What happened to global warming?

[suv_guy_19]

The point is SUV, that whatever "concensus" may exist, there is also enough contrary data

 

There is very little actual contrary data. No matter, I'm done with discussing climate change here. It's quite clear that many of you made up your mind a long time ago. I only recently changed my mind, based on the scientific evidence that I've seen. The people here aren't going to convince me, but I also know that I won't be convincing them.

 

From this point forward, I only plan to come to this forum for Ford news. There is nothing to be gained by having these kinds of discussions here.

Edited March 12, 2010 by suv_guy_19

[RangerM]

There is very little actual contrary data.

What kind of data would you need? Do I need to find a researcher who was given thousands (millions?) of dollars to prove MMGW doesn't exist?

 

Your side can't use the data that Phil Jones lost and/or proven biased, either. So, are you referring to hard data or merely opinion? Remember, the hard data has undermined all MMGW models to date.

[RangerM]

No matter, I'm done with discussing climate change here. It's quite clear that many of you made up your mind a long time ago. I only recently changed my mind, based on the scientific evidence that I've seen. The people here aren't going to convince me, but I also know that I won't be convincing them.

 

From this point forward, I only plan to come to this forum for Ford news. There is nothing to be gained by having these kinds of discussions here.

Kind of a "Cartman-like" response, don't you think?

[goinbroke2]

Screw you guys, I'm outa here LOL!

[NickF1011]

And here's the money shot of the whole story:

 

Is global warming happening? The likelihood is more than 90 per cent that elevated levels of atmospheric carbon dioxide are heating the planet. Can we know for certain? No. But playing Russian Roulette with nine of 10 chambers loaded with live bullets is a fool's game. Only the most reckless and speculative of gamblers would bet against such odds. And what's the point when the reward of winning is the status quo and the cost of losing is catastrophe.

 

This is the gamble that climate change skeptics are taking, even though they don't understand modern science, they don't understand the odds and they don't understand the consequences.

 

Translation - we can't prove it's happening, but ignore all of that faked evidence, and let us enact massive and costly new regulations anyway, or really bad things will happen. So who is engaging in alarmist hysteria and appeals to emotion?

 

The part that bothers me most about all of the global warming hysteria isn't that it exists or not. It's that if it exists, what is it really going to do? I have serious doubts as to the actual "catastrophic" results of a slight change in global temperature. The world has gone through worse extremes and didn't go out in some uber-"2012"-or-"The Day After Tomorrow" ending. I think any change that is going to occur will be gradual enough that science will find solutions to it. To enact overreaching legislation today is premature.

[goinbroke2]

This; "Is global warming happening? The likelihood is more than 90 per cent that elevated levels of atmospheric carbon dioxide are heating the planet. Can we know for certain? No. But playing Russian Roulette with nine of 10 chambers loaded with live bullets is a fool's game. Only the most reckless and speculative of gamblers would bet against such odds. And what's the point when the reward of winning is the status quo and the cost of losing is catastrophe."

 

Besides the "we don't have proof we're guessing"

the problem I have is this part; "This is the gamble that climate change skeptics are taking, even though they don't understand modern science, they don't understand the odds and they don't understand the consequences."

 

See how they went from we "think" something, to "earth is heating up" (which it is) and jump to "it's mans fault".

 

Ummm, where did the proof about c02 go again? Oh yeah, they NEVER proved co2 is the cause of warming. (you know that unfortunate thing about co2 levels FOLLOWING the earths temps not preceding it....)

The old 1+1=3 trick

 

Wood floats...witches float...if she floats..SHE'S A WITCH!!!

 

I blame chocolate ice cream on tree's losing their leaves. Every summer everybody eats lots of chocolate ice cream and the effect is all the tree's lose their leaves. My proof? LOOK, IT'S AFTER A SUMMER OF ICE CREAM EATING AND THE LEAVES ARE FALLING OFF!!!

Are you saying the leaves don't fall off after summer?

Are you saying people don't eat more ice cream in the summer than any other time?

 

Of course at this point the media is saying "hey..you know I've noticed the leaves falling off after a summer of eating ice cream..maybe it's true"

And the average person doesn't know any better so he swears off ice cream. After all, "we don't know for sure so to be safe let's stop eating ice cream"

What about the guy who says leaves fell off before there was ice cream? AAAAAHHHHH HE'S A DENIER!!!!!

