Obama says climate change is harming Americans' health

[arjunadawn]

Lets see?

Climate scientists have come to a consensus and say global warming is manmade.

Industry and business have serious doubts.....

Actually, climate scientists have repeatedly invited shame and circumspection upon their profession for repeatedly altering data, fudging numbers, and constructing their models to reach the desired result. These things are antithetical to the scientific method. Only with political coverage could such an atrocious miscarriage of science be glossed over. Climate Change is a stalking horse for Tyranny!

[JDGRUEN]

Climate Change and periodic bouts of Global Cooling and Global Warming have been positively and adversely (alternately) affecting humans since we first began to evolve as our initial species and especially since Homo Sapiens began to evolve from the intermediate species around 250,000 years ago. I would hope that everyone has read about the Great Ice Ages -- you know -- it was warm - then cool - then cold - then DAMNED Cold over the Northern Hemispheres caused Glacial Ice to cover the Earth as far south as the Ohio River in North America ... then it warmed a little - then more warming ... then it got quite warm - then the Ice began to melt and retreat then we had a great many thousands of years of weather with periodic micro ice ages such as happened worldwide around 1818 or so...

These Ice Ages Great and Small were part of the great cycles of Climate Earty ... and the only humans around numbered about a million maximum at the last one --- about 14,000 years ago. I suppose the CO2 from their camp fires were causing all this?

This is the natural cycle of Global Cooling and alternately Global Warming - accompanying climate change all done without humans to be nothing but mere spectators.

Global Warming on Earth Stopped about 15-18 years ago, Climate change is a Natural Occurrence caused by various sun cycles, the not so perfect of the orbit of the Earth around the sun... little wobbles and permutations of our ride along the Milky Way. And along this up and down ride of great proportions cycling in the Milky Way there are great catastrophes of Climate Change beyond anything we can imagine about every 25 million years. When we are around when the next one arrives - we won't have to worry about debating the subject.. .

Natural Occurrence Deniers NODs just want to make up a fantastical story about humans causing Climate Change (a convenient change of terminology after the attempt to prove Global Warming was still going on with bogus science and false data FAILED) so it can be used to redistribute wealth from rich nations to poorer nations (except China won't play the game). - And for political control of the masses. It is another one of the appearances of the BIG LIE... tell it, tell it again, keep telling it - deride others who oppose your forced thought - go on like this humiliating those who do not believe the BIG LIE and tell everyone it is closed issue - no one can counter it - under threat of punishment. Sound familiar? Dictatorial Socialistic movements have a way of doing such things... look back at history - fairly recent history of about 80 years ago.

Dear NODs -- you have lost the debate that you do not want to participate in as you KNOW your faulty THEORY is incorrect - so you choose to ram it down the throats of others.

You do know the elite climate scientists & NASA disagree with you?

Many hundreds of prominent scientists happen to agree with me ... Climate Change and Global Warming are driven by huge cycles of the sun and modulated by cosmic rays that help determine cloud cover ... look it up -- or perhaps it would make you uncomfortable I suppose.

I think the climates scientists that advise the US President are also aware of the above mentioned "cosmic rays."

They know all about ice ages and volcanos too.

What you miss hearing on FOX is, the majority of these elite climate scientists are on the same page when it comes to manmade effects. Not even a debate.

The anti environment conservatives, industry and FOX want us to believe all those scientists, universities and NASA are in on a scam.

I do not base my opinion on Fox - haven't watched it in many years... and I do not trust or believe Obama nor any of his advisers in any matter whatsoever as Obama is a Pathological Liar of great renown ... And it has nothing to do with Anti-Environmentalism ... I am pro Environmental ... I believe in Conservation of our natural areas and protection thereof ... I simply do not believe in the man made Global Warming a.k.a. man made Climate Change hoax as the Environmental Hysterics do - which in actuality is a Natural Occurrence but NODs only believe what the Cult Masters and their minions want them to believe.

The Sun's Great Cycles of Sun Spots, Expansion and Contraction - heating up and cooling is largely responsible for what is claimed as caused by humans by GW and CC Hysterics. Human contributions to Global Warming and Climate Change are minuscule compared to the contributions Natural Occurrences. And Global Warming stopped 15-18 years ago... except for that contained in falsified data done by the enviro nuts.

It is OKAY for you to be a NOD - Natural Occurrence Denier ... believe what you want .. rational people do not try to force others to believe what they believe..

[jamesjohnsonthird]

I understand why industry, big business and the republicans want to deny scientific fact.

[JDGRUEN]

Take 1.000 barrels of oil and line them up. (About 7 football fields long)

Next, make 1,000 more rows. That is 1 million barrels in that block.

Then, make 90 more identical blocks of oil.

Now, burn that oil.

Do that every day for several decades and then tell me it hasn't raised the temperature and caused pollution.

You know that man's entire contribution to atmospheric carbon is nothing compared to what is produced in nature. And if man stopped all industry and indeed vanished from the earth, the earth would still warm and cool, sometimes dramatically.

Just because it fits your ideology doesn't make it true. Pollution is bad. CO2 is not pollution.

Excess CO2 is indeed pollution and is the cause of ocean acidification.

Ocean acidification is a dire threat to the world's largest ecosystem.

You may well be correct... however the majority of carbon dioxide released in the world's oceans are from naturally occurring seeps.... Other extremely large quantities of carbon comes from Methane hydrate-bearing seeps also in the oceans. Both are a Natural Occurrences, therefore little can be done to stop it .

[stevenl]

You do know the elite climate scientists & NASA disagree with you?

