PDA

View Full Version : Global warming a hoax?



Bluey
Nov. 25, 2009, 02:46 PM
Seems that global warming was not all it was supposed to be:

http://www.nytimes.com/2009/11/21/science/earth/21climate.html?_r=2&scp=1&sq=hacked%20climate%2

tle
Nov. 25, 2009, 02:49 PM
Don't have to read the article to tell you that.

cloudyandcallie
Nov. 25, 2009, 02:56 PM
Well since the polar ice cap is melting, denial will not work for those of us who live on the coast of GA. I expect Warsaw and Ossabaw Islands will disappear and the river will creep up the bluff in front of the house.

Scientists who work in the far north have documented the melting ice. So don't worry, when NYC and other coastal areas go under, someone will think of another reason for the debacle.

caffeinated
Nov. 25, 2009, 02:59 PM
I dunno Bluey, without actually reading the emails, and seeing them in context, it's hard for me to take the word of anti-climate-change people as golden as to what the emails contain and what it means.

I spend a lot of time on science blogs and reading about this stuff - the fact is that climate change is really complicated. And very serious. And it's true that people who INSIST it's not happening (and "global warming" may be a poor choice of words, as climate change doesn't necessarily mean all areas of the globe are getting warmer all the time) will seize on any tiny little thing to make their case- and that's what that blog post sounds like. They're seizing on every little bit of poor word choice, and every tiny bit of data that supports them, and trying to bring down the much larger mountain of evidence to the contrary.

grandprixjump
Nov. 25, 2009, 03:03 PM
Well since the polar ice cap is melting, denial will not work for those of us who live on the coast of GA. I expect Warsaw and Ossabaw Islands will disappear and the river will creep up the bluff in front of the house.

Scientists who work in the far north have documented the melting ice. So don't worry, when NYC and other coastal areas go under, someone will think of another reason for the debacle.

That said if EVERY BIT OF ICE on the planet melted the water would rise less then a foot.... NYC will disappear under 6" of water:lol::lol::lol: All that would do is flush rats out of the subways and wash off the streets.....

danceronice
Nov. 25, 2009, 03:09 PM
:rolleyes:On the list of "things I am not worried about", global temperature averages that are still lower than previous interglacial periods are not high on my list. If it's a hoax, that's even funnier.

If there's increased seismic activity observed under the Yellowstone supervolcano, THEN I will have something to worry about that.

The idea that "OMG the Earth might become harder for humans and/or other mammal species to inhabit" somehow equals "We're destroying the PLANET!!!" makes me :rolleyes:.

Bluey
Nov. 25, 2009, 03:11 PM
I dunno Bluey, without actually reading the emails, and seeing them in context, it's hard for me to take the word of anti-climate-change people as golden as to what the emails contain and what it means.

I spend a lot of time on science blogs and reading about this stuff - the fact is that climate change is really complicated. And very serious. And it's true that people who INSIST it's not happening (and "global warming" may be a poor choice of words, as climate change doesn't necessarily mean all areas of the globe are getting warmer all the time) will seize on any tiny little thing to make their case- and that's what that blog post sounds like. They're seizing on every little bit of poor word choice, and every tiny bit of data that supports them, and trying to bring down the much larger mountain of evidence to the contrary.

I know someone that is a scientist and works in those circles and they have been saying all along that to decide world policy based on what we know today is going blindly into a future that we can't predict.
To use today's science to say if we are doing this or that to the earth AND what we should do to correct it has no more merit than flipping a coin to decide.

We just don't know enough, so anything we do should be done very carefully and definitely not as assured of the results as some sound.

Most scientists are afraid to say much, because their positions today may impact their grants and work tomorrow.
I think that some are taking advantage of that situation to push their agendas with few objecting and even fewer asking for more proof to go by.

Kaleigh007
Nov. 25, 2009, 03:19 PM
Al Gore for one is hoping everyone disregards the emails! Afterall, his bank account depends greatly on people believing it!

Calvincrowe
Nov. 25, 2009, 03:44 PM
I guess I don't much care if "it" is real or not, clearly we humans have impacted our environment in a multitude of negative ways. There can be nothing wrong in trying to improve, restore or protect the planet we live on. Sticking one's head in the proverbial sand and pushing today's problems off on future generations is asinine.

Dazednconfused
Nov. 25, 2009, 03:51 PM
I guess I don't much care if "it" is real or not, clearly we humans have impacted our environment in a multitude of negative ways. There can be nothing wrong in trying to improve, restore or protect the planet we live on. Sticking one's head in the proverbial sand and pushing today's problems off on future generations is asinine.

Absolutely agree. :yes::yes::yes:

mares tails
Nov. 25, 2009, 04:03 PM
That said if EVERY BIT OF ICE on the planet melted the water would rise less then a foot..
Citation please?

"Most of the current global land ice mass is located in the Antarctic and Greenland ice sheets (table 1). Complete melting of these ice sheets could lead to a sea-level rise of about 80 meters, whereas melting of all other glaciers could lead to a sea-level rise of only one-half meter." according to USGS (http://pubs.usgs.gov/fs/fs2-00/)

.

caffeinated
Nov. 25, 2009, 04:07 PM
AS far as the emails in question, I like this take on it (essentially, there's just NOT a giant conspiracy of fraud going on, here):

http://scienceblogs.com/islandofdoubt/2009/11/the_hacked_climate_science_ema.php

http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2009/11/the-cru-hack/ :


Instead, there is a peek into how scientists actually interact and the conflicts show that the community is a far cry from the monolith that is sometimes imagined. People working constructively to improve joint publications; scientists who are friendly and agree on many of the big picture issues, disagreeing at times about details and engaging in ‘robust’ discussions; Scientists expressing frustration at the misrepresentation of their work in politicized arenas and complaining when media reports get it wrong; Scientists resenting the time they have to take out of their research to deal with over-hyped nonsense. None of this should be shocking

And Bluey, perhaps we don't know enough to rush into anything, but my point of view on environmentalism is... how is it ever a bad thing to want to clean up the air? I mean, we breathe the stuff, right?

The other issue with the pace of change is that by the time we know 'for sure' what is happening and what to do about it, it may be too late. It's a rather large ship, you can't turn it on a dime. So while there may not be 100% agreement on all facets of the issue, waiting till there is could be pretty bad too, couldn't it?

Foxtrot's
Nov. 25, 2009, 04:21 PM
Dig deeper - 100% of the naysayers have a vested interest in making people believe that global warming is not happening. I believe we should assume it is warming and take preventative action and hope we are wrong, rather than the other way round.

Bluey
Nov. 25, 2009, 04:23 PM
AS far as the emails in question, I like this take on it (essentially, there's just NOT a giant conspiracy of fraud going on, here):

http://scienceblogs.com/islandofdoubt/2009/11/the_hacked_climate_science_ema.php

http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2009/11/the-cru-hack/ :



And Bluey, perhaps we don't know enough to rush into anything, but my point of view on environmentalism is... how is it ever a bad thing to want to clean up the air? I mean, we breathe the stuff, right?

The other issue with the pace of change is that by the time we know 'for sure' what is happening and what to do about it, it may be too late. It's a rather large ship, you can't turn it on a dime. So while there may not be 100% agreement on all facets of the issue, waiting till there is could be pretty bad too, couldn't it?

Are you aware of the political debates at the world level of cap and trade issues?

Talking about not only directing the big, slow ship, but more like making holes in it and then expecting it to still be sea worthy.;)

Huntertwo
Nov. 25, 2009, 04:24 PM
Al Gore for one is hoping everyone disregards the emails! Afterall, his bank account depends greatly on people believing it!

LOL....:lol::lol:

RugBug
Nov. 25, 2009, 04:47 PM
I guess I don't much care if "it" is real or not, clearly we humans have impacted our environment in a multitude of negative ways. There can be nothing wrong in trying to improve, restore or protect the planet we live on. Sticking one's head in the proverbial sand and pushing today's problems off on future generations is asinine.

:yes:

TuxWink
Nov. 25, 2009, 05:01 PM
I'm with those who are asking if it really matters? Questioning one effect of human pollution (global warming) doesn't cancel out all the other REALLY BAD and REALLY OBVIOUS effects of our actions that have not only hurt the environment, but ourselves as well. Arguing about global warming seems to distract everyone from the horrifying number of chemicals we ingest, trash we contaminate the earth and sea with and the multitude of other ways we seem bent on killing ourselves or at least making life really miserable while we're still living it.

magnolia73
Nov. 25, 2009, 05:05 PM
I guess I don't much care if "it" is real or not, clearly we humans have impacted our environment in a multitude of negative ways. There can be nothing wrong in trying to improve, restore or protect the planet we live on. Sticking one's head in the proverbial sand and pushing today's problems off on future generations is asinine.

:)

God forbid we take steps to be more efficient, less wasteful, less reliant on foreign oil, lower our energy costs and produce less waste. Let's just keep wasting resources while we still can. For any reason.

Even if we are not causing climate change, our reliance on fossil fuels causes other issues pertaining to water quality, air quality, security, efficiency, economy, erosion and a host of other things that aren't good, no matter what your political bent.

Perfect Pony
Nov. 25, 2009, 05:08 PM
Never mind even warming or pollution, the fact is we either have, or are fast approaching, global peak oil production while the developing world continues to ramp up their consumption of oil and energy.

There are many reasons we need to wean ourselves off of using so much oil, global warming and pollution is only part of the story.

Sonesta
Nov. 25, 2009, 05:10 PM
Oh, heck. It doesn't really matter, does it? I mean, since the world will end on Dec. 21, 2012 anyway, right?............

Kaleigh007
Nov. 25, 2009, 05:23 PM
I can't wait to hear all the weeping and whining if cap and trade gets passed and you can't afford your horses anymore due to all the taxes and higher fuel/elec. bills, THAT will impact everyone and everything!

sid
Nov. 25, 2009, 05:44 PM
Global Warming is a political movement.

As Obama's Chief of Staff, Raum Emanuel has has said.. crises create political opportunity. Create the crisis...then one has political opportunity. They've marketed the crisis.

There are plenty of scientists, who are not politically motivated for gov't funding dollars, who have hard proof. The mainstream media will not publish their work that what the Earth is going though is a normal chain of events that has happened before. Gee..wonder why? They will not allow both sides for the "masses" to consider and from which to make judgement...because it IS a political movement and they control the airwaves.

Are there downsides to carbon emissions in our atmosphere..of course.

Remember, it was not that long ago under Jimmy Carter that we were all going to die with the plant due to deforestation. But companies like Weyerhouser were replanting constantly to create a "sustainable" product for man-made building needs and still protect the environment.

Scare tactics move the masses towards dependency on goverment. This is socialism. Saul Alinsky would be proud how well these folks have "worked" and created crises to move the country in this direction.

