I am with Vikingstar on this one. I have listened to the global cooling,ozone,global warming hysteria for a long time. The World has been changing for thousands of years and will contuinue to do so.
Was the last ice age caused by man ?
THE OTHER "GREEN" IN GLOBAL WARMING!
Henry Lamb nails the Environmental Industry leaders
[quote="mirgliP"]...the scientists...[/quote]Every damn one of them? Every scientist in the world? Who pays these "scientists" the grant writers, the gubmint? Why do they have a job and exactly what is their job?
Do we have global temperatures increasing? Probably, and why not, it happened at least hundreds of times before.
And is mankind contributing to the increases?
To what degree. Prove it.
If it is .001% I'd say, "So What!"
If it is 50%, then you win.
By the way, which sector of mankind is actually doing this?
I say it's the third world....rebut?
[i]Editor's Note: The far Left NRCM and Sen. Snowe in sync on global warming[/i]
Maine looks to feds for leadershipBob_Kalish@TimesRecord.Com
There was little surprise...that the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change issued a report...stating definitively...climate change is "very likely" caused by human activity.
[b]"The IPCC makes it plain there is no debate anymore,"[/b] said Dylan Voorhees, clean energy project director Natural Resources Council of Maine. "The international scientific community is clear about what we need to do to avoid the worst consequences of global warming: Stabilize worldwide emissions of pollutants...caus[ing] global warming...."
[quote="Michael Vaughan"]By the way, which sector of mankind is actually doing this?
I say it's the third world....rebut?[/quote]
With all their SUVs, hair spray, junked refrigerators, underinflated tires, power mowers, outboard engines, ...
Attic, it's not me I worry about. I have children and take a longer view. It may be fine to be cavalier about your own interests, but not when these events could impact the earth (and my children and grandchildren) for many generations to come. If the predictions are accurate, there could be massive economic and ecological consequences. It will not be gradual, they say. My grandchildren and their children could see the consequences of our actions or inactions.
If the science doesn't convince you, think of it this way. With this report, the majority of americans will be convinced that global warming is real and is caused by (or significantly contributed to, if that makes you feel better) by human activity. If republicans and/or conservatives continue to deny what the scientific community has deemed real, they will suffer even greater defeats at the ballot box. The PR war has been lost by your side. Either join in the discussion about what to do, or keep on denying that there is a problem.
Democrat, it is clear you are running headlong with the herd! I've tried to focus our attention on what [u]good [/u]will follow from global warming. Instead of handwringing and moaning start to look on the bright side. Right now, with the cowhands of the press, misanthropes, and some of the scientific community herding you and your friends along, you don't seem to stop and think of all the good things that will follow for your descendants, whom you seem to think will suffer. A bit of reason will help temper your angst. Here is a tough task. Sit down and try to think of all the benefits which will follow from global warming (IF IT SHOULD BE TRUE) and think of all the advantages which accrue to those who think humans are the cause of it (IF THAT SHOULD BE TRUE). It is a difficult because right now "The sky is falling" crowd is driving the herd. And there is not much of any reflection on what good [u]must[/u] result from these alleged things. There are business opportunities tied up with this. This difficult task can help you ease your mind. I guarantee it! :P You see I am not very sceptical about what the scientific group says about the warming aspects. I am very suspicious about the human bashing part.
Read over Jeff Dunn's piece and take heart that this is just another social frenzy. In addition, It will take years for any of the predicted disasters to come to fruition. Humans will adjust over the centuries it will take. I've heard some experts say we humans cannot change global warming, hence, it seems to be good advice to take the stoics stance and don't be concerned with things not in your (or the U.S.'s) power to change.
There has been a lot of wisdom expressed in this and the other allmost parallel thread on AMG. New York City will not be flooded in three weeks. If islands in the Pacific get inundated perhaps vacationers will come to warm tropical Maine. You need not rush out and by a house high on a hill. Your descendants will be able to grow peaches, bananas, and citrus fruit.
Gee democrat, with your willingness to follow the herd, in another time you might have been right out front burning those witches or rounding up those Jews.
Personally, I look forward to owning ocean-front property.
I remember back in the 1970s my teachers would tell us about the world getting colder and someday Maine will again be ice and snow all year round. The should have stuck to their original lie. Sure the fundraising dropped after some heatwaves proved them wrong but think of the money the liberals could be raising this week with the artic air coming in. Could have been a "see I told you so" moment for them.
it is funny to read folks talk about 'running with the herd', when it appears many of you are simply in another herd running in the opposite direction. reisman may have you all convinced of the 'environmental church', but many of you seem to be joining his cult.
