By Via a reader tip comes news that another global warming myth has been debunked yet again:
Research by hurricane scientists may force the UN’s climate panel to reconsider its claims that greenhouse gas emissions have caused an increase in the number of tropical storms.
The benchmark report from the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) said that a worldwide increase in hurricane-force storms since 1970 was probably linked to global warming.
It followed some of the most damaging storms in history such as Hurricane Katrina, which hit New Orleans and Hurricane Dennis which hit Cuba, both in 2005.
The IPCC added that humanity could expect a big increase in such storms over the 21st century unless greenhouse gas emissions were controlled.
The warning helped turn hurricanes into one of the most iconic threats of global warming, with politicians including Ed Miliband, the energy secretary, and Al Gore citing them as a growing threat to humanity.
The cover of Gore’s newest book, Our Choice, even depicts an artist’s impression of a world beset by a series of huge super-hurricanes as a warning of what might happen if carbon emissions continue to rise.
However, the latest research, just published in Nature Geoscience, paints a very different picture. (………………..)
“We have come to substantially different conclusions from the IPCC,” said Chris Landsea, a lead scientist at the American government’s National Hurricane Center, who co-authored the report.
He added: ”There are a lot of legitimate concerns about climate change but, in my opinion, hurricanes are not among them. We are looking at a decrease in frequency and a small increase in severity.” Landsea said he regarded the use of hurricane icons on the cover of Gore’s book as “misleading”.
Do these guys have any creditability left?
It is the sad reality. No mistake...
3:27 pm on March 3rd, 2010 1
GI Korea, without discussing the merit of this article (not only because I don't have a link), it appears that you're cherry-picking a bit: The same journal, with other research it prints, appears to assume the position that global warming is real.
I'm not trying to be combative about this, of course. I think skepticism of anything is very healthy, though it seems you are convinced that if average temperature rises do exist, they have nothing to do with human activities. And being convinced of that seems just as bad as being convinced of the opposite; there are forces surreptitiously promoting their self-interest on both sides of the debate.
Are there any environmental problems that you do consider to be the result of human activities? Ozone depletion? Particulate matter in the air? The giant floating garbage patch in the Pacific? Red tides?
3:49 pm on March 3rd, 2010 2
This is terribly inconvienient for Jacob since he will obviouly read it, but be unable to respond with anything other than a sockpuppet due to his self imposed exile.
4:22 pm on March 3rd, 2010 3
As Kushibo, there is no link to the source of the article, but it still is not really news. Dr. Chris Landsea cited this 5 years ago, in his letter of resignation from the IPCC. http://www.climatechangefacts.info/ClimateChangeD…
As I understand his argument, he is not rejecting the claims that there is global warming. He is only rejecting the claims that warming will appreciably increase the frequency and strength of hurricanes.
6:28 pm on March 3rd, 2010 4
Kushibo what you are confusing is not whether global warming exists, but that it is caused by man and by natural forces. There is a strong political group that wants everyone to believe its caused by man and then enact tax's and other financial measures to "control" it, there by making billions in dollars for those companies involved.
They use many tactics, including BS research and fear mongering about natural disasters being caused caused by us. Namely hurricanes and tropical storms being a result of an increase in CO2 in the atmosphere. This was shown to be a lie years ago, but back then you were derided and yelled at if you refused to back the golden cash cow.
Yes there are MANY environmental conditions that are created by man kind, you named a few with the garbage in the Pacific and airborne particle pollution. But "ozone depletion" is a myth. Ozone is created whenever molecules of O2 (typical airborne oxygen) are struck by high speed radiation or otherwise ionized. This happens on the surface through lightning storms (that electric smell during / after a strike is actually O3). It happens in the upper atmosphere by high speed cosmic radiation striking the O2. Excessive amounts of reactive gas's poured into the air can cause ozone levels to deplete in a specific geographic region, but only for a short period. The same cosmic radiation that makes ozone also breaks up the compounds produced by the nasty stuff. The atmosphere repairs itself at an astonishing speed.
