The Answer to Global warming is trains,Wind and Solar farms.

[Rokerijdude11]

Jon Campbell is a documented reputable scientist. Your just some Guy on the internet


end of story

 

[steveox]

Couldn't say about the bees. We aren't having more severe weather than has been recorded in the past. Not more powerful huricaines, not more floods, not more drought. And there isn't a shred of evidence to suggest that warmer temperatures have anything at all to do with the bee blight.

Well then how come theres other kinds of plants growing in northern plains that were never there before? explain that one.

 

[invest07]

The answer to Global Warming is to do nothing. Just kick back, relax, put your feet up a pop open a cold one and wait for this latest natural heating and cooling cycle to play out. The earth has only had a few hundred of these in it's history.

The global warming hysteria has nothing to do with temp change and everything to do with a new world-wide tax, paid to the UN.

Don't believe me? Check out carbontax.org.

 

[jeffbiss]

What everyone must understand is that people like palerider simply hate the concepts that underlie environmentalism. They are ideologically opposed to a paradigm that holds that there is a greater responsibility than simply satisfying one's desires.

The global warming debate is essentially not about whether the earth's climate changed in the past or whether it will in the future but that we are having a negative effect through our actions. palerider and his ilk don't like that. They see the world either: a) as designed for their use and abuse or (b) too large for us to affect it. They simply don't like the thought that they shouldn't do as they want. It is that simple.

The fact is that the raw temperature data indicates that the mean is increasing since the Industrial Revolution and so the noise, the swings in temperature, is also increasing. Since the Industrial Revolution, it is estimated that we have released about 300 billions tons of green house gases that were not part of the normal cycle because they werere sequestered in the crust. So, we have increased the concentration of greenhouse gases in the atmosphere which directly affect how much heat is retained by our system.

palerider, as for your "laser can't move anything" comment, you hsould research before you post. See the article "Research Paper Illuminates How Light Pushes Atoms" at http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2006/08/060819112154.htm

 

[jeffbiss]

invest07, I see that you're spreading your nonsense here too. While there are boneheads who believe that free markets are the answer to everything they are wrong. While it is true that there are many who are positioning themselves to benfit from using the market to control greenhouse gas emissions it is also true that we are causing the increase in mean temperature.

What we need are drastic reductions in greenhouse gas emissions, preferably through better technologies than power through combustion.

 

[TruthAboveAll]

What everyone must understand is that people like palerider simply hate the concepts that underlie environmentalism. They are ideologically opposed to a paradigm that holds that there is a greater responsibility than simply satisfying one's desires

.

I'm 100% sure that palerider is totally capable of answering this post. However, since I'm one of those people like him, I'll make my own comments. We (okay, I) do not hate the concepts that underlie environmentalism. What I do have a strong disgust for is the fear tactics nurtured in such a cavalier manner utilizing lies and half-truths. I have great respect for the earth, for nature, for all that it supplies and the resources we are blessed with.

What do you think, that those of us that oppose the premises presented in the "Inconvenient Truth" mentality want to slash and burn the entire earth? Preposterous! We have the same desire to leave our children, our grandchildren, and so on a clean, healthy environment and world, where they too will have the advantages of living in the same abundance that we've experienced.

The global warming debate is essentially not about whether the earth's climate changed in the past or whether it will in the future but that we are having a negative effect through our actions. palerider and his ilk don't like that. They see the world either: a) as designed for their use and abuse or (b) too large for us to affect it. They simply don't like the thought that they shouldn't do as they want. It is that simple.

The global warming debate is exactly about the current and historical contexts of climate change. Supposed current global warming (supposed, as there are a growing cadre of scientists worldwide disputing that basic premise) has been presented as an unprecedented catastrophic warming, that mankind's actions are directly responsible for.

What is going on now is nothing short of terrorist tactics. To exaggerate facts and statistics to support a "cause" is the height of irresponsibility, even arrogance. When a fault-filled film like An Inconvenient Truth is being force-fed to our elementary school children across the U.S. to literally scare them half to death, to convince them that their world is going to come crashing down with flooding shores and tortured, dying wildlife is unconscionable. And to imply, no CHARGE that their parents and all adults (especially in the prosperous, self-indulgent U.S.) are responsible is a new level of hate speech. Actually, it fits the category of hate speech than many crimes currently included in that category. An Inconvenient Truth, from a lost-cause politician, who created a cause to bolster his own inconsequential status in American life.

