Login to AccuWeather.com Premium Login to AccuWeather.com Professional Login to AccuWeather.com RadarPlus AccuWeather.com

Welcome Guest ( Log In | Register )

3 Pages V   1 2 3 >  
Reply to this topicStart new topic
> The Most Dangerous Global Warming Alarmists, A list of the top 10 individuals responsible AGW hysteria
The Terrible 10
Who is the most dangerous?
Al Gore [ 13 ] ** [46.43%]
IPCC [ 5 ] ** [17.86%]
The Weather Channel [ 3 ] ** [10.71%]
James Hansen [ 1 ] ** [3.57%]
Dr Rajendra Pachauri [ 1 ] ** [3.57%]
Michael Mann [ 0 ] ** [0.00%]
Hollywood [ 5 ] ** [17.86%]
Naomi Oreskes [ 0 ] ** [0.00%]
World Bank [ 0 ] ** [0.00%]
Kyoto [ 0 ] ** [0.00%]
Total Votes: 28
Guests cannot vote 
monsoonevans
post May 21 2008, 12:18 PM
Post #1




Rank: F5 Superstorm
***

Group: Moderator
Posts: 750
Joined: 11-January 08
From: Wayne, PA
Member No.: 12,210





It is my hope that we can begin to unravel the house of cards that is known as 'AGW'.
Like any movement, there needs to be individuals/groups that allow global phenomena to take place.
Man induced catastrophe has become a runaway train of sorts. A very small group of individuals started this craze and opportunistic individuals have accelerated it to where we are now. Most 'fads' or 'hoaxes' have a pretty short shelf life. It is for this reason that I think we are seeing the frantic push to 'take action now'. Taking action now is code for- enact laws/policies/business practices while the iron is hot.
The charade in and of itself is not dangerous. It is the actions that are made based off of that charade that WILL do the harm.

This is our Dirty Dozen (less 2) of the main culprits to the problem we now face. I will be breaking down each of these one at a time so as to give people the reality of who these leaders are. This will not be a scientific debate on who has the correct science, although there will most certainly be some discussion on the science, as that is what is actually being maligned in the first place. The science issue is much easier to address than the nefarious intentions of the Alaramists. True scientific debate cannot occur until the rotten eggs are taken out (dirty dozen).

The first discussion will be on Rajendra Pachauri, the head of the IPCC. Discussion to follow shortly.


--------------------
Monsoon

Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Craig-OmahaWX
post May 21 2008, 02:18 PM
Post #2




Rank: F5 Superstorm
***

Group: Founding Member
Posts: 997
Joined: 30-December 04
From: Omaha, NE
Member No.: 592





I voted Al Gore.


--------------------


Snowday.us Testimonials

"Craig.... I love your web site." John Belski | Chief Meteorologist WAVE 3 Louisville Kentucky
"Craig, Love the site! I am a huge winter weather junkie" Brian Goode Radio/Broadband Meteorologist The Weather Channel Inc

Winter 2009-2010 Current Snowfall Totals:
61.00"
Snow-Day.org Winter Forecast will be issued September 16th!
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
monsoonevans
post May 21 2008, 03:25 PM
Post #3




Rank: F5 Superstorm
***

Group: Moderator
Posts: 750
Joined: 11-January 08
From: Wayne, PA
Member No.: 12,210





QUOTE(Craig-OmahaWX @ May 21 2008, 03:18 PM) *
I voted Al Gore.


He was a close 2nd for me. I have a feeling he may be the runaway winner.


--------------------
Monsoon

Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
DomNH
post May 21 2008, 03:30 PM
Post #4




Rank: F5 Superstorm
***

Group: SuperModerator
Posts: 10,181
Joined: 7-January 08
From: Nashua, New Hampshire
Member No.: 11,976





QUOTE(monsoonevans @ May 21 2008, 04:25 PM) *
He was a close 2nd for me. I have a feeling he may be the runaway winner.