Active Volcano's pour more crap into the air then people can possibly imagine. From methane to poisonous sulfur compounds mixed with carbon ash. And we're all still alive.
I would rather science money be spent into researching things that ARE a problem (too much trash and particle pollution as you named) then on myth's designed to milk money from a stupid public.
6:56 pm on March 3rd, 2010 5
So when did the naysayers go from saying there was no global warming to saying there is global warming but that it isn't caused by humans?
And do you have a link about ozone depletion being a myth?
7:05 pm on March 3rd, 2010 6
From your link:
The IPCC assessments in 1995 and 2001 also concluded that there was no global warming signal found in the hurricane record.
This statement runs contrary to what the news article above is saying. According to your link, the IPCC science hasn't supported the claim of global warming leading to higher hurricane activity so nobody should claim that. Thus there's no climate science research connecting the two to "debunk."
7:29 pm on March 3rd, 2010 7
Please stop attempting to lump everyone who disagrees with you into a single group. This is a logical fallacy and prevents objective debate from happening. Then again that is assuming you were even after objective debate from the beginning (I like to give people the benefit of a doubt).
Some years the world warms, some years it cools. For awhile it was warming, in the past few years its been cooling.
What is debate is whether man is the one causing the warming (and therefor the cooling too). Specifically the production of CO2 causing a higher green house effect thus causing the world to get warming. Hence the term AGW. What is know is that CO2 is a VERY small green house gas, its role is limited. But CO2 is produced by nearly all known process's on the planet. Its by far the easiest to target for money making schemes as its virtually impossible to get around its creation. If your car is electric it requires electricity, that electricity mostly comes from coal fired / gas power plants and thus CO2 must be produced to eventually run your car. Also the actual construction of the car happens at a factory and that factory requires large amounts of electricity to operate. The list goes on and on but you can trace damn near everything on the planet to CO2.
All current reliable (what little of it there is) evidence points that man made CO2 is having little if any actual effect on the temperature of the planet. It is ~NOT~ getting warmer, even though China and India are generating an insane amount of CO2 relative to other nations. As a species we're generating more CO2 then in the past twenty or thirty years, yet the planet has not turned into some super hot ball of fire. There are no super "category 6" hurricanes destroying the human race. The total mass of polar ice has NOT changed (what melts in one place only grows in another).
The only thing we can be sure of is that there is a political group trying to force AGW down the collective world's throats in an attempt to make mad $$$ from it. You realize Al'Gore started a company who's entire existence is to "make" and sell "carbon credits" to other companies? They are creating a non existent product, something written on a piece of paper, and plan to sell this non-existent product to companies for pure profit. The companies will be forced to buy this non-existent product or face severe tax fines or possible being shut down. Yet if we don't force these companies to buy this non-existent product (from good ole Al's company) then we're all gonna doom ourselves to roast and die on the planet.
I want REAL research and study. Real data that hasn't been manipulated. I want open debate about various theory's and idea's, without fear of being shut out of funding by political powers. Currently none of that exists in the "climate science" world.
7:37 pm on March 3rd, 2010 8
I'm not lumping anything. The sentiment coming from the naysayers had in the past been that it doesn't exist. Now there appears to be acknowledgment that it exists but that it's not "anthropogenic."
Some years the world warms, some years it cools. For awhile it was warming, in the past few years its been cooling.
"Cooling" from very high temperatures, but still higher than in the past, no?
8:41 pm on March 3rd, 2010 9
Do a little research on the core heat/magnatism of the earth and you will find another answer to all these "Observations" of warming/cooling. Sorry I don't have time to research my links.
10:57 pm on March 3rd, 2010 10
Scientifically speaking, the issue needs more deliberate and careful study. The Eco-Loons would have us believe the sky is falling yesterday, while the opportunists would fleece us tomorrow of all they can while the trend is hot – gee, remember all that global cooling nonsense from the 70s? All these douche bags in such a hurry to constrain us and tax us over this stuff need to be ignored for what they are and/or tossed out of office as appropriate. Enough, already! Fed up with all this hooey!!
