There IS a problem with global warming... it stopped in 1998

[rushmc 18]

You like saying everyone that puts out an differing postion is bought off.

Who is paying Mr James McCarthy??

Two universities (one for Sweden and one from Germany) are now saying the biggest contributor to increase temps is the sun, which is putting out more energy at any time in the last 1000 years. Also, researchers hired by the Candian governement say polar bear populations are higher than they have been in years and, geologists say that the ice self in Greenland or Iceland (I can't rmember which) is still greater than when that country was first settled.

I think you are the one that thinks this topic is settled except for converting the ignorant.

I don't think so..............

"America will never be destroyed from the outside,
if we falter and lose our freedoms,
it will be because we destroyed ourselves."
Abraham Lincoln

[Andy9o8 0]

Quote

On the upside, energy prices are dropping.

Not at any of the gas stations I patronize

[speedy 0]

Bill, I just can't buy that one. Why would a big oil concern with finite resources for it's product spend masses of money to make people use its resoures quicker?

And just who is making money on the CO2 scare?
The goverment, the investment speculators, while the common man like me or you pays.

Dave

Fallschirmsport Marl

[Remster 24]

Quote

Why would a big oil concern with finite resources for it's product spend masses of money to make people use its resoures quicker?

More revenue earlier gives a better ROR. Short term performance is all its about these days.

Remster

[billvon 2,396]

>You like saying everyone that puts out an differing postion is bought off.

I didn't say that. Exxon does pay a lot of money to make people think that there is a big debate over the validity of global warming. Based on the responses lately, it's been money well spent.

>Who is paying Mr James McCarthy??

Harvard University.

>Two universities (one for Sweden and one from Germany) are now
>saying the biggest contributor to increase temps is the sun, which is
>putting out more energy at any time in the last 1000 years.

Literally not true. We are currently in an 11 year solar minimum. See attached graph.

In the way you mean, not true either. We can measure the increase in solar output, and it is a tiny fraction of the warming we are seeing. See the contributions chart from a previous post. You may be confusing total output with cloud nucleation - that IS a subject of much debate lately.

>Also, researchers hired by the Candian governement say polar bear
>populations are higher than they have been in years . . .

Canadians are seeing more of them because there is no longer much ice for them to live on. So they spend more time on land, where there are more canadians. See below for a NASA article on this phenomenon.

-------------------------------------------
Warming Climate May Put Chill on Arctic Polar Bear Population

09.13.06

Some travel agencies touting Arctic tours have been revving up their recent promotions to tourists about the increased likelihood they will spot polar bears in this region where several populations of polar bears live. According to scientists from NASA and the Canadian Wildlife Service, these increased Arctic polar bear sightings are probably related to retreating sea ice triggered by climate warming and not due to population increases as some may believe.

The new research suggests that progressively earlier breakup of the Arctic sea ice, stimulated by climate warming, shortens the spring hunting season for female polar bears in Western Hudson Bay and is likely responsible for the continuing fall in the average weight of these bears. As females become lighter, their ability to reproduce and the survival of their young decline. Also, as the bears become thinner, they are more likely to push into human settlements for food, giving the impression that the population is increasing. The study will be published this week in the September issue of the Journal Arctic.
------------------------

>and, geologists say that the ice self in Greenland or Iceland (I can't
>rmember which) is still greater than when that country was first settled.

Let's go with Greenland; it has a much, much larger effect than Iceland since it's so much bigger.

-------------------------------------------------------
Greenland Ice Sheet Is Melting Faster, Study Says
John Roach
for National Geographic News

August 10, 2006
The Greenland ice sheet is melting three times faster today than it was five years ago, according to a new study.

The finding adds to evidence of increased global warming in recent years and indicates that melting polar ice sheets are pushing sea levels higher, the authors report.

The finding, reported today by the online edition of the journal Science, closely agrees with another study on the rapid wasting of Greenland's glaciers published in the journal in February.
------------------------------------------------------

>I think you are the one that thinks this topic is settled except for
>converting the ignorant.

