Ok Daniel This Guy Does Not Agree With You

[mr_english 0]

http://www.canadafreepress.com/2007/global-warming020507.htmWhat he does not say in the article but he did say on the radio the other day (I will have to paraphrase a little I dont have total recall)1. CO2 levels are actually lower than they were several hundred years ago2. CO2 is NOT a green house gas, something along the lines of more CO2= more clouds= lower temps3. A recent Summary released on a "global warming" report was released BEFORE the report has been written, now they will write the report to support the summary4. Ice melts in the north pole are only 4% haigher than average, considering the size this is well within scientific variations5. Ice actually is increasing in the south pole6. Polar bears are dying because they have seen a population boom, they currently are at one of there highest ever population numbers, its natures way of controlling population7. A few years back the UN actually had a section of a report deleted becuase it did not support global warming, this is actually documented.8. Glaciers are melting, apparently they only actively look at about 10% of the worlds glaciers, and many on them are not in fact dissappearing.It goes on and on, do I believe it all, NO I am not that gullable, anymore than I believe everything that Gore has to say. I believe that warming and cooling are not what we need to be looking at, those things change over decades and centuries. What we should be more concerned about is pollution. The way we are polluting the seas and land things will be long gone before we have to worry about it being to hot or too cold. Dont believe that then just look at the massive dead zones that are now in force year round off the califonia/oregon/washington coasts and the gulf of mexico, I believe another huge one is in the indian ocean, The barrier reeef off Australia is also reporting large die offs, Puget sound (hood canal) has seen massive fish kills. So my point is "ITS THE POLLUTION STUPID"

[Balloon guy 158]

http://www.canadafreepress.com/2007/global-warming020507.htmWhat he does not say in the article but he did say on the radio the other day (I will have to paraphrase a little I dont have total recall)1. CO2 levels are actually lower than they were several hundred years ago That's because the paint ball fields have sucked up all the spare Co22. CO2 is NOT a green house gas, something along the lines of more CO2= more clouds= lower tempsmore clouds=lower temp=more coats=heavier people=slower rotation of earth=axis flip..still bad3. A recent Summary released on a "global warming" report was released BEFORE the report has been written, now they will write the report to support the summaryCome one, at least they care4. Ice melts in the north pole are only 4% haigher than average, considering the size this is well within scientific variationsSanta Claus 3 movie filming times probably explains this5. Ice actually is increasing in the south poleMaking the penquins have to march farther6. Polar bears are dying because they have seen a population boom, they currently are at one of there highest ever population numbers, its natures way of controlling populationNo Polar bears are dying because they have been exploited on the show Lost and now people think it's cool to kill them7. A few years back the UN actually had a section of a report deleted becuase it did not support global warming, this is actually documented.The UN, you can't believe them even when they lie8. Glaciers are melting, apparently they only actively look at about 10% of the worlds glaciers, and many on them are not in fact dissappearing.Have you ever watched a glacier??? It's a wonder that we pay these people enough to watch the 10%It goes on and on, do I believe it all, NO I am not that gullable, anymore than I believe everything that Gore has to say. I believe that warming and cooling are not what we need to be looking at, those things change over decades and centuries. What we should be more concerned about is pollution. The way we are polluting the seas and land things will be long gone before we have to worry about it being to hot or too cold. Dont believe that then just look at the massive dead zones that are now in force year round off the califonia/oregon/washington coasts and the gulf of mexico, I believe another huge one is in the indian ocean, The barrier reeef off Australia is also reporting large die offs, Puget sound (hood canal) has seen massive fish kills. So my point is "ITS THE POLLUTION STUPID"

Ted Danson would agree. He clearly gave us 10 years before the pollution in the ocean's killed all life. He made this bold perdiction in 1986 I believe.

