Cold really does kill...

[westwall]

Finally a MSM person asks the hard questions....


It’s the cold, not global warming, that we should be worried about
No one seems upset that in modern Britain, old people are freezing to death as hidden taxes make fuel more expensive


"A few months ago, a group of students in Oslo produced a brilliant spoof video that lampooned the charity pop song genre. It showed a group of young Africans coming together to raise money for those of us freezing in the north. “A lot of people aren’t aware of what’s going on there right now,” says the African equivalent of Bob Geldof. “People don’t ignore starving people, so why should we ignore cold people? Frostbite kills too. Africa: we need to make a difference.” The song – Africa for Norway – has been watched online two million times, making it one of Europe’s most popular political videos.

The aim was to send up the patronising, cliched way in which the West views Africa. Norway can afford to make the joke because there, people don’t tend to die of the cold. In Britain, we still do. Each year, an official estimate is made of the “excess winter mortality” – that is, the number of people dying of cold-related illnesses. Last winter was relatively mild, and still 24,000 perished. The indications are that this winter, which has dragged on so long and with such brutality, will claim 30,000 lives, making it one of the biggest killers in the country. And still, no one seems upset."



It?s the cold, not global warming, that we should be worried about - Telegraph

 

[boedicca]

[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=oJLqyuxm96k]Africa for Norway![/ame]


Cold is just as bad as poverty!

 

[whitehall]

Like it or not astrological/geological ice ages are a part of Earth's legacy. New York City was once under a 100 ft glacier and the grooves in exposed rocks in Central Park are mute testimony. It's hard to understand the hysteria about the theory of global warming unless we understand the political side. America's economy is in trouble for a lot of reasons. Cheap energy is the only way out but guess what? The concept of global warming blocks America from being independent of foreign oil and the issue boils down to the left wing 60's anarchist revolutionaries that used to use bombs to intimidate society and now use propaganda.

 

[boedicca]

I agree. We have more to fear from another ice age than we do from global warming. Warming has been very good for humanity. In the 1970s, the big fear was that we were entering a new ice age; the CO2 research, which the AGW mongers have perverted in their hysteria, was originally done to find ways to combat an ice age.

 

[Old Rocks]

Lordy, lordy, one needs some really big shovels for the bullshit around here.

What were climate scientists predicting in the 1970s?

The fact is that around 1970 there were 6 times as many scientists predicting a warming rather than a cooling planet. Today, with 30+years more data to analyse, we've reached a clear scientific consensus: 97% of working climate scientists agree with the view that human beings are causing global warming

 

[boedicca]

Lordy Lordy...somebody tell Time Magazine.

 

[Old Rocks]

Lordy Lordy...somebody tell Time Magazine.

So, you get your science from Time magazine. That is very telling.

 

[boedicca]

Uh. Moron. I said the Big Fear was that we were facing a coming Ice Age...and I provided an MSM source that supports that claim.

 

[Old Rocks]

Uh. Moron. I said the Big Fear was that we were facing a coming Ice Age...and I provided an MSM source that supports that claim.

So you want to call someone a moron because they actually read the science rather than the fluff. But you post the fluff.

http://www.wmconnolley.org.uk/sci/iceage/nas-1975.html

Now I read this report within a year of its publication. Seems to lay to rest the myth concerning the scientists predicting an ice age.

 

[whitehall]

The quirky disgruntled former vice president son of a segregationist senator was awarded a Nobel Peace Prize for no particular reason. Al Gore had no scientific background. He was a pervert hypocrite who lived in what could be best described as a compound that used about 40 times the energy that a family of his size uses but he had help writing a book that condemned America's reliance on fossil fuel. Al Gore was arrested (and released) for allegedly molesting a woman who was employed to give him a massage and he subsequently left his family. He hired a couple of Korean women to infiltrate North Korea to try to resuscitate his dying quasi-news network and called on the State Dept when they were arrested. He tried a scheme to broker fake "carbon credits" and that sleazy mess collapsed (without his arrest). Next thing you know Al Gore sells his "news network" to the Al-Jazeera network that promotes terrorism and the "mainstream media" doesn't make an issue out of it. The point is that the radical left still relies on Al Gore's junk science to promote an extortion scheme that is draining the economy of the once greatest Nation on the globe.

 

[depotoo]

Lordy Lordy...somebody tell Time Magazine.

So, you get your science from Time magazine. That is very telling.

Here is what it was referring to, if you really care to see.

Atmospheric Carbon Dioxide and Aerosols: Effects of Large Increases on Global Cl
Atmospheric Carbon Dioxide and Aerosols: Effects of Large Increases on Global Climate
Abstract
Effects on the global temperature of large increases in carbon dioxide and aerosol densities in the atmosphere of Earth have been computed. It is found that, although the addition of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere does increase the surface temperature, the rate of temperature increase diminishes with increasing carbon dioxide in the atmosphere. For aerosols, however, the net effect of increase in density is to reduce the surface temperature of Earth. Because of the exponential dependence of the backscattering, the rate of temperature decrease is augmented with increasing aerosol content. An increase by only a factor of 4 in global aerosol background concentration may be sufficient to reduce the surface temperature by as much as 3.5 degrees K. If sustained over a period of several years, such a temperature decrease over the whole globe is believed to be sufficient to trigger an ice age.

