In 2006 Al Gore said we have 10 years until:
global warming may soon lead to catastrophic sea level rises, which could inundate cities such as New York (flooding the former site of the World Trade Center), producing scary nonlinear runaway spasms of extreme weather (bigger, badder hurricanes and typhoons), global pandemics and, depending on where you live, torrential rains or decade-long drought.
University of Pennsylvania Professor J. Scott Armstrong bet him that he was wrong:
He suggested a 10-year bet for which he would forecast no long-term trend in climate, while Mr. Gore could chose forecasts from any climate model.
Gore declined to take the bet of course but Armstrong has been updating the bet nonetheless. Guess who is winning?
Have we seen coastal communities submerged underwater in the last 8 years since his proclamation?
Nope.
In 2008 Gore said the North Pole could be ice free by 2013.
His alarmism has been wrong on so many accounts but now look who has stepped in to take over manbearpigs mantle? Mr. John Kerry.
He gave a speech last week (video here) in Indonesia full of Gore type alarmism. He said Jakarta would be half submerged (sound familiar?) due to man-made global warming and he also referred to man-made global warming skeptics as belonging to the “Flat Earth Society”
Now Professors of Atmospheric Science Richard McNider and John Christy take him to task in the WSJ:
In a Feb. 16 speech in Indonesia, Secretary of State John Kerry assailed climate-change skeptics as members of the “Flat Earth Society” for doubting the reality of catastrophic climate change. He said, “We should not allow a tiny minority of shoddy scientists” and “extreme ideologues to compete with scientific facts.”
But who are the Flat Earthers, and who is ignoring the scientific facts? In ancient times, the notion of a flat Earth was the scientific consensus, and it was only a minority who dared question this belief. We are among today’s scientists who are skeptical about the so-called consensus on climate change. Does that make us modern-day Flat Earthers, as Mr. Kerry suggests, or are we among those who defy the prevailing wisdom to declare that the world is round?
Most of us who are skeptical about the dangers of climate change actually embrace many of the facts that people like Bill Nye, the ubiquitous TV “science guy,” say we ignore. The two fundamental facts are that carbon-dioxide levels in the atmosphere have increased due to the burning of fossil fuels, and carbon dioxide in the atmosphere is a greenhouse gas, trapping heat before it can escape into space.
What is not a known fact is by how much the Earth’s atmosphere will warm in response to this added carbon dioxide. The warming numbers most commonly advanced are created by climate computer models built almost entirely by scientists who believe in catastrophic global warming. The rate of warming forecast by these models depends on many assumptions and engineering to replicate a complex world in tractable terms, such as how water vapor and clouds will react to the direct heat added by carbon dioxide or the rate of heat uptake, or absorption, by the oceans.
We might forgive these modelers if their forecasts had not been so consistently and spectacularly wrong.
…“Consensus” science that ignores reality can have tragic consequences if cures are ignored or promising research is abandoned. The climate-change consensus is not endangering lives, but the way it imperils economic growth and warps government policy making has made the future considerably bleaker. The recent Obama administration announcement that it would not provide aid for fossil-fuel energy in developing countries, thereby consigning millions of people to energy poverty, is all too reminiscent of the Sick and Health Board denying fresh fruit to dying British sailors.
I must disagree with McNider and Christy with one point. “Consensus” science is most certainly endangering lives. Stifling the economy here and abroad will force millions into poverty which most certainly endangers lives. But overall they do a good job of taking apart Al Gore…oops, I mean John Kerry, with his alarmism.
See author page
@ilovebeeswarzone: #44
Politicians quit caring about the people many years ago. Their goal is more power and more money for themselves.
@Nanny G: #48
Idaho used to be a lumber producing state. Now, even our toothpicks come from China. Fire officials have complained for years about not being allowed to go into the federal forests and clean out the dead treas. I couldn’t believe how many trees there are to climb over when we go out on a Search And Rescue call. Some of the trees have even fallen on each other, but they can’t be harvested.
This president is bent on destroying the USA. For those who don’t think so, how many programs that the obama administration has come up with actually helps the people? I challenge the liberals to list them. The only people who obama is helping are the illegals and citizens who want the free stuff he is giving them.
On the other hand, look at all of the federal programs this administration has created that only took money from one group and gave it to another, and the ones who get the money, always seem to be the ones who gave a bunch of money to his campaign.
Smorgasbord
YES WITHOUT ANY DOUBT IT’S TRUE, AND CONTINUE AS IF THERE IS NO TOMORROWS,
what a waste of years,
BYE
Curt why keep mentioning easy targets like Kerry or Gore ? Why not say that the US Navy and the USMC are also totally wrong and have now joined the horrible conspiracy against the right wing ? Why not say that 40% of the GOP believes in climate change? Why just go for the easy targets ?
John
AND WHY NOT? THEY ARE THE ONE TALKING LOUD,
TO PROMOTE THEIR VIEWS,
THEY HAVE SOMETHING TO GAIN,
I AM SCEPTICAL OF THE US NAVY AND THE USMC ,
AND THE 40/CENT OF THE GOP,
IT’S YOUR WORD ONLY, WHY SHOULD WE BELIEVE IT,
WHY SHOULD WE BELIEVE YOU COMING HERE TO ADD THIS TO IT,
WHAT DO YOU GAIN ? TELL US WHO YOU WANT TO COVER?