The topic is far from settled. Look at the graph of contributions I posted; it shows which factors we don't understand yet. I just think we should be researching them based on science, and not based on the conclusions that oil companies and political activists are willing to pay for. Claims that "greenland ice isn't melting" or "polar bears are doing just fine" are deceptions intended to convince a gullible public that they don't have to worry about anything.

BTW you may want to decide on one tactic and stick to it. Half the time you seem to be claiming there's no global warming, and the other half of the time you seem to be acknowledging that there is significant warming going on but it's not our fault. Holding multiple conflicting viewpoints tends to reduce the credibility of each of those viewpoints.

[billvon 2,396]

>Why would a big oil concern with finite resources for it's product
>spend masses of money to make people use its resoures quicker?

Most companies do not plan beyond about 10 years (i.e. the investment horizon of most investors.) Draconian measures like a carbon tax would hit them hard in the pocketbook; they seek to prevent any such measures by claiming their product does not cause problems.

For a historical perspective, research the claims of cigarette manufacturers in the 50's, and their claims that doctors could not agree on whether cigarette smoking was good for you or bad for you.

>And just who is making money on the CO2 scare?

On the fear? Hollywood, perhaps.

On the anthropogenic warming issue? Companies that make efficient cars and solar/wind/microhydro equipment.

On the actual temperature rise? Canadians, for one. Longer growing seasons and all that.

[Andy9o8 0]

Quote

>And just who is making money on the CO2 scare?

Canadians, for one.

I knew it!! We oughta invade their asses.

[rushmc 18]

Tactics

My position is the climated changes. It has been in a warming cycle. Man has little if any imput into that.

As for the polar bears. The census was not just for Canada but for the popution in general.

The report on sun activty released within the last month states that solar output at a 1000 year high.

Of course Harvard pay the professor. Who is the grant for his research coming from???

For the positives.

You and I agree this in not settled so, let science learn what is happening and what actions is prudent. The scare tactics used by the media and political anmimals should be ignored.

I fully beleive (as of right now) climate change is the next driver for those with agendas to use govenrment and courts to drive changes "they see" as responcible. Along with 3rd and 4th world countries seeing the oportunity to use world bodies (such as the largly corupt UN) to provide themselves with large amounts of working peoples money.

I do like how this part of the thread is going however

"America will never be destroyed from the outside,
if we falter and lose our freedoms,
it will be because we destroyed ourselves."
Abraham Lincoln

[NCclimber 0]

Anyone heard of columnist Tom Teepen? Here's what he had to say, last week:

Quote

It is the overwhelming, international judgment of scientists in the relevant disciplines that the Earth is warming and that the warming is man-made, not part of a natural cycle. There are a million arguments over details but that's the big picture and it is not in serious question among serious people.

Smug, self-righteous and wrong. What a tard.

[kallend 1,623]

Quote

Anyone heard of columnist Tom Teepen? Here's what he had to say, last week:

Quote

It is the overwhelming, international judgment of scientists in the relevant disciplines that the Earth is warming and that the warming is man-made, not part of a natural cycle. There are a million arguments over details but that's the big picture and it is not in serious question among serious people.

Smug, self-righteous and wrong. What a tard.

Irony score 10.
How do you KNOW he's wrong?

...

The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one.

[NCclimber 0]

Quote

Quote

Anyone heard of columnist Tom Teepen? Here's what he had to say, last week:

Quote

It is the overwhelming, international judgment of scientists in the relevant disciplines that the Earth is warming and that the warming is man-made, not part of a natural cycle. There are a million arguments over details but that's the big picture and it is not in serious question among serious people.

Smug, self-righteous and wrong. What a tard.

Irony score 10.
How do you KNOW he's wrong?

It's a bullshit claim that the consensus opinion is the Earth is currently not in a natural warming cycle.

[Remster 24]

Quote

It is the overwhelming, international judgment

Quote

It's a bullshit claim that the consensus opinion

You need to learn the difference between concensus and overwhelming.

Remster

[NCclimber 0]

Quote

Quote

It is the overwhelming, international judgment

Quote

It's a bullshit claim that the consensus opinion

You need to learn the difference between concensus and overwhelming.

