|
| :: Previous topic :: Next topic |
| Author |
Message |
Jerry Fletcher
Joined: 21 Jan 2006
Posts: 837
Location: Studio BS
|
 Posted: Mon Jun 12, 2006 4:45 am Post subject: |
  |
|
| Janama wrote: | | Yeah - that was a bit flippant - sorry I didn't mean to be rude. |
no problem.
The Asian Times article may be over the top, but I don't think it's saying co2 levels are lower, or that global warming isn't occuring rapidly. It's just suggesting that these circumstances might not be as dire as the 'Al Gore' Environmental campaign makes them out to be.
The alternative view suggests that the environmental panic and resulting criminalizing of CO2 provides the need for global energy regulation by a handful of helpful globalists.
I just ran across this site, so I can't vouch for it's integrity, but it presents a good overview of the alternative view of the current environmental crisis.
| Quote: |
For the past 10 years, carbon dioxide (CO2) has gotten a bad rap. Despite the fact that 95 percent of the CO2 emitted each year is produced by nature (see Figure I), environmentalists started referring to CO2 as a pollutant in 1988 after some scientists claimed that the 30 percent rise in atmospheric CO2 over the last 150 years was attributable to humans and was causing global warming. In response, Vice President Al Gore in his 1992 book Earth in the Balance called for "carbon taxes," stating that "filling the atmosphere with carbon dioxide and other pollutants . . . is a willful expansion of our dysfunctional civilization into vulnerable parts of the natural world."
The evidence shows neither that a modest warming will threaten human life through environmental catastrophe nor that the recent rise in CO2 levels is responsible for the measured rise in global temperature.
[...]
CO2 and Global Warming. Ground-level temperature measurements indicate that the earth has warmed about 1 degree Fahrenheit since 1850, but human-generated carbon dioxide could have been only a small factor because most of the warming occurred before 1940 - preceding the vast majority of human-caused CO2 emissions. Historically, increases in atmospheric CO2 concentrations have often followed rather than preceded warm periods.
[...]
Conclusion. According to government mine safety regulations, atmospheric CO2 would have to rise as high as 5000 ppm before it posed a direct threat to human health. Since no scientist predicts a rise of this magnitude in the next century, the anticipated rise in CO2 levels should be viewed as beneficial. Even if temperatures increase slightly, life on earth will thrive.
This Brief Analysis was prepared by NCPA environmental analyst H. Sterling Burnett and NCPA vice president of domestic policy Merrill Matthews, Jr.
From: NCPA - BA #256 - Who's Afraid of CO2?
http://www.ncpa.org/ba/ba256.html |
And I found this - a good overview of the conspiratorial corporate / political energy cartel angle:
| Quote: |
It's Not About the Science
The dirty secret is that global warming is driven more by the search for funding than the search for scientific truth. "Big science" was adrift in the early 1990s, like many other beneficiaries of the Cold War, and was desperate to sustain its federal funding. Global warming had all the key attributes of the next big cause. It could be used to frighten the politicians and the public, using threats of catastrophic consequences to extract billions of dollars for research to prevent it. The science was immature, and the door was wide open to all sorts of proposals and projects by scientists promising solutions. High-performance computers were the tools, and the projects promised to be long-term and career-sustaining. Getting funds was easy. As MIT Professor Lindzen has noted, "saving the planet" had a nice ring to it and seemed to portend big bucks at the end of the global warming rainbow.
[...]
Global warming fanatics found powerful allies in the Democratic Party, and especially then Senator Al Gore. Government control and public opinion were the levers needed to implement the global warming agenda. Activists would need to capture key policy jobs in those federal agencies with science portfolios, like the Energy Department, the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), and NOAA. Once secured, these jobs would give activists control of the key levers of influence over the scientific community-research grants and federal funding of national labs and universities. They knew that they could always buy scientists who would turn out scientific studies and research reports that would help them shape and mold public opinion.
[...]
Over its two terms, the Clinton administration pumped nearly $20 billion into global warming science and technology initiatives. By 2002, the EPA website advertised that more than a billion dollars was still available for grants for the purpose of reducing greenhouse emissions.