11:21 pm on March 3rd, 2010 11
Carbon credits… Holy crap what a scam. That in and of itself should send up warning flags. The possibility of man made climate change needs careful and scientific study. Not studies trying to prove a theory; open ended studies looking for the truth whatever it is. That is science. Right now all I see are people trying to prove themselves correct – and many profit from it.
When ALGore (and other delegates) moves out of his mansion, stops riding in SUV's and jetting around to climate conferences (where they have huge, kick-ass buffets)in his private corporate jet… Then we can start talking about it.
In this age they could hold video teleconferences from local Hiltons to discuss the Earths ultimate demise… Who can take these farkwits seriously? Except perhaps other farkwits….
11:46 pm on March 3rd, 2010 12
Yes, that is definitely an inconvenient truth, Hamilton. Love it.
11:51 pm on March 3rd, 2010 13
I'm not sure what planet you are living on Kushibo, but here on Earth the debate has always been about whether the documented warming trend was anthropogenic or not. I mean, the point of the hockey stick debate was that it left out the Medieval Warming Period, which meant that 20th century warming was not in fact unprecedented as claimed.
I've always been agnostic on the issue of man caused or not, I just believe the science is far from settled. And when the hysterics like Jacob tell me to shut the hell up (or die of cancer), well, I wonder what it is they have to hide?
11:53 pm on March 3rd, 2010 14
Kushibo it sounds like you are just repeating alarmist talking points.
The skeptics have long been saying there has been warming however the argument is over how much and is it caused by man thus the term AGW used by skeptics.
The skeptics have also been long saying that the data has been cooked which we now know is true. The skeptics have also been long discussing the urban heat island effect which the alarmists would not recognize in their cooked data. That is why skeptics point towards satellite temperature measurements.
The alarmists also went out of their way to hide the Medieval Warming Period which skeptics have long used as one of the times in history hotter than today which there was no SUV's to blame.
Now instead of global warming the alarmists now call it climate change as if we are all too stupid to not realize the climate changes all the time and will continue to do so.
11:54 pm on March 3rd, 2010 15
And now, even the NY Times is weighing in…this link contains the link to the Times story, but also talks about how the lack of skepticism from the Fourth Estate is tantamount to treason. Good stuff…
http://blogs.the-american-interest.com/wrm/2010/0…
12:06 am on March 4th, 2010 16
This is all irrelevant nonsense considering these are all different issues from global warming. Plus I have never said that man has not caused environmental problems. How could you have missed all the postings I have done over the years in regards to the Yellow Dust issue which is man made being far more of public health and environmental issue than global warming?
http://rokdrop.com/2010/01/27/yellow-dust-makes-f…
Kushibo I would rather have my tax money go to support people like the guy in Tasmania I spoke about in the comments of the below link than line the pockets of these eco-frauds:
http://rokdrop.com/2010/03/02/baby-survives-murde…
2:55 am on March 4th, 2010 17
[...] original here: Global Warming Link to Hurricanes Debunked | ROK Drop Tags: been-debunked, comes-news, Global Warming, may-force, reader-tip, research, war Share [...]
4:49 am on March 4th, 2010 18
Respectfully, GI Korea, I am not repeating alarmist talking points. I am a bit agnostic on anthropogenic climate change myself, and all I wanted to do was point out flaws (not fatal flaws) in approaching this in the same way as the alarmists do, but from a different direction. It's healthy to be skeptical of one's own side's work and to recognize that the jury may still be out.
I mentioned those other presumably anthropogenic things, which you are right are not really related to global warming, because they all have met with the same skepticism about whether humans really cause them, and much of the skepticism has/had been fueled by bogus pronouncements or junk science sponsored by people who will lose money by trying resolve the problem.