Pedantic and irrelevant.

It must be Thursday.

[martin-o 0]

Quote

Two universities (one for Sweden and one from Germany) are now saying the biggest contributor to increase temps is the sun, which is putting out more energy at any time in the last 1000 years.

Could you please give a reference to which universities you are talking about. I call bullshit on that since no university with self respect has that kind of official policy. It might be the view of a single scientist but hardly an official standpoint of an entire university.

[billvon 2,396]

>Smug, self-righteous and wrong. What a tard.

Yep. Like those assholes who claim that you can't go faster than the speed of light with a rocket. Have they ever tried to go faster than light? I think not! They are ignorant sheep who believe everything they're told. We need more brave people willing to question authority and overturn those smug hypocrites who claim the speed of light is some sort of limit, that the earth is round, that gravity pulls us down and that those lights in the sky are stars.

[rehmwa 2]

Quote

Could you please give a reference to which universities you are talking about. I call bullshit on that since no university with self respect has that kind of official policy. It might be the view of a single scientist but hardly an official standpoint of an entire university.

I have to call bullshit too. No self respecting university would claim that even if they were 100% correct. It would be political suicide. And, since universities are in the business of indoctrination rather than education as it pertains to their acceptance in the 'scholarly' community and the ability of their profs to get politically correct grants and publication,,,,, I don't think they'd 'fess up' to that type of pot stirring.

...
Driving is a one dimensional activity - a monkey can do it - being proud of your driving abilities is like being proud of being able to put on pants

[rehmwa 2]

Quote

>Smug, self-righteous and wrong. What a tard.

Yep. Like those assholes who claim that you can't go faster than the speed of light with a rocket. Have they ever tried to go faster than light? I think not! They are ignorant sheep who believe everything they're told. We need more brave people willing to question authority and overturn those smug hypocrites who claim the speed of light is some sort of limit, that the earth is round, that gravity pulls us down and that those lights in the sky are stars.

now that's some good sarcasm

...
Driving is a one dimensional activity - a monkey can do it - being proud of your driving abilities is like being proud of being able to put on pants

[speedy 0]

Quote

>Smug, self-righteous and wrong. What a tard.

Yep. Like those assholes who claim that you can't go faster than the speed of light with a rocket. Have they ever tried to go faster than light? I think not! They are ignorant sheep who believe everything they're told. We need more brave people willing to question authority and overturn those smug hypocrites who claim the speed of light is some sort of limit, that the earth is round, that gravity pulls us down and that those lights in the sky are stars.

Also like those assholes that said we could never travel faster than 25mph, those that said if you sail to far west you will fall of the edge of the world and if the women sinks she not a witch but if she weighs the same as a duck she is a witch.

As time goes on we understand more about our environment, but I am sure that people far into the future would laugh at things we are doing now in the name of science.

Dave

Fallschirmsport Marl

[NCclimber 0]

Quote

As time goes on we understand more about our environment, but I am sure that people far into the future would laugh at things we are doing now in the name of science.

Like the mass hysteria over impending demise of the planet.

[billvon 2,396]

>Also like those assholes that said we could never travel faster than 25mph . . .


"Professor Goddard does not know the relation between action and reaction and the need to have something better than a vacuum against which to react. He seems to lack the basic knowledge ladled out daily in high schools."
--1921 New York Times editorial

"Well-informed people know it is impossible to transmit the voice over wires and that were it possible to do so, the thing would be of no practical value."
--Boston Post, 1865

"Louis Pasteur's theory of germs is ridiculous fiction."
--Pierre Pachet, Professor of Physiology at Toulouse, 1872

"If excessive smoking actually plays a role in the production of lung cancer, it seems to be a minor one."
--W.C. Heuper, National Cancer Institute, 1954

"Radio has no future."
"X-rays are clearly a hoax."
"The aeroplane is scientifically impossible."
- Royal Society president Lord Kelvin, 1897-9.

