In response to all the global warming threads, who thinks its a myth, or true?

[3Hummer]

DO you think global warming is a myth or true???? And if you dont mind not being anonymous tell us why! ALl opinions welcome :grouphug:

[Mr_Pat]

I voted myth BUT the fact is global warming has been happening from the time of the last ice age. Itc a cycle. The earth has warmed and cooled countless times.

Its a myth that its are fault...

[DRTYFN]

All of this alarmist bullsh*t is Al Gore's fault. Gore is an lying imbecile.

[Sewie]

the fact is global warming has been happening from the time of the last ice age. Itc a cycle. The earth has warmed and cooled countless times.

Its a myth that its are fault...


:iagree: Exactly.

[wpage]

Climate change is cyclic and related to other factors like polar creep.;)

[RubHer Yellow Ducky]

Isn't your REAL QUESTION ...

DO YOU THINK GLOBAL WARMING IS CAUSED BY MAN

or

IS IT A NATURAL OCCURANCE THAT HAPPENS EVERY XXXXX YEARS ?

[mikejr]

Isn't your REAL QUESTION ...

DO YOU THINK GLOBAL WARMING IS CAUSED BY MAN

or

IS IT A NATURAL OCCURANCE THAT HAPPENS EVERY XXXXX YEARS ?

You hit the nail on the head. Do I feel its caused by man. No. There was a video link that was posted on here that powerfully refuted that humans are the cause of it. They attributed it to solar activity. Was a very good video. I feel its a natural thing that happens every so often...everything goes in cycles....

if you are looking to get funding for a project....just tie it to global warming.....so if you want study the wear pattern of the wheel bearings on an H2, tie it to global warming and you will get large amounts of funding!

[star]

I've seen many chat rooms filled with questions such as these and the resident people continue to dispute anthropogenic causes of climate change.

Let me ask what you do for a living so that I can tell you how to do your job better, how to analyze your data better and tell you where you're judgment is faulty. Sounds silly, huh? So let's chat away about the feasibility of climate change and how moronic the majority of climate scientists are. Certainly we are equipped to intelligently pick apart their data and arrive at a much more practical, comfortable prediction that we can live with.

One part of why we exist on this planet is an hospitable atmosphere. It doesn't matter how you look at it, taking all the carbon that's been sequestered in the ground over millions of years and pumping it into our atmosphere will create an inbalance and have consequences. Whether or not those consequences are of importance to you is another matter. Based on the nature of humanity thus far, and how everything is valued by profit only, I'm guessing we will continue to conduct ourselves in the same manner (no matter the rate of extinction) until we don't have food on our table due to loss of arable land or drought, and there is a migration from coastal areas to the degree that our comfortable living has been disrupted.

My local news network had a segment about global warming. There were climate scientists that were explaining the realism of climate change and then one gentleman that "debunked" their data. This individual that provided the debunking is a party that receives a large amount of funding from oil companies. So when a prior poster states that we should "follow the money", I would concur.

Due to the fact that oil is a finite resource, and that there are many other developing nations that require vast amounts of this limited resource, and that there is another human being born every second on this planet.......do we not have reasons other than climate change to worry about the degree, and for what reasons, we use this limited resource? Would it not be better to prepare for a future of lesser quantities of this resource? It is a certainty that we will be confronted with this position and we'd better be prepared. Our entire agricultural base relies on sound philosophies/practices concerning oil.

[deserth3]

Actually crude oil is a renewable resource. We are just using it faster than nature can create it.
Crude oil is also a poison to the earth. Where it came to the surface it would kill all animal and plant life.
So if you look at this way we are doing the earth a favor.:D

Global warming is real. But not for the reasons Al Gore and all his fellow tree huggers would like you to think. RYD is correct.

[Sewie]

One part of why we exist on this planet is an hospitable atmosphere.

True. And I'll bet the dinosaurs believed they would always roam the planet. One of the things that gets me in the "global warming" debate is the arrogant belief that the human species (or any species for that matter) is meant to inhabit this planet for all eternity. And the even more arrogant belief that we actually have any control over that.

[star]

True. And I'll bet the dinosaurs believed they would always roam the planet. One of the things that gets me in the "global warming" debate is the arrogant belief that the human species (or any species for that matter) is meant to inhabit this planet for all eternity. And the even more arrogant belief that we actually have any control over that.

I'm not sure what your argument here is, if that is even your position. If you're saying that we'll go extinct anyway so why bother, I can agree w/ you on the first part. If nothing else kills us, the lack of our sun will when it nears the end of it's life span (if we're still around then, which is doubtable).

Regarding our arrogance - that's what rules humanity. We, since our existence, believe we can control, amend, harness, dictate nature's directive and in the end it costs us billions and billions of dollars and typically we end up having to try to right our wrongs and put nature back as it was before our interference. Damming of water, and the redirection of water, is a great example of this. These acts kill off our wetlands that help to cease flooding of our homes and act as buffers against severe weather. How much money are we pumping into the Everglades because of the destruction we've caused there? Arrogance is what got us into this mess. Ceasing to mess up our atmosphere would indicate to me that we've become more humbled in our approach - not more arrogant. That's exactly why I'm sure we'll continue to conduct ourselves as we've always done, with arrogance. It seems to be more embedded in our nature.

Climate change will correct part of the problem if we choose not to. It will kill many people with severe weather, diseases that migrate due to the warmer climate (west nile is here to stay and others will follow), famine. The rest of us will just have to contend with a collapsing agricultural scenario as we chose not to conserve our oil. 6 Billion people doesn't really create a sustainable picture. We're already in trouble with the viability of our seafood food source.

[3Hummer]

bump

[Hummer Aficionado_VT]

I think someone posted on here before about this situation and they blamed it on beef cattle in the rainforest or something like that...