 

 

Bedwetters are pathetic. BELIEVE....OR ELSE!!!

[jpd80]

I get ticked off when scientists point the finger at cars, when they are responsible for around 10-15% of man made CO2.

Surely getting rid of coal fired power plants is priority one and let technology reduce car CO2 foot print and dependence on OPEC energy..

[stephenhawkings]

I get ticked off when scientists point the finger at cars, when they are responsible for around 10-15% of man made CO2.

Surely getting rid of coal fired power plants is priority one and let technology reduce car CO2 foot print and dependence on OPEC energy..

making a car causes more pollution than the car itself!

[jpd80]

 

Bedwetters are pathetic. BELIEVE....OR ELSE!!!

 

:shades:

Edited March 14, 2010 by jpd80

[jpd80]

From this point forward, I only plan to come to this forum for Ford news. There is nothing to be gained by having these kinds of discussions here.

 

Well said.

Edited March 14, 2010 by jpd80

[Trimdingman]

The part that bothers me most about all of the global warming hysteria isn't that it exists or not. It's that if it exists, what is it really going to do? I have serious doubts as to the actual "catastrophic" results of a slight change in global temperature. The world has gone through worse extremes and didn't go out in some uber-"2012"-or-"The Day After Tomorrow" ending. I think any change that is going to occur will be gradual enough that science will find solutions to it. To enact overreaching legislation today is premature.

 

I agree. Many economists are predicting that we are headed for an economic meltdown that will send us back to a pre-industrial era. This will take care of human CO2 emissions. Why not drop this hoax for a few years to see if this happens. This is not the time to be spending a lot of money that we do not have. Government is not the answer for anything. In a post-apacolyptic world, I would rather it be dog-eat-dog than be in a government concentration camp. It looks like government is pushing for totalitarian power in preparation for that eventuality.

[stephenhawkings]

well the ice caps might not melt this summer and flood the coast, and My region, and yours, of the globe might not have a hurricane, or drought, or flood, but that is not a reason we shouldn't be good stewards of our planet, on the issue of pollution think about this, you can only pee in the swimming pool soo many times before you can taste your own pee! same goes for the smokers out there be it cigarettes, coal powered steam ships, automobiles or what have you, you can only blow soo much hot air laden with pollutants before you breath some of it in.

[Trimdingman]

well the ice caps might not melt this summer and flood the coast, and My region, and yours, of the globe might not have a hurricane, or drought, or flood, but that is not a reason we shouldn't be good stewards of our planet, on the issue of pollution think about this, you can only pee in the swimming pool soo many times before you can taste your own pee! same goes for the smokers out there be it cigarettes, coal powered steam ships, automobiles or what have you, you can only blow soo much hot air laden with pollutants before you breath some of it in.

 

What the leftys are proposing is that we seriously curtail our freedom "just in case" man-made CO2 is doing damage to "the planet". They toss around the phrase "the planet" like it was a basket ball or something. Compared to "the planet", we are like a fart in a windstorm. We came from "the planet". We do not control it. It controls us.

[mustang_sallad]

What the leftys are proposing is that we seriously curtail our freedom "just in case" man-made CO2 is doing damage to "the planet". They toss around the phrase "the planet" like it was a basket ball or something. Compared to "the planet", we are like a fart in a windstorm. We came from "the planet". We do not control it. It controls us.

 

who cares how they word it. Fact is, we're making the planet a lot less liveable for the things that currently call it home. Don't give me this bullshit about how the planet doesn't care what we do and how it'll go on indefinitely regardless of what happens to us. I don't care about the planet, I care about the things that live on it now, and frankly, the things we aren't killing outright are either being crowded out or finding themselves outpaced by an environment that's changing faster than they can adapt.

[Trimdingman]

who cares how they word it. Fact is, we're making the planet a lot less liveable for the things that currently call it home. Don't give me this bullshit about how the planet doesn't care what we do and how it'll go on indefinitely regardless of what happens to us. I don't care about the planet, I care about the things that live on it now, and frankly, the things we aren't killing outright are either being crowded out or finding themselves outpaced by an environment that's changing faster than they can adapt.