Scaring The Public
As part of its campaign to mold public opinion, the EPA sponsored regional conferences throughout the United States to dramatize the potential impacts of climate change. In May 1999, for example, the EPA visited South Florida and the Florida Keys to warn local residents of the potential impacts for their region of global warming. Local EPA officials, area activists and outside speakers told attendees that global warming is real and that their area would be particularly hard hit. One local activist told the conference that global warming represents "the largest single threat to our planet that we know of, including a nuclear holocaust." A professor of environmental health from Columbia University predicted an outbreak of water-borne diseases like malaria as the sea level rises in the wake of global warming. A "hurricane expert" predicted a 50% increase in hurricanes in that year alone. (In fact, the number of hurricanes decreased in 1999 in comparison with past years.) Others predicted that the Everglades would disappear, as would safe drinking water and clean air.
[...]
The media have helped create the false impression that the vast majority of scientists agree that global warming is a serious threat that calls for drastic action. Agreement with this seems to be a litmus tests for Times reporters covering science. One such reporter, Kenneth Chang, answered a question on the Times Internet site about global warming by saying that it's a complicated subject, but 97% of all scientists think it is real and is caused by CO2 emissions. He said there are uncer-tainties in the science, but he admitted that he tries to write his articles on global warming from the majority viewpoint. Nevertheless, he had a good article in the Times last April that corrected the impression given by an earlier story by another reporter that global warming was affecting Antarctica. Chang reported that the interior of Antarctica is actually cooling, and he gave credit to the satellites that provided this information. They are rarely mentioned by the Times and other media.
From: AIM Report: 2002 Report # 15 - SCIENCE FOR SALE: THE GLOBAL WARMING SCAM
http://www.aim.org/publications/aim_report/2002/15.html |
I'll check out your links. |
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
Jerry Fletcher
Joined: 21 Jan 2006
Posts: 837
Location: Studio BS
|
| Posted: Tue Jun 13, 2006 6:49 am Post subject: |
|
|
Here's another article from Robert Felix's site Not by Fire, but by Ice. Felix is referenced by David Bellamy, the guy Fintan interviewed on his 'Global Cooling' show.
| Quote: |
What’s the truth on global warming? Blame the sun
8 Jun 06 – “Ever since the 1970s,” says this weather service website, “we have
heard that burning fossil fuels is changing our climate. In the 1970s, we heard that
fossil fuels were creating dust in the atmosphere and therefore, blocking sun
energy. Now we are hearing that CO2 'traps' heat. This is true, CO2 does lead
to a warmer climate but because Earth is so complex we can not simply say X
amount of CO2 will result in X amount of warming. The media makes the problem
worse by only reporting on the extremists and their so called "research".
“There are many things that we do not understand as of yet. Solar activity is
probably the main source of the warming we have been seeing the past 100 years.
As solar activity rose in the late 1800s/early 1900s, so did the temperature.
Maybe we should have invented the automobile in the mid 1950s so we could
have seen that Earth was on a warming trend without cars. When one looks at
the 'hockey stick' temperature graph that was presented to the public, it looks
like fossil fuels must be the cause. [However], when we look at solar activity
and the global temperature, we can see that it follows very closely.
”We keep hearing reports that we have reached some sort of "tipping point".
No we haven't. If solar activity were to take a dive tomorrow, the temperatures
would cool significantly. Solar activity has overpowered any effect that CO2 has
had before, and it most likely will again. In fact, we should be more afraid of a
cooling trend because of a solar minimum that will peak in 2030 that could be
fairly large. As we saw from a minor solar minimum in the mid 1900s, the
Earth suddenly started to cool. If we were to have even a medium sized solar
minimum, we could be looking at a lot more bad effects than 'global warming'
would have had.
“Its hard to find an article on global warming that doesn’t say "projected" or
another word that means projected. How can we possibly believe we can predict
the future using a climate model? We do not understand a lot of what goes on.
The answer is that we can not believe what we see in these models because a
lot of the variables are missing.
“I'm not saying that Earth won't continue to warm and that we are causing it,
but what I'm saying is that we can't be so sure. My personal belief is that solar
activity and other natural factors are the main cause and CO2 is only a small
part of this.
Update: The May temperature data is in. Globally, May was +.2C above normal.