@Curt:
Okay, so you give me the percentage. I’m not going to argue about the semantics of a survey (or point out the other surveys which point to the same conclusion). Is it 97, 95, 50, 25, 3%? This is indicative of the Denial camp. Without a cohesive body of actual peer-reviewed, published science, all that remains is nit-picking. If your goals is merely to troll thousands of publishes studies looking for a weakness to shine a light on while ignoring everything else, congratulations, you’ll find yourself quite successful. But what does it prove? No one is saying there is a consensus on exactly what is and will happen. We all agree cancer is deadly, but we don’t know how to stop it, or whom it will strike. Does that mean if you find one flawed study on cancer you’ve actually proven cancer doesn’t exist? Where is your research, where are the scientific bodies endorsing it? Why do dozens of esteemed organizations disagree with you? Can anyone explain why the American Association for the Advancement of Science, an international, non-profit organization of over 125,000 scientists founded in 1848, chooses to publicly go on the record in this manner? Are they wrong, is it conspiracy? Now ask yourself the same question about dozens of other scientific bodies.
@oil guy from Alberta:
I would refer you to my previous post. You focus narrowly on this one person or that one study, while ignoring everything else. Does your suspicions of these people or their work actually prove anything scientific? No. Whether this guy or that study is a fraud doesn’t prove anything about Climate Change, not when there are thousands of other peer-reviewed published articles and dozens of other scientific bodies coming to the same conclusion. It’s an exceedingly weak tactic, to focus only on the most flawed or seemingly corrupt individual or study. An argument coming from a strong position, one backed by actual research, would have no issue taking on the strongest Climate Change scientist and research. Instead, we hear about the same incident over and over for years. Meanwhile, actual scientists are working every day and coming to the same broad conclusions.
@DaNang67:
Those are all great, arguable points. Of course none of that has anything to do with denial. I have noticed the shift on the Right lately from outright denial to “we can’t do anything about it”. It’s progress. Reading between the lines, it doesn’t seem like you’re in denial. You raise some important questions. The Right doesn’t have a seat at the table where these decisions are being made because they’re still out back with their heads in the sand. That’s no ones fault but their own.
I don’t have the answer to those questions. And that’s a very fatalistic attitude. There is still possibly time to do something about it. Global warming will potentially displace millions, if not billions of people because of rising sea levels. Giving into that as inevitable is accepting calamity of an unimaginable scale.
This is why I call this partisan and not philosophical. Conservative in other developed nations aren’t in denial. There is something about the American right wing conservative that turns this issue into just another partisan p*ssing match. Whether it’s the perceived fettering of business, or the idea that ‘the government says it’s true, so it can’t be”, or – God help us – “Obama says it’s true, so it must be a lie” I don’t know. But this small island of people effectively control half the government of the most powerful nation on Earth. That’s why we’re doing nothing about it.
@DaNang67:
To elaborate on the fallacy articulated above in the thread (not by you) that this is a “liberal” thing:
President Reagan’s EPA Chief Lee Thomas
Chester Sansbury, a former assistant chief of the S.C. Department of Health and Environmental Control’s Bureau of Water, is an active Republican and conservationist.
William D. Ruckelshaus, Lee M. Thomas, William K. Reilly, and Christine Todd Whitman
Eleven retired three-star and four-star admirals and generals – See more at: http://www.cna.org/reports/climate#sthash.UGDmGBpo.dpuf
@Ditto:
I assume this conclusion wasn’t gathered from your own personal research. Like me, you’re interpreting and synthesizing the work of others and coming to your own conclusion. As I stated in my inital comment, I don’t pretend to be an expert. I simply contend my opinion has both logical and moral weight based on the overwhelming number of scientists on one side of the argument and the stakes. Here is an interesting observation that any denier really needs to consider:
http://tedkaufman.com/ted_kaufman_on/News-Journal-Climate-change-is-too-important-to-ignore
@Smorgasbord:
You’re a rabid Birther, if I’m not mistaken. I wonder what the overlap in Birtherism and Climate Change denial is. I would guess that 99% of Birthers are in the denial camp. If I recall correctly, as evidence that was demanded by Birthers was supplied, it had the strange effect of increasing rather than decreasing their belief in Birtherism. The obvious conclusion is that there is no fact or evidence that can disprove Birtherism among Birthers. is there any reason for me to assume you have a different threshold for evidence in this area?
