News Nugget
Report: Fewer Westerners Believe in Global Warming
By Courtney Lowery, 10-23-09
According to a new report out this week from the Pew Research Center for People and the Press, fewer Americans believe that world temperatures are warming and fewer and fewer see climate change as a very serious problem.
Of the 1,500 adults polled, 35 percent said global warming is a serious concern, down from 44 percent in April of 2008. And, 57 percent said they think there is solid evidence that the earth’s average temperature is on the rise. That is down from 71 percent in April of 2008.
Respondents in the Mountain West have had the biggest change in attitude, according to the poll. In this year’s poll, 44 percent said they believe the earth is warming. In 2008, that number was 77 percent. That’s a 31 percent drop. The region with the next biggest change was the Great Lakes region, which saw a 20 percent drop.
The Mountain West also had the biggest drop in the the concern over climate change. In 2008, 44 percent of regional respondents said climate change is very serious problem. Today, that number is 26 percent—down 18 percent.
Both the West and the Great Lakes region also saw the biggest declines in the percentage of respondents who believe global warming is caused by humans.
The report has set off alarms, especially as Congress takes on the cap and trade issue and the discussion about global warming ramps up around it. Click here to read the full report, which also breaks down the responses based on political parties (independents showed the biggest change in attitude) and age (young people are more likely to think global warming is real and is a serious problem.)
And, for some reading on the implications of the report:
Grist’s Jonathan Hiskes explains why the report should be taken with a grain of salt.
Mara Gay at the Atlantic attempts to sort out where the new attitudes might be coming from.
The Wall Street Journal’s Stephen Power hears from opponents and proponents of carbon capping on what they think of the report.
(As a side note: My favorite headline of the day comes from the fair and balanced Fox, of course: ”Americans No Longer Swallowing Global Warming Dogma” (Really?!))
[End of article]Great. Just what we need: one more reason for East Coasters to think that flyover states are littered with bumpkins.
Comment By Dan Powers, 10-23-09Is climate change really something we either believe or disbelieve? Is it a matter of faith?
Can't we say that realistically the earth is warming, there's a reasonable chance that it's human caused, and that taking steps to reduce our carbon footprint is a very good insurance policy to prevent what could be an incredibly expensive change in the planet. The cost to reduce our impacts looks to be far less than the potential impacts.
Look at it like your house. Is it going to burn down? Probably not, but you buy insurance on the chance it might, and the insurance is much cheaper than the potential disaster.
Finally, the steps necessary to reduce our carbon footprint also reduce other air pollution and reduce our dependence on foreign oil.
It is no surprise to me that young people are more concerned about global warming as the NEA and the "enviormentalists" have been preaching thier doctrine to our impressionabe children for 15 years of so. With maturity comes reasoning and with reasoning comes the realization that they have been feed a bill of goods.
Comment By Edward Weber, 10-23-09I always have the same question about climate change skeptics: What do they read? Do the read the peer reviewed earth sciences literature (or even know what "peer-reviewed" means) or "Science" (journal of the American Association for the Advancement of Science), or Scientific American, etc. Or do they get their "beliefs" (Dan Powers says it very well above) about scientific issues from non-science (nonsense?) sources and the very few with scientific credentials who don't interpret the data as overwhelming evidence that we are seeing climate change at a pace that is unprecedented in the geologic record? And what is so "conservative" about dismissing the consensus of the vast majority of those with real knowledge about the issue? There is vast and pathetic scientific ignorance in this country (i.e. among those polled for this story) and it is sick that politically driven "social conservatives" promote their ideas through the feeding and sustenance of ignorance.
Comment By Mickey Garcia, 10-23-09Maybe westerners have a little more common sense than the average yokel after all. Bob, Stan & Edward, you been brainwashed! And yes, anthropogenic climate change is a matter of faith (a belief held regardless of the evidence). Its the secular equivalent to the religious nut standing on the corner screaming, "Repent!! The End is Near!!!"
Comment By Paranoia Central, 10-23-09Interesting comment, Mickey. Please tell us, what are your scientific credentials? You claim "anthropogenic climate change is a matter of faith (a belief held regardless of the evidence)." Is that evidence other than 1) CO2 absorbs infrared radiation, 2) it absorbs that radiation at wavelengths not absorbed by water vapor, 3) humans dump millions of tons of CO2 into the atmosphere every year by burning fossil fuel, 4) the resultant CO2 from the fossil fuel has been sequestered from the carbon cycle for hundreds of millions of years, 5) the atmospheric CO2 levels have increased from 280 ppm in 1880 to 380 ppm today (~35% since the beginning of the industrial revolution)? You're right! To hell with future generations! Let them deal with it. At least you got yours! Repent! The End is Near!
Comment By former spud, 10-23-09It depends on which charlatan you want to believe, the one who sloops from the government trough (like those ranchers you accuse of taking welfare) or the ones paid by corporations. Somewhere in the middle is the truth, so if Mother Earth wants to shake us off as she has other species so be it, but I am not bowing down to altar of the great church whore of global warming.
Go read some of the IPCC reports they really are not sure what is going to happen either, After they make a prediction in parenthesis they state (likely) (very likely) (confidence) (high confidence).
I can play the roulette wheel and chances are I’m going to get black or red, hot damn maybe I can get me one of them thar grants and make guesses about global warm’n too.
Hell, there’ a guy in ole Kentuk that had a rooster that could predict the weather better than the weathermen. Now he uses his weather tree. Maybe all you believers could get him to predict the future for you.
I am not sure that "former spud" realized the implication of the comment about the IPCC reports: "Go read some of the IPCC reports they really are not sure what is going to happen either, After they make a prediction in parenthesis they state (likely) (very likely) (confidence) (high confidence)."
That statement speaks very highly of the honesty of the scientific process. This is the honesty, fundamental to the process of science, that "all knowledge is tentative." This is the ethics, the modesty, of the scientific process in carefully stating, even measuring, degrees of uncertainty. I am even more persuaded by a researcher whose careful (and peer-reviewed) work reaches a conclusion tempered by a "plus or minus 15%." That is the cautious (conservative?) kind of approach to advancing knowledge that has always characterized the scientific community, usually misrepresented by unethical "social conservatives."
Hah! Global warming is a hoax perpetuated by the liberal urban elite, designed to keep us westerners down. There's no such thing as climate change, and it's even backed up by talk radio across this country - probably the best source of information on this subject, and with easily more authority than any sort of scientist.
So just raise your boot in the air and shout "heck no, there aint no climate change", cause it's true. And even if there was, the good lord would take us believers and leave the urban non-believers to purgatory.
O.K. boys and girls. Lets see how much you really know about global warming. Take the Global Warming Test at
http://www.geocraft.com/WVFossils/GlobWarmTest/start.html
That is real science, alright!
Chortle. Chortle.
What's the matter Horst? Did you flunk? Its fact based and science based and pretty simple if you have a basic understanding of how the atmosphere actually works instead of a superstitious and ideological belief in anthropogenic climate change.
