Al Gore's Tennessee Home Wasting Electricity

[ImWithStupid]

Am I?

I have never denied that there is climate change. I have argued the effect that man has had in causation of climate change and I have also argued that there is very little effect that man can make to slow or stop this change.

I'm very aware that Vikings were growing grapes in Greenland over 600 years ago during a period of global warming. Show me how their SUV's and coal fired powerplants caused this.

How about this...

Times of maximum sunspot activity are associated with a very slight increase in the energy output from the sun. Ultraviolet radiation increases dramatically during high sunspot activity, which can have a large effect on the Earth's atmosphere. From the mid 1600s to early 1700s, a period of very low sunspot activity (known as the Maunder Minimum) coincided with a number of long winters and severe cold temperatures in Western Europe, called the Little Ice Age. It is not known whether the two phenomena are linked or if it was just coincidence. The reason it is hard to relate maximum and minimum solar activity (sunspots) to the Earth's climate, is due to the complexity of the Earth's climate itself. For example, how does one sort out whether a long-term weather change was caused by sunspots, or maybe a coinciding El Nino or La Nina? Increased volcanic eruptions can also affect the Earth's climate by cooling the planet. And what about the burning of fossil fuels and clear cutting rain forests? One thing is more certain, sunspot cycles have been correlated in the width of tree ring growth. More study will be conducted in the future on relating sunspot activity and our Earth's climate.

The Solar Cycle: Sunspots increase and decrease through an average cycle of 11 years. Dating back to 1749, we have experienced 22 full solar cycles where the number of sunspots have gone from a minimum, to a maximum and back to the next minimum, through approximate 11 year cycles. We are now well into the 23rd cycle, with the 24th cycle right around the corner. The number of sunspots in this cycle reached a peak in May, 2000 where the number of sunspots were measured at near 170. A secondary sunspot maximum occurred near the beginning of 2002 where the sunspot number was about 150. The next sunspot minimum is forecast to occur in late 2006 through mid 2007. A chart of cycle 23 is available at the NOAA Space Environment Center.

The Sun and Sunspots

Funny, sunspots went down starting in 2000, and temperatures have been going down since a high in 1999, which happens to be the year that the data that is most often used to prove that the Earth had warmed in the 20th Century.

Sunspot Diagram...

View attachment 1987
http://solarscience.msfc.nasa.gov/SunspotCycle.shtml

... and looky here...

View attachment 1988

http://data.giss.nasa.gov/gistemp/2008/

The last spike was around 1999 coincidentally during the last peak of sunspot activity.

Let me guess. The NOAA is a whack job conspiracy organization. Hahahahaha!

How about this?...

Sorry to ruin the fun, but an ice age cometh

Phil Chapman | April 23, 2008
Article from:
The Australian

THE scariest photo I have seen on the internet is SpaceWeather.com -- News and information about meteor showers, solar flares, auroras, and near-Earth asteroids, where you will find a real-time image of the sun from the Solar and Heliospheric Observatory, located in deep space at the equilibrium point between solar and terrestrial gravity.

What is scary about the picture is that there is only one tiny sunspot.

Disconcerting as it may be to true believers in global warming, the average temperature on Earth has remained steady or slowly declined during the past decade, despite the continued increase in the atmospheric concentration of carbon dioxide, and now the global temperature is falling precipitously.

All four agencies that track Earth's temperature (the Hadley Climate Research Unit in Britain, the NASA Goddard Institute for Space Studies in New York, the Christy group at the University of Alabama, and Remote Sensing Systems Inc in California) report that it cooled by about 0.7C in 2007. This is the fastest temperature change in the instrumental record and it puts us back where we were in 1930. If the temperature does not soon recover, we will have to conclude that global warming is over.

There is also plenty of anecdotal evidence that 2007 was exceptionally cold. It snowed in Baghdad for the first time in centuries, the winter in China was simply terrible and the extent of Antarctic sea ice in the austral winter was the greatest on record since James Cook discovered the place in 1770.

It is generally not possible to draw conclusions about climatic trends from events in a single year, so I would normally dismiss this cold snap as transient, pending what happens in the next few years.

