PDA

View Full Version : The death of the man caused global warming movement



subroc
12-04-2010, 02:33 PM
What if the UN held a Framework Convention on Climate Change and no one came or cared?

http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2010/dec/2/pruden-turn-out-the-lights-the-party-s-over/

depittydawg
12-04-2010, 07:03 PM
What if the UN held a Framework Convention on Climate Change and no one came or cared?

http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2010/dec/2/pruden-turn-out-the-lights-the-party-s-over/

Its amazing that someone would actually read this nonsense. Let alone publish as something other that pure propaganda. No wonder you're clueless.

sandyg
12-05-2010, 12:25 AM
Its amazing that someone would actually read this nonsense. Let alone publish as something other that pure propaganda. No wonder you're clueless.

It's so hard to let go of firmly held beliefs that turn out to be wrong, especially when you're a lib. Ah well, on to the next global scam! Maybe Al Gore can sell credits on the stairway to heaven!

depittydawg
12-05-2010, 09:49 AM
It's so hard to let go of firmly held beliefs that turn out to be wrong, especially when you're a lib. Ah well, on to the next global scam! Maybe Al Gore can sell credits on the stairway to heaven!

From my experience, those who have the most trouble letting go of old ideas are conservatives. In fact, isn't that the definition of conservatism?

New idea, late 20th century- Carbon pollutions contribute to global warming. Those who have yet to embrace the science? Liberals or Conservatives?

Various polls and printed studies place the number of scientists around the world who accept global warming as sound science to be above 90%. Some place it as high as 99%. I can't think of any example in the modern era where 90% of scientists got something wrong. Can you?

Differences come into account when you get into the long range effect of climate change. But the fact that it is occurring seems about as sound as science can get.

Considering the plausible outcomes of doing something about this potential threat, or ignoring it, it seems rather naive, let alone irresponsible, to ignore it. Even if you're not on board with the science of climate change, most would agree that developing alternatives to fossil fuel energy consumption is of vital importance strategically for reasons of national and economic security.

I suggest that people quit allowing your politicians to use this issue as a political wedge issue and start coming up with action plans to deal with it.

subroc
12-05-2010, 09:58 AM
From my experience, those who have the most trouble letting go of old ideas are conservatives. In fact, isn't that the definition of conservatism?

New idea, late 20th century- Carbon pollutions contribute to global warming. Those who have yet to embrace the science? Liberals or Conservatives?

Various polls and printed studies place the number of scientists around the world who accept global warming as sound science to be above 90%. Some place it as high as 99%. I can't think of any example in the modern era where 90% of scientists got something wrong. Can you?

Differences come into account when you get into the long range effect of climate change. But the fact that it is occurring seems about as sound as science can get.

Considering the plausible outcomes of doing something about this potential threat, or ignoring it, it seems rather naive, let alone irresponsible, to ignore it. Even if you're not on board with the science of climate change, most would agree that developing alternatives to fossil fuel energy consumption is of vital importance strategically for reasons of national and economic security.

I suggest that people quit allowing your politicians to use this issue as a political wedge issue and start coming up with action plans to deal with it.

other than bluster, could you outline your personal global warming fighting strategy?

subroc
12-05-2010, 10:10 AM
so you advocate taking action and doing something (whatever that is) but then don't do anything yourself to battle man caused global warming? how obtuse.

sandyg
12-05-2010, 12:22 PM
Various polls and printed studies place the number of scientists around the world who accept global warming as sound science to be above 90%. Some place it as high as 99%. I can't think of any example in the modern era where 90% of scientists got something wrong. Can you?


Here's a few tens of thousands that are from the USA who don't accept global warming of which I am one...

http://www.petitionproject.org/


http://www.petitionproject.org/gw_images/Heading_Text_06.png

31,487 American scientists have signed this petition,
including 9,029 with PhDs

http://www.petitionproject.org/gw_images/Teller_Card_100dpi.jpg

dnf777
12-05-2010, 12:38 PM
Here's a few tens of thousands that are from the USA who don't accept global warming of which I am one...

http://www.petitionproject.org/


http://www.petitionproject.org/gw_images/Heading_Text_06.png

31,487 American scientists have signed this petition,
including 9,029 with PhDs

http://www.petitionproject.org/gw_images/Teller_Card_100dpi.jpg


And how many flat-earth petitions do you have?
That is the most meaningless "petition" I've ever seen. Do you think the laws of physics are influenced by petitions? Why don't we just petition gravity away, so we can all lose those extra pounds?

sandyg
12-05-2010, 12:51 PM
And how many flat-earth petitions do you have?
That is the most meaningless "petition" I've ever seen. Do you think the laws of physics are influenced by petitions? Why don't we just petition gravity away, so we can all lose those extra pounds?