Comment By Todd, 10-24-09Bet soem of those "non believers" include the farmers looking forward to bumper crops this fall and lost it all in the severe freezing week we had earlier this month. I guess the trees are non believers too they didn't get a chance to turn, and now dry gray leaves are falling to the ground. Will they survive? Good question.
No matter what report you read, reality sets in when one looks at the thermometer.
No Surprise here. Most westerners are uneducated.
Comment By Mike, 10-24-09Todd - you are 100% spot on. The "look at my thermometer today" theory you bring up easily trumps these fake decades of study by people who have devoted their lives to "studying" these bogus issues. Our own pesonal and undocumented experiences and hunches are far more powerful and reliable than any Harvard grad's dinkering.
For me, Rush and Beck are the most informed, because they undestand it's all bogus. They know better than anyone, because they are on the radio, talking strong. They have the confidence to see through the maze of lies - the same maze of lies that forced the U.N. to drop grizzly bears into the Bitterroot at night with black helicopters. That still gets me worked up! And these just weren't your normal grizzly bear,s but had U.N. implants to acceleratize their breeding so they would populate the area even faster. For what? Maybe to clear out people for U.N. infiltration camps and undergorund bases back in the wilderness. Where do you think the hikers go? Right under the mountain for psy ops training against us god fearing, gun loving people. Global warming theories probably comes from those camps.
"most westerners are uneducated". Wow!!
Comment By horst, 10-24-09Mick went to the coal industry in an attempt to prove his case.
And yet he is still mouthing off!
Its not that westerners are uneducated so much as they simply will not learn. It is ballsier to be proudly anti-intellectual!
Sorry, wrong again. Anti-intellectualism is the dark side of the Romantic Western Tradition, which you're pushing. You know the titanic struggle between good an evil, God and Satan, enviros vs. coal etc. I'm pushing reason, facts, and actual data which are decended from the Enlightenment, another Western tradition.
Comment By bearbait, 10-25-09Bob Wire: Correction: the flyover states are littered with pumpkins. The Bumpkins are revered because we embrace diversity, and a Bumpkinless place is de facto evidence of social segregation and elitism being enforced. Like in college and university towns. Which in the New West, are just about any village of 10,000 or more souls.
Contrarians are alive and well in the US. When they are not, you will know Rahm Emanuel got carried away in his exercise of power.
In first grade, I showed the teacher that all the continents fit together in a mercator projection of the earth on flat paper. Showed her the picture and explained the puzzle pieces fitting. She told me that I should concentrate on other things. I cut out the pieces, and fitted them together, and used my Elmer's paste to glue them to a piece of paper. Only ate part of the paste. I got sent home. My parents had to buy a textbook. In later years, I took a post graduate class in geology to gain insight in commenting on a USFS Forest Planning document. I found out I was correct in first grade, and there were even more surprising facts to learn. Oregon's Blue Mountains were once a part of the Siskiyou Mountains, now hundreds of miles southwest of the Blue Mountains. Even mountain ranges migrate, it seems. Dr. Bonnicksen advances the hypothesis that forests migrate up an down slope and north and south, as temperatures warm and cool over the ages. And all that before coal fired electricity production.
In fact, Montana is about bumpkins coming to the forefront to challenge academics, who evidently despise bumpkins who won't become True Believers. Wasn't Horner a bumpkin bone chaser? Why is it MSU has placed more engineers with Boeing than any other school? Probably because Montana is littered with educated and common sense filled bumpkins.
Will you be carving bumpkins for Hallowe'en?
You might want to try reading a thermometer Mike, amazing what it can tell you about today. Also you might want to pay attention to the weather forcasts when they give the record highs and lows for that date, you will find a lot of high records were set back in the 30s. I know, I know some dummy was reading thermometers instead of books about climate change.
Comment By Mickey Garcia, 10-25-09Super evil, super gas with super powers has reached the tipping point and will parch the earth like hell fire if humans beings don't immediately repent and stop producing it! Even though it's 390ppm or less than 1/10th of 1 percent of the Earth's atmosphere and anthropogenic CO2 contributes less than 4 percent to the 1/10th of 1 percent total, meaning that over 96 percent of atmospheric CO2 is produced by nature, each molecule of CO2 must have heating powers equivalent to a tiny sun to wreak such havoc on earths climate. Except that satellite data from the middle troposphere indicates a cooling trend where you would expect a warming trend if the Earth's atmosphere was actually heating up.
Comment By Native, 10-25-09Carbon Dioxide is needed for life to exist and yet the EPA has ruled that Carbon Dioxide is toxic and should be regulated. The Supreme Court, a bastion of Scientific Understanding(sarc), has upheld this. There is no doubt that more Carbon Dioxide in the atmosphere will trap more heat but what is not widely understood is that the concentrations in the atmosphere are still considered a trace gas. There is more argon than Carbon Dioxide. Also not widely understood is that the ability to trp heat does not rise lineraly. If you double the amount of Carbon Dioxide the amount of heat trapped does not double it follows a logrithmic curve instead. Most things in nature follow this curve. This is why when you double the horsepower the car is not twice as fast. There comes a point where no matter how much you increase the input the output has no signifigant increase. Carbon Dioxide is ALLREADY at that portion of the curve. Also Carbon Dioxide only traps Infared Radiation(heat) on two narrow wavelengths and not the entire Infared Spectrum.
The theory of man made global warming releys on something called a positive feedback, that means if you increase the input the output change causes more change and the output increases yet again. Too off set this nature also includes several negative feedbacks which mean that if the input increases the output is effected in such a way that the input decreases and eventually the output decreases as well. Clouds are an example of a negative feedback. As heat increases the atmosphere holds more moisture and since water vapor is a green house gas more heat is trapped. All this is true yet without a negative feedback life could not exist. Without a negative feedback temperatures would have risen, long before life began on this planet, and kept rising until more heat could not be trapped. The reality is this as water vapor increases and more heat is trapped clouds begin to form and reflect more heat away from the planet allowing the planet to cool. This is the real thermostat and not Carbon Dioxide.
The climate of this planet is the long term outcomes of many short term mechanisms that are not fully understood. Weather is the result of the Atmoshere trying to reach equilibrium but since the planet rotates on its axis and orbits the sun the inputs keep changing not allowing equilibrium to occur. It is a chaotic system where certain small changes can have large outputs and certain large changes have very little effect on output. It is arrogance and hubris to think we even begin to understand all the mechanisms at work here.
Yes Earth has warmed in the past 500 years. In the past 100 years the amount of warming has increased, that is true as well. What is not true is to say that it has never been warmer. We are just getting back to what climatologists call the climate optimum. That is when the average temperature has the ability to support the most life. Cold is the real danger here on earth not the heat. The temperature at the equitorial zones do not change much it is the upper and lower lattitudes that are the most effected in any changes in global temperature.
I could keep going but I think you get the idea. This Man Made Global Warming theory has been a scam from the very beginning.
"Scam" is the right word. Visualize 1 molecule of CO2 surrounded by 2564 molecules of other atmospheric gases. How long can the CO2 molecule retain heat while being mixed stirred and jostled by 2564 molecules of other gases that are cooling off at a more rapid rate. By contact alone the CO2 molecule is going to loose most of its heat to surrounding gasses almost immediately. How many morons do we have on this planet anyway?