TOM
you are wrong IT WAS NOT DITTO, it was me who answer to REDTEAM ABOUT THE SUN FLIPPE TO THE SOUTH, SO THE EARTH’S NORTH MUST ALSO BE IN THE SOUTH,IT CAME FROM ME,
AND REDTEAM AND DITTO REPEATED TO ME THAT YES IT WAS THE SUN FLIPPING IN THE SOUTH WHILE THE EARTH’S NORTH IS STILL IN THE NORTH, SHE
STAY WITH HER NORTH, DON’T TRY TO SHOW HIM ANY THING,
HE IS VERY WELL LEARNED ON THAT, AND THE RIGHT WING YOU CALL THEM, DON’T HAVE A SEAT AT THE TABLE WHERE THESES DECISIONS ARE MADE YOU CLAIM BECAUSE THEY ARE STILL OUT BACK WITH THEIR HEAD IN THE SAND,
IS THAT WHAT THEY TOLD YOU AS AN ANSWER FOR YOU TO COME HERE WITH,
YES THIS DOESN’T COME FROM YOUR HEAD,
WELL THE RIGHT WING IS WAY AHEAD OF AL GORE AND KERRY’S BOTH INTENT, GORE WHO BOUGHT A HOUSE ON THE OCEAN FLOOR, AND KERRY WHO SAID IT’S MORE DANGEROUS THAN THE TERRORIST,
YOU DIG THAT LIKE AN IGNORANT, BUT THE RIGHT WING WANT NO PART OF IT BECAUSE
IT’S TOO STUPID BUT SELL ENOUGH FOR PEOPLE TO PUT MONEY IN THEIR DEMAND OF BILLIONS, AND FOR WHAT? STOP THE SUN? IS THAT WHAT THEY WANT TO DO?
AND THAT MONEY COME FROM YOUR POCKET, AND I REPEAT YOUR OWN WORDS HERE
IT’S NO ONE ‘S FAULT BUT YOUR OWN, AND YOU REALLY HAVE YOUR OWN HEAD IN THE SAND, TO BELIEVE A WORD OF WHAT HAS BEEN SOLD BY THEM,
@Tom: Tom, even the least intelligent being can look at a flat curve that depicts AGW in the past 17 years and a steep curve that represents CO2 increases. . If CO2 causes AGW, then both curves should be steeply rising. On the other hand, if the warming/cooling of the Earth are due to solar activity, then the AGW and the CO2 curves will be quite different curves. (That is the case!) The curves are quite different indicating that solar activity has a major impact on the warming of the Earth.
So Tom, are you proposing that we control solar activity? How would we do that? There is quite a difference between the ideology you and so many climate parasites believe in (They also are raking in the government grants!) and simple facts that their theories do not coincide with the facts any ignorant person can grasp. Does that make you less intelligent than an ignorant person or just someone immersed in his ideology and can not see facts?
If you look at those papers you so highly prize, you will find that many real scientists have found major flaws in them. One of the most flawed papers are those authored by Michael Mann.
also added , I THINK, the lost of trees by fire,
by new houses built on sites where trees have to be sacrifice TO HAVE A BARE GRASS LAND,
AND OTHER OF THE SAME MIGHT ADD UP TO HEAT INCREASE AND NOT COUNTING THE SUN PANNELS WHICH COOK THE BIRDS AS THEY TOUCH IT OR COME CLOSE,
ADD TO HEAT INCREASE
AND THE WIND TOWER TURBINE, ALSO KILLING BIRDS AND IT WAS SAID THE BASE OF IT IS AN INCREASE IN HEAT VERY NOTICEBLE, AND I MAY ADD, THE BIRDS WHO ARE KILLED CEASE TO FLY AND BY IT WE LOOSE THE COOLING FACTOR OF THEIR WINGS AS MINIMYSE AS IT COULD BE COUNTED FOR ONE BUT ADD THE MILLIONS OF THEM NOT FLYING , SURELY ADD A LOT MORE THAN WE NOTICE, ECETERA
OH YES THE 11 MILLIONS ILLEGALS ADD, UP TO COMMUNITYS,
HOW ABOUT HIGH RISE BUILDING LIKE MOSQUE HIDDING THE WIND TO COME LOWER PREVENTING A COOLING EFFECT,
THIS LAND IS FOR A POPULATION IT WAS DESIGN FOR,
ADD MORE LIKE 11 MILLION, AND YOU DEPLETE THE POPULATION OF FOUNDAMENTAL NEED TO SURVIVE BY,
ALL THIS, AIR TO BREATH, WIND, COOLING EFFECT, WATER BY RAIN, AND SPACE
@Tom:
you are mistaken. Smorg is a conservative. Birthers are Dimocrats that support Hillary and believe Obama is not a natural born citizen.
@Randy:
,
Randy, just so I understand, are you stating that if the increase in world temperature isn’t in lockstep with the increase in CO2 levels over the last 17 years, that is proof that they are not related?
@Tom:
Apparently you don’t understand your own argument. The fact is, if an increase in CO2 ’causes’ an increase in global temp, then the severe increase over the last 17 years of CO2 would have at least made ‘some’ increase in global temp, but it has not, in fact the temp has actually decreased slightly over that period. That seems simple, but I wouldn’t expect you to understand it.
@Tom: You can name any number of Republicans who are public in their acceptance of the alarmist theories and no one is likely to be impressed except yourself. And you list Generals? Generals? I thought you were once a military man. Most anyone with a little military service should be aware that a General is just someone who, having had the endurance to reach the rank of O-6, honed the practice of ass-kissing to the edge of art. There are exceptions, but a brief study of history will show how rare they are. What on earth would prompt you to list a bunch of bureaucrats, politicians and Generals as if we should respect their opinions?
