Discussion in 'Political Discussion' started by mtbykr, Dec 10, 2007.
and at the front of the line:
Al Gore is criticised for lining his own pockets after Â£3,300-per-minute green speech
Writing in the International Journal of Climatology of the Royal Meteorological Society, professor David H. Douglass (of the University of Rochester), professor John R. Christy (of the University of Alabama), Benjamin D. Pearson and professor S. Fred Singer (of the University of Virginia) report that observed patterns of temperature changes ("fingerprints") over the last 30 years disagree with what greenhouse models predict and can better be explained by natural factors, such as solar variability.
The conclusion is that climate change is "unstoppable" and cannot be affected or modified by controlling the emission of greenhouse gases, such as CO2, as is proposed in current legislation.
I'm no expert on the matter, but it all seems a little doomsday to me. I'm all for protecting the environment, but the Global Warming thing really comes off as far more politcal than it is actual.
I don't see anything on www.realclimate.com yet responding to it, but I thought this comment by Dr. S. Fred Singer was sort of revealing:
"Our research demonstrates that the ongoing rise of atmospheric CO2 has only a minor influence on climate change. We must conclude, therefore, that attempts to control CO2 emissions are ineffective and pointless â€” but very costly."
How does their research show it would costly? What does that have to do with science? But, does have everything to do with the political argument.
The global warming bill that just passed one (or both ?) Houses is estimated to increase electric bills by at least 50%. I'm sure that's just the beginning.
Tempertures have gone down the last 5 years, so we need to do something drastic ASAP, so that the morons watching TV will think it's the socialist policy that's responsible. Meanwhile the doomsdayers are making $6k a minute doing speeches. What a sham.
The thing is that if we actually protect the environment by conservation and burning less fossil fuels, the "greenhouse gasses" will also be reduced. The mining, refining and burning of fossil fuels has many more toxic effects and the "global warming" debate is a welcome distraction for polluters who continue to contaminate the air, soil and grooundwater with their products. The greenhouse effect is nothing to the sickness and death being caused by polluters' products and waste that include - but aren't limited to- solvents, fertilizer, plastics and other harmful chemicals.
I'm with you wistah. The environment is worth protecting, but this hysteria points to something else. When you read Kyoto, and get to the nitty gritty, you see that this is a political scheme designed to monetarily shift global power. It's a total joke. You get points for paying to pollute, so that they can hand your money to somebody else who has less. Meanwhile, they don't even restrict the biggest 3rd world nations that have zero environmental controls in place, unlike the US & West. Total political BS. This planet can't ever to anything legitimately.
I'm with you guys...I am all for protecting the environment. I posted this because i think this is just a way to make $$$ and stay in the spotlight
As do the global warming alarmists. They are as political (if not moreso) than anyone out there, funding all their fake science projects.
Global warming is just a way to get gullible fools to help destroy capitalism in the guise of saving the planet.
Separate names with a comma.