Global cooling or global warming?

[Oddball]

Here's another one, genius...Since uses of CFCs have largely been banned, and the dynamic of solar radiation interacting with the atmosphere does in fact create more ozone, why is there still an ozone hole?

 

[Old Rocks]

Here's another one, genius...Since uses of CFCs have largely been banned, and the dynamic of solar radiation interacting with the atmosphere does in fact create more ozone, why is there still an ozone hole?

Too easy. CFCs have a long residence time in the atmosphere, and when they degrade to Cl radicals, they last even longer. The affect is catalytic, not straight chemical.

http://www.geology.wmich.edu/haas/envs2150/12s.pdf

 

[Si modo]

Here's another one, genius...Since uses of CFCs have largely been banned, and the dynamic of solar radiation interacting with the atmosphere does in fact create more ozone, why is there still an ozone hole?

CFCs are heavier than air. So, they tend to hang out in the lower atmospheric layers (forget what they are called). However the radical chain reaction in in which a halogenated hydrocarbon needs to be is in the very upper levels of the atmosphere where the energy from the sun's radiation to initiate the radical chain reaction leading to ozone destruction exists. And, it is in these upper layers where the ozone is.

Anyway, the CFCs that have been released into the atmosphere prior to the Montreal Protocol (sometime in the 80s, I believe), are still hanging out in the lower levels of the atmosphere, unreacted. But, gaseous mixing of the lower levels and levels above them will ensure that the upper levels of the atmosphere, where the ozone is, will have CFCs present for reaction with the sun's radiation which initiates the radical chain reactions causing ozone depletion.

Over time, the CFCs present in these lower levels of the atmosphere will also eventually be removed by moisture (not for the water insoluble CFCs, though), other reactions, etc. But, until they are removed, they will persist in depletion.

Yes, ozone is regenerated, as you have pointed out. Yes, as a result of the Montreal Protocol, CFCs have been reduced in the atmosphere. What is unclear, though, is if the negative effects of the CFCs that still persist in the atmosphere are greater than the positive effects of the natural process of ozone generation.

 

[Big Fitz]

So since one climatological hoax has been foiled, we're going to go back to an even older one?

Face it, you got a skip in your record.

It's mankind's fault. It's capitalism's fault. Only socialism can save us now. >skip< It's mankind's fault. It's capitalism's fault. Only socialism can save us now. >skip< It's mankind's fault. It's capitalism's fault. Only socialism can save us now. >skip< It's mankind's fault. It's capitalism's fault. Only socialism can save us now. >skip< It's mankind's fault. It's capitalism's fault. Only socialism can save us now. >skip< It's mankind's fault. It's capitalism's fault. Only socialism can save us now. >skip< It's mankind's fault. It's capitalism's fault. Only socialism can save us now. >skip<

And you have a stick up your ass.

Why don't you send the Aussies some of the stolen e-mails, they need a bit of help with the current heat wave. Surely that would cool that, correct?

That your best shot, sonny boy?

You're the kinda guy that even if Dr. Mann came and personally showed you how he lied and faked the whole thing, you wouldn't believe him... would you?

 

[Oddball]

Here's another one, genius...Since uses of CFCs have largely been banned, and the dynamic of solar radiation interacting with the atmosphere does in fact create more ozone, why is there still an ozone hole?

CFCs are heavier than air. So, they tend to hang out in the lower atmospheric layers (forget what they are called). However the radical chain reaction in in which a halogenated hydrocarbon needs to be is in the very upper levels of the atmosphere where the energy from the sun's radiation to initiate the radical chain reaction leading to ozone destruction exists. And, it is in these upper layers where the ozone is.

Anyway, the CFCs that have been released into the atmosphere prior to the Montreal Protocol (sometime in the 80s, I believe), are still hanging out in the lower levels of the atmosphere, unreacted. But, gaseous mixing of the lower levels and levels above them will ensure that the upper levels of the atmosphere, where the ozone is, will have CFCs present for reaction with the sun's radiation which initiates the radical chain reactions causing ozone depletion.