Comment By former spud, 10-25-09“How many morons do we have on this planet anyway?”
Are we talking about the occasional member who attends the Church of Global Warming or the zealot who prays five times a day before the graven image of Al Gore and curses those who question their ‘Bible” “Earth in the Balance”?
They'll never take ma guns!!!!!
Comment By bird, 10-26-09Mike, some of us are wondering if you have anything of substance to offer to the debate other than the conservative stereotypes and drive by media malarkey that you continue to parrot, it’s as almost as predictable as it is boring. I realize that political sarcasm is the new form of sophistication, but maybe you could turn off the Daily Show for one minute, and interact with someone who isn’t a philosophical clone (other than to trash them on a blog), and at least formulate your own opinions rather than pigeonhole every person you disagree with as an uneducated gun toting moron. You're better than that dude.
Comment By Native, 10-26-09Mike is just attempting to make his opponents appear un educated by pretending to be one of them...
I have some bad news for gun owners, if this government decides to take them they will and you will not stop them from doing so when and if that day comes about. In fact I predict the majority would if hungry enough just hand them over willingly. My example is this, Iraq had WWII weaponry and this military machine spanked that army. American gun owners do not have the resolve of Mooslim Terrorists fighting with belt bombs and AK-47s...
I'm a gun owner, and naked virgins and all I can eat still doesn't motivate me much..
Now I must hand split another half cord, apparently the damn climate is changing again...
Edward Weber: excellent comments about the climate change skeptics! In the 15th century, Copernicus proclaimed that the earth was not the center of the universe but rather a small planet that rotated around the sun. The "climate change skeptics" of that time--some of whom wanted to burn Coperenicus at the stake--held "hilarious parties" where they would dance and stagger around pretending that the earth was moving in oder to label Copernicus as a fool. "The earth is the center of the universe and, therefore, can not be moving" they shouted. Old habits and ignorance die hard!
Comment By Mike, 10-26-09Monty, hear hear! I went outside this morning and it was really cold. Global warming my rear end! If it really did exist, we'd all be burning up right now like an oven. It don't feel hot to me.
Comment By Mickey Garcia, 10-26-09The climate has been changing since the Earth formed from space debris. It is currently changing but the change is not anthropogenic. On the other hand, you self described progressive, anthropogenic climate change hysterics cling to an old, quasi-religious dogma that humans are ruining the planet and need to hand all decision making over to properly indoctrinated priest class of "environmental planners" in order to "save the earth". There is plenty of evidence than climate change is not anthropogenic, but you got to have an open mind to pay attention to it. Apparently a lot of enviros aren't any smarter than the dumbest, redneck bumpkin in Podunk, Nevada.
Comment By Native, 10-26-09Rockefeller's must be believers to then. Of course these wise men would never invest in a bad thing now would they. They must be expecting a return on the investment, I wonder what it is....
Metropolitan Waterfront Alliance, Inc. 6/18/2009 $200,000 Sustainable Development New York City
1Sky Education Fund 6/18/2009 $250,000 Sustainable Development United States
Center for Climate Strategies, Inc. 6/18/2009 $350,000 Sustainable Development United States
Evangelical Environmental Network 6/18/2009 $200,000 Sustainable Development United States
American Council on Renewable Energy 6/18/2009 $350,000 Sustainable Development United States
Sustainable Markets Foundation 3/12/2009 $200,000 Sustainable Development United States
Rockefeller Family Fund, Inc. 3/12/2009 $200,000 Sustainable Development United States
Aspen Institute, Inc., The 11/20/2008 $600,000 Sustainable Development Global
American Council on Renewable Energy 11/20/2008 $250,000 Sustainable Development United States
President and Directors Georgetown College (Georgetown University), The 11/20/2008 $700,000 Sustainable Development United States
Center for American Progress 11/20/2008 $250,000 Sustainable Development United States
Center for Climate Strategies, Inc. 10/7/2008 $350,000 Sustainable Development United States
Resource Media A Nonprofit Corporation 6/19/2008 $200,000 Sustainable Development United States
Corporate Ethics International 6/19/2008 $200,000 Sustainable Development United States
Earth Island Institute 3/13/2008 $350,000 Sustainable Development United States
2030 Inc. 3/13/2008 $250,000 Sustainable Development United States
Better World Fund 3/13/2008 $400,000 Sustainable Development United States
Ceres, Inc 3/13/2008 $500,000 Sustainable Development United States
International Council for Local Environmental Initiatives U.S.A. Inc. 3/13/2008 $650,000 Sustainable Development United States
Regional Plan Association, Inc. 3/13/2008 $200,000 Sustainable Development New York City
1Sky Education Fund 12/13/2007 $1,000,000 Sustainable Development United States
American Council on Renewable Energy 12/13/2007 $500,000 Sustainable Development United States
Corporate Ethics International 12/13/2007 $250,000 Sustainable Development Canada
Public Interest Projects, Inc. 12/13/2007 $350,000 Sustainable Development United States
Center for Climate Strategies, Inc. 12/13/2007 $400,000 Sustainable Development United States
Better World Fund 10/11/2007 $200,000 Sustainable Development United States
Rocky Mountain Institute 6/14/2007 $300,000 Sustainable Development United States
National Environmental Trust 6/14/2007 $300,000 Sustainable Development United States
Regional Plan Association, Inc. 6/14/2007 $200,000 Sustainable Development New York City
National Wildlife Federation 6/14/2007 $250,000 Sustainable Development United States
Rainforest Action Network 6/14/2007 $200,000 Sustainable Development United States
Arabella Legacy Fund 6/14/2007 $300,000 Sustainable Development United States
Clean Energy Group 3/15/2007 $200,000 Sustainable Development United States
SmartPower Connecticut, Inc. 3/15/2007 $200,000 Sustainable Development United States
National Religious Partnership for the Environment Inc. 12/14/2006 $400,000 Sustainable Development United States
Center for Climate Strategies, Inc. 12/14/2006 $550,000 Sustainable Development United States
National Environmental Trust 10/12/2006 $300,000 Sustainable Development United States
Center for Climate Strategies, Inc. 10/12/2006 $350,000 Sustainable Development United States
Resource Media A Nonprofit Corporation 6/15/2006 $300,000 Sustainable Development United States
Earth Island Institute 3/9/2006 $350,000 Sustainable Development United States
Ceres, Inc. 3/9/2006 $500,000 Sustainable Development United States
Better World Fund 3/9/2006 $400,000 Sustainable Development United States
American Council on Renewable Energy 3/9/2006 $500,000 Sustainable Development United States
ICLEI-Local Governments for Sustainability USA, Inc. 3/9/2006 $400,000 Sustainable Development United States
Climate Change Organisation, The 12/15/2005 $300,000 Sustainable Development Global
Center for Climate Strategies, Inc. 12/15/2005 $250,000 Sustainable Development United States
Rainforest Action Network 6/9/2005 $200,000 Sustainable Development United States
Center for Climate Strategies, Inc. 12/16/2004 $225,000 Sustainable Development United States
World Resources Institute 12/16/2004 $200,000 Sustainable Development Europe
SmartPower Connecticut, Inc. 12/16/2004 $200,000 Sustainable Development United States
Clean Energy Group 12/16/2004 $200,000 Sustainable Development Canada
Climate Change Organisation, The 6/9/2004 $750,000 Sustainable Development Global
National Environmental Trust 12/11/2003 $400,000 Sustainable Development United States
WWF-UK 10/9/2003 $400,000 Sustainable Development Global
Climate Institute 3/13/2003 $200,000 Sustainable Development Caribbean
David Rockefeller whose quotes have been well publicized and have exposed his agenda.
