Replies to This Discussion

Permalink Reply by essay on July 16, 2009 at 8:22

Okay, I'll keep this going since I'm really trying to understand why you won't let go of this idea of "overstatement.'

I really doubt that you actually even looked at the article I linked, so here another, shorter, one... and I'll even copy and paste the opening sentence in case you're too lazy or hard headed to read it.

From http://www.eoearth.org/article/Solar_radiation "Almost all of the energy that drives the various systems (climate systems, ecosystems, hydrologic systems, etc.) found on the Earth originates from the sun"

So the various Phd's who wrote and edited that article don't know what they're talking about? Are you trying to suggest that chemical processes and friction are substantial sources of heat compared to that mind bogglingly large flaming ball of gas in the sky?

Furthermore, from the recent report the EPA tried to suppress http://cei.org/cei_files/fm/active/0/DOC062509-004.pdf, "A new 2009 paper by Scafetta and West suggests that the IPCC used faulty solar data in dismissing the direct effect of solar variability on global temperatures. Their research suggests that solar variability could account for 68% of the increase in Earth's global temperatures."

So no, I won't admit an overstatement. And the only name I called you was "troll," which you are in the process of proving. Your so called "cogent and substantive" response was either disingenuous or ignorant, and I'm still trying to figure out which.

Again, tell me why you think the good folks responsible for the linked material are incorrect, and we've got a debate.

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by P.G. on July 15, 2009 at 1:59

The earth's climate has always been dynamic.
If man vanished from the earth today it wouldn't stop it!
What's going to happen is going to happen.
No amount of taxation is going to do a thing about it!
This "Got to save the Earth from Global Warming" scheme of taxation is a scam!

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Rosalie Cobb on July 15, 2009 at 3:43

It makes you wonder, how they can fool so many people.

http://www.reuters.com/article/GCA-GreenBusiness/idUSTRE56E1O620090715

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Checkmateking on July 15, 2009 at 4:12

Many of these people are not fooled Rosalie, they are klepto-statists who will support whatever propaganda fueled hoax they can to further their own twisted ideological views, global warming is akin to the Reichstag fire IMHO.

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Rosalie Cobb on July 15, 2009 at 4:20

I'm new here. I should probably just mind my own business. I just can't afford anymore taxes.

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Checkmateking on July 15, 2009 at 4:42

Well you seem to have a good head on your shoulders, welcome to the site. We are all taxed to death.

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Rosalie Cobb on July 15, 2009 at 6:02

Thank you very much. It's a wonderful site with a host of good information.

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Checkmateking on July 15, 2009 at 7:16

It is a godsend for mineral owners.

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by RJ on July 15, 2009 at 12:38

Cap and Trade MUST be killed!!! EVERYONE should be e mailing their Reps in Washington on a daily basis. WISE up PEOPLE. The Planet is NOT going to burn. They want to control your lives and this will be the start of just that. Its called Cap and TRADE. Gingles you need to wise up. You only seem to want to believe certain things you read. Look at ALL the DATA not just what fits in your so called argument. The TEMPS have NOT changed from any other periods of Global fluctuations over the past 100 years or more. Temps go up and down!!!

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Dion Warr, CPL on July 17, 2009 at 9:49

OK, so I don't usually jump in on these, but I'll offer my two cents, for all who might be willing to take them.

The amount of energy that bombards our earth and its atmosphere sourced from the sun in an hour is equivalent to mankind's energy production and release in a year which is a ratio of approximately 8750:1. Proponents of the anthropogenic warming model are wont to point out that variance in solar output is so insignificant in comparison to anthropogenic warming so as to not warrant substantive debate. Variance in solar output has been cited in the public domain being ± 0.1-0.3%. Based upon a mean figure (0.2%), solar variance can thus influence total energy input into the system in comparison to the whole of mankind's sourcing at a rate of about 17.5:1. Typically these analyses do not include any possible direct and/or indirect effects of solar-induced electromagnetic forcing or induced forcing with the earth's own magnetic field, because scientists are largely unsure as to the effects and climatological shifts due to the action of such mechanisms. Solar forcing advocates point out precisely these factors and the prime mover(s) of climate change on a planetary scale.

It is important to understand for background that the atmosphere serves to moderate our climate, deflect harmful high-energy radiation as well as trapping reflected heat, which allows us to function above ground for more than 10 - 14 hours at a time without becoming steamed, nuked, scorched, or frozen depending on your proximity to water and the apparent time of day or night. It is also important to understand that science has taught us that climate change over the course of the epochs of earth’s existence is inevitable in virtually any timescale that includes units or more than fifty years (which would be equivalent to the passing of a singular fragment of the finest, most pulverized particle of sand passing through an hour glass), of which the human existence post-Industrial Revolution represents approximately 3 to 4 quanta of such sand particles in the hourglass. Current findings suggest that the earth’s climate has oscillated between being an intolerable sauna to being an intolerable ice cube, and everything in between. Approximately ten to fifteen thousand years ago, evidence suggests polar ice sheets covered much of North America north of a latitiude line running through St Louis, advancing and receding over many millienia. In this regard, global warming was a ‘good thing’ and in fact quite instrumental in the history of Western Civilization in that many of the great growing regions of the Northern Hemisphere became accessible after the end of the last Ice Age.

My own personal observation is that environmental groups and anticapitalistic groups have seized upon the debate as motive to control the use of energy (vital to any sovereign nation, First World or Third World) by controlling emissions and thus control the economies of all nations as they see fit. From the Global Cooling alarmists of the 1970s to the Global Warming alarmists of the late 20th and early 21st centuries, many of these folks are looking for a way to limit the growth of industrialized countries and ignore or exempt the Third World, which will increasingly contribute to global emissions Kyoto protocol or not. In an effort to further redefine the debate and erode the firepower from the “Cooling / Warming, which is it?” argument, the faction has reinvented the name of the movement to “Climate Change”, which gives their argument merit in much the same way that one can win using a two-headed quarter for a coin flip (ie. If your climate becomes warmer, cooler, wetter, or dryer, the industrialized world is responsible and should pay for it).

I personally do not believe that that the Vinlanders were able to plant grapevines and warm succulents during the Middle Ages north of the 53rd Parallel because the villagers were burning their peat bogs and cow dung and releasing carbon into the atmosphere anymore than I believe that the great awakening of commerce and technology of Europe during the late Middle Ages and Renaissance resulted in the Little Ice Age (due to the fact that the Western aristocrats and merchants were such conservationists and stewards of the environment?!?). I myself find it much more interesting that the large climate shift during the late Middle Ages coincides with the Maunder Minimum, which was marked by a remarkably multidecadal low incidence of sunspot activity on the Sun’s surface. And while I can certainly admire the Climate Change advocates’ attempt at crafting a conceit to wrap their sociopolitical agenda around the inevitability that climates always change, I neither accept the premise nor the conceit.

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by RR on July 17, 2009 at 12:00

Wow! Very well stated. You impressed this old retired science teacher!

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Rosalie Cobb on July 17, 2009 at 12:20

I must agree!

• ▶ Reply

• ‹ Previous
• 1
• 2
• 3
• 4
• 5
• Next ›
• Page