What is the current Conservative’s thinking on Global warming?

by: ..???..A). It is a hoax, it doesn’t exist
B). It is happening, but its part of the earth’s natural cycle and man has nothing to do with it
C). It is happening and its caused by greenhouse gasses and CO2 emissions
D). if Al Gore says its happening, it must be a lie

I already know what the Libs think.

web hosting

How can tiny man cause global warming?

by: …. . .-.. .-.. —This seems to be the agrument, not whether or not global warming is happening.
I have done a lot of rock climbing in my life. One major rule in climbing is not to disturb even small rocks on a mountainside. One small stone when dislodged can create a huge rock slide as it tumbles down the mountain.
This is how tiny man has started a cycle in climate change that will take centuries to settle. At this point it is too late to stop the cycle that has already started. But, it’s a good time to stop kicking stones down the mountainside.
There are many programs already available to help stop carbon emissions. Many state and the federal government will help install photovoltic cells on residential rooftops and tie those cells into the power grid. This technology alone can cut CO2 emissions considerably.
Everyone needs to stop passing the buck on global warming and take measures into their own hands.
Do you own a rooftop?
John G
As I said, the state and federal government will help you install these cells.
My point is anyone who believes the climate change is due to man’s carbon emissions can do something on their own. And, government programs already exist to help them.
Why they expect business to address the issue and they need not is beyond my thinking.

Gastano

Isn’t a 1970s global cooling warning an example of why we should decrease greenhouse gas emissions?

by: Dana1981, Master of ScienceA few decades ago we were warned of a growing hole in the ozone layer. We responded by reducing CFC emissions, and have essentially solved the problem.

In 1999 we were warned of potential computer crashes due to the Y2K bug. We responded by fixing the computer software and solved the problem.

In the 1970s few scientists warned of an imminent ice age

http://www.wmconnolley.org.uk/sci/iceage/

but one crude climate simulation (supported by a computer program witten by James Hansen) showed that if sulfur dioxide emissions continued to increase at the rate they had been as of 1970, they could eventually trigger an ice age.

This was a reasonable conclusion, because the SO2 emissions had been causing global cooling from 1940-1970, but our SO2 emissions peaked in 1980 and have been declining ever since. See pages 12-14 here:

http://www.pnl.gov/main/publications/external/technical_reports/PNNL-14537.pdf

So again we solved the problem.

Is this not the case for CO2 now?

Lina Adams

Why did polluting industries ignore their own scientists linking global warming to man-made emissions?

by: gitrdoneobamaIndustry Ignored Its Scientists on Climate

For more than a decade the Global Climate Coalition, a group representing industries with profits tied to fossil fuels, led an aggressive lobbying and public relations campaign against the idea that emissions of heat-trapping gases could lead to global warming.

“The role of greenhouse gases in climate change is not well understood,” the coalition said in a scientific “backgrounder” provided to lawmakers and journalists through the early 1990s, adding that “scientists differ” on the issue.

But a document filed in a federal lawsuit demonstrates that even as the coalition worked to sway opinion, its own scientific and technical experts were advising that the science backing the role of greenhouse gases in global warming could not be refuted. ( http://documents.nytimes.com/global-climate-coalition-aiam-climate-change-primer#p=1 )

“The scientific basis for the Greenhouse Effect and the potential impact of human emissions of greenhouse gases such as CO2 on climate is well established and cannot be denied,” the experts wrote in an internal report compiled for the coalition in 1995

…………………………………………………………………………………………

George Monbiot, a British environmental activist and writer, said that by promoting doubt, industry had taken advantage of news media norms requiring neutral coverage of issues, just as the tobacco industry once had.

“They didn’t have to win the argument to succeed,” Mr. Monbiot said, “only to cause as much confusion as possible.”

http://www.nytimes.com/2009/04/24/science/earth/24deny.html?_r=1&em

Nightwind: Show me one well established scientific organization that thinks man-made global warming is a fraud.

Just one.

Mangab

The consensus is wrong on global warming. Wonder when the New York Times will figure it out?

by: mission_viejo_californiaConsensus can be wrong. So warned the New York Times in a science section piece on Oct. 9. “Diet and Fat: A Severe Case of Mistaken Consensus” reviewed the history of our belief that dietary fat was as big a health risk as smoking. Surgeon General C. Everett Koop declared as much in 1988. He was speaking not for himself but for the scientific community, which was nearly unanimous in fingering fat as the cause of heart disease and cancer.

The trouble was, study after study failed to prove the hypothesis. It was a case, the Times explains, of “informational cascade” — a phenomenon in which groups tend to reach false conclusions because individuals often assume that the majority must be right.

Thank you, New York Times. It’s a good cautionary tale about human psychology and one the Times ought to take to heart in its coverage of the global warming question. That is the issue we are currently “cascading” to conclusions about, the Times no less than anyone else. The climate of opinion on climate is dogmatic verging on hysterical. Kids are coming home from school in tears having been taught that the world they were born into will soon descend into a nightmare of massive storms, swamped cities and dying animals.

