Global Warming In Thailand

[KevinBloodyWilson]

No facts just speculation.

By the time millions of people are dying from this, it will be too late to take action. Enjoy!

UN Blowback: More Than 650 International Scientists Dissent Over Man-Made Global Warming Claims

http://epw.senate.gov/public/index.cfm?Fus...f0-274616db87e6

Oh.....here we go again.......the head in the sand know nothing about science posters. Not you, of course.

Yes, global warming in Thailand is real just as it is real worldwide.

Just as a simple proxy assessment of whether it is real or not, all you have to do is talk with old people about temperatures in Thailand in the past........they all say it was cooler then.

Now there they come.........but I am going to ignore them because you can't reason with them.

Just note that there is a massive amount of information out there supporting the now undeniable fact that global warming is real......the peer review journals are full of articles supporting global warming......the major research institutions have come out and said it is a reality....

If that is not enough to convince you, I don't know what is. But if you want to believe up is down and left is right, the good news is that you have the freedom to believe whatever you want.

Indeed so. I was fascinated by the Thai genius who said a year or so back that it was not a concern for Thais if the polar icecaps melt, because they are too far away to have an impact.

I have no idea at all why nobody takes Thais seriously.

Kev

[canuckamuck]

Interesting post Tea Tree.

Thanks

[canuckamuck]

As Teatree mentioned the taxing to reduce CO2 is just a big scam. Chances are very little if any of the money will go toward the environment, it will end up in the general fund and be spent on whatever will benefit the politicians and their backers.

Do you think the bankers who receive these multi million dollar bonuses will care if the price of oil triples. It will be the little guy that has to ride his pushbike to work.

Do any of you have any idea how much we are paying in taxes now--directly at the pump and indirectly in many ways--supporting BIG OIL?

Do you believe all those tax dollars are spent wisely?

Do you have any idea how much it will cost the world to fix climate change, assuming we can?

You seem to want to dismiss everything as a conspiracy.

With just a fraction of the money the world's nations spend on the military each year, we can develop an entirely new system of energy that will create jobs worldwide and greatly save tax dollars.

Maintaining the status quo is the most expensive option!

That is especially true for future generations.......which you seem to not care too much about.

And don't tell me you care. Your willingness to gamble with total disaster betrays your level of concern.

Fortunately, scientists and most nations are moving towards solutions.

You know JR if you used the word Satan instead of BIG OIL, you would save a letter and a space and thereby reduce your carbon footprint.

For most of us such a change wouldn't make a difference, but with you it might just save the planet.

[bangla]

Do any of you have any idea how much we are paying in taxes now--directly at the pump and indirectly in many ways--supporting BIG OIL?

in holland that's 80% , excluding 19% VAT.

i still believe that the globe is warming up because of the humans burning shit in 1 century that nature piled up in many many millions of years.

anyone who doesn't believe in global warming is a moron.

[JR Texas]

World's Largest Science Group 'Startled' By Outpouring of Scientists Rejecting Man-Made Climate Fears

Marc Morano

Climate Depot

Wed, 29 Jul 2009 05:22 UTC

An outpouring of skeptical scientists who are members of the American Chemical Society (ACS) are revolting against the group's editor-in-chief -- with some demanding he be removed -- after an editorial appeared claiming "the science of anthropogenic climate change is becoming increasingly well established."

The editorial claimed the "consensus" view was growing "increasingly difficult to challenge, despite the efforts of diehard climate-change deniers." The editor now admits he is "startled" by the negative reaction from the group's scientific members. The American Chemical Society bills itself as the "world's largest scientific society."

The June 22, 2009 editorial in Chemical and Engineering News by editor in chief Rudy Baum, is facing widespread blowback and condemnation from American Chemical Society member scientists. Baum concluded his editorial by stating that "deniers" are attempting to "derail meaningful efforts to respond to global climate change."

Dozens of letters from ACS members were published on July 27, 2009 castigating Baum, with some scientists calling for his replacement as editor-in-chief.

The editorial was met with a swift, passionate and scientific rebuke from Baum's colleagues. Virtually all of the letters published on July 27 in castigated Baum's climate science views. Scientists rebuked Baum's use of the word "deniers" because of the terms "association with Holocaust deniers." In addition, the scientists called Baum's editorial: "disgusting"; "a disgrace"; "filled with misinformation"; "unworthy of a scientific periodical" and "pap."

One outraged ACS member wrote to Baum: "When all is said and done, and you and your kind are proven wrong (again), you will have moved on to be an unthinking urn for another rat pleading catastrophe. You will be removed. I promise."

