Yet more Politics using scare tactics for Global Warming

[Blueblood]

I would say there are plenty of equally accredited scientists who are a bit skeptical about the causes of global warming. Yes, the planet is warmer, but nobody can decisively prove why.

 

 

And they are vitrually all on EXXonMobils payroll as has already been shown to you, why are only paid shills for the oil companies credible to you guys? And yes, in fact, we can show why the Earth is getting warmer because it's happening at the same time we're pumping tons of GHG's into our thin atmosphere.

 

I'm the boat that thinks what the scientists think is completely irrelevant. We should be trying to reduce emissions and decrease dependency on non-renewable resources regardless of what is happening to the climate. Even if it's not causing global warming (who really knows for sure?), all of our manmade pollution certainly has other well-documented ill-effects on the environment.

 

 

Yes, and on us as well, the toxic emissions from refineries and chemical plants cause cancer and other nasty things, and we can at least try to reduce our effect on the climate. The benerfits would be enormous, imagine the US off Middle East oil, and our air quality vastly improved. Why would anyone be against that? The same people who repeat the oil company pr "that it would destroy the economy" are the same clowns who said emission controls and catalytic converters would kill the automobile! So much for that one!

[NickF1011]

And they are vitrually all on EXXonMobils payroll as has already been shown to you, why are only paid shills for the oil companies credible to you guys? And yes, in fact, we can show why the Earth is getting warmer because it's happening at the same time we're pumping tons of GHG's into our thin atmosphere.

 

Ugh. There are PLENTY of them who aren't on anybody's payroll. For every contrarian on an oil company's payroll, you'll find several "activists" who are on the payrolls of the Sierra Club, Greenpeace, etc.

[Bluecon]

CO2 comprises 0.04% of the atmosphere and H2O is the number one greenhouse gas.

 

"It is interesting that the political results of the United nations report will be released and the scientific results will be withheld. I have a hard time understanding why we would let the corruption riddled UN dictate our politics.

 

"What was most interesting to me in the release of the IPCC's fourth report was the fact that the report was not accompanied by the findings of the 2,500 scientists who supposedly worked on the report. Those findings will not be released until May of this year, after the IPCC's political functionaries have an opportunity to rewrite the science to suit their conclusions. In the words of the Financial Post's Terence Corcoran, they are giving us the proof, but withholding the evidence."

 

http://detnews.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?A...ION03/702070371

[Bluecon]

This is just to let all of you know that there have been complaints about this topic.

 

If contributors cannot refrain from insulting each other, the thread will be closed.

Specifically which insults are you speaking of?

 

This thread seems civil according to BON standards.

[NickF1011]

Specifically which insults are you speaking of?

 

This thread seems civil according to BON standards.

 

 

Public stoning and bum fights are almost civil compared to BON standards.

[LSFan00]

When I drink beer I think the Co2 comes back out as carbon monoxide. Does that help with global warming? It seems to always feel like it helps something.

[NickF1011]

When I drink beer I think the Co2 comes back out as carbon monoxide. Does that help with global warming? It seems to always feel like it helps something.

 

I'd say it increasing global warming, all that methane and all....

[BlackHorse]

Look, if global warming was absolute fact then there would be no debate within the scientific community. But there is, there is much debate and the reason there is debate is because it is UNPROVEN SCIENCE. Don't you guys get that? It is a theory, a hypothesis at best, with a great deal of data that is conveniently ignored. Is it getting warmer outside? Possibly so, it sure feels like it to me anyway. But the one thing none of these global warming advocates never factor into their equations is THE SUN!!! You guys remember the sun don't you, it's that big light in the sky that ensures your 4th of July celebrations will be sweaty occasions. All of these so called "global climate models" that the UN likes to tout as absolute proof that your F150 is killing us. Guess what, the majority of them do not factor in solar output. Gee I wonder why? When they do factor in solar output the trick is that solar output as regarded as a constant. /insert long error buzz sound here/ Solar output changes guys. It varies and guess what, since about 1680 solar output has been on the increase. That means more sun spots, solar flares and oh by the way, warmer temperatures here. Didn't you ever wonder why the pro-global warming crowd never talk about the fact that the polar ice caps on Mars are melting? Guess what also changes, the path of the earth around the sun. We are generally taught that the earth is on a peferctly round orbit around the sun. Not true, our orbit is elipitcal which means at times we get closer too or father away from the sun. Gee don't you think that might cause some temperature flucuations?