[mr_english 0]

Ted might have been off by a few years but he has a valid point, try reading thishttp://www.raleightavern.org/globalwarming.htm

[mrdannyg 274]

Haven't read DN's blog yet, but I did see the one quote where he said "based on the last 50 years..." etc. This is simply unimportant. We have millions of years of data, and yet DN is suggesting we can draw dire conclusions from the last 50 years? That'd be like looking at the last 3 hands someone played and concluding whether or not they are a winning player (gotta love poker analogies). The last 3 hands, like the last 50 years, are simply unimportant.To put it simply, there is no mathematical proof that the increased CO2 levels in the last couple hundred years has effected global temperature, and there is no evidence that it has had any significant effect that should lead to policy changes.The evidence that is usually used in this debate, including by Gore, is very seriously mathematically flawed, almost to the point of being completely useless. Hopefully someone with more mathematical education/experience can explain in proper terminology why pretty much any data would lead itself to the conclusions (significant uptrend in the most recent years).

[Balloon guy 158]

From the above link:The Earth’s enormous volume of water also plays a major role. Water vapor is the most important greenhouse gas of all, exerting 93 % of the entire greenhouse effect. *The strongest greenhouse gas, molecule for molecule, exclusive of water vapor and ten times stronger in effect than carbon dioxide, is methane, a product in animal flatulence, *“when dinosaurs roamed the earth, the carbon dioxide concentration was about 10 times higher than it was before the industrial revolution. And yet the temperature was only about 10 degrees Centigrade (18 degrees Fahrenheit) above what it is today.” (“Satanic Gases”)*Despite this recent sizeable increase in carbon dioxide concentration, the 20th Century has had an average increase in temperature over the 19th Century of only one degree Fahrenheit!! And most of that increase occurred before 1940, (“Science Has Spoken: Global Warming is a Myth”, Robinson & Robinson, Wall Street J. [WSJ], 12/4/97) followed by a cooling trend to 1970, and then a slight warming for the past 30years. There is nothing here that correlates with the steady advance of carbon dioxide concentration.*Representative John Peterson, Republican, 5th District, Pennsylvania came to Congress in 1997. Since he was assigned to the House Resources Committee and the Forest and Forest Health Sub-committee, he was inundated by environmental lobbying. Not a scientist, he recognized his responsibility to be informed and studied the science with an open mind and is now a confirmed global warming skeptic. He describes how brain-washed the media are: in 1998 he contacted Time magazine to correct an error concerning global warming in their “Earth Watch” section. They refused. “Their panel of three ‘science’ editors had adopted a policy that since man-made warming was such a major threat to the planet, they would not publish anything which would undercut the theory in the minds of their readers”. *Good read, mostly what I already knew from Rush Limbaugh.Thanks Mr. English

[LongLiveYorke 38]

1. CO2 levels are actually lower than they were several hundred years ago

Lie, and easily shown to be untrue.

2. CO2 is NOT a green house gas, something along the lines of more CO2= more clouds= lower temps

Lie. CO2 is for sure a greenhouse gas.

3. A recent Summary released on a "global warming" report was released BEFORE the report has been written, now they will write the report to support the summary

A more bold faced lie than the other ones. The summary was released before the report, true, but the rest of the report was already mostly written, aside from a little more editing that was necessary for a report made of more than 400 authors.Wow, 1, 2, 3 off the bat lies. This guy's pretty good.Also:

[mr_english 0]

Lie, and easily shown to be untrue.Lie. CO2 is for sure a greenhouse gas.A more bold faced lie than the other ones. The summary was released before the report, true, but the rest of the report was already mostly written, aside from a little more editing that was necessary for a report made of more than 400 authors.Wow, 1, 2, 3 off the bat lies. This guy's pretty good.Also:

THIS IS A BAD THING EH ? Water vapor is the most important greenhouse gas of all, exerting 93 % of the entire greenhouse effectmaybe we should be working harder to reduce water, sure could use some help here in SeattleMost of my other points are in balloon guys response.

[mrdannyg 274]

bah, you can use facts to prove anything. 73% of people know that. And besides, look at the names of those so-called "scientists." Whorf? Whalen? van der Plight? They're probably not even american!

[Balloon guy 158]

If those charts were a stock I would wait another 100,000 years and buy low.Seems kind of cyclical, as in was going to happen anyway.

[mr_english 0]

If those charts were a stock I would wait another 100,000 years and buy low.Seems kind of cyclical, as in was going to happen anyway.

