Controversy

[phasthound]

Since this is currently such a hot topic, I thought I'd post this link:

http://www.cnn.com/2009/OPINION/12/07/balog.extreme.ice/index.html

[starry night]

Barry, this really should be posted on some other forum. The article you posted can so easily be dismissed by mere logic. Glaciers are melting; certain other things are occurring at the same time (increased pollution?) so therefore the glaciers are melting because of those perceived things. Have glaciers ever melted before? What was the cause then? What was the rate of melting before compared to now, etc. etc. The article jumps from a perception to a cause without any supporting evidence. Bash me at will. :hammerhead:

[CHARLES CUE]

glaicers melting i think they have been melting sence the ice age they used to be down to my house at one time i think the less ice you have the warmer it gets so the faster they melt is this guy a quack like al gore
Charles Cue

[starry night]

glaicers melting i think they have been melting sence the ice age they used to be down to my house at one time i think the less ice you have the warmer it gets so the faster they melt is this guy a quack like al gore
Charles Cue

I often joke on here about the flatness of the terrain here in NW Ohio.
It was because we were once plowed over by a glacier. It receded (melted) and left us flat as a pancake. What caused it? I dunno. But it wasn't mankind.

[CHARLES CUE]

I often joke on here about the flatness of the terrain here in NW Ohio.
It was because we were once plowed over by a glacier. It receded (melted) and left us flat as a pancake. What caused it? I dunno. But it wasn't mankind.

yea i know what you mean i grew up in portage co we lived on a Plato it was all swamp the water had a hard time running a way you go east or here in the mountains rocks left allover the place
Charles Cue

[Smallaxe]

CNN has about as much credability as National Geographic. There is speculation about CO2 because that is where the gov't grant money comes from. Any other conclusion will lose you tenure, as a research Professor.
We are being lied to all the time so that we clamor for the safety of Global Governance.

We have buildings and streets and sidewalks and beaches up and down the coastline. Who has complained about rising oceans, due to all of this melted glacier? BTW, New Orleans is on an alluvial plane, so don't use that example, please...

[ICT Bill]

CNN has about as much credability as National Geographic. There is speculation about CO2 because that is where the gov't grant money comes from. Any other conclusion will lose you tenure, as a research Professor.
We are being lied to all the time so that we clamor for the safety of Global Governance.

Reminds me of the fertilizer companies

[quackgrass]

The original link can be countered with this link:http://www.associatedcontent.com/article/1664357/antarctica_showing_significant_cooling.html

And then we could find one that counters that and so forth... to no end. Its pointless really because the scientists are biased based on the source of the funding, or their own beliefs and its all speculation anyway.

Combine this with the fact that it doesn't really matter if the Earth cools, heats, or stagnates. Some things will adapt, others won't it will be great news for some and a disaster for others.

[ICT Bill]

The earth could care less about all of this fuss and is not going anywhere anytime soon, it is the human race and other species that are going somewhere

extinct

[starry night]

it doesn't really matter if the Earth cools, heats, or stagnates. Some things will adapt, others won't it will be great news for some and a disaster for others.

That may be the best summation that I have heard of the whole debate.

[Tim Wilson]

The earth could care less about all of this fuss and is not going anywhere anytime soon, it is the human race and other species that are going somewhere

extinct

I just hope its the dum Americans who go first [BTW, I'm included in that lot]

[dishboy]

I just hope its the dum Americans who go first [BTW, I'm included in that lot]

dum?.............................

[Tim Wilson]

Probably the number one affront to the atmospheric change and ice melting more rapidly is the logging and burning done in British Columbia and the Amazon basin.

Don't overlook our history of seeing a problem and cleaning up the air after the first Industrial revolution and the waterways more recently throughout Canada, the USA and Europe.

We simply can't at this point put blinders on, state the whole thing is a conspiracy and live on in our idyllic sludge.

[Smallaxe]

How does British Columbia and Amazon basin problems make Americans 'dum'?
Now if you talk about the annual wildfires out west that we refuse to prevent, that is an American thing. The tree huggers are the cause of that.
Don't use the word Conspiracy in the same context as gov't 'Policy'. There is a policy regarding who gets funding, not a conspiracy.

I heard a clip from one of the 'policy makers' about how they don't know if the CO2 that is going into the air would be there for 3000 years. :laugh: Does anyone have a clue about anything? :laugh:
This whole thing comes under the heading of, never give a sucker an even break.

[Tim Wilson]

To avoid too much offense, I lump people from Canada & the USA together as Americans (the Americas)

I did not connect my two separate statements and the first was not really serious. In the second I'm not trying to argue, just point out that these types of problems have been detected and overcome previously.

It should be relatively simple to put the ducks in a row by observing the accelerated speed of glacier melt over the past 100 or even 50 years correlated with human activity. To deny this is similar to saying it was not buffalo hunting which reduced their population. [although I'm sure there is a group somewhere just waiting to be lead by Glen Beck to point out this oversight]. This does not mean we need to accept everything itemized by the scientists. Statistics can be manipulated to point out just about anything, one reason I prefer video in my lab work. Many may have tests results from labs which express amounts of bacteria and fungi in mass (weight). Is this 100% accurate considering they are not separated by species and some will weigh more than others?

[starry night]

It should be relatively simple to put the ducks in a row by observing the accelerated speed of glacier melt over the past 100 or even 50 years correlated with human activity.

But after the observation, don't we need to compare that period of time with other periods of time e.g. 200 years ago, 400 years ago, etc. ? Maybe I'm not up on my science, Tim. Has the melting of glaciers been one continuum since the Earth was born?

[ecoguy]

For me, the solution is sustainability. If money didn't exist, what would be the common sense way to live on our planet? Perhaps we should be talking to the cultures overseas who have lived for thousands of years instead of "baby" Americas.

[phasthound]

The following statement was released today by Sens. Kerry (D), Graham (R), and Lieberman (I)

Framework for Climate Action and Energy Independence in the U.S. Senate

Carbon pollution is altering the earth’s climate. The impacts have already been seen and felt throughout our country and around the world. Monday’s endangerment finding by the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) underscores the importance of Congressional action to address greenhouse gas emissions before the EPA moves unilaterally.

This document outlines the principles and guidelines that will shape our ongoing efforts to develop comprehensive climate change and energy independence legislation. It is a starting point, inviting our colleagues’ constructive input.

Our efforts seek to build upon the significant work already completed in Congress. Earlier this year, the Senate Energy and Natural Resources Committee passed bipartisan legislation that will instruct our efforts to promote and achieve energy security. Important work to reduce carbon emissions has taken place in the Senate Environment and Public Works Committee, which additionally informs us. We also anticipate consideration of issues related to climate change by the Senate Finance, Commerce, and Agriculture Committees.

It is critical to emphasize that this framework is a work in progress. We will continue to engage with our constituents, colleagues in the Senate, and stakeholders outside Washington in our effort to build a consensus that will lead to the passage of comprehensive climate and energy legislation. The only way to succeed is through ongoing engagement and an honest effort to put all ideas on the table.

Better jobs, cleaner air. Our legislation will contain comprehensive pollution reduction targets that are both environmentally significant and achievable. It is our belief that a market-based system, rather than a labyrinth of command-and-control regulations, will allow us to reduce pollution economically and avoid the worst impacts of global climate change. It will also provide significant transition assistance to companies and consumers without using taxpayer dollars or driving up the national debt. We believe a near term pollution reduction target in the range of 17 percent below 2005 emissions levels is achievable and reasonable, as is a long term target of approximately 80 percent below 2005 levels. Finally, we believe a robust investment in the development and deployment of clean energy technologies will ensure that as pollution reduction targets become more rigorous, companies will be better equipped to meet their obligations in a cost effective manner.