You didn't get the point of the petition. That's obvious since it took you only 16 minutes to respond and you engaged your self-righteous bloviation instead of your brain. Now take a deep breath, reread the petition and THINK!

sandyg
12-05-2010, 01:06 PM
http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2010/dec/03/wikileaks-us-manipulated-climate-accord

Wow! Well, I guess I'm right again. And the libs take another one to the chin. Not in a gay way or anything...

dnf777
12-05-2010, 01:47 PM
You didn't get the point of the petition. That's obvious since it took you only 16 minutes to respond and you engaged your self-righteous bloviation instead of your brain. Now take a deep breath, reread the petition and THINK!

It doesn't take me more than 16 minutes to read two paragraphs of tripe. That is purely a political petition, that has NOTHING to do with the validity of climate change science or a legitimate challenge of the same.

Again, petitions don't change the laws of physics and nature.

depittydawg
12-05-2010, 01:56 PM
And how many flat-earth petitions do you have?
That is the most meaningless "petition" I've ever seen. Do you think the laws of physics are influenced by petitions? Why don't we just petition gravity away, so we can all lose those extra pounds?

Good one...

sandyg
12-05-2010, 02:32 PM
It doesn't take me more than 16 minutes to read two paragraphs of tripe. That is purely a political petition, that has NOTHING to do with the validity of climate change science or a legitimate challenge of the same.

Again, petitions don't change the laws of physics and nature.


Good one...

OK, since you both seem to be a little thicker than usual today I'll have to explain it. The petition isn't to take a vote on the laws of physics, it's to urge "the US government to reject the global warming agreement that was written in Kyoto". Now pull your heads out of your a$$es and go back to sleep!

Clint Watts
12-05-2010, 02:52 PM
OK, since you both seem to be a little thicker than usual today I'll have to explain it. The petition isn't to take a vote on the laws of physics, it's to urge "the US government to reject the global warming agreement that was written in Kyoto". Now pull your heads out of your a$$es and go back to sleep!

Better one...

dnf777
12-05-2010, 03:23 PM
OK, since you both seem to be a little thicker than usual today I'll have to explain it. The petition isn't to take a vote on the laws of physics, it's to urge "the US government to reject the global warming agreement that was written in Kyoto". Now pull your heads out of your a$$es and go back to sleep!

Well, since you're just as thick as you always are, I'll explain it to YOU. It says reject Kyoto, and any other similar proposals. It then goes on to reject the scientific findings regarding climate change. This inability or refusal to look at facts, lies at the root of the problem. This is no different from the flat earth crowd, the geocentric crowd, and other blinded ideologues.

The likely new chairman of the energy committee says we don't have to worry about global warming. Why-you ask? Because God told Noah as he built his ark, that He wouldn't destroy the earth ever again.....ergo....no global warming. See?

sandyg
12-05-2010, 04:08 PM
Well, since you're just as thick as you always are, I'll explain it to YOU. It says reject Kyoto, and any other similar proposals. It then goes on to reject the scientific findings regarding climate change. This inability or refusal to look at facts, lies at the root of the problem. This is no different from the flat earth crowd, the geocentric crowd, and other blinded ideologues.

The likely new chairman of the energy committee says we don't have to worry about global warming. Why-you ask? Because God told Noah as he built his ark, that He wouldn't destroy the earth ever again.....ergo....no global warming. See?

No, I don't see.
Somehow I think the dog in your avatar is smarter than you...

sandyg
12-06-2010, 10:02 AM
http://images.politico.com/global/v3/homelogo.gif (http://www.politico.com/) Gore's climate group shrinking
By: Darren Samuelsohn
December 6, 2010 04:39 AM EST
One of Al Gore (http://topics.politico.com/index.cfm/topic/AlGore)'s campaigns to save the planet has scaled back its field operations since climate legislation failed earlier this year in Congress.

The Alliance for Climate Protection was operating in about 25 states at its peak, including Florida, Michigan, Missouri, New Hampshire, Ohio and Pennsylvania.

But the group now has field offices in just seven states.