Gore was my choice.


--------------------

Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Removed_Member_OHweather2_*
post May 21 2008, 04:59 PM
Post #5







Guests








I may be the minority here, but I said Hollywood. Gore may make up most of the BS but it is Hollywood who can and already has used global warming as themes in some of its movies (Day After Tomorrow). Gore can talk all he wants but I think more people will see movies like Day After Tomorrow than hear Gore preach about Global Warming, or even watch his movie, An Inconvienient Truth.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
jdc123
post May 21 2008, 06:42 PM
Post #6




Rank: F5 Superstorm
***

Group: Member
Posts: 1,004
Joined: 31-December 07
From: Northeast Pennsylvania
Member No.: 11,923





Tough, tough choices.

I guess it depends on where in the world their influence is felt. The Weather Channel probably doesn't influence many people in Japan, but the IPCC and Kyoto might. Here in the US, I'd go with Hollywood/media too. Why TWC pushes AGW as hard as it does is beyond me, but I think they kind of follow the crowd. Al Gore knew a good thing when he saw it and jumped on the bandwagon early, but in my opinion the every-day Joe doesn't really take him seriously. But Joe does watch the news and movies. That's why I vote Hollywood. And the media. Turn on the news, and invariably the media is boldly asserting the latest effects of "global warming," with comical gravity, as if the world just got that much closer to total destruction.

That said, I wouldn't argue with anyone who picked Al Gore. He deceives too many innocent people, all the while flying his private jet, and driving his carbon-spewing SUV's!!!!


--------------------
“There is no such thing as perfection. But, in striving for perfection, we can achieve excellence.”
Vince Lombardi.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
monsoonevans
post May 21 2008, 07:20 PM
Post #7




Rank: F5 Superstorm
***

Group: Moderator
Posts: 750
Joined: 11-January 08
From: Wayne, PA
Member No.: 12,210





Ok, here's PE #1. Biography from The Earth Institute, Columbia University.

Rajendra K. Pachauri is director-general for The Energy and Resources Institute, which conducts research and provides professional support in the areas of energy, environment, forestry, biotechnology and the conservation of natural resources. Prior to this, Pachauri held managerial positions with the Diesel Locomotive works in Varanasi, and served as assistant professor and visiting faculty member in the Department of Economics and Business at North Carolina State University. In 2002, he was elected Chairman of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, and in 2001, he was awarded the Padma Bhushan by the president of India for his contributions to the environment. Pachauri taught at Yale University's School of Forestry and Environmental Studies in 2000 as a McCluskey Fellow. In 1999, he was appointed by Japan to the Board of Directors of the Institute for Global Environmental Strategies, Environment Agency. He is also president of the India Habitat Centre. Pachauri has sat on various international and national committees and boards, including the International Solar Energy Society, the World Resources Institute Council, the International Association for Energy Economics, and the Asian Energy Institute. He has also contributed to the Economic Advisory Council to the Prime Minister of India; the Panel of Eminent Persons on Power, the Ministry of Power; Delhi Vision - Core Planning Group; the Advisory Board on Energy, reporting directly to the prime minister; the National Environmental Council, under the chairmanship of the prime minister; and the Oil Industry Restructuring Group, 'R' Group. Pachauri earned an M.S. in industrial engineering, a Ph.D. in industrial engineering, and a Ph.D. in economics from North Carolina State University.

Couple of things to point out from the bio.
1. Lots of Engineering and economic degrees but dont see any climate or environmental specific education.
2. This guy has more hands in the jar than an octopus.
3. Oil Industry Restructuring Group???
4. Lots of economic experience is evident with Raj. Not sure how that ties into a scientific study of climate change. Don't see anything in terms of 'scientific' education that would qualify him for this role. Michael Jordan was a great basketball player, maybe the best ever. Lousy GM though. Figure Heads are just that.

