Who believes in Global Warming?

“human beings don;t cause glabal warming directly, but they are the reason mother gaia earth is increasing her temperature like when you get a fever. she is doing it to kill off the evil humans.

of course this will kill some puppies and kitties too but its really the evil people's fault. if they would just kill themselves like mother gaia wants them too them global warming woudl stop and the animals would be okay.

i hate people they are evil.”

“Who believes in Global Warming?

Not me. There has never been any proof of it, and there never will. Only "theories" put forth by those who put themselves above others because of their college education.”

“I see Sarge is bending over and letting everyone have their way again.”

“While still shouting "Who's ya daddy."”

“WayTooScary - I've been trying to figure out who you are (non-Halloween name).

It occured to me you must be Mutt because you contribute absolutely nothing and only make remarks similar to what you'd hear in gradeschool.

Are you Mutt, or somebody else similar to Mutt?”

“Good Grief. I was away for a while. And look at all the defamation I missed!
Too bad all that energy could not be applied to a genuine discussion of Global Warming and how we can have an impact at slowing it or reducing our own footprint. Regardless of who is picking on whose quote is perfect and whose is not.

We all have an impact on this planet and are connected to it. It does not take rocket science or studies of Mars to prove it.”

“what a bunch of libbie freaks”

“hiking - There is no proof that humans are creating a significant negative affect on our environment. That is a fact.”

“hiking - There is no proof that humans are creating a significant negative affect on our environment. That is a fact.

Smog in Los Angeles. It doesn't exist on it's own. Humans created it. It has had a negative affect on our environment.

Lake Erie was declaired "dead" in the 1960's and was a bed of algae. It didn't die on it's own. Humans polluted it. This had a negative impact on our environment.

I mean the list goes on and on and it's all rather obvious.”

“pitts - When you come back to earth, the discussion is about "Global Warming", not pollution.”

“Libbie Dole? LOL



I think Vonnegut is correct... Earth will shed us like bacteria.”

“The bit about lemmings not being suicide freaks is true. They migrate when their populate exceeds their food supply. To do this they often cross lakes, rivers, and streams. They have been known to die in large numbers during their migration. It did make for a damn fine computer game, however.”

“When I was an undergrad in the 70s, the environmental fear of the time was global COOLING. Professors of Science told us that it was already too late ...that catastrophic events were already in place toward certain doom. Now they're telling us that global WARMING is the boogeyman. What's a person to believe?! You know what I mean?”

“Well there is a theory that a phase of rapid warming could stop the ocean currents which carry warmth around the globe and trigger a new ice age.”

“Well there is a theory that a phase of rapid warming could stop the ocean currents which carry warmth around the globe and trigger a new ice age. - Y2

Cool!”

“Hey, maybe we'll get to meet these guys:

http://www.moviewavs.com/cgi-bin/mp3s.cgi?Ice_Age=ifhepoops.mp3”

“Still it's not happening in Sarge's back yard, or even on his journey to Walmart, at least not that he can see. So it's not happening at all.”

“Y2 - Don't act like I'm blind. Man-made global warming is a very controversial issue. I'm not the first one to disagree with it.

If it's easier for you to make this about me, I can take it. Meanwhile, try to grow up because it's a poor reflection of your parental upbringing. Do it for the honor of your parents.”

“These are the folks I did that internship with back in '95....

Start reading.”

“Oh yeah ...

I think they're affiliated with these guys:

http://www.geocities.com/mjloundy/”

“Home BreakPoint

October 24, 2005

Better ‘Safe-Than-Sorry’ Science
Truth versus Effectiveness

By Regis Nicoll

“Largely on the basis of computer models, which attempt to reflect what we
know, what we assume, and what we can guess, many people believe that
continued emissions of anthropogenic greenhouse gasses will increase global
temperatures anywhere from 1 to 3.5 degrees Celsius.”
– Jerry Taylor, director of the Cato Institute’s Natural Resource Studies

During the thirty years that I worked as a radiation health professional, I
learned a disturbing lesson: Politics often parades as science. In the late
1970s, for example, I attended a public meeting in Washington, D.C., where
speakers discussed a proposed nuclear waste disposal facility. The facility
was to be located in a remote location, far from any population centers.
The waste was to be treated and placed in specially designed containers.
And lastly, the containers were to be placed in deep geological formations
that for centuries had not been affected by water intrusion or earthquakes.
If the unimaginable happened—radioactivity leaked into the biosphere—the
public’s exposure to radiation would be minimal, well below the amount we
receive from cosmic rays and other natural radiation sources.

All the same, those assurances did not satisfy the anti-nuclear activists.
Their reasoning? Radiation can cause cancer. (A true statement.) Thus,
there is no safe level for radiation exposure. (A false assumption.)

