Our country cannot afford to indulge climate change alarmists (who bigotedly
accuse anyone who raises legitimate concerns about environmental extremisms as
yes, and if we apply MORE leaches to the patient, they will heal even
quicker.the article promotes quack science
So, I'm confused as to whom I should believe. The Politician who says
there IS global warming? Or an actual real scientist who says there is NOT
global warming...?? hmmm, not sure where to go with this one..
Sigh! People, the average temperature of the earth has not warmed for 16 years!
Study the data if you are not so blinded by liberal ideology that you will not
see it! I don't mean falsified data from the US government agencies who
have their hands in the money! Study independent data from Sweden, Denmark,
Russia others who have no ideological axe to grind, no political score to
achieve or hands in big government's pockets!
It would be a shame to clean the place up for nothing.
NOAA’s data for land and ocean temperature anomalies shows that 14 of the
past 15 years were the hottest on record.Reto Ruedy, a program
manager at NASA's Goddard Institute, told PolitiFact that the
institute’s data shows that 13 of the warmest years have occurred in the
past 15 years. Alternately, one could say that 12 of the warmest years came in
the last 13.The National Research Council, which is among a few
independent, nonprofit U.S. institutions that provide science, technology, and
health policy advice under a congressional charter, issued an analysis in May
2011. A press release summarizing that work opens: "Warning that the risk of
dangerous climate change impacts is growing with every ton of greenhouse gases
emitted into the atmosphere, a" council "committee today reiterated the
pressing need for substantial action to limit the magnitude of climate change
and to prepare to adapt to its impacts."
Truthseeker Once again - selective presentation of factsNOAA has only been around 130 +- years (out of millions of years of climate
history) and their data collection is much different now than in 1883.You also forgot to mention that Dr John Theon formerly in charge of key NASA
climate programs has come out as a sceptic.Dr Theon supervised James
Hansen; the activist who helped give the manmade global warming hypothesis
prominent media attention. Hansen was in charge of the data derived from
readings published by NOAA. His data has received criticism for revising the
historic record upward and making undocumented and unexplained revisions. Theon
also debunks Hansen's claim that he was suppressed by NASA officials, and
states that science simply didn't support Hansen's apoplectic
apocalyptic warnings.Furthermore CO2 is not a poison,it is plant
food,its impact on warming dramatically decreases with concentrations, its
levels being much higher during ice ages, and in 2011, the last year data is
available, all U.S. greenhouse gas emissions were already down 8.5 percent from
2005. Simply responding to changing consumer preferences.
@ counter intelligence"NOAA has only been around 130 +- years
(out of millions of years of climate history) and their data collection is much
different now than in 1883."So? That doesn't make them any
less accurate. Of course data collection methods are going to change over 100
If you were experiencing severe headaches and you visited 100 brain surgeons,
and 97 of them told you that you had a brain tumor that needed immediate surgery
while 3 said they weren't sure so let's wait and see, what would you
do? That's the situation. 97% of all climatologists believe that global
warming is happening, and that human carbon emission are the primary cause. So
go ahead and ignore the 97 and listen to the 3. Not a smart move.
Coal fired power is dirty and damaging - no question. However being a nation
which can't sustain it's own energy needs is crippling. The problem
with Barack Obama is his impractical ideology which tells him to SHUT DOWN ALL
domestic oil production on public land as well as natural gas and Nuclear power.
Follow that with the dismantling of coal fired plants and that puts the US is a
world of hurt. The man WILL NOT compromise and compromise is EXACTLY what is
needed from the president. The US has alot of engery potential - enough to free
us from Saudi Arabia and other foreign oil so the REAL solution is to use ALL OF
OUR domestic energy potential while at the same time investing in research into
alternative energy. Wind power is a joke and so is solar ...at least for large
scale energy production. The technology just isn't there yet. This has to
be a 'phased approach' and not a all or nothing approach. We
DESPERATELY NEED a practical governing president in the White House - a leader
and a manager. We have neither.
One side note...On a recent trip to Lake Powell we took a tour
through the Glenn Canyon dam. There is a Coal Fired power plant just a few miles
away from the dam that produces more than double the amount of power that the
dam does and this is needed for California and the HUGE energy demand of that
region. Take the coal fired plant offline and Southern California goes dark....
I have to wonder what the Hollywood flakes would say about that??? Again - there
is such an ignorant hysteria out there regarding energy that is fueled by Barack
Come on, Republicans. Let's tidy up the nursery. President Obama's
giving you a spoonful of sugar in the form of incentives for clean power plants.
You don't want to choke on your gases, do you?
re:Irony GuyClean power plants?? You mean solar plants or wind? HA!!
