what angers me most about the naysayers is that we're moving through a predictable series of their defence walls
1. 1990-2005. It's not happening
2. 2005-c.2020. OK, it's happening, but it's not our fault.
3. c.2020 onwards. OK, it's our fault but
a) peak oil is around the corner, it'll sort itself out OR
b) well, it's too late to stop it now anyway
our tech advancement will naturally kill off global warming. We'll switch to other sources when the fossil fuels run out. Unfortunately, that will be WAY too late to prevent serious damage to the climate.
this site has some good stuff on the future re: climate.
Yes but you can also say the non nay-saying groups are orchestrated by vested interests who know full well what is really happening. Sadly both sides are just as corrupt as each other. Do you think scientists don’t make money from producing reports that support the manufactured scientific consensus? And I won’t waste my time writing about Al Gore...
This is fact... there are some serious questions over the validity and reliability of the evidence, the science is biased and has never been openly and fairly debated.
Perhaps carbon is the course, perhaps solar radiation or the geo-engineering that is taking place on our planet. I’m not saying that we should not save the planet and cut down pollution but none of the solutions put forward would credibly save the planet. Taxing the masses even more isn't going to save Earth, only make a small group of already rich people richer.
I have no faith that human-created global warming can be stopped. I'm not going to argue about the ins and outs of the whole issue, but just say that turkeys don't vote for christmas. Ever. The vast majority of politicians in the West will not vote through policies that
a) cost a huge amount to implement AND
b) will not see demonstrable results for 20, 30, 40 years.
Every environmental meeting over the last 15 years has set utopian targets...for the future. We'll cut X by 2015, Y by 2020, ZZZZ by 2040. The first of those deadlines approaches and the backtracking has started. "Well, we're in a recession", "hmm, did we really agree to that?"
in some ways, I respect the US for actually being honest and saying "we won't agree to cuts and deadlines that we won't achieve".
the real action will only happen in two or three decades when the water starts seeping over the walls and every hurricane season sees 10 cat 4 or cat 5 storms. By then, it will be like turning an oil tanker by splashing your hand in the water.
According to a new report “State of the Climate – Global Analysis, October 2010″ published by National Climatic Data Center (NCDC), National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), the combined global land and ocean surface temperature for January–October 2010 was +0.63°C above the 20th century average of 14.1°C and tied with 1998 as the warmest January–October period on record.
Consistent with elevated radiative forcing by greenhouse gases in the atmosphere, leading to high temperatures, strong evaporation and abrupt precipitation events, 2010 has seen a string of extreme weather events, including heat waves and fires (Russia), severe droughts (Brazil, Mexico), cyclones (USA, Caribbean) and floods (Pakistan, western China, Australia).
That extreme weather events are increasing in frequency and intensity is shown in figure 3, showing the number of cyclones increased by a factor of about 2 and floods by a factor of about 3.
Fox boss ordered staff to cast doubt on climate science
December 15, 2010 8:08 am ET by Ben Dimiero
"In the midst of global climate change talks last December, a top Fox News official sent an email questioning the "veracity of climate change data" and ordering the network's journalists to "refrain from asserting that the planet has warmed (or cooled) in any given period without IMMEDIATELY pointing out that such theories are based upon data that critics have called into question."
The directive, sent by Fox News Washington managing editor Bill Sammon, was issued less than 15 minutes after Fox correspondent Wendell Goler accurately reported on-air that the United Nations' World Meteorological Organization announced that 2000-2009 was "on track to be the warmest [decade] on record." ....
"By the time Sammon sent his email on December 8, it was already clear that "Climategate" was not only overblown, but also had no bearing on the validity of scientific theories about climate change.
In a letter to Congress sent four days before Sammon's memo, 29 prominent scientists -- including 11 members of the National Academy of Sciences -- stated: "The body of evidence that human activity is the dominant cause of global warming is overwhelming. The content of the stolen emails has no impact whatsoever on our overall understanding that human activity is driving dangerous levels of global warming."
On December 2, the prestigious science journal Naturestated: "Nothing in the e-mails undermines the scientific case that global warming is real -- or that human activities are almost certainly the cause. That case is supported by multiple, robust lines of evidence, including several that are completely independent of the climate reconstructions debated in the e-mails."
On November 25, the American Meteorological Society released a statement saying: "For climate change research, the body of research in the literature is very large and the dependence on any one set of research results to the comprehensive understanding of the climate system is very, very small. Even if some of the charges of improper behavior in this particular case turn out to be true -- which is not yet clearly the case -- the impact on the science of climate change would be very limited."
On November 23, Peter Frumhoff, the director of science and policy at the Union of Concerned Scientists and a "lead author of the Fourth Assessment Report" by the IPCC said: "[O]ur understanding of climate science is based not on private correspondence, but on the rigorous accumulation, testing and synthesis of knowledge often represented in the dry and factual prose of peer-reviewed literature."
Severalsubsequentinquiries into the climategate emails did not find evidence of scientific malpractice that damages the credibility of CRU's climate science and also cleared the scientists of deceptively manipulating climate data.
there is NO such thing as man made global warming. the very notion is idiotic. the entire movement is nothing more than another scam, using environmental fear as a means of taking more control and consolidating more power on an international level in order to implement Agenda 21. all this combined with the power of a global carbon tax, which essentially, would give any global governing body complete control over all aspects of society, micro managing our everyday lives in order to ensure we don´t harm the earth.
use your head folks. the fact that our climate has managed to remain stable for so long, THAT is the anomoly, not the other way around. the planet is 20 billion years old, the climate is going to change.
the very fact that they would switch their main propaganda term from global warming to climate change is evidence that their lies are no longer working.
i love how they completely disregard the influence of the sun on the earth´s climate - nevermind the fact that it is the number one overwhelming driving force and influence on our climate.
man could not affect the temperature of the planet even if he tried.
again, use logic, think critically and do not buy into the fear mongering propaganda. nobody is saying that we shouldn´t take care of our planet. like so many other movements however, there is always more than meets the eye. there will always be those groups and organizations that present to you one thing, with the idea of implementing something completely different.
i can remember growing up, it was all about the rain forest. commercials on tv, fear mongering propaganda everywhere....we must save the rain forest! oh no! it´s the doom of the planet. they´re cutting it all down! guess what, we´re still here.
the movement doesn´t stop there however. it continues on like a shape shifter. they simply choose another angle with which to instill fear, using their influence and control of the media, politics and international institutions as the engines of that fear.
stop believing and giving any energy to their lies.