500-Scientists refute Man-Made Global warming Scare Mongering
MioMyo
control & power to them then the truth!
http://www.earthtimes.org/articles/show/news_press_release,176495.shtml
WASHINGTON, Sept. 12 /PRNewswire-USNewswire/ -- A new analysis of
peer-reviewed literature reveals that more than 500 scientists have
published evidence refuting at least one element of current man-made global
warming scares. More than 300 of the scientists found evidence that 1) a
natural moderate 1,500-year climate cycle has produced more than a dozen
global warmings similar to ours since the last Ice Age and/or that 2) our
Modern Warming is linked strongly to variations in the sun's irradiance.
"This data and the list of scientists make a mockery of recent claims that a
scientific consensus blames humans as the primary cause of global
temperature increases since 1850," said Hudson Institute Senior Fellow
Dennis Avery.
SyVyN11
"MioMyo" <USA_P...@Somewhere.com> wrote in message
news:Rr9Gi.53608$YL5....@newssvr29.news.prodigy.net...
remember, algore didn't create the internet, but he did make up global
warming.
>
>
parsi...@gmail.com
more about fucking up the planet to them than the truth!!!
http://www.cnn.com/2007/TECH/science/02/02/climate.change.report/
(CNN) -- Global warming is here and humans are "very likely" the
blame, an international group of scientists meeting in Paris, France,
announced Friday.
"The evidence for warming having happened on the planet is
unequivocal," said U.S. government scientist Susan Solomon, who also
is a member of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change.
"We can see that in rising air temperatures, we can see it in changes
in snow cover in the Northern Hemisphere. We can see it in global sea
rise. It's unequivocal," she said. (Watch scientist Susan Solomon
deliver the grim news on global warming )
In a 21-page report for policymakers, the group of climate experts
unanimously linked -- with "90 percent" certainty -- the increase of
average global temperatures since the mid-20th century to the increase
of manmade greenhouse gases in the atmosphere.
Fossil fuels like methane and carbon dioxide trap heat near the
surface, a process known as the greenhouse effect. The greenhouse
effect is a natural phenomenon, but human activities, like the burning
of fossil fuels, can pour enormous volumes of these gases into the
atmosphere, raising the planet's temperature and destabilizing the
climate. (Watch what happens to our planet when manmade emissions get
trapped in the atmosphere )
The report found it was "likely" -- "more likely than not" in some
cases -- that manmade greenhouse gases have contributed to hotter days
and nights, and more of them, more killer heat waves than before,
heavier rainfall more often, major droughts in more regions, stronger
and more frequent cyclones and "increased incidence" of extremely high
sea levels.
The report noted that 11 of the last 12 years have ranked among the 12
warmest years on record with the oceans absorbing more than 80 percent
of the heat added to the climate system. Add in the melt-off of
glaciers and sea ice and sea levels are rising.
The IPCC predicted global temperature increases of 1.8 to 4 degrees
Celsius (3.2 to 7.1 degrees Fahrenheit) by 2100 and sea levels to rise
between 7 and 23 inches (18 and 58 centimeters) by the end of the
century. (Watch how rising sea levels could affect San Francisco )
"An additional 3.9-7.8 inches (10-20 centimeters) are possible if
recent, surprising melting of polar ice sheets continues," the report
stated.
The group will meet again in April to discuss the socioeconomic impact
of climate change.
Defining 'likely'
The IPCC was established in 1988 to study climate change information.
The group doesn't do independent research but instead reviews
scientific literature from around the world.
The United Nations-sanctioned group was formed by the World
Meteorological Organization and U.N. Environment Program.
The group's goal is to produce "a balanced reporting of existing
viewpoints" on the causes of global warming, according to its Web
site.
The panel's reports are influential references for policymakers,
scientists and other climate change experts.
Friday's release is the beginning of the panel's first major report
since 2001. The rest of the report is due out later this year.
The 2001 report found that the 1990s were "very likely" the warmest
decade on record. It also said that most of the observed warming over
the last 50 years was "likely due to increases in greenhouse gas
concentrations due to human activities."
The authors defined "likely" as between 66 percent to 90 percent
probable, and "very likely" as a 90 to 99 percent.
Renewed concern in U.S.
Friday's report comes amid renewed debate in the United States. (Full
story)
In his State of the Union address, President Bush called for the use
of more environmentally friendly technologies to "confront the serious
challenge of global climate change."
It was the first time he has discussed the issue in a State of the
Union address.
The White House has said Bush's proposals would stop the growth of
carbon dioxide emissions from cars, light trucks and sport utility
vehicles within 10 years.
Leaders in the Democratic-controlled House of Representatives and
Senate held hearings on climate change this week. (Full story)
CNN's Peggy Mihelich and David E. Williams contributed to this report.
Larry Hewitt
Your topic is a blatant misrepresentation of the article.
The article is nothing more than unwarranted assumptions.
For example, they "conclude" that failure to even mention global warming in
a paper is indicative of a negative opinion of the theory.
All lies all the time.
Larry
"MioMyo" <USA_P...@Somewhere.com> wrote in message
news:Rr9Gi.53608$YL5....@newssvr29.news.prodigy.net...
MioMyo
"Kickin' Ass and Takin' Names" <PopUl...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:1189684941.4...@r29g2000hsg.googlegroups.com...
> tank."
Why because you say so? The Earth Times claims otherwise, olus you offer no
evidence of your assertion lib.
See:
http://www.earthtimes.org/about.htm
> Within the Hudson Institute is another organization whose stated goal
> is to "expose the myths about global warming."
Not that you've connected the dots between the Earth Times and the Hudson
Institute, nor that YOU CAN DISPUTE the information in the article I linked,
but I would counter that it is a NOBLE GOAL to expose the TRUTH since the
left has been lying about Global Warming and now they's getting caught up in
all their lies!
> That's the source of this article -- more rightwing global-warming
> denial.
In other words, you won't let facts interfere with your preconceived
opinions since that is ALL you have produced in your posting!
MioMyo
Warming scare claims. Then not long ago the radical left said the debate is
over (in other words shut up and do what we tell you).
However, now in my below linked source and many others which have been
coming forward disputing the left's claim with regard to their Global
Warming Scare Mongering, evidence does point to the merits of disputing the
left's assertions. Yet still like scared little children, the left says....
"Oh but you must listen because we really never wanted top debate anyway. We
just expect everyone to do what we want them to do".....
Yes, that is apparent. Now debate these 500-scientists and accept the fact
that your arguments are emotionally based lib.
<parsi...@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:1189685715.9...@o80g2000hse.googlegroups.com...
MioMyo
500-scientists are saying about Global Warming scare mongering is your
problem, not mine. I find it more interesting though that you would post a
lie right in the face of sourced information exposing you as a liar. Well,
no one ever gave you credit for being anything other than a moron anyway
hewey.