Many business leaders have endorsed this approach. Just last week, David Cote, the CEO of Honeywell, as well as other business leaders, persuasively argued that setting a price on carbon would create demand for clean energy technologies and provide a tremendous opportunity for economic growth and job creation in America. He said: “There will be no jobs created without demand. This legislation would stimulate the demand for energy efficiency products and services and low carbon sources of energy. China and India are stimulating their domestic demand for these products and technologies much more aggressively than we are and will take the global competitiveness lead unless we act. Cap and trade enables businesses to use the market to most effectively and efficiently develop that 21st century global competitiveness.” Mr. Cote’s words have been echoed by other American business leaders including Jim Rogers, CEO of Duke Energy, who has said, “the sooner we pass climate change legislation—the better off our economy, and the world’s environment—will be. If we go about it the right way, we can not only avoid unnecessary economic harm and dislocation, but we can also ignite a lower carbon, green revolution and more rapidly put this recession in our rear view mirror.”

Securing energy independence. We find ourselves more dependent on foreign oil today than any other time in our nation’s history, and that is unacceptable. Every day, we spend nearly $1 billion to sustain our addiction to foreign energy sources—and we ship Americans’ hard earned dollars overseas, some of which finds its way to extremist or terrorist organizations. Presidents and politicians have bemoaned this fact for decades; and now is the moment when we can—and must—break that habit. By spurring the development and deployment of new clean energy technologies and increasing our supply of domestically produced oil and natural gas on land and offshore, our legislation will ensure America’s energy security. We will do so in a way that sends money back to the states that opt to drill and also provides new federal government revenues to advance climate mitigation goals. We will also encourage investments in energy efficiency because we believe that consuming less power will help keep energy bills down and simultaneously extend the life of our domestic energy resources. Finally, maintaining the ability to refine petroleum products in the United States is a national security priority. It is our belief that we can preserve our refining capacity without sacrificing our environmental goals. If energy independence is to be a priority, we must keep the entire energy cycle right here at home.

Creating regulatory predictability. By failing to legislate, Congress is ceding the policy reins to the EPA and ignoring our responsibility to our constituents. We are working with our colleagues, the Administration and outside stakeholders to strike a sensible balance and determine the appropriate way to provide regulatory predictability. We agree that providing the business community as much certainty as possible is essential to attract investment, create jobs and generate the confidence necessary to reach our goals. The absence of national greenhouse gas emissions standards has invited a patchwork of inconsistent state and regional regulations. Since it is not reasonable to expect businesses to comply with fifty different standards, it is imperative that a federal pollution control system be meaningful and be set by federally elected officials.

Protecting consumers. It is critical to provide transitional assistance to households and businesses to ease the shift to a low-carbon economy. We will provide support to help companies meet their compliance obligations and avoid driving up prices for energy consumers. We will include special protections for low- and middle-income Americans, who spend a disproportionately large amount of their income on energy. We are considering a number of mechanisms, including a price collar and strategic reserve, to moderate the price of carbon and prevent extreme market volatility while maintaining the environmental integrity of the pollution reduction program. Additionally, we support energy efficiency programs to help reduce energy bills long into the future.

Encouraging nuclear power. Additional nuclear power is an essential component of our strategy to reduce greenhouse gas emissions. We strongly support incentives for renewable energy sources such as wind and solar, but successful legislation must also recognize the important role for clean nuclear power in our low-emissions future. America has lost its nuclear technology manufacturing base, and we must rebuild it in order to compete in the global marketplace. Our legislation will encourage the construction of new nuclear power plants and provide funding to train the next generation of nuclear workers. We will make it easier to finance the construction of new nuclear power plants and improve the efficiency of the licensing process for traditional as well as small modular reactors, while fully respecting safety and environmental concerns. In addition, we support the research and development of new, safe ways to minimize nuclear waste. We are working with our colleagues to create incentives for low-carbon power sources, including nuclear, that will complement the Energy and Natural Resource Committee’s work to incentivize renewable electricity.

Ensuring a future for coal. Our country has plentiful, accessible coal resources and infrastructure. It is a key component of our current fuel mix. As Senator Byrd pointed out in a recent op-ed, “No deliberate effort to do away with the coal industry could ever succeed in Washington because there is no available alternative energy supply that could immediately supplant the use of coal for base load power generation in America.” He also acknowledged that, “to deny the mounting science of climate change is to stick our heads in the sand and say ‘deal me out’… The truth is that some form of climate legislation will likely become public policy because most American voters want a healthier environment.” We agree with both statements. However, due to current regulatory uncertainty, it is increasingly challenging to site new coal facilities, and utilities are switching to other fuel sources. Earlier this month, an electric utility in North Carolina announced its plans to take 11 existing coal facilities out of operation. Coal’s future as part of the energy mix is inseparable from the passage of comprehensive climate change and energy legislation. We will commit significant resources to the rapid development and deployment of clean coal technology, and dedicated support for early deployment of carbon capture and sequestration.

Reviving American manufacturing by creating jobs. Manufacturing is the backbone of our nation’s economy, and we refuse to believe that the days of American leadership are behind us. Despite some initial success stories, such as North Dakota’s 30 percent growth in clean energy jobs in the last decade, the United States is falling behind. Successful climate legislation will not send existing jobs overseas. Rather, pricing carbon will drive innovation—creating new opportunities for those who develop clean energy technologies, as well as those who build, install, and maintain them. We plan to provide significant assistance to manufacturers to avoid carbon leakage and ensure the continued competitiveness of American-made goods. Our legislation will also provide financial incentives to both large and small manufacturers to improve the efficiency of their processes, which will mean even more new jobs. In addition to employing thousands in the building trades, our envisioned development of nuclear and wind power will also mean jobs and growth for our steel industry. It is time to regain our leadership and create the jobs of the future here in America.

Creating wealth for domestic agriculture and forestry. While emissions from agriculture will not be regulated, climate legislation will provide farmers with new opportunities to benefit from reducing their carbon emissions. Offset projects and other incentives will enable farmers to develop new income streams, as environmentally-friendly farming practices dramatically increase in value once a price is placed on carbon. According to USDA Secretary Vilsack, “the economic opportunities for farmers and ranchers can potentially outpace, perhaps significantly, the costs from climate legislation.” In addition, a new USDA study released last week shows that this can be accomplished without an appreciable rise in food prices. While we are still discussing the details of the offset program with our colleagues, we have reached agreement that we will include significant amounts of real, monitored and verified domestic and international offsets and other incentives in our system in order to contain costs and create opportunities for farmers, ranchers and forest owners to benefit from climate change legislation.

Regulating the carbon market. We will support vigilant carbon market oversight, real-time transparency, adequate settlement requirements to control risk in the market and strong quality controls to ensure maximum effectiveness and clarity. We will not stand for market abuse or manipulation, and we believe it is essential that any comprehensive emissions reduction strategy include provisions to ensure openness and accountability within the carbon market.

Climate change is a global problem that requires a global solution. Ultimately, climate change must be addressed through a strong international agreement that includes real, measurable, reportable, verifiable and enforceable actions by all nations. American leadership is essential, but action by the developing world is necessary to maximize the benefits of our effort. To this end, we acknowledge the role the United States can play to help provide long-term financing to assist developing countries adapt to climate change, generate energy cleanly and reduce emissions from deforestation. Additional private climate finance provided through international offsets has the added benefit of reducing costs for American consumers. As we work collectively with other countries to reduce global emissions, we agree with nine of our colleagues who wrote earlier this month: “enhanced technology cooperation will benefit the United States but must be coupled with strong protections for intellectual property rights.” Finally, we will include strong measures that are compatible with our obligations under the World Trade Organization to prevent our economic competitors from exploiting the American market if they shirk their responsibility to minimize carbon pollution.

Building consensus. We intend to continue to engage our Senate colleagues in the weeks ahead to develop sensible, effective climate change legislation that will create jobs, ensure our energy independence, restore America to a position of leadership in the clean energy economy and reduce pollution. We are inspired by the years of work that have already been done and we hope both to build on those efforts and to devise new, innovative ideas for resolving some of the issues that have long blocked the passage of a climate change bill in the Senate. Every perspective is valuable and we invite all of our colleagues, stakeholders and constituents to join us in this effort to find consensus. Together, we can and will pass climate change and energy independence legislation this Congress.

