Typical Dem - Harps about Gas Guzzlers - leaves in SUV

[-Cp]

No...they aren't "people in the industry who know what's going on". They are people with a vested interest in NOT pursuing sane energy policies. Why do you assume having extremists on either side would be the only choice?

How about someone more like this?

http://www.medaloffreedom.com/RussellTrain.htm

http://www.motherjones.com/commentary/columns/2004/10/10_207.html

And before you call him a "lib" or an "enviro wacko"... this gentleman served under REPUBLICAN presidents, starting with Nixon, and left the Repubican party only BECAUSE of Bush's policies.

Read and learn, dear.

WTF does an "energy policy" have to do with the supposed "Global Warming"?

Are dems going to write up a law regulating how often and how much a volcano can erupt? You know, they spew more "crap" into the air then all the cars on the road combined...

 

[dmp]

And who's funding the "American Policy Center"?

Like any site you've ever linked has been credible. RAFLMAO!

If you wrote a dictionary you'd have THIS for 'credible'

cred·i·ble Pronunciation Key (krd-bl)
adj.

1. Agreeing with what I've already decided is truth.
2. See: Kool-Aide

 

[CharlestonChad]

I can't say that I've ever read anything published by an established oceanographer who said that global warming didn't exist.

 

[red states rule]

I can't say that I've ever read anything published by an established oceanographer who said that global warming didn't exist.

To liberals, it depends on your definitation of established. Meaning, if the established oceanographer agrees their is global warming, and makes sure in advance, the findings will back up the predetermined outcome of the research.

 

[CharlestonChad]

To liberals, it depends on your definitation of established. Meaning, if the established oceanographer agrees their is global warming, and makes sure in advance, the findings will back up the predetermined outcome of the research.

Established is one who has and is making an attempt to advance the knowledge in their field of study by being a published author or co-author on one or more research projects.

 

[jillian]

Established is one who has and is making an attempt to advance the knowledge in their field of study by being a published author or co-author on one or more research projects.

You forgot to add.... and who is accepted by the scientific community... AND... who isn't being paid by people who have a vested financial interest in the outcome.

 

[red states rule]

Here you go............


http://www.washtimes.com/national/20060420-115953-7360r.htm
Scientists cool outlook on global warming
By Jennifer Harper
THE WASHINGTON TIMES
April 21, 2006


Global warming may not be as dramatic as some scientists have predicted.
Using temperature readings from the past 100 years, 1,000 computer simulations and the evidence left in ancient tree rings, Duke University scientists announced yesterday that "the magnitude of future global warming will likely fall well short of current highest predictions."
Supported by the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, the Department of Energy and the National Science Foundation, the Duke researchers noted that some observational studies predicted that the Earth's temperature could rise as much as 16 degrees in this century because of an increase in carbon dioxide or other so-called greenhouse gases.
The Duke estimates show the chances that the planet's temperature will rise even by 11 degrees is only 5 percent, which falls in line with previous, less-alarming predictions that meteorologists made almost three decades ago.
In recent years, much academic research has indicated otherwise, often in colorful terms and citing the United States as the biggest contributor to global warming. This month, a University of Toronto scientist predicted that a quarter of the planet's plants and animals would be extinct by 2050 because of rising temperatures. On Wednesday, two geophysics professors at the University of Chicago warned those who eat red meat that their increased flatulence contributes to greenhouse gases.
Last year, Oregon State University research linked future "societal disruptions" with global warming, while the Carnegie Institution reported that the insulating influence of northern forests alone would raise the Earth's temperature by 6 degrees. In 2004, Harvard University scientists informed Congress that warming had doomed the planet to climatic "shocks and surprises."
The Duke research, however, found substantial ups and downs in the Earth's temperature before modern times, countering other studies that confine noticeable temperature increases to the industrialized era. Marked climate change in other centuries resulted from "external forcing," said the Duke findings, citing volcanic eruptions and other influences.
"Our reconstruction supports a lot of variability in the past," said research director Gabriele Hegerl of Duke's Nicholas School of the Environment and Earth Sciences.
Although her study found that the Earth is, indeed, warming, Ms. Hegerl discounts dire predictions of skyrocketing temperatures. The probability that the climate's "sensitivity" to greenhouse-gas levels would result in drastically higher temperatures is "substantially" reduced, she said.
Ms. Hegerl and her four-member team based their conclusions on thermometer readings over the past century, along with "ancient climate records," including tree-ring studies and ice-core samples that revealed hot and cold spells and airborne particulates over a 700-year period. In addition, they created 1,000 computer-based weather simulations for the past 1,000 years.
"Ancient and modern evidence suggest limits to future global warming," the study concluded. It was published in the journal Nature.
The topic of global warming, meanwhile, will be framed dramatically in "An Inconvenient Truth," a 94-minute documentary featuring former Vice President Al Gore, who has deemed rising temperatures "a planetary emergency." The Hollywood production will be released to theaters in May and is billed by producer Davis Guggenheim as "the most terrifying film you will ever see."
The production also recommends that viewers take "political action." On Tuesday, Mr. Gore paid Roy Neel, a longtime Democratic adviser, $40,000 to help him create a public outreach program on global warming, the New York Daily News reported.
The American Spectator and columnist Jonah Goldberg have accused Mr. Gore of "green" scaremongering.

