8 February 2004

The culprit is global warming, melting the icebegs on Greenland and the Arctic icepack and thus flushing cold, fresh water

Thom Hartmann describes the Great Conveyor Belt angle on how global warming may precipitate the onset of a new ice age. Just because Europe and the Northern U.S. are experiencing a harsh winter doesn't invalidate global warming theory.
In quick summary, if enough cold, fresh water coming from the melting polar ice caps and the melting glaciers of Greenland flows into the northern Atlantic, it will shut down the Gulf Stream, which keeps Europe and northeastern North America warm. The worst-case scenario would be a full-blown return of the last ice age - in a period as short as 2 to 3 years from its onset - and the mid-case scenario would be a period like the "little ice age" of a few centuries ago that disrupted worldwide weather patterns leading to extremely harsh winters, droughts, worldwide desertification, crop failures, and wars around the world.

Al Gore was derided for his speech in New York last month on global wariming, as New Yorkers shivered in one of the coldest winters in recent memory, but even elements in an environment unconscious administration are concerned - the Pentagon has prepared a report on national security repercussions in the wake of cataclysmic climate change as the result of global warming.

Mother Nature is such an unpredictable master - there's no telling what the future holds in store. However, the evidence is already out there that humans are indeed affecting their environment, despite the wailing of a few skeptics and corporate lobbyists.


Whats with the global warming crisis thing its soooooo anoying
Arctic sea ice not melting: new research

By BOB WEBER-- The Canadian Press

IQALUIT, Nunavut (CP) -- A Canadian scientist is pouring cold, unfrozen water on the notion that global warming is melting arctic sea ice like a Popsicle at the beach.

Greg Holloway galvanized an international meeting of arctic scientists Tuesday by saying there is little evidence of a rapid decline of the volume of ice in the northern oceans.

Despite breathless media reports and speculation of an ice-free Northwest Passage, he suggests that it's far more likely that the ice has just been moved around in the cycles of Arctic winds.

"It's more complicated than we thought," said Holloway, a scientist with the Institute of Ocean Science in Victoria.

The original theory was based on declassified records from the trips of U.S. submarines under the ice.

Satellite pictures have clearly shown that the surface area of the ice has decreased about three per cent a year for the last 20 years.

But the question was, How thick was it?

The submarine data generated headlines and cover stories from the New York Times to Time Magazine when it seemed to indicate that ice volume had decreased by 43 per cent between 1958 and 1997.

The evidence seemed good. There were only eight different voyages, but they had generated 29 different locations across the central Arctic where there were enough readings to make comparisons.

Holloway, however, couldn't make that conclusion jibe with any of his computer models.

"We couldn't understand how the reduction could be so rapid," he said.

"My first thought was, What is it we don't understand?"

Holloway knew that there was a regular pattern of sea ice being blown into the North Atlantic. He decided to examine if the wind patterns across the circumpolar North could have had something to do with the missing ice.

Wind patterns blow across the Arctic in a 50-year cycle.

At different points in the cycle, ice tends to cluster in the centre of the Arctic. At other points, the ice is blown out to the margins along the Canadian shorelines, where the subs were not allowed to go because of sovereignty concerns.

When Holloway lined up the submarine visits with what he knew about the wind cycles, the explanation for the missing ice became clear: "The submarine sampled ice during a time of oscillation of ice toward the centre of the Arctic. They went back during a time when ice was oscillating to the Canadian side."

Holloway had found the missing ice.

"I believe it is most probably explained with the shifting ice within the Arctic locations," he said to applause from scientific delegates from Norway to China.

If the submarines had made their first visit one year earlier and their return one year later, Holloway says they would have found no change in the thickness of the sea ice at all.

Holloway cautions that his research doesn't force a total re-evaluation of the theory of global warming. Temperatures on average are rising around the world, he says.

It does, however, deflate excitement about the possibility of an ice-free Northwest Passage.

The chance of a year-round northern shipping route has thrilled commercial shippers, worried environmentalists, and concerned those worried about Canada's ability to enforce sovereignty in those waters.

"At this time, we do not have the basis to predict an open Northwest Passage," said Holloway.

It also calls into question some of the findings and recommendations of the International Panel on Climate Change, which accepted the 43 per cent hypothesis in its report to various governments.

