BS: Where's the Global Warming

Subject: RE: BS: Where's the Global Warming
From: GUEST,Guest from Sanity
Date: 08 Apr 10 - 02:15 AM

Foolstroupe: "Science (unlike those of you who keep parroting the "Where is the Global Warming" crap!) has moved on - the whole thing is now about "Climate Change......"

GfS: The 'Global Warming' Fad ran out of steam.....but a rose by any other name is still a rose....and that plant is being grown by economists, not scientists, for consumption of the gullible whiners... who think its hip to be full of shit!

GfS

Subject: RE: BS: Where's the Global Warming
From: The Fooles Troupe
Date: 08 Apr 10 - 02:06 AM

"Where is the Global Warming in this chart?"

Sadly, you only reveal that you are left behind (perhaps intentionally on your part just so you can have fun ridiculing 'the true believers' - those who are not opportunistic sceptics like yourself).

Science (unlike those of you who keep parroting the "Where is the Global Warming" crap!) has moved on - the whole thing is now about "Climate Change" which emphasises that the EXTREMES are increasing - even the *** 'Dumb Aussie Outback Farmer' *** nowadays has recognised that the world has changed, and makes serious plans to grow different types of crops (including changing animal types) more suited to the changing climate in Australia.


*** 'Dumb Aussie Outback Farmer' ***

Aussie Folk lore - The old farmer won the big one - $30 million dollars. When asked what he planned to do with the money he replied "Keep farming till it's all gone!"

Subject: RE: BS: Where's the Global Warming
From: GUEST,Guest from Sanity
Date: 08 Apr 10 - 02:05 AM

Reason for Global Warming....

Global warming promoters

GfS

Subject: RE: BS: Where's the Global Warming
From: Sawzaw
Date: 08 Apr 10 - 01:19 AM

Where is the Global Warming in this chart?

Subject: RE: BS: Where's the Global Warming
From: GUEST,TIA
Date: 08 Apr 10 - 12:12 AM

Stating the current status is not an ad hominem attack.

Subject: RE: BS: Where's the Global Warming
From: Sawzaw
Date: 07 Apr 10 - 01:09 AM

Here ya go TIA, attack the idiot that said this:

"the interior of the earth is extremely hot, several million degrees"

Subject: RE: BS: Where's the Global Warming
From: Sawzaw
Date: 07 Apr 10 - 12:42 AM

Stating the current status is not "twisting" anything.

It is not crap to be seen through. It is a ray of light shining through the crap put out by the IPCC and Gore who stands to profit from trying to prevent global warming and Pachauri who stands to profit from trying to prevent global warming.

Isn't the research done on Global Warming an attempt to prove global warming?

Is it subjective or objective? Every where I look it is overstated and hyped like the video of the little girl hanging on to a tree. Isn't that to be considered twisting? There is no little girl hanging from a tree is there? Isn't it a scare tactic?

I say there is some global warming possibly brought on by man.

However I do not believe it is a catastrophic as claimed and even if it was, we couldn't stop it.

Even if we stopped CO2 accumulation in it's tracks, even if we reversed it, even if we found a perfect non CO2 producing energy source, there will be thermal pollution from ANY source or use of power that will warm the earth.

So if you would read what is posted above you would understand a little better what my position is.

But you would rather make your ad hominem attacks rather than do a little thinking for yourself.

Do you feel good after a personal attack? Do you feel self righteous? Victorious?


OSLO, Feb. 29 2008 (Xinhua) -- The polar cap in the Arctic may well disappear this summer due to the global warming, Dr. Olav Orheim, head of the Norwegian International Polar Year Secretariat, said on Friday.

    The shrinking of the Arctic ice cap has been astonishing, Orheim said in an interview with Xinhua.

    "The ice sheet hit the historical low of 3 million square km during the hottest weeks last summer, while it covered 7.5 million square km on average before the year 2000, " he said.

    "If Norway's average temperature this year equals that in 2007, the ice cap in the Arctic will all melt away, which is highly possible judging from current conditions," Orheim said.

Subject: RE: BS: Where's the Global Warming
From: GUEST,Guest from Sanity
Date: 06 Apr 10 - 11:28 PM

BS: Where's the Global Warming????

Its over there...next to the figment

GfS

Subject: RE: BS: Where's the Global Warming
From: GUEST,Guest from Sanity
Date: 06 Apr 10 - 10:43 PM

Three major earthquakes, 7 points or high, within this month....damn SUV's, we need another tax!

GfS

Subject: RE: BS: Where's the Global Warming
From: TIA
Date: 06 Apr 10 - 05:15 PM

Sawzaw (th poster child for Dunning-Kroger) says:
"Dear KP. I was wrong.

The 1979-2000 mean is 15.6 million square kilometers.

The ice area is currently 15.44 million square kilometers,

1% below average."

Well cherry-picked old fellow! What really happened was a steady decline of 2.6% per decade (in March ice extent) since 1979, then in April, there was this highly unusual, brief event that brought the extent up to within a few percent of the 1979-2000 average (not above, or even equal to the average, still below). And this brief event is evidence that the extent of seasonal Arctic Sea ice is *not* generally decreasing.

Now get back to twisting, selecting, and misunderstanding the numbers. I will get back to educating the next generation to see through this kind of crap.

Subject: RE: BS: Where's the Global Warming
From: Wolfgang
Date: 06 Apr 10 - 10:08 AM

A Superstorm for Global Warming Research

On balance, the entire profession has been seriously harmed by the scandal. "We are currently suffering a massive erosion of trust," concludes German climatologist Hans von Storch. "Climate research has been corrupted by politicization, just as nuclear physics was in the pre-Chernobyl days, when we were led to believe that nuclear power plants were completely safe."

Wolfgang

Subject: RE: BS: Where's the Global Warming
From: GUEST,Guest from Sanity
Date: 06 Apr 10 - 02:17 AM

Liberals love global warming!......they absolutely do not like Facts!

Subject: RE: BS: Where's the Global Warming
From: Sawzaw
Date: 06 Apr 10 - 02:14 AM

Well Amos, I thought a fair minded person like you would know but it appears once again that you only know half of the story.

The U.S. government, of course, has been spending roughly $2 billion a year on global warming and now proposes a new $6.3 billion package, which includes a set-aside for public "education."

Subject: RE: BS: Where's the Global Warming
From: Amos
Date: 02 Apr 10 - 10:12 AM

Sawz:

Do it yourself.


A

Subject: RE: BS: Where's the Global Warming
From: The Fooles Troupe
Date: 02 Apr 10 - 07:37 AM

"is U.S. taxpayer's money and the feds have no right to give it away"

Wrong!

What planet did you say you came from? You certainly don't seem to understand how the USA works...

Subject: RE: BS: Where's the Global Warming
From: Ebbie
Date: 02 Apr 10 - 12:41 AM

I suppose that is meant to be funny?

Subject: RE: BS: Where's the Global Warming
From: ichMael
Date: 02 Apr 10 - 12:28 AM

An Inconvenient Arrest

Subject: RE: BS: Where's the Global Warming
From: Sawzaw
Date: 01 Apr 10 - 03:08 AM

Amos:

Please outline the entities that are spending money to promote Global Warming and how much they are spending?

Thank You.

Subject: RE: BS: Where's the Global Warming
From: Amos
Date: 31 Mar 10 - 11:37 PM

ENVIRONMENT -- REPORT REVEALS OIL GIANT KOCH INDUSTRIES IS A 'FINANCIAL KINGPIN' OF CLIMATE CHANGE DENIERS: A new Greenpeace report has revealed privately owned U.S. oil company Koch Industries donated nearly $48 million to climate change denying groups from 1997-2008, outstripping even Exxon Mobil in its funding efforts and "also spent $5.7m on political campaigns and $37m on direct lobbying to support fossil fuels." According to the report, the Kansas-based company -- owned by billionaire brothers Charles and David Koch, who have long worked to burnish their reputations by buying museum and opera halls -- has contributed $24.9 million to global warming denying groups since 2005 compared to Exxon Mobil's $8.9 million in contributions. The report also finds that Koch Industries "provided financing for organizations that heavily propagated the so-called 'ClimateGate' scandal." For example, Koch funded a 2007 junk science analysis that disputed the risks climate change posed for polar bears and financed supposedly independent Spanish and Danish studies that attacked green jobs and propagated a pack of lies about the costs of climate legislation. Responding to the report's charges that Koch Industries amounted to the "financial kingpin of climate science denial and clean energy opposition," the company's communications director Melissa Cohlmia said they have "worked to advance economic freedom and market-based policy solutions to challenges faced by society."

