Still believe in Global Warming? This should fix that.

[SUBMAN1]

Now that I've read all your funny comments about the worlds scientists not agreeing with your sheeple views, it is time to dispel all your unfounded myths.

Here is the information that not 'one' single professional scientist has the ability to dispute. Al Gore, his spokespeople (all of whom are high school dropouts, or college dropouts I should point out), nor the IPCC can dispute.

This is why I am scared for the future of out planet. It has become not about reality, but about fantasy and control. Terrible. :nope:


Here is the video that says it all:

http://www.discovery.org/v/30


And if you want to follow along with the paper that can't be disputed, here is that too:

http://www.oism.org/pproject/GWReview_OISM600.pdf


Watch it, and Read it, and weep at your failings to think for yourself. :88)

-S

[SUBMAN1]

Just as a reminder of what makes up our atmosphere for people that have been fed that CO2 dominates our environment now. Our atmosphere is made up of the following:

78% nitrogen
21% oxygen
1% other gases (CO2 among them)

If you want to know what the real greenhouse gas is, it is actually H2O with CO2 not even being technically significant in comparison. Friggen idiot people of the world, wake up already!!!! :stare:

-S

[nikimcbee]

But how will we tax the "haves" to give to the "have-nots":o .

What about global equality:o .

Subman1 you are missing the point.:nope:

[SUBMAN1]

Oops.

You are right. I'll concede now. :D

-S

[nikimcbee]

:hmm:
It's for the children:
http://tn3-2.deviantart.com/300W/images3.deviantart.com/i/2004/113/e/1/Communism_For_Our_Future.jpg

[jumpy]

Now that I've read all your funny comments about the worlds scientists not agreeing with your sheeple views, it is time to dispel all your unfounded myths.

~snip~

Watch it, and Read it, and weep at your failings to think for yourself. :88)

-S
Easy there fella :p

I appreciate the ire of your rhetoric, but the presentation needs some work - I almost didn't bother to watch your link because of it ;)


I'm on the fence regarding 'global warming' and its alleged causes. Pollution is a bad thing. But there's so little scientific consensus regarding the observed phenomena of increasing co2 and temperature increases, I find much of either argument to be lacking the fullest knowledge such a subject requires.

More cynically and to the point, I resent the barefaced money spinning by various politicians who attempt to present reasons for tax increases as 'green issues'. The direct result of which means it costs me more to live now that the political bandwagon has leapt aboard this great justification for increased taxation.
A clear example of this is our own dearly regarded gordon brown and his car tax hikes.
In the UK Vehicle Excise Duty (car tax) is raised by the DVLA (driver vehicle and licensing agency) as a means of paying for the upkeep of the road networks, law enforcement regarding road use and various vehicle licensing standards. It is not a 'carbon offset tax' or any other kind of 'green' tax based solely on the levels of pollution produced by certain vehicles. Unfortunately this is exactly what gordon seems determined to turn it into and to that end he has backdated punitive measures, increasing the VED on certain models of vehicle, all the way back to vehicles produced in 2001.

I believe efforts to employ this kind of monetary penalty are justifiably circumspect on all new vehicles produced today, to an extent. After all, pollution is not a good thing, but it's not quite the nemesis some agendas present it as either.

There are plenty of government info-mercials, loaded with flashy sound-bites repeated argumentum ad nauseam in public by our leaders, that I'm not likely to forget the irritation their sophistry causes.

[SUBMAN1]

I hear ya, but can't you tell that I am tired of it? I'm tired of the lies. Tired of the untruths. Tired of the false data that is presented in such a confused form, that the average guy need just buy it because they think they are not smart enough to understand it beyond that. That is what I am tired of.

That is why I keep harping on it. To knock some common sense into my fellow man. Something that is greatly lacking in this world.

-S

[HunterICX]

I hear ya, but can't you tell that I am tired of it? I'm tired of the lies. Tired of the untruths. Tired of the false data that is presented in such a confused form, that the average guy need just buy it because they think they are not smart enough to understand it beyond that. That is what I am tired of.


You mean you're not gonna vote republican this year ? :D

:o Be carefull now!

:rotfl:

HunterICX

[STEED]

:hmm:
It's for the children:
http://tn3-2.deviantart.com/300W/images3.deviantart.com/i/2004/113/e/1/Communism_For_Our_Future.jpg

The Red Flag is flying over the White House and HRC is setting about putting the world to rights.

[Stealth Hunter]

Well... Communism isn't actually that bad of an idea. I mean, social equality, no discrimination, society is built by the arms and sweat of the working man and woman, etc. Really not that bad at all. People just have to be stupid and feck it up...:nope:

[bradclark1]

Watch it, and Read it, and weep at your failings to think for yourself. :88)

-S
Lets look at him a little. Conducts research on protein chemistry and on nutrition and predictive and preventive medicine. Yeah that gives him a good background in climatology.
Robinson is the senior author of the Oregon Petition:up:
He's also a signatory of Dissent From Darwinism which comes from The Discovery Institute which is a U.S. think tank based in Seattle, Washington, best known for its advocacy of intelligent design and its Teach the Controversy campaign to teach creationist anti-evolution beliefs in United States public high school science courses.
He is currently the editor and publisher of the newsletter Access to Energy, which was originated by Petr Beckmann. Beckmann challenged Albert Einstein's theory of relativity and other accepted theories in modern physics.
Ok. I think this guy and his son are a little on the foil hat side but I'll look at some of his claims. I thought(could be wrong) tornadoes and hurricanes are on the rise and we are experiencing more drought not more rainfall.
Looks like you picked a real winner though.:)

[SUBMAN1]

Of which Robinson are you speaking? There are two.

And even if, your comments would hold some water Bradclark if someone could dispute what was being said. Problem is, they can't, and neither can you.

Thanks for your time,

-S

[SUBMAN1]

You mean you're not gonna vote republican this year ? :DI can't. :cry: Both choices are democrats.

-S

[bradclark1]

Of which Robinson are you speaking? There are two.

And even if, your comments would hold some water Bradclark if someone could dispute what was being said. Problem is, they can't, and neither can you.

Thanks for your time,

-S
Daddy Robinson but it really doesn't matter. The Tornadoes and hurricanes are entirely disputable. They've been rising and for the last ten years with 1998, 2003 and tornadoes for 2008 so far as record breaking years. Can't really find anything further back. So with the tin foil man and his champion causes, the Oregon petition being a joke and with everything people have shown in the past and "no" scientific organization on this planet supporting his arguments or yours and with a nutrition scientist being the only source you've ever been able to produce I'll rest my case.

[SUBMAN1]

Daddy Robinson. The Tornadoes and hurricanes are entirely disputable. They've been rising and for the last ten years with 1998, 2003 and tornadoes for 2008 so far as record breaking years. Can't really find anything further back. So with the tin foil man and his champion causes, the Oregon petition being a joke and with everything people have shown in the past and "no" scientific organization on this planet supporting his arguments or yours and a nutrition scientist being the only source you've ever been able to produce I'll rest my case.Your sources please? Complete bunk!

-S

PS. looked it up. La Nina is causing more this year than normal if it keeps up, but last year, we had the fewest number recorded in 30 years at 850. And this is even with our more advanced tracking equipment where we can find tornadoes that we would never even knew existed back in 1980's. Today, we track them all and have the capability to see all of them. FYI - 1200 is normal in a given year.

[GlobalExplorer]

The earth is not a sphere and, ironically, it was a descendant of Johannes Kepler who found it out!

http://www.rolf-keppler.de/

Unfortunately the main site is available in german only, but stay tuned for more scientific breakthroughs!!

Ok here it is an english version:

http://www.rolf-keppler.de/2frame.htm

I suggest we should collect more of the new theories that prove all science is wrong and collect them in a thread, don't you think?

[SUBMAN1]

The earth is not a sphere and, ironically, it was a descendant of Johannes Kepler who found it out!

http://www.rolf-keppler.de/

Unfortunately the main site is available in german only, but stay tuned for more scientific breakthroughs!!

Ok here it is an english version:

http://www.rolf-keppler.de/2frame.htm

I suggest we should collect more of the new theories that prove all science is wrong and collect them in a thread, don't you think?Dumb. Real science only please.

-S

[Fish]

Real science only please.

-S
Kent Hovind? :cool:

[GlobalExplorer]

"Robinson is a signatory to A Scientific Dissent From Darwinism (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/A_Scientific_Dissent_From_Darwinism), a petition produced by the Discovery Institute (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Discovery_Institute) that expresses skepticism about the ability of natural selection (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Natural_selection) to account for the complexity of life, and encouraging careful examination of the evidence for "Darwinian theory (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Darwinism)".

I knew the theory would be coming from that corner ..

George Gilder sounds like he's kind of senile don't you think? I wonder which scientist would want him to hold the introductory speed about a worldbreaking theory??

[SUBMAN1]

Kent Hovind? :cool:Never heard of him before, and from what it sounds like, I don't really care to know who he is.

Wiki says it all on him. As i said - real science please. Not sure why you guys are hijacking the thread with non science related things such as this guy. Maybe its a diversion from the truth? If so, thats whacked.

-S

[GlobalExplorer]

The earth is not a sphere and, ironically, it was a descendant of Johannes Kepler who found it out!

http://www.rolf-keppler.de/

Unfortunately the main site is available in german only, but stay tuned for more scientific breakthroughs!!

Ok here it is an english version:

http://www.rolf-keppler.de/2frame.htm

I suggest we should collect more of the new theories that prove all science is wrong and collect them in a thread, don't you think?Dumb. Real science only please.

