Discussion: Global Warming, Emission Standards, and Other Environmental Issues

[:eek:]

Remarkable heat in Asia
For the second consecutive summer, some of the hottest temperatures in Earth's recorded history have scorched Asia. The five hottest (undisputed) temperatures ever measured in Asia have all occurred in during the past two summers:

1) 53.5°C (128.3°F) at Moenjodaro, Pakistan on May 26, 2010
2) 53.3°C (127.9°F) at Mitrabah, Kuwait on August 3, 2011
3) 53.1°C (127.6°F) at Sulaibiya, Kuwait on June 15, 2010
4) 53.0°C (127.4°F) at Tallil, Iraq on August 3, 2011
4) 53.0°C (127.4°F) at Dehloran, Iran on July 28, 2011

Asia's official all-time hottest temperature is 54°C measured at Tirat Zvi, Israel on June 21, 1942. However, as explained by our weather historian, Christopher C. Burt, this record is under serious dispute. Weather records researchers Howard Rainford and Maximiliano Herrera discovered that the thermograph trace of the record had been mis-read as one degree higher than it actually was. Thus the 1942 temperature at Tirat Zvi was probably 53.0°C, tying it for the 4th hottest temperature measured in Asia.

Last year, twenty nations set all-time heat records. So far this year, there have been six such records set:

Kuwait recorded its hottest temperature on record on August 3, 2011, when the mercury hit 53.3°C (127.0°F) at Mitrabah. The previous record was 53.1°C in Sulaibiya on June 15, 2010. According to weather records researcher Maximiliano Herrera, who has been corresponding with representatives from the Kuwait Meteorological Center, the reading has been confirmed as authentic. The 53.3°C (127.0°F) at Mitrabah thus represents:

1) New official national record for Kuwait
2) Second highest (undisputed) temperature ever recorded in Asia
3) Highest temperature ever recorded in an Arabic country
4) Third hottest location in the planet together with Lake Havasu City, AZ (after Death Valley, CA and Moenjodaro, Pakistan)
5) A new world record for August

Iraq recorded its hottest temperature on record on August 3, 2011 in Tallil (Ali military airbase), when the mercury hit 53°C (127.4°F). The previous record was 52.3°C recorded at Diwanya FOB airbase a few days before.

Armenia recorded its hottest temperature on record on July 31 in Meghri, when the mercury hit 43.7°C (110.7°F). The previous record was 43.1°C in Meghri on July 17, 2005.

Iran recorded its hottest temperature in its history on July 28, 2011, when the mercury hit 53°C (127.4°F) at Dehloran. The previous previous record was set just one day earlier at Omidieh and Shoshtar, when the mercury hit 52.6°C (126.6°F).

Republic of the Congo set a new all-time extreme heat record on March 8, 2011, when the temperature hit 39.2°C (102.6°F) at M'Pouya. Congo's previous all-time hottest temperature was 39.0°C (102.2°F) at Impfondo on May 14, 2005.

Special mention:
Russia had its hottest temperature on record at a regular synoptic reporting station on July 30, 2011, when the mercury hit 44.2°C (111.6°F) at Divnoe in Russia's Kalmykia Republic. Three hotter temperatures have been recorded at automated stations: 45.4°C in 2010 at a hydrological station at Utta, plus readings of 45°C at El'ton and 44.5°C at Verhjnky Baskunkak in August 1940.

No nations have set an all-time coldest temperature record this year, or did so in 2010.

Weather records researcher Maximiliano Herrera is the primary source of the weather records listed here; he maintains a comprehensive list of extreme temperature records for every nation in the world on his website.

 

[Marx]

UPDATE: ANTARTICA ICE FLOW FINALLY MAPPED OUT
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2011/08/21/antarctica-ice-flow-map_n_932467.html

 

[Paradoxium]

Aliens Could Attack Earth to End Global Warming, NASA Scientist Frets

Yes this for realz.

I mean in the someone actually paid for this type of ****ing research. But hey it pushes the AGW agenda, which is totally not fearmongering to its extreme t:

BEWARE KEANU REEVES IS GOING TO KILL IF YOU POLLUTE

 

[Paradoxium]

CERN: 'Climate models will need to be substantially revised'

 

[Paradoxium]

Science getting settled

But Mr. Kirkby made the same tactical error that the Danes [who had earlier proposed the theory, and had been punished] had — not realizing how politicized the global warming issue was, he candidly shared his views with the scientific community.

