next terrorist attack."
posted on December 29, 2006 06:55:56 PM newAs I've stated over and over profe, I believe ALL interested ADULTS are quite capable of doing their own research on the issues we discuss here.
Yet it's perfectly OK for you to post your ignorant statements like "Gore's nonsense" without justification or backup. That's exactly what I figured you'd say Linda. While you offered no proof for "Gore's nonsense", you can always be counted on to provide ongoing proof of your own.
posted on December 29, 2006 08:21:06 PM new
profe....what's funny is you telling me that I haven't many times provided backup. I have. But after four or five times...it gets pretty old having to hand on a silver platter info that anyone CAN look up themselves.
As a matter of fact...you, yourself have made a point of mentioning that when your students don't know the answer to something...YOU tell them to LOOK IT UP. LOL LOL LOL
But somehow it's different when you or any other lazy liberal wants it handed to them time and time again.
Now THAT'S funny.
edited to add:
matter of fact....anyone who's not too lazy to click on the link I DID provide....can read all those sites where gore was DEBUNKED...by scientists.
=================
"While the democratic party complains about everything THIS President does to protect our Nation": "What would a Democrat president have done at that point?"
"Apparently, the answer is: Sit back and wait for the next terrorist attack."
Ann Coulter
[ edited by Linda_K on Dec 29, 2006 08:25 PM ]
posted on December 29, 2006 11:33:03 PM new
Linda, the only "scientists" left who state that global warming isn't real, isn't here now and isn't at least partially human caused are shills for fossil fuel companies and others in similar industries or those who conduct their "research" for somebody with a political axe to grind. Your president has now conceded the point. We know you won't, ever, and so this conversation is pointless.
posted on December 30, 2006 06:38:17 AM new
Hey, bigpeepa, my lilac bushes are budding because of the warmth here. But, I believe this also happened during the last El Nino. Gosh, yesterday I was out in a light jacket. You normally can't do that this time of year in Cleveland.
Cheryl
Summer
1995 - 2006
Gone but never forgotten.
Earlier this year, a group of prominent scientists came forward to question the so-called 'consensus'¯ that the Earth faces a 'climate emergency.'¯
On April 6, 2006, 60 scientists wrote a letter to the Canadian Prime Minister asserting that the science is deteriorating from underneath global warming alarmists.
"Observational evidence does not support today's computer climate models, so there is little reason to trust model predictions of the future."
Significant [scientific] advances have been made since the [Kyoto] protocol was created, many of which are taking us away from a concern about increasing greenhouse gases.
If, back in the mid-1990s, we knew what we know today about climate, Kyoto would almost certainly not exist, because we would have concluded it was not necessary," the 60 scientists wrote.
"It was only 30 years ago that many of today's global-warming alarmists were telling us that the world was in the midst of a global-cooling catastrophe. But the science continued to evolve, and still does, even though so many choose to ignore it when it does not fit with predetermined political agendas,"¯ the 60 scientists concluded.
'Climate Change is Nothing New'
In addition, an October 16, 2006 Washington Post article titled 'Climate Change is Nothing New'¯ echoed the sentiments of the 60 scientists as it detailed a new study of the earth's climate history. The Washington Post article by reporter Christopher Lee noted that Indiana University geologist Simon Brassell found climate change occurred during the age of dinosaurs and quoted Brassell questioning the accuracy of computer climate model predictions.
Also, according to the International Arctic Research Institute, despite all of the media hype, the Arctic was warmer in the 1930's than today.
Polar Bears Not Going Extinct
Despite Time Magazine and the rest of the media's unfounded hype, polar bears are not facing a crisis, according to biologist Dr. Mitchell Taylor from the Arctic government of Nunavut.
"Of the 13 populations of polar bears in Canada, 11 are stable or increasing in number. They are not going extinct, or even appear to be affected at present,"¯ Taylor wrote on May 1, 2006.
As all of this new data debunking climate alarmism mounts, the mainstream media chooses to ignore it and instead focus on the dire predictions of the number-one global warming media darling, NASA's James Hansen.
The increasingly alarmist Hansen is featured frequently in the media to bolster sky-is-falling climate scare reports. His recent claim that the Earth is nearing its hottest point in one million years has been challenged by many scientists.
