man made global warming a Hoax?

I hope we dodge the global warning bullet...............I like cars too much to give up all our V8's & and HO engines. :( Just seems like there is too much out there that points to man made influences that aren't good.



If you watch the guys on the BBC show, "Top Gear", they say it well, re: how much we like our automobiles & how exciting it is to have what we "want" for engine technology. In fact, I want to have a job like that here in the US on television.....how cool would that be?



Personally............I like my C5 w/it's 350+HP. And, I had better get a move on and upgrade to a yellow C6 Z51. I think I need another 100HP.......:) :) Now, that new variant IS the hot ticket!! It's not a Z06 nor a ZR-1, but, comes with all the goodies available on the base car with a hand built LS, Z06 wheel well flares/trim and sports suspension/brakes/transmission...........gotta have it while I still can afford premium!!



See ya. :wavey
 
tenorplayer23 said:
I hope we dodge the global warning bullet...............I like cars too much to give up all our V8's & and HO engines. :( Just seems like there is too much out there that points to man made influences that aren't good.
Click to expand...



Actually, due to data dumps, there isn't nearly the evidence the global warming crowd would have you believe. In addition, they won't release what they have to other scientists for review.
 
tenorplayer23 said:
Do you think that the deterioration of glaziers, Antarctica/the Arctic, data from NASA & NOAA, plus the international highlight on the subject are frivolous? For a reasonable person, I think NOT.



Of course, that's just my opinion...................I could be wrong! (But probably not:))



See ya. :wavey
Click to expand...

I would say you are and offer scientific data to prove the ice caps aren't "melting"

http://scienceandpublicpolicy.org/images/stories/papers/scarewatch/artic_icecap_10_29_08.pdf

In fact the images from 79' vs 08 speak for them selves. There is/was twice the amount of snow/ice.

Those emails prove they have been fudging the data to get/make more money to line there pockets. That is what happens with science relies on government funding.
 
The most infuriating - and borderline terrifying - program that may come to pass is this Cap & Trade legislation. Essentially, the US Government is going to create an entirely new investor classification, all in the name of a program that even dyed-in-the-wool enviro-nutties say will do exactly nothing for "climate change". No matter, there are numerous Fortune 500 companies (and oodles of "public servants") ready to jump at the chance to bet on these new securities - in much the same way that complicated mortgage derivatives were convoluted for gain over the past decade.



I'm not "anti-capitalism" - quite the opposite really - but I have a real problem with investors reaping massive fiscal rewards off of the back of the taxpayer and unwilling consumer, all as a result of an essentially pointless, government-enabled program. It's a concept that 50 years ago would have had the educated, reasonable sectors of US populace laughing, but today irrationalism has so infected that same group of people that they're willing to cut off their nose to spite their face.
 
Most people seem to care very little about stuff like this, whether they choose to be ignorant or think it will not affect them, this is defiantly the wrong mind set.



Whether you love or hate Alex J. he is at least at the front lines trying to get the real story.



A link from Alex J. for those that don't want to read the e-mail link.



YouTube - Climate Gate 1/2 ***GLOBAL WARMING - TOTAL PROOF OF FRAUD***



Scary that the Z movie is coming more true everyday.
 
Anyone who still doesn't think this is all about money...



Religious groups active in climate debate - USATODAY.com



POOR NATIONS ON AGENDA





COPENHAGEN — Negotiators will kick off a United Nations climate change summit today with immediate talks on one of the most contentious environmental issues: how much rich countries should pay poorer ones to pollute less.



Evo de Boer, the U.N.'s top environmental official, called Sunday for the 192 countries gathering here to formulate a "strong and long-term response" to stop global warming.



He says developing countries may need as much as $10 billion a year to help adapt their economies to cleaner energy sources than coal, for example.



Developing countries such as Brazil have said that they will not agree to a broader deal to cut carbon emissions at Copenhagen unless they get the money.
Click to expand...



This is nothing but a huge wealth transfer by the UN and their socialist cronies.
 
The religious aspect sounds a lot like a separation of church & state issue. I don't like that persuasion anymore than I like the far right trying to legislate moral values. But, from a power base, they probably do have a lot of influence. I would just as soon have the facts out there to make a decision about the best course. As far as wealth transfer in this case, it may not be a bad thing..........just stated badly. It may truly be in our best interest. Poor economies on the upswing because of industrial transfer to their populations will undoubtedly produce "stuff" using whatever manufacturing method they want. In this country, we could legislate/levee penalties for not complying with emissions laws. We probably can't do that in these countries (even if we were to impose tariffs on imports made by emission making production) since other nations wouldn't do it and our businesses would then suffer for lack of competitive costing.



China is a terrible polluter and that will spread to other developing nations the same way. It may be a while, but in the not too distant future, the Chinese standard of living (and costs) will rise sending manufacturing to other under-developed nations. In fact, it may be more efficient for us to pay these countries to not pollute, even if it means deregulating pollution standards here. The benefit might turn out to be greater. I believe that there is a global pollution problem and as much as I hate the idea of anything costing me more these days (God knows, we here in New York pay a fortune in taxes....the most in the nation/especially in this county.....300 miles from NY City) we nationally, have to face it. It isn't going away and unfortunately incentives (propelled by the almighty buck) are what will make this issue improve.