Aside from the bio we have multiple issues with Raj. Here are a few excerpts from articles;

From Steven Hayward
Steven F. Hayward (shayward@aei.org)is the F. K. Weyerhaeuser
Fellow at AEI and the principal author of the
Index of Leading Environmental Indicators.

Not long ago the IPCC’s chairman, Dr. Rajendra
Pachauri, compared eco-skeptic Bjørn Lomborg to Hitler.
“What is the difference between Lomborg’s view of
humanity and Hitler’s?” Pachauri asked in a Danish
newspaper. “If you were to accept Lomborg’s way of
thinking, then maybe what Hitler did was the right
thing.”7 Lomborg’s sin was merely to follow the consensus
practice of economists in applying a discount to present
costs for future benefits, and comparing the range of outcomes
with other world problems alongside climate
change. It is hard to judge what is worse: Pachauri’s
appalling judgment in resorting to reductio ad Hitlerum,
or his abysmal ignorance of basic economics.


This next one comes from americanprogress.org (president of this fine group in John Podesta of ethical Clinton era politics fame. Also note that Tom Daschle is the Distinguished Senior Fellow (Energy and Health)). I'm not making this stuff up. Check it out and look at the names on here. Straight out of 'Goodfellas'.
Anyway, Raj is quoted in the November issue with this doozy:

As Rajendra Pachauri,
Chairman of the Intergovernmental
Panel on Climate Change and recipient
of the 2007 Nobel Peace Prize, said
recently, “If there’s no action before
2012, that’s too late. What we do in the
next two to three years will determine
our future. This is the defining moment.”
America needs policymakers with a
plan for restoring U.S. economic leadership
in a global and carbon-constrained
economy, making it possible, once again,
to dream that our children can look forward
to a better future.

Sounds a little bit like someone's trying to force the issue here a bit. Even a 'sceptic' would be hard pressed to argue that the issue still needs to be studied and researched. But for Raj to suggest that after millions of years of changing climate that it all comes down to the next 2 years is way to transparent for my liking. Most people who feel like the clocks ticking on there plan try to force the issue a little too much. Ever buy a car from a used car lot. Just when the sales guy thinks he has you, you start to back down and thats when he puts on the full court press. He starts thinking that your on to the scam and if he doesnt do something quick than the sales gone. Sounds to me like Raj feels the window closing on their ability to shape the long-term policy 'sale'. Although he says he's a scientist, he clearly states that the overall goal of the organization he heads is to provide the 'data' for policies to be based on. Hmm. So does that mean that the US, UN, India, and all the political and business groups that you chair and advise to, will be using the 'findings' of 'YOUR' group? Double Hmm.

More to follow. Need to take a break. Heads starting to hurt....


--------------------
Monsoon

Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
monsoonevans
post May 21 2008, 08:06 PM
Post #8




Rank: F5 Superstorm
***

Group: Moderator
Posts: 750
Joined: 11-January 08
From: Wayne, PA
Member No.: 12,210





QUOTE(jdc123 @ May 21 2008, 07:42 PM) *
Tough, tough choices.

I guess it depends on where in the world their influence is felt. The Weather Channel probably doesn't influence many people in Japan, but the IPCC and Kyoto might. Here in the US, I'd go with Hollywood/media too. Why TWC pushes AGW as hard as it does is beyond me, but I think they kind of follow the crowd. Al Gore knew a good thing when he saw it and jumped on the bandwagon early, but in my opinion the every-day Joe doesn't really take him seriously. But Joe does watch the news and movies. That's why I vote Hollywood. And the media. Turn on the news, and invariably the media is boldly asserting the latest effects of "global warming," with comical gravity, as if the world just got that much closer to total destruction.

That said, I wouldn't argue with anyone who picked Al Gore. He deceives too many innocent people, all the while flying his private jet, and driving his carbon-spewing SUV's!!!!