 

[bobn]

Yeah global warming is such a problem. which is why the worlds tempatures were hotter 70 years ago then today.

That's incorrect.

Im tired of these red herring political issues.

Im tired of hearing the above red herrings in scientific issues..but that's just something I guess I have to live with.

 

[Stephanie]

I find it amusing...

How we didn't hear about this urgent global warming, during the eight yrs Clinton and Gore were running things............

Oh that's right, it's a Republican thing.....

 

[Avatar4321]

How about by seriously addressing our use of fossil fuels and pursuing enviro-friendly (not insane, just enviro-friendly) policies and NOT by having energy policy written by people who come from the automotive and logging industries for a start.

Yeah heaven forbid we listen to people in the energy industry about energy concerns. instead we should listen to anticapitalist environmental extremists. because obviously they know better than the energy producers how to produce energy.

The Bush energy policy was an all around policy. It supported more oil and coal production along with alternative fuel production. Democrats have continually opposed this and then whine when the gas prices go up. Well of course its going to go up. You tax the heck out of the industry and then tell them they cant get any more supply. And then rather than support an energy plan that supports ALL types of energy production, including the type of energy to claim we should be going after, you oppose it because you hate President Bush.

I am just sick and tired of you people bitching and moaning and then opposing any attempts to address the problem for political games. The reality is you don't want energy production of any type. But you cant say that so you just oppose it while saying you want "environmental friendly" energy despite opposing any production in that as well.

In the end the irony of it all will be that capitalism will create environmental friendly energy when its cost effective. Until it is there is no reason we should be destroying our energy production until you can provide an alternative.

 

[red states rule]

I find it amusing...

How we didn't hear about this urgent global warming, during the eight yrs Clinton and Gore were running things............

Oh that's right, it's a Republican thing.....

Libs have seem to have forgotten the US Senate rejected Kyoto 95 - 0 during the Clinton years.

 

[Avatar4321]

No...they aren't "people in the industry who know what's going on". They are people with a vested interest in NOT pursuing sane energy policies. Why do you assume having extremists on either side would be the only choice?

How about someone more like this?

http://www.medaloffreedom.com/RussellTrain.htm

http://www.motherjones.com/commentary/columns/2004/10/10_207.html

And before you call him a "lib" or an "enviro wacko"... this gentleman served under REPUBLICAN presidents, starting with Nixon, and left the Repubican party only BECAUSE of Bush's policies.

Read and learn, dear.

Um hello?!?! Of course the energy producers have a vested interest in pursuing sane energy policy. They are in the energy industry! They make money off producing energy. And if they can find an alternative way to produce energy and beat their competitors and make more money they are going to.

I couldnt care less what this guy says. He is still an environmental wacko and a lib. You dont have to be conservative to be part of the Republican party. There are way too many liberal republicans in the party. What a stupid argument.

 

[bobn]

As http://www.americanpolicy.org/un/thereisnoglobal.htm
There is No Global Warming
There is no global warming. Period.

You can't find a real scientist anywhere in the world who can look you in the eye and, without hesitation, without clarification, without saying, kinda, mighta, sorta, if, and or but...say "yes, global warming is with us."

Welcome to the wonderful world of 1950s propaganda in the modern day. It's interesting that they can do it so blatently.

Scientists at NASA GISS accept there is global warming: http://data.giss.nasa.gov/gistemp/graphs/

so do scientists at the NCDC:
http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/oa/climate/research/anomalies/anomalies.html

and scientists at the CRU:
http://www.cru.uea.ac.uk/cru/data/temperature/

Those are the 3 primary global temperature monitoring organisations and all of them would certainly look you in the eye and tell you the globe is warming.

