Large Scale Central

WHAT IF THERE IS NO MAN-MADE GLOBAL WARMING?

Victor Smith said:
It doesnt matter what the cause is, the FACT that it IS happening IS the issue, and what are we going to do about it?

Listen to the naysayers and sit on our hands until its too late and Florida and half the gulf states dissappear under 10 feet of water along with 10,000s of miles of coastline around the world ???


I think the cause is a critical matter. If it’s a natural cycle, unaffected by anything man has done, then we need to start moving to higher ground ground because there’s nothing we can do to stop it. But if it’s man-made, then maybe we can reduce the behaviours that are causing it and thereby head off the worst effects.

I sincerely hope it is man-made. That means we may be able to reverse the trend.

Kevin,
thankyou, but I covered that very point in the second response on page one. I will make no comment on how or what Ralph thinks, only on what he actually says.

Tim Brien said:
David, a generation ago it was hard to find a doctor who would categorically state that cigarette smoking was cancer causing. The link and the damage impact is apparent today. Even if global warming is part of a 'natural' cycle, does that give us the right to wantonly trash our environment. Surely campaigns to clean our world will pay dividends in the future.
     If such cycles occurred in the past and are thus 'part of nature',   then when they occurred, was the world inhabited by six billion people all spewing toxins into the atmoshere,  polluting their drinking water, killing off food resources by degrading farm land and polluting oceans?  The world of past millenia is totally different to now and surely the earth could do with a little help.  We may not be responsible for the entire problem,  but we are definately part of the problem!</blockquote>

Nah, I want dirty water and air. Of course not. But the “politics” of this hoax has an underlying conspiricy of some means, probably another tax scheme such as the now proposed “Cap and Trade” tax being discussed in the Congress now.

Industries are allocated “caps” of carbon emissions that they are either taxed for or taxed on exceeding, and are permitted under this proposal to “trade” (buy) “carbon credits” from other industries. All this based on a bogus scientific theory.

Of course the liberals are hailing this as an income re-distribution method, a way to “get these eeeevvvil big corporations” (that employ them and make their stuff) without considering big corporations will pass the tax on to the consumer and not “take the tax hit”. DUH?

Ralph Berg said:
This is something that has been around for a while, but not discussed here that I remember. Ralph

http://www.terradaily.com/reports/The_earths_magnetic_field_impacts_climate_Danish_study_999.html


What’s interesting about the Earth’s magnitude (it may have been mentioned in the article you linked) is scientific evidence points to the “poles” switching N to S. H-m-m? What happens to all out electronics and GPS?

David,
as Kevin has stated if a natural phenomena then heaven help us, if man-made then we can do somethingabout it. We haveonly been recording history for an extremely small period of time since for want of a better word ‘creation’. We know from icecore drillings that past ages did have temperature fluctuations and that our earth is not geologically and thermically stable. I think that we should give history the benefit of the doubt and show for once that we are prepared to stand up for mother earth and do what we can to protect it. To sit back and light a cigar and pour a drink and wait, is foolhardy. Today’s earth is far more environmentally declined than in previous ages, due our activities. Time to give a hand.

    Also,  carbon trading is a flawed process in that 'carbon offsets' will become a legal commodity and become a company 'asset'.  Third world countries will trade off by selling carbon offsets in their forests, vegetation, sowing crops back into the earth, etc  to multi-nationals. There is no incentive for the company to stop polluting if offsets are cheaper than actual emissions.   Industry will continue to pollute and pay a pittance to third world countries to cover up.  The only positive is that third world forests may have a chance to survive man's greed,  which in turn heightens our chance of survival. 

   However,  two problems arise.  Will the company be able to claim tax relief for any 'maintenance' required to maintain the carbon offset standard of the forests and secondly,  will the company claiming an offset,  be able to sue the landholder of a forest, farmland, etc,  should the carbon absorption decline on the property,  as a result of forest fires, land erosion, flood, etc.   As the forest grows over time,  then who reaps the benefit of the increased ability to offset carbon in its vegetation?  Is this a windfall for the farmer, the forester or the company that 'owns' the offsets?  How does the offset trading scheme account for variations in the abilityof these resources to absorb carbon?  There are simply too many variables.

Oh, the arrogance of man that he believes he can NOW affect the climate of the Earth, one way or another.

Were the Ice Ages caused by eeevvvil human beings and their industrial complex… er… wait… there were no industries?

Was the Earth warming periods where Greenland was fertilize farm land caused by eeeevvvil corporate smokestack emm…uh… never mind?

Can Solar activity warming the oceans and the atmosphere cause greater atmospheric water vapor?

Has anyone here ever actually looked behind the curtain at the Great and Powerful Al’s (Gore) “facts”. Even his own numbers show atmospheric CO2 lags behind the 1 or 2 degree F increase in polar ice cap temperatures by 800 years on average.

I am excoriated repeatedly for not providing acceptable (to you) references for information, yet no others seem to be held to the same standard. This is one example.

