| Author | Message | ||
     Ferris_von_bueller |
The Amazing Story Behind Tho Global Warming Scam By John Coleman January 28, 2009 The key players are now all in place in Washington and in state governments across America to officially label carbon dioxide as a pollutant and enact laws that tax we citizens for our carbon footprints. Only two details stand in the way, the faltering economic times and a dramatic turn toward a colder climate. The last two bitter winters have lead to a rise in public awareness that CO2 is not a pollutant and is not a significant greenhouse gas that is triggering runaway global warming. How did we ever get to this point where bad science is driving big government we have to struggle so to stop it? The story begins with an Oceanographer named Roger Revelle. He served with the Navy in World War II. After the war he became the Director of the Scripps Oceanographic Institute in La Jolla in San Diego, California. Revelle saw the opportunity to obtain major funding from the Navy for doing measurements and research on the ocean around the Pacific Atolls where the US military was conducting atomic bomb tests. He greatly expanded the Institute’s areas of interest and among others hired Hans Suess, a noted Chemist from the University of Chicago, who was very interested in the traces of carbon in the environment from the burning of fossil fuels. Revelle tagged on to Suess studies and co-authored a paper with him in 1957. The paper raises the possibility that the carbon dioxide might be creating a greenhouse effect and causing atmospheric warming. It seems to be a plea for funding for more studies. Funding, frankly, is where Revelle’s mind was most of the time. Next Revelle hired a Geochemist named David Keeling to devise a way to measure the atmospheric content of Carbon dioxide. In 1960 Keeling published his first paper showing the increase in carbon dioxide in the atmosphere and linking the increase to the burning of fossil fuels. These two research papers became the bedrock of the science of global warming, even though they offered no proof that carbon dioxide was in fact a greenhouse gas. In addition they failed to explain how this trace gas, only a tiny fraction of the atmosphere, could have any significant impact on temperatures. Now let me take you back to the1950s when this was going on. Our cities were entrapped in a pall of pollution from the crude internal combustion engines that powered cars and trucks back then and from the uncontrolled emissions from power plants and factories. Cars and factories and power plants were filling the air with all sorts of pollutants. There was a valid and serious concern about the health consequences of this pollution and a strong environmental movement was developing to demand action. Government accepted this challenge and new environmental standards were set. Scientists and engineers came to the rescue. New reformulated fuels were developed for cars, as were new high tech, computer controlled engines and catalytic converters. By the mid seventies cars were no longer big time polluters, emitting only some carbon dioxide and water vapor from their tail pipes. Likewise, new fuel processing and smoke stack scrubbers were added to industrial and power plants and their emissions were greatly reduced, as well. But an environmental movement had been established and its funding and very existence depended on having a continuing crisis issue. So the research papers from Scripps came at just the right moment. And, with them came the birth of an issue; man-made global warming from the carbon dioxide from the burning of fossil fuels. Revelle and Keeling used this new alarmism to keep their funding growing. Other researchers with environmental motivations and a hunger for funding saw this developing and climbed aboard as well. The research grants began to flow and alarming hypothesis began to show up everywhere. The Keeling curve showed a steady rise in CO2 in atmosphere during the period since oil and coal were discovered and used by man. As of today, carbon dioxide has increased from 215 to 385 parts per million. But, despite the increases, it is still only a trace gas in the atmosphere. While the increase is real, the percentage of the atmosphere that is CO2 remains tiny, about .41 hundredths of one percent. Several hypothesis emerged in the 70s and 80s about how this tiny atmospheric component of CO2 might cause a significant warming. But they remained unproven. Years have passed and the scientists kept reaching out for evidence of the warming and proof of their theories. And, the money and environmental claims kept on building up. Back in the 1960s, this global warming research came to the attention of a Canadian born United Nation’s bureaucrat named Maurice Strong. He was looking for issues he could use to fulfill his dream of one-world government. Strong