 

Sea levels, a favorite doom and gloom prediction of the pro-global warming crowd. 22,000 years ago the sea level was roughly 500 feet lower than it is now. Why? Well gee there was an ice sheet larger than Antarctica covering all of Canada, Northern Europe, a good bit of the United States and a large section of Asia. That ice sheet melted over the course of 5,000 years and guess what, the sea level rose. Before then you could walk from England to France because there was no English Channel. Did you ever wonder what made the ice sheet melt? Methane emissions from wooly mamouths I guess. No, the sun. The doom and gloomers would have you believe that sea level is currently rising so fast that everyone in Miami is going to be swiming for their lives before you know it. In fact sea level rise is well within normal parameters as compared to the last century of measurment. In short, there is no rapid accleration in our climate change.

 

Co2? Guess what, it's not a toxin. In greenhouse tests where they purposely injected increased amounts of Co2 guess what happened. The plants grew healthier and more robust, they liked it. Some of the anti-global warming scientists actually make the case that atmosphereic Co2 levels are currenlty at a very low level based on what they have observed in the fossil record. Whoops!!!! That sure won't ever make into the "We are killing ourselves by means of Fords and Chevy's" report will it?

 

While we are so worried about poluting the planet keep in mind that 6 of the top 10 most polluted cities on earth are in the former Soviet Union. The other 4 are scattered across Inida and China. None of them are in the United States. Is anyone twisting the arm of the Chinese and the Russians to clean up their act? No!!! They want the fuckin Americans to take the hit. The United States and Canada are two of the cleanest nations on the face of the planet, but the pro-global warming crowd would have you beleive that we are the problem. If a scientist dare object to the clearly skewed global warming data he or she is quickly shunned and risk losing their jobs. You can understand why many of them keep quiet. This isn't about science, its about political agendas. To that end its about digging deeper into your personal income and taking away more of your personal freedoms. All in the name of battling something that is nothing more than the normal change in our climate that takes place over time.

Edited February 7, 2007 by BlackHorse

[LSFan00]

I'd say it increasing global warming, all that methane and all....

 

This is a good point, but then, there is the opportunity cost: when I drink I can't go burning good hi-octane gasoline on the road, because I don't relish going to jail or killing someone else. So, all in all, it might keep me from otherwise destroying the climate.

 

Alternatively, the methane might contribute some to global warming, offsetting the global cooling I fear.

 

Lastly, that was a heck of a long post Blackhorse. Go have a beer.

[RichardJensen]

Guess what also changes, the path of the earth around the sun. We are generally taught that the earth is on a peferctly round orbit around the sun. Not true, our orbit is elipitcal which means at times we get closer too or father away from the sun. Gee don't you think that might cause some temperature flucuations?

You should really, really, really research remarks like this before you post them.

 

This statement is profoundly inaccurate, and it calls into question every other statement you make.

 

(Not to mention that injecting sarcasm and anger into an allegedly scientific discussion does not solve problems)

 

While it is true that the Earth's orbit is elliptical, travel between perihelion and aphelion is an annual occurrence, with the Earth reaching perihelion (the closest point to the sun) during the Northern Hemisphere's winter.

 

Over the course of time, changes in the time of Earth's rotation, the duration of the Solar year, and the distance of the Earth from the sun do occur, but they are so minuscule as to make no difference in short term climate change.

Edited February 7, 2007 by RichardJensen

[RichardJensen]

http://aa.usno.navy.mil/faq/docs/seasons_orbit.html

 

More info....... From a military site (of all things)--the U.S. naval observatory, in fact.

[BlackHorse]

Richard, our orbit is eleptical, it's the reason we have seasons to begin with. Many schools teach kids the orbit is prfectly round, but it's not.