I ate steak for dinner... :shhh: :giggling:

[KenP]

Haha! Star is a liberally educated enviro-troll.

I'll read his/her posts because they're not inflaming, just wrong.;)

[star]

I think someone posted on here before about this situation and they blamed it on beef cattle in the rainforest or something like that...

I ate steak for dinner... :shhh: :giggling:

Brazil has currently lost 38% of it's rainforest for the purposes of cattle grazing. You wouldn't think this to be funny if you knew the dynamic of this systems and how they benefit us and how we actually require that they remain in tact for a multitude of reasons. A quarter of our medicines are derived from plants that reside in rainforests and only something like 1% of these plants have been tested for such purposes. Also, rainforests act to regulate weather patterns. They help to prohibit drought, desertification and act as carbon sinks.

The cattle industry is one of the most destructive forms of our consumption as the raising of beef clears an abundance of land (as you can see in the above paragraph). Cattle raising also requires an immense amount of water irrigation (2,500 gallons of water to raise 1 pound of meat). How we manage this industry is not very sustainable. Here's a link.

http://www.duke.edu/web/planv/realities.html

For Ken's benefit, I can see why I may be considered a troll but I voted for my Republican Congressman twice. One doesn't have to be a liberal to understand the necessity of our environment and how it relates to the requirements of our very existence.

[KenP]

I had steak last night.

[MarineHawk]

Climate change will correct part of the problem if we choose not to. It will kill many people with severe weather, diseases that migrate due to the warmer climate (west nile is here to stay and others will follow), famine. The rest of us will just have to contend with a collapsing agricultural scenario as we chose not to conserve our oil. 6 Billion people doesn't really create a sustainable picture. We're already in trouble with the viability of our seafood food source.

Forgive me, but your opinions sound kind of arrogant themselves, insofar as they are stated in absolutes without being backed up by scientific evidence. Real science is based on sound theories, not a vote. Thus, while many scientists have jumped on the manmade global warming bandwagon, that does not tell us what the state of real science is. Many of them rely on computer models predicting substantial increases in global temperatures in the next fifty years. However, when actual known data from the past 250 years is plugged into these formulas, they do not correlate with what happened next at all--predicting increases when temperatures actually dropped and vice versa. Insect remains from thousands of years ago recently were found in parts of Greenland where temperatures are far too low for them to exist now. The climates of earth and Mars are apparently now warming slightly, just like they have done in cycles for, at least, millions of years. It comes from fluctuations in solar output. Not sure how we're going to impact that one.

As for West Nile, you can blame the enviro-whackos for leaving us defenseless: http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,60528,00.html

It was banned based on enviro-hysteria that was based on lefty politics instead of science. http://www.junkscience.com/ddtfaq.html

[KenP]

Thanks Marine. Who'd have thought the environment goes through cycles? Amazing stuff. Really, just amazing.

I hope star reads that.

Now I want to talk about cows more.

How much methane to they put out each year?

[MarineHawk]

Thanks Marine. Who'd have thought the environment goes through cycles? Amazing stuff. Really, just amazing.

I hope star reads that.

Now I want to talk about cows more.

How much methane to they put out each year?

If I recall, they produce a lot of methane in Scandanavia. Not sure why there specifically. Oh wait, that's mooses: http://www.elcovaforums.com/forums/showthread.php?p=424401#post424401

[star]

Forgive me, but your opinions sound kind of arrogant themselves, insofar as they are stated in absolutes without being backed up by scientific evidence. Real science is based on sound theories, not a vote. Thus, while many scientists have jumped on the manmade global warming bandwagon, that does not tell us what the state of real science is. Many of them rely on computer models predicting substantial increases in global temperatures in the next fifty years. However, when actual known data from the past 250 years is plugged into these formulas, they do not correlate with what happened next at all--predicting increases when temperatures actually dropped and vice versa. Insect remains from thousands of years ago recently were found in parts of Greenland where temperatures are far too low for them to exist now. The climates of earth and Mars are apparently now warming slightly, just like they have done in cycles for, at least, millions of years. It comes from fluctuations in solar output. Not sure how we're going to impact that one.

As for West Nile, you can blame the enviro-whackos for leaving us defenseless: http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,60528,00.html

It was banned based on enviro-hysteria that was based on lefty politics instead of science. http://www.junkscience.com/ddtfaq.html

If we don't change the manner and degree to which we use our resources, we will suffer consequences. You don't need to understand science for a realization of this. Water shortages and the impending collapse of our seafood supply are two examples that are already present. My position is that notwithstanding the cause of climate change, actions should be taken to halt the problems that are realized from the overuse of our resources.

We lay people can muse about whether or not the fact that the majority of climate scientists are correct as they try to enlighten us that humans are, in fact, contributing to a warming planet. It doesn't matter. Our consumption, along with the increasing consumption of developing countries, will not be sustainable. The results of this are already present.

And DDT. That's just bad. Enviro-whackos got this one right. This compound placed species on extinction watch and caused serious population declines in others. Most of these species were birds, which help clear our environment of these pesky insects. Is it more logical to retain healthy bird/bat populations to control these pests or advocate the use of a harmful compound? As any harmful compound is used, the pest species evolve increased resistance until the compound is nary effective and another toxic compound must be introduced to control the pest species. These compounds do not discriminate between dna profiles. What kills or harms one species, will kill or harm all. It's believed that 15% of human deaths were linked to DDT in the 60's.

[KenP]

Good grief, it's as if you read Counter Currents and other enviro sites, and are using snippets from it in your arguements.:yawn:

[RubHer Yellow Ducky]

OK !

Is man adding to Global Warming, YES HE IS but in a small amount...we should control poisons more that leach back into our drinking water, that get into our food crops, both plant and animal, that go into the air we breathe because they effect us directly and sometimes very fast...that get into the seas from which we also farm and rely on for food products...