The words of Al Gore himself, in an interview with with David Roberts in Grist, when asked about present the idea of global warming and getting people engaged: Nobody is interested in solutions if they don't think there's a problem. Given that starting point, I believe it is appropriate to have an over-representation of factual presentations on how dangerous it is... Ah... Right! Let's "over-represent" the facts, over-state the danger so that we can frighten school children into believing that there mommies and daddies are part of a "destroy the earth" conspiracy, just for their own enjoyment.

The fact is that the raw temperature data indicates that the mean is increasing since the Industrial Revolution and so the noise, the swings in temperature, is also increasing. Since the Industrial Revolution, it is estimated that we have released about 300 billions tons of green house gases that were not part of the normal cycle because they werere sequestered in the crust. So, we have increased the concentration of greenhouse gases in the atmosphere which directly affect how much heat is retained by our system.

You are mixing different suppositions here with some questionable statistics. For example, there is an increase in mean temperature, with estimates (yes, estimates!) running from 0.3-0.6 C. That equates to about 0.5-1 F. Temperature swings are nothing new, and the mean temperatures recorded indicate that while some locations are experiencing higher averages at different times of the year, other locations are experiencing lower averages.

There are changes going on, but "300 billion tons of green house gases" is very much like statements thrown about on other forum sites. This information is extrapolated from data that is extremely hard to verify, and there are so many other components (like the increased heat from the sun) that it is nearly impossible to accurately gauge what effect man's activities have on the whole thing. No doubt, we are burning fossil fuels. That is something new to the global environmental mix. But so are increased forest fires, from careless people or downright pyromaniacs starting the blaze.

To view certain impacts that human activity has on the environment, then to try to correct it when it is detrimental, is fine. I'm all for responsibility. But that responsibility is a two-edged sword, and I've no place at all for giving any legitimacy to hysterical "Chicken Little" declarations and the sky-is-falling scare tactics used by the supposed responsible environmentalists.

Start acting a bit more responsible with your claims and "statistics" and you will get further in the long run. Remember, for every authority you can line up claiming that global warming and climate shift is an impending calamity, I can provide an equal number stating that your authorities' claims are full of, excuse the pun, hot air. The only problem is, there is no sensationalism in saying "Folks, the globe is going through a normal climatic shift."

Also remember, that many of the same environmentalists and experts that you and YOUR ilk cite were raising the alarm in the 1970's that we were going into an ice age.

So, since responsible journalism seems to be a dying breed, we are left with only the hope that the truth will come out. Hopefully in time to prevent a total devastation of the U.S. economy through oppressive restrictions and the "global" fees and taxes that we're starting to hear about.

You and YOUR ilk are the same people screaming about the Constitutional violations of the Bush administration. You are the same ones protesting the loss of our rights. And yet you're willing to blindly and passively hand over your rights to international organizations that will totally destroy and obliterate the blessings of the American way of life that we enjoy so much. I'll be able to tell my grandchildren that I did all I could to protect our country for them, from the economy, to our freedoms, to the environment. I'm not sure what you will tell yours.

 

[palerider]

Well then how come theres other kinds of plants growing in northern plains that were never there before? explain that one.

Plants growing in more northern lattitudes don't constitute more severe weather. And you can hardly say "never" We know that before the ice age that we are presently exiting began, there were tropical plants growing as far north as the arctic circle. Mammoths, have been found frozen with tropical plants still in their mouths and stomachs.

 

[palerider]

What everyone must understand is that people like palerider simply hate the concepts that underlie environmentalism. They are ideologically opposed to a paradigm that holds that there is a greater responsibility than simply satisfying one's desires.

I am all for cleaning up the environment. I am the sort who takes a trash bag into state and national parks and even into the woods when I go hunting to carry out any trash that I may find. Do you do as much? And I am all for fining companies who pollute illegally very heavily for their first offense and fining them out of existence on their second. What I am not in favor of is lying to anyone who will listen to scare them into giving you the power to regulate everyting in the name of trying to alter a natural global climate cycle.

The global warming debate is essentially not about whether the earth's climate changed in the past or whether it will in the future but that we are having a negative effect through our actions. palerider and his ilk don't like that. They see the world either: a) as designed for their use and abuse or (b) too large for us to affect it. They simply don't like the thought that they shouldn't do as they want. It is that simple.

Then try telling the truth. Try framing the argument in terms of cleaning up the environment (which most people are in favor of) instead of lying through your teeth that we are causing a global climate catastrophe.

The fact is that the raw temperature data indicates that the mean is increasing since the Industrial Revolution and so the noise, the swings in temperature, is also increasing. Since the Industrial Revolution, it is estimated that we have released about 300 billions tons of green house gases that were not part of the normal cycle because they werere sequestered in the crust. So, we have increased the concentration of greenhouse gases in the atmosphere which directly affect how much heat is retained by our system.