More data is coming in as further reports from American and British submarines are released. But the furore over the first results contains a lesson for both scientists and the public, Holloway says.

"It's a very small amount of time and a very limited number of places those submarines could go," he said.

"The cautionary tale to all this is the undersimplifying of a big and complex system."

"Who know what's going on out there?"
New trees cancel out air pollution cuts

10:00 17 October 04

Exclusive from New Scientist Print Edition. Subscribe and get 4 free issues.
Industry has dramatically cut its emissions of pollutants, called volatile organic compounds. But those cuts have been more than offset by the amount of VOCs churned out by trees.

The revelation challenges the notion that planting trees is a good way to clean up the atmosphere.

When fossil fuels used in industry and automobiles fail to combust completely, they generate VOCs, which react with nitrogen oxides and sunlight to form poisonous ozone in the lower atmosphere. In the past few decades, the introduction of more efficient engines and catalytic converters has dramatically reduced these emissions.

But trees also produce VOCs, which tend to be ignored by scientists modelling the effects of ozone on pollution. So a team led by Drew Purves at Princeton University investigated the impact of newly planted forests on VOC levels in the US.

The researchers used the US Forest Service Industry Analysis, a database of 250,000 randomly sampled forest plots around the country, and the known VOC emission rate for each tree species for the study.

They calculated that vegetal sources of monoterpenes and isoprene rose by up to 17% from the 1980s to the 1990s Ė equivalent to three times the industrial reductions.

Farmland reverting to scrub, pine plantations and the invasive sweetgum tree were behind most of the increases in the US.

Journal reference: Global Change Biology (vol 10, p 1737)
Mondo, your article is a bit dated (nearly 4 years old) and you reference public relations flacks. An overwhelming consensus of SCIENTISTS who specialize in atmospheric science, meteorology, etc... (not oceanography) have testified to the existence of global warming, despite the well publicized few naysayers, who are mostly comprised of PR flacks and scientists with no applicable background.

Even oil industry corporate chiefs and insurance executives are in tune to the reality.


No doubt, again it's a schism of "faith based" vs. "reality based" communities...
There is just as much evidence thet disputes global warming as proves it as my first post states

"Who know what's going on out there?"

this is the true case each year new theories are devised to prove this point or that only to be later debuncted.....In reality Humanity is insignificant to the changes that occur in our planets atmosphere. More pollutants are blasted into the atmosphere each year by VOLCANIC ERUPTIONS than Ever were produced by man. Plants themselves have been proved to create more pollutants than we do....yet you still try toi find NEW evidence that human beings are a cancer on the face of this planet...it just isnt so.

How concieted is man to think that he as a grain of sand can change the flow of the ocean.
and about your faith based versus reality based communities... if you assume that science is absolute ask your self this if you travel back 100 years would your "REALITY" based on science be the same as it is today? Or Travel 100 years in the future do you believe that your reality based on science would be the the same as it is today. Science theories are constantly changing to adapt to NEW evidence as we discover it.This change is not always easy and many science views have gone down kicking and screaming as NEW views are brought forth to take its place.. If science was a constant then perhaps you would have a leg to stand on...

Faith however, at least mine, remains constant and is unchanging through my life where as the things tought to me when i was in school are not necisarily the same things tought to todays children. At least one can depend on the ever present constant that is faith, rather then the constantly shifting reality as tought through science.
Science Has Spoken:
Global Warming Is a Myth
by Arthur B. Robinson and Zachary W. Robinson
Copyright 1997 Dow Jones & Co., Inc.
Reprinted with permission of Dow Jones & Co., Inc.
The Wall Street Journal (December 4, 1997)
Political leaders are gathered in Kyoto, Japan, working away on an international treaty to stop "global warming" by reducing carbon dioxide emissions. The debate over how much to cut emissions has at times been heated--but the entire enterprise is futile or worse. For there is not a shred of persuasive evidence that humans have been responsible for increasing global temperatures. What's more, carbon dioxide emissions have actually been a boon for the environment.

