Opponents of Global Warming solutions.

Second Hand Stupidity is something I thought of to describe critics of Global Warming. There are people like Senator James Inhofe,R. Oklahoma who continue to claim that Global warming is a hoax. In doing so, Inhofe dismisses the overwhelming scientific consensus that man-made activity is the main force behind the warming of the planet that is occurring.Here is an interview that shows little Inhofe really understands about the issue. Inhofe and every other nutcase that puts out an opinion that global warming is a hoax have done mankind a disservice. They have helped stall efforts towards lowering CO2 emissions in this country. Of course the fact that misinformed voters have elected people like Inhofe and George Bush to represent them hasn't helped much either. Anyway, since I have far too much respect for Happy Jack's opinions to go off topic,I thought I would address Happy Jack's question here in a new thread.
Second Hand Stupidity is my personal way of describing anyone who ignores overwhelming scientific evidence and expresses a differing point of view which can cause harm.

happy jack wrote:

The Mars Rover has been finding evidence of climate change on that planet. How do you account for this, inasmuch as humans are clearly not a factor?

Every single planet in the universe will experience climate change. That is not the debate here. The debate revolves on whether human activity on our planet is forcing global warming. Almost every knowledgeable expert in the field agrees with the hypothesis that the rise in the Earth's temperature is being forced by man made activity,primarily the burning of fossil fuels. Unfortunately, it only takes a small group of people like yourself to muddy the water and obstruct the progress and change that is needed to fix this threat.

I blame them damn cavemen for causing global warming that ended the last ice age

they should have known that harnessing the power of the flame, would lead to the downfall of the environment

I know I'll be branded a heretic, but the GALE academic database has 68 academic journal articles and over a hundred magazine articles about global warming; contrary to what Al Gore and the media hype would have us believe the jury is still out on the causes of global warming.
A sad fact of the matter is that, in America, the arguement has become so shrill and emotional that it is impossible to have a reasoned discussion about the issue.
One thing that I found interesting is that if the Kyoto accords were fully implemented, they would delay the effects of global warming by about one full week at a cost of about $5,000,000,000,000.

I think we have made a slight impact on the temp of the world, but notas much as some would lead us to believe

And if Al Gore really believed in what he says, his mansion in Tennessee would be 100% renewable energy, not the little bit he says it is

Ohh don't forget dem dang cows tootin' all over! That's it- where's my butcher?? I'm havin' everyone over for steaks tonight!

Me thinks the hype is just part of the liberal agenda....

Quote :

NASA's Hansen to Obama: Use Global Warming to Redistribute Wealth
By Noel Sheppard
January 1, 2009 - 12:51 ET

Climate realists around the world have contended for years that the real goal of alarmists such as Nobel Laureate Al Gore and his followers is to use the fear of man-made global warming to redistribute wealth.

On Monday, one of Gore's leading scientific resources, Goddard Institute for Space Studies chief James Hansen, sent a letter to Barack and Michelle Obama specifically urging the president-elect to enact a tax on carbon emissions that would take money from higher-income Americans and distribute the proceeds to the less fortunate.

The eco-socialism cat was let out of the bag on page five of a PDF Hansen published at Columbia University's website on December 29 (emphasis added, h/t Britain's Guardian, file photo):

29 December 2008

Michelle and Barack Obama
Chicago and Washington, D.C.
United States of America

Dear Michelle and Barack,

We write to you as fellow parents concerned about the Earth that will be inherited by our children, grandchildren, and those yet to be born.

Barack has spoken of ‘a planet in peril’ and noted that actions needed to stem climate change have other merits. However, the nature of the chosen actions will be of crucial importance.

We apologize for the length of this letter. But your personal attention to these ‘details’ could make all the difference in what surely will be the most important matter of our times. [...]

(2) Rising price on carbon emissions via a “carbon tax and 100% dividend”.

A rising price on carbon emissions is the essential underlying support needed to make all other climate policies work. For example, improved building codes are essential, but full enforcement at all construction and operations is impractical. A rising carbon price is the one practical way to obtain compliance with codes designed to increase energy efficiency.

A rising carbon price is essential to “decarbonize” the economy, i.e., to move the nation toward the era beyond fossil fuels. The most effective way to achieve this is a carbon tax (on oil, gas, and coal) at the well-head or port of entry. The tax will then appropriately affect all products and activities that use fossil fuels. The public’s near-term, mid-term, and long-term lifestyle choices will be affected by knowledge that the carbon tax rate will be rising.

The public will support the tax if it is returned to them, equal shares on a per capita basis (half shares for children up to a maximum of two child-shares per family), deposited monthly in bank accounts. No large bureaucracy is needed. A person reducing his carbon footprint more than average makes money. A person with large cars and a big house will pay a tax much higher than the dividend. Not one cent goes to Washington. No lobbyists will be supported. Unlike cap-and-trade, no millionaires would be made at the expense of the public.