Over time, the CFCs present in these lower levels of the atmosphere will also eventually be removed by moisture (not for the water insoluble CFCs, though), other reactions, etc. But, until they are removed, they will persist in depletion.

Yes, ozone is regenerated, as you have pointed out. Yes, as a result of the Montreal Protocol, CFCs have been reduced in the atmosphere. What is unclear, though, is if the negative effects of the CFCs that still persist in the atmosphere are greater than the positive effects of the natural process of ozone generation.

Interesting, if you stand by the claim that the ecosystem isn't self cleaning and regenerating at a higher rate than the doom-and-gloomers like to claim.

When I was a kid, the story was that Lake Erie was going to be "dead" for, by some claims, up to a century. Yet, today, less than half of that period of time, the lake is clean vital and is producing some of the consistently biggest walleyes in the nation....And they're all edible too.

So, it would seem that there's something else at play here.

 

[Si modo]

Here's another one, genius...Since uses of CFCs have largely been banned, and the dynamic of solar radiation interacting with the atmosphere does in fact create more ozone, why is there still an ozone hole?

CFCs are heavier than air. So, they tend to hang out in the lower atmospheric layers (forget what they are called). However the radical chain reaction in in which a halogenated hydrocarbon needs to be is in the very upper levels of the atmosphere where the energy from the sun's radiation to initiate the radical chain reaction leading to ozone destruction exists. And, it is in these upper layers where the ozone is.

Anyway, the CFCs that have been released into the atmosphere prior to the Montreal Protocol (sometime in the 80s, I believe), are still hanging out in the lower levels of the atmosphere, unreacted. But, gaseous mixing of the lower levels and levels above them will ensure that the upper levels of the atmosphere, where the ozone is, will have CFCs present for reaction with the sun's radiation which initiates the radical chain reactions causing ozone depletion.

Over time, the CFCs present in these lower levels of the atmosphere will also eventually be removed by moisture (not for the water insoluble CFCs, though), other reactions, etc. But, until they are removed, they will persist in depletion.

Yes, ozone is regenerated, as you have pointed out. Yes, as a result of the Montreal Protocol, CFCs have been reduced in the atmosphere. What is unclear, though, is if the negative effects of the CFCs that still persist in the atmosphere are greater than the positive effects of the natural process of ozone generation.

Interesting, if you stand by the claim that the ecosystem isn't self cleaning and regenerating at a higher rate than the doom-and-gloomers like to claim. ....

But it is self-cleaning with respect to CFCs, as I mentioned above. But, the rate of that self-cleaning is unknown right now with even speculation to any rate being just that.

.... When I was a kid, the story was that Lake Erie was going to be "dead" for, by some claims, up to a century. Yet, today, less than half of that period of time, the lake is clean vital and is producing some of the consistently biggest walleyes in the nation....And they're all edible too. ....

I recall that, too. There are several examples of such stories of doom and gloom that have never come to pass.

This may well be another case. I make no such predictions one way or the other as the solidity of the science for making such predictions is dubious. The science of the mechanisms is not dubious at all, though.

.... So, it would seem that there's something else at play here.

These are the mechanisms at play. What one can predict based on these is close to a crap shoot, though. As I said, it is unclear if the rate of generation of ozone is greater than or less than the depletion caused by the persisting CFCs. I don't think anyone can make a solid prediction one way or the other.

 

[Oddball]

Fair enough.

 

[Big Fitz]

When I was a kid, the story was that Lake Erie was going to be "dead" for, by some claims, up to a century. Yet, today, less than half of that period of time, the lake is clean vital and is producing some of the consistently biggest walleyes in the nation....And they're all edible too.

It's been amazing how much my study of the Great Lakes and it's history has come into play as of late. The reason Lake Erie is recovering is because of two things: Depth and shape.

