'Global Warming' Update: NOT Caused by Humans
Unless, of course, there are Republicans polluting Mars with their OilCheneySUVs and lack of
plenary indulgence carbon offsets. Which they most certainly are.
"President Bush discusses Global Climate Change"
Posted by: John Ryan at April 19, 2007 03:59 PM
Posted by: wooga at April 19, 2007 05:14 PM
We can only assume that you read the first paragraph to "prove" your point. There isn't much debate about the existance of global-warming. The debate, which is all by leftists with no real knowledge of the situation and scientists who have grant dollars to lose, is whether or not it is man-made global warming or naturally occuring.
From your source:
"[work towards] an effective and science-based response to the issue of global warming." [Emphasis mine]
And one not groundedin baseless-politics and emotion.
"... risen by .6 degrees Celsius over the past 100 years"
[Emphasis mine again]
Not exactly shooting up the thermometer there is it?
"There was a warming trend from the 1890s to the 1940s. Cooling from the 1940s to the 1970s. And then sharply rising temperatures from the 1970s to today."
This, in spite of the laws enacted such as the outlawing of CFCs - in this country at least. Other countries? Not so much.
Based on the math, we should start seeing another cooling trend in the next few years. What will the talking points be when that happens?
"There is a natural greenhouse effect that contributes to warming" [again my emphasis]
natural <> man-made -therefore, we have no control over it and no amount of money thrown at the problem will have any effect.
"no one can say with any certainty what constitutes a dangerous level of warming"
If you're going to quote something as your source, it should at least back up your argument.
Get back to us on the man-made global-warming talk and how we need to "reduce our carbon footprint" when a majority of the scientists can't agree whether it exists or not. As long ashalf are saying it doesn't and that we're just going through a natural phase, I think I would prefer to keep the money in my pocket, thank you.
The real kicker is all of Hollywood celebrities preaching to us about what we should be doing while not practicing what they preach. In their twisted world, flying on their private jets serve the greater good. I have more respect for Ed Begley, Jr because he, at least, is not a hypocrite. Maybe looney tunes but not a hypocrite. I would be curious to hear your views on these hypocrites such as Laurie David and Al Gore. They're good at telling us how to live as they personally do more harm to this so-called man-made global warming than any 100+ or so regular people in their jets and using more energy in their mansions than everyone on my street.
Assuming you work for a living and don't live off the government teet, how much more of your paycheck are you willing to give up to pay for the US to fund the Kyoto protocol? If "We account for almost 20 percent of the world's man-made greenhouse emissions" and "account for about one-quarter of the world's economic output", why are we expected to be one of the few to adhere to the treaty and pay an extremely large percentage of the cost while the biggest offenders are noteven required to take part?
That, my friend, is where liberalism breaks down. Few people, regardless of their politics, disagree that things like universal health care or some other liberal talking point are necessarily bad things (although partial birth abortion is wrong no matter how you argue it) but every liberal I ask how much of their paycheck they're willing to give up to pay for their favorite social program, their answer is always "none". They just want it to magically happen.
Posted by: slug at April 19, 2007 05:53 PM
USA, all the way!
Posted by: Michael Weaver at April 19, 2007 06:28 PM
Why don't you believe National Geographic, or climatologists or weather experts when they don't tow your line? Because your politics are more important that factual, scientific reality. You believe the "global weather" is getting worse, even though there is no scientific or statistical analysis or evidence to support this assertion anywhere. Algore's slideshow is not "evidence" or anything, and has been rightly refuted by scientists from across the political spectrum. You believe it as an article of faith, therefore making anthro-global warming a dogmatic religion.
John Ryan only shows up when I post Global Warming posts anymore, so I'm really posting these scientific refutations of global warming huxterism it just to irritate him/it.
He and his kind can't stand to see balance to their politics (that's right - the environmental "movement" is about politics and not science), so we're here to provide it. If it were up to them, we'd all be living in mudhuts picking berries constantly somewhere hugging trees while worshiping golden Algore and Clenis idols.
Posted by: Good Lt at April 19, 2007 08:34 PM
Posted by: davec at April 19, 2007 11:02 PM
A Cooling World. Newsweek. April 1975.
We've been down this road before.
Posted by: Good Lt at April 19, 2007 11:35 PM
Posted by: Michael Weaver at April 20, 2007 02:10 AM
Posted by: Glenmore at April 20, 2007 09:31 AM
Posted by: sandpiper at April 20, 2007 09:56 AM
Posted by: greyrooster at April 20, 2007 09:02 PM
Processing 0.01, elapsed 0.0077 seconds.
15 queries taking 0.0058 seconds, 19 records returned.
Page size 13 kb.
Powered by Minx 0.7 alpha.