Well isn't this special!


Hobbs points out Gore stands to make a lot of money from his promotion of the alleged "global warming" threat, which is disputed by many mainstream scientists. "In other words, he 'buys' his 'carbon offsets' from himself, through a transaction designed to boost his own investments and return a profit to himself," Hobbs writes. "To be blunt, Gore doesn't buy 'carbon offsets' through Generation Investment Management – he buys stocks."

http://worldnetdaily.com/news/printe...TICLE_ID=54528

If global warming on Earth is caused by human activity then how come Mars is also experiencing global warming?

http://www.heartland.org/Article.cfm?artId=17977

Could global warming on both planets be the result of increased solar output?

On Pluto there are no human industries, and thus it is icy cold.
On Earth there is human industry, and it becomes warmer and warmer.

Don't you see the pattern? ;)

Sorry, only adopting to the niveau in that argument of yours.

Desperately seeing even the most abstruse excuses not to see man as the causing origin of Earth's warming, eh? See what I wrote in the long topic somehwere above. But okay, we will forever disagree on this.

You meant obtuse? If you're going to use insult as a weapon against global warming perhaps you ought first to learn to spell.

Seriously Skybird, I only asked a question based on an article I had just read on the subject and your very weak attempt to ridicule the messenger instead of discussing the merits of the argument only shows that if anyone is being obtuse here it is you.

To me your post illustrates the the main problem with the human caused global warming camp. To your side anyone who doesn't automatically agree with you must either be in the pay of big oil or fooled by their evil propaganda. Sorry, but that is not a scientific argument.

So just in case you have gotten it out of your system perhaps you could explain to this big oil lackey how the sun could be causing Mars to warm but not warm Earth.

Are the 17,000 verified professionals signed on this petition on the take?

I hired out that Movie The Inconvienant Truth (SP) on friday last and was blown away by it. If hes correct then major flooding of cities are gonna happen within the next 50yrs - unless we act now.

No I meant "abstruse", correctly written and spelled as I did. Check your dictionary. Mine is Collins-Langenscheidt: A-B-S-T-R-U-S-E. From the German word "abstrus". Any questions?

Concerning the rest of your post, you performed exactly the way that I criticised way above - and then accuse me of doing what you do.

If it is not sun activity, then it would be solar winds, cosimic radiation, near comets braking earth rotation so that the atmosphere gets mixed a bit slower and thus warms easier. It would be anything, but that human emissions cause the feelable, seeable, perceivable, recognizable massive weather changes decisively - of course every other explanation is more reasonable than this one.

and we are wasting time becasue of this tactic to delay: years and decades because this endless, endless attempts to prevent anything that could change the usual business, and this method hides between appearing to be reasonable, logical, understandable. It will cost us and our children dearly.

And when they ask us why we did not act just in time, since we had so very very much time when the first signs showed up, what will we say, then? What will you say? "We needed more scientific data", maybe?

There is a buddhist parable, I have quoted it before over the years, but I quote it again, since it matches human life so very often. A villager is shot, is hit by a poisened arrow. Other villagers run to him to help. but he starts shouting and send them awqy and reject them to pull the arrof out of his shoulder. He says: "Fiorst I want to know, what kind of pöision it is, and what kind of wood the arrow is made of. Tell me who the shooter is, where he shot from, and over what distance. Tell me about his bow, and tell me why he did it. I want to know about the people who sent him, too." And while he asks the many questions, he dies of the poison.

Pulling out the arrow first would have been the more reasonable choice, one should think.

Before you and me die, we will see nations waging wars - not for oil, but for sweet water.

Quote: "To the contrary, there is good evidence that increased atmospheric carbon dioxide is environmentally helpful. The proposed agreement would have very negative effects upon the technology of nations throughout the world, especially those that are currently attempting to lift from poverty and provide opportunities to the over 4 billion people in technologically underdeveloped countries. "

Petition closed. I am not willing to waste any more time on such pseudo-sciences anymore, if the agenda of the initiator is that obvious. This is a prime example of the attempts of interested lobbies to spread doubt and prevent action by spending ridiculous sums on shaking public opinion.

And to shatter what is left of the reputation of this ridiculous petiton thing (based on highly suspicious non-academical papers from 1997!), see here:

http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php...e_and_Medicine

Must we continue with this ridiculous "petition"...? I close with quoting myself:

the word to keep in mind is : "politically unambitioned experts".

Which, unfortunately, doesn't mean much in politically "hot" topics, as the people who ARE politically ambitioned are going to decide which of those politically unambitioned experts are going to get funding, and which projects will be funded.

Whereas you my fine German friend belong to the camp that feels it HAS to be human activity and are willing to automatically disparage all evidence to the contrary as well as label anyone who doesn't toe your party line as being in the pay of the evil industrialists.

All I asked was whether a warming sun, which is what NASA thinks is heating up Mars, could also be what was causing global warming on Earth, but you don't even want to hear it because it gets in the way of your pet theory. That is the mark of a fanatic and listening to them is rarely a good idea.