[starry night]

God help us.

I was a journalism major in college and have an ability to read through words to see the core ideas. However, I guess I just don't have the intellect of those in Washington who write this stuff. It is so much nonsense, both the words, and the ideas as best as I can understand them.

However, there are a couple clear sentences. One that stood out from the gobbledygook was "We acknowledge the role the U.S. can play to help provide long-term financing to assist developing countries to adapt to climate change ...."
Heck. We can't even keep the people in these countries from killing each other. Do they really give a fig about climate change or would they just like to have our money?
Beside that, WE are going to provide financing? WE, who are drowning in debt?

Guys, have at it. I'm just going to hold my head in my hands for awhile.

[Tim Wilson]

But after the observation, don't we need to compare that period of time with other periods of time e.g. 200 years ago, 400 years ago, etc. ? Maybe I'm not up on my science, Tim. Has the melting of glaciers been one continuum since the Earth was born?

No. It is obviously accelerated over the past 100 years. There is no doubt whatsoever.

[ICT Bill]

I live right outside of Washington and hear it 24/7
You have to have the correct decoder ring to decipher it

They have them for sale, an "R" an "I" and a "D" ring so you can only hear what you want

from the manure that is everywhere

[Smallaxe]

Several times now - politics has been invoked in the discussion. They are lowest form of sleazeballs in the country cannot, by definition, be a part of an intelligent discussion. They can only support what they are paid to support, by whatever special interest group owns them.

Scientifically we needs confirmable, repeatable experimentation to 'prove', or disprove, a hypothesis. Nothing like that is possible.
The tiny fraction of the earth's atmosphere, that is CO2, is recycled primarily through the oceans' plantlife. That scenario, making global changes is highly improbable, and now climategate emails have proven that, even the researchers don't believe the data supports the theory. Yet the true-believers do not doubt. Ecoism is a religion, not a rational scientific concept.

What's going on in the Arctic?. Google HAARP or Electro-magnetic pulse or Ionosphere.

If a hypothesis was put forth that we are reducing our radiation protection layer, and that is causing glacier melt... I could see that... In fact as the earth's EMF continually declines, we are recieving more radiation as it is. :)

[Smallaxe]

Another thought that is never brought up:

The oceans are having salt added to them in huge amounts every day. Do we know how much saltier we have become in the last 30 -100 years? Add salt and hot water vents to the picture and the impact of air temps diminish quickly.

[Stillwater]

I just hope its the dum Americans who go first [BTW, I'm included in that lot]

F off..................

[ICT Bill]

F off..................

Quite an intelligent reply. Harvard or Yale?

This is why I don't let people discuss politics or religion at my parties

[Stillwater]

Quite an intelligent reply. Harvard or Yale?

This is why I don't let people discuss politics or religion at my parties


MIT- EECS phd.

I take it your not an American so Just Ingnore my posts.

[Stillwater]

1) There is “no real scientific proof” that the current warming is caused by the rise of greenhouse gases from man’s activity.

2) Man-made carbon dioxide emissions throughout human history constitute less than 0.00022 percent of the total naturally emitted from the mantle of the earth during geological history.

3) Warmer periods of the Earth’s history came around 800 years before rises in CO2 levels.

4) After World War II, there was a huge surge in recorded CO2 emissions but global temperatures fell for four decades after 1940.

5) Throughout the Earth’s history, temperatures have often been warmer than now and CO2 levels have often been higher – more than ten times as high.

6) Significant changes in climate have continually occurred throughout geologic time.

7) The 0.7C increase in the average global temperature over the last hundred years is entirely consistent with well-established, long-term, natural climate trends.

8) The IPCC theory is driven by just 60 scientists and favourable reviewers not the 4,000 usually cited.

9) Leaked e-mails from British climate scientists – in a scandal known as “Climate-gate” - suggest that that has been manipulated to exaggerate global warming

10) A large body of scientific research suggests that the sun is responsible for the greater share of climate change during the past hundred years.

11) Politicians and activiists claim rising sea levels are a direct cause of global warming but sea levels rates have been increasing steadily since the last ice age 10,000 ago

12) Philip Stott, Emeritus Professor of Biogeography at the School of Oriental and African Studies in London says climate change is too complicated to be caused by just one factor, whether CO2 or clouds

13) Peter Lilley MP said last month that “fewer people in Britain than in any other country believe in the importance of global warming. That is despite the fact that our Government and our political class—predominantly—are more committed to it than their counterparts in any other country in the world”.

14) In pursuit of the global warming rhetoric, wind farms will do very little to nothing to reduce CO2 emissions

15) Professor Plimer, Professor of Geology and Earth Sciences at the University of Adelaide, stated that the idea of taking a single trace gas in the atmosphere, accusing it and finding it guilty of total responsibility for climate change, is an “absurdity”

16) A Harvard University astrophysicist and geophysicist, Willie Soon, said he is “embarrassed and puzzled” by the shallow science in papers that support the proposition that the earth faces a climate crisis caused by global warming.

17) The science of what determines the earth’s temperature is in fact far from settled or understood.

18) Despite activist concerns over CO2 levels, CO2 is a minor greenhouse gas, unlike water vapour which is tied to climate concerns, and which we can’t even pretend to control

19) A petition by scientists trying to tell the world that the political and media portrayal of global warming is false was put forward in the Heidelberg Appeal in 1992. Today, more than 4,000 signatories, including 72 Nobel Prize winners, from 106 countries have signed it.

20) It is claimed the average global temperature increased at a dangerously fast rate in the 20th century but the recent rate of average global temperature rise has been between 1 and 2 degrees C per century - within natural rates

21) Professor Zbigniew Jaworowski, Chairman of the Scientific Council of the Central Laboratory for Radiological Protection in Warsaw, Poland says the earth’s temperature has more to do with cloud cover and water vapor than CO2 concentration in the atmosphere.

22) There is strong evidence from solar studies which suggests that the Earth’s current temperature stasis will be followed by climatic cooling over the next few decades

23) It is myth that receding glaciers are proof of global warming as glaciers have been receding and growing cyclically for many centuries

24) It is a falsehood that the earth’s poles are warming because that is natural variation and while the western Arctic may be getting somewhat warmer we also see that the Eastern Arctic and Greenland are getting colder

25) The IPCC claims climate driven “impacts on biodiversity are significant and of key relevance” but those claims are simply not supported by scientific research

26) The IPCC threat of climate change to the world’s species does not make sense as wild species are at least one million years old, which means they have all been through hundreds of climate cycles

27) Research goes strongly against claims that CO2-induced global warming would cause catastrophic disintegration of the Greenland and Antarctic Ice Sheets.

