Global Warming a Hoax??

[NRiderUSA]

http://www.globalwarminghoax.com/com...ment.news.93.6

[macmac]

I don't need to read to know it is a hoax. I got 61 degrees F today the 2nd of July, in pouring down rain, might be 2 inches by early dusk. The garden is a swamp and I am going to need a raft to weed it pretty soon.

I expect deep snow this winter, about 6 feet on the level field, which will be a near record again for the this area. I also expect snow to be on the bround to stay before Thanksgiving, like it has the past 2 years.

Of course 'they' will say this is due to Global Warming.

The month of June Concord (Capitol and weather) say we got 8+ inches of rain.

So far that rain ain't stopped much and so far in July I measured 3.75 inches so friggin far.

If I get to shovel off this barn 3 times like last year Fat AL Gore will be doing it himself personally if I get my way.

Barn


Pine shed


Shop


Path to shop

[Cajunrider]

Hey Mac, It's just warm in the South, and I do mean warm!

[markusmaximus]

This is from a U.S. Senate Minority Report report so it must be true.

[macmac]

Ain't always warm in the south?

It was warm here today too, with a bright light up in the sky for awhile, but it is normal now 'raining' and gray.

[ringadingh]

Its been raining on and off here every day for over a week, My yard is getting pretty soggy here lately. Not the July we normally have this year.

[macmac]

The rains here are nearing record levels. Way too much for a garden, which is being threatened by over watering, not normal cold and etc etc.. If anything atleast my area is in cooling and has been for no less than the 3 past years.

before at this time of year here you only might want a cotton sheet on a bed. I have 4 wool blankets and one is a horse blanket from Hudson Bay. That is a style of thick real wool.

I refuse to own any blanket not real wool. I June often times I was wearing longies.. In June 05 i was too, and the only way I know, is I was getting the 01 ready for a USA tour in the rains of June, and it was colder then than normal.

This so called Global Warming is a lie. Man can not make enough CO-2, no matter how powerfull man thinks he is. It would take a place like Yellow Stone to go off to approach levels like that.

Science is sometimes bunk, and the way i know that is in the American Civil War, War Between the States, or what ever anyone wants to call it, is when modern medicin got it's first start.

The best of surgons counted if a patient was still breathing after getting a limb hacked off.

If he was the surgery was a success.. The idea of washing hands between patients first came to be, and so the mark of lots of blood on a apron, in late war finally became frowned upon.

Hell early Natives knew better than that!

In the 18th century washing was thought to cause most illness. In part that is true since the street gutters were the septic systems.

Man isn't the smartest creature out there by far. Pretty much he chits in what he eats, and still eats it.

The 3rd worlds live far lesser than we, but some are far cleaner than we.

Anyway this is a Hoax, and for no more than to take Liberty, and for some, gain in terms of greed and power.

If I wanted to I could go to Tuckerman's Ravine tonight and get up a dandy snow ball fight.

These people who came up with this BS are not center in the bubble if you get my drift. None of them spend any time in the SUN, which is said to be bad for us as well.

It never just rains anymore, it is always a 'storm'.

So called clean cars are nothing of the sort, so long as they are going to be battery based electric. Just another hoax...

I do agree we need better sources of power, and cleaner if possible, but the Govt is riddled with waste, and by far contributes more than anyone else. Add the rest of the world Govt's and the act of WAR, and the polution that makes, and it makes the private sector look clean by comparision.

WAR is a terrible waste of resources, and it the break down of when ploy tic (blood sucking leeches) have failed at their job.

I am not holding my breath on any of that. Since man was, and when he first came out of trees there has been war. The first man hit the 2nd man with a stick. The 2nd man returned fire and hit the 1st man with a rock.

All that has changed is the stick and a the rock. Pretty stupid if you ask me.

Freemen don't need poly tics.. and for our troubles we just get the same old liars in new bodys every so many years... when it ain't fer life like Teddy the Swimmer.

Now I propose a wind bag tax... Oh say $1,000,000,000.00 TAX on poly tickin wind bags for each single word they utter.

We would save the world one hell of a lot of wasted CO-2....

Plants need CO-2 and create O2 for it...