“The theory will probably be able to account for somewhere between a half and the whole of the increase in the Earth’s temperature that we have seen in the last century,” Mr. Kirkby told the scientific press in 1998, explaining that global warming may be part of a natural cycle in the Earth’s temperature.

The global warming establishment sprang into action, pressured the Western governments that control CERN, and almost immediately succeeded in suspending CLOUD. It took Mr. Kirkby almost a decade of negotiation with his superiors, and who knows how many compromises and unspoken commitments, to convince the CERN bureaucracy to allow the project to proceed. And years more to create the cloud chamber and convincingly validate the Danes’ groundbreaking theory.

Yet this spectacular success will be largely unrecognized by the general public for years — this column will be the first that most readers have heard of it — because CERN remains too afraid of offending its government masters to admit its success. Weeks ago, CERN [formally] decided to muzzle Mr. Kirby and other members of his team to avoid “the highly political arena of the climate change debate,” telling them “to present the results clearly but not interpret them” and to downplay the results by “mak[ing] clear that cosmic radiation is only one of many parameters.” The CERN study and press release is written in bureaucratese and the version of Mr. Kirkby’s study that appears in the print edition of Nature censored the most eye-popping graph — only those who know where to look in an online supplement will see the striking potency of cosmic rays in creating the conditions for seeding clouds.

 

[Paradoxium]

Cutting soot emissions: Fastest, most economical way to slow global warming

DENVER, Aug. 31, 2011 — A new study of dust-like particles of soot in the air — now emerging as the second most important — but previously overlooked — factor in global warming provides fresh evidence that reducing soot emissions from diesel engines and other sources could slow melting of sea ice in the Arctic faster and more economically than any other quick fix, a scientist reported here today.

In a presentation at the 242nd National Meeting & Exposition of the American Chemical Society (ACS), Mark Z. Jacobson, Ph.D., cited concerns that continued melting of sea ice above the Arctic Circle will be a tipping point for the Earth's climate, a point of no return. That's because the ice, which reflects sunlight and heat back into space, would give way to darker water that absorbs heat and exacerbates warming. And there is no known way to make the sea refreeze in the short term.

Jacobson's calculations indicate that controlling soot could reduce warming above parts of the Arctic Circle by almost 3 degrees Fahrenheit within 15 years. That would virtually erase all of the warming that has occurred in the Arctic during the last 100 years.

"No other measure could have such an immediate effect," said Jacobson, who is with Stanford University. "Soot emissions are second only to carbon dioxide (CO2) in promoting global warming, but its effects have been underestimated in previous climate models. Consequently, soot's effect on climate change has not been adequately addressed in national and international global warming legislation. Soot emissions account for about 17 percent of global warming, more than greenhouse gases like methane. Soot's contribution, however, could be reduced by 90 percent in 5-10 years with aggressive national and international policies."

Soot = bad for health anyways. I think this is a more politically and economically viable method alone.

 

[Paradoxium]

Cutting soot emissions: Fastest, most economical way to slow global warming

DENVER, Aug. 31, 2011 — A new study of dust-like particles of soot in the air — now emerging as the second most important — but previously overlooked — factor in global warming provides fresh evidence that reducing soot emissions from diesel engines and other sources could slow melting of sea ice in the Arctic faster and more economically than any other quick fix, a scientist reported here today.

In a presentation at the 242nd National Meeting & Exposition of the American Chemical Society (ACS), Mark Z. Jacobson, Ph.D., cited concerns that continued melting of sea ice above the Arctic Circle will be a tipping point for the Earth's climate, a point of no return. That's because the ice, which reflects sunlight and heat back into space, would give way to darker water that absorbs heat and exacerbates warming. And there is no known way to make the sea refreeze in the short term.

Jacobson's calculations indicate that controlling soot could reduce warming above parts of the Arctic Circle by almost 3 degrees Fahrenheit within 15 years. That would virtually erase all of the warming that has occurred in the Arctic during the last 100 years.

