Rhodes column pins facts on global warming

Well said! As a scientist, I cannot believe in man-made global warming.

Good for you Jeff. It's nice to see that not everyone has their head stuck in global warming hoax sand box.
The information is out there if a person can pull themselves away from the main stream media.

All I can say is "Bravo!"

There is no scientific consensus on global warming, contrary to what Al Gore would have you believe.(And where did Al Gore get his science degree again?)

The facts over the last ten years prove that there is no immediate or imminent danger from global warming, even if it did exist.

http://www.petitionproject.org/

For millions of years the climate of this planet has CONSTANTLY changed. Ice ages, oceans rising and fallinig. For anyone to think that that becouse THEY are now on the earth that the climate will stay the same and never change, well.......
It's a good thing that cave men were not as .. as ... well you know .... dare I say GULLABLE.

You are right Jeff, the whole Global Warming thing is a fraud and part of the plan to disrupt Americas economy. I wish that coal was all that there is to it but the same "Greenies" have directed Obama to shut down the nuclear waste storage facility in Yucca Nevada; project cost $16 billion. This being done, now the nuclear power plants have nowhere to take spent waste from the nations numerous nuclear power plants. As a result there will be no new nuclear power plants and the ones running will have to SHUT DOWN. They have also had the EPA classify CO2 which is dry ice and Nitrogen Oxide which is laughing gas as hazardous gases which will allow EPA to SHUT DOWN coal fired power plants.
I can assure you that the way things are are the way the Marxists want them. Good Article.

Global warming is about money. If we took the money out of global warming the 'crisis' would go away.

We have a winner!

Fun Facts wrote:

Global warming is about money. If we took the money out of global warming the 'crisis' would go away.

Very erudite comments I must say! Some of you even
bifurcated the Energy portion of the "Climate
Change" U.S. House and Senate legislative debates,
from the mitigating aspects of reducing CO2 emissions, either by the carrot-and-stick approach
of cap-and-trades/for Reforestation in the House Bill, and simply the revised proposed Senate Bill whence Sen. Barbara Boxer [D.CA], and Sen.John
Kerry [D.MA] want to tax 7500 major so-called carbon dioxide polluters, but articulate nothing about Reforestation! So neither are non-zero sum games! The former simply hands EIT's to Al Gore & Co Hedgefund/Derivative Mutual Fund speculating
on cheap coal being replaced by oil/natural gas,
raising prices of the latter through the roof; with unverifiable 'taxes' for NEW power plants only, going to 'forest stewards' holding a sword over our heads to logger- commercialize the woods if they don't get their way; while the other exacts/extorts revenues from 7500 major carbon dioxide/water vapor white plumes polluters, who will simply close up shop, laying off thousands of coal miners, plant operators, rather than pass on to consumers the higher costs of oil/natural gas conversions, without even giving the collected
"fines per ton of CO2" to the U.S. Forestry Dpt.
for lets say 6% to 8% State-by-State mandatory easely tracked timber conservation/ new growth plantings, also by 6% to 8%! My God that's an
average of 14% CO2/heat reductions right there,
as per President Obama's/Cabinet suggestions to 2020/2024!
I'm not even including the 6% to 8% CO2/heat
reductions on vehicular CAFE mandated new 35 mpg, standards by 2020/2024 with smaller/smarter
cars/trucks/busses; and aviation travel flights
reduced by 6% to 8%!!
The problem is so much miscommunication by the TV media who can't seem to differentiate between cap-and-trades/Reforestation; and simply taxing 7500 Industrials, with no clear Reforestation mandates and December 4th, Copenhagen Denmark U.S. examplar is rapidly approaching, while other Nations have already made extensive Reforestation, and Rainforestry conservation pledges by 2020.2024!!
F.M.
F.M.