A few years ago the best of the best in science wanted to blow up the Moon! yeah blow up the moon to stop tides and get other so called benifits..

Before that we as humans in 57' we started polking hjoles in the atmosphere, wit rockets.

That can't be all good ya know? Then we scatter junk in orbit, and that can't be any good.

Man won't stop wrecking what ever he gets his grubby mitts into.. But make Global warming??? No friggin way ...

Just wait till CO-2 taxes come along....

[markusmaximus]

WTF? Your diatribe against the mounting and overwhelming evidence that greenhouse gasses are rising at an alarming rate is to equate modern science with Civil War surgeons and the lack of prescient understanding of the correlation between hygiene and infectious diseases in the 18th century? You make it sound as if these people were ignoring known knowledge available at the time. Caution... you're impugning yourself based on you own arguments.

Ever heard of Hakam's Razor? It's a simple thought model used to determine the most probable cause of a phenomenon. So what is the most plausible explanation?

1. Global temperatures are steadily rising (fact), CO2 levels are rising at an alarming rate (fact), and there is strong scientific correlation between CO2 at atmospheric trapping of heat (fact);

or...

2. This is all an elaborate and highly coordinated hoax, propagated by the worlds leading atmospheric, marine, geophysic, and geologists, right up there with putting man on the moon, and Elvis is not dead.

If you believe #2, then you would be well-served to understand the evolutionary reasons behind human tendency to see patterns when not present ("patternicity") or refuse to see patterns when it is real ("apatternicity"). Read http://www.scientificamerican.com/ar...ngful-patterns for more.

So if humans can step outside of their own myopia and look beyond what's happening in their own snowy backyards, they might realize that global warming is a real and present danger. But I suspect many people will continue their conspiracy theories to mitigate guilt over their contributions to this global warming.

When the ebbing tide retreats
Along the rocky shoreline
It leaves a trail of tidal pools
In a short-lived galaxy
Each microcosmic planet
A complete society

A simple kind mirror
To reflect upon our own
All the busy little creatures
Chasing out their destinies
Living in their pools
They soon forget about the sea...
- N Peart

[macmac]

There may be increases in CO², but most of it is not made by man. Most of it is made by volcanic action.

In the mid 1700's if Al Gore and his fooy scientist were around they would be in another panic, of the new coming ice age!

The Hudson River froze solid at that time, to be able to support ice boats used for shipping supplies to Albany from NY NY.

The Earth has it's way man does not understand the How To of, and it just might be we came to the end of the warm age, and will revert in fact to the next ice age, which will also threaten man kind.

There is hard science leading that way as well, so who is correct?

Living by the coast I know when the tide comes in the tide will go back out, and as such the seasons change.

As of these past few years if you ask me it is getting colder, with locals also getting warmer.

I doubt man has much impact on CO².

On the other hand I know CO² is the next excuse to TAX.

I am not saying we humans shouldn't find cleaner power and cleaner ways to move about the planet, as a lad i saw rivers run orange with waste of paper plants, and waste of heavy metals, which man is very good at.

Waste at every river banking from farm trash. Out of sight is as good as out of mind. I can still lead anyone to such places, but man is a silly creature basing life itself on money.

It won't be CO² that kills man, it will be silly notions of money.

I am all for a clean earth, but i don't see that ever happening..

The Earth and other than man forms of life will exceed past man.

I am not worried about it, any more than I worry about what man will do to the moon as soon as he can stay there.

That will be trash the place in the way only modern man knows how.

What little you find of ancient man contins little trash, a few coins down the wekk, a fer buttons in a out house, a few charred hearth stone, bits of silver and gold in holes in the ground, stone points.

Not mountains of junk, and layers of heavy metals in the sea floors, and no crap on beaches that injure skin in the name of POWER Greed and LAW.

This is a Hoax like any other hoax and it ends in Dollars....

[macmac]

Guilt? I have no guilt. I don't live the life of the guilty. I don't have a private jet air plane, and steal the publics money to ride it.

I feel no guilt for shooting black powder flintlocks, riding my bike, and or driving my truck to plow snow, nor do I have any for camp fires, buring 4 alladin lamps for winter heat or much else.