organized a World Earth Day event in Stockholm, Sweden in 1970. From this he developed a committee of scientists, environmentalists and political operatives from the UN to continue a series of meeting. Strong developed the concept that the UN could demand payments from the advanced nations for the climatic damage from their burning of fossil fuels to benefit the underdeveloped nations, a sort of CO2 tax that would be the funding for his one-world government. But, he needed more scientific evidence to support his primary thesis. So Strong championed the establishment of the United Nation’s Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. This was not a pure climate study scientific organization, as we have been lead to believe. It was an organization of one-world government UN bureaucrats, environmental activists and environmentalist scientists who craved the UN funding so they could produce the science they needed to stop the burning of fossil fuels. Over the last 25 years they have been very effective. Hundreds of scientific papers, four major international meetings and reams of news stories about climatic Armageddon later, the UN IPCC has made its points to the satisfaction of most and even shared a Nobel Peace Prize with Al Gore. At the same time, that Maurice Strong was busy at the UN, things were getting a bit out of hand for the man who is now called the grandfather of global warming, Roger Revelle. He had been very politically active in the late 1950’s as he worked to have the University of California locate a San Diego campus adjacent to Scripps Institute in La Jolla. He won that major war, but lost an all important battle afterward when he was passed over in the selection of the first Chancellor of the new campus. He left Scripps finally in 1963 and moved to Harvard University to establish a Center for Population Studies. It was there that Revelle inspired one of his students to become a major global warming activist. This student would say later, "It felt like such a privilege to be able to hear about the readouts from some of those measurements in a group of no more than a dozen undergraduates. Here was this teacher presenting something not years old but fresh out of the lab, with profound implications for our future!" The student described him as "a wonderful, visionary professor" who was "one of the first people in the academic community to sound the alarm on global warming," That student was Al Gore. He thought of Dr. Revelle as his mentor and referred to him frequently, relaying his experiences as a student in his book Earth in the Balance, published in 1992. So there it is, Roger Revelle was indeed the grandfather of global warming. His work had laid the foundation for the UN IPCC, provided the anti-fossil fuel ammunition to the environmental movement and sent Al Gore on his road to his books, his movie, his Nobel Peace Prize and a hundred million dollars from the carbon credits business. What happened next is amazing. The global warming frenzy was becoming the cause celeb of the media. After all the media is mostly liberal, loves Al Gore, loves to warn us of impending disasters and tell us "the sky is falling, the sky is falling". The politicians and the environmentalist loved it, too. But the tide was turning with Roger Revelle. He was forced out at Harvard at 65 and returned to California and a semi retirement position at UCSD. There he had time to rethink Carbon Dioxide and the greenhouse effect. The man who had inspired Al Gore and given the UN the basic research it needed to launch its Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change was having second thoughts. In 1988 he wrote two cautionary letters to members of Congress. He wrote, "My own personal belief is that we should wait another 10 or 20 years to really be convinced that the greenhouse effect is going to be important for human beings, in both positive and negative ways." He added, "…we should be careful not to arouse too much alarm until the rate and amount of warming becomes clearer." And in 1991 Revelle teamed up with Chauncey Starr, founding director of the Electric Power Research Institute and Fred Singer, the first director of the U.S. Weather Satellite Service, to write an article for Cosmos magazine. They urged more research and begged scientists and governments not to move too fast to curb greenhouse CO2 emissions because the true impact of carbon dioxide was not at all certain and curbing the use of fossil fuels could have a huge negative impact on the economy and jobs and our standard of living. I have discussed this collaboration with Dr. Singer. He assures me that Revelle was considerably more certain than he was at the time that carbon dioxide was not a problem. Did Roger Revelle attend the Summer enclave at the Bohemian Grove in Northern California in the Summer of 1990 while working on that article? Did