Some more interesting Global Warming information

[Okie Boarder]

Here's some information I've come across recently. For those of you that are still skeptical about Man-made Global Warming, it's worth looking at.

A good video link. A little long, but full of information.

You can find out more about Lord Christopher Monckton through a google search.

Here's a good slide show that goes along with the long video.

Here's an interesting website...I'm still milling through this one, but it seems to be chock full of information, studies and reports.

I keep asking myself, what is the intent of convincing the U.S. and the World that man is causing global warming? If it is to reverse it, why are the solutions being proposed doing very little of that?

Another question to think about...

I've yet to see a solution offered with a definitive objective and result. For example, if we were to completely stop emitting CO2, which is supposedly causing all this, how long would it take to reverse the process and get us back to an acceptable baseline? Then, how would we ensure we don't exceed a set level from there?

[Neognosis]

[Tbonez]

The evidence and public opinion supporting the idea of man made global warming is falling apart...Yet we are going to have the residual laws and taxes rammed down our throat.



Those conversations led Gore to politically inconvenient conclusions in this new book. In his conversations with Schmidt and other colleagues at the beginning of the year, Gore explored new studies – published only last week – that show methane and black carbon or soot had a far greater impact on global warming than previously thought. Carbon dioxide – while the focus of the politics of climate change – produces around 40% of the actual warming.Gore acknowledged to Newsweek that the findings could complicate efforts to build a political consensus around the need to limit carbon emissions .



http://worldbbnews.com/2009/11/gores-spiritual-argument-on-climate/

[kyle f]

We just had the mildest summer in a long time here on the east coast... thats not helping anything.

I don't think its a matter of convincing people that man is contributing, I think its a matter of showing the by how much. There is conflicting science, confliting reports.. etc. Plenty of information to support both sides.

However, the one that I never get a straight answer to is this... What can we do about active volcanos that put out as much greenhouse gases in a day as all of our cars in the US do in a year. Now don't quote me on that, but I think I recall reading somewhere that this was the approximate ratio. They report didn't deny mans contributions, but was tryign to put it into perspective and was supporting the Long Term Cycles of the temperature of the Earth argument.

You must also consider, its no only if it makes somoeone money, but we as a nation are hurting financially and struggling to keep jobs here. It would be disasterous to put more regulation on manufacturing here when other countries do very little and are stealing our jobs. DOn't want to make it even more profitable for them to move.

[Nor*Cal]

This is a debate I loathe. Both Republicans and Democrats have lost sight of the true goal. Let me further preface this statement. I'm deeply involved with environmental public policy in the State of California. I think the climate change debate is an aside and shouldn't be factored into a good environmental policy.

Of all the questions which can come before this nation, short of the actual preservation of its existence in a great war, there is none which compares in importance with the great central task of leaving this land even a better land for our descendants than it is for us, and training them into a better race to inhabit the land and pass it on. Conservation is a great moral issue for it involves the patriotic duty of insuring the safety and continuance of the nation. Let me add that the health and vitality of our people are at least as well worth conserving as their forests, waters, lands, and minerals, and in this great work the national government must bear a most important part. - President Theodore Roosevelt (R)

[ScottyB_RochNY]

Out of all the costly attempts at solutions that we come up with, it's a wonder why we don't spend all that money to get some more trees in the ground.

[hco]

Scottb- it helps temporarily but once the tree dies all the carbon is released again upon it's decomposition. Also, the amount of carbon dioxide that trees/plants absorb is misunderstood.

[Nor*Cal]

[Sinkoumn]

[microman]

[Nooga678]

If humans are warming up the globe, why does taxes and further relinquishing our country's sovereignty have to be the solution? Trying to tax it away will probably be about as effective has having a war on durgs to rid the country of pot.

Along the lines of what I think Nor*Cal is saying, the whole global warming thing has really taken a lot of focus off of more imminent and acute environmental problems. There will always be resistance to the whole global warming issue as long as it is so closely tied to political agendas.

