David Morton
Lifetime Supporter
This has to be probably the most far reaching indictment of Copenhagen and all it means. What a total chirade. What a farce.
Climate change
- Thread starter Pete
- Start date
Pete McCluskey.
Lifetime Supporter
Yep! Follow the money.:furious:
<title></title><style type="text/css"> BODY,.aolmailheader {font-size:10pt; color:black; font-family:Arial;} a.aolmailheader:link {color:blue; text-decoration:underline; font-weight:normal;} a.aolmailheader:visited {color:magenta; text-decoration:underline; font-weight:normal;} a.aolmailheader:active {color:blue; text-decoration:underline; font-weight:normal;} a.aolmailheader:hover {color:blue; text-decoration:underline; font-weight:normal;} </style>From Dick Morris.com
U.S. HALF WAY TO KYOTO GOALS - WITH NO GOVERNMENT REGULATION
By DICK MORRIS & EILEEN MCGANN
Published on DickMorris.com on December 10, 2009
Printer-Friendly Version
The worst nightmare of the left is about to come true: The United States is about to achieve the carbon emissions goals set by the 1997 Kyoto Accords. Once seemingly beyond reach, the United States is already half way toward meeting the stringent Kyoto goals for reduction in carbon emissions without a cap and trade law or a carbon tax or carbon dioxide being declared a pollutant.
Environmental nightmare? Yes. The goals of the climate change crowd are not reduction in global warming but the enactment of a world-wide system of regulation which puts business under government control and transfers wealth from rich nations to poor ones under the guise of fighting climate change. Should the emissions come down on their own, as they are doing, the excuse for draconian legislation goes, well, up in smoke.
<table border="0" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="3"> <tbody> <tr> <td valign="top" width="20%">
</td> <td><article text="">The facts are startling. In 1990, the year chosen as the global benchmark for carbon emissions, the United States emitted 5,007 millions of metric tons of carbon (mmts). Kyoto specified that emissions must be reduced to a level 6% lower than in 1990. For the U.S., that means 4,700 million metric tons.
American carbon emissions rose year after year until they peaked in 2007 at 5,967 mmts. But, in 2008, they dropped to 5,801 and, in 2009, the best estimate is for a reduction to 5,476. So, in two years, U.S. carbon emissions will have gone down by more than 500 mmts - a cut of over 8%.</article></td></tr></tbody></table>
President Obama has pledged to bring the U.S. carbon emissions down by 17%. He's halfway there.
A combination of the recession and an increased emphasis on cutting emissions is working and may make onerous regulation unnecessary and even redundant.
How can we achieve the other half of the hoped for reduction?
If 60% of American cars were electric, the net savings in carbon would be 450 mmts (even counting the coal burned for the higher levels of electricity required). And if one-third of the truck fleet ran on natural gas, the carbon savings would add another 150-200 mmts.
The point is that public education and increased environmental consciousness - the normal way we Americans respond to challenges - may suffice without the need for government regulation. And what persuasion fails to achieve, higher gasoline prices will do for us - move people to buy electric cars.
Good news huh?
Not if you are a socialist banking on climate change as the banner to regulate all utilities and industries in the world. Their game plan is to use the financial crisis to regulate white collar businesses like banking, insurance, and finance while using fears of climate change to extend government regulation to the blue collar trades.
Former U.S. Ambassador to the United Nations, John Bolton calls cap and trade a "massive redistribution of wealth from the north to the south" (i.e. from the developed northern hemisphere to the less developed southern half of the globe). What the globalists and the one-world crowd had hoped to achieve by foreign aid, they now seek to bring about by cap and trade, forcing businesses and utilities to pay rural societies for the right to pollute with carbon.
But market forces are accomplishing what they are hoping only regulation can achieve. And the rationale for the global system of regulation being negotiated at Copenhagen is being made unnecessary even as the agreement is being hammered out.
