All the subsidies to farmers, all the corn turned over to ethanol production, the big rises in global food prices, all the hype and what do we now know?
Big suprise. It doesn't help.
Partial quote:
"Large greenhouse gas emissions from these indirect land-use changes are unintended consequences of a global biofuels program; consequences that add to the climate-change problem rather than helping to solve it," says Melillo "As our analysis shows, these unintended consequences are largest when the clearing of forests is involved."
End quote.
Let's not forget, these forest lands are being cleared in far off countries to produce biofuels. It's being done with the help of people like Al Gore in the carbon trading schemes. So when he's running all the lights in his big house and claims to be "carbon neutral, he's buying carbon credits that pay for things like this.
Article from the British Press. It's a good "plain English" synopsis of history of the global warming hoax includng the story of the IPCC and the infamous "hockey stick" graph.
The Brit's (and all of Europe) are going through the same exact debate we are. They also just passed a Climate Bill (Cap and Trade) just like we're preparing. They will (per the bill) reduce their greenhouse gases by 80% in 50 years.
Take a moment and think about that. It'll never happen and everyone knows it. But go through the exercise anyway.
That's exactly why China and India are not willing to participate in this global economic suicide.
They're sitting back and waiting for the world to "hamstring" itself while they take over.
Good plan.
Partial quote:
“Future generations will wonder in bemused amazement that the early 21st century’s developed world went into hysterical panic over a globally averaged temperature increase of a few tenths of a degree and, on the basis of gross exaggerations of highly exaggerated computer predictions combined into implausible chains of inference, proceeded to contemplate a rollback of the industrial age.”
The Secretary General of the United Nations writes an op-ed in the New York Times. This is the guy that wants "global governence". In other words, he wants to control the world.
Here's a few of his comments. His are in italics, my answers are bold.
All agree that climate change is an existential threat to humankind. Simply a lie.
We cannot afford another period where the United States stands on the sidelines.He means this literally. He wants money.
Last month, President Barack Obama joined more than 100 others at a climate change summit at U.N. headquarters in New York — sending a clear message of solidarity and commitment. So did the leaders of China, Japan and South Korea, all of whom pledged to promote the development of clean energy technologies and ensure that Copenhagen is a success.Just another lie. China, South Korea and also India, have no interest in restraining themselves.
India and China are implanting programs to curb emissions as well. Lie repeated.
A deal needs to be backed by money and the means to deliver it. Developing countries need funding and technology so they can move more quickly toward green growth. The solutions we discuss cannot be realized without substantial additional financing, including through carbon markets and private investment. It's all about money. redistribution on a global scale.
A deal must include an equitable global governance structure. All countries must have a voice in how resources are deployed and managed. Global governance. With the U.N. running it and the U.S. financing it.
The best answer to all these questions was given last week by Senators Kerry and Graham: “Yes, we can.” He's actually using Obama's campaign slogan. He actually believes that using it will get everyone together like hippies at Woodstock.
I think the motivation of the U.N. (sponser of the IPCC) is clear, they want us, and a few others, to fund world. The money flows to the U.N where they decide where it goes. I've made this point in some past posts. The money is real and the amounts are huge. You think health care will be expensive? Add the same amount again to the total bill for this global governance dream.
This is not what the U.N. was designed to do. They're using global warming as an excuse for global socialism. This is how the "one world government" fears get fed.
__________________ There is precedent for the mainstream media being megaphones for Democratic-manufactured hysteria. George Will
Today, there is a name for the political doctrine that rejoices in scarcity of everything except government. The name is environmentalism. George Will
In a Democrat city of about 3 1/2 million people, how many do you suppose would come out to a global warming rally on the International Day of Climate Action?
of the Earth's near-surface air and oceans since the mid-20th century and its projected continuation. Global surface temperature increased 0.74 ± 0.18 °
surface temperature will probably rise a further 1.1 to 6.4 °C (2.0 to 11.5 °F) during the twenty-first century.[1] The uncertainty in this estimate arises from the use of models with differing
include how warming and related changes will vary from region to region around the globe. Most studies focus on the period up to the year 2100. However, warming is expected to continue beyond 2100 even if emissions stop, because of the large
Recent atmospheric carbon dioxide (CO2) increases. Monthly CO2 measurements display seasonal oscillations in overall yearly uptrend; each year's maximum occurs during the Northern Hemisphere's late spring, and declines during its growing season as plants remove some atmospheric CO2.