"No other measure could have such an immediate effect," said Jacobson, who is with Stanford University. "Soot emissions are second only to carbon dioxide (CO2) in promoting global warming, but its effects have been underestimated in previous climate models. Consequently, soot's effect on climate change has not been adequately addressed in national and international global warming legislation. Soot emissions account for about 17 percent of global warming, more than greenhouse gases like methane. Soot's contribution, however, could be reduced by 90 percent in 5-10 years with aggressive national and international policies."

Soot = bad for health anyways. I think this is a more politically and economically viable method alone.

BTW I am not sure if anyone notice, but Al Gore promoted Diesel cars, which produces soot. In Europe, sales of it has rocketed upwards. Diesel was promoted as environmentally friendly.

Al Gore and Europe have been promoting Global Warming and bad health.

 

[Spidey-Bat]

Don't the cabs in London run on diesel?

 

[Hobgoblin]

http://security.blogs.cnn.com/2011/...curity-threat-british-admiral-says/?hpt=hp_t2

Stresses from global climate change are increasing the threat of wars around the world, a British admiral said Wednesday.

Royal Navy Rear Adm. Neil Morisetti told students and faculty at Georgia Institute of Technology that global climate change threats to food, water, land and energy will present substantive security challenges in regions of the world where there are already stresses.

"Those climate stress multipliers are increasing the threat of armed conflict around the world," Morisetti said.

Morisetti pointed out that existing stress points form a band around the globe, running from Central and South America, across Africa, the Middle East and south Asia. That band, he said, intersects with the regions of the globe most susceptible to climate change.

With climate change, Morisetti said, "we're going to add more to that cocktail."

Morisetti, who holds the title of the British government's climate and energy security envoy, is on a tour of the United States, speaking to academics and military officials.

He says climate change represents a significant challenge for governments because the "new and emerging threat doesn't fit into the traditional stovepipe of governments.

"It's a threat that won't manifest for the next 15 to 20 years, which means that you have to look at potential threats, not particular threats."

"Part of the problem is to get people to understand that there is a problem," he said, and governments and the public "have to be able to see the opportunities, not just the threats."

Governments will have to work together to deal with the problem, he said.

"Climate change just doesn't recognize national or international boundaries."

The recent pattern of global weather-related disasters illustrate how climate change is already putting pressure on military forces to help with rescue and disaster-recovery missions, Morisetti said.

As a Royal Navy admiral, Morisetti also says he sees soaring energy costs affecting the ability of governments and their military forces to be able to adequately respond to security threats.

He described how one of his former commands, the aircraft carrier HMS Invincible, required an imperial gallon (1.2 U.S. gallons) of fuel to move just 12 inches. If fuel prices spike, he said, it would not be financially cost-effective to operate.

"We just couldn't do it."

To compensate, military forces must develop new fuel sources, Morisetti said.

As to how soon and precisely where global climate change would present a security threat, Morisetti was not willing to make guesses.

"I can't tell you when or where," he said, "but they will happen."

 

[8wid]

Javan rhino 'now extinct in Vietnam'

 

[Superman]

Anyone remember how the Right made a big deal out of that lie they called "Climategate"?....

Jon Stewart Rips Media For Ignoring 'Climategate' Debunking, Covering McRib Instead

On Wednesday night's "Daily Show," Jon Stewart picked up on a story that rocked the science world in 2009: the email hacking that exposed hundreds of exchanges between global warming scientists known as Climategate.

If you remember, the emails weren't a big deal because they proved anything, but because they suggested irregularities in data which in turn encouraged climate change skeptics to continue to deny global warming. As Stewart reminisced with a series of clips, Fox News pundits and conservative analysts on all the 24-hour news networks had a field day proclaiming that these emails proved global warming was a fraud. And it worked, too. As Stewart pointed out, studies show the amount of people who acknowledge global warming dropped nearly 20% since the emails were leaked.

Given the media circus that was Climategate, Stewart was shocked to learn that a study done by a noted climate change skeptic AND funded by Tea Party oil tycoons the Koch brothers which intended to disprove global warming recently reaffirmed the science behind it. What shocked him even more? How little coverage the findings, printed in a Wall Street Journal op-ed, received compared to that of McDonald's "McRib."


If you didn't watch it you should check out the video with Aasif Mandvi' that is with this story here...

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2011/...media-mcrib_n_1034792.html?ref=climate-change

Just more proof that the Right is on a anti-intellectual campaign that is going to kill this planet. Plus, Where is the so called "Liberal Media" that the Right likes to blame everything on?