he deliver a lakeside speech there to the assembled movers and shakers from Washington and Wall Street in which he apologized for sending the UN IPCC and Al Gore onto this wild goose chase about global warming? Did he say that the key scientific conjecture of his lifetime had turned out wrong? The answer to those questions is, "I think so, but I do not know it for certain". I have not managed to get it confirmed as of this moment. It’s a little like Las Vegas; what is said at the Bohemian Grove stays at the Bohemian Grove. There are no transcripts or recordings and people who attend are encouraged not to talk. Yet, the topic is so important, that some people have shared with me on an informal basis. Roger Revelle died of a heart attack three months after the Cosmos story was printed. Oh, how I wish he were still alive today. He might be able to stop this scientific silliness and end the global warming scam. Al Gore has dismissed Roger Revelle’s Mea culpa as the actions of senile old man. And, the next year, while running for Vice President, he said the science behind global warming is settled and there will be no more debate, From 1992 until today, he and his cohorts have refused to debate global warming and when ask about we skeptics they simply insult us and call us names. So today we have the acceptance of carbon dioxide as the culprit of global warming. It is concluded that when we burn fossil fuels we are leaving a dastardly carbon footprint which we must pay Al Gore or the environmentalists to offset. Our governments on all levels are considering taxing the use of fossil fuels. The Federal Environmental Protection Agency is on the verge of naming CO2 as a pollutant and strictly regulating its use to protect our climate. The new President and the US congress are on board. Many state governments are moving on the same course. We are already suffering from this CO2 silliness in many ways. Our energy policy has been strictly hobbled by no drilling and no new refineries for decades. We pay for the shortage this has created every time we buy gas. On top of that the whole thing about corn based ethanol costs us millions of tax dollars in subsidies. That also has driven up food prices. And, all of this is a long way from over. And, I am totally convinced there is no scientific basis for any of it. Global Warming. It is the hoax. It is bad science. It is a high jacking of public policy. It is no joke. It is the greatest scam in history. John Coleman 1-29-09 | ||
| Buellinachinashop |
You can't fake melting polar ice caps, melting glaciers or an increase in global temperature. I don't find any three of those things capable of being faked by 100's of scientists all working to become THE man on global thermodynamics. | ||
| Acav80 |
You can contract a scientist to find anything you want in statistical data. Some, not all, are like the low-ethics car salesman, willing and able to sell even the biggest heap of junk if it puts $$ in their pocket. I'm an environmental scientist. By no means a tree hugger (work for the people who build the roads). The CO2/global warming debate has raged for a long time. A ton of propaganda exists on both sides. The real question is...does it really make sense for us to assume it's no big deal and go about biz as usual with such potentially high stakes? Like squid rider mentality, "probably nothing will happen." $0.02 | ||
| Bill0351 |
It sounds like a typical fictional email forward, but Snopes only has it as "research in progress." Funny how most of the support for the idea that global warming is a hoax is from email forwards and non peer reviewed "journals." Whatever I guess.... It would be like 5 doctors telling you that you have treatable cancer, but ignoring it because your massage therapist told you it was nothing to worry about. | ||
| Edgydrifter |
No, this is legit. I mean, the facts that John Coleman exists, that he started up the Weather Channel, and that he is very skeptical about mankind's role in global climate change--those are all legit. I'm not saying anything about the merits of his arguments. Those may or may not be legit, depending upon your point of view. The date is bogus, though. This "open letter" has been making its way around the interwebs since at least the spring of '08, possibly earlier. | ||
| Xl1200r |
