Global warming
Just one comment: there will be no
This letter has not been edited.
Global warming, as it is routinely sold these days, is a global hoax. I have never seen one iota of evidence and/or proof, but I know a lot of people have made GW into a very large and very profitable business. Selling carbon credits reminds me of the Church selling indulgences a few hundred years ago. GW is BS.
The Earth has been experiencing climate changes for some 4.6 billion years and 2007 and the next 4.6 billion years will be no different from any that preceeded it. And most of the climate changes have occured billions of years before the Industrial Age, the internal combustion engine, the discovery of coal and oil and the wide-spread use of fire.
GW is not only a fool's religion, its rapidly becoming one of the most boring subjects on the planet. You have got to be one screaming A-hole to buy into this.
Posted by hank on July 21, 2007 02:44 PMRight on Hank. It is good to hear from someone with common sense. It is most certainly lacking in Al Gore and the rest of the global warming idiots out there.
Posted by The Duke on July 21, 2007 04:36 PM hank & The Duke,
Have you seen the beaches lately, as compared to even 20 years ago? Or the condition of coral reefs?
I wouldn't buy any beachfront property if I were you.
And then there is this guy swimming at the north pole...........But you guys wouldn't believe it anyway. If you didn't see it on Fox, it's BS.
Have either of you even entertained the notion that the fossil fuel promoters have "scientists" that are paid well to scam consumers like you?
I didn't think so.
And we'll also see who proves to be the "idiots". lighten up.
Hey dms...we have a 4.6 billion year history of this very same thing happening over and over and over and over again and over.
Got any proof or are you as completely vacant as the very same crowd who failed to sell us THE COMING ICE AGE 30 years ago?
Some things never change...and B.S. is at the top of the list. So stuff your wacky religion where the sun doesn't shine--the only cause for temp change in this entire universe.
hank: "I have never seen one iota of evidence and/or proof,"
hank, you should not make such a public display of your ignorance.
Posted by Truth on July 21, 2007 06:04 PMTruth ,
" you should not make such a public display of your ignorance".
Who are you to say what hank has or has not seen.
Posted by on July 21, 2007 06:58 PMThe globe is definately warming up, but have you noticed the amount of hurricanes is down?
Why can`t we ever discuss this issue with some new ideas?
Posted by Sharon B. on July 21, 2007 07:13 PM"Who are you to say what hank has or has not seen."
I'm not saying what hank has or has not seen. He is.
Posted by Truth on July 21, 2007 07:53 PMhank apparently is the new version of Mel Brooks 2000 year old man..Except that he claims to have seen 4.6 billion years worth of data.
I still wouldn't buy any beachfront property.
Especially from hank.
He's got a thing for having a head where the sun doesn't shine.
Kinky, hank! Betcha you're a riot at parties.
Posted by dmz on July 21, 2007 10:22 PMdmz
Hank did not say the Earth isn't getting warmer. Quite exaggerating what someone says. He only said that climate change has always happened and there is no reason to believe it won't continue. Get your facts straight.
Posted by on July 21, 2007 11:11 PMIs anyone else getting a mite weary of hearing about the predictions of a new ice age 30 years ago? I'm certainly getting a wee bored with pointing out THAT WAS 30 YEARS AGO! Times change, okay? Science and technology are always advancing. 30 years from now, hank will have every chance to ridicule what turns out to be faulty information. In the meantime, we can only go by what info we have at the moment.
I think hank's "4.6 billion year history of this very same thing" could be put to better use at the "Creationism Museum" in Kentucky, which "proves" that Earth is only 4,000 years old.
Posted by Hans Christian Brando on July 22, 2007 11:19 AMRemember when the late Ronald Reagan said that trees cause pollution? He didn't get called names like Al Gore is getting.
Posted by Hans Christian Brando on July 22, 2007 11:22 AM
This letter has not been edited.
Nor authored apparantly.
Does the Rocky just publish some crap musings and then attach a random name like Brian Stuckey or one of the other frequent fliers, but they forgot that last step on this one?
