Global Warming For Dummies
Topic: Global Warming
The other day I was listening to one of the more rabid global disaster warming advocates.
He was almost foaming at the mouth about the impending total destruction of the world's forests for one thing.
I started thinking about the whole issue and for the Life of me the Logic escapes me.
Someone help me out here and point just exactly what I am missing?
I will try a little thought debate,
You look upset.
Upset? Of course I am upset! We are facing a GLOBAL CATASTROPHE!
That sounds serious. What's happening?
The Trees, the Forests are facing TOTAL DESTRUCTION!
Really? How is that going to happen?
Global WARMING! Where have you been?
I see, Global Warming is going to destroy the World's Forests?
How? What makes Global Warming?
Carbon Dioxide! We are putting too much Carbon Dioxide into the Atmosphere!
I see. We are putting too much Carbon Dioxide into the Atmosphere, creating Global Warming which will Destroy the World's Forests?
How are we putting the Carbon Dioxide into the Atmosphere?
Fossil Fuels! We are burning Fossil Fuels!
OK, We are burning Fossil Fuels, which puts more Carbon Dioxide into the Atmosphere, causing Global Warming, which will Destroy the World's Forests?
Where did the Fossil Fuels come from?
You Moron! They are the remains of plants from hundreds of millions of years ago!
Wow, the Coal and Oil deposits are immense where did all the plants come from?
You IDIOT it took Millions of Years for the Fossil Fuel Beds to be laid down!
OK where did the Carbon in the Fossil Fuels come from?
From the AIR you IGNORAMUS!
I see, now if I have every thing correct,
Hundreds of Millions of Years ago, for Hundreds of Millions of Years, plants took Carbon Dioxide from the Atmosphere, locking the Carbon away in the ground into what would become Fossil Fuels, which we are now burning, putting the Carbon Dioxide BACK into the Atmosphere, causing Global Warming, which is going to Destroy the World's Forests?
Yes Dummy do you understand the Danger NOW?
Not really, I am trying to figure out why all that Carbon Dioxide, didn't destroy the World's Forests all those Millions of Years ago BEFORE the Carbon got locked in the ground in Fossil Fuels.
I GIVE UP! You are too STUPID to UNDERSTAND the DANGER!
Somehow I thought you would say that.
Waring do NOT try this at home, this was only a thought experiment, Global Warming Advocates in the Wild have been known to become Violent when their Illusions are challenged!
Technorati Tags:Global Warming***:Dummies
Open Trackbacks This Weekend at The Crazy Rants of Samantha Burns
17,000 Scientists Can't be wrong? A Global Warming Consensus
Topic: Global Warming
This may not be the consensus you are used to hearing about. Hat Tip No Pasarn! at Green like me. Listed below are 17,200 of the initial signers
During the past 2 years, more than 17,100 basic and applied American scientists, two-thirds with advanced degrees, have signed the Global Warming Petition.
Signers of this petition so far include 2,660 physicists, geophysicists, climatologists, meteorologists, oceanographers, and environmental scientists (select this link for a listing of these individuals)
who are especially well qualified to evaluate the effects of carbon dioxide on the Earth's atmosphere and climate.
Signers of this petition also include 5,017 scientists whose fields of specialization in chemistry, biochemistry, biology, and other life sciences (select this link for a listing of these individuals)
make them especially well qualified to evaluate the effects of carbon dioxide upon the Earth's plant and animal life.
Nearly all of the initial 17,100 scientist signers have technical training suitable for the evaluation of the relevant research data, and many are trained in related fields. In addition to these 17,100, approximately 2,400 individuals have signed the petition who are trained in fields other than science or whose field of specialization was not specified on their returned petition.
Of the 19,700 signatures that the project has received in total so far, 17,800 have been independently verified and the other 1,900 have not yet been independently verified. Of those signers holding the degree of PhD, 95% have now been independently verified. One name that was sent in by enviro pranksters, Geri Halliwell, PhD, has been eliminated. Several names, such as Perry Mason and Robert Byrd are still on the list even though enviro press reports have ridiculed their identity with the names of famous personalities. They are actual signers. Perry Mason, for example, is a PhD Chemist.
The costs of this petition project have been paid entirely by private donations. No industrial funding or money from sources within the coal, oil, natural gas or related industries has been utilized. The petition's organizers, who include some faculty members and staff of the Oregon Institute of Science and Medicine, do not otherwise receive funds from such sources. The Institute itself has no such funding. Also, no funds of tax-exempt organizations have been used for this project.