Good points! The thing about 'hollywood' is that its such a broad group. Its not just the movies but also the actors (leo d) and the activism that they spawn, TV commercials and programming, and you could also throw musicians in there as well. Live Earth, sting, bjork, ect. The real harm that this broad group does is the effectiveness of reaching young impressionable minds. Turn on anthing from MTV to the Disney channel and you can see how this minipulation game works.
Good points JDC!


--------------------
Monsoon

Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Removed_Member_papponpar_*
post May 21 2008, 08:22 PM
Post #9







Guests








Hmmmmmmmmmmmmm interesting, well i truly believe in global warming, i dont think there is any doubt that the last 20 years has been a warm period in our earth's history. The thing that worries me is how fast the warming has taken place, local and regional climate's around the world are changing, and changing fast, 99.9 % of them towards the warmer half of the spectrum, some at an alarming rate. Right here in southern new england, the winters have changed dramatically in the last 25 years, so quickly that we as humans can see and feel the changes. When i was kid and we moved here to ct from south carolina, i was playing pond hockey more days than not, starting in early January, and on and off from there through the third week in Feb. Now, kids are lucky and i mean LUCKY to be able to skate one week out of the winter, here on and near the coast. There seem to be more rain sleet and freezing rain storms instead of pure snow storms. Three of the last five witners i have had crocuses and other flowers between Xmas and the second week of January. Forsytheia...(hope i spelled that right, a yellow flowering bush that usually is the first of the spring to flower)....was out in my backyard two Xmas's ago............I really dont know if its man natural or both.....but things are changing, and changing dramatically, something we all should be aware of, no matter what your reasoning behind it may be.....ciao
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
monsoonevans
post May 21 2008, 08:49 PM
Post #10




Rank: F5 Superstorm
***

Group: Moderator
Posts: 750
Joined: 11-January 08
From: Wayne, PA
Member No.: 12,210





QUOTE(papponpar @ May 21 2008, 09:22 PM) *
Hmmmmmmmmmmmmm interesting, well i truly believe in global warming, i dont think there is any doubt that the last 20 years has been a warm period in our earth's history. The thing that worries me is how fast the warming has taken place, local and regional climate's around the world are changing, and changing fast, 99.9 % of them towards the warmer half of the spectrum, some at an alarming rate. Right here in southern new england, the winters have changed dramatically in the last 25 years, so quickly that we as humans can see and feel the changes. When i was kid and we moved here to ct from south carolina, i was playing pond hockey more days than not, starting in early January, and on and off from there through the third week in Feb. Now, kids are lucky and i mean LUCKY to be able to skate one week out of the winter, here on and near the coast. There seem to be more rain sleet and freezing rain storms instead of pure snow storms. Three of the last five witners i have had crocuses and other flowers between Xmas and the second week of January. Forsytheia...(hope i spelled that right, a yellow flowering bush that usually is the first of the spring to flower)....was out in my backyard two Xmas's ago............I really dont know if its man natural or both.....but things are changing, and changing dramatically, something we all should be aware of, no matter what your reasoning behind it may be.....ciao

Paps, good to hear from you on this topic. I too long for the days of 'laceing them up' and spending as many hours my toes could take on those wonderfully frozen ponds. That was back in the late 70's/early 80's. But I wonder if kids in the 30's and 40's were saying the same thing. I read recently about the ice melt in Greenland sometime around then. Huge chunks of ice broke off and scientists thought they discovered new islands. In reality it was just melting ice that gave that appearance.
All I'm trying to say is that history shows this happening very regularly over thousands and millions of years.
In addition to the wopping 1.5 inches of snow I got this year, we had a grand total of 1 day of skating. I believe with all my heart that we will be out there again very soon. My Bauers are getting rusty.


--------------------
Monsoon

Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Removed_Member_ilovesnow2007_*
post May 22 2008, 01:32 AM
Post #11







Guests








I voted Al Gore!
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
weatherbud
post May 22 2008, 03:03 AM
Post #12




Rank: Tornado
**

Group: Member
Posts: 116
Joined: 1-April 08
Member No.: 14,556





Voted for Al Gore... dry.gif


--------------------
Weather Blogs Hurricane Ike
---------------------------------------------------------------------
"Snowflakes are kisses from heaven..."
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
jdc123
post May 22 2008, 08:56 PM
Post #13




Rank: F5 Superstorm
***

Group: Member
Posts: 1,004
Joined: 31-December 07
From: Northeast Pennsylvania
Member No.: 11,923





No votes for the IPCC yet? I find that surprising.

Thanks for starting this thread Monsoon!


--------------------
“There is no such thing as perfection. But, in striving for perfection, we can achieve excellence.”
Vince Lombardi.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
shiloh
post May 23 2008, 02:18 PM
Post #14




Rank: Whirlwind
*

Group: Member
Posts: 36
Joined: 28-February 08
Member No.: 14,027





QUOTE(papponpar @ May 21 2008, 08:22 PM) *
Hmmmmmmmmmmmmm interesting, well i truly believe in global warming, i dont think there is any doubt that the last 20 years has been a warm period in our earth's history. The thing that worries me is how fast the warming has taken place, local and regional climate's around the world are changing, and changing fast, 99.9 % of them towards the warmer half of the spectrum, some at an alarming rate. Right here in southern new england, the winters have changed dramatically in the last 25 years, so quickly that we as humans can see and feel the changes. When i was kid and we moved here to ct from south carolina, i was playing pond hockey more days than not, starting in early January, and on and off from there through the third week in Feb. Now, kids are lucky and i mean LUCKY to be able to skate one week out of the winter, here on and near the coast. There seem to be more rain sleet and freezing rain storms instead of pure snow storms. Three of the last five witners i have had crocuses and other flowers between Xmas and the second week of January. Forsytheia...(hope i spelled that right, a yellow flowering bush that usually is the first of the spring to flower)....was out in my backyard two Xmas's ago............I really dont know if its man natural or both.....but things are changing, and changing dramatically, something we all should be aware of, no matter what your reasoning behind it may be.....ciao



It is natural. Climate is cyclical. We have been hot, and now we are getting cold. We would like to think we are that important to actual change climate. That being said, I have been playing hockey on my pond the last 2 years, in extreme southern Indiana. Things are absolutely changing, to the cool side. We still had ice coverage on ponds on March 15 (granted it was only about 1/2 thick) but ice on any surface in Southern Indiana in March is ABSOLUTELY unheard of. Things are changing very, very fast. This year the trees leafed out about 3 weeks late. Last year they leafed out the last week of march and then all died in April from a day of below-freezing HIGH temps, so then they had to re-start and bud again. Are these signs of things to come? I believe they are. We haven't had one day that can officially be listed as "Humid" yet....t is may 23. Something is not right.






Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
monsoonevans
post May 29 2008, 09:06 PM
Post #15




Rank: F5 Superstorm
***

Group: Moderator
Posts: 750
Joined: 11-January 08
From: Wayne, PA
Member No.: 12,210





Sorry for the brake in posts. Moving my office and havent had alot of time to post.
This is going to be a quick one. (Edit, this is not a quick one)

Public Enemy #2: IPCC
As stated in the original post on this topic, many of the Dirty Dozen are interconnected. The IPCC provides the 'ammunition' for folks like Gore, Hollywood, and the Media. So its important to find out where this ammo comes from and how it is 'created'. At the end of this post I will cite a well respected scientist that will (if the media has an guts to report it) blow an ozone sized hole into the credibility of the IPCC.