Posted by This blog sucks on July 22, 2007 12:22 PMHCB, Ronald Regan was cute, sweet and dumb as a post. His trees remark should have sounded a warning bell for the Republicans but they can be fooled a good deal more often them Democrats.
One thing about heat, it is all we can do to measure the relative heat in the past compared to the planet today. Mother Earth does not keep a fossil thermometer handy for us to read.
Plant growth and CO2 trapped in air bubbles gives us some indication that a past time was warmer or cooler but not exactly how much. Also algae blooms leave evidence in ice cores and those blooms depend upon warmer waters.
Scientific advances in paleoclimatology will make what we know now look primitive in the next 50 or so years. Better research will show us more about past climates in relation to present.
We can`t have decent discussions on this with people who see their political and economic beliefs challenged. This is much to personal to them.
If it turns out that man has not contributed to GW, so what. It is the truth that matters. Only time will tell.
I think we have tipped the scales toward GW, I just wish I knew what we should do now.
Posted by Sharon B. on July 22, 2007 01:27 PMIf all these pius twits were really concerned with CO2 levels they should not exhale!!!!!
Posted by tj on July 23, 2007 12:30 PMHank pulled a fast one with ”Global warming, as it is routinely sold these days, is a global hoax”
So you are talking about a special subset of information which you place into the category of “as routinely sold”.
You aren’t talking about the IPCC statements, not the NAS release, nor the AAAS statements, nor the Joint Academies statements, nor the editorial positions of Nature, Science, and all the other journals, nor any of the other worldwide science bodies.
In other words, you are only talking about sources of information which are irrelevant?
”The Earth has been experiencing climate changes for some 4.6 billion years”
Yep, and the solar system has experienced billions of nuclear explosions, just some of them have not been of natural origin.
Likewise, just because previous and future warming events were naturally caused does not mean that it is any less likely that the current one is anthropogenic in cause.
”… most of the climate changes have occured billions of years before the Industrial Age, the internal combustion engine, the discovery of coal and oil and the wide-spread use of fire.”
Yep, “most” did, only we don’t think this one is the same.
We think that this one is ours.
We think that because we used science to investigate rather than just pontificating about what usually happens.
”GW is not only a fool's religion, its rapidly becoming one of the most boring subjects on the planet. You have got to be one screaming A-hole to buy into this.”
So you reckon the verity of scientific research hinges on whether it is “boring” or not?
Hmmm.
Just curious, do you think all those scientists and science journals and science bodies are all “screaming A-holes”, or are you again only talking about a special category of GW?
”…...we have a 4.6 billion year history of this very same thing happening over and over and over and over again and over.”
Well I should be grateful that you at least don’t think that the planet is 6000 years old.
But no, the idea is that this is a novel event, the like of which hasn’t ever been seen before.
”… are you as completely vacant as the very same crowd who failed to sell us THE COMING ICE AGE 30 years ago?”
So there are two small issues here.
Firstly it was a few news magazines that tried to boost circulation with a bit of ice-age drama, it wasn’t the sciences.
Secondly, even if it were the science bodies back then, so what?
Scientific arguments and theories and facts are conditional and may change depending on data, and better ideas. The amount of data, experimental results, and theoretical coherence forces us to conditionally accept that GW is happening and that it is human activity driving it. To deny that is perverse.
”… stuff your wacky religion where the sun doesn't shine--the only cause for temp change in this entire universe”
How absolutely perspicacious of you!
Yes indeed, the Sun.
All those fossil fuels that we burn and all the nuclear fuel we use, yup, it’s ancient solar energy being released. You are dead right we are releasing energy from the Sun, but since the Sun is also shining we are getting a higher dose than usual on this planet.
That would be an issue all on its own, but here’s the thing, we are also releasing gobs of gases into the atmosphere that are somewhat opaque to infra-red.
So a bigger chunk of the heat released from these fossil fuels doesn’t just get radiated out into space, it gets trapped here.
Is it starting to make more sense now?
Posted by Bongo Skink on July 23, 2007 12:45 PMAll this global warming buzz sure is making at least one person more filthy rich than he already is---AL GORE.
Posted by C on July 24, 2007 10:45 AM