During the hearing, an emotional testimony was given by a woman who had
lost her daughter to leukemia. She didn’t argue that radiation caused her
daughter’s cancer. But, since radiation is a known carcinogen, she stated
that any release of radiation into the environment is unconscionable. As I
surveyed the facial expressions and nodding heads of the crowd, I realized
that public opinion was being shaped by something other than science.
Unfortunately, many current nuclear energy policies have been shaped
likewise.

Science and Common Sense

For example, scientists who study radio epidemiology (the spread of
radiation) often base their research on the Hiroshima and Nagasaki
bombings. Those two bombings involved very large radiation exposures
(hundreds of times greater than normal background radiation) over a short
period of time. Obviously, bomb data cannot reveal what happens at much
lower levels of exposure and over longer periods of time. Yet, the current
standards reflect the notion that deleterious effects extend all the way to
zero dose. Are such standards based on science or politics?

Despite the “no-safe-level” naysayers, many studies show no increase in
cancer risk for those who live in geographical areas which have natural
radiation levels significantly higher than the national average. In fact,
there are considerable studies that indicate, up to a certain level,
exposure to radiation reduces one’s cancer risk. And that makes sense from
what we know about physiology.

The body’s natural healing properties allow for repair in all but the most
traumatic of injuries. Regular physical exercise tears down muscle tissue
which, because of repair and adaptation, results in increased muscle mass
and strength. Similarly, vaccinations introduce small quantities of toxins
to strengthen the immune system against future assaults. In view of all of
this, the Health Physics Society—an international body of radiation health
professionals—concluded in 1996 that there is no health effect from
radiation levels up to thirty times greater than those people receive from
natural sources.

Nevertheless, sensational images of mushroom clouds and their aftermath
continue to drive the politics of nuclear energy: Plans for further nuclear
generation have been postponed or abandoned, while power stations are
dismantled. Such politics are leading the industry to “death by attrition.”

Global Warming: A Growing Controversy

It is interesting that the folks who opposed the use of nuclear power in
the ’70s, are the same ones who are now focusing on global
warming—interesting because the expansion of nuclear energy would have made
global warming a non-issue.

Also interesting: The ranks of these global warming activists include some
conservative notables. For instance, Ted Haggard, president of the National
Association of Evangelicals, became convinced of global warming after a
scuba diving trip during which he noticed the effect of rising ocean
temperature on coral reef pollution. Similarly, Rich Cizik, another NAE
official, said he had a climate change “conversion” that felt like an
“altar call” during an Oxford climate convention. But are such conversion
experiences justified?

The case for global warming can be summed up as follows: 1) the atmospheric
concentration of carbon dioxide—a greenhouse gas—is increasing; 2)
temperature measurements indicate that the earth has warmed about 0.5
degrees Celsius in the last 150 years; 3) the continued generation of
greenhouse gases will increase temperatures by 2.5 degrees Celsius over the
next 100 years; and 4) the increase in temperature will have a cataclysmic
effect on the earth.

Although there is little debate over the first point, there is much
controversy over the last three, as reflected in the Heidelberg Appeal
endorsed by over 4,000 prominent scientists, including seventy Nobel
Laureates.

First, we’ll examine the claim that warming due to anthropogenic greenhouse
gases is a recent phenomenon. According to environmental ethicist, Thomas
Derr of Smith College, “Temperatures were higher in medieval times (from
about [A.D.] 800 to 1300) than they are now,” and “the surface temperature
increase of about 0.5 degrees Celsius during the twentieth century . . .
occurred in the early part of the century, before the rapid rise in . . .
emissions of polluting substances.”

Here’s another question: Does current data support a warming trend? The
problem with the figures cited is that they come from land-based
measurements that are disproportionately taken near population centers.
Thus, they do not adequately account for the temperatures of oceans and
polar caps, which comprise over 75 percent of the earth’s surface. In
contrast, the data collected by satellites and weather balloons (which
cover over 99 percent of the planet) show different results. According to
Jerry Taylor, director of Natural Resource Studies at the Cato Institute,
those figures “show a slight cooling trend over the past 19 years.”

What’s more, the ground measurement data is not substantiated by
climatological models. When the models are programmed with historical
greenhouse emission data, they calculate temperatures ten times greater
than those actually observed over the same period. Patrick J. Michaels, a
Virginia climatology professor, argues that if the models were adjusted to
properly account for this anomaly, they would calculate a temperature rise
in the year 2100 of less than 1 degree Celsius—a number well within the
normal range of temperature variation. All of this means that something is
wrong with the data, the models, or both. In any case, anthropogenic gases
have much less impact on global temperature than is proposed.

Nonetheless, global warming proponents insist that the threat of future
warming is real and that man-generated gases are the cause. It is a case of
“if the facts don’t support the theory, believe the theory.” In other
words, like the forces that shaped nuclear energy policy, something other
than science is going on here.

