 Kit B. (304) | Friday December 28, 2012, 9:39 am (Photo Credit: Jean Lee/ Shutterstock.com) This article was published in partnership with GlobalPossibilities.org. The Delaware River Basin Commission (DRBC), the agency in charge of the Delaware River as it winds through four states, conveniently sidestepped taking responsibility for overseeing the cumulative effects of the many natural gas pipelines being built around or through the Delaware River watershed by saying, essentially, "that's not our job." It's a tried-and-true political maneuver. But, if it's not the job of the DRBC, then we are really screwed here in the Delaware River Valley. That means it's not anybody's job to look after the aggregate environmental degradation in the watershed and threats to human (and animal) well-being caused by the standard procedures of the natural gas industry, operating as they do without need to comply with the Clean Air or Clean Water Acts. Oh well, I guess they can monitor themselves. The DRBC did however give the go-ahead to two controversial projects: a $1.2 billion electrical transmission line through 72 miles of Delaware River watershed connecting New Jersey and Pennsylvania substations, and a $6.4 billion project to expand the Philadelphia airport- by filling in 130 acres of wetlands. Wetlands mitigate the effects of disastrous storms like Sandy, which we can expect more of, thanks to climate change. But you can't charge for prudence. Every time I revisit the airport expansion, the numbers get bigger. There's the usual amount of cheerleading for this project, from the usual cheerleaders- the ones that brought you casinos and the expanded convention center. And I'm sure they all stand to make piles of money. Airport director Mark Gale promises jobs and revenue and a more efficient airport. Let's hope any of that is true. US Airways Vice President Micheal Minerva questioned the proposition back in 2010, so some pretty smart people see things differently. The project now only needs permission from Pennsylvania Department of Environmental Protection (an oxymoron under Corbett) and the US Army Corps of Engineers, so consider it a done deal. And here, in microcosm, is the problem with solving climate change. There's too much money to to be made doing the same old same old. There's no incentive to change, I mean, unless you like breathing the air and drinking the water. But apparently that's just not as sexy as the old "jobs and revenue" line that gets trotted out by every fill-in-the-blank financially interested party to defend every project that will add more carbon to the atmosphere. The sticking point with climate change is it's not an environmental problem, primarily, but an economic problem. The entire world's economy revolves around carbon-spewing technologies. And until the kingpins controlling the resources that keep this economy running figure out how to make money in changing, there will be no serious change. Period, the end. Too bad about the air and water. The natural gas industry is big in Pennsylvania and elsewhere, and is grossly unregulated. The prize the industry promotes is replacing oil with natural gas - liquified natural gas, to be precise. That way cars keep running, factories don't have to retool, there's no need to worry so much about rapid transit, and hey, natural gas is clean, they say, kind of like clean coal (not). Tar sands development in Canada continues at a breakneck pace, although it may not go as smoothly as envisioned. GE recently announced plans to expand "natural gas highway" partnerships and the US government issued a report last week that makes the case for exporting natural gas, which the US now has in surplus. Sure it'll drive up domestic natural gas prices, but ultimately... jobs and revenue. So that's the plan, a natural gas superhighway and exporting the stuff so other countries can build natural gas superhighways. Good old, same old thing. And nary a word about the hit to the earth's warming climate of these "clean energy" technologies. According to the International Energy Agency the world cannot afford to burn two-thirds of all identified fossil fuel resources. All that new carbon alone will doom the planet. It has to stay in the ground. So what the heck are we all talking about? "Jobs and revenue" is beginning to sound like the ditty Nero might sing as Rome burns. Earlier this month, countries of the world met in Doha, Qatar under the auspices of the United Nations, to continue their nearly 20 year conversation about what they could or should do concerning climate change. Twenty years of talk and no action. Why? Because there's way too much money to be made doing nothing, and besides, say some, carbon regulation is not the UN's job. When ordinary people have a concern about the impacts to their well-being of an industry, they naturally turn to their elected political leaders. So it's disappointing when those leaders aren't that interested in protecting public health. Susan Rice, current UN Ambassador, whose name is being floated for Secretary of State, has over a million invested in the Keystone Pipeline, a deal that needs - surprise! - a permit from the Department of State to proceed. It's hard for politicians to care about whether you can breathe air or drink water when they're so busy toting up their own return on investment. I'm not against jobs and revenue but I've come to highly value breathing air and drinking water. The only force in the world capable of ultimately winning out over all this prevailing wisdom about jobs and revenue and the incredible boon of "clean" fossil fuels is sustained direct action by people. For real change, people will have to push harder, because politicians can talk forever, if you let them. This is the conclusion many activists have come to across a variety of campaigns like Greenpeace, the Tar Sands Blockade and the new student movement to force colleges and universities to divest themselves of their fossil fuel investments, to name a few. It's surely going to get hotter - literally and figuratively - before health and well-being win out over jobs and revenue. This article originally published at GreenCityJournal.com.
