Global Warming Do You Care?

[pointofview]

Not in our life time, Jingthing. But more likely our grand-childrens! For the sceptics here, have you been to the Maldives? Well I have and the Islands are getting smaller=water raising, wonder why???

The so-called scientific consensus that global warming is man-made has been shattered with the release of a major new study backed by three universities which concludes that climate change over the past thirty years is explained by natural factors and that attempts to reduce carbon dioxide emissions are irrelevant.

Climate scientists at the University of Rochester, the University of Alabama, and the University of Virginia report that temperature fluctuations over the past three decades are not consistent with greenhouse model predictions and more closely correlate with solar activity.

The report dismisses attempts to reverse global warming by reducing carbon emissions as ineffective and pointless.

[Jingthing]

Personally, I think the science on this is legit. I doubt they can predict the exact timeline to any accuracy at all. It might even happen more quickly than the consensus thinks.

[SamuiJens]

Not in our life time, Jingthing. But more likely our grand-childrens! For the sceptics here, have you been to the Maldives? Well I have and the Islands are getting smaller=water raising, wonder why???

The so-called scientific consensus that global warming is man-made has been shattered with the release of a major new study backed by three universities which concludes that climate change over the past thirty years is explained by natural factors and that attempts to reduce carbon dioxide emissions are irrelevant.

Climate scientists at the University of Rochester, the University of Alabama, and the University of Virginia report that temperature fluctuations over the past three decades are not consistent with greenhouse model predictions and more closely correlate with solar activity.

The report dismisses attempts to reverse global warming by reducing carbon emissions as ineffective and pointless.

Topic is Global warming Do You Care; whether it's mad-made or solar isn't the point, it's that it's coming down fast, and if you care!

Edited December 12, 2007 by SamuiJens

[pointofview]

Not in our life time, Jingthing. But more likely our grand-childrens! For the sceptics here, have you been to the Maldives? Well I have and the Islands are getting smaller=water raising, wonder why???

The so-called scientific consensus that global warming is man-made has been shattered with the release of a major new study backed by three universities which concludes that climate change over the past thirty years is explained by natural factors and that attempts to reduce carbon dioxide emissions are irrelevant.

Climate scientists at the University of Rochester, the University of Alabama, and the University of Virginia report that temperature fluctuations over the past three decades are not consistent with greenhouse model predictions and more closely correlate with solar activity.

The report dismisses attempts to reverse global warming by reducing carbon emissions as ineffective and pointless.

Topic is Global warming Do You Care; whether it's mad-made or solar isn't the point, it's that it's coming down fast, and if you care!

Ofcourse - everyone must care! But the point is being made consistently that it is man made - so it is the point.

Slightly off topic - but science proves that the earths magnetic force is decreasing i.e. the rotation of the earth is slowing down; also the earths frequency (or pulse if you like) is increasing - from approx. 7 beats per second - since first measured 1920s to 1982 - upto almost 10 beats per second today. Obviously these changes have affects such as shorter days and changing weather patterns.

[xyborg]

Not in our life time, Jingthing. But more likely our grand-childrens! For the sceptics here, have you been to the Maldives? Well I have and the Islands are getting smaller=water raising, wonder why???

The so-called scientific consensus that global warming is man-made has been shattered with the release of a major new study backed by three universities which concludes that climate change over the past thirty years is explained by natural factors and that attempts to reduce carbon dioxide emissions are irrelevant.

Climate scientists at the University of Rochester, the University of Alabama, and the University of Virginia report that temperature fluctuations over the past three decades are not consistent with greenhouse model predictions and more closely correlate with solar activity.

The report dismisses attempts to reverse global warming by reducing carbon emissions as ineffective and pointless.

http://www.icecap.us/ read more here from the "loonies"

[mogoso]

Not in our life time, Jingthing. But more likely our grand-childrens! For the sceptics here, have you been to the Maldives? Well I have and the Islands are getting smaller=water raising, wonder why???

The so-called scientific consensus that global warming is man-made has been shattered with the release of a major new study backed by three universities which concludes that climate change over the past thirty years is explained by natural factors and that attempts to reduce carbon dioxide emissions are irrelevant.

Climate scientists at the University of Rochester, the University of Alabama, and the University of Virginia report that temperature fluctuations over the past three decades are not consistent with greenhouse model predictions and more closely correlate with solar activity.