The tax will spur innovation as entrepreneurs compete to develop and market low-carbon and no-carbon energies and products. The dividend puts money in the pockets of consumers, stimulating the economy, and providing the public a means to purchase the products.

A carbon tax is honest, clear and effective. It will increase energy prices, but low and middle income people, especially, will find ways to reduce carbon emissions so as to come out ahead. The rate of infrastructure replacement, thus economic activity, can be modulated by how fast the carbon tax rate increases. Effects will permeate society. Food requiring lots of carbon emissions to produce and transport will become more expensive and vice versa, encouraging support of nearby farms as opposed to imports from half way around the world.

The carbon tax has social benefits. It is progressive. It is useful to those most in need in hard times, providing them an opportunity for larger dividend than tax. It will encourage illegal immigrants to become legal, thus to obtain the dividend, and it will discourage illegal immigration because everybody pays the tax, but only legal citizens collect the dividend.

“Cap and trade” generates special interests, lobbyists, and trading schemes, yielding non productive millionaires, all at public expense. The public is fed up with such business. Tax with 100% dividend, in contrast, would spur our economy, while aiding the disadvantaged, the climate, and our national security. [...]

James and Anniek Hansen
Pennsylvania
United States of America

We should all be pleased with Hansen's honesty, and sincerely pray American media outlets will publish his letter so the citizenry can finally understand what the anthropogenic global warming myth is all about.

Keep your fingers crossed.

http://newsbusters.org/blogs/noel-sheppard/2009/01/01/nasas-hansen-obama-use-global-warming-redistribute-wealth

The sky is falling.....

Paging 'Heretic'!

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ljNDbKpusT0


This is what George Carlin said about Global Warming.

It's GEORGE CARLIN so.......... some adult language

Bill B wrote:

I know I'll be branded a heretic, but the GALE academic database has 68 academic journal articles and over a hundred magazine articles about global warming; contrary to what Al Gore and the media hype would have us believe the jury is still out on the causes of global warming.
A sad fact of the matter is that, in America, the arguement has become so shrill and emotional that it is impossible to have a reasoned discussion about the issue.
One thing that I found interesting is that if the Kyoto accords were fully implemented, they would delay the effects of global warming by about one full week at a cost of about $5,000,000,000,000.

Bill, you have just posted a statement about some the erroneous information that is being passed off as fact in the debate about climate change. The claim that it is possible to predict future climate change in terms of a week's
delay is clearly not science. Since that part of the claim is bogus, the claim of a $5 trillion cost to stabilize the rapid climate change the planet is experiencing is probably bogus also. To truly evaluate the cost of lowering CO2 emissions, one must also look at the predicted economic cost of not doing anything. From everything I have read, the widespread loss of life from famine,violent storms,disease and flooding far outweighs the investment that will be made in generating safe,sustainable energy.

Quote :

Virtually all scientists agree that the Earth has warmed a small amount since the year 1000 or, if you choose, since 1850, when instrumented temperature records became reasonably accurate and distributed in key areas of the world. An increasing number believe that any warming is so small it is indistinguishable from the noise in the environmenal data sets, and that the data have not been properly adjusted for such things as urban heat island effects (are the city temps warmer than the suburbs where you live? Has the city grown since 1850?), and instrument calibration. This is particularly true of the global data set. Most scientists agree that warming is better than cooling and many believe CO2 provides important enhancements for forests and agriculture, even while also believing we should not be fouling our nest.

Our site makes every effort to present the true science of climate change. When the news broke of the Arctic ice being at its 30 year low in 2007, the same source (U. of Illinois) reported the Antarctic at its record high, but this was not reported in the media. To show the imbalance, as one reads in the popular press, we have created a companion site that presents the evidence for global cooling, just as most newspapers and alarmists present only the science that supports warming. There are many reasons to be cautious about accepting CO2 as the causative agent if there really is warming. This is highlighted by 2 papers published in March 2008. Scafetta and West showed that up to 69% of observed warming is from the sun and Ramanathan and Carmichael show that soot has 60% of the warming power of CO2. They claim both factors are underappreciated by IPCC. Many scientists believe the temperature changes are more dependent on the sun than CO2, similar to the relationship in your home with your furnace. The soot may well explain the Arctic melting, as it has recently for Asian glaciers.

http://www.climatechangefacts.info/#Fact

The sky is falling, the sky is falling...