Did you also notice that Co2 went uo to 380ppm but the temp is 2 degrees lower than the previous Co2 spike of about 290ppm, maybe they got it wrong and its NOT global warming but global COOLING

[Balloon guy 158]

Dang it, now I've got to short my air conditioner company stocks.If one frost delay screws up my tee time I'm selling my SUV and getting a Prius

[Head_Trauma 0]

"I insist on saying that there is no evidence that we are, or could ever cause global climate change."How can you take this guy seriously with a claim like this??To say that there is nothing humans could ever do to cause the Earth's climate to change is absolutely preposterous.

[mr_english 0]

Ted Danson would agree. He clearly gave us 10 years before the pollution in the ocean's killed all life. He made this bold perdiction in 1986 I believe.

I see I was not accurate in my recall for item #7, this is what I was referring to'The National Academy of Sciences report reaffirmed the existence of the Medieval Warm Period from about 900 AD to 1300 AD and the Little Ice Age from about 1500 to 1850. Both of these periods occurred long before the invention of the SUV or human industrial activity could have possibly impacted the Earth’s climate. In fact, scientists believe the Earth was warmer than today during the Medieval Warm Period, when the Vikings grew crops in Greenland. Climate alarmists have been attempting to erase the inconvenient Medieval Warm Period from the Earth’s climate history for at least a decade. David Deming, an assistant professor at the University of Oklahoma’s College of Geosciences, can testify first hand about this effort. Dr. Deming was welcomed into the close-knit group of global warming believers after he published a paper in 1995 that noted some warming in the 20th century. Deming says he was subsequently contacted by a prominent global warming alarmist and told point blank “We have to get rid of the Medieval Warm Period.” When the “Hockey Stick” first appeared in 1998, it did just that.

[Tiltinagain 977]

Haven't read DN's blog yet, but I did see the one quote where he said "based on the last 50 years..." etc. This is simply unimportant. We have millions of years of data, and yet DN is suggesting we can draw dire conclusions from the last 50 years? That'd be like looking at the last 3 hands someone played and concluding whether or not they are a winning player (gotta love poker analogies). The last 3 hands, like the last 50 years, are simply unimportant.To put it simply, there is no mathematical proof that the increased CO2 levels in the last couple hundred years has effected global temperature, and there is no evidence that it has had any significant effect that should lead to policy changes.The evidence that is usually used in this debate, including by Gore, is very seriously mathematically flawed, almost to the point of being completely useless. Hopefully someone with more mathematical education/experience can explain in proper terminology why pretty much any data would lead itself to the conclusions (significant uptrend in the most recent years).

Well said. I (tried) to make the same point in another post.

[DonJ 0]

I just do not understand how so many of you are so certain that human caused climate change is some false hypothesis. One of you cited a radio talk show host as a source! I think some of you think that climate change will adversely affect the economy. This is just as rediculous as saying War is bad for the economy. Just the opposite is true. The problem lies with the fact that a climate change economy means a shift from the oil economy to a green one. But of course there are some very powerful people who are very invested in the former. And they will use all their power to keep the climate change skepticism alive and well, as is evidenced by the lemmings posting above. All hail your oil patch masters. All hail the Chief.

[mrdannyg 274]

Well said. I (tried) to make the same point in another post.

thanks, though i exaggerate my understanding on the matter. the long thread on the movie contains basically all my thoughts on the matter, plus the thoughts of much more intelligent people, who both state some of my opinions better, and often make me look dumb.i recommend everyone read that thread instead, since most of DN's blog is refuted on the first page.

[Donkinator 0]