The myth of "global warming" starts with an accurate observation: The amount of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere is rising. It is now about 360 parts per million, vs. 290 at the beginning of the 20th century, Reasonable estimates indicate that it may eventually rise as high as 600 parts per million. This rise probably results from human burning of coal, oil and natural gas, although this is not certain. Earth's oceans and land hold some 50 times as much carbon dioxide as is in the atmosphere, and movement between these reservoirs of carbon dioxide is poorly understood. The observed rise in atmospheric carbon dioxide does correspond with the time of human release and equals about half of the amount released.

Carbon dioxide, water, and a few other substances are "greenhouse gases." For reasons predictable from their physics and chemistry, they tend to admit more solar energy into the atmosphere than they allow to escape. Actually, things are not so simple as this, since these substances interact among themselves and with other aspects of the atmosphere in complex ways that are not well understood. Still, it was reasonable to hypothesize that rising atmospheric carbon dioxide levels might cause atmospheric temperatures to rise. Some people predicted "global warming," which has come to mean extreme greenhouse warming of the atmosphere leading to catastrophic environmental consequences.


Careful Tests

The global-warming hypothesis, however, is no longer tenable. Scientists have been able to test it carefully, and it does not hold up. During the past 50 years, as atmospheric carbon dioxide levels have risen, scientists have made precise measurements of atmospheric temperature. These measurements have definitively shown that major atmospheric greenhouse warming of the atmosphere is not occurring and is unlikely ever to occur.

The temperature of the atmosphere fluctuates over a wide range, the result of solar activity and other influences. During the past 3,000 years, there have been five extended periods when it was distinctly warmer than today. One of the two coldest periods, known as the Little Ice Age, occurred 300 years ago. Atmospheric temperatures have been rising from that low for the past 300 years, but remain below the 3,000-year average.
Why are temperatures rising? The first chart nearby shows temperatures during the past 250 years, relative to the mean temperature for 1951-70. The same chart shows the length of the solar magnetic cycle during the same period. Close correlation between these two parameters--the shorter the solar cycle (and hence the more active the sun), the higher the temperature--demonstrates, as do other studies, that the gradual warming since the Little Ice Age and the large fluctuations during that warming have been caused by changes in solar activity.

The highest temperatures during this period occurred in about 1940. During the past 20 years, atmospheric temperatures have actually tended to go down, as shown in the second chart, based on very reliable satellite data, which have been confirmed by measurements from weather balloons.

Consider what this means for the global-warming hypothesis. This hypothesis predicts that global temperatures will rise significantly, indeed catastrophically, if atmospheric carbon dioxide rises. Most of the increase in atmospheric carbon dioxide has occurred during the past 50 years, and the increase has continued during the past 20 years. Yet there has been no significant increase in atmospheric temperature during those 50 years, and during the 20 years with the highest carbon dioxide levels, temperatures have decreased.

In science, the ultimate test is the process of experiment. If a hypothesis fails the experimental test, it must be discarded. Therefore, the scientific method requires that the global warming hypothesis be rejected.

Why, then, is there continuing scientific interest in "global warming"? There is a field of inquiry in which scientists are using computers to try to predict the weather--even global weather over very long periods. But global weather is so complicated that current data and computer methods are insufficient to make such predictions. Although it is reasonable to hope that these methods will eventually become useful, for now computer climate models are very unreliable. The second chart shows predicted temperatures for the past 20 years, based on the computer models. It's not surprising that they should have turned out wrong--after all the weatherman still has difficulty predicting local weather even for a few days. Long-term global predictions are beyond current capabilities.

So we needn't worry about human use of hydrocarbons warming the Earth. We also needn't worry about environmental calamities, even if the current, natural warming trend continues: After all the Earth has been much warmer during the past 3,000 years without ill effects.

But we should worry about the effects of the hydrocarbon rationing being proposed at Kyoto. Hydrocarbon use has major environmental benefits. A great deal of research has shown that increases in atmospheric carbon dioxide accelerate the growth rates of plants and also permit plants to grow in drier regions. Animal life, which depends upon plants, also increases.

Standing timber in the United States has already increased by 30% since 1950. There are now 60 tons of timber for every American. Tree-ring studies further confirm this spectacular increase in tree growth rates. It has also been found that mature Amazonian rain forests are increasing in biomass at about two tons per acre per year. A composite of 279 research studies predicts that overall plant growth rates will ultimately double as carbon dioxide increases.