These are the new age carpetbaggers whom would wish they could stop the very common man from just simply exhailing, and since they can't they will TAX...

I live a simple life, but I do appreciate fire. I can make fire with 2 sticks, so there is no stopping me from fire any time I wish it.

I can't help but make trash, but my aim is to force it back on the sellers by removing it all at the time of purchase which i do.

I get rid of the tons of anti theft packing which is the better part of the costs of things these days. Just mountians of plastics it takes to make MORE CO². Stuff no one wants in the first place with triple wrapped tems of any kind.

When MAN becomes aware of the illness oils and plastics have made maybe then I wioll re-think CO² and man.

I don't like or want to smole the evile weeds, but on the other hand it is far cleaner than oil made waste by-products.

The reason the evil weed is illegal is because it would dump the oil industry on its a$$.

Hemp can be oil, nylon stocking, cloth, paper, packing material, fuel, and etc for 1,001 things, and it was the leading industry to use the wind and raise live stock once. Far cleaner than any oil base as we know it products.

Hemp is totally bio-degrade able and man has known this for thousands of years before he knew of black water that burns.

No one takes this CO² seriousely, when no one has stopped creating CO².

[glwilson]

Oh my Markus... just how much Liberal Kool-Aid did you drink? No offense; but it appears you swallowed just about everything the Left has served-up and are clearly addicted to their rhetoric and agendas. Are you sure you don't work for the DNC and their "special" interests?

Seems to me you have left out another possible cause of global climate variances. You have neatly (conveniently) packaged your myopic, believed, reason for global climate changes without adding another highly plausible cause.

How about the SUN? Yeah... you know... that hot thing in the sky. There isn't a credible scientist that has not at least considered the Sun's patterns of activity as having a part of what is going on globally.

More and more evidence is pointing toward this as being majority cause of atomospheric changes. So... add that to your list. And if the Sun is the cause... well then, it looks like we can skip cap-and-trade crap.

Don't tax me for your party's fanatical ideas about the earth's environment without being throughly honest about what this truly is... an agenda for those who will most profit from such nonsense. Al Gore (and his buddies) makes millions on the current carbon-credit program. A completely idiotic program of buying and selling "pollution-credits". He'll only stand to make millions more with cap-and-trade. So will his "buddies". Does this "movement" have a hidden agenda... of course it does.

Billions of dollars are about to be passed through this BS movement to the hands of those that have fed the sheep with its nonsense. This is not an agenda on "How to make the world a Disneyland"... it is an agenda of money... and who will get the most from it -- period.

[lw]

Propaganda 101: "Tell a big enough lie, loud enough, and long enough, and eventually it is accepted as the truth."

Essentially bombard your target audience with what you want them to believe until they regurgitate the message you have programmed them with. He (or she) who controls the media controls the country. . .

[markusmaximus]

Greg, Mac, I'm not making this a political issue. You guys are. I'm merely stating the scientific evidence in support of man-caused global warming is formidible. If credible evidence supporting the rise in global temps are somehow related to the sun, or are cyclical, or any other cause, then I will listen. If the scientific community accepts such evidence, then so will I. I don't not have the authority or knowledge to question the experts... and neither do you. But to dismiss this on the basis of bad science or conspiracy or hoax or the liberal political machine or whatever else is BS.

If I didn't know better (and maybe I don't), it's easy to believe you guys were disputing this purely to discredit democrats and liberals and avoid footing the bill for capital needed to transition to alternative energy sources. You're making this political... I'm making this an issue of urgency.

[glwilson]

Originally Posted by Markus Maximus

Greg, Mac, I'm not making this a political issue. You guys are. I'm merely stating the scientific evidence in support of man-caused global warming is formidible. If credible evidence supporting the rise in global temps are somehow related to the sun, or are cyclical, or any other cause, then I will listen. If the scientific community accepts such evidence, then so will I. I don't not have the authority or knowledge to question the experts... and neither do you. But to dismiss this on the basis of bad science or conspiracy or hoax or the liberal political machine or whatever else is BS.

