What are the politicians doing about global warming?
Seon Ferguson
warming. Even if your a true believer then you have to admit that the ETS
scheme does NOTHING to cut carbon dioxide.
I've also been trying to look at both sides but I am still sitting on the
fence. I don't want to be a right wing kook and call all greenies socialists
but at the same time I don't want to buy into all this alarmism.
Eunometic
The AGW debate is being driven by politics, not science.
All you need to know to make your decision is one thing:
1 The IPCC process is flawed and can not be trusted. Its flawed to
the point of corruption.
No auditing and no room for disentors or sceptics. Its possibly beyond
corruption and evil because of the carear ruining methods used.
It may take years to undo the damage ands get the science correct.
The IPCC needs to be shutdown.
It is corrupted to the point that repair may be impossible. A new
body is needed with the guilty removed.
It will need to be chaired by tribunals of judges and have auditing
powers.
So stay siting on the fence. Nothing wrong with that. Also relax,
the temperature rises are at best exagerated so you have a little time
even if there is substantial AGW. A few more years won't hurt us.
In the meantime stay away from an ETS it is extremely damaging
economically. We can aggresively pursue energy efficiency targets.
Honest truth
Not much anyone can do about the Sun getting hotter.
What do they suggest that they do?
Seon Ferguson
"Eunometic" <euno...@yahoo.com.au> wrote in message
news:4cc361a4-296f-4e79...@o9g2000prg.googlegroups.com...
> On Nov 29, 7:20 pm, "Seon Ferguson" <seo...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> If it's real I don't think the politicians are doing anything to stop
>> global
>> warming. Even if your a true believer then you have to admit that the ETS
>> scheme does NOTHING to cut carbon dioxide.
>>
>> I've also been trying to look at both sides but I am still sitting on the
>> fence. I don't want to be a right wing kook and call all greenies
>> socialists
>> but at the same time I don't want to buy into all this alarmism.
>
> The AGW debate is being driven by politics, not science.
>
> All you need to know to make your decision is one thing:
> 1 The IPCC process is flawed and can not be trusted. Its flawed to
> the point of corruption.
> No auditing and no room for disentors or sceptics. Its possibly beyond
> corruption and evil because of the carear ruining methods used.
>
It's the same with "Scientific journals"
> It may take years to undo the damage ands get the science correct.
> The IPCC needs to be shutdown.
> It is corrupted to the point that repair may be impossible. A new
> body is needed with the guilty removed.
> It will need to be chaired by tribunals of judges and have auditing
> powers.
>
> So stay siting on the fence. Nothing wrong with that. Also relax,
> the temperature rises are at best exagerated so you have a little time
> even if there is substantial AGW. A few more years won't hurt us.
>
Yeah I know all this "the sea levels will rise" stuff is just bunk.
> In the meantime stay away from an ETS it is extremely damaging
> economically. We can aggresively pursue energy efficiency targets.
I agree Copenhagen will be bad as well.
Hunter
Read that link I gave you, it's very middle ground. He makes the point
that at the moment it could slip either way, but the next couple of
years will prove wether the issue is man-made CO2 related or solar related.
http://climaterealists.com/index.php?id=1396&linkbox=true
I'm leaning towards Solar due to the fact that observed conditions are
now contradicting the CO2 theory, but matching the solar/ocean theory.
enigma
> All you need to know to make your decision is one thing:
> 1 The IPCC process is flawed and can not be trusted. Its flawed to
> the point of corruption.
> No auditing and no room for disentors or sceptics. Its possibly beyond
> corruption and evil because of the carear ruining methods used.
There's a whole host of photographic records that document melting
glaciers.
IPCC charts reflect warming. What must happen to the climate to
make ice melt?
Expert: 99 percent of Alaska glaciers in decline
U.S. Geological Survey publishes book documenting the trend
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/27054785/
Glacier Fields, Massive Melting
http://abcnews.go.com/Technology/GlobalWarming/popup?id=1756218&contentIndex=1&start=false&page=1
""The study confirms the general trend that about 90 percent of all
Himalayan glaciers are receding. Some glaciers are receding at an
alarming rate of 44-45 meters (yards) per year," said Upadhay, who was
not involved in the Kashmir University study."
http://www.valleycentral.com/weather/story.aspx?id=362280
"Statisticians: "Global Cooling" a Myth
Claims about Last 10 Years Are Deceptive; Temperatures Rise and Fall,
But Overall Trend Is Higher"
http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2009/10/26/tech/main5423035.shtml
Just a few news stories, one with photos that document glacial
retreat. I have over 100 hyper links.