Do you have any idea the power generation capacity of a solar plant or wind? You
couldn't even run a small town on solar let alone tens of millions of LA
and Phoenix. Join the 'real' world guy and do some research for heaven
On a geological scale, I'm not sure anything is out of the ordinary in
regards to climate. If there is, I tend to think it's due to fluctuations
in the earth's magnetic and radiation belts that allow more and less solar
particles into the atmosphere over time. Not much impact on that from humans and
certainly nothing us humans can do about controlling it. Also,
there's nothing that mankind puts into the atmosphere that did not come
from the earth and that Mother Nature will not put back into the earth. I
believe that the Earth's natural resources were meant to be used properly
to benefit all of us. Shutting down the use of the earth's resources is a
hinderment to the stability and advancement of mankind. So, use away -
Re:CounterIntellYup, i was providing alternative FACTS (glad we
agree they are facts), to the claim that the climate is not warming. You accuse me of "selectivity" and then go on to do the same. LolAs for John Theon:NASA scientist Gavin Schmidt wrote:
"Dr. Theon appears to have retired from NASA in 1994, some 15 years ago.
Until yesterday I had never heard of him (despite working with and for NASA for
the last 13 years). His insights into both modelling and publicity appear to
date from then, rather than any recent events. He was not Hansen's
'boss' (the director of GISS reports to the director of GSFC [Goddard
Space FlightCenter], who reports to the NASA Administrator)." Hansen: "John Theon Never Had Any Supervisory Authority Over Me." In
an email to blogger M.J. Murphy, Hansen wrote: "John Theon never had any
supervisory authority over me. I remember that he was in the bureaucracy at NASA
Headquarters, but I cannot recall having any interactions with him. His claim of
association is misleading, to say the least."Jim Hansen was head
of an entirely (higher) different division than theon. Theon was head of the
Tropical Rainfall Measuring division.
What about the 'denyers' of the damage done by immoral choices!
Should I call them a bigot for denying those choices? The Global warming crowd
is the same crowd that promoting a new ice age back in the 70s. They had
'respected' scientists woefully telling us about that then. The
Malthusian crowd will be with us forever. Edwin Hubble said the Universe was
expanding. Perhaps we should stop that too-with a government program, of
Why is the picture of a smokestack belching a large amount of smoke or steam and
surrounded by and obscured by more smoke or steam. I leave in Carbon county and
we have four power plants here and in Emery county. This is not what they look
like. Why does the paper use a image that is not true anymore. I remember when
I was a child that we had constant haze around our communities due to the use of
coal being burned to heat our homes. Now we have these power plants that
produce much but with little visible pollution. We need to use some common
sense. The world has been undergoing changes over the length of its history.
For the coal to form the valley here was a inland sea. The hills we have
testify of this fact. They are littered with ancient sea shells. This means
that we have to deal with changes in our environment and learn to care for it
and not try to keep it at a preconceive condition.
Global Warming Deniers remind me of 2 groups of people from the past....The "World is definitely Flat", orThe one's
mocking Noah for building an ark when it wasn't raining.
@JBT" The Politician who says there IS global warming? Or an actual
real scientist who says there is NOT global warming...??"Most
climate scientists believe there is anthropogenic global warming.@Mountanman"People, the average temperature of the earth has not
warmed for 16 years! "Climate science uses 30 year climate
norms. You use 16 years so you can start your set at the warmest El Nino in half
a century and ignore the fact that 12 of the 14 warmest years in the 100+ year
dataset are in the 21st century.@banderson"The Global
warming crowd is the same crowd that promoting a new ice age back in the
70s."No, most jounral articles back then in the scientific
literature were talking about warming (see: "The Myth of the 1970s Global
Cooling Consensus"). For the record, one of the main influences for the
flattening of the temperature trend in the 50s-60s was due to the increase in
aerosols in the atmosphere by human sources. Aerosols have a cooling effect and
resulted in an anthropogenic negative influence on temperature via global
dimming but also caused pollution problems. We passed laws to clean up the
pollution problem, reducing the negative influence.
"Coal-fired plants produce 1/3rd of all greenhouse gasses" - it's
statements like this that make the claims for global warming so unbelievable for
those who have actually paid attention during high school science courses, and
who don't have a financial or political stake in proving/believing that
global warming is human caused.CO2 constitutes about 0.0397% of the
atmosphere. Other "greenhouse" gasses include methane, nitrous oxide,
and ozone, which are a much smaller percentage, and water vapor, which is a much
larger percentage, approximately 0.25 percent as a global average, though it can
be as high as 5% in humid hot locations. Therefore "greenhouse" gasses
(which, by the way, make almost all life on Earth possible) are about 0.2897% of
the atmosphere. Recently, due to human activity (chiefly the production of
energy from "fossil" fuels), C02 concentrations have risen as high as
0.04 percent - an increas of 0.0003%. It is possible that 1/3rd of this
increase, or 0.0001% of the atmosphere, could be attributed to coal fired
electric plants. 0.0001/0.29 is 0.0003448. 1/3 is 0.3333333. You can see the
gross exaggeration of this editorial.
