0
   

The Global Warming Scam

 
 
Reply Sat 4 Jul, 2009 06:32 pm
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/2258221/posts

Quote:

Global Warming the Start of a Scam
KUSI news San Diego ^ | 1/29/2009 | John Coleman

Posted on Tuesday, May 26, 2009 7:19:04 AM by wbones8765

The Amazing Story Behind The Global Warming Scam

By John Coleman (Founder of the Weather Channel) January 28, 2009

The key players are now all in place in Washington and in state governments across America to officially label carbon dioxide as a pollutant and enact laws that tax we citizens for our carbon footprints. Only two details stand in the way, the faltering economic times and a dramatic turn toward a colder climate. The last two bitter winters have lead to a rise in public awareness that CO2 is not a pollutant and is not a significant greenhouse gas that is triggering runaway global warming.

How did we ever get to this point where bad science is driving big government we have to struggle so to stop it?

The story begins with an Oceanographer named Roger Revelle. He served with the Navy in World War II. After the war he became the Director of the Scripps Oceanographic Institute in La Jolla in San Diego, California. Revelle saw the opportunity to obtain major funding from the Navy for doing measurements and research on the ocean around the Pacific Atolls where the US military was conducting atomic bomb tests. He greatly expanded the Institute's areas of interest and among others hired Hans Suess, a noted Chemist from the University of Chicago, who was very interested in the traces of carbon in the environment from the burning of fossil fuels. Revelle tagged on to Suess studies and co-authored a paper with him in 1957. The paper raises the possibility that the carbon dioxide might be creating a greenhouse effect and causing atmospheric warming. It seems to be a plea for funding for more studies. Funding, frankly, is where Revelle's mind was most of the time.

Next Revelle hired a Geochemist named David Keeling to devise a way to measure the atmospheric content of Carbon dioxide. In 1960 Keeling published his first paper showing the increase in carbon dioxide in the atmosphere and linking the increase to the burning of fossil fuels.

These two research papers became the bedrock of the science of global warming, even though they offered no proof that carbon dioxide was in fact a greenhouse gas. In addition they failed to explain how this trace gas, only a tiny fraction of the atmosphere, could have any significant impact on temperatures.

Now let me take you back to the1950s when this was going on. Our cities were entrapped in a pall of pollution from the crude internal combustion engines that powered cars and trucks back then and from the uncontrolled emissions from power plants and factories. Cars and factories and power plants were filling the air with all sorts of pollutants. There was a valid and serious concern about the health consequences of this pollution and a strong environmental movement was developing to demand action. Government accepted this challenge and new environmental standards were set. Scientists and engineers came to the rescue. New reformulated fuels were developed for cars, as were new high tech, computer controlled engines and catalytic converters. By the mid seventies cars were no longer big time polluters, emitting only some carbon dioxide and water vapor from their tail pipes. Likewise, new fuel processing and smoke stack scrubbers were added to industrial and power plants and their emissions were greatly reduced, as well.

But an environmental movement had been established and its funding and very existence depended on having a continuing crisis issue. So the research papers from Scripps came at just the right moment. And, with them came the birth of an issue; man-made global warming from the carbon dioxide from the burning of fossil fuels.

Revelle and Keeling used this new alarmism to keep their funding growing. Other researchers with environmental motivations and a hunger for funding saw this developing and climbed aboard as well. The research grants began to flow and alarming hypothesis began to show up everywhere.

The Keeling curve showed a steady rise in CO2 in atmosphere during the period since oil and coal were discovered and used by man. As of today, carbon dioxide has increased from 215 to 385 parts per million. But, despite the increases, it is still only a trace gas in the atmosphere. While the increase is real, the percentage of the atmosphere that is CO2 remains tiny, about .41 hundredths of one percent.

Several hypothesis emerged in the 70s and 80s about how this tiny atmospheric component of CO2 might cause a significant warming. But they remained unproven. Years have passed and the scientists kept reaching out for evidence of the warming and proof of their theories. And, the money and environmental claims kept on building up.

Back in the 1960s, this global warming research came to the attention of a Canadian born United Nation's bureaucrat named Maurice Strong. He was looking for issues he could use to fulfill his dream of one-world government. Strong organized a World Earth Day event in Stockholm, Sweden in 1970. From this he developed a committee of scientists, environmentalists and political operatives from the UN to continue a series of meeting.