The signatures and the text of the petition stand alone and speak for themselves. These scientists have signed this specific document. They are not associated with any particular organization. Their signatures represent a strong statement about this important issue by many of the best scientific minds in the United States.
This project is titled "Petition Project" and uses a mailing address of its own because the organizers desired an independent, individual opinion from each scientist based on the scientific issues involved - without any implied endorsements of individuals, groups, or institutions.
The remainder of the initial signers and all new signers will be added to these lists as data entry is completed.
Our e-mail address, for the purposes of this project, is: firstname.lastname@example.org
If you would like to mirror this site or download it to your hard drive, click here
You may also view and print
this entire web site in one easy step. Research Review of Global Warming Evidence
Below is an eight page review of information on the subject of "global warming," and a petition in the form of a reply card. Please consider these materials carefully.
The United States is very close to adopting an international agreement that would ration the use of energy and of technologies that depend upon coal, oil, and natural gas and some other organic compounds.
This treaty is, in our opinion, based upon flawed ideas. Research data on climate change do not show that human use of hydrocarbons is harmful. To the contrary, there is good evidence that increased atmospheric carbon dioxide is environmentally helpful.
The proposed agreement would have very negative effects upon the technology of nations throughout the world, especially those that are currently attempting to lift from poverty and provide opportunities to the over 4 billion people in technologically underdeveloped countries.
It is especially important for America to hear from its citizens who have the training necessary to evaluate the relevant data and offer sound advice.
We urge you to sign and return the petition card. If you would like more cards for use by your colleagues, these will be sent.
Past President, National Academy of Sciences, U.S.A.
President Emeritus, Rockefeller University
Paper: Environmental Effects of Increased Atmospheric Carbon Dioxide
Technorati Tag:Global Warming
Topic: Global Warming
I am bumping this post up to the present inspired by the comprehensive article recently in Cox & Forkum on this topic
The Real Recycling Problem"Collusion? Forget the oil industry. You have to wonder about the media and environmental scare-mongers. TIME magazine's recent cover story on global warming warned ominously: "Be Worried, Be Very Worried." This week CNN reported: Experts: Global warming behind 2005 hurricanes. And conveniently, this latest round of alarmism comes just in time for the release of Al Gore's global-warming shockumentary "An Inconvenient Truth".
Fortunately not all media are on the apocalyptic band wagon. More articles are appearing that critique "climate change" doomsaying and environmentalism. Here are a few:"
In addition I have an article which gives a different viewpoint than is normally disseminated on what exactly prevented the acceptance of the Kyoto Treaty by the US. K Squared
Gore In The Balance
Atmospherics: In 1900, before hurricanes had names, a Category 4 slammed into Galveston, Texas, killing about 8,000 people. And neither global warming nor George W. Bush was to blame. But try telling that to Al Gore.
Hurricanes are unpredictable. In other words, unlike Bush critics who blame his policies for virtually everything except the common cold and original sin. Former Vice President Gore, author of "Earth in the Balance," which proclaimed that the internal combustion engine was the greatest threat mankind ever faced, is no exception.
After a noble deed, personally helping airlift some 270 Katrina evacuees on two private charters from New Orleans to Tennessee on Sept. 3 and 4, he journeyed to San Francisco on Sept. 9 to address a convention of the National Sierra Club. There, he delivered a speech he'd been scheduled to give in New Orleans, one literally blaming Bush for Hurricane Katrina and its consequences.
After repeating the charge that Bush ignored warnings in August 2001 of an imminent al-Qaida attack, Gore declared "there are scientific warnings now of another onrushing catastrophe" that Bush is also ignoring — "that the average hurricane will continue to get stronger because of global warming."
"We will face a string of terrible catastrophes unless we act to prepare ourselves and deal with the underlying causes of global warming," Gore warned.
Hurricanes the size of Katrina are rare, but they are not new, and they are not caused by George Bush or global warming. But don't take our word for it. Listen to Stanley Goldenberg, a meteorologist at the Hurricane Research Division of the National Oceanic & Atmospheric Administration, when he states: "I speak for many hurricane climate researchers in saying such claims are nonsense."