-S

Ok here some more "real" science from discovery.org:

The Devil's Delusion: Atheism and Its Scientific Pretensions

http://www.discovery.org/scripts/viewDB/index.php?command=view&id=338&program=CSC&isEvent=true

Proselytizing for Darwin's God in the Classroom

http://www.discovery.org/scripts/viewDB/index.php?command=view&id=323&program=CSC&isEvent=true

A Democrat Looks at his Party...and the State of American Politics (..)

http://www.discovery.org/scripts/viewDB/index.php?command=view&id=327&program=Discovery%20Institute&isEvent=true


Now give me a break while I look up the meaning of "Proselytizing". I have an idea though ..

[SUBMAN1]

You guys are pathetic! You can't refute this article, nor video, so in your pissyness, you try to turn it into a joke in an attempt to discredit it when you have no other way to discredit the message. No wonder Robinson stated that he gets tons of mail on this subject, and the negative mail among it falls along these exact same lines! It's friggen true!

By the way, isn't it against forum rules to hijack threads?

-S

[PeriscopeDepth]

I don't understand why people bother with these threads. Nobody is going to be converted over the Internet on topics like these that get so much political play.

PD

[bradclark1]

PS. looked it up. La Nina is causing more this year than normal if it keeps up, but last year, we had the fewest number recorded in 30 years at 850. And this is even with our more advanced tracking equipment where we can find tornadoes that we would never even knew existed back in 1980's. Today, we track them all and have the capability to see all of them. FYI - 1200 is normal in a given year.
The tornadoes this year are already what we normally get by August. What I'm pointing to on these record breakers is that they are on a upward trend where Robinson says we are having less.

1998 STATISTICS This was a new record
http://www1.ncdc.noaa.gov/pub/data/techrpts/tr9902/tr9902.pdf

May tornado count sets record
http://www.usatoday.com/weather/news/2003-05-11-tornadoes-may_x.htm

May 2003 Tornado Statistics
http://www.spc.noaa.gov/faq/tornado/may2003.htm

marked the most active week of tornadoes on record
http://www.usatoday.com/weather/news/2003-05-10-okc-tornado_x.htm

U.S. tornadoes far above average this year
http://www.usatoday.com/weather/storms/tornadoes/2008-06-03-oklahom

[nikimcbee]

You mean you're not gonna vote republican this year ? :DI can't. :cry: Both choices are democrats.

-S

They're called communists. I believe that is the proper term. Marxist is also acceptable.

[SUBMAN1]

The tornadoes this year are already what we normally get by August. What I'm pointing to on these record breakers is that they are on a upward trend where Robinson says we are having less.

1998 STATISTICS This was a new record
http://www1.ncdc.noaa.gov/pub/data/techrpts/tr9902/tr9902.pdf

May tornado count sets record
http://www.usatoday.com/weather/news/2003-05-11-tornadoes-may_x.htm

May 2003 Tornado Statistics
http://www.spc.noaa.gov/faq/tornado/may2003.htm

marked the most active week of tornadoes on record
http://www.usatoday.com/weather/news/2003-05-10-okc-tornado_x.htm

U.S. tornadoes far above average this year
http://www.usatoday.com/weather/storms/tornadoes/2008-06-03-oklahom
Your forgetting the technology advance. In the 1990's, you simply started to see them all. And they have been holding consistant with off years marked with on years. Seems to be random, but overall, its in decline. How do you explain the fewest tornadoes in 30 years last year? This year, it needs to 1550 to offset last year to even simply maintain the average - Good Luck! Not gonna happen.

Now maybe that this is cleared up, we can talk about human caused global warming since the number of tornadoes doesn't touch on that subject. It's simply something the pro global warming crowd likes to bring simply to scare people. Too bad if you analyze the data, its doing the opposite of what the GW crowd wants - probably why its been dropped by them lately.

-S

[GlobalExplorer]

I don't understand why people bother with these threads. Nobody is going to be converted over the Internet on topics like these that get so much political play.

PD

You guess you are right. But pseudo-science is just so much fun, and sometimes I can't resist, and don't forget that if it's political (like this stuff thats paid for), it's dangerous to completely ignore it.

[Stealth Hunter]

Your forgetting the technology advance. In the 1990's, you simply started to see them all. And they have been holding consistant with off years marked with on years. Seems to be random, but overall, its in decline. How do you explain the fewest tornadoes in 30 years last year? This year, it needs to 1550 to offset last year to even simply maintain the average - Good Luck! Not gonna happen.

Now maybe that this is cleared up, we can talk about human caused global warming since the number of tornadoes doesn't touch on that subject. It's simply something the pro global warming crowd likes to bring simply to scare people. Too bad if you analyze the data, its doing the opposite of what the GW crowd wants - probably why its been dropped by them lately.

-S

Well, I mean we all know that we should trust an adult in his 20's or 30's over the Internet that has no scientific background or qualifications whatsoever to tell us what is right or wrong and how something works or doesn't work.:roll:

As PD pointed out, you're not going to convert anyone to your side over the Internet. Also, I'll place my bets on the scientists, not an Internet forum user.:up:

And why do you trust Wikipedia, anyway? I mean, anybody with hands and a keyboard can edit an article, go to the discussion section and post the changes made to it, which ensures that 90% of the time it won't be removed (unless it is absolutely preposterous, like saying the sky is purple; make it sound official and 9/10, they'll leave it be). I used to, but I'm losing faith in it. They get some things right, but many times they've got errors in their work (however, the stuff on Kent Hovind seems pretty accurate).

[bradclark1]

Your forgetting the technology advance. In the 1990's, you simply started to see them all. And they have been holding consistant with off years marked with on years. Seems to be random, but overall, its in decline. How do you explain the fewest tornadoes in 30 years last year? This year, it needs to 1550 to offset last year to even simply maintain the average - Good Luck! Not gonna happen.
Now maybe that this is cleared up, we can talk about human caused global warming since the number of tornadoes doesn't touch on that subject. It's simply something the pro global warming crowd likes to bring simply to scare people. Too bad if you analyze the data, its doing the opposite of what the GW crowd wants - probably why its been dropped by them lately.

Doppler has been around for a long time. The number one tornado instrument is still people. Nobody in the scientific community can yet forecast or explain the whys so even I would have to pass on any "why" explanation. I don't remember any "global warming crowd" going on about more tornado's coming so thats probably why you haven't heard it lately as some evil plot to scare simple minded people. They did say more hurricanes which they were correct on. The funny part about that is this nutritional scientist lists only hurricanes that made landfall. Don't understand his differentiating but if you count all hurricanes they are on the incline and not level.

Below is the simplest explanation I can put together on mans impact on GW. It very simply states more Co2 equals more green house effect which equals more warming. It's not some plot to kill millions of third world natives as this guy insinuates. If you can't understand the below I just don't know what else to say. Your nutritional scientist should stick to counting calories in big-macs or whatever he does.

The reason the Earth’s surface is warm is the presence of greenhouse gases, which act as a partial blanket for the longwave radiation coming from the surface. This blanketing is known as
the natural greenhouse effect. The most important greenhouse gases are water vapour and carbon dioxide.
Human activities intensify the blanketing effect through the release of greenhouse gases. For instance, the amount of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere has increased by about 35% in the industrial era, and this increase is known to be due to human activities, primarily the combustion of fossil fuels and removal of forests. Thus, humankind has dramatically altered the chemical composition of the global atmosphere with substantial implications for climate.
The two most abundant gases in the atmosphere, nitrogen (comprising 78% of the dry atmosphere) and oxygen (comprising 21%), exert almost no greenhouse effect. Instead, the greenhouse effect comes from molecules that are more complex and much less common. Water vapour is the most important greenhouse gas, and carbon dioxide (CO2) is the second-most important one. Methane, nitrous oxide, ozone and several other gases present in the atmosphere in small amounts also contribute to the greenhouse effect. In the humid equatorial regions, where there is so much water vapour in the air that the greenhouse effect is very large, adding a small additional amount of CO2 or water vapour has only a small direct impact on downward infrared radiation. However, in the cold, dry polar regions, the effect of a small increase in CO2 or water vapour is much greater. The same is true for the cold, dry upper atmosphere where a small increase in water vapour has a greater influence on the greenhouse effect than the same change in water vapour would have near the surface.

Adding more of a greenhouse gas, such as CO2, to the atmosphere intensifies the greenhouse effect, thus warming Earth’s climate. The amount of warming depends on various feedback mechanisms. For example, as the atmosphere warms due to rising levels of greenhouse gases, its concentration of water vapour increases, further intensifying the greenhouse effect. This in turn causes more warming, which causes an additional increase in water vapour, in a self-reinforcing cycle. This water vapour feedback may be strong enough to approximately double the increase in the greenhouse effect due to the added CO2 alone.

http://ipcc-wg1.ucar.edu/wg1/Report/AR4WG1_Print_Ch01.pdf

[SUBMAN1]

Again - insignificant amount of CO2 we are talking about. The ratio is 27:1 water vapor:CO2 and this is even 'after' we increased CO2 levels by almost 30% in the 20th century. Mathematically, the amount of CO2 we are talking about is so insignificant that it is even impossible to measure scientifically as having an effect on the environment. This is why the video's graphs above show absolutely 'no change' from human activity, and it is also why no one can prove human caused climate change because it is 'immeasurable' farce!

But you know better than all the scientists I guess. Keep that head in the sand! :D

-S

[Tchocky]

I'm with the Discovery Institute on this one. Teach the controversy.

Replace materialism with science based in Christian, theistic beliefs. It's the only way.