We are grateful to the Washington Post, the New York Times, Time magazine and other great publications whose directors have attended our meetings and respected the promises of discretion for almost forty years. It would have been impossible for us to develop our plan for the world if we had been subject to the bright lights of publicity during those years. But, the world is now more sophisticated and prepared to march towards a world-government. The supranational sovereignty of an intellectual elite and world bankers is surely preferable to the National auto determination practiced in past centuries.– David Rockefeller in an address to a Trilateral Commission meeting in June of 1991
This present window of opportunity, during which a truly peaceful and interdependent world order might be built, will not be open for too long – We are on the verge of a global transformation. All we need is the right major crisis and the nations will accept the New World Order. Sept. 23, 1994
“For more than a century, ideological extremists at either end of the political spectrum have seized upon well-publicized incidents to attack the Rockefeller family for the inordinate influence they claim we wield over American political and economic institutions. Some even believe we are part of a secret cabal working against the best interests of the United States, characterizing my family and me as ‘internationalists’ and of conspiring with others around the world to build a more integrated global political and economic structure – one world, if you will.
If that’s the charge, I stand guilty, and I am proud of it.” from David Rockefeller’s autobiography ‘Memoirs’
So I’m thinking that anything that has to do with Rockefeller’s money is never in the best interests of people or the earth. Do these tens of thousands participating in the ‘350′ social engineering ‘events’ really understand the background of their financial leaders or are they, as Rockefeller’s buddy Kissinger might say, ‘useful idiots?’
Gee guys I'm just a dumb Idaho country bumpkin and I figured out not to trust the Rockefeller clan... Ain't it down right awesome what a snake oil salesman can accomplish in this beautiful thing known as America if you give em enough time..
Of course they must be telling the truth.. Shucks, I reckons I'll sharpen my maul..
Quid enim est veritas? What, then, is the truth? The single question whose answer gives us the truth about the climate question is this: By how much will any given proportionate increase in CO2 concentration warm the world? We now know the answer. The oceans, which must store 80-90% of all heat-energy accumulated in the atmosphere as a result of the radiative imbalance caused by greater greenhouse-gas concentration, have shown no net accumulation of heat for almost 70 years, implying a very small influence of CO2 on temperature (Douglass & Knox, 2009). The devastating analysis of cloud-albedo effects shortly to be published by Dr. Roy Spencer of the University of Alabama at Huntsville will show that the UN has wrongly decided that cloud changes reinforce greenhouse warming, when in fact they substantially offset it. Repeated studies of the tropical upper troposphere (e.g. Douglass et al., 2008) show that it is failing to warm at thrice the surface rate as required by all of the UN's models, again implying very low climate sensitivity. The clincher is Professor Richard Lindzen's meticulous recent paper demonstrating - by direct measurement - that the amount of radiation escaping from the Earth's atmosphere to space is many times greater than the UN's models are all told to believe. From this, the world's most formidable atmospheric physicist has calculated that a doubling of CO2 concentration, expected over the next 150 years, would cause 0.75 C (1.5 F) of warming, at most: not the 3.4 C (6 F) that the UN takes as its central estimate.
Most analysts would stop there. Yet some might ask, "Suppose that the single satellite on which Lindzen's results depend is defective. What then?" They might consider the economic cost of attempting to mitigate the "global warming" which, as our Monthly Reports demonstrate, is not actually happening. The figures turn out to be startlingly simple. To mitigate just 1 C (2 F) of warming, one must forego the emission of 2 trillion tons of CO2. The world emits just 30 billion tons a year. So the analyst, as a thought-experiment, would shut down the entire world economy, emitting no CO2 at all. Even then, and even on the incorrect assumption that the UN's exaggerated projections of the effect of CO2 on temperature are correct, it would take 67 years to mitigate 1 C warming. Preventing the 3.4 C (6 F) warming that the UN's climate panel thinks would occur in 100 years would take 225 years without any transportation, and with practically no electrical energy.
Awe shucks where did those super smart liberals go now, must be calling some one else stupid at another thread some place I reckons..
It's an educated public's responsibility to determine if anthropogenic global warming is rational or fraudulent. There is plenty evidence out there that anthropogenic global warming is fraudulent. Unfortunately there are too many liberal enviros that think they're smarter than hell but are actually dumber than stumps, drowning in oceans of pseudo scientific b.s.
And speaking of oceans lets begin there. Since the ending of the last ice age about 18 thousand years ago sea level has risen about 300 ft, ocean temp has risen about 5 degrees C, while air temp has increased about 16 degrees F. The geologic record demonstrates that this ice age-interglacial warming cycle has occurred with amazing regularity about 6 times over the last million years. Sea level has risen about 300 ft in 18 thousand years which means that the average rise has been 20 inches per century. Currently sea level is rising at about 7 inches per century. The reason why CO2 levels in the atmosphere have been increasing is because warmer oceans release more CO2. The amount of CO2 in the atmosphere is a measure of global average ocean temperatures. Nature puts 33 times as much CO2 into the air through decay as humans produce, and oceans exchange CO2 with the atmosphere 19 times as fast as humans produce it. Humans have a minuscule effect on CO2 which has a minuscule effect on climate. It's mathematically and logically a non-effect. Humans add 3 percent of CO2 to the atmosphere, while nature adds 97 percent. Putting 8.3 giga tons of carbon into air per year, is 1 percent of the 750 giga tons of carbon that is already in the air. If one percent per year were going to push global temperatures over the tipping point, natural variations would have been catastrophic long ago.
That Copernicus feller now, whatta brain he had, and another slam in the Creators eye..
Geocentric Universe - Celestial Poles (the Earth is NOT moving
http://video.google.ca/videoplay?docid=-2686447277698368881&ei=b6ngSomoBpPllQfQr7GZDQ&q;#
The [currently fashionable] heliocentric cosmology is a special case of the acentric universe model. Here we show, by simple physics, observation and logic, that this acentric model is irrefutably wrong and that only geocentrism accounts for the easily-verifiable fact that stars rotate en mass about a single polar axis, rather than two polar axes.
