The evidence against anthropogenic global warming (Page 26/600) frontal lobe NOV 19, 12:24 PM quote Originally posted by Phranc: Holy crap I believe they still try to force feed this crap. Do they even think and learn for them selves or will they only rely on the spoon fed lies they regurgitate over and over again? They are TOO invested in it now. If they admit the reality now, they will be exposed for the frauds they always were. They will lose ALL credibility (and from the statistics, they don't have credibility with 82% of the population in spite of the CONSTANT bombarbing of it.), and more importantly to them, they will lose whatever power they gained from this whole charade. Lest anyone think I am claiming brilliance in knowing this was all horrendous "science" (shouldn't have even been able to be called science), that isn't what I'm saying. It is just that I have lived through this once before. In the 1970's about every National Geographic was taking the same industrialization issues and warning about how it was going to bring on an ice age. 25 years later, THE SAME ISSUES were causing global warming. Carbon credit card! Oh brother. Having said that, I am NOT for trashing the planet or for wasting resources. I drive fuel efficient vehicles. I'm WAY less of an energy hog than the false prophet, Al Gore. Phranc NOV 19, 12:33 PM quote Originally posted by ryan.hess: NOAA? It appears as though Russia is on fire. It does apear that way. Those are the wrong data sets. If you read the links earlier it explains that. frontal lobe NOV 19, 02:16 PM This kind of "information" gets front page treatment. The retraction is on page 37 and is 3 lines. The poor polar bear looking for SOME ice to swim on is plastered all over the media. The fact that polar ice has increased over the past 2 years is on page 37. So does the fact that the polar bear picture was taken totally out of context in the first place and misrepresented what was happening. texasfiero NOV 19, 02:59 PM quote Originally posted by fierobear: Now that the election is over, time to get back to debunking global warming...especially before the new President makes such talk illegal. The election may be over, but this isn't: 1minute in http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GcpGRO-j_Ik fierobear NOV 21, 03:15 AM snicker, snicker, snicker James Hansen bites the big one...again. Look at my post near the top of this page. The data set is wrong. BADLY wrong, by 10 dC quote Originally posted by Phranc: It does apear that way. Those are the wrong data sets. If you read the links earlier it explains that. fierobear NOV 21, 03:18 AM quote Originally posted by texasfiero: The election may be over, but this isn't: 1minute in http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GcpGRO-j_Ik Oh, gawd. What a load of crap. "you can create new jobs" because of his cap-and-trade system. What about the jobs you'll LOSE when you sanction the power and manufacturing industries? Ooops, we better not talk about that. fierobear NOV 21, 03:26 AM Obama's Carbon Ultimatum The coming offer you won't be able to refuse. Liberals pretend that only President Bush is preventing the U.S. from adopting some global warming "solution." But occasionally their mask slips. As Barack Obama's energy adviser has now made clear, the would-be President intends to blackmail -- or rather, greenmail -- Congress into falling in line with his climate agenda. [Review & Outlook] AP Jason Grumet is currently executive director of an outfit called the National Commission on Energy Policy and one of Mr. Obama's key policy aides. In an interview last week with Bloomberg, Mr. Grumet said that come January the Environmental Protection Agency "would initiate those rulemakings" that classify carbon as a dangerous pollutant under current clean air laws. That move would impose new regulation and taxes across the entire economy, something that is usually the purview of Congress. Mr. Grumet warned that "in the absence of Congressional action" 18 months after Mr. Obama's inauguration, the EPA would move ahead with its own unilateral carbon crackdown anyway. Well, well. For years, Democrats -- including Senator Obama -- have been howling about the "politicization" of the EPA, which has nominally been part of the Bush Administration. The complaint has been that the White House blocked EPA bureaucrats from making the so-called "endangerment finding" on carbon. Now it turns out that a President Obama would himself wield such a finding as a political bludgeon. He plans to issue an ultimatum to Congress: Either impose new taxes and limits on carbon that he finds amenable, or the EPA carbon police will be let loose to ravage the countryside. The EPA hasn't made a secret of how it would like to centrally plan the U.S. economy under the 1970 Clean Air Act. In a blueprint released in July, the agency didn't exactly say it'd collectivize the farms -- but pretty close, down to the "grass clippings." The EPA would monitor and regulate the carbon emissions of "lawn and garden equipment" as well as everything with an engine, like cars, planes and boats. Eco-bureaucrats envision thousands of other emissions limits on all types of energy. Coal-fired power and other fossil fuels would be ruled out of existence, while all other prices would rise