[Tbonez]

[Tbonez]

[microman]

[Nor*Cal]

Tbonez, you fail... It doesn't matter if there is global warming or not. As a culture and people we should seek to leave things in better condition than we found them and increase the sustainability of our lifestyles. I'm talking about Conservationism not Environmentalism. Semantics to some but a way of communicating an otherwise offensive idea to others...

Nooga678, you got the point.

[LeHabanero]

Man made global warming is the biggest load of hunk since the "approaching ice age" from global cooling years back.



I'm not saying climate change isn't happening. I believe that we as people have very little to no effect on the climate change. C02 makes up only a small part of the greenhouse gases, and at that we only produce a very minuscule amount of CO2 compared to that produced by the natural things that around us.

http://www.globalwarming.org/gw101

[Okie Boarder]

Like I said earlier, if this was a true and real problem and all the scientific evidence points to it, what is the solution?

If the IPCC and the various government folks involved in the MMGW side of the debate we unable to control people or generate revenue off the "crisis" would they still be interested?

Why is there not a true solution provided instead of a scare tactic if we don't do "something". Why are we not hearing something like this...

"If CO2 is reduced by 30% for the next 20 years, we will reverse the effects of MMGW back to the baseline it was 50 years ago".

[microman]

[Okie Boarder]

[Neognosis]

There are tangible solutions offered, they just aren't immediately profitable and politicians don't care about anything except themselves. If they can't make money or get votes, they don't care. IMO. And they don't want to risk votes by telling people that they shouldn't be driving their SUVs to work as a single passenger car, you folks don't want to hear that a hobby where you weigh your boats down and burn even more gas for fun isn't being responsible, people don't want to hear that they will have to drive their cars to a hub and take public transportation into the city, etc. etc.
And so they are more eager to listen to anything that says that their behavior doesn't make a difference, so that they can keep behaving as they wish and not feel bad about it, or change their behavior should pay more taxes to build a bullet train from each suburb into the city?

that's why there's no plan.

[jryoung]

Just like anything else you don't hear about any plans because those with money and a vested interest are in the back pocket of the politicians.

Do you think coal industry wants to let you hear about nuclear power?

[Tbonez]

[Tbonez]

[Tbonez]

[Nor*Cal]

[microman]

[ky1e]

No one should argue about this because none of us truly know the facts. There are scientists that prove it exists. There are scientists that prove it does not exist. We have all seen the facts and can make our own assumptions but there is no reason to argue about it, unless of course you are cameraboy then you will argue anything jk man. I haven't read this post, but i'm sure you have written a novel somewhere in there. Is it global warming caused by man or is it the natural climate cycle? Who friggin' knows. All I know is that there were no hurricanes this year which is weird, and contra-indicatory of all of the theories.

[jryoung]

[Tbonez]

[Tbonez]

[Nooga678]

What throws up the red flag for me, is when scientist want to say something is conclusive. This is a relatively new issue, yet one that involves millions of years of data that we don't have. Any scientist willing to say the data is conclusive either way should be heavily scrutinized. The data at this point may be leaning one way or another but it is definitely not conclusive. When those that have bought MMGW hook line and sinker bash those that are skeptical, it comes off as very political and not very scientific.

As a geologist, I will say that the earth has swung from ice ages to warm periods many times. As it moves from one end to the other is also goes through many periods of cooling or warming within the greater cycle. If people think they are going to somehow halt this process to maintain the climate at its current state, I say good luck. Or maybe they are just trying to maintain it until the next iceage at which time they will be screaming for the production of more greenhouse gases. But hey, lets focus all our attention on it so after we all die from the air not being fit to breath and the water fit to drink, the climate will be well suited for humans.

[microman]

[ky1e]

jryoung, and you obviously don't live on the east coast. We normally go through two rounds of the alphabet. This time we only got to "I". And the only "real" hurricane was Bill.

[Tbonez]

[jryoung]