Deleted

David,
we do not need to extend to absurd possibilities. Grazing animals account for at least one-quarter of the problem with their methane emission. The past two hundred years has seen a farm activity become an industry and livestock numbers have multiplied astoundingly. We are responsible for the number of domestic grazing animals, but apart from destroying habitat, we are unable to control grazing wild animals. Some like to reference ice ages, etc, plaguing our earth, however, such catastrophies were not covering the entire earth and so when one discusses global temperature decline then we need to reference the location being spoken of. One thousand years ago, Greenland was a temperate farming area. Over the last millenia temperatures changed making farming difficult. The cycle has returned and glaciers on Greenland are melting at an astounding rate, along with both polar caps suffering retreating ice boundaries. Temperature changes obviously occur, but an earth in physical decline will find it harder to recover this time around.

Tim Brien said:
David, we do not need to extend to absurd possibilities. Grazing animals account for at least one-quarter of the problem with their methane emission. The past two hundred years has seen a farm activity become an industry and livestock numbers have multiplied astoundingly. We are responsible for the number of domestic grazing animals, but apart from destroying habitat, we are unable to control grazing wild animals. Some like to reference ice ages, etc, plaguing our earth, however, such catastrophies were not covering the entire earth and so when one discusses global temperature decline then we need to reference the location being spoken of. One thousand years ago, Greenland was a temperate farming area. Over the last millenia temperatures changed making farming difficult. The cycle has returned and glaciers on Greenland are melting at an astounding rate, along with both polar caps suffering retreating ice boundaries. Temperature changes obviously occur, but an earth in physical decline will find it harder to recover this time around.
What caused the temperate climate in Greenland 1,000 years ago (?), dinasour farts?

Deleted

David Hill said:
What caused the temperate climate in Greenland 1,000 years ago (?), dinasour farts?
David, why do you continually expose yourself with inane totally ridiculous comments. If you are unable to argue logically and with a modicum of intelligence, then why bother. You do your cause no good. If you believe dinosaur emissions were responsible, then you firstly need to prove the existence of such creatures, one thousand years ago and then if able to prove, provide the link. Obviously, you are referring to grazing dinosaurs and not meat-eaters. Why you belittle yourself is beyond me, as every time you post it lowers your credibility.
      I live by the saying,  treat a woman as a lady,  until she proves otherwise.  Think how it may refer to your behaviour.

James Hansen’s Political Science

By INVESTOR’S BUSINESS DAILY | Posted Monday, March 02, 2009 4:20 PM PT

Climate Change: NASA’s James Hansen leads a protest against a District of Columbia power plant in the middle of a snowstorm. Meanwhile, a scientist fired by Al Gore says we need to emit more carbon dioxide, not less.

Speaking before Bill Clinton’s Global Initiative in New York City last Nov. 2, Gore advocated the concept of civil disobedience to fight climate change. “I believe we have reached the stage where it is time for civil disobedience to prevent the construction of new coal plants that do not have carbon capture and sequestration,” Gore said to loud applause.

Following Gore’s lead, a group called Capitol Climate Action organized a protest that took place Monday at the 99-year-old Capitol Power Plant in southeast Washington, D.C. Its Web site invited fellow warm-mongers to “mass civil disobedience at the coal-fired” plant that heats and cools the hallowed halls of Congress.

The site features Gore’s quote as well as a video by Hansen, head of NASA’s Goddard Institute for Space Studies and a leading global-warming activist, urging attendance at the event. The storm that hit the Northeast and dropped upwards of three inches of snow on the nation’s capitol should not discourage those attending the global- warming protest, he says on the video.

Hansen has called such coal-fired facilities “factories of death” and considers climate-change skeptics guilty of “high crimes against humanity and nature.” In the video he says what “has become clear from the science is that we cannot burn all of the fossil fuels without creating a very different planet” and that the “only practical way to solve the problem is to phase out the biggest source of carbon — and that’s coal.”

What is clear is that Dr. Hansen has had problems with the facts. Last Nov. 10 he announced from his scientific perch that October had been the hottest on record, and we were doomed. Except that it wasn’t true.

Scores of temperature records used in the computations from Russia and elsewhere were not based on October readings at all. Figures from the previous month had simply been carried over and repeated two months running, something your high-school science teacher wouldn’t allow.

Despite Dr. Hansen’s hysterical animus toward carbon, the fact is that CO2 is still a mere 0.038% of the gaseous layer that surrounds the Earth, and only 3% of that thin slice is released by man. According to Dr. William Happer, a professor of physics at Princeton University, current atmospheric CO2 levels are inadequate in historical terms and even higher levels “will be good for mankind.”

Happer, who was fired by Gore at the Department of Energy in 1993 for disagreeing with the vice president on the effects of ozone to humans and plant life, disagrees with both Gore and Hansen on the issue of the impact of man-made carbon emissions. He testified before the Senate’s Environment and Public Works Committee (EPW) on Feb. 25 that CO2 levels are in fact at a historical low.