(The Progressive)

Subject: RE: BS: Where's the Global Warming
From: Little Hawk
Date: 31 Mar 10 - 03:23 PM

This thread is wrongly titled, and that's leading to a lot of unnecessary rhetoric here. It should be titled: "What is causing Global Warming?"

Further questions to add to that one...

"Are human activities a primary, a secondary, a tertiary or a negligible factor in causing global warming?"

"And is there much that humans can do to reduce global warming...or are we simply going to have to adapt to it in the best way we can manage?"

Subject: RE: BS: Where's the Global Warming
From: pdq
Date: 31 Mar 10 - 03:19 PM

Solar flares have been shown to cause interference in radio transmission.

They are not the cause of Global Warming.

As said many times before, "This NOAA chart...shows it more clearly. It shows about 0.7 degrees C of global warming in the last 115 years."

Repeat as often as needed until people listen.

The warmest part of the last 115 years was probably around 1937.

A glacier that was here 60 million years ago has been melting for 60 million years. It just works that way.

The problem is that certain groups think they can extract trillions of dollars to "fix" Global Warming. They make their livings on the concept already.

I believe that Hillary Clinton promised to hand over 200 billion to Third World countries just a few months ago in the summit in Denmark.

That is U.S. taxpayer's money and the feds have no right to give it away, especially since it is essentially being done through extortion.

If the general public realizes that it is all hype and junk science, the GW hawkers will have to get real jobs.

Subject: RE: BS: Where's the Global Warming
From: beardedbruce
Date: 31 Mar 10 - 02:57 PM

Lovelock: 'We can't save the planet'

Professor James Lovelock, the scientist who developed Gaia theory, has said it is too late to try and save the planet.

The man who achieved global fame for his theory that the whole earth is a single organism now believes that we can only hope that the earth will take care of itself in the face of completely unpredictable climate change.

Interviewed by Today presenter John Humphrys, videos of which you can see below, he said that while the earth's future was utterly uncertain, mankind was not aware it had "pulled the trigger" on global warming as it built its civilizations.

'We're not really guilty. We didn't deliberately set out to heat the world'

What is more, he predicts, the earth's climate will not conveniently comply with the models of modern climate scientists.

As the record winter cold testifies, he says, global temperatures move in "jerks and jumps", and we cannot confidently predict what the future holds.

Prof Lovelock does not pull his punches on the politicians and scientists who are set to gain from the idea that we can predict climate change and save the planet ourselves.

Scientists, he says, have moved from investigating nature as a vocation, to being caught in a career path where it makes sense to "fudge the data".

And while renewable energy technology may make good business sense, he says, it is not based on "good practical engineering".

At the age of 90, Prof Lovelock is resigned to his own fate and the fate of the planet. Whether the planet saves itself or not, he argues, all we can do is to "enjoy life while you can".


videos

Subject: RE: BS: Where's the Global Warming
From: beardedbruce
Date: 31 Mar 10 - 02:47 PM

Amos,

You miss the entire point.

IT IS NOT SOLAR FLARES.

NO-ONE CLAIMS IT IS SOLAR FLARES.

The claim put forward to negate human causation of global warming is that the sun's OUTPUT ( since it is a variable star) has increased, as demonstrated by the larger (observed) melting of the Martian icecaps, and the significant change ( after over 300 years of observation) to the charecteristics of the Red Spot on Jupiter ( as well as global warming on Earth).

When you find information relating to this ( solar output variance cycles of greater than 300 years, please post them.