There is something everybody who reads these posts should understand about Republican politicians, especially those in D.C. It explains the divide between Tea Party people and those we sometimes call RINOs. That is that these folks get their news and information from the Washington Post and the New York Times. When millions of people crowded the public squares for the first Tax Day Tea Party protests, the leftist media all miraculously gave them scant mention and marginalized the participants. When your own Representative returns home and visits the local offices where the program of the day is being implemented, he or she is shown a tidy office full of freshly polished bureaucrats singing and dancing like the cast of Glee. They return to Washington believing the crap laws they pass actually work.
I doubt that very many of the political class actually listen to talk radio or surf the political web. So their worldview is seen through the lens of the dedicated left. Some on their staffs may tell them who to pander to and subjects to avoid or positions to espouse, but most politicians have no real core, and the ones who do are likely to be extremists on either side of the spectrum. Those are sometimes dangerous.
The very fact that this is going on
http://floppingaces.net/most_wanted/alarmist-desperation-reaches-new-high-suggest-rico-style-prosecution-to-shut-down-skeptics/
is proof the ”warmists,” or ”climate change alarmismists” have lost the scientific basis for their argument.
All they have left is thuggery.
Science cannot be based on who has the sword.
It might pretend for a while but scientific proof always wins out.
@Tom: Yes Tom. That is right. If you look at the historical world temperatures, CO2 increases has always lagged warming by about 100 years or more before the industrial age. Do you have any idea what the percentage of CO2 is in the atmosphere? Do you have any Idea how much CO2 is produced by man? CO2 concentrations are .04% of the atmosphere. It is a trace gas. The percent of CO2 generated by man is only 3.2% of the .04% or man generates only .0013% of the atmospheric CO2. So you and your climate parasites want to destroy our economy and way of life for a theory that is only based on computer models that have not been able to predict any actual warming. You need to understand real science before you comment on these pages!
THOSE YOU CALL EXTREMIST ARE JUST THE REGULAR PEOPLE, FAMIY WITH CHILDREN ALL OVER THIS USA
IN LOVE WITH THEIR AMERICA EVEN MORE NOW AND READY TO FIGHT FOR IT, AND THE LAWS OF THE LAND WRTTEN BY THE FRAMERS ONLY,
BECAUSE THEY SEE AN EVIL TRANSFORMATION FROM THE LEFT, AND THE RIGHT WING SO CALL BY THE LEFT,POSESS THE GIFT OF PERCEPTION,
LEADING THEM TO STEP UP A FEW NOTCH IN DEFENSE OF WHAT THEY HOLD DEAR, AND
ON WHAT WILL HAPPEN WITH AMERICA IF NOBODY HAS THE GUTTS TO EXPOSE OUT LOUD THE HATER OUT TO DESTROY LITERALY THEIR LOVING COUNTRY, THEY ARE THE NEW WAVE,
ALERT AND UNAFRAID TO TELL THEIR MIND,
SO THE LEFTIST CAN CALL THEM TEA-PARTY, CONSERVATIVES, IT FIT BETTER, BUT THEY ARE NOT DANGEROUS AT ALL, LESS THAN THE ONE IN POWER,
BUT IF ONE IS A LEFTIST TROLL HERE HE WOULD CALL THEM THE RIGHT WING, THE EXTREMIST,
THEY’LL GO AS FAR AS CALL THEM EXTREMIST TERRORIST,OR MIDDLE EARTH, ANYTHING GOES WITH THE LEFT SLINGING MUDD AS THEIR HABITS, TO SCARE,
WHICH THIS SAME LEFT,ARE THE EXTREMIST OF THIS AMERICA AND NEED TO GO ,
THE FASTER THE BETTER , WITH GOOD RIDDING
@Tom:
(1) My “conclusion” about the swapping of the Sun’s magnetic poles is based on the measurable facts gathered to date from spacecraft readings of the Sun’s magnetosphere as well as reading and understanding the report by various space observation agencies. I hate to burst your whiny bubble, but a part of my background is in meteorological spacecraft sensor data collection and processing. The Sun’s magnetic poles “flipped” in December of 2013, (ie. reversed polarity,) as always happens every 11 years, the last happening in 2001. It’s a normal, common cycle.
(2) My reply wasn’t to you, it was to Bees who asked the question of me. So quite beating your chest and sniveling.
(3) Science is not based on “Peer review” or consensus. It’s based on provable fact.
@Tom:
To be told, by the left, that the science is settled, that there is no debate, and that anyone that believes differently is a member of the Flat Earth Society, will generally influence some kick back. Science is never “settled.” If all the science is on the up-and-up, why do climate change “scientists” want to limit peer review to climate change “scientists?” Why the obfuscation and data gimmicks?
To me it appears that all the government funding for climate change “scientists” is driving the theories instead of science.
Scientific data should be shared, not be subject to FOIA requests. Other scientists should be able to duplicate the work, not shut out of the debate and called deniers.
By the way, the left is killing way more birds by frying them with solar farms http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2560494/Worlds-largest-solar-farm-SCORCHING-BIRDS-fly-it.html and chopping them to bits with wind turbines http://www.washingtonpost.com/national/health-science/wind-farms-under-fire-for-bird-kills/2011/08/25/gIQAP0bVlJ_story.html than the rights so-called desire for dirty air and water.