Overall, it is giving me a headache. Ugh................:(



But, that's just my opinion.................I could be wrong! :)



See ya. :wavey





Scottwax said:
Anyone who still doesn't think this is all about money...



Religious groups active in climate debate - USATODAY.com







This is nothing but a huge wealth transfer by the UN and their socialist cronies.
Click to expand...
 
I have a problem with giving money to something that is an out and out lie and a scam. There's more scientific evidence that there is no warming - if you look past the 6:00 talking heads on the tube. It's socialism on a global scale. We should have the balls to call this one a crock. I'm very concerned that my kids will inherit a staggering debt, lousy guv-ment run health care and live in a third world country brought that way by stupid PC correct politicians.
 
WhyteWizard said:
Do any of you remember the "Tobacco causes cancer" hoax?



Robert
Click to expand...



Not even the same thing. Not even close. Not even the tobacco companies dispute the link between smoking and cancer. However, there is a lot of evidence that the earth is not warming at an alarming rate and that the scientists doing the research have tried to hide the fact that temperatures haven't risen in 10 years and discredit scientists who don't agree with them. This is nothing but a huge money grab.



tenorplayer23-I was more concerned with the side bar to that article about how other countries have their hands out, expecting money out of this.
 
Hey, Scott, I realize that..........I wouldn't like to have to subsidize anything more either.......if you think you're paying taxes today, just swap places with me in New York and you'll see how bad it can be. On the other hand, if the other emerging economies (who, BTW, are going to be used by somebody in the industrial world for future product production, regardless of what the US does) pollute and ruin our environment, no matter how much we do to protect the atmosphere, we might be better off paying them to use better mfg. techniques that are less polluting. It would be bad to have to pay, but, they are going to get the production work from somebody....and those countries are less likely to care....unless they are part of an environmental consortium that we promote. If not, the costs will fall back to us.....either we'll end up with the subsidy or we'll be beaten with mfg. costs. It's a catch 22.



You're right to some extent.......money (aka, incentives, subsidies, taxes, etc.) will undoubtedly drive a lot of action on this front, but unfortunately, I don't think we have any choice. Regardless, we can't afford not to have a healthy planet and quality air. I wish the problem wasn't there, because it will cost us. On the other hand, problems & objectives like this will drive action, as well as, technological breakthroughs & industry. And, if we decide as a nation to embrace it, WE (the USA) can be the leader and grow our economy from it.



Let's hope we get the straight(er) story out of the data controversy. While there is some shadow cast on these climate findings from the leaked notes, testimony, etc., I still think you have to look at this from a "test of reasonableness" point of view. There are differences around the world and not for the good, climate-wise. In fact, we may be experiencing the effects of cyclic weather..........but, we are also exacerbating it and perhaps, driving these "natural" effects to be worse (think of that possibility).



There will be more disclosure and scrutiny re: the data. We don't want another WMD/Iraq thing. But, we shouldn't look at this like the tobacco findings. That was buried a long time......it affected smokers & not the entire world.......and finally, in the long run, exposed tobacco for what it is....poison to the human body.



I am anxious to see the results of all this hubbub. Ugh.....it gives me a headache. And, the bad news is.....it didn't yet warm up enough for US to avoid snow. It's gonna hit here sooner or later. And, that SUCKS!! :) I want to be outside wearing shorts and playing with all my Optimum products!!! :grinno:



See ya. :wavey





Scottwax said:
Not even the same thing. Not even close. Not even the tobacco companies dispute the link between smoking and cancer. However, there is a lot of evidence that the earth is not warming at an alarming rate and that the scientists doing the research have tried to hide the fact that temperatures haven't risen in 10 years and discredit scientists who don't agree with them. This is nothing but a huge money grab.



tenorplayer23-I was more concerned with the side bar to that article about how other countries have their hands out, expecting money out of this.
Click to expand...
 
Scottwax said:
Global warming deniers have science on their side, and collusion and deceit on the other side. This is absolutely a huge money grab and nothing more.
Click to expand...





And of course the oil industries have no ax to grind.



The Raw Story | Editor of Bush climate report resigns



And where are they now?



Report: Bush insiders ‘distorted,’ still ‘influence’ climate change debate | Raw Story



Then there's this: Climate Change | U.S. EPA



BTW, have you ever tried to buy insurance against flooding caused by climate change? I hear insurance companies won't sell it, which is strange because if it's a myth you'd think they'd be more than happy to issue the policy. I for example would be happy to sell you a policy against any damage Unicorns might do to your garden.



Robert
 
Anything good we do for the earth, is for the better.



But, when a select few, manipulate and lie for their ulterior motives and already have polluted the globe with propaganda about how this is good for all of us, when there will never be a proper debate or as it seems proper data.