The nature of the great lakes is that each lake has a 'water cycle' in which you can calculate it takes how long for an individual drop to leave the lake on average. Lake Superior for instance being the largest, deepest, and having a very narrow passage of exit through the St. Mary's River is measured in hundreds of years. Lake Michigan and Lake Huron also have long cycles measured in dozens of years due to their larger outlets and northern/southern flow.

Lake Erie on the other hand, being the shallowest of the lakes and 2nd smallest, is therefore quickly cycled. It takes less than 3 years for all the water in the lake to go out Niagara Falls. The wind helps push it out as well thanks to it's east/west orientation and short length as well.

So, when the eco-maniacs were touting that Lake Erie is dead forever (or what other insanity they believed) they did not take into account that small fact that all the pollution, once stopped at it's source quickly filtered out of the water, and then began to leech out of the sentiment. This process would have taken a lot longer... except for one other minor silver lining to large ecological disaster: Zebra Muscles.

Zebra Muscles have been discovered to be ravenous filter feeders that do quite well in polluted waters. They have been expanding throughout the great lakes to the detriment of other native species These little buggers have been helping leech the toxins out of the soil, as well as purify the water to CLEANER than it has been before man plied the waters of the great lakes. Bad for the native species in many cases, but awesome for the water quality.

The one thing that this has to do regarding the whoooole BS Climate Change debate and now the attempt to flip back to previous chapters of the rulebook, is nothing more than the law of unintended consequence and the limits of mankind's knowledge.

Of course, we must not forget the boundless depths of his arrogance and hubris. We are the species that tries to build towers to God, and have at times believed ourselves supreme even to His creation. We so look for anything to support our presuppositions and desired outcomes, that we will rationalize away anything that does not meet them and cling to our bosom anything that agrees with us.

Boncher's Maxim of Belief: "To a believer, no proof is necessary. To a skeptic, no proof is enough."

But I shall also include Boncher's Truism on Hypocrisy.

"Everyone's a hypocrite. After that, it's a question of subject and scale."

Good post, Dude. Hope you like the color commentary too.

 

[Toronado3800]

I'm still trying to figure out how the CFCs know to migrate to Antarctica.

Myth: CFCs Are Heavier Than Air, So They Can't Reach the Ozone Layer | The Science of Ozone Layer Depletion | US EPA
Chlorofluorocarbons (CFCs) are heavier than air, so how do scientists suppose that these chemicals reach the altitude of the ozone layer to adversely affect it? : Scientific American

HOW CAN CHLOROFLUOROCARBONS (CFCs) GET TO THE STRATOSPHERE IF THEY'RE HEAVIER THAN AIR?
Although the CFC molecules are indeed several times heavier than air, thousands of measurements have been made from balloons, aircraft and satellites demonstrating that the CFCs are actually present in the stratosphere.

I really can't see there being an anti-CFC conspiracy either. Could the fellas in the balloons all be "in on it" even if its only a group think problem? I would doubt so.

 

[Oddball]

Well, thanks for the straight answer.

Doesn't answer the question as to why they're still relevant viz. the ozone hole, when they likely should have degraded and decayed by now, but I'll take it.

 

[Sinatra]

When I was a kid, the story was that Lake Erie was going to be "dead" for, by some claims, up to a century. Yet, today, less than half of that period of time, the lake is clean vital and is producing some of the consistently biggest walleyes in the nation....And they're all edible too.

It's been amazing how much my study of the Great Lakes and it's history has come into play as of late. The reason Lake Erie is recovering is because of two things: Depth and shape.

The nature of the great lakes is that each lake has a 'water cycle' in which you can calculate it takes how long for an individual drop to leave the lake on average. Lake Superior for instance being the largest, deepest, and having a very narrow passage of exit through the St. Mary's River is measured in hundreds of years. Lake Michigan and Lake Huron also have long cycles measured in dozens of years due to their larger outlets and northern/southern flow.

Lake Erie on the other hand, being the shallowest of the lakes and 2nd smallest, is therefore quickly cycled. It takes less than 3 years for all the water in the lake to go out Niagara Falls. The wind helps push it out as well thanks to it's east/west orientation and short length as well.