Still regard Wikipedia as a good source huh? Everything that's used there is based on, and flows back to, the IPCC which, according to the latest science, has no real credibility. The data in the IPCC reports was manipulated to get the desired results. That's no longer in question. See previous posts.
I like the graph of rising CO2, It once again proves that CO2 doesn't drive global temps. CO2 is rising and temps are dropping.
I think I've posted those graphs already. If not, I'll dig some up.
Anyway, good comeback. Proves the debate is not over and the science is not settled.
__________________ There is precedent for the mainstream media being megaphones for Democratic-manufactured hysteria. George Will
Today, there is a name for the political doctrine that rejoices in scarcity of everything except government. The name is environmentalism. George Will
The law of unintended consequences hits again. Cap and Trade will encourage deforestation.
Ever hear of "Biomass"? That's basically burning trees/wood (something that was killing the planet a few years ago) instead of coal, gas or oil.
It also encourages farmers in far away lands (where you don't see them) to burn down forests in order to plant corn for "biofuels".
Well, as long as it saves the planet right? I still don't understand how anyone can think that politicians can "save the planet".
Partial quote:
"By using a worldwide agricultural model to estimate emissions from land-use change, we found that corn-based ethanol, instead of producing a 20% savings, nearly doubles greenhouse emissions over 30 years and increases greenhouse gases for 167 years," the Princeton authors say. "Biofuels from switchgrass, if grown on U.S. corn lands, increase emissions by 50%."
Al Gore (Nobel Prize winner) needs to forget about the climate and start studying math.
If you use his calculations, in only 10 years, sea levels will rise over 200 feet and 6.7 billion people will be "climate refuges". How many people are there in the world?
Here's the quotes:
“The North Pole ice cap is 40 percent gone already and could be completely and totally gone in the winter months in the next 5 to 10 years,”
If the North Pole were to melt it could increase sea levels by 67 metres,
“Each one metre of sea level rise is associated with 100 million climate refugees in the world,” the Nobel laureate told a business forum in Dubai.
End quotes.
You really think he believes all this nonsense? Do you?
I still don't understand how anyone can think that politicians can "save the planet".
Politics may not be the answer to restoring our environment but we do need some type of formal governing body that can. If we abandon that we will have anarchy and that would never produce controls to restore our Eco-system. I do know this is a very difficult task to accomplish and is beyond my comprehension. Perhaps we need to accept that everything has a life-cycle and Earth is on the downward part of it's life-cycle.
...Them's got ears, let them hear
Them's got eyes, let them see
Turn your eyes to the lord of the skies
Take this airline plane
It'll take you home again
Politics may not be the answer to restoring our environment but we do need some type of formal governing body that can. If we abandon that we will have anarchy and that would never produce controls to restore our Eco-system.
I don't agree (Surprise, surprise)
We are nowhere near being close to anarchy or endorsing anarchy. We are much closer to totalitarianism.
My view is that I don't accept the premise that we have to "restore" the environment. Restore it to what? Who is "we"? Can we really? How much can we control? Does the other 95% of the world care as much? What should the focus really be? Maybe Starvation, HIV and Malaria are more of a threat than a phoney global warming scare. At least we know those are real. Maybe starvation in Africa can be helped by teaching them good farming practices with irrigation, fertilization and pest control and animal husbandry instead of telling them that they're doomed (by calling them climate refugees) because we ruined the planet with global warming.
Quote:
Originally Posted by j10asen
I do know this is a very difficult task to accomplish and is beyond my comprehension.
To me, it's not that tough. First, if you accept that Al Gore has lied in that last post I provided, what else has he lied about? He's the face of "climate change". Al Gore and the IPCC no longer have any real credibility with real independant scientists. Politicians still hang on their every word. But that's because it feeds the agenda.
Take out politics and look at reality and the course is clear. We take care of our environment the best we can keeping in mind that we only control so much.
What the global environmentalist extremists want is for everyone to reduce our standard of living. That's the wrong way to go. Prosperity and wealth foster good clean environments.
Think about it. Who cares for, and takes care of the environment better than free and prosperous people? Where are the worst conditions? Poor 3rd world countries.