Lush Environment

What mankind is doing is moving hydrocarbons from below ground and turning them into living things. We are living in an increasingly lush environment of plants and animals as a result of the carbon dioxide increase. Our children will enjoy an Earth with twice as much plant and animal life as that with which we now are blessed. This is a wonderful and unexpected gift from the industrial revolution.

Hydrocarbons are needed to feed and lift from poverty vast numbers of people across the globe. This can eventually allow all human beings to live long, prosperous, healthy, productive lives. No other single technological factor is more important to the increase in the quality, length and quantity of human life than the continued, expanded and unrationed use of the Earth's hydrocarbons, of which we have proven reserves to last more than 1,000 years. Global warming is a myth. The reality is that global poverty and death would be the result of Kyoto's rationing of hydrocarbons.

Arthur Robinson and Zachary Robinson are chemists at the Oregon Institute of Science and Medicine

Myths of Global Warming

Friday, May 23, 1997
The Clinton administration has decided to commit the United States to finalizing a treaty in December 1997 that would impose legally binding, internationally enforceable limits on the production of greenhouse gases, primarily carbon dioxide (CO2). That decision was based on the belief that global warming is significant, that humans are its primary cause and that only immediate government action can avert disaster.

Yet there is no scientific consensus that global warming is a problem or that humans are its cause. Even if current predictions of warming are correct, delaying drastic government actions by up to 25 years will make little difference in global temperature 100 years from now. Proposed treaty restrictions would do little environmental good and great economic harm. By contrast, putting off action until we have more evidence of human-caused global warming and better technology to mitigate it is both environmentally and economically sound.

Much of the environmental policy now proposed is based on myths. Let's look at the four most common.

Myth #1: Scientists Agree the Earth Is Warming. While ground-level temperature measurements suggest the earth has warmed between 0.3 and 0.6 degrees Celsius since 1850, global satellite data, the most reliable of climate measure-
ments, show no evidence of warming during the past 18 years. [See Figure I.] Even if the earth's temperature has increased slightly, the increase is well within the natural range of known temperature variation over the last 15,000 years. Indeed, the earth experienced greater warming between the 10th and 15th centuries - a time when vineyards thrived in England and Vikings colonized Greenland and built settlements in Canada.

Myth #2: Humans Are Causing Global Warming. Scientists do not agree that humans discernibly influence global climate because the evidence supporting that theory is weak. The scientific experts most directly concerned with climate conditions reject the theory by a wide margin.
A Gallup poll found that only 17 percent of the members of the Meteorological Society and the American Geophysical Society think that the warming of the 20th century has been a result of greenhouse gas emissions - principally CO2 from burning fossil fuels. [See Figure II.]

Only 13 percent of the scientists responding to a survey conducted by the environmental organization Greenpeace believe catastrophic climate change will result from continuing current patterns of energy use.

More than 100 noted scientists, including the former president of the National Academy of Sciences, signed a letter declaring that costly actions to reduce greenhouse gases are not justified by the best available evidence.
While atmospheric carbon dioxide has increased by 28 percent over the past 150 years, human-generated carbon dioxide could have played only a small part in any warming, since most of the warming occurred prior to 1940 - before most human-caused carbon dioxide emissions.

Myth #3: The Government Must Act Now to Halt Global Warming. The belief underlying this myth is that the consequences of near-term inaction could be catastrophic and, thus, prudence supports immediate government action.

However, a 1995 analysis by proponents of global warming theory concluded that the world's governments can wait up to 25 years to take action with no appreciable negative effect on the environment. T.M.L. Wigley, R. Richels and J.A. Edmonds followed the common scientific assumption that a realistic goal of global warming policy would be to stabilize the concentration of atmospheric CO2 at approximately twice preindustrial levels, or 550 parts per million by volume. Given that economic growth will continue with a concomitant rise in greenhouse gas emissions, the scientists agreed that stabilization at this level is environmentally sound as well as politically and economically feasible. They also concluded that:
Governments can cut emissions now to approximately 9 billion tons per year or wait until 2020 and cut emissions by 12 billion tons per year.

Either scenario would result in the desired CO2 concentration of 550 parts per million.