Subject: RE: BS: Where's the Global Warming
From: Jack the Sailor
Date: 31 Mar 10 - 02:29 PM

My Dad sent us pictures of harp seal pups on the beaches in Newfoundland towns, right next to houses. This has never happened before. The seals usually give birth miles out to sea on the ice pack. The only ice pack this year was many hundreds of miles to the north.

Maybe not proof of global warming. Certainly proof of unprecedented local warming.

Subject: RE: BS: Where's the Global Warming
From: Amos
Date: 31 Mar 10 - 01:51 PM

A careful statistical analysis rebutting the "solar flares" causality argument.


A

Subject: RE: BS: Where's the Global Warming
From: Amos
Date: 24 Mar 10 - 10:18 AM

An amazing presentation on glacier losses worldwide. Especially for Sawz' attention.

Subject: RE: BS: Where's the Global Warming
From: Amos
Date: 23 Mar 10 - 04:19 PM

"Global warming has neither stopped nor slowed in the past decade, according to a draft analysis of temperature data by the NASA Goddard Institute for Space Studies

Scientific American


STILL WARMING: Global temperatures over the past decade have "continued to rise rapidly," despite large year-to-year fluctuations.
NASA


Global warming has neither stopped nor slowed in the past decade, according to a draft analysis of temperature data by NASA's Goddard Institute for Space Studies.

The analysis, led by Goddard director Jim Hansen, attempts to debunk popular belief that the planet is cooling. It finds that global temperatures over the past decade have "continued to rise rapidly," despite large year-to-year fluctuations associated with the tropical El Niño–La Niña cycles.

The analysis also predicts, assuming current El Niño conditions hold, that 2010 will go down in history as the hottest year on record despite an unusually snowy winter in the Northern Hemisphere.

"Communicating the reality of climate change to the public is hampered by the large natural variability of weather and climate," the Goddard scientists wrote in the draft, which was circulated by Hansen Friday evening and posted on the ClimateProgress.org blog shortly after.

"We conclude there has been no reduction in the global warming trend of 0.15 (to) 0.20ºC (per) decade that began in the late 1970s."

The new analysis combines sea-surface temperature records with meteorological station measurements and tests alternative choices for ocean records, urban warming and tropical and Arctic oscillations. It concludes the urban "heat island" impacts are small compared to the warming attributed to greenhouse gas emissions.

And it finds that, while this winter's unusually strong Arctic Oscillation - which funnels cold northern air to the East Coast and pulls warm mid-latitude air up to the Arctic - is predicted as atmospheric carbon dioxide levels rise, seasonal temperature anomalies associated with it aren't enough to blunt long-term warming trends.

"In the United States only one of the past 10 winters and two of the past 10 summers were cooler than the 1951-1980 climatology, a frequency consistent with the expected 'loading of the climate dice,' " the scientists wrote.

Hansen and other co-authors could not be reached for comment. The analysis has not been subjected to a peer review, though Hansen, in an email sent discussing the paper, said he intended to revise it for submission to a journal "within a month or so."

Michael Mann, director of the Earth System Science Center at Pennsylvania State University, called the analysis solid.

"Essentially he's just pointing out that we've come out of this short-term, relatively cool period," Mann said. "The globe clearly continues to warm."

Joe Romm, editor of ClimateProgress.org and a senior fellow at the liberal Center for American Progress, added that the study is "important for those who care about the science."

Whether it would quell the debate over global cooling - fueled in part by the East Coast's hard winter and the revelation of errors in the United Nation's Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change synthesis report - is less certain.

Mann said many claims of global cooling are spurious and "intellectually dishonest."

"The question becomes can you confront those who are choosing to be intellectually dishonest with more facts and hope they become more honest? Unfortunately, that's not the case," he said.

"But hopefully, as evidence continues to come in, those who have genuinely, honestly skeptical views about climate change will be swayed by the fact that evidence continues to ... to be stronger and stronger."..."

Subject: RE: BS: Where's the Global Warming
From: beardedbruce
Date: 23 Mar 10 - 03:04 PM

http://bigjournalism.com/chorner/2010/03/23/usa-today-global-warming-handmaiden/

Subject: RE: BS: Where's the Global Warming
From: freda underhill
Date: 23 Mar 10 - 03:50 AM

Sorry, LH, I didn't realise that. Mr Moore deserves better than being misquoted. but the reading's good - I'm reading and reading..