as the huge economic costs of the new regime were passed down the energy chain to consumers. These costs would far exceed the burden of a straight carbon tax or cap-and-trade system enacted by Congress, because the Clean Air Act was never written to apply to carbon and other greenhouse gases. It's like trying to do brain surgery with a butter knife. Mr. Obama wants to move ahead anyway because he knows that the costs of any carbon program will be high. He knows, too, that Congress -- even with strongly Democratic majorities -- might still balk at supporting tax increases on their constituents, even if it is done in the name of global warming. Climate-change politics don't break cleanly along partisan lines. The burden of a carbon clampdown will fall disproportionately on some states over others, especially the 25 interior states that get more than 50% of their electricity from coal. Rustbelt manufacturing states like Ohio, Michigan and Pennsylvania will get hit hard too. Once President Bush leaves office, the coastal Democrats pushing hardest for a climate change program might find their colleagues splitting off, especially after they vote for a huge tax increase on incomes. Thus Messrs. Obama and Grumet want to invoke a political deus ex machina driven by a faulty interpretation of the Clean Air Act to force Congress's hand. Mr. Obama and Democrats can then tell Americans that Congress must act to tax and regulate carbon to save the country from even worse bureaucratic consequences. It's Mr. Obama's version of Jack Benny's old "your money or your life" routine, but without the punch line. The strategy is most notable for what it says about the climate-change lobby and its new standard bearer. Supposedly global warming is the transcendent challenge of the age, but Mr. Obama evidently doesn't believe he'll be able to convince his own party to do something about it without a bureaucratic ultimatum. Mr. Grumet justified it this way: "The U.S. has to move quickly domestically . . . We cannot have a meaningful impact in the international discussion until we develop a meaningful domestic consensus." Normally a democracy reaches consensus through political debate and persuasion, but apparently for Mr. Obama that option is merely a nuisance. It's another example of "change" you'll be given no choice but to believe in. fierobear NOV 21, 05:15 PM A brief commentary before I continue the series debunking global warming. Global warming is the perfect scam. It is a phenomena that would unfold over decades and centuries. It is not an immediate event, like a hurricane or flood, that one can point to as a definitive event and point in time. This makes it the perfect scam. Even if warming advocates were able to cause the immediate shutdown of all industry, powerplants and mobile sources of carbon dioxide emissions, there would be no immediate resulting feedback that one could point to and say "See! It worked!". If any difference in atmosphere and climate resulted, it would take many years or decades to see a difference. Global warming, and any successful mitigation, are unprovable in the short term. Politicians can implement cap-and-trade and various programs, but they have *no* burden of proof that their efforts are successful. They can just sit back, say "we will see the result, but it will take 20 years", which will be long after they have finished serving in office. Some scientists can show that our sun may be heading into a period of lower energy, similar to what they believe caused the "little ice age" a few hundred years ago. This may allow the perfect "out" for warmists, because they can either claim that "the drop in the sun's energy is just masking mankind's effect on climate", or they can alternatively deny any difference in the sun's energy and claim that "our efforts to cut greenhouse gas emissions are working! See! It's getting cooler already". Another quick note on the sun - the same scientists say that the sun had a period of unusually high energy during the rise in temperatures during the 20th century. With the unprovability of global warming mitigation, and the possibility of the sun going into a lull in energy, there may be no way to prove that the warmists were wrong. And that makes global warming the perfect scam. avengador1 NOV 21, 05:21 PM Does anyone know if the pollution caused by the industrial revolution had any effect on our climate and what that effect was? They didn't have any sort of emissions control or pollution controls back then. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Industrial_Revolution fierobear NOV 21, 05:49 PM quote Originally posted by avengador1: Does anyone know if the pollution caused by the industrial revolution had any effect on our climate and what that effect was? They didn't have any sort of emissions control or pollution controls back then. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Industrial_Revolution Note on the following graph how there is a temperature spike around 1940, a drop until the 1970s, then another rise until near present. Note also how CO2 continues to rise, but temperature is all over the place. If CO2 were the major driver of temperature, and such a risk to our climate, there should not be this disconnect between the two. They'd be more consistent, but they are not.