When "Climategate" is uncovered, we'll all feel really stupid and a whole lot poorer after they tax the crap out of us to fund their political ideology.

Scares me silly.

darkmoonlady
Nov. 25, 2009, 05:49 PM
The climate of the earth changes all the time, has always, will always, sometimes warmer, sometimes cooler. Are humans negatively impacting the environment? That is a resounding yes, and we can't deny we aren't good for the earth, but as to the cause of the climate change now being totally our fault? Thats a harder question to answer. No matter what the cause, it is changing fast, and we will either adapt or die, as it has always been. Humans evolved in climate change from forests changing into savannahs so we can adapt, it will just be a question of will we, how much and for how long.

shawneeAcres
Nov. 25, 2009, 05:53 PM
Oh, heck. It doesn't really matter, does it? I mean, since the world will end on Dec. 21, 2012 anyway, right?............


Exactly! Whats the worry about???:confused::lol::D:winkgrin::eek::yes:;):

:cool:

Rackonteur
Nov. 25, 2009, 05:53 PM
Nothing new. They were saying this 10 years ago.

Brookes
Nov. 25, 2009, 05:54 PM
I have to agree with Sid (Susan) this truly is just another big political pile of steaming sh&*! I suggest to those of you (who already haven't) take a close look at the cap & trade documents and see for yourself just how this is going to change our lives; and not for the better.

I don't imagine that anyone here wants pollution. I'm sure we all do what we can to help out. However to force cap & trade on us is wrong. Let's find ways to make it better, not punish us again with more taxes on, well everything. How can we possibly focus on being better citizens of the planet when we are simply trying to make it from day to day and put food on our tables????

I'm afraid that when you have real day to day problems that are financially and emotionally crippling that the global warming issue just isn't high on anyone's list. There's just too much else to worry about trying to keep roofs over our heads right now.

Yes the government doesn't give a flying fajita what out problems are, if they did they wouldn't be so gung ho on laying more taxes on us. They are in it for the power and the control and the ultimate profile change of this country.

tkhawk
Nov. 25, 2009, 07:36 PM
Climate change has been happening for ever-witness the ice ages and subsequent warming cycles. But we are probably the first species here that is aware of it on a long term level. We are also the first species that has the werewithal to do something about it. Every other animal has evolved by evolving physically to suit the environment around them. We on the other hand have evolved by controlling the external. We can live in Alaska one day and then fly out to the Sahara desert and live there for another year, mostly due to science. We have legs to move-but really they are as useful to us as a horse is. Technology gets us to where we wan't to go-cars, bicycles, planes, et al. Is it any surprise that we see something that seems to threaten us and are trying to form a solution. All the previous cycles of cooling and warming we had, took millenia. Now due to our stuff, it takes place much quicker and we also have an idea of what is causing it. Govt restrictions are really not that bad of a thing. We know what causes smog and if you ever are in Los Angeles, you know what it is. So there are regulations to limit it by many methods. Does it all work-it has reduced it somewhat. This is a phenomenon that scientists are trying to understand and honestly a bunch of some hacked emails from a university I never heard of before hardly makes it a hoax! Funny, Bluey on the slaughter debates, you are the one pointing out that !:winkgrin:

Now what I consider to be the real hoax is organized religion. I have lived in many places and experienced many religions. Most organized religions are very similar and go something like this..
1) Our God/Gods/Goddess is the one true God and everyone who doesn't believe in him/her is doomed.
2) There is a huge group of middlemen/priests who seem to be the go between between the masses and God. They control access to him/her. They intrepret the scriptures and determine the rules by which we live by. Of course if you have enough money or still believe in this particular God, then the middleman/woman has the power to wash away your sins/karma/whatever -for a fee of course.
3) The masses who support the middlemen/prists/swamis/mullahs etc.


That is pretty much the pattern in any major religion. The role of the middleman is quite prominent in all the organized religions. In some it is a birthright, others you go to school and study -but in all, that is the only job you do . To me if there was ever a hoax, this is it and it has provided a nice living for countless humans! I certainly believe in a higher power, but it is personal and every time I go there I am awed by something that has the capacity to create universes and time and space and if you look at quantum physics, multiple possibilites and dimensions. I don't wan't to shrink it to fit into a belief that someone experienced centuries or millenia ago. I also don't wan't to pay someone to be the middlemen-especially when his expertise is based on reading soemthing that someone wrote God knows how long ago. But to each his own.

deltawave
Nov. 25, 2009, 07:44 PM
Misunderstood? Yes. Political football? Oh my, yes.

A hoax? Umm, perpetrated by whom, exactly? The intellectual literati underground? :confused:

We are using up the planet's available resources within our little timeline, no matter how you slice it. But the planet has its own timeline, its own agenda, and we are not much more than a minor pimple on its butt, in the grand scheme of things. In a few thousand years, I don't think there will be much to discuss WRT who is right or wrong about global warming.

I love thinking universally. Makes me feel like the shrieking dramas we tend to wrap ourselves in seem so infinitessimally unimportant. :)

Sakura
Nov. 25, 2009, 08:02 PM
Global Warming is a political movement.

As Obama's Chief of Staff, Raum Emanuel has has said.. crises create political opportunity. Create the crisis...then one has political opportunity. They've marketed the crisis.

There are plenty of scientists, who are not politically motivated for gov't funding dollars, who have hard proof. The mainstream media will not publish their work that what the Earth is going though is a normal chain of events that has happened before. Gee..wonder why? They will not allow both sides for the "masses" to consider and from which to make judgement...because it IS a political movement and they control the airwaves.

Are there downsides to carbon emissions in our atmosphere..of course.

Remember, it was not that long ago under Jimmy Carter that we were all going to die with the plant due to deforestation. But companies like Weyerhouser were replanting constantly to create a "sustainable" product for man-made building needs and still protect the environment.

Scare tactics move the masses towards dependency on goverment. This is socialism. Saul Alinsky would be proud how well these folks have "worked" and created crises to move the country in this direction.

When "Climategate" is uncovered, we'll all feel really stupid and a whole lot poorer after they tax the crap out of us to fund their political ideology.

Scares me silly.

:yes::yes::yes:

deltawave
Nov. 25, 2009, 08:05 PM
I wonder if there are actually a-political people, anywhere in this country, that have an opinion on global warming. (I typed "global worming" at first, hee hee) I don't know a gigantic number of non-US citizens, but I can't think of ONE who doesn't agree that global warming is a large and mostly human-induced problem. *shrug*

The perspective of those outside of the USA would be interesting.

Sakura
Nov. 25, 2009, 08:15 PM
I believe in Climate Change... it is a natural cycle that our planet goes through in reaction to internal forces (increased/decreased volcanic activity) as well as external (sun storms).

The last time the sky was falling the world was supposedly cooling... thoughts back then (the 1980s) were that we were slipping into a new Ice Age... well we can see how accurate that was :rolleyes:.

It doesn't sit well with me when politicians use scare tactics like this to tax and control anything that eats, farts or moves.

deltawave
Nov. 25, 2009, 08:18 PM
And you believe that our activities are having no negative impact on the planet, nor should we make efforts to do better? :confused:

Sakura
Nov. 25, 2009, 08:24 PM
And you believe that our activities are having no negative impact on the planet, nor should we make efforts to do better? :confused:

I did not say that. We should be responsible for the maintenance of our planet... it is the only home we have. But we should not be strong armed into doing it... You catch more flies with honey... make going green a pleasant experience and more people will embrace the idea... tax/penalize and people will be resentful and burdened.

LarkspurCO
Nov. 25, 2009, 08:39 PM
I wonder if there are actually a-political people, anywhere in this country, that have an opinion on global warming. .

What is an a-political person? Where do you find one of those? Is that like an unbiased person? I didn't know that was possible.:confused:

If there IS an a-political person out there, I would like to nominate he or she to become the next president.:)

Foxtrot's
Nov. 25, 2009, 08:52 PM
Just think of what we have done to our planet in the last fifty years - one can barely imagine what we will do to it in the next fifty.

deltawave
Nov. 25, 2009, 09:43 PM
I meant apolitical in the context of US politics, where people seem to line up only on the fringes when it comes to issues like this. Like, say, I'd love to see a thesis on the topic written by non-US scientists. Those I've seen (this is NOT a favorite topic of mine so I claim no depth of expertise at all) by other-than-American authors do not seem to mention government conspiracies . . .

Calvincrowe
Nov. 25, 2009, 10:18 PM
Sakura- could you describe exactly how to make it "a pleasant experience" to change our ingrained, wasteful, selfish ways? Without rewarding people using tax-payer dollars? I am in need of examples--I can't get the school I work in to get separate containers for kids to recycle their milk cartons-and they are available FREE to the school.:no:

TouchstoneAcres
Nov. 25, 2009, 10:18 PM
Have you read State of Fear by Michel Crichton? Very on point.

dressurpferd01
Nov. 25, 2009, 10:25 PM
Anthropogenic climate change is the biggest hoax in human history. Climate change in and of itself is a natural process. For us to believe that we can actually change a PLANET'S climate is the epitome of human arrogance. Cap and tax will absolutely destroy our economy. Hell, zero is on tape saying how energy bills will necessarily skyrocket because of it.


The sooner we can get this marxist piece of trash out of the White House, the better. Can't wait until '10 when we can vote out the communists that have hijacked congress.

SpecialEffects
Nov. 25, 2009, 10:34 PM
Global Warming is a political movement.

As Obama's Chief of Staff, Raum Emanuel has has said.. crises create political opportunity. Create the crisis...then one has political opportunity. They've marketed the crisis.

There are plenty of scientists, who are not politically motivated for gov't funding dollars, who have hard proof. The mainstream media will not publish their work that what the Earth is going though is a normal chain of events that has happened before. Gee..wonder why? They will not allow both sides for the "masses" to consider and from which to make judgement...because it IS a political movement and they control the airwaves.

Are there downsides to carbon emissions in our atmosphere..of course.

Remember, it was not that long ago under Jimmy Carter that we were all going to die with the plant due to deforestation. But companies like Weyerhouser were replanting constantly to create a "sustainable" product for man-made building needs and still protect the environment.

Scare tactics move the masses towards dependency on goverment. This is socialism. Saul Alinsky would be proud how well these folks have "worked" and created crises to move the country in this direction.

When "Climategate" is uncovered, we'll all feel really stupid and a whole lot poorer after they tax the crap out of us to fund their political ideology.

Scares me silly.

:yes: Brilliantly stated.

Lori B
Nov. 25, 2009, 10:39 PM
I work for an office full of PhD meteorologists and climatologists. They are mostly not from the U.S., and they are not very political, and I don't think any of them think there is any serious question whether a) the climate is getting warmer, and b) human activity is playing a part in this change.

