Reply With Quote
Its January 23rd. It finally got cold in Michigan. 2 months late.
Thats all I am saying.
I do... I'm a big fan of coral reefs - It would be a big shame to see entire reef systems and a large chunk of the diversity of sea life disappear within my lifetime.
Last edited by Phenomanul; 01-24-2007 at 02:57 PM.
Its January 23rd. It finally got cold in Michigan. 2 months late.
Thats all I am saying.
I don't believe I was drawing a 1:1 comparison. I was trying to point out the single most determinant factor of global climate is, in fact, the sun.
Another, lesser point -- and, it was speculative -- was that given the known differences in atmospheric conditions on the two planets and their relative proximities to the Sun, it would be reasonable to hypothesize that if Mars is warming at a higher rate than is Earth that it is because of the atmospheric differences and not the proximity to the Sun (we're closer).
All other things being equal, it seems to me there's an argument to be made that any anthropogenic contributions to atmospheric conditions have tended to mute the warming affect of solar flux -- not intensified it. Otherwise, Mars wouldn't be getting hotter faster than Earth.
I do recognize that natural atmospheric conditions -- on their own -- might have muted the Sun's affects even more if it weren't for anthropogenic influences, however, I don't see anyone advancing that theory and, besides, do we really want to get colder?
It's like the guy said in the article, "Observational evidence does not support today's computer climate models, so there is little reason to trust model predictions of the future. ... Significant [scientific] advances have been made since the [Kyoto] protocol was created, many of which are taking us away from a concern about increasing greenhouse gases. If, back in the mid-1990s, we knew what we know today about climate, Kyoto would almost certainly not exist, because we would have concluded it was not necessary."
Just as scientific advance took us away from the dire predictions of global cooling in the 70's, it will do the same with global warming. Folks, we're along for the ride, it's only our egocentric arrogance that tells us we're having any appreciable affect on global climate.
The resistance to changing this belief is the same as it was in the 70's. Money. There are trillions to be made in "global climate change" commercialism. Just look at the industry built around reducing auto emissions.
In Texas, we require a Mom & Pop Vehicle Inspection Station to purchase a $40,000 piece of testing equipment so that they can perform vehicle inspections on a fleet where less than 10% fail the National Ambient Air Quality Standards. And, the costs of just auto emissions regulation is increasing almost in reverse proportionality to the emissions benefits gained.
Cars are rolling off the assembly line over 95% cleaner than they were just 15 years ago, yet, the EPA would have us spend 30 times as much as we have in the past fifteen years just to make modest gains on that last 5%.
Also, did you know we don't do emissions testing on diesel vehicles in Texas? Know why? Because it's not cost effective to the environmental commercial enterprises to develop a separate test for such a small fleet...even though it's generally regarded that diesels pollute more than gas-powered vehicles (although that's debatable). The Rhetorical tenor of the enviro-whackoes has quite reached the shrillness required to prompt a whole new wing of the auto emissions testing industry...but, it's coming.
I'm attending a conference in May that I attend every year. Diesel testing has become more and more prevalent on the agenda each successive year. The industry is starting to respond to the cries -- the money will follow.
I think science will bear that out; we just don't affect things that much...on a global scale.
I know you won't be disabused of this belief but, I hope we're still around in 50 years so I can tell you you were full of ...just like the guys who had this same conversation 40 years ago when the enviro-whackos first started the "the oceans are dying" canard.
They're already supposed to have died a couple of times in the past few decades.
PARIS (AFP) - Snowstorms swept across western and central Europe for a second day, killing four people, stranding thousands of air travelers and leaving hundreds of drivers trapped on freezing, log jammed roads...
A 72-year-old woman died in the southern Spanish city of Seville when a tree branch fell on her head in high winds, while three people died in German road accidents, including a bus driver, who had a head-on collision with a lorry....
Well Dan, here is another person who says all scientist
do not agree with the politicians and left wingers. Ahhh,
where is RNR when you need him.
Al Gore, poor baby, is so full of himself and his Oscar
nomination, of course he doesn't know jack about anything
except maybe defeat in Florida.
Global Warming is not due to human contribution of Carbon Dioxide
Global Warming: The Cold, Hard Facts?
