# Global Warming



## chadk (Jan 30, 2010)

Weather patterns change all the time. Since as far back as we can trace. Ice-ages (no man involved there) that have come and gone... No, there is no man-caused global warming. It is a global scam and that's about it...


http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/11/21/AR2009112102186.html?nav=hcmodule


http://blogs.news.com.au/heraldsun/andrewbolt/index.php/heraldsun/comments/hadley_hacked#63657



The 1079 emails and 72 documents seem indeed evidence of a scandal involving most of the most prominent scientists pushing the man-made warming theory - a scandal that is one of the greatest in modern science. IÃ¢â‚¬â„¢ve been adding some of the most astonishing in updates below - emails suggesting conspiracy, collusion in exaggerating warming data, possibly illegal destruction of embarrassing information, organized resistance to disclosure, manipulation of data, private admissions of flaws in their public claims and much more. If it is as it now seems, never again will Ã¢â‚¬Å“peer reviewÃ¢â‚¬Â be used to shout down skeptics.

This is clearly not the work of some hacker, but of an insider whoÃ¢â‚¬â„¢s now blown the whistle. 

Ed Morrisey, at Hot Air, and others have done significant digging into the emails and documents. The highlights are:

1.Prominent environmental scientists organize a boycott of scientific journals if those journals publish scholarly material from global warming dissidents.
2.The scientists then orchestrate attacks on the dissidents because of their lack of scholarly material published in scientific journals.
3.The scientists block from the UNÃ¢â‚¬â„¢s report on global warming evidence that is harmful to the anthropogenic global warming consensus.
4.The scientists, when faced with a freedom of information act request for their correspondence and data, delete the correspondence and data lest it be used against them.
5.The scientists fabricate data when their data fails to prove the earth is warming. In fact, in more than one case, scientists engaged in lengthy emails on how to insert additional made up data that would in turn cause their claims to stand out as legitimate.
Andrew Bolt of the Australian Herald Sun has sifted through the emails and finds some surprises that, at first, he was not sure were authentic, but have now been confirmed to be authentic. One, from Kevin Trenbeth in Bolder, CO, to a group of fellow global warming scientists, admits Ã¢â‚¬Å“that [they] canÃ¢â‚¬â„¢t account for the lack of warming at the moment and it is a travesty that [they] canÃ¢â‚¬â„¢t. The CERES data published in the August BAMS 09 supplement on 2008 shows there should be even more warming: but the data are surely wrong.Ã¢â‚¬Â

Another, from Professor Phil Jones at the Climate Research Unit, admits he Ã¢â‚¬Å“completed MikeÃ¢â‚¬â„¢s Nature trick of adding in the real temps to each series for the last 20 years (ie from 1981 onwards) amd from 1961 for KeithÃ¢â‚¬â„¢s to hide the decline [in global temperatures].Ã¢â‚¬Â


Other reading on this:

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748704007804574574101605007432.html

Global Warming With the Lid Off 
The emails that reveal an effort to hide the truth about climate science.
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748704888404574547730924988354.html

The Economics of Climate Change 
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748703499404574559491076961008.html


Climate Change's Latest Storm 
Good news for the Earth, bad news for the IPCC.
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748703808904575024642474659802.html


----------



## Yvonne G (Jan 30, 2010)

Chad: I moved your comment out of Terry's picture thread because I knew it was going to draw a lot of comments and didn't want to take anything away from Terry's Ice thread.

I heard this a.m. that even Osama bin Ladin has been duped into believing the global warming scam. He's been vocal lately about that terrible western world and what we're causing.

I know that Rush Limbaugh isn't very well liked, but he really does (besides entertain) educate us on what Government is doing. He was one of the first ones to say there was no global warming, and now, lo and behold! a scam!!

Thanks for posting those links. I don't get the paper and only hear the news occasionally (I live in a cave), so I depend upon word-of-mouth!


----------



## terryo (Jan 30, 2010)

Chad...I'm so excited! You and I finally agree on something! LOL Now, finally..... evidence. Do you think it's true?


----------



## Stephanie Logan (Jan 30, 2010)

Sorry, I side with the overwhelming abundance of scientific agreement.