28) Despite activist concerns over CO2 levels, rising CO2 levels are our best hope of raising crop yields to feed an ever-growing population

29) The biggest climate change ever experienced on earth took place around 700 million years ago

30) The slight increase in temperature which has been observed since 1900 is entirely consistent with well-established, long-term natural climate cycles

31) Despite activist concerns over CO2 levels, rising CO2 levels of some so-called “greenhouse gases” may be contributing to higher oxygen levels and global cooling, not warming

32) Accurate satellite, balloon and mountain top observations made over the last three decades have not shown any significant change in the long term rate of increase in global temperatures

33) Today’s CO2 concentration of around 385 ppm is very low compared to most of the earth’s history – we actually live in a carbon-deficient atmosphere

34) It is a myth that CO2 is the most common greenhouse gas because greenhouse gases form about 3% of the atmosphere by volume, and CO2 constitutes about 0.037% of the atmosphere

35) It is a myth that computer models verify that CO2 increases will cause significant global warming because computer models can be made to “verify” anything

36) There is no scientific or statistical evidence whatsoever that global warming will cause more storms and other weather extremes

37) One statement deleted from a UN report in 1996 stated that “none of the studies cited above has shown clear evidence that we can attribute the observed climate changes to increases in greenhouse gases”

38) The world “warmed” by 0.07 +/- 0.07 degrees C from 1999 to 2008, not the 0.20 degrees C expected by the IPCC

39) The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change says “it is likely that future tropical cyclones (typhoons and hurricanes) will become more intense” but there has been no increase in the intensity or frequency of tropical cyclones globally

40) Rising CO2 levels in the atmosphere can be shown not only to have a negligible effect on the Earth’s many ecosystems, but in some cases to be a positive help to many organisms

41) Researchers who compare and contrast climate change impact on civilizations found warm periods are beneficial to mankind and cold periods harmful

42) The Met Office asserts we are in the hottest decade since records began but this is precisely what the world should expect if the climate is cyclical

43) Rising CO2 levels increase plant growth and make plants more resistant to drought and pests

44) The historical increase in the air’s CO2 content has improved human nutrition by raising crop yields during the past 150 years

45) The increase of the air’s CO2 content has probably helped lengthen human lifespans since the beginning of the Industrial Revolution

46) The IPCC alleges that “climate change currently contributes to the global burden of disease and premature deaths” but the evidence shows that higher temperatures and rising CO2 levels has helped global populations

47) In May of 2004, the Russian Academy of Sciences published a report concluding that the Kyoto Protocol has no scientific grounding at all.

48) The “Climate-gate” scandal pointed to a expensive public campaign of disinformation and the denigration of scientists who opposed the belief that CO2 emissions were causing climate change

49) The head of Britain’s climate change watchdog has predicted households will need to spend up to £15,000 on a full energy efficiency makeover if the Government is to meet its ambitious targets for cutting carbon emissions.

50) Wind power is unlikely to be the answer to our energy needs. The wind power industry argues that there are “no direct subsidies” but it involves a total subsidy of as much as £60 per MWh which falls directly on electricity consumers. This burden will grow in line with attempts to achieve Wind power targets, according to a recent OFGEM report.

[Stillwater]

51) Wind farms are not an efficient way to produce energy. The British Wind Energy Association (BWEA) accepts a figure of 75 per cent back-up power is required.

52) Global temperatures are below the low end of IPCC predictions not at “at the top end of IPCC estimates”

53) Climate alarmists have raised the concern over acidification of the oceans but Tom Segalstad from Oslo University in Norway , and others, have noted that the composition of ocean water – including CO2, calcium, and water – can act as a buffering agent in the acidification of the oceans.

54) The UN’s IPCC computer models of human-caused global warming predict the emergence of a “hotspot” in the upper troposphere over the tropics. Former researcher in the Australian Department of Climate Change, David Evans, said there is no evidence of such a hotspot

55) The argument that climate change is a of result of global warming caused by human activity is the argument of flat Earthers.

56) The manner in which US President Barack Obama sidestepped Congress to order emission cuts shows how undemocratic and irrational the entire international decision-making process has become with regards to emission-target setting.

57) William Kininmonth, a former head of the National Climate Centre and a consultant to the World Meteorological Organisation, wrote “the likely extent of global temperature rise from a doubling of CO2 is less than 1C. Such warming is well within the envelope of variation experienced during the past 10,000 years and insignificant in the context of glacial cycles during the past million years, when Earth has been predominantly very cold and covered by extensive ice sheets.”

58) Canada has shown the world targets derived from the existing Kyoto commitments were always unrealistic and did not work for the country.

59) In the lead up to the Copenhagen summit, David Davis MP said of previous climate summits, at Rio de Janeiro in 1992 and Kyoto in 1997 that many had promised greater cuts, but “neither happened”, but we are continuing along the same lines.

60) The UK ’s environmental policy has a long-term price tag of about £55 billion, before taking into account the impact on its economic growth.

61) The UN’s panel on climate change warned that Himalayan glaciers could melt to a fifth of current levels by 2035. J. Graham Cogley a professor at Ontario Trent University, claims this inaccurate stating the UN authors got the date from an earlier report wrong by more than 300 years.

62) Under existing Kyoto obligations the EU has attempted to claim success, while actually increasing emissions by 13 per cent, according to Lord Lawson. In addition the EU has pursued this scheme by purchasing “offsets” from countries such as China paying them billions of dollars to destroy atmospheric pollutants, such as CFC-23, which were manufactured purely in order to be destroyed.

63) It is claimed that the average global temperature was relatively unchanging in pre-industrial times but sky-rocketed since 1900, and will increase by several degrees more over the next 100 years according to Penn State University researcher Michael Mann. There is no convincing empirical evidence that past climate was unchanging, nor that 20th century changes in average global temperature were unusual or unnatural.

64) Michael Mann of Penn State University has actually shown that the Medieval Warm Period and the Little Ice Age did in fact exist, which contrasts with his earlier work which produced the “hockey stick graph” which showed a constant temperature over the past thousand years or so followed by a recent dramatic upturn.

65) The globe’s current approach to climate change in which major industrialised countries agree to nonsensical targets for their CO2 emissions by a given date, as it has been under the Kyoto system, is very expensive.

66) The “Climate-gate” scandal revealed that a scientific team had emailed one another about using a “trick” for the sake of concealing a “decline” in temperatures when looking at the history of the Earth’s temperature.

67) Global temperatures have not risen in any statistically-significant sense for 15 years and have actually been falling for nine years. The “Climate-gate” scandal revealed a scientific team had expressed dismay at the fact global warming was contrary to their predictions and admitted their inability to explain it was “a travesty”.

68) The IPCC predicts that a warmer planet will lead to more extreme weather, including drought, flooding, storms, snow, and wildfires. But over the last century, during which the IPCC claims the world experienced more rapid warming than any time in the past two millennia, the world did not experience significantly greater trends in any of these extreme weather events.

69) In explaining the average temperature standstill we are currently experiencing, the Met Office Hadley Centre ran a series of computer climate predictions and found in many of the computer runs there were decade-long standstills but none for 15 years – so it expects global warming to resume swiftly.

70) Richard Lindzen, Professor of Atmospheric Sciences at Massachusetts Institute of Technology, wrote: “The notion of a static, unchanging climate is foreign to the history of the Earth or any other planet with a fluid envelope. Such hysteria (over global warming) simply represents the scientific illiteracy of much of the public, the susceptibility of the public to the substitution of repetition for truth.”

71) Despite the 1997 Kyoto Protocol’s status as the flagship of the fight against climate change it has been a failure.

72) The first phase of the EU’s Emissions Trading Scheme (ETS), which ran from 2005 to 2007 was a failure. Huge over-allocation of permits to pollute led to a collapse in the price of carbon from €33 to just €0.20 per tonne meaning the system did not reduce emissions at all.

73) The EU trading scheme, to manage carbon emissions has completely failed and actually allows European businesses to duck out of making their emissions reductions at home by offsetting, which means paying for cuts to be made overseas instead.

74) To date “cap and trade” carbon markets have done almost nothing to reduce emissions.

75) In the United States , the cap-and-trade is an approach designed to control carbon emissions and will impose huge costs upon American citizens via a carbon tax on all goods and services produced in the United States. The average family of four can expect to pay an additional $1700, or £1,043, more each year. It is predicted that the United States will lose more than 2 million jobs as the result of cap-and-trade schemes.

76) Dr Roy Spencer, a principal research scientist at the University of Alabama in Huntsville, has indicated that out of the 21 climate models tracked by the IPCC the differences in warming exhibited by those models is mostly the result of different strengths of positive cloud feedback – and that increasing CO2 is insufficient to explain global-average warming in the last 50 to 100 years.

77) Why should politicians devote our scarce resources in a globally competitive world to a false and ill-defined problem, while ignoring the real problems the entire planet faces, such as: poverty, hunger, disease or terrorism.