Baum 'startled' by scientists reaction

Baum wrote on July 27, that he was "startled" and "surprised" by the "contempt" and "vehemence" of the ACS scientists to his view of the global warming "consensus."

"Some of the letters I received are not fit to print. Many of the letters we have printed are, I think it is fair to say, outraged by my position on global warming," Baum wrote.

Selected Excerpts of Skeptical Scientists:

"I think it's time to find a new editor," ACS member Thomas E. D'Ambra wrote.

Geochemist R. Everett Langford wrote: "I am appalled at the condescending attitude of Rudy Baum, Al Gore, President Barack Obama, et al., who essentially tell us that there is no need for further research - that the matter is solved."

ACS scientist Dennis Malpass wrote: "Your editorial was a disgrace. It was filled with misinformation, half-truths, and ad hominem attacks on those who dare disagree with you. Shameful!"

ACS member scientist Dr. Howard Hayden, a Physics Professor Emeritus from the University of Connecticut: "Baum's remarks are particularly disquieting because of his hostility toward skepticism, which is part of every scientist's soul. Let's cut to the chase with some questions for Baum: Which of the 20-odd major climate models has settled the science, such that all of the rest are now discarded? [...] Do you refer to 'climate change' instead of 'global warming' because the claim of anthropogenic global warming has become increasingly contrary to fact?"

Edward H. Gleason wrote: "Baum's attempt to close out debate goes against all my scientific training, and to hear this from my ACS is certainly alarming to me...his use of 'climate-change deniers' to pillory scientists who do not believe climate change is a crisis is disingenuous and unscientific."

Atmospheric Chemist Roger L. Tanner: "I have very little in common with the philosophy of the Heartland Institute and other 'free-market fanatics,' and I consider myself a progressive Democrat. Nevertheless, we scientists should know better than to propound scientific truth by consensus and to excoriate skeptics with purple prose."

William Tolley: "I take great offense that Baum would use Chemical and Engineering News, for which I pay dearly each year in membership dues, to purvey his personal views and so glibly ignore contrary information and scold those of us who honestly find these views to be a hoax."

William E. Keller wrote: "However bitter you (Baum) personally may feel about CCDs (climate change deniers), it is not your place as editor to accuse them - falsely - of nonscientific behavior by using insultingly inappropriate language. [...] The growing body of scientists, whom you abuse as sowing doubt, making up statistics, and claiming to be ignored by the media, are, in the main, highly competent professionals, experts in their fields, completely honorable, and highly versed in the scientific method - characteristics that apparently do not apply to you."

ACS member Wallace Embry: "I would like to see the American Chemical Society Board 'cap' Baum's political pen and 'trade' him to either the New York Times or Washington Post

http://www.sott.net/articles/show/190251-W...-Climate-Fears-

Have you switched to the other side? What is your point by posting the above comments?

[canuckamuck]

I was making a point about your myopic fascination.

I forgot that I would have to explain it later.

[bonobo]

It seems to me that one of the major points the global warming naysayers use to prop up their naysaying is the carbon credit concept.  But that make absoulutely no sense at all.  The two are not interchangable.  If the carbon credit concept is flawed, and there are many people who believe it is, then how does that somehow refute the validity of global warming?

That is akin to saying that because a certain washing machine does not clean clothes well, then the clothes were not dirty in the first place.  The only thing that can be said if the carbon credit concept is flawed is just that, the carbon credit concept is flawed.  It says absolutely nothing about global warming in and of itself.

[canuckamuck]

It seems to me that one of the major points the global warming naysayers use to prop up their naysaying is the carbon credit concept. But that make absoulutely no sense at all. The two are not interchangable. If the carbon credit concept is flawed, and there are many people who believe it is, then how does that somehow refute the validity of global warming?

That is akin to saying that because a certain washing machine does not clean clothes well, then the clothes were not dirty in the first place. The only thing that can be said if the carbon credit concept is flawed is just that, the carbon credit concept is flawed. It says absolutely nothing about global warming in and of itself.

No one is saying Carbon credits has anything to do with the validity of GW.

Carbon Credits are nonsensical because Carbon is not proven to have any negative effect on the environment, The air used to have a lot more carbon.

Now if you proposed pollution credits, and based them scientifically authenticated toxins. Who could argue with the premise. The application however would be another issue.