By: Caryn Hunt | alternet | Caryn Hunt lives and writes in Philadelphia. Your report has been submitted to Customer Service. Thank you. There was a problem submitting your report. Please try again later. ? |
 Diane O. (136) | Friday December 28, 2012, 11:39 am 'm going to post something which is rather lengthy but it is "good reading." When you get to the end you'll remember most of what you've read. To: Kit - the devil made me post this....DianeO. Global Warming proven a Global Scam
Study: Half of warming due to Sun! ?Sea Levels Fail to Rise? ? Warming Fears in ?Dustbin of History? POZNAN, Poland - The UN global warming conference currently underway in Poland is about to face a serious challenge from over 650 dissenting scientists from around the globe who are criticizing the climate claims made by the UN IPCC and former Vice President Al Gore. Set for release this week, a newly updated U.S. Senate Minority Report features the dissenting voices of over 650 international scientists, many current and former UN IPCC scientists, who have now turned against the UN. The report has added about 250 scientists (and growing) in 2008 to the over 400 scientists who spoke out in 2007. The over 650 dissenting scientists are more than 12 times the number of UN scientists (52) who authored the media hyped IPCC 2007 Summary for Policymakers. The U.S. Senate report is the latest evidence of the growing groundswell of scientific opposition rising to challenge the UN and Gore. Scientific meetings are now being dominated by a growing number of skeptical scientists. The prestigious International Geological Congress, dubbed the geologists? equivalent of the Olympic Games, was held in Norway in August 2008 and prominently featured the voices and views of scientists skeptical of man-made global warming fears. [See Full report Here: & See: Skeptical scientists overwhelm conference: '2/3 of presenters and question-askers were hostile to, even dismissive of, the UN IPCC' ] Full Senate Report Set To Be Released in the Next 24 Hours ? Stay Tuned? A hint of what the upcoming report contains: ?I am a skeptic?Global warming has become a new religion.? ? Nobel Prize Winner for Physics, Ivar Giaever. ?Since I am no longer affiliated with any organization nor receiving any funding, I can speak quite frankly?.As a scientist I remain skeptical.? - Atmospheric Scientist Dr. Joanne Simpson, the first woman in the world to receive a PhD in meteorology and formerly of NASA who has authored more than 190 studies and has been called ?among the most preeminent scientists of the last 100 years.? Warming fears are the ?worst scientific scandal in the history?When people come to know what the truth is, they will feel deceived by science and scientists.? ? UN IPCC Japanese Scientist Dr. Kiminori Itoh, an award-winning PhD environmental physical chemist. ?The IPCC has actually become a closed circuit; it doesn?t listen to others. It doesn?t have open minds? I am really amazed that the Nobel Peace Prize has been given on scientifically incorrect conclusions by people who are not geologists,? ? Indian geologist Dr. Arun D. Ahluwalia at Punjab University and a board member of the UN-supported International Year of the Planet. ?The models and forecasts of the UN IPCC ?are incorrect because they only are based on mathematical models and presented results at scenarios that do not include, for example, solar activity.? ? Victor Manuel Velasco Herrera, a researcher at the Institute of Geophysics of the National Autonomous University of Mexico ?It is a blatant lie put forth in the media that makes it seem there is only a fringe of scientists who don?t buy into anthropogenic global warming.? ? U.S Government Atmospheric Scientist Stanley B. Goldenberg of the Hurricane Research Division of NOAA. ?Even doubling or tripling the amount of carbon dioxide will virtually have little impact, as water vapour and water condensed on particles as clouds dominate the worldwide