 

The planet doesn't care about anything. It is just a ball of material, not something alive. The socialists are giving us too much credit. It is probably because of their collective ego. We do not have the capacity to affect the atmosphere. We do not have the bulk. Mount St. Helen's, believe it or not, is bigger than all of the human race. It did not affect the earth when it blew it's top. The size of the atmosphere is greater than our minds can grasp. The socialists have started a religion based on fantasy, like all religions. They have believers, just like all religions. They will not look at facts that prove their religion wrong, just like all religions. They are laughing all the way to the bank, just like.............

[RangerM]

.......the things we aren't killing outright are either being crowded out or finding themselves outpaced by an environment that's changing faster than they can adapt.

Some call that "natural selection".

[Savetheplanet]

Trim and company spout unsubstantiated claims that fly in the face of climate data compiled by the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, the National Academy of Sciences, the Pentagon, the National Intelligence Council, and the CIA.

Flat earth types disregard the IPCC's entire 2,800 pages of documentation because of two errors and a few botched citations, they still must contend with voluminous evidence compiled by America's leading research institutions.

 

Back in 1989, President . Bush decided to get to the bottom of the climate change debate. He initiated the U.S. Global Change Research Program, one of the most intense studies in the historyof scientific inquiry. It was a 20-year study commissioned by Congress and conducted over the course four administrations, two of them Republican and two Democratic.

The agencies included NOAA, NASA, the Pentagon, the National Science Foundation, the Department of State and eight others. Their findings were released last June and here is how the report begins:

 

"Observations show that the warming of the climate is unequivocal."

 

That's right. The report is based on observation, not on conjecture, political views, or ideology. The report goes on to say, "The global warming over the past 50 years is due primarily to HUMAN induced emissions of heat-trapping gases."

These are definitive conclusions from the best research agencies in the world. They reflect scientific truths, not political interest groups.

And when you want to get the truth behind the counterfeit theories, visit this great Union of Concerned Scientists' Fact Checker site, where real climate scientists assess questions through the lens of science not politics.

[Ford Jellymoulds]

Trim and company spout unsubstantiated claims that fly in the face of climate data compiled by the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, the National Academy of Sciences, the Pentagon, the National Intelligence Council, and the CIA.

Flat earth types disregard the IPCC's entire 2,800 pages of documentation because of two errors and a few botched citations, they still must contend with voluminous evidence compiled by America's leading research institutions.

 

Back in 1989, President . Bush decided to get to the bottom of the climate change debate. He initiated the U.S. Global Change Research Program, one of the most intense studies in the historyof scientific inquiry. It was a 20-year study commissioned by Congress and conducted over the course four administrations, two of them Republican and two Democratic.

The agencies included NOAA, NASA, the Pentagon, the National Science Foundation, the Department of State and eight others. Their findings were released last June and here is how the report begins:

 

"Observations show that the warming of the climate is unequivocal."

 

That's right. The report is based on observation, not on conjecture, political views, or ideology. The report goes on to say, "The global warming over the past 50 years is due primarily to HUMAN induced emissions of heat-trapping gases."

These are definitive conclusions from the best research agencies in the world. They reflect scientific truths, not political interest groups.

And when you want to get the truth behind the counterfeit theories, visit this great Union of Concerned Scientists' Fact Checker site, where real climate scientists assess questions through the lens of science not politics.

 

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

 

1) There is "no real scientific proof" that the current warming is caused by the rise of greenhouse gases from man's activity.

 

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

 

3) Warmer periods of the Earth's history came around 800 years before rises in CO2 levels.

 

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

 

5) Throughout the Earth's history, temperatures have often been warmer than now and CO2 levels have often been higher more than ten times as high.

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

9) Leaked e-mails from British climate scientists in a scandal known as "Climate-gate" - suggest that that has been manipulated to exaggerate global warming

 

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

 

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

 

12) Philip Stott, Emeritus Professor of Biogeography at the School of Oriental and African Studies in London says climate change is too complicated to be caused by just one factor, whether CO2 or clouds

 

13) Peter Lilley MP said last month that "fewer people in Britain than in any other country believe in the importance of global warming. That is despite the fact that our Government and our political classpredominantlyare more committed to it than their counterparts in any other country in the world".