[teatree]

World's Largest Science Group 'Startled' By Outpouring of Scientists Rejecting Man-Made Climate Fears

Marc Morano

Climate Depot

Wed, 29 Jul 2009 05:22 UTC

An outpouring of skeptical scientists who are members of the American Chemical Society (ACS) are revolting against the group's editor-in-chief -- with some demanding he be removed -- after an editorial appeared claiming "the science of anthropogenic climate change is becoming increasingly well established."

The editorial claimed the "consensus" view was growing "increasingly difficult to challenge, despite the efforts of diehard climate-change deniers." The editor now admits he is "startled" by the negative reaction from the group's scientific members. The American Chemical Society bills itself as the "world's largest scientific society."

The June 22, 2009 editorial in Chemical and Engineering News by editor in chief Rudy Baum, is facing widespread blowback and condemnation from American Chemical Society member scientists. Baum concluded his editorial by stating that "deniers" are attempting to "derail meaningful efforts to respond to global climate change."

Dozens of letters from ACS members were published on July 27, 2009 castigating Baum, with some scientists calling for his replacement as editor-in-chief.

The editorial was met with a swift, passionate and scientific rebuke from Baum's colleagues. Virtually all of the letters published on July 27 in castigated Baum's climate science views. Scientists rebuked Baum's use of the word "deniers" because of the terms "association with Holocaust deniers." In addition, the scientists called Baum's editorial: "disgusting"; "a disgrace"; "filled with misinformation"; "unworthy of a scientific periodical" and "pap."

One outraged ACS member wrote to Baum: "When all is said and done, and you and your kind are proven wrong (again), you will have moved on to be an unthinking urn for another rat pleading catastrophe. You will be removed. I promise."

Baum 'startled' by scientists reaction

Baum wrote on July 27, that he was "startled" and "surprised" by the "contempt" and "vehemence" of the ACS scientists to his view of the global warming "consensus."

"Some of the letters I received are not fit to print. Many of the letters we have printed are, I think it is fair to say, outraged by my position on global warming," Baum wrote.

Selected Excerpts of Skeptical Scientists:

"I think it's time to find a new editor," ACS member Thomas E. D'Ambra wrote.

Geochemist R. Everett Langford wrote: "I am appalled at the condescending attitude of Rudy Baum, Al Gore, President Barack Obama, et al., who essentially tell us that there is no need for further research - that the matter is solved."

ACS scientist Dennis Malpass wrote: "Your editorial was a disgrace. It was filled with misinformation, half-truths, and ad hominem attacks on those who dare disagree with you. Shameful!"

ACS member scientist Dr. Howard Hayden, a Physics Professor Emeritus from the University of Connecticut: "Baum's remarks are particularly disquieting because of his hostility toward skepticism, which is part of every scientist's soul. Let's cut to the chase with some questions for Baum: Which of the 20-odd major climate models has settled the science, such that all of the rest are now discarded? [...] Do you refer to 'climate change' instead of 'global warming' because the claim of anthropogenic global warming has become increasingly contrary to fact?"

Edward H. Gleason wrote: "Baum's attempt to close out debate goes against all my scientific training, and to hear this from my ACS is certainly alarming to me...his use of 'climate-change deniers' to pillory scientists who do not believe climate change is a crisis is disingenuous and unscientific."

Atmospheric Chemist Roger L. Tanner: "I have very little in common with the philosophy of the Heartland Institute and other 'free-market fanatics,' and I consider myself a progressive Democrat. Nevertheless, we scientists should know better than to propound scientific truth by consensus and to excoriate skeptics with purple prose."

William Tolley: "I take great offense that Baum would use Chemical and Engineering News, for which I pay dearly each year in membership dues, to purvey his personal views and so glibly ignore contrary information and scold those of us who honestly find these views to be a hoax."

William E. Keller wrote: "However bitter you (Baum) personally may feel about CCDs (climate change deniers), it is not your place as editor to accuse them - falsely - of nonscientific behavior by using insultingly inappropriate language. [...] The growing body of scientists, whom you abuse as sowing doubt, making up statistics, and claiming to be ignored by the media, are, in the main, highly competent professionals, experts in their fields, completely honorable, and highly versed in the scientific method - characteristics that apparently do not apply to you."

ACS member Wallace Embry: "I would like to see the American Chemical Society Board 'cap' Baum's political pen and 'trade' him to either the New York Times or Washington Post

http://www.sott.net/articles/show/190251-W...-Climate-Fears-

Have you switched to the other side? What is your point by posting the above comments?