Delaying action until 2020 would yield an insignificant temperature rise of 0.2 degrees Celsius by 2100.
In short, our policymakers need not act in haste and ignorance. The government has time to gather more data, and industry has time to devise new ways of reducing greenhouse gas emissions.

Myth # 4: Human-Caused Global Warming Will Cause Cataclysmic Environmental Problems. Proponents of the theory of human-caused global warming argue that it is causing and will continue to cause all manner of environmental catastrophes, including higher ocean levels and increased hurricane activity. Reputable scientists, including those working on the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), the United Nations organization created to study the causes and effects of global climate warming, reject these beliefs.

Sea levels are rising around the globe, though not uniformly. In fact, sea levels have risen more than 300 feet over the last 18,000 years - far predating any possible human impact. Rising sea levels are natural in between ice ages. Contrary to the predictions of global warming theorists, the current rate of increase is slower than the average rate over the 18,000-year period.

Periodic media reports link human-caused climate changes to more frequent tropical cyclones or more intense hurricanes. Tropical storms depend on warm ocean surface temperatures (at least 26 degrees Celsius) and an unlimited supply of moisture. Therefore, the reasoning goes, global warming leads to increased ocean surface temperatures, a greater uptake of moisture and destructive hurricanes. But recent data show no increase in the number or severity of tropical storms, and the latest climate models suggest that earlier models making such connections were simplistic and thus inaccurate.
Since the 1940s the National Oceanographic and Meteorological Laboratory has documented a decrease in both the intensity and number of hurricanes.

From 1991 through 1995, relatively few hurricanes occurred, and even the unusually intense 1995 hurricane season did not reverse the downward trend.

The 1996 IPCC report on climate change found a worldwide significant increase in tropical storms unlikely; some regions may experience increased activity while others will see fewer, less severe storms.
Since factors other than ocean temperature such as wind speeds at various altitudes seem to play a larger role than scientists previously understood, most agree that any regional changes in hurricane activity will continue to occur against a backdrop of large yearly natural variations.

What about other effects of warming? If a slight atmospheric warming occurred, it would primarily affect nighttime temperatures, lessening the number of frosty nights and extending the growing season. Thus some scientists think a global warming trend would be an agricultural boon. Moreover, historically warm periods have been the most conducive to life. Most of the earth's plant life evolved in a much warmer, carbon dioxide-filled atmosphere.

Conclusion. As scientists expose the myths concerning global warming, the fears of an apocalypse should subside. So rather than legislating in haste and ignorance and repenting at leisure, our government should maintain rational policies, based on science and adaptable to future discoveries.
This Brief Analysis was prepared by H. Sterling Burnett, environmental policy analyst with the
National Center for Policy Analysis.
Global Warming? What a load of poppycock!
by Professor David Bellamy
Daily Mail, July 9, 2004
Whatever the experts say about the howling gales, thunder and lightning we've had over the past two days, of one thing we can be certain. Someone, somewhere - and there is every chance it will be a politician or an environmentalist - will blame the weather on global warming.

But they will be 100 per cent wrong. Global warming - at least the modern nightmare version - is a myth. I am sure of it and so are a growing number of scientists. But what is really worrying is that the world's politicians and policy makers are not.

Instead, they have an unshakeable in what has, unfortunately, become one of the central credos of the environmental movement. Humans burn fossil fuels, which release increased levels of carbon dioxide - the principal so-called greenhouse gas - into the atmosphere, causing the atmosphere to heat up.

They say this is global warming: I say this is poppycock. Unfortunately, for the time being, it is their view that prevails.

As a result of their ignorance, the world's economy may be about to divert billions, nay trillions of pounds, dollars and roubles into solving a problem that actually doesn't exist. The waste of economic resources is incalculable and tragic.

To explain why I believe that global warming is largely a natural phenomenon that has been with us for 13,000 years and probably isn't causing us any harm anyway, we need to take heed of some basic facts of botanical science.

For a start, carbon dioxide is not the dreaded killer greenhouse gas that the 1992 Earth Summit in Rio de Janeiro and the subsequent Kyoto Protocol five years later cracked it up to be. It is, in fact, the most important airborne fertiliser in the world, and without it there would be no green plants at all.