Hello? The fact is that the temperature has been rising since the earth began to come out of the ice age that we are presently in. The ice has melted back over 2,000 miles and sea level has risen 900 feet since the present warming trend began. Your harping on a degree in the past 100 years is patently silly when put in the context of history.

Further, you clearly don't know what you are talking about with regard to greenhouse gasses and their effect on the climate. You just parrot what you are told with no understanding of what you are saying.

There has been three times as much greenhouse gass in the atmosphere as would be required to cause the current greenhouse effect since we began to exit the ice age we are presently exiting. There wasnever been a need for manmade greenhouse gas to increase the potential for greenhouse warming because the atmosphere is already completely opaque in the relevant absorption bands . That means, there is already a "competition" between overabundant greehnouse gass molecules to reflect the available outbound infrared radiation . For this reason alone, the catastrophic warming scenarios generated by climate models that predict catastrophic global climate change are laughable. The models have been programmed only with positive feedbacks. That is, they predict even greater warming from trivial increase in absorber availability while real world potential actually works with negative feedback. You gett progressively less warming per cc of greenhouse gas by adding more of them because there is simply not enough radiation from the sun to go around. Climate scientists are creating hysteria over something that physically cannot happen?

palerider, as for your "laser can't move anything" comment, you hsould research before you post. See the article "Research Paper Illuminates How Light Pushes Atoms" at http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2006/08/060819112154.htm

Drifting electrons don't constitute moving matter.

 

[OPGhostdog]

" Jesus Christ " Some of you should start your own web forum
called (Writing A Book). However, the global warning will always
be in effect until environmental people find a solution to clean
the Air of emission smoke (including toxic smog).

I agree with some of the stuff that Al Gore is saying concerning
global warning. Also he is wasting his time trying to prove his
point, due to the fact that many of us do not realize exactly
what the air is doing to our health, and yet some Scientists &
Environmentalists is ignoring the facts.

I have just marked this topic for special attention to research
more, and as I find information I will share it.

 

[palerider]

" Jesus Christ " Some of you should start your own web forum
called (Writing A Book). However, the global warning will always
be in effect until environmental people find a solution to clean
the Air of emission smoke (including toxic smog).

I agree with some of the stuff that Al Gore is saying concerning
global warning. Also he is wasting his time trying to prove his
point, due to the fact that many of us do not realize exactly
what the air is doing to our health, and yet some Scientists &
Environmentalists is ignoring the facts.

I have just marked this topic for special attention to research
more, and as I find information I will share it.

What the air is doing to our health is almost entirely a local problem and has nothing at all to do with global climate change. If air in a particular area is bad, then I am completely in favor of cleaning it up "IF" it isn't going to cost too many people their jobs or severely damage the economy of said area. If someone finds themselves living in an area in which the air gives them a hard time but not the general population, then that person should consider moving rather than expecting things to change on their account.

What I am not in favor of is creating a great big lie (which is the case with anthropogenic climate change) for the purpose of gaining political power over people and business.

 

[Rokerijdude11]

sometimes you really sound ALOT like Charlie Browns teacher

wahhh................wah.......wa.........wahh....wahhh...wah!!!

anyone who remembers CB'S teach will appreciate this

 

[palerider]

sometimes you really sound ALOT like Charlie Browns teacher

wahhh................wah.......wa.........wahh....wahhh...wah!!!

anyone who remembers CB'S teach will appreciate this

Sorry to be talking over your head. If you had a better vocabulary, or more intellectual wattage, what I am saying would come across as words that might prompt you to a rebuttal rather than just noise that intimidates you into the sort of sniping that you seem helpless to avoid.

I would use the crayon feature and draw you a picture, but we don't have one.

 

[Abraxis Axis]

Jon Campbell is a documented reputable scientist. Your just some Guy on the internet


end of story

read it absorb it

 

[palerider]

read it absorb it

You post that as if you are unaware that "reputable" scientists aren't proven wrong every day of the year including holidays. Reputable one day, disgraced the next. Can you offer up any argument to my position or is all of this just too too far over your head to expect any intelligent comment?

 

[palerider]

Oops, forgot to mention, even making the argument that so and so is such and such and therefore must be right constitutes one of the most juvenile of the logical fallacies. It is known as an appeal to authority. That particular on is usually perpetrated by folks who have a rather limited knowledge base and therefore depend on what others tell them in lieu of actually knowing something.