So I would have to say that no, it is not a hoax. It is worth noting that most folks who think it is are people who are not in favor of things like the endangered species act or laws against pollution or any limits on development.

dutchmike
Nov. 25, 2009, 10:41 PM
So why do man made climate believers still drive cars eat meat etc?. Improve the Earth by giving the good example. Ride a bicycle and eat lettuce and don't fly, turn off the airco or heater and just use more clothes to stay warm. It amazes me that the ones that shout that it is man made still fly their private planes and spend megabucks on electricity etc

dressurpferd01
Nov. 26, 2009, 12:16 AM
So why do man made climate believers still drive cars eat meat etc?. Improve the Earth by giving the good example. Ride a bicycle and eat lettuce and don't fly, turn off the airco or heater and just use more clothes to stay warm. It amazes me that the ones that shout that it is man made still fly their private planes and spend megabucks on electricity etc

Or how about the libtards who say the Earth is overpopulated and think we should limit births. How about they just kill themselves??? Wouldn't that help the population.

Dazednconfused
Nov. 26, 2009, 12:20 AM
So why do man made climate believers still drive cars eat meat etc?. Improve the Earth by giving the good example. Ride a bicycle and eat lettuce and don't fly, turn off the airco or heater and just use more clothes to stay warm. It amazes me that the ones that shout that it is man made still fly their private planes and spend megabucks on electricity etc

I believe we have caused a good portion of climate change. I do what I can to reduce my impact. I drive a small, gas efficient car, I try to buy locally grown produce/meat/seafood (lucky enough to live near a lot of good farmer's markets). I haven't flown anywhere in two years and my climate doesn't require much heating or a/c. I recycle everything I use that can be recycled (cans, glass, paper/cardboard).

So please don't call ME out for believing something science has demonstrably shown to be true - and assume that I have more impact on our climate than anyone else. :no:

gieriscm
Nov. 26, 2009, 12:23 AM
I dunno Bluey, without actually reading the emails, and seeing them in context, it's hard for me to take the word of anti-climate-change people as golden as to what the emails contain and what it means.

Have fun reading...
http://www.eastangliaemails.com/index.php

Dazednconfused
Nov. 26, 2009, 12:25 AM
Or how about the libtards who say the Earth is overpopulated and think we should limit births. How about they just kill themselves??? Wouldn't that help the population.

Perhaps we would have less problems if stupid people stopped reproducing :winkgrin: Just sayin'.

rcloisonne
Nov. 26, 2009, 05:00 AM
Perhaps we would have less problems if stupid people stopped reproducing :winkgrin: Just sayin'.
Or the willfully ignorant. ;)

nightsong
Nov. 26, 2009, 06:05 AM
There IS a problem, though. Some areas are warmer, some are cooler, some are wetter, some are drier. ALL are having way more cataaclysmic natural disasters than before. We've messed up this old world, and it SHOWS.

Huntertwo
Nov. 26, 2009, 08:35 AM
Oh, heck. It doesn't really matter, does it? I mean, since the world will end on Dec. 21, 2012 anyway, right?............

By the end of 2012 our country will no longer exist. And I don't mean due to "Global Warming". ;)

Frank B
Nov. 26, 2009, 08:36 AM
This (http://www.rense.com/1.imagesH/climatology_dees.jpg) pretty much sums up the whole "man-made global warming" charade. Just follow the money trail.

And the liberal media are in full damage-control mode, just like during "Slick-Willie" Clinton's bimbo eruptions:


Here's a dirty little secret about the New York Times: It likes to leak things. Important things. Things that change the course of the public conversation. From the Pentagon Papers to the ruined terrorist-surveillance programs of the Bush era, the Times has routinely found that secrecy is a danger and sunlight is a disinfectant.

Until now. A troublesome hacker recently released e-mails going to and from the Climate Research Unit at the University of East Anglia in Britain, e-mails that exposed how the "scientific experts" cited so often by the media on global warming are guilty of crude political talk, attempts at censoring opponents and twisting scientific data to support their policy agenda...

COMPLETE ARTICLE: (http://www.investors.com/NewsAndAnalysis/Article.aspx?id=513537)

Huntertwo
Nov. 26, 2009, 08:41 AM
It amazes me that the ones that shout that it is man made still fly their private planes and spend megabucks on electricity etc

Silly, if Al Gord didn't use his Gulf Stream to fly all over the country, how would the word get out?

Bluey
Nov. 26, 2009, 08:51 AM
This (http://www.rense.com/1.imagesH/climatology_dees.jpg) pretty much sums up the whole "man-made global warming" charade. Just follow the money trail.

And the liberal media are in full damage-control mode, just like during "Slick-Willie" Clinton's bimbo eruptions:



COMPLETE ARTICLE: (http://www.investors.com/NewsAndAnalysis/Article.aspx?id=513537)

True or not, I have to say :lol: :lol: :lol:

BelladonnaLily
Nov. 26, 2009, 08:56 AM
Oh, heck. It doesn't really matter, does it? I mean, since the world will end on Dec. 21, 2012 anyway, right?............

Will that be at noon or midnight? Just asking cuz I need to put it in my blackberry...

Frank B
Nov. 26, 2009, 09:01 AM
As for the CO2 vs. temperature relationship, this chart (http://www.geocraft.com/WVFossils/PageMill_Images/image277.gif) is very revealing.

Things have been downright frigid for the past few hundred milennia, even discounting the (relatively) recent Maunder Minimum. There's a condition that'll get your attention! And the transition from Solar Cycle 23 to Cycle 24 cycle has been awful erratic.

Bluey
Nov. 26, 2009, 09:02 AM
As for the CO2 vs. temperature relationship, this chart (http://www.geocraft.com/WVFossils/PageMill_Images/image277.gif) is very revealing.

Things have been downright frigid for the past few hundred milennia, even discounting the (relatively) recent Maunder Minimum. There's a condition that'll get your attention! And the transition from Solar Cycle 23 to Cycle 24 cycle has been awful erratic.

Tsk, tsk, don't confuse the believers with FACTS, that is not polite.:no:

Eventer55
Nov. 26, 2009, 09:33 AM
Will that be at noon or midnight? Just asking cuz I need to put it in my blackberry...


And in which time zone???:confused:

Sakura
Nov. 26, 2009, 09:40 AM
There IS a problem, though. Some areas are warmer, some are cooler, some are wetter, some are drier. ALL are having way more cataaclysmic natural disasters than before. We've messed up this old world, and it SHOWS.

Seriously? Under the Powder River Basin you can find the largest coal deposit in the US... (coal and natural gas)... this huge coal deposit region was formed from prehistoric swamplands and forests that thrived in a subtropical climate, it began to die off as the climate changed (yes, a subtropical climate in Montana and Wyoming!)... sediment from the mountains buried the vegetation... We weren't there 60 million years ago to affect the climate then... to suggest we are making such an serious impact now is silly.

Sakura
Nov. 26, 2009, 09:46 AM
Will that be at noon or midnight? Just asking cuz I need to put it in my blackberry...
11:11 PM... GMT :winkgrin:

grandprixjump
Nov. 26, 2009, 10:20 AM
Only 30 percent of the Earth is covered by land. What percentage of that is covered industrialized nations? Proably 5% of the Earth surface is industrialized, so this miniscule amount is TOOOOO MUCH for the Earths Recycling Filters (Rain, Ocean, Solar Baking). Just a thought.....
Are we having an effect on the Earth? I would say yes, bit NOT NEARLY what the Government would think, they are just pushing an agenda for one world government quicker than it's actually gonna happen....

dutchmike
Nov. 26, 2009, 10:35 AM
So why weren't we burning and drowning back in the 60ies and 70ies when we had all the lead etc in our gasoline etc?. I bet our CO² emissions are a fraction of what is was back then. All hogwash if you ask me. The sun is actually the true culpritt here but that is the real inconvenient truth at we can't tax the hell out of that and fill some fat cat pockets:mad:

Kaleigh007
Nov. 26, 2009, 10:54 AM
We can go back to horse and buggy days BUT it will not make a damn bit of difference when you have Asia/India,etc continuing with their policies. Just because your President makes apologies on behalf of the USA for everything that is wrong with the world does not mean we are the cause of everything! Do your research...start with Al Gore!

Bluey
Nov. 26, 2009, 10:58 AM
I don't think it's a hoax, but I would bet both political sides say things to convince the masses that their side is right.

Pollution is gross. If you think it doesn't make a difference, just look at your windshield. If you think it doesn't matter, try napping through Baltimore - you can't - the smell wakes you up. No, I don't want to do away with industry, but it would be nice for us to have cleaner air, soil, water and less garbage.

Why does taking care of the earth have to be so divisive? Why can't we just want the best for ourselves and our children?

If you think Global Warming is a hoax, does that mean you don't believe in warming AND cooling cycles? My understanding is that the term "Global Warming" encompasses both, but perhaps that is my bi-partisan perspective ;)

The problem is intellectual and scientific honesty.

We do need to be careful of our resources, we want to do the best we can do with what we have and what we know to do.
BUT, not because some fearmongering and bad science, even science mispresented to further some agendas.

We need to do what is right ... because it is what is right and humans tend to be sensible.

When some groups think humans should do xyz because THEY think they know better and they are less than truthful in their pursuit of their ideals, then it rubs most sensible people wrong.

We are trying, we have laws and regulations and most follow them, some don't, but we should do that according to sensible, good knowledge.
Right now, residential use of chemicals long ago surpased use of chemicals by agriculture and other industries, according to the figures of products sold.
That means we really should have less yards, golf and parks and highways and parking lots and and and ... we should...

One problem is that most of us in the more developed nations are saying to reducing standards of living "you go first!"
Those in the underdeveloped nations are saying "we want that too!".

Still, I think we should change over the top consumerism by educating and voluntary reduction, along with sensible regulations, but not throw the baby our standards of living are away with the bathwater of what we have.
I think that we are doing fine as we are, applying what we know as we go along.
No need to dismantle our societies and cultures on some utopia no one even knows if it may be any better, as so many are aiming for.

As for preserving the earth, do we realize that it is finite, really, no matter what we do or don't do?
That is no excuse to trash it, of course, but to try to preserve some idea of what the earth is supposed to be, "just because", as so many say, even to the point of getting rid of humans?
Well, that doesn't make any more sense than not using any one resource we have, so it can continue to be there until the earth is finally gone.:confused:

SLW
Nov. 26, 2009, 10:58 AM
I don't think it's a hoax, but I would bet both political sides say things to convince the masses that their side is right.

Pollution is gross. If you think it doesn't make a difference, just look at your windshield. If you think it doesn't matter, try napping through Baltimore - you can't - the smell wakes you up. No, I don't want to do away with industry, but it would be nice for us to have cleaner air, soil, water and less garbage.

Why does taking care of the earth have to be so divisive? Why can't we just want the best for ourselves and our children?