That is because, as any schoolchild will tell you, plants take in carbon dioxide and water and, with the help of a little sunshine, convert them into complex carbon compounds - that we either eat, build with or just admire - and oxygen, which just happens to keep the rest of the planet alive.

Increase the amount of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere, double it even, and this would produce a rise in plant productivity. Call me a biased old plant lover but that doesn't sound like much of a killer gas to me. Hooray for global warming is what I say, and so do a lot of my fellow scientists.

Let me quote from a petition produced by the Oregon Institute of Science and Medicine, which has been signed by over 18,000 scientists who are totally opposed to the Kyoto Protocol, which committed the world's leading industrial nations to cut their production of greenhouse gasses from fossil fuels.

They say: 'Predictions of harmful climatic effects due to future increases in minor greenhouse gasses like carbon dioxide are in error and do not conform to experimental knowledge.'


You couldn't get much plainer than that. And yet we still have public figures such as Sir David King, scientific adviser to Her Majesty's Government, making preposterous statements such as 'by the end of this century, the only continent we will be able to live on is Antarctica.'

At the same time, he's joined the bandwagon that blames just about everything on global warming, regardless of the scientific evidence. For example, take the alarm about rising sea levels around the south coast of England and subsequent flooding along the region's rivers. According to Sir David, global warming is largely to blame.

But it isn't at all - it's down to bad management of water catchments, building on flood plains and the incontestable fact that the south of England is gradually sinking below the waves.

And that sinking is nothing to do with rising sea levels caused by ice-caps melting. Instead, it is purely related to an entirely natural warping of the Earth's crust, which could only be reversed by sticking one of the enormously heavy ice-caps from past ice ages back on top of Scotland.

Ah, ice ages... those absolutely massive changes in global climate that environmentalists don't like to talk about because they provide such strong evidence that climate change is an entirely natural phenomenon.

It was round about the end of the last ice age, some 13,000 years ago, that a global warming process did undoubtedly begin.

Not because of all those Stone age folk roasting mammoth meat on fossil fuel camp fires but because of something called the 'Milankovitch Cycles,' an entirely natural fact of planetary life that depends on the tilt of the Earth's axis and its orbit around the sun.

The glaciers melted, the ice cap retreated and Stone Age man could begin hunting again. But a couple of millennia later, it got very cold again and everyone headed south. Then it warmed up so much that water from melted ice filled the English Channel and we became an island.

The truth is that the climate has been yo-yo-ing up and down ever since. Whereas it was warm enough for Romans to produce good wine in York, on the other hand, King Canute had to dig up peat to warm his people. And then it started getting warm again.

Up and down, up and down - that is how temperature and climate have always gone in the past and there is no proof they are not still doing exactly the same thing now. In other words, climate change is an entirely natural phenomenon, nothing to do with the burning of fossil fuels.

In fact, a recent scientific paper, rather unenticingly titled 'Atmospheric Carbon Dioxide Concentrations Over The Last Glacial Termination,' proved it.

It showed that increases in temperature are responsible for increases in atmospheric carbon dioxide levels, not the other way around.

But this sort of evidence is ignored, either by those who believe the Kyoto Protocol is environmental gospel or by those who know 25 years of hard work went into securing the agreement and simply can't admit that the science it is based on is wrong.

The real truth is that the main greenhouse gas - the one that has the most direct effect on land temperature - is water vapour, 99 per cent of which is entirely natural.

If all the water vapour was removed from the atmosphere, the temperature would fall by 33 degrees Celsius. But, remove all the carbon dioxide and the temperature might fall by just 0.3 per cent.

Although we wouldn't be around, because without it there would be no green plants, no herbivorous farm animals and no food for us to eat.

It has been estimated that the cost of cutting fossil fuel emissions in line with the Kyoto Protocol would be £76trillion. Little wonder, then, that world leaders are worried. So should we all be.

If we signed up to these scaremongers, we could be about to waste a gargantuan amount of money on a problem that doesn't exist - money that could be used in umpteen better ways: fighting world hunger, providing clean water, developing alternative energy sources, improving our environment, creating jobs.

The link between the burning of fossil fuels and global warming is a myth. It is time the world's leaders, their scientific advisers and many environmental pressure groups woke up to the fact.