Answer to 'C Lee Nickel Albuquerque NM #3':???
Yeah sure my esteemed friend, I suggest that the
Petition Project paper, and ~35,000 signees, of which I declined to sign on in June 2001, because they claimed that "CO2AGW" was exaggerated, simply because increased biomass was increasing, thus
reabsorbing the Industralized ever proliferation
of fossil fuels for creature comforts, and convenience; albeit mentioning the regional
"heat island effect" of concrete/asphalt/vehicles/powe r plants jungles
trillions of B.t.u joining air masses every milliseconds, around the World, the biomass WAS not increasing, as atesting by the Amazon losing 36% of its size, and increasing as more rainforests are cut, burnt for sugar cane/soybeans
E-85 ethanol/Bio-diesel respectively with 154,000,000 B.t.u {94,000,000 kilocalories} emitted at the fermenting/ distilling plant per 1000 gallons of CH3OH5, and about the same with the methyl ester derivative of soybean oil, for biodiesel in already hot/humid South America; and ~50 % of Africa's rainforests gone over the last 400 years, causing massive droughts {and not due to "CO2AGW"}; and about 35% of Indochina's; Indonesia rainforests/wild life habitats also gone,
an most of the U.S.A.'s forests disappearing to the extent we have to cut 500,000 acres of Canada's "boreal" trees {Northwind Arctic Circle
heat protection} per year for "Oh so soft face/toilet tissues" paperpulp; and now South Australia's forests burned down by an arsonist
about 9 month's ago!!

So albeit National Review neoconservatives may not appreciate this nuance, C Lee Nichol/Hal Rhodes, if you like camels just have a horse-
designing committee draw you up one!!
F.M.

But 35000 have signed the petition. That is no small number. Therefore, there is no consensus among science that man made global warming is real.

It appears no one in this discussion, so far at least, is a scientist involved with determining if global warming is or is not occurring and if so, the cause. In other words, we are laymen on the subject.
Bearing this in mind, I have a question for all who would care, or dare, to answer.
What is/are the biggest indicator(s) you use to deny or accept "global warming"?

I'll go first.
The biggest indicator that I use to accept the hypothesis the globe is warming and primarily due to man made intervention is the 2007 report issued by the UN Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change.

And you thought I was going to say Al Gore, didn't you?

C Lee Nickel wrote:

But 35000 have signed the petition. That is no small number.

You could get 50 millions idiots to sign a petition to abolish Pi if you wanted to but it wouldn't change the ratio of the circle to the diameter.

C Lee Nickel wrote:

Therefore, there is no consensus among science that man made global warming is real.

False. The climatologists that study AGW and climate change are the ONLY ones that have a solid consensus. That is because they all have to look at the same facts and understand them, while all SORTS of crap goes on with the general public.

The ways to go right is always SMALL compared to the ways to go wrong which means that the right way or right thought is always less popular.

http://www.logicalscience.com/consensus/conse...
http://www.eurekalert.org/pub_releases/2009-0...

oneeyedjack wrote:

It appears no one in this discussion, so far at least, is a scientist involved with determining if global warming is or is not occurring and if so, the cause. In other words, we are laymen on the subject.
Bearing this in mind, I have a question for all who would care, or dare, to answer.
What is/are the biggest indicator(s) you use to deny or accept "global warming"?
I'll go first.
The biggest indicator that I use to accept the hypothesis the globe is warming and primarily due to man made intervention is the 2007 report issued by the UN Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change.
And you thought I was going to say Al Gore, didn't you?

Don't you know that the ~2100 scientists from 194 nations got together and CONSPIRED to dupe the world about anthropogenic climate change? Don't you know that the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, along with the National Research Council, Royal Meterological Society (UK), Canadian Foundation for Climate and Atmospheric Sciences, European Geosciences Union, and many, many other scientific societies and associations around the world, are in on the conspiracy? Don't you know that semi-literate oil field trash know MORE about climatology than the Nobel Prize winning scientists of the IPCC do?

Seriously, it's now becoming clear that the IPCC's Fourth Assessment Report, 2007, is proving to have been overly conservative, in that warming is proceeding faster than projected even in their 'worst case' scenario. Our only hope is that the slide down the backslope of Hubbard's peak occurs sufficiently rapidly to avert climatic disaster. Of course, it will be impossible to feed 6.8 billion people post-peak. Oh well.

darwinsdog wrote:

<quoted text>
Don't you know that the ~2100 scientists from 194 nations got together and CONSPIRED to dupe the world about anthropogenic climate change? Don't you know that the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, along with the National Research Council, Royal Meterological Society (UK), Canadian Foundation for Climate and Atmospheric Sciences, European Geosciences Union, and many, many other scientific societies and associations around the world, are in on the conspiracy? Don't you know that semi-literate oil field trash know MORE about climatology than the Nobel Prize winning scientists of the IPCC do?
Seriously, it's now becoming clear that the IPCC's Fourth Assessment Report, 2007, is proving to have been overly conservative, in that warming is proceeding faster than projected even in their 'worst case' scenario. Our only hope is that the slide down the backslope of Hubbard's peak occurs sufficiently rapidly to avert climatic disaster. Of course, it will be impossible to feed 6.8 billion people post-peak. Oh well.