 

14) In pursuit of the global warming rhetoric, wind farms will do very little to nothing to reduce CO2 emissions

 

15) Professor Plimer, Professor of Geology and Earth Sciences at the University of Adelaide, stated that the idea of taking a single trace gas in the atmosphere, accusing it and finding it guilty of total responsibility for climate change, is an "absurdity"

 

16) A Harvard University astrophysicist and geophysicist, Willie Soon, said he is "embarrassed and puzzled" by the shallow science in papers that support the proposition that the earth faces a climate crisis caused by global warming

 

17) The science of what determines the earth's temperature is in fact far from settled or understood.

 

18) Despite activist concerns over CO2 levels, CO2 is a minor greenhouse gas, unlike water vapour which is tied to climate concerns, and which we can't even pretend to control

19) A petition by scientists trying to tell the world that the political and media portrayal of global warming is false was put forward in the Heidelberg Appeal in 1992. Today, more than 4,000 signatories, including 72 Nobel Prize winners, from 106 countries have signed it

 

20) It is claimed the average global temperature increased at a dangerously fast rate in the 20th century but the recent rate of average global temperature rise has been between 1 and 2 degrees C per century - within natural rates

 

21) Professor Zbigniew Jaworowski, Chairman of the Scientific Council of the Central Laboratory for Radiological Protection in Warsaw, Poland says the earth's temperature has more to do with cloud cover and water vapor than CO2 concentration in the atmosphere

 

22) There is strong evidence from solar studies which suggests that the Earth's current temperature stasis will be followed by climatic cooling over the next few decades

 

23) It is myth that receding glaciers are proof of global warming as glaciers have been receding and growing cyclically for many centuries

 

24) It is a falsehood that the earth's poles are warming because that is natural variation and while the western Arctic may be getting somewhat warmer we also see that the Eastern Arctic and Greenland are getting colder

 

25) The IPCC claims climate driven "impacts on biodiversity are significant and of key relevance" but those claims are simply not supported by scientific research

 

26) The IPCC threat of climate change to the world's species does not make sense as wild species are at least one million years old, which means they have all been through hundreds of climate cycles

 

27) Research goes strongly against claims that CO2-induced global warming would cause catastrophic disintegration of the Greenland and Antarctic Ice Sheets.

 

28) Despite activist concerns over CO2 levels, rising CO2 levels are our best hope of raising crop yields to feed an ever-growing population

 

29) The biggest climate change ever experienced on earth took place around 700 million years ago

 

30) The slight increase in temperature which has been observed since 1900 is entirely consistent with well-established, long-term natural climate cycles<BR itxtvisited

 

31) Despite activist concerns over CO2 levels, rising CO2 levels of some so-called "greenhouse gases" may be contributing to higher oxygen levels and global cooling, not warming

 

32) Accurate satellite, balloon and mountain top observations made over the last three decades have not shown any significant change in the long term rate of increase in global temperatures

 

33) Today's CO2 concentration of around 385 ppm is very low compared to most of the earth's history we actually live in a carbon-deficient atmosphere

 

34) It is a myth that CO2 is the most common greenhouse gas because greenhouse gases form about 3% of the atmosphere by volume, and CO2 constitutes about 0.037% of the atmosphere

 

35) It is a myth that computer models verify that CO2 increases will cause significant global warming because computer models can be made to "verify" anything

 

36) There is no scientific or statistical evidence whatsoever that global warming will cause more storms and other weather extremes

 

37) One statement deleted from a UN report in 1996 stated that "none of the studies cited above has shown clear evidence that we can attribute the observed climate changes to increases in greenhouse gases

 

38) The world "warmed" by 0.07 +/- 0.07 degrees C from 1999 to 2008, not the 0.20 degrees C expected by the IPCC

 

39) The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change says "it is likely that future tropical cyclones (typhoons and hurricanes) will become more intense" but there has been no increase in the intensity or frequency of tropical cyclones globally

 

40) Rising CO2 levels in the atmosphere can be shown not only to have a negligible effect on the Earth's many ecosystems, but in some cases to be a positive help to many organisms

 