You can't fake melting polar ice caps, melting glaciers or an increase in global temperature. But you can fake that man-made carbon dioxide is the reason those things happen. The earth changes constantly. It has never been in the state it is not, and never will be again. A simple history lesson is too easily ignored. At one point, a LONG time ago, CO2 levels in the atmoshpere were over 700 times what they are today. This is long before man even existed, let alone his thirst for burning oil and coal. And guess what - a few million years before that, it was lower. And a few million years later, it was lower. In fact, there has been only one period in the Earth's history, from teh research I've done, where CO2 levels were lower than they are today. Think about this stuff for a second... 385 parts per million. That's a total of .0385% of the air we breathe. Tell me you honestly think that makes a difference. I don't find any three of those things capable of being faked by 100's of scientists all working to become THE man on global thermodynamics. For thousands of years, we thought the Sun revolved around the Earth, and that if you sailed too east you'd fall off, and that carbs were good, etc. Everything is always changing. | ||
| Slaughter |
Global warming is real. The cause is open to debate. YES - we have more CO2 in the air. Whether it is the CAUSE or the RESULT of global warming is supported by arguments on BOTH sides. Alarmists always throw out the "can we afford to chance doing nothing?" argument. PANIC and URGENCY are stressed since slowing down long enough to debate or think is not going to help their arguments. One FACT is that we have measurable temperature increases in the last 80 years... maybe 120 years depending on which measurements you believe. The THEORY that man-made CO2 emissions can cause or contribute materially to global warming is open to debate. The problem is that the arguments are very much parallel to ALL other arguments of faith. We are also now again warming up to the level we were at in about the year 400AD (plant species studies). We have had heating and cooling cycles ever since the beginning of the planet. Choose any two points in time and you can forecast either an increase or a decrease in global temperatures. I try to stay out of religious discussions - especially on sportbike boards. I don't talk sportbikes on political boards (though I HAVE discussed sportbikes in my Mother's church in Wisconsin... but that's another story - at least in THAT environment, people will be willing to accept choices made on the basis of faith - and I'm an atheist!) | ||
| Ratyson |
Actually, the faking can be done. And the faking can be inadvertent. People can get caught up in what they "want" to find, or what they are "expecting/expected" to find. And mistakenly (or not) omit or overlook some important findings. There are reports that the polar ice caps are melting. And at the same time there are reports that polar ice is growing... who to believe? There are also reports that say the ice above the Arctic circle is melting, while the ice in the Antartic is increasing... who to believe? Is the temperature (global) increasing? Well, that depends on when you look at it. 2008 showed the largest DROP in global temperatures ever recorded. Some say that it dropped enough to "erase" the last several hundred years of warming. Where I highly doubt that several hundred years of climate change can be undone in 1 year, the data does show the cooling did in fact occur. Historical data, when taken from a range of sources (not just tree growth rings) tells a very interesting story. It tells that over the last 2000 years, the global temperature has risen to quite a bit higher than it is now, as well as having been quite a bit lower than it is now. The data also shows that we are not too far off from the temperatures of 2000 years ago. This shows that global temperatures do, and will fluctuate. It also shows that temperatures have been much higher in the past (about 1000 years ago) even though there were MUCH lower concentrations of CO2 in the atmosphere at that time. What does this say about the effects of CO2 on global temps? My somewhat educated mind leans towards the idea that it may not be nearly as effectual as we are being led to believe. I am not saying that climate change is not happening. Quite the contrary. Climate change is happening, as it has been happening since the stabilization of the planet's atmosphere, since before man was ever in the picture. Are we the cause of this climate change? Well, the data seems to indicate that the climate changes were occurring long before we started mucking about with gasses and fuels and land fills. Would it be a good idea to be mindful of what we do as far as polluting the air, water, and land? Most definitely. We would all be better off with clean air, water, and soil. Are we killing this planet? No, not really. Is it worth the cost that is being placed on many businesses to comply with "Global Warming" knee jerk legislation? Not hardly. Is it making some folks so guilt ridden that they will actually spend their hard earned money on "carbon credits"? Yep, it sure is. Ah, Ferris just reminded me: Is it worth the price that every one of us are going to pay in the long run (financially) to keep the "sky from falling"?? Absolutely, positively not. (Message edited by ratyson on January 29, 2009) | ||
| Ferris_von_bueller |