So while we say we won't drill in the Gulf of Mexico (as an example) because it'll "hurt the environment", a different country drills it's hole right next to where we were and sells us the oil anyway. Chances are, that country does not have the same care for the environment that we do. So if you (or others) really cared about the environment, you'd want the U.S. doing the drilling instead of a dictatorial 3rd world country that could care less about anything related to the environment.
Quote:
Originally Posted by j10asen
Perhaps we need to accept that everything has a life-cycle and Earth is on the downward part of it's life-cycle.
I don't agree. I don't believe that anyone knows the limits of humankind, it's creativity, resourcefullness and ability to grow. We also have no idea what the Earth can stand, what it still holds in store for us and what it's capable of providing us.
But we first have to deal in facts and science, not scare tactics and politics designed for world-wide wealth redistribution.
I'm optimistic, as long as we don't stand in our own way.
__________________ There is precedent for the mainstream media being megaphones for Democratic-manufactured hysteria. George Will
Today, there is a name for the political doctrine that rejoices in scarcity of everything except government. The name is environmentalism. George Will
For anyone who insists on government information for their view on global warming, here's a government website disputing MMGW. Must be a renegade.
It's a site for all the little junior scientists out there.
Partial quote:
It has been thought that an increase in carbon dioxide will lead to global warming. While carbon dioxide in the atmosphere has been increasing over the past 100 years, there is no evidence that it is causing an increase in global temperatures.
The largest differences in the satellite temperature data were not from any man-made activity, but from natural phenomena such as large volcanic eruptions from Mt. Pinatubo, and from El Niño.
When you hear about all the scientific bodies that agree with MMGW, it's usually the leadership of those bodies (looking for money) that put out their positions. The rank and file scientists within those bodies are revolting and speaking out.
Example, the American Physical Society scientists want their leadership to re-evaluate their position based on scientific evidence. They also wrote a letter to the Senate with 160 signatures disupted the global warming hoax.
So it's yet another letter to politicians disuputing MMGW, and yet they are moving full steam ahead with this stupid Cap and Trade gimmick regardless of testimony and real science. The evidence and science disputing global warming is overwhelming, undeniable and mounting everyday. It can't be ignored.
And yet it is.
__________________ There is precedent for the mainstream media being megaphones for Democratic-manufactured hysteria. George Will
Today, there is a name for the political doctrine that rejoices in scarcity of everything except government. The name is environmentalism. George Will
For all you folks worried about jobs and jobs going overseas, here's a dose of reality: When energy prices are artificially increased because of environmental extremeism, it costs jobs.
This is just the beginning, wait 'till Cap and Trade gets passed. Shut down industry here to "save the planet". But the reality is it just gets produced overseas, probably not as environmentally friendly as here, and we buy it anyway.
When unemployment is steady in the double digits and gas and electricity are 50-100% higher, you can feel good that we're saving the planet.
The snows of Kilimanjaro may soon be gone. The African mountain's white peak — made famous by writer Ernest Hemingway — is rapidly melting, researchers report.
The snows of Kilimanjaro may soon be gone. The African mountain's white peak — made famous by writer Ernest Hemingway — is rapidly melting, researchers report.
Well, let's have some science tell us why...........
For anyone who insists on government information for their view on global warming, here's a government website disputing MMGW. Must be a renegade.
It's a site for all the little junior scientists out there.
Partial quote:
It has been thought that an increase in carbon dioxide will lead to global warming. While carbon dioxide in the atmosphere has been increasing over the past 100 years, there is no evidence that it is causing an increase in global temperatures.
The largest differences in the satellite temperature data were not from any man-made activity, but from natural phenomena such as large volcanic eruptions from Mt. Pinatubo, and from El Niño.
Well, someone found it! They pulled the page. Now tell me politics has nothing to do with global warming
Interesting...but does it state somewhere that it was a 'political' reason the page was pulled? Just really wondering.
Otherwise there could be many reasons why a page was pulled down, broken link? Wrong info on it? The webmaster wanted a change of look? Wasn't correct info for an educational site? The reasons go on and not necessary IMHO has to do with politics...
__________________ If we ever forget that we are One Nation Under God, then we will be a nation gone under.
Watched Al Gore on Letterman last night.. one smart man whether you agree with him or not IMHO.
Lots of folks agree with you. But to me, confidently repeating lies doesn't make him smart, it makes him a politician IMNSHO. If he were actually smart, he wouldn't keep avoiding one on one debates with scientists who want to make him back up his statements with some science instead of just speaking in front of friendly audiences.