41) Researchers who compare and contrast climate change impact on civilizations found warm periods are beneficial to mankind and cold periods harmful

 

42) The Met Office asserts we are in the hottest decade since records began but this is precisely what the world should expect if the climate is cyclical

 

43) Rising CO2 levels increase plant growth and make plants more resistant to drought and pests

 

44) The historical increase in the air's CO2 content has improved human nutrition by raising crop yields during the past 150 years

 

45) The increase of the air's CO2 content has probably helped lengthen human lifespans since the beginning of the Industrial Revolution

 

46) The IPCC alleges that "climate change currently contributes to the global burden of disease and premature deaths" but the evidence shows that higher temperatures and rising CO2 levels has helped global populations

 

47) In May of 2004, the Russian Academy of Sciences published a report concluding that the Kyoto Protocol has no scientific grounding at all.

 

48) The "Climate-gate" scandal pointed to a expensive public campaign of disinformation and the denigration of scientists who opposed the belief that CO2 emissions were causing climate change

 

49) The head of Britain's climate change watchdog has predicted households will need to spend up to £15,000 on a full energy efficiency makeover if the Government is to meet its ambitious targets for cutting carbon emissions

 

50) Wind power is unlikely to be the answer to our energy needs. The wind power industry argues that there are "no direct subsidies" but it involves a total subsidy of as much as £60 per MWh which falls directly on electricity consumers. This burden will grow in line with attempts to achieve Wind power targets, according to a recent OFGEM report

 

51) Wind farms are not an efficient way to produce energy. The British Wind Energy Association (BWEA) accepts a figure of 75 per cent back-up power is required.

 

52) Global temperatures are below the low end of IPCC predictions not at "at the top end of IPCC estimates

 

53) Climate alarmists have raised the concern over acidification of the oceans but Tom Segalstad from Oslo University in Norway , and others, have noted that the composition of ocean water including CO2, calcium, and water can act as a buffering agent in the acidification of the oceans.

 

54) The UN's IPCC computer models of human-caused global warming predict the emergence of a "hotspot" in the upper troposphere over the tropics. Former researcher in the Australian Department of Climate Change, David Evans, said there is no evidence of such a hotspot The argument that climate change is a of result of global warming caused by human activity is the argument of flat Earthers.

 

 

56) The manner in which US President Barack Obama sidestepped Congress to order emission cuts shows how undemocratic and irrational the entire international decision-making process has become with regards to emission-target setting.

 

57) William Kininmonth, a former head of the National Climate Centre and a consultant to the World Meteorological Organisation, wrote "the likely extent of global temperature rise from a doubling of CO2 is less than 1C. Such warming is well within the envelope of variation experienced during the past 10,000 years and insignificant in the context of glacial cycles during the past million years, when Earth has been predominantly very cold and covered by extensive ice sheets

 

58) Canada has shown the world targets derived from the existing Kyoto commitments were always unrealistic and did not work for the country.

 

59) In the lead up to the Copenhagen summit, David Davis MP said of previous climate summits, at Rio de Janeiro in 1992 and Kyoto in 1997 that many had promised greater cuts, but "neither happened", but we are continuing along the same lines

 

60) The UK 's environmental policy has a long-term price tag of about £55 billion, before taking into account the impact on its economic growth.

 

61) The UN's panel on climate change warned that Himalayan glaciers could melt to a fifth of current levels by 2035. J. Graham Cogley a professor at Ontario Trent University, claims this inaccurate stating the UN authors got the date from an earlier report wrong by more than 300 years.

 

62) Under existing Kyoto obligations the EU has attempted to claim success, while actually increasing emissions by 13 per cent, according to Lord Lawson. In addition the EU has pursued this scheme by purchasing "offsets" from countries such as China paying them billions of dollars to destroy atmospheric pollutants, such as CFC-23, which were manufactured purely in order to be destroyed

 

63) It is claimed that the average global temperature was relatively unchanging in pre-industrial times but sky-rocketed since 1900, and will increase by several degrees more over the next 100 years according to Penn State University researcher Michael Mann. There is no convincing empirical evidence that past climate was unchanging, nor that 20th century changes in average global temperature were unusual or unnatural.