Our big worry should be the deletion of non-replaceable natural resourses. Try and find trees in Haiti, or fresh water in the desert (except of course in ISRAEL).

There has ALWAYS been one person more powerful then another, one city more powerful then another, one country more powerful then another. When controls for flourocarbons or mercury or arsinic are put forth then need to apply to all countries, not just first world nations (koyoto) ...

WE NEED to develop PRACTABLE Wind Power, Solar Power, Tidal Power, Hydrogen Cars, Greatly improve Nucular Power Plants, improve our ability to drill OUR OWN OIL SAFELY, find fertalizer thats are safer for our bodies.

We also need to save some areas from any human encrochment but in doing so we must also make areas for off roaders, for campers, for horseback riding etc...

We need to get back into space...With the population growing like it is NOW is the time to push for NEAR FUTURE development on habitable stations in space, for development on habitats on the moon. If we don't start now it will be just like our roads here...we build homes and after the roads are jammed from these new homeowners then we work on improving the road jams (STUPID)
When new housing development are offered the larger roads need to be a part of the development...

I can offer a major leadership role in this... JUST MAKE ME WORLD DICTATOR...:dancingbanana: :dancingbanana: :dancingbanana: :dancingbanana: :dancingbanana: :dancingbanana: :dancingbanana: :dancingbanana: :dancingbanana: :dancingbanana:

[deserth3]

ALL HAIL RYD, ALL HAIL RYD:dancingbanana: :dancingbanana:

Don't forget the bannanas:giggling:

[KenP]

Anyone been to Schaumburg, IL? It's just outside Chicago.

Must be dirty up there.

Yuk.

[SnakeH2]

Star is a global warmer lurker...

[MarineHawk]

Blah, blah blah ... It's believed that 15% of human deaths were linked to DDT in the 60's.

If so, only by the most moronic of all enrviro-whakos. The absence of DDT now is (with a real basis) credited with the annual deaths of three million children per year worldwide due to malaria. http://aaenvironment.blogspot.com/2006/09/world-health-organization-endorses-ddt.html

[MarineHawk]

BTW, it was the World Health Organization that was behind the anti-DDT hysteria of the 1960s and which was instrumental in its banning. Now, it says that it was wrong and that there are NO negative affects of the use of DDT, which, if renewed, would save millions of lives in developing countries. http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/5350068.stm

http://www.21stcenturysciencetech.com/articles/Fall02/Mosquitoes.html

[star]

Rely on DDT and mosquitoes will evolve a resistance to it. In the meanwhile, we?ll have rendered many other species extinct. I know it?s typical to maintain that human lives are more worthy than that of all other species residing on this planet but that statement will usually come from someone with an uninformed or ill-informed position on our environment. We need other species to survive. We need them for clean water, for the all of the food that we eat and for the oxygen that we breathe.

The problem isn?t that we?re not using DDT. The problem is that access to drugs remains far too costly to get to those that reside in developing countries that require the protection. My U.S. domiciled friend travels overseas has no trouble affording the anti malaria drug to protect him from this risk.

So instead of contaminating the species on which we rely on for our very existence, we should continue to enforce active, regimented programs to treat those that are infected. The statistics reflect that malaria cases had declined upwards of 89% when antimalarial drugs were prescribed in a "test" province.

I read something similar to the link you posted on DDT. I'm attaching it below. It's the actual WHO link that specifies that due to the hazards of DDT, it's recommended that the compound be used indoors only on mosquito netting and such. The hazards to the environment would be vastly reduced with this method of application.

http://72.14.235.104/search?q=cache:Kj59qvS8NggJ:www.who.int/malaria/docs/FAQonDDT.pdf+who+ddt&hl=en&ct=clnk&cd=1&gl=us

Their disclaimer will help prevent them from being sued for any deaths or health problems with this type of application.

[MarineHawk]

Climate change will correct part of the problem if we choose not to. It will kill many people with severe weather, diseases that migrate due to the warmer climate (west nile is here to stay and others will follow), famine.

Hmmm, really:

WASHINGTON, Sept. 12 /PRNewswire-USNewswire/ -- A new analysis of peer-reviewed literature reveals that more than 500 scientists have published evidence refuting at least one element of current man-made global warming scares. More than 300 of the scientists found evidence that 1) a natural moderate 1,500-year climate cycle has produced more than a dozen global warmings similar to ours since the last Ice Age and/or that 2) our Modern Warming is linked strongly to variations in the sun's irradiance. "This data and the list of scientists make a mockery of recent claims that a scientific consensus blames humans as the primary cause of global temperature increases since 1850," said Hudson Institute Senior Fellow Dennis Avery. Other researchers found evidence that 3) sea levels are failing to rise importantly; 4) that our storms and droughts are becoming fewer and milder with this warming as they did during previous global warmings; 5) that human deaths will be reduced with warming because cold kills twice as many people as heat; and 6) that corals, trees, birds, mammals, and butterflies are adapting well to the routine reality of changing climate. http://www.prnewswire.com/news/index_mail.shtml?ACCT=104&STORY=/www/story/09-12-2007/0004661425&EDATE

I still don't understand how we're going to counteract the affects of fluctuations in solar output. Build a big umbrella in outer space?

[KenP]

Anyone been to Schaumburg, IL? It's just outside Chicago.

Must be dirty up there.

Yuk.That's a good question, Ken.

How about you, Star?

[MarineHawk]

Rely on DDT and mosquitoes will evolve a resistance to it. In the meanwhile, we’ll have rendered many other species extinct. I know it’s typical to maintain that human lives are more worthy than that of all other species residing on this planet but that statement will usually come from someone with an uninformed or ill-informed position on our environment. We need other species to survive. We need them for clean water, for the all of the food that we eat and for the oxygen that we breathe.