First and foremost this is a U.N. formed body. The IPCC is made up of roughly 2,500 individuals (note that I did not say scientists). Its important to note that there are many members (or former members) that do NOT agree with the central claims of the IPCC reports-AGW is real. Often scientists/experts that disagree with the IPCC report are labeled kooks and 'flat earthers' (Al Gore). In reality, these experts hail from some of the most respected institutions in the world. These include;

Harvard University; NASA; National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) and the National Center for Atmospheric Research (NCAR); Massachusetts Institute of Technology; the UN IPCC; the Danish National Space Center; U.S. Department of Energy; Princeton University; the Environmental Protection Agency; University of Pennsylvania; Hebrew University of Jerusalem; the International Arctic Research Centre; the Pasteur Institute in Paris; the Belgian Weather Institute; Royal Netherlands Meteorological Institute; the University of Helsinki; the National Academy of Sciences of the U.S., France, and Russia; the University of Pretoria; University of Notre Dame; Stockholm University; University of Melbourne; Columbia University; the World Federation of Scientists; and the University of London.
Sounds kinda silly for the IPCC to dismiss these folks, when at one point or another, many were asked to be on the IPCC. Hmm.

Anyway, thats a little off topic. The point is that there is far to much cronyism and self interest going on with the IPCC and the U.N. in general, for any of this stuff to be taken seriously. How soon we forget the Oil for Food Scandal. The IPCC has a clear agenda and mandate. They will literally disregard credible and verifiable research if it contradicts their agenda. This is not my opinion but a statement of fact. The 'Hockey Stick' fiasco is proof positive of this. Having been completely debunked by many scientific peer reviews, the IPCC simply removed it from future reports. The problem, however, was that during the time the IPCC accepted the 'hockey stick' theory and the time it was debunked, the message was delivered-that AGW was true and even worse than thought. We have all heard that the 90's was the warmest year on record and that 1998 was the warmest year on record and that it was only getting worse. But most people dont remember were that idea came from. Yup, the hockey stick was used to score the 'game winner'. If the IPCC was at all objective and credible it would most certainly have corrected their error and made it clear that the findings are to be discounted. Even doing that though would be akin to a judge telling a jury to disregard something salacious they heard from the lawyer. Once it gets into someones head its hard to get out even if its not true.
Back to the IPCC and its harm.
Since the IPCC is 'nuetral with respect to policy' its quite interesting to know that there Chairman is pretty outspoken about 'Policy'. As stated by Chairman Dr Rajendra Pachauri (see public enemy #1) the purpose of the IPCC is to help shape future policy. Hmm. The leader of the IPCC had this to say:
"We have been so drunk with this desire to produce and consume more and more whatever the cost to the environment that we're on a totally unsustainable path. I am not going to rest easy until I have articulated in every possible forum the need to bring about major structural changes in economic growth and development. Double Hmm. Vested interest perhaps. The IPCC has become nothing more than a puppet to those looking to gain power. It is void of ANY objectivity. According to several members, the working groups preparing for the IPCC meeting in December 2007 were told to not consider any new research papers after those that had been accepted by the IPCC in 2005. Therefore, a entire body of later peer-reviewed scientific work that countered the claims before the IPCC could not be considered. This
prompted a long list of scientists to write a letter of protest to Ban Ki-moon, Secretary-General of the United Nations on the UN Climate conference in Bali.
Furthermore, the most important/symbolic purpose of the IPCC is to release periodic 'state of the union' reports that are to be used as the 'bible' in terms of where we are. The biggest problem the IPCC has is that the reports are written by a small group of authors. There are multiple working groups (3) and each group handles a different aspect of the AGW issue. The most important Working Group is WG1. That is the group in charge of selling the AGW theory. The way the IPCC deals with this is dangerous and diabolical. In order to validate the work of these authors it is stated that 2,500 members 'endorse' these findings. If anyone cared to look into it even casually they would discover that only, get ready folks, a grand total of 7 independent people reviewed the main section in question. I am not going to go into the exact details of how we get to that number here but a simple google search will point you to the facts.
Bottom line, the head of the IPCC clearly has an agenda that is NOT based on scientific fact. The entire body the makes up the IPCC is comprised of appointed individuals that clearly have a conflict of interest. And finally, the IPCC knowingly desregards any and all evidence that contradicts there agenda.
Each of the 3 points just made are verifiable facts.