I've noticed a trend on BadWeb and other online forums of posters commenting on subjects without actually taking the time to read the article. The man, is indeed, legit. Here is a link to the original article http://www.kusi.com/weather/colemanscorner/3857474 2.html There is no way in hell that CO2 can cause global warming. As stated in the article and elsewhere, it ONLY comprises .41 hundredths of one percent of the atmosphere. It ain't plutonium, folks. I dont believe the general public has the faintest idea of the s*** storm of regulation and taxation coming their way from this scam. Our standard of living will fall, precipitously. | ||
| J2blue |
Can I jump in? Thanks. Who cares if global warming is real or not? People will either adapt or they won't. Whatever "damage" from CO2 build up is real has to be compared to the damage of heating and powering the same number of people with pre-industrial methods. Deforestation would be the top issue, followed by smut in our lungs and on our skin, then by disease from animal excrement. Regardless of cause, if the earth is warming we must adapt. It is a waste of time to talk about "reversing" our contribution to the rise. I am all for increasing utility and decreasing waste in our energy technology, but to throw away the most efficient and clean energy technologies currently available to avoid climate change is self defeating. Let's skip the guilt trip and just adapt as we need to - or not. We have done very well for over a century to heat, feed, and keep clean our environment with the resources at hand. It could have been much worse! Al Gore will use any cause to keep himself in power - it was a family tradition he grew up with. | ||
| Ferris_von_bueller |
well said, Blue | ||
| Just_ziptab |
Nobody can answer m question. Why was there near 300 feet of new ice formed over "The Glacier girl" in 50 years? | ||
| Aesquire |
I'm a history buff, specializing in technology & it's impact. I've built armor designs from the 11th to the 14th century by hand. ( ok, I used hammers & anvil, coal fired forge, plasma cutter, and cardboard mock ups ) The civilization at Petra fell because of climate change. The colonies on Greenland & Vinland failed because of climate change. It was hot in 1932. It was cold in 1776. It was hot in 1998. The ice caps are still melting & re freezing. The ozone hole in Antarctica is still there. What's the Ozone hole have to do with anything? When the patent on Freon ran out, and Mexico was prepared to undercut DuPont, it was suddenly "discovered" that an inert, heavier than air gas was going to kill us all. New satellites discovered a hole in the Ozone layer over the south pole. It was announced that the cause was Freon, and the Montreal accords banned this evil substance and mandated it's replacement with an inferior, corrosive, somewhat poisonous gas developed with a fresh new patent at....DuPont. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Freon Ozone is created in the atmosphere by ultraviolet radiation from the Sun changing molecular Oxygen ( 2 atoms ) into Ozone (3 atoms ). http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ozone Hint, where does the Sun not shine for months at a time? The poles. The North pole has a yearly Ozone hole too. Always have since we got a Nitrogen/Oxygen atmosphere as far as we can tell. Which pole has an active volcano, often used to destroy Mars Probe prototypes? South. What Chemical is noted for destroying Ozone in a catalytic reaction? Chlorine. What has Chlorine? Freon. Also, interestingly enough, Volcano gases. I don't KNOW that Freon is harmless, & I don't KNOW that DuPont was behind the banning of a chemical they no longer could make at a profit, and the mandatory replacement of Freon with a chemical they could & do produce at a nifty profit for far higher prices, but I have doubts. In the case of the Global warming movement (GWM) I KNOW there is climate change. I KNOW that many of the "leaders" of this movement lie & make their money off the GWM, and I notice that the weather stations used to gather the date are no longer in an empty field by the Airport, but are now in built up industrial & residential areas. Also we switched from painting the box you keep the thermometer in with whitewash to latex paint....and the U.S. got warmer! http://www.surfacestations.org/ http://anhonestclimatedebate.wordpress.com/2008/11 /11/record-hot-october-in-james-hansons-oven/ http://epw.senate.gov/public/index.cfm?FuseAction= Minority.Blogs&ContentRecord_id=fee4a8fd-802a-23ad -4079-be0ac7f8017e http://businessandmedia.org/specialreports/2007/gl obalwarming/ClimateOfBias.asp http://www.spacedaily.com/2006/081212141651.tthkmk ke.html I like the Czech President. The EU hates him & that's almost good enough for me. http://network.nationalpost.com/np/blogs/fullcomme nt/archive/2008/10/20/lorne-gunter-thirty-years-of -warmer-temperatures-go-poof.aspx http://www.towntopics.com/nov1908/other3.php Freeman Dyson is such a freaking genius that they have used his inventions on Star Trek as cutting edge in the 25th century. No kidding. I'm still on board the 1970's "Ice Age is Coming" bandwagon. Look at my driveway. I'll look at your computer model when you can use it to predict the temps for the last 50 years, given ALL the data from the past except the temp for the last 50 years. ( you can't have the Oxygen 16/18 ratio either, because you could derive the temps from that. ) Some last shots. http://www.surfacestations.org/odd_sites.htm | ||