If you think Global Warming is a hoax, does that mean you don't believe in warming AND cooling cycles? My understanding is that the term "Global Warming" encompasses both, but perhaps that is my bi-partisan perspective ;)

For me the problem is laws were/are created using the altered science information as fact. Those laws impact my/your pocketbook and personal choices.

Yes, keep things tidy & be a good steward of nature. But if someone from any political party is going to use a fake information to create a law, I'll always fight back.

tkhawk
Nov. 26, 2009, 11:14 AM
. We weren't there 60 million years ago to affect the climate then... to suggest we are making such an serious impact now is silly.


We weren't there when the earth was first created and we weren't there when dinosaurs existed and they died out and we weren't there when the universe was created along with its multiple galaxies and star systems and planets . So?

Scientists fully accept that. Climate change has been there for eons. If you drive out from Los Angeles to Phoenix on the I10, it is compeletely desert. Yet millions of years ago, it was rainforest and dinosaurs lived there. These cycles have been going on for eons-the only difference scientists say is that it took eons before and it is much faster now.

Scientists are also studying it and predicting it. As for the poster who said it is arrogant to think we can control the climate of the earth-well we already do that-in enclosed spaces. We bring water to the desert to build swimming pools. We have green golf courses in the desert. We can live in houses and work in buildings and set it to whatever temperature we wan't to-wether that building is located in the polar region or the hottest desert. We have technology to preserve food, we can clone animals and probably if allowed humans, we can fly to the moon and back and we send out ships with telescopes to capture images of the other worlds. We have found that the hot winds blowing out of the Sahara then travel over the ocean and come in as Hurricanes in the east coast and we have satellites up there in the sky that can monitor anything and anyone(tried Google?-nifty tool). So if we see something that may be threat to us from nature or us, humans will do what we always do-try and understand it and predict and ultimately control it. That is what we do.

Climate change is everywhere. In the last couple of decades, the monsoons in India have been all over the place. My grandfather who was a farmer was saying that at least a couple of generations before, the monsoons were very predictable. So predictable, that they even had an exact date for harvest . They knew when the rain would fall and when it would end and planned their cycle around that. Now not so much. It is off by many months. Sometimes it is earlier and sometimes later and sometimes off by maybe even a couple of months. Most farmers there don't have insurance, so it is really killing them. In Alaska the ice is actually melting at a pretty quick clip. I already did a cruise to Antartica a couple of years ago on Russian icebreaker-pretty neat experience. But did not get to go to the south pole. But I am planning on another cruise to the Artic region. The icebreaker will take you to the North Pole and you can take a plunge into the ocean if you wan't. I took a plunge in the Antartic-a second or two maybe!:lol:

Anyways the thing is the ice is melting much faster in the North and there are huge parts of the world where the climate is becoming increasingly erratic-like in India. If anything was predictable, it was the monsoons. To understand such a big thing, it takes time and effort and study and discusssion. There was a time when you had earthquakes, the local priests would come by and immediately order the hanging of "sinners", for apparantely they had bought the wrath of God on them. There was a time when people would torture and burn people alive because they thought they were witches and flew around in broomsticks at night . Today we see this climatge change and man is trying to do what he has done through the ages. Understand it and try and control it. Now will we do a few blunders here and there -sure. Christopher Columbus set sail to find India and ended up finding America! Nobody has all the answers. We learn, understand the phenomenon and do what we do best -ty and control it. One can argue about the timeframe, but I guess you believe what you believe and then call others believers !:winkgrin:

Daydream Believer
Nov. 26, 2009, 12:33 PM
Funny thread to read the comments on both sides. Not sure where I fall on this one...somewhere in the middle...I'm not sure if the world is getting hotter or colder, but I do think it's changing for the worse.

I had in interesting discussion last year with a biochemist. Did you know that there are 70,000 MORE toxins in the environment now than there was prior to WWII? That's frightening...and there is no way that is not affecting the planet and the life on it somehow. No way...the question is how...and that's hard to know for sure.

Did you know that there are dead zones in the Chesapeake Bay where nothing lives...not even sea plants? Run off from commercial farming is the absolute top polluter of the SE Watersheds. It may not seem so bad now, but what will it be like in 20-30 years if nothing is done?

Not sure what is going to happen if anything in 2012...but I might just plan to be home and kiss my ass goodbye...you never know! ;-)

That said, I try to do what I can to help the planet. I am careful about using chemicals, I compost manure and use it as fertilizer trying to lower our dependence of fossil fuels and I'm about to launch into the local farming movement raising grass fed beef, pastured chickens and free range eggs. I sure can't make money on horses so I might as well raise something edible! At least we won't go hungry here!

Kat the Horse
Nov. 26, 2009, 12:40 PM
I'm constantly amazed at those who see 'us', meaning the whole of human population, as being more than a few bits of bad-smelling mildew upon this planet. Short of lobbing several thousand nuclear bombs at each other, we can do little to alter it.

I believe we have no real influence upon weather, water, the tropical storms, the glacial caps, none of it. Like all life, Earth is doing what it has always done...and any climate changes are so gradual they would need to be measured in thousands of years, not hundreds, and certainly not decades.

I am NOT saying we don't have a responsibility to keep our own piece of the Earth in good repair. We need to tend to the environment surrounding our small skin of inhabitation: non-polution of water, air, land. But that is for our own survival and comfort...and in no way could it affect anything planetwide.

I also believe we have that responsibility as it relates to the OTHER lifeforms that share our forty acres.

Coastal areas are going to change...that has happened before, I'm sure, in the past millenia. Glacial ice grows and recedes, and the lives it supports will need to change/evolve. Who thinks that has never happened before?

We cannot 'freeze' Earth in time.

However, I will not argue the fact that Al Gore is now big enough to cause a 'wobble' in Earth's rotation.

JMHO

magnolia73
Nov. 26, 2009, 01:29 PM
I can't wait to hear all the weeping and whining if cap and trade gets passed and you can't afford your horses anymore due to all the taxes and higher fuel/elec. bills, THAT will impact everyone and everything!

Right now, the US lives in a very unsustainable fashion. Cheap (heavily subsidized) fossil fuels allow us to live very wastefully, while making some more unfortunate people live in a version of hell.

If we discontinued the subsidy for oil and coal, and we made some strides in alternatives, we could potentially (in the long term) end up with LOWER energy costs and lifestyles not so damaging. Fossil fuels were "technology" in 1850. It is indeed time to move on. The only people who have anything to lose are those with investment in fossil fuels.

Notably- there are NUMEROUS tax credits for becoming more fuel efficient being considered. Choosing an efficient car or buying a smaller, more efficient home may offset the price gains. Nobody forces you to buy a 5000 sf house or have only a diesel truck- however, everyone subsidizes those decisions.... and most sadly- we are in 2 wars with people dying so hauling your horse can come in at under $2 a mile and have a 5000sf McMansion 50 miles from your job.

The nice part is- you will still be able to have that lifestyle- but will pay the true costs!

Blugal
Nov. 26, 2009, 01:36 PM
I listened to a very good radio interview regarding this very topic. The gist was that the vast majority of the world's climate scientists who have had research articles published in respected peer-reviewed scientific journals agree that there is significant and serious climate change.

The few and far between scientists that refute this do not have similar research-based, peer-reviewed scientific articles to back them up.

The interviewees point was: anybody is entitled to his or her own opinion, which is not the same and a science/researched based conclusion.

TouchstoneAcres
Nov. 26, 2009, 01:50 PM
I listened to a very good radio interview regarding this very topic. The gist was that the vast majority of the world's climate scientists who have had research articles published in respected peer-reviewed scientific journals agree that there is significant and serious climate change.

The few and far between scientists that refute this do not have similar research-based, peer-reviewed scientific articles to back them up.

The interviewees point was: anybody is entitled to his or her own opinion, which is not the same and a science/researched based conclusion.

Perhaps those journals won't publish what they don't agree with? They do have editors.

tkhawk
Nov. 26, 2009, 02:23 PM
Ask farmers in India about climate chage and they will agree with you. They may be illiterate and never heard of the term, but they experience it. Go ask the native Americans in Alaska and they will agree too. In India we had a harvest festival just after the rains are supposed to end-for as long as anyone can remember, the rains came and ended on time . Of course certain years we had drought and the qty of rain may be very less, but the time was pretty punctual. Last couple of decades, nope. Nobody knows when it is going to come or when it will stop. It just ruins the crops , because you can't plan as well. Same thing up north. Many places are experiencing very significant climate changes that can be noticed in a generation or two. Which is what is alarming about the whole thing. Previously it took centuries or even millions of years. Now it is quick , which is a cause for alarm. And no I don't think there is some underground mafia that rule the scientific journals and decide what is published and what is not. The peer review process is basically poking holes at someone's presentation. Most respected scientists agree on it-maybe not what to do about it.

I haven't kept track of the cap and trade regulation -mostly because I doubt it is going to pass any time soon-so why waste my time. When it comes to that, I will pay more attention. Me I love my diesel F350 and consume the American way and have 3 horse trailer for 1 horse!:lol: I have no shame in being the sterotypical American consumer. I would rather they find new technology or new ways to allow us to live our lives with all the modern conveniences and still cause less damage to the environment.

Accepting climate change does not mean you go live in a primitive way . It just means you accept that this is rather alarming and something needs to be done. Of course people differ on what they wan't to do. Me personally I respect human ingenuity. I would rather look into the future and focus on new technology that can still give us the same lifestyle, but causing less damage rather than cutting down the lifestyle. But that is just me.

greysandbays
Nov. 26, 2009, 02:47 PM
Apparently, the fudging of data out of the English Church of Globull Warming is not an isolated incident. The New Zealand Church of Globull Warming has been up to some hanky-panky with their data as well.

fooler
Nov. 26, 2009, 03:00 PM
Right now, the US lives in a very unsustainable fashion. Cheap (heavily subsidized) fossil fuels allow us to live very wastefully, while making some more unfortunate people live in a version of hell.

If we discontinued the subsidy for oil and coal, and we made some strides in alternatives, we could potentially (in the long term) end up with LOWER energy costs and lifestyles not so damaging. Fossil fuels were "technology" in 1850. It is indeed time to move on. The only people who have anything to lose are those with investment in fossil fuels.

Notably- there are NUMEROUS tax credits for becoming more fuel efficient being considered. Choosing an efficient car or buying a smaller, more efficient home may offset the price gains. Nobody forces you to buy a 5000 sf house or have only a diesel truck- however, everyone subsidizes those decisions.... and most sadly- we are in 2 wars with people dying so hauling your horse can come in at under $2 a mile and have a 5000sf McMansion 50 miles from your job.

The nice part is- you will still be able to have that lifestyle- but will pay the true costs!

Interesting that this thought process is pushed by many. However I look at our cities, loads of pavement, tall buildings and millions of people in a relativily small space as a huge negative impact on our environment.
The pavement absorbs and raidiates heat in the summer months, the tall bldgs cause 'wind tunnels' (just go for a walk down the block in a large city) on just a breezy day. Rain water and snow melt runs off into sewer systems that are often in dis-repair so the so it is not unusual for overflows in the water treatment plants. Then the electricity required to heat/cool and light this bldgs and all of the tv's, etc within. Finally what about the fuel to bring in food and clothing then take out the 'trash'. Hmmm - wonder where the trash goes. Does anyone remember the floating 'NY trash barge' from the 1980's that no one would accept?
Funny how so many point fingers at those living in rural areas as having poor practices while not looking at the urban impact.
I am old enough to remember the same 'experts' telling us burning fossil fuels would cause the next Ice-Age and presented "facts' to back this up. Now they tell me it will cause Global Warming - in other words They don't really know themselves.
We can and do impact the environment - mainly with our overall waste, urban-rural, rich-poor, all colors, creeds, countries.

SpecialEffects
Nov. 26, 2009, 03:06 PM
How we act definitely has some impact on our surroundings. But for groups to constantly falsify information and fabricate a crisis for the sole purpose of dipping their hands into your pockets, is criminal. I'm so sick of it and this is just the latest one.

Algore making up climate crisis maps of the earth to a WWF kids commercial I heard recently is so full of crap, my manure pile will never come close. :no: Use common sense, do what you can to clean up your own life and the rest can shove those twirly bulbs up their carbon credits. Maybe when all the lying stops, the real problems can be dealt with in a practical manner instead of cashing in on the earths normal, regular climactic cycles.

Sakura
Nov. 26, 2009, 04:18 PM
How we act definitely has some impact on our surroundings. But for groups to constantly falsify information and fabricate a crisis for the sole purpose of dipping their hands into your pockets, is criminal. I'm so sick of it and this is just the latest one.

Algore making up climate crisis maps of the earth to a WWF kids commercial I heard recently is so full of crap, my manure pile will never come close. :no: Use common sense, do what you can to clean up your own life and the rest can shove those twirly bulbs up their carbon credits. Maybe when all the lying stops, the real problems can be dealt with in a practical manner instead of cashing in on the earths normal, regular climactic cycles.

But...but... but... it makes some people feel so much better when they can throw their $$$ at something futile... gullibility at its finest.

Bluey
Nov. 26, 2009, 04:29 PM
I listened to a very good radio interview regarding this very topic. The gist was that the vast majority of the world's climate scientists who have had research articles published in respected peer-reviewed scientific journals agree that there is significant and serious climate change.

The few and far between scientists that refute this do not have similar research-based, peer-reviewed scientific articles to back them up.

The interviewees point was: anybody is entitled to his or her own opinion, which is not the same and a science/researched based conclusion.

Looks like you may be talking about a newsprogram in Canada.
We have such a radio station in the USA also, that will say what you just repeated happily, without having to prove their ideas, can pick and choose what to present, called NPR.;)

The scientific reality is much, much murkier and a true scientist will tell you that we just don't have the data either way and that with what data we have, you can't say or much less predict what any actions in our part will be.

There are balances to the earth's functioning and if some get a little bit off, others show up to compensate.
We don't know how this works, because we have not been around long enough to say and the proof we think we see with what we can say from the past is no indication of what the future may hold, the factors too complicated.

As of now, either side can present all the data they want and the other can dismiss all that with their own data.
That is why scientists are still debating all this, because the science is rather new and open.

As for the climate in certain parts of the world changing, we had some very long times of rather low sun spot activity and that is changing, which also tends to make our weather patterns more changeable, not as steady as they seemed to be before.

SLW
Nov. 26, 2009, 04:44 PM
Right now, the US lives in a very unsustainable fashion. Cheap (heavily subsidized) fossil fuels allow us to live very wastefully, while making some more unfortunate people live in a version of hell.

Which people live in a version of hell brought on by our use of fossil fuels- Americans, Saudis, Kenyans, someone else??

tkhawk
Nov. 26, 2009, 05:45 PM
The scientific reality is much, much murkier and a true scientist will tell you that we just don't have the data either way and that with what data we have, you can't say or much less predict what any actions in our part will be.


That is why scientists are still debating all this, because the science is rather new and open.

As for the climate in certain parts of the world changing, we had some very long times of rather low sun spot activity and that is changing, which also tends to make our weather patterns more changeable, not as steady as they seemed to be before.


Hmm so global warming is very debatable and open and subject to intrepretation and anyone beleiving it is a "beleiver" who does not care for the facts.:lol:

But a couple of decades of extremely erratic weather patterns in India and the ice melting quite rapidly in the north Pole to the extent where they think they will have summer passage there and a lot of really strange effects in many different countries can be explained away by low sun spot activity?? I guess all the scientists absolutely agree on that and it is an absolute known fact!:no::lol::D

sid
Nov. 26, 2009, 06:33 PM
Haven't read all the replies.

This is a "Movement", politically-borne to scare the crap out of everyone.

The fact that reknowned scientists who have no political leanings, have not been allowed to present (or publicize) a vast array of scientifically-verified opposing data, is telling.

That fact alone should be chilling to anyone who wants to know the truth and is concerned about political manipulation. This "trust", albeit one-sided can happen to anyone who gets lazy about digging into the facts and questioning those who portray the "issues"...and for what reason. Shutting down all those who may have information from which we, the electorate can glean ALL information.

Political ideologues whose roots are born in academia which is well-known to come from a from a socialist "bent" (be cause they study concepts, but never really DO) dislike the free market individualism. They are teachers, not doers.

They are probably jealous of the power of individuals to create their own "life" on their own terms, and earn their living by their hard work competing in the free market...unlike their history and upbringing of earning a living from a government funded university or some other entitlement entity, to which these ideologues become beholden.

What they DO know from their mental masturbation of the human condition from their academic background is that "crises" (manufacutured or real ) can be used to gain political power or the masses who buy it, hook line and sinker.

When a politics latches on to any sort of environmental movement, I worry. It becomes a venue for political teachings and power. That is what has happened here.

When the free and open exchange of information is squelched it is the worst thing that can happen all of us...as individuals, and as a free nation.

deltawave
Nov. 26, 2009, 07:21 PM
Interesting how the slant is leaning away from the current "ruling party", as is always the case.

God, how I wish someone would talk about the issue without politics, government, or the current political climate in the USA being the main theme. :sigh:

sid
Nov. 26, 2009, 07:40 PM
Deltawave...yours are the posts I most often read as you seem to be borne in "science".

The only thing I was trying to say in this discussion that all things are "science".

If one believes that the basis upon which our country was founded by those who "set" the political rules, then one has to study the history and the theory upon which they wrote the Constitution and the Bill of Rights.

It was only a political theory and has been proved out for over 200 years..until recently, as the Constitution has been rewritten, legislatively..clearly not the intention of our Founders.

The Constitiution, as a scientific instrument of human behavior, has been challenged and dumbed-down over the last 20 years when the elecorate has not been paying attention.

The present population, that has no tie to this incredible document of political "science" and live on "feelings", find it archaic.

Life and living is all about struggle. We all have horses, we see that in their being, but we don't see it for ourselves.

I still believe the Founders' premise for the human condition are right on target. It was a scientific document, but the science is being abandoned.

There is a reason it is called political "science".

Should be studied , like any other science, by all who want to preserve individual freedom above all else.

Bluey
Nov. 26, 2009, 07:56 PM
Hmm so global warming is very debatable and open and subject to intrepretation and anyone beleiving it is a "beleiver" who does not care for the facts.:lol:

But a couple of decades of extremely erratic weather patterns in India and the ice melting quite rapidly in the north Pole to the extent where they think they will have summer passage there and a lot of really strange effects in many different countries can be explained away by low sun spot activity?? I guess all the scientists absolutely agree on that and it is an absolute known fact!:no::lol::D

What I have been told by scientists is that there is some warming and some cooling and those that point to just one of those are trying to make that be a basic fact of warming, when it is not, just one more of the phases the earth goes naturally thru and can change any minute back, it is not because humans do xyz.

Cause and effect are not clear yet and definitively not pointing to global warming except in the minds of some with a theory in search of validation.
More careful scientists just don't agree and have good reasons to disagree with those theories.

Their opinions are not important in today's political climate, so we don't get to hear them, unlike the theories of those with agendas that global warming fits.

tkhawk
Nov. 26, 2009, 08:28 PM
Haven't read all the replies.

This is a "Movement", politically-borne to scare the crap out of everyone.

The fact that reknowned scientists who have no political leanings, have not been allowed to present (or publicize) a vast array of scientifically-verified opposing data, is telling.

That fact alone should be chilling to anyone who wants to know the truth and is concerned about political manipulation. This "trust", albeit one-sided can happen to anyone who gets lazy about digging into the facts and questioning those who portray the "issues"...and for what reason. Shutting down all those who may have information from which we, the electorate can glean ALL information.

Political ideologues whose roots are born in academia which is well-known to come from a from a socialist "bent" (be cause they study concepts, but never really DO) dislike the free market individualism. They are teachers, not doers.

They are probably jealous of the power of individuals to create their own "life" on their own terms, and earn their living by their hard work competing in the free market...unlike their history and upbringing of earning a living from a government funded university or some other entitlement entity, to which these ideologues become beholden.

What they DO know from their mental masturbation of the human condition from their academic background is that "crises" (manufacutured or real ) can be used to gain political power or the masses who buy it, hook line and sinker.

When a politics latches on to any sort of environmental movement, I worry. It becomes a venue for political teachings and power. That is what has happened here.

When the free and open exchange of information is squelched it is the worst thing that can happen all of us...as individuals, and as a free nation.


I doubt it is a fact that renowned scientists have not been allowed to publish data . That sounds like a conspiracy theory not a fact.

I am not sure how global warming is related to socialism. But I grew up in India, which at that time was a very socialist country with strong leanings to the Soviet Union. We were always a democracy, but very, very socialist. It was very stifling. To get a land line telephone, it took you 10 yrs . If you paid money and knew someone, you could get it under a year. Gas connections-two years waiting list. Of course under the table extra money will get it to you in a few months. Everything was a bureacratic nightmare, centrally controlled mess.

Then I came here and it was like some paradise. Wether it was turning a phone line on or getting a license -just about anything. I have done quite well for myself. I love the free market system. My career due to offshoring was increasingly coming to a dead end. I could shift to the offshore gig-you know be a liason between the software folks in India or whatever country and here-but that is more like a 12 hr a day job and the quality of life is non existant. So I went into my own business(financial related) and now am the process of leaving the corporate world behind and moving into the business full time. I am also looking to diversify from my core business by buying a few multi unit rental properties -that way I get a steady income(but just looking right now-rents are falling, prices are falling and vacancies are going up and they expect the commercial real estate meltdown has not even started so just waiting for the right opportunity and just doing some research right now).