I must say though, I didn't see the show. I don't watch Alfred E Newman. So my comments are based on his past speeches.
__________________ There is precedent for the mainstream media being megaphones for Democratic-manufactured hysteria. George Will
Today, there is a name for the political doctrine that rejoices in scarcity of everything except government. The name is environmentalism. George Will
Interesting...but does it state somewhere that it was a 'political' reason the page was pulled? Just really wondering.
Otherwise there could be many reasons why a page was pulled down, broken link? Wrong info on it? The webmaster wanted a change of look? Wasn't correct info for an educational site? The reasons go on and not necessary IMHO has to do with politics...
That page has been unchanged for 4 years. Now that some attention has been brought to it, it's pulled.
Sometimes a duck is a duck.
__________________ There is precedent for the mainstream media being megaphones for Democratic-manufactured hysteria. George Will
Today, there is a name for the political doctrine that rejoices in scarcity of everything except government. The name is environmentalism. George Will
OK. If you want "scientifically" proof about global warming.
"There’s no reason for you to doubt the scientists. There are some people who will attempt to confuse you by claiming that the idea that humans cause climate change is “just a theory” and therefore shouldn't’t be taken seriously. But this is a dangerous misrepresentation of how scientists use the word ‘theory’." (Brian Liloia)
Scientist are saying that global warming is in fact a 'Theory".But you are saying that it isn't happening that it is a hoax. Yet respectable scientists are stating that it is happening, and whether we want to or not we have to do something about it. Scientific theories are based on facts.
Many people think that so what the earth's temperature has risen about 2 degrees in the last 100 years, and it may not seem like a lot but in reality it is. The earths patterns in Climate change shows that we should be cooling down instead of getting warmer.
The facts are all around us. Species are going extinct faster than we can save them, we are running low on fossil fuels, the ice caps are melting causing our water levels to rise.
I love animals and this is where I am drawing the line, something has to be done.
70 species of frogs have gone extinct because they couldn't adapt to the climate change. Its not only frogs going, its plants and over 100 other animals that are going extinct.
Why is it so hard to just work together to help preserve the environment now when we still have a chance? Why do we have to wait until its too far gone? It's in our hands today to preserve the land for our children and there children and so forth. Its not our job to just sit around and watch it go downhill, why would we!?!
__________________
Surely it was a good way to die, in the place of someone else, someone I loved. Noble, even. That ought to count for something.
Bella Swan, Twilight, Preface, p.1
When life offers you a dream so far beyond any of your expectations, it’s not reasonable to grieve when it comes to an end.
Bella Swan, Twilight, Preface, p.1
Not one bit of science in this article. It does reference the IPCC (United Nations body) that, once again, I've already shown on numerous posts to be without credibility by real scientists. So repeatedly quoting the IPCC doesn't make it better. Written by a 24 year old unemployed environmental activists. Zero credentials. Unless being a blogger is now a credential.
Yet another article using only the IPCC as a source. It also uses remedial talking points to advance the message. No science in this article either. Written by anti "big-oil" activists.
And the worst of all, a 3 year old article saying polar bears and penquins are in trouble. I've already posted articles showing those statements as being untrue. No science in the article that actually shows a connection between global warming and species extinction. It can't, the earths been cooling for 10 years. Where are the articles talking about the penquin comeback? Written by AP and re-written by MSNBC (fair and balanced).
There is still no scientific evidence of man made global warming outside of flawed computer models run by the debunked IPCC (United Nations).
It's about money, not science.
__________________ There is precedent for the mainstream media being megaphones for Democratic-manufactured hysteria. George Will
Today, there is a name for the political doctrine that rejoices in scarcity of everything except government. The name is environmentalism. George Will
OnYourMark, LLC is a full-service web design, production, programming, hosting and Internet marketing company with audio, photography and video services in our studio on Main Street in Sussex, Wisconsin or at your location.
We serve clients in industry, healthcare, eCommerce, professional services, real estate and construction, information services, hospitality, advertising agencies, and more...throughout Wisconsin and the USA. Please contact OnYourMark for a free, no-obligation consultation about increasing your inquiries and sales while decreasing your costs via the web.
Re: Latest Global Warming news
Linear Mode