The ACS's (world's largest science group) editor stated that the debate over man made global warming/cooling/climate change was over. A large number of members were outraged, saying that the debate is NOT over. See comments by a selection of them above.

My point is that there are many many scientists who simply do not believe that global warming/cooling/climate change is caused by humans. Anyone who doesn't see this is not living in reality.

[teatree]

It seems to me that one of the major points the global warming naysayers use to prop up their naysaying is the carbon credit concept.  But that make absoulutely no sense at all.  The two are not interchangable.  If the carbon credit concept is flawed, and there are many people who believe it is, then how does that somehow refute the validity of global warming?

That is akin to saying that because a certain washing machine does not clean clothes well, then the clothes were not dirty in the first place.  The only thing that can be said if the carbon credit concept is flawed is just that, the carbon credit concept is flawed.  It says absolutely nothing about global warming in and of itself.

Cui bono – to whose benefit? If you want to fully understand the whole picture you have to study at some point the MOTIVE. A detective, for example, will need to ascertain a motive as well as finding physical evidence if he wants to solve a crime.

The fact that carbon credits are a scam aimed disempowering the proles and empowering the very rich is simply one piece in the jig-saw, nobody is suggesting it proves anything by itself.

If you want scientific evidence that AGW is a fraud then there are scientists all over the globe crying out that climate change is completely normal and that any fluctuation in temperature is entirely within expected natural variation. But their voices don’t get heard, not by CNN or most of the mainstream media outlets

If you want to believe in AGW then ok, I think you are misguided but fine. But, for those of you who claim that the debate is over, don't insult my intelligence and say that there is a consensus - try doing some research (watching BBC news does NOT count). Here is just a sample of what is out there:

Update: More Than 700 International Scientists Dissent Over Man-Made Global Warming Claims

Outpouring of Skeptical Scientists Continues as 59 Scientists Added to Senate Report http://epw.senate.gov/public/index.cfm?Fus...f1-fc38ed4f85e3

The following are just the ADDITIONAL scientists added to the report -

Geologist Dr. Lloyd C. Furer, a past Associate Scientist and Visiting Professor at Indiana University who served as a meteorologist for the U.S. Air Force and has authored more than 35 publications; Physicist and environmental activist John Droz, Jr., who holds a graduate degree in physics from Syracuse University; Geologist Dr. A. Neil Hutton, former District Geologist for Northwest Territories and the Arctic Islands and former Assistant Chief Geologist for the Western Canadian Basin; Professional Geologist Gary Walker, a member of the Canadian Society of Petroleum Geologists; Ohio’s NBC 4 chief meteorologist Jym Ganahl who was the youngest person to be granted the American Metrological (AMS) Seal of Approval; Dr. Jim Buckee, who holds a PhD in Astrophysics from Oxford University, lectured about climate change at the University of Aberdeen; Geologist Allan Shepard, former Chief Geologist for Amoco International and member of the Association of Engineers, Geologists and Geophysicists of Alberta; Physicist Gary M. Hoover, a consultant with research and operational experience in atmospheric energy absorption, nuclear reactor operations and exploration geophysics; Meteorologist Scott Sumner of North Carolina; Professor Dr. Caleb Stewart Rossiter, an adjunct professor at the School of International Service at American University and a former teacher of quantitative research methods; Chemical Process Control Engineer Dr. Pierre R Latour, who holds a PhD in Chemical Engineering and has published more than 70 publications and managed NASA’s Apollo Docking Simulator development; Terry Jackson of the Institute of Physics in London, the founder of the Energy Group, and a physics teacher at Belfast Institute Further and Higher Education for 30 years; Certified consulting meteorologist Anthony J. Sadar, co-author of Environmental Risk Communication: Principles and Practices for Industry; Physicist Dr. Paul Drallos, who worked as a Post Doc at Sandia National Labs in Albuquerque and at the University of Toledo, formed Plasma Dynamics Corporation, a small research company that specializes in plasma display technology and computer simulation; Surface Chemist Dr. Mark Rose Head of Environmental Quality at Qatar Petroleum who has generated two patents and developed the largest Purified Wet Acid Plant in the world; Geologist Dr. Seymour Merrin, a Fellow of the Geological Society of America and a research scientist; Environmental Chemist Jim Nibeck, who also worked in the biomedical research industry, wrote a 2008 paper on climate titled “Doubt About Anthropogenic Global Warming”; Physicist Jerome Hudson who studies focused on aperture synthesis and optics; Certified Consulting Meteorologist Mike Smith, the CEO of WeatherData Services of Wichita Kansas; Environmental Engineer James A. Haigh, PE, a Certified Plant Engineer and Licensed Professional Engineer of 36 years who has assisted in the design of Class III Nuclear Valves for Nuclear Power Plants; Meteorologist Tony Pann of WUSA 9 in Washington DC, holds the American Meteorological Seal of Approval; Biologist and Biochemist Dr. John Reinhard, a member of the American Chemical Society who has published 76 papers and currently a scientist in the pharmaceutical industry; Engineer Alan Cheetham has 30 years experience including extensive scientific training, data analysis, modeling and statistics and runs the skeptical website “Global Warming Science”; Professor of Ecology and Evolutionary Biology Dr. W. M. Schaffer, Ph. D., of the University of Arizona; CNN Meteorologist Chad Myers, an meteorologist for 22 years, certified by the American Meteorological Society; Engineer and Physicist J.K. “Jim” August, formerly of the U.S. Navy nuclear power program; Biologist and Neuropharmacologist Dr. Doug Pettibone, who has authored 120 scientific publications and holds ten patents and is a past member of the American Association for the Advancement of Science; Meteorologist Tom Wysmuller, former weather forecaster at Amsterdam’s Royal Dutch Weather Bureau; MIT Scientist Dr. Robert Rose, a professor of Materials Science and Engineering at MIT with approximately 50 years of experience teaching various scientific; Climate researcher Dr. Craig Loehle, formerly of the Department of Energy Laboratories and currently with the National Council for Air and Stream Improvements, who has published more than 100 peer-reviewed scientific papers; German Meteorologist Dr. Gerd-Rainer Weber, a Consulting Meteorologist; Professor Luigi Mariani of the Agrometeorological Research Group, Dept. of Crop Science at the University of Milan, has authored or co-authored more than 50 peer-reviewed studies and other scientific reports; Miroslav Kutilek, Emeritus Professor of Soil Science and Soil Physics at Czech Technical University in Prague who specialized in paleoclimatology of soil; Coastal Engineer Cyril Galvin, member of the American Geophysical Union; Nuclear Chemist Gary L. Troyer has worked as an analytical chemist and was a Fellow Scientist at the Westinghouse Hanford Company; and Award Winning Physicist Dr. Will Happer, Professor at the Department of Physics at Princeton University and Former Director of Energy Research at the Department of Energy, who has published over 200 scientific papers.