This is where SOHO comes in. The sunspot number follows a cycle of somewhat variable length, averaging 11 years. The most recent minimum was in March last year. The new cycle, No.24, was supposed to start soon after that, with a gradual build-up in sunspot numbers.

It didn't happen. The first sunspot appeared in January this year and lasted only two days. A tiny spot appeared last Monday but vanished within 24 hours. Another little spot appeared this Monday. Pray that there will be many more, and soon.

The reason this matters is that there is a close correlation between variations in the sunspot cycle and Earth's climate. The previous time a cycle was delayed like this was in the Dalton Minimum, an especially cold period that lasted several decades from 1790.

Northern winters became ferocious: in particular, the rout of Napoleon's Grand Army during the retreat from Moscow in 1812 was at least partly due to the lack of sunspots.

That the rapid temperature decline in 2007 coincided with the failure of cycle No.24 to begin on schedule is not proof of a causal connection but it is cause for concern.

It is time to put aside the global warming dogma, at least to begin contingency planning about what to do if we are moving into another little ice age, similar to the one that lasted from 1100 to 1850.

Sorry to ruin the fun, but an ice age cometh | The Australian

To help you out, this last article is from a geophysicist and astronautical engineer from second rate country, and who knows what kind of witch doctor science and statistics this nation uses. Hahahaha!

I do however love how those who choose to belive the "Man made global warming" issue, try to explain that the fact that the Earth has been cooling for the last decade proves that there is global warming.

Hahahaha. Nothing like being one of the Sheeple, huh Anna.

 

[ImWithStupid]

I can only assume you are laughing because you're a fool.

It's a direct quote, from THE source. Dr. Mark Diesendorf is a highly regarded environmental scientist in Australia. He is actually doing the research as we have this pointless debate.

I recall talking to (Old Salt?) about the fact that you can't trust scientists in America because many of them obtain research grants from organisations with vested interests in the outcome of the research - thus rendering the 'information' corrupt.

Therefore, I'm not sure how valid your little petition can really be.

I suggest contacting Dr Diesendorf if you don't believe me. See what he thinks.

The saddest thing about this thread is that the topic was discussed over 5 years ago by scientists in Australia and the conclusion was made - climate change is real.

We are now debating adaptation vs mitigation / combinations of the two.

In other words, you are years behind.

Like I said, please hurry up and educate yourselves.

I'm mostly laughing because even though you continued to chastise me for not providing you with proof, even though I gave you several links to material, it wasn't good enough, you post a reply calling me backward but with no links to evidence supporting your opinion other than saying this Dr Diesendorf is the know all and say all on global warming.

I have continued to show dissenting oppinons by world renound scientists and science agencies that don't agree with your opinion and the best you can do is provide the name of Dr. Mark Diesendorf who, if you really study what he says in interviews and such, is more of an advocate of not eating meat, than he is of man made global warming. Not a link to an article, not any kind of backing, just that we are supposed to take your assesment of his opinion at face value. Weak.

Again, Hahahaha.

Since you seem to be a bit limited in your abilities, I'll help you educate yourself to what's been going on the past few years and since you don't trust US media input...

Scientists sign petition denying man-made global warming - Telegraph

Hahahaha. Sheeple are funny.

 

[ImWithStupid]

I guess you glossed over this thread also Anna when you tried to say that all the anti-man made global warming stuff is from the US...

The Sun Also Sets

By INVESTOR'S BUSINESS DAILY | Posted Thursday, February 07, 2008 4:20 PM PT

Climate Change: Not every scientist is part of Al Gore's mythical "consensus." Scientists worried about a new ice age seek funding to better observe something bigger than your SUV — the sun.

Back in 1991, before Al Gore first shouted that the Earth was in the balance, the Danish Meteorological Institute released a study using data that went back centuries that showed that global temperatures closely tracked solar cycles.

To many, those data were convincing. Now, Canadian scientists are seeking additional funding for more and better "eyes" with which to observe our sun, which has a bigger impact on Earth's climate than all the tailpipes and smokestacks on our planet combined.

And they're worried about global cooling, not warming.

IBDeditorials.com: Editorials, Political Cartoons, and Polls from Investor's Business Daily -- The Sun Also Sets

But since you keep denying all the international input I keep posting and linking to thousands of scientists with phd's that say you're a sheeple, you will cling to what youre one scientist from Australia, who wants us to stop eating meat, said years ago, before the sunspot data was introduced, by the way, says is the know all and say all, puts you on par with those who take Al Gore at face value.

No need to debate further since, even though I'm willing to look at opposing data, you base your opinion on what is spoon fed to you by the media.

Might want to buy a coat in the mean time though.

Hahahahaha.

 

[RoyalOrleans]

According to a new study we will all live five months longer since the implimentation of the clean air act back in 1980. So, what are you going to do with your extra five months?
Cleaner air adds five months to U.S. life span, study says - Kansas City Star

Start smoking again.

 

[Old Salt]

I can only assume you are laughing because you're a fool.

It's a direct quote, from THE source. Dr. Mark Diesendorf is a highly regarded environmental scientist in Australia. He is actually doing the research as we have this pointless debate.

I recall talking to (Old Salt?) about the fact that you can't trust scientists in America because many of them obtain research grants from organisations with vested interests in the outcome of the research - thus rendering the 'information' corrupt.

Therefore, I'm not sure how valid your little petition can really be.

I suggest contacting Dr Diesendorf if you don't believe me. See what he thinks.

The saddest thing about this thread is that the topic was discussed over 5 years ago by scientists in Australia and the conclusion was made - climate change is real.

We are now debating adaptation vs mitigation / combinations of the two.

In other words, you are years behind.

Like I said, please hurry up and educate yourselves.

I don't think I said that "you can't trust scientists in America". If I did, I apologize to American scientists. What I meant was that you have to take everything with a grain of salt. My guess is that scientists could prove that apes evolved from man if they had the right motivation .

By motivation, I don't mean just money. It could be ideological motivation, as well.

 

[Anna Perenna]

I have argued the effect that man has had in causation of climate change and I have also argued that there is very little effect that man can make to slow or stop this change.

Why would you argue such a potentially damaging point?

I'm mostly laughing because even though you continued to chastise me for not providing you with proof, even though I gave you several links to material, it wasn't good enough, you post a reply calling me backward but with no links to evidence supporting your opinion other than saying this Dr Diesendorf is the know all and say all on global warming.

That's not what I was saying.

By direct quote, I mean he wrote it to me directly.

He is the source (not "THE source") and his quote was taken directly from an email he sent me.

Do you understand now?

I have continued to show dissenting oppinons by world renound scientists and science agencies that don't agree with your opinion and the best you can do is provide the name of Dr. Mark Diesendorf who, if you really study what he says in interviews and such, is more of an advocate of not eating meat, than he is of man made global warming. Not a link to an article, not any kind of backing, just that we are supposed to take your assesment of his opinion at face value. Weak.

Your scientists are hardly world renowned.

Dr Stephen Schneider, however, is one the world's foremost climatologists.

He agrees with me.

Interestingly enough, I am bringing him to Sydney in March and he'll be addressing university academics and staff on mitigation and adaptation to climate change. I'll be filming the event. I'll be sure to give you the link to the footage once it is online.

No need to debate further since, even though I'm willing to look at opposing data, you base your opinion on what is spoon fed to you by the media.

Ahh, that's right. Sometimes you just make things up.

You're funny. I haven't quoted any commercial media sources - you have.

So, um, hahahahahahahahahaha

I don't think I said that "you can't trust scientists in America". If I did, I apologize to American scientists. What I meant was that you have to take everything with a grain of salt. My guess is that scientists could prove that apes evolved from man if they had the right motivation .

By motivation, I don't mean just money. It could be ideological motivation, as well.

So, in other words, you can't trust their findings, or opinions.

Cheers.

 

[ImWithStupid]

2008 was the year man-made global warming was disproved

Looking back over my columns of the past 12 months, one of their major themes was neatly encapsulated by two recent items from The Daily Telegraph.