By Timothy Ball
Monday, February 5, 2007
Global Warming, as we think we know it, doesn't exist. And I am not the only one trying to make people open up their eyes and see the truth. But few listen, despite the fact that I was the first Canadian Ph.D. in Climatology and I have an extensive background in climatology, especially the reconstruction of past climates and the impact of climate change on human history and the human condition. Few listen, even though I have a Ph.D, (Doctor of Science) from the University of London, England and was a climatology professor at the University of Winnipeg. For some reason (actually for many), the World is not listening. Here is why.
What would happen if tomorrow we were told that, after all, the Earth is flat? It would probably be the most important piece of news in the media and would generate a lot of debate. So why is it that when scientists who have studied the Global Warming phenomenon for years say that humans are not the cause nobody listens? Why does no one acknowledge that the Emperor has no clothes on?
Believe it or not, Global Warming is not due to human contribution of Carbon Dioxide (CO2). This in fact is the greatest deception in the history of science. We are wasting time, energy and trillions of dollars while creating unnecessary fear and consternation over an issue with no scientific justification. For example, Environment Canada brags about spending $3.7 billion in the last five years dealing with climate change almost all on propaganda trying to defend an indefensible scientific position while at the same time closing weather stations and failing to meet legislated pollution targets.
No sensible person seeks conflict, especially with governments, but if we don't pursue the truth, we are lost as individuals and as a society. That is why I insist on saying that there is no evidence that we are, or could ever cause global climate change. And, recently, Yuri A. Izrael, Vice President of the United Nations sponsored Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) confirmed this statement. So how has the world come to believe that something is wrong?
Maybe for the same reason we believed, 30 years ago, that global cooling was the biggest threat: a matter of faith. "It is a cold fact: the Global Cooling presents humankind with the most important social, political, and adaptive challenge we have had to deal with for ten thousand years. Your stake in the decisions we make concerning it is of ultimate importance; the survival of ourselves, our children, our species," wrote Lowell Ponte in 1976.
I was as opposed to the threats of impending doom global cooling engendered as I am to the threats made about Global Warming. Let me stress I am not denying the phenomenon has occurred. The world has warmed since 1680, the nadir of a cool period called the Little Ice Age (LIA) that has generally continued to the present. These climate changes are well within natural variability and explained quite easily by changes in the sun. But there is nothing unusual going on.
Since I obtained my doctorate in climatology from the University of London, Queen Mary College, England my career has spanned two climate cycles. Temperatures declined from 1940 to 1980 and in the early 1970's global cooling became the consensus. This proves that consensus is not a scientific fact. By the 1990's temperatures appeared to have reversed and Global Warming became the consensus. It appears I'll witness another cycle before retiring, as the major mechanisms and the global temperature trends now indicate a cooling.
No doubt passive acceptance yields less stress, fewer personal attacks and makes career progress easier. What I have experienced in my personal life during the last years makes me understand why most people choose not to speak out; job security and fear of reprisals. Even in University, where free speech and challenge to prevailing wisdoms are supposedly encouraged, academics remain silent.
I once received a three page letter that my lawyer defined as libellous, from an academic colleague, saying I had no right to say what I was saying, especially in public lectures. Sadly, my experience is that universities are the most dogmatic and oppressive places in our society. This becomes progressively worse as they receive more and more funding from governments that demand a particular viewpoint.
In another instance, I was accused by Canadian environmentalist David Suzuki of being paid by oil companies. That is a lie. Apparently he thinks if the fossil fuel companies pay you have an agenda. So if Greenpeace, Sierra Club or governments pay there is no agenda and only truth and enlightenment?
Personal attacks are difficult and shouldn't occur in a debate in a civilized society. I can only consider them from what they imply. They usually indicate a person or group is losing the debate. In this case, they also indicate how political the entire Global Warming debate has become. Both underline the lack of or even contradictory nature of the evidence.
I am not alone in this journey against the prevalent myth. Several well-known names have also raised their voices. Michael Crichton, the scientist, writer and filmmaker is one of them. In his latest book, "State of Fear" he takes time to explain, often in surprising detail, the flawed science behind Global Warming and other imagined environmental crises.
Another cry in the wildenerness is Richard Lindzen's. He is an atmospheric physicist and a professor of meteorology at MIT, renowned for his research in dynamic meteorology - especially atmospheric waves. He is also a member of the National Academy of Sciences and has held positions at the University of Chicago, Harvard University and MIT. Linzen frequently speaks out against the notion that significant Global Warming is caused by humans. Yet nobody seems to listen.