"Katrina is part of a well-documented, multidecadal scale fluctuation in hurricane activity," Goldenberg observes, noting that "this cycle was described in a heavily cited article printed in the journal Science in 2001
I have put the beginning and end here I DO suggest you read the entirety, as I feel it puts the total picture in a consise and easily understood form
A recent paper, "Hurricanes and Global Warming," written by six noted tropical cyclone experts and published in the Bulletin of the American Meteorological Society, concluded that no connection has been established between greenhouse gas emissions and hurricane activity, and that the scientific consensus was that changes in hurricane intensity would be small and with historical patterns.
If Gore had gone to the Web site of the National Hurricane Center, he'd have discovered that the peak for major hurricanes (Categories 3, 4, 5) came in the 1930s, 1940s and 1950s, when such storms averaged nine per year. From 2001 to 2004, the average was three.
Nor are hurricanes intensifying in strength. According to the United Nations Environment Program of the World Meteorological Organization: "Reliable data . . . since the 1940s indicate that the peak strength of the strongest hurricanes has not changed, and the mean maximum intensity of all hurricanes has decreased."
Now, if we could only have a cycle where Al Gore would keep quiet.
What is painfully obvious is the vast majority of what the media reported and what Howard Dean and others have shouted from the hilltops is just not true. It is up to us to hammer away at the deceptions and false information in a continual effort, Let the American People see the difference and they will in time, they always do. Approval indexes can go down at the first shock and in reaction to the first shouts but then they climb again.
Topic: Global Warming
There has been some flapping mouths linking Kyoto to Katrina. Robert Kennedy Jr for one I believe.
For the moment I will leave aside the Scientific Reasons why this is total nonsense and remind all
of a possibly forgotten detail of the Kyto Treaty.
BEFORE Al Gore went to Tokyo, A Bill was set before the Senate commonly called the
Sponsored by Senator Robert Byrd (D-WV) and Senator Chuck Hagel (R-NE)
Expressing the sense of the Senate regarding the conditions for the United States becoming a signatory to any international agreement on greenhouse gas emissions under the United Nations... (Passed by the Senate 95-0
In case you missed it let me in the manner of the US Congress ask for Unanimous Consent to Revise and Extend those remarks.
Passed by the Senate
which stated the Senate would not ratify the Protocol unless rapidly developing countries such as China were included in its requirements to reduce greenhouse gases.
The Clinton Administration announced it would not send the treaty to the Senate for ratification.
Somebody correct me if I am wrong, but I fail to see George Bush's name anywhere attached to this?
Not hard to fathom why, since this was before he became President
Whose Names ARE listed as supporting this Bill?
Well the total List can be found at
U.S. Senate Roll Call Votes 105th Congress - 1st Session
as compiled through Senate LIS by the Senate Bill Clerk under the direction of the Secretary of the Senate
Question: On the Resolution (s.res.98 )
Vote Number: 205 Vote Date: July 25, 1997, 11:37 AM
Required For Majority: 1/2 Vote Result: Resolution Agreed to
Vote Counts: YEAs 95
Not Voting 5
Now I encourage my readers to go to the website and view the Senate List themselves, but to start off I would like to List Just a few Senators who
VOTED NOT TO RATIFY KYOTO
A Yeah Vote is to support the Resolution actually its not to hard to deciphere, 5 Senators did not vote at all and EVERY Single Senator who DID vote, voted to support the Resolution and go On Record that they would not Ratify Kyoto as it stood.
Kennedy (D-MA), Yea
Kerry (D-MA), Yea
Durbin (D-IL), Yea
Moseley-Braun (D-IL), Yea
Boxer (D-CA), Yea
Feinstein (D-CA), Not Voting
Daschle (D-SD), Yea
Johnson (D-SD), Yea
I think I have made my point. I wonder if Bobby Boy discussed his essay on Kyoto and Katrina with his Uncle Teddy?
Florida Hurricanes are a Bush/Rove PLOT!
Topic: Global Warming
You can NOT make up things like this. Many thanks to Donald Sensing at One Hand Clapping
for putting me on the track of this diabolical Neo-Con Conspiracy.
"Hurricanes were Bush's jobs-creation program
You may recall that George W. Bush was blamed by the "Scientists and Engineers for Change and Environment2004" and the NAACP National Voter Fund for the hurricanes that devastated Florida this year.
No, really, he was.
Now we learn that bringing hurricanes to Florida was part of his devilishly clever pre-election economic program"
Talk about Power in just a few short years the Neo-Cons have managed a complete climatic change in order to achieve political dominance.
Folks I ask you? Can we trust anyone to hold the reins of Power who actually believes such bilge?