There is a great deal of justified skepticism about the entire question of whether climate change is going on and, even more, how much human activity is contributing to it. But while the world divides into those who demand global regulation to fight climate change and those who say it isn't happening, there is now an inconvenient truth -- the market is taking care of the problem on its own.
Give Mike Huckabee for Christmas
U.S. HALF WAY TO KYOTO GOALS - WITH NO GOVERNMENT REGULATION
By DICK MORRIS & EILEEN MCGANN
Published on DickMorris.com on December 10, 2009
Printer-Friendly Version
The worst nightmare of the left is about to come true: The United States is about to achieve the carbon emissions goals set by the 1997 Kyoto Accords. Once seemingly beyond reach, the United States is already half way toward meeting the stringent Kyoto goals for reduction in carbon emissions without a cap and trade law or a carbon tax or carbon dioxide being declared a pollutant.
Environmental nightmare? Yes. The goals of the climate change crowd are not reduction in global warming but the enactment of a world-wide system of regulation which puts business under government control and transfers wealth from rich nations to poor ones under the guise of fighting climate change. Should the emissions come down on their own, as they are doing, the excuse for draconian legislation goes, well, up in smoke.
<table border="0" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="3"> <tbody> <tr> <td valign="top" width="20%">
</td> <td><article text="">The facts are startling. In 1990, the year chosen as the global benchmark for carbon emissions, the United States emitted 5,007 millions of metric tons of carbon (mmts). Kyoto specified that emissions must be reduced to a level 6% lower than in 1990. For the U.S., that means 4,700 million metric tons.American carbon emissions rose year after year until they peaked in 2007 at 5,967 mmts. But, in 2008, they dropped to 5,801 and, in 2009, the best estimate is for a reduction to 5,476. So, in two years, U.S. carbon emissions will have gone down by more than 500 mmts - a cut of over 8%.</article></td></tr></tbody></table>
President Obama has pledged to bring the U.S. carbon emissions down by 17%. He's halfway there.
A combination of the recession and an increased emphasis on cutting emissions is working and may make onerous regulation unnecessary and even redundant.
How can we achieve the other half of the hoped for reduction?
If 60% of American cars were electric, the net savings in carbon would be 450 mmts (even counting the coal burned for the higher levels of electricity required). And if one-third of the truck fleet ran on natural gas, the carbon savings would add another 150-200 mmts.
The point is that public education and increased environmental consciousness - the normal way we Americans respond to challenges - may suffice without the need for government regulation. And what persuasion fails to achieve, higher gasoline prices will do for us - move people to buy electric cars.
Good news huh?
Not if you are a socialist banking on climate change as the banner to regulate all utilities and industries in the world. Their game plan is to use the financial crisis to regulate white collar businesses like banking, insurance, and finance while using fears of climate change to extend government regulation to the blue collar trades.
Former U.S. Ambassador to the United Nations, John Bolton calls cap and trade a "massive redistribution of wealth from the north to the south" (i.e. from the developed northern hemisphere to the less developed southern half of the globe). What the globalists and the one-world crowd had hoped to achieve by foreign aid, they now seek to bring about by cap and trade, forcing businesses and utilities to pay rural societies for the right to pollute with carbon.
But market forces are accomplishing what they are hoping only regulation can achieve. And the rationale for the global system of regulation being negotiated at Copenhagen is being made unnecessary even as the agreement is being hammered out.
There is a great deal of justified skepticism about the entire question of whether climate change is going on and, even more, how much human activity is contributing to it. But while the world divides into those who demand global regulation to fight climate change and those who say it isn't happening, there is now an inconvenient truth -- the market is taking care of the problem on its own.
Give Mike Huckabee for Christmas
Pete McCluskey.
Lifetime Supporter
100 reasons why climate change is not man made. Or repetition is the mother of truth.
Tell a lie loudly to enough gullible people over and over again and it becomes true!
BEWARE THE PROPHET WHO MAKES PROFIT.