Strong developed the concept that the UN could demand payments from the advanced nations for the climatic damage from their burning of fossil fuels to benefit the underdeveloped nations, a sort of CO2 tax that would be the funding for his one-world government. But, he needed more scientific evidence to support his primary thesis. So Strong championed the establishment of the United Nation's Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. This was not a pure climate study scientific organization, as we have been lead to believe. It was an organization of one-world government UN bureaucrats, environmental activists and environmentalist scientists who craved the UN funding so they could produce the science they needed to stop the burning of fossil fuels. Over the last 25 years they have been very effective. Hundreds of scientific papers, four major international mand reams of news stories about climatic Armageddon later, the UN IPCC has made its points to the satisfaction of most and even shared a Nobel Peace Prize with Al Gore.

At the same time that Maurice Strong was busy at the UN, things were getting a bit out of hand for the man who is now called the grandfather of global warming, Roger Revelle. He had been very politically active in the late 1950's as he worked to have the University of California locate a San Diego campus adjacent to Scripps Institute in La Jolla. He won that major war, but lost an all important battle afterward when he was passed over in the selection of the first Chancellor of the new campus.

He left Scripps finally in 1963 and moved to Harvard University to establish a Center for Population Studies. It was there that Revelle inspired one of his students to become a major global warming activist. This student would say later, "It felt like such a privilege to be able to hear about the readouts from some of those measurements in a group of no more than a dozen undergraduates. Here was this teacher presenting something not years old but fresh out of the lab, with profound implications for our future!" The student described him as "a wonderful, visionary professor" who was "one of the first people in the academic community to sound the alarm on global warming," That student was Al Gore. He thought of Dr. Revelle as his mentor and referred to him frequently, relaying his experiences as a student in his book Earth in the Balance, published in 1992.

So there it is, Roger Revelle was indeed the grandfather of global warming. His work had laid the foundation for the UN IPCC, provided the anti-fossil fuel ammunition to the environmental movement and sent Al Gore on his road to his books, his movie, his Nobel Peace Prize and a hundred million dollars from the carbon credits business.

What happened next is amazing. The global warming frenzy was becoming the cause celeb of the media. After all the media is mostly liberal, loves Al Gore, loves to warn us of impending disasters and tell us "the sky is falling, the sky is falling". The politicians and the environmentalist loved it, too.

But the tide was turning with Roger Revelle. He was forced out at Harvard at 65 and returned to California and a semi retirement position at UCSD. There he had time to rethink Carbon Dioxide and the greenhouse effect. The man who had inspired Al Gore and given the UN the basic research it needed to launch its Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change was having second thoughts. In 1988 he wrote two cautionary letters to members of Congress. He wrote, "My own personal belief is that we should wait another 10 or 20 years to really be convinced that the greenhouse effect is going to be important for human beings, in both positive and negative ways." He added, "...we should be careful not to arouse too much alarm until the rate and amount of warming becomes clearer."

And in 1991 Revelle teamed up with Chauncey Starr, founding director of the Electric Power Research Institute and Fred Singer, the first director of the U.S. Weather Satellite Service, to write an article for Cosmos magazine. They urged more research and begged scientists and governments not to move too fast to curb greenhouse CO2 emissions because the true impact of carbon dioxide was not at all certain and curbing the use of fossil fuels could have a huge negative impact on the economy and jobs and our standard of living. I have discussed this collaboration with Dr. Singer. He assures me that Revelle was considerably more certain than he was at the time that carbon dioxide was not a problem.

Did Roger Revelle attend the Summer enclave at the Bohemian Grove in Northern California in the Summer of 1990 while working on that article? Did he deliver a lakeside speech there to the assembled movers and shakers from Washington and Wall Street in which he apologized for sending the UN IPCC and Al Gore onto this wild goose chase about global warming? Did he say that the key scientific conjecture of his lifetime had turned out wrong? The answer to those questions is, "I think so, but I do not know it for certain". I have not managed to get it confirmed as of this moment. It's a little like Las Vegas; what is said at the Bohemian Grove stays at the Bohemian Grove. There are no transcripts or recordings and people who attend are encouraged not to talk. Yet, the topic is so important, that some people have shared with me on an informal basis.

Roger Revelle died of a heart attack three months after the Cosmos story was printed. Oh, how I wish he were still alive today. He might be able to stop this scientific silliness and end the global warming scam.

Al Gore has dismissed Roger Revelle's Mea culpa as the actions of senile old man. And, the next year, while running for Vice President, he said the science behind global warming is settled and there will be no more debate, From 1992 until today, he and his cohorts have refused to debate global warming and when ask about we skeptics they simply insult us and call us names.