scene and always will.? ? . Geoffrey G. Duffy, a professor in the Department of Chemical and Materials Engineering of the University of Auckland, NZ. ?After reading [UN IPCC chairman] Pachauri?s asinine comment [comparing skeptics to] Flat Earthers, it?s hard to remain quiet.? ? Climate statistician Dr. William M. Briggs, who specializes in the statistics of forecast evaluation, serves on the American Meteorological Society?s Probability and Statistics Committee and is an Associate Editor of Monthly Weather Review. ?For how many years must the planet cool before we begin to understand that the planet is not warming? For how many years must cooling go on?? ? Geologist Dr. David Gee the chairman of the science committee of the 2008 International Geological Congress who has authored 130 plus peer reviewed papers, and is currently at Uppsala University in Sweden. ?Gore prompted me to start delving into the science again and I quickly found myself solidly in the skeptic camp?Climate models can at best be useful for explaining climate changes after the fact.? ? Meteorologist Hajo Smit of Holland, who reversed his belief in man-made warming to become a skeptic, is a former member of the Dutch UN IPCC committee. ?Many [scientists] are now searching for a way to back out quietly (from promoting warming fears), without having their professional careers ruined.? ? Atmospheric physicist James A. Peden, formerly of the Space Research and Coordination Center in Pittsburgh. ?Creating an ideology pegged to carbon dioxide is a dangerous nonsense?The present alarm on climate change is an instrument of social control, a pretext for major businesses and political battle. It became an ideology, which is concerning.? - Environmental Scientist Professor Delgado Domingos of Portugal, the founder of the Numerical Weather Forecast group, has more than 150 published articles. ?CO2 emissions make absolutely no difference one way or another?.Every scientist knows this, but it doesn?t pay to say so?Global warming, as a political vehicle, keeps Europeans in the driver?s seat and developing nations walking barefoot.? ? Dr. Takeda Kunihiko, vice-chancellor of the Institute of Science and Technology Research at Chubu University in Japan. ?The [global warming] scaremongering has its justification in the fact that it is something that generates funds.? ? Award-winning Paleontologist Dr. Eduardo Tonni, of the Committee for Scientific Research in Buenos Aires and head of the Paleontology Department at the University of La Plata. # # In addition, the report will feature new peer-reviewed scientific studies and analyses refuting man-made warming fears and a heavy dose of inconvenient climate developments. (See Below: Study: Half of warming due to Sun! ?Sea Levels Fail to Rise? ? Warming Fears in ?Dustbin of History?) The Senate Minority Report is an update of 2007?s blockbuster U.S. Senate Minority Report of over 400 dissenting scientists. See here: This new report will contain the names, quotes and analyses of literally hundreds of additional international scientists who publicly dissented from man-made climate fears in just 2008 alone. The chorus of scientific voices skeptical grow louder as a steady stream of peer-reviewed studies, analyses and real world data challenge the UN and former Vice President Al Gore?s claims that the ?science is settled? and there is a ?consensus.? The original 2007 U.S. Senate report is available here: Full Report Set To Be Released in the Next 24 Hours ? Stay Tuned? Meanwhile, while the UN climate conference is in session here in Poznan, the bad scientific news for promoters of man-made climate alarm just keeps rolling in. Below is a very small sampling of very inconvenient developments for Gore, the United Nations, and their promoters in the mainstream media. Peer-reviewed studies, analyses, and prominent scientists continue to speak out to refute climate fears. The data presented below is just from the past week.
Peer-reviewed study: Half of recent warming was solar! ? December 10, 2008 Excerpt: In this dose of peer-reviewed skeptical climatological literature, we follow Climate Research News. The blog was intrigued by a new article in Geophysical Research Letters that was accepted on Friday, December 5th. Eichler, A., S. Olivier, K. Henderson, A. Laube, J. Beer, T. Papina, H. W. G?ggeler, and M. Schwikowski: Temperature response in the Altai region lags solar forcing ? Recall that the Siberian Altai Mountains are found at the intersection of Russia, China, Mongolia, and Kazakhstan. The authors looked at 750 years worth of the local ice core, especially the oxygen isotope. They claim to have found a very strong correlation between the concentration of this isotope (i.e. temperature) on one side and the known solar activity in the epoch 1250-1850. Their data seem to be precise enough to determine the lag, about 10-30 years. It takes some time for the climate to respond to the solar changes. It seems that they also have data to claim that the correlation gets less precise after 1850. They attribute the deviation to CO2 and by comparing the magnitude of the forcings, they conclude that ?Our results are in agreement with studies based on NH temperature reconstructions [Scafetta et al., 2007] revealing that only up to approximately 50% of the observed global warming in the last 100 years can be explained by the Sun.? Well, the word ?only? is somewhat cute in comparison with the ?mainstream? fashionable ideology. The IPCC said that they saw a 90% probability that ?most? of the recent warming was man-made. The present paper would reduce this figure, 90%, to less than 50% because the Sun itself is responsible for 1/2 of the warming and not the whole 50% of the warming could have been caused by CO2 because there are other effects, too. Note that if 0.3 ?C or 0.4 ?C of warming in the 20th century was due to the increasing CO2 levels, the climate sensitivity is decisively smaller than 1 ?C. At any rate, the expected 21st century warming due to CO2 would be another 0.3-0.4 ?C, and this time, if the solar activity contributes with the opposite sign, these two effects could cancel. Even if you try to stretch these numbers a little bit ? but not unrealistically ? you have to become sure that the participants of the Poznan conference are lunatics. Flashback: New scientific analysis shows Sun ?could account for as much as 69% of the increase in Earth?s average temperature? (LINK) & (LINK) Dr. Bruce West, A U.S Army Chief Scientist, Says Sun, Not Man, Is Driving Climate Change ? June 3, 2008 ? (LINK) 21 spotless days and solar magnetic field still in a funk ? Meteorologist Anthony Watts Excerpt: We are now at 21 days with no sunspots, it will be interesting to see if we reach a spotless 30 day period and then perhaps a spotless month of December. New Arctic ice analysis reveals ?No clear evidence of a delay in the start of the later summer/early fall freeze up or the start of the late winter/early spring melt? ? Excerpt: Based on analysis by William Chapman, author of The Cryosphere Today website, graciously prepared an analysis of the dates of the minimum and maximum Arctic sea ice coverage since 1979. Oscillation Rules as the Pacific Cools ? December 9, 2008 Excerpt: A cool wedge of lower-than-normal sea-surface heights continues to dominate the tropical Pacific, ringed by a horseshoe of warmer waters. The continuation of this long-term cool phase of the Pacific Decadal Oscillation stacks the odds against a wetter-than-average winter/spring in the southwestern United States. The latest image of sea-surface height measurements from the U.S./French Jason-1 oceanography satellite shows the Pacific Ocean remains locked in a strong, cool phase of the Pacific Decadal Oscillation, a large, long-lived pattern of climate variability in the Pacific associated with a general cooling of Pacific waters. [?] Sea-surface temperature satellite data from the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration mirror Jason sea-surface height measurements, clearly showing a cool Pacific Decadal Oscillation pattern, as seen at: http://www.cdc.noaa.gov/map/images/sst/sst.anom.gif . ?This multi-year Pacific Decadal Oscillation ?cool? trend can cause La Ni?a-like impacts around the Pacific basin,? said Bill Patzert, an oceanographer and climatologist at NASA?s Jet Propulsion Laboratory. [?] This cool phase will likely persist this winter and, perhaps, beyond. Report: Sea Level rise ?has stumbled since 2005? ? Meteorologist Anthony Watts ? December 5, 2008 Excerpt: We?ve been waiting for the UC web page to be updated with the most recent sea level data. It finally has been updated for 2008. It looks like the steady upward trend of sea level as measured by satellite has stumbled since 2005. The 60 day line in blue tells the story. From the University of Colorado web page: ?Long-term mean sea level change is a variable of considerable interest in the studies of global climate change. The measurement of long-term changes in global mean sea level can provide an important corroboration of predictions by climate models of global warming. Long term sea level variations are primarily determined with two different methods.? ? Yes, I would agree, it is indeed a variable of considerable interest. The question now is, how is it linked to global climate change (aka global warming) if CO2 continues to increase, and sea level does not? Peer-Reviewed Study: Recent worldwide land warming? NOT ?a direct response to increasing greenhouse gases (GHGs) over land? ? WorldClimateReport.com ? December 3, 2008 ?Rethinking Observed Warming?? Key quote: ?Evidence is presented that the recent worldwide land warming has occurred largely in response to a worldwide warming of the oceans rather than as a direct response to increasing greenhouse gases (GHGs) over land.? Alert: 2008 will be coolest year of the decade!- December 5, 2008 Excerpt: This year is set to be the coolest since 2000, according to a preliminary estimate of global average temperature that is due to be released next week by the Met Office. The global average for 2008 should come in close to 14.3C, which is 0.14C below the average temperature for 2001-07. [Note: For evidence of the panic apparently gripping the promoters of man-made climate fear, read the quotes in the article from the warming partisans absolutely assuring everyone that cool temperatures are ?absolutely not" evidence that global warming is on the wane. Those same voices are usually absent when it comes to linking heat waves to global warming. ] Flashback: Global Cooling? ? ?Thirty years of warmer temperatures go poof? ? National Post ? October 20, 2008 Report: NASA?s James Hansen ?adjusts? a cooling trend into a warming trend ? December 9, 2008 Excerpt: ?[H]ere is what the data looks like before and after NASA GISS adjusts it. These are the USHCN ?raw? and ?homogenized? data plots from the GISTEMP website. The before and after is quite something to behold. ? What was down, is now up.? ?How not to measure temperature, part 79? Geophysist: ?It is time to file this theory in the dustbin of history? ? ?Alarmists are in denial and running for cover?- Washington Times By Geophysicist Dr. David Deming, associate professor of arts and sciences at the University of Oklahoma who has published numerous peer-reviewed research articles. Excerpt: Environmental extremists and global warming alarmists are in denial and running for cover. Their rationale for continuing a lost cause is that weather events in the short term are not necessarily related to long-term climatic trends. But these are the same people who screamed at us each year that ordinary weather events such as high temperatures or hurricanes were undeniable evidence of imminent doom. Now that global warming is over, politicians are finally ready to enact dubious solutions to a non-existent problem. [?] To the extent global warming was ever valid, it is now officially over. It is time to file this theory in the dustbin of history, next to Aristotelean physics, Neptunism, the geocentric universe, phlogiston, and a plethora of other incorrect scientific theories, all of which had vocal and dogmatic supporters who cited incontrovertible evidence. Weather and climate change are natural processes beyond human control. To argue otherwise is to deny the factual evidence. Climate Chancellor? No More ? Der Spiegel Excerpt: Angela Merkel is facing withering criticism for remarks she made on Monday that seemed to back away from her earlier commitment to tackling climate change. Alert: Under the Weather: Internal Report Says U.N. Climate Agency Rife With Bad Practices ? Fox News ? December 4, 2008 Excerpt: As more than 10,000 delegates and observers gather in Poznan, Poland, to discuss the next phase in the battle against ?climate change,? a U.N. agency at the center of that hoopla badly needs to do some in-house weather-proofing. [?] But the WMO, the $80 million U.N. front-line agency in the climate change struggle, and the source for much of the world?s information in the global atmosphere and water supply, has serious management problems of its own, despite its rapidly expanding global ambitions. The international agency has been sharply criticized by a U.N. inspection unit in a confidential report obtained by FOX News, for, among other things, haphazard budget practices, deeply flawed organizational procedures, and no effective oversight by the 188 nations that formally make up its membership and dole out its funds. The inspection was carried out by a member of the United Nations Joint Inspection Unit (JIU), a small, independent branch of the U.N. that reports to the General Assembly and is mandated to improve the organization?s efficiency and coordination through its inspection process. [?] WMO did not respond to a series of questions from FOX News regarding its future programs, sent on the eve of the Poznan meeting. 16-year-old suggests sheep dung can help save planet Card business has really dung good ? Daily Post North WalesExcerpt: The company makes its products at the Twll Golau Papermill in Aberllefenni Slate Quarry using sustainable fuel and materials. Every sheet of paper is made from recycled materials, including sheep dung, waste paper and discarded rags, using processes designed to affect the natural environment as little as possible. [?] Katie 16, from Tal-y-Bont, Conwy, was appointed to help spread the word on how Wales can reduce its carbon footprint and is urging other North Wales businesses to follow Creative Paper Wales? example and adopt innovative approaches to the design and manufacture of products and the delivery of services. Lord Christopher Monckton: ?Companies could be sued over climate change? Excerpt: The alarmist faction knows that, if it were to bring a case against a corporation whose executives were not minded merely to believe in the extremist presentation of ?global warming? just because it is temporarily in fashion, they would lose. The case of Dimmock v. Secretaries of State for Education and for the Environment in the UK in 2007 was a very clear warning. The UK Government threw all of the resources of the taxpayer and of the Meteorological Office at the case, attempting to defend Al Gore?s sci-fi comedy horror movie against the plaintiff?s allegation that it was serially and seriously inaccurate. The Government failed and was humiliated. The judge, having heard both sides, said bluntly of Al Gore, and particularly of his unscientific allegation that sea level was about to rise by 20 feet, that ?the Armageddon scenario that he depicts is not based on any scientific view?. A few more judgments like that and the ?global warming? fantasy would rapidly collapse. End of scare. OOPS, We Forgot Siberia! (M4GW) - Weather Stations in Coldest parts No Longer Reporting Excerpt: The thing that these skewed chart never take into account is that when the Soviet Union fell in 1990 the number of reporting weather stations went form a high of 15,000 in 1970 to 5,000 in 2000. This takes some of the coldest places on the planet out of the equation like Siberia. # # Related Links: UN Data shows ?Warming has Stopped!? ? Climate Fears Called ?Hogwash? ? ?Global Carbon Tax? Urged ? December 3, 2008 ?Planet Has Cooled Since Bush Took Office? & Global Warming Theory has ?failed consistently and dramatically? ? November 20, 2008
Your report has been submitted to Customer Service. Thank you. There was a problem submitting your report. Please try again later. ? |
 Dave C. (119) | Friday December 28, 2012, 12:24 pm ....and its more than just a warming world, its about a planet with less clean air to breathe (a necessity), less clean water to drink (a necessity) and less clean food to eat.... Your report has been submitted to Customer Service. Thank you. There was a problem submitting your report. Please try again later. ? |
| Kit B. (304) | Friday December 28, 2012, 12:55 pm To bad the devil couldn't teach you how to post your own articles. That one is trash but that's never stopped you before. News Flash - Climate Change is reality! Those who actually do understand the science and mathematics, would know better than to try spread such fertilizer as fact. Your report has been submitted to Customer Service. Thank you. There was a problem submitting your report. Please try again later. ? |
| Diane O. (136) | Friday December 28, 2012, 1:14 pm Even a frog would be able to tell that it was a posted article, Kit. Actually it sn't trash and there are some serious elements of truth in it. Just because you believe in global warming doesn't make it a fact, Kit. Remember all the documents that were found supporting that global warming is a myth. Problem is that the world has cyclical weather. This has been going on since the beginning of time. No hard data proves anything, Kit. It's "he said she said," Liberals are glombing onto global warming.....and chasing a ghost. And now you want to suggest that people who actually do understandthe science and mathematics would know better.....why? Because YOU said so? Come on down from your high horse. Our country is divided on global warming. That means I'm not a lone ranger and it also means that there's a good chance that you are wrong. Have a nice day, Kit, and wrap up when you go outside....it's freezing out there!! Your report has been submitted to Customer Service. Thank you. There was a problem submitting your report. Please try again later. ? |
 pam w. (178) | Friday December 28, 2012, 1:28 pm Funny how some people want to hide, smirking, behing the old "global warming" label. CLIMATE CHANGE is a reality. We've essentially lost the arctic and methane trapped in and under that ice will impace the world's climate in ways we can't fully appreciate yet. We'll lose thousands of species, islands will disappear and weather such as we've had this past winter will become increasingly common. Just because Kit posts it doesn't mean it's false, Diane....although you do seem to enjoy following her about and yelling "NAY! NAY!" Your report has been submitted to Customer Service. Thank you. There was a problem submitting your report. Please try again later. ? |
| pam w. (178) | Friday December 28, 2012, 1:29 pm typo alett.....I meant IMPACT, of course. Your report has been submitted to Customer Service. Thank you. There was a problem submitting your report. Please try again later. ? |
| Kit B. (304) | Friday December 28, 2012, 1:57 pm Of course, Pam that was obvious and typos are just a part of life on the Internet. Indeed she does like following those foolish but ever so predictable ideas of those of the Goats Of Past or perhaps a Tea bagger? Your report has been submitted to Customer Service. Thank you. There was a problem submitting your report. Please try again later. ? |
 Jennifer C. (150) | Saturday December 29, 2012, 5:37 am Thanks. Your report has been submitted to Customer Service. Thank you. There was a problem submitting your report. Please try again later. ? |
| Diane O. (136) | Saturday December 29, 2012, 6:42 am What Kit should've considered was presenting both sides of the argument. Global warming is speculative and we don't know why the North Pole is becoming warmer and the South Pole is becoming icier. That would tell logical thinking people that our weather is cyclical. Al Gore's carbon tax and the Kyoto accord have no genuinely peer reviewed analysis to support the idea that the carbon tax OR the Kyoto Accord will affect climate change. This is geared towards global redistribution of wealth and lining the pockets of selected political and science environmentalist. So, is it no wonder that when a thread like this is posted stating that this is a REAL problem I have to step in and say "prove it" because so far there's nothing to prove that a real problem exists. Your report has been submitted to Customer Service. Thank you. There was a problem submitting your report. Please try again later. ? |
| Diane O. (136) | Saturday December 29, 2012, 6:43 am another type for you: "So, is it any wonder..." Your report has been submitted to Customer Service. Thank you. There was a problem submitting your report. Please try again later. ? |
 Roseann D. (155) | Saturday December 29, 2012, 6:55 am Ironic how Diane turns pseudo scientist saying "prove it" yet she's never provided a single credible source for any of her own claims. We'd like the names, credentials and links to your sources Diane. Your report has been submitted to Customer Service. Thank you. There was a problem submitting your report. Please try again later. ? |
| Diane O. (136) | Saturday December 29, 2012, 7:16 am No, Roseann, I'm no more of a scientist than you and Kit are so we are all on a level playing field. My information comes from articles I have read from credible sources throughout the years. There are two very different opinions about global warming and the one that resonates with me is the fact that no one knows why the North Pole is getting warmer....there is only speculation so far. But, you already know that, right? Your report has been submitted to Customer Service. Thank you. There was a problem submitting your report. Please try again later. ? |
| Diane O. (136) | Saturday December 29, 2012, 7:20 am Roseann, both you and Kit seem to have a problem in exchanging information on global warming because you resort to name calling when you read an opposing view. We should all be here for discussion purposes. I don't agree that global warming exists and I'm not the only one. You have your freedom of speech and I have mine. If you believe global warming is real then state your case like an adult. We already know we aren't going to agree but we should be able to exchange information without taking the information personally. There's nothing you can say that will change my mind that global warming is a myth and that Al Gore is a lying buffoon with two cartons of eggs on his face. He pushes global warming for the money at the end of the rainbow. Your report has been submitted to Customer Service. Thank you. There was a problem submitting your report. Please try again later. ? |
 Hayley Cruze (5) | Saturday December 29, 2012, 8:34 am Thanks for the info....such harsh arguments lol Your report has been submitted to Customer Service. Thank you. There was a problem submitting your report. Please try again later. ? |
| Diane O. (136) | Saturday December 29, 2012, 8:57 am Thanks, Hayley. Your report has been submitted to Customer Service. Thank you. There was a problem submitting your report. Please try again later. ? |
 John S. (200) | Saturday December 29, 2012, 9:08 am Thanks, noted. Your report has been submitted to Customer Service. Thank you. There was a problem submitting your report. Please try again later. ? |