However, let’s assume the worst: A 2.5 degree increase does occur in the
not-too-distant future. Is that a bad thing? Thomas Derr thinks not.
Increased carbon dioxide and warmer climates mean “better crop yields over
larger areas, and longer growing seasons, milder winters, and decreasing
heating costs.” Is this just wild-eyed opinion? Let’s take a look at
history.

Jerry Taylor notes that between 850 and 1350, the Earth underwent a “sharp
and pronounced” warming—a temperature increase of 2.5 degrees Celsius.
Although there were some problems with localized flooding, Taylor writes:
“There were marked increases in agricultural productivity, trade, human
amenities, and measurable improvements in human morbidity and mortality.”

Truth or Effectiveness?

With all of this evidence, what keeps the theory of global warming alive?
Probably the same thing that helped neutralize nuclear power decades
ago—visions of the catastrophic (apocalyptic theories always sell!). Global
warming proponent Steven Schneider tipped his hand in 1989, admitting: “To
capture the public’s imagination . . . we have to offer up scary scenarios,
and make little mention of any doubts we may have. Each of us has to decide
what the right balance is between being effective and being honest.”
(During last year’s presidential debates, I imagine that Schneider’s
strategy could easily have been that of either candidate.)

But why, one might ask, should truth be sacrificed for effectiveness? It
shouldn’t. Unless, however, one has embraced the “ends justify the means”
philosophy. (All in the name of good, of course.)

Over two centuries ago, another visionary had a similar idea. Jean Jacques
Rousseau fervently believed that civilized culture corrupted man. To become
freed from polluting influences, Rousseau argued, man must recreate the
Natural State—the primitive paradise untouched by civilization and
technology. Only there can man hope to experience deliverance from the
ill-effects of society.

And for those who do not wish to be free? “They must be forced to be free,”
wrote Rousseau (all for their own good, mind you). I guess that would
include deciding the “right balance” between truth and effectiveness.

“Friend deceives friend, and no one speaks the truth . . . You live in the
midst of deception; in their deceit they refuse to acknowledge me,”
declares the Lord. —Jeremiah 9:5-6 (NIV)

Regis Nicoll is a freelance writer and a Centurion of the Wilberforce
Forum. After working in the nuclear power industry for over 30 years, Regis
now serves as an elder, teacher, and men’s ministry leader in the
Collegedale Church in Tennessee. Regis publishes a free weekly commentary
to stimulate thought on current issues from a Christian perspective. To be
placed on this free e-mail distribution list, e-mail him at:
centurion51@aol.com.”

“I still want a real Wisconsin winter... ;)”

“I watched an episode of Penn and Teller’s Bullsh8t about environmental hysteria. It was funny as hell. They always give two sides so they contacted one of the big environmental groups (can’t remember which one now) and asked them to have a knowledgeable spokesperson of their choosing guide them around on an Earth Day march. Then on the other side they had one of the original presidents of GreenPeace speak about the environmental movement today. The guy is an ecologist and still an environmentalist btw.

At the march they showed all the young hippy types dancing in drum circles and carrying on about globalism and hybrid grains and how evil the government is. Then they’d have Mr. Ecologist explain how the whole movement got hijacked by politically motivated groups and he showed all the hypocrisy of the groups and how they do things. He also showed how the earth is actually in BETTER shape than it was 100 years ago and that the quality of life is monumentally better now.

Then they talked to the Nobel Prize winning scientist who creates higher yielding grains and explained how he single handedly had saved over a billion lives through his work.

And to give just a sample of the heard mentality of the environmentalists they had someone carrying around a clipboard with a petition to ban hydrogen oxide and asked everyone to sign it. They used the exact same kind of language in their pitch as the enviro groups use and explained how our rivers, lakes and reservoirs were just full of hydrogen oxide and they wanted it banned right away. Everyone signed it without even asking questions and NO ONE knew what hydrogen oxide was. The ORGANIZERS of the march even signed it not even knowing that hydrogen oxide is plain water.

Granted, it’s Penn and Teller, but the argument is there that these groups are not only spreading misinformation they rarely have any real data to back up what they spread. It also showed the blatant sheep mentality of the people who join these types of groups.

If you get a chance to rent the DVD it’s season one, disk three. A must see.”

“Ban hydrogen oxide, LMAO!”

“LOL! I gotta rent that DVD.

Actually water would be di-hydrogen oxide. Hydrogen Oxide (H2+0) would be a more appropriate term for Hydrogen Peroxide (H2 + O2). (OK, so what if I get a little anal sometimes)

In fact I found Hydrogen Oxide listed as a synonym for Hydrogen Peroxide. Not that that excuses the stupidity of people signing the petition.