 

A simple explanation.

 

http://www.learninghaven.com/science/artic...#39;s_orbit.htm

 

This pretty much says just what I said. I don't know, maybe you thought I was implying something else.

[RichardJensen]

Richard, our orbit is eleptical, it's the reason we have seasons to begin with.

This, too, is a thoroughly inaccurate statement.

 

The Earth's seasons are caused by axial tilt, not by the Earth's elliptical orbit.

 

When the Earth is at perihelion, ALL of it is closer to the sun (and right now, all of 3% closer).

 

Yet, right now it is barely 10 degrees where I live.

 

When the Earth is all of 3% farther away from the sun, it will be over 80 degrees where I live.

 

The Earth's tilt explains why the southern hemisphere's seasons are opposite ours.

[RichardJensen]

http://www.learninghaven.com/science/artic...the_seasons.htm

 

The Earth's c. 23.5 degree tilt explains all sorts of crazy things, like why it's dark for 6 months of the year from about 66.5 degrees (90-23.5=66.5) N to the N pole (the Arctic Circle), and from 66.5 degrees S. to the S. pole (the Antarctic Circle), and why the sun is never directly overhead N. of the Tropic of Cancer, and never directly overhead S. of the Tropic of Capricorn (each at 23.5 degrees N & S. of the Equator, respectively). At summer solstice, if you are on the Tropic of Cancer, the sun is (more or less) directly overhead at noon, and if you are on the Tropic of Capricorn at the same time, the sun is at its lowest point at noon.

 

On the equinoxes, the sun is directly overhead at noon on the Equator.

Edited February 7, 2007 by RichardJensen

[silvrsvt]

Heres an excerpt from State of Fear By Michael Crichton

 

http://www.crichton-official.com/fear/index.html

 

Why Politicized Science is Dangerous

(Excerpted from State of Fear)

 

Imagine that there is a new scientific theory that warns of an impending crisis, and points to a way out.

 

This theory quickly draws support from leading scientists, politicians and celebrities around the world. Research is funded by distinguished philanthropies, and carried out at prestigious universities. The crisis is reported frequently in the media. The science is taught in college and high school classrooms.

 

I don't mean global warming. I'm talking about another theory, which rose to prominence a century ago.

 

Its supporters included Theodore Roosevelt, Woodrow Wilson, and Winston Churchill. It was approved by Supreme Court justices Oliver Wendell Holmes and Louis Brandeis, who ruled in its favor. The famous names who supported it included Alexander Graham Bell, inventor of the telephone; activist Margaret Sanger; botanist Luther Burbank; Leland Stanford, founder of Stanford University; the novelist H. G. Wells; the playwright George Bernard Shaw; and hundreds of others. Nobel Prize winners gave support. Research was backed by the Carnegie and Rockefeller Foundations. The Cold Springs Harbor Institute was built to carry out this research, but important work was also done at Harvard, Yale, Princeton, Stanford and Johns Hopkins. Legislation to address the crisis was passed in states from New York to California.

 

These efforts had the support of the National Academy of Sciences, the American Medical Association, and the National Research Council. It was said that if Jesus were alive, he would have supported this effort.

 

All in all, the research, legislation and molding of public opinion surrounding the theory went on for almost half a century. Those who opposed the theory were shouted down and called reactionary, blind to reality, or just plain ignorant. But in hindsight, what is surprising is that so few people objected.

 

Today, we know that this famous theory that gained so much support was actually pseudoscience. The crisis it claimed was nonexistent. And the actions taken in the name of theory were morally and criminally wrong. Ultimately, they led to the deaths of millions of people.

 

The theory was eugenics, and its history is so dreadful --- and, to those who were caught up in it, so embarrassing --- that it is now rarely discussed. But it is a story that should be well know to every citizen, so that its horrors are not repeated.