The dying animals is a big favorite in the schools, particularly the stranded polar bear on an ice floe searching for land. That one even got to my worldly sons. So I was particularly happy to have Bjorn Lomborg’s new book, Cool It: A Skeptical Environmentalist’s Guide to Global Warming, on hand.

Lomborg does not deny that global warming is happening, nor that it is the result of human action. But he does apply a necessary damper to the white-hot rhetoric and scare mongering of the global warming fanatics. A political scientist by training and an economist by outlook, the man the Wall Street Journal called the “golden-haired Dane” applies common sense and cost/benefit analysis to a subject brimming with emotion and unreasoning fear.

Along the way, he debunks some of the myths. Pace Al Gore it seems that of the 20 subpopulations of polar bear, one or possibly two are declining in population. But more than half are stable, and two are increasing. Actually, the world population of polar bears has mushroomed over the past several decades, from some 5,000 in the 1960s to about 25,000 today, due to stricter regulation of hunting. As for those two subgroups that are declining in population, they live in regions in which the temperatures have actually been dropping over the past 50 years, whereas the subgroups that have seen an increase in population live in areas that have been getting warmer.

The polar bear example is instructive because the solution being urged upon us to save the bears is a massively expensive but ultimately nearly fruitless effort to cut greenhouse-gas emissions. If we follow Kyoto or some other framework, we can at best save .06 bears per year. “But,” Lomborg writes, “49 bears from the same population are getting shot every year, and this we can easily do something about.”

It’s the same with climate change writ large. Drastically reducing greenhouse-gas emissions is hardly cost free. To achieve the goals outlined in the Kyoto accords, for example, would cost the world $180 billion annually for 50 years.

Examined rationally, it is clear that while global warming will do harm to some parts of the world, it will also do good to others. Might not the money be better spent mitigating the negative effects of a warming planet?

Lomborg’s book focuses on trade-offs. If we’re going to spend a fixed amount of money to improve the world, what makes the most sense? Or to put it another way, which dollar spent produces the greatest benefit? According to a group of economists (including four Nobel Prize winners) who examined this question in 2004, the answer was clear. One dollar spent fighting HIV/AIDS produced $40 in social benefits. One dollar spent on fighting malnutrition yields about $30 in social benefits. Other efforts, like ending agricultural subsidies in the wealthy countries and ensuring worldwide free trade, would net a $15 benefit for a one-dollar cost. Cutting CO2 emissions, by contrast, yields between 2 and 25 cents per dollar invested.

The consensus is wrong on global warming. Wonder when the New York Times will figure it out? In the meanwhile, Lomborg points the way toward clear analysis.

web hosting

Another scientist toss’s in the towel on the Global warming myth?

by: AdvancingDr. David Evans who helped measure Austrlali’s compliance with the Kyoto Protocol has now declared that CO2 emissions aren’t causing global warming.

http://www.aim.org/don-irvine-blog/another-scientist-switches-sides-on-global-warming/

How many will have to change or has the political component (as the science was always dubious) just taken this to a point of no return. Rational thought be damned?

Mariah

Why did Bush’s science advisor say human CO2 emissions are causing global warming?

by: Dana1981, Master of Science“Professor John Marburger, who advises President Bush, said it was more than 90% certain that greenhouse gas emissions from mankind are to blame.

The Earth may become “unliveable” without cuts in CO2 output, he said”

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/6994760.stm

Here is Marburger’s rather impressive background:

http://www.climatescience.gov/Library/bios/marburger.htm

Basically he’s endorsing the IPCC’s findings. Why would President Bush’s science advisor do such a thing if there were any significant doubt in the scientific community that the IPCC report is correct and humans are the primary cause of the current global warming?

Can any global warming doubters explain this?

James

Does anyone else notice that the majority of Obama supporters know nothing about his policies?

by: Sidewayslean JDoes anyone else think it’s funny that the majority of Obama supporters know nothing about the “details” of his policies? A large percentage of liberals, particularly in this campaign insist that Senator Obama is a better candidate but fail to explain why…other than a typical response like he is young, charismatic and “fresh”. Aside from emotional appeal, I rarely hear anything in regards to the details of his national health care plan. What is Obama´s policy towards the war? He says removal of troops after 6 months but have you asked yourself how many?What is Obama´s border policy? What is his stance on the patriot act? What is his stance regarding CO2 emissions and global warming? What’s his policy regarding Iran and the possibility of them getting a nuke? Let’s not forget how he affiliates himself with a church that preaches **** and condemns America. I would rather have an athesist for President than a man that participates in a church that preaches ****.

Aafyn

Is global warming a hoax?

by: john rThere exists a new theory that suggests that global warming attributed to co2 emission is a hoax; it’s just the sun going through its normal cycle; it’s just getting hotter because the sun is getting closer. The governments of the world know this and are using it to tax us and then, ultimately enslave us.

Auza