Hansen's increasingly frightening climate predictions follow his 2003 concession that the use of 'extreme scenarios'¯ was an appropriate tactic to drive the public's attention to the urgency of global warming.
Hansen also received a $250,000 grant form Teresa Heinz's Foundation and then subsequently endorsed her husband John Kerry for President and worked closely with Al Gore to promote his movie, 'An Inconvenient Truth.'¯
The global warming alarmists may have significantly overplayed their hand in the climate debate.
A Los Angeles Times/Bloomberg poll this August found that most Americans do not attribute the cause of any recent severe weather events to global warming, and the portion of Americans who believe that climate change is due to natural variability has increased over 50% in the last five years.
Senator Inhofe Chastises Media For Unscientific & Unprincipled Climate Reporting
Senator James Inhofe (R-Okla.) Chairman of the Environment and Public Works Committee, commented last week on the media's unfounded global warming hype and some of the recent scientific research that is shattering the so-called 'consensus'¯ that human greenhouse gas emissions have doomed the planet.
"The American people are fed up with media for promoting the idea that former Vice President Al Gore represents the scientific "consensus" that SUV's and the modern American way of life have somehow created a 'climate emergency' that only United Nations bureaucrats and wealthy Hollywood liberals can solve.
It is the publicity and grant seeking global warming alarmists and their advocates in the media who have finally realized that the only 'emergency'¯ confronting them is their rapidly crumbling credibility, audience and bottom line.
"The global warming alarmists know their science is speculative at best and their desperation grows each day as it becomes more and more obvious that many of the nations that ratified the woeful Kyoto Protocol are failing to comply,"¯ Senator Inhofe said last week.
The further you get from scientists who conduct these alarmist global warming studies, and the further you get from the financial grants and the institutions that they serve the more the climate alarmism fades and the skepticism grows,"¯ Senator Inhofe explained.
'Eco-Doomsayers' Failed Predictions
In a speech on the Senate floor on September 25, 2006, Senator Inhofe pointed out the abject failure of past predictions of ecological disaster made by environmental alarmists.
posted on December 30, 2006 09:21:31 AM new
I still say its a cycle the earth is going through. not like there are records from 500 years ago to prove the cycle isnt normal.
As to the ice shelf that broke away in Canada, I figure all the BS that has accumulated up there caused it to break away.
"“More Iraqis think things are going well in Iraq than Americans do. I guess they don’t get the New York Times over there.”—Jay Leno".
posted on December 30, 2006 09:55:15 AM newAmerican People Rejecting Global Warming Alarmism
The global warming alarmists may have significantly overplayed their hand in the climate debate.
A Los Angeles Times/Bloomberg poll this August found that most Americans do not attribute the cause of any recent severe weather events to global warming, and the portion of Americans who believe that climate change is due to natural variability has increased over 50% in the last five years.
I see Crybaby_K is suddenly believing poll results again. I wonder if it is because this so called poll supports her own agenda. I thought Crybaby_K preached how much see did not believe in polls. She has either flip-flopped just like Bush or she IS LYING ONCE AGAIN.
60 Scientists Debunk Global Warming Fears
Wow there is a good percentage of scientisits. 60 scientists out of all the thousands of scientists. In my book that is an overwhelming percentage of scientists that are debunking global warming - NOT.
Absolute faith has been shown, consistently, to breed intolerance. And intolerance, history teaches us, again and again, begets violence.
----------------------------------
The duty of a patriot in this time and place is to ask questions, to demand answers, to understand where our nation is headed and why. If the answers you get do not suit you, or if they frighten you, or if they anger you, it is your duty as a patriot to dissent. Freedom does not begin with blind acceptance and with a flag. Freedom begins when you say 'No.'
[ edited by logansdad on Dec 30, 2006 10:27 AM ]
posted on December 30, 2006 09:58:54 AM new
As to the Gore "documentary", a few points from a climatology prof at Arizona State:
(1) Near the beginning of the film, Gore pays respects to his Harvard mentor and inspiration, Dr. Roger Revelle. Gore praises Revelle for his discovery that atmospheric CO2 levels were rising and could potentially contribute to higher temperatures at a global scale. There is no mention of Revelle's article published in the early 1990s concluding that the science is "too uncertain to justify drastic action." (S.F. Singer, C. Starr, and R. Revelle, "What to do about Greenhouse Warming: Look Before You Leap. Cosmos 1 (1993) 28-33.)