 

The theory of eugenics postulated a crisis of the gene pool leading to the deterioration of the human race. The best human beings were not breeding as rapidly as the inferior ones --- the foreigners, immigrants, Jews, degenerates, the unfit, and the "feeble minded." Francis Galton, a respected British scientist, first speculated about this area, but his ideas were taken far beyond anything he intended. They were adopted by science-minded Americans, as well as those who had no interest in science but who were worried about the immigration of inferior races early in the twentieth century --- "dangerous human pests" who represented "the rising tide of imbeciles" and who were polluting the best of the human race.

 

The eugenicists and the immigrationists joined forces to put a stop to this. The plan was to identify individuals who were feeble-minded --- Jews were agreed to be largely feeble-minded, but so were many foreigners, as well as blacks --- and stop them from breeding by isolation in institutions or by sterilization.

 

As Margaret Sanger said, "Fostering the good-for-nothing at the expense of the good is an extreme cruelty … there is not greater curse to posterity than that of bequeathing them an increasing population of imbeciles." She spoke of the burden of caring for "this dead weight of human waste."

 

Such views were widely shared. H.G. Wells spoke against "ill-trained swarms of inferior citizens." Theodore Roosevelt said that "Society has no business to permit degenerates to reproduce their kind." Luther Burbank" "Stop permitting criminals and weaklings to reproduce." George Bernard Shaw said that only eugenics could save mankind.

 

There was overt racism in this movement, exemplified by texts such as "The Rising Tide of Color Against White World Supremacy" by American author Lothrop Stoddard. But, at the time, racism was considered an unremarkable aspect of the effort to attain a marvelous goal --- the improvement of humankind in the future. It was this avant-garde notion that attracted the most liberal and progressive minds of a generation. California was one of twenty-nine American states to pass laws allowing sterilization, but it proved the most-forward-looking and enthusiastic --- more sterilizations were carried out in California than anywhere else in America.

 

Eugenics research was funded by the Carnegie Foundation, and later by the Rockefeller Foundation. The latter was so enthusiastic that even after the center of the eugenics effort moved to Germany, and involved the gassing of individuals from mental institutions, the Rockefeller Foundation continued to finance German researchers at a very high level. (The foundation was quiet about it, but they were still funding research in 1939, only months before the onset of World War II.)

 

Since the 1920s, American eugenicists had been jealous because the Germans had taken leadership of the movement away from them. The Germans were admirably progressive. They set up ordinary-looking houses where "mental defectives" were brought and interviewed one at a time, before being led into a back room, which was, in fact, a gas chamber. There, they were gassed with carbon monoxide, and their bodies disposed of in a crematorium located on the property.

 

Eventually, this program was expanded into a vast network of concentration camps located near railroad lines, enabling the efficient transport and of killing ten million undesirables.

 

After World War II, nobody was a eugenicist, and nobody had ever been a eugenicist. Biographers of the celebrated and the powerful did not dwell on the attractions of this philosophy to their subjects, and sometimes did not mention it at all. Eugenics ceased to be a subject for college classrooms, although some argue that its ideas continue to have currency in disguised form.

 

But in retrospect, three points stand out. First, despite the construction of Cold Springs Harbor Laboratory, despite the efforts of universities and the pleadings of lawyers, there was no scientific basis for eugenics. In fact, nobody at that time knew what a gene really was. The movement was able to proceed because it employed vague terms never rigorously defined. "Feeble-mindedness" could mean anything from poverty to illiteracy to epilepsy. Similarly, there was no clear definition of "degenerate" or "unfit."

 

Second, the eugenics movement was really a social program masquerading as a scientific one. What drove it was concern about immigration and racism and undesirable people moving into one's neighborhood or country. Once again, vague terminology helped conceal what was really going on.

 

Third, and most distressing, the scientific establishment in both the United States and Germany did not mount any sustained protest. Quite the contrary. In Germany scientists quickly fell into line with the program. Modern German researchers have gone back to review Nazi documents from the 1930s. They expected to find directives telling scientists what research should be done. But none were necessary. In the words of Ute Deichman, "Scientists, including those who were not members of the [Nazi]party, helped to get funding for their work through their modified behavior and direct cooperation with the state." Deichman speaks of the "active role of scientists themselves in regard to Nazi race policy … where [research] was aimed at confirming the racial doctrine … no external pressure can be documented." German scientists adjusted their research interests to the new policies. And those few who did not adjust disappeared.