By Christopher Booker

Last Updated: 4:28PM GMT 31 Dec 2008

The first, on May 21, headed "Climate change threat to Alpine ski resorts" , reported that the entire Alpine "winter sports industry" could soon "grind to a halt for lack of snow". The second, on December 19, headed "The Alps have best snow conditions in a generation" , reported that this winter's Alpine snowfalls "look set to beat all records by New Year's Day".

Easily one of the most important stories of 2008 has been all the evidence suggesting that this may be looked back on as the year when there was a turning point in the great worldwide panic over man-made global warming. Just when politicians in Europe and America have been adopting the most costly and damaging measures politicians have ever proposed, to combat this supposed menace, the tide has turned in three significant respects.

First, all over the world, temperatures have been dropping in a way wholly unpredicted by all those computer models which have been used as the main drivers of the scare. Last winter, as temperatures plummeted, many parts of the world had snowfalls on a scale not seen for decades. This winter, with the whole of Canada and half the US under snow, looks likely to be even worse. After several years flatlining, global temperatures have dropped sharply enough to cancel out much of their net rise in the 20th century.

Ever shriller and more frantic has become the insistence of the warmists, cheered on by their army of media groupies such as the BBC, that the last 10 years have been the "hottest in history" and that the North Pole would soon be ice-free ? as the poles remain defiantly icebound and those polar bears fail to drown. All those hysterical predictions that we are seeing more droughts and hurricanes than ever before have infuriatingly failed to materialise.

Even the more cautious scientific acolytes of the official orthodoxy now admit that, thanks to "natural factors" such as ocean currents, temperatures have failed to rise as predicted (although they plaintively assure us that this cooling effect is merely "masking the underlying warming trend", and that the temperature rise will resume worse than ever by the middle of the next decade).

Secondly, 2008 was the year when any pretence that there was a "scientific consensus" in favour of man-made global warming collapsed. At long last, as in the Manhattan Declaration last March, hundreds of proper scientists, including many of the world's most eminent climate experts, have been rallying to pour scorn on that "consensus" which was only a politically engineered artefact, based on ever more blatantly manipulated data and computer models programmed to produce no more than convenient fictions.

Thirdly, as banks collapsed and the global economy plunged into its worst recession for decades, harsh reality at last began to break in on those self-deluding dreams which have for so long possessed almost every politician in the western world. As we saw in this month's Poznan conference, when 10,000 politicians, officials and "environmentalists" gathered to plan next year's "son of Kyoto" treaty in Copenhagen, panicking politicians are waking up to the fact that the world can no longer afford all those quixotic schemes for "combating climate change" with which they were so happy to indulge themselves in more comfortable times.

Suddenly it has become rather less appealing that we should divert trillions of dollars, pounds and euros into the fantasy that we could reduce emissions of carbon dioxide by 80 per cent. All those grandiose projects for "emissions trading", "carbon capture", building tens of thousands more useless wind turbines, switching vast areas of farmland from producing food to "biofuels", are being exposed as no more than enormously damaging and futile gestures, costing astronomic sums we no longer possess.

2008 was the year man-made global warming was disproved - Telegraph

 

[ImWithStupid]

Ooops! I wonder how much more money was wasted by idiots on "green" crap because of this mistake...

Arctic Sea Ice Underestimated for Weeks Due to Faulty Sensor

By Alex Morales
Feb. 20 (Bloomberg) -- A glitch in satellite sensors caused scientists to underestimate the extent of Arctic sea ice by 500,000 square kilometers (193,000 square miles), a California- size area, the U.S. National Snow and Ice Data Center said.

The error, due to a problem called ?sensor drift,? began in early January and caused a slowly growing underestimation of sea ice extent until mid-February. That?s when ?puzzled readers? alerted the NSIDC about data showing ice-covered areas as stretches of open ocean, the Boulder, Colorado-based group said on its Web site.

?Sensor drift, although infrequent, does occasionally occur and it is one of the things that we account for during quality- control measures prior to archiving the data,? the center said. ?Although we believe that data prior to early January are reliable, we will conduct a full quality check.??

Bloomberg.com: News

They lost a section the size of California, but the consensus is in.

 

[RoyalOrleans]

Big oops for Al Gore. Looks like Big Al was stretching the truth a bit about some global warming research. I just can't hide my surprise here.