"We've always believed it’s a mobile and nimble operation," said Sean Sarah, the non-profit group's spokesman. "We move to areas where it’s most effective. Of course the situation in Congress has changed. So our strategies and tactics have changed along with it."

Sarah didn't disclose which states the Alliance still has workers in. But he said the group retains its same staff size and headquarters in Washington and Gore's hometown of Nashville.

Gore in 2008 launched a $300 million advertising and lobbying campaign through the Alliance to help pass climate legislation on Capitol Hill, telling CBS' 60 Minutes at the time it was a “blitz as sweeping and expensive as a big corporation's rollout of a new product.” (See: Gore, but not forgotten (http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0710/39686.html))

The group has not disclosed how much of that money it ultimately spent.
http://images.politico.com/global/irides.jpg (http://www.irides.com/) © 2010 Capitol News Company, LLC

dnf777
12-06-2010, 10:07 AM
Sandi,
As much as you would like to crown Al Gore as the Scientist-in-Chief, of the climate change movement, I got news for you. HE IS A POLITICIAN, NOT A SCIENTIST!!!

The vast majority of people, including reputable scientists who work in a lab or in the field every day, (not making political ads and niche companies) look to the peer-reviewed scientific journals for information regarding climatology.

If you did the same, you would see facts, instead of political banter. But if you have an ultra-conservative agenda to push, I can see why you would rather reclassify a politician as a scientist to discredit the mounting evidence that is against you.

Have a nice day.

sandyg
12-06-2010, 10:51 AM
Yet again, you're wrong.

Climate-change industry shaken by e-mail scandal

By JONAH GOLDBERG


Dec. 3, 2009, 7:39PM

http://us.bc.yahoo.com/b?P=6734dcce-0158-11e0-b2cb-33cc324dfb42&T=19c4rkrnd%2fX%3d1291654002%2fE%3d2022775861%2fR% 3dncnwsopn%2fK%3d5%2fV%3d8.1%2fW%3d0%2fY%3dPARTNER _US%2fF%3d2860960251%2fH%3dYWx0c3BpZD0iOTY3MjgzMTY yIiBzZXJ2ZUlkPSI2NzM0ZGNjZS0wMTU4LTExZTAtYjJjYi0zM 2NjMzI0ZGZiNDIiIHNpdGVJZD0iNzYxMDUxIiB0U3RtcD0iMTI 5MTY1NDAwMjEzNzY4OCIgdGFyZ2V0PSJfdG9wIiA-%2fQ%3d-1%2fS%3d1%2fJ%3d23558862&U=128nnl4gr%2fN%3dcNZ1BdFJpB4-%2fC%3d-1%2fD%3dBTN2%2fB%3d-1%2fV%3d5