Many hundreds of prominent scientists happen to agree with me ... Climate Change and Global Warming are driven by huge cycles of the sun and modulated by cosmic rays that help determine cloud cover ... look it up -- or perhaps it would make you uncomfortable I suppose.

Yes, hundreds of people also still believe God created earth.

It is generally accepted by the scientific community that global warming is manmade. But you and quite a few others obviously don't like that.

I made NO Religious References ... I made scientific references ... you on the other hand just try to deflect with juvenile flippant statements.

I made a religious reference, since your reasoning is on par with that of the people who don't accept evolution and claim God created earth. You're simply denying scientific fact because you don't like it and it contradicts your firm beliefs.

But the facts remain the facts.

[PHP87]

How do the Gullible Warming believers explain the fact that not only is Mars showing correlating temperature changes, but so are Satellites orbiting 22,500 miles above Earth in the Clarke Belt?

The Sun does not burn at one constant temperature. It fluctuates and that is why we see temperature fluctuations on Earth, Mars and on Satellites.

I still remember the Ice Age predictions of the mid-1970's which was also blamed on Man as well:

http://web.archive.org/web/20060812025725/http://time-proxy.yaga.com/time/archive/printout/0,23657,944914,00.html

Not everyone has a short memory. But the Gullible Warming crowd counts on short memories and younger people that were not yet born during the Ice Age hysteria or are too young to remember.

Global Warming hysteria is the religion of choice for hippies and an non-issue for lying politicians to exploit using "Chicken Little" fear tactics.

And if you disagree with them, you are labeled as a flat-earth Neanderthal.

And 15 years ago, Al Gore claimed that in 10 years we would have flooding for miles inland.

Gore recently bought a 9 Million dollar Villa near the Beach.

Even Gore doesn't believe his own BS, but he made a fortune off of those that did/do.

Yet the deniers are the one's that are full of it, right?

Wrong.

And the Earth is Millions of years old. 40 years ago, "science" was predicting an impending Ice Age. Now, they are predicting gloom and doom from warming.

The facts are that you can't use a data sample of a few hundred years at best and claim a trend either way, but that's exactly what "the scientific community" has done and continues to do.

40 years ago, they were claiming an Ice Age. When that didn't happen, they doubled-down on stupid and are now claiming the opposite will happen.

And the gullible buy into it despite the fact that none of the hysteria predicted would happen by now hasn't happened, and Al Gore lives in a 9 Million dollar home in a location he predicted would be underwater by now.

And they have the gall to say that the discussion is over and that it's a done deal?

Yet another Inconvenient fact:

Mars Melt Hints at Solar, Not Human, Cause for Warming, Scientist Says

http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2007/02/070228-mars-warming.html

Excerpt from the article:

"In 2005 data from NASA's Mars Global Surveyor and Odyssey missions revealed that the carbon dioxide "ice caps" near Mars's south pole had been diminishing for three summers in a row."

Edited April 11, 2015 by PHP87

[canuckamuck]

Take 1.000 barrels of oil and line them up. (About 7 football fields long)

Next, make 1,000 more rows. That is 1 million barrels in that block.

Then, make 90 more identical blocks of oil.

Now, burn that oil.

Do that every day for several decades and then tell me it hasn't raised the temperature and caused pollution.

You know that man's entire contribution to atmospheric carbon is nothing compared to what is produced in nature. And if man stopped all industry and indeed vanished from the earth, the earth would still warm and cool, sometimes dramatically.

Just because it fits your ideology doesn't make it true. Pollution is bad. CO2 is not pollution.

Excess CO2 is indeed pollution and is the cause of ocean acidification.

Ocean acidification is a dire threat to the world's largest ecosystem.

You may well be correct... however the majority of carbon dioxide released in the world's oceans are from naturally occurring seeps.... Other extremely large quantities of carbon comes from Methane hydrate-bearing seeps also in the oceans. Both are a Natural Occurrences, therefore little can be done to stop it .

Actually the Ocean acidification red herring has also been put to bed. The salinity of the oceans prevents it from ever becoming acidic. It is possible for the PH to be higher or lower, but not to the point of eliminating species. Otherwise those species would have already been dead the last time the CO2 was at this level.

[PHP87]

So let me ask all of the Gullible Warming people and the "scientific community" who also declared that the impending Ice Age was also no longer even open for debate, what happened to their dire predictions and why aren't we all freezing to death?

From Time Magazine. Notice the date of the article.

http://web.archive.org/web/20060812025725/http://time-proxy.yaga.com/time/archive/printout/0,23657,944914,00.html

Another Ice Age?

Monday, Jun 24, 1974

In Africa, drought continues for the sixth consecutive year, adding terribly to the toll of famine victims. During 1972 record rains in parts of the U.S., Pakistan and Japan caused some of the worst flooding in centuries. In Canada's wheat belt, a particularly chilly and rainy spring has delayed planting and may well bring a disappointingly small harvest. Rainy Britain, on the other hand, has suffered from uncharacteristic dry spells the past few springs. A series of unusually cold winters has gripped the American Far West, while New England and northern Europe have recently experienced the mildest winters within anyone's recollection.

As they review the bizarre and unpredictable weather pattern of the past several years, a growing number of scientists are beginning to suspect that many seemingly contradictory meteorological fluctuations are actually part of a global climatic upheaval. However widely the weather varies from place to place and time to time, when meteorologists take an average of temperatures around the globe they find that the atmosphere has been growing gradually cooler for the past three decades. The trend shows no indication of reversing. Climatological Cassandras are becoming increasingly apprehensive, for the weather aberrations they are studying may be the harbinger of another ice age.