Copyright © 2004 Daily Mail -- All Rights Reserved

Mondo, please refrain from posting entire articles verbatim here. A snippet of a couple sentences or perhaps a paragraph or two in interest of abstracting a link.

Second, if you cite junkscience.com again, that may well be grounds for a ban in itself. The individual who runs that operation, is a paid lobbyist who takes glee in shameful celebration of scientists whom he disagrees with meet with misfortune. Simply put, he is scum. And more important, he's a PR flack and presents not a shred of credible evidence. You can debate whether or not global warming is in effect or not, or what measures should be adopted, but I'm not going to let corporate shills paid to lobby against the truth spilled over here.
See that's the problem.... you take a piece here and a piece there and you can argue any point you wish out of context...rather than looking at the WHOLE picture. If you want to argue facts rather than grabbing onto that little snippets that might prove your point you should look at the surrounding context which those statements are made.
As you may have noticed i do mostly post my sources so that people can judge whether to take that info for what is worth or as just propganda.
Many of the posts here are "he said this or she said that" without any fact based or sources to back it up. The sources that are pointed to are generally BLOGGERS who tend to all say the same thing whether there is evidence to back up the theories or not.

Is there a double standard here?

When LIBERALS cant fight the facts they always stoop to name calling and opression of information that might tend to rebuke their THEORIES. Just as KERRY and The MEDIA did the swift VETS.

let others see and read http://www.junkscience.com/ and come to their own conclusions.
perhaps if i posted http://www.moveon.org/front/
run by http://www.soros.org/about/...

who makes his money manipulating the economies of many nations.

what interest might this CORPERATE man have with our election process????
Look I appologize if some people get ticked off at my postings and I truly do not mean to offend.
my only wish is to present a differing view than what some people may think, after all its no fun if we all are exactly the same...we need opposing views to bounce our ideals off of. right?
It's okay, Mondo, I run into the same problem. Using news sources that are never good enough for the leftist academes. We redneck, buck-toothed, bigoted, cheatin' scoundrel Republican swine are always expected to roll over and let the so-called "intellectuals" broadcast the truth. Yuck, Yuck!
Two Sides to Global Warming

Is it proven fact, or just conventional wisdom?

Ronald Bailey

Mondo, I thought you were an intelligent guy, but now I'm not so sure. You think that the climate yo-yo's and that's how it is. You don't know why it does. It's yo-yo's because the Earth doesn't orbit the sun in a perfect circle, and the sun doesn't stay in one place. It has many "cycles"- periods where it is at an average distance from the Earth. Cycles can be different from each other- not by much, but enough to cause the Earth to heat up and cool down over long periods of time. The sun has three cycles- one is about every nine-eleven years, and I can't remember the other two.

Yes, global warming is a natural phenomenon and we wouldn't be here without it, and it's good for the earth blah blah blah yada yada yada I've heard it before. But it's just like when you eat foods high in cholestorol- it's good in moderation. If you get too much, bad things will happen. It's expected over the next 75 years that the oceans will rise at least 35 feet. Florida's average height compared to sea level: 25 feet.

Global warming, caused by human industrialization and energy consumption, should be the biggest concern of the 21st century. The human race has disrupted the natural climate of the Earth, and it is time for the human race to fix it. Better safe than sorry.

Please, go educate yourself on this topic. And by that I don't mean to listen to those "global warming speculators." Find the cold hard facts.

Interesting, first time I stepped out of the "joe republican" chat board...

B-Sprizzle I dont know if you have been following our discussion over at:

If you are interested:

We were talking about reading each other's ideological books...a thought I came up with today....
you sure seem to know a lot about everything, how can anyone here on this chat board be sure about global warming?

Now for everyone on this chat board...

Are any of you scientists?

Have any of you read any books on the subject, or are these simply partisan articles you read?

I mean, just to be a republican/democrat, doesn't mean you have to defend EVERYTHING the party stands for....you could just say

"Hey that global warming subject, I am no scientist, so to make an opinion I would be talking out of my ass"

I will be the first liberal to categorical state:

"I travbailey, I am no scientist, that global warming subject I don't know much about it, so to make an opinion I would be talking out of my ass"

Forgive me if I tripped over my tongue here, since I didn't really read the full post and all the threads...So maybe one of you are scientists and I simply didn't read it....