78) A proper analysis of ice core records from the past 650,000 years demonstrates that temperature increases have come before, and not resulted from, increases in CO2 by hundreds of years.

79) Since the cause of global warming is mostly natural, then there is in actual fact very little we can do about it. (We are still not able to control the sun).

80) A substantial number of the panel of 2,500 climate scientists on the United Nation’s International Panel on Climate Change, which created a statement on scientific unanimity on climate change and man-made global warming, were found to have serious concerns.

81) The UK’s Met Office has been forced this year to re-examine 160 years of temperature data after admitting that public confidence in the science on man-made global warming has been shattered by revelations about the data.

82) Politicians and activists push for renewable energy sources such as wind turbines under the rhetoric of climate change, but it is essentially about money – under the system of Renewable Obligations. Much of the money is paid for by consumers in electricity bills. It amounts to £1 billion a year.

83) The “Climate-gate” scandal revealed that a scientific team had tampered with their own data so as to conceal inconsistencies and errors.

84) The “Climate-gate” scandal revealed that a scientific team had campaigned for the removal of a learned journal’s editor, solely because he did not share their willingness to debase science for political purposes.

85) Ice-core data clearly show that temperatures change centuries before concentrations of atmospheric CO2 change. Thus, there appears to be little evidence for insisting that changes in concentrations of CO2 are the cause of past temperature and climate change.

86) There are no experimentally verified processes explaining how CO2 concentrations can fall in a few centuries without falling temperatures – in fact it is changing temperatures which cause changes in CO2 concentrations, which is consistent with experiments that show CO2 is the atmospheric gas most readily absorbed by water.

87) The Government’s Renewable Energy Strategy contains a massive increase in electricity generation by wind power costing around £4 billion a year over the next twenty years. The benefits will be only £4 to £5 billion overall (not per annum). So costs will outnumber benefits by a range of between eleven and seventeen times.

88) Whilst CO2 levels have indeed changed for various reasons, human and otherwise, just as they have throughout history, the CO2 content of the atmosphere has increased since the beginning of the industrial revolution, and the growth rate has now been constant for the past 25 years.

89) It is a myth that CO2 is a pollutant, because nitrogen forms 80% of our atmosphere and human beings could not live in 100% nitrogen either: CO2 is no more a pollutant than nitrogen is and CO2 is essential to life.

90) Politicians and climate activists make claims to rising sea levels but certain members in the IPCC chose an area to measure in Hong Kong that is subsiding. They used the record reading of 2.3 mm per year rise of sea level.

91) The accepted global average temperature statistics used by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change show that no ground-based warming has occurred since 1998.

92) If one factors in non-greenhouse influences such as El Nino events and large volcanic eruptions, lower atmosphere satellite-based temperature measurements show little, if any, global warming since 1979, a period over which atmospheric CO2 has increased by 55 ppm (17 per cent).

93) US President Barack Obama pledged to cut emissions by 2050 to equal those of 1910 when there were 92 million Americans. In 2050, there will be 420 million Americans, so Obama’s promise means that emissions per head will be approximately what they were in 1875. It simply will not happen.

94) The European Union has already agreed to cut emissions by 20 percent to 2020, compared with 1990 levels, and is willing to increase the target to 30 percent. However, these are unachievable and the EU has already massively failed with its Emissions Trading Scheme (ETS), as EU emissions actually rose by 0.8 percent from 2005 to 2006 and are known to be well above the Kyoto goal.

95) Australia has stated it wants to slash greenhouse emissions by up to 25 percent below 2000 levels by 2020, but the pledges were so unpopular that the country’s Senate has voted against the carbon trading Bill, and the Opposition’s Party leader has now been ousted by a climate change sceptic.

96) Canada plans to reduce emissions by 20 percent compared with 2006 levels by 2020, representing approximately a 3 percent cut from 1990 levels but it simultaneously defends its Alberta tar sands emissions and its record as one of the world’s highest per-capita emissions setters.

97) India plans to reduce the ratio of emissions to production by 20-25 percent compared with 2005 levels by 2020, but all Government officials insist that since India has to grow for its development and poverty alleviation, it has to emit, because the economy is driven by carbon.

98) The Leipzig Declaration in 1996, was signed by 110 scientists who said: “We – along with many of our fellow citizens – are apprehensive about the climate treaty conference scheduled for Kyoto, Japan, in December 1997” and “based on all the evidence available to us, we cannot subscribe to the politically inspired world view that envisages climate catastrophes and calls for hasty actions.”

99) A US Oregon Petition Project stated “We urge the United States government to reject the global warming agreement that was written in Kyoto, Japan in December, 1997, and any other similar proposals. The proposed limits on greenhouse gases would harm the environment, hinder the advance of science and technology, and damage the health and welfare of mankind. There is no convincing scientific evidence that human release of CO2, methane, or other greenhouse gasses is causing or will, in the foreseeable future, cause catastrophic heating of the Earth’s atmosphere and disruption of the Earth’s climate.”

100) A report by the Nongovernmental International Panel on Climate Change concluded “We find no support for the IPCC’s claim that climate observations during the twentieth century are either unprecedented or provide evidence of an anthropogenic effect on climate.”

[ICT Bill]

Only 40% of applied nitrogen ever reaches the plant, most of it volitizes into the air mixing with ozone to form nitrous oxide, 298 times more potent than CO2 as a greenhouse gas

I only have one, man you take this seriously. That is a serious cut and paste
You must have me confused with someone else

[Kiril]

Nice stillwater .... a list of unsubstantiated "fact" provided by Europe's very own version of the Heartland Institute. :clapping::rolleyes:

[starry night]

Stillwater, I was just going to say the same thing about what must be a cut/paste.
I doubt that you came up with all of that straight out of your head. Now, it doesn't matter that I would like to agree with what you posted but without any references I won't.
Much of the problem with this global-warming debate is that too many people just believe what they want to believe. This is true for both sides. So if you really want to take part in a debate, make one or two of your points and then reference them. I don't mean it's necessary on a forum such as this to post tons of documentation but at least reference the source of each point. That way a reasonable person can decide if that point might have some validity.
And please don't come on here telling one of our valued members to f-off. If you read the entire thread you will find that he included himself among the "Americans." And he is always very clear to label some of which he says as opinion. So "back up off him."

[starry night]

Stillwater, Here's the danger in your "shotgun" list. My immediate reaction was "just a bunch of repeated claims." But after reading your whole post, I was able to notice a few references. Kiril, on the other hand, who is more widely read on the subject than I am immediately noticed where most of it came from.

[Kiril]

Stillwater, Here's the danger in your "shotgun" list. My immediate reaction was "just a bunch of repeated claims." But after reading your whole post, I was able to notice a few references. Kiril, on the other hand, who is more widely read on the subject than I am immediately noticed where most of it came from.

I don't follow the popular press .... can't trust it. I just searched for the source of the list. :)

[Stillwater]

Stillwater, I was just going to say the same thing about what must be a cut/paste.
I doubt that you came up with all of that straight out of your head. Now, it doesn't matter that I would like to agree with what you posted but without any references I won't.
Much of the problem with this global-warming debate is that too many people just believe what they want to believe. This is true for both sides. So if you really want to take part in a debate, make one or two of your points and then reference them. I don't mean it's necessary on a forum such as this to post tons of documentation but at least reference the source of each point. That way a reasonable person can decide if that point might have some validity.
And please don't come on here telling one of our valued members to f-off. If you read the entire thread you will find that he included himself among the "Americans." And he is always very clear to label some of which he says as opinion. So "back up off him."


Yes that is clearly cut and paste. Moreover Don't tell me what to post as if you somehow are in control of things hear. If the moderator has issue he will delete my post and send me a note. Furthermore I could care less if he included himself in his comment, as if that somehow made it less offensive. I took offense to it and responded. I also find it interesting that I am one of the only ones that responded to that post and am the one confronted for the response. I have to ask you why a man from the fine state of Ohio assuming you are an American does not have a issue with Tims post but takes issue with my response to it as classless as it may be. I would have overlooked the entire post altogether if he said it in jest but that is not what was posted and including himself in a derogatory post about Americans is not a pass.