S I Rasool - NASA Scientist, AMS

They also authored this paper in 72 -
Aerosol concentrations: effect on planetary temperat... [Science. 1972] - PubMed - NCBI

The authors -
Stephen Henry Schneider (February 11, 1945 – July 19, 2010) Professor of Environmental Biology and Global Change at Stanford University, a Co-Director at the Center for Environment Science and Policy of the Freeman Spogli Institute for International Studies and a Senior Fellow in the Stanford Woods Institute for the Environment.

want more?

Newsweek Magazine even used the climate “tipping point” argument in 1975. Newsweek wrote April 28, 1975 article: "The longer the planners delay, the more difficult will they find it to cope with climatic change once the results become grim reality."

But on October 24, 2006, Newsweek admitted it erred in predicting a coming ice age in the 1970's. (NYT: Obama's global warming promoting science czar Holdren 'warned of a coming ice age' in 1971 – September 29, 2009 & also see: NASA warned of human caused coming 'ice age' in 1971 – Washington Times – September 19, 2007 and also see: 1975 New York Times: "Scientists Ask Why World Climate is Changing, Major Cooling May Be Ahead", May 21, 1975 and see: 1974 Time Magazine: "Another Ice Age," June 24, 1974

National Academy of Sciences Issued Report Warning of Coming Ice Age in 1975

Excerpt: “A major climatic change would force economic and social adjustments on a worldwide scale,” warns a recent report by the National Academy of Sciences, “because the global patterns of food production and population that have evolved are implicitly dependent on the climate of the present century.” - Newsweek - April 28, 1975 “The Cooling World”

NASA warned of human caused coming 'ice age' in 1971 – Washington Times – September 19, 2007

Excerpt: “The world "could be as little as 50 or 60 years away from a disastrous new ice age, a leading atmospheric scientist predicts,” read a July 9, 1971 Washington Post article. NASA scientist S.I. Rasool, a colleague of James Hansen, made the predictions. The 1971 article continues: "In the next 50 years" — or by 2021 — fossil-fuel dust injected by man into the atmosphere "could screen out so much sunlight that the average temperature could drop by six degrees," resulting in a buildup of "new glaciers that could eventually cover huge areas." If sustained over "several years, five to 10," or so Mr. Rasool estimated, "such a temperature decrease could be sufficient to trigger an ice age."

New York Times: Obama's global warming promoting science czar Holdren 'warned of a coming ice age' in 1971 – September 29, 2009 – By John Tierney – Excerpt: In the 1971 essay, “Overpopulation and the Potential for Ecocide,” Dr. Holdren and his co-author, the ecologist Paul Ehrlich, warned of a coming ice age. They certainly weren't the only scientists in the 1970s to warn of a coming ice age, but I can't think of any others who were so creative in their catastrophizing. Although they noted that the greenhouse effect from rising emissions of carbon dioxide emissions could cause future warming of the planet, they concluded from the mid-century cooling trend that the consequences of human activities (like industrial soot, dust from farms, jet exhaust, urbanization and deforestation) were more likely to first cause an ice age.

 

[Gracie]

Global warming is just the start of the beginning of another ice age. I think.

 

[mamooth]

I was paying attention in the 1970s. It was the conservatives ranting about how an ice age was coming, and that this liberal global warming idea was clearly a hoax. Meanwhile, the scientists and liberals had looked at the actual data, and understood the coming warming trend.

Yes, the conservatives are trying to rewrite history, but some of us don't forget how easily duped they were. And nothing has changed. A lot of 'em are still ranting about the coming ice age.

 

[Dugdale_Jukes]

"Global warming" is an unfortunate misnomer, or label, for climate change.

The hysteria is what it is. The reality is ocean currents are changing, and that as ocean currents change weather will be BOTH less stable AND more violent than it has for the last hundred-fifty or so years.

There is no question that atmospheric pollution is hastening the change. There are plenty of questions about how the changes shall play out in the next ten, fifty, and hundred years. What seems likely is a leveling of temperatures, higher at the poles, lower at the equator with leveling effects being more extreme with altitude above sea level.

What that means in practical terms is the days of unlimited bounty are numbered in areas like North America's breadbasket from Saskatchewan through Kansas/Missouri.

More problematic is clean water. Enron spotted this trend and experimented privatizing water rights in Bolivia and Brazil. People got killed in riots in both countries and privatization quickly took on gentler forms as quasi-public corporations.

In any event the next big battle related to climate change shall be over water rights. No question about that.

 

[westwall]

"Global warming" is an unfortunate misnomer, or label, for climate change.

The hysteria is what it is. The reality is ocean currents are changing, and that as ocean currents change weather will be BOTH less stable AND more violent than it has for the last hundred-fifty or so years.

There is no question that atmospheric pollution is hastening the change. There are plenty of questions about how the changes shall play out in the next ten, fifty, and hundred years. What seems likely is a leveling of temperatures, higher at the poles, lower at the equator with leveling effects being more extreme with altitude above sea level.

