Bush changes position on Global Warming

[TheStripey1]

To be fair, there is ample evidence to support both arguements. for and against Climate change.

I just find it strange that Bush would change sides, when there is evidence to support his original position.

obviously, when there is money to be made, he wants to be on the side making it.

 

[TheStripey1]

And Bush bashers would jump off a bridge just as quick if the Bush-bashing agenda dictated such.

This is a PERFECT example of you "Bush can do no right" types. Something obviously has convinced him that your argument is right, but you have to try and attach some nefarious reasoning to it. Couldn't possibly be that perhaps his belief was changed based on new data? You know, the way people are supposed to think?

au contraire...

but if YOU lead the charge of the bush lemming brigades over that proverbial cliff, I will film it for your next of kin... which I will gladly release to them for a nominal fee...

 

[Bern80]

We heard the same line of bullshit back when nuclear energy was being sold as gods gift to mans energy use... funny how defensive you get when faced with an ACTUAL EXAMPLE of mans ability to damage his environment..


surely, SURELY, there are no lessons to consider when crying that you think current peer review standards are shitty....

This conversation can not and will not progress any further until you stop putting words in my mouth

I think it is down right silly, to think that in the very short amount of time this concept us been under scrutiny that the man made global warming theory is an open and shut case.

so, a short amount of time in light of millions of earth years says exactly what? nothing. In a short amount of years the internet has revolutionized the way Americans communicate.. do you want to deny the web just because the earth has been around for milions of years without netporn?

how on earth did you come to the conclusion that because i said the climate change debate is not open and shut that the short time span means nothing?

All I mean is that I think that not enough time has based to draw any concrete conclusions

for crying out loud... go burn a tire and tell me what, exactly, millions of earth years has to do with chemicals invented in thepast century. Does pennecilin not work because it was discovered in the last 2 seconds of earths 24 hour history too?

Still not listening I see. Try responding to what I say and not what you'd like to hear

 

[TheStripey1]

This will somewhat be respons to your PM as well.

I agree that whether or not global warming exists we should do what we can to protect the environment. Again what I have read makes a better case for the idea that the warming trend we are seeing now is part of a natural cycle. They also note that if teh cycle is any indicator its gonna continue to get warmer for the next 400 yrs or so. It also points out some of the ommissions in the data presented for the man mafe theory.

But you do have to ask yourself why is the man made theory being pushed so hard in light of the evidence that man really has very little do with it? Two reasons that I can think of: one being the junk science theory. I noted this another thread where Truthmatters was claiming teh economy performed better under dem congresses. The similarity between that and the man made global warming theory is that in both cases someone did no more than take two events occurring at the same time and made teh leap that one casused the other. Because the economy performed well while dems had the majority dems must have caused the economy to do well right? Because we have become exponentially more industrialized over the past 100 yrs and the climat has gone up on avg over the past 100 yrs well industrialization must have caused the climate to change right?

I want to make it very clear that people should be stewards of the environment. We've all seen pictures of filthy rivers and garbage strewn beaches. I am arguing against one specific theory and that is man made global warming.

Global warming/Climate Change does NOT need our permission to be. Denial of it will lead us to NOT take the steps neccessary to protect our civilization.

We should be thinking of ways to protect our coastal infrastructure from the rising seas... not trying to figure out who to blame for it.

 

[TheStripey1]

Is it my fault the kook left keeps changing the title of their crises and what is "causing" the crisis?

Evey ten years or so, the enviro wackos make excuses as to whay their doom and gloom message has to be updated to fit the current weather going on

why do you hate the earth lovers?

 

[TheStripey1]

I'm not sure it's a matter of denying global warming as it is the cause(s) of global warming.

I find it rather hillarious ... and dumb ... that people think they can alter what possibly could be just a cyclical trend in the Earth's temperature. They can't even identify what actually is causing, but they've got all these "cures."

We need to start thinking about what to do when the seas rise... or do you think we should just sit on our asses talking about it until it's too late?

 

[TheStripey1]

So, in short, what you've provided us bern, is a book by two men who aren't even real climate scientists, which alleges to provide research from real climate scientists which debunk anthropogenic global warming.

When, if fact, the researchers they cite actually DO think anthropogenic global warming is real. Singer and Avery merely took these researchers work, and substituted their own uninformed opinions

hmmmmm... sounds like a few right winger posters I've met recently...