Daily Express | UK News :: Climate change is natural: 100 reasons why
Tell a lie loudly to enough gullible people over and over again and it becomes true!
BEWARE THE PROPHET WHO MAKES PROFIT.
Daily Express | UK News :: Climate change is natural: 100 reasons why
Last edited:
Where does OBOWMA get off pledging $10 billion a year on an unproven science bill that hasn't even been passed by the senate? Seems fitting that he is doing this in the middle of a blizzard. How are you people in the US enjoying this unseasonably warm weather? Freezing your ass off in the north and a huge snow storm in the east. We had record colds last winter, and this year is to be more of the same.
1500 people at this conference, all arrived by jet, hell pelosi and friends even flew over. Can you imagine the "carbon footprint"? Being that this is about global warming, what do you guys think about teleconferencing? Nah, let's take our own planes! Wish I had some taxpayers and a jet!
1500 people at this conference, all arrived by jet, hell pelosi and friends even flew over. Can you imagine the "carbon footprint"? Being that this is about global warming, what do you guys think about teleconferencing? Nah, let's take our own planes! Wish I had some taxpayers and a jet!
Charlie Farley
Supporter
Inconvenient Facts for some of us:
It was so hot during the 600 year long 'Roman' warming, that grapes were grown in Britain as far north as Hadrian's Wall. Sea levels did not rise and Polar ice did not vanish.Some alpine glaciers disappeared, only to reappear later.The cold Dark Ages followed: starvation,rampant disease and massive depopulation occured.
A 400 year warm period followed. The Vikings grew barley and wheat and raised cattle and sheep in parts of Greenland. During this 'medieval warming' there was so much excess wealth generated from generations of reliable harvests that the great monasteries, cathedrals and universities were built.
Yet sea levels did not rise and the ice sheets were not lost.And, significantly, humans could not have driven the Roman and Medieval warmings by carbon dioxide emissions, as there was no industry.
The Little Ice Age followed. There was famine, disease and depopulation.
Ice fairs were held on the Thames river up until the 1820's.
The Little ice age ended in 1850. It is no wonder that temperatures have increased in the past 150 years - this is what happens after a cold period.
The tmperature increase was not even. There was warming from 1860 to 1880, cooling from 1880 to 1910, warming from 1910 to 1940, cooling from 1940 to 1976, warming from 1976 to 1998 and now cooling from 1998.
Each warming period was a t the same rate. It was only during the warming period from 1976 to 1998 that carbon dioxide increased in parallel with temperature, all other modern warmings and coolings show no felationship to carbon dioxide.
Why is this story contrary to what we hear ? Because sensationalism is much more lucrative. A climatic catastrophe was provided for an anxious public by scientists who had everything to gain by frightening us.Its blind fundamentalism, unrelated to scientific facts. Politicians build new bureaucracies and pose as environmental saviours without having to face the consequences of their actions.Heads must roll. Meanwhile, the planet will do what it has always done : change!
Extract from ' Global Warming - The Missing Science '.
Author : Ian Plimer, Professor of Geology at the University of Adelaide.
It was so hot during the 600 year long 'Roman' warming, that grapes were grown in Britain as far north as Hadrian's Wall. Sea levels did not rise and Polar ice did not vanish.Some alpine glaciers disappeared, only to reappear later.The cold Dark Ages followed: starvation,rampant disease and massive depopulation occured.
A 400 year warm period followed. The Vikings grew barley and wheat and raised cattle and sheep in parts of Greenland. During this 'medieval warming' there was so much excess wealth generated from generations of reliable harvests that the great monasteries, cathedrals and universities were built.
Yet sea levels did not rise and the ice sheets were not lost.And, significantly, humans could not have driven the Roman and Medieval warmings by carbon dioxide emissions, as there was no industry.
The Little Ice Age followed. There was famine, disease and depopulation.
Ice fairs were held on the Thames river up until the 1820's.