 

64) Michael Mann of Penn State University has actually shown that the Medieval Warm Period and the Little Ice Age did in fact exist, which contrasts with his earlier work which produced the "hockey stick graph" which showed a constant temperature over the past thousand years or so followed by a recent dramatic upturn.

 

65) The globe's current approach to climate change in which major industrialised countries agree to nonsensical targets for their CO2 emissions by a given date, as it has been under the Kyoto system, is very expensive

 

66) The "Climate-gate" scandal revealed that a scientific team had emailed one another about using a "trick" for the sake of concealing a "decline" in temperatures when looking at the history of the Earth's temperature.

 

67) Global temperatures have not risen in any statistically-significant sense for 15 years and have actually been falling for nine years. The "Climate-gate" scandal revealed a scientific team had expressed dismay at the fact global warming was contrary to their predictions and admitted their inability to explain it was "a travesty".

 

68) The IPCC predicts that a warmer planet will lead to more extreme weather, including drought, flooding, storms, snow, and wildfires. But over the last century, during which the IPCC claims the world experienced more rapid warming than any time in the past two millennia, the world did not experience significantly greater trends in any of these extreme weather events.

 

69) In explaining the average temperature standstill we are currently experiencing, the Met Office Hadley Centre ran a series of computer climate predictions and found in many of the computer runs there were decade-long standstills but none for 15 years so it expects global warming to resume swiftly

 

70) Richard Lindzen, Professor of Atmospheric Sciences at Massachusetts Institute of Technology, wrote: "The notion of a static, unchanging climate is foreign to the history of the Earth or any other planet with a fluid envelope. Such hysteria (over global warming) simply represents the scientific illiteracy of much of the public, the susceptibility of the public to the substitution of repetition for truth."

 

71) Despite the 1997 Kyoto Protocol's status as the flagship of the fight against climate change it has been a failure.

 

72) The first phase of the EU's Emissions Trading Scheme (ETS), which ran from 2005 to 2007 was a failure. Huge over-allocation of permits to pollute led to a collapse in the price of carbon from €33 to just €0.20 per tonne meaning the system did not reduce emissions at all.

 

 

73) The EU trading scheme, to manage carbon emissions has completely failed and actually allows European businesses to duck out of making their emissions reductions at home by offsetting, which means paying for cuts to be made overseas instead.

 

74) To date "cap and trade" carbon markets have done almost nothing to reduce emissions.

 

75) In the United States , the cap-and-trade is an approach designed to control carbon emissions and will impose huge costs upon American citizens via a carbon tax on all goods and services produced in the United States. The average family of four can expect to pay an additional $1700, or £1,043, more each year. It is predicted that the United States will lose more than 2 million jobs as the result of cap-and-trade schemes.

 

76) Dr Roy Spencer, a principal research scientist at the University of Alabama in Huntsville, has indicated that out of the 21 climate models tracked by the IPCC the differences in warming exhibited by those models is mostly the result of different strengths of positive cloud feedback and that increasing CO2 is insufficient to explain global-average warming in the last 50 to 100 years.

 

77) Why should politicians devote our scarce resources in a globally competitive world to a false and ill-defined problem, while ignoring the real problems the entire planet faces, such as: poverty, hunger, disease or terrorism

 

78) A proper analysis of ice core records from the past 650,000 years demonstrates that temperature increases have come before, and not resulted from, increases in CO2 by hundreds of years.

 

79) Since the cause of global warming is mostly natural, then there is in actual fact very little we can do about it. (We are still not able to control the sun

 

80) A substantial number of the panel of 2,500 climate scientists on the United Nation's International Panel on Climate Change, which created a statement on scientific unanimity on climate change and man-made global warming, were found to have serious concerns

 

81) The UK's Met Office has been forced this year to re-examine 160 years of temperature data after admitting that public confidence in the science on man-made global warming has been shattered by revelations about the data.

 

82) Politicians and activists push for renewable energy sources such as wind turbines under the rhetoric of climate change, but it is essentially about money under the system of Renewable Obligations. Much of the money is paid for by consumers in electricity bills. It amounts to £1 billion a year

 

83) The "Climate-gate" scandal revealed that a scientific team had tampered with their own data so as to conceal inconsistencies and errors.