So, when the eco-maniacs were touting that Lake Erie is dead forever (or what other insanity they believed) they did not take into account that small fact that all the pollution, once stopped at it's source quickly filtered out of the water, and then began to leech out of the sentiment. This process would have taken a lot longer... except for one other minor silver lining to large ecological disaster: Zebra Muscles.

Zebra Muscles have been discovered to be ravenous filter feeders that do quite well in polluted waters. They have been expanding throughout the great lakes to the detriment of other native species These little buggers have been helping leech the toxins out of the soil, as well as purify the water to CLEANER than it has been before man plied the waters of the great lakes. Bad for the native species in many cases, but awesome for the water quality.

The one thing that this has to do regarding the whoooole BS Climate Change debate and now the attempt to flip back to previous chapters of the rulebook, is nothing more than the law of unintended consequence and the limits of mankind's knowledge.

Of course, we must not forget the boundless depths of his arrogance and hubris. We are the species that tries to build towers to God, and have at times believed ourselves supreme even to His creation. We so look for anything to support our presuppositions and desired outcomes, that we will rationalize away anything that does not meet them and cling to our bosom anything that agrees with us.

Boncher's Maxim of Belief: "To a believer, no proof is necessary. To a skeptic, no proof is enough."

But I shall also include Boncher's Truism on Hypocrisy.

"Everyone's a hypocrite. After that, it's a question of subject and scale."

Good post, Dude. Hope you like the color commentary too.

Cool post...

 

[Si modo]

CFCs are heavier than air. So, they tend to hang out in the lower atmospheric layers (forget what they are called). However the radical chain reaction in in which a halogenated hydrocarbon needs to be is in the very upper levels of the atmosphere where the energy from the sun's radiation to initiate the radical chain reaction leading to ozone destruction exists. And, it is in these upper layers where the ozone is.

Anyway, the CFCs that have been released into the atmosphere prior to the Montreal Protocol (sometime in the 80s, I believe), are still hanging out in the lower levels of the atmosphere, unreacted. But, gaseous mixing of the lower levels and levels above them will ensure that the upper levels of the atmosphere, where the ozone is, will have CFCs present for reaction with the sun's radiation which initiates the radical chain reactions causing ozone depletion.

Over time, the CFCs present in these lower levels of the atmosphere will also eventually be removed by moisture (not for the water insoluble CFCs, though), other reactions, etc. But, until they are removed, they will persist in depletion.

Yes, ozone is regenerated, as you have pointed out. Yes, as a result of the Montreal Protocol, CFCs have been reduced in the atmosphere. What is unclear, though, is if the negative effects of the CFCs that still persist in the atmosphere are greater than the positive effects of the natural process of ozone generation.

Interesting, if you stand by the claim that the ecosystem isn't self cleaning and regenerating at a higher rate than the doom-and-gloomers like to claim. ....

But it is self-cleaning with respect to CFCs, as I mentioned above. But, the rate of that self-cleaning is unknown right now with even speculation to any rate being just that.

.... When I was a kid, the story was that Lake Erie was going to be "dead" for, by some claims, up to a century. Yet, today, less than half of that period of time, the lake is clean vital and is producing some of the consistently biggest walleyes in the nation....And they're all edible too. ....

I recall that, too. There are several examples of such stories of doom and gloom that have never come to pass.

This may well be another case. I make no such predictions one way or the other as the solidity of the science for making such predictions is dubious. The science of the mechanisms is not dubious at all, though.

.... So, it would seem that there's something else at play here.

These are the mechanisms at play. What one can predict based on these is close to a crap shoot, though. As I said, it is unclear if the rate of generation of ozone is greater than or less than the depletion caused by the persisting CFCs. I don't think anyone can make a solid prediction one way or the other.

