Regardless of the science, we are running out of oil. And there is no
place to store nuclear waste, so we have to get real about converting
to new energy sources.
Conservatives are supposed to be business minded, and interested in
economic booms. The conversion to new energy provides so many
opportunities that it is mind boggling, they could be getting rich,
and the lefties could actually have a reason to embrace business for a
change.
But of course this is an idea that is lost on people who are so
blinded by partisanship that they have embraced the hatred, and thrown
reason, rational thought, and objectivity to the wind.
NOT VERY CONSERVATIVE IF YOU ASK ME.
You know there is plenty of bad science going around on both sides of
this issue. And, what is astonishing to me is the way so-called
"business-minded conservatives" [ahem] are making such a concerted
effort to bonzo-ize the issue (that's when they behave like trained
monkeys for Reagan, R.I.P) instead of putting their business acumen to
work to solve a problem.
So, who are these people, really?
On Jul 14, 7:48 am, "Chris H. Fleming"
yahoo.com>
wrote:> On Jul 14, 4:00 am, Michael Gordge
xtra.co.nz> wrote:
>
>
>>> On Jul 14, 4:23 pm, "Chris H. Fleming"
yahoo.com>
>> wrote:>
>>> On Jul 13, 4:33 pm, Michael Gordge
xtra.co.nz> wrote:>
>>>> On Jul 14, 2:40 am, "Chris H. Fleming"
yahoo.com>
>>>> wrote:>
>>>>> On Jul 12, 3:24 am, Michael Gordge
xtra.co.nz> wrote:>
>>>>>> Screening on ABC Australian Broadcastin tonight 8.30pm
>
>>>>> Hmmm... movies versus scientific consensus... I wonder which closer
>>>>> approximates reality?
>
>>>> I dont recall you asking that same question over the commie git Al
>>>> Gore's crap Chris.
>
>>> I've never seen either of these movies. But one is reputed to be
>>> accurate by most climatologists......
>
>> Most climatologists believe that man makes the globe hot? what utter
>> crap, prove it, prove that most climatologists claim that Gore's crap
>> was scientific let alone accurate.
>
> If you had made even the slightest effort to investigate the matter...
>
> But I see you have relegated yourself to being the kind of troll that
> cuts and pastes large amounts of garbage.
>
>> TEN MYTHS of Global Warming
>
>> MYTH 1: Global temperatures are rising at a rapid, unprecedented
>> rate.
>
>> FACT: Accurate satellite, balloon and mountain top observations made
>> over the last three decades have not shown any significant change in
>> the long term rate of increase in global temperatures. Average ground
>> station readings do show a mild warming of 0.6 to 0.8Cover the last
>> 100 years, which is well within the natural variations recorded in the
>> last millennium. The ground station network suffers from an uneven
>> distribution across the globe; the stations are preferentially located
>> in growing urban and industrial areas ("heat islands"), which show
>> substantially higher readings than adjacent rural areas ("land use
>> effects").
>
>> There has been no catastrophic warming recorded.
>
>> MYTH 2: The "hockey stick" graph proves that the earth has
>> experienced a steady, very gradual temperature increase for 1000
>> years, then recently began a sudden increase.
>
>> FACT: Significant changes in climate have continually occurred
>> throughout geologic time. For instance, the Medieval Warm Period, from
>> around 1000 to1200 AD (when the Vikings farmed on Greenland) was
>> followed by a period known as the Little Ice Age. Since the end of the
>> 17th Century the "average global temperature" has been rising at the
>> low steady rate mentioned above; although from 1940 - 1970
>> temperatures actually dropped, leading to a Global Cooling scare.
>
>> The "hockey stick", a poster boy of both the UN's IPCC and Canada's
>> Environment Department, ignores historical recorded climatic swings,
>> and has now also been proven to be flawed and statistically unreliable
>> as well. It is a computer construct and a faulty one at that.
>
>> MYTH 3: Human produced carbon dioxide has increased over the last 100
>> years, adding to the Greenhouse effect, thus warming the earth.
>
>> FACT: Carbon dioxide levels have indeed changed for various reasons,
>> human and otherwise, just as they have throughout geologic time. Since
>> the beginning of the industrial revolution, the CO2 content of the
>> atmosphere has increased. The RATE of growth during this period has
>> also increased from about 0.2%% per year to the present rate of about
>> 0.4%% per year,which growth rate has now been constant for the past 25
>> years. However, there is no proof that CO2 is the main driver of
>> global warming. As measured in ice cores dated over many thousands of
>> years, CO2 levels move up and down AFTER the temperature has done so,
>> and thus are the RESULT OF, NOT THE CAUSE of warming. Geological field
>> work in recent sediments confirms this causal relationship. There is
>> solid evidence that, as temperatures move up and down naturally and
>> cyclically through solar radiation, orbital and galactic influences,
>> the warming surface layers of the earth's oceans expel more CO2 as a
>> result.
>
>> MYTH 4: CO2 is the most common greenhouse gas.
>
>> FACT: Greenhouse gases form about 3 %% of the atmosphere by volume.