The over-hyped email "scam" involved disregarding tree ring evidence, which was one of many factors present that all contributed to the conclusion of Climate Change. Subtracting the "contradictory" evidence of the tree rings did not change the science.

Whether you believe it is manmade or not, think about what it will cost us to shore up cities like New York, Los Angeles and Seattle when melting Arctic/Greenland ice raise sea levels. Those changes ARE happening, are measurable and are definitely going to cause global changes.

Even if it's not true, is it not a good idea to reduce our oil dependence? We spend billions of dollars every year bankrolling countries like Saudi Arabia, where 15 of the 19 September 11th hijackers hailed from. Do we want to be in hock to middle eastern potentates?

Energy independence is a GOOD idea, and I support all alternative fuels as well as more oil drilling, including off-shore and in ANWAR. My dad's a former oil-company exploration geologist, and he always reminded us that oil is a finite resource--it takes millions of years to form and we are sucking it out of the earth at exponentially-increasing rates.

Which entity has more to gain from convincing people their side of the climate change argument is true: Oil companies or university scientists?


----------



## Tom (Jan 30, 2010)

I've been saying its B.S. for years. BTW global temps have been DROPPING for the last 8 years. While this "global warming" thing is an obvious scam, we do need to start taking better care of MOM or something IS going to happen that is not a lefty-scam.


----------



## Redfoot NERD (Jan 30, 2010)

I haven't really read much past the initial claims or replies...

Let me see if I understand what is being claimed here.. man has had nothing to do with any of the changes in our atmosphere.. ever??? And man can continue to do what he has been doing and it won't have any negative effect on anything that would influence our health and how we live?

Just checking...

Terry K

BTW.. thank you Yvonne for moving that reply.. 

Anybody?: Why can't anyone post something without someone always taking issue and making something contraversial(sp?) about it???


----------



## sammi (Jan 30, 2010)

So here's what I've heard...[I think it was from 20/20 or the Discovery channel, something like that..]

Yes there ARE icebergs melting and such..if you take the data that represents climate changes for the past decade, it proves global warming. BUT, if you take the temps for the past 7-8 decades, it doesn't show proof of global warming, it shows a kind of pattern that is not out of the ordinary...it all depends on how, and what you look at. But again, this is just what I've heard.

I do agree though that everyone needs to start being more "green" or obviously, something WILL happen eventually.


----------



## dmmj (Jan 30, 2010)

Sorry to say but al " I lie" gore has the most to gain from a GW scam, I never believed it becuase at the time the earth was warming the other planets were rising about the same degree. SInce no one could explain why mars temps was rising with no humans around to raise the Co2 levels I doubted it from the beginning, I do not believe that we should all pollute as much as we want but neither do I want the tax and trade to pass, nor have our govrement sign up with some global tax to shake more money from us. The main problem I had with the people weho believed on in was they would not debate it at all, once again following their leader al "I Lie'" gore, he and his followers would proclaim the debate is over and their is nothing more to talk about, now ask yourself if they scientists had nothing to hide then why did they destroy all of their early data? any scientific study based on false or deleted data has to be suspect at the very l;eastm and fraudulent at the very worst.

the last ten years or so the temps have been falling almost in direct correlation with the sunspot cycles.


----------



## GBtortoises (Jan 31, 2010)

I could use some of that global warming right now. It's -12 @ 8:00 a.m. here in the Catskills!

I consider myself an environmentalist, please don't mistake that for a tree hugger, we're two different beings!
Based on what I've been reading, watching and listening to about the subject the past few years I also agree that it's a scam.

If they're intent is to put a fear in us that we are all going die a slow overheated death, it isn't working because the general populus thinks it's BS too. 

The earth is an ever-evolving, ever-changing planet. It always has been, it always will be. Our little speck of time on it amounts to a grain of sand in a silo.


----------



## Redfoot NERD (Jan 31, 2010)

Creationists and Evolutionists "still at it" I see! 

And the "Me-publicans" don't get along with themselves let alone with the Democrats! ( as well )

And see what the ( I hope? ) innocent statement made by Yvonne has started?

And I [ we? ] have been stupid enough to even participate in this meaningless "discussion"??? GBtortoises?