Now having gone through all that, I think that any system in the extreme is just not right-wether that be capitalism or socialism. My wide eyed, rose tinted , wonderful view of capitalism and free market has been dulled somewhat. Communism was started with the highest ideals-that all men are equal and everyone shares the resources -we all know how that turned out. Free markets in the truest sense of the word essentially means utter chaos-you can do anything you wan't as long as you make a buck doing it. The moment rules come into play, there is no free market-in the truest sense of the word.

The last 8 years gave the free markets full "freedom". We all know how that ended. It started off with Enron and then ended with the housing disaster. I think that clearly shows that free market by itself cannot survive on its own-because it simply cannibalizes itself. There is no "heart" in it. Just make as much money as you can at any expense and if you bring down a state or a country -who cares. The republicans still seem to be stuck in the 1980s, free market, less government , big government is the great evil and free markets are the cure for all ills that plague society. It is as if the last 8 yrs where everyone from the President to the fed chairman to everyone on both sides of the aisle went along did not matter at all. The Democrats are still stuck in 2008, where the sky is falling and the big companies could take the whole economy with them.

That has passed, now it is regular joe's in trouble and the companies are doing just fine, borrowing money from the Fed at 0% and lending it out and investing it in all kind of things. I think we are now in the mother of all bubbles. This rally is purely speculative driven with cheap credit. I wouldn't be surprised if in a few years gold comes crashing down to 600 and the Euro shaves off about 40-50 cents of the current crazy levels. Everything is just not related to fundamentals right now-in India in some areas, real estate has doubled in just one year... While I certainly enjoy the profits of holding it, I think it is time to get out. The dollar may finally rally though, when all this is unwound. Lets see-the vagaries of the market!:)

Another thing that does make a bit skeptical is this whole offshoring. Previously it was just IT, now BPO(Business process outsourcing or now offshoring) is the hot thing now. You basically offshore all your non core operations. There are several companies that specialize in this now-offshoring your entire backend operations in India or even multiple countries. Previously when a company outsourced, the jobs stayed in the US. Now they are spread out to different countries. That is the free market for you. It is good for the company's bottom line . But the problem is the US is being increasingly priced out. It is like the US is the Ritz Carlton and we have all these expenses built up-social security, various govt services , medicare, national parks, the entire citizenery having a decent quality of life and so on. Now third world countries that don't have that are competeing, due to technology, and offering the same luxury service at Motel 6 prices. At a price level we simply can't compete with that. This then leads more companies to shift their operations offshore, leading to job losses and so on. It is just a vicious cycle. That is pure free market for you, but it also affects the livelihood of millions and millions of people . Either the govt interfere and give some sort of protection or tax on imports/offshore service providers or this vicious cycle is going to continue. That is a major structural problem and honestly I don't see anyone from the Obama govt discussing this issue.

There are other things in life than just money-which is why I am into horses and nature and trial riding-it certainly does not make me a single dollar!:lol: BPO is the hot field and plenty of my friends work in that field and I am actually getting some tempting offers. But the hours suck, you are coordinating between the team here and some folks in some country who don't have a basic understanding of the American life and the time difference of 12 hours is horrible. I enjoy the markets and finance-the only thing that matters is you make money and you don't have to sit around in endless meetings and listen to a bunch of self important freaks with blolated egos go on and on about how their new system is the next great leap for mankind!:rolleyes:

But free market principles would mean letting America fall until it reaches third world status and then we can compete on a price level with them. Many workers in China live in common dorms and go see their families twice a year, working seven days a week. Do we really wan't to sink into that?? People come to America to escape that not go into it.:no: The only other alternative, is for something like the dot com to come along and provide millions of jobs. But that will take time and I honestly don't see current renewable energy options to provide that kind of high paying jobs . I also don't think it is right for so many people in their 50s with good education to be tossed in the street and asked to fend for themselves. We are in a difficult situation. The Republicans keep chanting free market , free market, big govt evil like it was the 80s all over again and the Democrats are not even discussing about the dismal situation. Well I am hearing a few congressmen talk about it and apparnately they are bringing a bill. But I don't want a band aid fix -there needs to be a discussion of the hole we are in and maybe look at other options- tax on the offshoreres maybe? If an American works here, we pay taxes, so why not some guy in some country that is doing an American job -call center, software, accounting, finance, whatever -also pay some tax . Currently they pay nothing. There needs to be some serious discussion and they need to come up with some creative solution to this or this could get real bad. Unless of course we have some kind of dot com come up again. But that takes time..

Bluey
Nov. 26, 2009, 09:14 PM
We just don't know enough yet.

Here is a sample of different snippets of data, all over the place in what it may mean to our measures of climates, past and future:

http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2009/11/091126173021.htm

subk
Nov. 26, 2009, 10:49 PM
Well since the polar ice cap is melting, denial will not work for those of us who live on the coast of GA. I expect Warsaw and Ossabaw Islands will disappear and the river will creep up the bluff in front of the house.
Well it might ease your mind a little to know that Al Gore bought a mansion in San Francisco a few blocks from the bay. So you know He couldn't be too concerned about rising sea levels...

magnolia73
Nov. 26, 2009, 11:14 PM
Funny how so many point fingers at those living in rural areas as having poor practices while not looking at the urban impact.


I speak (mainly) of suburbia. Yes, a rural family on a farm in a small house is not a "poor practice". But their neighbor who lives in a 5000 sf mc mansion, drives 100 miles a day in a suburban and has a 5 acre chemlawn is. They have a larger impact on the environment than I do in a 1200 sf house 5 minutes from work, commuted to in a Honda Civic. I use less energy.... have the bills to prove it. I spend about $75 a month on gas- tops. My gas/electric runs maybe $1000 a year.

To be certain, cities can be more sustainable and "greener" but people seem to get all mad about that. The point is to have options- take Transit oriented development- now Fooler, I *know* you don't want to live in 600sf on a light rail line. Neither do I- but some people do- its lower impact than your McMansion neighbor. But its funny to see people get angry about living in a condo on a rail line being offered as a choice. (no one here, but at work, I see people get so pissy about TOD... and they generally live in the next county over and think they will be forced into a condo).

Of course less density has less environmental impact- if done correctly- problem is- most people don't want it done correctly- they want the city services in the rural area. So you create a medium density inefficient development pattern- with none of the economies of scale of a city, and none of the low impact of non-industrial farming.

Personally- I don't find it foolish to ask car makers to make more efficient cars or homebuilders to make more efficient homes. In many cases, the changes are very small and add little to the bottom line, and save money down the line. It is simple awareness. I don't know why people are so threatened by "Green" - yes, there are zealots.

I wish people could tell me a few reasons why offering options for people to be less wasteful is taken so hatefully by some people.



Which people live in a version of hell brought on by our use of fossil fuels- Americans, Saudis, Kenyans, someone else??

Middle East(war), people in West Virginia who have coal making their rivers and streams into acid, kids in inner cities- who's familes don't drive.. but have higher rates of asthma due to pollution.

Seriously- fossil fuels=old technology. I think we are smart enough to come up with cleaner sources of energy, more renewable sources of energy... and it might not be cheap to change the infrastructure at first, but down the road, we will see it become more economical. I wish the free market could produce the change, but again, the infrastructure is onerous. To some degree- homebuilding is changing- preferences for smaller homes now is clear- mainly as a money saver on the home and energy costs.

I think the environmental movement messed up by trying to use guilt, shame and sensationalism...plus a touch of holier than thou to make their point. They could have used basic economics and simple assertion that technology needs to adapt. I do find many environmentalists to be smug and preachy- and I *honestly* think that is what people respond negatively to- not the concept of maintaining a great standard of living, but being more efficient about it.

Arathita
Nov. 26, 2009, 11:21 PM
Haven't read all the replies.

This is a "Movement", politically-borne to scare the crap out of everyone.

The fact that reknowned scientists who have no political leanings, have not been allowed to present (or publicize) a vast array of scientifically-verified opposing data, is telling.

That fact alone should be chilling to anyone who wants to know the truth and is concerned about political manipulation. This "trust", albeit one-sided can happen to anyone who gets lazy about digging into the facts and questioning those who portray the "issues"...and for what reason. Shutting down all those who may have information from which we, the electorate can glean ALL information.

Political ideologues whose roots are born in academia which is well-known to come from a from a socialist "bent" (be cause they study concepts, but never really DO) dislike the free market individualism. They are teachers, not doers.

They are probably jealous of the power of individuals to create their own "life" on their own terms, and earn their living by their hard work competing in the free market...unlike their history and upbringing of earning a living from a government funded university or some other entitlement entity, to which these ideologues become beholden.

What they DO know from their mental masturbation of the human condition from their academic background is that "crises" (manufacutured or real ) can be used to gain political power or the masses who buy it, hook line and sinker.

When a politics latches on to any sort of environmental movement, I worry. It becomes a venue for political teachings and power. That is what has happened here.

When the free and open exchange of information is squelched it is the worst thing that can happen all of us...as individuals, and as a free nation.

Susan,

Huh. Do you and others honestly believe that global warming is a hoax? This is the first place I have encountered such "interesting" takes on the multitude of studies that prove that the climate is changing and that pollutants change the atmosphere. Ignorance must be bliss, no?

Please refer to the names of the scientists who have been "shut down" in your words? Please tell me which journals do not publish their peer-reviewed science? Let us together calculate the number of scientific documents that describe climate changes versus those that state that there are none. Let us compare credentials, also.

Academics are teachers not doers? They are socialist-leaning? Are jealous of people who have some some kind of percieved power? Mental masturbation? Are you real? Please tell me who spends billions on marketing...academics or businesses? That would be businesses, Susan. Businesses spend phenomenal amounts on market research and marketing campains to sway public opinion, unlike academics who rely on facts and if they provide false facts they are pushed out of their field. Academics must publish their work and their work is open to public criticism forever after that. Businesses do not publicize their marketing or findings. You do not seem to understand what you are talking about.

If you lie here, I would be hesitant to do business with you. Thank you for the insight.

greysandbays
Nov. 27, 2009, 02:05 AM
Let us together calculate the number of scientific documents that describe climate changes versus those that state that there are none.

...unlike academics who rely on facts and if they provide false facts they are pushed out of their field. Academics must publish their work and their work is open to public criticism forever after that.

Oh. Well, I guess that's why we see all the network news outfits doing 24/7 coverage about how the British and New Zealand globull warming "scientists" were massaging their data to "prove" warming trends that the real evidence does not support -- as per THEIR OWN E-MAILS.