I just find it funny that the same people,
mondomojo1969 and B-Sprizzle are as actively arguing here as they are on the "joe repulblican" thread... as partisan as ever, painting lines in the sand because their parties have a certian stance, throwing around articles like they are ninja throwing stars, on a subject I doubt much of them know much anything about.

Can you see the humor in this?
*LOL* travis did you even read my earlier postings on the subject???

"There is just as much evidence thet disputes global warming as proves it as my first post states

"Who know what's going on out there?"

this is the true case each year new theories are devised to prove this point or that only to be later debuncted.....In reality Humanity is insignificant to the changes that occur in our planets atmosphere. More pollutants are blasted into the atmosphere each year by VOLCANIC ERUPTIONS than Ever were produced by man. Plants themselves have been proved to create more pollutants than we do....yet you still try to find NEW evidence that human beings are a cancer on the face of this planet...it just isnt so.

How concieted is man to think that he as a grain of sand can change the flow of the ocean."

Like I said before, I read alot about alot of different things. I do know a little about global warming.

also, if you notice BS has one post here posted on 12 5, i guess he got tired of the "joe republican" fighting and decided to attack me here, you should check out some more of my posts on other subjects *LOL*, some might assume i like to argue for the sake of argument. maybe.
" *LOL* travis did you even read my earlier postings on the subject???"

Nope, sorry, and I stepped on my tounge I guess, just like I said I probably would...

As I wrote:
"Forgive me if I tripped over my tongue here, since I didn't really read the full post and all the threads...So maybe one of you are scientists and I simply didn't read it.... "

"also, if you notice BS has one post here posted on 12 5, i guess he got tired of the "joe republican" fighting and decided to attack me here, you should check out some more of my posts on other subjects *LOL*, some might assume i like to argue for the sake of argument. maybe."

Yeah, I said both of you guys seem to do that. Maybe B-Sprizzle does that more, I don't care either way...
...I only count pages, not posts :-)

I find it funny you call B-Sprizzle "BS" I always "forget" to refer to Kerrysucks with her full name, instead I use "Kerry", which I find is rather funny....

How do you delete posts and see how many times you posted?
"How do you delete posts and see how many times you posted?" I think I answered my own question, I guess you need to sign up to do it...I think what would be funny is if you hijacked BS's handle. Hell, you could hijack my handle since I haven't registered yet....
Yeah i thought it was a jab calling her Kerry...same as my name 4 BS....

yeah you have 2 be a member 2 delet/edit posts...It doesnt show how many posts u have but there is a choice of how many posts it shows per page of yours i just started @ 1000 then 100 then 500 and zeroed in on the # myself.
and i do mean attack in a "nice" way if that is possible yuk yuk
hey mondo, the articles you posted were about an article in Newsweek in 1975. The sharpest rise in global warming started in the mid seventies and is continuing to rise today.

I'll be back in a little bit to give you a link to the graph that proves that the earth is heating up, and you can find direct correlations to CO2.
Yeah, I knew it was old, the point was that "we" have been claiming to cause global changes since the "environmentalist" started marching, it turned out they were wrong about global cooling so they turned around and started claiming the opposite. "we" have only been here a short time, and there is evidence that global warming has occurred again and again naturally throughout earths history, once much of the earth was tropical, once much of the earth was covered in ice, these things happened long before we made the wheel let alone the combustion engine. It is natural. Can we affect global weather patterns? To some degree, yes, but again and again the earth has shown that with a simple shrug it can cause havoc on things we assume as normal, look at the recent tsunami. In the end we are very small cogs in the machinery of nature. The earthquake and tsunami caused the earth to rock on its axis. It is true the earth rotates in an elliptical pattern, this along with the angle of the earth during its rotation is what causes the seasons, funny during winter the earth is closer to the sun than during summer.

I do not doubt that global warming happens has happened and will happen again, my doubts are that "we" are the major cause of such global events.
global warming.........i dont know what it is...........lol this site is good and it can tell me a lot and like i dont know much but what i could say about global warming is that it is very harmful to the world and all humans and living things on earth.

Add Comment

This item is closed, it's not possible to add new comments to it or to vote on it