Anyone who tells you that scientific research shows warming trends - be they teachers, news casters, Congressmen, Senators, Vice Presidents or Presidents - is wrong. There is no global warming.

This really is some kind of extreme orwellian propaganda. Anyone who thinks that modern people are too sophisticated and skeptical to fall for blatent propaganda should take note of this article.

Scientific research through U.S. Government satellite and balloon measurements shows that the temperature is actually cooling - very slightly - .037 degrees Celsius.

Notice they don't even mention surface measurements. Their claim that the temperature is cooling from satellite and balloon measurements may be refering to the stratosphere (the way high layer of the atmosphere), which is supposed to cool under global warming because less heat radiates out that high. The troposphere however (as well as the surface) shows warming: http://www.ghcc.msfc.nasa.gov/MSU/msusci.html. Omitting this information is an attempt to portray a false information - ie propaganda.

A little research into modern-day temperature trends bears this out.

So they did do some reasearch. In which case they are definitely misleading people deliberately and are not simply ignorant. I refuse to believe they did any amount of research on temperature trends and completely overlooked global temperature trends for the past century.

For example, in 1936 the Midwest of the United States experienced 49 consecutive days of temperatures over 90 degrees. There were another 49 consecutive days in 1955. But in 1992 there was only one day over 90 degrees and in 1997 only 5 days.

And today here in August it was probably colder than at least 3 of the warmest days in April. So under their confused logic that must mean there hasn't been a warming trend since April. They have quite deliberately cherry picked some specific values, and mixed it with some faulty logic. Quite complicated when they could have just shown their readers a graph of global temperature trends over the last 100 years (but guess why they didn't do that)

Because of modern science and improved equipment, this "cooling" trend has been most accurately documented over the past 18 years. Ironically, that's the same period of time the hysteria has grown over dire warnings of "warming."

Note that they claim modern science and it's improved equipment. I guarantee that if you put some of these propagandists on the spot and faced them with the warming trend they would switch track and claim the equipment is not reliable enough to show such a trend and maybe the warming trend is just within the bounds of equipment error.

The article continues in this style. This AmericanPolicy.Org are probably used to the soft world of politics where you can just make up your own facts. In science it doesn't work like that.

 

[red states rule]

The global warming scam
Asia Times ^ | 02.25.05 | Derek Kelly, PhD


Posted on 02/25/2005 12:02:42 AM PST by Dr. Marten



The global warming scam
By Derek Kelly, PhD

Scam, noun: a swindle, a fraudulent arrangement.

A chronology of climate change
During most of the last billion years the Earth did not have permanent ice sheets. Nevertheless, at times large areas of the globe were covered with vast sheets of ice. Such times are known as glaciations. In the past 2 million to 3 million years, the temperature of the Earth has changed (warmed or cooled) at least 17 times, some say 33, with glaciations that last about 100,000 years interrupted by warm periods that last about 10,000 years.

The last glaciation began 70,000 years ago and ended about 10,000 years ago. The Earth was a lot colder than it is now; snow and ice had accumulated on a lot of the land, glaciers existed on large areas and the sea levels were lower.

15,000 years ago: The last glaciation reaches a peak, with continental glaciers that cover a lot of the sub-polar and polar areas of the land areas of Earth. In North America, all of New England and all of the Great Lakes area, most of Ohio, Indiana, Minnesota and the North Dakotas, lie under ice sheets hundreds of meters thick. More than 37 million cubic kilometers of ice was tied up in these global sheets of ice. The average temperature on the surface of the Earth is estimated to have been cooler by approximately 6 degrees Celsius than currently. The sea level was more than 90 meters lower than currently.

15,000 years ago to 6,000 years ago: Global warming begins. The sheets of ice melt, and sea levels rise. Some heat source causes approximately 37 million cubic kilometers of ice to melt in approximately 9,000 years. Around 9,500 years ago, the last of the Northern European sheets of ice leave Scandinavia. Around 7,500 years ago, the last of the American sheets of ice leave Canada. This warming is neither stable nor the same everywhere. There are periods when mountain glaciers advance, and periods when they withdraw. These climatic changes vary extensively from place to place, with some areas affected while others are not. The tendency of warming is global and obvious, but very uneven. The causes of this period of warming are unknown.