SpecialEffects
Nov. 27, 2009, 02:29 AM
Falsified data but still not convinced.
Alrighty then. :rolleyes:

http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/news/jamesdelingpole/100017393/climategate-the-final-nail-in-the-coffin-of-anthropogenic-global-warming/

Bluey
Nov. 27, 2009, 07:15 AM
The trouble with the lying about their data to make it fit what they wanted to show is that those scientists are the ones their words were what the United Nations were going by to decide Global Policies.

In a way, they were being given wrong information to make very important decisions.

Like buying a horse from a shady dealer, that tells you the horse is kid safe and he has been known to run off back to the barn with everyone that rode him.

I don't see much sense in lying, because even if you are dishonest and don't care what you say is true to make your point or sale, lies tend to come back to tell on you.
I think the lies are coming home to roost.

The sad part is that they could have found enough studies to support their theories, if weaker ones, without the lying.

Science is supposed to put what you have on the table, then let the discussions start.
When science is used to further agendas, well, then the human factor can trip us.

I will repeat, there is some data to support all kinds of different theories right now, just not any one definitively above the others.

Right now, common sense tells us that yes, human activities do have some impact on our world.
At the same time we should realize that the earth itself has produced at times just as much and more disturbances from what we may call natural processes, like volcanoes and plate tectonics, as humans ever would think to cause.

What we should not do is take those scientists with an agenda, that have been advising the world powers that be and their questionable theories as scientific gospel, as these surfacing stories are showing them to be willfully dishonest with their data.

fooler
Nov. 27, 2009, 08:24 AM
I speak (mainly) of suburbia. Yes, a rural family on a farm in a small house is not a "poor practice". But their neighbor who lives in a 5000 sf mc mansion, drives 100 miles a day in a suburban and has a 5 acre chemlawn is. They have a larger impact on the environment than I do in a 1200 sf house 5 minutes from work, commuted to in a Honda Civic. I use less energy.... have the bills to prove it. I spend about $75 a month on gas- tops. My gas/electric runs maybe $1000 a year.

Maybe they do have a larger impact, what we haven't been told tho' is how many people live in this house and how many people are employed to maintain these digs. Two sides of each story.
Not to mention many of those who 'encourage' (re: shame & guilt) you and I to reduce our enviro impact seldom lead by example. Ed Begley Jr is the only one who I know has 'lived' the green life, for over 25+ years. And by his own words his wife does not enjoy the lifestyle.:eek:

To be certain, cities can be more sustainable and "greener" but people seem to get all mad about that. The point is to have options- take Transit oriented development- now Fooler, I *know* you don't want to live in 600sf on a light rail line. Neither do I- but some people do- its lower impact than your McMansion neighbor. But its funny to see people get angry about living in a condo on a rail line being offered as a choice. (no one here, but at work, I see people get so pissy about TOD... and they generally live in the next county over and think they will be forced into a condo).

Of course less density has less environmental impact- if done correctly- problem is- most people don't want it done correctly- they want the city services in the rural area. So you create a medium density inefficient development pattern- with none of the economies of scale of a city, and none of the low impact of non-industrial farming.

Personally- I don't find it foolish to ask car makers to make more efficient cars or homebuilders to make more efficient homes. In many cases, the changes are very small and add little to the bottom line, and save money down the line. It is simple awareness. I don't know why people are so threatened by "Green" - yes, there are zealots.

I wish people could tell me a few reasons why offering options for people to be less wasteful is taken so hatefully by some people.




Middle East(war), people in West Virginia who have coal making their rivers and streams into acid, kids in inner cities- who's familes don't drive.. but have higher rates of asthma due to pollution.

Seriously- fossil fuels=old technology. I think we are smart enough to come up with cleaner sources of energy, more renewable sources of energy... and it might not be cheap to change the infrastructure at first, but down the road, we will see it become more economical. I wish the free market could produce the change, but again, the infrastructure is onerous. To some degree- homebuilding is changing- preferences for smaller homes now is clear- mainly as a money saver on the home and energy costs.

It is there & has been there since at least the 1970's, when we had the last major fuel 'crisis'. Go to http://www.snopes.com/politics/bush/house.asp (http://www.snopes.com/politics/bush/house.asp) for info on Bush and Gore homes. "Dummy W's" farm house is very, very green compared to "Nobel Al's' estate. . .


I think the environmental movement messed up by trying to use guilt, shame and sensationalism...plus a touch of holier than thou to make their point. They could have used basic economics and simple assertion that technology needs to adapt. I do find many environmentalists to be smug and preachy- and I *honestly* think that is what people respond negatively to- not the concept of maintaining a great standard of living, but being more efficient about it.

Totally Agree with this paragraph

jr
Nov. 27, 2009, 08:26 AM
How does global warming equate to socialism -- read the current drafts at Copenhagan. 3rd world negotiators are using these negotiations to argue for subsidies from 1 and 2nd world countries, ostensibly as payment for the damage already done to the environment by industrialized nations. Another attempt at wealth redistribution.

Put me on the side of those that think the science is not conclusive. I still remember the "New Ice Age" warning cries in the 70/80's. Moreover, even many of the reputable scientists that sign on to man-made warming don't believe that even the most stringent changes can effect the process in anything more than the most minor way.

China, India etc. are not going to sign on in a major way. Why would we hamstring our econonmy when 1) our major economic competitors won't; 2) Not clear if the proposed changes will do any good; and 3) people in this and many nations will be HURT with lost jobs.

We need to be responsible stewards -- recycle, reduce use, develop renewables, etc. But the many people and companies are getting rich by creating a crisis and are trying to use this to promote a global governance system that threatens our sovereignty.

fooler
Nov. 27, 2009, 08:29 AM
The trouble with the lying about their data to make it fit what they wanted to show is that those scientists are the ones their words were what the United Nations were going by to decide Global Policies.

In a way, they were being given wrong information to make very important decisions.

Like buying a horse from a shady dealer, that tells you the horse is kid safe and he has been known to run off back to the barn with everyone that rode him.

I don't see much sense in lying, because even if you are dishonest and don't care what you say is true to make your point or sale, lies tend to come back to tell on you.
I think the lies are coming home to roost.

The sad part is that they could have found enough studies to support their theories, if weaker ones, without the lying.

Science is supposed to put what you have on the table, then let the discussions start.
When science is used to further agendas, well, then the human factor can trip us.

I will repeat, there is some data to support all kinds of different theories right now, just not any one definitively above the others.

Right now, common sense tells us that yes, human activities do have some impact on our world.
At the same time we should realize that the earth itself has produced at times just as much and more disturbances from what we may call natural processes, like volcanoes and plate tectonics, as humans ever would think to cause.

What we should not do is take those scientists with an agenda, that have been advising the world powers that be and their questionable theories as scientific gospel, as these surfacing stories are showing them to be willfully dishonest with their data.

Have learned that if you listen to NPR long enough you will finally hear both sides of the story. First heard of the 'fudged' documentation on BBC World News on my local NPR station last week.
30 years ago it was the "Next Ice Age" now it is "Global Warming" - just proves to me that it is all a theory and we really do not know.

subk
Nov. 27, 2009, 09:11 AM
Let us together calculate the number of scientific documents that describe climate changes versus those that state that there are none. Let us compare credentials, also.
The scientific process relies on the ability for scientist to REPLICATE the work of other scientist--not just review it. The data, codes and methodology of the world temperature data that is used in many, many of these "documents" you want to count has never been released. As these emails and documents have been leaked we have discovered that not only have other scientiests not able to replicate the results of these leading climate scientists, but those scientist who have the raw data and methodology can not even replicate THIER OWN WORK because of awful data management and coding.

Current climate "science" has been based on computer modeling that was done not by programers and statisticians but by scientists for whom computer programing is secondary if that. As the code and methology has been exposed it has shown them grossly inept in those areas. So yes let us "compare the credentials." Personally I want statisticians and computer programers to review those areas of the science that are concerned with statistics and computer code--NOT "climate scientists!" Seems like a reasonable thing to do before you spend a few trillions dollars.

Of all the people who should be the most angry about what these leaked emails and documents show it should be those of you who are true believers of AGW. If AGW really exists these "scientists" have pushed back the research by their poor scientific process, their attempts to subvert the Freedom of Information Acts, and their tampering with the scientific review process.

tkhawk
Nov. 27, 2009, 09:19 AM
How does global warming equate to socialism -- read the current drafts at Copenhagan. 3rd world negotiators are using these negotiations to argue for subsidies from 1 and 2nd world countries, ostensibly as payment for the damage already done to the environment by industrialized nations. Another attempt at wealth redistribution.



You know I have heard so many definitions for socialism since the last election cycle, that it makes my head spin. I totally forget that I grew up in a very socialist country-which is extremely capitalistic right now. Also socialism just like any words humans made up is different for each country. In India it meant the govt offered bare minimum services. The only thing they did was to stifle innovation and creativity and promote cronyism . While they called it socialism, in reality, it was a carryover from the British Raj. The British ruled India with an iron grip, elevating a few and making them powerful and keeping them as a buffer between them and the masses. In return those few never faced any competetion and were guaranteed power-as long as they do their bidding. When they passed, the new govt simply took that over-they used to call it license raj. Instead of ruling over the people with force like the British did, they controlled by making everything a bureacratic mess. Anything would take years or even a decade-unless you know the right person and paid bribes. So that was socialism. Now go to France you will get a totally different defnition.

Same thing with communism. China is a "communist" country-their communism is very different than Cuba. In India in two states, we have a communist party. They win elections and sometime rule. They still allow capitalism-in fact they woo big companies to come to their state all the time-but they inisst on workers right etc. So human words have different meaning in different places.

Now the subsidies are really not socialism. The west is already developed. They have laready polluted the environment and are now in what you call in a business cycle "mature". the developing countries are scrambling to get there-in essence they are where the west was 20-30-40 yrs ago. So in this stage of development you can't ask them to cut back and care as much for their environment. So this is a negotiating tactic-to get an agreement. This happens in deal. Ever negotiated a business deal-it is common-each side coming to the table with their offer and trying to wrangle what they can.

The only reasons China and India are even coming to the table, is that they face the climate problems themselves. Their people face it and experience hardship and their people are asking their govt to do something about it. So they come to the table -they are a little too big for the west to push around-especially on this issue where you really have no leverage.

Until today I never heard of these universities before. Are there fake academics-sure-probably in the same percentage as the general public. But to elevate these and make it into some kind of giant hoax with a cabal of mad scinetists and somehow make it seem like a work of fiction -worthy of an oscar.:lol: Climate change is real and happening all over,in many different places. There are many people around the world who will agree with that-not some evil scientists-but everyday folks and it is beacuse they are actually being affected by it. Will the cap and trade work-I don't know-like I said I doubt it will pass in the next four years, so why waste my time worrying about it.:winkgrin:

magnolia73
Nov. 27, 2009, 10:01 AM
Bush and Gore homes. "Dummy W's" farm house is very, very green compared to "Nobel Al's' estate. . .