The problem isn’t that we’re not using DDT. The problem is that access to drugs remains far too costly to get to those that reside in developing countries that require the protection. My U.S. domiciled friend travels overseas has no trouble affording the anti malaria drug to protect him from this risk.

So instead of contaminating the species on which we rely on for our very existence, we should continue to enforce active, regimented programs to treat those that are infected. The statistics reflect that malaria cases had declined upwards of 89% when antimalarial drugs were prescribed in a "test" province.

I read something similar to the link you posted on DDT. I'm attaching it below. It's the actual WHO link that specifies that due to the hazards of DDT, it's recommended that the compound be used indoors only on mosquito netting and such. The hazards to the environment would be vastly reduced with this method of application.

http://72.14.235.104/search?q=cache:Kj59qvS8NggJ:www.who.int/malaria/docs/FAQonDDT.pdf+who+ddt&hl=en&ct=clnk&cd=1&gl=us

Their disclaimer will help prevent them from being sued for any deaths or health problems with this type of application.

Yeah, WHO didn't completely admit the full extent of their prior, unprecedented stupidity, but they came pretty close. Bottom line: there no evidence that DDT has ever injured a single person, ever. On the other hand, "Sixty million people have died needlessly of malaria, since the imposition of the 1972 ban on DDT, and hundreds of millions more have suffered from this debilitating disease. The majority of those affected are children. Of the 300 to 500 million new cases of malaria each year, 200 to 300 million are children, and malaria now kills one child every 30 seconds. Ninety percent of the reported cases of malaria are in Africa, and 40 percent of the world’s population, inhabitants of tropical countries, are threatened by the increasing incidence of malaria." http://www.21stcenturysciencetech.com/articles/summ02/DDT.html

The problem with administering drugs to billions of people is that it costs thousands of times more than using DDT. We're talking about third world countries where people make an average of $50 per year. No one, not even we, have enough money to administer these drugs to all the third world's billions of people. DDT is the only solution.

[star]

You speak in absolutes across the board.

Based on the replies to this thread, it's understood that many don't respect the disciplines of science. Or could it be that they just don't appreciate the message? Here is a link from a U.S. governmental agency outlining the known risks and potential risks to humans exposed to DDT.

http://www.atsdr.cdc.gov/toxprofiles/phs35.html#bookmark05

I recognize the limitations when testing animals for chemical interactions and how those effects transfer to humans, but it seems that even in light of this, there is more than enough cause for concern about DDT.

And, if DDT is the only answer, where do you propose we get our resources that may be compromised by the use of this compound?

[star]

Hmmm, really:

[COLOR=black] http://www.prnewswire.com/news/index_mail.shtml?ACCT=104&STORY=/www/story/09-12-2007/0004661425&EDATE

space?

This scientist is an agricultural analyst. I see no evidence of climatology in his background. Dismissed.

[MarineHawk]

This scientist is an agricultural analyst. I see no evidence of climatology in his background. Dismissed.

:p

"We've had a Greenhouse Theory with no evidence to support it-except a moderate warming turned into a scare by computer models whose results have never been verified with real-world events," said co-author Singer. "On the other hand, we have compelling evidence of a real-world climate cycle averaging 1470 years (plus or minus 500) running through the last million years of history. The climate cycle has above all been moderate, and the trees, bears, birds, and humans have quietly adapted."

"Two thousand years of published human histories say that the warm periods were good for people," says Avery. "It was the harsh, unstable Dark Ages and Little Ice Age that brought bigger storms, untimely frost, widespread famine and plagues of disease." "There may have been a consensus of guesses among climate model-builders," says Singer. "However, the models only reflect the warming, not its cause." He noted that about 70 percent of the earth's post-1850 warming came before 1940, and thus was probably not caused by human-emitted greenhouse gases. The net post-1940 warming totals only a tiny 0.2 degrees C.

The historic evidence of the natural cycle includes the 5000-year record of Nile floods, 1st-century Roman wine production in Britain, and thousands of museum paintings that portrayed sunnier skies during the Medieval Warming and more cloudiness during the Little Ice Age. The physical evidence comes from oxygen isotopes, beryllium ions, tiny sea and pollen fossils, and ancient tree rings. The evidence recovered from ice cores, sea and lake sediments, cave stalagmites and glaciers has been analyzed by electron microscopes, satellites, and computers. Temperatures during the Medieval Warming Period on California's Whitewing Mountain must have been 3.2 degrees warmer than today, says Constance Millar of the U.S. Forest Service, based on her study of seven species of relict trees that grew above today's tree line.

Singer emphasized, "Humans have known since the invention of the telescope that the earth's climate variations were linked to the sunspot cycle, but we had not understood how. Recent experiments have demonstrated that more or fewer cosmic rays hitting the earth create more or fewer of the low, cooling clouds that deflect solar heat back into space-amplifying small variations in the intensity of the sun.

Avery and Singer noted that there are hundreds of additional peer-reviewed studies that have found cycle evidence, and that they will publish additional researchers' names and studies.

[Mr. I - Man]

Anyone been to Schaumburg, IL? It's just outside Chicago.

Must be dirty up there.

Yuk.

Yeah its dirty if you hate suburban cookie cutter sprawl.

[MarineHawk]

where do you propose we get our resources that may be compromised by the use of this compound?

The only resources that will be compromised by the use of DDT are the rare traces of sanity among the enviro-hysterical alarmists. No need to replace such a scarce commodity.

[star]

:p

[/FONT]

Dear god! That's even worse. I'll take ignorance over pure deceit any day.

This "scientist" S. Fred Singer was once employed by the tobacco industry to debunk the fact that tobacco can harm human health and actually kill us. That science has proven out so he's looking for more corrupt work to keep him busy. He now admits to performing climate "research" for big oil. He receives annual grants from Exxon.