8,000 years ago to 4,000 years ago: About 6,000 years ago, temperatures on the surface of Earth are about 3 degrees warmer than currently. The Arctic Ocean is ice-free, and mountain glaciers have disappeared from the mountains of Norway and the Alps in Europe, and from the Rocky Mountains of the United States and Canada. The ocean of the world is some three meters higher than currently. A lot of the present desert of the Sahara has a more humid, savannah-like climate, with giraffes and savannah fauna species.

4,000 years ago to AD 900: Global cooling begins. The Arctic Ocean freezes over, mountain glaciers form once more in the Rocky Mountains, in Norway and in the Alps. The Black Sea freezes over several times, and ice forms on the Nile in Egypt. Northern Europe gets a lot wetter, and the marshes develop again in previously dry areas. The sea level drops to approximately its present level. The temperatures on the surface of the Earth are about 0.5-1 degree cooler than at present. The causes of this period of cooling are unknown.

AD 1000 to 1500: This period has quick, but uneven, warming of the climate of the Northern Hemisphere. The North Atlantic becomes ice-free and Norse exploration as far as North America takes place. The Norse colonies in Greenland even export crop surpluses to Scandinavia. Wine grapes grow in southern Britain. The temperatures are from 3-8 degrees warmer than currently. The period lasts only a brief 500 years. By the year 1500, it has vanished. The Earth experiences as much warming between the 11th and the 13th century as is now predicted by global-warming scientists for the next century. The causes of this period of warming are unknown.

1430 to 1880: This is a period of the fast but uneven cooling of Northern Hemisphere climates. Norwegian glaciers advance to their most distant extension in post-glacial times. The northern forests disappear, to be replaced with tundra. Severe winters characterize a lot of Europe and North America. The channels and rivers get colder, the snows get heavy, and the summers cool and short. The temperatures on the surface of the world are about 0.5-1.5 degrees cooler than present. In the United States, 1816 is known as the "year with no summer". Snow falls in New England in June. The widespread failure of crops and deaths due to hypothermia are common. The causes of this period of cooling are unknown.

1880 to 1940: A period of warming. The mountain glaciers recede and the ice in the Arctic Ocean begins to melt again. The causes of this period of warming are unknown.

1940 to 1977: Cooling period. The temperatures are cooler than currently. Mountain glaciers recede, and some begin to advance. The tabloids inform us of widespread catastrophes due to the "New Glaciation". The causes of this period of cooling are unknown.

1977 to present: Warming period. The summer of 2003 is said to be the warmest one since the Middle Ages. The tabloids notify us of widespread catastrophes due to "global warming". The causes of warming are discovered - humanity and its carbon-dioxide-generating fossil-fuel use and deforestation.

Anyone else find something fishy about the final sentence?

Comments
The above chronology of recent (geologically speaking) climate changes should place global-warming catastrophists (such as those who developed the Kyoto treaty) in an awkward position. Their fundamental assumption is that Earth's climate was stable and was doing just fine before the Industrial Revolution started interfering with climate's "natural" state. It is the Industrial Revolution, and in particular the use of fossil-fuel-burning machines, that has led us to the brink of environmental catastrophe due to global warming caused by increasing amounts of carbon dioxide (CO2) in the atmosphere.

But it is plain to see that both warming and cooling occurred numerous times before the Industrial Revolution. Similarly, all the dire predictions of global-warming consequences - sea-level rise, for example - have happened in the past. In fact, the greatest warming period was when dinosaurs walked the land (about 70 million to 130 million years ago). There was then five to 10 times as much CO2 in the atmosphere as there is today, and the average temperature was 4-11 degrees Celsius warmer. Those conditions should have been very helpful to life, since they permitted those immense creatures to find an abundance of food and they survived.

The Cretaceous was an intense "greenhouse world" with high surface temperatures. These high temperatures were due to the much higher level of CO2 in the atmosphere at the time - four to 10 times as much as is in our air today. The biota was a mixture of the exotic and familiar - luxuriant green forests of now-extinct trees flourished within the Arctic Circle and dinosaurs roamed. The global sea level was at its highest ever during this period, peaking during the Late Cretaceous around 86 million years ago. It is certain that the global sea level was well over 200 meters higher during this time than it is today. The Earth was immensely hotter, the CO2 vastly more plentiful, and the sea levels much higher than they are today.