I think it may be because most people don't understand the scientific method which Thomas Kuhn so skilfully and briefly set out in his book "The Structure of Scientific Revolutions." A scientist makes certain assumptions and then produces a theory which is only as valid as the assumptions. The theory of Global Warming assumes that CO2 is an atmospheric greenhouse gas and as it increases temperatures rise. It was then theorized that since humans were producing more CO2 than before, the temperature would inevitably rise. The theory was accepted before testing had started, and effectively became a law.
As Lindzen said many years ago: "the consensus was reached before the research had even begun." Now, any scientist who dares to question the prevailing wisdom is marginalized and called a sceptic, when in fact they are simply being good scientists. This has reached frightening levels with these scientists now being called climate change denier with all the holocaust connotations of that word. The normal scientific method is effectively being thwarted.
Meanwhile, politicians are being listened to, even though most of them have no knowledge or understanding of science, especially the science of climate and climate change. Hence, they are in no position to question a policy on climate change when it threatens the entire planet. Moreover, using fear and creating hysteria makes it very difficult to make calm rational decisions about issues needing attention.
Until you have challenged the prevailing wisdom you have no idea how nasty people can be. Until you have re-examined any issue in an attempt to find out all the information, you cannot know how much misinformation exists in the supposed age of information.
I was greatly influenced several years ago by Aaron Wildavsky's book "Yes, but is it true?" The author taught political science at a New York University and realized how science was being influenced by and apparently misused by politics. He gave his graduate students an assignment to pursue the science behind a policy generated by a highly publicised environmental concern. To his and their surprise they found there was little scientific evidence, consensus and justification for the policy. You only realize the extent to which Wildavsky's findings occur when you ask the question he posed. Wildavsky's students did it in the safety of academia and with the excuse that it was an assignment. I have learned it is a difficult question to ask in the real world, however I firmly believe it is the most important question to ask if we are to advance in the right direction.
Dr. Tim Ball, Chairman of the Natural Resources Stewardship Project (www.nrsp.com), is a Victoria-based environmental consultant and former climatology professor at the University of Winnipeg. He can be reached at [email protected]
miracle 2
Of course Mars has global warming NOW!!! We dropped a couple of SUV's there a few years ago! - Luxury one's, Rovers, in fact.
If just two can do that to Mars - imagine what we're doing to Earth.
And then there's this:
By: J.R. Dunn
American Thinker
A Necessary Apocalypse
The apocalyptic vision of global warming serves a deep need of the environmentalist credo, the dominant pseudo-religious tendency of our age in the prosperous West.
For good or ill, human beings are constructed to believe, and faith has its demands.. Along with the concrete elements that demand belief (that fire burns and that it's not wise to walk off cliffs, for example) there exists an apparent necessity for a belief in "the rock higher than I" - a belief in a superior en y that can inspire awe and gra ude, that can be turned to in hard times, that can act as witness to injustice and dispenser of mercy.
Despite the claims of our current crop of militant atheists such as Dawkins and Harris, this is not simply brain-dead foolishness. Religious belief is hard-wired into human beings, by what means and for what purposes we don't yet understand. (A much wiser atheist, the biologist Edward O. Wilson wrote in On Human Nature that he intended to demonstrate that religious belief played an evolutionary role and could thus be explained by Darwinism. That was thirty years ago - if he ever succeeded, I haven't heard about it.)
When religious belief is subverted, it does not, as Chesterton implied, simply vanish. It is almost immediately replaced by another set of beliefs on a similar level of abstraction and serving the same purpose. Sometimes it's an import, such as Buddhism or TM. Sometimes it's a creed deliberately created to serve a political agenda, as we see in Nazism and Communism. Sometimes it's the goofy SoCal syncretism currently expressed in Wicca and Neopaganism. ("If people seriously want to be pagans," the late Joe Myers, a Christian brother of my acquaintance once said. "They'd become Roman Catholics.") And sometimes they're a combination, a weird melange of ideas picked up from various sources that (and usually not coincidentally) also serve a political purpose. Which brings us to environmentalism.
