goldberry

http://www.wired.com/news/technology/0,1282,66651,00.html?tw=wn_tophead_3

__________________
"Is our children learning?" George W. Bush

Zilos

Considering it was raining here a couple days before Xmas when we used to have nearly 18 feet of snow, this has really got me wondering. The winters here are seeming warmer and warmer every year. The local ski hill in town didn't even open yet and may not open, since there just isn't enough snow!

And this just right out pisses me off! The US government just doesn't seem to give a damn one way or the other, aslong as they keep rolling in the money. How much proof do they need? Perhaps once the damage is irreversible, then they will acknowledge it!

__________________
:: Posting Guidelines :: 420 Lounge :: Hemp Cultivation :: Myths :: Canadian Laws :: U.S. Laws :: Recipes ::

PotShot

Solar panels over Antarctica! Or maybe massive planting of trees, and other vegatation, to "breathe" up all the excess CO2? Maybe a reduction in paper use, improvements in communication skills is doing just that.

Legalizing hemp to be grown in the US might be a good idea too.

Or maybe solar panels on a small scale? Like developing countries? Or is the technology not adequate?

__________________

Carl Sagan Goodness Richard Dawkins Goodness

Mamabudz

That was the theme of my as yet unwritten novel...

To counteract the greenhouse effect ...a crop of cannabis was mass planted over all deforested areas of the globe (the Amazon, the almost arid areas soorrounding the Nile, the upper reaches of the Alps, etc.) as the most likely plant to take in every subniche and re-green the planet in order to avert mass Global Warming...

...it would work too... and supply an energy sauce with it's oils and textile source and pharmeceautical source...and oh yes, make the world a shiney happy place...

.
.
.
.

But being that thi si an unexact science it would by needs be an unexact Science FIction novel, at least when sold to the Republican majority

S2

yet Irrational Poeple like These offer irrational debate like This

And naturally to assert that these bozos can compare with anyone who says anything contrary is to be an uncaring republican.

The growth rate of major greenhouse gas emmissions peaked around 1980 and has fallen since; CO2's growth rate has been relatively flat since the mid-1970s—a fact that Barnett's projections do not take into account. True, the data show shor term warming, but the absolute link between observation and cause is not a slam dunk for many scientists--some of them quite rational. Barnett's model does not account for solar output at all--output that is coming off of a recent period of solar maximium

Could there be global warming caused by humans? Sure. Is the debate over? Not for me.


Human activities may have averted the next ice age

goldberry

You don't concede that global warming is caused by humans, but if it is then it might even be a good thing? Is that what you're saying?

solutions

This was a new one for me, Global Dimming:

The good news is that polution has moderated the effects of global warming so far, the bad news that the earth will heat up when we reduce polution.

I'm hoping for a Green Revolution soon... in the meantime Nuclear Power is very much an issue in Dutchland too, already 60% of electricty is Nuclear, and the "Borselle" power plant's scheduled termination may be postponed... the theory that "global warming is real, but not human induced" is not lost in the debate, but the other side has terms like "point of return" not to mention "global transmutation or extinction in 2012" for mankind...

Hope to read your sci-fi soon MamaBudz, the thesis that cannabis will save the earth still seems pretty credible.

__________________
3 monkeys sitting under a coconut tree
discussing things as they are set to be
Said one to the other, now listen you two
there's a strange rumor that can't be true
they say man was descended from our noble race
but the very idea is a big disgrace
no monkey ever deserted his wife
or her baby to ruin their lives.
Damian Marley - Educated Fools

Plainsman1963

The Creeping Fascism of Global Warming Hysteria
Man-made orthodoxy is a dogma of coercion, bias, and junk science
2-13-2007 | CanadaFreePress.Com | Paul Joseph Watson

The hoax of the doctrine of man-made global warming that is being foisted upon the world by decree, and the junk science that is manipulated to support it, represents a creeping fascism whose agenda to stifle open debate betrays the fact that climate change hysteria is a farce intended to crush freedoms and further centralize global power.

In an interview with a Czech newspaper , Vaclav Klaus, the President of the Czech Republic blamed the "whip of political correctness" for preventing more scientists and statesmen from going public with their skepticism on man-made global warming. This is precisely what we have arrived at, in a bizarre vacuum of common sense and without any attribution, the establishment and the controlled left have managed to squash reasoned two-sided debate about global warming by coating their argument with the nebulous claim that expressing disagreement is somehow bigoted, backward and even racist.