 

[TheStripey1]

you can't believe that spewing tons of unnatural pollutants into the finite volume of our atmpshere can possibly be a "good thing", or even a "neutral thing", can you?

right wingers do... or did, until bush flipped his flop... tho, the wingers here seem to be holding true to their pre-bush flipping his flop beliefs...

 

[ScreamingEagle]

Which they are perfectly entitled to do and which researchers do all the time. They read other people's work and critique it. Again all they are doing is presenting an alternative view.

No way man. You're not going to slither away from your original assertion that easily.

I said that there's virtually no peer-reviewed scientific climate research that supports your position that humans are not affecting climate change. You responded that there WAS peer-reviewed scientific research that supported your position. You cited the Singer book as an example.

You were wrong. The authors Singer cites do not dispute the anthropogenic causes of current climate change. If Fred Singer wants to "read their research" and offer his own uninformed opinion, that is not peer reviewed research. That's simply an opinon from somebody who isn't even really a climate scientist.

First of all, before you so blithely dismiss other scientists, what exactly is a "climate scientist"? There is absolutely no reason why other types of scientists cannot have their scientific opinion on global warming.

Climatologists, those who practice climatology, study both the nature of climates - local, regional or global - and the natural or human-induced factors that cause climates to change. Climatology considers the past and can help predict future climate change. Phenomena of climatological interest include the atmospheric boundary layer, circulation patterns, heat transfer (radiative, convective and latent), interactions between the atmosphere and the oceans and land surface (particularly vegetation, land use and topography), and the chemical and physical composition of the atmosphere. Related disciplines include astrophysics, atmospheric physics, chemistry, ecology, geology, geophysics, glaciology, hydrology, oceanography, and volcanology.

Secondly, Fred Singer has impeccable credentials. Singer holds a degree in Electrical engineering from Ohio State University and a PhD in Physics from Princeton University. Because Singer is so scientifically logical and effective in debunking the hysterical global warming claims of the lunatic left, he is a prime target for leftist slimeball attacks on his credentials.

S. Fred Singer is a distinguished astrophysicist who has taken a hard, scientific look at the evidence. In this new book, Dr. Singer explores the inaccuracies in historical climate data, the limitations of attempting to model climate on computers, solar variability and its impact on climate, the effects of clouds, ocean currents, and sea levels on global climate, and factors that could mitigate any human impacts on world climate." http://www.independent.org/store/book_detail.asp?bookID=42

Previous government and academic positions:[11]

Director of the Center for Atmospheric and Space Physics, University of Maryland (1953-62)
Special advisor to President Eisenhower on space developments (1960)
First Director of the National Weather Satellite Service (1962-64)
Founding Dean of the School of Environmental and Planetary Sciences, University of Miami (1964-67)
Deputy Assistant Secretary for Water Quality and Research, U.S. Department of the Interior (1967- 70)
Deputy Assistant Administrator for Policy, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (1970-71)
Professor of Environmental Sciences, University of Virginia (1971-94)
Chief Scientist, U.S. Department of Transportation (1987-89)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fred_Singer

Singer does not dispute that there may be global warming. However, the Greenhouse Theory is primarily what Al Bore and other followers think is causing global warming and this of course fits nicely into their socialist agenda via implementing the Kyoto accords. However, contrary to what you think, there are hundreds, if not thousands, of scientists who will disagree with the Greenhouse Theory. Fred Singer and Dennis T. Avery who are proponents of the 1500 year cycle have provided many reasons for the shortcomings of the Greenhouse Theory in their book Unstoppable Global Warming (2007) which I will list here:

1. The most obvious, co2 changes do not account for the highly variable climate we know the Earth has recently had, including the Roman Warming, the Dark Ages, the Medieval Warming, and the Little Ice Age. However, these variations fit into the 1500 year cycle very well.

2. The Greenhouse Theory does not explain recent temperature changes. Most of the current warming occurred before 1940 before there was much human-generated co2 in the air. After 1940, temperatures declined until 1975 or so, despite a huge surge of industrial co2 during that period. These events run counter to the co2 theory but are in accord with the 1500 year cycle.

3. The early and supposedly most powerful increases in atmospheric co2 have not produced the frightening planetary overheating that the theory and climate models told us to expect. We must discount future increments of co2 in the atmosphere, because each increment of co2 increase produces less warming than the unit before it. The amounts of co2 already added to the atmosphere must already have "used up" much - perhaps most - of co2's forcing capability.