By now you might have heard something about the scandal rocking the climate-change industry, though you can be forgiven if you haven't, since it hasn't gotten nearly the coverage it should. Computer hackers broke into the Climatic Research Unit (http://topics.chron.com/topics/Climatic_Research_Unit) at the University of East Anglia (http://topics.chron.com/topics/University_of_East_Anglia) in England and downloaded thousands of e-mails and other documents. The CRU is one of the world's leading global- warming data hubs, providing much of the number-crunching to global policymakers on climate change (http://topics.chron.com/topics/Climate_change). And boy, can they crunch numbers.
In a long string of embarrassing e-mail exchanges, CRU scientists discuss with friendly outside colleagues, including Penn State University (http://topics.chron.com/topics/Pennsylvania_State_University)'s Michael Mann, how to manipulate the data they want to show the world, and how to hide the often flawed data they don't. In one exchange, they discuss the “trick” of how to “hide the decline” in global temperatures since the 1960s. Again and again, the researchers don't object just to inconvenient truths but also inconvenient truth-tellers. They contemplate and orchestrate efforts to purge scientists and journals who won't sing from the same global-warming hymnal.
In one instance, Phil Jones, the CRU director, says a scientific journal (http://topics.chron.com/topics/Scientific_journal) must “rid (itself) of this troublesome editor,” who happened to publish a problematic paper. In another, Jones says we “will keep them out somehow — even if we have to redefine what the peer-review (http://topics.chron.com/topics/Peer_review) literature is!”
These documents reveal the trick behind how they hide the dissent. Climate change activists often dismiss critics by noting that the skeptics haven't offered their arguments in peer-reviewed literature. Hence why they work so hard to keep dissenters out of the literature! Indeed, whatever the final verdict on the CRU's shenanigans, two things are already firmly established by even a sympathetic reading of these documents.
First, the climate change industry is shot through with groupthink (or what climate scientist Judith Curry calls “climate tribalism”). Activists would have us believe that the overwhelming majority of real scientists agree with them while the few dissenters are all either crazed or greedy “deniers” akin to flat-earthers and creationists. These e-mails show that what's really at work is a very large clique of scientists attempting to excommunicate perceived heretics for reasons that have more to do with psychology and sociology than physics or climatology.
Second, the climate industry really is an industry. Climate scientists make their money and careers from government, academia, the United Nations and foundations. The grantors want the grantees to confirm the global warming consensus. The tenure and peer-review processes likewise hinge on conformity. That doesn't necessarily mean climate change is untrue, but it does mean sloppiness and bias are unavoidable.
How big a scandal this is for the scientific community is being hotly debated on the Internet. But in big newspapers and TV news, the story has gotten less attention. And that's a scandal, too. The New York Times' (http://topics.chron.com/topics/The_New_York_Times) leading climate reporter, Andrew Revkin (whose name appears in some of the e-mails), won't publish the contents of the e-mail on the grounds it would violate the scientists' privacy. Can anyone imagine the Times being so prissy if such damning e-mails were from ExxonMobil, never mind Dick Cheney (http://topics.chron.com/topics/Dick_Cheney)?
Indeed, the closer you look at the scandal, the more you realize it's all one big outrage. The same journalistic tribalism that allowed Dan Rather to destroy his career over “Memogate” keeps reinforcing itself. Rather picked sources who said what he wanted to hear, then he reported what they said as if it were indisputable. The same thing is happening on climate change. Ideological bias is a major factor in the news media's work as a transmission belt for the climate industry. But part of the problem is also that the journalists do a bad job when the majority of so-called respected experts agree on anything complicated. For instance, it was pretty impossible for reporters to independently investigate whether Saddam Hussein (http://topics.chron.com/topics/Saddam_Hussein) had WMDs, and since the most established authorities agreed he had to have them, the news media reported the consensus, which turned out to be wrong.
Likewise, most journalists aren't qualified to work through the climate data. So they opt for the consensus. But there are important differences, too. While there's often reason for governments to hide classified intelligence, there's no reason for climate data to be classified. If the science is a slam dunk, why are CRU researchers keen on hiding their research? After the WMD fiasco, journalists agonized over their mistakes. Why no soul-searching over the CRU fiasco? Climate change hasn't been debunked by these documents. But the integrity of the consensus has been.
Also, keep in mind that the stakes are higher. In Copenhagen this month, the U.S. government will try to join the global bandwagon to spend trillions in fighting climate change. That money will not only enrich corporations, weaken U.S. sovereignty and hinder global growth, it will come out of funds that could be spent on fighting disease and poverty. Surely that's worth some journalistic skepticism?

Gerry Clinchy
12-07-2010, 01:12 PM
Another UK publication
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencetech/article-1335798/Global-warming-halted-Thats-happened-warmest-year-record.html


The maths isn't complicated. If the planet were going to be six degrees hotter by the century's end, it should be getting warmer by 0.6 degrees each decade; if two degrees, then by 0.2 degrees every ten years. Fortunately, it isn't.

Actually, with the exception of 1998 - a 'blip' year when temperatures spiked because of a strong 'El Nino' effect (the cyclical warming of the southern Pacific that affects weather around the world) - the data on the Met Office's and CRU's own websites show that global temperatures have been flat, not for ten, but for the past 15 years.

They go up a bit, then down a bit, but those small rises and falls amount to less than their measuring system's acknowledged margin of error. They have no statistical significance and reveal no evidence of any trend at all.

When the Met Office issued its December 2009 preThere-diction, it was clearly expecting an even bigger El Nino spike than happened in 1998 - one so big that it would have dragged up the decade's average.

But though it was still successfully trying to influence media headlines during Cancun last week by saying that 2010 might yet end up as the warmest year, the small print reveals the Met Office climbdown. Last year it predicted that the 2010 average would be 14.58C. Last week, this had been reduced to 14.52C.

That may not sound like much. But when one considers that by the Met Office's own account, the total rise in world temperatures since the 1850s has been less than 0.8 degrees, it is quite a big deal. Above all, it means the trend stays flat.

Meanwhile, according to an analysis yesterday by David Whitehouse of the Global Warming Policy Foundation, 2010 had only two unusually warm months, March and April, when El Nino was at its peak.