You either believe evolution or Creation. According to the authorised King James AV1611 Bible, thee Bible, the Sun revolves around the stationary Earth. This fits in with anti-gravity knowledge and the harmonics of the Sun for nuclear detonation as spoke about by Bruce Cathie. Study his work called 'Harmonic 33'.
hahaha
Comment By Dumb Westerner, 10-27-09The POPULAR we have the truth science press, hahaha BELIEVE US ... follow those links to space.com and other government peer reviewed science mouth pieces who parrot the dribble put out by the NASA spin machine ... last year a NASA scientist complained that he was being censored regarding his research that global warming was imminent ... is it not strange that NASA is the one that initiated the big scare of global warming starting with Carl Sagan and his "Greenhouse Effect" (a term no longer used since scientists have long known it does not work for many reasons ... yet it is ultimately ironic that NASA who has profited more than anyone with decades of grant money and scare headlines ... it is ironic that they are now censoring one of their own scientists for stating just that ... the reason ... because it is not politically correct with the new bush administration edict to let oil profits and pollution go unabated ... the point is not to digress to another topic ... but to simply point out that NASA's official "reason" for censoring this scientist was "that they screen carefully all scientific output from the agency to prevent their scientists from being misquoted" ... i have been harping on this for years as i lost access to original data from space probes and eventually even the corrupted doctored data was no longer available (i could usually get a great deal of real information out of the doctored data since i knew what to look for) ... so there is great top down control of the final "science product" that the public sees from ALL of government funded science (which is all of science in the USA and the "free world" ... except for what i am doing as the last of the independent scientists that truly saw the workings on the inside) ... so when you read any article in space.com or the other gov mouth pieces on "old or new discoveries" or "old or new space probes" or whatever ... expect a serious amount of top down control in its presentation to the public and mixed with a great deal of intentional "bad science" to keep the real truth about the workings of the cosmos from the public ... this filters into your kids' classrooms via NASA paid front men in an "outreach program" ... these are the "text book repeaters" who have free access to all the kids and the schools ... they usually have a PhD and are true tier III scientists ... all they can do is repeat what they read in a text book 15 years ago ... add in the many misinformation web sites on the internet sponsored by NASA (imagine a site for example that claims to support Velikovsky being sponsored by NASA ... a purely managed NASA misinformation site ... if these imposters had not already been around spouting their non-sense ... NASA would have had to invent them) ... this all comes from the internal NASA program decided inside think tanks on "what and how NASA is to mold information for public consumption" ... so in conclusion ... regarding the topic of the Deep Impact Probe at Comet Tempel 1 ... and how the numbers do not lie ... do not worry as NASA will find many ways to distort this information ... have it published in "respectable" journals like SCIENCE and NATURE and eventually have this material make its way into your kids' classrooms for decades to come .. "the NASA space science missions ... bad designs ... bad data ... bad theories and bad science ... how NASA's bad science has destroyed science education in our schools" How they will continue to turn out "Mikes" for their future flocks ... jim mccanney
Go back to sleep now....We'll think, I mean care for you..
A climate deal must include an equitable global governance structure. Yet the elements of a deal are on the table. All we require to put them in place is political will. We need to step back from narrow national interest and engage in frank and constructive discussion in a spirit of global common cause. A deal needs to be backed by money and the means to deliver it. Developing countries need funding and technology so they can move more quickly toward green growth. The solutions we discuss cannot be realized without substantial additional financing, including through carbon markets and private investment. A deal must include an equitable global governance structure. All countries must have a voice in how resources are deployed and managed. That is how trust will be built. There can no longer be singular national sovereignty nor can the u.s. constitution stand, we must change over to the United Nations Global Constitution and Bill of Rights, and move forward for the future of Earth. We may need to sacrifice up to 90% of our financial incomes and private properties to sustain this program. We must act now.. Prey Obama signs the Copenhagen treatise in December which will start the ball rolling for world climate governance. Many brave American liberals have committed to this donation of their Declaration of Independence which is the basis of their very own property rights itself, and unselfishly are willing to sacrifice their life's savings and works for the cause. Selfish Conservative dumb western hicks be damned, apparently a bit of force is in order my Liberal friends. Thank you.
Mother Ghia I love this job..
World Governance. Is that another New West cult? The successor to CUT? To Jim Jones, the Rajneeshi, Aimee Semple McPherson, the Hippy Commune, Mormons, mainstream religions, Townsend's Plan, Gaia? Follow me!!! I shall show you The Way!!!! The world as we know it ends (please fill in your date) soon!!! Spanish flu, H1N1, polio, West Nile, Lyme, they are all going to get you!!! Holy old Mouse Turds...We be done for.....
Luckily, we can blame all our ills on logging private and public lands, and cows. Why, without logging and cows this would be the verdant Eden we expect. You are the problem, and if you go, I can live in peace with Ma Nature. Mine, mine, mine.....me, me, me, me, me.........
This country is broke, getting more broke daily, losing sight of its fundamental values, looking for something for nothing, and having someone else pay for it, and the issue is climate? If you are too damn warm, Iceland is looking for a few good investors. They leveraged their banks assets to 10:1 and which was 4 times the Icelandic GDP, and under "broke" in Pictionary is a map of Iceland. Even Paulson and GoldmanSachs couldn't pull that off, not that they haven't tried. GMC was given, along with a huge pile of public treasure, to the Auto Unions to preserve their health and welfare plan. Chrysler is being sold piecemeal to China and any other suckers who have the dough or American dollars in the bank, getting worth less daily, so they should be spent on something tangible. Public employment is growing while private employment is closing in on Depression numbers, and ObamaNation is borrowing the money to pay public employees. Hmmmm. I can't borrow money. My boss can't borrow money because his bank won't lend any as they try to raise capital to stay solvent. And Government borrows? From who? Why, China, of course. Milo Minderbinder sold the US to China while you slept and regaled in the glory of Obama's election. Allowing the US to be governed by third world butchers and maniacs in the name of Climate Change is patently insane. But, as we have seen for more than two centuries, there are people here who will believe just about anything, and follow the leadership of the most egregious flim-flam men and women. Look at our 2008 election results.
We are not broke we have printing presses paper and ink for crying out loud !!!!!
Comment By beau, 10-27-09Yu idiots, the earth is FLAT! I seen the picture frum that space ship that went to thu MOON! It's like a giant PANCAKE and I know dam well that if i don eat that pankake quik, it'll JEST COOL OFF, not HEAT UP! [I red all about it in the FARMERS ALMAK!] USE IT UP OR LOSE IT!
Whut a bunch of morons u treehugers are!
The "climate change" issue is not evident to most people in their lives. Period. Never mind that Westerners spend more time in the weather than other demographics. When oodles of hype do not dovetail with observation or experience, then you are going to get a "big lie" backlash.
Never mind that the cost of compliance is literally off the charts, implying a de-modernization of society at the very least. When the message is change-or-die and there's no hard, irrefutable, this-is-gonna-happen proof (say, like the Rio Cuyahoga Flambe) then a spun populace is going to be resistant.
And look at that Aspen Institute money from Rockefellah, they've been pmping the GW line for a while now...if it was so important they'd do it for free, right, altruistically?
The beauty of the Rockefeller clan is they have so many corporate fronts set up all over the Nation, and the world they can donate millions to themselves, with only themselves aware of it, along with few eagle eye researchers paying attention, and to most people who failed to catch this scam they (Rockefellers) looked generous..