(2) Gore discusses glacial and snowpack retreats atop Mt. Kilimanjaro, implying that human induced global warming is to blame. But Gore fails to mention that the snows of Kilimanjaro have been retreating for more than 100 years, largely due to declining atmospheric moisture, not global warming. Gore does not acknowledge the two major articles on the subject published in 2004 in the International Journal of Climatology and the Journal of Geophysical Research showing that modern glacier retreat on Kilimanjaro was initiated by a reduction in precipitation at the end of the nineteenth century and not by local or global warming.
(3) Many of Gore's conclusions are based on the "Hockey Stick" that shows near constant global temperatures for 1,000 years with a sharp increase in temperature from 1900 onward. The record Gore chooses in the film completely wipes out the Medieval Warm Period of 1,000 years ago and Little Ice Age that started 500 years ago and ended just over 100 years ago. There is evidence from throughout the world that these climate episodes existed, but on Gore's Hockey Stick, they become nothing more than insignificant fluctuations (Gore even jokes at one point about the Medieval Warm period).
(4) You will certainly not be surprised to see Katrina, other hurricanes, tornadoes, flash floods, and many types of severe weather events linked by Gore to global warming. However, if one took the time to read the downloadable "Summary for Policymakers" in the latest report from the United Nations Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), one would learn that "No systematic changes in the frequency of tornadoes, thunder days, or hail events are evident in the limited areas analysed" and that "Changes globally in tropical and extra-tropical storm intensity and frequency are dominated by inter-decadal and multi-decadal variations, with no significant trends evident over the 20th century."
(5) Gore claims that sea level rise could drown the Pacific islands, Florida, major cities the world over, and the 9/11 Memorial in New York City. No mention is made of the fact that sea level has been rising at a rate of 1.8 mm per year for the past 8,000 years; the IPCC notes that "No significant acceleration in the rate of sea level rise during the 20th century has been detected."
(6) Near the end of the film, we learn of ways the United States could reduce emissions of greenhouse gases back to the levels of 1970. OK. Assume the United States accomplishes this lofty goal, would we see any impact on climate? The well-known answer is no. China, India and many other countries are significantly increasing their emission levels, and global concentrations of CO2 may double this century no matter what we decide to do in the United States. Even if the Kyoto Protocol could be fully implemented to honor the opening of this movie, the globe would be spared no more than a few hundredths of a degree of warming.
1. The Earth was formed about 4,540,000,000 years ago.
2. In the beginning, the Earth's atmosphere contained very little oxygen (less than 1% oxygen pressure).
3. Early plants started to develop more than 2 billion years ago, probably about 2,700,000,000.
4. Through photosynthesis, plants uptake carbon dioxide into the biosphere as organic matter, and release oxygen as a byproduct.
5. Through geologic time, oxygen accumulated gradually in the atmosphere, reaching a value of about 21% of atmospheric gases at the present time.
6. Through geologic time, surplus organic matter has been sequestered in the lithosphere as fossil organic materials (coal, petroleum, and natural gas).
7. Early animals (the first organisms with external shells) started to develop around 600,000,000 years ago.
8. Animals operate in the opposite way than plants: they take up oxygen, burn organic matter (food), and release carbon dioxide as a byproduct.
9. Early humans (Australopithecus anamensis) began to develop about 4,100,000 years ago.
10. Cool climatic conditions have prevailed during the past 1,000,000 years. The species Homo sapiens evolved under these climatic conditions.
11, Homo sapiens dates back to more than 400,000 years.
12. Estimates for the variety Homo sapiens sapiens, to which all humans belong, range from 130,000 to 195,000 years old.
13. The concentration of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere was as low as 190 ppm during the last Ice Age, about 21,000 years ago.
14. The last Ice Age began to recede about 20,000 years ago.
15. The agricultural revolution, where humans converted forests and rangelands into farms, began to develop about 10,000 years ago.
16. The agricultural revolution caused a reduction in standing biomass in the biosphere and reduced the uptake of carbon dioxide in midlatitudinal regions, indirectly contributing, however so slightly, to global warming.
17. The concentration of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere increased gradually from a low of 190 ppm 21,000 year ago, to about 290 ppm in the year 1900, i.e., at an average rate of 0.00478 ppm per year.