If I didn't know better (and maybe I don't), it's easy to believe you guys were disputing this purely to discredit democrats and liberals and avoid footing the bill for capital needed to transition to alternative energy sources. You're making this political... I'm making this an issue of urgency.

Sorry but I don't believe this is "accurate", definitive science we are talking about here -- not even close.

Now look... I like a clean environment also. I love the outdoors and I do like our money being spent on acquiring and maintaining federal and state parks (and the such). That is where I may lean a bit toward Teddy Roosevelt's side.

However it stops when it is quite clear there is major profiting going to occur by a few identifiable individuals that DO have an agenda; and have made it quite clear they have an agenda. Al Gore and his cronies are knee-deep in this $hit and stand to make billions of dollars over this hokis-pokis crap.

Having said that... you should know I would feel the same if any of our politicians (Republican, Democrat, Independent, and so on) were to be "behind" this BS

I would ask that YOU do a bit more research into the situation than you have rather than just believing "facts" and agenda-driven rhetoric as being "definitive fact".

It appears you have not read any of the more recent research into the expansion/contraction phases of the sun -- and how it is now thought that global atmospheric conditions are affected more so by these phases than what was previously believed. This research has turned many reputable scientist away from previous beliefs that the sole cause of the earth's atmospheric changes are man-made.

Something you may want to know it that there is now been research indicating a reverse stance on global-warming to a increasingly possible global-cooling period. Why is this so? Well because recent research shows that the Sun may be turning to a contraction phase -- which causes fewer sun-spots -- which cause less heat reaching the earth.

(You may want to note that this research has demonstrated that the sun has most recently been in an expansion phase -- which, of course, warmed the earth -- thus possibly being the cause of the warming trend witnessed in the few years prior to the last two or three.)

Now... when it comes to measuring global temperature patterns -- find for me one credible scientist without ties to an agenda (or his paycheck tied to an agenda) that would suggest that measuring the earth's temperature patterns IS an exact science. We all know... it is not an exact science with regard to being able to predict the long-term trends.

In fact... the assumptions being bantered around as "fact" that the earth is going to continue into an ever-increasing warming phase caused by mankind is based solely on a "modeling" process -- which is inarguably NOT an exact science; nor able to provide any reliable data to substantiate long-term trends... and let's face it... long-term trends are what we are looking at here.

So... when the earth had its "mini-ice-age" in the 1800's (especially in England) where multiple years of excessive cold loomed on a large region of the earth... they should have taxed anyone that wasn't producing excessive carbon... because, after all... the earth was going to remain in an ever-increasing ice-age back then and immediate action needed to be taken.

It should be noted that the fate of Arctic wild-life was considered desperate during the mini-ice-age... many thought the polar bear was going to die out because there was too much ice for them to reach the seals and fish. Eskimos were endangered because they couldn't reach the fish, whales, or seals either. Long treks out onto the ice by the Eskimos and wildlife would pose grave danger to them -- and many would not return alive -- thus causing severe pressure on their ability to survive as a whole.

So... let's cut through the BS right now. Statistics are just that... statistics. Being one that not only reads information, charts, and statistics daily -- I also produce statistics in the course of my occupation. Statistics can often be made to "say" whatever one wants them to say... thus one should always look at statistics with a more than doubtful-eye. One should use an "active-mind" when dissecting statistics to learn what the agenda is behind such statistics (and believe me... all statistics have an agenda otherwise they would not be produced). One should ask; "Who paid the statistician to develop the statistics"? (Believe me; someone is writing a check to have stats developed -- and most often you will find the stats will slant toward the agenda.)

Well... I'll say it right here and now. Cap and trade and all the carbon chatter is BS to a very large degree and IS being propagated by those that can profit the most from its existence.

Now... regarding the Liberal's concern for the earth's future... it runs a bit counter to much of what they have just done in Washington with their unbelievable, and uncontrollable spending. They have just wiped-out much of a future generation's money without regard to that generation... while at the same time tout that they want to leave the earth as a "better place". Give me a break... this is about money. BIG money... and who is going to get their hands on it.

I know this because I work with money and large investors from around the globe. They talk about this agenda... they plan on profiting from this agenda... while in public they tell you that they have the gravest concerns for the future of mankind and the quality of life for our future generations.