I have yet to be explained how a gas which IS HEAVIER than air can get caught in the upper atmosphere...CO2 my butt...:nope:

I have heared of that theory you refer to, too. I also remember that that theory DOES NOT want or attempt to question that human emissions nevertheless are the primary cause for the drastic warming of Earth'S climate, and that sun activity may add around 10-30% to this process. It also says that this increase in sun activity, caused by certain nuclear processes, seem to be a regular phenomenon, taking place every 62-65 million years (nice we happen to live in this rare time window, it gives our economies a nice excuse) Some even mention that the hole solar system may be affected by this. Which does not mean that a measurable effect is also a perceivable effect on the outer planets.

However, there is also massive doubt on this theory, especially concerning Mars. Critics say the data seem to be misinterpreted and ignoring the characteristics of Mars's climate and season (Mars year is only half as long as Earth year). They also argue that the fluctuating in polar ice caps can easier be explained and understood as a local, not a global phenomenon, and give their reasons for that argument. Again, Mar'S atmosphere cannot be compared to Earth'S atmosphere, same is true for it'S seasons.

All in all the clear majority of what i found about it on german sites agrees that the Mars theory (on increased sun actvivity) may essentially be true, but nevertheless it's conclusions may be exaggerated in that way that they cannot wash away the much more likely, imminent and obvious explanation of methan, CO2 and other agents being the major cause for earth's global warming - which already is taking place at a speed and pace that is unique since the time of the dinosaurs. It is therefore simple reason to assume that the coincidence between huiman activity, and this climate pohenomenon is not by random chance.

As I said above, and as that president from Potsdam Institute also said, there is wide, global consencus amongst scientists that are not directly engaged with this or that politcal or economical lobby, that human emissions are the primary cause for global warming. Since a very long time.

In how far increased sun activity should be an argument not to take efforts to reduce global pollution and adopt our living ways and economies to global warming, escapes me. It will take place nevertheless. It would be clever to do our best to adopt, and not to help speeding it up further.

I do not advocate the Un report becasue it is from the UN. I think it has some weight, becasue so many scientists that are better qualified in the concernign fields than those victims in AL's petition joke, from around the globe, from institutions independently working from each other, contributed to it - the UN was only the bureaucratical initiator. And even in the title the say that they do wish to leave the implementations of accordng consequences to the policy-makers. It may be true that many universities are under pressure to give up pure research in favour of applicational research(? anwendungsoprientierte Forschung), and that they must also accept economy's jobs given to them in order to financially survive. However, at least in Germany, not all their time and money is spend for the latter, and our system not letting universities directly dpeend on private and business hands leaves them some sovereignity over a good ammount of time and effort which they can spend on pure research that is not interferred by lobbying. And that gives such institutions th eedge over thinktanks and governmental institutions which necessarily are more or less running the agenda of those that give them their finacial funding.

The UN report wasn't the first scientific report to spell a clear warning, btw. By far it was not. It's just the latest in a long row. and it does not simply feel that it has to be human activity cuasing wamring, it concludes it on the basis of data. Which is something very different than saying of somebody that he is in a camp that "feels that it must be human activity".

but every exycuse, every campaign, every true or untrue theory of even minor importance for excusing human pollution of the planet is welcomed and acceptable to prevent actions now, and prevent changing the profit-rich interest structures of economies as they are currently run. but the report makes a simple math: the measurements to save what is left to be saved, that means: to adopt (not to prevent - that is no longer possible, they conclude), would cost the global economy 1% of it'S yearly profits. The costs of not startzing to prepare now but repair the damages being done my a nature that brakes loose, will be in the range of 10-20% of the economies' yearly profits. This will be threatening to the financial intergity of even the highest developed nations.

Not to mention that we talk of the death of hundreds of millions that need to face this "mother" nature with nothing more than their bare hands.

conclusuons: solar actiivty is all nice and well, but in no way it can be an excuse to abandon the understanding of man's emissions and pollutions being the major and decisive factor for global warming.

BTW, they have corrected the to.-be-expected range of temperatur eincrease from 2.5- 4°C to now up to a "likely" 6.5°C, and the same science docu I refer to, on German TV Thursday, also showed that the melting of the core ice in the inner regions of the arctic is taking place with much more speed and pace than previously expected. "We are stunned and horrified to see how incredibly sensible the arctic system reacts to the global chnages", one scientist said. "the ice disappears much faster in the centre of the arctic contiennt, than anyone would have dared to think before." - Unshaken optimists dared to call it "just a relocation of some ice plates."

Oh I see now that i called you on it you finally respond with something more than derision. I guess we'll just have to disagree but I promise the next time I go up to the cabin in my SUV i'll build a bonfire and eat a plate of beans in your honor Sky... :up:

NO NO no... Methane its methane that comes out your butt... well I guess some CO2 also but...


We should be careful here the next thing you know the EPA will have all of us to capture all gasses that exit our behinds just to keep us at an even temperature.

Beans and cabbage anyone????
:rotfl: :rotfl:
:sunny: :sunny: :sunny: :sunny: :sunny: :sunny: