An enormous fraud
Seems months since I have seen anything in the general media supporting the anthropogenic issues of global warming. Shy of the silly report by Newsweek, the only current news has been a steady series of scientific articles debunking the alarmist claims. What a shock that these articles have been accidentally ignored by the print and network media.
Can only assume that we are finally witnessing the rebuttal to the debate that never happened.
Try this for a real problem: How are the millions of true environmentalists going to react when they must inevitably realize that all this has been an enormous, masterfully orchestrated fraud?
Mike Durcan, Denver
Do I believe that climate changes are cyclical? Absolutely - there are too many pieces of evidence too ignore. HOWEVER - anyone who believes that the pollution man has spewed into the air - especially since the beginning of the industrial age - is not worsening it is even more naive than those who believe that it is all man's fault. We cannot do anything about the cyclical nature, but we can "clean up our act" to lessen the problem. What's the worst that will happen - a lowering of the rates of lung disease caused by air pollution?
Posted by Mary on September 27, 2007 03:57 AMWe need to keep burning as much fossil fuel as possible so that maybe OPEC (Iran, etc) will like us and be nice to us. The global warming crowd are just a bunch of Iran-haters.
Posted by Liam on September 27, 2007 06:10 AMhey come on you guys,
we need global warming, how else will Al Gore line his pockets with more cash? I mean he already is a double dunker, he gets his hefty retirement from congress and then he also gets a bigger one for being vp.
Posted by on September 27, 2007 06:45 AMIn case you missed the revelation earlier...
H O A X -- to raise taxes and enrich limousine liberals, and exert control over the sheeple of the world.
H O A X -- to raise taxes and enrich limousine liberals, and exert control over the sheeple of the world.
H O A X -- to raise taxes and enrich limousine liberals, and exert control over the sheeple of the world.
H O A X -- to raise taxes and enrich limousine liberals, and exert control over the sheeple of the world.
H O A X -- to raise taxes and enrich limousine liberals, and exert control over the sheeple of the world.
H O A X -- to raise taxes and enrich limousine liberals, and exert control over the sheeple of the world.
H O A X -- to raise taxes and enrich limousine liberals, and exert control over the sheeple of the world.
Posted by on September 27, 2007 07:01 AMif i dont liek the news i get, or cant understand then it dont exist, period! Thats whu i am not bothered by silly stuf liek gravity (i cant see it so it dont exist). if maybe bush had discvere global heatuing i might go for it but i aint listening to all them scienetists and smart guys about nothing.
Posted by Keith on September 27, 2007 07:08 AMLet me guess, the childish rantings of the "anti-Keith".
Posted by T on September 27, 2007 07:26 AMMary:
CO2 is not a pollutant. It is a necessary ingrediant in the life cycle. Does CO2 have an insulating effect on the earth? Probably so; but probably not very much, because there are only a few absorption bands in the Greenhouse region and not very big ones. How about global warming contributing to an increase in CO2, from the oceans, which I find far more believable. In short, I think climateologists have it backwards.
GG
Yeah, right -- there's a lot of international concern over global warming..as long as the US pays..
WASHINGTON — A day before President Bush's climate talks, China and other developing nations said Wednesday the need to provide food, shelter and clothes for their citizens must come ahead of global warming concerns.
"For a developing country, the main task is to reduce poverty," Xie Zhenhua, vice chairman of China's national development and reform commission, told a forum sponsored by the Center for Clean Air Policy, a think tank.
Mexico's environment minister agreed. "We have always to bear in mind that half our population is at the poverty line," said Juan Rafael Elvira Quesada. "We are also extremely concerned about the consequences, the adverse affects of climate change."
Posted by on September 27, 2007 07:46 AMI really like Hank's logic: if Gore has a big house, then global warming is a hoax.
Posted by Truth on September 27, 2007 08:03 AMSure, that Newsweek article was silly. Likewise the ones in Science, Scientific American, National Geographic, Natural History, Science Weekly, Smithsonian, Discover, Science News, etc. Thank goodness we have experts like Mike Durcan and Hank to set us straight about this "enormous, masterfully orchestrated fraud."
Posted by Romulus on September 27, 2007 08:29 AMLooks like Mike and Hank have the guts to find out the facts,unlike dumb-ass romulus.
Posted by Keith on September 27, 2007 08:54 AMHas anyone heard of the straw that broke the camel's back?
Posted by Stan Broyles on September 27, 2007 09:14 AMHank:
Why is it you believe all the data supporting global warming are false but all the data supporting the dangers of second hand smoke are true. Is it because you only believe data supporting your personal preferences and preconcieved notions and, all that do not support tose are falsities and lies. If so, justify this. There is no way to qantify exposure without star trek gear like the borg had implanted in them. In other words people would have to be strictly monitored over years to establish the effects of second hand smoke on them. Instead, tobacco control made up their claims out of whole clothe and people bought it hook ,line and sinker.
Posted by Allen Campbell on September 27, 2007 09:16 AMHank:
might add the 95% of greenhouse gases consist of WATER VAPOR. After you throw in a few volcanos, cow flatulence , etc., that leaves precious little room for other factors--man--to have contributed to any problem .
I'm not sure what you mean by 95%, but water vapor has a residence time in the atmosphere of only 10 days but CO2 has a residence time of about 100 years.
Put another way, water doesn't stay in the atmosphere very long - if a volcano erupts and puts a buch of water vapor in the atmosphere it will pretty much all be gone within a month. Since CO2 stays in the atmosphere much, much longer means that most of the CO2 that was put in the atmosphere last year, the last decade the decade before that and so on are mostly still there. That means it doesn't take much CO2 input over equilibrium levels for the CO2 concentrations to rise over the years.
Posted by CL on September 27, 2007 09:17 AMNow that idiot Rice-a-Roni wants us to use cleaner burning fuels. George Bush needs to push her head back under his desk where it belongs, at least she might be good for that!.
Posted by Keith on September 27, 2007 09:20 AMGlobal warming is just another tool in the agenda to bankrupt the USA so it can be put under control of the globalists, with the UN as the regulatory body who will rule over us.
If you liked Darfur, you will love what the UN has planned for Americans.
Where are all the family owned farms?
Where did all our heavy industry go?
Why are so many of the new jobs created in the USA service jobs with near minimum wage pay?
And since CO2 represents 3.6% of greenhouse gasses--and water vapor exceeds that by more than 26X---then I am sure we can all find a good reason to call our congressmen and senators and tell them to hurry up and build nuke power plants, something we havn't done for 30 years.
Right? Go Nuke!
Posted by Hank on September 27, 2007 11:08 AMIf built with safety as the top priority, rather than profit, nuclear is just fine. Unless some fool pronounces it nuke-u-ler.
Posted by on September 27, 2007 11:10 AMThe environmentalists had some major wins. They pushed to clean up our air from NOX (Smog) and SOX (Acid rain). These were real and true benefits. If you are older than 30, you know the environment is cleaner now than any time in the last 100 years. The problem is the built a huge business around fight pollution. Now they have a problem. There are not enough polluters to fight. They had a choice, go get real productive jobs or invent new pollutions and so new polluters to fight. Bravo, they have an enemy that does no, zero, zip nada damage today, CO2. But they have framed it in away that the damage will come decades if not centuries from now. There is no way to debate it. They win CO2; the basis for all life on earth is a bad thing that we must eliminate. Cheap energy has done more to improve the lives of the people it touches than any other single result of the industrial revolution. Here is an idea, for two weeks in August of every year, we shut down all fossil fuel fired electric generation in the US and Canada. During the two weeks we rely soley on wind and solar and make the Sierra Club responsible for supplying the remaining power needs. At the end of the week, those that have survived get to vote on how we get our power.
Posted by on September 27, 2007 11:22 AMThe original letter is not clear. Since these anti-GW articles were printed somewhere for the writer to read, where were they? He claims they were "ignored by print and network media".
So where did he read them?
Is he talking about scientific journals? Which ones?
Posted by Sharon B. on September 27, 2007 12:29 PMFirst, the liberals were to blame. Then, the liberals and the governments were to blame. Now the liberals, the governments, and the corporations are to blame. It's the mother of all conspiracies. And who is pulling the strings on the liberals, the governments and the corporations? Why it's little old Al Gore!!! Who woulda known?
It's one thing to argue that there are credible scientists who disagree with the proposition that man contributes significantly to global warming. But why do these people come out of the woodwork to claim a gigantic conspiracy? The answer is that to them everything they oppose is the result of a giant conspiracy. I think Hank and company subscribe to the Woody Allen rule: just because you're paranoid doesn't mean you're not being followed.
Posted by Truth on September 27, 2007 01:13 PMGoogle it Sharon - there are hundreds of articles on the global warming farce. I doubt you will though because it goes against your principles to investigate the other side of an argument when you can have your side spoon fed to you all day.
Where are the hurricanes and devastating floods we've been told would happen the past two years? I suppose the lack of them is also a sign of Global Warming - better raise our taxes to research where they are and when they'll strike!
Billions of years of global climate change and we've changed the climate by .9 degree in 70 years? Yeah right.
The same people who criticize republicans and the government for being fearmongers on terrorism are the same ones who are fearmongering on Global Warming.
Hypocrites
Ooops! I thought you were talking about Bush, 40+ years AWOL, deserter, and guilty of illegal separation and discharge. This is a felony offense.
Posted by draftdodgingisntafamilyvalue on September 27, 2007 01:16 PMTruth
"But why do these people come out of the woodwork to claim a gigantic conspiracy?"
It's not so much a grand or gigantic conspiracy; many different factions have grabbed onto it for their own purposes.
Limo Liberals like Gore and his carbon credits scheme (instituted before his big pronouncement) are milking it for money and public limelight. Corporations have joined suit in pursuit of whoring more profits.
Government officials are looking for the same two things they always are: leverage to gain more power and control, and an excuse to raise taxes.
Scientists are cranking out computer models to substantiate this prognostication in order to gain public acclaim from their somewhat obscure lives, and generate more research grants.
The bandwagon started down the road and many different groups are jumping on it in order to further their own agendas.
Posted by mongoose on September 27, 2007 01:27 PM1:15 -
Google it Sharon - there are hundreds of articles on the global warming farce.
So what? Google ufo conspiracies and you'll get over 2 million!
CL;
Some people are born just to be ignorant, naive or gullible. You hit the trifecta...
Posted by on September 27, 2007 01:36 PM01:36 - well, you certainly are free to have & express your opinion
Posted by CL on September 27, 2007 01:41 PMmr Durcan probably doesn't believe in Evolution either. We should get all of our science from the Bible. Doesn't require so much critical thought. Pollution is a good thing, sez so in the Bible.
Posted by curious on September 27, 2007 01:44 PMDINGLE PLANS TO TAX GLOBAL WARING:
WASHINGTON -- Dealing with global warming will be painful, says one of the most powerful Democrats in Congress. To back up his claim he is proposing a recipe many people won't like _ a 50-cent gasoline tax, a carbon tax and scaling back tax breaks for some home owners.
"I'm trying to have everybody understand that this is going to cost and that it's going to have a measure of pain that you're not going to like," Rep. John Dingell, who is marking his 52nd year in Congress, said Wednesday in an interview with The Associated Press.
----
THE DEMS HAVE A TAX FOR EVERYTHING!
Hank; read mongoose above at 01:27 PM
Posted by on September 27, 2007 02:01 PMGlobal warming is about as close to a religion as it gets. Do the right thing now or someday sometime in the future you will pay the price. The golden rule is now thou shall now drive a Prius and hell as been replaced with a 20 foot sea level rise. A tornado hits a church but leave the alter standing and the response is “god was looking out for us because he (she) spared the alter.” Anything and everything good or bad is the result of god's will. Now look at global warming, floods, droughts, hotter than normal areas, colder areas that are all the result of global warming. Global warming is all-powerful and can rain wrath down on us. If you live in a hot climate, you shall be cold. If you enjoy a wet climate, you shall be dry. It is amazing that no matter the change in climate it will be universally bad for everyone. Doctors of theology study religious texts and writings for years. Is that a reason to take their word for the existence of god? Without something more than a self-sustaining climate model, should we give any more weight to the clergy of global warming? Repent ye least you warm the planet by 1 deg over the next hundred years. I’m a non-religious person, but I find the global warming non-debate on a par with who is the one true god non-debate. Neither can be proven and neither can be questioned in the presents of true believes.
Posted by on September 27, 2007 02:12 PMhttp://www.ncpa.org/globalwarming/
check the global warming primer here for some info
Or try
http://www.greatglobalwarmingswindle.com/
'It isn't pollution that's harming the environment. It's
the impurities in our air and water that are doing it.'
--Al Gore, Vice President
And you fools trust this "intelligence" re Global Warming...
Posted by on September 27, 2007 03:53 PM03:28 PM -
Or try
Also try:
http://news.independent.co.uk/media/article2521677.ece
"C4 accused of falsifying data in documentary on climate change"
Man does have an effect on the atmosphere, as well as volcanoes, plant life and even the fact that dark pine trees absorb energy at a far faster pace than snowfields, which largely reflect it.
There are simply too many variables to put together a viable model. You can set up a model and get any outcome you like.
Now, we do have an effect and the degree of that effect is the question. Mary brought up a good point, however. Why not do it, just because it might be happening.....
Well, that is a great idea on it's face, but how much will it cost and can our economy afford it and would the returns be worth it. the theory behind this is, there is a certain threshold that we could afford or be willing to do and we are not willing to do any more or would it be wise. For example, the water we drink may have 55ppb arsenic in it as a safe level. We could develop filters and technologies that would drop it to 5ppb, which in and of itself is a good thing... but the cost would be astronomical. To the point that diminishing returns rears it's head.
If the returns are so low as to be insignificant, the need for astronomical spending to achieve a small success just isn't there.
Btw, the problem people have with Al Gore is the hypocrisy he exudes from his lavish lifestyle, but then having the gall to tell us we must conserve. His "Carbon Footprints" payments are pretty hilarious as he is the chairman of the company running that scam.
Posted by Dravur on September 27, 2007 04:42 PM
mongoose says that all the people who support the idea that there is significant man-made global warming, whether they are liberals, governments, scientists, or corporations, are doing so for selfish reasons. I presume he means that none of them really believe what they say they believe.
It's one thing to say they are wrong. It is quite a different thing to say that they are all lying.
That to me is extreme paranoia.
Posted by Truth on September 27, 2007 07:17 PMCL,
If someone accuses the makers "Swindle"of misrepresentation then that discredits the entire program. There are those that accuse Al Gore's piece of misrepresentations does that discredit the entire film? The whole premise behind his film is the hockey stick graph. It is WRONG.
We haven't even started to see the madness that will result from this issue. If you drink soda or work out, you have a bigger carbon foot print than a water drinking couch potato. If I have a two acre piece of land and grow grass, I am sequestering more CO2 that you with only 1 acre. Think about the CO2 foot print of a typical fleece jacket. Your mountain bike frame probably requires a great deal of energy (titanium and carbon fiber don't spontaneously sprout in nature). Forget about Star Bucks. Huge carbon foot print. Shipping beans from around the world (fuel) roasting them (heat) and serving then in a cup and throwing away 99% of the grounds. The shame of it all. You want CO2 to be classified as a pollutant. Fine, go for it. My bet is that people get a belly full of this nonsense long before it is scientifically discredited. Remember that corn based ethanol was our savor. How did that work out again? Food prices rising, beer prices rising poor people in Mexico unable to get corn. Yeah again go for it. Make the laws as ridiculous as possible. Please. The sooner your full agenda is exposed the better.
Truth
"It's one thing to say they are wrong. It is quite a different thing to say that they are all lying...That to me is extreme paranoia.
It's nice to see you so judgmental of what I'm supposedly thinking. I simply made a statement reflecting my observation without calling anybody a liar, as you hypothesize.
History is replete with many "bandwagons' being launched and joined by many factions for a variety of reason -- both altruistic and self serving. Such adherence sticks around until the topic falls from favor, or a new "hot" topic replaces it in the human parade.
Are you always so judgmental about others who just try to have a conversation with you. If that's your idea of conversation I think I'll pass in the future.
There's enough ad hominen and "potty mouth" (thanks momma y) to ignore on this board without intentionally adding antagonism to discussions.
Posted by mongoose on September 28, 2007 07:16 AMUn Truth:--
I see you made another friend with your pathetic reasoning. Pretty soon nobody on these boards will even bother to read what you post...way to go dork.
Posted by on September 28, 2007 07:33 AMWhy mongoose thinks people support the proposition that there is significant man-made global warming:
"further their own agendas"
"generate more research grants"
"gain public acclaim"
"gain more power and control, and an excuse to raise taxes"
"whoring more profits"
Yes, indeed, though mongoose is unwilling to admit his obvious intolerant bias, he does not consider that any of the "global warmists" are sincere and take their position because they believe they are right.
Yes, indeed, he is calling these people liars. He does not like the idea of calling a spade a spade. He wants to impute the sincerity of these people but does not want to be accused of doing that.
Posted by Truth on September 28, 2007 08:19 AMTruth; Your comments are strictly self serving and self aggrandizing. There might be some actual "truth" to your posting IF mongoose had said that EVERYONE in those categories were "on the bandwagon" for false or self serving purposes or that all who supported global warming fit in those categories, or that global warming was really the hoax most of us beleive it to be.
The only person (including corporations or government or scientists that he specifically named was your hero Al Gore. His skepticism of what motivates many to jump on the bandwagon did not question the legitimacy of the bandwagon, but only that some, if not many, who join do so for self serving purposes.
Your the one painting with a broad brush apparently attempting to show your superior wisdom or some such garbage. All you did in your last post was prove how ignorant and self serving you are - you must really be defensive of global warming and your hero AL.
Posted by CA on September 28, 2007 08:36 AMTruth
"Yes, indeed, though mongoose is unwilling to admit his obvious intolerant bias, he does not consider that any of the "global warmists" {sic} are sincere and take their position because they believe they are right."
I went back and reread my post that you're taking such an exception to. I fail to see where I included ALL PEOPLE WHO SUPPORT global warming as falling into the categories I described.
in fact, in the original post and, repeated in the response to your first belittling efforts, I used the word "many", as in: "...many different factions have grabbed onto it for their own purposes...many different groups are jumping on it in order to further their own agendas...by many factions for a variety of reason -- both altruistic and self serving..."
Unless they've changed the definition in the dictionary for the word "many" to be all inclusive, I believe that you are barking up the wrong tree.
Posted by mongoose on September 28, 2007 08:52 AMTruth
If you want my position on global warming to soothe your apparent anxiety over what i wrote, you should have just asked.
I believe we are going through a normal cyclical warming phase as has been demonstrated repeatedly throughout history. As to man adding to that warming, I am not convinced entirely one way or the other as there is too much legitimate research ongoing from both sides of the argument for me to be sure at this time.
In the meantime, until such a time as we can definitively answer the question of man's contribution to the warming, I believe we should exercise caution and be cognizant of factors that could be contributing -- like jetting around the world to hold global warming benefit concerts.
Posted by mongoose on September 28, 2007 09:02 AMmongoose; ignore (Un) Truth from now on. Many of us on this forum learned a long time ago he's not worth wasting time with.
What he did with you is typical of his antics. He built a strawman in stating that you essentially call all supporting the global warming theory liars. Then he attacked you do "show off" what he thinks is some sort of superior intellect and logic by defeating his own strawman.