So is the IPCC 07 report your answer?

Fun Facts wrote:

Global warming is about money. If we took the money out of global warming the 'crisis' would go away.

So do you not think the globe is warming or is just not in crisis over it.

Yeah 'NobodyYouKnow #12': So far your writings are on par with a 12 year old emotional IQ! First of all climateologists are not scientists, idiot, just glorified weather forecasters! Second if there is no sophitiscated disagreements, as we can get both regional warming {GW}, and regional
global cooling {GC} as I have exhaustively written about then it just means they don't have the Chemistry/Physical Chemistry/Botany/Biology conscious vocabulary to integrate a 4 dimmensional jig-saw unassembled puzzle that is Nature's multi-faceted Carbon Cycle, which along with the Nitrogen Cycle constitute making sound Validity arguments, which then all legislators without an ax to grind, may see the conforming to facts and
reality Truth, in a Global stewardship attitude, not just here in their House of Representative
District; and Senatorial State!
Air masses move! High pressure molecules, are always changing places with low pressure ones,
mixing, convecting and taking the topography characteristics of the lands and oceans below!
And maybe it's the envy of one profession for the genius of another that is the problem! Believe
me there is no more jealousy than on evolving Scientific principles, especially when they come from someone they perceive is threading on their turf!! However well meaning, and sincere he/she
may be NYK!!
F.M.

Cut back on CO2 and the plants will die!Doesn't anybody remember anything from science class? Or are the global warming fanatacists too young to have been taught by "real" teachers?

frank miller wrote:

Yeah 'NobodyYouKnow #12': So far your writings are on par with a 12 year old emotional IQ! First of all climateologists are not scientists, idiot, just glorified weather forecasters! Second if there is no sophitiscated disagreements, as we can get both regional warming {GW}, and regional
global cooling {GC} as I have exhaustively written about then it just means they don't have the Chemistry/Physical Chemistry/Botany/Biology conscious vocabulary to integrate a 4 dimmensional jig-saw unassembled puzzle that is Nature's multi-faceted Carbon Cycle, which along with the Nitrogen Cycle constitute making sound Validity arguments, which then all legislators without an ax to grind, may see the conforming to facts and
reality Truth, in a Global stewardship attitude, not just here in their House of Representative
District; and Senatorial State!
Air masses move! High pressure molecules, are always changing places with low pressure ones,
mixing, convecting and taking the topography characteristics of the lands and oceans below!
And maybe it's the envy of one profession for the genius of another that is the problem! Believe
me there is no more jealousy than on evolving Scientific principles, especially when they come from someone they perceive is threading on their turf!! However well meaning, and sincere he/she
may be NYK!!
F.M.

Basic question to ya Franko. If you're such a know it all, do it all, crackerjack scientists, what in hell are you doing in F-Town blogging with a bunch of uniformed prairie dogs? This place isn't exactly the congragating area for future Nobel Prize scientist candates.
Personally,in my ignorant opinion, you are full of shite and it's running out of your fingers onto our little blog.
So I would say to you, take your fake expertise and stick it up your butt.
FYITE!

oneeye

ConserveUS wrote:

Cut back on CO2 and the plants will die!Doesn't anybody remember anything from science class? Or are the global warming fanatacists too young to have been taught by "real" teachers?

Well ConUS, the CO2 we're concerned about is way high in the sky. Even higher than Jack's bean stalk. Don't you remember anything from your fairy tales or were you too busy learning to spell fanatacists? Ask your mommy to explain it to you.

Good on you wrote:

Well said! As a scientist, I cannot believe in man-made global warming.

So, as a scientist, what information or data has convinced you that you "cannot believe in man-made global warming"? Inquiring non scientist minds want to know.