[SUBMAN1]

I'm with the Discovery Institute on this one. Teach the controversy.

Replace materialism with science based in Christian, theistic beliefs. It's the only way.

See my above post since you obvioulsy missed it:

You guys are pathetic! You can't refute this article, nor video, so in your pissyness, you try to turn it into a joke in an attempt to discredit it when you have no other way to discredit the message. No wonder Robinson stated that he gets tons of mail on this subject, and the negative mail among it falls along these exact same lines! It's friggen true!

By the way, isn't it against forum rules to hijack threads?

-S

-S

[XabbaRus]

Kent Hovind? :cool:Never heard of him before, and from what it sounds like, I don't really care to know who he is.

Wiki says it all on him. As i said - real science please. Not sure why you guys are hijacking the thread with non science related things such as this guy. Maybe its a diversion from the truth? If so, thats whacked.

-S

I thought wikipedia was unreliable and shouldn't be used as a reference?

[Tchocky]

The Discovery Institute is a joke. I'm responding in kind.

It's not gravity, it's intelligent falling.

They're weighing in on this issue because climatology necessitates a very old planet.

[SUBMAN1]

I thought wikipedia was unreliable and shouldn't be used as a reference?Not for data. For a jist of what is up, then its fine.

-S

[SUBMAN1]

The Discovery Institute is a joke. I'm responding in kind.

It's not gravity, it's intelligent falling.

They're weighing in on this issue because climatology necessitates a very old planet.Thats where the video is stored. So what.

-S

[bradclark1]

But you know better than all the scientists I guess. Keep that head in the sand! :D

-S
Thats the joke of the moment. Here we have someone that believes everything a nutritionist says but disregards what climatologists and every scientific organization in the world says and I have my head in the sand. If I have my head in the sand where would yours be? Where are all these scientists you talk about? What organizations are they in? I'll be going down to McDonald's in a minute to see if the guy who squirts the ketchup can diagnose my Maserati.

The ratio is 27:1 water vapor:CO2 and this is even 'after' we increased CO2 levels by almost 30% in the 20th century.
It's what the Co2 does. Come on, don't you read?.

[Tchocky]

Awright, forgetting the Discovery Institute, lets look at the OISM.

The OISM (http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=Oregon_Institute_of_Science_and_Me dicine) is located on a farm about 7 miles from the town of Cave Junction, Oregon (population 1,126)

[SUBMAN1]

But you know better than all the scientists I guess. Keep that head in the sand! :D

-S Thats the joke of the moment. Here we have someone that believes everything a nutritionist says but disregards what climatologists and every scientific organization in the world says and I have my head in the sand. If I have my head in the sand where would yours be? Where are all these scientists you talk about? What organizations are they in? I'll be going down to McDonald's in a minute to see if the guy who squirts the ketchup can diagnose my Maserati.

The ratio is 27:1 water vapor:CO2 and this is even 'after' we increased CO2 levels by almost 30% in the 20th century. It's what the Co2 does. Come on, don't you read?.You better find more up to date info on Dr. Robinson.

Also, regardless if he is Santa Claus from the North pole, until someone can dispute his paper, he is right.

CO2 is not prevalent enough in the atmosphere to have the effect it is being given by the IPCC - Science by committee, not testing. Love your source! It is so scientific! Lets all agree something is human caused instead of doing testing on our hypothesis (Not a theory mind you) to show its real - real smart people. NOT!

Only an idiot would buy that.

-S

PS. Are we still on discrediting the author and not the subject matter? You guys are still pathetic.

[GlobalExplorer]

Christian science does not proselytize me.

[bradclark1]

Only an idiot would buy that.

-S

So says a supporter of a nutritionist. Someone who thinks we are out to kill the third world. Reality check!

The result would be vast human suffering and the loss of hundreds of millions of human lives.
I put it as simple as I can. Every scientific organization agrees with the facts. Not one organization disagrees. Spike in Co2 and temperature change is just a coincidence? No number of scientists as in not one scientist anywhere on the planet came out to support his "theory". Not one! Hello!! Robinson hasn't been catapulted into the limelight with his IPCC shattering theory. Oil isn't promoting his theory. No one is supporting his theory. That should be telling you something. Who's the idiot?

[SUBMAN1]

Only an idiot would buy that.

-S
So says a supporter of a nutritionist. Someone who thinks we are out to kill the third world. Reality check!

The result would be vast human suffering and the loss of hundreds of millions of human lives.
I put it as simple as I can. Every scientific organization agrees with the facts. Not one organization disagrees. Spike in Co2 and temperature change is just a coincidence? No number of scientists as in not one scientist anywhere on the planet came out to support his "theory". Not one! Hello!! Robinson hasn't been catapulted into the limelight with his IPCC shattering theory. Oil isn't promoting his theory. No one is supporting his theory. That should be telling you something. Who's the idiot?Um... NOOOO! Try 600 IPCC paid scientists that rely on money from the IPCC say so. 31,000+ other scientist disagree.

So yes, who is the idiot?

-S

[bradclark1]

Um... NOOOO! Try 600 IPCC paid scientists that rely on money from the IPCC say so. 31,000+ other scientist disagree.

So yes, who is the idiot?

-S
We all know the 31,000 um scientists is a joke. Might be 31,000 names on the list but certainly not 31,000 "scientists" which was supposed to be the criteria for signing. Nobody yet has been able to get the scientists sorted from the Mickey Mouse's. The petition also was not to support Robinson's data. Where are the 600 IPCC scientists who agree with Robinson's data?
The second sentence in the petition below always makes me fall on the floor. Well hell, all of it actually. In fact I'd sign it to the way it's worded. It's like no I do not believe I'm going to open the door one day and turn to ash. I don't think anyone has gotten that hysteric.

“ We urge the United States government to reject the global warming agreement that was written in Kyoto, Japan in December, 1997, and any other similar proposals. The proposed limits on greenhouse gases would harm the environment, hinder the advance of science and technology, and damage the health and welfare of mankind.
There is no convincing scientific evidence that human release of carbon dioxide, methane, or other greenhouse gasses is causing or will, in the foreseeable future, cause catastrophic heating of the Earth's atmosphere and disruption of the Earth's climate. Moreover, there is substantial scientific evidence that increases in atmospheric carbon dioxide produce many beneficial effects upon the natural plant and animal environments of the Earth.
”
The text of the petition is often misrepresented: for example, until recently the petition's website stated that the petition's signatories "declare that global warming is a lie with no scientific basis whatsoever." The two-paragraph petition used the terms catastrophic heating and disruption, not "global warming." The original article associated with the petition (see below) defined "global warming" as "severe increases in Earth's atmospheric and surface temperatures, with disastrous environmental consequences". This differs from both scientific usage and dictionary definitions, in which "global warming" is an increase in the global mean atmospheric temperature without implying that the increase is "severe" or will have "disastrous environmental consequences."

[SUBMAN1]

We all know the 31,000 um scientists is a joke. Might be 31,000 names on the list but certainly not 31,000 "scientists" which was supposed to be the criteria for signing. Nobody yet has been able to get the scientists sorted from the Mickey Mouse's. The petition also was not to support Robinson's data. Where are the 600 IPCC scientists who agree with Robinson's data?
The second sentence in the petition below always makes me fall on the floor. Well hell, all of it actually. In fact I'd sign it to the way it's worded. It's like no I do not believe I'm going to open the door one day and turn to ash. I don't think anyone has gotten that hysteric.

“ We urge the United States government to reject the global warming agreement that was written in Kyoto, Japan in December, 1997, and any other similar proposals. The proposed limits on greenhouse gases would harm the environment, hinder the advance of science and technology, and damage the health and welfare of mankind.
There is no convincing scientific evidence that human release of carbon dioxide, methane, or other greenhouse gasses is causing or will, in the foreseeable future, cause catastrophic heating of the Earth's atmosphere and disruption of the Earth's climate. Moreover, there is substantial scientific evidence that increases in atmospheric carbon dioxide produce many beneficial effects upon the natural plant and animal environments of the Earth.
”
The text of the petition is often misrepresented: for example, until recently the petition's website stated that the petition's signatories "declare that global warming is a lie with no scientific basis whatsoever." The two-paragraph petition used the terms catastrophic heating and disruption, not "global warming." The original article associated with the petition (see below) defined "global warming" as "severe increases in Earth's atmospheric and surface temperatures, with disastrous environmental consequences". This differs from both scientific usage and dictionary definitions, in which "global warming" is an increase in the global mean atmospheric temperature without implying that the increase is "severe" or will have "disastrous environmental consequences."
First off, the 600 IPCC scientists aren't paid wo agree with Robinson. They are paid for the job they have, and if you notice in this world, if you speak up against the grain, no matter how much the truth, you lose your funding since you would put the IPCC out of a job.

How touching.

They should all be out of a job.

#2 - over 9,000 of those signatures are Phd's. How many Phd's on the IPCC board? A few? Nice.

And yes, everyone has gotten hysteric - they want to cap growth! Thats hysteria that is out the window! This world can't exist with that kind of cap! Half of us die! Get a clue already and quit being a baby murderer since that is what you are advocating.

At least here in the US we are starting to take a clue - Liebermans bill for Carbon caps caught squashed faster last week than an ant on a summer boardwalk! We will have non of you lies here thank you very much!

-S

[SUBMAN1]

Some information on Mr. Robinson for you, and he is not the sole person to put together the presentation you saw either. So wake up already!