Subject: RE: BS: Where's the Global Warming
From: Little Hawk
Date: 22 Mar 10 - 12:19 PM

That looks like a really interesting article, Freda. I've taken a quick look at it and will take a longer look in a bit.

It's not by Michael Moore, though it is on his website. The article is written by Bill McKibben.

There are a long series of interesting comments from other readers below the article too. It'll take quite a while to read and digest all of it.

Subject: RE: BS: Where's the Global Warming
From: Ebbie
Date: 22 Mar 10 - 12:11 PM

I hate to do this but this is 1111.

Subject: RE: BS: Where's the Global Warming
From: freda underhill
Date: 22 Mar 10 - 04:45 AM

Speaking of Michael Moore, here's what he says about attacks on climate change science..

Subject: RE: BS: Where's the Global Warming
From: GUEST,Guest from Sanity
Date: 21 Mar 10 - 07:26 PM

Speaking of Global Warming...this is hot!

GfS

Subject: RE: BS: Where's the Global Warming
From: Little Hawk
Date: 21 Mar 10 - 12:18 AM

By the way, whenever you use that term "armwaving", this is what comes to my mind...

1. Kermit the Frog (waving his little green arms around frantically while introducing a guest on the Muppet Show)

and... This

Subject: RE: BS: Where's the Global Warming
From: Little Hawk
Date: 21 Mar 10 - 12:08 AM

Yeah... (smile)

He was not the kind who really needs to think much about it, was he?

Subject: RE: BS: Where's the Global Warming
From: Amos
Date: 20 Mar 10 - 09:23 PM

Well, sir, I do know some of them personally and have a great deal of respect for their accomplishments and their thoughtful methodology. But that doesn't mean I am on any bandwagon. I am thinking that the data presented so far strongly supports the warming diagnosis and also supports the anthropogenic diagnosis as well.

I don't think armwaving or histrionics makes any of it less valid or more or less frightening. I don't traffic in fright and see no reason to do so. Or hate, either. It's a waste f time. Why consent to it? In this, I suspect we agree. Given that, ther

There are a lot of folks who think the purpose of language is to generate both. I have no respect for them. W was one, which is why I had no respect for him. He was uncurious, as though the facts didn't matter as long as he had God talking to him through his hair-dryer.


A

Subject: RE: BS: Where's the Global Warming
From: Little Hawk
Date: 20 Mar 10 - 08:14 PM

I'm sure that there are some large commercial and hierarchical outfits that are very opposed to the present popular global warming theory, Amos, because it presents a threat to their immediate profits. No argument there.

However, I think there's another consortium of special interests who are very interested in promoting the present popular global warming theory, because it is advantageous to their immediate jurisdictional power, profits, and self-interests.

So...I think there are 2 sets of dogs loudly baying on either side of the fence, as it were, when it comes to climate change and either one of them or both of them may be quite intent on misleading the public for their own personal gain.

I know the media loves nothing better than a good scare story, and so do our leaders, because it gets us all onside to let them change laws and alter various things in drastic ways...and it gets us to panic and spend our money.

RUSSIA INTENDS TO TAKE OVER THE WORLD! WE'RE ALL GONNA DIE!!!!

That one eventually fizzled out, but it funded decades of gigantic military spending, and a whole bunch of small wars.

THE BEES ARE ALL MYSTERIOUSLY DYING! WE'RE ALL GONNA DIE!!!!!!!!!!!

Hmmm. Well, they were all dying for awhile, but now they seem to be recovering.

H1NI FLU IS COMING! WE'RE ALL GONNA DIE!!!!!!!! BUY OUR VACCINE TO SAVE YOURSELF!

Hmmm. That turned out to be much ado about nothing, didn't it?

SARS IS COMING! WE'RE ALL GONNA DIE!!!!!!

Hmmm. Nope. False alarm.