The very fact that the man-made advocates have to introduce such a far distant concept as race into a debate about scientific climate change makes it self-evident that their argument is inherently weak and vulnerable.

In an article we published in November about global warming being primarily caused by the sun, we commented somewhat tongue in cheek that people who express doubts about global warming would soon be compared to holocaust deniers by the media and other self-appointed cultural kingpins who demand total adherence to orthodox religion style beliefs about climate change.

Here's what we wrote :
It's no longer a joke.

The Boston Globe's Ellen Goodman wrote an op-ed last week denouncing anyone who dares dissent against the God-like authoritative status of the IPCC UN report on climate change:
OpinionJournal - Best of the Web Today
This assault betrays what's at the heart of the global warming agenda - a cadre of control freaks who can't respond to the overwhelming evidence that the Sun and other long term natural cycles are responsible for climate change and thus have to resort to vile propagandistic personality attacks to sway the court of public opinion.

During a debate on the BBC's Question Time program, a panelist's appeal for viewers to simply look at both sides of the argument and consider other causes besides the man-made explanation was met with boos and cat-calls from the audience and the speaker was shouted down. It's now treated as sacrilegious to even question the force fed dogma that leads the automatons to endlessly repeat what has been brainwashed into them by the establishment media like a broken record.

"We can't afford to have this debate," they scream, arguing that the end is nigh and unbelievers need to be metaphorically burned at the stake of public opinion in the interests of human survival.

But for those with memories and the nerve to actually think for themselves, the climate doomsayers have been proven wrong throughout the decades. In the late 60's and early 70's, the in-vogue hysteria about climate change and how it spelled the end for humanity as we know it revolved around the concept of global cooling . Again, this arose out of a misunderstanding of long term temperature fluctuations and the fact that the earth was at the end of the cycle of the Little Ice Age .

Writer John Bender has done an excellent job of compiling quotes from environmental "authorities" of past decades who told us that the sky was falling yet have been completely discredited with hindsight. Keep these dire proclamations in mind when you hear yet another "repeater" regurgitate the brainwashing that he or she has been indoctrinated with by the establishment.
The IPCC is a political body, not a scientific organization, therefore its proclamation is purely intended at achieving a political agenda. The document they released on February 2 that was devotedly afforded days of intense coverage by the compliant establishment media was a political manifesto based on a scientific undertaking that has not even been completed. How empirical is a "scientific experiment" whose conclusions are announced before tests have even been completed? The document immediately states that the "scientific" research is being edited to conform to the already released political summary.

“Changes (other than grammatical or minor editorial changes) made after acceptance by the Working Group or the Panel shall be those necessary to ensure consistency with the Summary for Policymakers or the Overview Chapter,” states the brief.

The U.N. has confidently announced "case closed" on man-made global warming because they are editing their own uncompleted report to mirror their pre-conceived conclusion. Hardly "independent" is it?

The IPCC report was piggybacked onto a bandwagon of public relations stunts that had nothing to do with the evidence behind global warming but were enough to leave an impression in the mind of the casual viewer that the man-made explanation was a global consensus. These included the Eiffel Tower's lights being turned off for 5 minutes and a ludicrous incident in which British primate expert Jane Goodall imitated the wild call of a tropical chimpanzee.

Czech President Klaus stated, "Global warming is a false myth and every serious person and scientist says so. It is not fair to refer to the U.N. panel. IPCC is not a scientific institution: it's a political body, a sort of non-government organization of green flavor. It's neither a forum of neutral scientists nor a balanced group of scientists. These people are politicized scientists who arrive there with a one-sided opinion and a one-sided assignment."

Man-made advocates go to great lengths to highlight the fact that transnational oil giants such as Exxon-Mobil offer thousands of dollars for reports aimed at disproving the UN theory, claiming this taints any opposing viewpoint as biased, and yet conveniently ignore the fact that it was the U.N. itself and Ted Turner, a man-made devotee and advocate of drastic population reduction to save the planet, who gifted the organization $1 Billion which in part funded the IPCC report. Is that not biased? Is that not a example of scientists being lavishly bankrolled to produce evidence that fits a pre-conceived outcome? Is the fact that a carbon tax fueled by fear of climate change that will go directly to assorted U.N. agencies itself a commentary on the U.N.'s role on hyping man-made global warming?
MaximsNews Network