And that was all I was trying to do: point out a very good reason to be skeptical. Your blog (which I think is a superb K-blog, as you know) has a lot of vocal skeptics of global warming, and I'm just pointing out that the skepticism also needs a bit of skepticism.
As for the 1970s pronouncements of global cooling I went back to 1970s sources themselves to compile this post from 2008. It was about particulate matter, a problem which got resolved through human action to reverse other human reaction (and that, too, had naysayers and people opposed to it for economic reasons).
Carbon credits, by the way, is the latest incarnation of a decades-old economic principle of pollution credits, which was designed by conservative (?) economists as a way to reduce pollution efficiently and without financially destroying companies. Insofar as carbon credits reduces pollution overall, I'm not really against it (but if, hypothetically, they found a way to reduce carbon — CO2 or methane — but it meant increases SO2, then I would oppose it; carbon trading should also be about reducing pollution overall).
We treat our planet like a toilet. I'm here in Hawaii and we do beach cleanups and we see bottles and stuff from Japan and Korea. You go to the South and you see $hit lagoons next to factory farming operations producing massive amounts of beef and pork (and there is a global warming angle there, by the way, but that's not my point right now). And there is a serious problem with e coli in the food, but we don't do anything about it.
Why not? Because it would be expensive. Moreover, we keep being told (thanks to junk science, corporate entanglements in university research, and lobbyists and other paid mouthpieces) that it's not really a problem. Everything's okay here, go about your business.
But every year 75 million people get sick and 5000 people die from food-borne illness (see here), but Bush reduces meat inspection by 90% and Obama tells us it's the safest in the world or some such. Nobody takes a serious whack at reducing pollution or spillover from beef- and pork-producing factory farms that literally $hit all over our spinach and other veggies.
People who warn us about that are labeled eco nuts and so nothing gets done. The interests who want us to believe there's not really a problem have succeeded in planting enough doubt that legislative inertia remains. But the pollution problems and the health risks chug along, and in many cases get worse.
So that's my point, and the reason I diverged from global warming to other environmental problems to problems that are both health-related and environmental: they all are related in that there are interests with a hidden agenda to lull us into complacency so they can continue their economic activities and concomitant environmental and/or health damage unabated.
And that's why you need to have healthy skepticism, even if you think you're already right.
I'm not a vegetarian, and I recognize that the eco left is full of vegetarians who want everyone to vegetarians if they had their way. But I can recognize that some of the problems with meat consumption they point out (meat quality and factory farm pollution) are correct and need to be addressed. Similarly, I'm not 100% convinced of anthropogenic climate change (and even if I were, I wouldn't be convinced it can be reversed), but I think there is a problem with too much pollution coming from status quo energy and technology usage, so if the global warming craze means we get lower pollution, lower energy consumption, cleaner water, etc., etc., I'm really not opposed to it.
And now you can all have at it, which I know you will.
I have a busy next several days, so I likely won't respond. I have Lisa Ling to fisk, a job to apply for, and visitors to ferry around. Oh, and things to study.
Be good. And be skeptical.
1:33 pm on March 4th, 2010 19
Excellant article. Thanks.
1:40 pm on March 4th, 2010 20
Kushibo, the global warming issue is what has set back the entire environmental/conservation movement because more and more people are seeing what a fraud AGW is and thus people and groups advocating for legitimate environmental and conservation issues get lumped in with them. Additionally the AGW alarmists are taking potential funding from real environmental/conservation issues like some of the ones you mentioned.
Plus the AGW alarmists have set back science as a whole because of how people are now questioning what scientists present with much skepticism when before the AGW issue the skepticism was usually supplied by the scientific community as a whole that by the time a scientific issue was presented outside the scientific community the public could have some decent faith in the finding. That is no longer the case especially after ClimateGate and the IPCC fiasco.