Every time he does it he just show what a farcical character he really is. Meanwhile, he burned lot of your time by making you deconstruct his strawman (which you did very well, by the way).
He doesn't have an original thought unless he builds strawmen to attack -- ignore him.
Posted by Truth ain't truthful on September 28, 2007 10:06 AM08:30 PM :
If someone accuses the makers "Swindle"of misrepresentation then that discredits the entire program.
The "someone" didn't just accuse them of misrepresentation but outright fabrication:
However, Dr Friiss-Christensen has issued a statement with Nathan Rive, a climate researcher at Imperial College London and the Centre for Climate Research in Oslo, distancing himself from the C4 graph. He said there was a gap in the historical record on solar cycles from about 1610 to 1710 but the film-makers made up this break with fabricated data that made it appear as if temperatures and solar cycles had followed one another very closely for the entire 400-year period.
And Durkin, the writer & director of "Swindle" admitted the "graph was wrong".
There have been many other critics of "Swindle" as well, some outlined in the wikipedia article here:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Great_Global_Warming_Swindle
There are those that accuse Al Gore's piece of misrepresentations does that discredit the entire film? The whole premise behind his film is the hockey stick graph. It is WRONG.
I haven't seen Gore's film, and quite frankly don't care if it has been discredited or not.
You do understand that Gore's film and the program "Swindle" are presentations and NOT the science - regardless of the accuracy of either, the science stays the same.
... [political babbling snipped] ... Make the laws as ridiculous as possible. Please. The sooner your full agenda is exposed the better.
That's just BS on your part. I've not once discussed passing any law or action to be taken to address the issue, so anything you try to tag me with is just conspiratorial hogwash with no basis in reality.
Posted by CL on September 28, 2007 10:33 AMIt's always a good feeling to hear from all those folks who ignore my posts commenting on them. Thanks, guys.
But it's good to see that mongoose is backpedaling, although naturally he prefers to call it "explaining".
I expect that the vast majority of the "global warmists" are quite sincere in their belief that there is significant man-made global warming and that man should take steps to reduce that. I think the same thing of those who have a different view.
People like mongoose who are intolerant of views which differ from theirs, and feel the need to assign improper motives to them, just muddy the waters and discourage intelligent dialog.
Posted by Truth on September 28, 2007 11:40 AMTruth, you are incredibly stupid and naive. You're still backpedaling on putting words in someone else's mouth. I cannot believe how truly pathetic you are. You belong in the same classification as An American, Keith, et al.
I found Mongoose to be very tolerant and objective; you're the fool exercising intolerance, falsehoods and a very narrow point of view.
I guess as I see other people tearing down your strawman lies I'll end up reading more of your pathetic posts. And I'll continue to laugh and be amazed that you like to follow such a loser's game.
Posted by Journalistic Truth on September 28, 2007 12:01 PMOriginal letter: a steady stream of articles...missed by print and network media. Then where did this writer READ them?
Name 10 of the steady stream, and where are they? Name 10 from reputable scientists. Or does my asking make you mental giants think I support man made GW?
Anon man at 1:15. I have never stated my opinion on global warming. Never.
I have no preconceived ideas on this None.
I have occasionally joked about worrying about the Salt Dump in the Atlantic, the thawing of frozen methane in the seas and even mentioned that we should really worry about a reversal of polarity.
What exactly did I say, oh mind reader that lets you know more of my opinion than I do.
Posted by Sharon B. on September 28, 2007 01:39 PMI see Un Truth is embarrassing himself again. Unlike some others I look forward to reading his pompous postings that he attempts to make appear intelligent.
Since I canceled my paper subscription he provides me with almost daily comics.
He reminds me of a little boy who just had his mouth washed out with soap for lying and turning to his parent in defiance and cusses them out as if it was their fault he lied in the first place.
Amusing to say the least.
Posted by jacks or better on September 28, 2007 01:58 PM