Terry K

I still love the "Don't argue with a fool.. they will drag you down to their level and beat you with their experiences"


----------



## terryo (Jan 31, 2010)

Redfoot NERD said:


> Creationists and Evolutionists "still at it" I see!
> 
> And the "Me-publicans" don't get along with themselves let alone with the Democrats! ( as well )
> 
> ...



Come on Terry...just because you don't agree, doesn't mean you can't be civil....meaning....respect other's opinions. We are all entitled ya know. 

I think we are all making valid points here.


----------



## Stephanie Logan (Jan 31, 2010)

It makes me think of the "hoax" perpetuated by Galileo that the Catholic church had no trouble "debunking", because most people were not scientists and did not understand how science operates. After all, one could clearly see that the sun rose every day, travelled across the sky, and then set at night. If the earth were turning, why couldn't we feel it? Why didn't we fall off? Everyone "knew" that Ptolemy and Aristotle, great scholars of ancient Greece, were correct in their geocentric view of the universe, and the Church confirmed it. Period.

In 1992, the Church officially apologized to Galileo, who not just agreed with the Copernican model of a helio-centric universe, but had the audacity to write down and teach his findings. He was held under house arrest till his death in 1642, and the Church succeeded in slowing down the scientific truth for nearly 100 years. Some say Galileo even recanted on his death bed. But _he was right_.

My daughter Emily is studying aerospace engineering and elecrical engineering at the University of Colorado at Boulder. She wants to be a NASA astronaut someday. She is currently studying both physics and thermodynamics. She shows me the problems she works, which are all symbols and gibberish to me, but that does not mean that what she studies is a hoax. It's science. Emily is in charge of the RocketSat 6 project, in which her team of student scientists will launch a payload on a rocket this summer. Their payload is a device that will measure particles in the atmosphere (btw, Mars and the other planets have no atmosphere so comparing their planetary temperatures to earth is an "apples to oranges" model), to compare how prevalent those particles are at various distances from the earth. Their data will be compared to millions of other data to ascertain the degree of global climate change and the pace at which it is taking place. Emily is neither an ideologue nor a dupe, and she is convinced the science of climate change is sound. 

My nephew graduated from the Air Force Academy in 2007, then was selected to complete his Master's Degree in Aerospace Engineering at MIT. (He also hopes to be an astronaut someday). His mother, my sister, is very conservative politically and also believes climate change is a hoax. My nephew has confided in me how embarassing it is for him to bring fellow pilots home from training and have to listen to his mother rant on about science she doesn't understand, and therefore must be false. She quotes the same talk show entertainers and fringe members of the scientific community, many of whom are probably bankrolled by major oil companies. Again, there are hundreds of billions of dollars in profits at stake, not for the scientists, not for Al Gore. The entities that will cash in by delaying policies that may (MAY) reduce the catastrophic effects of climate change are NOT the scientists!

Mankind is a relatively new species on this planet, where 99.9% of all species have become extinct. I have no doubt that as climate change unfolds over the next 100-500 years, humans will adapt to most of the changes and fight off the the hordes of refugees from places like Malaysia who will no longer have a home (heck, I even have my own "theory" that if places like Siberia and the Yukon warm up, maybe these displaced millions can be re-settled there). What bugs me the most is that we, our generation, the wealthiest generation of human beings at any time or in any place in history, would recklessy abandon our children and grandchildren to a lower standard of living and the civil strife and political turbulence that will erupt as a consequence of our greed and selfishness in doing nothing to reduce the damage. I'm embarrassed to be part of such a generation.

I don't think climate change is purely a political or ideological issue, but I think politicians and ideologues have latched on to it as one more way to polarize the electorate.


----------



## Redfoot NERD (Jan 31, 2010)

terryo said:


> Redfoot NERD said:
> 
> 
> > Creationists and Evolutionists "still at it" I see!
> ...



Come on Terry it's all how you view comments - reality and truths aren't easily accepted sometimes.

Read it again and you'll notice I'm nuetral on this thread - why the false accusations? Seriously...

Terry K

AND you'll notice each side is pointing their finger at each other.. and falsely accusing...


----------



## Shelly (Jan 31, 2010)

Wow. Republicans just aren't very smart. And I suppose you all believe the earthquake in Haiti was caused by a "Pact with Satan" as well?


----------



## Redfoot NERD (Jan 31, 2010)

Stephanie Logan said:


> It makes me think of the "hoax" perpetuated by Galileo that the Catholic church had no trouble "debunking", because most people were not scientists and did not understand how science operates. After all, one could clearly see that the sun rose every day, travelled across the sky, and then set at night. If the earth were turning, why couldn't we feel it? Why didn't we fall off? Everyone "knew" that Ptolemy and Aristotle, great scholars of ancient Greece, were correct in their geocentric view of the universe, and the Church confirmed it. Period.
> 
> In 1992, the Church officially apologized to Galileo, who not just agreed with the Copernican model of a helio-centric universe, but had the audacity to write down and teach his findings. He was held under house arrest till his death in 1642, and the Church succeeded in slowing down the scientific truth for nearly 100 years. Some say Galileo even recanted on his death bed. But _he was right_.
> 
> ...



Stephanie I can see why you and I have gotten into trouble in the past.. held accountable?.. looking at the facts objectively?.. considering the feelings of others and sharing with others ( which is the "gifteds'" *responsibilty* ).. naa - "I had to work hard for it.. so I'm keeping it for myself!" ME-ME-ME

I apologize for this 'burst-of-reality'...

Terry K


----------



## webskipper (Jan 31, 2010)

Law of motion. A body persists in a state of uniform motion unless acted upon by an external force

What is really happening here is that the Earth is slowing down and therefore its orbit is getting closer to the Sun. 

That's why it has been getting warmer over the decades. Unless you are in Michigan, then it just keeps getting colder.


----------



## Redfoot NERD (Jan 31, 2010)

Shelly said:


> Wow. Republicans just aren't very smart. And I suppose you all believe the earthquake in Haiti was caused by a "Pact with Satan" as well?















This is better than any "Soap Opera" out there.. I'm having a ball stirring this up.. [ and it saddens me also to think of where these attitudes are taking us. The "richest" nation on the planet??? - How? ]

Yeah.. 'the devil made me do it!'...

Terry K

"Lie and deny.. deny and accuse!"! Where's that going to get us? 

All of these accusations.. and 'they' don't want to play "hard-ball"!

Terry K


----------



## Yvonne G (Jan 31, 2010)

webskipper said:


> Law of motion. A body persists in a state of uniform motion unless acted upon by an external force
> 
> What is really happening here is that the Earth is slowing down and therefore its orbit is getting closer to the Sun.
> 
> That's why it has been getting warmer over the decades. Unless you are in Michigan, then it just keeps getting colder.



And along that same line, I'm thinking that because the spin is slowing down, the earth is starting to wobble, as a spinning object does as it slows down. This changes the orientation of the poles and the equator.


----------



## dmmj (Jan 31, 2010)

sorry but mars does have an atmosphere it is just thinner than ours and different composition than ours. And since you wont accept anything without proof here is one of hundreds I saw on bing 
http://coolcosmos.ipac.caltech.edu/cosmic_kids/AskKids/mars_atmosphere.shtml
Granted it is a kids science site but it clearly explains mars atmosphere, I did not want to get to technical in my answer. So do most of the other planets and many many moons also have them, so anything else you wanna try and discredit in my post?


----------



## webskipper (Jan 31, 2010)

The moon is still made of cheese.

Ã¢â‚¬Å“Of course the moons made of cheese - how else do you describe the hole and the yellow colour? How can it be cheese? It makes perfect sense.Ã¢â‚¬Â
~ Albert Einstein ate the moon for his lunch


----------



## Yvonne G (Jan 31, 2010)

LOL! 

As always, diffuse the situation with a good belly laugh!


----------



## DoctorCosmonaut (Jan 31, 2010)

I don't think all these "technicalities" matter, whether climate change is man made or not, humans produce an exorbent amount of pollution that effects animal and plant health (not even taking the atmosphere into account because of how debatable that is). Does anyone here really object to trying to cut pollution and make stricter regulations on what can run off into streams or float off into our sky? Have you ever seen an industrial center city in Northern China? You can't go outside! It rains acid on you! That's not some naturally occurring event. Regardless of the global climate, we ARE affecting our micro-climates. Its time to cut the arguing and the finger pointing and make some changes that are good and over due anyways.


----------



## dmmj (Jan 31, 2010)

by any means necassary I suppose?


----------



## webskipper (Jan 31, 2010)

DoctorCosmonaut said:


> Its time to cut the arguing and the finger pointing and make some changes that are good and over due anyways.



2000 Honda Insight Hybrid, Red, Manual, Auto AC, 201000 miles, lifetime average MPG 64.

That's my carbon footprint.


----------



## chadk (Jan 31, 2010)

It boils down to control. You have to have a global issue to convince people we need a global solution with someone in control. Wonder who that will be?

In the 70's is was about the threat of an ice age. Then it was the hole in the ozone. 

I'm all for attacking real environmental issues. I stand behind efforts to combat pollution in the rivers and lakes and the Puget Sound. 

But even those activists promoting this man made (up) issue don't believe it. For example, Obama spent how much time on Copenhagen (sp) talking about the dangers of Global Warming. Guess what, he and all the others there flew jet planes there. The carbon footprint from the single event is bigger than what I'll be responsible for my entire life. But they are 'above' us lower class folks I guess. Then, a week or 2 later, Obama is right back in his jet flying over there again to promote an even more important cause. That's right, the city of Chicago and their bid for the Olympics. Stupid games became more important to the president of the US than the immanent threat of global warming and the coming doomsday. 

Then of course we know Gore travels around to speak all over the world at high dollar events in his jet. 

Then there is the new movie coming out about global warming. The activists behind it are so serious about the issue, and how planes are the biggest issue, that they all flew to the premier in New York to promote the movie. 

Seriously, let's focus on real issues. Not some agenda that will line the pockets of these hypocrites. 

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6-cvK9vxA6M


----------



## Stephanie Logan (Jan 31, 2010)

dmmj said:


> sorry but mars does have an atmosphere it is just thinner than ours and different composition than ours. And since you wont accept anything without proof here is one of hundreds I saw on bing
> http://coolcosmos.ipac.caltech.edu/cosmic_kids/AskKids/mars_atmosphere.shtml
> Granted it is a kids science site but it clearly explains mars atmosphere, I did not want to get to technical in my answer. So do most of the other planets and many many moons also have them, so anything else you wanna try and discredit in my post?



Sorry you are correct. Mars does have an atmosphere. I guess I should have said, an atmosphere that supports life. The earth is unique in our solar system for that.

Still doesn't affect the science of climate change. Activists' "hypocrisy" in how they live their lives vs. what they preach does not change the science of climate change. Climate change is already inevitable, and whether manmade or not, it's going to be expensive, it's going to be messy, and it's going to reduce our descendents' standard of living.


----------



## terryo (Jan 31, 2010)

chadk said:


> It boils down to control. You have to have a global issue to convince people we need a global solution with someone in control. Wonder who that will be?
> 
> In the 70's is was about the threat of an ice age. Then it was the hole in the ozone.
> 
> ...



Yay Chad!!!


----------



## Stephanie Logan (Jan 31, 2010)

chadk said:


> I'm all for attacking real environmental issues. I stand behind efforts to combat pollution in the rivers and lakes and the Puget Sound.
> 
> But even those activists promoting this man made (up) issue don't believe it. For example, Obama spent how much time on Copenhagen (sp) talking about the dangers of Global Warming. Guess what, he and all the others there flew jet planes there. The carbon footprint from the single event is bigger than what I'll be responsible for my entire life. But they are 'above' us lower class folks I guess. Then, a week or 2 later, Obama is right back in his jet flying over there again to promote an even more important cause. That's right, the city of Chicago and their bid for the Olympics. Stupid games became more important to the president of the US than the immanent threat of global warming and the coming doomsday.
> Then of course we know Gore travels around to speak all over the world at high dollar events in his jet.



Do you travel by jet? Do you heat your house and tortoise enclosures? 

Do you believe we can or should change our carbon footprint overnight? 

Do you plan to leave a better world for your kids and grandkids?

It's a choice that _you_ control, right now.


----------



## chadk (Jan 31, 2010)

First off, I do not believe in man-caused global warming. I believe in protecting our resources and fighting pollution. But I'm not a global warming alarmist. So I'm not sure why those questions are relavent to me??

I travel by air maybe once every few years. I drive a vanpool for my commute. But this is just basic economics vs trying to reduce a so-called 'carbon footprint'. That is just hogwash. They want to be able to start calculating our 'carbon footprint' so they can tax us and control us at some point. Or, if you are Al Gore, you want folks to have to buy 'carbon offsets' that just happen to make investors like Gore rich...

What should set your BS meter off is when these polititions stand up and say things like "the debate is over". Or worse, when a scientist says "the science is closed to debate". Science is always evolving, going forward, 3 steps back, change direction, etc as we learn more. How many times have we heard of scientific 'consensus' changing course? Your exmple of the 'earth is flat' is perfect. Some felt the consensus was solid and that the debate should end. And as we know, that is not how science works. Fear mongering and propoganda are not scientific tools. It is a dangerous melding of science and politics.


PS - glad we don't see eye to eye on ALL issues Stephanie... that would be boring


----------



## Stephanie Logan (Jan 31, 2010)

Yes, I think it is fair to say that neither of us is going to change the other's stance on this issue! 

And I agree that most politicians seek only notoriety and re-election. They are mostly lawyers, not scientists.


----------



## chadk (Jan 31, 2010)

A few more good reads from recent news:


http://www.telegraph.co.uk/earth/en...tudent-dissertation-and-magazine-article.html
The revelation will cause fresh embarrassment for the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), which had to issue a humiliating apology earlier this month over inaccurate statements about global warming.

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/environment/article7009081.ece

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/world/world_agenda/article6947116.ece

http://people-press.org/report/584/policy-priorities-2010.

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/environment/article6999051.ece



The bitter winter afflicting much of the Northern Hemisphere is only the start of a global trend towards cooler weather that is likely to last for 20 or 30 years, say some of the worldÃ¢â‚¬â„¢s most eminent climate scientists.
Their predictions Ã¢â‚¬â€œ based on an analysis of natural cycles in water temperatures in the Pacific and Atlantic oceans Ã¢â‚¬â€œ challenge some of the global warming orthodoxyÃ¢â‚¬â„¢s most deeply cherished beliefs, such as the claim that the North Pole will be free of ice in 
summer by 2013.

According to the US National Snow and Ice Data Centre in Colorado, Arctic summer sea ice has increased by 409,000 square miles, or 26 per cent, since 2007 Ã¢â‚¬â€œ and even the most committed global warming activists do not dispute this.
Read more: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencet...e-mini-ice-age-starts-here.html#ixzz0eFBVwU4g

http://www.breitbart.tv/flag-waving...s-march-in-copenhagen-to-stop-global-warming/

http://www.nydailynews.com/news/wor...for_developing_countries_hillary_clinton.html



CLIMATE CHANGE IS NATURAL: 100 REASONS WHY 
http://www.dailyexpress.co.uk/posts/view/146138

Climate change campaigners: 100 reasons why climate change is natural and not man-made 

HERE are the 100 reasons, released in a dossier issued by the European Foundation, why climate change is natural and not man-made: 

1) There is Ã¢â‚¬Å“no real scientific proofÃ¢â‚¬Â that the current warming is caused by the rise of greenhouse gases from manÃ¢â‚¬â„¢s activity. 

2) Man-made carbon dioxide emissions throughout human history constitute less than 0.00022 percent of the total naturally emitted from the mantle of the earth during geological history. 

3) Warmer periods of the EarthÃ¢â‚¬â„¢s history came around 800 years before rises in CO2 levels. 

4) After World War II, there was a huge surge in recorded CO2 emissions but global temperatures fell for four decades after 1940. 

5) Throughout the EarthÃ¢â‚¬â„¢s history, temperatures have often been warmer than now and CO2 levels have often been higher Ã¢â‚¬â€œ more than ten times as high. 

6) Significant changes in climate have continually occurred throughout geologic time. 

7) The 0.7C increase in the average global temperature over the last hundred years is entirely consistent with well-established, long-term, natural climate trends. 

8) The IPCC theory is driven by just 60 scientists and favourable reviewers not the 4,000 usually cited.

9) Leaked e-mails from British climate scientists Ã¢â‚¬â€œ in a scandal known as Ã¢â‚¬Å“Climate-gateÃ¢â‚¬Â - suggest that that has been manipulated to exaggerate global warming

10) A large body of scientific research suggests that the sun is responsible for the greater share of climate change during the past hundred years.

11) Politicians and activiists claim rising sea levels are a direct cause of global warming but sea levels rates have been increasing steadily since the last ice age 10,000 ago


----------



## DoctorCosmonaut (Jan 31, 2010)

This is like watching a conspiracy theorist and a rationalist go at it. ps the reason we don't hear about the ozone hole is because governments across the world and companies made significant changes (Montreal Protocol) to cut the emissions of CFCs, its precisely because of swift and united action that we don't hear about it--because we "solved it." Of course people try to make money off of everything, we did elect to live in a capitalist society and all, but looking at your carbon footprint is more about being self aware.

PS Chad, you can post links like that all you want, and if someone wanted to waste their time here, could post 100x more opposing that view. its an inherently controversial and challenging topic, but I think you are choosing to look at it in the wrong light, this momentum can be used for so much good, its an opportunity!

Here is a visual of what action on CFCs has meant:






Humans can and do make a difference on this precious gem we call home.


----------



## chadk (Jan 31, 2010)

Sorry, but junk science and fear mongering are not a good ways to promote 'good social change'.


----------



## Madkins007 (Jan 31, 2010)

I think there is a little 'smoke and mirrors' stuff going on with the 'global warming' concept as it is usually presented.

There does seem to be a pattern of the government and media trying to create an atmosphere of fear in the general public- global warming, H1N1, whatever. Many have argued that this fearmongering is done for control (I suspect it is done more for political gain and profits- but it is the same basic thing.)

Most of the research is rather like a series of snapshots of this very large and variable planet, then trying to put the little pieces together. Then we add the little snapshots we have of our planet from the past, and those from other planets, and it all gets very... complicated.

Then, of course, is the tendency we have to oversimplify things by putting a catch-all label. The 'problem of global warming', the 'problem of metabolic bone disorder', the 'problem of poverty'- as if there was going to be one definition, one cause, one answer for the whole thing.

We know man-made pollution is a problem, and our planetary love-affair with oil is a bad thing, and that it would be smart to protect fresh water and forests and such.

The thing that bugs me is that we sometimes seem to be pushing for answers that may not make sense. A small examples is that CFL bulbs use less energy when in a socket, but they take a lot of energy to produce and supposedly contribute a lot more mercury and toxins than plain bulbs. 

It is my own opinion that we need to settle down and figure out some real answers and act with courage AND knowledge. Paper, plastic, or shopping bags? If there is a clear and real winner in this area, then we do what we can to penalize the 'wrong' choice. Plastic water bottles- why are these sold in any country with safe tap water? Why isn't a car taxed based, in part, in its estimated MPG if this is so important?

Personally, I think that as long as we think of this as a big, complex issue, we will continue to have lots of fuzzy thinking and disagreement on it- whether between individuals or nations.


----------



## chadk (Jan 31, 2010)

Awesome post Mark. 

We should attack specific issues. If an area has trouble with acid rain - where it is measured, impacts are obvious, the source is obvious -we should work together to address it. If there are farms or factories polluting our ground water, we should deal with that. If our fish are being over harvested, we should address that. 

In fact, I can show you example of example of where this approach has been successful. Habbit restoration has been very successful in many parts of the PNW for salmon and steelhead. On the east coast, bans on commercial fishing have had dramtic impacts on the fisheries there. compared to my dad's generation where it as almost a free for all, we have made many improvements. And we can do more.

I would also like to see us have less dependence on foreign oil and other imports. The list goes on.

And guess what, when we tackle these issues like this, if there is a real threat from global warming, we will be making some changes that should help.


----------



## dmmj (Jan 31, 2010)

the words " good social change" scare the hell out of me.


----------