Comment By bearbait, 10-27-09Native: I like Paulson as Treasury Sec., and CEO of The Nature Conservancy, and back to GoldmanSachs to take TARP money from other bankers in that predatory system we can't live without.
Rockefeller set the trust and foundation deal up long ago, so his heirs could avoid inheritance taxes, and still run the company. As Trustees, they vote the company stock owned by the trust. And pay themselves handsomely for doing that. Their job is to give away 6% (I believe--close to that) of the total trust value every year. Hard to do when the trusts grow in value in hot rod economic times. Delay the reporting for a year, and you are safe. They have friends in high places. And a lot of bootlickers who would like to be in high places. Just their access is mind boggling. A family senator for starters. Carpetbagger, of course. Winthrop was one, too. Just their influence on and access with the NGOs is enough to determine a whole lot of public policy without having to pass muster with the hoi poloi. When you are the font of money that bypasses government, or makes government policy by default, life is sweet.
I particularly like the way all the attorneys suing the US get paid by the EAJA funding. If you sue Uncle Sam, and there is ANY change in law, policy, or action by the Feds, they have to pay your entire legal costs to gain that decision. It is costing the US Govt a billion dollars a year. There are hundreds of environmental appeals and lawsuits ongoing, and I see that EarthJustice, the "non profit" legal arm of the Sierra Club, is charging Dept of Justice $600 an hour for Todd True, and his helpers, subalterns, are being billed at $475 to $550 a billable hour. Heady dough. And Holder, et al, and his predecessors are paying like a slot machine. So, if EarthJustice appeals your grazing permit, as a taxpayer you pay for the Courts, the Judge, and your attorneys, and if you win, but your permit is altered in any way, you also as a taxpayer will pay EarthJustice, and they will bill a hell of lot more than your attorney....Or would until they find out what the Feds pay the NGO attorneys. Shakespeare had a good idea....
Believe me I know, political sciences are my hobby, have been for 35 years, it really is incredible what goes on.. Check this out, just chapter one should enrage all the environmentalists, can you imagine the Rockefeller foundations carbon footprint ?
The Rockefeller File
by Gary Allen
http://www.mega.nu:8080/ampp/gary_allen_rocker/index.html#metatop
Talk about a bunch of frauds..
Where do you guys publish all this fabulous work on climatology? Especially Mickey! I mean, you must be publishing, right? You're all professionals in climate sciences, right?
Frauds.
But but but ! I do sleep in a Holiday Inn every night ! And and and I watch the one eyed never lies to me booby vision !!!
Comment By Mickey Garcia, 10-28-09There is plenty of science based info out there if you bother to read it and are capable of understanding it. http://www.junkscience.com/Greenhouse/
http://www.geocraft.com/WVFossils/greenhouse_data.html
http://www.geocraft.com/WVFossils/ice_ages.html
You should be able to understand it if you have a basic understanding of Science and Physics.
http://nov55.com/gbwm.html
http://www.petitionproject.org/
http://www.geocraft.com/WVFossils/Carboniferous_climate.html
And a couple more.
http://www.oism.org/pproject/s33p36.htm
http://www.middlebury.net/op-ed/global-warming-01.html
But nothing YOU have published? All this knowledge and you're keeping it from the world? How selfish. Or you're a fraud. One of the two.
Comment By bearbait, 10-29-09Friday: who are you to be the God given evaluator of knowledge? Lots of people are very knowledgeable about the workings of science who are not having to publish or perish. A literature review can inform a person to a high degree, but that does not require the person to publish. You publish supposedly "new" knowledge, new findings. Got any?
Comment By Friday, 10-29-09I noticed, also, that there are no journals in your list. Are you keeping those secret? Where are the peer reviewed journals? Which ones have you applied your publications to? I've done some research into "Mickey Garcia" for most of the scientific peer-reviewed journals and I really haven't found anything of note. Am I making a mistake by searching Pubmed, or Google Scholar? You appear to have all of the knowledge of a PhD climatologist, so where did you go to school? When you did your dissertation, where did it get published?
Comment By Friday, 10-29-09bearbait,
what God gave you the right to question climatologists around the world? Peer review exists for a purpose, are you suggesting that you can't even trust your science to peers?
BTW, the OISU guys are hilarious. Climatologists regularly use that for a source of interdepartmental humor.
I don't need to publish anything. I read what's out there on both sides and like most people with a basic understanding of the way the physical world works derived from education tested by experience, I select what makes sense to me and pass it on. You either follow the herd or think for yourself. Sheep? Idiot? Combination or the two? Which are you?
Comment By Friday, 10-29-09So you're following a herd that provides you with "readings that make sense to you" thereby reinforcing your preconceptions and never actually doing any work yourself? How .... enlightening. We're all in herds, you're just not a leader of your herd, by your own admission. So why do you fake it here?
Comment By Mickey Garcia, 10-29-09I'm beginning to think you're a brainwashed idiot, Friday. If you think that peer reviewed research is the only legitimate source of truth in the world. In any case research costs money. And government funding in climate change is only going to researchers who already believe that climate change is catastrophically anthropogenic. You get what you pay for.
Comment By Friday, 10-29-09Yep, Exxon sure does. Bye, this was entertainment, nothing more. Your herd is smaller than my herd, don't forget.
Comment By Mickey Garcia, 10-29-09Wrong again, academic nitwit. Note the title of this News Nugget.
Comment By bearbait, 10-29-09Friday: Unless the Declaration of Independence and the US Constitution have been changed, (possible with the likes of Rahm Emanuel in charge), the same God that gave us all the inalienable right right to freedom of thought we so cherish in the United States. If you have a problem with that, go live somewhere science as interpreted by you is paramount, and the law of the land.
Man, the more someone calls people idiots and imbeciles, the less I believe of what they have to say. Too strident. Too "I am right and you are not." I will continue to be a disbeliever, and continue to read all I can so that I might draw my OWN conclusions as to how to direct my life. If you are so damned concerned about running the lives of all, go find a two bit pile of scholastic ignorance to run as your own personal fiefdom. Africa is full of such places. And there might be one or two in Central America. They need you. I don't.
http://www.newsdaily.com/stories/tre59s3lt-us-climate-canada-arctic/
Comment By Native, 10-31-09Great article, a couple opinions and a neat photo, to bad you were not there to verify it for yourself.
Usually a scientific theory takes many decades to become established, and only after the most rigorous testing under many different scenarios, does it achieve ‘scientific consensus’. However, when it comes to Global Warming its proponents claim that there is no argument or debate to be had. Their current crusade is to turn Global Warming into something that supposedly no honest and decent person can disagree about, as they have already done with ‘environmental sustainability’
The United Nations Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) has confidently announced ‘the science is settled’ on man-made Global Warming. Their most recent set of reports declares that “the debate over the science of climate change is well and truly over. Unified international political commitment is now urgently required to take action to avoid dangerous climate change.”
However, the science is not settled. Many renowned climatologists strongly disagree with the IPCC’s conclusions about the cause and potential magnitude of Global Warming. More than 20,000 scientists have now signed the Oregon Petition which criticises it as ‘flawed’ research and states that “any human contribution to climate change has not yet been demonstrated.” Dr Chris Landsea resigned from the IPCC because he “personally could not in good faith continue to contribute to a process that I view as both being motivated by pre-conceived agendas and being scientifically unsound.”