That environmentalism is in fact a pseudo-religion goes without saying. Like all such, it possesses every element of contemporary legitimate belief. It has a deity, in this case the goddess Gaia, the personification of the living Earth, (first envisioned by James Lovelock, whom we can slot in as high priest). It has its holy books, most changing with the seasons, and most, as is true of the Bible with many convinced Christians, utterly unread. It has its saints, its prophets, its commandments, religious rituals (be sure to recycle that bottle), a large gallery of sins, mortal and otherwise, and an even larger horde of devils. (Let me pause here to sharpen a horn.)
Another item that a pseudo-religion must have is an apocalypse - and that's what global warming is all about.
In fact, the apocalyptic is the major fulcrum of environmentalism, the axis around which everything else turns. It's environmentalism's major element of concern, its chief attraction, and the center of discussion and speculation, in much the same way that some Protestant variants of Christianity are obsessed above all with sin. So crucial is the apocalypse to environmentalism that there has been a whole string of them, one after the other, covering every last aspect of the natural world. If one don't git ya, the next one will.
Green emphasis on the apocalyptic appeared early, accompanying the introduction of mass environmental awareness itself. Silent Spring, published in 1962, represents the first environmentalist scripture -- nothing other than a modern book of Revelations. Rachel Carson, a popular nature writer, was dying of cancer while writing the book, and Silent Spring became an outlet for her rage and grief. Carson predicted the imminent coming of a stricken world, a world poisoned by the synthetic products of the chemical industry, in which no birds sang and human children would not be immune. The early 60s were marked by fears of the consequences of atmospheric nuclear tests, and the suggestion that chemicals were just as deadly found a willing audience.
Pollution - a word that itself bears many religious connotations -- became a byword of the era. That fact that the phenomenon encompassed virtually every aspect of technical civilization including car exhausts, household plastics, and power generation, guaranteed it a good long run. Truly grotesque stories, ranging from dioxins eating sneakers from children's feet to hushed-up epidemics of cancer, made the rounds. None were anything more than grist for Snopes.com, and the promised chemical doomsday never arrived. But Carson's work set the pattern for all the environmental apocalypses to come.
The next example was overpopulation, its prophet the notorious Paul Ehrlich. His set of tablets was led The Population Bomb and if anything, it was even more popular than Silent Spring. Ehrlich's thesis was that relentlessly burgeoning population would overstress the earth's "carrying capacity", use up all available resources, and lead to the collapse of civilization before the 20th century was out. The argument seemed irrefutable to those not familiar with the uncertainties surrounding demography (Thomas Malthus had made similar series of predictions early in the 19th century).
Countless offshoots of Ehrlich's book appeared, and overpopulation became one of the standard ideas of the late 60s, embraced by the counterculture, policymakers, academics, and the media. Even today, an era in which deflating national populations are the problem, it's by no means unusual to come across people still living in Ehrlich's nightmare world, much the same as the Amish or Mennonites have preserved their far more pleasant way of life into modern times. Ehrlich became quite wealthy, and the master of his own foundation devoted to the study of the "overpopulation threat". To this day, he contends that his thesis is correct. The whole episode is begging for a detailed historical study.
A variant combining aspects of both theories had a brief run in the early to mid 70s: the doctrine of universal famine. Pollution would poison croplands and stunt agricultural production, and overpopulation would do the rest. The problem here was the fact that proponents insisted that doom was imminent, with famine appearing as early as 1975 or 1980 at the latest. The experience taught the Greens to be a little more vague with dates.
The early 1980s saw a reprise of earlier fears of nuclear destruction (a workable definition of an "advanced civilization" could well read "one in which there is sufficient leisure time for large numbers of people to worry about doomsday"). The nuclear freeze campaign, largely engineered by the KGB, took up much of the public attention devoted to environmental crises. But even this effort was given an environmental gloss when scientific impresario Carl Sagan put together a road show of "mainstream scientists" to promote the concept of a "nuclear winter".
The firestorms generated by a nuclear strike would generate smoke so thick as to block out the sun across much of the northern hemisphere, causing a collapse of the terrestrial ecology. Nuclear winter never quite caught on outside of certain elite circles, in part due to flaws in the theory. Sagan's specialty was exobiology, the study of possible extraterrestrial life-forms, and it developed that the climate model he'd used was based on the atmosphere of Mars, a planet locked in an ice age for the past billion years. Nuclear winter faded with the nuclear freeze movement. All the same, just before his death Sagan made it known that he'd willingly accept a Nobel for his role in preventing World War III.
