[paraclete]

With record low temperatures in the Northern Winter and lower temperatures in other parts of the world as well as corrupt data which formed the basis of global warming claims, the question must be asked?

Is Global warming dead?

50 ships stuck in ice

[cdad]

No global warming isn't dead. Its actually suppose to be nice this weekend. Much warmer.

Which global warming are you talking about? The (cough) man made kind? Or the normal cycle of earth ?

[450donn]

Dead? No. The fanatics are still hiding underground till it warms up again. Then they will again make it front burner with the support of the liberal news outlets.

[cdad]

Don't forget cap and trade at the end of this month.

[tomder55]

I do not know if it is dead or not as there is no reliable research to confirm the theory. That is the problem when scientists try to prove predetermined "concensus" .

Just retrieving the raw data that was destroyed at East Anglia is an almost impossible task.

[cdad]

There is a theory out there for the natural cycle. It has been proven in the ice cores and models have been looked at. But it is a natural event that the earth goes through. Not man made drama.

[tomder55]

And that makes the most sense to me. It wasn't that long ago in Earth's history that where I live was under about a mile of ice. All that ice melted and the glacier retreated.

Either the Cro magnon was driving carbon spewing SUV,and the Mastodon flatulence was unreal... or the earth warmed all by itself.

[paraclete]

and that makes the most sense to me. It wasn't that long ago in Earth's history that where I live was under about a mile of ice. All that ice melted and the glacier retreated.

Either the Cro magnon was driving carbon spewing SUV,and the Mastodon flatulence was unreal....or the earth warmed all by itself.

Yes strange about that, that we haven't been offered an explanation as to why the Earth has been warming for ten thousand years or so. I was meaning man made warming of course. We will have the natural cycles whatever they may be. Right now on this contenient, which is supposed to become hotter and drier by the way, we are experiencing a 25 or 50 year cycle of rain in the inland. One place had the year's average in a less than a month, 1.8 metres of rain, soon the inland lakes will fill and drought will leave us for a while, just a regular cycle. And it is a cool spring, quite out of character for global warming

[tomder55]

And here in the Northeast US we are pummelled with one snow storm after another . The Goracle told us in an op-ed in the NY Slimes that was the result of AGW . Sen.Barbara Boxer on the other hand has told us the lack of snow on the mountains on the West Coast is also caused by AGW.
After Katrina we were told the warming would create a vicious cycle of similar hurricanes . The seasons since have been unusually tame.

I think it will take a lot of work by climatologists to restore their credibility after these continuing revelations called 'climategate'.
The best thing to come out of this is that scientists who have been smeared with the scarlet "skeptic" or "denier" label are beginning to reveal themselves .Turns out there were many of them not willing to risk their careers by challenging the consensus.
Now let the real science begin.

[excon]

and that makes the most sense to me..

Hello tom:

What makes the most sense to me, is that when you throw tons and tons of garbage into the air, it'll do something bad.

You guys? Not so much.

excon

[tomder55]

Then strengthen the clean air act. You don't have to make stuff up. It is just not true that C02 is a pollutant.

[paraclete]

What makes the most sense to me, is that when you throw tons and tons of garbage into the air, it'll do something bad.

excon

Your condtinued idea that we are throwing garbage in the air is what is bad, by all means control particulate pollution and smoke but leave the CO2 alone it makes the trees grow and that can't be bad

[inthebox]

"Global warming" is dead. They changed it to "climate change," so that whether it is cold or hot, they are always right ;) Tails I win, heads you lose.




G&P

[paraclete]

"Global warming" is dead. They changed it to "climate change," so that whether it is cold or hot, they are always right ;) Tails I win, heads you lose.


G&P

Okay I'll change the question, is climate change dead?

Let's not confuse this question with peak oil, pollution from coal fired power other than CO2 emissions, availability of clean water, famine in over populated parts of the world.

[Catsmine]

Okay i'll change the question, is climate change dead?

Let's not confuse this question with peak oil, pollution from coal fired power other than CO2 emissions, availability of clean water, famine in over populated parts of the world.

But that's precisely what the Gore disciples say is involved in the Climate Change. If the Climate Change doesn't involve all of those, how will the church make money?