In addition, Greenpeace are recruiting "global warming field organizer's" whose job it is to lobby members of Congress to push the agenda for man-made global warming. So if you thought your donation was going to help save whales or protect the rainforest you're sorely mistaken - it's partly funding a PR assault that will eventually orbit right back to you in the form of a draconian carbon emissions tax that will do nothing to prevent global warming but will fill the pockets of global government and the U.N.
Greenpeace Global Warming FIeld Organizer

Not all scientists were prepared to sacrifice their impartiality to be in on the scam. Dr. Chris Landsea resigned from the IPCC in his own words because, “I personally cannot in good faith continue to contribute to a process that I view as both being motivated by pre-conceived agendas and being scientifically unsound.”

Landsea is one of many climate experts, meteorologists, geologists and others who have braved the scorn of the flat-earthers to point out that man-made advocates have utilized myopic and blinkered scientific trickery to make their case.

Timothy Ball, Chairman of the Natural Resources Stewardship Project and former climatology professor at the University of Winnipeg, recently penned an outstanding piece in which he detailed how the illusion is being played out and how skeptics of the farce are increasingly being made pariahs simply for having an opposing view. Ball puts it better than I ever could so I make no apologies for quoting his article at length.
Global Warming: The Cold, Hard Facts?

Global Warming, as we think we know it, doesn't exist. And I am not the only one trying to make people open up their eyes and see the truth. But few listen, despite the fact that I was one of the first Canadian Ph.Ds. in Climatology and I have an extensive background in climatology, especially the reconstruction of past climates and the impact of climate change on human history and the human condition. Few listen, even though I have a Ph.D, (Doctor of Science) from the University of London, England and was a climatology professor at the University of Winnipeg. For some reason (actually for many), the World is not listening. Here is why.

Believe it or not, Global Warming is not due to human contribution of Carbon Dioxide (CO2). This in fact is the greatest deception in the history of science. We are wasting time, energy and trillions of dollars while creating unnecessary fear and consternation over an issue with no scientific justification.

No sensible person seeks conflict, especially with governments, but if we don't pursue the truth, we are lost as individuals and as a society. That is why I insist on saying that there is no evidence that we are, or could ever cause global climate change. And, recently, Yuri A. Izrael, Vice President of the United Nations sponsored Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) confirmed this statement. So how has the world come to believe that something is wrong?

Maybe for the same reason we believed, 30 years ago, that global cooling was the biggest threat: a matter of faith. "It is a cold fact: the Global Cooling presents humankind with the most important social, political, and adaptive challenge we have had to deal with for ten thousand years. Your stake in the decisions we make concerning it is of ultimate importance; the survival of ourselves, our children, our species," wrote Lowell Ponte in 1976.

I was as opposed to the threats of impending doom global cooling engendered as I am to the threats made about Global Warming. Let me stress I am not denying the phenomenon has occurred. The world has warmed since 1680, the nadir of a cool period called the Little Ice Age (LIA) that has generally continued to the present. These climate changes are well within natural variability and explained quite easily by changes in the sun. But there is nothing unusual going on.
Since I obtained my doctorate in climatology from the University of London, Queen Mary College, England my career has spanned two climate cycles. Temperatures declined from 1940 to 1980 and in the early 1970's global cooling became the consensus. This proves that consensus is not a scientific fact. By the 1990's temperatures appeared to have reversed and Global Warming became the consensus. It appears I'll witness another cycle before retiring, as the major mechanisms and the global temperature trends now indicate a cooling.

No doubt passive acceptance yields less stress, fewer personal attacks and makes career progress easier. What I have experienced in my personal life during the last years makes me understand why most people choose not to speak out; job security and fear of reprisals. Even in University, where free speech and challenge to prevailing wisdoms are supposedly encouraged, academics remain silent.

No one disagrees with the notion that global warming is occurring, but to discount the fact that it has anything to do with that giant flaming ball of fire in our sky that we can barely look at without being blinded is ignorance unparalleled.

How do we square the fact that almost every planet in our solar system is simultaneously undergoing temperature change and volatile weather patterns? Does this not suggest that global warming is a natural cycle as a result of the evolving nature of the sun and other celestial phenomena? Can Al Gore fill me in on this one?

Mars, Pluto, Jupiter, Saturn, Triton and numerous other nooks and crannies throughout the solar system are experiencing warming trends and volatile weather patterns. How many SUV's are there on Jupiter?