All of which are legitimate news,.... no blogs.
http://www.seattlepi.com/dayart/20090630/cartoon20090630.jpg
Search the news databases for a cooling climate. You won't find any.
Hunter
Not something we need to worry about in our life-times, or our
childrens, or their childrens, etc.etc. Although the minor variances
seen at the moment do seem to coincide more closely with solar
conditions and what the oceans are up to than anything to do with
man-made CO2.
Hunter
>> All you need to know to make your decision is one thing:
>> 1 The IPCC process is flawed and can not be trusted. Its flawed to
>> the point of corruption.
>> No auditing and no room for disentors or sceptics. Its possibly beyond
>> corruption and evil because of the carear ruining methods used.
>
> There's a whole host of photographic records that document melting
> glaciers.
>
> IPCC charts reflect warming. What must happen to the climate to
> make ice melt?
Actually Antarctica's ice is growing, proven fact. What must happen to
the climate to make bodies of ice grow?
sr
Church, the Government,have been involved in this skirmish as long as people
have been on this earth. If you didn't comply with the belief ,of the time,
you were imprisoned, or lost your head. Compliance, even if wrong, is
required in the Scientific community, for grants, for control, for power,for
money to line pockets(one of the scammers was getting 217 mil a year)(Gore
millions) the Gov is involved by making legislation that will reach into
your pockets, restrict your free will with regulations, (for the common
good, bull). Those that do not go along with the program, are threatened,
intimidated, shunned. Read your history, to know what is going on today.
THIS IS NOTHING NEW
Just like in the P T Barnum time, there is big bucks in promoting Climate
Chg. or Global Warming,HOAX simple, end of Story.
--------------------------------------
"Seon Ferguson" <seo...@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:HvydnUHDHIR3oo_W...@westnet.com.au...
Honest truth
If so then explain how come Mars and other planets and moons are also
affected by this warming?
kdt...@earthlink.net
Even if there was warming due to human CO2, there is nothing the
politicians or anyone could do about it less than the direct genocide
of 3/4 of the world's population.
Look at the actual statistics. World output of CO2 is about 30 billion
tons, while atmospheric increases are around 1.6 ppm. Since 1ppm = 7.8
billion tons, this shows that only around 13-14 billion tons of the 30
is staying in the air.
Any valid analysis says that at least part of this increase is
natural.
So a reduction of 1/4 of US emissions will not result in this portion
of reduction of actual atmospheric concentrations.
Also China is increasing their emissions at the rate of a least 10%
per year relative to the US, which is not increasing. This makes US
emission reductions meaningless.
Also, reductions of emission rates can only delay by a few years the
time until actual quantities emitted into the environment is the same.
World output is now about 30 billlion tons per yr.
US output is about 5 billion tons per yr.
2050, a common target date is 40 yrs away.
So if world output remained the same, this would be 1200 billion tons.
If US output were completely eliminated today, without a gradual
reduction, this would result in the same quantity into the environment
in 48 years.
30 x 40 = 1200
25 x 48 = 1200
The implementation of any emission reductions is criminal fraud, since
this cannot by any means affect atmospheric concentrations.
But these facts are not produced and are ignored by the supposed
scientists.
The is nothing the politicians can do about CO2 in the air, especially
without stopping China's radical increase.
The scientists of this field are whiney fraudists who simply like the
idea of controlling society and imposing their psuedo religion upon
people in which they are the reigning deacons of the church.
KD
Hunter
Ummmmm, and how much man-made CO2 sits on Mars and the moons? If
anything you are making it even clearer that it is a natural situation
and nothing to do with man-made CO2. As for why do the have temperature
variation as well? Well they're all looking at the same sun aren't they,
the oceans here may have an effect on that, but at the end of the day
it's primarily down to the sun.
Hunter
No argument from me. Reasons such as those, and quite a few others, are
why it is very clear Rudd's tax is all about money and nothing else,
he's just using a strawman to justify it.
I M @ good guy
wrote:
There is no rational CO2 theory, any added GHG
can only radiate more energy to space, but CO2 is
in such low concentration, it can't have much of an
effect either.
The Gulf Stream is dependent on ocean currents
and winds, the ocean currents are affected a lot by
the rainfall in the watersheds of the rivers flowing
into the Atlantic.
This can be tracked, but it is mostly ignored,
or not associated with the changes in the Arctic,
and other than the Arctic, there isn't much change.
The best thing to do is just forget AGW, it is
not even worth discussing, lets hope the sun gets
back into he normal cycles, I need a warm winter.