But nothing we believe in REQUIRES anything of you. We don't not want to FORCE you to do anything.
Face up to the fact that you are a latent thug and a bully.
mark...i was wondering, if from anything i have written on amg...you can tell me what my position is on this issue? do you know - for a fact - that i believe there is global warming caused by humans? or global warming at all? please find one quote of mine that has made you come to your conclusions. or are you making some assumptions?
Have I become overly accustomed to you being wrong, to the point of mischaracterizing you on this issue?
i think you have become accustomed to always making assumptions...
Yeah. I don't have any patience anymore. Not a good trend.
Don't forget, in the U.S., the herd rules the ballot box.
just so you know a little more about me...i boycotted gore's whitewash, and am waiting for all the facts (trust me, my liberal friends didn't talk with me for months). do i believe the earth is warming up? yep, but so little in ten years does not make a catastrophe, nor is it proven to be caused by us. i like to have facts, not hysteria, which both sides are good at but since only one side is presented on amg, of course i must take exception.
[quote="democrat"]Don't forget, in the U.S., the herd rules the ballot box.[/quote]
Yes. Too bad the Constitution has been perverted for the last 100 years. Once it protected us from nonsense.
I guess I don't understand your derision of Flam's list and Reisman's posts, Indy. They both seem to be saying the same things as you. What you say makes sense to me.
Editor's Note: Sorry. Image too wide, distorting thread. If you can resize it you can repost.
flam's list was full of nonsense...neither this, nor that, yet presented as some kind of damning evidence to the new study. i'm not saying the folks listed are not smaht...just the quotes were quite stoopid.
reisman simply is looking for cultists...his own church really isn't much different from the one he dismisses.
This will bring up 219,000 years of temperature variation.
Thousands of years before present time is horizontal. Change in temperature (C) is vertical.
It was very warm 130,000 years ago.
What is most striking about the graph is the abrupt warmings at the close of the glaciations. But what is most interesting is the comparison between the years following the warm up 130,000 years ago and the years following the warm up 15,000 years ago.
132,000 years ago there was a spike upwards and then an immediate, gradual cooling. Serious cooling. 20,000 years of cooling.
At the close of the glaciation 15,000 years ago there was a spike upward, but then a prolonged period of relative stasis, which we are still in.
It is in this 10,000 year period that human kind developed agriculture and civilization.
When looking at 219,000 years of earth temperature history, it is the current, lengthy period of relative temperature stasis that is out of the ordinary.
The list, INDY, is intended only to establishe that there are scientists of considerable stature who dissent from the consensus. That they come from a variety of scientific disciplines. That the issue, for them is not the fact of global warming, but its causation. The quotes I selected were intended to convey a flavor of their skepticism.
Your urgent need to play the smart-alec has led you astray.
[quote="democrat"] The PR war has been lost by your side. Either join in the discussion about what to do, or keep on denying that there is a problem.[/quote]
Actually, I plan on testifying, speaking, writing and just possibly litigating. I'm perfectly willing to be accountable for my actions. That's not the case for those advancing this.
[b]How much global warming will these actions prevent, and at what cost?[/b] Still no honest answers. because it's about [i]not [/i]being accountable.
As far as Indy's view that I'm promoting some [i]other[/i] religion- Would that be economic and political freedom, and a preference for limited government? [i]Mea culpa[/i], and RIP Milton Friedman and Julian Simon. I vastly prefer them to Rachel Carson.
Climate of Opinion
The latest U.N. report shows the "warming" debate is far from settled.
Monday, February 5, 2007 12:01 a.m. EST
Last week's headlines about the [UN's] report on global warming were typically breathless, predicting doom/human damnation like the most fervent religious evangelical. Yet the real news...from the...IPCC may be how far it is backpedaling on...key issues. Beware claims the science of global warming is settled.
The document...was only a short policy...summary.... Written mainly by policymakers (not scientists) [with] a stake in the issue, the summary was long on dire predictions.
That same image was posted earlier in a similar thread w/out incident. Wa hoppen?
I am wondering what some of those who've weighed in on this topic think of Exon Mobile's offer of $10,000 to anyone who would come up with "science" that would refute global warming?
Why not? Everyone must be paid for their work. The scientists accepting gov't grants and academic salaries are being paid. And the institutional bias is decidely tilted toward the crisis conclusion that serves larger gov't.