-S

Interview of Dr. Arthur Robinson by William F. Jasper
Dr. Arthur Robinson is a professor of chemistry and is cofounder of the Oregon Institute of Science and Medicine, which was created in 1980 to conduct basic and applied research in subjects applicable to increasing the quality, quantity, and length of human life. As part of his work, he edits the newsletter Access to Energy.

http://www.jbs.org/files/u_uploads/TNAArtRobinson.jpg



Dr. Robinson, in collaboration with other scientists, was one of the early critics of doomsday global-warming theories. He has authored articles and created video presentations demonstrating that the hypothesis of human-caused global warming is wrong, showing that the hypothesis is not supported by the observable evidence. To come to this conclusion, Professor Robinson and his colleagues brought together the findings of hundreds of peer-reviewed studies about all aspects of the global-warming hypothesis.

THE NEW AMERICAN: Flip on any channel, open any newspaper or magazine, and it’s clear we are being bombarded with the message that the Earth is warming. Is there any merit to this claim?

Dr. Arthur Robinson: Yes, but the temperature is only going up 0.5° C per century. Moreover, this increase is not being caused by human activity.


TNA: Those who blame mankind for causing global warming would respond to that point by saying that the Earth is the warmest it’s been in 400 years, and that’s significant.


Dr. Robinson: They’re right, but they only show you the data from the last 400 years. If the data for a longer time interval is considered, temperatures today are seen to be not especially warm. The current temperature is about average for the past 3,000 years. It was much warmer during the Medieval Climate Optimum 1,000 years ago (see Figure 1). The climate, as we know from historical records, was just fine during that warm period. In fact, it was a little better. So, yes, it is the warmest in 400 years

http://www.jbs.org/files/2404-F1.jpg

Moreover, the temperature, which is going up very slowly, is correlated with the sun’s activity, not hydrocarbon use (see Figure 3).


TNA: Those same people would say that science has spoken, that CO2 is the cause. What do you say?

Dr. Robinson: Gore, et al., tell us that CO2 is a pollutant, and that humans have caused this terrible problem. But actually the atmosphere contains lots of carbon dioxide. Carbon dioxide, water, and oxygen are required for life. Without these substances in the atmosphere, life would not be possible. All of the carbon in our bodies originates as atmospheric carbon dioxide. Plus, we’re only adding moderately and temporarily to CO2 levels. Carbon dioxide moves through the atmosphere on its way to the oceans and biosphere. Human use has caused a transient increase during the past century — from about 0.03 percent to 0.04 percent of atmospheric molecules. Man is producing about 8 gigatons per year, and yet there are 40,000 gigatons in the biosphere and oceans.


TNA: Which come from?

Dr. Robinson: Which are just there — created as part of nature. Between 1880 and 1890, the level of CO2 in the atmosphere was about 295 ppm [parts per million]. For comparison, this office right now is rising toward 1,000 ppm because we’re all exhaling carbon dioxide.
The human-caused increase in the atmosphere is not permanent, but temporary. This increase is only being maintained by our production and, as soon as we stop producing at some later time when our technology advances, it will go back to its naturally controlled level.
When we use hydrocarbons, the resulting carbon dioxide goes through the atmosphere on its way to the oceans and biosphere, so there is a rise in the atmosphere. Carbon dioxide has a very short half-time of about seven years in the atmosphere. However, while it is in higher concentration, it is wonderful for us because it makes our plants grow faster, which markedly increases the amounts and diversity of plant and animal life.


TNA: Al Gore also says that the UN’s IPCC has spoken, and the debate is over, because there is a consensus. What do you say to that?

Dr. Robinson: Right now the UN claims that they have about 2,500 people involved in this and about 600 scientists seriously involved. This is what Al Gore would point to today.


We have more than 22,000 scientist signers of our global-warming petition who’ve looked at the issue and concluded essentially the opposite of these United Nations people. This says nothing about the science. Science does not depend on polling. Just because we have 22,000, and the UN may have 600, does not matter. The only thing our petition demonstrates is that there is no consensus among scientists in support of the UN claims.
Scientific questions are never settled in this way. Science is about natural truth. The truth doesn’t require any advocate. It stands by itself.
In science, a scientist may discover the truth about something. Then he develops a hypothesis, and the hypothesis is tested by various means. So long as the hypothesis passes experimental tests, it becomes stronger and is further relied upon — unless it fails an experimental test. If it is a very fine hypothesis with wide utility, it may spread throughout the entire scientific community and become part of the basis of scientific knowledge. The process by which this is done is not what is important. The truth is important. Scientific truth is not determined by polling or by convening meetings.


TNA: But when looking at the pronouncements of the United Nations — IPCC and the media, the average viewer would be led to believe that they’ve figured global warming out.

Dr. Robinson: Climate science is a very primitive science. The atmosphere is a complicated system, somewhat similar to human biochemistry. We know some things, but we don’t know most of the needed facts. As you know, climatologists have trouble predicting the weather a week or two in advance. They surely cannot predict climate many years in the future.
There are some very fine scientists, like Richard Lindzen at MIT, who work on the details of climate theory and attempt to understand the atmosphere in detail. They are inching forward toward the eventual solution of this very complex system. Today, this system can only be evaluated empirically because it is not yet understood.


We can show that the hypothesis of human-caused global warming is false, however, because we have enough empirical data to falsify this hypothesis. Human-caused global warming is a hypothesis that has failed so many experimental tests that it is clearly without merit.


TNA: To the average person, those IPCC reports look very authoritative, very intimidating. It looks to us like a battle between two sides of experts. How do we know whom to believe?

Dr. Robinson: First, just because the UN has spent an enormous amount of money to convene meetings of 600 mostly self-interested people — many of whom are receiving research grants and other perks for participating — to try to determine something that isn’t knowable with current data and techniques, and produce a report, proves nothing.


Moreover, many of these 600 disagree with the conclusions that the UN-IPCC advertises. The scientists are never allowed to approve or disapprove the final report, and many of the comments that they submit for publication in the report are rejected by UN bureaucrats.


First, the report that is initially released to the public by the UN-IPCC is an executive summary put together by a handful of people including bureaucrats, politicians, UN operatives, and a few scientists. They issue a summary report with UN propaganda in it. They then go back to the reports of the 600 scientists and insert sentences into those reports so that they will conform to the summary.


At no time in this process do the 600 ever vote approval or disapproval of their own report or of the summary report. So this report is not even approved by the people who are claimed to have authored it. This is a fraudulent process.


TNA: Don’t they use the same set of data as you do?

Dr. Robinson: Yes, for the most part. Except that they often unethically omit that part of the data that does not agree with their hypothesis. They pick the parts of the data that favor their conclusion and discard the rest.
If you play with the data, you can falsify with it. So the UN is picking parts of the data. We are considering it all.


TNA: Scientists who are not intimidated to speak out about this are typically charged by the enviros as being paid by the oil companies.

Dr. Robinson: Well, we’ve never been fortunate enough to receive any money from them, and I mean in any way, personally, professionally in our laboratory, or anything. We have never received a dime from anybody who has a specific economic interest in this issue. However, UN power to control and ration world energy — the real goal of their activities — would have a terrible, negative impact on the lives of all Americans. In that sense, all of our supporters have an economic interest.


TNA: Al Gore also makes a big deal about glacier recession.

Dr. Robinson: But he only shows the data for the limited time intervals that seem to support his claims. Here is the world glacier curve (see Figure 2) based on an average of all the world’s glaciers for which there are good records. Some glaciers are actually increasing, but on average the glaciers are decreasing — toward the more normal lengths that are typical of long-term average world temperatures. This curve is offset by 20 years because there is about a 20-year lag between the temperature increase and the shortening of the glaciers.

http://www.jbs.org/files/2404-F2.jpg



So the temperature increase reflected in the glacier lengths begins in about 1800. The glaciers have been shortening for 200 years. They started shortening a century before significant amounts of CO2 were produced by human activity. Notice also that the shortening is linear. Hydrocarbon use increased six-fold and the glacier melting rate did not change at all.
The glaciers started shortening long before we were using significant amounts of hydrocarbons, and, when we increased our use by six-fold, the shortening rate did not change. Therefore, human hydrocarbon use is evidently not the cause of glacier shortening or the mild natural temperature increase that is causing that shortening.


TNA: So what is causing the Earth to warm?


Dr. Robinson: A good clue is contained in data showing arctic air temperature vs. solar activity (see Figure 3). There is a good correlation. Surface temperature vs. solar activity data also correlates well (see Figure 4).




http://www.jbs.org/files/2404-F3.jpg



TNA: What about Gore’s demonstration in his movie, with those very large graphs, that CO2 tracks right along with temperature and is, therefore, the cause of that warming?
Dr. Robinson: In those curves, the temperature goes up before the CO2 and goes down before the CO2. The CO2 lags the temperature. And the reason it does is that the CO2 rise is caused by the temperature rise rather than vice versa. As temperatures rise, carbon dioxide is released from the oceans, just as the carbon dioxide is released from soft drinks when their temperature rises. Gore shows the curves with poor resolution, so that this cannot be seen by the viewer. His film is filled with dozens of other deliberate errors and misrepresentations.


My favorite is the part where Gore says that “the scientists who specialize in global warming have computer models that long ago predicted this range of temperature increase.” He then displays a graph of their alleged “predictions” and the claimed actual temperatures.


This graph is bogus in several ways, but the most striking is that the computer-predicted curve begins in 1938 — before either Al Gore or the computer had been invented. Unless Al Gore invented the computer before he was born, and didn’t show it to anybody but climate modelers until after WWII, this is impossible, because there were no computers in 1938!


TNA: Speaking of computers, allowing the UN to take over the world’s energy would have a big effect on our higher standard of living, would it not?