Gore Pulls Slide of Disaster Trends

 

[ImWithStupid]

Facts debunk global warming alarmism

Bob Carter | January 20, 2009

rticle from: The Australian THE National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration reported that October in the US was marked by 63 record snowfalls and 115 lowest-ever temperatures.

Over the past few years, similar signs of colder than usual weather have been recorded all over the world, causing many people to question the still fashionable, but now long outdated, global warming alarmism. Yet individual weather events or spells, whether warmings or coolings, tell us nothing necessarily about true climate change.

Nonetheless, by coincidence, growing recognition of a threat of climatic cooling is correct, because since the turn of the 21st century all real world, long-term climate indicators have turned downwards. Global atmospheric temperature reached a peak in 1998, has not warmed since 1995 and, has been cooling since 2002. Some people, still under the thrall of the Intergovernmental Panel of Climate Change's disproved projections of warming, seem surprised by this cooling trend, even to the point of denying it. But why?

There are two fundamentally different ways in which computers can be used to project climate. The first is used by the modelling groups that provide climate projections to the IPCC. These groups deploy general circulation models, which use complex partial differential equations to describe the ocean-atmosphere climate system mathematically. When fed with appropriate initial data, these models can calculate possible future climate states. The models presume (wrongly) that we have a complete understanding of the climate system.

GCMs are subject to the well-known computer phenomenon of GIGO, which translates as "garbage in, God's-truth out".

Alternative computer projections of climate can be constructed using data on past climate change, by identifying mathematical (often rhythmic) patterns within them and projecting these patterns into the future. Such models are statistical and empirical, and make no presumptions about complete understanding; instead, they seek to recognise and project into the future the climate patterns that exist in real world data.

In 2001, Russian geologist Sergey Kotov used the mathematics of chaos to analyse the atmospheric temperature record of the past 4000 years from a Greenland ice core. Based on the pattern he recognised in the data, Kotov extrapolated cooling from 2000 to about 2030, followed by warming to the end of the century and 300 years of cooling thereafter.

In 2003, Russian scientists Klyashtorin and Lyubushin analysed the global surface thermometer temperature record from 1860 to 2000, and identified a recurring 60-year cycle. This probably relates to the Pacific decadal oscillation, which can be caricatured as a large scale El Nino/La Nina climatic oscillation. The late 20thcentury warming represents the most recent warm half-cycle of the PDO, and it projects forwards as cooling of one-tenth of a degree or more to 2030.

In 2004, US scientist Craig Loehle used simple periodic models to analyse climate records over the past 1000 years of sea-surface temperature from a Caribbean marine core and cave air temperature from a South African stalactite. Without using data for the 20th century, six of his seven models showed a warming trend similar to that in the instrumental record over the past 150 years; and projecting forward the best fit model foreshadows cooling of between 0.7 and 1 degree Celsius during the next 20-40 years.

In 2007, the 60-year climate cycle was identified again, by Chinese scientists Lin Zhen-Shan and Sun Xian, who used a novel multi-variate analysis of the 1881-2002 temperature records for China. They showed that temperature variation in China leads parallel variation in global temperature by five-10 years, and has been falling since 2001. They conclude "we see clearly that global and northern hemisphere temperature will drop on century scale in the next 20 years".

Most recently, Italian scientist Adriano Mazzarella demonstrated statistical links between solar magnetic activity, the length of the Earth day (LOD), and northern hemisphere wind and ocean temperature patterns. He too confirmed the existence of a 60-year climate cycle, and described various correlations (some negative). Based on these correlations, Mazzarella concludes that provided "the observed past correlation between LOD and sea-surface temperature continues in the future, the identified 60-year cycle provides a possible decline in sea-surface temperature starting from 2005, and the recent data seem to support such a result".

http://www.theaustralian.news.com.au/story/0,25197,24934655-7583,00.html

 

[RoyalOrleans]

Just a little aside in the flow of discussion here...

Al Gore is a jackass sh!theel handpuppet of a pinko twinkletoed lillylivered c0cksucker communist diety.

As you were.

 

[Old Salt]

Just a little aside in the flow of discussion here...

Al Gore is a jackass sh!theel handpuppet of a pinko twinkletoed lillylivered c0cksucker communist diety.

As you were.

C'mon, RO. Tell us what you really think of Al Gore. Don't sugar coat it.

 

[RoyalOrleans]

C'mon, RO. Tell us what you really think of Al Gore. Don't sugar coat it.

Then subscribe to my newsletter!

 

[ImWithStupid]

Anna, if you haven't bothered to look at what I was talking about yet, this is what I meant.

Feinstein Seeks To Block Solar Power From California Desert Land

WASHINGTON ? California's Mojave Desert may seem ideally suited for [COLOR=#038258 ! important][COLOR=#038258 ! important]solar [COLOR=#038258 ! important]energy[/COLOR][/COLOR][/COLOR] production, but concern over what several proposed projects might do to the aesthetics of the region and its tortoise population is setting up a potential clash between conservationists and companies seeking to develop renewable energy.
Nineteen companies have submitted applications to build solar or wind facilities on a parcel of 500,000 desert acres, but Sen. Dianne Feinstein said Friday such development would violate the spirit of what conservationists had intended when they donated much of the land to the public.
Feinstein said Friday she intends to push legislation that would turn the land into a national monument, which would allow for existing uses to continue while preventing future development.
The Wildlands Conservancy orchestrated the government's purchase of the land between 1999-2004. It negotiated a discount sale from the real estate arm of the former Santa Fe and Southern Pacific Railroad and then contributed $40 million to help pay for the purchase. David Myers, the conservancy's executive director, said the solar projects would do great harm to the region's desert tortoise population.
"It would destroy the entire Mojave Desert ecosystem," said David Myers, executive director of The Wildlands Conservancy.
Feinstein said the lands in question were donated or purchased with the intent that they would be protected forever. But the [COLOR=#038258 ! important][COLOR=#038258 ! important]Bureau [COLOR=#038258 ! important]of [/COLOR][COLOR=#038258 ! important]Land [/COLOR][COLOR=#038258 ! important]Management[/COLOR][/COLOR][/COLOR] considers the land now open to all types of development, except mining. That policy led the state to consider large swaths of the land for future renewable energy production.
"This is unacceptable," Feinstein said in a letter to Interior Secretary Ken Salazar. "I urge you to direct the BLM to suspend any further consideration of leases to develop former railroad lands for renewable energy or for any other purpose."
In a speech last year, Republican Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger complained about environmental concerns slowing down the approval of solar plants in California.

Feinstein Seeks To Block Solar Power From California Desert Land


People want to put solar energy in the desert, blocked by environmentalists, people want to harness water energy, and environmentalist block it because of the fish, people want to use wind power, environmentalists block it because of the birds or bats or on the ground the dumb ass squirrel that will be affected by the power lines.

Feinstein is one of the biggest libs there is. It reminds me of the wind power that was proposed off of Cape Cod but was blocked by woman killer, Ted Kennedy because you could faintly see them on the horizon from his family compound.

Bunch of friggin' fraudulent bastards.

 

[Old Salt]

As well as Britain's Prince Charles:

A friend of Prince Charles told the Sunday Telegraph: "This is a difficult issue for the prince because he is in favour of renewable energy and is concerned by the effects of global warming. But he believes that wind farms are ?a horrendous blot on the landscape?.

Prince pours scorn over wind farms - Scotsman.com News

{admittedly an old story}

 

[Anna Perenna]

Anna, if you haven't bothered to look at what I was talking about yet, this is what I meant.

People want to put solar energy in the desert, blocked by environmentalists, people want to harness water energy, and environmentalist block it because of the fish, people want to use wind power, environmentalists block it because of the birds or bats or on the ground the dumb ass squirrel that will be affected by the power lines.

Feinstein is one of the biggest libs there is. It reminds me of the wind power that was proposed off of Cape Cod but was blocked by woman killer, Ted Kennedy because you could faintly see them on the horizon from his family compound.

Bunch of friggin' fraudulent bastards.

We've been squabbling in this thread for so long I've forgotten what the original issue was. I honestly don't remember you talking about environmentalists blocking green proposals - if that's true, then that sucks. I'm sure there is more to these stories than the black and white bad-guy projection you're sharing with me, though.

As for where I'm at:

Climate change is real, and the weather in the future looks dire.

Greenland is melting. When ice formerly located over land melts, it causes sea levels to rise. This is not good for coastal communities all over the world.

We don't know for sure that human behaviour has caused this climate change, but we also have no proof otherwise. The most agreeable scientific opinion is that humans probably are the cause + if we reduce carbon emissions radically, we can avoid dealing with dangerous climate change, as opposed to dealing with climate change we can adapt to.

The debates raging in Oz are past whether the world is heating or cooling (the world is heating up) and are now focused on adaptation and mitigation - most recently I attended a seminar by Stephen Schneider (climatologist from Stanford) who encouraged scientists to pursue research models of preparation for what is probably unavoidable and research models of mitigation against what we cannot adapt to.

It baffles me as to why you seem to be supporting your media's deliberate obfuscation of the logical reaction to this issue.

There is no left-wing conspiracy designed to destroy the economy, people.

In case you haven't noticed, the economy just recently shat itself - and Al Gore asking people to plant more trees had nothing to do with it.

 

[ImWithStupid]

We don't know for sure that human behaviour has caused this climate change, but we also have no proof otherwise. The most agreeable scientific opinion is that humans probably are the cause + if we reduce carbon emissions radically, we can avoid dealing with dangerous climate change, as opposed to dealing with climate change we can adapt to.

Which is exactly my point all along. The earth is warming, so is Mars, Jupiter, Pluto and Neptune's moon Triton.

It would be ridiculously stupid to throw billions and trillions of dollars at preventing something that may not be prevented. How would that possibly help the economy?

Six hundred years ago, Greenland melted too. Vikings were growing grapes there. I wonder what they did to cause that warming.

 

[Anna Perenna]

It would be ridiculously stupid to throw billions and trillions of dollars at preventing something that may not be prevented. How would that possibly help the economy?

Which is why scientists are proposing mitigation against what cannot be adapted to, and adaptation to what can't be avoided.

I actually think it is far more ridiculously stupid to argue against any kind of mitigation when we are facing potentially catastrophic circumstances.

And like I said, the economy has already shat itself. Putting money into green solutions can easily be made part of a stimulus package.

 

[ImWithStupid]

I guess someone forgot to tell Antarctica that the Earth was warming and the ice was melting...

Revealed: Antarctic ice growing, not shrinking

The Australian
Greg Roberts April 18, 2009

ICE is expanding in much of Antarctica, contrary to the widespread public belief that global warming is melting the continental ice cap.
The results of ice-core drilling and sea ice monitoring indicate there is no large-scale melting of ice over most of Antarctica, although experts are concerned at ice losses on the continent's western coast.

Antarctica has 90 per cent of the Earth's ice and 80 per cent of its fresh water. Extensive melting of Antarctic ice sheets would be required to raise sea levels substantially, and ice is melting in parts of west Antarctica. The destabilisation of the Wilkins ice shelf generated international headlines this month.
However, the picture is very different in east Antarctica, which includes the territory claimed by Australia.

East Antarctica is four times the size of west Antarctica and parts of it are cooling. The Scientific Committee on Antarctic Research report prepared for last week's meeting of Antarctic Treaty nations in Washington noted the South Pole had shown "significant cooling in recent decades".

Revealed: Antarctic ice growing, not shrinking | The Australian

Of course, once again, we have to take into consideration the source. This story is from some second rate, nobody of a country's opinion.

I'm not sure we should take it at face value

 

[RoyalOrleans]

When global socialism collapsed in the late 1980s and the Communist Soviet Union failed the world was filled with desperate socialists and anti-capitalists looking for a new base of operations. They found this new base in the environmental movement. They saw environmentalism as a way to attack capitalism rather than a way to act responsibly for cleaner air and water and reasonable environmental regulations. So environmental movements suddenly became flooded with rejected socialists and communists happy to find a moral base upon which to build their case against free enterprise. The founder of Greenpeace once remarked of his surprise at suddenly finding his headquarters populated by people wearing Mao hats and berets with cute little red stars.