| Edgydrifter |
Just_ziptab: Ah, this I can answer. Envision a glacier as a river--a really sluggish river. The ice is in constant motion, and as it flows, heavy objects (rocks, aircraft, etc.) sink to the bottom. The ice covering "glacier girl" didn't fall there from the sky like snow. The airplane traveled downward through the ice strata as it was carried "downstream" in the glacier. If you were to compare the coordinates of the plane the day it touched down with the day it was excavated, you would see that it had traveled several miles laterally and a couple hundred feet vertically over the years. | ||
| Gsilvernale |
It's getting warmer on Mars too. Ice Caps on Mar's are shrinking. Must be CO2 leaking from Earth or from all those Mar's orbiters that we are sending there. | ||
| Spiderman |
Is global warming real? Well no shoot! Look at the ice age, look at the time of the dinosaurs. It is called climate change it happens all the time. It has a little something to do with that big ol thing called the sun, the earths orbit and a ton of other factors. NOW Are we contributing to it? That is the real question that I doubt can be answered OR feel that we are. Look at the industrial revolution with all those factories in the 1800's spewing out black smoke like it was going out of style. If global warming was a direct result of us (humans in genral) we would have seen this climate change a lot earlier. ON top of this lets talk about recycling paper, the new hip trend! You want to be gree, just throw it away! You know how much energy it takes to collect, sort, recycle, then distribute to people who use the recycled material, then those people have to further rifine or produce said product. They grow trees specificaly for paper production, if we cut down the new paper usage we are not going to plant as many new trees which would have cleaned the "global warming" out of the air! | ||
| Just_ziptab |
Thanks Edgydrifter! Kinda blows my thoughts on "warming", but at least now I know why. | ||
| Danger_dave |
I take all this in - and then the National Geographic Society Says: http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2004/12/12 06_041206_global_warming.html | ||
| Ft_bstrd |
I hope when the Ice Age comes that a giant polar bear eats Al Gore's ass. Tool. | ||
| Ducbsa |
The Nat Geographic article didn't really connect CO2 from industry to warming other than to say the recent cycle has been shorter. I wonder how that is substantiated, when systematic temperature measurements have only been done for ~100 years. | ||
| Reepicheep |
Environmentalists are trading short term gains for long term disaster. I was an environmentalist, back when environmentalism was *not* synonymous with "bad science", which seems to be where it is today. Back then, if environmentalists suggested something (like recycling aluminum cans and putting on catalytic converters), I agreed and adapted. Now, when an environmentalist says something, my initial reaction is extreme skepticism. Which is a shame, as "true conservatives" and environmentalists should be natural allies... All non nuclear power today is solar power... period. The oil, gas, and coal we burn today came 100% from prehistoric solar power farms (we call them "jungles") that is stored in these amazing "batteries" (coal, gas, and oil). We are discharging that "solar battery" every day. All fine and good, except that gallon of gas I burned in 45 minutes getting to work this morning probably took 10 years to accumulate. I'm burning it faster then it accumulates, and taking that resource from future generations. A good conservative should feel this is immoral, and should be done with the utmost care. And it should be done with an end in mind to leave options for these future generations. Nuclear is the best source. It is where the solar power came from in the first place (a nuclear bomb called the sun). And that already existing nuclear power plant (the sun) ought to be farmed for all it's worth... I believe a bright sunny day produces 1000 watts (about 3/4 of a horsepower) per square yard. Not enough to power your home from your roof, but way too much to just ignore. And perhaps enough to get me back and forth to work on some days. But bad science and political agendas that are more about control and a new religion stand in the way of a LOT of that, and gets in the way of real advancement. | ||