I don't think the estates of the wealthy much matter beyond arguing points. It's the thousands of homes built by major homebuilders that count. The $150,000 3 BR homes in the burbs. Are we using good landscaping practices, native plants, landscaping that does not require excess irrigation? Energy Star appliances? The correct types of insulation? Are homes sealed properly? Are doors and windows installed to minimize air leaks?

I think the McMansions of Union County? Probably hold a family of 4.... maybe employ a cleaning lady and a landscaper on occasion. They could have that in a 2000 sf house in Myers Park.

Some people seriously hear "Green" and get all upset as if buying a house that is wrapped in Tyvec with low water plants is going to force you onto a bus and make you a vegan.....Christ, my parents refuse to be "forced to recycle".

I think the time has come to admit that to some degree, environmentalists ideas can improve our lives and lessen our impact on the environment, without forcing us to live like hippies. To think that none of this technology is useful or worth persuing is probably akin to people who thought "computers were a fad".

You don't have to have eco-bamboo renewable floors and organic cotton towels that you wash with lavender eco laundry wash.... But hey- a good caulking job, maybe some compost for the garden, a little thought behind vehicle choice, some common sense in landscaping is a good idea.

In all honestly, good old fashioned thrift is great for the environment. Probably better than Sierra Club. And in some of these rural areas, that survives. But there are people who are enormously wasteful.

fooler
Nov. 27, 2009, 11:31 AM
The only reasons China and India are even coming to the table, is that they face the climate problems themselves. Their people face it and experience hardship and their people are asking their govt to do something about it. So they come to the table -they are a little too big for the west to push around-especially on this issue where you really have no leverage.

Until today I never heard of these universities before. Are there fake academics-sure-probably in the same percentage as the general public. But to elevate these and make it into some kind of giant hoax with a cabal of mad scinetists and somehow make it seem like a work of fiction -worthy of an oscar.:lol: Climate change is real and happening all over,in many different places. There are many people around the world who will agree with that-not some evil scientists-but everyday folks and it is beacuse they are actually being affected by it. Will the cap and trade work-I don't know-like I said I doubt it will pass in the next four years, so why waste my time worrying about it.:winkgrin:

I do not consider 'climate change' to be a hoax. What I do believe, and is it confirmed by many, is that the climate has always changed.
What I disagree with is the theory that mankind is evil and causing climates to change more quickly. Why? Becuase we do not have enough information to prove or dis-prove. Plus I have learned to Strongly Question anyone who is pushing a particular mind-set (whether I agree or dis-agree).
However we Must be proper stewards of our environment. That said, I have not gotten to the position of pointing fingers at others who do not do as I do or hanging my head in shame because I do not do as much as others.
As far as Cap'nTrade - I will worry about it as ideas such as this often do not go away. They linger or return under a different name. That is one of the 'burdens' (if you will) of our country. We must be aware of items presented to congress so we can speak to our representatives and let them know our thoughts.

Kaleigh007
Nov. 27, 2009, 11:56 AM
As Newsbusters has reported there are huge dollars to be made from global warming alarmism. However, conceivably no one is better positioned to financially benefit from this scam than Dr. Global Warming himself, former Vice President Al Gore, a fact that the media will surely not share with Americans any time soon.

Yet, if America’s press would take some time out of their busy schedules covering the earth-shattering details surrounding Anna Nicole Smith’s demise, they might find a deliciously inconvenient truth about the soon-to-be-Dr. Gore that is significantly more fascinating and diabolical than anything likely to emerge from that courtroom in Broward County, Florida.

Kaleigh007
Nov. 27, 2009, 11:58 AM
Former U.S. Vice President Al Gore left the White House seven years ago with less than $2 million in assets, including a Virginia home and the family farm in Tennessee. Now he's making enough to put $35 million in hedge funds and other private partnerships.
Gore invested the money with Capricorn Investment Group LLC, a Palo Alto, California, firm that selects the private funds for clients and invests in makers of environmentally friendly products, according to a Feb. 1 securities filing. Capricorn was founded by billionaire Jeffrey Skoll, former president of EBay Inc. and an executive producer of Gore's Oscar-winning documentary film on global warming.
It looks like Gore stands to make $millions more — or even $billions, if the media can keep the hoax propped up long enough.

Thanks to global warming hysteria, the Goracle is able to charge a preposterously greedy $175,000 speaking fee. Already his net worth is well into nine figures. Not all of his riches come from the climate change hoax; he's made a mint from his involvement with left-leaning Google and Apple, which are no doubt grateful to him for inventing the Internet. But if Gore surpasses Warren Buffett at the top of the limousine liberal list, it will be through the clever strategy of using Capricorn to invest in products that his own overblown propaganda will inspire our increasingly authoritarian government to impose.

Any other questions????

magnolia73
Nov. 27, 2009, 12:31 PM
What is wrong with making money off of new technology? Why is it OK for GM to make profits off SUV's but wrong for someone to make a profit off of an electric car? Why is it OK for Duke Energy to run profitable coal fired plants, but not OK for someone to profit off of wind or solar?

Is global warming a marketing ploy- probably to a degree. But it has not really made that many people change. I also have not seen much evidence of political strong-arming, though we are early in the term of democrats.

Personally- in a free market, I don't much care if someone uses scare tactics to sell a product. It's up to the consumer to do the research. If Al Gore's fund companies want to tell moms to feed organic foods and dads to buy a hybrid.... whatever. It's not that much different from car companies telling you to buy a giant SUV to be safe.


However we Must be proper stewards of our environment. That said, I have not gotten to the position of pointing fingers at others who do not do as I do or hanging my head in shame because I do not do as much as others.


However, would you agree that education is important? Surely the soccer mom with 2 kids and a suburban who goes through 6 cases of bottled water a week might benefit from being aware of alternatives that might save her money while benefitting the environment. Face it, a lot of people are quite unaware. Should you be ashamed? No. Should you be preached at? No. But you should be aware of the alternatives and those that make a difference might benefit from some form of subsidy or promotion.

Looking at a situation and considering how to limit waste is not a bad idea and doesn't need to have anything more than practical considerations. And I honestly think with the economy in shambles, this is likely happening. People are downsizing homes, not drinking starbucks and bottled water and living more efficiently.

Some change would greatly benefit this country- and creating hysteria over "global warming" probably is not a good agent. However, completely dismissing the idea that we as a culture live very inefficiently just because you think global warming is a hoax is missing an opportunity to improve the quality of life for all.

Personally- my thoughts on climate change are that it is a natural cycle, but I do believe that we accelerated it. I also do not think all consequences to be negative, but believe we need to be willing to adapt easily as things change. IMO, the more efficient we are, with more alternatives for energy, food, lifestyle etc., the better off we can handle inevitable change, be it caused by natural cycles or ourselves. Problem is, many people who claim global warming to be a hoax seem very threatened by anyone with new ideas or anyone seeking alternatives to the current norms.

Change is natural and it can be disconcerting- but it seems like every generation has their preferences. I think the most resistance to change is in the older generations- and it is understandable. I think we need to promote change in a manner that does not point fingers at or seek to "shame" the generations that provided us with so much. But at some point they need to understand that younger generations may have different ideals and a different idea of quality of life.

Politicians (and extremists) have done an excellent job of polarizing us all. Fooler, I think we have more in common than you might think- and that our ideal lifestyles are similar- though I still am working towards being able to live more rurally. There is a common sense middle ground. Notably, I see this most strongly in the local foods movement where generations work together using common sense to grow good food sustainably- it may not always be organic- its a great mix of old ways and new and it is truly outside the political arena. Nobody gets preachy- rather its about the food quality and taste.

Bluey
Nov. 27, 2009, 12:40 PM
Oh, boy, you may not know, but the groups that live by mass marketing of products are aiming to our food production big time, from many angles.
You say:

---"Notably, I see this most strongly in the local foods movement where generations work together using common sense to grow good food sustainably- it may not always be organic- its a great mix of old ways and new and it is truly outside the political arena. Nobody gets preachy- rather its about the food quality and taste."---

I say, better read this and many such other, that don't make it to the news, because they are not preaching to the choir:

http://wsu.academia.edu/documents/0046/7264/2009_Cornell_Nutrition_Conference_Capper_et_al.pdf

greysandbays
Nov. 27, 2009, 12:49 PM
What is wrong with making money off of new technology? Why is it OK for GM to make profits off SUV's but wrong for someone to make a profit off of an electric car? Why is it OK for Duke Energy to run profitable coal fired plants, but not OK for someone to profit off of wind or solar?




Nothing whatsoever "wrong" with making a profit off an electric car or wind/solar energy -- until somebody with a vested interest in those enterprises starts swinging the government bat to knobble the SUV and coal companies and force their own more expensive product on the consumers under the guise of "doing what's right".

There's nothing most people would like more than affordable wind and solar energy because there's sure God's plenty of both. What smart people don't like is big-shots telling them they MUST use wind and/or solar because they are killing the planet if they don't, even though wind/solar are (at this point) inefficient, expensive, and when all is said and done, not all that much of an improvement over "the old ways" in environmental impact.

His Greyness
Nov. 27, 2009, 01:06 PM
God, how I wish someone would talk about the issue without politics, government, or the current political climate in the USA being the main theme. :sigh:

Neither the loony lefties nor the crackpot conservatives will allow this to happen. Sharing a platform with rational people goes against their dogmas.

To evaluate the current debate over climate change primarily one needs to have an understanding of human psychology and anthropology. How different groups compete for power and influence and how dogma tops data are the major factors. Climate science is important but secondary.

The data shows that the world is warming up. The ice caps are melting, the permafrost thawing and the glaciers retreating. Not even Fox News can produce "evidence" that a hoard of liberals is chipping away at the glaciers.

The reasons for, the impact of and the measures to prevent global warming are the subject of both scientific debate and political ranting. The latter is overwhelming the former and is preventing pragmatic solutions from being implemented.

(The generic) you and your horses will affected by climate change. For these United States the consensus is that there will be more extreme weather events and that the South-West will become drier than it is now.

Hollywood likes to depict the end of human civilization as a single apocalyptic event. Politicians of all stripes have adopted enthusiastically that approach to gain more attention. In these United States the media depends on advertising revenue not truthfulness to survive so hyper-ventilate over any disaster, real or imagined.

Much more likely is that climate change combined with other factors (like the economic decline of the US) will make life more miserable for everybody. That's why I quoted T.S. Eliot's poem in the title to my response. It's my opinion that human civilization is much more likely to come to an end through creating complex problems that its dogmas prevent it from solving and slowly strangles itself. :(

War Admiral
Nov. 27, 2009, 01:14 PM
Thank you for the injection of common sense, His Grayness!