Sometimes it is difficult to remember that nature operates on a geologic time scale. Human beings have a tendency to take short-term trends and extrapolate them to ominous doomsday scenarios. From about 1945 to 1975, average land temperatures in the Northern Hemisphere fell by a very small amount, about 0.4ºF. This led to wave of speculation concerning global cooling. In 1975 reporter Peter Gwynne wrote in Newsweek, "The central fact is that after three-quarters of a century of extraordinarily mild conditions, the Earth's climate seems to be cooling down." Gwynne went on to warn of "profound climatic change" with "catastrophic famines" and said that meteorologists were "almost unanimous" in their view that a cooling trend would reduce agricultural productivity. The article concluded by warning, "The longer the planners delay, the more difficult will they find it to cope with climatic change once the results become grim reality." The hysteria was taken a step farther that same year by Nigel Calder in an article titled "In the Grip of a New Ice Age?" in the National Wildlife Federation's journal, International Wildlife. Calder warned that "the threat of a new ice age must now stand alongside nuclear war as a likely source of wholesale death and misery for mankind." Conclusion Although the menace of "global cooling" has abated, the last 25 years have not seen any moderation in the tendency of the media to focus on the bizarre, the unusual and the speculative in relation to climate science. The geological evidence demonstrating that 20th-century warming is nothing unusual has been ignored, while hysteria over "global warming" has been pushed relentlessly. With important policy decisions depending on an informed public, this is journalistic negligence. David Deming is an Associate Professor of Geology and Geophysics at the University of Oklahoma.

[Zealous Donkey 0]

I just do not understand how so many of you are so certain that human caused climate change is some false hypothesis. One of you cited a radio talk show host as a source! I think some of you think that climate change will adversely affect the economy. This is just as rediculous as saying War is bad for the economy. Just the opposite is true. The problem lies with the fact that a climate change economy means a shift from the oil economy to a green one. But of course there are some very powerful people who are very invested in the former. And they will use all their power to keep the climate change skepticism alive and well, as is evidenced by the lemmings posting above. All hail your oil patch masters. All hail the Chief.

It's simple, we have been hearing that the sky is falling for over 20 years now. They made their predictions and they were wrong. They say if things don't improve in 10 years then most of the east coast of the US is going to be under water, and then things not only don't improve but get much worse yet the east coast is still there. Thats where my skepticism comes from. I t is very convenient to say that any scientist or any report that doesn't support the UN, or Gore Movie is somehow tainted. The Global Warming propagandists are the ones keeping skepticism alive and well with their incompetence.

[chrozzo 19]

just move the kansas and do whatever the F you want to then

[pokerfan1080 0]

The human race can not survive forever. And, who is gonna do something about the dieing sun?Global warming is a bunch of hog-wash, imo.

[LongLiveYorke 38]

just move the kansas and do whatever the F you want to then

Except for believe in evolution, of course.

[gozo 0]

It's simple, we have been hearing that the sky is falling for over 20 years now. They made their predictions and they were wrong. They say if things don't improve in 10 years then most of the east coast of the US is going to be under water, and then things not only don't improve but get much worse yet the east coast is still there.

Does this ring any bells for you?

[Balloon guy 158]

Looks like the Candadian leadership is more with us then against us.

Last Updated: Tuesday, January 30, 2007 | 10:15 PM ET CBC News Prime Minister Stephen Harper once called the Kyoto accord a "socialist scheme" designed to suck money out of rich countries, according to a letter leaked Tuesday by the Liberals.The letter, posted on the federal Liberal party website, was apparently written by Harper in 2002, when he was leader of the now-defunct Canadian Alliance party.He was writing to party supporters, asking for money as he prepared to fight then-prime minister Jean Chrétien on the proposed Kyoto accord."We're gearing up now for the biggest struggle our party has faced since you entrusted me with the leadership," Harper's letter says."I'm talking about the 'battle of Kyoto' — our campaign to block the job-killing, economy-destroying Kyoto accord."

http://www.cbc.ca/canada/story/2007/01/30/harper-kyoto.html

[Balloon guy 158]

Uh oh..We've corrupted the Czech president now too.President of Czech Republic Calls Man-Made Global Warming a 'Myth' - Questions Gore's SanityMon Feb 12 2007 09:10:09 ETCzech president Vaclav Klaus has criticized the UN panel on global warming, claiming that it was a political authority without any scientific basis.http://www.drudgereport.com/flash.htmMan that Rush Limbaugh has influence, I guess that's why he got nominated for the Nobel Peace Prize

[mrdannyg 274]

Man that Rush Limbaugh has influence, I guess that's why he got nominated for the Nobel Peace Prize

not sure if that's serious, but it is true. getting nominated for the Nobel Peace Prize is merely a matter of having someone nominate you for basically anything that could be considered relevant to public peace.