Apollo 11 Moonwalkers Aldrin and Schmitt are global warming deniers

http://www.climatedepot.com/a/1792/Flashba...llions-of-years

Three senior Japanese scientists separately engaged in climate-change research have strongly questioned the validity of the man-made global-warming model....

http://www.theaustralian.news.com.au/story...20-2703,00.html

Report from 33d Intl. Geology Congress in Norway (By Charlie Hall) - Two thirds of the presenters and question-askers were hostile to, even dismissive of, the IPCC.

http://tomnelson.blogspot.com/2008/08/repo...m-33d-intl.html

Award-winning Princeton University Physicist Dr. Will Happer, who has published over 200 peer-reviewed scientific papers, warned Congress that it has been “badly misinformed” about man-made global warming fears. 'CO2 is not a pollutant' - Earth in 'CO2 famine'

http://climatedepot.com/a/1852/Princeton-P...ate-change-cult

Peer-Reviewed Study Rocks Climate Debate! 'Nature not man responsible for recent global warming...little or none of late 20th century warming and cooling can be attributed to humans'

http://climatedepot.com/a/2117/PeerReviewe...buted-to-humans

Earth's 'Fever' Breaks! Global temperatures 'have plunged .74°F since Gore released An Inconvenient Truth'

http://climatedepot.com/a/1799/Earths-Feve...onvenient-Truth

Global Warming: On Hold?

Michael Reilly, Discovery News

http://dsc.discovery.com/news/2009/03/02/g...ause-print.html

BBC SHUNNED ME FOR DENYING CLIMATE CHANGE

http://www.dailyexpress.co.uk/posts/view/69623

Climate Skeptics Reveal ‘Horror Stories’ of Scientific Suppression - A canvass of more than 51,000 scientists with the Association of Professional Engineers, Geologists and Geophysicists of Alberta (APEGGA) found 68% of them disagree with the statement that ‘the debate on the scientific causes of recent climate change is settled.'"

http://epw.senate.gov/public/index.cfm?Fus...49-EE9098538277

UN IPCC's William Schlesinger admits in 2009 that only 20% of IPCC scientists deal with climate

http://www.globalwarming.org/2009/02/16/ch...debate-part-ii/

India Issues Report Challenging Global Warming Fears

http://epw.senate.gov/public/index.cfm?Fus...C9-8A90FCB5569A

Polish Academy of Sciences Questions Gore's Man-Made Global Warming Theory

http://www.washingtonexaminer.com/opinion/...y-43618922.html

[JR Texas]

Cui bono – to whose benefit? If you want to fully understand the whole picture you have to study at some point the MOTIVE. A detective, for example, will need to ascertain a motive as well as finding physical evidence if he wants to solve a crime.