The data from October to the end of the year suggests that when the final figure is computed, 2010 will not be the warmest year at all, but at most the third warmest, behind both 1998 and 2005.

There is no dispute that the world got a little warmer over some of the 20th Century. (Between 1940 and the early Seventies, temperatures actually fell.)

But little by little, the supposedly settled scientific ' consensus' that the temperature rise is unprecedented, that it is set to continue to disastrous levels, and that it is all the fault of human beings, is starting to fray.


Earlier this year, a paper by Michael Mann - for years a leading light in the IPCC, and the author of the infamous 'hockey stick graph' showing flat temperatures for 2,000 years until the recent dizzying increase - made an extraordinary admission: that, as his critics had always claimed, there had indeed been a ' medieval warm period' around 1000 AD, when the world may well have been hotter than it is now.

Other research is beginning to show that cyclical changes in water vapour - a much more powerful greenhouse gas than carbon dioxide - may account for much of the 20th Century warming.

Even Phil Jones, the CRU director at the centre of last year's 'Climategate' leaked email scandal, was forced to admit in a littlenoticed BBC online interview that there has been 'no statistically significant warming' since 1995.


One of those leaked emails, dated October 2009, was from Kevin Trenberth, head of climate analysis at the US government's National Centre for Atmospheric Research and the IPCC's lead author on climate change science in its monumental 2002 and 2007 reports.

He wrote: 'The fact is that we can't account for the lack of warming at the moment, and it is a travesty that we can't.'


After the leak, Trenberth claimed he still believed the world was warming because of CO2, and that the 'travesty' was not the 'pause' but science's failure to explain it.


The question now emerging for climate scientists and policymakers alike is very simple. Just how long does a pause have to be before the thesis that the world is getting hotter because of human activity starts to collapse?


Too bad people are wasting time disputing this climate change thing. Finding alternatives to fossil fuels makes sense in its own right. Wish they'd spend all the money spent on disputing climate change to finding economically feasible fuel alternatives. Of course, I guess the bunch of politicos are contributing to the Mexican economy with their stay in Cancun. Guess they decided it was a nicer place to meet than chilly Cophenhagen.

starjack
12-07-2010, 01:44 PM
Its amazing that someone would actually read this nonsense. Let alone publish as something other that pure propaganda. No wonder you're clueless.

December 7th 2010 wisconsin. 11 degrees 5 degrees wind chill FACT.:rolleyes:

road kill
12-07-2010, 01:52 PM
December 7th 2010 wisconsin. 11 degrees 5 degrees wind chill FACT.:rolleyes:
Yep, and it's supposed to get cold tonight!!:D


RK

ducknwork
12-07-2010, 02:27 PM
December 7th 2010 wisconsin. 11 degrees 5 degrees wind chill FACT.:rolleyes:

Man, that's NOTHING! Saturday night, eastern NC had SNOW! And, it's going to be in the 20s at night for the next two weeks. This is ridiculous.

starjack
12-07-2010, 03:46 PM
Man, that's NOTHING! Saturday night, eastern NC had SNOW! And, it's going to be in the 20s at night for the next two weeks. This is ridiculous.

I heard its suppose to be a bit cool down south. GLOBLE WARMING MY A$$!!;)

zeus3925
12-07-2010, 04:45 PM
Here's some raw meat:

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/40534684/ns/us_news-environment/

By the way, how many of you climate posters actually have degrees in the earth sciences? I suspect not very many.

starjack
12-07-2010, 04:49 PM
Here's some raw meat:

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/40534684/ns/us_news-environment/

By the way, how many of you climate posters actually have degrees in the earth sciences? I suspect not very many.

I know what i feel HOT IN THE SUMMER COLD IN THE WINTER. JUST SAYING:rolleyes:

sandyg
12-07-2010, 04:53 PM
Here's some raw meat:

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/40534684/ns/us_news-environment/

By the way, how many of you climate posters actually have degrees in the earth sciences? I suspect not very many.

Yeah, like people with degrees in earth sciences would be hanging out here! LMAO.

luvmylabs23139
12-07-2010, 04:56 PM
Man, that's NOTHING! Saturday night, eastern NC had SNOW! And, it's going to be in the 20s at night for the next two weeks. This is ridiculous.

It went down to 18 here last night and our high for today was 31. The dogs don't even want to stay out for very long. This is way too cold for early Dec.:confused::confused:

road kill
12-07-2010, 05:02 PM
Here's some raw meat:

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/40534684/ns/us_news-environment/

By the way, how many of you climate posters actually have degrees in the earth sciences? I suspect not very many.