Telltale signs are everywhere —from the unexpected persistence and thickness of pack ice in the waters around Iceland to the southward migration of a warmth-loving creature like the armadillo from the Midwest.Since the 1940s the mean global temperature has dropped about 2.7° F. Although that figure is at best an estimate, it is supported by other convincing data. When Climatologist George J. Kukla of Columbia University's Lamont-Doherty Geological Observatory and his wife Helena analyzed satellite weather data for the Northern Hemisphere, they found that the area of the ice and snow cover had suddenly increased by 12% in 1971 and the increase has persisted ever since. Areas of Baffin Island in the Canadian Arctic, for example, were once totally free of any snow in summer; now they are covered year round.

Scientists have found other indications of global cooling. For one thing there has been a noticeable expansion of the great belt of dry, high-altitude polar winds —the so-called circumpolar vortex—that sweep from west to east around the top and bottom of the world. Indeed it is the widening of this cap of cold air that is the immediate cause of Africa's drought. By blocking moisture-bearing equatorial winds and preventing them from bringing rainfall to the parched sub-Sahara region, as well as other drought-ridden areas stretching all the way from Central America to the Middle East and India, the polar winds have in effect caused the Sahara and other deserts to reach farther to the south. Paradoxically, the same vortex has created quite different weather quirks in the U.S. and other temperate zones. As the winds swirl around the globe, their southerly portions undulate like the bottom of a skirt. Cold air is pulled down across the Western U.S. and warm air is swept up to the Northeast. The collision of air masses of widely differing temperatures and humidity can create violent storms—the Midwest's recent rash of disastrous tornadoes, for example.

Sunspot Cycle. The changing weather is apparently connected with differences in the amount of energy that the earth's surface receives from the sun. Changes in the earth's tilt and distance from the sun could, for instance, significantly increase or decrease the amount of solar radiation falling on either hemisphere—thereby altering the earth's climate. Some observers have tried to connect the eleven-year sunspot cycle with climate patterns, but have so far been unable to provide a satisfactory explanation of how the cycle might be involved.

Man, too, may be somewhat responsible for the cooling trend. The University of Wisconsin's Reid A. Bryson and other climatologists suggest that dust and other particles released into the atmosphere as a result of farming and fuel burning may be blocking more and more sunlight from reaching and heating the surface of the earth.

Climatic Balance. Some scientists like Donald Oilman, chief of the National Weather Service's long-range-prediction group, think that the cooling trend may be only temporary. But all agree that vastly more information is needed about the major influences on the earth's climate. Indeed, it is to gain such knowledge that 38 ships and 13 aircraft, carrying scientists from almost 70 nations, are now assembling in the Atlantic and elsewhere for a massive 100-day study of the effects of the tropical seas and atmosphere on worldwide weather. The study itself is only part of an international scientific effort known acronymically as GARP (for Global Atmospheric Research Program).

Whatever the cause of the cooling trend, its effects could be extremely serious, if not catastrophic. Scientists figure that only a 1% decrease in the amount of sunlight hitting the earth's surface could tip the climatic balance, and cool the planet enough to send it sliding down the road to another ice age within only a few hundred years.

The earth's current climate is something of an anomaly; in the past 700,000 years, there have been at least seven major episodes of glaciers spreading over much of the planet. Temperatures have been as high as they are now only about 5% of the time. But there is a peril more immediate than the prospect of another ice age. Even if temperature and rainfall patterns change only slightly in the near future in one or more of the three major grain-exporting countries—the U.S., Canada and Australia —global food stores would be sharply reduced. University of Toronto Climatologist Kenneth Hare, a former president of the Royal Meteorological Society, believes that the continuing drought and the recent failure of the Russian harvest gave the world a grim premonition of what might happen. Warns Hare: "I don't believe that the world's present population is sustainable if there are more than three years like 1972 in a row."

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

So what happened to the impending doom of the Ice Age?

People have to be off of their rocker to think that Man can change the weather and to do so to a degree that the planet would basically destroy itself.

Edited April 11, 2015 by PHP87

[PHP87]

Yeah, guys: 98% of the scientific community say, that climate change is real and a significant portion of those say, it is mainly man made...but YOU know better!

You and Rush Limbaugh, Alex Jones, Glen Beck., Denesh De Sousa and Bill O'Reilly, that is!

And the 2% of scientists that don't agree and have a significant income from Exxon Mobile or Koch Industries!

"Behold...the snowball I just made outside! And you speak of global warming!"

Check for standard fact-free Green/Left nonsense:

* appeal to meaningless consensus - CHECK

* attack on talk radio - CHECK

* attack on Fox News - CHECK

* claim that any scientist who disagrees is paid to do so - CHECK

indeed ........

You forgot "Big Oil" and those evil Koch Brothers!

Remember the media hysterics when Exxon turned a 13 Billion dollar profit?

What the media failed to mention is that they paid 33 Billion in taxes on that profit and that the US Government makes about 4x as much taxing gas than the gas companies make.

Anyone with internet access can download a publicly traded company's financial report from their web site.

The media knows this, yet they choose to lie by omission because it's harder to demonize "Big Oil" when people find out that they pay far more in taxes than they make in profit, and that the US Government makes far more money off of gas taxes than the oil companies.

But that doesn't fit the media narrative, now does it?

Nor does it sell newspapers.

The intellectually lazy sure do eat it up though.

Would they rather have Exxon lose money and pass the costs onto the consumers as well as not shell out 33 Billion in taxes to support all of those Social Services that the left loves so much?

Of course not. But logic isn't exactly their strong point.

[jamesjohnsonthird]

This is too funny.

Coal, gas companies and the republicans are saying the scientific community is dumb, gullible or paid off. Take your pick.

"I think global warming is a hoax, there's nothing you're going to say here today that's going to convince me otherwise."

Signed,

Sean Hannity FOX News

Edited April 11, 2015 by jamesjohnsonthird

[PHP87]

Climate Change and periodic bouts of Global Cooling and Global Warming have been positively and adversely (alternately) affecting humans since we first began to evolve as our initial species and especially since Homo Sapiens began to evolve from the intermediate species around 250,000 years ago. I would hope that everyone has read about the Great Ice Ages -- you know -- it was warm - then cool - then cold - then DAMNED Cold over the Northern Hemispheres caused Glacial Ice to cover the Earth as far south as the Ohio River in North America ... then it warmed a little - then more warming ... then it got quite warm - then the Ice began to melt and retreat then we had a great many thousands of years of weather with periodic micro ice ages such as happened worldwide around 1818 or so...

These Ice Ages Great and Small were part of the great cycles of Climate Earty ... and the only humans around numbered about a million maximum at the last one --- about 14,000 years ago. I suppose the CO2 from their camp fires were causing all this?

This is the natural cycle of Global Cooling and alternately Global Warming - accompanying climate change all done without humans to be nothing but mere spectators.

Global Warming on Earth Stopped about 15-18 years ago, Climate change is a Natural Occurrence caused by various sun cycles, the not so perfect of the orbit of the Earth around the sun... little wobbles and permutations of our ride along the Milky Way. And along this up and down ride of great proportions cycling in the Milky Way there are great catastrophes of Climate Change beyond anything we can imagine about every 25 million years. When we are around when the next one arrives - we won't have to worry about debating the subject.. .

Natural Occurrence Deniers NODs just want to make up a fantastical story about humans causing Climate Change (a convenient change of terminology after the attempt to prove Global Warming was still going on with bogus science and false data FAILED) so it can be used to redistribute wealth from rich nations to poorer nations (except China won't play the game). - And for political control of the masses. It is another one of the appearances of the BIG LIE... tell it, tell it again, keep telling it - deride others who oppose your forced thought - go on like this humiliating those who do not believe the BIG LIE and tell everyone it is closed issue - no one can counter it - under threat of punishment. Sound familiar? Dictatorial Socialistic movements have a way of doing such things... look back at history - fairly recent history of about 80 years ago.

Dear NODs -- you have lost the debate that you do not want to participate in as you KNOW your faulty THEORY is incorrect - so you choose to ram it down the throats of others.

You do know the elite climate scientists & NASA disagree with you?

NASA also says that Mars and that Satellites orbiting 22,500 miles above the Earth are showing correlating temperature changes.

I guess Aliens are driving around in SUV's on Mars...

[PHP87]

This is too funny.

Coal, gas companies and the republicans are saying the scientific community is dumb, gullible or paid off. Take your pick.

"I think global warming is a hoax, there's nothing you're going to say here today that's going to convince me otherwise."

Signed,

Sean Hannity FOX News

Hannity's position is that Man-made global warming is a hoax.

The Sun does not burn at one constant temperature, thus the temperature fluctuations on Earth.

And on Satellites 22,500 miles above Earth.

And on Mars.

Says NASA

40 years ago, the Earth was cooling.

Now it's warming.

40 years from now, the Ice Age hysterics will be back.

Because the Sun doesn't burn at a constant temperature.

Solar flares also contribute to temperature changes as well.

How hard is that to understand?

[arjunadawn]

Many hundreds of prominent scientists happen to agree with me ... Climate Change and Global Warming are driven by huge cycles of the sun and modulated by cosmic rays that help determine cloud cover ... look it up -- or perhaps it would make you uncomfortable I suppose.

Yes, hundreds of people also still believe God created earth.

It is generally accepted by the scientific community that global warming is manmade. But you and quite a few others obviously don't like that.

I made NO Religious References ... I made scientific references ... you on the other hand just try to deflect with juvenile flippant statements.

I made a religious reference, since your reasoning is on par with that of the people who don't accept evolution and claim God created earth. You're simply denying scientific fact because you don't like it and it contradicts your firm beliefs.

But the facts remain the facts.

Wow! I think it is apparent the microcosm of this thread suggests exactly why the "Climate Change" debacle is couched in so much intractable communication.

There are a series of stipulated facts:

The climate has changes, which does not equal the climate is changing.

Man increases pollution, gases, and particulate matter and it is presumed it must contribute to the climate changing; notwithstanding that the climate has always variously changed and has inherently built into the earth model compensatory and non compensatory mechanisms for seeking homeostasis all the time.

Scientists have been repeatedly caught departing academia and weighing into politics with not only their observations but economic and political models to thwart the very data they bare.

Scientists have been repeatedly caught lying outright or otherwise fudging data to suit a desired end, including manipulating models.

All those who believe that climate change is caused by man also have the statistically improbable position of also agreeing with the political fixes to solve the problem, even with only cursory knowledge.

Those who object that the science is settled rely on the circuitous "fact" that... the science is settled!

Many scientists disagree on the models used, the numbers punched in, the interpretation of the data available, and the obvious objective reality that the earth is cooling- thus, no longer global warming; bait and switch to climate change- an utterly political necessity, not scientific.

Those who do not believe the climate is changing unduly because of man have the added distinction of being singled out, ridiculed personally, impugned publicly, having funding decreased, papers not published, and exiled from academia. If a non scientific person they can count on ad hominen attacks on their faculties, faith, non compassion, or stupidity.

These above self evident facts constitute the nature of the climate change fiasco. The posts above, back and forth, where one introduced god as a pejorative to ostensibly ridicule the meritorious points made by his opponent, reflect exactly the formula above. When queried why the red herring "god" enters the discourse the poster rationalizes that because [you] believe in god, or must because you are so stupid, you therefore bring upon yourself such derision as a natural consequence of having a differing point of view from me. Do you begin to see how inferior a position this necessarily is? If one was right on the facts, they could hardly make the point in this manner. This is intellectual frailty. This is rhetorical failure.

When one discusses facts, and science, yet is compelled to insert ad hominen and character assassination and false logic to meet the burden of making their argument seem the better, you can be confident they have not. When any person needs to suspect a hidden religious faith lies at the impetus of an opposing point of view they have defined their position as vacant, bankrupt, and inferior!

Posters edited for allowable quotes.

Edited April 11, 2015 by arjunadawn

[chiang mai]

The first time I heard about Global Warming was in 1965 when I was a kid, my Dad thought it was all stupid and propaganda for some new plot or war.

So, global warming was being discussed fifty years ago and nobody was listening, question is, will we/you still be in the same boat fifty years hence!

[PHP87]

I can understand why industry and conservatives are anti environment. It effects their bottom line to clean up.

But to have a supposed news channel, run by a republican strategist, support the charade is outrageous.

What "Republican Strategist" would that be?

Rupert Murdoch?

The same Rupert Murdoch that held a fund-raiser for Hillary Clinton in 2006 to help her get re-elected to the Senate?

https://www.google.com/search?q=Rupert+Murdoch+that+held+a+fund-raiser+for+Hillary+Clinton+in+2006&ie=utf-8&oe=utf-8

Murdoch is a businessman. He saw a void left by the left-leaning MSM and created a News Channel that gives both sides a platform to express their viewpoints, unlike the MSM.

If the US media did it's job, FNC would not exist, let alone thrive.

[PHP87]

The first time I heard about Global Warming was in 1965 when I was a kid, my Dad thought it was all stupid and propaganda for some new plot or war.

So, global warming was being discussed fifty years ago and nobody was listening, question is, will we/you still be in the same boat fifty years hence!

So why is it that 40 years ago, the media was pushing the impending Ice Age on us?

http://web.archive.org/web/20060812025725/http://time-proxy.yaga.com/time/archive/printout/0,23657,944914,00.html

Different decade, same BS

They just change the narrative every decade or so, hoping that people have short memories. Or that they are ignorant. Or both.

Of course, new suckers are born daily as well that don't remember the Ice Age hysteria that "The Scientific Comunity" was pushing 40 years ago, and that they doubled-down on stupid, or should I say, the stupidity of the public.

50 years from now, I expect that we will hear about another Ice Age followed by more hysterics about man made globull warming.

And the cycle will continue as long as people let it.

[chiang mai]

The first time I heard about Global Warming was in 1965 when I was a kid, my Dad thought it was all stupid and propaganda for some new plot or war.

So, global warming was being discussed fifty years ago and nobody was listening, question is, will we/you still be in the same boat fifty years hence!

So why is it that 40 years ago, the media was pushing the impending Ice Age on us?

http://web.archive.org/web/20060812025725/http://time-proxy.yaga.com/time/archive/printout/0,23657,944914,00.html

Different decade, same BS

They just change the narrative every decade or so, hoping that people have short memories. Or that they are ignorant. Or both.

Of course, new suckers are born daily as well that don't remember the Ice Age hysteria that "The Scientific Comunity" was pushing 40 years ago, and that they doubled-down on stupid, or should I say, the stupidity of the public.

50 years from now, I expect that we will hear about another Ice Age followed by more hysterics about man made globull warming.

And the cycle will continue as long as people let it.

Simply, because it's not an exact science, just the same way that medical science is not exact - they can see the symptoms but not the outcome.

[arjunadawn]

The first time I heard about Global Warming was in 1965 when I was a kid, my Dad thought it was all stupid and propaganda for some new plot or war.

So, global warming was being discussed fifty years ago and nobody was listening, question is, will we/you still be in the same boat fifty years hence!

You are correct; great story. Thanks.

In 62/63 a JFK study was realized from a panel of scientists trying to evaluate what would be necessary to remove the glue of war that bound nations and replace it with a collective glue that bound the fraternity of man in a global fellowship. There were a number of suggestions but only alien invasion and catastrophic climate change made the top of the list. The Freedom from War documents are still available and the agenda set forth in this analysis has come to pass with keen accuracy. It would be incredulous not to see the signature on the current discussions.

I do not endorse in any way the theories generated secondary to the Report from Iron Mountain or the Freedom from War think tank; I just note the coincidence is beyond my ability to comprehend. Increasingly, everything that is taking place in the world, certainly the West, is so evidently contrary to the will of the population and is otherwise designed or foisted upon the unwary. At a certain point one cannot hide from the nagging evidence that this is contrived. It is apparent that these two and possibly separate panels of people and a span of a few years build upon each other as means and an end.

http://dosfan.lib.uic.edu/ERC/arms/freedom_war.html

Report_from_Iron_Mountain.pdf

[jamesjohnsonthird]

This is too funny.

Coal, gas companies and the republicans are saying the scientific community is dumb, gullible or paid off. Take your pick.

"I think global warming is a hoax, there's nothing you're going to say here today that's going to convince me otherwise."

Signed,

Sean Hannity FOX News

Hannity's position is that Man-made global warming is a hoax.

The Sun does not burn at one constant temperature, thus the temperature fluctuations on Earth.

And on Satellites 22,500 miles above Earth.

And on Mars.

Says NASA

40 years ago, the Earth was cooling.

Now it's warming.

40 years from now, the Ice Age hysterics will be back.

Because the Sun doesn't burn at a constant temperature.

Solar flares also contribute to temperature changes as well.

How hard is that to understand?

The worldwide scientific community that are warning us are very well aware of those solar flares, volcanos, cosmic rays, and fish farts.

Of course they know that stuff.

You don't know anything about science, do you?

Why is it just the republican demographic is having a problem grasping this?

[PHP87]

The first time I heard about Global Warming was in 1965 when I was a kid, my Dad thought it was all stupid and propaganda for some new plot or war.

So, global warming was being discussed fifty years ago and nobody was listening, question is, will we/you still be in the same boat fifty years hence!

So why is it that 40 years ago, the media was pushing the impending Ice Age on us?

http://web.archive.org/web/20060812025725/http://time-proxy.yaga.com/time/archive/printout/0,23657,944914,00.html

Different decade, same BS

They just change the narrative every decade or so, hoping that people have short memories. Or that they are ignorant. Or both.

Of course, new suckers are born daily as well that don't remember the Ice Age hysteria that "The Scientific Comunity" was pushing 40 years ago, and that they doubled-down on stupid, or should I say, the stupidity of the public.

50 years from now, I expect that we will hear about another Ice Age followed by more hysterics about man made globull warming.

And the cycle will continue as long as people let it.

Simply, because it's not an exact science, just the same way that medical science is not exact - they can see the symptoms but not the outcome.

True of False: The temperature of the Sun fluctuates and does not burn at the same exact temperature at all times?

If True, then logic as well as science would say that those temperature fluctuations would be observed on Earth, on the Moon, on Mars and on Satellites orbiting 22,500 miles above Earth.

And if it's not an exact science, then why can't they make up their minds between an impending Ice Age and the opposite?

Because it's NOT an exact science, yet the Globull Warming, Sky is Falling crowd says "the debate is over"

The facts are that we are seeing correlating temp changes on Mars and on Sats and that the Sun does not burn at one, constant temperature.

This according to NASA

Why is that so hard to understand?

It doesn't take a scientist to know that correlating temp changes occurring on Mars have nothing to do with Man. Same with temp changes on Satellites.

Edited April 11, 2015 by PHP87

[chiang mai]

The first time I heard about Global Warming was in 1965 when I was a kid, my Dad thought it was all stupid and propaganda for some new plot or war.

So, global warming was being discussed fifty years ago and nobody was listening, question is, will we/you still be in the same boat fifty years hence!

So why is it that 40 years ago, the media was pushing the impending Ice Age on us?

http://web.archive.org/web/20060812025725/http://time-proxy.yaga.com/time/archive/printout/0,23657,944914,00.html

Different decade, same BS

They just change the narrative every decade or so, hoping that people have short memories. Or that they are ignorant. Or both.

Of course, new suckers are born daily as well that don't remember the Ice Age hysteria that "The Scientific Comunity" was pushing 40 years ago, and that they doubled-down on stupid, or should I say, the stupidity of the public.

50 years from now, I expect that we will hear about another Ice Age followed by more hysterics about man made globull warming.

And the cycle will continue as long as people let it.

Simply, because it's not an exact science, just the same way that medical science is not exact - they can see the symptoms but not the outcome.

True of False: The temperature of the Sun fluctuates and does not burn at the same exact temperature at all times?

If True, then logic as well as science would say that those temperature fluctuations would be observed on Earth, on the Moon, on Mars and on Satellites orbiting 22,500 miles above Earth.

And if it's not an exact science, then why can't they make up their minds between an impending Ice Age and the opposite?

Because it's NOT an exact science, yet the Globull Warming, Sky is Falling crowd says "the debate is over"

The facts are that we are seeing correlating temp changes on Mars and on Sats and that the Sun does not burn at one, constant temperature.

This according to NASA

Why is that so hard to understand?

Is, whatever planet it is you live on, functioning well today!

[jamesjohnsonthird]

The first time I heard about Global Warming was in 1965 when I was a kid, my Dad thought it was all stupid and propaganda for some new plot or war.

So, global warming was being discussed fifty years ago and nobody was listening, question is, will we/you still be in the same boat fifty years hence!

So why is it that 40 years ago, the media was pushing the impending Ice Age on us?

http://web.archive.org/web/20060812025725/http://time-proxy.yaga.com/time/archive/printout/0,23657,944914,00.html

Different decade, same BS

They just change the narrative every decade or so, hoping that people have short memories. Or that they are ignorant. Or both.

Of course, new suckers are born daily as well that don't remember the Ice Age hysteria that "The Scientific Comunity" was pushing 40 years ago, and that they doubled-down on stupid, or should I say, the stupidity of the public.

50 years from now, I expect that we will hear about another Ice Age followed by more hysterics about man made globull warming.

And the cycle will continue as long as people let it.

Simply, because it's not an exact science, just the same way that medical science is not exact - they can see the symptoms but not the outcome.

True of False: The temperature of the Sun fluctuates and does not burn at the same exact temperature at all times?

If True, then logic as well as science would say that those temperature fluctuations would be observed on Earth, on the Moon, on Mars and on Satellites orbiting 22,500 miles above Earth.

And if it's not an exact science, then why can't they make up their minds between an impending Ice Age and the opposite?

Because it's NOT an exact science, yet the Globull Warming, Sky is Falling crowd says "the debate is over"

The facts are that we are seeing correlating temp changes on Mars and on Sats and that the Sun does not burn at one, constant temperature.

This according to NASA

Why is that so hard to understand?

It doesn't take a scientist to know that correlating temp changes occurring on Mars have nothing to do with Man. Same with temp changes on Satellites.

Just because you can't figure it out doesn't mean its a hoax.

Maybe you can get a slot at the next Climate Science Conference.

Be sure to mention the solar flares because those dummies probably didn't include that in their models.

Edited April 11, 2015 by jamesjohnsonthird

[stevenl]

I can understand why industry and conservatives are anti environment. It effects their bottom line to clean up.

But to have a supposed news channel, run by a republican strategist, support the charade is outrageous.

What "Republican Strategist" would that be?

Rupert Murdoch?

The same Rupert Murdoch that held a fund-raiser for Hillary Clinton in 2006 to help her get re-elected to the Senate?

https://www.google.com/search?q=Rupert+Murdoch+that+held+a+fund-raiser+for+Hillary+Clinton+in+2006&ie=utf-8&oe=utf-8

Murdoch is a businessman. He saw a void left by the left-leaning MSM and created a News Channel that gives both sides a platform to express their viewpoints, unlike the MSM.

If the US media did it's job, FNC would not exist, let alone thrive.

This is going off topic, but are you seriously claiming here that FNC is in the middle of the political spectrum?

[stevenl]

Yes, hundreds of people also still believe God created earth.

It is generally accepted by the scientific community that global warming is manmade. But you and quite a few others obviously don't like that.

I made NO Religious References ... I made scientific references ... you on the other hand just try to deflect with juvenile flippant statements.

I made a religious reference, since your reasoning is on par with that of the people who don't accept evolution and claim God created earth. You're simply denying scientific fact because you don't like it and it contradicts your firm beliefs.

But the facts remain the facts.

Wow! I think it is apparent the microcosm of this thread suggests exactly why the "Climate Change" debacle is couched in so much intractable communication.

There are a series of stipulated facts:

The climate has changes, which does not equal the climate is changing.

Man increases pollution, gases, and particulate matter and it is presumed it must contribute to the climate changing; notwithstanding that the climate has always variously changed and has inherently built into the earth model compensatory and non compensatory mechanisms for seeking homeostasis all the time.

Scientists have been repeatedly caught departing academia and weighing into politics with not only their observations but economic and political models to thwart the very data they bare.

Scientists have been repeatedly caught lying outright or otherwise fudging data to suit a desired end, including manipulating models.

All those who believe that climate change is caused by man also have the statistically improbable position of also agreeing with the political fixes to solve the problem, even with only cursory knowledge.

Those who object that the science is settled rely on the circuitous "fact" that... the science is settled!

Many scientists disagree on the models used, the numbers punched in, the interpretation of the data available, and the obvious objective reality that the earth is cooling- thus, no longer global warming; bait and switch to climate change- an utterly political necessity, not scientific.

Those who do not believe the climate is changing unduly because of man have the added distinction of being singled out, ridiculed personally, impugned publicly, having funding decreased, papers not published, and exiled from academia. If a non scientific person they can count on ad hominen attacks on their faculties, faith, non compassion, or stupidity.

These above self evident facts constitute the nature of the climate change fiasco. The posts above, back and forth, where one introduced god as a pejorative to ostensibly ridicule the meritorious points made by his opponent, reflect exactly the formula above. When queried why the red herring "god" enters the discourse the poster rationalizes that because [you] believe in god, or must because you are so stupid, you therefore bring upon yourself such derision as a natural consequence of having a differing point of view from me. Do you begin to see how inferior a position this necessarily is? If one was right on the facts, they could hardly make the point in this manner. This is intellectual frailty. This is rhetorical failure.

When one discusses facts, and science, yet is compelled to insert ad hominen and character assassination and false logic to meet the burden of making their argument seem the better, you can be confident they have not. When any person needs to suspect a hidden religious faith lies at the impetus of an opposing point of view they have defined their position as vacant, bankrupt, and inferior!

Posters edited for allowable quotes.

Just 2 things: no for your post, total and utter nonsense. It is proven except by a few who don't accept it. Claiming 'they are singled out', 'can't publish', 'many don't accept' etc., are biased theories based on nothing.

Your religious remarks, apparently I hit a sore knee there, are up to you. I just made a reference to illustrate the reasoning, your interpretation of those remarks show how true my comparison was.

[RickBradford]

I understand why industry, big business and the republicans want to deny scientific fact.

And what scientific 'fact' is that?

[Seastallion]

Take 1.000 barrels of oil and line them up. (About 7 football fields long)

Next, make 1,000 more rows. That is 1 million barrels in that block.

Then, make 90 more identical blocks of oil.

Now, burn that oil.

Do that every day for several decades and then tell me it hasn't raised the temperature and caused pollution.

You know that man's entire contribution to atmospheric carbon is nothing compared to what is produced in nature. And if man stopped all industry and indeed vanished from the earth, the earth would still warm and cool, sometimes dramatically.

Just because it fits your ideology doesn't make it true. Pollution is bad. CO2 is not pollution.

Excess CO2 is indeed pollution and is the cause of ocean acidification.

Ocean acidification is a dire threat to the world's largest ecosystem.

You may well be correct... however the majority of carbon dioxide released in the world's oceans are from naturally occurring seeps.... Other extremely large quantities of carbon comes from Methane hydrate-bearing seeps also in the oceans. Both are a Natural Occurrences, therefore little can be done to stop it .

Indeed little can be done about natural seeps.

But what about the thousands of tons man does produce every day? We can do something about that.

[arjunadawn]

The first time I heard about Global Warming was in 1965 when I was a kid, my Dad thought it was all stupid and propaganda for some new plot or war.

So, global warming was being discussed fifty years ago and nobody was listening, question is, will we/you still be in the same boat fifty years hence!