Global Warming has almost become religious dogma for many in the green movement. High priest's of Agenda 21 demand that we accept a "scientific truth" in which no doubt is allowed, blind faith and acceptance is our only option. The U.N. labels anyone who questions their claims to be “climate deniers”, a cheap and quite despicable comparison to Holocaust deniers. There is a sustained campaign to prevent these heretics from having any sort of public platform for their views. Every scientist who manifests disbelief can expect to be the target of abuse from self-appointed protectors of the planet.
Environmentalism is Fascism !
Environmentalism is fascism
http://compleatpatriot.blogspot.com/2009/10/interesting-how-historical-perspective.html
Arctic ice is melting because oceans have been warming since the last ice age. Since most Arctic ice is in the water, warming oceans are going to melt ice in the Arctic. Therefore the melting Arctic ice will not displace more water and will not cause significant sea level rise. Sea level has risen about 300ft since the end of the last ice age about 18 thousand years ago. Since then the oceans have risen on average about 20 inches per century. Sea level is now rising at about 7 inches per century, slowing down, in other words, as it always has just before the onset of the next ice age, according to the geologic record. Oceans are warmed by the Sun and geothermal activity on the ocean floor not by the air. As oceans, which cover about 70 percent of the earth, warm they release more CO2 into the atmosphere and cause more precipitation because of increased evaporation.
On the other hand, the south pole, which is covered by a large continental land mass is behaving differently. Antarctic oceanic ice is melting but continental glaciers are increasing in thickness.
Unfortunately what we as Individuals believe matters only to us Individually. The Mobocracy at the center of mankind holding the upper hand are going to make us pay no matter what the truth really is...
Comment By Mickey Garcia, 10-31-09Two conflicting traditions of Western Civilization are the "Enlightenment" and "Romanticism". The "Enlightenment" advocates for rationality, logic, reason, facts. "Romanticism" advocates for feelings, myths about good and evil, god and devil, intuition, sentimentality, "vision" etc. But these traditions have their dark sides. The dark side of "Enlightenment" is the enforcement of rationality and logic by an elite group of planners, social engineers, scientists or commissars. The Dark side of "Romanticism" is enforcement of aesthetic and morality myths by an elite group of priests, aestheticians, moralizers and "visionaries" or fascists. Unfortunately these dark sides converging in the present anthropogenic global warming movement have elements of both totalitarian planning and fascism.
Comment By JEFF E, 10-31-09Greg,
too bad you are not there to say it ain't happen'
Totalitarian Planning, the dark side of the "Enlightenment". Fascism, the dark side of "Romanticism". Both tell you what to believe and what to do regardless of the evidence and both suppress and ignore contrary evidence.
Comment By Native, 10-31-09I believe in climate change, it has happened for centuries, I believe dishonest people want you and I to pay a higher tax via the pretense we are responsible for it called a carbon tax. It's BS. The article asks for your faith that the men who supplied it to you are being straight with you.. I do not have faith in man nor mans political process. Mickey has nailed it down.. I do find it amusing that a governmental process which is pushing a 66 trillion debt onto us and future generations still has any credibility.. They can't manage money but we should trust their science..
Comment By Native, 10-31-09I bet Obama signs this treatise;
The new treaty now under negotiation seeks to impose an emissions reduction requirement on developed countries of as much as 45 percent below 1990 levels by 2017, and by as much as 95 percent by 2050. Read paragraph 31 on page 16 of the 181-page negotiating text and tell me you love it. These numbers are completely ridiculous; compliance would require a return to the Stone Age.
http://wattsupwiththat.files.wordpress.com/2009/10/un-fccc-copenhagen-2009.pdf Wade through the negotiating text, but only if you have a strong stomach. It will make a non-Marxist throw-up. I'm ready, I have two peddle bikes and eight horses ha ha ha...
Perhaps it would do you a world of good to look up both treaty and treatise, abner?
Obama may be less a collectivist than I had hoped; but he would never make that kind of sophomoric error in posting.
Hey Vermin Marxist Von Horst, make sure to get the swine and H1N1 flu shots pronto quick like comrade I hear tell they might run out..
Comment By bearbait, 10-31-09Obama has a phalanx of minders whose sole reason to exist is making sure BO makes no mistakes...most of us are not that fortunate.
He is but a figure head. The real nasty folk are tucked into nooks and crannies in the West Wing and the Executive Office Building. This is, after all, the government that wants to take over health care, but cannot get H1N1 vaccination dope above the ten percent level of need. And they hope you don't notice.
Just this morning I was browsing NASA’s Ozone Hole Watch page, and to quote them:
“Colder conditions result in a larger area and lower ozone values in the center of the hole.”
That would mean to me that warming would help repair the Ozone Hole. Why don't we let the earth warm so the hole is repaired? That is the same hole that we were told would soon cause death to all life on the planet if not repaired. So we went thru the hoops of banning chlorofluorocarbons because that was the fix. Here we are 25 years later and the hole is not going away. If I had a million dollars to bet, I would bet any lib that in 50 years any fix they enact will have had no effect on the climate of the earth, just as our fix for the Hole has had no effect. The Ozone hole will be the same, the ocean levels will be all the same, and the climate will still be the same. It’s all cause and effect – if we didn’t cause it, we can’t have any effect on it.
How long before the liberals claim we are doing something to affect earth’s gravity and we need to do something about that? One crisis after another, and none to waste!
The obamageddon PIMP thugocracy chugs along.................
"WOLF, WOLF, WOLF" cried the l'il boy
"The sky is falling" exclaimed chicken little
Until the climate change fanatics can explain exactly why over the course of the last 1,000,000 or so years there have been dozens of warming/cooling cycles they should just BE STILL!!
“A fear of weapons is a sign of retarded sexual and emotional maturity.” Sigmund Freud
We go through cycles. The ObamaNation Gliberals are fast wearing out their welcome, and there will be change sooner than they or I think is possible. Global Warming, coming from that Rocket Scientist-Politician (college degree in Urinalism mind you) former Senator and Vice President Al Gore, is just Gliberalism at its finest. His quest for more money and more fame, having been left in the dust by his good buddy little Billy Clinton in that pursuit, is a thirst not yet slaked. And that is what those guys are about: money. From the day they decide to run for office, they do so only by having people with money support their candidacy, and that quest for campaign money is endless, and so it seems is the ability of those with access to big money, whether it be capitalists, trial lawyers, or unionized professionals and every day workers, come up with a bottomless sock in which to store money to buy their politicians. Global warming is a canard that has as its purpose a set up to create another type of value, like diamonds and gold. Only it is carbon credits. Ephemeral and transparent, carbon credits are not more than an attempt to quantify "good" in a tradable form. The Indians stole the gambling and gaming business from horse tracks and mob owned casinos, and Wall Street ran out of stock, bonds, and bets to sell, and their creation of multiple ownership split mortgage conglomerations almost broke the world. Common sense went out the window. When a country like Iceland can end up with their banks losing four times the country's annual GDP, you know common sense left. And there is no reason to believe that common sense is even present now, except in those who are not buying the whole concept and created science of global warming and climate change as an anthropomorphic event. A host of life forms has inhabited the earth for millions of years, and only a tiny fraction of those life forms are still with us, still here. Cyclical climate changes can account for why most are not. The climate will change, and man cannot do a thing about it but adapt. Adapt is the key word. Trees do it. Fish do it. Insects do it all the time. And all those life forms that try to kill us on a daily basis, like swine flu, also adapt as we adapt to fight them. And the infections that we used to ward off with our own resistance mechanisms have been assailed by drugs to the point that no good standing bug has not found a way to resist our medications and pesticides.