Northern hemisphere was +.6C above normal and the southern hemisphere went
below normal for the first time in a few years, -.1C. The south pole averaged one
degree C below normal. It’s very strange that the northern hemisphere was so
warm, while the southern hemisphere was so cold. There are some signs that the
global temperature is about to follow the southern hemisphere in the next few
months.
See the full article at: http://www.climatecentral.org/
Climate Central.org is brought to you by The Weather Service, http://www.theweatherservice.com
From: Ocean_Warming
http://www.iceagenow.com/Global_Warming_Truth.htm |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Ormond
Joined: 14 Apr 2006
Posts: 1556
Location: Belly of the Beast, Texas
|
| Posted: Tue Jun 13, 2006 5:52 pm Post subject: |
|
|
As much as I've looked to confirm, it appears that the heighest temperature ever recorded for any part of Antartica was 59 degrees Farhenheit, 5 Jan 1974.
The reading was taken at the Vanda Station, Scott Coast, 49 ft above sea level.
The continent of Antartica has an average elevation of 7,080 ft, which is about 2x the elevation of any other continent. That's a lot of perma-ice.
I'm not a rocket scientist, but how is this massive melting occuring, anyway? Am I missing something?
http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/oa/climate/globalextremes.html
Also, just for FUN, here's a trick question:
No polar bear has ever been known to eat a penquin, though polar bears are carniverous and penguins are quite edible (and tasty).
Why hasn't a polar bear ever eaten a penquin?
_________________
The anticipated never happens. The unexpected constantly occurs |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Jerry Fletcher
Joined: 21 Jan 2006
Posts: 837
Location: Studio BS
|
| Posted: Tue Jun 13, 2006 6:16 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Thousands of years ago, as the violence of the bear / penguin wars ravaged the frozen wastelands, wealthy elite members of the polar bear and penguin banking industry formed a secret society and agreed to manage conflicts behind the scenes for their own benefit, as long as the bears promised to remove penguin McNuggets from their fast food menus.
Then the polar bears went to live at the north pole, and the penguins waddled off down south.  |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Ormond
Joined: 14 Apr 2006
Posts: 1556
Location: Belly of the Beast, Texas
|
| Posted: Tue Jun 13, 2006 11:02 pm Post subject: |
|
|
THAT'S RIGHT!
But it's even more evil than people can imagine....
Both the bears and penquins carry the bloodlines of a common alien race..........the dolphins..........
_________________
The anticipated never happens. The unexpected constantly occurs |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
atm
Joined: 16 Apr 2006
Posts: 3861
|
| Posted: Sat Jul 08, 2006 8:26 am Post subject: |
|
|
Also, just for FUN, here's a trick question:
No polar bear has ever been known to eat a penquin, though polar bears are carniverous and penguins are quite edible (and tasty).
Why hasn't a polar bear ever eaten a penquin?[/quote]
Either the polar bears or the penguins don't have enough air miles...oops, just noticed the other posts.
atm  |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Paulo_Freire
Joined: 07 Mar 2006
Posts: 204
|
| Posted: Thu Aug 03, 2006 11:36 pm Post subject: Making fun of penguins ties you in with the elites |
|
|
I just saw on Olbermann how there is some video making fun of Al Gore allegedly produced by people affiliated with the oil industry. They use penguins. I know it's tough to argue with this vast section with all your posts proving global warming is a hoax. Severe weather? Earth changes? Nothing to see here, move along.
This whole place is fake. It just takes a few months to see. It must suck to see the "911 fakes" on CSPAN and the Vanity Fair article and much more stuff coming out. This place reeks of what it proclaims of others. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Ozregeneration
Joined: 23 Jan 2006
Posts: 485
Location: Big Island Down Under
|
| Posted: Thu Aug 03, 2006 11:48 pm Post subject: Re: Making fun of penguins ties you in with the elites |
|
|
| Paulo_Freire wrote: | | This whole place is fake. It just takes a few months to see. It must suck to see the "911 fakes" on CSPAN and the Vanity Fair article and much more stuff coming out. This place reeks of what it proclaims of others. |
I wouldn'y say that this place is fake. Just sceptical people who I think have been conned onced too often. I wouldn't get too annoyed though, you are still free to believe whatever you like. For now at least.....  |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Continuity
Joined: 16 Jul 2006
Posts: 1716
Location: Municipal Flat Block 18A, Linear North
|
| Posted: Thu Aug 03, 2006 11:57 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Paulo_Freire said:
| Quote: | | Making fun of penguins ties you in with the elites. |
LOL..... ROFLMAO... Now you're reaching....
| Quote: | | It must suck to see the "911 fakes" on CSPAN and the Vanity Fair article and much more stuff coming out. |
Yeah, it did, but not for the reasons that you're implying.
| Quote: | | This place reeks of what it proclaims of others. |
I thought that we dealt with that smell - better get some new Orgone for the Chembusters and Holy Hand Grenades. Do it tomorrow.