Dr. Robinson: An estimated nine percent of the energy of the United States is now used to power computers and the Internet. This technology cannot exist without energy. Automobiles require energy. You cannot warm your home without energy.




http://www.jbs.org/files/2404-F4.jpg



If the UN controls, rations, and taxes energy, they will have the power to determine whether you can run a wood stove, whether you can run an automobile, or can use any of the technology that makes our modern life possible.


When you say this to people, their eyes glaze over. They don’t believe it’s going to happen.


The power to tax and ration energy is the power to control the world — to have life and death control over every human being on the planet. No government should ever have this power. The United Nations-IPCC process is not about the climate or saving the environment. It is about power and money — lots of it.


Should Gore and the UN succeed, the effect will not only be diminished prosperity in the United States. In underdeveloped countries, billions of people are lifting themselves from poverty by means of hydrocarbon energy. If their energy supplies are rationed and taxed, they will slip backwards into poverty, misery, and death. This fits the population control agenda of the United Nations.


If the misuse and falsification of the scientific method that drives the human-caused global-warming mania succeeds, it will cause the greatest acts of human genocide the world has ever known. It must be stopped.
http://www.jbs.org/node/7009#SlideFrame_1

[SUBMAN1]

I hope Bradclark that you took note of this one especially important part:

We can show that the hypothesis of human-caused global warming is false, however, because we have enough empirical data to falsify this hypothesis. Human-caused global warming is a hypothesis that has failed so many experimental tests that it is clearly without merit.

-S

[THE_MASK]

If the climate change aka global warming theory changes peoples minds to think about the planet and the effects people have on it then i am all for it . Its the same for the price of petrol/gasoline going up in price . If it takes cars off the raod then good . Theres too many anyway .

[SUBMAN1]

If the climate change aka global warming theory changes peoples minds to think about the planet and the effects people have on it then i am all for it . Its the same for the price of petrol/gasoline going up in price . If it takes cars off the raod then good . Theres too many anyway .No cars / trucks = no product in your stores and you starve + if you don't starve, your quality of life just hit the toilet - such as your computer that you are using will no longer be functional. Cars bring people to work which brings products and services into your life. Like it or go live on another planet.

-S

[Schroeder]

Since I don't like to repeat myself I just quote what I wrote about this in the earlier thread.:


It's not about reducing technology, just the opposite. We shall use better technology that needs less energy. That's the plan. Kyoto doesn't want us to go back to the stone age. We shall reduce our output of CO2 (and other stuff) by ADVANCING in technology.


And:


Besides, it actually doesn't matter whether there is a man made climate change or not.
We have increasing costs and a limited supply of fossil energy. Therefore it is only logical to lower the consumption of it and finally replace it with other forms of energy.
Whether you do it to save the planet or just to save your purse and stay competitive for the time after oil, what difference does it make?


Continuing like we do is definitely stupid since we will run out of fossil energy sooner or later. So why not starting to change things NOW while we still can? When we start with it when the price for a barrel of oil hits the 300$ mark it's surely a bit late, isn't it?

[bradclark1]

You are 100% right Schroeder but the difference would be in the speed the technology is emphasized. For some reason the other side always seems to think cracking down means going back to oil lamps and horses and buggy right now.

[bradclark1]

Some information on Mr. Robinson for you, and he is not the sole person to put together the presentation you saw either. So wake up already!
Sorry. His boy and one other guy.
From his site:
"The global warming hypothesis has failed every relevant experimental test. It lives on only in the dreams of anti-technologists and population reduction advocates."
What experimental tests failed? In fact what experiments have his "theory" passed? who are the anti-technologists and population reduction advocates? I haven't heard of either. I've heard a lot about advancing technology and I have not heard anything about downing the population. The problem with this guy is he can only think in extremes as evidenced by that comment and his paragraphs on the petition. Trust me, the GW crowd is not out to kill off the third world and make everyone drive donkey's.
First off, the 600 IPCC scientists aren't paid wo agree with Robinson. They are paid for the job they have, and if you notice in this world, if you speak up against the grain, no matter how much the truth, you lose your funding since you would put the IPCC out of a job.

Then how do you know there are 600 scientists?
And yes, everyone has gotten hysteric - they want to cap growth! Thats hysteria that is out the window! Get a clue already and quit being a baby murderer since that is what you are advocating.

Who are "they" and what growth? Half will die of what? Who's hysterical? I think you need a Valium.
Lieberman's bill for Carbon caps caught squashed faster last week than an ant on a summer boardwalk!
Warner's and Lieberman's bill was a little over the top I agree. It should be done sensibly. They tried using the same program that was worked with acid rain.
The bills goal in case you didn't know what it was for:
"The bill would impose new regulations on industry to lower overall emissions to the 2005 level by the year 2020. By the middle of this century, the bill would require greenhouse gases to be cut by 66 percent.[/quote]
I believe thats a little too enthusiastic. It should be at a slower pace to stand a realistic chance to work.

[bradclark1]

Here's a semi list of notables rejecting GW by humans.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientists_opposing_the_mainstream_scientific_asse ssment_of_global_warming#cite_note-9

Further down in the "See also" is some other information.

Shocking me showing this huh? I read both sides.

[Fish]

Your forgetting the technology advance. In the 1990's, you simply started to see them all. And they have been holding consistant with off years marked with on years. Seems to be random, but overall, its in decline. How do you explain the fewest tornadoes in 30 years last year? This year, it needs to 1550 to offset last year to even simply maintain the average - Good Luck! Not gonna happen.

Now maybe that this is cleared up, we can talk about human caused global warming since the number of tornadoes doesn't touch on that subject. It's simply something the pro global warming crowd likes to bring simply to scare people. Too bad if you analyze the data, its doing the opposite of what the GW crowd wants - probably why its been dropped by them lately.

-S

Well, I mean we all know that we should trust an adult in his 20's or 30's over the Internet that has no scientific background or qualifications whatsoever to tell us what is right or wrong and how something works or doesn't work.:roll:

As PD pointed out, you're not going to convert anyone to your side over the Internet. Also, I'll place my bets on the scientists, not an Internet forum user.:up:

And why do you trust Wikipedia, anyway? I mean, anybody with hands and a keyboard can edit an article, go to the discussion section and post the changes made to it, which ensures that 90% of the time it won't be removed (unless it is absolutely preposterous, like saying the sky is purple; make it sound official and 9/10, they'll leave it be). I used to, but I'm losing faith in it. They get some things right, but many times they've got errors in their work (however, the stuff on Kent Hovind seems pretty accurate).

:-? You're aware of:

http://skepticwiki.org/index.php/Science_and_Pseudoscience%28index%29#Biology

[SUBMAN1]

Since I don't like to repeat myself I just quote what I wrote about this in the earlier thread.:


It's not about reducing technology, just the opposite. We shall use better technology that needs less energy. That's the plan. Kyoto doesn't want us to go back to the stone age. We shall reduce our output of CO2 (and other stuff) by ADVANCING in technology.


And:


Besides, it actually doesn't matter whether there is a man made climate change or not.
We have increasing costs and a limited supply of fossil energy. Therefore it is only logical to lower the consumption of it and finally replace it with other forms of energy.
Whether you do it to save the planet or just to save your purse and stay competitive for the time after oil, what difference does it make?


Continuing like we do is definitely stupid since we will run out of fossil energy sooner or later. So why not starting to change things NOW while we still can? When we start with it when the price for a barrel of oil hits the 300$ mark it's surely a bit late, isn't it?
I agree with you 100%, but the problem is they are trying to cap our energy 'today'!!! Not after the technology has been built. I'm all for clean energy (I don't like to breath crap into my lungs more than anyone else) but we need to build things first before you can use it.

-S

[SUBMAN1]

Bradclark and Fish - what part of only showing you 400 years of data by the IPCC don't you understand? Yeah, warmest period in 400 years, but that is because we are climbing out of a mini Ice Age!! Hello??? Anybody home? Are the lights on in there?

Now how about this crap (or did you fail to miss it?):

TNA: To the average person, those IPCC reports look very authoritative, very intimidating. It looks to us like a battle between two sides of experts. How do we know whom to believe?

Dr. Robinson: First, just because the UN has spent an enormous amount of money to convene meetings of 600 mostly self-interested people — many of whom are receiving research grants and other perks for participating — to try to determine something that isn’t knowable with current data and techniques, and produce a report, proves nothing.


Moreover, many of these 600 disagree with the conclusions that the UN-IPCC advertises. The scientists are never allowed to approve or disapprove the final report, and many of the comments that they submit for publication in the report are rejected by UN bureaucrats.


First, the report that is initially released to the public by the UN-IPCC is an executive summary put together by a handful of people including bureaucrats, politicians, UN operatives, and a few scientists. They issue a summary report with UN propaganda in it. They then go back to the reports of the 600 scientists and insert sentences into those reports so that they will conform to the summary.


At no time in this process do the 600 ever vote approval or disapproval of their own report or of the summary report. So this report is not even approved by the people who are claimed to have authored it. This is a fraudulent process.


TNA: Don’t they use the same set of data as you do?

Dr. Robinson: Yes, for the most part. Except that they often unethically omit that part of the data that does not agree with their hypothesis. They pick the parts of the data that favor their conclusion and discard the rest.
If you play with the data, you can falsify with it. So the UN is picking parts of the data. We are considering it all.

This is the data you guys are advocating. Bad propaganda, not real data. This ticks me off more than anything. I do find it funny that you guys are believing it in a way though. Short sighted with blinders on. Must be young - both of you I'm guessing.