[Stillwater]

I don't follow the popular press .... can't trust it. I just searched for the source of the list. :)

yes I found it yesterday, some English paper.

http://www.dailyexpress.co.uk/posts/view/146138

[starry night]

Stillwater: Again in defense of Tim Wilson. If you re-read post #15, you will see that he says the "dum Americans" comment was in jest. Those on here who are acquainted with Tim (by way of this forum) know he has a dry, keen wit and recognized that comment as such.

[Stillwater]

Stillwater: Again in defense of Tim Wilson. If you re-read post #15, you will see that he says the "dum Americans" comment was in jest. Those on here who are acquainted with Tim (by way of this forum) know he has a dry, keen wit and recognized that comment as such.

Ok dirtandhoops no problem...

[starry night]

Ok dirtandhoops no problem...

Now, on the other hand, I am much closer to your viewpoint on the global warming / climate change issue than I am to Dr. Wilson's viewpoint.

[Grohorganic]

And please don't come on here telling one of our valued members to f-off. If you read the entire thread you will find that he included himself among the "Americans." And he is always very clear to label some of which he says as opinion. So "back up off him."MIT- EECS phd.???

And they could not teach you to say "it is indeed regrettable" in stead of aw sh*t. oh well, guess that leaves you to be fornicated by the prodigious digit of destiny.........


well all that past us now. I can only recall one thing that may have some bearing on this, in south Florida there is an escarpment that is 22+ feet out of the water, polished like a mirror by water. that tells me that at one time or another there had to be water over the now at present land. is there a natural cycle of this planet to heat and cool?? is there some means of the water raise and recede??? is the air we breathe in a constant flux of constituent???

my answer is yes!!!!! But is there also any way to deny that we as a race and people have not had a dramatic effect on the planet we inhabit?? is our involvement neutral in and of some effects to be seen now and again in the future, that's a great question to ask.

but in all the pontification as to the cause of global climate change, are we not seeing the forest for the trees. lest we idle our time away trying to lay blame where blame is beset on all sides. take this absurd context to the political forums to be rehashed out side of some meaningful discussion about tangible works that have some impact assigned to an ends

[Stillwater]

Now, on the other hand, I am much closer to your viewpoint on the global warming / climate change issue than I am to Dr. Wilson's viewpoint.

Ya, I have issues with this issue, I have always had a interest in earth history and so much of known earth history fact just doesen't jive with the current politicization of this issue. I would have more support for the subject if the major players did not openly with blatant disregard shut down opposing debate in the public arena. The earth itself can and has in the past without a moments notice spue more green house gas than mankind has ever been responsible for in its entire existence. But mention that and your personally attacked. What bothers me most is the current political urgency taking place as if what we do in the next year or 2 will determine the future of the world as if mankind has control over the earths engine. Fossil fuel? at current use its out in 75 years or so anyway. But for the sake of arguement mankind world wide stops immediately the burning of fossil fuel and overnight invokes every single earth saving objective and more what will happen? and how long until the global warming stops if it is almost to late how do they know it is not already to late. if it is what then, where the next emergency.

[Stillwater]

MIT- EECS phd.???

And they could not teach you to say "it is indeed regrettable" in stead of aw sh*t. oh well, guess that leaves you to be fornicated by the prodigious digit of destiny.........


well all that past us now. I can only recall one thing that may have some bearing on this, in south Florida there is an escarpment that is 22+ feet out of the water, polished like a mirror by water. that tells me that at one time or another there had to be water over the now at present land. is there a natural cycle of this planet to heat and cool?? is there some means of the water raise and recede??? is the air we breathe in a constant flux of constituent???

my answer is yes!!!!! But is there also any way to deny that we as a race and people have not had a dramatic effect on the planet we inhabit?? is our involvement neutral in and of some effects to be seen now and again in the future, that's a great question to ask.

but in all the pontification as to the cause of global climate change, are we not seeing the forest for the trees. lest we idle our time away trying to lay blame where blame is beset on all sides. take this absurd context to the political forums to be rehashed out side of some meaningful discussion about tangible works that have some impact assigned to an ends


Why attack my education? I do not speak like that, I never have, so no MIT did not. MIT is not Harvard. You sound like you speak well how are you at transducer development or audio research how many patents do you have? How old are you?

[Smallaxe]

Actually, I really would like to know how much more salt is in the ocean today, than there was a hundred years ago. What are the ppms and how many degrees colder does the Arctic Ocean have to be to form ice?
That, and those hot water vents under the ice up there, are never mentioned. We are definately not looking at this as science, otherwise all relevant factors would be openly discussed all the time.
If there is anything true about propaganda, it is repeated, over and over, without any contradiction. I see propaganda, and a socio-political climate of polarization. And I see it being done on purpose. :)
If the editor of the NYTimes wants to keep his reputation, he will not print certain stories. That is not a conspiracy - that is how business is done, even with the local rag in this rinky-dink little town.

[Grohorganic]

Why attack my education? I do not speak like that, I never have, so no MIT did not. MIT is not Harvard. You sound like you speak well how are you at transducer development or audio research how many patents do you have? How old are you?

I am just a dum american......................I let the sensors and actuators to the nerds

[Kiril]

The earth itself can and has in the past without a moments notice spue more green house gas than mankind has ever been responsible for in its entire existence.

This is almost certainly true .... however, you cannot say this is what is happening again, especially given current natural cycles do not support it. The fossil fuel industry certainly would rather we just ignore the changing planet and our possible effects on it. Remember, greed and money always comes before social responsibility and environmental health. :rolleyes:

[Smallaxe]

This is almost certainly true .... however, you cannot say this is what is happening again, especially given current natural cycles do not support it. The fossil fuel industry certainly would rather we just ignore the changing planet and our possible effects on it. Remember, greed and money always comes before social responsibility and environmental health. :rolleyes:

Algore and his buddies in Copenhagen right now, talking about taxing the whole world to fill a few pockets at the UN, doesn't seem like greed to you? They are honest folks of impeccable social conscience?
Communism = Social responsibilty. Global fascism = environmental health.

You might have a CO2 cloud right over your city, but out here under clear skies, the heat is escaping (radiating) into space just as quickly as the sun goes down. I wish we had cloud cover tonite.

[phasthound]

Algore and his buddies in Copenhagen right now, talking about taxing the whole world to fill a few pockets at the UN, doesn't seem like greed to you? They are honest folks of impeccable social conscience?
Communism = Social responsibilty. Global fascism = environmental health.

You might have a CO2 cloud right over your city, but out here under clear skies, the heat is escaping (radiating) into space just as quickly as the sun goes down. I wish we had cloud cover tonite.

I like how you claim everyone who disagrees with you is biased. :)
Obviously, you are not. :rolleyes:

[Smallaxe]

What do you mean about biased? I was talking about Copenhagen, Communism and Fascism. I didn't claim anyone here is any of those things.
The battle seems to be between the oil industry and Copenhagen according to Kiril. But its actually between those who would control every aspect of your life and those who would live free.
I will be hauling the mowers on the back of a Geo or Smartcar.

I would still like to know how some Islands are sinking , due to rising oceans, but not anywhere around our beaches. & CO2 staying in the atmosphere for 3000 years.
None of that is science.