[star]

The only resources that will be compromised by the use of DDT are the rare traces of sanity among the enviro-hysterical alarmists. No need to replace such a scarce commodity.

You're still not getting it. DDT kills insects. It doesn't discriminate between which are "bad" insects and which are "good" insects. We need insects to pollinate all of our food (fruit, nuts, veggies) as well as all the food that's fed to the animals that we eat. Kill off the pollinators and we don't have food.

Side question....are you actually a Marine? Were you in Iraq? If so, what's your position on this war? I'm very curious as I've talked with two other parties that served there and their representation is completely different than that of what our media conveys. If the question isn't proper, or you find it offsensive, I apologize. Thanks for your consideration.

[MarineHawk]

This "scientist" S. Fred Singer was once employed by the tobacco industry to debunk the fact that tobacco can harm human health and actually kill us. That science has proven out so he's looking for more corrupt work to keep him busy.

No. He attacked the EPA for its 1993 study about the cancer risks of passive smoking and called it "junk science," which it was. He never said smoking didn't harm human health. You simply just don't know what you're talking about on any one topic.


He now admits to performing climate "research" for big oil. He receives annual grants from Exxon.

Show me where. In 1998 and 2000 a non-profit corporation he worked for received grants from ExxonMobile. Is that what you are talking about? Either way, big deal. Are oil companies evil for trying to find out what's really going on. Do you deny the evidence of climate cycles predating any human impact?

Nevermind. I'm not going to engage in yet another long debate about the war, which is not a simple or intuitive issue. You can search my earlier posts if you really care or you can safely assume that I agree with almost all of what this Democrat, with no ties to Bush, says: http://www.opinionjournal.com/editorial/feature.html?id=110010107

Also, these are fairly parallel with what I believe:

http://article.nationalreview.com/?q=ZDVjMzczN2Q3YjM3NGE0MzNiNDhjNDBhMWY2YTZkNTI=

http://article.nationalreview.com/?q=NTM2NGNmMTFjMTM4MTg4ZGRiNmU1M2FmOWZiMjMyMTY=

[CO Hummer]

The only resources that will be compromised by the use of DDT are the rare traces of sanity among the enviro-hysterical alarmists. No need to replace such a scarce commodity.


hahahahahahaha!!!!!


:OWNED:

[MarineHawk]

Yeah its dirty if you hate suburban cookie cutter sprawl.

I hear Tower Road is the dirtiest place to be in that town. Lots of cattle-produced methane and increased sunspot radiation from the resulting ozone hole directly overhead.

[star]

MarineHawk

Singer was hired by tobacco to thwart EPA attacks/regulations on tobacco. Excerpt and then link. Google his name. He was on tobacco payroll and now receives oil money to spin climate change. It's all over the net and is no secret. He served for several organizations that have received oil money. Not just one. And not just during the years you've referenced.

"Tobacco Industry Contractor

In 1994, Singer was Chief Reviewer of the report Science, economics, and environmental policy: a critical examination published by the Alexis de Tocqueville Institution (AdTI). This was all part of an attack on EPA regulation on environmental tobacco smoke funded by the Tobacco Institute. [6] At that time, Mr. Singer was a Senior Fellow with AdTI. [7]

"The report's principal reviewer, Dr Fred Singer, was involved with the International Center for a Scientific Ecology, a group that was considered important in Philip Morris' plans to create a group in Europe similar to The Advancement for Sound Science Coalition (TASSC), as discussed by Ong and Glantz. He was also on a tobacco industry list of people who could write op-ed pieces on "junk science," defending the industry's views.39" [8]

In 1995, as President of the Science and Environmental Policy Project (a think tank based in Fairfax, Virginia) S. Fred Singer was involved in launching a publicity campaign about "The Top 5 Environmental Myths of 1995," a list that included the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency's conclusion that secondhand tobacco smoke is a human carcinogen. Shandwick, a public relations agency working for British American Tobacco, pitched the "Top 5 Myths" list idea to Singer to minimize the appearance of tobacco industry involvement in orchestrating criticism of the EPA. The "Top 5 Environmental Myths" list packaged EPA's secondhand smoke ruling with other topics like global warming and radon gas, to help minimize the appearance of tobacco industry involvement in the effort. According to a 1996 BAT memo describing the arrangement, Singer agreed to an "aggressive media interview schedule" organized by Shandwick to help publicize his criticism of EPA's conclusions.[9]
[edit]
Oil Industry Contractor

In a September 24, 1993, sworn affidavit, Dr. Singer admitted to doing climate change research on behalf of oil companies, such as Exxon, Texaco, Arco, Shell and the American Gas Association. [10]

However, on February 12, 2001, Singer wrote a letter to The Washington Post "in which he denied receiving any oil company money in the previous 20 years when he had consulted for the oil industry."

http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=S._Fred_Singer

And then documents verifying he receives money from big oil. Snippets and link.

Singer has been accused of conflicts of interest, most notably involving financial ties to oil and tobacco companies.[26] Writing for The Guardian, George Monbiot claimed that in 1993 APCO, a public relations firm, sent a memo to Philip Morris to vice-president Ellen Merlo stating: "As you know, we have been working with Dr. Fred Singer and Dr. Dwight Lee, who have authored articles on junk science and indoor air quality (IAQ) respectively ..."[27] Monbiot also added that "I have no evidence that Fred Singer or his organisation have taken money from Philip Morris."

In a February 2001 letter to the Washington Post, Singer denied receiving funding from the oil industry, except for consulting work some 20 years prior. While funds were not directed specifically in his name, publicly available documents show that Singer's non-profit corporation SEPP received multiple grants from ExxonMobil, including in 1998 and 2000.[26]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fred_Singer

Star here........