Be a little more subjective and post information - not skeptics websites. The web is full of skeptics, though most don't have any credentials. Same of posts I see through this entire thread - nothing of substance from either one of you - simply garbage links! :D Typical when you don't have an argument. Face it, you lost already. :yep::yep:

-S

[Hylander_1314]

Subman,

What you need to remember is that these same people who are waving the alarmist banner on global warming, are the same people who back in the '70s waved the banner of global cooling, and another iceage was looming in the future.

I understand your frustration with the topic, as it's used to manipulate economies, and prices. Plus the "enviornmental tax" that would be levied would be done by the UN. If the rest of the world wants to participate in a global lunacy, they can, but I would prefer to have the U.S. of A. stay out of it.

All one has to do, is study the information that has been accumulated by geologists, that have studied the core samples from the earth, and one can put together a graph that shows like the same info as you posted how the world goes through times of warming, and cooling all on it's own.

Man has only affected the earth in that it is becoming overpopulated, and not much is being done to explore the last frontier for habital planets, that we can abuse like we do our own.

[bradclark1]

Dr. Robinson: Yes, for the most part. Except that they often unethically omit that part of the data that does not agree with their hypothesis. They pick the parts of the data that favor their conclusion and discard the rest.
If you play with the data, you can falsify with it. So the UN is picking parts of the data. We are considering it all.
First thought on that that you seemed to overlook but I didn't and stopped reading.
Your boy claimed hurricanes are level. Why would he claim land fall hurricanes are level when a hurricane is a hurricane and hurricanes have risen regardless of where they are at. If he's manipulating simple hurricane data what else is he manipulating. Still not one scientist has backed his data . Hello! Switch pulled yet? Out of all the skeptics out there and there are some notables, not one even makes any references his data. On your holy list of phd's not one is identified. Now, can this be that he has zero respect of any community or scientist. If his information were credible wouldn't at least a few notable skeptics have been part of that presentation or at least applauded or aclaimed such a fine piece of scientific accomplishment? No because he's a nut job who thinks IPCC is out to kill hundreds of millions of third worlders and knock the technology tree back a couple of hundred years. Hello!! Nut job!
Why would I waste time on a nut job. His own peers don't even support him. That should be something that at the least should make you wonder why. He's only a hero in your mind. That article you are so proud of on Robinson, The New American is a magazine of the John Birch Society which is about as far zany right as you can get. So a nut job magazine interviews a nut job scientist.

[SUBMAN1]

Dr. Robinson: Yes, for the most part. Except that they often unethically omit that part of the data that does not agree with their hypothesis. They pick the parts of the data that favor their conclusion and discard the rest.
If you play with the data, you can falsify with it. So the UN is picking parts of the data. We are considering it all. First thought on that that you seemed to overlook but I didn't and stopped reading.
Your boy claimed hurricanes are level. Why would he claim land fall hurricanes are level when a hurricane is a hurricane and hurricanes have risen regardless of where they are at. If he's manipulating simple hurricane data what else is he manipulating. Still not one scientist has backed his data . Hello! Switch pulled yet? Out of all the skeptics out there and there are some notables, not one even makes any references his data. On your holy list of phd's not one is identified. Now, can this be that he has zero respect of any community or scientist. If his information were credible wouldn't at least a few notable skeptics have been part of that presentation or at least applauded or aclaimed such a fine piece of scientific accomplishment? No because he's a nut job who thinks IPCC is out to kill hundreds of millions of third worlders and knock the technology tree back a couple of hundred years. Hello!! Nut job!
Why would I waste time on a nut job. His own peers don't even support him. That should be something that at the least should make you wonder why. He's only a hero in your mind. That article you are so proud of on Robinson, The New American is a magazine of the John Birch Society which is about as far zany right as you can get. So a nut job magazine interviews a nut job scientist.You are a bit hard headed aren't you? You claim no one supports him - only 31K scientists do.

He doesn't claim the IPCC is out to kill hundreds of millions. That will simply be the side effect. If you bothered to read anything instead of posting crap from your *ss, then you would know that it's not about killing people but gaining control, specifically America. Its a way to stop AMerican domination and put the world into the hands of the elitists. Scary? it is.

-S

PS. Quite frankly, Mr. Robinson is quite sane. you however seem to be the nutjob because you can't analyze the data as presented and operate off pure belief. Sounds like some kind of cult.

[SUBMAN1]

Subman,

What you need to remember is that these same people who are waving the alarmist banner on global warming, are the same people who back in the '70s waved the banner of global cooling, and another iceage was looming in the future.

I understand your frustration with the topic, as it's used to manipulate economies, and prices. Plus the "enviornmental tax" that would be levied would be done by the UN. If the rest of the world wants to participate in a global lunacy, they can, but I would prefer to have the U.S. of A. stay out of it.

All one has to do, is study the information that has been accumulated by geologists, that have studied the core samples from the earth, and one can put together a graph that shows like the same info as you posted how the world goes through times of warming, and cooling all on it's own.

Man has only affected the earth in that it is becoming overpopulated, and not much is being done to explore the last frontier for habital planets, that we can abuse like we do our own.Pretty much sums it up right there.

-S

[Schroeder]

I agree with you 100%, but the problem is they are trying to cap our energy 'today'!!! Not after the technology has been built. I'm all for clean energy (I don't like to breath crap into my lungs more than anyone else) but we need to build things first before you can use it.

-S

I still don't get it. I've no idea what they are telling you in the US, but here in Europe no one wants to cap power.:doh:

Here our industry simply shall produce (and of course use) equipment that needs less energy. The technology is available (sometimes for decades) but was to costly because it was only build in small numbers and sometimes not advertised like conventional products were (for example the VW Lupo 3l which needed only 3 litres of Diesel/60miles).
Another step is to replace fossil energy with regenerative (is that the English term for it?) energy (Solar cells, wind, tides etc...).
So actually we Europeans are talking about reducing the energy consumption without giving up anything from our way of life:rock:. I've never heard anyone say that the we shall cap power.:hmm:

[bradclark1]

Its a way to stop AMerican domination and put the world into the hands of the elitists. Scary? it is.

-S


Conspiracy theory? I think you listen to Jerry Falwell too much.

[Konovalov]

Its a way to stop AMerican domination and put the world into the hands of the elitists. Scary? it is.
How ironic. This sounds very much like the kind of flawed argument that some would use such as in China and India except that it is Amercia and the West trying to keep them down and stop them from dominating. I don't buy it. Pure poppycock.

[bradclark1]

You are a bit hard headed aren't you? You claim no one supports him - only 31K scientists do.

-S

"for example, until recently the petition's website stated that the petition's signatories "declare that global warming is a lie with no scientific basis whatsoever." The two-paragraph petition used the terms catastrophic heating and disruption, not "global warming.""

[SUBMAN1]

Its a way to stop AMerican domination and put the world into the hands of the elitists. Scary? it is. How ironic. This sounds very much like the kind of flawed argument that some would use such as in China and India except that it is Amercia and the West trying to keep them down and stop them from dominating. I don't buy it. Pure poppycock.You got it wrong. Its for UN control. You cap energy use, and you cap growth. That is the problem here. Then you must go to the UN to ask for an increase in hydrocarbon use, and the world body will then decide if it's OK.

Does that put it into perspective?

-S

[SUBMAN1]

"for example, until recently the petition's website stated that the petition's signatories "declare that global warming is a lie with no scientific basis whatsoever." The two-paragraph petition used the terms catastrophic heating and disruption, not "global warming.""WRONG! The term and all papers associated with it have one thing as its main message - Human Caused Global Warming. This is regardless what the petition says.

More FUD out of you, but what can one expect when an individual is so brainwashed?

I don't understand why you spend so much time attacking the individual and the petition site when what you should be attacking is the data presented.

Lost argument is why.

-S

[bradclark1]

"for example, until recently the petition's website stated that the petition's signatories "declare that global warming is a lie with no scientific basis whatsoever." The two-paragraph petition used the terms catastrophic heating and disruption, not "global warming.""WRONG! The term and all papers associated with it have one thing as its main message - Human Caused Global Warming. This is regardless what the petition says.

More FUD out of you, but what can one expect when an individual is so brainwashed?

I don't understand why you spend so much time attacking the individual and the petition site when what you should be attacking is the data presented.

Lost argument is why.

-S
WRONG what they signed was they didn't believe "catastrophic heating of the Earth's atmosphere".
I'll tell you what. You give a good enough reason of why he manipulated the hurricane data and why he claims 31,000 people of science signed the petition when both claims are bs and why you think it's okay and I'll give thought to reading more. Do you think thats why he has no peers at his side. Don't say 31,000 agree because all those names are signing on the petition which no one of note signed and their was no way to verify any of the signers as scientists. All groups that did sample names found major problems.
In 2005, Scientific American reported:
“ Scientific American took a sample of 30 of the 1,400 signatories claiming to hold a Ph.D. in a climate-related science. Of the 26 we were able to identify in various databases, 11 said they still agreed with the petition one was an active climate researcher, two others had relevant expertise, and eight signed based on an informal evaluation. Six said they would not sign the petition today, three did not remember any such petition, one had died, and five did not answer repeated messages. Crudely extrapolating, the petition supporters include a core of about 200 climate researchers a respectable number, though rather a small fraction of the climatological community.