The report dismisses attempts to reverse global warming by reducing carbon emissions as ineffective and pointless.

http://www.icecap.us/ read more here from the "loonies"

Well I guess the Pope has been drinking the same koolaid as me. It's not oft that his holiness and I see eye to eye on topics such as the global warming scam. Nice url

[david96]

Population control. Max number of children per female 2, no female to have children over 35, no IVF programs or AIS,

medical checks for all persons who intend having children. Assess requirements every 20 years and adlust accordingly.

The alternative is outlined in the 1970s film "Soylent Green"

[mogoso]

Population control. Max number of children per female 2, no female to have children over 35, no IVF programs or AIS,

medical checks for all persons who intend having children. Assess requirements every 20 years and adlust accordingly.

The alternative is outlined in the 1970s film "Soylent Green"

What does the recycling of protein as outlined in the movie have to do with global warming? If it does get warmer that just makes more arable land to produce food, to feed more people. Hotter earth just means more evaporation which means more rain. Rain just means more water for our uses.

[HS Mauberley]

Canuckamuck – are you some kind of creationist freak? I’m not sure what you’re trying to say with stuff like “Very convenient but who turns on the mechanism?” but if you want to get going on (the absurdly named) intelligent design, start another thread or take it christianloonies.com

To repeat, it's not difficult:

1. We know CO2 concentrations have risen since the industrial revolution; we know rising CO2 concentrations have a warming effect and we know that global temperatures have risen.

2. This makes ACC the best explanation for climate change (no one is no doubting that the world is warming).

3. If you want to object to ACC you need to find something which is wrong with the science.

4. One objection which has been given is that the world has warmed previously (prior to the evolution of humans) so humans can’t be the cause of current warming. For this objection to be valid, all previous warming would have to have a single cause; once one accepts that there are multiple causes, this objection loses its force. If a previous instance of warming was caused by volcanism then to say “well previously the world was warmed by volcanism” we would need to have evidence of increased volcanism now. So...

5. There are no other explanations for the warming which we witness which have sufficient explanatory force. Orbital oscillations, volcanic activity, variations in solar activity, changes in non-human biologic activity, etc. etc. cannot explain the warming which we see. (Which is why what is happening on Mars is irrelevant). Now if you can find me someone saying in peer-reviewed papers that we can explain current warming because of changes in plate tectonics or because of orbital variations and that this a better explanation than the widely understood mechanisms of forcing from greenhouse gases, I’ll be happy to read it.

All of this makes human activity the best possible explanation of climate change. It’s obviously logically possible that the 1000s of scientists working in this area are all mistaken but if they are, it will be because there is a better theory. It won’t be because someone is making money from selling fuel efficient cars or because a government is using climate change to raise taxes. These may be good things or they may be bad things but whatever they are, they don’t change facts about the physical world. Why is that climate change deniers don't understand this simple proposition? Are you all so afflicted by scientific illiteracy that you don't understand what constitutes a valid criticism?

By the way, I’m still waiting for a list of all these 1000s of scientists who have had their work suppressed.

Edit: Sorry. Missed this cracker "Names and publications, please. I can't hear them, they have been silenced"

OK. So lack of evidence for a theory is itself evidence for the theory. Well, you're in good company with this one; it's a well worn path, one trod by every conspiracy theorist. Actually, let me rephrase that last sentence, it's a well worn path, one trod by every illogical fool, desperate to grind whatever psychotic axe they have. If the existence of a consensus is proof in itself (which is what you said) that a theory is wrong, then your 'criticism' would apply to the examples which I gave. The fact putting germs on me makes me ill, is irrelevant - as far as your 'criticism' goes. Are you really too thick to understand your own words?

The so-called scientific consensus that global warming is man-made has been shattered with the release of a major new study backed by three universities which concludes that climate change over the past thirty years is explained by natural factors and that attempts to reduce carbon dioxide emissions are irrelevant.

Climate scientists at the University of Rochester, the University of Alabama, and the University of Virginia report that temperature fluctuations over the past three decades are not consistent with greenhouse model predictions and more closely correlate with solar activity.

The report dismisses attempts to reverse global warming by reducing carbon emissions as ineffective and pointless.

Same old shit from the same old people. Rebuttal here: http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archi...osphere-trends/

Well I guess the Pope has been drinking the same koolaid as me. It's not oft that his holiness and I see eye to eye on topics such as the global warming scam. Nice url

Try to read your links,***flame removed**. This is what the Pope said, “It is important for assessments in this regard to be carried out prudently, in dialogue with experts and people of wisdom, uninhibited by ideological pressure to draw hasty conclusions, and above all with the aim of reaching agreement on a model of sustainable development capable of ensuring the well-being of all while respecting environmental balances. If the protection of the environment involves costs, they should be justly distributed, taking due account of the different levels of development of various countries and the need for solidarity with future generations. Prudence does not mean failing to accept responsibilities and postponing decisions; it means being committed to making joint decisions after pondering responsibly the road to be taken.”

This is advice which climate change deniers would be well advised to take – dialogue with experts. Not pyjama-clad social misfits, filling their ridiculous blogs with conservative fictions whilst holed up in whatever provincial shithole they come from

Edited December 14, 2007 by sbk
no flaming--sbk

[NovaBlue05]

500 posts and you are still where you started. Hats off to those who have maintained the high ground in the debate and weren't overcome by emotion. You know who you are. I actually was able to learn a thing or two.

[JimsKnight]

Nice to see a comprehensive, scientific rebuttal there. Very impressive. Keep it up.

By the way, burnt any witches in the village square recently?

Theres a disasters ten times worse than the supposed global warming like: meteorites, comets, terrorism, megatsunami, Technological singularity, Gulf Stream shutdown, Antibiotic resistance, Overfishing, Nuclear warfare, Global Pandemic and Overpopulation.

Funny how these never seem to be mentioned by these high and mighty climate change scientists isn't it

Got yourself in a bit of a muddle there, haven't you. Although it's not likely, what might be the cause of the shutdown of the gulfstream? No idea. I'll give a clue. Two words. First word starts with G. Second word rhymes with 'forming'. Still no ideas? OK. Here's another one. What do studies of mitochondrial DNA suggest happened to the human population during periods of extreme cooling in the past? Still don't get it? Alright. One more. Just how mental do you have to be to suggest that one of the benefits of global warming is that "places considered too extreme and cold for oil exploration and development will become more feasible."?

Basically Global warming stopped ten years ago, and the earth has cooled slightly the past three years.

Yes the artic ice cap has declined 1%, but the antartic has grown. (last year 780,000 sq. miles)

Its all about the money and the fleecing of the haves to give to the have nots, to be administerred by an increasingly powerful UN

Well said, thank god for some common sense!

HS, No I've not burnt any witches, my merry band of oil-men just strung up a few mental tree huggers over yonder glade if that helps

Basically if it's warmer then it's not going to be as cold in the polar regions. Is that plain enough for you?

Also the melting ice will mean extraction and transportation to refineries will be easier and more cost-effective.

Think I'm making this up?

Well skoodle on over to S. Korea where they are building the oil rigs that are being specifically designed to work in sub-zero conditions (fully enclosed derrick module, maxiumum insulation etc).

The Russians have ordered a bunch of them for hydrocarbon extraction in the artic circle. Unlike most of the 'head-in-sand' countries they know it makes sense

Judging by the dogma like hold it has over some of you 'save-the-world' types I'd say you guys need to be a little more objective and questioning what gets rammed down your throat.

[SamuiJens]

Nice to see a comprehensive, scientific rebuttal there. Very impressive. Keep it up.

By the way, burnt any witches in the village square recently?

Theres a disasters ten times worse than the supposed global warming like: meteorites, comets, terrorism, megatsunami, Technological singularity, Gulf Stream shutdown, Antibiotic resistance, Overfishing, Nuclear warfare, Global Pandemic and Overpopulation.

Funny how these never seem to be mentioned by these high and mighty climate change scientists isn't it

Got yourself in a bit of a muddle there, haven't you. Although it's not likely, what might be the cause of the shutdown of the gulfstream? No idea. I'll give a clue. Two words. First word starts with G. Second word rhymes with 'forming'. Still no ideas? OK. Here's another one. What do studies of mitochondrial DNA suggest happened to the human population during periods of extreme cooling in the past? Still don't get it? Alright. One more. Just how mental do you have to be to suggest that one of the benefits of global warming is that "places considered too extreme and cold for oil exploration and development will become more feasible."?

Basically Global warming stopped ten years ago, and the earth has cooled slightly the past three years.

Yes the artic ice cap has declined 1%, but the antartic has grown. (last year 780,000 sq. miles)

Its all about the money and the fleecing of the haves to give to the have nots, to be administerred by an increasingly powerful UN

Well said, thank god for some common sense!

HS, No I've not burnt any witches, my merry band of oil-men just strung up a few mental tree huggers over yonder glade if that helps

Basically if it's warmer then it's not going to be as cold in the polar regions. Is that plain enough for you?

Also the melting ice will mean extraction and transportation to refineries will be easier and more cost-effective.

Think I'm making this up?

Well skoodle on over to S. Korea where they are building the oil rigs that are being specifically designed to work in sub-zero conditions (fully enclosed derrick module, maxiumum insulation etc).

The Russians have ordered a bunch of them for hydrocarbon extraction in the artic circle. Unlike most of the 'head-in-sand' countries they know it makes sense

Judging by the dogma like hold it has over some of you 'save-the-world' types I'd say you guys need to be a little more objective and questioning what gets rammed down your throat.

And all your kind thinks about is how much $$$$ can I make this year, without thinking of the consiquences!

[mogoso]

Nice to see a comprehensive, scientific rebuttal there. Very impressive. Keep it up.

By the way, burnt any witches in the village square recently?

Theres a disasters ten times worse than the supposed global warming like: meteorites, comets, terrorism, megatsunami, Technological singularity, Gulf Stream shutdown, Antibiotic resistance, Overfishing, Nuclear warfare, Global Pandemic and Overpopulation.

Funny how these never seem to be mentioned by these high and mighty climate change scientists isn't it

Got yourself in a bit of a muddle there, haven't you. Although it's not likely, what might be the cause of the shutdown of the gulfstream? No idea. I'll give a clue. Two words. First word starts with G. Second word rhymes with 'forming'. Still no ideas? OK. Here's another one. What do studies of mitochondrial DNA suggest happened to the human population during periods of extreme cooling in the past? Still don't get it? Alright. One more. Just how mental do you have to be to suggest that one of the benefits of global warming is that "places considered too extreme and cold for oil exploration and development will become more feasible."?

Basically Global warming stopped ten years ago, and the earth has cooled slightly the past three years.

Yes the artic ice cap has declined 1%, but the antartic has grown. (last year 780,000 sq. miles)

Its all about the money and the fleecing of the haves to give to the have nots, to be administerred by an increasingly powerful UN

Well said, thank god for some common sense!

HS, No I've not burnt any witches, my merry band of oil-men just strung up a few mental tree huggers over yonder glade if that helps

Basically if it's warmer then it's not going to be as cold in the polar regions. Is that plain enough for you?

Also the melting ice will mean extraction and transportation to refineries will be easier and more cost-effective.

Think I'm making this up?

Well skoodle on over to S. Korea where they are building the oil rigs that are being specifically designed to work in sub-zero conditions (fully enclosed derrick module, maxiumum insulation etc).

The Russians have ordered a bunch of them for hydrocarbon extraction in the artic circle. Unlike most of the 'head-in-sand' countries they know it makes sense

Judging by the dogma like hold it has over some of you 'save-the-world' types I'd say you guys need to be a little more objective and questioning what gets rammed down your throat.

And all your kind thinks about is how much $$$$ can I make this year, without thinking of the consiquences!

How much money are proglobal warmers making outta this. To utter false assumptions based on faulty science and totally ignore geologic and historial truths is sheer folly. Only gov'ts can put forth such claptrap and try to get the masses to believe. PT Barnum put it best when he said a was born every minute.

[whopper]

An Inconvenient Truth.

http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1655856/posts

Yet the government still push these mind twisting lies on the children of Britain.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2007...ed=networkfront

Al gore is a shameless politician who inherited wealth from the coal business. Oh sheeple

[SamuiJens]

An Inconvenient Truth.

http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1655856/posts

Yet the government still push these mind twisting lies on the children of Britain.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2007...ed=networkfront

Al gore is a shameless politician who inherited wealth from the coal business. Oh sheeple

And where did you inheirt your wealth from, the oil industry? You'r taking this off topic, BTW!

[Jingthing]

Al gore is a shameless politician who inherited wealth from the coal business. Oh sheeple

He is an EX-politician and what does his father have to do with his current activities?