"Larry Hewitt" <larr...@comporium.net> wrote in message
news:fcba1g$lhm$1...@news04.infoave.net...
ThePhisherKIng
news:bkaGi.4634$FO2....@newssvr14.news.prodigy.net:
> The article says what it says. The fact that you don't like what
> 500-scientists are saying about Global Warming scare mongering is your
> problem, not mine. I find it more interesting though that you would
> post a lie right in the face of sourced information exposing you as a
> liar. Well, no one ever gave you credit for being anything other than
> a moron anyway hewey.
>
>
Your desperation is palpable. Searching through reams of material to
find where Ts have not been crossed, nor Is dotted, sweaty palms, red
sleepless eyes trying to refute the irrefutable. You must lead a sad and
lonely life. Spend your time getting out more often and get a better
education in science.
Bob Eld
"MioMyo" <USA_P...@Somewhere.com> wrote in message
news:Rr9Gi.53608$YL5....@newssvr29.news.prodigy.net...
More Republican bull shit while arctic ice has melted to it's lowest level
in recorded history and 2007 is turning out to be the warmest year on
record. We have record rainfall in some areas and record drought in
others....Oh well what do you expect from a bunch of anti-science religious
nut cases.
Geo
> "MioMyo" <USA_Patr...@Somewhere.com> wrote in message
"On record"? How far back do those records go...100-150 years? How
long has the earth been around? Unless you're a christian
fundamentalist that thinks the earth was created 3000 years ago, this
"on record" time frame is a mere zit on your butt when compared to the
larger picture of the billions of years of undocumented "climate
change".
Lamont Cranston
BEYOND THE IVORY TOWER:
The Scientific Consensus on Climate Change
Naomi Oreskes*
Policy-makers and the media, particularly in the United States, frequently
assert that climate science is highly uncertain. Some have used this as an
argument against adopting strong measures to reduce greenhouse gas
emissions. For example, while discussing a major U.S. Environmental
Protection Agency report on the risks of climate change, then-EPA
administrator Christine Whitman argued, "As [the report] went through
review, there was less consensus on the science and conclusions on climate
change" (1). Some corporations whose revenues might be adversely affected by
controls on carbon dioxide emissions have also alleged major uncertainties
in the science (2). Such statements suggest that there might be substantive
disagreement in the scientific community about the reality of anthropogenic
climate change. This is not the case.
The scientific consensus is clearly expressed in the reports of the
Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC). Created in 1988 by the
World Meteorological Organization and the United Nations Environmental
Programme, IPCC's purpose is to evaluate the state of climate science as a
basis for informed policy action, primarily on the basis of peer-reviewed
and published scientific literature (3). In its most recent assessment, IPCC
states unequivocally that the consensus of scientific opinion is that
Earth's climate is being affected by human activities: "Human activities ...
are modifying the concentration of atmospheric constituents ... that absorb
or scatter radiant energy. ... [M]ost of the observed warming over the last
50 years is likely to have been due to the increase in greenhouse gas
concentrations" [p. 21 in (4)].
IPCC is not alone in its conclusions. In recent years, all major scientific
bodies in the United States whose members' expertise bears directly on the
matter have issued similar statements. For example, the National Academy of
Sciences report, Climate Change Science: An Analysis of Some Key Questions,
begins: "Greenhouse gases are accumulating in Earth's atmosphere as a result
of human activities, causing surface air temperatures and subsurface ocean
temperatures to rise" [p. 1 in (5)]. The report explicitly asks whether the
IPCC assessment is a fair summary of professional scientific thinking, and
answers yes: "The IPCC's conclusion that most of the observed warming of the
last 50 years is likely to have been due to the increase in greenhouse gas
concentrations accurately reflects the current thinking of the scientific
community on this issue" [p. 3 in (5)].
Others agree. The American Meteorological Society (6), the American
Geophysical Union (7), and the American Association for the Advancement of
Science (AAAS) all have issued statements in recent years concluding that
the evidence for human modification of climate is compelling (8).
The drafting of such reports and statements involves many opportunities for
comment, criticism, and revision, and it is not likely that they would
diverge greatly from the opinions of the societies' members. Nevertheless,
they might downplay legitimate dissenting opinions. That hypothesis was
tested by analyzing 928 abstracts, published in refereed scientific journals
between 1993 and 2003, and listed in the ISI database with the keywords
"climate change" (9).
The 928 papers were divided into six categories: explicit endorsement of the
consensus position, evaluation of impacts, mitigation proposals, methods,
paleoclimate analysis, and rejection of the consensus position. Of all the
papers, 75% fell into the first three categories, either explicitly or
implicitly accepting the consensus view; 25% dealt with methods or
paleoclimate, taking no position on current anthropogenic climate change.
Remarkably, none of the papers disagreed with the consensus position.
Admittedly, authors evaluating impacts, developing methods, or studying
paleoclimatic change might believe that current climate change is natural.
However, none of these papers argued that point.
This analysis shows that scientists publishing in the peer-reviewed
literature agree with IPCC, the National Academy of Sciences, and the public
statements of their professional societies. Politicians, economists,
journalists, and others may have the impression of confusion, disagreement,
or discord among climate scientists, but that impression is incorrect.
The scientific consensus might, of course, be wrong. If the history of
science teaches anything, it is humility, and no one can be faulted for
failing to act on what is not known. But our grandchildren will surely blame
us if they find that we understood the reality of anthropogenic climate
change and failed to do anything about it.
Many details about climate interactions are not well understood, and there
are ample grounds for continued research to provide a better basis for
understanding climate dynamics. The question of what to do about climate
change is also still open. But there is a scientific consensus on the
reality of anthropogenic climate change. Climate scientists have repeatedly
tried to make this clear. It is time for the rest of us to listen.
References and Notes
1.. A. C. Revkin, K. Q. Seelye, New York Times, 19 June 2003, A1.
2.. S. van den Hove, M. Le Menestrel, H.-C. de Bettignies, Climate Policy
2 (1), 3 (2003).
3.. See www.ipcc.ch/about/about.htm.
4.. J. J. McCarthy et al., Eds., Climate Change 2001: Impacts, Adaptation,
and Vulnerability (Cambridge Univ. Press, Cambridge, 2001).
5.. National Academy of Sciences Committee on the Science of Climate
Change, Climate Change Science: An Analysis of Some Key Questions (National
Academy Press, Washington, DC, 2001).
6.. American Meteorological Society, Bull. Am. Meteorol. Soc. 84, 508
(2003).
7.. American Geophysical Union, Eos 84 (51), 574 (2003).
8.. See www.ourplanet.com/aaas/pages/atmos02.html.
9.. The first year for which the database consistently published abstracts
was 1993. Some abstracts were deleted from our analysis because, although
the authors had put "climate change" in their key words, the paper was not
about climate change.
