Good grief!The sky is falling! The sky is falling!It's
gotten way beyond "silly", not it's just plain stupid. Next it will become
destructive to us as humans....
Wow, what scientific proof or observations do they have to reach their
conclusions? According to geological studies, when ever the earth was really
warm the deserts of the earth disappeared. So how will the Southwest desert get
drier and bigger, when physical geology shows a different observation? Why are
some glaciers advancing and some are retreating? Why has antarctica's ice sheet
been growing for the past 30 years? Why has the earth been cooling since 2001?
May's global temperature in 2009 was .09 degrees Celcius, which was the same as
1979. Why have the oceans cooled for the past 5 years? When was the last
continental record high broken? It was 1974 in Antarctica. Why are all of the
computer models wrong with respect to our current global temps? The answers to
all of my questions are out there, you just have to look int he right places to
What hubris! Just thinking that man's activities, regardless of how massive,
could change the climate is simply self-importance run amok. I remember
head-lines in the 70's proclaiming "The Next Ice Age" was upon us because of
green-house gasses blocking the sun or what-ever. Have our "scientists" looked
at sun-spot activity? No they are too focused on my mode of transoprtaion and
separating me from my money. Has anyone ever read about the Ice Age? Glaciers
covered the continental United States about as far south as Provo. What caused
all that ice to melt...my Suburban? I doubt it.
Climate Scientist Dr. S. Fred Singer, former director of the U.S. Weather
SatelliteService, past vice chairman of the U.S. National Advisory
Committee on Oceans andAtmosphere and global warming co-author of the 2006
book (LINK) UnstoppableGlobal Warming: Every 1500 Years which details the
solar-climate link using hundreds ofstudies from peer reviewed literature
and "shows the earth's temperatures followingvariations in solar intensity
through centuries of sunspot records, and finds cycles of sunlinkedisotopes in ice and tree rings." Singer explained on February 14, 2007,"Good evidence confirms that current warming is mostly part of a natural
climate cycle, mostlikely driven by the sun. The available data show that
the human contribution fromgreenhouse gases is not detectable and must be
insignificant. It is a non-problem. Trying tomitigate a natural warming
(or cooling) is futile and a big waste of money better spent onreal
I can't help but think this liberal thinking is holding us all hostage. What I
think we can do to effect our environment now is not littering and keeping our
lawns and yards looking nice. I also think by conserving water we will be far
better off. We need to take responsibility for ourselves and not be wasteful. I
also like the idea of recycling and controlling how much stuff we throw away.
All those things are good!However I don't agree with the argument
behind global warming! It seems it's the only thing that's worked for
environmentalists and they are taking it as far as they can, especially with our
wallets. It's gotten completely out of hand and we need to be far less concerned
with how we are treating the earth vs. how we're treating each other. Our social
problems (especially our morality) should be far more concerning than whether
more glaciers are melting. The limited research I've done shows there is much to
be speculative about. Nothing is conclusive or definitive in this debate!
Liberals look at this from an entirely incorrect viewpoint.Sadly,
they think that the mankind should serve the earth and not that the earth should
be used for our benefit.They are incapable of seeing the reality of
this truth because so many of them do not even believe in the Being who created
them or the earth they live on.Should we take care of the earth as
best as we can? You bet! It simply isn't right to dump poisonous chemicals
into our rivers or to pollute the air via large factories without thinking about
the consequences of breathing the air we polluted.HOWEVER, does that
mean we all need to stop driving cars, using plastic for soda bottles or make
our own shampoo and soap? Uh, no....Al Gore and other extreme
tree-huggers are idiotic. Next will come larger and larger forms of oppression
(fines, threats, destruction of non-global warming believers' private property,
etc) by the liberals who keep pushing this global warming lie.
"They" are getting desperate. The cap and trade legislation isn't doing well in
Amazing how global warming alarmists, including the White House, will use
anything BUT a thermometer to say mankind is changing the climate. All of their
assertions are dubious at best.U.S. temperatures show very, very
little change over a hundred years, and in fact show cooling the the Southeast.
How is that "climate change?"Climate varies from year to year,
decade to decade, and century to century. Blaming it on mankind is like blaming
earthquakes and volcanoes on industry or politics.