"The atom bomb will never go off - and I speak as an expert in explosives." - U.S. Admiral William Leahy in 1945

"There IS a problem with global warming... it stopped in 1998" - Bob Carter, 2005

[dorbie 0]

Quote

>Smug, self-righteous and wrong. What a tard.

Yep. Like those assholes who claim that you can't go faster than the speed of light with a rocket. Have they ever tried to go faster than light? I think not! They are ignorant sheep who believe everything they're told. We need more brave people willing to question authority and overturn those smug hypocrites who claim the speed of light is some sort of limit, that the earth is round, that gravity pulls us down and that those lights in the sky are stars.

[idrankwhat 0]

Quote

As time goes on we understand more about our environment, but I am sure that people far into the future would laugh at things we are doing now in the name of science.

Ain't that the truth?
http://www.usatoday.com/money/industries/energy/2007-01-03-global-warming_x.htm?csp=34

[rushmc 18]

Quote

One explanation why otherwise-reasonable people often think that global warming is a big hoax:
-------------------------------------------
Scientists say oil company misinforms public on global warming
ASSOCIATED PRESS
11:14 a.m. January 3, 2007

WASHINGTON – ExxonMobil Corp. gave $16 million to 43 ideological groups between 1998 and 2005 in a coordinated effort to mislead the public by discrediting the science behind global warming, the Union of Concerned Scientists asserted Wednesday.

The report by the science-based nonprofit advocacy group mirrors similar claims by Britain's leading scientific academy. Last September, The Royal Society wrote the oil company asking it to halt support for groups that “misrepresented the science of climate change.”
ExxonMobil did not immediately respond to requests for comment on the scientific advocacy group's report.

Many scientists say accumulating carbon dioxide and other heat-trapping gases from tailpipes and smokestacks are warming the atmosphere like a greenhouse, melting Arctic sea ice, alpine glaciers and disturbing the lives of animals and plants.

ExxonMobil lists on its Web site nearly $133 million in 2005 contributions globally, including $6.8 million for “public information and policy research” distributed to more than 140 think-tanks, universities, foundations, associations and other groups. Some of those have publicly disputed the link between greenhouse gas emissions and global warming.

But in September, the company said in response to the Royal Society that it funded groups which research “significant policy issues and promote informed discussion on issues of direct relevance to the company.” It said the groups do not speak for the company.

Alden Meyer, the Union of Concerned Scientists' strategy and policy director, said in a teleconference that ExxonMobil based its tactics on those of tobacco companies, spreading uncertainty by misrepresenting peer-reviewed scientific studies or cherry-picking facts.

Dr. James McCarthy, a professor at Harvard University, said the company has sought to “create the illusion of a vigorous debate” about global warming.
---------------------------------------

I was doing some reserch today and I remembered you used this ah .....group as a source in a debate. And I get my sources bashed all the time.....http://www.cnsnews.com/ViewCulture.asp?Page=/Culture/archive/200701/CUL20070104a.html

"America will never be destroyed from the outside,
if we falter and lose our freedoms,
it will be because we destroyed ourselves."
Abraham Lincoln

[kallend 1,623]

Quote

Quote

I was doing some reserch today and I remembered you used this ah .....group as a source in a debate. And I get my sources bashed all the time.....http://www.cnsnews.com/ViewCulture.asp?Page=/Culture/archive/200701/CUL20070104a.html

Ha ha. In a scientific credibility contest between Cybercast News Service sources and a group than numbers a bunch of Nobel laureates in its membership, I know which way I'd vote.

...

The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one.

[rushmc 18]

Quote

Quote

Quote

I was doing some reserch today and I remembered you used this ah .....group as a source in a debate. And I get my sources bashed all the time.....http://www.cnsnews.com/ViewCulture.asp?Page=/Culture/archive/200701/CUL20070104a.html

Ha ha. In a scientific credibility contest between Cybercast News Service sources and a group than numbers a bunch of Nobel laureates in its membership, I know which way I'd vote.

Not the point but also not surprising coming from you.....

"America will never be destroyed from the outside,
if we falter and lose our freedoms,
it will be because we destroyed ourselves."
Abraham Lincoln