10.. This essay is excerpted from the 2004 George Sarton Memorial Lecture,
"Consensus in science: How do we know we're not wrong," presented at the
AAAS meeting on 13 February 2004. I am grateful to AAAS and the History of
Science Society for their support of this lectureship; to my research
assistants S. Luis and G. Law; and to D. C. Agnew, K. Belitz, J. R. Fleming,
M. T. Greene, H. Leifert, and R. C. J. Somerville for helpful discussions.
10.1126/science.1103618
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
The author is in the Department of History and Science Studies Program,
University of California at San Diego, La Jolla, CA 92093, USA. E-mail:
nore...@ucsd.edu
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
The editors suggest the following Related Resources on Science sites:
In Science Magazine
LETTERS
Consensus About Climate Change?
Roger A. Pielke, Jr.; and Naomi Oreskes (13 May 2005)
Science 308 (5724), 952. [DOI: 10.1126/science.308.5724.952]
| Full Text » | PDF »
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
THIS ARTICLE HAS BEEN CITED BY OTHER ARTICLES:
Emerging health issues: the widening challenge for population health
promotion.
A. J. McMichael and C. D. Butler (2006)
Health Promot. Int. 21, 15-24
| Abstract » | Full Text » | PDF »
Climate change: Conflict of observational science, theory, and politics:
Discussion.
B. Lovell (2006)
AAPG Bulletin 90, 405-407
| Full Text » | PDF »
Climate change: Conflict of observational science, theory, and politics:
Reply.
L. C. Gerhard (2006)
AAPG Bulletin 90, 409-412
| Full Text » | PDF »
Book review: The discovery of global warming.
R. Wilby (2006)
Progress in Physical Geography 30, 141-142
| PDF »
Lamont Cranston
"SyVyN11" <robhor...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:fcb96p$25o$1...@news.albasani.net...
Remember, Al Gore didn't claim to have created the Internet. But, I'm sure
that you will continue with your lies.
Larry Hewitt
"MioMyo" <USA_P...@Somewhere.com> wrote in message
> The article says what it says.
The fact that you don't like what
> 500-scientists are saying about Global Warming scare mongering is your
> problem, not mine.
The fact is that the article misrepresents what 500 scientists are sayiing,
or even worse, puts words in their mouths.
I find it more interesting though that you would post a
> lie right in the face of sourced information exposing you as a liar.
I find it interesting that, confronted with an easily identified lie onyour
part ( your misrepesenting the mmisrepresentations in the article) you pput
forth another liwe in defense of of your previuos lies.
I almost admire --- almost --- your hutpah.\
Well,
> no one ever gave you credit for being anything other than a moron anyway
> hewey.
>
>
Hey, thanks. No one has called me that since I was 8 yrs old. A blast from
the past.
But not surprising, comng from you, and your 8 yr old intellect.
larry
the_blogologist
> "SyVyN11" <robhor...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
>
> > remember, algore didn't create the internet, but he did make up global
> > warming.
>
> Remember, Al Gore didn't claim to have created the Internet. But, I'm sure
> that you will continue with your lies.
Part_Time_Troll
news:1i4e4cr.oxhg52ecky9aN%nob...@nowheres.com:
> http://texastechie.com/Images/HumorMedia/gore_internet.wav
http://www.california4gore.org/Al_Gore_Invented_The_Internet.html
--
http://www.google.com/search?q=Coulter+%22Ann+Chupacabras%22+%7C+%
22Ann+Chupacabra%22
wby...@ireland.com
wrote:
A drop in the bucket - and prepared by a biased think tank. To me it
sounds akin to 4 out of 5 dentists recommending Crest. Get over it -
GW is real.
WB Yeats
wby...@ireland.com
wrote:
>In article <dedle3t5borsg1ug4...@4ax.com>, wby...@ireland.com
>says...
>The debate is ended. Now the question is, what next?
Gee, did you have to ask about the hard part? Looks to me like some
scientist/geographer/politician had best start looking at the
population shifts which global warming will cause. Like almost the
entire country of Bangladesh when it disappears at high tide.
WB Yeats
wby...@ireland.com
wrote:
>In article <3plle3d2hslgks8ef...@4ax.com>, wby...@ireland.com
>says...
>You could also start tropical fruits farms in Ireland. But you already have
>palm trees on the southwest coast. Come to think of it, I doubt GW will have
>much of an effect on Ireland beyond eliminating the rare snowfall altogether.
>Goodbye to that marvelous ending to Joyce's "The Dead."
Don't live in Ireland but you're probably right. As for GW, a few
scientists believe that some winters in the short term might be colder
if certain currents shift - so Gabriel might just see that snow again.
Whoosh - that went back to college where I initially thought that
Joyce wrote to torture university undergrads. I guess I'll have to now
insert a bunch of swear words and racial epithets to keep in tune with
a good percentage of posts in this group. **&%!^#**&*
WB Yeats
MioMyo
"Gogarty" <Gog...@Clongowes.edu.ie> wrote in message
news:20070914-1...@Gogarty.news.bway.net...
This has ALWAYS been the left's mantra which is: Shut Up & Don't Debate What
We Tell You!
You're wrong lib cause the Debate is Just Beginning.
MioMyo
"kT" <cos...@lifeform.org> wrote in message
news:m5RGi.9$4z...@newsfe02.lga...
> MioMyo wrote:
>
>> You're wrong lib cause the Debate is Just Beginning.
>
>
> Everybody already knows the world is flat.
With that line and your crack pipe, you should be able to find your place in
the move on trough somewhere!
MioMyo
"Starkiller©" <NoSpamS...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:vmone3l94anmskhjf...@4ax.com...
> On Sat, 15 Sep 2007 05:20:22 -0700, "MioMyo"
> <USA_P...@Somewhere.com> wrote:
>
>>
>>"Larry Hewitt" <larr...@comporium.net> wrote in message
>>>
>>> "Geo" <taxpa...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
>>> news:1189774829.2...@o80g2000hse.googlegroups.com...
>>>> On Sep 14, 8:24 am, "Larry Hewitt" <larryh...@comporium.net> wrote:
>>>>> "Geo" <taxpayer...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
>>>>>
>>>>> news:1189769083.2...@d55g2000hsg.googlegroups.com...
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> > On Sep 13, 6:37 pm, "Larry Hewitt" <larryh...@comporium.net> wrote:
>>>>> >> "Geo" <taxpayer...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
>>>>>
>>>>> >>news:1189695213.0...@50g2000hsm.googlegroups.com...
>>>>>
>>>>> >> > On Sep 13, 8:02 am, Kickin' Ass and Takin' Names
>>>>> >> > <PopUlist...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>>>>> >> >> On Sep 13, 7:48 am, "MioMyo" <USA_Patr...@Somewhere.com> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>> >> >> "think
>>>>> >> >> tank."
>>>>>
>>>>> >> >> goal
>>>>> >> >> is to "expose the myths about global warming."
>>>>>
>>>>> >> >> global-warming
>>>>> >> >> denial.