Ozone depletion, the next environmentalist flurry, was a little too esoteric to generate the uncritical devotion accorded to pollution and overpopulation. It involved arcane chemical reactions, took place in the stratosphere, and seemed to be confined to Antarctica. (Although the northern hemisphere was home to the bulk of the offending chlorofluorocarbons, the Arctic didn't seem to have the same problem.) But ozone depletion did serve a useful Green purpose in drawing public attention to the atmosphere, and confusing people as to exactly what the problem was all about. (I would guess that something like two-thirds of the people in this country believe that ozone depletion and global warming are part of the same phenomenon.)
But in fact, global warming has actually adapted elements of all previous environmental crazes. It holds that carbon dioxide (a naturally-occurring compound that comprises a large portion of the atmosphere) is a form of pollution, the same as Carson's detested synthetic chemicals. Like that involving overpopulation, the threatened catastrophe is universal, and implicated in everyday practices and ins utions. As with the universal famine, the effects are concrete and horrifying, though the dates have been left vague - ‘in the coming century', rather than in a year or two. As with the nuclear freeze, the human villains are easily identified, their actions, which place all human life in jeopardy, beyond redemption. As with ozone depletion, mainstream scientists have a remedy - even if it's unproven and unnecessary.
The lessons of previous environmental panics have been carefully applied to global warming No other environmentalist program has been prepared with such detail, purpose, and conviction. A skilled cadre of scientists, activists, and publicists exist who have devoted entire careers to nothing else. A vast literature has appeared analyzing not climate as a whole, not the interactions of the entire system, but solely and uniquely global warming. In many ways, warming has become both more and less than an ideology: it has become an industry, one that with such financial elements as carbon offsets can easily support itself.
The global warming program has been in play for a quarter of a century. It has been quite successful, convincing a small majority of the population that such warming is in fact occurring and is caused by manmade emissions. It is not a fad of the decade like overpopulation or nuclear winter. Nothing, not scientific evidence, not common sense, not the fact that much of the United States is basking in subfreezing temperatures as I write this, will be allowed to overturn it. The environmentalist movement has staked everything on this program. Not for the sake of science; most of the science is wrong or fabricated. (This week's IPCC report marks no change in this regard.) Not for humanity; they have never cared for humanity. Not to alter the climate itself; no such program has been suggested, and in any case the earth's climate, an unstable planet-wide chaotic system, will go its own way no matter what we do. But for one reason: to make environmentalism a basic element of millennial society.
And that's where the danger arises. The problem with this type of pseudo-religion is that they're essentially heresies, and like most heresies far more bloodyminded than the parent religions that they otherwise mirror. This is obvious when we examine Nazism and communism. The same strain in environmentalism may be hidden, but it's there. This creed has killed massive numbers and forthrightly contemplated death on an even larger scale.
The banning of DDT in 1971 resulted in the deaths of tens of millions of people in the developing world, most of them children, from insect-borne diseases such as malaria. (This despite the fact that the use of DDT to fumigate homes could have no serious effect on the environment.) Yet no environmental group has ever made note of the fact, and all oppose the reintroduction of DDT for any purpose. The DDT ban places Rachel Carson in an exclusive circle shared only by Karl Marx as a writer whose work alone caused vast amounts of human misery. (Adolf Hitler was, of course, more man of action than writer. It's doubtful that Mein Kampf in and of itself could have triggered the same upheavals as Hitler's actions.)
Death on a scale beyond even Mao was something openly contemplated in respectable circles of the cult. One byproduct of the universal famine panic was a concept called "triage". Adapted from the emergency medical technique in which the dying are put to one side while the less injured receive priority treatment, triage advocates suggested that certain "failed" nations be completely isolated from the rest of the world to bring about a "die-off" of their "excess" population, a process that would have resulted in the deaths of hundreds of millions. This was not a crackpot notion; it was presented as a serious policy issue and discussed as such in outlets such as the New York Times and the Washington Post. The particular "failed" nation always suggested by these people was India, one of our epoch's economic powerhouses.
For a third example of bloodymindedness we need only mention the environmentalist and animal rights "direct-action" groups that have utilized terrorism, sabotage, arson, assault, everything short of murder in their campaigns against offending companies and even innocent third parties.