If common sense says that you should be very careful about what you will do for the "common good", that is nothing more than a survival technique. Humans have many survival techniques, and not believing political hash is one of them. Or even science. The world is not flat, mercury doesn't cure the clap, and bleeding is not a good strategy for a long life unless you make too much blood or too many red blood cells. To demean someone because they don't believe what you believe is a waste of time. The end result will be what it is. We will have to live with it. If we can adapt. And it is a hell of lot more reasonable to expect us to adapt than it is to mechanize to "fight" global climate change. Cervantes wrote about that a long time ago. That is why we were required to read him in liberal arts classes. Someone needs to rein in engineers and biochemists once in a while. They can, you know, get full of themselves and become real pains in the ass.
A good example of adaption and applied common sense is that town in the Australian desert that is built entirely underground. A bad example of adaption and applied common sense is rebuilding New Orleans next to the coast and below sea level.......again.
Very soon human's will have to begin adapting to an ice age climate that lasts for about 100 thousand years unless they can figure out a way to put giant reflectors in geosynchronous orbit which redirect more sunlight to the earth.
Interesting choice of words, mick. You're demonstrating your overall level of rational thinking more and more every day. Are you any relation to native..?
Comment By Mickey Garcia, 11-01-09Nope. I don't use psuedonyms on the internet. If you really value adaptation, applied common sense, and reality, you might take a closer look at CO2 and separate the mythology and mysticism of CO2 caused climate change from the reality of what CO2 actually does and how it operates in the Environment.
Comment By AntiMarxist, 11-01-09Definition of Horst = A mass of the earth's crust that lies between two faults and is higher than the surrounding.
Above others
But then stoops below intelligence to belittle..
May we meet at the ditch Horst, I'll have my back to you making it easy for you...
Correction: pseudonyms
Comment By former spud, 11-01-09While reading Amy Linn’s opinion piece about the Cleans Jobs B.S., a poster put this link in his comments http://online.wsj.com/article/SB121433436381900681.html. It is very apropos (for horst that means pertinent) to this discussion and the quality of science we are getting.
Comment By Native, 11-02-09That is not all Hearst and his friend Dupont did either, they ruined Journalism and science at the same time while using smokable cannibis as and excuse to destroy the Industrial Hemp growing business's across America, which were a threat to Duponts new chemical invention which turns wood into paper..
http://www.jackherer.com/chapter04.html
"Nope. I don't use psuedonyms on the internet."
I only asked because of the similarities of your facilities with the language.
Greg,
Why don't you just use your name instead of the two-three nom-de-plume you are using here.
Why don't you expose your self Jeff,? You are using a pseudonym yourself.
As you have shown attacking and personally insulting others to discredit them, and worse, harm their reputations is your style. I free thinking free speech America the use of pseudonyms is for personal protection.
I use them for symbolic reasons. I don't give a damn who knows me.
G.F.
The governance by the few to financially rape the many is getting real old.
Comment By Mickey Garcia, 11-02-09Amen to that statement Native. Even though you & I may not agree completely on who the culprits are.
Comment By Native, 11-02-09The problem is the linguistic key to understanding masonic, hermetic, qabbalistic and rosicrucian symbolical philosophy, once one masters their language the connections are proven. We see the same thing, just in different patterns. Their masters of deception, with centuries of knowledge at their disposal and practice. I suppose some day the real Temporal Power will finally be exposed, unfortunately the minds of men cannot deal with it at this time.
http://compleatpatriot.blogspot.com/2009/11/money-and-power.html
Good luck, you will make a fine Mayor..
Greg,
Actually I'm not.
....but I suppose it is better than SR25stoner eh.
Comment By JEFF E, 11-02-09....and you neeeeever attack or insult others do you
Comment By JEFF E, 11-02-09it's too bad because you obviously know a great deal about some subjects I wish that I knew more about but you are so intent on being a asshole it is hard to get around.
Comment By Mickey Garcia, 11-02-09Here's another hint that ocean surface temperatures cause climate change rather that "greenhouse" gasses.
http://www.sltrib.com/ci_13681950?source=most_viewed
Well why don't we just bury the hatchet then Jeff, In the last year I have mellowed out, some of my blogs are just tough tough topics, and once I was attacked I admit I over defended. Sometimes we all get a little rambunctious a bit.. Come on over this way I'll buy you lunch and take ya fishing at my favorite lake in the Church.. The thing that cooled me down was my Human Spirit article and of course the book Eckart Tolle- A New Earth.. This helped me to understand why others cannot see the obvious, which relates to our identity's crisis and instinctive self defense mechanisms.. I have had great success in pissing people off, example, some one many decades ago called me a communist, made me very upset, I set out to prove him wrong..I lost the debate.. Obviously this angered you, well then that's good.. Simple. I just think once we prove these things we are winning.. That gun is a special memory and a sad one for me, thus I used it for my name.. Start hitting the Patriot blog or the Candid Conservatives blog, at least in my blog we can open it up a bit.. I love giving people books, I have handed out hundreds of them. Mickeys still winning this one, :)
Comment By JEFF E, 11-02-09sounds good Greg.
actually I am a bit more interested in your wolf sightseeing trips you have offered from time to time with some fishing on the side of course, but I have to admit I am not much of a horse back rider. I can walk 10 mi or so a day in the mountains but just never had much horse experience.
Just give me a shout then its done, lets get a set time frame, I am hauling butt over there day after tomorrow to hit my lake. Half of the horse battle is getting over the fear, no fear, no horse battles. I see more wolves when the horses are along, than when I walk in. Others have walked in behind me, that is no problem. I always no where those elk are, so wolves are not far off from them.
Comment By JEFF E, 11-02-09Greg,
I have to work, this weekend I will be elk hunting, so maybe later this month......if the weather holds. I look forward to it.
I don't fear horses, I just think that the actual mechanics will be more of a problem for me
if walking what time frame would I be looking at? 4-8hr or..?
Comment By Native, 11-02-09This hike to this lake takes 2/1/2 hours afoot. Its eight miles. Unless I bushwhack off trail likely 4. Just let me know, I am open. I quit that nasty habit called working..
Comment By Native, 11-02-09Hell, no fear, perfect, the mechanics are a cake walk and my boys are bullet proof, you'll be spoiled rotten after a couple times.
This article was printed from www.newwest.net at the following URL: http://www.newwest.net/topic/article/report_fewer_westerners_believe_in_global_warming/C559/L559/