We urge the United States government to reject the global warming agreement that was written in Kyoto, Japan in December, 1997, and any other similar proposals. The proposed limits on greenhouse gases would harm the environment, hinder the advance of science and technology, and damage the health and welfare of mankind.
There is no convincing scientific evidence that human release of carbon dioxide, methane, or other greenhouse gasses is causing or will, in the foreseeable future, cause catastrophic heating of the Earth's atmosphere and disruption of the Earth's climate. Moreover, there is substantial scientific evidence that increases in atmospheric carbon dioxide produce many beneficial effects upon the natural plant and animal environments of the Earth.

Haven't heard anything from this one have we. I wonder why? I'll give you one guess.

In October 2007 a number of individuals reported receiving a petition closely similar to the Oregon Petition. As with the earlier version, it contained a six-paragraph covering note from Frederick Seitz along with a reply card and a supporting article. The text of the reply card is identical to the previous petition. Below the text is a signature line, a set of tick boxes for the signatory to state their academic degree (B.S., M.S., Ph.D.) and field, and another tick box stating "Please send more petition cards for me to distribute." This renewed distribution has continued until at least February, 2008.
If the individual is a wonk guess what? His information is a wonk. That is why nobody is supporting him or his data.

[SUBMAN1]

Again you are twisting the facts. There are two petitions. One initial, and now it is being done again. Again, scientists are signing it like mad. So maybe you simply have your facts wrong.

And, the petition thread is in another thread by the way. This thread seeks to analyze the facts based on the video and paper as presented in the first post in this thread.

Have you found an inaccuracy in the data? This is what we are after here. So far, not one post you have posted goes after the data. It goes on attacks of the man who wrote the data.

You know they say an argument is lost the moment one attacks the man presenting it and not the data. Get used to it already. Not sure why you keep harping on the same crap - it means nothing as compared to reality and what is presented here in this thread. If the guy is such a whack job as you say, it should be easy to discredit his work. :p

-S

[Schroeder]

You got it wrong. Its for UN control. You cap energy use, and you cap growth. That is the problem here. Then you must go to the UN to ask for an increase in hydrocarbon use, and the world body will then decide if it's OK.

Does that put it into perspective?

-S
Why are you so scared of the UN all of a sudden? IIRC the US never gave a shi* for the UN if it was against her interests. You are a veto power, forgot that already?
By the way, why do you think the UN would give you an impossible task?
The UN is more than a few countries like Venezuela that wants to see the US down. We here in Europe (and we are UN members too, so we have our share in deciding what to do) have no interest in cutting your economical growth since you are one of our greatest economical partners (low business with USA means a lot less money in our banks...). So we are interested in that you are reducing your pollution without loosing your economical power. I think you are exaggerating the effects of Kyoto. I never heard any other country talking about power cuts and moving back to the stone age.

[SUBMAN1]

Why are you so scared of the UN all of a sudden? IIRC the US never gave a shi* for the UN if it was against her interests. You are a veto power, forgot that already?
By the way, why do you think the UN would give you an impossible task?
The UN is more than a few countries like Venezuela that wants to see the US down. We here in Europe (and we are UN members too, so we have our share in deciding what to do) have no interest in cutting your economical growth since you are one of our greatest economical partners (low business with USA means a lot less money in our banks...). So we are interested in that you are reducing your pollution without loosing your economical power. I think you are exaggerating the effects of Kyoto. I never heard any other country talking about power cuts and moving back to the stone age.The Kyoto agreement doesn't even allow for the US to maintain it's current levels of hydrocarbon use. It is almost as its specifically designed to not affect anyone but the USA.

And how is this not control by the UN? The US can Veto things before they are in place, but can they Veto something after it has been put in place? i think not.

Anyway, the main stab from the UN is the folowing:

Kyoto is underwritten by governments and is governed by global legislation enacted under the UN’s aegis.
That means the UN could conrol US economic output by putting restrictions on energy use.

And, it's not to say that they aren't trying it already. This bill is based on the kyoto agreement:

http://lieberman.senate.gov/documents/amendment.pdf

Do you realize that this bill would not only raise the price of gas through the roof, but that it would cost the US millions of jobs??? To the tune of $1.2 Trillion!!! Now, maybe I'm a goof at math, but I think $1.2 Trillion of the US's 13 Trillion yearly GDP is pretty good chunk!

Crazy.

And you wonder why this stuff is scaring me? It's like a knife in the back of my country. What needs to happen is the technology needs to be made, and then used, not that you cut off current technology and make a mad dash to make new technology. It doesn't work like that.

-S

[FIREWALL]

I live in So California so it's hard to tell if there's Global Warming.

It's alway's warm here.:p

[SUBMAN1]

I live in So California so it's hard to tell if there's Global Warming.

It's alway's warm here.:p

I don't want to hear it! Crud! Where is my summer? Woke up this morning and the house was 57 F!!!! 40 something outside! You have no idea how jealous I am of you right now, except that you live in California, I mean, Kalifornia, I mean, Mexifornia! :D :p

I NEED SOME SUN!!!! Cloudy about about 55 F outside right now!

-S

[FIREWALL]

I live in So California so it's hard to tell if there's Global Warming.

It's alway's warm here.:p

I don't want to hear it! Crud! Where is my summer? Woke up this morning and the house was 57 F!!!! 40 something outside! You have no idea how jealous I am of you right now, except that you live in California, I mean, Kalifornia, I mean, Mexifornia! :D :p

I NEED SOME SUN!!!! Cloudy about about 55 F outside right now!

-S

I'll PM you 2hrs worth :sunny:

[SUBMAN1]

I'll PM you 2hrs worth :sunny: If anyone cares - he did. :x

Good for you man. At least someone is getting some sun. I'll just live through you for the time being.

-S

[Schroeder]

The Kyoto agreement doesn't even allow for the US to maintain it's current levels of hydrocarbon use.
It does for no one as far as I know. We have to reduce our use of it as well.


It is almost as its specifically designed to not affect anyone but the USA.
How is that possible? I thought Kyoto demanded the same percentage of carbon reduction by all the big industrialized countries. So we're sitting in the same boat. All of our car manufacturers have to build cleaner cars with less gas consumption for example. Not too easy for cars like Porsche and Audi are building.


And how is this not control by the UN? The US can Veto things before they are in place, but can they Veto something after it has been put in place? i think not.
What would happen if the US simply decided at some level that they don't want Kyoto? I think you would just stop following it. I don't think your government would blow up your country for a piece of paper of an organization that has no real power (who is supposed to enforce Kyoto if you should decide to quit?).
Besides, as I already mentioned Europe wouldn't give you impossible tasks since we are depending on your economy (that's why everyone her is eager to see Bush jr. go, this guy has really wrecked your country).



Anyway, the main stab from the UN is the folowing:

Kyoto is underwritten by governments and is governed by global legislation enacted under the UN’s aegis.
That means the UN could conrol US economic output by putting restrictions on energy use.
Again, who would be interested in destroying your economy? Globalization means, if your country goes to hell so does Europe (more or less). And I don't think Japan would be that happy about that either.


And, it's not to say that they aren't trying it already. This bill is based on the kyoto agreement:

http://lieberman.senate.gov/documents/amendment.pdf
I'll be writing some tests next week in university, so I hope you'll forgive me for not having time to read the 492 pages....


Do you realize that this bill would not only raise the price of gas through the roof, but that it would cost the US millions of jobs??? To the tune of $1.2 Trillion!!! Now, maybe I'm a goof at math, but I think $1.2 Trillion of the US's 13 Trillion yearly GDP is pretty good chunk!
Well, the price of gas will raise through the roof anyway. It's just a matter of time. Why you would loose jobs is beyond me, here in Germany we created new jobs to build all the new technology for the future. If something new is demanded than people are needed to develop and build it.


And you wonder why this stuff is scaring me? It's like a knife in the back of my country. What needs to happen is the technology needs to be made, and then used, not that you cut off current technology and make a mad dash to make new technology. It doesn't work like that.
-S Well, the technology is often available. But without pressure no one uses it, and since no one uses it, it stays expensive because of the small production numbers. With increasing production numbers the price will drop.
No one said it will be for free, but the costs can be handled (at least here in Europe).
And look, Germany is about 1.5 times as big as Texas (IIRC) , yet we have plenty of energy intensive industry (we have 8 big car manufacturers:Porsche, VW, Mercedes, BMW, Opel, Audi, Ford Europe, Toyota Europe; steel works [I've got one right next door]; wharfs etc...) so if we can manage to reduce our CO2 output without committing suicide then I wonder why a country with about as much industry would fall apart by doing the same.:hmm:

[SUBMAN1]

It does for no one as far as I know. We have to reduce our use of it as well. Maybe, but since we are more reliant on it than anyone else in the entire world, it affects us 10 fold. In Europe, you can get places without a car. Try that in America! Everything is so spread out, it's an impossibility!

How is that possible? I thought Kyoto demanded the same percentage of carbon reduction by all the big industrialized countries. So we're sitting in the same boat.... Because our reliance on it is so much greater than yours. See the above post.


What would happen if the US simply decided at some level that they don't want Kyoto? I think you would just stop following it. I don't think your government would blow up your country for a piece of paper of an organization that has no real power (who is supposed to enforce Kyoto if you should decide to quit?).
Besides, as I already mentioned Europe wouldn't give you impossible tasks since we are depending on your economy (that's why everyone her is eager to see Bush jr. go, this guy has really wrecked your country).Because it would be called by the world as an illegal act and fuel resentment worldwide for America more than there already is. It's a no win situation for us over here. It has not one single positive thing that flows form it. Some people point out that we get hybrid cars, but how many know what kind of extra damage nickle does to the envorinment? Or the hazardous waste created by the batteries? Way worse than the benefits of the car itself.