>>>>>
>>>>> >> > climate
>>>>> >> > change alarmism aren't biased?
>>>>>
>>>>> >> Ah, the straw man that they depend on global warming for a job.
>>>>>
>>>>> >> If that's all you got then you are truly pathetic.
>>>>>
>>>>> >> Larry
>>>>>
>>>>> > Once again, as usual, you re-write something that someone said and
>>>>> > respond with your own strawman. I didn't say they depend on global
>>>>> > warming for a job. I said they depend on climate. You really need
>>>>> > to
>>>>> > get out of the habit Larry. It's not becoming of you.
>>>>>
>>>>> Sorry, I didn;t realize that you cowardly chanfed the subject of the
>>>>> post in
>>>>> a feeble attempt to suuport the unwarranted conclusin put forward
>>>>> inthe
>>>>> post.
>>>>>
>>>>> Your intellectual dishonesty is unworthy.
>>>>>
>>>>> Larrry
>>>>
>>>> You didn't realize it because I didn't change the subject. I pointed
>>>> out what you are oblivious to. With that said, you cowardly changed
>>>> my words. You're not even intellectually dishonest. You're simply
>>>> dishonest.
>>>>
>>>
>>> You, sir, are dissembling.
>>>
>>> The topic is global warming. The purported "study" is about global
>>> warming.
>>
>>No MORON, the topic is Man Made Global Warming. Try underscoring MAN-MADE.
>>That is wha is being debunked you idiot!
>
> Ain't it funny when they get to dancing around on the topic?
> They know they don't have a real leg to stand on in regards to the
> "man made" bit so they always have to try and twist the argument that
> if you don't think it's man made then you don't think it's happening
> at all.
> What a bunh of baffoons.
>>
>>
>>> You used the word "climate".
>>>
>>> When I equated "climate" with "global warming", you called me on it.
>>>
>>> Now you reverse yourself.
>>>
>>> Feverish?
>>>
>>> Larry
>>>
>>
>
> Regards
>
>
> Starkiller©
>
> "Puff puff, give. Puff puff, give.... You fuckin' up the rotation"
Furthermore, this "Make a Crisis" liberal mentality for the sake of a
"Predetermined Liberal Solution" is quite obvious except to the brain death
leftists!
Richardson-Obama in 08
I realize that this will be very difficult for you, but try looking at the
situation logically. We have four possible scenarios here:
1. The mainstream scientists are wrong, and we simply ignore them.
2. The mainstream scientists are wrong, but we take their recommended
actions anyway.
3. The mainstream scientists are right, and we ignore them.
4. The mainstream scientists are right, and we take their recommended
actions.
Here are the likely resultant outcomes of the four scenarios:
1. Nothing at all happens.
2. We waste a trillion or two dollars fixing what's not broken, and
endure a few personal inconveniences.
3. Most life as we know it (including most of mankind), on planet Earth,
likely perishes.
4. The problem gets (mostly) solved and life goes on.
So, if we ignore them, the best possible outcome is nothing happens, but the
worst possible outcome is utter disaster.
If we listen to them, and do as they recommend, the worst possible outcome
is we give up a few minor luxuries and waste some money, but the best
possible outcome is a planet that will continue to support life.
Perhaps YOU'RE willing to risk the planet to save some money and keep your
gas guzzler, but logical people, who aren't devoid of a conscience, aren't
willing to take the chance that if they just stick their heads in the sand
the problem will simply go away.
Larry Hewitt
"Richardson-Obama in 08" <NoTh...@NoSpam.com> wrote in message
news:ReKdnW9csvlmZXbb...@comcast.com...
Good analysis.
The problem is:
1. Those in a position of authority that are denying global warming don't
give a crap about mankind. They are rich and powerful enough to ride out any
conceivable (to them) consequences throughout their and their children's
lifetimes.
2. The followers of the global warming deniers, like those in this thread,
worship money and the power of the deniers. The loss of _any_ personal
monies is a burden more onerous than any of the predicted disasters ---
hunger, disease, displacement, war, ... Perhaps even worse to them is the
thought that the rich and powerful that they worship, and hold out feeble,
unrealistic dreams that they someday may join, will lose their power.
Perhaps the only thing more coveted than money by these sycophants is
power.
Changing the mindsets of people with these psychological failings is
impossible,
Larry
MioMyo
news:ReKdnW9csvlmZXbb...@comcast.com...
You characterizing the scientist which happen to promote the leftist agenda
as *Mainstream* is first of all disputable!
Plus you mean by taking their recommendation, the world bow to leftist
control.
> Here are the likely resultant outcomes of the four scenarios:
>
> 1. Nothing at all happens.
> 2. We waste a trillion or two dollars fixing what's not broken, and
> endure a few personal inconveniences.
> 3. Most life as we know it (including most of mankind), on planet
> Earth,
> likely perishes.
> 4. The problem gets (mostly) solved and life goes on.
Number 5- THE CAUSES AND SOLUTIONS ARE DEBATED IN EARNEST before
implementing left-wing knee jerk remedies!
> So, if we ignore them, the best possible outcome is nothing happens, but
> the
> worst possible outcome is utter disaster.
>
> If we listen to them, and do as they recommend, the worst possible outcome
> is we give up a few minor luxuries and waste some money, but the best
> possible outcome is a planet that will continue to support life.
Or their recommended solution has no effect whatsoever since there is no
scientific consenses on any outcome. The bottom line is scienist cannot
agree with any certainty that if all human activity ceased wheather or not
the current benign trend toward global warming would be influenced on iota!
> Perhaps YOU'RE willing to risk the planet to save some money and keep your
> gas guzzler, but logical people, who aren't devoid of a conscience, aren't
> willing to take the chance that if they just stick their heads in the sand
> the problem will simply go away.
Explain why through earth's many centuries of history there were warming &
cooling trends without human influences. Then try employing some critical
thinking skills if possible!
MioMyo
Hey moron, no ones is denying global warming. This benign trend is well
established. What's disputable is whether human activity is influencing
and/or causing it and whether or not your left wing solutions will have the
effect you say they will! Or at least those issues are a good start for the
debate!
> 2. The followers of the global warming deniers, like those in this thread,
> worship money and the power of the deniers. The loss of _any_ personal
The left makes this accusation but they have never proven that those who
challenge and/or dispute their claims are any such thing.
In other words, all your side can do is name call which is no argument
whatsoever!
MioMyo
"John Smith" <bobsyo...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:UVUGi.1275$ec2.677@trnddc03...
>
> "MioMyo" <USA_P...@Somewhere.com> wrote in message
Wrong, that is INDEED exactly what the linked article I posted entitles and
then later argues why! The fact that your left leftist cronies dlete the
link is just evidence your side refuses to debate the issue in earnest.
Here, you try arguing the facts presented in the article if you can:
http://www.earthtimes.org/articles/show/news_press_release,176495.shtml
> Finding parallels in nature does NOT debunk the fact that man DOES have a
> negative effect on the environment.