And, to be thorough and present other possibilities of the ozone situation, one cannot disregard the influence of cosmic ray cycles on the rates of ozone depletion, either, based in this work:

Q.-B. Lu and L. Sanche
Group of the Canadian Institutes of Health Research in Radiation Sciences, Faculty of Medicine, University of Sherbrooke, Sherbrooke, Canada, J1H 5N4

Received 27 February 2001; published 30 July 2001

Data from satellite, balloon, and ground-station measurements show that ozone loss is strongly correlated with cosmic-ray ionization-rate variations with altitude, latitude, and time. Moreover, our laboratory data indicate that the dissociation induced by cosmic rays for CF2Cl2 and CFCl3 on ice surfaces in the polar stratosphere at an altitude of &#8764;15 km is quite efficient, with estimated rates of 4.3×10-5 and 3.6×10-4 s-1, respectively. These findings suggest that dissociation of chlorofluorocarbons by capture of electrons produced by cosmic rays and localized in polar stratospheric cloud ice may play a significant role in causing the ozone hole.​

Phys. Rev. Lett. 87, 078501 (2001)

Ozone Layer Burned by Cosmic Rays

Cosmic conspiracy. Cosmic rays could be a major contributor to ozone destruction over Antarctica.

Cosmic rays may be enlarging the hole in the ozone layer, according to a study appearing in the 13 August print issue of PRL. Researchers analyzed data from several sources, and found a strong correlation between cosmic ray intensity and ozone depletion. Back in the lab they demonstrated a mechanism by which cosmic rays could cause a buildup of ozone-depleting chlorine inside polar clouds. Their results suggest that the damage done by cosmic rays could be millions of times larger than anyone previous believed and may force atmospheric scientists to reexamine their models of the antarctic ozone hole.

....

Atmospheric chemists have already studied the effects of cosmic ray ionization on CFCs, according to Sanche, but no one has looked at the effects of cosmic rays inside polar clouds. To simulate a dense, antarctic cloud, Sanche and Lu cooled a metal rod down to temperatures between 20 and 100 K and condensed water vapor and CFCs onto its surface. They then bombarded the condensate with low-energy electrons like those created by cosmic rays ionizing atoms in the atmosphere. The electrons reacted with the CFCs and made active chlorine, and the team determined the likelihood of this reaction by measuring the charge buildup on the end of the rod.

The results suggest that electrons from cosmic rays are about a million times more likely to interact with CFCs inside polar clouds than anyone previously believed, says Sanche. Robert Compton of the University of Tennessee says that Sanche and Lu's revised estimations could help atmospheric scientists and meteorologists to improve their models of ozone loss. Sanche says these observations may also change the way we understand the ozone hole. A rise in global temperatures could cause an increase in polar cloud cover that would lead to more cosmic-ray-induced CFC reactions, he says. "So here you would predict some link between global warming and [the ozone hole]."

Physical Review Focus

 

[Toronado3800]

Good article and another piece to try to fit into the puzzle.

Still though what are we going to do? Nothing and HOPE its cosmic rays just so we don't have to tell our grandchildren it's our fault?

Any calculations on what the CFC ban has cost me? I found a few articles about inhaler prices going up a fair amount in the short term.

 

[Si modo]

Good article and another piece to try to fit into the puzzle.

Still though what are we going to do? Nothing and HOPE its cosmic rays just so we don't have to tell our grandchildren it's our fault?

Any calculations on what the CFC ban has cost me? I found a few articles about inhaler prices going up a fair amount in the short term.

No offense, but your grandchildren have nothing to do with the science right now. Just make sure they have good sunscreen on them when out.

 

[Ame®icano]

 

[immto]

I remember 6th grade and Earth Day, the first Earthday that was held in our school maybe the first one ever. Our Science teacher did a speech that the entire school has to listen to and we had a presentation done by some group I don't remember who, but the entire thing was geared up to teach us, to teach our parents and family to follow the 3 r's or by the time we were their age it would be another Ice age.

I remembe that same teacher going on and on about how or environment was changing and it was all our fault. Now back then I let most of it go in one ear and out the other but I also started recyling. It wasn't until I was much older that I began to read about how little overall impact that recycling really had on a global scale. It was only a few years later when all of sudden we were struck with GLOBAL WARMING, and then Al gore wrote his rag.

By then I was allready questioning how much Science really understood. After Al Gore wrote his book is when I started researching the topic myself and what I found was shocking. It turns out the science is not clear, at all. Many scientists in fact dispute the validity of Gore's book entirely. When Al Gore said the censensus was in, he must have forgotten the panel of scientists that were split almost 50/50 over whether or not Green House gasses were likely due to human influence or whether they were part of the normal global pattern.

Now I'm not a scientist or even a researcher, but I found enough online from to feel confident that I have NO IDEA what's going on. The UN global warming conference in Poland faced a serious challenge from over 650 dissenting scientists from around the globe who are criticizing the climate claims made by the UN IPCC. 400 scientists spoke out at the very same event in 2007. so it grew by 250 + in one years time. UN IPCC Japanese Scientist Dr. Kiminori Itoh, an award-winning PhD environmental physical chemist said this, "Warming fears are the “worst scientific scandal in the history…When people come to know what the truth is, they will feel deceived by science and scientists." Nobel Prize Winner for Physics, Ivar Giaever is also a skeptic.

You can find alot of information on this topic including links to other mostly reputiable sites .: U.S. Senate Committee on Environment and Public Works :: Welcome :.

Here is link to the PDF File for the Complete U.S. Senate Report. Here

 

[Ame®icano]

How convenient.

The Environmental Protection Agency took a major step Monday toward regulating greenhouses gases, concluding that climate changing pollution threatens the public health and the environment.

The announcement came as the Obama administration looked to boost its arguments at an international climate conference that the United States is aggressively taking actions to combat global warming, even though Congress has yet to act on climate legislation. The conference opened Monday in Copenhagen.

EPA says greenhouse gases endanger human health

If the EPA can regulate all this crap, why do we even need a congress at all? We can just have a King and his nobles to order us what to do without any debate.

 

[immto]

how convenient.

the environmental protection agency took a major step monday toward regulating greenhouses gases, concluding that climate changing pollution threatens the public health and the environment.

The announcement came as the obama administration looked to boost its arguments at an international climate conference that the united states is aggressively taking actions to combat global warming, even though congress has yet to act on climate legislation. The conference opened monday in copenhagen.

epa says greenhouse gases endanger human health

if the epa can regulate all this crap, why do we even need a congress at all? We can just have a king and his nobles to order us what to do without any debate.

please don"t give them any ideas!

 

[Shorebreak]

I remember 6th grade and Earth Day, the first Earthday that was held in our school maybe the first one ever. Our Science teacher did a speech that the entire school has to listen to and we had a presentation done by some group I don't remember who, but the entire thing was geared up to teach us, to teach our parents and family to follow the 3 r's or by the time we were their age it would be another Ice age.

I remembe that same teacher going on and on about how or environment was changing and it was all our fault. Now back then I let most of it go in one ear and out the other but I also started recyling. It wasn't until I was much older that I began to read about how little overall impact that recycling really had on a global scale. It was only a few years later when all of sudden we were struck with GLOBAL WARMING, and then Al gore wrote his rag.

By then I was allready questioning how much Science really understood. After Al Gore wrote his book is when I started researching the topic myself and what I found was shocking. It turns out the science is not clear, at all. Many scientists in fact dispute the validity of Gore's book entirely. When Al Gore said the censensus was in, he must have forgotten the panel of scientists that were split almost 50/50 over whether or not Green House gasses were likely due to human influence or whether they were part of the normal global pattern.

Now I'm not a scientist or even a researcher, but I found enough online from to feel confident that I have NO IDEA what's going on. The UN global warming conference in Poland faced a serious challenge from over 650 dissenting scientists from around the globe who are criticizing the climate claims made by the UN IPCC. 400 scientists spoke out at the very same event in 2007. so it grew by 250 + in one years time. UN IPCC Japanese Scientist Dr. Kiminori Itoh, an award-winning PhD environmental physical chemist said this, "Warming fears are the “worst scientific scandal in the history…When people come to know what the truth is, they will feel deceived by science and scientists." Nobel Prize Winner for Physics, Ivar Giaever is also a skeptic.

You can find alot of information on this topic including links to other mostly reputiable sites .: U.S. Senate Committee on Environment and Public Works :: Welcome :.

Here is link to the PDF File for the Complete U.S. Senate Report. Here

Your lack of findings is representative of a very accurate picture regarding man-made climate change. Reality is that there is no concensus.

So far, there are two predominant camps. The first camp are those who strongly claim that climate change is heavily impacted by man, who are promoted by corporate media and in alignment with the policy makers and globalist corporations who want to impose taxes and strict manufacturing controls at a global level, under their authority.

The second camp is the scientists, leaders, and manufacturers who are not aligned with corporate media or globalists. They are very much larger than the first camp, but they are cast as a dissenting view by media rather than the predominant view. For example, there is a document that is signed by 30,000 scientists who have stated unequivocably that they find no evidence suggesting that human activity has a significant impact on climate change.

When you wade through all of the muck, there are a few key items that stand out:

1. The most indepth support for global action on climate change is coming from globalist entities, such as the UN.
2. All efforts surrounding control of emmissions are centered around generating tax revenue and establishing manufacturing controls and limits - to be decided by globalist entities.
3. Support for these efforts comes primarily from corporate sponsorships (e.g. research funding at prominant universities and research facilities), from governments who are aligned with socialist global unification (the US, UK, France, China, etc), and from corporate sponsored media.
4. Opposed to man-made climate change is briefly highlighted by media but not focused upon. For example, corporate globalist media networks such as the Discovery Channel and National Geographic have been airing programming for many years that treats man-made climate change as a fact without ever presenting a challenging opinion. In addition, many of the programs that are not focused on climate change will include script that adds climate change comments into the narration, as though it is a reality.

My comment for those who believe that man-made climate change is a reality is to be certain that you are entering into this thing with your eyes wide open. There is no cost or Kw equivalent alternative to coal energy today. Neither is there an equivalent to most of the other fossil-fuel driven manufacturing processes that are used to sustain our societal infrastructure, ranging from food production, electricity production, household goods, electronics, and transportation infrastructure.

What you are demanding, without scientific concensus, is global legislation (with authority over domestic laws granted to a corporate controlled global entity) that will not only decimate the US capacity to support our current population, but will also add a significant levy to those operations that remain in production. On top of that, you are demanding that domestic manufacturers who can afford to relocate overseas close up shop and head to other nations with minimal restriction on manufacturing.

And I'm only scratching the surface with the impact. Is that what we really want?

And here's my comment for those who DON'T believe in man-made climate change: Go back and read my last two full paragraphs. That's what we're facing. This WILL be crammed down our throats, whether we want it or not. The White House has already ordered the EPA to send out the CO2 directive. My advice is to prepare now for a worst-case scenario (it's better to be prepared and have nothing happen than to not be prepared at all) as manufacturing is turned down and the economy is minimized. My wife and I are studying the lessons learned by the Argentinian collapse, whose lead-up almost fits the profile for our current circumstances in the US.

 

[Sinatra]

I remember 6th grade and Earth Day, the first Earthday that was held in our school maybe the first one ever. Our Science teacher did a speech that the entire school has to listen to and we had a presentation done by some group I don't remember who, but the entire thing was geared up to teach us, to teach our parents and family to follow the 3 r's or by the time we were their age it would be another Ice age.

I remembe that same teacher going on and on about how or environment was changing and it was all our fault. Now back then I let most of it go in one ear and out the other but I also started recyling. It wasn't until I was much older that I began to read about how little overall impact that recycling really had on a global scale. It was only a few years later when all of sudden we were struck with GLOBAL WARMING, and then Al gore wrote his rag.