>> They consist of varying amounts, (about 97%%) of water vapour and
>> clouds, with the remainder being gases like CO2, CH4, Ozone and N2O,
>> of which carbon dioxide is the largest amount. Hence, CO2 constitutes
>> about 0.037%% of the atmosphere. While the minor gases are more
>> effective as "greenhouse agents" than water vapour and clouds, the
>> latter are overwhelming the effect by their sheer volume and - in the
>> end - are thought to be responsible for 60%% of the "Greenhouse
>> effect".
>> Those attributing climate change to CO2 rarely mention this important
>> fact.
>
>> MYTH 5: Computer models verify that CO2 increases will cause
>> significant global warming.
>
>> FACT: Computer models can be made to "verify" anything by changing
>> some of the 5 million input parameters or any of a multitude of
>> negative and positive feedbacks in the program used.. They do not
>> "prove" anything. Also, computer models predicting global warming are
>> incapable of properly including the effects of the sun, cosmic rays
>> and the clouds. The sun is a major cause of temperature variation on
>> the earth surface as its received radiation changes all the time, This
>> happens largely in cyclical fashion. The number and the lengths in
>> time of sunspots can be correlated very closely with average
>> temperatures on earth, e.g. the Little Ice Age and the Medieval Warm
>> Period. Varying intensity of solar heat radiation affects the surface
>> temperature of the oceans and the currents. Warmer ocean water expels
>> gases, some of which are CO2. Solar radiation interferes with the
>> cosmic ray flux, thus influencing the amount ionized nuclei which
>> control cloud cover.
>
>> MYTH 6: The UN proved that man-made CO2 causes global warming.
>> FACT: In a 1996 report by the UN on global warming, two statements
>> were deleted from the final draft. Here they are:
>> 1) "None of the studies cited above has shown clear evidence that
>> we can attribute the observed climate changes to increases in
>> greenhouse gases."
>> 2) "No study to date has positively attributed all or part of the
>> climate change to man-made causes"
>
>> To the present day there is still no scientific proof that man-made
>> CO2 causes significant global warming.
>
>> MYTH 7: CO2 is a pollutant.
>
>> FACT: This is absolutely not true. Nitrogen forms 80%% of our
>> atmosphere. We could not live in 100%% nitrogen either. Carbon dioxide
>> is no more a pollutant than nitrogen is. CO2 is essential to life on
>> earth. It is necessary for plant growth since increased CO2 intake as
>> a result of increased atmospheric concentration causes many trees and
>> other plants to grow more vigorously. Unfortunately, the Canadian
>> Government has included CO2 with a number of truly toxic and noxious
>> substances listed by the Environmental Protection Act, only as their
>> means to politically control it.
>
>> MYTH 8: Global warming will cause more storms and other weather
>> extremes.
>
>> FACT: There is no scientific or statistical evidence whatsoever that
>> supports such claims on a global scale. Regional variations may
>> occur. Growing insurance and infrastructure repair costs, particularly
>> in coastal areas, are sometimes claimed to be the result of increasing
>> frequency and severity of storms, whereas in reality they are a
>> function of increasing population density, escalating development
>> value, and ever more media reporting.
>
>> MYTH 9: Receding glaciers and the calving of ice shelves are proof of
>> global warming.
>
>> FACT: Glaciers have been receding and growing cyclically for
>> hundreds of years. Recent glacier melting is a consequence of coming
>> out of the very cool period of the Little Ice Age. Ice shelves have
>> been breaking off for centuries. Scientists know of at least 33
>> periods of glaciers growing and then retreating. It's normal. Besides,
>> glacier's health is dependent as much on precipitation as on
>> temperature.
>
>> MYTH 10: The earth's poles are warming; polar ice caps are breaking
>> up and melting and the sea level rising.
>
>> FACT: The earth is variable. The western Arctic may be getting
>> somewhat warmer, due to unrelated cyclic events in the Pacific Ocean,
>> but the Eastern Arctic and Greenland are getting colder. The small
>> Palmer Peninsula of Antarctica is getting warmer, while the main
>> Antarctic continent is actually cooling. Ice thicknesses are
>> increasing both on Greenland and in Antarctica.
>
>> Sea level monitoring in the Pacific (Tuvalu) and Indian Oceans
>> (Maldives) has shown no sign of any sea level rise.
>
>> Source: Friends of Science website
>
>> Live Earth's Inconvenient Truths
>> by Patrick Basham
>
>> Patrick Basham directs the Democracy Institute, teaches research
>> methods at Johns Hopkins University and is a Cato Institute adjunct
>> scholar.
>
>> The theme of Saturday's worldwide Live Earth concerts was a call for
>> action against climate change. The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate
>> Change's recent reports, heralded as the final word on global warming,
>> inspired both organizers and performers, from Al Gore to Madonna.
>
>> Opening the Washington concert leg, Mr. Gore denounced climate change
>> skeptics "who don't understand what is now at stake." Strong words
>> from a public figure flaunting an Oscar comprised of junk science.
>
>> Sadly, the IPCC encouraged deeply disturbing departures from sound
>> scientific research that significantly undermine Live Earth's alarmist
>> message. Yet, the problems with the IPCC report go much further than
>> politicized science. They extend to the core of the climate change
>> debate, namely the degree of scientific certainty about the causes and
>> consequences of global warming.
>
>> Scientific uncertainty: What level of scientific certainty do IPCC's
>> global warming claims really have?
>
>> The gold standard level of
>
> ...
>
> read more