I don't usually like citing wiki for data, but if you prefer another source - it's all over the net.

So, let me get this straight. You dismiss the scientific assertions of all of the independent climate scientists that concur, through peer reviewed papers, that climate change is indeed occurring and that man is a contributing component of this occurrence; yet you support a sole "climate scientist's" findings whose findings have resulted from the funding of big oil?

This the position that you've just stated and with that I say we should close this thread. You're the only individual here to have contributed anything meaningful to this discussion and the basis of your position is now well understood. Throw out the peer reviewed opinions of the majority of climate scientists in favor of the one that receives funding from oil.

Also, I wasn't trying to debate or inflame a negative discussion with you on the war. In case you haven't noticed a trend here, I try to obtain unbiased information in order to arrive at my conclusions. I feel that we may not be receiving accurate representation of the Iraq war as both parties that I spoke with (both served there) espoused much progress and all I hear through the media is negative. I haven't had time to read the links you provided concerning your position on same, but I'm interested and will do so. Again, thanks for the consideration on this. I'm trying to get more info on the matter through unbiased sources. If you served our country, you're service is appreciated. I'm grateful you're alive to speak of it.

[MarineHawk]

MarineHawk

Singer was hired by tobacco to thwart EPA attacks/regulations on tobacco. Excerpt and then link. Google his name. He was on tobacco payroll and now receives oil money to spin climate change. It's all over the net and is no secret.

"Tobacco Industry Contractor

In 1994, Singer was Chief Reviewer of the report Science, economics, and environmental policy: a critical examination published by the Alexis de Tocqueville Institution (AdTI). This was all part of an attack on EPA regulation on environmental tobacco smoke funded by the Tobacco Institute. [6] At that time, Mr. Singer was a Senior Fellow with AdTI. [7]

"The report's principal reviewer, Dr Fred Singer, was involved with the International Center for a Scientific Ecology, a group that was considered important in Philip Morris' plans to create a group in Europe similar to The Advancement for Sound Science Coalition (TASSC), as discussed by Ong and Glantz. He was also on a tobacco industry list of people who could write op-ed pieces on "junk science," defending the industry's views.39" [8]

In 1995, as President of the Science and Environmental Policy Project (a think tank based in Fairfax, Virginia) S. Fred Singer was involved in launching a publicity campaign about "The Top 5 Environmental Myths of 1995," a list that included the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency's conclusion that secondhand tobacco smoke is a human carcinogen. Shandwick, a public relations agency working for British American Tobacco, pitched the "Top 5 Myths" list idea to Singer to minimize the appearance of tobacco industry involvement in orchestrating criticism of the EPA. The "Top 5 Environmental Myths" list packaged EPA's secondhand smoke ruling with other topics like global warming and radon gas, to help minimize the appearance of tobacco industry involvement in the effort. According to a 1996 BAT memo describing the arrangement, Singer agreed to an "aggressive media interview schedule" organized by Shandwick to help publicize his criticism of EPA's conclusions.[9]
[edit]
Oil Industry Contractor

In a September 24, 1993, sworn affidavit, Dr. Singer admitted to doing climate change research on behalf of oil companies, such as Exxon, Texaco, Arco, Shell and the American Gas Association. [10]

However, on February 12, 2001, Singer wrote a letter to The Washington Post "in which he denied receiving any oil company money in the previous 20 years when he had consulted for the oil industry."

http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=S._Fred_Singer

And then documents verifying he receives money from big oil. Snippets and link.

Singer has been accused of conflicts of interest, most notably involving financial ties to oil and tobacco companies.[26] Writing for The Guardian, George Monbiot claimed that in 1993 APCO, a public relations firm, sent a memo to Philip Morris to vice-president Ellen Merlo stating: "As you know, we have been working with Dr. Fred Singer and Dr. Dwight Lee, who have authored articles on junk science and indoor air quality (IAQ) respectively ..."[27] Monbiot also added that "I have no evidence that Fred Singer or his organisation have taken money from Philip Morris."

In a February 2001 letter to the Washington Post, Singer denied receiving funding from the oil industry, except for consulting work some 20 years prior. While funds were not directed specifically in his name, publicly available documents show that Singer's non-profit corporation SEPP received multiple grants from ExxonMobil, including in 1998 and 2000.[26]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fred_Singer

Star here........

I don't usually like citing wiki for data, but if you prefer another source - it's all over the net.

So, let me get this straight. You dismiss the scientific assertions of all of the independent climate scientists that concur, through peer reviewed papers, that climate change is indeed occurring and that man is a contributing component of this occurrence; yet you support a sole "climate scientist's" findings whose findings have resulted from the funding of big oil?

This the position that you've just stated and with that I say we should close this thread. You're the only individual here to have contributed anything meaningful to this discussion and the basis of your position is now well understood. Throw out the peer reviewed opinions of the majority of climate scientists in favor of the one that receives funding from oil.

Also, I wasn't trying to debate or inflame a negative discussion with you on the war. In case you haven't noticed a trend here, I try to obtain unbiased information in order to arrive at my conclusions. I feel that we may not be receiving accurate representation of the Iraq war as both parties that I spoke with (both served there) espoused much progress and all I hear through the media is negative. I haven't had time to read the links you provided concerning your position on same, but I'm interested and will do so. Again, thanks for the consideration on this. I'm trying to get more info on the matter through unbiased sources. If you served our country, you're service is appreciated. I'm grateful you're alive to speak of it.

Nothing you cite to about Singer disagrees with what I said, and it doesn't support your claim that he disputed "the fact that tobacco can harm human health and actually kill us." Who says he said anything of the sort? I acknowledged that Singer's non-profit corporation received grants from ExxonMobile. You've come up with nothing more other than vague allegations that he is a bad, biased guy, right? Countless other scientists agree with him. Please simply answer: Do you deny the overwhelming evidence of climate temperature cycles ocurring roughly every 1,500 years before any man-made impact could have been a factor? Yes or no?