[xyborg]

<br />Not in our life time, Jingthing. But more likely our grand-childrens! For the sceptics here, have you been to the Maldives? Well I have and the Islands are getting smaller=water raising, wonder why??? <img src="style_emoticons/default/jap.gif" style="vertical-align:middle" emoid="" border="0" alt="jap.gif" /><br />

<br /><br /><br />

Yes thanks I have been going to the Maldives for 17 years when the "International airport" was a hut in a field. Just like Tuvalu its NOT dissapearing under the waves. The coral got damaged badly a few years ago due to El Nino but a lot of damage is done by natives dynamiting the reefs for easy fishing.

http://nzclimatescience.net/index.php?opti...14&Itemid=1

[Spee]

How much money are proglobal warmers making outta this.

Absolutely. The Brits just made a big announcement to put up massive wind farms around the coastline, something like 7000 total wind turbines. There's only one problem which is widely acknowledged by everyone, proponents and opponents alike. The price for electricity is forecasted to be about double current costs. Would anyone in their right mind stand for a doubling of costs for basic consumables, like food, water, clothing, etc.? Of course not, so why is higher priced electricity being rammed down peoples' throats? Power and politics.

Oh, and let's not forget the hypocrisy. The current UN climate hearings are going on in Bali. Great, all the tree huggers fly dozens of chartered jets to one of the most remote regions on the planet. Not only that, the island airport isn't big enough to handle all of the aircraft. So guess what? All of these dozens of aircraft had to be refueled and flown empty to nearby airports, and of course they will have to be flown back empty to pick up all the people on the way out. What's the favorite saying of the hypocrites? Do as I say not as I do. Again, power and politics, nothing more nothing less.

But by all means, let's save the planet. Let's not allow 10's of millions of African people to have cheap affordable coal/oil fired electricity, so they can have clean water, decent medical care, pumps to irrigate parched earth. Let's not allow them to prosper like the rest of the world. Let's keep them impoverished, weak and dying young, because that allows others to keep power over them.

That is the only consistent theme with all of this man-made global warming crapola. Power and politics. When power and politics are removed, the whole debate folds like a cheap suit.

[pantarei]

Canuckamuck – are you some kind of creationist freak? I’m not sure what you’re trying to say with stuff like “Very convenient but who turns on the mechanism?” but if you want to get going on (the absurdly named) intelligent design, start another thread or take it christianloonies.com

To repeat, it's not difficult:

1. We know CO2 concentrations have risen since the industrial revolution; we know rising CO2 concentrations have a warming effect and we know that global temperatures have risen.

2. This makes ACC the best explanation for climate change (no one is no doubting that the world is warming).

3. If you want to object to ACC you need to find something which is wrong with the science.

4. One objection which has been given is that the world has warmed previously (prior to the evolution of humans) so humans can’t be the cause of current warming. For this objection to be valid, all previous warming would have to have a single cause; once one accepts that there are multiple causes, this objection loses its force. If a previous instance of warming was caused by volcanism then to say “well previously the world was warmed by volcanism” we would need to have evidence of increased volcanism now. So...

5. There are no other explanations for the warming which we witness which have sufficient explanatory force. Orbital oscillations, volcanic activity, variations in solar activity, changes in non-human biologic activity, etc. etc. cannot explain the warming which we see. (Which is why what is happening on Mars is irrelevant). Now if you can find me someone saying in peer-reviewed papers that we can explain current warming because of changes in plate tectonics or because of orbital variations and that this a better explanation than the widely understood mechanisms of forcing from greenhouse gases, I’ll be happy to read it.

blah, blah

A. Even Al Gore admits in his standard pontification that climate drivers are complex. In an extremely complex system, a simple correlation between two parameters, CO2 abundance (input) and temperature (output), is unlikely to determine THE causation of the output.

According to the progressive geniuses, Antarctic ice sheets are melting because of anthropogenic input. Well…

<<a lay person hearing that the melting of the West Antarctic Ice Sheet is speeding up might not be all that surprised given the routine nature over the past few years of news reports describing how the greenhouse effect is warming our atmosphere, speeding the arrival of spring, melting glaciers, and altering plant and animal ranges.