MOTIVE: Keep money going to BIG OIL.

HOW TO DO IT: Try to create an image in the public mind that doubt exists about the primary source of climate change.

FACT: Responsible scientists, nations, and organizations disagree with your position.

CURRENT STATUS: The focus is on solutions.

[Garry9999]

Cui bono – to whose benefit? If you want to fully understand the whole picture you have to study at some point the MOTIVE. A detective, for example, will need to ascertain a motive as well as finding physical evidence if he wants to solve a crime.

MOTIVE: Keep money going to BIG OIL.

HOW TO DO IT: Try to create an image in the public mind that doubt exists about the primary source of climate change.

FACT: Responsible scientists, nations, and organizations disagree with your position.

CURRENT STATUS: The focus is on solutions.

MOTIVE: Profiting from a carbon.

HOW TO DO IT: Scarce the general public witless with doomsday stories.

FACT: Responsible scientists, worldwide are auguring against AGW.

CURRENT STATUS: The focus is on carbon.

[Garry9999]

Do any of you have any idea how much we are paying in taxes now--directly at the pump and indirectly in many ways--supporting BIG OIL?

in holland that's 80% , excluding 19% VAT.

i still believe that the globe is warming up because of the humans burning shit in 1 century that nature piled up in many many millions of years.

anyone who doesn't believe in global warming is a moron.

by Joseph A Olson, author is a Registered Engineer involved in construction, who has a lifelong commitment to functional mass transit and to vast improvements in auto efficiency and safety, and is also opposed to political manipulation thru FALSE SCIENCE.

“The vast difference between the maximum heat and minimum ice age weather cycles on the surface of the earth cannot be accounted for by any solar or atmospheric variables. In fact, there is another force that renders even short-term climate forecasts inaccurate. That force is the enormous GEO-NUCLEAR, heat producing fission reactions of the heavy elements that form the earth’s core.

Mankind can neither predict nor control this force and is just as powerless to control the volcanoes, earthquakes and ice ages that are the results of variations in this geo-nuclear force. The 11,000 degree F temperature at the earth’s core is not caused by gravity, by solar radiation or by atmospheric insulation. Legislative efforts to modify weather with miniscule changes of parts per million of carbon dioxide, a benign, life giving molecule, will soon be recognized as the most naïve misinterpretation of earth science since the world was flat.”

[teatree]

Cui bono – to whose benefit? If you want to fully understand the whole picture you have to study at some point the MOTIVE. A detective, for example, will need to ascertain a motive as well as finding physical evidence if he wants to solve a crime.

MOTIVE: Keep money going to BIG OIL.

HOW TO DO IT: Try to create an image in the public mind that doubt exists about the primary source of climate change.

FACT: Responsible scientists, nations, and organizations disagree with your position.

CURRENT STATUS: The focus is on solutions.

Are you saying that scientists who deny AGW are in the pocket of Big Oil?

[chuckd]

This should make JR gnash his teeth.

http://www.globalwarminghoax.com/news.php?extend.11

It might spin him right up into the next universe.

[JR Texas]

This should make JR gnash his teeth.

http://www.globalwarminghoax.com/news.php?extend.11

It might spin him right up into the next universe.

Same worn out responses. But you have given me yet another opportunity to post links to real science:

http://www.realclimate.org/

http://info-pollution.com/warming.htm

http://www.sierraclub.ca/national/programs.../ten-myths.html

[chuckd]

This should make JR gnash his teeth.

http://www.globalwarminghoax.com/news.php?extend.11

It might spin him right up into the next universe.

Same worn out responses. But you have given me yet another opportunity to post links to real science:

http://www.realclimate.org/

http://info-pollution.com/warming.htm

http://www.sierraclub.ca/national/programs.../ten-myths.html

...and he appears right on cue.

[crazzycat]

Global warming is no longer a noveltyб its a fact, that frightening us every single day

[JR Texas]

Global warming is no longer a noveltyб its a fact, that frightening us every single day

Thank you for recognizing what responsible scientists and nations have already recognized: it is a fact.........the climate is undergoing very rapid changes because of environmentally unsound human activities.

Maybe I should post links to responsible scientific information each time I respond..........good idea......that is the last thing BIG OIL wants to see on the internet......here they are again:

http://www.realclimate.org/

http://info-pollution.com/warming.htm

http://www.sierraclub.ca/national/programs.../ten-myths.html

[teatree]

Where have all the hurricanes gone??? Weren't we supposed to get more hurricanes due to man made global warming? Oh, sorry I forgot, the Earth isn't actually warming anymore.

http://blogs.news.com.au/heraldsun/andrewb...st_be_man_made/

[beerchang]

Global warming in Thailand...Does it exist? Probably, unless Thailand has been removed from the 'globe' recently!

It's a constant argument this GW stuff. From my research online, I favour the 'The world is in charge, not us.' approach. The climate was cooler during the industrial revolution when we pumped billions of tonnes of pollution into the atmosphere. As humans, some of us don't seem to be able to grasp just how old the Earth is and the pattern of events discovered by deep core samples that show that the Earth does whatever the heck it wants to do when it wants to. Just my opinion based on my readings and viewings. (Haven't had the chance to read the whole thread to be honest).

Ray Hammond wrote a fictional novel called 'Extinction'. For those who like to read, I would certainly recommend it. Quite scary if you understand how the Earth actually works it's own magic.

[chuckd]

It isn't BIG OIL, it's the GIANT SQUID!!!

The GIANT SQUID are churning up the bottom of the ocean in their endless quest for smaller things to eat, causing the CO2 from eons ago to rise to the surface and burst out into the atmosphere.

While the CO2 is old and rickety after being under water for so long, it is still more potent than Al Gore's personal footprint, thereby causing a hole in the ozone and all the glaciers and icecaps to melt, along with all the snow on all the tall hills, formerly called Mountains.

You can forget BIG OIL as a culprit. In fact, BIG OIL should be downgraded to simply, big oil.

BEWARE THE GIANT SQUID.

[teatree]

Politics and the Greenhouse Effect

Hans Jelbring, Ph.D Climatology, Stockholm University, M.Sc, Royal Institute of Technology

What has politics, a needed instrument to run a nation, to do with a scientific concept that tells

the difference between the surface temperature of earth and the temperature of earth’s

atmosphere as seen from space? This temperature difference of 33 oC has unfortunately and

inadequately been named “The Greenhouse Effect” (GE) despite the absence of any

relationship between this effect and the warm climate in a real greenhouse. The intention of

this paper is to cover the title subject in a few pages in a way that is understandable to a high

school student and, hence, to Swedish parliamentary members. Basic scientific principles

demonstrate that the overall GE phenomenon is not a result of human emissions of

“greenhouse gases”.

Politics can be claimed to be the art of appearing credible, at least in a democracy. If

successful, the power is yours which is the goal of politicians. But politicians are the servants

of the voters who have the power to dismiss you if you fail to be credible.

The temptation is to resort to gaining credibility without a base in ethics, truthfulness,

honesty, observational evidence and scientific facts. This can be great for politicians who, at

least sometimes, believe that the ends justify the means.

Likewise, the temptation can be great for the servants of our nations that are responsible for

the quality of information that the elected, unspecialized politicians need to be able to make

rational decisions. To disregard the methods of science to gain unjustified influence,

economical gain and fame might be more common than we would like to know. The risks

involved in too strong a relationship between politicians and the servants of a nation were

well expressed by a US president in Eisenhower ́s Farewell Adress to the Nation, January 17,

1961. Few Swedes would deny the validity of his words.

"The prospect of domination of the nation's scholars by Federal employment, project

allocations, and the power of money is ever present and is gravely to be regarded.

It is the task of statesmanship to mold, to balance, and to integrate these and other forces,

new and old, within the principles of our democratic system – ever aiming toward the

supreme goals of our free society. “

It is now up to the Swedish Prime Minister Fredrik Reinfeldt to realize that his most

recognized servants in the specialized topics of climatology and meteorology in Sweden have

failed to accomplish their duty to present facts and results that, according to Swedish law, has

to be based on scientific methods and acknowledged experience.