[Tim Wilson]

I think that Phil's (Grohorganic) comment which takes a balanced and questioning look at the climate cycle and human's potential role in the increased dissappearance of ice is a very worthy one. I do not think that I aligned myself with the political battle raging but stated that there is an accelerated rate of glacier melt over the past 50/100 years. Did humans contribute to this? Very likely. As I pointed out deforestation is probably one of the greatest contributors to this and deforestation has occurred worldwide for many years but not as accelerated and as motivated by greed as in the past 50 years. Largley, this was brought about by Canadian and American companies (thus my bad comment dum Americans but lets change it to dum Euronorthamericans). These companies moved into British Columbia (BC), took vast swaths of forest, employing many people for a while, then closed up, took their money and moved away. [BC has a clearcut which shows up from space]. These companies, during their active days, excused their behaviour by planting new trees and throwing out slogans like 'forests forever'. Only problem was that they knew there was a pine beetle attacking lodgepole pine and they knew that they were exempt from paying government taxes on infected trees and they knew these trees grew rapidly before they became infected and they knew they could turn a quick buck on 2X4s made from small trees; SO they planted lodgepole pine rather than a diversity of species. Twenty-five to thirty years ago I and others informed the government that this practice was doomed to failure. Not only were they ignoring the type of fungi in the soil which support certain species but were inviting disaster by planting monocultures subject to disease. I also wrote letters to the government telling them that if they provided family woodlots with selective logging, rather than the huge corporate logging blocks, there would be employment and forests forever. Obviously, this fell on deaf ears. Now, we have dead and dying forests and unemployed forest workers. There are new (evolved) species of insects/bugs threatening to wipe out other species of trees in a sweep across North America. This is just one tiny corner of the world but the effects on the global atmosphere is profound. Then there is the deforestation of the Amazon.

Certainly, there are climatic cycles on earth but can we conclude that humans are not negatively impacting this? All the politics and conspiracy crap aside, is it not a wise thing for us to reduce the garbage we are drowning in, try to clean up the air and water? If we don't listen to the obvious messages being given to us by the earth then we are a bunch of dum Euronorthamericans.

[Marcos]

Certainly, there are climatic cycles on earth but can we conclude that humans are not negatively impacting this? All the politics and conspiracy crap aside, is it not a wise thing for us to reduce the garbage we are drowning in, try to clean up the air and water? If we don't listen to the obvious messages being given to us by the earth then we are a bunch of dum Euronorthamericans.

If the climate-terrorists would open their eyes instead of constantly digging into their socialist agendas, they would see the geologic seafloor core evidence that proves the Earth's axis has a 1 1/2 degree 'wobble' variance every 40,000 years as it revolves around the sun:

http://www.livescience.com/environment/050330_earth_tilt.html

The last 'wobble' in the Earth's orbit was approx 5000 years ago.
It is no coincidence that also about 5000 years ago the Sahara desert started drying out & many of its people flocked east & created the glory that was the Old Kingdom of Egypt.
The wobble of 5000-some years ago & no doubt is still affecting the Earth.

The next 'wobble' will be about 15,000 years from now.
Around that point in time the Earth will become significantly cooler from the poles to the equator, and another glacial age will begin in the temperate latitudes.


There ya go, MrAlgorewontdebateanyone.
The argument's over. :waving:

Sure, Tim...
It's a wise thing to be/become green.
But do it for the good of the ENVIRONMENT.
NOT left-wing polititians!!!!

[Stillwater]

If the climate-terrorists would open their eyes instead of constantly digging into their socialist agendas, they would see the geologic seafloor core evidence that proves the Earth's axis has a 1 1/2 degree 'wobble' variance every 40,000 years as it revolves around the sun:

http://www.livescience.com/environment/050330_earth_tilt.html

The last 'wobble' in the Earth's orbit was approx 5000 years ago.
It is no coincidence that also about 5000 years ago the Sahara desert started drying out & many of its people flocked east & created the glory that was the Old Kingdom of Egypt.
The wobble of 5000-some years ago & no doubt is still affecting the Earth.

The next 'wobble' will be about 15,000 years from now.
Around that point in time the Earth will become significantly cooler from the poles to the equator, and another glacial age will begin in the temperate latitudes.


There ya go, MrAlgorewontdebateanyone.
The argument's over. :waving:

Sure, Tim...
It's a wise thing to be/become green.
But do it for the good of the ENVIRONMENT.
NOT left-wing polititians!!!!




The last episode of How The Earth Was Made discussed this wobble in detail a fascinating subject that is conveniently always ignored. The wobble is why their are fossilized Whales and Sea Life and Trees around the pyramids What is just as fascinating is that sea life is on it's way back.

[Marcos]

The last episode of How The Earth Was Made discussed this wobble in detail a fascinating subject that is conveniently always ignored. The wobble is why their are fossilized Whales and Sea Life and Trees around the pyramids What is just as fascinating is that sea life is on it's way back.

Cool beans!
I just programmed 'The Sahara' to record on the DVR.
I didn't realize they'd made newer episodes of 'How The Earth Was Made' recently.
Thanks, Stillwater! :waving:

[Kiril]

If the climate-terrorists would open their eyes instead of constantly digging into their socialist agendas, they would see the geologic seafloor core evidence that proves the Earth's axis has a 1 1/2 degree 'wobble' variance every 40,000 years as it revolves around the sun:

http://www.livescience.com/environment/050330_earth_tilt.html

The last 'wobble' in the Earth's orbit was approx 5000 years ago.
It is no coincidence that also about 5000 years ago the Sahara desert started drying out & many of its people flocked east & created the glory that was the Old Kingdom of Egypt.
The wobble of 5000-some years ago & no doubt is still affecting the Earth.

The next 'wobble' will be about 15,000 years from now.
Around that point in time the Earth will become significantly cooler from the poles to the equator, and another glacial age will begin in the temperate latitudes.

It is amusing how you present a theory as fact ... and even more amusing you don't realize it.

Oh wait ... there is more. The closing quote from your article.

"What we have here is a great laboratory for seeing how climate changes naturally," he said. "But this is a 100,000-year cycle, whereas global warming is happening a thousand times faster."

:laugh::waving:

And yet there is still more .... care to comment on the margin of error on these estimates?

According to this paper (http://www.aanda.org/articles/aa/pdf/2004/46/aa1335.pdf), estimated margin of error is about 100,000 - 200,000 years.

Clearly you have a firm grasp on geologic time. ;) :nono:

I'll wait for you to put it all in perspective for us.

[Marcos]

It is amusing how you present a theory as fact ... and even more amusing you don't realize it.

Oh wait ... there is more. The closing quote from your article.

"What we have here is a great laboratory for seeing how climate changes naturally," he said. "But this is a 100,000-year cycle, whereas global warming is happening a thousand times faster."

:laugh::waving:

And yet there is still more .... care to comment on the margin of error on these estimates?

According to this paper (http://www.aanda.org/articles/aa/pdf/2004/46/aa1335.pdf), estimated margin of error is about 100,000 - 200,000 years.

Clearly you have a firm grasp on geologic time. ;) :nono:

I'll wait for you to put it all in perspective for us.

What's theoretical about it?
Magnetic evidence to this effect is laid down in sea floor sediment cores taken from oceans worldwide, plain as the moles on your butt (Wet Boots told me, sorry:waving:).

Oh yeah...that closing quote was probably obligatory thrown in by some naive immature left-wing college intern.
With any kind of luck, he/she'll get religion in time.
Anyone with half a brain can plainly see it is unrelated to the topic of axis tilt...
Oh, crap, I forgot all about your past lobotomy operation, Kiril! :dizzy:

[Kiril]

What's theoretical about it?

Here .... let me help you read your popular press article (http://www.livescience.com/environment/050330_earth_tilt.html).

The researchers speculate that the glacier period has become longer in the last million years because the Earth has gotten slightly colder - the upshot being that every once in a while the planet misses a chance to thaw out.

One popular theory has been that the noncircular shape, or eccentricity, of Earth's orbit around the Sun could be driving the glacial cycle, since the variations in the eccentricity have a 100,000-year period. Curiously different, but interesting.

But some scientists believe a larger effect could be generated if the eccentricity fluctuations are coupled with the precession, or wobble of the Earth's axis.


Oh yeah...that closing quote was probably obligatory thrown in by some naive immature left-wing college intern.

Funny ..... since it was a QUOTE from a telephone interview with Peter Huybers.