For Antarctica, the emerging picture is far more complex than the headlines….The surface of Antarctica is so cold and the ice so thick that raising the region's air temperature a few degrees is not enough to cause significant melting. Instead, scientists have long suspected that warm water in the Amundsen Sea is flowing up under ice shelves—platforms of floating ice attached to the grounded ice sheet—and melting them from below. This increased melting speeds the flow of grounded ice sheet into the water. But it's unlikely these warmer waters result directly from recent climate change. By measuring oxygen content, oceanographers have discovered that the warm water welling up below the glaciers has not been near the sea surface in the past few centuries. In oceanographer's terms, the water is “old.” It is part of a mass known as Circumpolar Deep Water connected to the North Atlantic through the globetrotting ocean conveyor belt. This water has been at depth for too long, scientists believe, for its temperature to reflect recent global warming.>>

http://geology.com/research/west-antarctic-ice-sheet.shtml

How un-progressive! The flat earthers had the audacity not to fudge their data.

This is just one “global warming” process not related to anthropogenic activities. Have the progressive “scientists” considered all other climate controls in their models? Definitely not; the outcome of the model is determined before the model is run – the culprit always is anthropogenic input. Garbage in, garbage out. Politically correct model = more grants for the U.N. and Uncle Al’s apparatchiks. There are simply not enough data to build a realistic model predicting future climate changes. Some of the climatic controls are: solar system geometry, solar luminosity, global distribution of continents and oceans, orbital and solar variability, large-scale oceanic oscillations, volcanic eruptions, weathering, regional tectonics, solar storms and flares, meteorite impacts, etc. Is there even ONE climatic model that is built on realistic input?

B. A rational approach to the “global warming” controversy:

<“I devoted six years to carbon accounting, building models for the Australian government to estimate carbon emissions from land use change and forestry (Google on "FullCAM"). When I started that job, in 1999, the evidence that carbon emissions caused global warming seemed pretty conclusive, but since then new evidence has weakened the case that carbon emissions are the main cause. I am now skeptical. As Lord Keynes famously said, "When the facts change, I change my mind. What do you do, sir?">….

http://www.lavoisier.com.au/papers/article...Evanswager.html

C. A brief introduction to “progressive” science, scientists, consensus, and mass media:

<<The most remarkable fact about the Duke lacrosse fiasco is not that it took nearly a year for obviously flimsy charges to be dropped against the players…….The most remarkable feature of this legal debacle isn’t even the cheerleading for the prosecution that could be found in such major media as The New York Times.

No, the most astonishing fact, hands down, was and remains the squalid behavior of the community of scholars at Duke itself. For months nearly the entire faculty fell into one of two camps: those who demanded the verdict first and the trial later, and those whose silence enabled their vigilante colleagues to set the tone. ….. But for the most part the faculty either supported the branding of three athletes as racists and rapists, didn’t care enough about their plight to speak out, or were cowed into suppressing any call of conscience. Would those athletes, facing a similarly dubious claim of rape, have fared any better at America’s other elite universities? The idealist yearns to answer yes. The realist, sad to say, knows better.>>

http://blogs.rockymountainnews.com/denver/...ry_faculty.html

More information on Duke University’s (and other institutions) political correctness:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Responses_to_...y_lacrosse_case

This is how consensus is achieved in the "developed" countries. Weren't Stalin and Mao Tse Tung the darlings of the progressive westerners?

Finally, the progressive, juvenile lunatic’s views expressed on this thread can be summarized by the following quote: “Typical liberal projections. They always seem to copy and paste their own souls onto the perceived intentions of their opponents.”

[sbk]

Well, I just went back 5 pages trying to clean up the flaming and abuse and you know what? I just can't be bothered to go back further since it is overwhelmingly full of abuse. If you can't keep this a civil debate then it will be closed and warnings handed out.

Also, instead of complaining about moderators not deleting flames, try using the report button for an offensive post. That way, it does come to the attention of a moderator before its too late and it all descends into name calling.

[rafval]

B. A rational approach to the “global warming” controversy:

<“I devoted six years to carbon accounting, building models for the Australian government to estimate carbon emissions from land use change and forestry (Google on "FullCAM"). When I started that job, in 1999, the evidence that carbon emissions caused global warming seemed pretty conclusive, but since then new evidence has weakened the case that carbon emissions are the main cause. I am now skeptical. As Lord Keynes famously said, "When the facts change, I change my mind. What do you do, sir?">….

http://www.lavoisier.com.au/papers/article...Evanswager.html

This guy isnt a climate scientist and writes these things for political websites, much of the data he uses is out of date and hes not rational anyway, the fact that co2 build up has happened after warming in the past (and its hard to know why this info was released if the scientists are all in on the conspiracy) doesn't mean that building up co2 as humans are doing now wont increase temperatures. Theres plenty of first hand info out there for those that want the actual data rather then conspiracy theories.