@Tom: #61
I do believe that obama is an illegal. I also believe that global warming was created to make corporations money. I also believe obama wants to destroy the USA. I always come to my conclusions SEPARATELY. I look at as many FACTS as I can, and many times I take years to decide what I believe to be true. I have found that even people I trusted told me things they knew to be true, but were proven false later.
I can only speak for myself. Show me a REAL birth certificate of obama. This is not a real one:
http://www.flickr.com/photos/35983084@N07/12178804083/
He also is using someone else’s Social Security number. Nobody has ever denied this: Not even obama himself. Don’t you find that strange? His Selective Service registration has been proven to be a fake.
Most of my life I have said, “Give me enough evidence, and I will change my mind on something.” Those, like yourself, who are dedicated to changing other people’s minds to follow your leader, have one goal, and that is to change people’s minds to follow your leader.
@DaNang67: #68
I haven’t found ONE federal politician who has said that they actually looked at obama’s birth certificate. They are saying he is legal to be president, but none of them looked at the certificate themselves, or read anything about why it is fake, or about his using someone else’s Social Security number, or his fake Selective Service registration. This tells me they are all in on it.
PLEASE ASK YOUR POLITICIANS IF THEY HAVE AT LEAST LOOKED AT THE CERTIFICATE.
Smorgasbord
WE SEE IN UKRAINE, what happen when a people collectivly loose credibility of the leader
take away the one who benefit, from it, IT cannot be undone, it only escalate into wanting his head,
and a leader should not ever lies to the people who are the one paying with largesse they do not give themselves, so to have a truthfull leader dedicated to his country as a number one priority,
and the people have a keen eyes on what that leader is doing and wrong is not accepteble,
from him, he is paid too much to have mistakes, Especially with all the people in government he hired, MILLIONS OF THEM IN GOVERNMENT, ALL PAID BY THE PEOPLE,
especialy also with the UNIONS DICTATING HIS DECISIONS TO FAVOR THEMSELVES, BEFORE THE PEOPLE AT LARGE
the credibility is gone and not to come back anymore, BECAUSE HE HAS BROUGHT LIES AND DECEIT AND WRONG DECISIONS
TO A NATION WHO ELECTED HIM WITH GOOD INTENT TO HAVE HIM SUCCEEDING, IN HIS TASK,
BUT HE DECIDE TO PUT HIS OWN MINDSET TOWARD THE WRONG POLITIC NOT FIT FOR THIS COUNTRY
THIS COUNTRY OF HEROS WHO PUT THEIR LIVES ON DEFEATING THE ENEMIES, WHILE THE LEADER IS HELPING THE ENEMY WITH PREVENTING HIS TROOPS TO WIN THE WAR,
now they want to cut down on military the size of WW11, that is unacceptable, AND THE MILITARY SHOULD TAKE OVER BECAUSE OF IT, PUTTING IN DANGER THE PEOPLE HERE AND ABROAD,
AS WE SAW THAT HE DOESN'T EVEN BOTHER TO MAKE SURE HE HAS THEIR BACK,WHEN THE NEED TO BE SUPPORT IS A MATTER OF LIFE AND DEATH, NOT A MATTER OF A VIDEO STORY DONE BY A CITIZEN SO TO EXPOSE THE ENEMY KILLING THE CHRISTIANS ,
THE ENEMY
WHICH THIS LEADER PROTECTED , EVEN AGAINST an AMERICAN who expose that foreign country,
by producing a video to tell of massacre of christians on foreign lands,
Aqua
HI,
thank you for the linkS , very telling,
are we reduce to make the choice Between us or the animals including the birds who get it first,
because they have wings we would like to have,
are we that insensitives as to sacrifice the rest of CREATION TO GET OUR NEEDS,
in creating those facility they never bother to think of consequences on the inofensive animals and all the species of birds DEPENDING ON US, WHOM WE DO NOT OWN,
they are just migrating from other countries to us,
are we deserving A MULTI TRILLION COURT CASE of neglecting to protect,
the smalest of GOD CREATION, this by many other COUNTRIES loosing their BIRDS, WHICH IS MORE IMPORTANT TO THEM TO FIGHT INSECT APOCALYPSE COMMING WITHOUT THE BIRDS,
THIS COURT ACTION COMMING FROM NORTH, SOUTH, WEST, EAST,ALL HABITED BY HUMAN,
ARE WE BECOMING SO LACKING OF SELF DIGNITY, TO RESULT IN BUILDING WITHOUT INCLUDING THE PROTECTION OF BIRDS, BY HAVING SOME KIND OF WALL TO PREVENT BIRDS FROM ENTRING THE HOT PLACES, OR WHAT EVER BETTER, TO SHIELD FROM THE BIRDS, ARE WE SO STUPID OF OVER LOOKING THE CONSEQUENCES OF KILLING BIRDS FOR OUR RANCHS ,OUR FARMS DEPENDING ON BIRDS, and
WHAT ABOUT LOOSING THE MIGHTY AMERICAN EAGLE,
that heat should not stay outside, it should be drawn all inside,
by whatever ways channels or pipes with a strong pull to make it fast to remove any heat on the walls outside permanant,
it can be done and the birds deserve the extra cost and brain power to figure its installation, should have been done yesterday, we won’t take no excuses from the wicked
BYE
@DaNang67:
Fair enough. You can label these people how you see fit. And people may line up on this issue for political reasons, and some of them may be good reason, but that has nothing to do with whether not not global warming is impacted by human activity. The actual science of global warming is indifferent to human motives and beliefs. Al Gore can still be right, even if – from your perspective – he’s right for the wrong reasons, or by accident. And I don’t think a lot of people in the Right understand that. They’ve convinced themselves that Al Gore, or Obama, or whoever, can’t be right – or is willfully lying for gain – s0 therefore the science must be wrong too. Let’s remember that many of the so-called scientific stars in the denial camp are being funded (directly or indirectly) by Big Oil. Does that in and of itself invalidate their work? No. Just like the work of scientists who are funded by, or directed by, an agency you don’t trust is not invalidated in and of its self by that association. At a certain point, you have to contend with the numbers of scientists agreeing, broadly mind you, on the connection between human activity and global warming. And then you have to look at the stakes.
@Aqua:
I think this is an issue of semantics. The only thing that has been labeled as settled is the belief that human emissions are connected to climate change. That’s a pretty broad finding. People who adamantly feel this is not true have convinced themselves that all they have to do is discredit one individual here or one motive there, and they’re vindicated. “I went into it with an open mind, looked at all the data and research, and came to this conclusion”: very few of us can state that. But on the Right, the hyper-partisanship behind the reasoning leaves barely room for a passing nod in science’s direction. It’s just bogeyman after another: Democrats, bureaucracies, internationalism, academic institutions, grant money, Elitism (“experts”), regulation, secularism. I have a feeling that nature is oblivious to all those things, so why they not only enter, but lead every argument from the Right seems quite illogical. I think you raise some fair questions, like DeNang67. But I think it’s an unfair posture to want to influence policy relating to climate change while withholding any buy-in. I hear some Republicans and it’s almost like they’re saying, “I’ll believe in climate change if we do things my way about it. Otherwise, I don’t believe in it”.
@ilovebeeswarzone: #76
I don’t know how far we should go to help the Ukrainians. It seems that the ones we help to succeed, usually turn out to be our enemies later on.
obama wants to be king, not president. How many times has anyone ever heard any other president say, “I’m not a king”? How many times did obama say it? He idolizes anyone who is a king, emperor, or other ruler with near absolute authority, and that is what he is hoping for.
@Smorgasbord:
Of course you think it’s a fake. That was preordained. You and those like you demanded to see it for years, the implication being that producing it would settle the matter entirely. Of course everyone, including Obama, knew that five minutes after it was released, a post would go up on a Right Wing website calling it a fake. This is a hallmark of conspiracy thinking. It’s called confirmation bias. I encourage you to do a little research in these areas.
@Tom: #81
I have been researching it since I first learned about it when obama was running for his party’s nomination to run for president. Since the propaganda media wasn’t reporting on it, and not even Fox News, I had to go to the conservative blogs for info. One thing I had to consider is if it was a conspiracy by the republican party. They are not saints, but they are less likely to use fraud than the democratic party is. That is my opinion.
You liberals seem to believe EVERYTHING your party tells you to believe, but republicans don’t believe everything their party tells them. Since I don’t belong to any party, I don’t have to believe ANYTHING either of them tell me. As I have mentioned many times, I go by FACTS, and FACTS ONLY.
@Tom:
I don’t feel that is the case at all. All I’ve heard is that the science is settled…..end of discussion, dissent needs to be shut down.
I don’t even know any on the right that believe mankind doesn’t have an affect on the climate. We may disagree on the nature and the scope of the impact. And for the most part, the right doesn’t believe we should be paying 30% to 80% more in energy prices when we don’t believe the science is settled. In addition to greenhouse gases and anything else mankind and the planet does to the atmosphere, we have that big ball of fire in the sky that has a very dramatic effect on us. Scientists predicted huge solar maximum in 2012…..didn’t happen. We are in a solar minimum. Part of my work requires the use of GPS equipment, so I go to this site everyday, just as I go to Intellicast for weather everyday: http://www.solarham.net/
Solar minimum.
I’m all for renewable fuel sources. I check on the progress of hydrogen fuel cells all the time. I’m very excited about the new laser sparked fusion reactor. http://www.dailytech.com/Fusion+Reactor+Sees+Power+Gains+for+the+First+Time+Sort+of/article34335.htm
I’m not excited about a government that does almost nothing right dictating to the market what should be done. We end up with crony capitalism and we see the results almost everyday. I don’t believe the people in the tech sector are advancing renewable energy sources solely out of their love for the planet. That may play a part, but I also believe they are in it for profit. And the government is in it for the same reason.
@Tom:
Not true. We asked to see his real birth certificate, not this fraudulent one. Anyone with any brainpower at all can see all the mistakes on it and know it is fake in about 5 minutes. So, no Tom, we didn’t ask to see a fake bc.
Nice sliding of the goalposts all the way from Kerry/Obama’s GWAlarmism being flat-out wrong to birth certificate fights.
But going back to Obama/Kerry.
A wonderful rule of whether something works is the question: what if everybody did it?
So, what would happen if we followed Obama/Kerry’s ideals for fighting climate change?
1. All the raptors in the USA would be killed. That’s all the eagles, hawks, shrikes, falcons and more.
2. Most of the bats in the USA would be killed.
3. All of the tortoises in our deserts would die.
4. Our deserts would become too hot to sustain any life, animal or plant.
5. The effects of these animal deaths would upset the balance of nature on the ground so that moles, voles, field mice, rats, hares and rabbits would over populate the ground then die off in masses as they over eat their niches.
That would collapse our balance of rural to metropolitan life as these wild species would invade civilized areas looking for food in huge numbers.
Why so much death and destruction if everybody did it?
It would take over 1/3rd of our land mass in the USA to place enough solar and wind energy plants to merely keep us at the rates of electricity we use today.
More if we expect to grow our economy at all.
Where’s the good side of this equation?
I heard Kerry/Obama say it might make some sensitive people ”feel good,” knowing they tried.
Thank goodness there are enough people with the brains to look ahead and prevent Obama/Kerry’s feel-good ideals from ever becoming reality.
their heads are so screwed up, they cannot turn to the right,
where the dangers you portrait are definitely a right way, for bringing back the BLACK DEATH, PESTILENCE
AND OTHER GONE AFTER MANY YEARS OF RESEARCH, THE ONE WHICH WOULD RESURGE TODAY WOULD BE STRONGER BECAUSE EVOLVE WITH MANY GENERATIONS, NOW ONLY DORMANT,
@Redteam: #84
To be completely fair to Tom, we should give him extra time to see the truth. Since he isn’t used to hearing or seeing the truth, it will take him longer than experienced truth-seekers to see it when it is in front of him. It is like taking a city slicker on their first deer hunt. You have to get them to forget about looking for a “deer”, and look for an antler, or an ear, or a leg. You usually don’t see the whole deer all at once.
We also have to keep in mind that since Tom and some others are here JUST TO PROMOTE LIBERALISM, they ain’t interested in the truth.
@Aqua:
Far too many renewable energy start-ups were shell companies, created to go after government and private investments, only to go belly up. Many of even the most promising alternative energy companies are now in bankruptcy, are nearly worthless, or have gone into receivership. Surprisingly, with some of the companies, they were working fine until the company leadership changed due to stockholder elections, with new management that run the companies into the red, as well as pump and dump stock speculators. There are IMO few reputable surviving alternative energy companies.
Smorgasbord
yes they are here to collect the data only ,
and discredit the poster while they are at it,
BUT IT DOESN’T WORK HERE,
BYE
@Smorgasbord:
True, only in the Dimocrat agenda.
@Tom: Its exactly the opposite. Every day climate worming or change is being debunked. I see that “dr.” Mann has lost his lawsuit vs Dr. Ball( who stated that Mann’s math was state pen and not Penn State quality). Mann’s tree ring circus had to be brought on trial via discovery proving its buffoonery. Mann is trying to silence his opponents by using the courts. Steyn is going to win his 10 to 20 million in his countersuit for a free press. The skeptics must be silenced. How dare they prove us wrong.
On CNN today, Carol ( Lou ) Costello stated that the 97 % consensus proves the climate commies were correct in their climate change theories and now she will ignore any skepticism. The consensus conclusion is nonsense, she is a brainless teleprompter reader, and CNN is swirling down the drain as far as viewers are concerned. Believe the lies, I don’t. Show me the math.
The warm mongers can spin, flail and wail about semantics and “consensus” all they want, but their experimental design and resulting data are laughably unsupportable. Zero consistency in technique of measurement, distribution of measurement, instrumentation of measurement, roughly a century and a quarter of actual “data” none of which was preserved in it’s raw form to predict a 4.5Billion year old, highly dynamic system, it’s the stuff of comedy.
If gypsy fortune tellers had a pier reviewed journal then tarot would undoubtedly be “settled science”.
@JustAl: that’s peer reviewed by the way.
@JustAl: Dr. Steve McIntyre ( another Canadian ) has been instrumental in getting over 31k scientists to band together and to raise skepticism about the fudged numbers and math methodology. Where the hell is the consensus? This is on Climate depot and Watts up with that. Throw in Dr Lindzen from MIT. Their findings are scrutinized and peer reviewed. The alarmists are giving research scientists a bad name.
@Aqua:
I think I’ve seen evidence on this thread that some on the right don’t acknowledge that connection. I also think there is a strategy on the right to perpetuate a state of manufactured controversy over man’s role in global warming, and it’s been highly successful (and expensive). This goes to my point above that there isn’t a coherent scientific alternative being presented; just seeds of doubt being continuously planted. The narratives change, but the one constant is the belief that man-made emissions aren’t involved. It’s a self-contradicting belief: we don’t really know anything about the causes of global warming, except that it’s definitely not caused by human emissions. Huh?