Again, who would be interested in destroying your economy? Globalization means, if your country goes to hell so does Europe (more or less). And I don't think Japan would be that happy about that either.Has nothing to do with that. It puts a cap on growth, so as to bring the rest of the world up with the US, or the US down on the level with the rest of the world. To cap it, is to forget ever seeing 4% growth in this country as has been the norm for so long. Lucky if you get 1%.


I'll be writing some tests next week in university, so I hope you'll forgive me for not having time to read the 492 pages.... It says a lot. i suggest you take the time since it will answer a ton of questions for you.


Well, the price of gas will raise through the roof anyway. It's just a matter of time. Why you would loose jobs is beyond me, here in Germany we created new jobs to build all the new technology for the future. If something new is demanded than people are needed to develop and build it.The only way to devlope and build it is to use energy in mnay forms. Just where is that going to come from?

Well, the technology is often available. But without pressure no one uses it, and since no one uses it, it stays expensive because of the small production numbers. With increasing production numbers the price will drop.
No one said it will be for free, but the costs can be handled (at least here in Europe).
And look, Germany is about 1.5 times as big as Texas (IIRC) , yet we have plenty of energy intensive industry (we have 8 big car manufacturers:Porsche, VW, Mercedes, BMW, Opel, Audi, Ford Europe, Toyota Europe; steel works [I've got one right next door]; wharfs etc...) so if we can manage to reduce our CO2 output without committing suicide then I wonder why a country with about as much industry would fall apart by doing the same.:hmm:I'll close with this - the reason no one is using it is because there is no benefit to stopping what they are using now. So what if you have an inefficient car? Gas in the USA can keep at it's current levels alone from refining coal to gas for 250 years! This doesn't include our oil shale deposits, our tar sand deposits, our resources in oil in the Gulf, in Alaska, off the Atlantic, none of it. We have so much access to energy, there is no way oil should be as high as it is unless America is planning on draining Saudi Arabia and that's its sole mission right now! America could become energy independant from the rest of the world easily for over 300 years with our resources that we own alone.

Now the real issue - so what about the Kyoto agreement? So what if we release hydrocarbons? It is adding benefit without one single negative! If you watch the video in the first post - human caused global warming is not occuring. The paper further backs up the data, and there are actual benefits such as increased plant growth and increased animal life!

So why should we change our habits for a hypothesis that has been proved wrong on many fronts? Maybe someone can answer this for me, but this is my problem with this human caused global warming thing. If anyone bothered to check, if you average our temps of today, we are below average if you look at the data going back 3000 years.

-S

[Skybird]

The International Energy Agency recently calculated what an energy revolution would cost, coming up with the figure of $45,000 billion by 2050. For many, climate protection may not be a sufficient argument to justify investments on this scale -- but perhaps the high oil price is." (Financial Times germany)


"But every dollar by which the inflated oil price rises has its good side -- it accelerates the unavoidable adjustments. It is therefore good that the energy ministers of the G-8 are concentrating on putting their own house in order. The time for excuses is past. Oil consumers must use the pain of high oil prices to bring about a revolution in energy policies." (Handelsblatt)


"The G-8 states want to learn from each other how they can get by with less energy. Given the recent developments, that doesn't sound like very much. But it is probably the smartest thing that those countries could do. Anything else would fail."
"The solution … can't be put off any longer. The industrialized states will need to make themselves independent from the very resources that fueled their industrialization. They will need to build better houses and heat them with less fuel. They will need to develop better cars which need less gasoline. If that is the result of the record prices, and if the world can manage to go down this road without a colossal recession, then this latest development will even have had a good side." (Süddeutsche Zeitung)

"Hope lies in abstinence. Germany has already succeeded in uncoupling, to a relatively large degree, its economic performance from energy prices. Now the focus has to be on further increasing this degree of independence from oil through increases in efficiency and energy saving measures. (Die Welt)


"Those who are calling for natural gas prices to be uncoupled from oil prices are practicing pure populism. … The two prices are simply dependent on each other, because when oil prices are high then consumers increasingly switch to natural gas, which then becomes expensive due to the extra demand. Just as populist are calls for a reduction in taxes on oil or other energy taxes, to balance out the increases in prices.
"All these measures do not solve the problem, namely that fossil fuels are becoming scarce. In this situation, only one thing can help -- lowering consumption. The market economies in which we live have a simple instrument to bring that about, namely higher prices."(Die Tageszeitung)

Can't argue here.

[Schroeder]

Maybe, but since we are more reliant on it than anyone else in the entire world, it affects us 10 fold. In Europe, you can get places without a car. Try that in America! Everything is so spread out, it's an impossibility! You can go without a car in Germany's big cities. But if you look at the more country like parts you almost have no choice but buying a car. Public transportation is rare there. But I admit that the distances in the US are larger.

Because our reliance on it is so much greater than yours. See the above post.
Well, only a rather small percentage of CO2 emissions are created by car traffic. (less than 20% IIRC, at least in Europe. I'm not sure about that in the US). Here most CO2 is emitted by the industry. I wonder why your industry is more reliant on fossil energy than ours since we are producing pretty much the same stuff.


Because it would be called by the world as an illegal act and fuel resentment worldwide for America more than there already is.
Why are afraid of fuel resentments after what you wrote in the quote below?


So what if you have an inefficient car? Gas in the USA can keep at it's current levels alone from refining coal to gas for 250 years! This doesn't include our oil shale deposits, our tar sand deposits, our resources in oil in the Gulf, in Alaska, off the Atlantic, none of it. We have so much access to energy, there is no way oil should be as high as it is unless America is planning on draining Saudi Arabia and that's its sole mission right now! America could become energy independant from the rest of the world easily for over 300 years with our resources that we own alone.

It has not one single positive thing that flows form it.
Except less poisonous emissions (I'm not talking about CO2 here).


Some people point out that we get hybrid cars, but how many know what kind of extra damage nickle does to the envorinment? Or the hazardous waste created by the batteries? Way worse than the benefits of the car itself.
I don't know how dangerous these materials still are when they are processed by specialized companies. Here in Germany you mustn't throw away batteries. You have to give them to special "battery bins" . Actually I don't know what they are doing with them then, but I've never heard of any contamination. If the batteries were stored in one place a possible contamination would only affect a rather small area (but that would be affected heavily), while cars are spreading their toxic emissions into the atmosphere so that everyone gets affected by it.
As I said, I don't know how dangerous that stuff really still is after it has been taken care of. So maybe you are right.


Has nothing to do with that. It puts a cap on growth, so as to bring the rest of the world up with the US, or the US down on the level with the rest of the world. To cap it, is to forget ever seeing 4% growth in this country as has been the norm for so long. Lucky if you get 1%. Central Europe is pretty much at the same level as the US. So to which level would you be brought down to? And as I already pointed out, we are growing because of the new technology. I'm sure the US could develop similar technology and use it for their economical benefits as we do.



The only way to devlope and build it is to use energy in mnay forms. Just where is that going to come from? I'm not sure whether I understood you correctly here. Are you saying that we should use different forms of energy? If that is so then I can tell you that we are already using wind, sun and water to create power. Not enough as of now but the amount is increased steadily.

I'll close with this - the reason no one is using it is because there is no benefit to stopping what they are using now. Less pollution?


Now the real issue - so what about the Kyoto agreement? So what if we release hydrocarbons? It is adding benefit without one single negative!
More pollution?


If you watch the video in the first post - human caused global warming is not occuring. The paper further backs up the data, and there are actual benefits such as increased plant growth and increased animal life!

Other sources tell a different story so I don't know which one I should believe. I'm not sure whether mankind is responsible for global warming but the side effects of fighting CO2 are more than enough for me to support it (not at all costs, but as long as it goes as it does right now here in Europe I don't have a problem with it).

[mapuc]

Every one has taken part in this "discussion/debat" about the future of our world.

I have to confesed that I'm not so musch into this, I have red alot, but my knowledge about those things is on a low level.

So I could offcourse take a dice through and see what the eyes show

Between 1 and 3 I'm against those global warming prophets

4 to 6, I'm for it

Never the less, I'm worried(not to my death) because, what if it's all true or most of it.

Markus

[SUBMAN1]

Never the less, I'm worried(not to my death) because, what if it's all true or most of it.Don't bother rolling the dice. Global Warming is 'true', and it is happening. You can take that to the bank.

What is at question is, is is caused by humans? The answer to that is no.

-S

PS. If the new sunspot theories turn out to be correct, it will soon be Global Cooling.

PPS. Best way to prepare - buy multiple swimsuits and at least one fur coat. You should be set! :p :D

[Stealth Hunter]

What is at question is, is is caused by humans? The answer to that is no.


And the answer you've just given is one still in debate by the most intelligent minds on the planet. The answer, or how it's looking right now, is that the environment is partly to blame, but so are humans.

[SUBMAN1]

And the answer you've just given is one still in debate by the most intelligent minds on the planet. Whom? Al Gore? The 600 IPCC scientists who had their data manipulated and where not allowed to protest? Al Gores high school drop outs that speak for him? I'd like to know.

The answer, or how it's looking right now, is that the environment is partly to blame, but so are humans.Did you not watch the video at the start of this thread? Did you not read the paper? You might want to also read this too:

http://www.dailytech.com/Researcher+Basic+Greenhouse+Equations+Totally+Wron g/article10973.htm

The short answer is - it is all a farce with more poeple stepping forward each day claiming it is with data to back it up and prove that it is. You've been hit with propaganda so that you can make energy companies rich, and give our control to the U.N.

Watch this vid - should explain why Al Gore is pushing this agenda so much:

http://www.vot3r.com/politics-videos/402688

-S