So today we have the acceptance of carbon dioxide as the culprit of global warming. It is concluded that when we burn fossil fuels we are leaving a dastardly carbon footprint which we must pay Al Gore or the environmentalists to offset. Our governments on all levels are considering taxing the use of fossil fuels. The Federal Environmental Protection Agency is on the verge of naming CO2 as a pollutant and strictly regulating its use to protect our climate. The new President and the US congress are on board. Many state governments are moving on the same course.

We are already suffering from this CO2 silliness in many ways. Our energy policy has been strictly hobbled by no drilling and no new refineries for decades. We pay for the shortage this has created every time we buy gas. On top of that the whole thing about corn based ethanol costs us millions of tax dollars in subsidies. That also has driven up food prices. And, all of this is a long way from over.

And, I am totally convinced there is no scientific basis for any of it.

Global Warming. It is the hoax. It is bad science. It is a high jacking of public policy. It is no joke. It is the greatest scam in history.

John Coleman 1-29-09
 
gungasnake
 
  1  
Reply Mon 6 Jul, 2009 05:33 am

http://www.redstate.com/blog/2009/06/28/vulnerable-democrats-due-to-cap-and-trade/

Quote:
Vulnerable Democrats Due to Cap and Trade

Posted by Erick Erickson (Profile)

Sunday, June 28th at 3:35PM EDT
39 Comments

Based on the votes for cap and trade, we should start focusing on these Democrats. I’d encourage you to each adopt one or more to follow.

Zach Space - OH-18

Heath Shuler NC-11

Patrick Murphy PA-8

Frank Kratovil MD-1

Baron Hill IN-9

Bart Gordon TN-6

Gabrielle Giffords AZ-8

Jim Cooper TN-5

Allen Boyd FL-2

Leonard Boswell IA-3

Melissa Bean IL-8

Scott Murphy NY-20
0 Replies
 
gungasnake
 
  1  
Reply Mon 6 Jul, 2009 06:07 am
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-bloggers/2281230/posts

Quote:

The U.S. House of Representatives narrowly passed global warming bill (219-212 vote) is being hailed by many as “historic” or “landmark” or “The Bill of the Century.”

But the passage of this bill does not signify any great “green revolution” or “growing” climate “awareness” on the part of Congress. Instead, the methods and manner that the Pelosi led House achieved final passage, represents nothing more than unrestrained exercise of raw political power, arm-twisting, intimidation and special interest handouts. (See: Pay offs: 'Florida Democrat won $50 million pledge of support for proposed hurricane research facility in his district')

The House of Representatives passed a bill it did not read, did not understand. A bill that is based on crumbling scientific claims and a bill that will have no detectable climate impact (assuming climate fear promoters are correct on the science and the bill is fully implemented " both implausible assumptions). Proponents of the bill made spectacular claims in their efforts to impress the urgency of the bill on their colleagues. To illustrate just how delusional these claims became, imagine if in 1909 the U.S. Congress passed a bill attempting to predict climate, temperature and the energy mix powering our national economy in the year 2000. (not to mention sanctimonious claims about "saving the Earth.") Any such attempt would have been ridiculed, but somehow in 2009, attempting to control the economy and climate of the year 2100 is seen as reasonable by many.

'Climate Astrology': Obama claims bill will leave Earth 4 to 5 degrees cooler!

President Obama made the completely scientifically indefensible claim that the Waxman-Markey climate bill would stop global temperature increases of up to 5 degrees! Obama said on June 25, "A long-term benefit is we're leaving a planet to our children that isn't four or five degrees hotter." (How can the President of the U.S. can be so misinformed and full of such hubris that he somehow believes he can sign a bill that acts as a thermostat for Earth's temperature? But Obama seems so imbued with his ability to control climate that during the 2008 presidential campaign he prognosticated his presidency would be "the moment when the rise of the oceans began to slow and our planet began to heal." (For latest scientific data refuting sea level rise fears see here.) President Obama has also claimed he can "block the Sun's rays to end global warming." Sadly, this has truly become the new age of "Climate Astrology." )

Democratic Congressman G.K. Butterfield reported claim that the bill “'will literally save the planet” reveals just how out of touch scientifically, politically and economically many of the bill's supporters have become.

If we actually faced the man-made “climate crisis” proponents claim, we would all be doomed if we had to rely on this bill save us. A May 2009 scientific analysis of the bill revealed its temperature impact to be “scientifically meaningless."