The Di-Hydrogen Oxide thing is an old shtick, but worth repeating. I couldn't find the one that cracked me up when I read it, but I found some funny ones like this from 1982:

http://www.sea-of-ink.com/science/water.html”

“Actually I think it would be Hydrogen Hydroxide ... H OH = H2O”

“Glacier National Park soon to be no glacier national park......global warming definately”

“Techniguely, Glacier National Park is so named because of the sculpting of the terrain there by glaciers in ages passed

not due to the few and small glaciers that were there 80 or so years ago when the park was named

yet those few glaciers are rapidly retreating.”

“The earth is in better shape than it was 100 years ago? Do you really believe that?”

“No way do I believe the world is in better shape than 100 years ago.

Some people are temporarily in a desirable condition, true, but can anything be sustained?”

“There have been displays of environmentalism at times that are laughable to many in the general public.

For example: At a recent locally televised 'chip-mill protest' the protesters were dressed in a very far-out manner, were creating unusual rhythmic sounds with bizarre instruments and chanting what many would consider retarded vocals, the whole crowd of protesters looked like burned out acid-freaks.

Still, I feel a need to promote environmentalism and at times sense that aggregate attitudes are coming around to my point-of-view.
last edited: 10/25/05 12:15:47 PM”

“Many issues attract extremists. Those in oppostion tend to focus on the extremes. I'd point to those people who stood outside the hospice in the Schaivo case as an example of this happening of a political mirror-image.

Still, what's been posted of use from the 'anti-enviromentalists'. A fiction writer, Penn and Teller and "an elder, teacher, and men’s ministry leader in the
Collegedale Church in Tennessee - and 30-year employee of big energy. Nuclear power firms are also companies which own fossil fuel power plants.”

“This is the guy who regularly dismisses anyone who would listen to Al Franken?

Penn & Teller are your new source for environmental information? A couple of has-been magicians?

Give me a break! LOL!”

“Earth First!

We can ruin the other planets later.”

“When the next large volcano errupts and spews a zillions tons of ash into the atmosphere(and this happens thru history-and were due) and our weather will be extreme....most will point to man made polluntants and global warming and say BUSH caused the volcano to errupt.”

“I won't, because I know it really will be caused by the crab people.”

“OK, since a volcanic eruption could place a lot of dust in the atmosphere the world's population can be considered not responsible for their actions.

The biodeposits (topsoil, coal, oil, limestone, marble, gypsum, metals like iron which were concentrated by bacterial action, natural gas, the general genetic diversity of life over the world and the formulation of all the waters and the atmosphere of this world) took all of the evolvement/creation up to this point to form. Once the biodeposits are gone, they cannot be adequately replaced.

Now here, in just a generation or 2, we will effectively squander this inheritance eons in the making

but 'Its not our fault!', right, so what if the few remaining survivors 100 years from now live a barely survivable existence,

At least now and for a few months or years longer, we, the lucky generation, can continue our gluttonous party without shame or regret with our eyes closed.
last edited: 10/28/05 8:01:17 AM”

“http://www.stopglobalwarming.org/campaigns/sgw/impact/2145334f77b6a5d0ca98b9310ad0f1fb/

Sign up if you wish.”

“I'm anti-temperature.”

“I should register the domain "stoptidalforces.org" and make a clone site. How much do you want to bet I could get an army to sign up?”

“Go get 'em Tango. I know you will be yelling, "Polluters Suck!"”

“lonesurveyor, I'm with you man! Party On!!”

“Right after I yell "Politicians Suck"”

“One more thing, if we are all being serious I apologize for the lighthearted remark.”

“Always room for a light hearted remark Tahoe.”

“One more thing, if we are all being serious I apologize for the lighthearted remark.

I'm going to need to remember that one.”

“http://contactmusic.com/new/xmlfeed.nsf/mndwebpages/dicaprio%20takes%20global%20warming%20warning%20to%20tv

DiCaprio and DR MICHAEL OPPENHEIMER, a professor at Princeton University, attempted to explain the "complicated issue" of global warming, emphasising that America, which boasts five per cent of the world's population, produces 25 per cent of the globe's carbon emissions.

Left out the part about "... much of it for the rest of the world's consumption."

This is funny too ...

Winfrey listened intently as DiCaprio warned about the dangers of ignoring the problem, and then said, "You feel like NOAH (biblical character who built an arc in preparation for a great flood) to me - you're like, 'Pay attention, pay attention, pay attention.'"

(no comment necessary to reveal the idiocy)

... and finally ...

Winfrey then confessed she owns one of the five worst sports utility vehicles on a new emissions list, prompting DiCaprio to state, "That's OK, as long as you change that."

DiCaprio ... Hmmm ... let's see ... anybody wanna bet on if he has a private jet?”