So why is it that 40 years ago, the media was pushing the impending Ice Age on us?

http://web.archive.org/web/20060812025725/http://time-proxy.yaga.com/time/archive/printout/0,23657,944914,00.html

Different decade, same BS

They just change the narrative every decade or so, hoping that people have short memories. Or that they are ignorant. Or both.

Of course, new suckers are born daily as well that don't remember the Ice Age hysteria that "The Scientific Comunity" was pushing 40 years ago, and that they doubled-down on stupid, or should I say, the stupidity of the public.

50 years from now, I expect that we will hear about another Ice Age followed by more hysterics about man made globull warming.

And the cycle will continue as long as people let it.

Simply, because it's not an exact science, just the same way that medical science is not exact - they can see the symptoms but not the outcome.

Fair observation, but is it correct?

Whatever "not an exact science" is I cannot state; it seems to be a panacea for a hypothesis turning out poorly. However, science is a collection of observations that withstand repeated observations, from differing points of view, all the time. It can be tested, confirmed, and if remotely an exception, it is invalid.

Medicine is frequently termed an "art" because it uses both subjective and objective tools to act upon a reductionist, objective model- the human body (I dont agree with the reductionist point of view but western medicine is predicated upon this). This type of analysis is complex and the variables considerable and so "art" fairly describes it.

Regarding planetary science, climatology, etc., the models are only as good as the data punched in and the data punched in is, ultimately, most relevant when more data is added- metadata over all of time. Over the long haul of time the climate has changed remarkably and this was before man walked the earth, and since. This data must be present in all models to consider not whether the climate is changing rather is there a new player on the block, climate change from man. Many scientists, unwittingly or not, bring their bias to the models they create. It is quite hard to guard against such prejudices. Therefore, it is always necessary to have room at the academic table for dissenters, or objectors. When one objects the data must be reconsidered or the theory noted with dissent. Otherwise science has turned into no more than an extension of the state, or a priestly class with an agenda. Any datum that does not corroborate solar activity is suspect. Any data that has recommendations is suspect. Any data that is presented and also objects to dissent should be suspect. Increasingly, any data that is funded by the State should be suspect. IMO, any data that is proffered by the United Nations should be suspect.

Lastly, climate change predictions that do not note the earth's compensatory mechanisms are suspect.

I do not hold the practice of medicine to be similar to planetary sciences in terms of the artful manner it is deduced; it is sheer data! "Climate Change" may or may not be taking place but the political agenda stalking in its wooden belly cannot be ignored; this is more frightening than that which is predicted in the HennyPenny models.

[canuckamuck]

The real danger of climate change is not the malady, but the cure.

[thaibeachlovers]

keep your head in the sand. Anyone that does not believe global warming is real is just too lazy or too ignorant to see the facts. I was at Lake Louise last year, the glacier there has receded back to a level never seen before.

In the middle of the province or British Columbia where forestry is the main industry, the forest have been wiped out by the pine and spruce beetles. They have been able to destroy the forests because the winters do not get cold enough anymore to kill them off so they have in turn killed all the trees. This is not a cycle this is something that has never happened before.

When I lived there 25 years ago the winters were cold and we would get 10 feet of snow or more per year. They rarely get more than a few feet now and the temp are much warmer.

All the people denying global warming can spout off all they want for now but it won't be much longer before there is no doubt in anyone's mind that it is real!!

Problem is by then it will be too late. It may already be.

Probably the same lot that think the world is 6000 years old and man walked with dinosaurs, pathetic and dangerously scary for people to be that stupid.

No one that is sane is denying that the planet is warming- glaciers retreating etc etc.

BUT, no one has proven to my, and others, satisfaction that is is caused by mankind, or that it can be reversed by anything we can do.

If that were so, governments would be doing more than they are.

BTW, if you believe we cause it, I hope you don't use a car or electricity generated by fossil fuel.

'The scientists haven't proven "to my satisfaction" that it is manmade.'

Can I ask, what are your credentials?

Do you also think the scientists are wrong about the earth being older than 6,000 years?

You really believe 10,000 climate scientists from 130 different countries + NASA are being paid to lie by the "tree huggers"?.... but you do trust the measly 2% of scientists that work for the coal and gas industry.

So, what solutions have they come up with?

There's no point repeating over and over that GW is man made if they can't come up with a solution.

You didn't say if you use a car, I guess you are too embarrased to admit that you do. I bet you fly in aeroplanes too.

[thaibeachlovers]

You know that man's entire contribution to atmospheric carbon is nothing compared to what is produced in nature. And if man stopped all industry and indeed vanished from the earth, the earth would still warm and cool, sometimes dramatically.

Just because it fits your ideology doesn't make it true. Pollution is bad. CO2 is not pollution.

Excess CO2 is indeed pollution and is the cause of ocean acidification.

Ocean acidification is a dire threat to the world's largest ecosystem.

You may well be correct... however the majority of carbon dioxide released in the world's oceans are from naturally occurring seeps.... Other extremely large quantities of carbon comes from Methane hydrate-bearing seeps also in the oceans. Both are a Natural Occurrences, therefore little can be done to stop it .

Indeed little can be done about natural seeps.

But what about the thousands of tons man does produce every day? We can do something about that.

But what about the thousands of tons man does produce every day? We can do something about that.

How???????

Do you know any politician that has the balls to stand up and say no more private cars, no more air travel, no more mass entertainment venues, no more unrationed electricity, and that's just for the west.

Can you imagine the Thai government banning cars, or the Chinese or the Indians etc etc etc.

Don't even try to say renewable energy- that's unlikely to replace enough fossil fuel use to make a real difference in the time available ( according to the GW crowd ).

Personally, I'd like to see them ban private cars, as they are responsible for the damage to social society, congesting every town and killing thousands. Man has become far too dependant on them.