As stated in the begining of this post, Dr. Martin Hertzberg, a combustion research scientist and former meteorologist in the US Navy who has been studying the global warming issue for the past 20 years, has a great deal of expertise in the combustion of gases. CO2 and its mechanics are the core of the IPCC and AGW alarmists belief system. Hertzberg has plenty to say about this issue but one thing stands out above all.

"One of the more dramatic contradictions to the Gore-IPCC
hypothesis is one that I came up with myself, and which appealed to
Cockburn and to an Australian group of fellow skeptics. Let’s assume
for the moment that Gore-IPCC are right; namely that the human
production is dangerous and that we must reduce human production
of CO2. So let’s do it! Guess what? We’ve been there and done that,
and we didn’t need the Kyoto protocol to do it. We reduced the world
wide production of fossil carbon dioxide by a whopping 30% starting
one year before I was born. Here’s the data:

(Chart that I cant post here. You can google it if you would like to see it).

This is what actually happened during the years of the Great
Depression. In 1929, production was at 1.17 Gigatons of carbon
burned per year. Then the stock markets crashed, the depression hit,
and human generation fell to 0.88 Gigatons per year.
What did the atmospheric CO2 and temperature data show
during those three years? As you can see from the lower curves, theydidn’t skip a beat in their relentless rise at their normal rate. So a 30 % decline in fossil carbon dioxide emission has absolutely no effect
on temperature or atmospheric CO2. Why? Again because the
increase in CO2 is coming from somewhere else: namely, the
oceans, and the temperature is unrelated to human activity.
I don’t have time now to go into all the details, but our best
estimate of the human contribution of CO2 to the atmosphere is that
it trivial compared to the total amount generated naturally from
respiration, the decay of vegetation, naturally occurring fires, volcanic
eruptions, and the weathering of carbonate rock. Incidentally, when I
indicated that the amount of CO2 dissolved in the ocean was about
50 to 100 times greater than the amount in the atmosphere, I
neglected to mention that the amount of CO2 in carbonate rock in the
earth’s crust contains about 2000 times more than the amount
dissolved in the ocean."

The main point of Hertzberg's study was that the CO2 that goes into the atmosphere is primarily naturally occuring. Matter of fact, almost entirely. How can the IPCC completely miss the boat on this? Well, they didnt. This type of scientific data doesnt fit there agenda.
Head starting to hurt again. Public enemy #3 to come......



--------------------
Monsoon

Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
tdp146
post Jun 2 2008, 01:31 PM
Post #16




Rank: F5 Superstorm
***

Group: Member
Posts: 1,624
Joined: 7-January 08
From: South Shore of Long Island about 20 miles east of NYC
Member No.: 11,969





I too actually believe the earth is generally warming both naturally and through AGW. If you look at the history of the global climate of geologic time it shows that the climate has been all over the place.. from snowball earth (im sure we could open a debate thread just for this) to alligators swimming around at the same longitude as present day England. We are living in a time of relative stable weather conditions that we have been able to take advantage of. Its hard for me to look at the situation and say 'well there must be global warming because 20 years ago it used to snow much more than it does today' yet at the same time its hard to argue that putting CO2 into the atmosphere does not cause warming. All those 'fossil fuels' would remain buried if it was not for man uncovering them. And I dont think it is arrogant for man to think he can have an effect on the climate.. In the past we have clear cut entire forests, turned green landscapes into miles and miles of concrete and steel jungles.. even on a smaller scale it is theorized that tiny microbes that produced oxygen as a byproduct are the reason that oxygen was even able to accumulate on this planet (over millions and millions of years of course). Or that microbes Overall I do believe the climate changes in cycles and I also believe humans are in some way tinkering with that change. To how much degree we humans actually effect the climate I certainly not sure. I think it would be best to learn to become more sustainable and efficient with out resources. Climate will not always be the same for one reason or another, and we have become pretty comfortable at where we are.