 

A second example of politicized science is quite different in character, but it exemplifies the hazard of government ideology controlling the work of science, and of uncritical media promoting false concepts. Trofim Denisovich Lysenko was a self-promoting peasant who, it was said, "solved the problem of fertilizing the fields without fertilizers and minerals." In 1928 he claimed to have invented a procedure called vernalization, by which seeds were moistened and chilled to enhance the later growth of crops.

 

Lysenko's methods never faced a rigorous test, but his claim that his treated seeds passed on their characteristics to the next generation represented a revival of Lamarckian ideas at a time when the rest of the world was embracing Mendelian genetics. Josef Stalin was drawn to Lamarckian ideas, which implied a future unbounded by hereditary constraints; he also wanted improved agricultural production. Lysenko promised both, and became the darling of a Soviet media that was on the lookout for stories about clever peasants who had developed revolutionary procedures.

 

Lysenko was portrayed as a genius, and he milked his celebrity for all it was worth. He was especially skillful at denouncing this opponents. He used questionnaires from farmers to prove that vernalization increased crop yields, and thus avoided any direct tests. Carried on a wave of state-sponsored enthusiasm, his rise was rapid. By 1937, he was a member of the Supreme Soviet.

 

By then, Lysenko and his theories dominated Russian biology. The result was famines that killed millions, and purges that sent hundreds of dissenting Soviet scientists to the gulags or the firing squads. Lysenko was aggressive in attacking genetics, which was finally banned as "bourgeois pseudoscience" in 1948. There was never any basis for Lysenko's ideas, yet he controlled Soviet research for thirty years. Lysenkoism ended in the 1960s, but Russian biology still has not entirely recovered from that era.

 

Now we are engaged in a great new theory that once again has drawn the support of politicians, scientists, and celebrities around the world. Once again, the theory is promoted by major foundations. Once again, the research is carried out at prestigious universities. Once again, legislation is passed and social programs are urged in its name. Once again, critics are few and harshly dealt with.

 

Once again, the measures being urged have little basis in fact or science. Once again, groups with other agendas are hiding behind a movement that appears high-minded. Once again, claims of moral superiority are used to justify extreme actions. Once again, the fact that some people are hurt is shrugged off because an abstract cause is said to be greater than any human consequences. Once again, vague terms like sustainability and generational justice --- terms that have no agreed definition --- are employed in the service of a new crisis.

 

I am not arguing that global warming is the same as eugenics. But the similarities are not superficial. And I do claim that open and frank discussion of the data, and of the issues, is being suppressed. Leading scientific journals have taken strong editorial positions of the side of global warming, which, I argue, they have no business doing. Under the circumstances, any scientist who has doubts understands clearly that they will be wise to mute their expression.

 

One proof of this suppression is the fact that so many of the outspoken critics of global warming are retired professors. These individuals are not longer seeking grants, and no longer have to face colleagues whose grant applications and career advancement may be jeopardized by their criticisms.

 

In science, the old men are usually wrong. But in politics, the old men are wise, counsel caution, and in the end are often right.

 

The past history of human belief is a cautionary tale. We have killed thousands of our fellow human beings because we believed they had signed a contract with the devil, and had become witches. We still kill more than a thousand people each year for witchcraft. In my view, there is only one hope for humankind to emerge from what Carl Sagan called "the demon-haunted world" of our past. That hope is science.

 

But as Alston Chase put it, "when the search for truth is confused with political advocacy, the pursuit of knowledge is reduced to the quest for power."

 

That is the danger we now face. And this is why the intermixing of science and politics is a bad combination, with a bad history. We must remember the history, and be certain that what we present to the world as knowledge is disinterested and honest.

[BlackHorse]

Richard, I think we are both making the same point here.

 

The combined effect of the Earth's orbital motion and the tilt of its rotation axis result in the seasons.