 

 

84) The "Climate-gate" scandal revealed that a scientific team had campaigned for the removal of a learned journal's editor, solely because he did not share their willingness to debase science for political purposes.

 

85) Ice-core data clearly show that temperatures change centuries before concentrations of atmospheric CO2 change. Thus, there appears to be little evidence for insisting that changes in concentrations of CO2 are the cause of past temperature and climate change.

 

86) There are no experimentally verified processes explaining how CO2 concentrations can fall in a few centuries without falling temperatures in fact it is changing temperatures which cause changes in CO2 concentrations, which is consistent with experiments that show CO2 is the atmospheric gas most readily absorbed by water.

87) The Government's Renewable Energy Strategy contains a massive increase in electricity generation by wind power costing around £4 billion a year over the next twenty years. The benefits will be only £4 to £5 billion overall (not per annum). So costs will outnumber benefits by a range of between eleven and seventeen times

 

88) Whilst CO2 levels have indeed changed for various reasons, human and otherwise, just as they have throughout history, the CO2 content of the atmosphere has increased since the beginning of the industrial revolution, and the growth rate has now been constant for the past 25 years.

 

89) It is a myth that CO2 is a pollutant, because nitrogen forms 80% of our atmosphere and human beings could not live in 100% nitrogen either: CO2 is no more a pollutant than nitrogen is and CO2 is essential to life.

 

90) Politicians and climate activists make claims to rising sea levels but certain members in the IPCC chose an area to measure in Hong Kong that is subsiding. They used the record reading of 2.3 mm per year rise of sea level.

 

91) The accepted global average temperature statistics used by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change show that no ground-based warming has occurred since 1998

 

92) If one factors in non-greenhouse influences such as El Nino events and large volcanic eruptions, lower atmosphere satellite-based temperature measurements show little, if any, global warming since 1979, a period over which atmospheric CO2 has increased by 55 ppm (17 per cent).

 

93) US President Barack Obama pledged to cut emissions by 2050 to equal those of 1910 when there were 92 million Americans. In 2050, there will be 420 million Americans, so Obama's promise means that emissions per head will be approximately what they were in 1875. It simply will not happen.

 

94) The European Union has already agreed to cut emissions by 20 percent to 2020, compared with 1990 levels, and is willing to increase the target to 30 percent. However, these are unachievable and the EU has already massively failed with its Emissions Trading Scheme (ETS), as EU emissions actually rose by 0.8 percent from 2005 to 2006 and are known to be well above the Kyoto goal.

 

95) Australia has stated it wants to slash greenhouse emissions by up to 25 percent below 2000 levels by 2020, but the pledges were so unpopular that the country's Senate has voted against the carbon trading Bill, and the Opposition's Party leader has now been ousted by a climate change sceptic.

 

96) Canada plans to reduce emissions by 20 percent compared with 2006 levels by 2020, representing approximately a 3 percent cut from 1990 levels but it simultaneously defends its Alberta tar sands emissions and its record as one of the world's highest per-capita emissions setters.

 

97) India plans to reduce the ratio of emissions to production by 20-25 percent compared with 2005 levels by 2020, but all Government officials insist that since India has to grow for its development and poverty alleviation, it has to emit, because the economy is driven by carbon.

 

98) The Leipzig Declaration in 1996, was signed by 110 scientists who said: "We along with many of our fellow citizens are apprehensive about the climate treaty conference scheduled for Kyoto, Japan, in December 1997" and "based on all the evidence available to us, we cannot subscribe to the politically inspired world view that envisages climate catastrophes and calls for hasty actions."

 

99) A US Oregon Petition Project stated "We urge the United States government to reject the global warming agreement that was written in Kyoto, Japan in December, 1997, and any other similar proposals. The proposed limits on greenhouse gases would harm the environment, hinder the advance of science and technology, and damage the health and welfare of mankind. There is no convincing scientific evidence that human release of CO2, methane, or other greenhouse gasses is causing or will, in the foreseeable future, cause catastrophic heating of the Earth's atmosphere and disruption of the Earth's climate

 

100) A report by the Nongovernmental International Panel on Climate Change concluded "We find no support for the IPCC's claim that climate observations during the twentieth century are either unprecedented or provide evidence of an anthropogenic effect on climate."