The earth and its celestial counterparts are getting hotter because the Sun is burning more brightly than at any time in the past 1,000 years , according to a study undertaken by the Max Planck Institute for Solar System Research in Gottingen, Germany.
The truth about global warming - it's the Sun that's to blame | Germany | Europe | International News | News | Telegraph

In addition, cosmic rays from exploding stars have now been found to contribute substantially to cloud formation and the greenhouse effect as the London Times reported yesterday.

The simple fact is that throughout the ages the earth has swung wildly between a warm, wet, stable climate, to a cold, dry and windy one - long before the first fossil fuel was burned. The changes we are now witnessing are a walk in the park compared to the battering that our rugged planet has taken in the past.

This is not a defense of the oil cartels or the Neo-Con wreckers, who would have every motivation to ignore global warming whether it is man-made or not.

Nor is it a blanket denial of the fact that the earth is getting very gradually hotter, but how do we reconcile global warming taking place at the farthest reaches of the solar system with the contention that it is caused by human activity? Have our exhaust fumes left earth's atmosphere and slipped through a black hole to Triton?

Countless other heroes of science have put their reputation and careers on the line in the name of truth to expose the man-made fraud and challenge the creeping fascism being engendered by means of using political correctness to hijack the debate. They have bucked the orthodoxy and risked being stripped of their credentials, as the Weather Channel's most prominent climatologist would have it. Here are several insightful statements from these brave individuals.
VACOALBLOG: Weather Channel wants to snuff out free thots?
Man-made global warming feeds into humanity's arrogant self-importance in thinking that it has become the master and therefore the decider of the earth's destiny. On an individual level, it also helps a person stroke their ego and feel good about themselves for recycling a few beer cans or wine bottles in the belief that they're saving the planet, and also gives them the excuse to exercise their judgment against anyone who doesn't do likewise.

Fearmongering about an imminent climate doomsday also hogs news coverage and important environmental issues like GM food, mad scientist chimera cloning and the usurpation and abuse of corporations like Monsanto flies under the radar.

Global warming is cited as an excuse to meter out further control and surveillance over our daily lives, RFID chips on our trash cans, GPS satellite tracking and taxation by the mile, as well as a global tax at the gas pump.

The extremist wing of the environmentalist movement, characterized by people like Dr. Erik Pianka , advocate the mass culling of humanity via plagues and state sanctioned bio-terrorism, in order to "save" the earth from the disease of humanity. Nazi-like genocidal population control measures and the environmental establishment have always held a close alliance.

The world is laboring under enforced adherence to a program of mass deception while scientists who attempt to blow the whistle on the fraud are silenced, tarred, ridiculed and fired. The biased control freaks at the United Nations and their intellectually spayed cheerleaders, whose goal it is to use the hysteria of climate change to impose draconian control measures on society and centralize world power, have declared "case closed" on the man-made origins of global warming. However, their foolish attempts to zealously mute mere expression of an opposing view betray the inherent flaws of their own mantra and will ultimately lead to its downfall.

[Plains- Now granted, this guy is as harsh as the opposing zealots are when voicing their opinion...But an actual debate would be nice...Using actual science and not hyperbole and public relations. Seems anymore, if you question the wisdom of man made global warming, you are seen as an heretic, a fool, or worse. ]

1tokeovertheline

Well they can just call me foolish. Global warming my ass, it's -15 degree with a Nor'easter blowin' in up to 2-3 foot of snow this morning. Them people that talk about global warming should live up here for a while or where sec3 lives. They would pray for global warming.
What's friggin' funny is, it seems everytime I read about global warming or see a show on TV about it, I am chucking wood in the stove to try to keep warm with the outside temps of 20 - 40 below zero snowing like hell and trying to decide if I want to go out and run the snowblower or just put the truck in 4 wheel drive.
Global warming............

By the way today it's 4 wheel drive. Probably all the way to work and back too.

Geno

Hey, guys.

Sorry to play the devil's advocate, but what if Global warming isn't real? I mean, think about it. It could be a scare tactic, trying to get people to not littler, and not pollute. Scare tactics have been done before (*cough*marijuanakills?*cough*) and, well... everyone has a price. Maybe some environmental agency(ies) are paying off scientists, and government officials ,(Has been done before.) for a statement saying that global warming is a major crisis. I personally don't really have an oppinion either way, because I just don't care. But, what if it's all just a scare tactic?