Increasingly strident rhetoric of the kind being heard from public figures such as Heidi Cullen and even Prince Charles may well result in a vicious circle in which public frustration leads to violent action leading to more frustration and on to the inevitable climax. Up to this point, environmentalist violence has been held in check by force of law - and only by force of law. How long this will remain the case depends on how much power the Greens are allowed to accrue.
True believers, a millennial creed, and easy targets - these have always and forever made for an unholy mix. Nothing about environmentalism suggests that it won't follow the same ugly path.
J.R. Dunn is a frequent contributor to American Thinker.
His article does not change the fact that temperatures are in fact going up.
And his dismissal of it as neo-pagan apocalyptic foo-foo doesn't change the fact that if people stopped ignoring it, it could be kept in check with existing technology without a great deal of economic disruption.
Probably we're going to do nothing and just let things happen. Earth will survive. It is very old. Life adapts to changing conditions. It has been warm, with high dissolved carbonate in the oceans, before. It puts a dent in ecosystems for a very short time, geologically speaking.
Of course civilization itself is a very short time, geologically speaking. We will probably spend orders of magnitude more money gradually moving cities further inland, and adjusting means of finding and retaining water, and changing agricultural practices, and adjusting to the further reduction of aqautic life, and dealing with large migration, and fighting wars for resources, than we would have in just applying technology to keep emissions in check. But that is how humans do things. Procrastinate, procrastinate, deny, deny, deny, then when it's too late, point fingers, blame others, then scurry and waste tons of time and treasure to deal with the crisis.
No, the thing that will suck the most is changing weather patterns, especially changing raining patterns. Major cities everywhere survive because of water, cut the water to some cities and you get a bad, bad thing, even if some other city, in some other country, on some other continent is getting more rain than usual.The things that will suck the most as it gets warmer are that island nations on coral atolls will go bye-bye, and highland peasants whose way of life depends upon consistent glacier-fed water sources will be displaced. The latter is worse because it will have a huge impact on China and India and probably trigger a war in Asia.
This is the thing wars are made of.
Most industrialized nations can survive droughts. Water sources arne't going to dry up in a short amount of time and most industrialized nations will adapt.
Food is an entirely different issue.
You're right; too bad wealthy nations haven't figured out to hold or "reserve" water back in one place, or transport it over long distances in a water conduit, or if you will, an "aqua-duct." There seems to be a interesting group of people on the Italian Peninsula called "Romans" who are developing some promising technology; hopefully it will spread before it is too late.
Well, well. You don't agree with me and my policies, then get
out of my sight. Well maybe no in those words but.......
read on...
Global warming debate spurs Ore. le tiff
06:51 AM PST on Wednesday, February 7, 2007
By VINCE PATTON, KGW Staff
In the face of evidence agreed upon by hundreds of climate scientists, George Taylor holds firm. He does not believe human activities are the main cause of global climate change.
Taylor also holds a unique le: State Climatologist.
KGW photo
Hundreds of scientists last Friday issued the strongest warning yet on global warming saying humans are "very likely" the cause.
“Most of the climate changes we have seen up until now have been a result of natural variations,” Taylor asserts.
Taylor has held the le of "state climatologist" since 1991 when the legislature created a state climate office at OSU The university created the job le, not the state.
Should the state climatologist lose his le?
No
Yes
View Results
His opinions conflict not only with many other scientists, but with the state of Oregon's policies.
So the governor wants to take that le from Taylor and make it a position that he would appoint.
In an exclusive interview with KGW-TV, Governor Ted Kulongoski confirmed he wants to take that le from Taylor. The governor said Taylor's contradictions interfere with the state's stated goals to reduce greenhouse gases, the accepted cause of global warming in the eyes of a vast majority of scientists.
“He is Oregon State University's climatologist. He is not the state of Oregon's climatologist,” Kulongoski said.
Taylor declined to comment on the proposal other than to say he was a "bit shocked" by the news. He recently engaged in a debate at O.M.S.I. and repeated his doubts about accepted science.
In an interview he told KGW, "There are a lot of people saying the bulk of the warming of the last 50 years is due to human activities and I don't believe that's true." He believes natural cycles explain most of the changes the earth has seen.
A bill will be introduced in Salem soon on the matter.
Sen. Brad Avakian, (D) Washington County, is sponsoring the bill. He said global warming is so important to state policy it's important to have a climatologist as a consultant to the governor. He denied this is targeted personally at Taylor. "Absolutely not," Avakian said, "I've never met Mr. Taylor and if he's got opinions I hope he comes to the hearing and testifies."