@Jon W."Recently, due to human activity (chiefly the production of
energy from "fossil" fuels), C02 concentrations have risen as high as
0.04 percent"Its share of the total atmosphere (which is small)
is not as relevant as its' share of the greenhouse gases (roughly 14% when
comparing the 0397 you note to the .2897 you used as a rough baseline for total
GHGs) or its' own change over the years since it's gone from 300 to
400ppm over the past century, a 33% increase.
Jon W,Playing with a pocket calculator isn't remotely the same
thing as genuinely evaluating climate science.Our atmosphere
hasn't held 400 ppm of CO2 in at least many, many hundreds of thousands of
years. The changes in temperature, and the resulting changes in climate, that
rapidly increasing levels of atmospheric CO2 are causing are happening a speeds
to which natural systems have no chance of adapting.Arctic sea ice
is shrinking at record rates. Glaciers are retreating at record rates. The
ocean is acidifying at record rates. These are observed facts.
Just one question: What warming?
"Just as the nation cannot afford to humor climate-change deniers, it cannot
allow the carbon output of its worst greenhouse gas emitters to continue
unchecked."------------------Ya'know, it is
slimy tactics, like using the term "deniers" (with its obvious and
completely inappropriate allusions to holocaust "deniers") which makes
me most skeptical of the entire global warming/change crowd.When
people resort to nonsense like that, even more than when it is revealed that
there has been some data manipulation, I tend to suspect their is more politics
than science involved. And **that** corruption of science that has me most
There's a reason that recent years are among the "n hottest years on
record" - that's what happens when the planet reaches the peak of a
natural warming cycle, and when the amount of data we have only spans one or two
60-year cycles.Keith Briffa just republished his Yamal series, but
this time left out the garbage that previously - and erroneously - produced a
hockey stick graph. Guess what? No hockey stick this time.And the
recent paper "proving" that 97.1% of published papers support
human-caused catastrophic global warming? I would be embarrassed to publish a
paper so obviously flawed in its methodology and its conclusion.I
think all climate scientists consider atmospheric CO2 to be a greenhouse gas
that, at least in theory, ought to cause some amount of warming. How much?
Nobody can say because nobody has succeeded in correlating atmospheric CO2 to
temperature. The effect is too small to measure. So why are we worrying about
it? Why are we proposing to dramatically increase the cost of energy (and thus
lower our standard of living) to solve a non-problem?
Sensible ScientistRexburg, IDJust one question: What
warming?8:51 p.m. June 28, 2013========== ...asks
the self called "Sensible Scientist" on the day with the hottest
temperature for the month of June EVER recorded....
Utah's all-time highest temperature was 117 degrees, which it doesn't
look like we'll reach during this hot spell. The current record was set on
july 5, 1895. If a person wishes to blame today's high temperature on
global warming, then what, pray tell, is the reason that we've seen these
kinds of high temperatures throughout Utah's recorded history, and how are
today's temperatures any different?Can any of you global
warming promoters show any correlation between atmospheric CO2 and temperature?
If so, you should publish it, because nobody else has been able to establish any
@bandersenSaint George, UTThe Global warming crowd is the same
crowd that promoting a new ice age back in the 70s. 1:25 p.m. June 28,
2013=====You are confusing that with "Nuclear
Winter".which - also - happens to be a man-made threat to global
I con only imagine the cost of wind or solar maintenance. not to mention the
cost to to it.
Hey, I'll gladly support the 'Global warming' theorists if they
will be the first ones to volunteer to use ropes to pull the turbines! In the
absence of volunteers, I fall back to an original truth; Liberals love to
volunteer everyone else to do the job, but won't do it themselves. When
they are willing to abide by the same rules as everyone else, I'm there!
Don't hold your breath! It will be a long, long, time.
re: Mountanman "Sigh! People, the average temperature of the earth has not
warmed for 16 years! " But then why does the north polar icecap continue to
contract? Why is the Alaska permafrost disappearing? Why are seawalls being
built to protect Eskimo villages on the coast from flooding? Just asking.
@marxistThe Arctic ice cap contracts every summer and regrows every
winter. If you were to check the ice extent data, you would find that it's
comfortably within normal values. The most recent unusual melting episode was
the result of shifting ocean currents, not increased air temperatures, and it
was followed by a faster-than-usual refreeze.If seawalls are being
built to protect Eskimo villages, they are the result of misguided politicians
responding to scientists who tell them precisely what they're being paid to
tell them (as opposed to telling them what's really happening) - in other
words. Think of them as SeaWalls to Hold Back Nothing, which are a nice
complement to the Bridge to Nowhere.