"Liberals look at this from an entirely incorrect viewpoint."I
believe scientist. Conservative thinking scares me.In the seventies
there was the idea of global cooling. Why aren't evil intellectual elitist
scientist running around trying to earn 65k a year researching global
cooling?Global cooling failed peer review like, cold fusion, did.
Every time, I check conservative sources they go to writers in the
employment of Exxon, conservative think tanks and other biased sources. If, I'm a researcher, I might net 65k after I use my grant to pay from
employees, rent and equipment. Exxon will pay me $10,000 a page to deny climate
change. One of conservative's most vocal deniers is a lawyer cashing in on
ignorance.Conservatives would rather believe someone writing for
Exxon that won't be peer reviewed over a scientist. It figures!Energy companies hired the same people who once worked for tobacco companies.
Once, these people promoted smoking didn't cause cancer. Conservative need not fear. Greed will win. Earth will go on spinning without
humans. I honestly believe people will destroy the future for their kids over
risking sacrifice. It all about me, in conservative minds.
Thinkin' Man | 1:21 p.mBut Obama and the progressive movement have
said industry is to blame for all the evils of the world. I would think evils of
the world would include earthquakes and volcanoes.This is why they
want to control all the industries of the world. They want to return the
plunderings back to the trodden on working masses. Wait, no they just want to
keep trodding on the working masses. As for global tempatures which one is
right. I think that anyone posting in support of gw should have to declare the
correct global tempature and identify how many species will be either killed by
the tempature or, from coming into existence through evolution by maintaining
that tempature. If there is no god, how dare you attempt to stop evolution.
Prove who gets paid by exxon. Oh and by the way the tobacco companies hired
"scientists" to state smoking didn't cause cancer. Cause anonymouses beleive
scientists. Scientists developed the theories behind eugenics, the
basis of the final solution in Germany.One of liberals most vocal
supporters of gw is the son of two lawyers, Al Gore cashing in on ignorance.
I also believe scientists, scientists with no political agenda. There are
plenty of legit scientists out there that are not on board with the global
warming scam. A headline yesterday said " glacier in Argentina growning despite
global warming." Will somebody please call this rouge glacier and tell it that
the globe is warming, and to stop growing.
If source of funding creates bias, then "Big Green" is in trouble. I've done scientific research funded by grants from private companies before,
and never did those come with strings attached. All large private companies
give research grants, and they don't stipulate the results. The idea of bias
because of "funding" from Exxon sounds appealing, but doesn't hold water when
you know how grants work.Just mentioning "climate change" in a grant
proposal strongly increases the chances of funding these days. But the grant
givers don't prescribe the results.
We've gotta have this big, scary deal to get us to accept things like nuclear
power after we spent decades convincing ourselves that it was evil. We need
someting bigger and eviler to make us want nuclear power. Oh, and btw, since
nuclear power has the potential to be far cheaper and cleaner that many energy
sources, we need to want it bad enough to pay way more than its worth.
Impending doom sounds like a good enough scare to get the uneducated public
riled up and know-nothing politicians (e.g., Al Gore, John Huntsman Jr.) to
figure out ways to fix things that aren't broken and do it for twice the price.
I say teachers are to blame.
Bull, that's all this article is.
This is just another wrong guess by the Obama administration and scientists who
'cherry pick' the data they want and ignore the data that says there is no man
made climate change. The biggest problem with wrong guesses by this
administration is they are VERY,VERY expensive and will all have to be paid for,
by our grandchildren.
It doesn't matter that it's all a pack of lies. Whatever it takes, they'll push
this through. The U.S. will be the test case and first country to lead out in
imposing the first carbon tax. Eventually, the the U.N. be chartered to be the
enforcer. Did you ever wonder why Al Gore was so agressive in
pushing this non-sense? The important question is what did he have to gain
personally? Can you seriously trust him or any other politician to actually
care about any of this? He's already made millions off of this non-sense.
The economy is suffering now. Global warming is the least of our worries. We
have real problems to deal with now; don't waste time and money on fake problems
that are forecasted to be 666 years away.