The Little ice age ended in 1850. It is no wonder that temperatures have increased in the past 150 years - this is what happens after a cold period.
The tmperature increase was not even. There was warming from 1860 to 1880, cooling from 1880 to 1910, warming from 1910 to 1940, cooling from 1940 to 1976, warming from 1976 to 1998 and now cooling from 1998.
Each warming period was a t the same rate. It was only during the warming period from 1976 to 1998 that carbon dioxide increased in parallel with temperature, all other modern warmings and coolings show no felationship to carbon dioxide.
Why is this story contrary to what we hear ? Because sensationalism is much more lucrative. A climatic catastrophe was provided for an anxious public by scientists who had everything to gain by frightening us.Its blind fundamentalism, unrelated to scientific facts. Politicians build new bureaucracies and pose as environmental saviours without having to face the consequences of their actions.Heads must roll. Meanwhile, the planet will do what it has always done : change!
Extract from ' Global Warming - The Missing Science '.
Author : Ian Plimer, Professor of Geology at the University of Adelaide.
Jim Rosenthal
Supporter
I'm going to have to disagree with you guys on this one, as follows: I have a friend named Mimi Gerstell, who is an astrophysicist and climate scientist who works on climate modeling. Within the last year, I asked her about this issue (whether there is an increase in average global temperature and what's causing it, and if there is, what can be done about it) Her answer was interesting (keep in mind that this is someone who actually DOES this research and understands the modeling involved and has written some of it herself).
Dr Gerstell said that in her opinion, global warming IS occurring, and that the rate and extent of it are too high to explain by cyclic variation. She feels that there isn't any question that it is occurring as a side effect of civilization. She also feels that the extent of it is so formidable that it doesn't matter what we do- the change will occur no matter what, and that the Earth is going to get warmer. Period. It just remains to see what consequences that will turn out to have.
The interesting part of this is that Mimi is VERY politically conservative- she isn't a treehugger, she's certainly not a liberal, and she's a strong believer in free enterprise. She doesn't have an economic stake in this- she's financially independent and supports herself by her investments, which have nothing at all to do with climate change science, etc etc. She's been on the faculty at Cal Tech, MIT, and (I think) Princeton.
So if you want an objective opinion that isn't tied to any economic agenda, there it is. What we do about it is up to us, I suppose; her opinion is that there isn't much to do except watch it all happen, which she's doing.
And, for what it's worth, I agree that there's a substantial industry in both hysteria and prevention that's grown up around this. But (and this is where I don't agree with my friend Mimi) I think the problem IS worth doing something about. Climate change isn't the only negative effect of using a lot of fossil fuel up, and I think regardless of the effect on climate change, we ought to be weaning ourselves away from fossil fuel.
And I would be the first to admit that the GT40 is probably the least fuel efficient vehicle that ever rolled. As a collectible, though, it won't get driven a lot. That's my defense.
Dr Gerstell said that in her opinion, global warming IS occurring, and that the rate and extent of it are too high to explain by cyclic variation. She feels that there isn't any question that it is occurring as a side effect of civilization. She also feels that the extent of it is so formidable that it doesn't matter what we do- the change will occur no matter what, and that the Earth is going to get warmer. Period. It just remains to see what consequences that will turn out to have.
The interesting part of this is that Mimi is VERY politically conservative- she isn't a treehugger, she's certainly not a liberal, and she's a strong believer in free enterprise. She doesn't have an economic stake in this- she's financially independent and supports herself by her investments, which have nothing at all to do with climate change science, etc etc. She's been on the faculty at Cal Tech, MIT, and (I think) Princeton.
So if you want an objective opinion that isn't tied to any economic agenda, there it is. What we do about it is up to us, I suppose; her opinion is that there isn't much to do except watch it all happen, which she's doing.