“Many people don’t realize that over geological time, we’re really in a CO2 famine now. Almost never has CO2 . . . been as low as it has been in the Holocene (geologic epoch) — 280 (parts per million) — that’s unheard of,” said Happer. He notes the earth and humanity did just fine when CO2 levels were much higher.

“You know, we evolved as a species in those times, when CO2 levels were three to four times what they are now,” Happer said. “And, the oceans were fine, plants grew, animals grew fine. So it’s baffling to me that . . . we’re so frightened of getting nowhere close to where we started.”

“Jim Hansen has gone off the deep end here,” one of Hansen’s former supervisors, Dr. John Theon, said. Theon, a former senior NASA atmospheric scientist, rebuked Hansen last month in a letter to EPW. “Why he has not been fired, I do not understand,” Theon said. Neither do we.

Critics contend that Hansen’s involvement in the protests is a violation of the Hatch Act, which prohibits government employees from engaging in partisan political activity. If he wants to agitate for policy changes, let him do it on his own time and on his own dime. The science can speak for itself.

Tim Brien said:
Ralph Berg said:
Tim Brien said:
Tony, if it is not manmade then only one other entity/deity/being could be responsible - GOD!
Do you always speak with your foot in your mouth? What does the decline of the Earth's magnetic fields have to do with God? Ralph
Ralph, talk about thread drift. You accuse me of it and yet are a practitioner of it yourself. I was responding to the actual thread topic NOT a decline in the earth's magnetic fields. If you wish that to be discussed as well, then no problem with me, BUT I was NOT responding to your link, only to the thread topic, as started by your accomplice. When one resorts to such responses, as you have, then I know that you are resorting to last option tactics, commonly called 'clutching at straws'. Good luck, if you want to run with the wolves then expect a bite occasionally. If you want to claim you have been insulted, then stay at home in the den, with the cubs.
I am talking about Global warming. Of course, if you were to bother to read before running off at the mouth I wouldn't have to tell you that. There are many scientists that believe global warming is a result of the decline in the Earth's magnetic field. You still speak with your foot firmly planted in your mouth. Ralph
TonyWalsham said:
Nope.

They died out 65 million years ago.

Do you care to try again with another half assed guess?


No, you’re doing fine with the half-assedness without me. Actually I retract that, you are a full fledged ass. There, I’ve lowered myself down to your world. Are you happy?

Be nice, Guys. Just follow the money.

Tim Brien said:
David Hill said:
What caused the temperate climate in Greenland 1,000 years ago (?), dinasour farts?
David, why do you continually expose yourself with inane totally ridiculous comments. If you are unable to argue logically and with a modicum of intelligence, then why bother. You do your cause no good. If you believe dinosaur emissions were responsible, then you firstly need to prove the existence of such creatures, one thousand years ago and then if able to prove, provide the link. Obviously, you are referring to grazing dinosaurs and not meat-eaters. Why you belittle yourself is beyond me, as every time you post it lowers your credibility.
      I live by the saying,  treat a woman as a lady,  until she proves otherwise.  Think how it may refer to your behaviour.</blockquote>

I believe it is instructive to point out the absurd with absurdity. The statements I read in reply to some (few) of the more intelligent posts and references are quite childish. I only either want to point out the foolishness of the writers remarks, or as in the “dinosaur fart” post to add a little humor/ Now come on, you have to admit that was funny.

Good find Ken. The fact that Algore and his minions will not debate this issue AT ALL, and feel it is necessary to silence their detractors proves theirs is nothing but “junk science”. And this from the guy that invented the internet. Tsk-tsk?

Ric Golding said:
Be nice, Guys. Just follow the money.
indeed!

http://seattlepi.nwsource.com/national/124642_warming02.html

http://money.cnn.com/2007/02/02/news/companies/exxon_science/index.htm

and from our Canadien friends

http://thetyee.ca/Mediacheck/2006/05/02/PaidtoDenyGlobalWarming/

Tim Brien said:
Ralph, you believe that god is responsible for creation and as David's heading 'shouts' that man is not responsible, then who else could it be, aliens? What is this stuff you call kool-aid? Maybe because you are out in the sun so much, you need a refreshing drink to cool your head, as it seems you suffer from an overheated mentality, quite often.
I've never stated my beliefs publicly Tim. You have made assumptions. I have yet to see where anyone on this forum has stated that God is responsible for anything man is not responsible for. For such an "enlightened" being, your argument is straight out of the "dark" age. Ralph

Here is my original link.
http://www.terradaily.com/reports/The_earths_magnetic_field_impacts_climate_Danish_study_999.html

Of course, it will not help if Tim doesn’t read it this time either.
Maybe Terradaily.com is a right wing radical religious site. Or maybe the Danes are known for their right wing agenda.
Or maybe Tim has no room in his mind for views other than his own.
Ralph