Sorry Congressman Butterfield, far from “saving the planet”, this bill will instead be nothing more than all economic pain for no climate gain. (See: Analysis: Climate Bill is 'Scientifically Meaningless' " Temp Reduction By 2050 of Only 9/100 of one Degree F )

Environmentalists Oppose

Many environmental groups opposed the bill because it failed to actually reduce emissions. (See: Obama's global warming plan would result in U.S. burning MORE coal in 2020 & Greenpeace Opposes Waxman-Markey...'bill chooses politics over science' )

President Obama attempted to call the bill a job creator and proponents cited a Congressional Budget Office report to downplay the cost to Americans. But these arguments failed to hold up under the close light of scrutiny. (See: Rebuttal: Obama Tries to Sell Cap-And-Tax as a Jobs Bill & WSJ: Climate bill would be 'biggest tax in American history')

Obama's own words belied his claims. In January 2008, then Senator Obama bluntly said, "Under my plan of a cap and trade system, electricity rates would necessarily skyrocket."

Even fellow Democrats failed to parrot these mythical claims that the bill is a low cost job creator. Democrat Congressman John Dingell of Michigan was blunt, calling Cap and trade a "great big" tax in April.

Obama advisor Warren Buffett also failed to tow the rhetorical line on the climate bill. Buffet came out strongly opposed to cap and trade, saying it would be “a huge, regressive tax.” In addition, the bill was called "immoral" by civil rights leader Roy Innis of the Congress of Racial Equality because of the "disproportionate and negative impact on poor and working-class families."

Perhaps Indiana Governor Mitch Daniels summed up the cap-and-trade bill the best. Daniels said in May, "A lot of people will get filthy rich doing nothing for the environment." (Many are well on their way these carbon riches, see Climate Depot's exclusive May 2, 2009 report: Al Gore's quest to become world's first 'Carbon Billionaire')

The climate bill now moves to the Senate where it faces a much tougher road ahead. The best news of the climate bill's passage is that the American public, which has wholeheartedly rejected man-made global warming fears, will now be awakened to what their representatives in Washington are up to. Rep. Artur Davis, D-Ala., a member of the Congressional Black Caucus who voted against the bill, realized Americans were not concerned about global warming, saying: “There is no public outcry to pass this legislation. It's an institutional push.”

Democrat Congressman Mike Doyle of Pennsylvania reported his constituent calls were “running 9-1 against' the climate bill. Speaker Pelosi admitted the Capitol saw voters "jamming the lines"' to protest climate bill and the Capitol phone switchboard "went down" as voters dialed "to voice their opposition to the bill."

American People 'Get it'

Current polling data reveals that the American people “get it” when it comes to man-made global warming fears. Given the wealth of recent polling data showing Americans are growing increasingly skeptical, Congressmen and Senators are simply not hearing any clamor from voters to "act" to "solve" global warming.

In fact, the opposite is true, voters are rebelling against the unfounded climate fears and the so-called "solutions" in growing numbers. Below is a small sampling of recent polling data on global warming.

1) Gallup survey found global warming ranked dead last in the U.S. among ENVIRONMENTAL issues " March 2009 2) Gallup Poll Editor: Gore has 'Failed' -- 'The public is just not that concerned' about global warming " May 2009 3) Zobgy Poll: Only 30% of Americans support cap-and-trade -- 57% oppose " April 2009 4) "Gallup Poll: Record-High 41% of Americans Now Say Global Warming is Exaggerated" - March 11, 2009 5) Rasmussen Poll found Only 34% Now Blame Humans for Global Warming - 'Lowest finding yet' -- 'reversal from a year ago!' 6) Rasmussen Reports: Congress Pushes Cap and Trade, But Just 24% Know What It Is - May 11, 2009

Now that the bill has cleared the house and heads to the Senate (where they will be preparing their own version of a cap-and-trade bill) the American people will awake to the reality that this purely climate symbolic bill with real economic and lifestyle impacts may actually become law. An American public that is aware of a “non-solution” global warming bill has the potential to literally shut down Washington with phone calls, emails, faxes and protests. Thus far, global warming bills have been a distant possibility somewhere in the future. With the passage of this bill, it is now game on. Despite the American people's rejection of warming fears and climate taxes, Congress may persist in pushing them for other non-scientific reasons. Hint, hint. See: Dem. Senator calls cap-and-trade 'the most significant revenue-generating proposal of our time.'

19th Century Living

Beyond just economics, lifestyles changes will be in order under the new climate regime. As a June 7, 2009 Washington Post editorial stated: “Why does Congress, and not the market, need to dictate these changes?” The Post noted the climate bill “contains regulations on everything from light bulb standards to specs on hot tubs; it will reshape America's economy.” Also see: 19th Century Living: Under climate plan 'Americans allowed to emit same carbon volumes as citizens did in 1867') In May, House speaker Nancy Pelosi declared “Every aspect of our lives must be subjected to an inventory” in order to battle global warming and reduce our carbon footprints.

As MIT scientist Dr. Richard Lindzen has noted: "He who controls carbon controls life. It is a bureaucrat's dream to control carbon dioxide." Washington is a field of dreams right now for bureaucrats.

Even Warming Fear Promoters Oppose

In addition, even the two strongest proponents of man-made global warming fears " NASA's James Hansen and UK's James Lovelock -- are now ridiculing the Congressional cap-and-trade approach as “ineffectual” and “verging on a gigantic scam.” Adding to that, Green Party presidential nominee Ralph Nader has also voiced opposition to this bill, saying, "I'm really astonished... I mean, it's not going to work. It's too complex. It's too easily manipulated politically."

Former progressive Democrat Presidential candidate and Congressman Dennis Kucinich also opposed the bill, warning: "It might make the problem [of global warming] worse." (Also, there were opposing editorials in unexpected places: See: 'Too big, too fast' Obama' hometown paper - Chicago Tribune - rejects climate bill! 'House members should vote no' & Washington Post: 'We think it's too soon to settle for something that falls so far short of ideal' & Denver Post: Climate bill's 'goals exist in fantasy...Not 'way to go about it' )

Remember, these are the words of scientists and activists who believe in a looming human caused climate “crisis.”

Americans are becoming aware that the debate is not "over" as more than 700 prominent international scientists publicly dissenting, including many who are reversing their views on climate fears and declaring themselves skeptical. Americans are becoming aware that there has been no significant global warming since 1995, no warming since 1998 and global cooling for the past few years. As Kimberly Strassel of the Wall Street Journal noted in a June 26, 2009 article, the “Democrats are attempting to “quickly jam the climate bill through Congress because global warming tide is shifting.” The article noted that the “Scientific debate roaring back to life” as the “number of skeptics is swelling everywhere.”

'Climate Fears RIP...for 30 years!?'

New peer-reviewed scientific studies now predict a continued lack of global warming for up to three decades as natural climate factors dominate. (See: Climate Fears RIP...for 30 years!? - Global Warming could stop 'for up to 30 years! Warming 'On Hold?...'Could go into hiding for decades' study finds " Discovery.com " March 2, 2009 )

This means that today's high school kids being forced to watch Al Gore's “An Inconvenient Truth” " some of them 4 times in 4 different classes " will be nearly eligible for AARP (age 50) retirement group membership by the time warming resumes if these new studies turn out to be correct. (Editor's Note: Claims that warming will “resume” due to explosive heat in the "pipeline" have also been thoroughly debunked. See: Climatologist Dr. Roger Pielke Sr. 'There is no warming in the pipeline' )

'Climate change issue is about to fall apart'

Many scientists are now realizing that the UN IPCC and the promoters of man-made climate fear are in a “panic” about the lack of global warming, the growing number of scientific defectors and sinking public support. South African UN Scientist Dr. Will Alexander wrote in March 2009, “'The whole climate change issue is about to fall apart...Heads will roll!”

It is no wonder that the environmental movement is urging its troops to no longer use the term “global warming,” as temperatures fail to cooperate. (See: NYT obtains enviro strategy memo: Stop use of term global warming! )

As Kimberly Strassel of the Wall Street Journal noted in a June 26, 2009 article, the “Democrats are attempting to “quickly jam the climate bill through Congress because global warming tide is shifting.” The article noted that the “Scientific debate roaring back to life” as the “number of skeptics is swelling everywhere.”

Key Questions for Voters to ask Senators

As the Senate considers global warming cap-and-trade legislation that will raise energy prices during a massive economic downturn, curious voters will soon be asking their Senators the following basic questions:

1) What impact will this bill have on temperatures? (Answer: "Meaningless") 2) What will the bill cost? (Answer: Trillions) 3) Why are you voting for a bill that will have huge economic impacts and harm the poor and seniors on fixed incomes the most -- but will not have a measurable climate impact? 4) Why are more and more scientists publicly rejecting man-made climate fears and why has the Earth failed to warm as predicted?

The answers to the above questions will likely cause massive angst with many Democrats, particularly in rust belt states.

These questions will have to be answered as all eyes turn to the U.S. Senate. But, never underestimate the ability of Congress to offer non-solutions to problems that don't even exist.
0 Replies
 
gungasnake
 
  1  
Reply Mon 6 Jul, 2009 06:10 am
http://climatedepot.com/a/1697/Climate-Depot-Editorial-Climate-bills-passage-an-unrestrained-exercise-of-raw-political-power-armtwisting-and-intimidation

Quote:

Updated: Climate Depot Editorial: Climate bill offers (costly) non-solutions to problems that don't even exist

No detectable climate impact: 'If we actually faced a man-made 'climate crisis', we would all be doomed'
0 Replies
 
gungasnake
 
  1  
Reply Mon 6 Jul, 2009 06:22 am
The eight pubbies who sold out on cap/trade:

http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/2280421/posts
0 Replies
 
way2ski
 
  1  
Reply Sat 11 Jul, 2009 10:15 am
Global warming since 1880 is a well documented fact. Anthropogenic Global Warming (AGW) is possible, but not a proven fact. The only factual way to know for sure would be to conduct an experiment with 2 identical Earths of the same age and solar environment. Then have humans occupy one planet and leave the other planet uninhabited. If the uninhabited planet is cooler than the inhabited planet, then we could say as a fact that AGW was the cause.

There is a 25-30 year warming/cooling cycle cited by Gray (University of Colorado) which is supported by NOAA experts and even published as fact on NOAA web sites. We seem to be tilting into a period of global cooling that began around 2001. (It is a fact that the cooling periods are smaller in magnitude than the warming periods- a case for AGW.) It will be interesting to see if the trillions of dollars we'll spend to counter AGW will get the credit if the planet is cooler in 2020, or if it would've cooled down anyway. We'll never know for sure.

One point worth noting however, the earth did cool down from 1945 to 1975. and we didn't do anything to counter AGW activities. In fact, vehicles had the highest level of green house gas emissions, coal fired power plants were dirtier than ever, (acid rain was a major problem in the east) and by 1975 people were talking about the perils of global cooling and what to do about it. Another fact worth noting is that Antarctica is cooling and the sea ice has grown slightly larger since 1980, while the Artic sea ice has been reduced significantly. Why only on one pole? I haven't heard a good explanation of why they are different.

Finally, on CO2, as it increases we'll have more vegetation, larger agricultural areas, be able to feed more people, and use less energy to heat our homes in winter. We'll have 100 years to relocate people from coastal flood areas which may be an economic engine world wide. Global cooling on the other hand would reduce agricutural area and increase energy usage in winter. History has shown that the global climate is always changing and always will independent of AGW effects. Being from New Hampshire, I'd rather have global warming than cooling any day!
roger
 
  3  
Reply Sat 11 Jul, 2009 01:23 pm
@way2ski,
way2ski wrote:



One point worth noting however, the earth did cool down from 1945 to 1975. and we didn't do anything to counter AGW activities. In fact, vehicles had the highest level of green house gas emissions, coal fired power plants were dirtier than ever, (acid rain was a major problem in the east) and by 1975 people were talking about the perils of global cooling and what to do about it.


I'm surprised you sound surprised. Visible air pollution reflects and promotes cooling. Not suggesting you want to breath the stuff, and I'm not really sold on AGW, but there is no conflict of theories here.
way2ski
 
  1  
Reply Sun 12 Jul, 2009 10:30 am
@roger,
Just a note- Anthropogenic global cooling (AGC) is just as lacking in factual proof as AGW. The same question applies- Would the earth have cooled anyway or was it augmented by or countered by AGC or AGW respectively. It's physically impossible to determine. There are models, but I've worked with models and simulations most of my engineering career ( 38 years). They're good for insight, but generally either miss important contributors to the problem or use erronous assumptions- both of which allow for considerable variablity in the results. You can cook the books to support whatever position you wish to promote.
0 Replies
 
gungasnake
 
  1  
Reply Mon 13 Jul, 2009 11:06 am
Anybody ever given any thought to global warming on Pluto, what was in fact observed until recently?? Pluto of course is too far from the sun for the sun to cause any noticeable warming.
0 Replies
 
 

Related Topics

 
  1. Forums
  2. » The Global Warming Scam
Copyright © 2023 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.03 seconds on 01/28/2023 at 06:53:29