In the other posting:
http://rokdrop.com/2010/03/02/baby-survives-murde…
I mentioned to Lee about Professor David Lindenmayer who makes reasonable ideas backed with good science, however the most famous scientist in Australia is Tim Flannery who actually won Australian of the Year in 2007 due to his global warming alarmism despite nearly everything this guy saying has been proven wrong. It should also be noted that this guy has quite enriched himself with his alarmist activities which seems to be a reoccuring theme with the alarmists.
Also I have been a member of the Sierra Club for years because I like many of the groups conservation efforts, now I am contemplating canceling my membership simply because the group has become more and more focused on AGW alarmism instead of promoting conservation. How much money is being wasted by this group on AGW alarmism that could instead be used to advance the conservation activities that the group was founded on?
This recent news though from the Sierra Club that has got the alarmists pissed off though is encouraging:
1:51 pm on March 4th, 2010 21
Yes John good article that I may make into a posting in of its self in regards to the journalism angle.
9:28 pm on March 4th, 2010 22
Depend what your definition of "the past" is? AGW crowd redefines it whichever way best supports their argument. Sometimes they even wish certain time periods would "just go away", so they gotta hide the data. Medieval Warming Period is one of them, the world was much warming then it is now yet man made CO2 was nearly nonexistent and we didn't die off. After that there was a cooling period of a few hundred years. What you have to realize is that temperatures are not linear, its not always going up or always going down. The picture looks different if you take it in 5, 10, 20, 50, 100, or 1000 year snap shots of trends. We're on a 30 year (approx as I'm not bothering to look up the exact number) solar cycle. Meaning every 30 years short term temperature trends reverse. 1970's we were afraid of another "ice age" because we were in a cooling trend, then it turned into a warming trend, and now we're heading back into another cooling trend.
Over a long period of time (100+ years) another trend appears, and that is the average overall temperature of the planet. We don't have accurate enough satellite data of 100 years to get a good idea of which way we're going. Some studies suggest we're slowly warming, others think we're slowly cooling. Depends who's data you look at. Also much temperature data today is cherry picked and hand massaged to make things appear like AGW is happening. This has been shown numerous times. They do it because of the billions of dollars available in funding if you can link your research to "climate change". Even the best scientists can act awfully un-scientific when funding is on the line.
This is why I want real unbiased research done into the field. It is a possibility that we humans are indeed altering the world's climate, its also a possibility that the worlds climate is such that we are but insects to it. This planet does things on a century / millennial time scale. Our advanced technology simply hasn't existed long enough to even be worth noticing when viewed from the big picture.
9:37 pm on March 4th, 2010 23
Linking CO2 (aka plant food) emmisions to pollution is a good way to get publicity for AGW alarmists. Its wrong and completely off base, but most people slept through high school science class's.
Here is a bit of info, the majority of CO2 is not produced by those SUV's and factories you people like to complain about. CO2 is actually produced enmasse by the resperatory action of animals across the world combined with the natural decay of dead animal / plant matter. The very act of you breathing is producing CO2, and if you were to choose the "eco friendly" option and off yourself, then you best make sure your buried in an air-tight sealed casket to prevent the CO2 from your dead corpse from leaking through the soil into the atmosphere. This planet has natural mechanism's for dealing with increased CO2 generation, namely through cloud formations and the REAL green house gass, water vapor.
Plus CO2 is a very minor green house gass, methane on the other hand needs watching as it can cause all sorts of havoc when it decays in the upper atmosphere through cosmic radiation.
12:05 am on March 5th, 2010 24
Discussion is a good thing, but defending a point of view is pretty time consuming. The dilemma is whether to read on silently, or open your mouth and spend 30 minutes putting together a good argument. And then be prepared to follow up.
I don't want to post links here, because I don't think it really furthers the debate in this environment. But I am tracking down some of David Lindenmayer's work (only because you suggested it and I don't want to be rude).