And, for what it's worth, I agree that there's a substantial industry in both hysteria and prevention that's grown up around this. But (and this is where I don't agree with my friend Mimi) I think the problem IS worth doing something about. Climate change isn't the only negative effect of using a lot of fossil fuel up, and I think regardless of the effect on climate change, we ought to be weaning ourselves away from fossil fuel.
And I would be the first to admit that the GT40 is probably the least fuel efficient vehicle that ever rolled. As a collectible, though, it won't get driven a lot. That's my defense.
MIT’s Richard Lindzen is a renown climate scientist, he says global warming is a hoax created to make money and redistribute wealth. There are another 1500 scientist in the US that think the same way. I guess it's all in who you believe. I believe them. Lindzen believes that it is a natural climate cycle, and in studying all the pro global warming charts, he says that they are made with faulty info to convince gullible people. What do you think they were doing at Anglia University? I sure as hell wouln't believe a word that came out of Gore's mouth. His carbon footprint must be the size of Texas.
It's a redistribution of wealth, the US pledging $10 billion a year, that we don't have, for a bill that has not passed yet, to some 3rd world countries in Africa and the rest of the world. Socialism at it's finest! That works out to about $30 a year for every man, women, and child in the US. But it's just a start, better get used to hanging on to your ankles!
It's a redistribution of wealth, the US pledging $10 billion a year, that we don't have, for a bill that has not passed yet, to some 3rd world countries in Africa and the rest of the world. Socialism at it's finest! That works out to about $30 a year for every man, women, and child in the US. But it's just a start, better get used to hanging on to your ankles!
For some unknown reason, global warming believers can't get this concept into their head. It's been cold before and will be again, it's been warm before and will be again! All they see is melting ice and the end of the world! There were record colds in last winter and this winter is looking the same. Polar bears are NOT and endangered species. Look on Wildlife and Fisheries endangered species, there three ways to list. E= endangered T=threatened and R=recovering. Polar bears are on the T list and have been for a long time because of their proximity to man. They everywhere in Alaskan towns and outlying areas. They are not falling out of the sky or forlornly floating south on iceburgs. There are lots of seals and other animals. The pole will freeze over again, but will the governments say OOOPS, and stop draining our money once it is flowing? I think not. This is not something to be rushed into!
Charlie Farley
Supporter
Al,
I hear this 'Carbon Credits' scam, will be worth more than the entire market for oil by 2025, or was it 2020 ?
Anyway, its just another way for the likes of Merril Lynch et al to skin us again.
I hear this 'Carbon Credits' scam, will be worth more than the entire market for oil by 2025, or was it 2020 ?
Anyway, its just another way for the likes of Merril Lynch et al to skin us again.
Last edited:
Al, Don't worry about Merrill Lynch. They aren't even in the picture. If you want to see what is going on, just Google "Al Gore carbon credits" and you will get many many hits from the lunatic to the serious. All about Mr. Gore and how he with his buddies(Peter Knight former Chief of Staff,Hank Paulson, Secretary of the Treasury and CEO of Goldman Sach, and others) set up GIM(Generation investment Management). GIM deals in the credits that are traded on the CCX (Chicago Climate Exchange)and CNC(Carbon Neutral Company in Great Britian). They take investments from large “green supporting” companies or other generous “green” investors. Then GIM returns the favor by reinvesting in “green technology” for the same large companies. Goldman Sachs purchased 10% of CCX which happens to hold 50% of CNC......Does anyone see a trend here??? It is setup for just the big boys and you and I have no part in it. He stands to be an instant Billionaire when Cap and Trade is passed.
Pete McCluskey.
Lifetime Supporter
Yep, beware the prophet who stands to make a profit.
This was posted by Lucas on another thread, if you missed it it is worth watching. Monckton names so called scientists and calls them crooks, liars and frauds.
Hoping to get sued to get a court ruling methinks. It is in English.
Het Vrije Volk
This was posted by Lucas on another thread, if you missed it it is worth watching. Monckton names so called scientists and calls them crooks, liars and frauds.