4. We must discount the "official" temperature record to reflect the increased size and intensity of today's urban heat islands. We must take account of the changes in rural land use that affect soil moisture and temperatures. When meteorological experts reconstructed U.S. official temperatures "witout cities and crops" - using more accurate data from satellites and high-altitude weather balloons - about half of the recent "official" warming disappeared.

5. The Earth's surface thermometers have recently warmed faster than the temperature readings in the lower atmosphere up to 30,000 feet. Yet the Greenhouse Theory says that co2 will warm the lower atmosphere first, and then the atmospheric heat will radiate to the Earth's surface. This is not happening.

6. co2 for at least 240,000 years has been a lagging indicator of global warming, not a causal factor.

7. The Greenhouse Theory predicts that co2-driven warming of the Earth's surface will start, and be strongest, in the North and South Polar regions. This is not happening either.

8. The scary predictions of planetary overheating require that the warming effect of additional co2 be amplified by increased water vapor in the atmosphere. Warming will indeed lift more moisture from the oceans into the air. But what if the moister, warmer air incrfeases the efficiency of rainfall, and leaves the upper atmosphere as dry, or even dryer, than it was before? We have absolutely no evidence to demonstrate that the upper atmosphere is retaining more water vapor to amplify the co2.

To the contrary, a team of researchers from NASA and MIT recently discovered a huge vertical heat vent in the Earth's atmosphere. It apparently increases the efficiency of rainfall when sea surface temperatures rise above 28 degrees C. This effect seems to be big enough to vent all the heat the models predict would be generated by a doubling of co2. In 2001, NASA issued a press release about the heat vent discovery and the failure of the climate models to duplicate it but it attracted little media attention.

 

[JeffWartman]

I still cannot believe RSR refuses to post in this thread and tells us what he thinks about his dear leader switching sides on the global warming debate...and I don't even think it's man made...but what are the trolls going to do now? Perhaps RSR's head exploded?

Where are you?

 

[red states rule]

I still cannot believe RSR refuses to post in this thread and tells us what he thinks about his dear leader switching sides on the global warming debate...and I don't even think it's man made...but what are the trolls going to do now? Perhaps RSR's head exploded?

Where are you?

I have posted on this thread stupid - try reading thru the thread

Bush is wrong - like all the rest of the doom and glomers

 

[red states rule]

you can't believe that spewing tons of unnatural pollutants into the finite volume of our atmpshere can possibly be a "good thing", or even a "neutral thing", can you?

do you know of any other of God's creatures that willfully shits in his nest?

We can take care of the damage by buying carbon offsets from Al Gores company

 

[red states rule]

au contraire...

but if YOU lead the charge of the bush lemming brigades over that proverbial cliff, I will film it for your next of kin... which I will gladly release to them for a nominal fee...

some libs are never happy as long as Pres Bush is still breathing

 

[maineman]

We can take care of the damage by buying carbon offsets from Al Gores company

why not seriously answer the question - if you dare?

 

[red states rule]

why not seriously answer the question - if you dare?

I did

That is how the left eases their guilt

 

[maineman]

here is the question, RSR:

you can't believe that spewing tons of unnatural pollutants into the finite volume of our atmpshere can possibly be a "good thing", or even a "neutral thing", can you?

the question is posed to YOU. Do YOU believe that spewing tons of unnatural pollutants into our atmosphere is a good thing for Mother Earth? YOU. yes or no.

 

[red states rule]

here is the question, RSR:

you can't believe that spewing tons of unnatural pollutants into the finite volume of our atmpshere can possibly be a "good thing", or even a "neutral thing", can you?

the question is posed to YOU. Do YOU believe that spewing tons of unnatural pollutants into our atmosphere is a good thing for Mother Earth? YOU. yes or no.

Of course not

However, vovcanos emit more CO2 into the air then man does

 

[maineman]

Of course not

However, vovcanos emit more CO2 into the air then man does

so because volcanoes occasionally do, we should continue to do so as well?

 

[red states rule]

so because volcanoes occasionally do, we should continue to do so as well?

Occasionally?

Mt St Helen's sprewed more co2 into the air then man ever has

 

[maineman]

Occasionally?

Mt St Helen's sprewed more co2 into the air then man ever has

I say again:

so because volcanoes occasionally do, we should continue to do so as well?
I thought you realized that the word "occasionally" refers to timing and not extent.