I am a lawyer dealing with a case relating to 9/11. I've learned first hand how much information "all over the net" is worth. There are facts about which I have specific, concrete information and which conclusively eliminate any merit in allegations made in literally tens of thousands of blogs and other Internet pages. I've seen a specific document that doesn't say what these unimaginably voluminous internet sources claim it says (it's not publically available). The plaintiffs are convinced it says what the countless sources, some even in the U.S. government, say it says. They've wrapped their case around these unasailable allegations of the document's contents. We submitted it to the federal judge for in camera (private) inspection. He could hardly hide his chuckle when he ruled against the plaintiffs. "All over the net" doesn't impress me.

[DRTYFN]

Dear god! That's even worse. I'll take ignorance over pure deceit any day.

This "scientist" S. Fred Singer was once employed by the tobacco industry to debunk the fact that tobacco can harm human health and actually kill us. That science has proven out so he's looking for more corrupt work to keep him busy. He now admits to performing climate "research" for big oil. He receives annual grants from Exxon.
Stick to the subject. Worship at the altar of your Lord & God, Al Gore.
43808
I'll take ignorance over pure deceit any day.
Al is dishing out both to all of the idiots that will listen.

[star]

A lawyer. Now I see why you're so tenacious. :) Too bad you're in another state. I may have considered you to manage my business affairs based on this exchange.

The Alexis de Tocqueville Institution released a research report which found that the science behind the Environmental Protection Agency's (EPA) risk assessments in four current environmental policy questions is inadequate. Singer was the chief reviewer of the research report. The entire actual report is contained in this link.

http://tobaccodocuments.org/pm/2046451315-1387.html

I'm aware of how things are spun. Unfortunately a vast percentage of humans swallow such information whole. That's exactly why I asked the question concerning Iraq and why your response is valued by me.

I do not disagree that the climate goes through transitions of warming and cooling trends. The land that I own is very hilly in an otherwise notoriously flat state. These moraines were caused by glaciers. The striking, most persuasive thing is that these climate transitions haven't been documented to occur as fast as we're currently witnessing. That's the basis of why I believe we're severely messing with the primordial cocktail from which our planet/atmosphere has arisen. I'm not aware of any scientific evidence to suggest that such a rapid warming trend has occurred in the past. Are you?

[star]

Stick to the subject. Worship at the altar of your Lord & God, Al Gore.



An intolerable statement. I do not regard Al in the equation of climate change. His opinion is of no value to me.

[MarineHawk]

I'm not aware of any scientific evidence to suggest that such a rapid warming trend has occurred in the past. Are you?

I don't believe a rapid trend is occuring. I've seen the charts showing where we are on the temperature curve going back tens of thousands of years, and we're right on the curve.

[star]

Here's a graph constructed by the National Oceanic and Atmosphere Administration that says differently.

http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/paleo/pubs/mann2003b/mann2003b.html

I recognize the uncertainties of ancient temps due to newly recognized variables but this trend doesn't look "normal".

I know you're not going to like this link based on the source, but do consider that the graph was derived from peer reviewed data and considered "sound".

http://www.realclimate.org/index.php?p=7

In either of these cases, we are warming much faster and to a much greater degree than has been recorded in the past.

What do you have? This type of data seems especially hard to come by based on the fact that certain variables were not quantified in the past.

Oh, and I also stumbled across something that served to debunk the latest "fad" that the sun is amplifying the warming trend. The latest solar max was in 2000 and since these usually occur in 11 year cycles, I don't see how one can tie this event to the fact that this year is shaping up to be the warmest year on record globally.

Judging by the poll results, it truly doesn't matter. People can be presented with all the data available and are not going to open their minds to even a possibility that we can be contributing to this. I say this because the majority of posters are absolutely certain, without a doubt, that the climate is not changing.

It's a myth! A profit making scheme! Meanwhile, we're far behind other nations in the r&d of alternative energy sources. After the increase that Bush just authorized for funding of same, we will spend approx. $771 Million for this research. China has earmarked several Billion dollars for such projects. Seems that in addition to the goods and services being imported from China, we can soon add alternative energy solutions to the list. Profits for whom, I ask?

[MarineHawk]

whooooo, it's getting sooo hot soooo fast:

"It was never supposed to be a trick question. Which year is the hottest on record? Depending where one looks, there are three different answers: 2006, 1998 or 1934. Until last week, the answer was supposed to be 2006, but it might have been 1998. Now, citing corrections of faulty data, NASA says it was actually 1934. The National Climactic Data Center disagrees; it still says 1998.

The differences are a matter of tenths of a degree Celsius, which might seem to diminish the significance of the corrections. Except that unusually warm years in the 1920s, 1930s and 1950s are themselves only a few tenths of a degree Celsius away from the purportedly dangerous hot temperatures of the present. Only one thing is certain: The political debate over global warming has rushed far ahead of the science. ...

Here's another hysteric, The Washington Post, in January: 'Last year was the warmest in the continental United States in the past 112 years,' read its front-page story, 'capping a nine-year warming streak 'unprecedented in the historical record' that was driven in part by the burning of fossil fuels, the government reported yesterday.' Funny, but we thought 'unprecedented' would require an absence of, well, precedents, such as the 1920s and 1930s. These years were similarly warm decades, like the present.'" http://www.washingtontimes.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20070815/EDITORIAL/108150004

That's scary!

[MarineHawk]

Watch this. Seriously:
http://blog.lewrockwell.com/lewrw/archives/013117.html

Reminds me of this:

"The object of life is not to be on the side of the majority," Marcus Aurelius opined, "but to escape finding oneself in the ranks of the insane." An even worse fate would be to end up in minority status and an asylum. Recent developments suggest this might become the destiny of climate change alarmists.