Regards,
C.
_________________
The rule for today.
Touch my tail, I shred your hand.
New rule tomorrow.
Cat Haiku |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Nat
Joined: 15 Sep 2006
Posts: 840
Location: minime-rica
|
| Posted: Thu Sep 21, 2006 9:11 am Post subject: |
|
|
...
Last edited by Nat on Mon Mar 22, 2010 9:33 am; edited 2 times in total |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Fintan
Site Admin
Joined: 18 Jan 2006
Posts: 8722
|
| Posted: Wed Sep 27, 2006 7:08 pm Post subject: Earth's Temperatures Near Million Year High |
|
|
Note the frequent use of words like
"could", and "if", and the inevitable "devastating."
LOl What a bunch of speculative bullsh*t.
| Quote: | Study: Earth's Temperatures Near Million Year High
By Michael Bowman Washington 26 September 2006
A U.S. research team says global temperatures are reaching a million year highpoint, and [b]could surpass that peak in coming decades if current global warming trends continue. The scientists say there is still time to combat the swift rise in temperatures, and to delay or even prevent the potentially devastating consequences of global warming, but that time is running out.[/b]
The researchers say global temperatures have been rising by 0.2 degrees Celsius per decade over the last 30 years. They say the rate of increase could accelerate in coming decades if global energy consumption continues to rise, resulting in ever-larger amounts of so-called "greenhouse gasses" being released into the atmosphere.
David Lea is a professor of earth science at the University of California at Santa Barbara and co-author of Global Temperature Change, a report published by the National Academy of Sciences.
Lea, who teamed with researchers from NASA's Goddard Institute for Space Studies, helped derive temperature estimates going back hundreds of thousands of years by studying the chemical content of fossilized microbes. The results, compared with today's temperature readings from land, sea and air, are startling. "There is only, essentially, one time period about 400,000 years ago when temperatures appear to have been significantly - in this case about one degree Celsius - warmer than they are today. So, it becomes a very interesting baseline, or metric, for comparison of just where we are in terms of our global temperatures today compared to where we have been over the last million years," he said.
If current warming trends continue, the earth would surpass the million-year temperature highpoint at some point near the middle of this century.
Lea acknowledges that a 0.2 degree temperature rise over a decade may sound trivial to some. "Point two degree Celsius per decade does not sound that dramatic in the human context of what we experience every day or every season [in temperature variation]. But when we look globally, that is actually quite significant," he said.
The researcher says even minute temperature changes can have drastic consequences. "The melting of the icecaps in, specifically, Greenland and West Antarctica, and the potential to raise sea levels on the order of several meters maybe up to even tens of meters is the thing that we are most concerned about," he said.
Lea also warns of the potential for plant and animal extinctions on a massive scale, as well as more severe weather phenomena, such as hurricanes. The report concludes that, unless greenhouse gas emissions are scaled back over the next 10 years, some of the negative consequences of global warming could become unavoidable.
After years of debate, the scientific community appears to have reached a consensus that global warming is a reality, not just a theory. What remains a point of contention for some is the extent to which climate change is occurring and the degree to which human activity is affecting it. President Bush has urged further study of global warming before implementing any costly measures.
http://voanews.com/english/2006-09-26-voa59.cfm |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Nat
Joined: 15 Sep 2006
Posts: 840
Location: minime-rica
|
| Posted: Wed Sep 27, 2006 7:29 pm Post subject: |
|
|
IT'S TOXIC POLLUTION, POISONOUS FUELS/EXHAUST PRODUCTS, AND HARMFUL FOOD AND FACTORY PROCESSES WE SHOULD BE FIXING
Last edited by Nat on Fri Apr 23, 2010 6:10 am; edited 2 times in total |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
|
You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum
|
|