18. The industrial revolution, where humans developed machines (artificial animals, since they consume fuels, which are mostly organic matter), began in England about 240 years ago (1767).
19. In October 1999, the world's population reached 6,000,000,000, which is double that of the year 1959 (the doubling occurred in 40 years).
20. The world's population is currently increasing at the rate of about 80,000,000 per year (about 1.2 %).
21. The current world population is 6,560,000,000 (December 2006).
22. The global fleet of motor vehicles is estimated at 830,000,000 (2006).
23. The global fleet of motor vehicles has been recently growing at the rate of 16,000,000 per year.
24. Motor vehicles (cars, trucks, buses, and scooters) account for 80% of all transport-related energy use.
25. The concentration of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere, which was at 290 ppm in the year 1900, rose to 316 ppm in 1959, or at an average 0.44 ppm per year.
26. Measurements of the concentration of carbon dioxide since 1959 (316 ppm) have revealed an increase to 378 ppm in 2004, or at an average 1.38 ppm per year.
27. The concentration of carbon dioxide has increased an average of about 1.8 ppm per year over the past two decades.
28. The concentration of carbon dioxide increased 2.87 ppm in 1997-98, more than in any other year of record.
29. The year 1998 was the warmest of record. The year 2002 was the second warmest (to that date). The year 2003 was the third warmest (to that date). The year 2004 was the fourth warmest (to that date). Last year (2005) equaled 1998 as the warmest of record.
30. About 75% of the annual increase in atmospheric carbon dioxide is due to the burning of fossil fuels.
31. The remaining 25% is attributed to anthropogenic changes in land use, which have the effect of reducing the net uptake of carbon dioxide.
32. Anthropogenic changes in land use occur when forests are converted to rangelands, rangelands to agriculture, and agriculture to urban areas.
33. Other patterns of land degradation--deforestation, overgrazing, overcultivation, desertification, and salinization--reduce the net uptake of carbon dioxide, indirectly contributing, however slightly, to global warming.
posted on December 30, 2006 10:26:37 AM new
cblev65252 & mingotree, thanks
Thanks I see several Willow trees budding out around here.
Hey Bear,
Tornadoes in Texas the likes of Texas People haven't seen in December. Bushy and family had to scramble from ranch to shelter.
Hey Liar_K,
Bushy not only Flipped Flopped he Flopped Splashed in his own Bull Roar about Global Warming. You Liar_k are following Bushy closely behind and Flop Splashing in his and your own Bull Roar.
SOME PEOPLE LIKE LIAR_K JUST DON'T GET IT AND NEVER WILL. ITS A GOOD THING THAT THE AMERICAN PEOPLE HAVE HER A MINORITY IN HER THINKING AND HER VIEWS INSIGNIFICANT.
Absolute faith has been shown, consistently, to breed intolerance. And intolerance, history teaches us, again and again, begets violence.
----------------------------------
The duty of a patriot in this time and place is to ask questions, to demand answers, to understand where our nation is headed and why. If the answers you get do not suit you, or if they frighten you, or if they anger you, it is your duty as a patriot to dissent. Freedom does not begin with blind acceptance and with a flag. Freedom begins when you say 'No.'
[ edited by logansdad on Dec 30, 2006 10:33 AM ]
posted on December 30, 2006 10:33:00 AM newAs to the Gore "documentary", a few points from a climatology prof at Arizona State:
So much for an unbaiased view from the AZ State scientist.
Rebuttal To Gore Movie, Enthusiastically Embraced By The Right, Grossly Distorts Scientific Facts
An article published on Tech Central Station is buzzing around the right-wing blogosphere as the definitive rebuttal to Al Gore’s movie, An Inconvenient Truth. It’s written by Dr. Robert Balling, a climatology professor at Arizona State University who has received over $400,000 in funding from ExxonMobil, OPEC and the fossil fuels industry over the last decade.
Scientists will say just about anything when they are being backed by the oil companies.
Absolute faith has been shown, consistently, to breed intolerance. And intolerance, history teaches us, again and again, begets violence.
