I'm sure this site won't meet with kiara's approval either.
TOO BAD.
And example of ONE quote in this article:
Appearing before the Commons Committee on Environment and Sustainable Development last year, Carleton University paleoclimatologist Professor Tim Patterson testified, "There is no meaningful correlation between CO2 levels and Earth's temperature over this [geologic] time frame.
In fact, when CO2 levels were over ten times higher than they are now, about 450 million years ago, the planet was in the depths of the absolute coldest period in the last half billion years."
Patterson asked the committee, "On the basis of this evidence, how could anyone still believe that the recent relatively small increase in CO2 levels would be the major cause of the past century's modest warming?"
Patterson concluded his testimony by explaining what his research and "hundreds of other studies" reveal: on all time scales, there is very good correlation between Earth's temperature and natural celestial phenomena such changes in the brightness of the Sun.
[ edited by Linda_K on Feb 5, 2007 12:38 AM ]
FrontPageMag.com is a neo-conservative magazine founded by ex-Marxist (Trokskyite) turned neo-conservative activist David Horowitz. FrontPage's output ranges from old-fashioned red-baiting and neocon punditry, to pushing pro-Likud zionist propaganda.
posted on February 5, 2007 08:27:41 AM
"""FrontPageMag.com is a neo-conservative magazine founded by ex-Marxist (Trokskyite) turned neo-conservative activist David Horowitz. FrontPage's output ranges from old-fashioned red-baiting and neocon punditry, to pushing pro-Likud zionist propaganda."""
posted on February 5, 2007 08:56:18 AM
Well lets see. Thousands of years ago when the Vikings landed on the island they named Greenland, the found the climate agreeable to growing various crops, including grapes. They lived for years / centuries cultivating the land.
Did global WARMING cause the climate on Greenland turn into a dessert? No, just the opposite.
What is causing the current ice fields in Greenland and the Arctic to melt? Could it be because the sun is burning hotter that it has is centuries.
Has the water level risen appreciably in coastal regions of the world due to this melting ice?, NO.
Has the polar bear population suffered because of the temporary decreased ice in the Arctic?, NO. The population of the polar bears has increased to over 20,000 from a declining population just a few years ago.
If the polar bears was in such danger of extension, why does the government of Canada allow hunters (thought a limited few) permits to hunt those trophy animals?
Global warming has become the newest cause of the defeatist left and the world Bush haters to bash Pres Bush.
Global warming is only pure speculation and a unproven theory.
Even major scientists cannot agree on the major.
----------
Chill out over global warming
By David Harsanyi
Denver Post Staff Columnist
Denver Post
Article Last Updated:12/26/2006 12:31:50 PM MST
You'll often hear the left lecture about the importance of dissent in a free society.
Why not give it a whirl?
Start by challenging global warming hysteria next time you're at a LoDo cocktail party and see what happens.
Admittedly, I possess virtually no expertise in science. That puts me in exactly the same position as most dogmatic environmentalists who want to craft public policy around global warming fears.
The only inconvenient truth about global warming, contends Colorado State University's Bill Gray, is that a genuine debate has never actually taken place. Hundreds of scientists, many of them prominent in the field, agree.
Gray is perhaps the world's foremost hurricane expert. His Tropical Storm Forecast sets the standard. Yet, his criticism of the global warming "hoax" makes him an outcast.
"They've been brainwashing us for 20 years," Gray says. "Starting with the nuclear winter and now with the global warming. This scare will also run its course. In 15-20 years, we'll look back and see what a hoax this was."
Gray directs me to a 1975 Newsweek article that whipped up a different fear: a coming ice age.
"Climatologists," reads the piece, "are pessimistic that political leaders will take any positive action to compensate for the climatic change. ... The longer the planners delay, the more difficult will they find it to cope with climatic change once the results become grim reality."
Thank God they did nothing. Imagine how warm we'd be?
Another highly respected climatologist, Roger Pielke Sr. at the University of Colorado, is also skeptical.
Pielke contends there isn't enough intellectual diversity in the debate. He claims a few vocal individuals are quoted "over and over" again, when in fact there are a variety of opinions.
I ask him: How do we fix the public perception that the debate is over?
"Quite frankly," says Pielke, who runs the Climate Science Weblog (climatesci.atmos.colostate.edu), "I think the media is in the ideal position to do that. If the media honestly presented the views out there, which they rarely do, things would change. There aren't just two sides here. There are a range of opinions on this issue. A lot of scientists out there that are very capable of presenting other views are not being heard."
Al Gore (not a scientist) has definitely been heard - and heard and heard. His documentary, "An Inconvenient Truth," is so important, in fact, that Gore crisscrosses the nation destroying the atmosphere just to tell us about it.
"Let's just say a crowd of baby boomers and yuppies have hijacked this thing," Gray says. "It's about politics. Very few people have experience with some real data. I think that there is so much general lack of knowledge on this. I've been at this over 50 years down in the trenches working, thinking and teaching."
Gray acknowledges that we've had some warming the past 30 years. "I don't question that," he explains. "And humans might have caused a very slight amount of this warming. Very slight. But this warming trend is not going to keep on going. My belief is that three, four years from now, the globe will start to cool again, as it did from the middle '40s to the middle '70s."
Both Gray and Pielke say there are many younger scientists who voice their concerns about global warming hysteria privately but would never jeopardize their careers by speaking up.
"Plenty of young people tell me they don't believe it," he says. "But they won't touch this at all. If they're smart, they'll say: 'I'm going to let this run its course.' It's a sort of mild McCarthyism. I just believe in telling the truth the best I can. I was brought up that way."
So next time you're with some progressive friends, dissent. Tell 'em you're not sold on this global warming stuff.
Back away slowly. You'll probably be called a fascist.
Don't worry, you're not. A true fascist is anyone who wants to take away my air conditioning or force me to ride a bike.
"When I talk to liberals, I don't expect them to understand my positions on various issues. I spend most of my time trying to help them understand their own." —Mike Adams
posted on February 5, 2007 12:43:43 PM
"In 15-20 years, we'll look back and see what a hoax this was."
I don't think it's going to take THAT long. I'm already reading some scientists that are NOW saying if we knew in the mid to late '90's, what we know now....the Kyoto treaty never would have even been brought up - or if it was, it would have been laughed down.
---
"He claims a few vocal individuals are quoted "over and over" again, when in fact there are a variety of opinions."
Exactly what some experts were saying is the reason they LEFT the panel that was working on the OP report. They weren't allowed to include their disagreements....in other words they were silenced. So they left but have spoken up about feeling it was VERY one-sided.
Just as was mentioned in your article, Bear.
"Colorado State University's Bill Gray, is that a genuine debate has never actually taken place. Hundreds of scientists, many of them prominent in the field, agree."
and
"A lot of scientists out there that are very capable of presenting other views are not being heard."
"Back away slowly"....
ROFLOL....how true already goes on in this forum anyway. lol
====================
Comment on kiara's statement:
At least he came back to the reality....isn't still in that radical mind set like so many radical liberals are. They remain in that political belief system.
posted on February 6, 2007 12:21:14 AM
Gee, I wonder why, if pollution isn't a serious threat, if it doesn't harm us, then why do we have Pollution Alerts. Not just on the coasts but now in the middle of the country. Minnesota had three last year...we never had them in the past ?????????
posted on February 6, 2007 11:58:03 AM newThank you classic for admitting that you brain dead neocons have NO answer
So explain why none of you demomorons are an intelligent reply to my observations.
"When I talk to liberals, I don't expect them to understand my positions on various issues. I spend most of my time trying to help them understand their own." —Mike Adams
posted on February 6, 2007 12:03:34 PM new
What CAN they say now that they've been made aware that this U.N. 'study' summary lol lol - the WHOLE study won't be released until MAY - wasn't BASED ON SCIENTIFIC FACTS....but rather on political bias???
posted on February 6, 2007 12:53:04 PM new
Gee, I wonder why, if pollution isn't a serious threat, if it doesn't harm us, then why do we have Pollution Alerts. Not just on the coasts but now in the middle of the country. Minnesota had three last year...we never had them in the past ?????????
posted on February 6, 2007 05:32:15 PM new
Here you go.
Action would have to be radical -- but climate change can be slowed.
By Alan Zarembo, Times Staff Writer
February 5, 2007
Everybody in the United States could switch from cars to bicycles.
The Chinese could close all their factories.
Europe could give up electricity and return to the age of the lantern.
But all those steps together would not come close to stopping global warming.
A landmark report from the United Nations' Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, released Friday, warns that there is so much carbon dioxide and other greenhouse gases in the atmosphere that even if concentrations held at current levels, the effects of global warming would continue for centuries.
There is still hope.
The report notes that a concerted world effort could stave off the direst consequences of global warming, such as widespread flooding, drought and extreme weather.
Ultimately eliminating the global warming threat, however, would require radical action.
To stabilize atmospheric levels of carbon dioxide - the primary contributor to global warming - CO2 emissions would have to drop 70% to 80%, said Richard Somerville, a theoretical meteorologist at the Scripps Institution of Oceanography in La Jolla.