Then this might be the greatest wrong against humanity, as it will never be right, after it is set in motion.



Was the great bank bail out just a chance to line their pockets before all this goes down and we start a new economy that taxes the air we breathe?
 
Four Colossal Holes in the Theory of Man-Made Global Warming

John Hawkins

Tuesday, December 08, 2009

Repeating the words "scientific consensus" over and over and telling sad stories about polar bears does not qualify as "science." So, why is it that the people who insist that Man-made global warming is based on science, not politics, always get shaky and defensive when people want to actually talk about the reasoning behind it?

When was the last time you heard a scientist get hysterical when you asked him to explain Einstein's theory of relativity? If you ask a scientist why nothing can move faster than the speed of light, he doesn't tell you a terrible story about how koala bears will die if you don't believe the theory is right, does he? Scientists who are confident and in command of the facts don't need to distort data and duck basic questions about the assumptions that are behind scientific theories.

So, why is it that the people who insist that man-made global warming is occurring right now can't come up with coherent answers to many of the most basic problems with the ideas that undergird their theory?

Climate change has been around as long as the earth: If you listen to global warming alarmists, you'd think the climate had been a flat line until mankind started industrializing, after which the temperature rocketed straight upwards. However, the reality is far different, as even the New York Times has been willing to admit:

In October, Dr. (Don) Easterbrook made similar points at the geological society meeting in Philadelphia. He hotly disputed Mr. Gore's claim that "our civilization has never experienced any environmental shift remotely similar to this" threatened change.

Nonsense, Dr. Easterbrook told the crowded session. He flashed a slide that showed temperature trends for the past 15,000 years. It highlighted 10 large swings, including the medieval warm period. These shifts, he said, were up to "20 times greater than the warming in the past century."

So, the planet has had bigger temperature shifts than the one we're experiencing now. It has also been warmer than it is today:

The...warming before our last ice age was much warmer than anything we've had since. We had a warming that peaked 9000 years ago, another warming that peaked 5000 years ago. Both were warmer than today. Probably the Roman warming and the medieval warming were both warmer than today -- and we've had 8 warmings of the earth since the last Ice Age.

So how can we, given our limited knowledge of how the climate works, attribute the extremely limited amount of warming we experienced over the last century to mankind? The honest answer is: We can't.

The earth was cooling from roughly 1940-1976: Despite the fact that widespread industrialization was occurring during that 30 year time period, temperatures dropped so much that there were claims we were going into a dangerous period of "global cooling." If global temperatures are tightly bound to man-made greenhouse gasses and those gasses were being rapidly introduced to the atmosphere, then the earth should have been warming, not cooling during that period. The obvious conclusion is that global temperatures are not nearly as closely associated with man-made greenhouse gasses as some people would have us believe.

So, if it's global warming, why isn't there any warming occurring now? One of the many revelations from Climategate is that behind-the-scenes, scientists who buy into man-made global warming are admitting what skeptics have been saying publicly for years now: The globe has been cooling since 1998. Again, if global warming has its bootlaces hitched to the amount of man-made greenhouse gasses that are being produced and those numbers are increasing, why hasn't the temperature gone up as well? There's a simple answer: Man-made greenhouse gasses are not a decisive factor in raising or lowering the temperature of the earth.

Climate models can't accurately project the weather 100 years in the future: The truth is that we don't fully understand how our planet's climate works and thus, our climate models don't work very well. Since the climate models can't explain the climate over the last 25 years and they can't explain the leveling off of temperature since 1998, why would anyone believe they can predict conditions in 100 years? As computer programmers say, "garbage in, garbage out."

The Doomsday predictions from global warming alarmists are absolutely meaningless because they're based on climate models that don't work very well in the first place. As Dennis Avery, co-author of Unstoppable Global Warming: Every 1500 Years has said:

I think they pull their predictions out of their hats and I don't think they have any validity whatsoever.

What the global warming alarmists are asking of people is no small thing. They want us to spend trillions of dollars, dramatically impact our economies, and change the way people across the world live for the worse. Those are not trivial changes and simply having scientists -- who've been put under enormous political pressure and make a living off global warming grants – say, "Trust us, it's real," isn't going to cut it for proof. If global warming alarmists can't even deliver plausible answers to the most obvious problems with their theory, then no one should take them seriously.





Copyright © 2009 Salem Web Network. All Rights Reserved.
 
A liberal who goes by the username WhyteWizard. Seriously? The irony simply doesn't get any thicker than that.



Anyways, Cal Thomas wrote an interesting editorial this morning regarding Gordon Brown's recent comments on AGW non-believers. The "open-minded" and "tolerant" types are surely already flaming the guy to the nth degree on various newspaper comment sections and forums around the country.



The flat-head society - Washington Times



Excerpt from Cal Thomas' Article said:
So who are the real flat-earthers? Are they the ones who won't listen to any evidence except that which supports their cult-like faith, or are they the growing number who say the science is anything but settled and needs more study?
Click to expand...



BlackPanther here, signing out...
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top