>
> In nature, lead does exist.
> Man made (molded) lead - in the guise of a bullet, is a completely
> different animal.
>
Richardson-Obama in 08
I would consider every reputable climatologist who isn't on the payroll of,
or recieving "research grants" from, one of the major energy companies to be
a fairly decent definition of "mainstream".
> Plus you mean by taking their recommendation, the world bow to leftist
> control.
Reducing greenhouse gases isn't bowing to leftist control. It's exercising
common sense.
> > Here are the likely resultant outcomes of the four scenarios:
> >
> > 1. Nothing at all happens.
> > 2. We waste a trillion or two dollars fixing what's not broken, and
> > endure a few personal inconveniences.
> > 3. Most life as we know it (including most of mankind), on planet
> > Earth,
> > likely perishes.
> > 4. The problem gets (mostly) solved and life goes on.
>
> Number 5- THE CAUSES AND SOLUTIONS ARE DEBATED IN EARNEST before
> implementing left-wing knee jerk remedies!
That's not a separate possibility. That's either #1 or #3 . . . doing
nothing.
> > So, if we ignore them, the best possible outcome is nothing happens, but
> > the
> > worst possible outcome is utter disaster.
> >
> > If we listen to them, and do as they recommend, the worst possible
outcome
> > is we give up a few minor luxuries and waste some money, but the best
> > possible outcome is a planet that will continue to support life.
>
> Or their recommended solution has no effect whatsoever since there is no
> scientific consenses on any outcome. The bottom line is scienist cannot
> agree with any certainty that if all human activity ceased wheather or not
> the current benign trend toward global warming would be influenced on
iota!
That comes in between the worst case and best case scenarios. Didn't anyone
ever teach you to read?
> > Perhaps YOU'RE willing to risk the planet to save some money and keep
your
> > gas guzzler, but logical people, who aren't devoid of a conscience,
aren't
> > willing to take the chance that if they just stick their heads in the
sand
> > the problem will simply go away.
>
> Explain why through earth's many centuries of history there were warming &
> cooling trends without human influences. Then try employing some critical
> thinking skills if possible!
Most of those warming and cooling trends have been identified as being
caused by some cataclysm, such as volcanic eruptions, meteorite impacts,
etc. In this case the cataclysm is mankind.
But I can't say I'm surprised at your attitude. After all, I predicted,
right up front, that looking at the situation logically would be very
difficult for you.
MioMyo
"Richardson-Obama in 08" <NoTh...@NoSpam.com> wrote in message
The same would then apply to any scientist whose program ia supported by any
government(s) and/or pool of governmental bodies grants/funding or any other
kind of economict backing!
>> Plus you mean by taking their recommendation, the world bow to leftist
>> control.
>
> Reducing greenhouse gases isn't bowing to leftist control. It's
> exercising
> common sense.
If all human activity ceased, could it be shown that this reduction would
have a cause & effect on Global Warming. If you think yes, explain
anticipated results!
>> > Here are the likely resultant outcomes of the four scenarios:
>> >
>> > 1. Nothing at all happens.
>> > 2. We waste a trillion or two dollars fixing what's not broken, and
>> > endure a few personal inconveniences.
>> > 3. Most life as we know it (including most of mankind), on planet
>> > Earth,
>> > likely perishes.
>> > 4. The problem gets (mostly) solved and life goes on.
>>
>> Number 5- THE CAUSES AND SOLUTIONS ARE DEBATED IN EARNEST before
>> implementing left-wing knee jerk remedies!
>
> That's not a separate possibility. That's either #1 or #3 . . . doing
> nothing.
I disagree because you have included unsubstaniated assumptions in your
flawed premise!
>> > So, if we ignore them, the best possible outcome is nothing happens,
>> > but
>> > the
>> > worst possible outcome is utter disaster.
>> >
>> > If we listen to them, and do as they recommend, the worst possible
> outcome
>> > is we give up a few minor luxuries and waste some money, but the best
>> > possible outcome is a planet that will continue to support life.
>>
>> Or their recommended solution has no effect whatsoever since there is no
>> scientific consenses on any outcome. The bottom line is scienist cannot
>> agree with any certainty that if all human activity ceased wheather or
>> not
>> the current benign trend toward global warming would be influenced on
> iota!
>
> That comes in between the worst case and best case scenarios. Didn't
> anyone
> ever teach you to read?
Unacceptable, let the spirited debate proceed in earnest. It was after all
the left which has pushed this entire global warming issue to the fore
front, so naturally one would assume your side would welcome this debate.
Instead you're attempting to run away which only exposes your sides
vulnerability.
Why is the left afraid to debate this issue all of a sudden?
>> > Perhaps YOU'RE willing to risk the planet to save some money and keep
> your
>> > gas guzzler, but logical people, who aren't devoid of a conscience,
> aren't
>> > willing to take the chance that if they just stick their heads in the
> sand
>> > the problem will simply go away.
>>
>> Explain why through earth's many centuries of history there were warming
>> &
>> cooling trends without human influences. Then try employing some critical
>> thinking skills if possible!
>
> Most of those warming and cooling trends have been identified as being
> caused by some cataclysm, such as volcanic eruptions, meteorite impacts,
> etc.
Most? How many would that be? or what percentage? and where's your cite for
that assertion?
> In this case the cataclysm is mankind.
Subjective & unproven!
> But I can't say I'm surprised at your attitude. After all, I predicted,
> right up front, that looking at the situation logically would be very
> difficult for you.
I kicked your arrogant pompous ass although you aren't about to admit that.
Richardson-Obama in 08
Absolutely, Mia . . . IF their continued employment was contingent on saying
what those government bodies wanted them to say. Fortunately . . . or
unfortunately for the Bush Administration, who has tried very hard to make
the global warming discussion disappear . . . our government doesn't do
that. Exxon-Mobil, on the other hand, does.
> >> Plus you mean by taking their recommendation, the world bow to leftist
> >> control.
> >
> > Reducing greenhouse gases isn't bowing to leftist control. It's
> > exercising
> > common sense.
>
> If all human activity ceased, could it be shown that this reduction would
> have a cause & effect on Global Warming. If you think yes, explain
> anticipated results!
The computer models suggest that it would have an effect, if the damage
hasn't already gone past the point of no return. Of course, if we're not
already past that point of no return, wasting time by debating the issue ad
nauseum will likely take us past that point eventually.
> >> > Here are the likely resultant outcomes of the four scenarios:
> >> >
> >> > 1. Nothing at all happens.
> >> > 2. We waste a trillion or two dollars fixing what's not broken,
and
> >> > endure a few personal inconveniences.
> >> > 3. Most life as we know it (including most of mankind), on planet
> >> > Earth,
> >> > likely perishes.
> >> > 4. The problem gets (mostly) solved and life goes on.
> >>
> >> Number 5- THE CAUSES AND SOLUTIONS ARE DEBATED IN EARNEST before
> >> implementing left-wing knee jerk remedies!
> >
> > That's not a separate possibility. That's either #1 or #3 . . . doing
> > nothing.
>
> I disagree because you have included unsubstaniated assumptions in your
> flawed premise!
Not true. My premise is too simple to be flawed. It's like the old "Why
Worry?" question. Either you're sick or you're healthy. If you're healthy
you've got nothing to worry about. If you're sick you'll either get better
or you'll die. If you get better you've got nothing to worry about. If you
die you'll either go to heaven or to hell. If you go to heaven you've got
nothing to worry about. If you go to hell you'll be too busy shaking hands
with all the other right-wing kooks to have time to worry.
> >> > So, if we ignore them, the best possible outcome is nothing happens,
> >> > but
> >> > the
> >> > worst possible outcome is utter disaster.
> >> >
> >> > If we listen to them, and do as they recommend, the worst possible
> > outcome
> >> > is we give up a few minor luxuries and waste some money, but the best
> >> > possible outcome is a planet that will continue to support life.
> >>
> >> Or their recommended solution has no effect whatsoever since there is
no
> >> scientific consenses on any outcome. The bottom line is scienist cannot
> >> agree with any certainty that if all human activity ceased wheather or
> >> not
> >> the current benign trend toward global warming would be influenced on
> > iota!
> >
> > That comes in between the worst case and best case scenarios. Didn't
> > anyone
> > ever teach you to read?
>
> Unacceptable, let the spirited debate proceed in earnest. It was after
all
> the left which has pushed this entire global warming issue to the fore
> front, so naturally one would assume your side would welcome this debate.
> Instead you're attempting to run away which only exposes your sides
> vulnerability.
The debate started in earnest a long time ago, but it was one-sided. The
environmentalists presented their case and the right-wingers said "huh?".
It wasn't until a substantial number of climatologists started all saying
the same thing, and the energy companies got scared that they'd be forced to
accept lower profits in order to clean up the mess they'd made, and went out
and hired a bunch of "scientists", most with dubious credentials, that the
issue came to the forefront. The environmentalists' case has been laid out.
The energy lobby's hired guns just sit back smugly and say "can't prove it",
despite mountains of evidence.
> Why is the left afraid to debate this issue all of a sudden?
They're not. Why has the right been standing around, with their fingers in
their ears, shouting "LALALALALALALA" at the top of their lungs so that they
don't have to hear for the last 20 years?
> >> > Perhaps YOU'RE willing to risk the planet to save some money and keep
> > your
> >> > gas guzzler, but logical people, who aren't devoid of a conscience,
> > aren't
> >> > willing to take the chance that if they just stick their heads in the
> > sand
> >> > the problem will simply go away.
> >>
> >> Explain why through earth's many centuries of history there were
warming
> >> &
> >> cooling trends without human influences. Then try employing some
critical
> >> thinking skills if possible!
> >
> > Most of those warming and cooling trends have been identified as being
> > caused by some cataclysm, such as volcanic eruptions, meteorite impacts,
> > etc.
>
> Most? How many would that be? or what percentage? and where's your cite
for
> that assertion?
>
> > In this case the cataclysm is mankind.
>
> Subjective & unproven!
It's as unproven as the fact that you'll someday die. You can choose to
believe that you'll live forever, because you haven't died yet. That
doesn't make your belief founded in fact.
> > But I can't say I'm surprised at your attitude. After all, I predicted,
> > right up front, that looking at the situation logically would be very
> > difficult for you.
>
> I kicked your arrogant pompous ass although you aren't about to admit
that.
The only thing you've kicked is your addiction to the truth . . . if you
ever had one.
MioMyo
"Richardson-Obama in 08" <NoTh...@NoSpam.com> wrote in message
And the same applies to the UN or any government associated with it, i.e.
government bodies!
Now you tell me, who's left to conduct top notch scientific studies where
there's no possibility for an agenda driven conclusion?
Flawed analogy since there's ample empirical evidence that every human will
not live forever!
>> > But I can't say I'm surprised at your attitude. After all, I
>> > predicted,
>> > right up front, that looking at the situation logically would be very
>> > difficult for you.
>>
>> I kicked your arrogant pompous ass although you aren't about to admit
> that.
>
> The only thing you've kicked is your addiction to the truth . . . if you
> ever had one.
It's you who are taking a vacation from the sourced facts I posted in this
thread lib, that is if you ever bothered to read them!
Richardson-Obama in 08
You don't seem to quite get it. There is no such thing as "no possibility
for an agenda driven conclusion", but there IS such a thing as probability.
If someone is being paid specifically to prove a particular point, such as
an oil company paying a geologist to prove that sucking oil out of the
earth's crust has no impact on the environment, then there is a high
probability that his research will lead him to exactly that conclusion, and
a very low probability that he will ever release findings that point to the
opposite conclusion. However, if a geologist receives a grant to research
what the impact on the environment would be if such drilling were to be
performed, with no specifications as to what his findings will be other to
find the truth, then there is a high probability that his findings will be
as accurate as he can make them.
It's easy to prove that oil companies have a vested interest in a specific
outcome to the research they hire people to do. Although it's possible that
independent scientists, institutions of higher learning and government
agencies may wish to prove a specific point, it's difficult to prove that
they have any vested interest in a specific outcome, other than finding the
truth, thus there is a much higher probability that their research will be
more objective than that of those who have specific mandated findings that
they are being paid to achieve.
MioMyo
"Richardson-Obama in 08" <NoTh...@NoSpam.com> wrote in message
> "MioMyo" <USA_P...@Somewhere.com> wrote in message
> news:AH_Gi.2543$4J3...@newssvr22.news.prodigy.net...
>>
>> Now you tell me, who's left to conduct top notch scientific studies where
>> there's no possibility for an agenda driven conclusion?
>
>
> You don't seem to quite get it. There is no such thing as "no possibility
> for an agenda driven conclusion", but there IS such a thing as
> probability.
> If someone is being paid specifically to prove a particular point, such as
> an oil company paying a geologist to prove that sucking oil out of the
> earth's crust has no impact on the environment, then there is a high
> probability that his research will lead him to exactly that conclusion,
> and
> a very low probability that he will ever release findings that point to
> the
> opposite conclusion. However, if a geologist receives a grant to research
> what the impact on the environment would be if such drilling were to be
> performed, with no specifications as to what his findings will be other to
> find the truth, then there is a high probability that his findings will be
> as accurate as he can make them.
So you don't see the same is true in how a government funded research could
fall prey greed, that is the greed to continue boondoggle research. After
all if they were to report problem now solved, there isn't the dooms-day
crisis, there isn't the need for this little dynasty.... right!
> It's easy to prove that oil companies have a vested interest in a specific
> outcome to the research they hire people to do. Although it's possible
> that
> independent scientists, institutions of higher learning and government
> agencies may wish to prove a specific point, it's difficult to prove that
It's not independent when the program (like all government programs) will
end up addicted to that limitless government tit to suck.
