You Don't Need to Be a Weatherman, Blah, Blah, Blah
Aww crap. Where's global warming when you need it?
posted by Spencerblog at
12:16 AM
Wednesday, September 30, 2009
Wednesday, September 30, 2009
posted by Spencerblog at
12:16 AM
RSS Feeds© Copyright The Delaware County Times, a Journal Register Property & part of Journal Register PA -- All rights reserved | Our Publications | About Our Ads | Privacy Policy/Terms of Service
22 Comments:
Maps from NASA show North East was cooler last year, but rest of country and most of world is hotter.
NASA Temp map
It's called GLOBAL warming and climate change. Please stop foolishly using the weather outside of your own house as your only measure.
Droughts in the western US. Drier forests and worst fires. Less snow on the mountains means less water for streams and wildlife.
The secret plan of anon-diano and those devious Democrats has been revealed. They plan to move the Obamacare death panels to the EPA, since that agency now will be regulating CO2.
"I'm sorry sir, but you have just used your lifetime's ration of CO2. Please step into the Pelosi/Gore patriot's chamber. You're getting capped and traded into the next life."
Climate changes. With or without any assistance from us. All over the world, droughts happen, hurricanes happen, tornados happen, snow happens, ice happens, summers get steamy, fires happen naturally; and are necessary to remove old growth making room for new growth. (If the enviros in California would clear out the dead stuff themselves, there'd be smaller fires and less damage.)
I don't happen to believe we are responsible for any climate change, but don't mind being environmentally friendly. And I don't believe we need to change our greenhouse gases by 20% nor enact this horribly crippling Tax and trade bill...
Read the bill:
http://greenhellblog.files.wordpress.com/2009/09/boxer-801.pdf
"I don't happen to believe we are responsible for any climate change"
You could also believe the Sun revolves around the Earth, and be wrong about two things.
The carbon dioxide levels HAVE gone up by over 50% since the industrial revolution: because of US. It's a greenhouse gas.
The PROBLEM is that the tornadoes and hurricanes and fires will increase, destroying homes and killing people. Coastal flooding will affect billions of people that will have to move elsewhere, causing economic upheaval and wars for resources.
A physicist with the British Royal Academy, joining thousands of other respected academics from around the world, memorably protested the rush to enact costly legislation on the scientifically questionable premise of global warming.
He said, "Man's contribution to global warming is like a flea on an elephant's butt -- it's there, but it's insignificant and meaningless."
You know, that's also the best way to describe anon-diano's contributions to this blog site.
Good one Jake,
He said, "Man's contribution to global warming is like a flea on an elephant's butt -- it's there, but it's insignificant and meaningless."
You know, that's also the best way to describe anon-diano's contributions to this blog site.
There's no evidence that natural disasters WILL increase. In spite of all of the dire warnings about horrible hurricane seasons (every one since Katrina has been predicted to be the worst ever) none have been nearly as devastating.
Seems to me if we can't predict the weather for a week, a month or a season; we ought not be so arrogant as to predict the future.
One un-named physicist with the Royal Academy (but not the rest of the Royal Academy) joined thousands of "respected academics" (not scientists, and especially not climatologists) in being ignorant on the facts.
Trish it's a shame that you've arrived with the same level of ignorance as Jake.
The predictions about hurricane relative to frequency and strength are actually quite good. These predictions don't go into which ones make landfall, and aren't meant to. Any long term increase in the overall frequency or severity will have effects as more eventually hit landfall.
If you think the level of prediction is not good, then you really don't have the first clue.
Luckily for you, having a clue is not permitted in the Gil Spencer fan club, so you'll fit right in.
Trish and Jake - I'm not a scientist, nor do I claim to know alot about global warming. However, this I do know. Pollution of the environment is real! You don't have to be a believer in global warming to understand and support a global effort to "CONSERVE" our planet. True conservatives will understand the importance of getting behind these initiatives. Something of interest that I've found. It's a European conservative take on this issue. - "Climate change is an issue that transcends all boundaries, impacts us all, and requires us to act. Conserving our planet is a conservative position. Conservative governments now run most of the countries that are on track to meet their Kyoto targets. Their efforts on climate change have not undermined economic growth -- in fact they've increased it."
Bob, I think Trish already mentioned it when she mentioned that she doesn't mind being environmentally friendly.
I don't mind, either, I support sources such as solar and wind - I was in Schuylkill County the other week and stopped to marvel at the wind turbines of Locust Ridge. I also believe Nuclear should also be given an opportunity with the correct methods of waste storage.
McCain had the best line on the environment last year when he stated that he didn't know which side was right in their arguements on the global warming debate but if we adopted and practiced greener lifestyles in society wouldn't we all benefit in the longrun anyway?
Trish, in case you didn't realize, david 'anonymous' diano is a DNC sycophant, his thought process consists of gathering any and all left talking points and using them in debates on this and other blogs and news sites, sprinkling them with arrogant insults towards anyone and everyone who disagrees with his 'cut and pastes'. His words cannot be taken seriously because they never tell the whole story.
Bob,
Please understand this undeniable fact -- global warming is a scam. It is a manufactured political "crisis", not based on any substantive, peer-reviewed science of any sort.
There has been no public discussion of this pseudo-science because it cannot stand up to rigorous scrutiny.
Global warming, and the cap-and-trade legislation proposed to combat it, is just another strategy in the liberal agenda to expand government to gain more control over the nation's economy.
Global warming calls carbon dioxide a pollutant, and that is absurd. The carbon cycle is fundamental to animal and plant life.