 

http://www.windows.ucar.edu/tour/link=/the...uts/earth3.html

 

As I understand it, the tilt alone would not account for seasonal change. The eleptical orbit plays a factor as well.

I think we got off on a tangent here. If you doubt any of my data, feel free to look it up yourself.

 

Additionally I should point out.

 

(Not to mention that injecting sarcasm and anger into an allegedly scientific discussion does not solve problems)

 

I'm not trying to solve any problems for you or anyone else here. I'm just presenting my take on it based on what I know. It's up to you how you take it. I can't recall being angry while I was typing any of that so I'm not sure how you got that. Was there some saracism in there? I don't know, maybe to you there was. I was just joking around myself. A little light humor as it were. Don't be so serious all the time man. lol

Edited February 8, 2007 by BlackHorse

[RichardJensen]

The effect, if any, of the Earth's elliptical orbit is much in question. The effect of the tilt of the Earth's axis is not.

 

I don't doubt the other data that I've seen corroborated elsewhere (although increased solar radiation is extremely difficult to infer from period when measuring equipment was unavailable), obviously, but when you advance such notions, you really should document your sources.

[BlackHorse]

I'll try to do better Mister Spock. lol Seriously though, the data is out there. I'm sorry I didn't quote it. I wasn't aware everything on an auto forum was held to such high standards of accountability.

Edited February 8, 2007 by BlackHorse

[RichardJensen]

I'll try to do better Mister Spock. lol Seriously though, the data is out there. I'm sorry I didn't quote it. I wasn't aware everything on an auto forum was held to such high standards of accountability.

In a subject that is frequently prone to personalization, political campaigning, characterization, and distortion--as this subject is--it is better to be overcautious, than otherwise.

 

If you say something be prepared to back it up with a link, not "Well, you're an idiot if you believe that"....

 

In the interests of keeping things civil, y'know.

[BlackHorse]

Hey I didn't call anyone an idiot man. What's up with that? I'm all for keeping it civil Richard, but come on, don't put words in my mouth.

[LSFan00]

This isn't over. Was it over when the Germans bombed pearl harbor?

[Blueblood]

Ugh. There are PLENTY of them who aren't on anybody's payroll. For every contrarian on an oil company's payroll, you'll find several "activists" who are on the payrolls of the Sierra Club, Greenpeace, etc.

 

Your arguement just fizzled out..

 

Activists aren't the same as scientists, and do you really believe that the oil cartels who rake in tens of billions of dollars in profit per quarter who have a financial interest in stifling the debate over GW re the same as Greenpeace or the Sierra club???

 

Where do you think Greenpeace or Sierra club get their funds? Dio you think they have the same lobbying and buying power as big oil? And then you'd have to show some evidence that they have scientists on their "payroll" to skew facts like big oil does. You name one GW skeptic and chances are they can be connected to big oil..

[RichardJensen]

Hey I didn't call anyone an idiot man. What's up with that? I'm all for keeping it civil Richard, but come on, don't put words in my mouth.

It's a f'r instance, meant to apply to all participants, even if addressed primarily to you.

 

While it's true you didn't call people that disagree with you idiots, you did bluntly accuse the most vocal proponents of the 'industrialization as cause' argument of trying to take freedoms away from people. An accusation which is hardly calculated to win friends, or influence those who disagree with you. Under that light, accusing an unspecified number of people who disagree with you of being in collusion to strip individuals of freedom is tantamount to calling people that disagree with you idiots (or the fellow travelers of idiots).

 

This isn't about science, its about political agendas. To that end its about digging deeper into your personal income and taking away more of your personal freedoms. All in the name of battling something that is nothing more than the normal change in our climate that takes place over time.

 

If you see what I mean..........

Edited February 8, 2007 by RichardJensen

[Blueblood]

CO2 comprises 0.04% of the atmosphere and H2O is the number one greenhouse gas.

 

"It is interesting that the political results of the United nations report will be released and the scientific results will be withheld. I have a hard time understanding why we would let the corruption riddled UN dictate our politics.