The Earth has also been immensely colder, the CO2 much less plentiful, and the sea levels much lower than today. Fifteen thousand years ago, the sea level was at least 90 meters lower than it is today. The land looked bare because it was too cold for beech and oak trees to grow. There were a few fir trees here and there. No grass grew, however, just shrubs, bushes and moss grass. In the northern parts of North America, Europe and Asia there was still tundra. The animals were different from today too. Back then there were woolly mammoth, woolly rhinos, cave bears (the former three now extinct), bison, wolves, horses, and herds of reindeer like modern-day reindeer.

The major "sin" for the global warmists is CO2. The Kyoto treaty is meant to reduce the amount of this gas so as, they say, to reduce the degree of warming and eventually return us to some stable climate system. If we look at the historical situation, however, this is cause for alarm. For one thing, there has never been a stable climate system. For another, the level of CO2 in our atmosphere is near its historic low. In the long run, the greatest danger is too little rather than too much CO2. There has been a long-term reduction of CO2 throughout the 4.5-billion-year history of the Earth. If this tendency continues, eventually our planet may become as lifeless as Mars.

Glaciation has prevailed for 90% of the last several million years. Extreme cold. Biting cold. Cold too intense for bikinis and swimming trunks. No matter what scary scenarios global-warming enthusiasts dream up, they pale in comparison with the conditions another ice age would deliver. Look to our past climate. Fifteen thousand years ago, an ice sheet a kilometer and a half thick covered all of North America north of a line stretching from somewhere around Seattle to Cleveland and New York City.

Instead of reducing CO2, we should, perhaps, be increasing it. We should pay the smokestack industries hard dollars for every kilogram of soot they pump into the atmosphere. Instead of urging Chinese to stop using coal and turn instead to nuclear-generated electricity, we should beg them to continue using coal. Rather than bringing us to the edge of global-warming catastrophe, anthropogenic climate change may have spared us descent into what would be the most serious and far-reaching challenge facing humankind in the 21st century - dealing with a rapidly deteriorating climate that wants to plunge us into an ice age. Let's hope Antarctica and Greenland melt. Let's hope the sea levels rise. All life glorifies warmth. Only death prefers the icy fingers of endless winter.

What do you think?

Derek Kelly, who has been an American university teacher and a computer-software developer, is now trying to help Chinese university students speak English.

http://www.atimes.com/atimes/Front_Page/GB25Aa02.html

 

[bobn]

The second article doesn't deny we have warmed the earth with co2 increases. Ie he doesn't deny global warming or even that it is mancaused. He just says it will be a good thing. Perhaps he and the americanpolicy.org should argue whether the globe is warming out and get back to me when they can make their minds up between them.

(BTW I just checked americanpolicy.org for other articles on global warming and as I expected they have articles in which they do say the earth has warmed in the last century. Flip flopping?)

 

[-Cp]

He raises good points but is misguided in his statements on the Age of the Earth...

 

[red states rule]

The second article doesn't deny we have warmed the earth with co2 increases. Ie he doesn't deny global warming or even that it is mancaused. He just says it will be a good thing. Perhaps he and the americanpolicy.org should argue whether the globe is warming out and get back to me when they can make their minds up between them.

(BTW I just checked americanpolicy.org for other articles on global warming and as I expected they have articles in which they do say the earth has warmed in the last century. Flip flopping?)

The "warming" is noral climate cycles. Even the Weather Channel Storm expert has been saying that, and stopping the ;ibs when they try to rant about global warming.

Normal climate cycles wil not kill us

 

[BaronVonBigmeat]

Hole in ozone leads to increased temps trapped under greenhouse effect. Air heats up and we all sweat a little more. Ice melts and cools down ocean. Currents carrying warm water to countries like great Britain are blocked by colder water. Great Britain cannot warm up like it used to. Temps fall on average of 10 degrees world wide, meaning that some areas are not affected that much, which others become uninhabitable.

There's also the small matter of Milankovitch cycles, which we have no control over.

 

[Gunny]

How about by seriously addressing our use of fossil fuels and pursuing enviro-friendly (not insane, just enviro-friendly) policies and NOT by having energy policy written by people who come from the automotive and logging industries for a start.

GMAFB. Like Carter and Clinton did? That's just PURE propaganda and you're obviously buying.

 

[CharlestonChad]

There's also the small matter of Milankovitch cycles, which we have no control over.

Which really doesn't matter because Berger and Loutre believe that we will not naturally enter an ice age for another 50k years. BUT the scientists believe that humans causing global warming CAN have a large influence over the short term. That means that we can cause an ice age with global warming (oceanic cooling), but we are to expect a naturally occuring ice age in at least 50,000 yrs.