What that means in practical terms is the days of unlimited bounty are numbered in areas like North America's breadbasket from Saskatchewan through Kansas/Missouri.

More problematic is clean water. Enron spotted this trend and experimented privatizing water rights in Bolivia and Brazil. People got killed in riots in both countries and privatization quickly took on gentler forms as quasi-public corporations.

In any event the next big battle related to climate change shall be over water rights. No question about that.

If there was no question the laws would allready be passed and you would be paying double or triple what you now pay for your energy. Further there would not be a 16 year halt in global temp increase in the face of rapidly increasing CO2 levels, so clearly your statement is simple propaganda.

 

[Dugdale_Jukes]

"Global warming" is an unfortunate misnomer, or label, for climate change.

The hysteria is what it is. The reality is ocean currents are changing, and that as ocean currents change weather will be BOTH less stable AND more violent than it has for the last hundred-fifty or so years.

There is no question that atmospheric pollution is hastening the change. There are plenty of questions about how the changes shall play out in the next ten, fifty, and hundred years. What seems likely is a leveling of temperatures, higher at the poles, lower at the equator with leveling effects being more extreme with altitude above sea level.

What that means in practical terms is the days of unlimited bounty are numbered in areas like North America's breadbasket from Saskatchewan through Kansas/Missouri.

More problematic is clean water. Enron spotted this trend and experimented privatizing water rights in Bolivia and Brazil. People got killed in riots in both countries and privatization quickly took on gentler forms as quasi-public corporations.

In any event the next big battle related to climate change shall be over water rights. No question about that.

If there was no question the laws would allready be passed and you would be paying double or triple what you now pay for your energy. Further there would not be a 16 year halt in global temp increase in the face of rapidly increasing CO2 levels, so clearly your statement is simple propaganda.

No. Your wild-dyed nutball bogusness is the propaganda here. If facts mattered "voodoo economics" would have been laughed out of town in 1980 and George Bush would have led America to far better results in the 1980s than the bobbleheaded one did tripling the debt shadow boxing a bankrupt criminal empire. If facts mattered Saddam Hussein might have died in his sleep or at the end of a Kurd or Shi-ite rope instead of a US rope. If facts mattered no one would ever heard of Barack Obama, the reaction to 28 years of lies and anti-American corporatism by both parties.

But I digress..

There is no question carbon wastes are thinning the Van Allen belt and there has never been any question about either the span or the effects of stuff like acid rain. At least among rational scientists.

The problem is there isn't anything much that can be done about atmospheric pollution because the effects are cumulative and one or two nations cutting back does nothing. Two world wars are a factor as is the constant state of war somewhere now. However, the most significant real world consideration is that 80% of nations can't be regulated, so cutting back does more harm to citizens of civilized nations than self sacrifice.

Next.

 

[westwall]

"Global warming" is an unfortunate misnomer, or label, for climate change.

The hysteria is what it is. The reality is ocean currents are changing, and that as ocean currents change weather will be BOTH less stable AND more violent than it has for the last hundred-fifty or so years.

There is no question that atmospheric pollution is hastening the change. There are plenty of questions about how the changes shall play out in the next ten, fifty, and hundred years. What seems likely is a leveling of temperatures, higher at the poles, lower at the equator with leveling effects being more extreme with altitude above sea level.

What that means in practical terms is the days of unlimited bounty are numbered in areas like North America's breadbasket from Saskatchewan through Kansas/Missouri.

More problematic is clean water. Enron spotted this trend and experimented privatizing water rights in Bolivia and Brazil. People got killed in riots in both countries and privatization quickly took on gentler forms as quasi-public corporations.

In any event the next big battle related to climate change shall be over water rights. No question about that.

If there was no question the laws would allready be passed and you would be paying double or triple what you now pay for your energy. Further there would not be a 16 year halt in global temp increase in the face of rapidly increasing CO2 levels, so clearly your statement is simple propaganda.

No. Your wild-dyed nutball bogusness is the propaganda here. If facts mattered "voodoo economics" would have been laughed out of town in 1980 and George Bush would have led America to far better results in the 1980s than the bobbleheaded one did tripling the debt shadow boxing a bankrupt criminal empire. If facts mattered Saddam Hussein might have died in his sleep or at the end of a Kurd or Shi-ite rope instead of a US rope. If facts mattered no one would ever heard of Barack Obama, the reaction to 28 years of lies and anti-American corporatism by both parties.

But I digress..

There is no question carbon wastes are thinning the Van Allen belt and there has never been any question about either the span or the effects of stuff like acid rain. At least among rational scientists.

The problem is there isn't anything much that can be done about atmospheric pollution because the effects are cumulative and one or two nations cutting back does nothing. Two world wars are a factor as is the constant state of war somewhere now. However, the most significant real world consideration is that 80% of nations can't be regulated, so cutting back does more harm to citizens of civilized nations than self sacrifice.

Next.

Interesting how you curse the corporate world then complain when those same corporations aren't raping you for the energy you so desperately need.

Unlike you I AM anti-corporatist when those corps. are corrupt. You on the other hand want to support them. Why is that?