> they have any vested interest in a specific outcome, other than finding
> the
> truth, thus there is a much higher probability that their research will be
> more objective than that of those who have specific mandated findings that
> they are being paid to achieve.
Any research program, either publically or privately funded, tends toward an
inherit need to survive and grow. I actually believe the probability is
higher for government sponsored research abuse - after all their track
record proves this so!
Richardson-Obama in 08
I'd love to see you take up skydiving as a hobby. With no definitive proof
that you'd hit the ground or that hitting the ground would hurt like hell,
with your mentality you'd delay pulling the ripcord until AFTER you made
your hard landing.
Tartarus
> Still, the radical leftist ignore FACTS because global warming is more about
> control & power to them then the truth!
>
> http://www.earthtimes.org/articles/show/news_press_release,176495.shtml
>
> WASHINGTON, Sept. 12 /PRNewswire-USNewswire/ -- A new analysis of
> peer-reviewed literature reveals that more than 500 scientists have
> published evidence refuting at least one element of current man-made global
> warming scares. More than 300 of the scientists found evidence that 1) a
> natural moderate 1,500-year climate cycle has produced more than a dozen
> global warmings similar to ours since the last Ice Age and/or that 2) our
> Modern Warming is linked strongly to variations in the sun's irradiance.
> "This data and the list of scientists make a mockery of recent claims that a
> scientific consensus blames humans as the primary cause of global
> temperature increases since 1850," said Hudson Institute Senior Fellow
> Dennis Avery.
You don't understand what this means, do you? Your headline is not a
conclusion that one can draw from the facts.
Tartarus
Tartarus
> > 1. Those in a position of authority that are denying global warming don't
> > give a crap about mankind. They are rich and powerful enough to ride out
> > any conceivable (to them) consequences throughout their and their
> > children's lifetimes.
>
> Hey moron, no ones is denying global warming. T
Yes, they do, and if Rush Limbaugh denied it, you would be right with
him, damn the science.
Tartarus
MioMyo
suppose is all you need!
"Richardson-Obama in 08" <NoTh...@NoSpam.com> wrote in message
news:0oednc4Cr-GdIHDb...@comcast.com...
Richardson-Obama in 08
> Your insane, asinine non-sequitur evidently means something to you which I
> suppose is all you need!
No non-sequitur. Merely trying to make you understand that denying the
probability of impending disaster insures your demise if you're wrong.
MioMyo
underscore that all you libs have to sell is doom-gloom disasters with
yourselves as the ultimate saviors, as long as the rest of society just give
you the power of the decider!
"Richardson-Obama in 08" <NoTh...@NoSpam.com> wrote in message
news:ht-dnVTcAfXQ0nLb...@comcast.com...
Richardson-Obama in 08
> Not that you proved or showed any real PROBABILITY, but it's noteworthy to
> underscore that all you libs have to sell is doom-gloom disasters with
> yourselves as the ultimate saviors, as long as the rest of society just
give
> you the power of the decider!
That's it, Mia. Keep sticking your head in the sand. It actually does
improve your looks.
Lamont Cranston
"Richardson-Obama in 08" <NoTh...@NoSpam.com> wrote in message
> "MioMyo" <USA_P...@Somewhere.com> wrote in message
> news:qnOHi.27419$eY.2...@newssvr13.news.prodigy.net...
>> Not that you proved or showed any real PROBABILITY, but it's noteworthy
>> to
>> underscore that all you libs have to sell is doom-gloom disasters with
>> yourselves as the ultimate saviors, as long as the rest of society just
> give
>> you the power of the decider!
>
> That's it, Mia. Keep sticking your head in the sand. It actually does
> improve your looks.
In the sand or up his ass is definitely an improvement.
Jerry Okamura
<wby...@ireland.com> wrote in message
news:dedle3t5borsg1ug4...@4ax.com...
> On Thu, 13 Sep 2007 11:48:01 GMT, "MioMyo" <USA_P...@Somewhere.com>
>
>>Still, the radical leftist ignore FACTS because global warming is more
>>about
>>control & power to them then the truth!
>>
>>
>>http://www.earthtimes.org/articles/show/news_press_release,176495.shtml
>>
>>WASHINGTON, Sept. 12 /PRNewswire-USNewswire/ -- A new analysis of
>>peer-reviewed literature reveals that more than 500 scientists have
>>published evidence refuting at least one element of current man-made
>>global
>>warming scares. More than 300 of the scientists found evidence that 1) a
>>natural moderate 1,500-year climate cycle has produced more than a dozen
>>global warmings similar to ours since the last Ice Age and/or that 2) our
>>Modern Warming is linked strongly to variations in the sun's irradiance.
>>"This data and the list of scientists make a mockery of recent claims that
>>a
>>scientific consensus blames humans as the primary cause of global
>>temperature increases since 1850," said Hudson Institute Senior Fellow
>>Dennis Avery.
>
> sounds akin to 4 out of 5 dentists recommending Crest. Get over it -
> GW is real.
>
following questions.
What will be the effects of Global Warming, and when will the effect be the
worse?
How certain are the predictions of Global Warming (100% certainty, 90%,
50%)?
When will it happen, and what will happen and how certain are these
predictions?
When will Global Warming reach its worst case scenario, and what is that
worst case scenario? How certain are the predictions that the worst case
scenario will happen? What are the other scenarios of what may happen? If
you were to rank each scenario, what is the most likely scenario?
How big a reduction of greenhouses gases is required to avoid Global
Warming, how much of a yearly reduction is required, how soon do we have the
reach the yearly goal, what happens if we are not able to reach the yearly
goal, and can anyone guarantee that we can avoid Global Warming, regardless
of what we do?
Why concentrate on one of the greenhouse gases and not the other greenhouse
gases?
What is the maximum rise in sea levels can we expect? I would think that
answer can be found in determining how much sea levels will rise "if" all of
the ice and snow melts.
Water on this earth is basically static, because none of it escapes from
earth. It is either in the form of water, snow, ice, or in the atmosphere.
And eventually, it will be returned to its natural form, which is water.
So, what is evaporated, will eventually come back to the ground in the form
of rain or snow. Where will it come back to earth? Won't the same amount
of water that now returns to earth, be the same, if global warming should
occur? One study suggested that the maximum rise in sea levels would be 263
feet, which if that happens would put a whole lot of land under water.
Let us for the sake of discussion say that the scientist are right and that
if we do not do something to reduce the levels of Carbon Dioxide, global
warming will happen. It would just seem to me, then the next question is
how can we guarantee that the event will not happen, or can anyone make such
a guarantee. What exactly, do we have to do, how fast do we have to do it,
would be the next series of questions I would think needs to be answered.