 

[8wid]

DesertXpress hopes for federal loan, aims for 2012 start on work

 

[maenalus]

Anyone remember how the Right made a big deal out of that lie they called "Climategate"?....

Jon Stewart Rips Media For Ignoring 'Climategate' Debunking, Covering McRib Instead

On Wednesday night's "Daily Show," Jon Stewart picked up on a story that rocked the science world in 2009: the email hacking that exposed hundreds of exchanges between global warming scientists known as Climategate.

If you remember, the emails weren't a big deal because they proved anything, but because they suggested irregularities in data which in turn encouraged climate change skeptics to continue to deny global warming. As Stewart reminisced with a series of clips, Fox News pundits and conservative analysts on all the 24-hour news networks had a field day proclaiming that these emails proved global warming was a fraud. And it worked, too. As Stewart pointed out, studies show the amount of people who acknowledge global warming dropped nearly 20% since the emails were leaked.

Given the media circus that was Climategate, Stewart was shocked to learn that a study done by a noted climate change skeptic AND funded by Tea Party oil tycoons the Koch brothers which intended to disprove global warming recently reaffirmed the science behind it. What shocked him even more? How little coverage the findings, printed in a Wall Street Journal op-ed, received compared to that of McDonald's "McRib."


If you didn't watch it you should check out the video with Aasif Mandvi' that is with this story here...

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2011/...media-mcrib_n_1034792.html?ref=climate-change

Just more proof that the Right is on a anti-intellectual campaign that is going to kill this planet. Plus, Where is the so called "Liberal Media" that the Right likes to blame everything on?

Most of the skeptics have for awhile now granted the planet either is warming, or could be warming. They've been focused on questioning or denying that it's anthropogenic and whether it would be a problem that needs fixing or would it in fact be beneficial. Other than that, they've been criticizing the hypocrisy in the way a lot of the self-appointed saviors of Earth live and how they tell others to live. Making fun of silly grandstanding stunts like Earth Hour. Pointing out the polar bear population is not falling. Pointing out the prediction of massive hurricanes bombarding the coasts every year didn't transpire. Disputing whether this or that proposed solution is makes sense, etc.

 

[Superman]

Mitt Romney Embraces Climate Denial: 'We Don't Know What's Causing Climate Change'

WASHINGTON -- Former Massachusetts Gov. Mitt Romney broke with Republican orthodoxy this summer, telling a crowd in Manchester, N.H., that humans are at least somewhat responsible for climate change. Now Think Progress reports he's reversing his position, arguing "we don't know what's causing climate change."

"My view is that we don't know what's causing climate change on this planet," he said at the Consol Energy Center in Pittsburgh, Pa. "And the idea of spending trillions and trillions of dollars to try to reduce CO2 emissions is not the right course for us. My view with regards to energy policy is pretty straightforward: I want us to become energy secure and independent of the oil cartels."

"I believe the world is getting warmer, and I believe that humans have contributed to that," he said at a town hall this June. "It's important for us to reduce our emissions of pollutants and greenhouse gases that may be significant contributors."

With his fellow GOP presidential contenders engaging in different shades of climate denial, Romney has distanced himself from those remarks. In an Oct. 3 interview with the New Hampshire Union Leader posted online Thursday night, he elaborates on his new position on global warming.

"I say it's probably happening, all right? I think it's happening," he said when questioned about a passage in his 2010 book "No Apology" that deals with climate change.

"You said in June you believe the world is getting warmer and that humans have contributed to that," noted one reporter, quoting a line that comes directly from his book.

"And continue to the next line after that," Romney pressed.

"It's important for us to reduce our emissions of pollutants and greenhouse gases that may be significant contributors," said the reporter.

"I say in the book three things," said a frustrated Romney. "One, I believe what I said before, I think it's getting warmer. Two, I believe we contribute to it. And three, I don't know by how much -- a lot or a little. And I am not willing to adopt multitrillion dollar programs to reduce greenhouse gases in America. They don't call it America warming, they call it global warming."

As president, Romney added, he would "aggressively develop oil and gas, as well as use our coal resources." Nuclear too would be a priority, though he said that it would require a long lead time.

"Of course I like the renewable resources, but I'm not in favor of sending checks for half a billion dollars as a venture capitalist to various favored solar companies," he said, in a conspicuous reference to Solyndra.

Romney's climate denial puts him in line with most every other contender in the Republican presidential field.

Herman Cain has called the very premise of climate change "a scam," while former Sen. Rick Santorum (R-Pa.) has referred to it as nothing more than a "trend," accusing the left of "taking advantage" of it by creating "a beautifully concocted scheme because they know that the earth is gonna cool and warm."

Back in 2009, meanwhile, Rep. Michele Bachmann (R-Minn.) argued on the House floor that the very concept of global warming is faulty because "carbon dioxide is a natural byproduct of nature!"

In an August stump speech, Texas Gov. Rick Perry took the skepticism about climate change one step further, telling a New Hampshire business crowd that scientists have cooked up the data on global warming for the cash.

"We're seeing weekly, or even daily, scientists who are coming forward and questioning the original idea that man-made global warming is what's causing the climate to change," Perry said at the time. "Yes, our climates change. They've been changing ever since the earth was formed."

Rep. Ron Paul (R-Texas) has become increasingly skeptical of climate change, calling it "the greatest hoax I think that has been around for many, many years, if not hundreds of years," in a 2009 interview with Fox News.

Former House Speaker Newt Gingrich (R-Ga.) appeared alongside former House Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.) in a 2008 ad that urged the country to address climate change, but has since switched to denial.

Former Utah Gov. Jon Huntsman is the only mainstream Republican presidential contender who has been outspoken about the need for climate action, calling Republicans' failure to address climate change at the national level "immensely frustrating." Within the GOP presidential field, he's green advocates' best hope.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2011/10/28/mitt-romney-embraces-climate-change-denial_n_1063905.html




And the flip flopping goes on.

 

[hippie_hunter]

DesertXpress hopes for federal loan, aims for 2012 start on work

Yeah, I don't see federal loans happening for a little while. You can thank Solyndra for that.

 

[TheDragonator]

In class today, I noticed Crayola apparently started using recycled plastic for their markers. They also changed the color design on them, from white to black.

Recycled plastic for stuff like this would really, really work well. It'd likely save tons of money, too.

 

[Superman]

Richard Muller, Global Warming Skeptic, Now Agrees Climate Change Is Real


WASHINGTON — A prominent physicist and skeptic of global warming spent two years trying to find out if mainstream climate scientists were wrong. In the end, he determined they were right: Temperatures really are rising rapidly.

The study of the world's surface temperatures by Richard Muller was partially bankrolled by a foundation connected to global warming deniers. He pursued long-held skeptic theories in analyzing the data. He was spurred to action because of "Climategate," a British scandal involving hacked emails of scientists.

Yet he found that the land is 1.6 degrees warmer than in the 1950s. Those numbers from Muller, who works at the University of California, Berkeley and Lawrence Berkeley National Lab, match those by the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration and NASA.

He said he went even further back, studying readings from Benjamin Franklin and Thomas Jefferson. His ultimate finding of a warming world, to be presented at a conference Monday, is no different from what mainstream climate scientists have been saying for decades.

What's different, and why everyone from opinion columnists to "The Daily Show" is paying attention is who is behind the study.

One-quarter of the $600,000 to do the research came from the Charles Koch Foundation, whose founder is a major funder of skeptic groups and the tea party. The Koch brothers, Charles and David, run a large privately held company involved in oil and other industries, producing sizable greenhouse gas emissions.

Muller's research team carefully examined two chief criticisms by skeptics. One is that weather stations are unreliable; the other is that cities, which create heat islands, were skewing the temperature analysis.

"The skeptics raised valid points and everybody should have been a skeptic two years ago," Muller said in a telephone interview. "And now we have confidence that the temperature rise that had previously been reported had been done without bias."

Muller said that he came into the study "with a proper skepticism," something scientists "should always have. I was somewhat bothered by the fact that there was not enough skepticism" before.

There is no reason now to be a skeptic about steadily increasing temperatures, Muller wrote recently in The Wall Street Journal's editorial pages, a place friendly to skeptics. Muller did not address in his research the cause of global warming. The overwhelming majority of climate scientists say it's man-made from the burning of fossil fuels such as coal and oil. Nor did his study look at ocean warming, future warming and how much of a threat to mankind climate change might be.

Still, Muller said it makes sense to reduce the carbon dioxide created by fossil fuels.

"Greenhouse gases could have a disastrous impact on the world," he said. Still, he contends that threat is not as proven as the Nobel Prize-winning Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change says it is.

On Monday, Muller was taking his results – four separate papers that are not yet published or peer-reviewed, but will be, he says – to a conference in Santa Fe, N.M., expected to include many prominent skeptics as well as mainstream scientists.

"Of course he'll be welcome," said Petr Chylek of Los Alamos National Lab, a noted skeptic and the conference organizer. "The purpose of our conference is to bring people with different views on climate together, so they can talk and clarify things."

Shawn Lawrence Otto, author of the book "Fool Me Twice" that criticizes science skeptics, said Muller should expect to be harshly treated by global warming deniers. "Now he's considered a traitor. For the skeptic community, this isn't about data or fact. It's about team sports. He's been traded to the Indians. He's playing for the wrong team now."

And that started on Sunday, when a British newspaper said one of Muller's co-authors, Georgia Tech climate scientist Judith Curry, accused Muller of another Climategate-like scandal and trying to "hide the decline" of recent global temperatures.

The Associated Press contacted Curry on Sunday afternoon and she said in an email that Muller and colleagues "are not hiding any data or otherwise engaging in any scientifically questionable practice."

The Muller "results unambiguously show an increase in surface temperature since 1960," Curry wrote Sunday. She said she disagreed with Muller's public relations efforts and some public comments from Muller about there no longer being a need for skepticism.

Muller's study found that skeptics' concerns about poor weather station quality didn't skew the results of his analysis because temperature increases rose similarly in reliable and unreliable weather stations. He also found that while there is an urban heat island effect making cities warmer, rural areas, which are more abundant, are warming, too.

Among many climate scientists, the reaction was somewhat of a yawn.

"After lots of work he found exactly what was already known and accepted in the climate community," said Jerry North, a Texas A&M University atmospheric sciences professor who headed a National Academy of Sciences climate science review in 2006. "I am hoping their study will have a positive impact. But some folks will never change."

Chris Field, a Carnegie Institution scientist who is chief author of an upcoming intergovernmental climate change report, said Muller's study "may help the world's citizens focus less on whether climate change is real and more on smart options for addressing it."

Some of the most noted scientific skeptics are no longer saying the world isn't warming. Instead, they question how much of it is man-made, view it as less a threat and argue it's too expensive to do something about, Otto said.

Skeptical MIT scientist Richard Lindzen said it is a fact and nothing new that global average temperatures have been rising since 1950, as Muller shows. "It's hard to see how any serious scientist (skeptical, denier or believer – frequently depending on the exact question) will view it otherwise," he wrote in an email.

In a brief email statement, the Koch Foundation noted that Muller's team didn't examine ocean temperature or the cause of warming and said it will continue to fund such research. "The project is ongoing and entering peer review, and we're proud to support this strong, transparent research," said foundation spokeswoman Tonya Mullins.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2011/10/30/richard-muller-global-warming_n_1066029.html

 

[hippie_hunter]

The Beacon Power Corporation, which received a $43 million loan from the Department of Energy has declared bankruptcy.

 

[8wid]

Western black rhino declared extinct

 

[8wid]

Proposed DesertXpress high-speed rail line chugging along



DesertXpress wants suppliers to manufacture materials in Nevada, Southern California

 

[SV Fan]

For the second consecutive summer, some of the hottest temperatures in Earth's recorded history have scorched Asia. The five hottest (undisputed) temperatures ever measured in Asia have all occurred in during the past two summers:

I love when they always say in the history of weather recording. Why not mention how long "the history" is. For the US I believe it's something like 1850.

By the way here is a fun chart of highest temperatures in "the history of weather taking" for the US(note: for argument sake the graph is from 2007)

http://www.infoplease.com/ipa/A0001416.html

That being said it seems fairly random and there is no temperature from the 2000s(1995 is the latest year)

Personally I am on the side of Global Warming being BS for the following reasons

1) I faintly remember the mid 70s to late 70s and the world is going to freeze over scare. When Global Warming came out my memory called back to all those world is going to freeze over propaganda and much to my surprise alot of the people behind the world is going to freeze over people are the same people who are fearing us with the world is going to burn to hell.

2) When I saw a scientist answer a question about the Sun effects on the earth's temperature(and other planets and moons in our solar system which were experiencing similar slight increases in temperatures) saying it has minimal or no effect my instant BS meter went into overdrive

3) According to Gore weren't we supposed to be flooded by now with all the Artic ice caps melting, water levels have actually decreased(best not to make predictions because they can fall flat on your face and oh yeah polar bear population has gone up since his movie after you were claiming the poor polar bears are dieing and trying to use that to gain sympathy).

For argument sake you think anybody with any knowledge of weather patterns would see the main issue of melting polar caps would be cold streams of water mixing into the warm ocean currents creating weird unpredictable weather patterns which is what I felt would happen if his theory on Global Warming was true(I do believe an argument could be made on this basis, but given the fact the so called experts couldn't pick this up 10 years ago when I with my limited knowledge of weather patterns could, I really have to question the experts who seemed hellbent on putting there chips down on the world is going to overheat everywhere idea)

I think Gore mockumentary was the biggest disservice to the Global Warming movement because he used every cheap method of manipulating data to try prove his point instead of just laying out facts and showing arguments pro and con to what may happen. It was so blatant it felt like I was watching a piece of propaganda. In general I don't buy into fear tactics, which it seemed like the Global Warming movement used way to often to try promote there agenda.

4) Scientist seem to ignore the huge problem that the temperatures generally are taken at airports which are normally have a slightly higher then the rest of the city due to all the industrial zones in the area. Temperatures from 100 years ago, well they had much less outside factors taken into effect. In general the bigger a city will effect the temperature compared to being outside a city 10-50 miles. If the data is going to be unbaised you have to take it in the exact same place with no outside variables(ie new buildings) in the same location for every year. Something as simple as pavement can effect the temperature noticeably in a given area compared to one without pavement 100 meters away.

5) Like anything in politics, follow the money and see who has most to gain, you get why the issue is being pushed.

 

[chaseter]

While I am not a huge global warming fanatic and I do think it was blown out of proportion, to say man has no affect on the environment is silly.

We pump CO2 into the air. CO2 is a greenhouse gas. We cut down trees and plants that convert CO2 into O2. What happens? To say we don't have some impact is asinine. But, that isn't the ultimate question. The ultimate question is why not err on the side of caution and we all become a little more responsible? Just because we may have very little impact on the weather, does that mean we shouldn't care?

 

[SV Fan]

While I am not a huge global warming fanatic and I do think it was blown out of proportion, to say man has no affect on the environment is silly

This is fair enough, but the methods they use to try push it do turn some off to it like me. As I said to me it comes off as one huge campaign of fear to try promote an agenda then an actual debate about climate issues. I once again point to the fact I slightly remember the world is going to freeze over stuff from 30-35 years ago, you basically can't change your story and expect nobody to pick up on it and call bluff the second time around.

We pump CO2 into the air. CO2 is a greenhouse gas. We cut down trees and plants that convert CO2 into O2.

Another argument that has crossed my mind on occasion, which makes me wonder why this hasn't been pushed by the people at the top(since it actually does make sense). It generally seems like the solution to the problem is pay taxes(ie carbon credits) to some unknown body of people, and that's where my BS meter goes into overdrive.

What happens? To say we don't have some impact is asinine. But, that isn't the ultimate question. The ultimate question is why not err on the side of caution and we all become a little more responsible? Just because we may have very little impact on the weather, does that mean we shouldn't care?

1) I believe general pollution is a much bigger issue that should be delt with first, but that gets pushed to the wayside in favor of the evil CO2

2) I also believe skeptics of Climate change should not be shunned like the plague, infact they should be allowed into the debate to provide counter point to arguments made. Good science always needs a counter point to show faults in a theory, but instead of openly debating it to come to a better conclusion it seems like the Climate Change people rather give a 1 sided opinion to push their agenda(it's ironic the pro Climate Change scientists claim that the anti Climate change scientist use faulty science to make there case when infact not allowing alternate opinion into the equation to try come to a better consensus is the pure definition of faulty science. I am not claiming the anti Climate Change people are 100% right but many times they bring up great points that just seem to pushed to the wayside with no proper counter point).

 

[8wid]

Migrating whale numbers hit 50 year high

 

[8wid]

BLM grants right-of-way for DesertXpress rail plan


Construction is now clear to begin on America's first bullet train system!