Edited March 18, 2010 by Ford Jellymoulds

[NickF1011]

who cares how they word it. Fact is, we're making the planet a lot less liveable for the things that currently call it home. Don't give me this bullshit about how the planet doesn't care what we do and how it'll go on indefinitely regardless of what happens to us. I don't care about the planet, I care about the things that live on it now, and frankly, the things we aren't killing outright are either being crowded out or finding themselves outpaced by an environment that's changing faster than they can adapt.

 

Here is where I continue to object though: Will enacting overreaching legislation today curtail the destruction being done enough to make any difference? Will it make any difference whatsoever if that legislation is enacted this year or five or ten or twenty years from now? I say we let science do its job, find out what precisely is happening, find out if what is happening is actually going to kill us, and then research solutions if they are needed. Politicians (as usual) are jumping ahead of where they need to be. Politics shouldn't be playing any role in this, but unfortunately it is the only role that currently has any clout.

[xr7g428]

Savetheplanet, You forgot to attribute your cut and paste so I have done it for you.

 

switchboard.nrdc.org/blogs

 

Kind of like quoting from your bible?

 

I look forward to the day when radical environmentalism joins the rest of the religious community and declares itself a church. The tax benefit alone are sick. And there is nothing better than dooms-day prognostication and a strong sense of persecution to unite the flock.

[stephenhawkings]

Savetheplanet, You forgot to attribute your cut and paste so I have done it for you.

 

switchboard.nrdc.org/blogs

 

Kind of like quoting from your bible?

 

I look forward to the day when radical environmentalism joins the rest of the religious community and declares itself a church. The tax benefit alone are sick. And there is nothing better than dooms-day prognostication and a strong sense of persecution to unite the flock.

the enviro fanatical s are just that fanatical, most people who think about the environment already agree that man has altered it, its the nut jobs that dont believe!

[Trimdingman]

the enviro fanatical s are just that fanatical, most people who think about the environment already agree that man has altered it, its the nut jobs that dont believe!

 

"Belief" is what creates "nut jobs". Just look at them. The further their strange beliefs take them from reality, the nuttier they are. You see people growing beards, wearing strange clothes, kissing the groung, mumbling while handling beads, and worshipping mass murderers like Hitler and Stalin. Global warming could possibly be true, and so could Adam and Eve. That does not mean that you should believe; just because there is a slim possibility that it is true. That leads to control. Belief takes you way out there, where nothing makes sense, so you have to turn to your leader to guide you. When he runs out of answers, he will give you some Kool-Ade.

[stephenhawkings]

"Belief" is what creates "nut jobs". Just look at them. The further their strange beliefs take them from reality, the nuttier they are. You see people growing beards, wearing strange clothes, kissing the groung, mumbling while handling beads, and worshipping mass murderers like Hitler and Stalin. Global warming could possibly be true, and so could Adam and Eve. That does not mean that you should believe; just because there is a slim possibility that it is true. That leads to control. Belief takes you way out there, where nothing makes sense, so you have to turn to your leader to guide you. When he runs out of answers, he will give you some Kool-Ade.

the difference is that Adam and eve, can't be proven, and the only item that seams likely to answer any of those questions, evolution, doesn't point to Adam and Eve. Like wise science, evidence, or proof shows that our environment has changed, and is changing at a faster rater the faster mans population grows, and his refinement of certain chemicals and careless disposal of them.

[stephenhawkings]

http://news.yahoo.com/video/us-15749625/underwater-junkyard-18676774

 

maybe I should post this in the 'Is Fox news facts of propaganda' topic

[NickF1011]

the enviro fanatical s are just that fanatical, most people who think about the environment already agree that man has altered it, its the nut jobs that dont believe!

 

Most everyone beleives that man has altered the environment. What is up for debate (as it should righfully be) is whether or not that alteration is actually doing anything particularly harmful to the world as a whole. And if it is harmful, is there anything we can honestly do to change our actions that will make a difference big enough without putting us back in the stone age? Humanity must and will move forward technologically. Much of this sweeping legislation is attempting to stand in the way of that, even though much of that technology would assist in solving supposed climate problems.

Edited March 19, 2010 by NickF1011