Neither does "Man-Bear-Pig!!"
And he invented man made global warming!!:D


Just sayin'..........


RK

dnf777
12-07-2010, 05:45 PM
Neither does "Man-Bear-Pig!!"
And he invented man made global warming!!:D


Just sayin'..........


RK

I didn't take you for a SouthPark fan....but that was one helluva funny episode. That, and when Kartman pretends to have Tourette's syndrome make me pee myself!

david gibson
12-07-2010, 05:49 PM
Here's some raw meat:

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/40534684/ns/us_news-environment/

By the way, how many of you climate posters actually have degrees in the earth sciences? I suspect not very many.

i do. bs geology/geophysics option UT Austin:, hydrogeology grad course work, but no thesis or ms degree.

plenty of emphasis on coastal deposition, erosion, etc etc., and as a lifelong surfer i am pretty knowledgeable about shoreline physics.

not a top expert but also not hardly a flunkie on the subject.

i have plenty to say on this subject and have done so already.

time is the ultimate filter....................

dnf777
12-07-2010, 06:04 PM
Here's some raw meat:

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/40534684/ns/us_news-environment/

By the way, how many of you climate posters actually have degrees in the earth sciences? I suspect not very many.

My undergrad degree is a double major in biology/environmental science. Don't know if ES qualifies, its not hard core geology, oceanography, or climatology.

In any case, I don't surf, and I went to Texas A&M--not UT, so my views would not be a liberal as Gibson's anyway. :cool:

david gibson
12-07-2010, 06:16 PM
My undergrad degree is a double major in biology/environmental science. Don't know if ES qualifies, its not hard core geology, oceanography, or climatology.

In any case, I don't surf, and I went to Texas A&M--not UT, so my views would not be a liberal as Gibson's anyway. :cool:

so - you dont have a lifetime of firsthand experience of coastal processes, thats the gist. no bigee. i am lucky that my collegiate studies fit my preferred passtimes - hunting. fishing, and surfing. i dont have a lifetime of firsthand (no pun intended) exerience at your profession of .... well, i'll leave it at that.

a liberal at A&M (you) and a conservative at UT (me) should factor none.

although i FULLY respect biology/env science as a double major for any carreer springboard, really though - when it comes to global warming- geology/goephysics and atmospheric physics are certainly more pertinent, dont you agree?

road kill
12-07-2010, 06:26 PM
My undergrad degree is a double major in biology/environmental science. Don't know if ES qualifies, its not hard core geology, oceanography, or climatology.

In any case, I don't surf, and I went to Texas A&M--not UT, so my views would not be a liberal as Gibson's anyway. :cool:


"Charlie don't surf!!"
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aLEjr4eg8rA



RK

ducknwork
12-07-2010, 10:16 PM
It went down to 18 here last night and our high for today was 31. The dogs don't even want to stay out for very long. This is way too cold for early Dec.:confused::confused:

No kidding...By the time our duck season comes back in on the 18th, we won't have anything left to shoot at. I am sure that my swamps are frozen already...:(:(

dnf777
12-08-2010, 04:34 AM
It was so cold yesterday.......my shadow wouldn't follow me outside.

pat addis
12-08-2010, 06:29 AM
From my experience, those who have the most trouble letting go of old ideas are conservatives. In fact, isn't that the definition of conservatism?

New idea, late 20th century- Carbon pollutions contribute to global warming. Those who have yet to embrace the science? Liberals or Conservatives?

Various polls and printed studies place the number of scientists around the world who accept global warming as sound science to be above 90%. Some place it as high as 99%. I can't think of any example in the modern era where 90% of scientists got something wrong. Can you?

Differences come into account when you get into the long range effect of climate change. But the fact that it is occurring seems about as sound as science can get.

Considering the plausible outcomes of doing something about this potential threat, or ignoring it, it seems rather naive, let alone irresponsible, to ignore it. Even if you're not on board with the science of climate change, most would agree that developing alternatives to fossil fuel energy consumption is of vital importance strategically for reasons of national and economic security.

I suggest that people quit allowing your politicians to use this issue as a political wedge issue and start coming up with action plans to deal with it.

yes i can think of one other time when the same groups were wrong. it was the coming ice age in the late 70s i remember the newspapers had maps in them showing how far the polor ice cap would be