 

"What was most interesting to me in the release of the IPCC's fourth report was the fact that the report was not accompanied by the findings of the 2,500 scientists who supposedly worked on the report. Those findings will not be released until May of this year, after the IPCC's political functionaries have an opportunity to rewrite the science to suit their conclusions. In the words of the Financial Post's Terence Corcoran, they are giving us the proof, but withholding the evidence."

 

http://detnews.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?A...ION03/702070371

 

 

See guys, the "experts" you put your blind faityh in are oil company stooges, TOLD YA SO!!!

 

 

The Global Warming Denial Lobby

 

In early April, the Financial Post published a letter addressed to Prime Minister Stephen Harper and signed by 60 "accredited experts in climate and related scientific disciplines," as they describe themselves. They want Harper to begin a debate on the Kyoto Protocol.

 

Begin a debate? What do they think has been happening since 1988, when US National Aeronautics and Space Administration scientist James Hansen testified before the US Congress that he was "99 percent certain that global warming was here." That statement has been subjected to extensive, prolonged and worldwide scrutiny ever since.

 

The point of their letter is to deny "alarmist forecasts" of global warming and to attack "the confident pronouncements of scientifically unqualified environmental groups" whose goal is to capture "sensational headlines."

 

The letter is classic climate change denial and among the 60 signatories -- only 19 of whom are Canadian -- are the most prominent climate change sceptics, as they are frequently called.

 

The deniers' letter was followed two weeks later by one from 90 supporters of Kyoto. This group calls itself "climate science leaders from the academic, public and private sectors across Canada." No foreigners, no weasel phrases like "related scientific disciplines" (economics? agronomy?). Their point? The evidence is conclusive that warming has occurred and most of it is attributable to human activity.

 

These conclusions, they say, are supported by the vast majority of the world's climate scientists. Harper's assignment is to get on with developing an "effective national strategy" to deal with climate change.

 

More debate or action?

 

 

Financial Post editor Terence Corcoran seems to think that more debate is required. He did run the letter from the Kyoto supporters but accompanied it with an editorial attacking their credibility. Their crime is that some of them are federal government scientists and some have received peer-reviewed government grants. Therefore, what they have to say must be rubbish.

 

The problem with libertarians like Corcoran is that they can be so blinded by their ideology -- anything government does is bad -- that they don't see the problems a powerful corporate sector can cause. Call it a case of libertarian looneyism.

 

Funded by Exxon Mobil

 

The 60 deniers had no Corcoran editorial accompanying their letter. A question Corcoran might have asked is how many of the deniers are funded by Exxon Mobil and the coal industry?

 

It's a natural question to pose. The fossil fuel industry doesn't want mandatory limits on CO2 emissions because they would affect profits. It wants Canada and the rest of the world to do what George W. Bush did, establish voluntary standards and provide government subsidies to develop cleaner technologies.

 

To update his knowledge on this issue, Corcoran could read the works of Ross Gelbspan, who has been covering climate change for more than a decade as a reporter for the Boston Globe. Gelbspan discovered in 1995 that some of the leading skeptics were funded by the coal industry. He wrote a book in 1997, The Heat is On, and runs the companion web site, The Heat is Online. Gelbspan's recent book is Boiling Point: How Politicians, Big Oil and Coal, Journalists and Activists are Fueling the Climate Crisis -- and What We Can Do to Avoid Disaster.

 

Corcoran could also check out the May/June 2005 issue of Mother Jones, which tabulated the organizations that received funding from Exxon Mobil between 2000 and 2003 to fight CO2 emission controls.

 

 

http://thetyee.ca/Mediacheck/2006/05/02/Pa...yGlobalWarming/

 

 

 

 

 

[Blueblood]

Look, if global warming was absolute fact then there would be no debate within the scientific community. But there is, there is much debate and the reason there is debate is because it is UNPROVEN SCIENCE.

 

You are completely wrong, the debate in the REAL scientific commuinty is over, the false debate is still raging on thanks to oil industry funded lobbyists spreading dis-information.