Anyhow, thanks for playing Marcos. It is always amusing to watch people try to twist information to fit their ridiculous political agendas.

[phasthound]

[QUOTE=Marcos;3326012]If the climate-terrorists would open their eyes instead of constantly digging into their socialist agendas,

It's right about there that I stop reading.

[Stillwater]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qmZ10PV2drw&feature=fvw

[ted putnam]

The last episode of How The Earth Was Made discussed this wobble in detail a fascinating subject that is conveniently always ignored. The wobble is why their are fossilized Whales and Sea Life and Trees around the pyramids What is just as fascinating is that sea life is on it's way back.

Yes, but from what I've seen those shallow ocean bays and mangrove swamps around the pyramids began to dry up around 3 million yrs ago. Also, it was due to the movement of techtonic plates riding up and over one another, raising land masses, not actually lowering sea levels.Rising land actually left the whales and mangroves stranded and literally "high and dry". This is also why the Alps of southern Europe were actually part of North Africa at one time. Also they explained that dry weather patterns/winds in a band around this section of the earth was a contributing factor in the formation of deserts. The Sahara of Africa, Gobi of Asia and the desert southwest of the United States are all created/affected by these weather patterns.

[Stillwater]

Yes, but from what I've seen those shallow ocean bays and mangrove swamps around the pyramids began to dry up around 3 million yrs ago. Also, it was due to the movement of techtonic plates riding up and over one another, raising land masses, not actually lowering sea levels.Rising land actually left the whales and mangroves stranded and literally "high and dry". This is also why the Alps of southern Europe were actually part of North Africa at one time. Also they explained that dry weather patterns/winds in a band around this section of the earth was a contributing factor in the formation of deserts. The Sahara of Africa, Gobi of Asia and the desert southwest of the United States are all created/affected by these weather patterns.

Fascinating, I just watched some cgi videos of the future projected movement of the tectonic plates the world is constantly changing, I wish I had a time machine.

[Smallaxe]

The wobble was charted out, from observations of ancient temples that are no longer lined up with the summer solstice. The wobble is back and forth within the last 4500 years. When the various temples were built.

[Smallaxe]

... As I pointed out deforestation is probably one of the greatest contributors to this and deforestation has occurred worldwide for many years but not as accelerated and as motivated by greed as in the past 50 years. ...

...North America. This is just one tiny corner of the world but the effects on the global atmosphere is profound. Then there is the deforestation of the Amazon.

Certainly, there are climatic cycles on earth but can we conclude that humans are not negatively impacting this? All the politics and conspiracy crap aside, is it not a wise thing for us to reduce the garbage we are drowning in, try to clean up the air and water? If we don't listen to the obvious messages being given to us by the earth then we are a bunch of dum Euronorthamericans.

You have made the point very clear that the CO2 increase due to deforestation is the only talking point out there. Ionosphere heating with EM pulses, hot water vents, continued influx of salt, rapid deterioration of the earth's magnetic field and the big one, Solar Activity, will never be talking points for the masses. Why is that?

Maybe its because we are dum euro/amerikans, and if it were relevant algore would have said so. Algore and the gov't media doesn't talk about it - therefore it is not relevant.

As a result - dum euro/amerikans haven't got a reasonable understanding of the world they live in. The computer models that prove the scientists understand the world they live in - did not come close to indicating the cool down of the past decade, and that info is hidden.

There isn't any monitoring of the ocean currents on the meteorological reports, outside of 'el nino' or 'el nina'. Climate change reports have to do with atmospheric condition only. Air heat and cools to rapidly to be the catalyst of change.

[Tim Wilson]

[QUOTE][You have made the point very clear that the CO2 increase due to deforestation is the only talking point out there/QUOTE]

Smallaxe: I said no such thing. I just pointed it out as a contributing factor. I am not trying to argue with anyone. Why are you so bitter and negative these days? I don't recall you being like this several months ago. I do hope that you have not experienced a trauma in your life but if so, I hope things pick up for you.

[starry night]

but in all the pontification as to the cause of global climate change, are we not seeing the forest for the trees. lest we idle our time away trying to lay blame where blame is beset on all sides. take this absurd context to the political forums to be rehashed out side of some meaningful discussion about tangible works that have some impact assigned to an ends

To me, this was the most reasoned statement made during this whole thread.
I agree. If this thread is just going to be political vs. political, get it outta here.
Let's get back to, as Grohorganic said, meaningful discussion about what WE can do for our part, things like minimizing pesticide use, building healthy soil, and preaching that. We can be good stewards in our own way and that's what we should focus on. "But for your part, stand by the truths you have learned and are assured of."

[phasthound]

To me, this was the most reasoned statement made during this whole thread.
I agree. If this thread is just going to be political vs. political, get it outta here.
Let's get back to, as Grohorganic said, meaningful discussion about what WE can do for our part, things like minimizing pesticide use, building healthy soil, and preaching that. We can be good stewards in our own way and that's what we should focus on. "But for your part, stand by the truths you have learned and are assured of."

Absolutely! I started this thread to provoke thought not to stir up a political food fight. The following statement is not to be interpreted as an endorsement for any side of global warming controversy.

Don't ever take what a single source says as Gospel Truth.... especially if that single source is quoting another single source..... who derives that information from yet another single source.... and which source turns out to be, with researching, a single unverified source.

Henry Ford said: "History is bunk".... and he was right much of the time.

"Facts" reported in today's media can be just so much of that well known organic fertilizer "spun" to support someone's (or some organization's) agenda.

What is even worse, people with passionate beliefs can put so much "spin" on a position that they come to believe that it is the Gospel Truth.

To find something close to "the truth" is why I continue reading the apparently endless posts on certain subjects that load certain lists. Winnowing the grain from the chaff can be frustrating, but with care one may not only harvest grain but can occasionally find a "pearl of great price" of verifiable fact.

Throw out the politics and concentrate on being better stewards because everything we do does have impacts, both positive and negative. My mother always taught me to clean up my room and don't call people bad names. Still good advice that I try to follow, but I can be better at both.

[Smallaxe]

I don't think anyone is pro-pollution. I am definately against HAARP. I wish science would have an idea how much salt is going into the ocean and what impact that is having. mapping out and understanding the hot water vents would also be good to know.

And that's just it. We can't find out about those things because then people may question that CO2 emmissions need to be controlled by a global gov't. :)

I am not being hostile or bitter, just asking straight forward questions without a lot of mamby-pamby, hows ur feelins, sweetness. I'm sorry if I seem loud. :)

Here's an extra smiley. :) Now will someone address those issues I asked about? :)

[phasthound]

I don't think anyone is pro-pollution. I am definately against HAARP.

Is this what you're talking about? http://phantomsandmonsters.wetpaint.com/page/HAARP:+Fooling+With+Mother+Nature

[Smallaxe]

Is this what you're talking about? http://phantomsandmonsters.wetpaint.com/page/HAARP:+Fooling+With+Mother+Nature

I don't know how successful they are with the weather, but niether do we know what this heating and disruption is accomplishing. The Ionosphere is the layer that does most to protect us from solar/cosmic radiation. Can such massive intrusion to the atmosphere effect the ozone as well?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ionospheric_heater

"An ionospheric heater is an array of antennas which are used for heating the ionosphere, and which can create artificial aurora.

The European Incoherent Scatter Scientific Association (EISCAT) operates an ionospheric heating facility, capable of transmitting over 1 GW [1] [2] effective radiated power (ERP), near Tromsø in Norway.

Russia has the Sura ionospheric heating facility, in Vasilsursk near Nizhniy Novgorod, capable of transmitting 190 MW ERP"

It seems they have the polar regaion surrounded with heaters. :)

[treegal1]

let the mud fly!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

I am so happy to smell the air of really fresh compost...............:terribletowel:

[starry night]

Heyyyy treegal.:waving: Good to see your name.

[ICT Bill]

Treegal is up for air, nice

how goes the good fight and how is my buddy King Phillip of the south (little phil)