global warming, i don't believe it, and never have.
I'm starting not to as well......earth has it's spikes in weather; as I've said earlier, we are coming out of an ice age....not to mention the fact that the earth used to be pretty much a huge ball of lava !
Back to the issue. The thing is yes the Globe is getting warmer. Carbon dioxide is not the reason why this is happening though. The Globe is getting warmer but this is not due to the carbon dioxide that we humans are generating.
Those who don't agree with this don't need to worry the media/government worlwide are all going to be singing the same song day in day out. Everyone is going to be pushed "to eat their greens".
However there are other environmental issuse which are important which do need addressing. For example waste/inefficiency the pollution of seas etc. So it doesnt mean all environmental issues are non-existent.
Another thing I would like to say is about left/right political paradigms. Everything is being turned into a left/right issue I think they're both complete nonsense. They are both the cheeks of the same bottom in my opinion. It's all a joke. Watch out for this in the media, it happens all the time.
Those who missed the link to the video documentary can watch it here:
The Great Global Warming Swindle.
people make offensive remarks when anyone dares to question or disagree to the contrary of their beliefs.
there is evidence that "global warming", has nothing to do with carbons.
patterns of weather change from ice age and midi ice age. and more recent, just after WW2. industry boomed, carbon emissions were high, yet the weather got colder. that is only a snippet, there is much more proof, and i believe that this went on until the seventies and from there it warmed up.
it's the cycle of life.
but isn't it a great way to stop 3rd world countries advancing in industry, and for governments to increase and invent taxes?
it is also a bandwagon for some people that need to grind their axe.
http://www.qando.net/details.aspx?Entry=3056 there's more!
Source: Washington post.
For some reason, just some reason..i don't know why, but i am more bound to believe hundreds of scientists over an unsourced politically biased opinion.
By CLAYTON SANDELL
WASHINGTON, March 19, 2007 — A top government climate scientist told Congress today that political appointees without scientific backgrounds are corrupting the scientific process and confusing the public by censoring scientists and improperly editing their research on global warming.
"I believe that the nature of these edits is a good part of the reason for why there is a substantial gap between the understanding of global warming by the relevant scientific community and the knowledge of the public and policymakers," said James Hansen, director of NASA's Goddard Institute for Space Studies. "There has been so much doubt cast on our understanding that they think it's still completely up in the air."
Also sitting at the witness table were two former Bush administration political appointees — Phillip Cooney and George Deutsch — who have found themselves at the center of separate recent climate science controversies.
In January 2006, Hansen complained that NASA officials, including Deutsch, were insisting that his lectures, media interviews and papers be approved in advance by public affairs staff at NASA headquarters. Deutsch, a former intern for George W. Bush's re-election campaign, had no scientific training.
'Forcing Scientists to Parrot Propaganda'
"Why are public affairs offices staffed by political appointees?" asked Hansen, who said he testified today as a private citizen. "Their job should be to help scientists present results in a language that the public can understand. They should not be forcing scientists to parrot propaganda."
Deutsch testified that high-ranking NASA officials were unhappy with Hansen after seeing a report on ABC's "Good Morning America" by correspondent Bill Blakemore in December 2005. Blakemore, citing information from Hansen, reported that 2005 was tied to become the hottest year on record.
"Senior NASA officials conveyed to me that they were unaware of the release of this information being coordinated with headquarters or peer review," Deutsch said. "The same senior NASA officials were, to say the least, upset by this procedural breach."
I take it that their argument for CO2 to be the cause of global warming is because of the graphs in the last page.
But a coincidal increase in CO2 and an increase in global temperature cannot be the only link. It is impossible to prove that it is the only link. In fact, looking at all the data available to the public, I'm more inclined to believe that this is a natural phenomenon in earth's cycle.
hundreds of scientists huddling around a buffet lunch nodding their heads don't really say much. I wanna see some reviewed journals. But given that I don't particularly give a crap about this issue, I'll just sit back and watch.
I got to thinking about ice core records that are so often cited, and began to wonder if that is the best way to look at temperature changes, and I'm convinced it isn't. You'd need to look at delta O18 ratios, delta C13 ratios, likely several others from all over the globe being sure to match up their time frames. This task is a monumental one, and one that likely isn't possible because precise dating is impossible in all but a very few specific cases. Especially over various geographic/geologic regions. One major reason ice cores by themselves aren't good is that if you have a warm year(s) you could foreseeably melt away part of the record. There is also a very real possiblity of eolian erosion wiping away segments of the record.
So I did a bit of googling and ended up hitting on Science, so I decided to do a broad climate search, temporarly giving up isotope records, and came across a couple articles that I found interesting. I'm not sure if anyone can search Science so I am rehosting (hopefully not illegally).
The Real Color of Climate Change? discusses problems with modeling. Short read.
Abrupt Climate Change is a little longer read. It mentions the possiblity of humans aiding in breaking a threshold before abrupt climate change, but probably more importantly it mentions how abrupt climate change has happened throughout history.
BBC is doing special coverage on global warming. I heard last night, that the glaciers were melting from the ground up. That can hardly be blamed on CO2
when global warming reaches its climax, and the earths temperatures begin to decrease and head for another ice age, mini or otherwise, what do you think it will be blamed on so as taxes can be imposed again ???
And the tarriff on crude should remain @ 0%, because all crude is not only from one source : it's mixed. So adding a tarriff on oil only give the government yet another reason to get more $ from the consumer, and the consumer *has no damn choice.*
Tariff on ethanol is perfectly fine with me. We make ethanol here too, so why buy from Brazil ?
As for prices on gasoline, the US gets crude oil the same price as Europe. The difference? Taxes.
H is the way to go. Purest and most effective. Problem is that we don't have enough nuclear reactors here in the states. Something that needs to change. If we get enough reactors here, (or even open up more oil rigs because we have so much here that is untapped - it will end foreign dependance), we can tell OPEC to shove it where the sun don't shine -- cuz we are now 100% self-sufficient on energy!
The other problem with getting H fuel cell-powered vehicles are politicians standing in the way. People want to do this - but there are still people in government that refuse to change because they like the fact we are not self-sufficient.
And no I am not talking about the right-wing, in case u are wondering.