| Brinnutz |
Why are we the only ones (US) caring about this? Isn't China opening new coal fired facilities on a weekly basis? Why is it just our country, and not the whole damn world? I never hear anything about other countries adopting things, but maybe thats because no one reports it? my .02 | ||
| 99savage |
Something interesting but probably useless. My Heat Transfer text book circa 1967 had a foot note @ the beginning of the section on radiation. It mentioned it was speculated that large molecules such as CO2 & H2O (yes Virginia, water vapor is a “greenhouse gas”) were opaque to long wave length radiation & that an increase in CO2 might cause a “greenhouse effect” resulting in global warming. Then below that it noted that in controlled experiments greenhouses made w/ panes of rack salt that were transparent to long wave length radiation worked exactly as well as ones w/ glass panes that were opaque. – It seems the “greenhouse effect” does not apply to greenhouses. | ||
| Midknyte |
I hope when the Ice Age comes that a giant polar bear eats Al Gore's ass. Manbearpig, FB. Manbearpig... | ||
| Midknyte |
Why is it just our country, and not the whole damn world? I fervently hope, wish, and pray that is the case. I'd like the prospect of being able to move and get away from this BS. | ||
| Andrejs2112 |
Global warming? The next thing they are going to tell us is that the earth is round and it rotates around the sun. It's all a liberal conspiracy to get us to get off Saudi oil. For some reason they think the Saudis support the extremest Muslims with the cash they get from selling oil. Silly bastards. | ||
| Buellinachinashop |
"For thousands of years, we thought the Sun revolved around the Earth, and that if you sailed too east you'd fall off, and that carbs were good, etc. " That was before technology could read a postage stamp on Mars. While I understand technology changes, I think today's science can determine gas content in the atmosphere. | ||
| Andrejs2112 |
"Why are we the only ones (US) caring about this? Isn't China opening new coal fired facilities on a weekly basis? Why is it just our country, and not the whole damn world? I never hear anything about other countries adopting things, but maybe thats because no one reports it? my .02" Don't be so sure of that. The Chinese are not dumb. They know that there is money in renewable energy...LOTS of it. The first nation to pioneer the field will be king. It better be us, or we will be the ones copying technology from them instead of the other way around. Don't forget about India either. The side effect to all of this will be less pollution and we will all win in that regard. | ||
| Aeholton |
That was before technology could read a postage stamp on Mars. While I understand technology changes, I think today's science can determine gas content in the atmosphere. Agreed, but that technology can't tell you whether that higher CO2 is a result or a cause. The earth has warmed and cooled in past history and it wasn't due to humans. Believing we are causing climate change is arrogant and further believing we can do anything about it is foolish. | ||
| Xl1200r |
Agreed, but that technology can't tell you whether that higher CO2 is a result or a cause. The earth has warmed and cooled in past history and it wasn't due to humans. Believing we are causing climate change is arrogant and further believing we can do anything about it is foolish. +1. Nobody in their right mind can say that global warming is a myth. The debate is whether or not the things we do contribute to any of it. I will go on the record and say that I LIKE the green movement, but NOT because I'm concerned that CO2 emissions are going to boil the oceans, encrust the land with ice, or that Manbearpig is going to kill us all. I like it because it's an advancement in technology, and we're learning to do more with less. I'd like a car that gets 150mpg, not because I could pat myself on the back for saving the planet, but because it would save me almost $1200 a year on gas, even at today's low pump prices. I'd like to drive to work in a car that I charged up at home with the electricity that came from the hydro-electric powerplant less than a quarter mile from my apartment because it means I didn't give a DIME to the middle east, Venezuela, et al, but instead to AMERICAN workers running AMERICAN-made machinery (to my knowledge). But, FORCE people and businesses to abide by these things because some crackpots think we're destroy the planet? Give me a friggen break. Anyways, aren't there reports floating around that a planet which is a few degrees warmer would actually be benneficial? Who cares if the oceans rise - hell, if NYC goes underwater, my state taxes should be quite a bit less. |