Instead they have to a large extent relied on, and continue to rely on, what a political UN

organization, the Intergovernmental Panel of Climate Change (IPCC) is stating without

complying with scientific methods according to its Swedish definition. It should be observed

that the IPCC statements have no validity, as information with scientific quality, according to

the Swedish law. The IPCC is biased from the start by its mandate. It only covers the impact

on climate caused by man (anthropogenic or AGW) which is reductionism that does not

conform to scientific methods. Furthermore, the IPCC has chosen not to investigate those

types of local, regional and national global anthropogenic impacts which actually do exist.

The IPCC has emphasized the importance of an unverified, simplistic model that predicts a

particular surface temperature of earth as being caused by “greenhouse gases”.

continued....http://www.tech-know.eu/NISubmission/pdf/Politics_and_the_Greenhouse_Effect.pdf

[teatree]

Moonwalking NASA Astronaut Harrison Schmitt rejects man made global warming:

(Bring on the 'He's bought and paid for by BIG OIL brigade'.)

[JR Texas]

Moonwalking NASA Astronaut Harrison Schmitt rejects man made global warming:

(Bring on the 'He's bought and paid for by BIG OIL brigade'.)

There is also the JUST PLAIN STUPID BRIGADE.

Climate change is a reality.........post all the silly youtube links you want. The scientific community disagrees with your position. It is a consensus.

That means the vast majority of responsible scientists have come to the conclusion that climate change is a reality.......it is the rapid pace of change--linked to environmentally unsound human activities-- that is causing alarm bells to go off.

[sunholidaysun1]

My Globals get warmed every day

[StatlerandWaldorf]

If it doesn't get replaced can you explain how it was built up in the first place?

This isn't seasonal ice. It is ancient glacial ice. Like millions of years. Got it now?

I am sorry, I should have said it isn't replaced for millions of years, as if anyone really cares about that far into the future.

Global warming deniers, why? So you don't feel guilty about consuming? You don't like to be an adult and face harsh realities? You let your personal distaste for Al Gore and liberals take over your own ability to be objective about science? I really don't understand.

My understanding (be it right or wrong, I cannot be sure, just like all the experts, who also cannot be sure) is that the glaciers and ice flows were formed in the last ice age and are not constantly renewed. They are melting! that is why we have the mekong etc.. if they were not melting then the rivers either would not exist or would be dramatically smaller than they are. Obviously there is a finite amount of ice contained in the glaciers and if they are constantly melting to create the rivers then they will eventually be completely depleted.

The way I see it, they will only be replaced when we have another ice age. The world warms and cools over millions of years, the relatively small amount of time that we (humans) have been around is no way enough time to have reliable data.

Whatever we do nature will compensate, maybe by destroying us in major weather phenomenons, who knows. We are all insignificant nothings in the big scheme of things, overall we may have a shorter life than the dinosaurs.

What's my point?

Quite honestly I don't know, just enjoy life and try to treat others as you would like to be treated yourself (not always easy).

That post was too deep, I am going to have a beer

[teatree]

Moonwalking NASA Astronaut Harrison Schmitt rejects man made global warming:

(Bring on the 'He's bought and paid for by BIG OIL brigade'.)

There is also the JUST PLAIN STUPID BRIGADE.

Climate change is a reality.........post all the silly youtube links you want. The scientific community disagrees with your position. It is a consensus.

That means the vast majority of responsible scientists have come to the conclusion that climate change is a reality.......it is the rapid pace of change--linked to environmentally unsound human activities-- that is causing alarm bells to go off.

How many scientists rejecting AGW does it take to get through to you that there is no consensus?

Calling NASA astronauts 'silly' says a lot more about you than them.

Could you tell me exactly how many REAL scientists are signatories to the IPCC report? Could you tell me exactly what their qualifications are? Have you done any research into the matter or do you just leave your reasoning to the mainstream media?

[flying]

...............

Edited August 11, 2009 by flying

[teatree]

Greenpeace Leader Admits Arctic Ice Exaggeration - BBC 'Hardtalk'

The outgoing leader of Greenpeace has admitted his organization’s recent claim that the Arctic Ice will disappear by 2030 was “a mistake.” Greenpeace made the claim in a July 15 press release entitled “Urgent Action Needed As Arctic Ice Melts,” which said there will be an ice-free Arctic by 2030 because of global warming.

Under close questioning by BBC reporter Stephen Sackur on the “Hardtalk” program, Gerd Leipold, the retiring leader of Greenpeace, said the claim was wrong.

“I don’t think it will be melting by 2030. … That may have been a mistake,” he said.

http://bighollywood.breitbart.com/amcelhin...e-exaggeration/