Have those scientist who are predicting such an event, know the answers to
those questions? If they have the answer, what is the answer? Is there a
consensus of what exactly has to be done? If there is no consensus, what
should we do, and why is there no consensus?
Jerry Okamura
"Gogarty" <Gog...@Clongowes.edu.ie> wrote in message
news:20070914-1...@Gogarty.news.bway.net...
> In article <dedle3t5borsg1ug4...@4ax.com>,
> wby...@ireland.com
> says...
>>
>>
>>wrote:
>>
>>>Still, the radical leftist ignore FACTS because global warming is more
>>>about
>>>control & power to them then the truth!
>>>
>>>
>>>http://www.earthtimes.org/articles/show/news_press_release,176495.shtml
>>>
>>>WASHINGTON, Sept. 12 /PRNewswire-USNewswire/ -- A new analysis of
>>>peer-reviewed literature reveals that more than 500 scientists have
>>>published evidence refuting at least one element of current man-made
>>>global
>>>warming scares. More than 300 of the scientists found evidence that 1) a
>>>natural moderate 1,500-year climate cycle has produced more than a dozen
>>>global warmings similar to ours since the last Ice Age and/or that 2) our
>>>Modern Warming is linked strongly to variations in the sun's irradiance.
>>>"This data and the list of scientists make a mockery of recent claims
>>>that a
>>>scientific consensus blames humans as the primary cause of global
>>>temperature increases since 1850," said Hudson Institute Senior Fellow
>>>Dennis Avery.
>>
>>A drop in the bucket - and prepared by a biased think tank. To me it
>>sounds akin to 4 out of 5 dentists recommending Crest. Get over it -
>>GW is real.
>>
>
> The debate is ended. Now the question is, what next?
>
Yes, what next?
SilentOtto
> <wbye...@ireland.com> wrote in message
>
> news:dedle3t5borsg1ug4...@4ax.com...
>
>
>
> > On Thu, 13 Sep 2007 11:48:01 GMT, "MioMyo" <USA_Patr...@Somewhere.com>
> > wrote:
>
> >>Still, the radical leftist ignore FACTS because global warming is more
> >>about
> >>control & power to them then the truth!
>
> >>http://www.earthtimes.org/articles/show/news_press_release,176495.shtml
>
> >>WASHINGTON, Sept. 12 /PRNewswire-USNewswire/ -- A new analysis of
> >>peer-reviewed literature reveals that more than 500 scientists have
> >>published evidence refuting at least one element of current man-made
> >>global
> >>warming scares. More than 300 of the scientists found evidence that 1) a
> >>natural moderate 1,500-year climate cycle has produced more than a dozen
> >>global warmings similar to ours since the last Ice Age and/or that 2) our
> >>Modern Warming is linked strongly to variations in the sun's irradiance.
> >>"This data and the list of scientists make a mockery of recent claims that
> >>a
> >>scientific consensus blames humans as the primary cause of global
> >>temperature increases since 1850," said Hudson Institute Senior Fellow
> >>Dennis Avery.
>
> > A drop in the bucket - and prepared by a biased think tank. To me it
> > sounds akin to 4 out of 5 dentists recommending Crest. Get over it -
> > GW is real.
>
> Okay, so you believe that global warming is real. Can you answer the
> following questions.
I'm not going to do your homework for you.
As others have noted, the answers to all of your questions are
available on the web, or in these groups if you care to search for the
answer.
But, I'll put it to you this way.
You've a revolver with six chambers. You put a bullet in one of them.
Are you willing to play Russian Roulette?
Why not? The odds of killing yourself are only 16% or so.
I'll tell you why not.
Because the consequences for failing to land on an empty chamber are
so profound that even a relatively low 16% chance of doing so looms
very large.
That's similar to the choices were facing concerning global warming.
The consequences for allowing it to get out of control are so
profound, that erring on the side of caution is in order, even if
there is some uncertainty concerning the cause and effect.
Additionally, moving to a post carbon society has many benefits of
it's own, totally unrelated to global warming.
There would be less air pollution, less water pollution and less
damage to our environment from such activities as strip mining and a
host of other energy related activities.
Further, developing domestic energy alternatives would be a huge boom
to our economy as that money would remain in the U.S. instead of being
sent to Saudi Sheiks who use it to fund terrorism against us.
There are no good reasons to resist moving toward post-carbon energy
independence, and huge potential gains.
> should we do, and why is there no consensus?- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -
Jerry Okamura
"SilentOtto" <silen...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:1191633166....@y42g2000hsy.googlegroups.com...
Prove it...provide one web site that even addresses one of the quesitons I
have asked. Because I have tried to find the answers to these questions. I
have search the web, I have read the IPCC report in its entirety, I have
sent email to anyone who believes in the theory.
>
> But, I'll put it to you this way.
>
> You've a revolver with six chambers. You put a bullet in one of them.
>
> Are you willing to play Russian Roulette?
>
> Why not? The odds of killing yourself are only 16% or so.
>
> I'll tell you why not.
>
> Because the consequences for failing to land on an empty chamber are
> so profound that even a relatively low 16% chance of doing so looms
> very large.
>
> That's similar to the choices were facing concerning global warming.
>
> The consequences for allowing it to get out of control are so
> profound, that erring on the side of caution is in order, even if
> there is some uncertainty concerning the cause and effect.
>
> Additionally, moving to a post carbon society has many benefits of
> it's own, totally unrelated to global warming.
>
> There would be less air pollution, less water pollution and less
> damage to our environment from such activities as strip mining and a
> host of other energy related activities.
>
> Further, developing domestic energy alternatives would be a huge boom
> to our economy as that money would remain in the U.S. instead of being
> sent to Saudi Sheiks who use it to fund terrorism against us.
>
> There are no good reasons to resist moving toward post-carbon energy
> independence, and huge potential gains.
>
It is a silly analogy. If global warming does occur, and the worse case
scenario happens, it will not mean the extinction of mankind. On the other
hand, if a very large object from space hits this earth, most if not all of
mankind will be dead, along with most plant and animal life. "If" a super
volcano should blow its top, that too would be devatsting to life on earth.
So, which is a worse? "If" you are going to do something about an event
that "may happen", why not also do the same thing about events that will
happen, which will have an even more devastating effect on human being?
Larry Hewitt
"Jerry Okamura" <okamu...@hawaii.rr.com> wrote in message
news:47083bca$0$9592$4c36...@roadrunner.com...
Maybe, maybe not.
Global warming will cause massive dispalcements of populations becauase of
changes in resource availability. For example. recent news articles are
saying thtt the predicted warmer than usual winter brought about by global
warming will intensiffy the stage 4 drought int he southeast.
Imaein, if you will, millions , even billions, of refugees moving accross
the globe looking for food and water. Imagine governments falling to be
replaced by military dicatatorshipsd bent on using power to achieve their
goals. Imagine age old disputes bubbling up tothe active conflict.
Now throw nukes, smallpox, anthrax, ebola, etc into the mix.
Larry