Now that NASA has corrected its U.S. temperature records, the hottest year on record is no longer 1998, but 1934. Five of the 10 hottest years since 1880 were between 1920 and 1940 ? and the 15 hottest years since 1880 are spread across seven decades. This suggests natural variation, not a warming trend.

Plant and insect remains found at the base of Greenland's ice sheet indicate just 400,000 years ago the island was blanketed in forests and basking in temperatures perhaps 27 degrees F warmer than today. Land area temperatures in South America, Africa and Australia have declined slightly over the last few years. Since 1998, sea surface temperatures over much of the world have decreased slightly, while globally averaged atmospheric temperatures have shown no change. Many U.S. temperature gauges are near air-conditioning exhausts, hot asphalt and other heat sources. Their readings are thus too high and must be revised downward ? along with claims about rising temperatures.

Over the last 650,000 years, global temperatures almost always rose or fell first ? followed centuries later by changes in atmospheric carbon dioxide levels.

More scientists are citing solar energy levels, cosmic rays and clouds as determinants of climate ? and saying CO2 plays only a minor role. Over the last year, dozens have publicly switched from believers to skeptics about climate Armageddon theories.

Eight eastern European countries are threatening legal action against European Union decisions to restrict their emissions, as they work to grow their economies after decades of impoverishment under communism. China and India refuse to sacrifice their economic growth to climate chaos concerns.

China has surpassed the United States as the world's leading CO2 emitter. And EU carbon dioxide emissions have increased faster since 2002 than those in the United States, where both population and economic growth have been substantially higher than in Western Europe.

The response of climate alarmists is fodder for psychological textbooks. Greenpeace says cataclysm skeptics are "climate criminals." Grist magazine wants "Nuremberg-style war crimes trials." Robert Kennedy Jr. says we should be treated like "traitors." And Rep. Jim Costa walked out on a witness who noted that proposed legislation would raise energy and food prices, cost millions of jobs, and severely hurt poor families ? while doing nothing to stabilize global temperatures.

Newsweek said climate holocaust "deniers" had received $19 million from industry, to subvert the "consensus" it claims exists about global warming. It made no mention of the $50 billion that alarmists and other beneficiaries have received since 1990 from governments, foundations and corporations [no bias there, huh?]. Newsweek contributing editor Robert Samuelson called the article "highly contrived" and based on "discredited" accusations about industry funding.

Alarmists have blamed global warming for hurricanes, tornadoes, malaria and even the Minneapolis bridge collapse, teenage drinking, terrorism, suicides and "irritability" in mice. By combining far-fetched speculation with various computer-generated temperature projections and worst-case scenarios, they concoct even more ominous auguries, like this amazing tale from London's Benfield UCL Hazard Research Center:

If CO2 levels keep rising, global temperatures could soar, ice caps melt, oceans could rise dozens of feet ? and all that extra water pressure could destabilize Earth's crust, squeeze out magma and cause volcanoes to erupt. The volcanic gases and dust could then cool the Earth, and cause a new ice age.

A 1993 blockbuster movie used a similar what-if pyramid scheme to generate terrifying encounters with raptors and tyrannosaurs. But when the lights came up, people knew it was just a movie.

When it comes to climate change, however, many seem unable to separate science from science fiction ? or even distinguish between headline-grabbing pronouncements, preposterous disaster flicks like "The Day After Tomorrow," and pseudo-documentaries like "An Inconvenient Truth" and "The 11th Hour." Instead of fostering rational discourse and responsible action, alarmists insist we "do something" immediately to prevent climate cataclysm.

Al Gore is buying carbon offset indulgences. Leonardo DiCaprio is replacing his incandescent light bulbs. Cheryl Crow promotes one square per trip to the ladies' room. Cate Blanchett will wash her hair less often in her new $10-million Australian mansion. Cameron Diaz promotes "indigenous" lifestyles in Third World countries. But they all support laws mandating greatly reduced energy use and economic growth ? outside of Hollywood and Nashville's Belle Meade area.

In response, Congress has introduced a half-dozen "climate stabilization" bills ? and state legislatures are reviewing 375 more. These bills would cost American consumers many billions of dollars a year. But they would reduce average global temperatures by a tiny fraction of the 0.2 degrees F that scientists say the Kyoto Protocol would accomplish by 2050 (assuming CO2 is a primary cause of climate change).

It's time to ask: At what point do symbolic gestures and political grandstanding become actually "doing something" about climate change? At what point do they amount to insanity?

http://www.washingtontimes.com/article/20070912/COMMENTARY/109120009/1012

[Hummer Aficionado_VT]

I had steak last night.
Hellz yeah brotha! :jump:

[Hummer Aficionado_VT]

You wouldn't think this to be funny if you knew the dynamic of this systems and how they benefit us and how we actually require that they remain in tact for a multitude of reasons.

I think its funny that you waste time trolling Hummer forums! :giggling:

I understand the medicine aspect of the rainforest and such, but don't blame global warming on beef cattle, Hummers, etc.

[star]

Watch this. Seriously:


Swallowing it whole. It's not even funny. We're so seriously screwed.

Regarding the rest of your post:

NASA's data does not confirm what's reported in your source paper. Below is the link. NASA continues to report that the periods subsequent the 1980's remain the warmest years on record globally. While the data indicates that the U.S. recognized warm years in the 30's, as are recorded as of late, one cannot merely look at regional data when looking for global climate trends.

http://data.giss.nasa.gov/gistemp/graphs/

Instead of just listening to what the paper reports NASA's findings to be, I can see for myself. And the data continues to reflect significant warming trends of our globe, especially since the 80's.