I attended a convention where they asked a scientist from the University of Colorado who believes in manmade CO2 based global warming, "What would need to happen to get you to admit you were wrong?"

His answer, "The current cooling trend would have to continue for another 10 to 20 years."




Yea, go look that up..


I never deny climate change. The climate has been changing since the beginning of time. I simply reject hysteria and theories that suggest catastrophic anthropogenic (man-made) CO2 based climate change is occurring.

There's a reason the left has changed vernacular; Global Warming is now Climate Change, and Sea Level Rise is now Storm Surge. Scientists have not been able to demonstrate a correlation with their radical CO2 warming theories, so they now repackage their movement with even vaguer wording.

global warming hype

Furthermore, even in theory, if you assumed CO2 was the substantive driver of climate, CO2 abatement schemes large enough to be effective would be unaffordable; and those schemes small enough to be affordable would be ineffective. For example: To reduce the earth's temperature one degree with CO2 abatement would require an investment equivalent to 130 years GDP of the entire planet, or more than $4,000,000,000,000,000 (4 quadrillion dollars). It ain't happening.

The question is not whether climate is changing... it has been changing for eons. The proper questions are:
Is change exceeding usual cyclical variations?
If so, is the variance substantial?
Do the negative impacts outweigh the positive impacts?
If so, are any changes likely to be catastrophic?
If so, what are the true drivers (causes)?
Can change be conclusively correlated with any human activities?
How large of a component do human activities play?
If manmade, can we reasonably abate them?
What is the most appropriate coping mechanism? General abatement or focused adaptation?

I recommend you read the U.S. Senate Minority Report containing statements from 700 scientists rebutting Climate Change. Several of the scientists were previously involved with the UN-IPCC, and to put it bluntly, they say it just ain't so, and the 52 scientists on the IPCC are wrong.

Charts I have seen of worldwide cyclonic energy, worldwide temperatures, etc. do not corroborate CO2 theories. Claims of increased damage from hurricanes and storms are a function of increased development and infrastructure in vulnerable areas... NOT more violent storms.

Claims in Maryland of rising sea level are actually a function of settlement of land masses. Furthermore, usual and customary sea level rise elsewhere of 3mm a year (ten inches per century) hardly qualifies as catastrophic. Besides, if Maryland's Governor O'Malley and his Department of Planning REALLY believed this bunk, they wouldn't be constructing more subways underground.

Maryland will spend $17 Billion attempting to reduce Greenhouse Gases over the next decade. You'll be pleased to know that this effort, if successful, will reduce the temperature of Maryland by 1/20,000 of one degree. Unfortunately, we have no way of measuring anything this small. So even if the program is a success, we'll have no way of knowing it.

I attended a convention where they asked a scientist from the University of Colorado who believes in manmade CO2 based global warming, "What would need to happen to get you to admit you were wrong?"

His answer, "The current cooling trend would have to continue for another 10 to 20 years."

Bladabling.

The "Climateers" argue that most scientific papers support their theories. Of course, nearly 100% of all government research grants are commissioned with a charge to demonstrate global warming exists. Clearly, it should be no surprise when universities and non-profits eager for follow-on grants give the government exactly the so-called science it requests. After all... if they produce conclusions counter to what the government wants, they get no more money.

People ask, why do you call them "Climateers?" Simply because they are the only crisis centric group that becomes genuinely disappointed when evidence is produced that demonstrates their fears may be unfounded. Amusing.

Environmental exaggeration provides the rubric government needs to scare children, scare adults, and justify unacceptable encroachments on our constitutional freedoms.

Of course the smoking gun that says it all was the recent statement by the former undersecretary of the Marxist UN-IPCC and Ottmar Edenhofer who made the statement, "... that we redistribute the world's wealth by climate policy."

Ouch!!!

I agree with the 700 scientist(s) in the Senate Report who conclude that claims of CO2-based catastrophic anthropogenic global warming is the biggest fraud ever perpetuated on the human race.

We need our teachers to take the lead, and start teaching our children both sides of this debate and stop indoctrinating them with one-sided government paid-for propaganda.
****************************************************

Hey! Looka there! How many times have I said its easier to pull the wool over someones eyes than pull it off??
*********************************************
And finally, as Mark Twain once said, "It is easier to fool a man than to convince him that he's been fooled."

Read more at http://freedomoutpost.com/2014/01/santa-clause-easter-bunnies-catastrophic-gl...


But, the kool-aid drinkers wont slow down,,

Oh, I do remember this, it was a travesty and was the pre-cursor to the Nobel Prize becoming a joke (which came to pass when Obama won it for being a Socialist). The Nobel prize is just another way to reward socialists and redistribute wealth to the "elites".

You aren't the only ones...


Thank Agenda 21, Red Tape and Green sustainability for Somerset floods in UK

http://joannenova.com.au/

Christopher Booker explains in The Spectator that it’s not global warming that caused  such ghastly floods in the UK, but incompetence and a Green wetland plan. He lives near Somerset, (SW England) so he started investigating the rising water six weeks ago — which has now become widespread inundation there, with damages estimated at over £100 million.


.

As usual, this was a process of small government becoming collectivized big-government.

In the Spectator he writes that before 1996, local groups of farmers and engineers managed the drains, but in 1996 the EA (Environmental Agency) took over.
Regular dredging stopped happening, the pumping stations were neglected (or stopped...), and the local drainage boards found it hard to get anything done with the EA red tape.
Then things got worse. In 2002, “the Baroness Young of Old Scone, a Labour peeress [=Senator], became the agency’s new chief executive”.
As Booker goes on to note, she used to run the Royal Society for the Protection of Birds and Natural England, not that that’s a bad thing per se, just that she had different aims to the people who lived there.
The locals saw what was coming, they feared that the river had become choked and silted, they wanted control back.
Instead, what they got was some parts of Somerset suddenly “returned to wetland” — but that, it seems, was kinda the goal.

Booker and Richard North pored through documents and found remarkable quotes.  
According to the Baroness, the cheapest way to get a wetland was to “stop drainage” and let “nature take its course”.

The rest is current news...  

thumperclone wrote on 02/18/14 at 23:21:27:



I would agree,, BUT,, to what extent? The climate has been in constant flux, look at the Great Lakes,, they are the result of glaciers dragging along,, whose SUV melted them?

Excellent points made in the article below. The short version is the climate predictions have all been wrong from the very beginning; some by dramatic amounts. If there were any noticeable differences in weather or real consequences we could see, I think everyone would get on board. I think when the population as a whole sees danger in the future, enough respond to effect change. Global warming has become a political issue because there are no real consequences to make up people's minds for them. Too many people see this for what it is: just another way for a few to grab power over many.

http://online.wsj.com/news/articles/SB100014240527023039457045793916110413312...

Some days you truly impress me,,

This is either a case of a blind squirrel finding an acorn now and then or I'm brilliant all the time. You decide....

I think this is what happens to us all:we foolishly think the leaders of our land want to make it better and believe their research cause of course it's not prejudiced.   We become old and if we live long enough, fight is an asinine war or three to make a few people richer and note that whoever pays for the research seems, oddly enough, to have a major effect on the results.  the Great Inventor  of cynicism is long life.

Weather you believe it or not would you rather suck smoke stacks or have a few solar panels & wind turbines provide your power? Oh & the east coast & gulf have had hundred year storms every other year for the last 5-10 years... climate change/bad weather whatever is costs lots o $ & we're killin the planet... or mayb it will kill us when the environment gets too out of wack. Harmony w/our home will work better in long run! (& I have solar panels on my roof payin 1/2 my power bill take that Power Co monopoly LOL)