I enjoy the opinions on the forum and hope to poke and prod a bit at some of the ideas to hear what people have to say.


--------------------
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Tornado Boy
post Jun 4 2008, 04:21 PM
Post #17




Rank: Tornado
**

Group: Member
Posts: 377
Joined: 9-February 08
Member No.: 13,528





My vote goes on The Weather Channel, though I do enjoy watching some shows, I don't enjoy their climate change *bleep*!!! I said *bleep*! because thats what it is! I work in the coal mining industry and these extremests say I should leave my job and feel guilty for feeding their little hoax aka climate change, why should I leave my job in the area where jobs are hard to find? Then they say move, well how can I move without money dummy? LOL

I don't know whats worse, the illegal aliens invading the USA or the Green Extreme Groups tearing our country apart!

*steps off soap box*

PS, I am all for clean coal technologies, energy saving and what not but when it comes down to hard working people losing their jobs because of this nonsense, then I am against it and would be happy to FIGHT against it!

-----
I cant believe that word got bleeped out!!!!

This post has been edited by Tornado Boy: Jun 4 2008, 04:21 PM


--------------------
I have left this account. I have deleted my email. I am going to the woods. I will see you in time.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
AgedSage
post Jun 5 2008, 08:43 AM
Post #18




Rank: Tornado
**

Group: Member
Posts: 218
Joined: 30-March 08
Member No.: 14,541





I'm sorry, I could not vote. You didn't list the name of the Accuweather resident Global Warming Alarmist.

This post has been edited by AgedSage: Jun 5 2008, 08:45 AM
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
monsoonevans
post Jun 5 2008, 12:32 PM
Post #19




Rank: F5 Superstorm
***

Group: Moderator
Posts: 750
Joined: 11-January 08
From: Wayne, PA
Member No.: 12,210





QUOTE(AgedSage @ Jun 5 2008, 09:43 AM) *
I'm sorry, I could not vote. You didn't list the name of the Accuweather resident Global Warming Alarmist.

wink.gif


Public Enemy #3 to be posted tomorrow. This one is too easy (hint: rhymes with bore)


--------------------
Monsoon

Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
wxdude1964
post Jun 5 2008, 05:02 PM
Post #20




Rank: F5 Superstorm
***

Group: Member
Posts: 33,424
Joined: 16-March 08
From: Covington, VA
Member No.: 14,395





QUOTE(Tornado Boy @ Jun 4 2008, 05:21 PM) *
My vote goes on The Weather Channel, though I do enjoy watching some shows, I don't enjoy their climate change *bleep*!!! I said *bleep*! because thats what it is! I work in the coal mining industry and these extremests say I should leave my job and feel guilty for feeding their little hoax aka climate change, why should I leave my job in the area where jobs are hard to find? Then they say move, well how can I move without money dummy? LOL

I don't know whats worse, the illegal aliens invading the USA or the Green Extreme Groups tearing our country apart!

*steps off soap box*

PS, I am all for clean coal technologies, energy saving and what not but when it comes down to hard working people losing their jobs because of this nonsense, then I am against it and would be happy to FIGHT against it!

-----
I cant believe that word got bleeped out!!!!

I also voted for the weather channel- mostly for Heidi Cullen and her famous "meteorologist" statement.


--------------------
Snowfall 2007-2008 season-11.4 inches
Snowfall 2008-2009 season-13.1 inches
Snowfall 2009-2010 season-68.6 inches
Snowfall 2010-2011 season-19.5 inches
Snowfall 2011-2012 season-16.5 inches.
Snowfall 2012-2013 season-25.9 inches.
Snowfall 2013-2014 season-41.1 inches.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post

3 Pages V   1 2 3 >
Reply to this topicStart new topic
1 User(s) are reading this topic (1 Guests and 0 Anonymous Users)
0 Members:

 

RSS Lo-Fi Version Time is now: 19th September 2014 - 08:51 PM