Except for the odd exception, I'm pretty sure that those of us who use these comment threads are not complete ignorant nitwits. But none of us are climate scientists or statisticians either, so it's a matter of 'he said, she said.' For that reason, it can be better to stick to arguments of logic, rather than data that others have interpreted.
But it's getting late and I'm tired so I'm going to post this one link: http://www.epa.gov/climatechange/emissions/global…
This isn't really scientific, because it's not a testable hypothesis, it's just my personal thought on the issue:
No one really disagrees that the industrialised nations are putting increasing amounts of gas into the atmosphere each year. 28.4 billion metric tonnes of CO2 per year, they say. We know it doesn't leave the Earth and float out into space. If it did, we'd start spinning faster. And we know that carbon in the atmosphere will keep us warmer than if it's buried in the ground.
So where does the carbon go? Some people say it goes into the ocean. That's pretty reasonable. We know gas dissolves in fizzy drinks, although there is the problem of carbonic acid.
But I haven't read about anybody disputing the estimate that on our planet, there are 1.3 billion cubic kilometres of water in our oceans and rivers.
I guess you know where this is leading. So 28.4/1.3 equals 21.85
That means that every year, each cubic kilometre of water on Earth needs to absorb 21.85 tonnes of CO2. To me, that seems like a lot. If you weigh an unopened bottle of Pepsi, and then shake it and carefully let only the CO2 out, you'll find that it contains around 2.2 grams of carbon dioxide. And the other problem is that carbon monoxide is more potent than it's cousin.
As for 'global warming' versus 'climate change', they can be used interchangeably, but climate change is more accurate.
Carbon credits = scam? Probably.
Al Gore, an over-excited eco-hippy? Yes.
What about Eco-loons killing their babies? Terrible.
But I wonder if I'll ever see the day on ROKdrop when there's a post that says "Hey look, it's yet another peer-reviewed paper from a publicly funded university supporting the notion that carbon emissions are making us hotter."
4:00 am on March 5th, 2010 25
O.K.
I threw a great party tonight… not as many girls as I would have liked… but still a good time. It wound down and everybody crawled home… but I'm still pumped…
…so it's time to speak some truth.
All global warming alarmists are COMPLETE FUNKING DEVIOUS SHYTBAGS or COMPLETE FUNKING MINDLESS IDIOT FOLLOWERS and CAN GO FUNK THEMSELVES…
…especially the ones who advocate a reduction in lifestyle… and very especially the ones who advocate a reduction in lifestyle for everyone but themselves… which, oddly, fits ALL of the well-known ones… and, oddly, all of the ones I know personally… and, probably, all the retards here who are quick to bloviate about what others must do but are awful slow to tell what they are doing to reduce their carbon emission.
So…
If I hear one more of you dumbassses whining on and on about the dangers of climate change I'm going to post your name, address, Social Security number, mother's maiden name, employer's contact information and blood type on an anti-whale gay anarchist terrorist hacker website.
As of this week, it appears hiding behind an anonymous name is no longer a barrier to the latest in search technology.
…and I'm inclined to abuse that ability…
…to people who advocate controls on my lifestyle which they are not willing to quickly accept for their own.
Why, you ask?
Because, even if it is 100% true… if the air is warming… and the ice is melting… and the sea is rising… it doesn't matter.
In fact, we should not only welcome "global warming" but encourage it and research ways to make it happen faster.
More usable land, unlocking of valuable resources, longer growing seasons, increased clean thermal energy generating opportunity… for every bullshyt lemon the Warmers come up with, there is a pitcher of lemonade.
Of course, fact-based disagreement will be intelligently addressed.
Emotional "but… but… but…" will get the smack.
10:22 am on March 5th, 2010 26
I like this post ChickenHead, and you taught me a new word: bloviate.
And while we're having a go at the alarmists, STOP TELLING ME TO WEAR CONDOMS!!
10:29 am on March 5th, 2010 27
" Anti-whale gay anarchist"?