Such a reduction would bring emissions into equilibrium with the planet's ability to absorb carbon dioxide.
The last time the planet was in balance was more than 150 years ago, before the widespread use of coal and steam engines.
What would it take to bring that kind of reduction?
"All truck, all trains, all airplanes, cars, motorcycles and boats in the United States - that's 7.3% of global emissions," said Gregg Marland, a fossil fuel pollution expert at Oak Ridge National Laboratory in Tennessee.
Closing all fossil-fuel-powered electricity plants worldwide and replacing them with windmills, solar panels and nuclear power plants would make a serious dent - a 39% reduction globally, Marland said.
His calculation doesn't include all the fossil fuels that would have to be burned to build the greener facilities, though.
Trees could be planted to absorb more carbon dioxide.
But even if every available space in the United States were turned into woodland, Marland said, it would not come close to offsetting U.S. emissions. "There is not enough land area," he said.
The United States accounts for nearly a quarter of the carbon dioxide released each year, according to government statistics. China, in second at about 15%, is gaining fast.
If the rest of the world returned to the Stone Age, carbon concentrations would still rise.
Carbon does not dissipate rapidly. Some is eventually absorbed by oceans and plants, but about half stays in the atmosphere. And there is no easy way to get it out.
Maintaining current levels would require reducing worldwide carbon dioxide emissions by more than 20 billion tons a year, federal statistics suggest.
For some perspective on that number, consider an icon of the green movement: a 2007 Toyota Prius. Driving it 12,000 miles releases 4,200 pounds of carbon dioxide.
If hybrid cars replaced all 245 million cars in the United States - more than a third of the cars in the world - the carbon savings would be less than 3% of the needed reduction.
Rapid industrial development in some of the most populous nations has compounded the problem. Their burgeoning emissions could swamp environmental gains in other countries.
In India, carbon dioxide emissions increased 39% between 1993 and 2004 - nearly double the global rate.
The figure was 36% in Indonesia.
China, which saw a 45% rise, now opens a coal-fired power plant every week to 10 days.
Given the scale of the problem, experts see no realistic way to lower the concentration of atmospheric carbon.
In fact, Robert Socolow, a carbon mitigation expert at Princeton University, said that even if the entire world stopped burning fossil fuels, carbon wouldn't approach pre-Industrial Revolution levels for several hundred years.
The only possibility now is to slow the buildup of carbon. If emissions can be reduced enough, the gradual process of warming can be stretched into centuries.
From this perspective, there is some hope. Though the savings from any one measure may look small, in combination, they could add up to something significant, experts said.
There is no shortage of ideas.
The Environmental Protection Agency's administrator, Stephen L. Johnson, said high-efficiency appliances and other products in the Energy Star program last year eliminated greenhouse gas emissions equal to the pollution from 23 million cars.
"As a citizen, each of us has an opportunity to make a difference," he said Friday after the release of the U.N. report.
He urged people to use compact fluorescent light bulbs, which provide the same light as a standard bulb on two-thirds of the energy.
Replacing one standard light bulb in every U.S. home would prevent greenhouse gases equivalent to the emissions of nearly 800,000 cars.
Tips from TerraPass Inc. of Menlo Park, Calif., include going back to clotheslines.
The company, which promotes alternative energy, says eliminating a family's dryer could save electricity equivalent to 1,016 pounds of carbon dioxide a year.
Socolow said the ultimate solution might rely on technology. He said his research suggested that by improving energy efficiency now and phasing out fossil fuels over the next 100 years, carbon concentrations could remain within safe levels.
The biggest polluter, he said, should lead the way: "The U.S. is going to have to decarbonize."
=============
[email protected] LOL
posted on February 7, 2007 10:19:35 AM newthen why do we have Pollution Alerts. Minnesota had three last year...we never had them in the past
Maybe you should get your facts straight.
When the liar Rudy Perpich was governor (Demomoron- never had a demomoron gov since) we had many alerts. Then the emissions testing was forced upon us. That took off the major polluting cars and forced everyone to upgrade. Then when Jessie Ventura came in, saw that the emission testing was no longer needed as it did it's job, dumped the program in 2000 give or take a year. We have NEVER had a polution alert since. Now that the majority of cars on the road have on-board computers to control emissions (when testing began, they didn't) our emission levels are way down.
As someone that has Asthma, I need to know these things.
The biggest problem we have here is when mingopigfarm opens here mouth, all that hot air and humidity comes out, which makes it hard to breathe.
Maybe the Demomorons need to look at reducing mingopig emissions.
.
.
.
"Unfortunately there are levels of Stupid that just can't be cured!!" The current Demomoron motto.
!!!
Are YOU a Bunghole?