[SamuiBond]

Over one hundred prominent scientists signed a letter dismissing the move as a futile bureaucratic scheme which will diminish prosperity and increase human suffering.

This has got to be the gang of renegade scientists that are on U.S take. There's always been this type of "cigarrettes are good for you scientist." They generally serve the purpose U.S government political decisions. If you watch FOX news long enough, you actually could start to believe the propaganda they are feeding. Suffering will be massive if nothing is done and no one lays ground rules.

This tax will make sure that some of these egological catastrophes can be avoided and dealth with. Richer countries actually pay and poorest ones not using their "pollution share" will gain.

Edited December 14, 2007 by SamuiBond

[pointofview]

Over 100 Prominent Scientists Challenge UN Move For Global Carbon Tax

Experts dismiss agenda as "futile," bureaucratic scheme that will increase human suffering

Friday, December 14, 2007

The UN has officially announced what the fearmongering about man-made global warming has been designed to justify all along - a global carbon tax which will do nothing to reduce carbon emissions but everything to feed the trough of world government. Over one hundred prominent scientists signed a letter dismissing the move as a futile beauracratic scheme which will diminish prosperity and increase human suffering.';

The UN has officially announced what the fearmongering about man-made global warming has been designed to justify all along - a global carbon tax which will do nothing to reduce carbon emissions but everything to feed the trough of world government. Over one hundred prominent scientists signed a letter dismissing the move as a futile bureaucratic scheme which will diminish prosperity and increase human suffering.

Following a discussion entitled "A Global CO2 Tax," a UN panel yesterday urged the adoption of "a global burden sharing system, fair, with solidarity, and legally binding to all nations," to impose a tax on plant food (CO2).

Othmar Schwank, one of the participants, said that the U.S. and other wealthy nations need to "contribute significantly more to this global fund." He also added, "It is very essential to tax coal."

The bounty from this $40 billion dollars a year windfall will go straight into the coffers of a UN controlled "Multilateral Adaptation Fund".

[Jingthing]

Maybe Dick Cheney will make a film called "I am a big fat earth killing pig and Al Gore was right" and then more of the denial bunnies will hop to it.

[yorkman]

To be honest I don't know why this thread has run (or been allowed to run) on so long.

You are always going to get the well meant tree huggers at one end of it, and the don't give a dam_n at the other extreme. All pointing at "facts" usually gleaned from trawling the internet.

For those that do know (or think they know) their scientific facts, there are many fora to debate this. What has this specifically to do with Thailand I would ask?

Oy Vey

[pointofview]

Maybe Dick Cheney will make a film called "I am a big fat earth killing pig and Al Gore was right" and then more of the denial bunnies will hop to it.

It is astonishing with how little wisdom mankind can be governed, when that little wisdom is its own.

William Ralph Inge

[pointofview]

To be honest I don't know why this thread has run (or been allowed to run) on so long.

You are always going to get the well meant tree huggers at one end of it, and the don't give a dam_n at the other extreme. All pointing at "facts" usually gleaned from trawling the internet.

For those that do know (or think they know) their scientific facts, there are many fora to debate this. What has this specifically to do with Thailand I would ask?

Oy Vey

There are also those who do believe in global warming but dispute the cause and cynical manipulation of the science for profit!

[Jingthing]

Maybe Dick Cheney will make a film called "I am a big fat earth killing pig and Al Gore was right" and then more of the denial bunnies will hop to it.

It is astonishing with how little wisdom mankind can be governed, when that little wisdom is its own.

William Ralph Inge

That could be taken a number of ways.

[yorkman]

There are also those who do believe in global warming but dispute the cause and cynical manipulation of the science for profit!

Err yes no doubt.........

I wont quote inside quote and add to the bandwith waste and global warming, but back to my only question if I may, despite your pointofview

Err... what has this got to do with Thailand SPECIFICALLY? There are many better places to discuss ( I use the term "discuss" advisedly) this?

Edited December 14, 2007 by yorkman

[Jingthing]

Thailand is part of the globe. It is warm. Global warming. Thailand. Same same.

Next ...