 Emily Sheety (0) | Saturday December 29, 2012, 10:12 am Ruining the environment around us is basically self-destructive in everyway. Your report has been submitted to Customer Service. Thank you. There was a problem submitting your report. Please try again later. ? |
 Patricia H. (4) | Saturday December 29, 2012, 12:11 pm noted Your report has been submitted to Customer Service. Thank you. There was a problem submitting your report. Please try again later. ? |
| Kit B. (304) | Saturday December 29, 2012, 12:38 pm On some issues there is no "both sides" and this is one of those issues. In a recent study of 13,500 (+-) articles only 25 scientists offered any form of disagreement with the facts of the issue of global warming or climate change being a man made global problem of catastrophic consequence . Obviously, you know nothing of my background or college studies in this field, so do not proclaim that I have no science background in this area. Your report has been submitted to Customer Service. Thank you. There was a problem submitting your report. Please try again later. ? |
 Theodore S. (15) | Saturday December 29, 2012, 12:45 pm They just don't get it do they? They either are entirely and completely ignorant of how this planet works or the are wantonly, covetously and deliberately destructive; using progress for an excuse, as a serial killer uses the excuse of religion or moral indignation. Everything is connected. The wetlands and the bayous help to mitigate the intensity and velocity of storms. Coral reefs help to mitigate climate regulating the direction and intensity of storms as they form. Then there is all the water that has been used to date by fracking and bitumen tar sand harvesting to the tune of 37 billion + gallons and growing. Then there is the possible contamination of major aquifers. How do you justify this. What will their grandchildren eat and drink? Do they care? Your report has been submitted to Customer Service. Thank you. There was a problem submitting your report. Please try again later. ? |
| Mitchell D. (13) | Saturday December 29, 2012, 12:47 pm No doubt about it. The problem is, I believe, in the USA, that they are only interested in immediate profit, can not conceive of doing what the Norwegians are doing, and think in the long term. But, what a long range boon it would be for any companies that did do that! what if the execs got their bonuses based, not on what the company made THIS quarter, only, but on how the company set itself up for a transition to cleaner running. Your report has been submitted to Customer Service. Thank you. There was a problem submitting your report. Please try again later. ? |
| Kit B. (304) | Saturday December 29, 2012, 12:49 pm I do believe, Theodore this is just another example of low information, following a thought process that allows for little room for growth or understanding of the magnitude of the problem. Or perhaps it's another case of Ostrich Syndrome? Your report has been submitted to Customer Service. Thank you. There was a problem submitting your report. Please try again later. ? |
| Kit B. (304) | Saturday December 29, 2012, 12:53 pm Another possible answer to taking on the difficult problem of converting to alternative fuels, Mitchell. Not difficult because of the lack of choices, but difficult because in the US we have an old and inefficient grid system that drains more energy than it allows for transfer to the end user. If we do not address the basics we can not begin to address the deeper issues. Your report has been submitted to Customer Service. Thank you. There was a problem submitting your report. Please try again later. ? |
 Mary Donnelly (43) | Saturday December 29, 2012, 1:49 pm Thanks Kit. What an extraordinary debate. Life is dynamic, hence climate change has been part of this planet for about 5 billion years. During that time the climate changed enough to allow humans to evolve. (roughly 5 million years ago). About 250 years ago humans discovered how useful fossils can be, exploited them, then grew and multiplied. Fossil fuels spew out toxins, which have seldom been controlled; take a long time to form, but a short time to use up; meanwhile the planet is adjusting to their impact. These conditions might well continue for a while, but fossil fuels will run out; what do we do then, surrounded by air which is difficult to breathe, water which is difficult to drink or use for agriculture, and soil which has much reduced productivity? We might well go extinct, but (barring external collisions etc.) the planet will probably keep going for millenia. Your report has been submitted to Customer Service. Thank you. There was a problem submitting your report. Please try again later. ? |
 Christeen Anderson (70) | Saturday December 29, 2012, 1:53 pm This is the same problem they are having in Congress today...................... ides of march elizabeth smart nick young south dakota state long beach state beasley trailblazers 
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
|
No comments:
Post a Comment
Note: Only a member of this blog may post a comment.