Sparks;
When I get time I'll try to get a link for you that doesn't require an account to access. To cut and paste the articles would take too much room.
In the meantime, here's the wikipedia entry for the author of the paper that I was reffering to. No doubt he is a controvesial figure but he has has two big pluses on his side: 1. He's not an American, 2. He is an environmental activist.
wikipedia entry

sparks wrote:

Bill B wrote:

I know I'll be branded a heretic, but the GALE academic database has 68 academic journal articles and over a hundred magazine articles about global warming; contrary to what Al Gore and the media hype would have us believe the jury is still out on the causes of global warming.
A sad fact of the matter is that, in America, the arguement has become so shrill and emotional that it is impossible to have a reasoned discussion about the issue.
One thing that I found interesting is that if the Kyoto accords were fully implemented, they would delay the effects of global warming by about one full week at a cost of about $5,000,000,000,000.

Bill, you have just posted a statement about some the erroneous information that is being passed off as fact in the debate about climate change. The claim that it is possible to predict future climate change in terms of a week's
delay is clearly not science. Since that part of the claim is bogus, the claim of a $5 trillion cost to stabilize the rapid climate change the planet is experiencing is probably bogus also. To truly evaluate the cost of lowering CO2 emissions, one must also look at the predicted economic cost of not doing anything. From everything I have read, the widespread loss of life from famine,violent storms,disease and flooding far outweighs the investment that will be made in generating safe,sustainable energy.

Your also neglecting how some parts of the world will also benefit in a warmer world as well

Siberia could become the next American Midwest, producing tons of wheat and corn a year. Plus it also means that some older cities may become tourist area's as well, benefiting that area of the world

Some countries in the Alps are also going to be able to plant crops as well, when before they couldn't

Lets not forget that it will make shipping items between Asia and North America easier as well, since they will now be able to take a northern route, saving thousands of miles and thousands of gallons of gas(which means less fossil fuels being burned)

For every bad affect, there is an equal good affect, but some sides refuse to admit that there are benefits as well

happy jack wrote:

sparks wrote:

happy jack wrote:

The Mars Rover has been finding evidence of climate change on that planet. How do you account for this, inasmuch as humans are clearly not a factor?

Every single planet in the universe will experience climate change.

You're kind of making my point for me.

Any discussion about climate change on earth is devoted to the impact man made activities have on climate change and what can be done to lessen that impact. IMO, you are simply showing you have no interest in talking about this issue because you repeatedly bring up things that have nothing to do with this discussion. I think you are making my point that you aren't able to discuss topics without derailing them whenever you don't agree with what is said.

happy jack wrote:

The Mars Rover has been finding evidence of climate change on that planet. How do you account for this, inasmuch as humans are clearly not a factor?

Climate myths: Mars and Pluto are warming too

I know I addressed this ridiculous argument back on the old board... I'll have to try and dig it up.

Bill B wrote:

One thing that I found interesting is that if the Kyoto accords were fully implemented, they would delay the effects of global warming by about one full week at a cost of about $5,000,000,000,000.

And yet I'm branded as the alarmist...

GMan322 wrote:

Why then for every scientist that believes in global warming is there another scientist who debunkes this?

Climate myths: It's all a conspiracy

And I was so hoping this forum would be different...

GMan322 wrote:

Why don't Al want to debate any scientists and deems that his case of global warming is closed?

'Cause it's a waste of time. The kicker is that fact that these so called "skeptics" that are sure it's all just a big scam steer very clear from peer reviewed journals were real scientific debate takes place. They instead peddle their wares to an otherwise ignorant and ill equipped public through tv ads, bogus documentaries, editorials, books, magazine... It's the hallmark of psuedoscience and sadly quite effective. They're awfully recognizable, as we all know it from the pro-ID/Creationism and the "smoking isn't bad for you" campaigns of the past.

happy jack wrote:

I am just pointing out that the climate of any planet will inevitably change over time whether or not the planet is inhabited by humans.

Which is completely irrelevant to determine how our society will continue in ours.

What dent in global warming would it make if we are the only ones in the U.S. doing it?

Look at all that gunfire and bombing going on over seas. You think they care?

China...the worse pollution comes from there. Do you think whatever the US does is gonna make a drop in the bucket when other countries have no clue?
The wars going on...and yeah, we're going to make a huge difference.

Unless the whole world joins hands, you can talk yourself blue in the face, and nothing is going to change, unless the whole world acts civilized.

The life of a human being is worthless to such places as Gaza; many countries continue to have babies in the third world...nothing is going to change their behavior to make life better for themselves, or for their environment.

I think the world needs to change before they can control the weather. Right now, it's just God's creation, and I don't think we can put a damn dent in it.

Global warming may exist, but the humanity behind it isn't exactly holding hands and trying to make an effort to help change it world-wide.

Heretic wrote:

GMan322 wrote:

Why then for every scientist that believes in global warming is there another scientist who debunkes this?

Climate myths: It's all a conspiracy

And I was so hoping this forum would be different...

This forum is different in that it has a moderator how is demanding that posters treat each other with respect. As far as the level of knowledge about climate change that individual posters have, all you can do is try to inform those who are willing to listen about what they can do to improve the future. BTW, it's good to see you onboard.