 

 

 

Don't you guys get that? It is a theory, a hypothesis at best, with a great deal of data that is conveniently ignored. Is it getting warmer outside? Possibly so, it sure feels like it to me anyway. But the one thing none of these global warming advocates never factor into their equations is THE SUN!!! You guys remember the sun don't you, it's that big light in the sky that ensures your 4th of July celebrations will be sweaty occasions. All of these so called "global climate models" that the UN likes to tout as absolute proof that your F150 is killing us. Guess what, the majority of them do not factor in solar output. Gee I wonder why? When they do factor in solar output the trick is that solar output as regarded as a constant. /insert long error buzz sound here/ Solar output changes guys. It varies and guess what, since about 1680 solar output has been on the increase. That means more sun spots, solar flares and oh by the way, warmer temperatures here.

If you read anything from actual scientists you'd know the Sun theory has been long de-bunked, only kept alive bu big oil.

 

 

 

Didn't you ever wonder why the pro-global warming crowd never talk about the fact that the polar ice caps on Mars are melting? Guess what also changes, the path of the earth around the sun. We are generally taught that the earth is on a peferctly round orbit around the sun. Not true, our orbit is elipitcal which means at times we get closer too or father away from the sun. Gee don't you think that might cause some temperature flucuations?

 

Again you're wrong..

 

Sea levels, a favorite doom and gloom prediction of the pro-global warming crowd. 22,000 years ago the sea level was roughly 500 feet lower than it is now. Why? Well gee there was an ice sheet larger than Antarctica covering all of Canada, Northern Europe, a good bit of the United States and a large section of Asia. That ice sheet melted over the course of 5,000 years and guess what, the sea level rose. Before then you could walk from England to France because there was no English Channel. Did you ever wonder what made the ice sheet melt? Methane emissions from wooly mamouths I guess. No, the sun. The doom and gloomers would have you believe that sea level is currently rising so fast that everyone in Miami is going to be swiming for their lives before you know it. In fact sea level rise is well within normal parameters as compared to the last century of measurment. In short, there is no rapid accleration in our climate change.

 

Co2? Guess what, it's not a toxin. In greenhouse tests where they purposely injected increased amounts of Co2 guess what happened. The plants grew healthier and more robust, they liked it. Some of the anti-global warming scientists actually make the case that atmosphereic Co2 levels are currenlty at a very low level based on what they have observed in the fossil record. Whoops!!!! That sure won't ever make into the "We are killing ourselves by means of Fords and Chevy's" report will it?

gibberish..

 

 

While we are so worried about poluting the planet keep in mind that 6 of the top 10 most polluted cities on earth are in the former Soviet Union. The other 4 are scattered across Inida and China. None of them are in the United States. Is anyone twisting the arm of the Chinese and the Russians to clean up their act? No!!!

 

 

Do you really think people aren't concerned about that? If we could do something we would, although taking the lead for once would set a great example..

 

 

 

 

They want the fuckin Americans to take the hit. The United States and Canada are two of the cleanest nations on the face of the planet, but the pro-global warming crowd would have you beleive that we are the problem.

The US has 5% of the world's population and uses 25% of the world's resources, stop using Rush Limbaugh as a source, ok??

 

 

If a scientist dare object to the clearly skewed global warming data he or she is quickly shunned and risk losing their jobs.

 

Whoa whoa whoa there cowboy, are you saying that YOU know more than scientists around the world? Just what are your credential to say their data is "skewed"?

 

 

 

You can understand why many of them keep quiet. This isn't about science, its about political agendas.

For once you tell the truth, except that's the case for the right wing deniers and the paid oil company shills.

 

 

To that end its about digging deeper into your personal income and taking away more of your personal freedoms.

 

 

More wacked out libertarian conspiracy theories..

 

The Bush administration has taken away more of our personal freedoms over thepast 6 years than any administration in historym yet you don't her a peep from people such as yourselves.

 

I'd like to hear how reducing our contribution to GW and pollution would take money awayfrom us and reduce our freedoms. Prove the nutty rhetoric that you speak.

 

 

All in the name of battling something that is nothing more than the normal change in our climate that takes place over time.

 

The earth is flat you say.