10:58 am on March 5th, 2010 28
The carbon is also heavily absorbed by the forests of the world as well. (Much of it is absorbed by myself, at the bar. I do my part to convert it to methane. I try to do my part to alieviate the stress on the planet).
But the issue is more "alarmists" vs "skeptics". Round one: The alarmists caught the worlds attention and then it was found their "data" was often made up of lies and deception. Round two goes to the skeptics. Deceipt and outright lies to promote a scientific theory have probobly set any honest discussion of climate change back 20 years. Not to mention the damage to scientific studies in any other field. Shame on the 'scientists'(?) who were out for a quick buck.
11:53 am on March 5th, 2010 29
Yes, the forests are absorbing carbon. But the coal deposits we are digging up are the product of millions of years of forests growing, locking up the sun's energy and becoming stored beneath the soil surface. It's true that in prehistoric times the Earth was much warmer. But the situation was much different back then. We would probably have difficulty breathing a prehistoric atmosphere. In warmer times, plants were enormous and giant lizards ruled the Earth.
The atmosphere slowly changed and life slowly adapted. I don't know if I would call myself an alarmist (I always generally thought of myself as a skeptic toward most issues), but carbon emissions from the industrial age are going somewhere, and I find it difficult to believe that it's a problem we don't need to deal with. Out of sight, out of mind; but anybody who sees the thousands of factory chimneys of Guangzhou may start to feel a little 'alarmed'.
We can all see that climate scientists have screwed up in a major way. And they must be held accountable, along with the policy makers. But I think a mistake is being made when we stereotype all 'global warming advocates' as corrupt alarmists with a hidden agenda. There are wolves in sheep's clothing, but there are also plenty of sheep. It depends where you get your information from. wattsupwiththat.com has some quite valid points, but it is highly one-sided. Nature, Science and Proceedings of the NAS have some skeptical publications, but an overwhelming majority support the opposing view. There are many bad eggs in the science community, but falsified publications do not immediately falsify all other work done in the field. Some people complain of being 'locked out' due to a conspiracy, and there must be one operating at some level. But you can't accurately estimate the depth of the conspiracy and apply it to all climate scientists soley by reading skeptic's websites.
Oh and methane is also a potent greenhouse gas. It can trap 20 times the heat of CO2. Don't mean to alarm you though…
12:09 pm on March 5th, 2010 30
LOL, but my farts are only small beer farts and not those of a Jersey cow.(and they don't smell).
I don't disagree with you, but a coherant converstion on the issue can no longer be carried out without a clearing of the air (pun intended).
You have to remember the UN came in with what, 140 nations scientists claiming global warming to be fact? To include Latvia, Lithuenia, and any number of countries that had no "climate change" research ever being done. And that was also suppose to be "proof"?
The "bad eggs" in this case were some of the leaders in promoting global warming. Not a good thing, as Martha Stewart would say.
I'll keep an open mind, but I don't buy what is being advertised at this time.
2:13 pm on March 5th, 2010 31
Yes, definitely some bandwagoners and nonsense going on. It's important that we question things and be picky about what we choose to believe. Good reply.
7:10 pm on October 28th, 2010 32
Gore sucks.
He is a self-serving, self-promoting, elitist dirtbag.
Anybody who buys into his lies is a fool… and anybody who promotes his agenda is a tool.
He obviously doesn’t take his own message seriously so there can be no respect for anybody who does.
http://www.climatedepot.com/a/8595/Gore-leaves-car-idling-for-one-hour-during-speech-Opts-for-Swedish-government-jet-over-public-transportation
I could laugh it off if his lies weren’t being used as a convenient excuse for higher taxation, destruction of the middle class, increased government intrusiveness, stifling of small business to help big business… and an attempt at equalizing the conditions of productive and non-productive people.
The misery created by evil politics far outweighs the misery of extreme climate… and there are many nations with many climates that demonstrate this perfectly.
Once again… I’ll take global warming seriously when the people who demand that I take global warming seriously start acting as if they take global warming seriously themselves.