In conclusion: It is ALWAYS about the money no matter who is telling you what.

[markusmaximus]

First Greg, I commend you on discussing actual scientific reasoning that may well diminish the arguments on man-made causes of global warming. It's a refreshing part from the normal rhetoric I read throughout such posts.

As for sun cycles affecting global climate change, I'm not in a position to refute that argument. In time we may very well learn that the sun plays a much larger role in climate change than previously thought. I suspect climate change is due to a multiplicity of factors. But the sun cycle theory is not universally accepted.

From the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration
(http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/oa/climate/globalwarming.html)...

Since our entire climate system is fundamentally driven by energy from the sun, it stands to reason that if the sun's energy output were to change, then so would the climate. Since the advent of space-borne measurements in the late 1970s, solar output has indeed been shown to vary. With now 28 years of reliable satellite observations there is confirmation of earlier suggestions of an 11 (and 22) year cycle of irradiance related to sunspots but no longer term trend in these data. Based on paleoclimatic (proxy) reconstructions of solar irradiance there is suggestion of a trend of about +0.12 W/m2 since 1750 which is about half of the estimate given in the last IPCC report in 2001. There is though, a great deal of uncertainty in estimates of solar irradiance beyond what can be measured by satellites, and still the contribution of direct solar irradiance forcing is small compared to the greenhouse gas component. However, our understanding of the indirect effects of changes in solar output and feedbacks in the climate system is minimal. There is much need to refine our understanding of key natural forcing mechanisms of the climate, including solar irradiance changes, in order to reduce uncertainty in our projections of future climate change.

In addition to changes in energy from the sun itself, the Earth's position and orientation relative to the sun (our orbit) also varies slightly, thereby bringing us closer and further away from the sun in predictable cycles (called Milankovitch cycles). Variations in these cycles are believed to be the cause of Earth's ice-ages (glacials). Particularly important for the development of glacials is the radiation receipt at high northern latitudes. Diminishing radiation at these latitudes during the summer months would have enabled winter snow and ice cover to persist throughout the year, eventually leading to a permanent snow- or icepack. While Milankovitch cycles have tremendous value as a theory to explain ice-ages and long-term changes in the climate, they are unlikely to have very much impact on the decade-century timescale. Over several centuries, it may be possible to observe the effect of these orbital parameters, however for the prediction of climate change in the 21st century, these changes will be far less important than radiative forcing from greenhouse gases. 

Since you raised the cap and trade issue as a liberal means to further tax businesses, I offer into evidence an objective assessment of the potential impact of C&T on the US economy. From the MIT CENTER FOR ENERGY AND ENVIRONMENTAL POLICY RESEARCH(http://web.mit.edu/ceepr/www/publications/DDCF.pdf)...

As the world’s first serious CO2 cap-and-trade system, the EU ETS offers the United States an unusual opportunity for learning from another’s pioneering experience. After only four years, all the lessons are not completely evident, but problems can be identified, some of the lessons are emerging, and others confirm what is already known from U.S. experience with similar systems for SO2 and NOx emissions.

The most important confirming lessons are that such systems can be constructed, even when conditions are not particularly favorable; that markets for allowances emerge naturally without special government effort; and that the resulting price is incorporated into the operational and investment decisions of business. Another confirming lesson is that the effects of these measures are not as dire as some have predicted or feared. In the EU ETS, CO2 emissions have been reduced from what they would have been otherwise, but the overall impact for the economy as a whole and even for specific sectors is imperceptible. The reason is that the new CO2 price is only one among many, and that all the other prices that shaped consumption and production patterns before the EU ETS remain as important as ever. An important qualification is that the relatively short experience with the EU ETS allows only the short-term effects to be observed thus far. More time will be needed to observe the longer-term effects on investment, but the same condition will apply: there are many other prices that matter as much, if not more, than that of CO2.

So here's my parting shot on this. I will be happy to consider any legitimate scientific evidence refuting the arguments in support of man-caused global warming. I will also gladly concede those points. I really do try to remain objective. As is usually the case, I suspect the truth is somewhere in the middle, but will continue to believe that humans have had more than a negligible impact on global climate change.