And if we believe we don’t the cause of global warming, this certainly doesn’t stop us from making rational decisions in our own best interest based on what we do know. 1) We know the Earth’s climate is warming. 2) We know we pump millions of tons of CO2 into the atmosphere each year. 3) We know the impact of global warming could be catastrophic to life as we know it. Armed with only those three facts, even if we can’t prove causality between 1 and 2, would it not be prudent to at least err on the side of causality and move now toward reducing emissions until we do know? To Dick Cheney’s point, if there is a 1% chance to stop another 9/11, you act like it’s a certainty. If you think a plane has been hijacked and is heading for the White House, you don’t demand 100% certainty that it’s a threat and that can be stopped before you scramble the fighter jets. Granted, if global warming is entirely caused by solar flares, or some such natural cause, we can’t do anything about it. But we can do something about human activity. Just armed with those three facts, leaving beside everything we’re being told by scientists all over the world, it seems suicidally illogical to do nothing.
@Tom:
Isn’t that what science is all about? If your hypothesis doesn’t stand up to scrutiny, it just doesn’t deserve any merit. If you have to hide or manipulate data, the same holds true. If the problem is truly as dire as the climate change scientists say it is, shouldn’t the data stand on its own?
Like what. All we hear about is taxes. Carbon taxes on companies, carbon taxes on people. Even the possibility of joining a UN treaty and having even more taxes. Is that the only answer the left can come up with? Take more and more money away from people that make it and give it to people that don’t?
We are building more LNG power plants than ever before. This is in part a market decision, but there are some regulatory issues making coal plants way more expensive to build. Even without the regulatory issues, it is cheaper right now to build LNG plants.
Environmentalists aren’t going to let us build another nuclear power plant. There has been no new construction for nuclear power plants since 1974.
Besides taxing everything and everyone, what do you suggest we do that we aren’t doing already?
@Tom: 95
I’m on the right,, and I’ll certainly admit that humans can start a forest fire with smoke that will cover the highway and cause problems. But how do you distinguish between that fire and one that mother nature starts?
Think about cave men 50,000 years ago, what did they do to the atmosphere that is still here. No matter what humans do, it is always cancelled out over time by nature. It takes a lot of humans many years to do what one volcano can do in minutes. Humans have to be very conceited to believe they can have anywhere near the impact that Mother Nature does.
@Aqua:
Yes to all that, but I’m not talking about scientifically testing the data. I’m talking about sowing doubt in the media and blososphere through established partisan channels on the Right. Why spend all that money on a PR campaign rather than funding scientific research? Again, I ask, where are the credible scientific challenges to the (I won’t call it a consensus, because that bothers people) hypothesis that human emissions are driving global warming? Why isn’t one prominent scientific body or journal or science department championing this view as a plausible alternative hypothesis?
Come on, that’s hardly the only answer bandied around. You’ve already mentioned one other idea: innovation. How do we increase clean energy innovation, energy storage, efficiencies in existing “dirty” fuels. We can cut down on emissions right now through existing technology, not to mention future breakthroughs. I’m all for cash prizes similar to the DARPA challenge which – who knows – could lead to some guy building the world’s best battery in his garage.
And, of course, this part you’re probably not going to like, there is regulation of our existing power plants. It will cut into profits, but emissions can be cut back drastically right now. It takes a will to do so however, and the coal and oil industries have a lot of friends on capital hill.
What’s really interesting though, is this idea of the imminence of a threat. If we knew an asteroid the size of New Jersey was one year away from hitting the Earth, no one would be talking about taxes. The American public and private industries made extraordinary sacrifices during World War II. But it’s just not human nature to feel a sense of urgency about something that is happening gradually, that might not have dire consequences for 50 years.
@Tom:
We do not know that the Earth’s climate is warming. There is no evidence of that.
We do know that we don’t ‘pump’ CO2 anywhere, we know that some processes on Earth liberate some CO2 that is bound in other compounds, but we also know that as soon as it is liberated, it rapidly is consumed by something, such as trees. We know that the % CO2 in the atmosphere has grown only slightly and is not now a historical high. CO2 has been higher in the atmosphere and we certainly can’t blame those other highs on Man. And we all have to just love this statement: ” We know the impact of global warming could be catastrophic to life as we know it.” We KNOW that it COULD. LOL. The fact that global temps have been much higher in the past doesn’t seem to have been catastrophic, does it? Even when the whole earth was covered with water, Noah seems to have survived ok. It’s called ‘planning’.
it would cost less to use the many medias to teach the WORLD,
what they should stop doing TO GET CLEANER AIR AND WATERWAY BOTTOM,
AND LAND POLLUTION.
WHY SHOULD THE USA TAKE ALL THE BLAME ON HER SHOULDER, AND INVEST BILLIONS ON HER OWN
CLEAN UP. OF AIR,
WHEN MUCH OF IT COME FROM ABROAD IN A HIGH CONTENT,
IT DOESN’T MAKE SENSE,
THE FIRST MOVE IS TO EDUCATE ABROAD AND SEE IF ANY EFFORTS ARE MEANINFULL, EFFORTS THAT ARE NOT REQURING MONEY,
I WAS TOLD ONCE THAT PALESTINE IS THROWING ALL THEIR TRASH IN THE RIVER, OLD CARS AND ALL,
THE SAME RIVER WHERE THEY GET THEIR DRINKING WATER, WHERE THEY GET THEIR BATH WATER,
WHERE THEIR CAMELS PISS,
WHERE THEY GET THE COOKING WATER,