SADDAM HAS WMDS!!!! WE'RE ALL GONNA BE BLOWN UP UNLESS WE INVADE IRAQ!!!

Nope.

1974 - A NEW ICE AGE IS COMING!!! WE'RE ALL GONNA FREEZE AND DIE!!!

Nope.

KILLER BEES ARE COMING NORTH FROM SOUTH AMERICA!!! WE'RE ALL GONNA DIE!!!

Nope.

NORTH KOREA HAS THE BOMB!!! WE'RE ALL GONNA DIE!!!!!!

Oh, just shut up and go away, would you?

IRAN IS BUILDING NUKES! WE'RE ALL GONNA DIE!!!!

Israel already has 200 of them. Scream about that, why don't you?

GLOBAL WARMING!!!! WE'RE ALL GONNA DIE!!!!!!

Yeah. Gee, it's a wonder any of us are still alive, isn't it? I mean, hey, it's a goddamn dangerous world, you know. Just listen to the media. They'll tell you all about it. When one horror recedes, another soon advances to take its place.

I am wondering if before my life is over I will see giant officially sponsored headlines in all the media screaming: SPACE ALIENS ARE PLANNING TO INVADE THE EARTH!!! WE'RE ALL GONNA DIE!!!!!!

I mean, heck, it's about the only official alarm bell left that the powers that be have not used to terrify us into dumb obedience up to this point in time.

Terror and constant anxiety is a good way of keeping people off balance and helplessly dependent on Big Brother, so I don't think it's accidental. I think it's a fairly deliberate policy to always have one major scare story blazing on the front burner and another one waiting in reserve on the back burner if the first one fizzles out.



I have just copied and pasted the above....because my previous post got truncated somehow.

Amos, I do not have the confidence in "the science community"...or any other hierarchical authority group in this society... that you do. If I knew them personally, it would be a different matter. Then I'd be in a far better position to assess their actual motives and to know who is really saying what about what...and why.

Subject: RE: BS: Where's the Global Warming
From: Amos
Date: 20 Mar 10 - 08:08 PM

Those histrionic misguided exagerrations wer enot promulgated by scientists.

If you review the actual measurements there is a pretty clear correlation between anthropogenic CO emissions and temperature rise.

Just because the media like to electrify everything does not mean you can't think clearly and drill down to hard data.


A

Subject: RE: BS: Where's the Global Warming
From: Little Hawk
Date: 20 Mar 10 - 07:57 PM

I'm sure that there are some large commercial and hierarchical outfits that are very opposed to the present popular global warming theory because it presents a threat to their immediate profits, Amos. No argument there.

I think there's another consortium of special interests who are very interested in promoting the present popular global warming theory, because it is advantageous to their immediate power, profits, and selfish interests.

So...I think there are 2 sets of dogs baying on either side of the fence, as it were, when it comes to climate change and either one of them or both of them may be quite intent on misleading the public for their own personal gain.

I know the media loves a good scare story, and so do our leaders, because it gets us all onside to let them change laws and alter various things...and it gets us to panic and spend money.

THE BEES ARE ALL DYING! WE'RE ALL GONNA DIE!!!!!!!!!!!

Hmmm. Well, they were all dying, but now they seem to be recovering.

H1NI FLU IS COMING! WE'RE ALL GONNA DIE!!!!!!!! BUY OUR VACCINE TO SAVE YOURSELF!

Hmmm. That turned out to be much ado about nothing, didn't it?

SARS IS COMING! WE'RE ALL GONNA DIE!!!!!!

Hmmm. Nope.

SADDAM HAS WMDS!!!! WE'RE ALL GONNA BE BLOWN UP UNLESS WE INVADE IRAQ!!!

Nope.

1974 -

Subject: RE: BS: Where's the Global Warming
From: Amos
Date: 20 Mar 10 - 06:44 PM

I think rhe "oligarchic manipulators" version of reality is highly irresponsible. Sure there are large companies whose future is tired to continuing to burn oil as fast as possible. In fact, such companies--whose interest would be in denying climate shift caused by human activity--are probably more massive in their influence than those who would have a financial interest in militating for reduced carbon footprint. So the rationale of the "giant corporations are lying to us" story is kinda wonky.

Furthermore every decision made in the name of such corporations is made by a meat-bodied two-leg just like thee and me, and they sweat when you heat them as surely as they bleed if you prick them.

So I doubt they are as deeply invested in refusal of change as is being painted.

Who DOES refuse to change is the human committed to the preservation of safe ignorance.


A

Subject: RE: BS: Where's the Global Warming
From: Ebbie
Date: 20 Mar 10 - 05:03 PM

Interesting number: 1101

Subject: RE: BS: Where's the Global Warming
From: Little Hawk
Date: 20 Mar 10 - 03:54 PM

That may well be so. But what do we do about it? What would you recommend? (not that anyone out there is going to act on your recommendations, I'm just curious...)

Subject: RE: BS: Where's the Global Warming
From: Stringsinger
Date: 20 Mar 10 - 03:43 PM

The effect of global warming is not just hot weather. It's wildly fluctuating weather conditions
and the rise of sea levels because of melting icebergs. Scientists have a consensus on this.
In the future, unless we address this issue, there will be more tornadoes, tsunamis,
fires and desertification of lands throughout the world. Also, snow storms. This attributable to the hydrologic cycle. We will see small islands disappear due to the rise of the water table. We will see air pollution increase as the corporate energy owners dismiss this. We are playing with meteorological dynamite.

Subject: RE: BS: Where's the Global Warming
From: Little Hawk
Date: 20 Mar 10 - 10:51 AM

I don't think it's a leftist conspiracy. I think it's a governmental and oligarchic conspiracy, and those guys are beyond Right and Left. They simply used Right and Left like a sports league uses 2 hockey or baseball teams...to divide the public into 2 opposing sets of fans who hate each other's guts and who dutifully cheer whenever their side scores.

As long as you buy into the Right/Left mythology, you get caught up in the game, and the game is all smoke and mirrors, and the point of the game is that huge, moneyed organizations should make even more money and further extend their monopolistic control of marketing, media, taxation, and anything else that makes money.

I am pretty sure we are experiencing genuine global warming. I doubt that the human carbon contributions are a key factor in producing it, so I don't think we are the cause of it.

And I might be wrong too....I'm in no position to be totally sure about it one way or another.

But my view on this matter has absolutely NOTHING to do with supporting "the Right" or "the Left", because I am well aware that both the Right and the Left these days are caught up in various forms of divisive hypocrisy, delusion, false propaganda, mutual contempt, an unholy desire to destroy one another, and much choreographed nonsense, not to mention knee-jerk conformity to peer group pressure and prejudice that precludes them having any form of independent rational thought or objectivity on certain issues.

I am utterly disgusted with both the Right and the Left at this point. I wouldn't trust either of them to have a clue what they're talking about most of the time.

The only people I see whom I have some respect for are a few courageous individuals like Dennis Kucinich and Michael Moore and Ron Paul, all of whom have the guts to speak the truth about what is really occurring. And what is occuring? Well, it looks a lot like the fall of the Roman Empire to me. It exhibits the same sort of symptoms, but it's happening quite a bit faster than it did in the case of Rome.

Subject: RE: BS: Where's the Global Warming
From: freda underhill
Date: 20 Mar 10 - 07:23 AM

:-)


how did we get the idea that global wareming is a leftist conspiracy?
$427 million - spent by the oil and coal industries in the first six months of 2008 in political contributions, lobbying expenditures and advertising to oppose climate action.

And from people like dear old...

Lord Monckton      To the tune of My Bonnie lies over the Ocean

Lord Monckton lies over the ocean
Lord Monckton lies over the sea
Lord Monckton lies over the airways
O what a great liar is he!

Ch
Mad Lord Monkton, he's manic and all his publicity's free
Mad Lord Monkton, he's got a concocted CV.

He wants to lock up all the greenies
He says that Al Gore's just a hick
And science is not for compliance
Global warming's a communist trick.

Ch

Lord Monckton supports all emissions
His mission's tradition and fees
He's label's more noble than Nobel
He's Lord of Denial you see.

Ch

Lord Monckton's got eyeballs like golfballs
They roll and they quiver and pop
I wonder if Monckton's got no balls
He's a counter-delusionary fop.

Mad Lord Monkton, he's manic and all his publicity's free
Mad Lord Monkton, he's got a concocted CV.

Lord Monckton's a worrying warrior
A windbag, all bluster and gout
His hot air's a big source of emission
Whenever he opens his mouth

f.u.

Subject: RE: BS: Where's the Global Warming
From: GUEST,Guest from Sanity
Date: 19 Mar 10 - 03:25 PM

freda underhill: "For anyone who believes in karma, everything we do has an effect."

GfS: My Karma just ran over your dogma.

Subject: RE: BS: Where's the Global Warming
From: Sawzaw
Date: 19 Mar 10 - 01:38 AM

Dear KP. I was wrong.

The 1979-2000 mean is 15.6 million square kilometers.

The ice area is currently 15.44 million square kilometers,

1% below average.

Subject: RE: BS: Where's the Global Warming
From: Little Hawk
Date: 18 Mar 10 - 09:19 PM

For what?

Subject: RE: BS: Where's the Global Warming
From: Amos
Date: 18 Mar 10 - 08:25 PM

SHow me some reliable numbers, LH.


A

Subject: RE: BS: Where's the Global Warming
From: Little Hawk
Date: 18 Mar 10 - 08:02 PM

I finally got time to watch that whole video, Alice. Interesting.

If she's correct in her opinions, then her points are well taken. If she's not, then they're another misleading propaganda effort on behalf of the folks she's representing. I don't know which it might be. I also don't know if she's sincere, although she may well be quite sincere.

The thing that primarily interests me is whether the anthropomorphic factor in climate change is as big as the people she agrees with say it is? That's what I wonder. Or are the primary factors driving climate change natural cyclical ones, not anthropomorphic ones? If so, then the message we have been given by "An Inconvenient Truth" is a misleading one.

There are a number of scientists who dispute the existing theory, and I've seen them on videos and read things they had to say...I'm not aware that any of them are connected with the 3 men she focuses on in "Merchants of Doubt". If they aren't, one can hardly establish guilt by association then, can one?

Did you read the variety of comments below the video? The usual set of strong opinions, pro and con... ;-)

Now, here's the thing. Take a deep breath and consider this. It won't change anything if you convince me of your opinion on climate change or I convince you of mine. It will not alter the future of the world debate on climate change, and it will not save the planet.

I already know that! ;-) I'm not sure that the other vociferous arguers here do. I think most people here get so caught up in the struggle of their own ego to assert itself and "save the world" that they actually imagine, like Don Quixote assaulting the windmill, that they are engaged in real heroics that will yield a tangible result!

That is not the case. We are all talking here for one simple reason: it gives our restless, hungry little minds something to focus on and do for a few more minutes of our life, and it enhances our ego's sense of its own existence while so doing. It's like an ant shouting at the sky, and imagining that the sky is going to take notice.

I'm quite interested in the climate change debate simply because it is interesting, in its own right. However...I do not imagine for one moment that my opinion about it is going to change anything that's going to happen in terms of government policy nor that my "winning" some argument with you or Amos or anyone else here is going to accomplish anything tangible either. I just enjoy talking about it, because I find it interesting. Period.

I expect to keep disagreeing with Amos forever about it, and that's okay, because it wouldn't change diddly-squat if he changed his mind anyway...nor would it change diddly-squat if I changed mine.

Trust me. The people who determine national policy do it for much larger and more pragmatic reasons than worrying about what you or I or Amos thinks about climate change...and they will make their decisions on the basis of utterly ruthless pragmatism driven by huge vested interests. And I know it.

In the meantime, it remains an interesting subject, and one I will continue to read about merely because I would like to know more about it. I have a curious mind that wants to know. I am always aware that there is more to know, and that I might find out something that alters my entire view of something like climate change. But I KNOW that I'm doing it just because my mind is hungry....for fun, in other words. If my mind didn't find it engaging for some reason, I wouldn't be thinking about it, would I?