By then I was allready questioning how much Science really understood. After Al Gore wrote his book is when I started researching the topic myself and what I found was shocking. It turns out the science is not clear, at all. Many scientists in fact dispute the validity of Gore's book entirely. When Al Gore said the censensus was in, he must have forgotten the panel of scientists that were split almost 50/50 over whether or not Green House gasses were likely due to human influence or whether they were part of the normal global pattern.

Now I'm not a scientist or even a researcher, but I found enough online from to feel confident that I have NO IDEA what's going on. The UN global warming conference in Poland faced a serious challenge from over 650 dissenting scientists from around the globe who are criticizing the climate claims made by the UN IPCC. 400 scientists spoke out at the very same event in 2007. so it grew by 250 + in one years time. UN IPCC Japanese Scientist Dr. Kiminori Itoh, an award-winning PhD environmental physical chemist said this, "Warming fears are the “worst scientific scandal in the history…When people come to know what the truth is, they will feel deceived by science and scientists." Nobel Prize Winner for Physics, Ivar Giaever is also a skeptic.

You can find alot of information on this topic including links to other mostly reputiable sites .: U.S. Senate Committee on Environment and Public Works :: Welcome :.

Here is link to the PDF File for the Complete U.S. Senate Report. Here

Your lack of findings is representative of a very accurate picture regarding man-made climate change. Reality is that there is no concensus.

So far, there are two predominant camps. The first camp are those who strongly claim that climate change is heavily impacted by man, who are promoted by corporate media and in alignment with the policy makers and globalist corporations who want to impose taxes and strict manufacturing controls at a global level, under their authority.

The second camp is the scientists, leaders, and manufacturers who are not aligned with corporate media or globalists. They are very much larger than the first camp, but they are cast as a dissenting view by media rather than the predominant view. For example, there is a document that is signed by 30,000 scientists who have stated unequivocably that they find no evidence suggesting that human activity has a significant impact on climate change.

When you wade through all of the muck, there are a few key items that stand out:

1. The most indepth support for global action on climate change is coming from globalist entities, such as the UN.
2. All efforts surrounding control of emmissions are centered around generating tax revenue and establishing manufacturing controls and limits - to be decided by globalist entities.
3. Support for these efforts comes primarily from corporate sponsorships (e.g. research funding at prominant universities and research facilities), from governments who are aligned with socialist global unification (the US, UK, France, China, etc), and from corporate sponsored media.
4. Opposed to man-made climate change is briefly highlighted by media but not focused upon. For example, corporate globalist media networks such as the Discovery Channel and National Geographic have been airing programming for many years that treats man-made climate change as a fact without ever presenting a challenging opinion. In addition, many of the programs that are not focused on climate change will include script that adds climate change comments into the narration, as though it is a reality.

My comment for those who believe that man-made climate change is a reality is to be certain that you are entering into this thing with your eyes wide open. There is no cost or Kw equivalent alternative to coal energy today. Neither is there an equivalent to most of the other fossil-fuel driven manufacturing processes that are used to sustain our societal infrastructure, ranging from food production, electricity production, household goods, electronics, and transportation infrastructure.

What you are demanding, without scientific concensus, is global legislation (with authority over domestic laws granted to a corporate controlled global entity) that will not only decimate the US capacity to support our current population, but will also add a significant levy to those operations that remain in production. On top of that, you are demanding that domestic manufacturers who can afford to relocate overseas close up shop and head to other nations with minimal restriction on manufacturing.

And I'm only scratching the surface with the impact. Is that what we really want?

And here's my comment for those who DON'T believe in man-made climate change: Go back and read my last two full paragraphs. That's what we're facing. This WILL be crammed down our throats, whether we want it or not. The White House has already ordered the EPA to send out the CO2 directive. My advice is to prepare now for a worst-case scenario (it's better to be prepared and have nothing happen than to not be prepared at all) as manufacturing is turned down and the economy is minimized. My wife and I are studying the lessons learned by the Argentinian collapse, whose lead-up almost fits the profile for our current circumstances in the US.

I found your post both interesting and informative - thank you.