We can agree on living conservatively and efficiently. Using less energy saves money, reduces our dependence on foreign oil, and helps to improve the environment and the quality of our lives. I'm all for that.
But Al Gore's preposterous doomsday scenario, and the self-serving Democrat fix for a crisis that doesn't exist, are scams that every responsible American needs to fight.
Steve - I think we are, for the most part, in agreement on this issue. However , there are some right leaning folks that would like to use their argument that human behavior is not responsible for global warming, as an excuse to dismantle the regulations that were developed to clean up the environment. The Bush administration didn't help much either. I remember reading NASA reports that were edited by members of the administration, because they supported claims of global warming. Also, there's this, from the Washington Post about the Bush administration - "The administration has as many as 90 new regulations in the works, a good handful of which would adversely affect the environment. For one, a rule under final review by the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) would get rid of environmental impact statements required for fisheries management decisions. Another regulation aims to allow power plants to pollute more, while an additional rule would lower limits on emissions from coal-fired power plants near national parks."
Jake - Soooo...Global warming is a liberal socialist plot? Well, thank you Mr. Beck. Jake - Global warming is not a scam. The causes may be in question, but the actual warming has been tracked and documented. Results of investigations conducted at the end of 2008 reveal that the vast majority of the scientists surveyed agree that in the past 200-plus years, mean global temperatures have been rising. This from CNN - (CNN) -- Human-induced global warming is real, according to a recent U.S. survey based on the opinions of 3,146 scientists. However there remains divisions between climatologists and scientists from other areas of earth sciences as to the extent of human responsibility.
Jake - I would be willing to bet that, internationaly, the majority of experts in this field would disagree with you.
Bob,
I would take that bet in a heartbeat -- any way you want to rationally decide it.
To real, peer-reviewed scientists, who aren't humming the political tune to get funding, the global warming scam is an embarrassment to their professionalism.
200 years is a ridiculously low sample period for a planet that has been around for millions of years. To draw any conclusions from that brief glimpse of the data, a literal blink of the eye, is seriously flawed scientific method.
Ask yourself, if global warming was truly a crisis, how could Al Gore, journalism school dropout and faux Internet inventor, be the driving force behind this monumental finding?
Jake - All I can tell you is that when I google information on global warming, the majority (and its a big majority)of what I read from the scientific community, confirms that the earths temperature is rising. Global warming. The cause may be in question, but they all, for the most part seem to agree that the temperature is rising. If you have proof that the earths temperature is stable or cooling, I'd love to read it. Where is it?
Bob,
You must use a different Google then I do.
Start with globalwarminghoax.com for an interesting group of articles.
Then go to junkscience.com for readings that address the political side of this manufactured crisis.
Continue on to Climate Depot which has hundreds of articles debunking the whole global warming scam.
Be sure to check out Climate Realists for their international viewpoint.
Google Dr Will Happer, a Princeton physicist, who was fired from his position at DOE by Al Gore for questioning the global warming scam.
If you really want to get into it, pull up www.epw.senate.gov/minority for the U S Senate Environment and Public Works Minority Staff Report, released 12/11/08.
Just for laughs, since you're such a big fan of Beck, google Lord Christopher Monckton, former science adviser to Prime Minister Margaret Thatcher, though I find him to be as much of a self-promoter as Al Gore, albeit an opposing point of view.
Those sources of information ought to be sufficient to disabuse you of the notion that there is any consensus among scientists over this global warming "crisis".
Bob,
Are you out there?
You've been strangely quiet since you were provided that healthy dose of global warming skepticism.
"Your very silence shows you agree."
Euripides
Jake! Calm down. I did find quotes where Bush admitted that global warming was real. But thats Bush. We dont count that. You gave me a lot of information to look at. I tried to find out information on Happer being fired by Gore. I can't find any major media info on that. Just conservative blogs. That being said, Happer didn't deny global warming. He just took exception to the causes of global warming. If you read my posts you will find that I say "the cause may be in question, but global warming is real".
Jake - Just looked at a few more that you sent me. One was a group of Australian scientists that dont believe man is responsible for global warming. But again, they dont dispute that global warming exists. And thats exactly what Ive been saying, ISNT IT JAKE?
Bob,
Let's put aside the multi-faceted question of whether global warming actually exists.
If we can agree that man is not responsible for global warming, then we can stand together in opposition to any self-serving Democrat legislative remedies, like cap-and-trade, right?
C'mon Bob, you're almost to the finish line. The fat lady is warming up.
Jake - Are you willing to concede that most of the scientific community believes that global warming exists, but it's the cause that's questionable? Because thats been my contention all along. I've looked through some of the information that you've directed me to, and that still seems to be the prevailing consensus. That being said, can we both agree that air pollution is a serious problem?
Bob,
We can generally agree that air and water pollution are problems that ought to be subject to reasonable control.
We will not agree that carbon dioxide, consumed by plants during photosynthesis and produced by animals during respiration, is a pollutant.
We also will not agree that Democrat cap-and-trade legislation is necessary or desirable, as it addresses a non-existent global warming crisis, with political rather than scientific goals.
We can agree that understanding our earth's climate is an incredibly complex task, only complicated by superficial 200 year analysis designed to advance a liberal, big government agenda.
We also can agree that government by crisis is an irresponsible way to provide leadership.
How close are we, Bob?
Jake You said "We also can agree that government by crisis is an irresponsible way to provide leadership.
How close are we, Bob?"
A good example to back up your argument would be the invasion of Iraq. However, if the crisis is real (9/11 comes to mind)it sometimes becomes necessary. Wouldn't you agree? How close are we Jake?
Post a Comment
Subscribe to Post Comments [Atom]
<< Home