Hoping to get sued to get a court ruling methinks. It is in English.
Het Vrije Volk
Pete,
Any time you get a web page in a foreign language(one you can't translate), and you have a P C, and Google tool bar at the top, it will "usually" offer to translate it for you to any language you want. Also there is a continue button on the right of the tool bar that offers more options like "auto fill" for forms. It also has a translate button there as well. It is kind of neat cause you can then see the nature of the publication(kook to serious).
Bill
Any time you get a web page in a foreign language(one you can't translate), and you have a P C, and Google tool bar at the top, it will "usually" offer to translate it for you to any language you want. Also there is a continue button on the right of the tool bar that offers more options like "auto fill" for forms. It also has a translate button there as well. It is kind of neat cause you can then see the nature of the publication(kook to serious).
Bill
In your spare time read up on these two;
maurice strong - Yahoo! Search Results
benjamin santer - Yahoo! Search Results
maurice strong - Yahoo! Search Results
benjamin santer - Yahoo! Search Results
Pete McCluskey.
Lifetime Supporter
Both very dangerous fellows IMHO.
Pete McCluskey.
Lifetime Supporter
Here we go again, its a religion not a science!
UN report on glaciers melting is based on 'speculation'
An official prediction by the United Nations that the Himalayan glaciers will melt by 2035 may be withdrawn after it was found to be based on speculation rather than scientific evidence.
<!-- Make sure there is no whitespoace at the end of the bline -->By Richard Alleyne, Science Correspondent
Published: 3:00PM GMT 17 Jan 2010
Two years ago, the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) made the claim which it said was based on detailed research into the impact of global warming.
But the IPCC have since admitted it was based on a report written in a science journal and even the scientist who was the subject of the original story admits it was not based on fact.
The article, in the New Scientist, was not even based on a research paper - it evolved from a short telephone interview with the academic.
Dr Syed Hasnain, an Indian scientist then based at Jawaharlal Nehru University in Delhi, said that the claim was "speculation" and was not supported by any formal research.
Professor Murari Lal, who oversaw the chapter on glaciers in the IPCC report, said he would recommend that the claim about glaciers be dropped.
The IPCC's reliance on Hasnain's 1999 interview has been highlighted by Fred Pearce, the journalist who carried out the original interview.
Mr Pearce said he rang Hasnain in India in 1999 after spotting his claims in an Indian magazine.
He said that Dr Hasnain made the assertion about 2035 but admitted it was campaigning report rather than an academic paper that was reviewed by a panel of expert peers.
Despite this it rapidly became a key source for the IPCC when Prof Lal and his colleagues came to write the section on the Himalayas.
When finally published, the IPCC report did give its source as the WWF study but went further, suggesting the likelihood of the glaciers melting was "very high".
The IPCC defines this as having a probability of greater than 90 per cent.
The report read: "Glaciers in the Himalaya are receding faster than in any other part of the world and, if the present rate continues, the likelihood of them disappearing by the year 2035 and perhaps sooner is very high if the Earth keeps warming at the current rate."
However, glaciologists find such figures inherently ludicrous, pointing out that most Himalayan glaciers are hundreds of feet thick and could not melt fast enough to vanish by 2035 unless there was a huge global temperature rise. The maximum rate of decline in thickness seen in glaciers at the moment is two to three feet a year and most are far lower.
UN report on glaciers melting is based on 'speculation'
An official prediction by the United Nations that the Himalayan glaciers will melt by 2035 may be withdrawn after it was found to be based on speculation rather than scientific evidence.
<!-- Make sure there is no whitespoace at the end of the bline -->By Richard Alleyne, Science Correspondent
Published: 3:00PM GMT 17 Jan 2010
Two years ago, the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) made the claim which it said was based on detailed research into the impact of global warming.
But the IPCC have since admitted it was based on a report written in a science journal and even the scientist who was the subject of the original story admits it was not based on fact.