Kulongoski said the state needs a consistent message on reducing greenhouse gases to combat climate change.
The Governor says, "I just think there has to be somebody that says, 'this is the state position on this.'"
(KGW Reporter Vince Patton contributed to this report)
HOUSE HEARING ON 'WARMING OF THE PLANET' CANCELED AFTER ICE STORM
HEARING NOTICE
Tue Feb 13 2007 19:31:25 ET
The Subcommittee on Energy and Air Quality hearing scheduled for Wednesday, February 14, 2007, at 10:00 a.m. in room 2123 Rayburn House Office Building has been postponed due to inclement weather. The hearing is en led “Climate Change: Are Greenhouse Gas Emissions from Human Activities Contributing to a Warming of the Planet?”
The hearing will be rescheduled when & if the weather heats up...
We must stop the global warming....
Thomas Sowell, an articulate but, yet to be declared clean by Joe Biden, black economist and pundit, is running a series of articles on this topic over at HughHewitt.com
He's up to part III, go here to read them all...if, of course, you're interested in an opposing point of view.
Good series, I recommend it for those who aren't locked in their "Manmade Global Climate Change" dogma.
Manny according to some so called experts, they were
suppose to be already dead. Something seems to be
wrong with all these "experts".
And I would love to know by whose "conservative estimate" is making all these estimates. The same 90 percential of experts who say man is causing global warming. By a whole, what is it less than 1 degree. Yeah baby!
We must stop the global warming....
ALLENTOWN, Pa. - The last of hundreds of stranded motorists were freed but Pennsylvania highways remained shut Friday as crews struggled to clear ice and snow following a monster storm that has been blamed for at least 24 deaths in the Northeast and Midwest....
Gov. Ed Rendell publicly apologized for Pennsylvania's "totally unacceptable" handling of the storm and a tie-up on a 50-mile stretch of Interstate 78, which stranded hundreds of motorists for as long as 24 hours. He blamed an "almost total breakdown in communication" on Global Warming...
We must stop the global warming....
http://www.thisislondon.co.uk/showbi...ent/article.do
With five private jets, Travolta still lectures on global warming...
The 53-year-old actor, a passionate pilot, encouraged his fans to "do their bit" to tackle global warming.
But although he readily admitted: "I fly jets", he failed to mention he actually owns five, along with his own private runway.
Clocking up at least 30,000 flying miles in the past 12 months means he has produced an estimated 800 tons of carbon emissions – nearly 100 times the average Briton's tally.
Travolta made his comments this week at the British premiere of his movie, Wild Hogs.
He spoke of the importance of helping the environment by using "alternative methods of fuel" – after driving down the red carpet on a Harley Davidson.
Travolta, a Scientologist, claimed the solution to global warming could be found in outer space and blamed his hefty flying mileage on the nature of the movie business.
But his appointment as a "serving ambassador" for the Australian airline Qantas doesn't seem to have much to do with the movies. Nor does a recent, two-month round-the-world flying trip.
"It [global warming] is a very valid issue," Travolta declared. "I'm wondering if we need to think about other planets and dome cities.
Seems this guy directly disputes Stout's "rather obvious link".
Does someone have a study that actually shows that CO2 acts as the blanket we all believe it does? Is it true that none have been done, or is the guy blowing smoke? I find it hard to believe such a study doesn't exist.
Crickets? Really?
Same reason they never want to acknowledge that the
oceans covered a whole bunch of the earth in the past. Like
you know evidence that shows up in the Himalayans, you
know fossils. But that doesn't count.
Spring snow dumps on upper Northeast...
A line of bikes are covered with snow at Bowdoin College in Brunswick, Maine, Thursday, April 5, 2007. A spring storm caused numerous power outages at businesses and homes statewide...
The greenhouse effect provided by CO2 follows directly from quantum mechanics. Solar radiation excites the electrons in the polar CO2 molecule, causing the energy to be retained in the atmosphere rather than reflected or dissipated.
Questioning whether in fact the greenhouse effect exists in general is an intellectually dishonest diversion attempt akin to questioning whether in fact the earth is heated by the sun.
When global average temperatures start decreasing over a long period of time, you will no longer be full of crap.
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Posting Permissions