---------------------------------- The duty of a patriot in this time and place is to ask questions, to demand answers, to understand where our nation is headed and why. If the answers you get do not suit you, or if they frighten you, or if they anger you, it is your duty as a patriot to dissent. Freedom does not begin with blind acceptance and with a flag. Freedom begins when you say 'No.'
posted on December 30, 2006 10:41:02 AM newStudy Shows Greenland's Ice Growing A 2005 study by a scientist named Ola Johannessen and his colleagues showed that the interior of Greenland is gaining ice mass.
The whole truth can be found here. Someone only reported part of the story - the part that supports her viewpoint.
Absolute faith has been shown, consistently, to breed intolerance. And intolerance, history teaches us, again and again, begets violence.
---------------------------------- The duty of a patriot in this time and place is to ask questions, to demand answers, to understand where our nation is headed and why. If the answers you get do not suit you, or if they frighten you, or if they anger you, it is your duty as a patriot to dissent. Freedom does not begin with blind acceptance and with a flag. Freedom begins when you say 'No.'
posted on December 30, 2006 11:20:58 AM new
Like I said....it would never get through the lock minds where the keys have, long ago, been thrown away.
There are hundreds of quotes, just like the one that desquirrel posted, written by scientists that offer their side of the issue....also debunking this 'media hyped' mania. tsk tsk tsk
posted on December 30, 2006 12:32:41 PM new
According to logansdads opening post to this thread.....he states that the President is 'flip-flopping' on his position.
I don't see any mention of that in the WA Post article link he gave. Plus on top of that....why would his administration be being SUED IF he HAD flipped?
Logansdad wants us to believe that President Bush has flip-flopped because of the bears????? But he's being SUED because he's taken their side of the issue now????
I don't think so. Again...it's the inability to be able to READ the written word.
"While the democratic party complains about everything THIS President does to protect our Nation": "What would a Democrat president have done at that point?"
"Apparently, the answer is: Sit back and wait for the next terrorist attack."
posted on December 30, 2006 12:40:30 PM new
The fact is we can produce opinions from scientists on both sides of this issue, though the VAST majority support the opinion that global warming is a serious and mostly man-made problem. It would be foolish to completely ignore these warnings. Keeping our heads in the sand could produce very dire consequences. If we do something about the problem and later discover they are wrong, we've wasted money and manpower. If they are right and we ignore them, it could eventually lead to disasters of unimaginable magnitude.
posted on December 30, 2006 12:43:34 PM newU.S. weighs listing polar bear as threatened species
WA Post
By Yereth Rosen
Reuters Wednesday, December 27, 2006; 7:25 PM
ANCHORAGE, Alaska (Reuters)
- With their icy Arctic habitat melting, polar bears need new protections under the Endangered Species Act, Bush administration officials said on Wednesday in a decision that raised questions about the president's skeptical stance on global warming.
The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service proposed that the bears, a white-furred icon of the North, be listed as "threatened" under the act. Such a listing would force government agencies to ensure they take no action that jeopardizes the animal's existence.
That in turn could pressure the government to consider tougher measures to clean up the air because most scientists believe carbon dioxide emissions cause global warming.
Bush administration officials, however, indicated there would be no new curbs on oil drilling in Alaska or limits on greenhouse-gas emissions.
The proposal, reached in a settlement with environmental groups that had sued the Bush administration for allegedly failing to protect the bears, means a formal listing decision will be made within 12 months of further study, officials said.
"We are making this proposal because a scientific review of the species by the Fish and Wildlife Service found that populations may be threatened by receding sea ice, which polar bears use as a platform for many activities essential to their life cycle, including hunting for their main prey, Arctic seals,"
Interior Secretary Dirk Kempthorne said in a telephone a news conference.
Still, Kempthorne said an endangered species listing could not be used to trigger new limits to greenhouse-gas emissions. "That whole argument of climate change is beyond the scope of the Endangered Species Act," he said.
Another Bush administration official absolved the oil industry on Alaska's North Slope of blame for the polar bears' woes.
"All of the 30 years of experience that we've had on the North Slope has proven to us that the oil industry has no impact," said Dale Hall, director of the Fish and Wildlife Service.
Kassie Siegel, an attorney for one of the groups that sued to win protections for polar bears, disputed Hall's conclusion. She said even if the oil industry, which produces fossil fuels that create greenhouse gases, had no direct impact on bears in the past, the changes to habitat make the bears more vulnerable to industrial activities.