The article, in the New Scientist, was not even based on a research paper - it evolved from a short telephone interview with the academic.
Dr Syed Hasnain, an Indian scientist then based at Jawaharlal Nehru University in Delhi, said that the claim was "speculation" and was not supported by any formal research.
Professor Murari Lal, who oversaw the chapter on glaciers in the IPCC report, said he would recommend that the claim about glaciers be dropped.
The IPCC's reliance on Hasnain's 1999 interview has been highlighted by Fred Pearce, the journalist who carried out the original interview.
Mr Pearce said he rang Hasnain in India in 1999 after spotting his claims in an Indian magazine.
He said that Dr Hasnain made the assertion about 2035 but admitted it was campaigning report rather than an academic paper that was reviewed by a panel of expert peers.
Despite this it rapidly became a key source for the IPCC when Prof Lal and his colleagues came to write the section on the Himalayas.
When finally published, the IPCC report did give its source as the WWF study but went further, suggesting the likelihood of the glaciers melting was "very high".
The IPCC defines this as having a probability of greater than 90 per cent.
The report read: "Glaciers in the Himalaya are receding faster than in any other part of the world and, if the present rate continues, the likelihood of them disappearing by the year 2035 and perhaps sooner is very high if the Earth keeps warming at the current rate."
However, glaciologists find such figures inherently ludicrous, pointing out that most Himalayan glaciers are hundreds of feet thick and could not melt fast enough to vanish by 2035 unless there was a huge global temperature rise. The maximum rate of decline in thickness seen in glaciers at the moment is two to three feet a year and most are far lower.
Jeff Young
GT40s Supporter
Yep, IPCC made a mistake on that. Science still says they are melting faster than expected though:
Himalaya glaciers melting much faster - Discovery.com- msnbc.com
Himalaya glaciers melting much faster - Discovery.com- msnbc.com
Pete McCluskey.
Lifetime Supporter
Yes and in a few thousand years or so they will grow faster than expected.
The Ipcc is totally flawed and pushing what is now at not so hidden agenda. All you have to do is read the previous posts in this thread to see that this whole global warming, climate change issue is total chicanery pushed by dishonest scientists and Al Gore all in the pursuit of $$$$$.
The great pity of that is that it takes peoples focus away from the real problems of world pollution.
Jeff Young
GT40s Supporter
I've read this thread, and threads like these in a lot of places. They don't have much science to them.
I agree we aren't 100% sure as to the causes for what we are seeing, but there is a whole lot of data-supported, peer reviewed science out there that says something is going on, and a smaller portion that says we are the cause.
Whether you like Al Gore, or consider that science "chicanery," is irrelevant, really, to the fact that "is." And so the question becomes what, if anything do (or can we) do about it. Not how much we hate Al Gore.
What's really a shame is that this whole discussion has become politicized and the real science (on both sides) buried, with complete irrationality in the "pro" camp and the "anti" camp.
I agree we aren't 100% sure as to the causes for what we are seeing, but there is a whole lot of data-supported, peer reviewed science out there that says something is going on, and a smaller portion that says we are the cause.
Whether you like Al Gore, or consider that science "chicanery," is irrelevant, really, to the fact that "is." And so the question becomes what, if anything do (or can we) do about it. Not how much we hate Al Gore.
What's really a shame is that this whole discussion has become politicized and the real science (on both sides) buried, with complete irrationality in the "pro" camp and the "anti" camp.
Jeff, there are many perspectives on the subject. However I have seen a great deal of evidence that the climate change people have falsified or distorted a lot of important data. It is easy to skew a graph or make it say what you want just by choosing different end points. Then there is the whole East Anglia flap. Precious little of the negative points about possible climate change make it into the normal daily news media. Most people agree that weather changes, the reasons sighted for it in the daily press seem highly suspect! If you want science just go to the many references that have been mentioned on this forum. There is plenty of info out there!