What really bothers me about the church of Climate Change is their co-opting real problems and blocking solutions to them so they can grab headlines.

[paraclete]

But that's precisely what the Gore disciples say is involved in the Climate Change. If the Climate Change doesn't involve all of those, how will the church make money?

What really bothers me about the church of Climate Change is their co-opting real problems and blocking solutions to them so they can grab headlines.

No, each of those issues is a reason for action in it's own right and action that will be necessary whether there is climate change or not. Gore put the debate on the agenda with some selective statistics and what we have demonstrated is that the theory is flawed

[Catsmine]

No, each of those issues is a reason for action in it's own right and action that will be necessary whether there is climate change or not. Gore put the debate on the agenda with some selective statistics and what we have demonstrated is that the theory is flawed

My problem is the tying all of it up into one big package so that you cannot solve any of them.

Letting uranium do what uranium does except in a controlled environment to generate power would solve most of the oil and coal problems very neatly. There's some risk if you let bureaucrats get involved but Chernobyl's a healthier place than Prince William sound these days. Waste products can go right back where you got them from, the ground. Other than that you've got to deal with hot water. Come on, hot water? I use power to make hot water.

What other issues did you mention? Clean water? Wait, can't you clean water up by heating it? That's what the US Navy did to make water for Haiti. The new power plant's got lots of hot water.

Famine and overpopulation aren't as simple, I'll grant. Letting populations adjust to the food supply seems a little callous, even for me. The thought does occur that freeing up researchers from fossil fuel study might make some available to work on other problems.

[tomder55]

All these problems have solutions in technology. The disciples of the Goracle appear to be luddites however .

If I proposed the increased use of breeder reactors for energy,the use of GM foods to combat hunger most of the AGW crowd would reject it without considering the benefits.

Pottable water is the biggest challenge I see in the future ;far surpassing the availability of energy. But even there the answer is in technology .

The new waste treatment plant being constructed in my town will discharge water back into the river that is so clean you could drink it out of the spout.

[paraclete]

My problem is the tying all of it up into one big package so that you cannot solve any of them.

Letting uranium do what uranium does except in a controlled environment to generate power would solve most of the oil and coal problems very neatly. There's some risk if you let bureaucrats get involved but Chernobyl's a healthier place than Prince William sound these days. Waste products can go right back where you got them from, the ground. Other than that you've got to deal with hot water. Come on, hot water? I use power to make hot water.

What other issues did you mention? Clean water? Wait, can't you clean water up by heating it? That's what the US Navy did to make water for Haiti. The new power plant's got lots of hot water.

Famine and overpopulation aren't as simple, I'll grant. Letting populations adjust to the food supply seems a little callous, even for me. The thought does occur that freeing up researchers from fossil fuel study might make some available to work on other problems.

So you think hot rocks and steam from volcanic activity will solve our power problems, that is a very selective view, what about all the places that don't have these assets, why shouldn't they use nuclear power, and desalination plants require power, where did the US navy get that power from to provide clean water in Haiti? Desalination plants are not the answer to clean water, the answer comes from stopping industry polluting the rivers and drawning large quantities of water for industrial use. We can extract the gas from coal and leave the carbon in the ground, that is an idea worth pursuing but power generation will require some emissions somewhere. Sequastration is not the answer, just a possibility. The answer to famine is either free food or stop subsidising surplus production as in the US and Europe so that local populations will be encouraged to grow their own, unless of course you think an open doors immigration policy is a good thing. Such a policy is very inconvenient for agribusiness and the farmers but no one should be allowed to continue in an unsustainable industry by reason that they are there

[Catsmine]

So you think hot rocks and steam from volcanic activity will solve our power problems, that is a very selective view, what about all the places that don't have these assets, why shouldn't they use nuclear power, and desalination plants require power, where did the US navy get that power from to provide clean water in Haiti? Desalination plants are not the answer to clean water, the answer comes from stopping industry polluting the rivers and drawning large quantities of water for industrial use. We can extract the gas from coal and leave the carbon in the ground, that is an idea worth pursuing but power generation will require some emissions somewhere. Sequastration is not the answer, just a possibility. The answer to famine is either free food or stop subsidising surplus production as in the US and Europe so that local populations will be encouraged to grow their own, unless of course you think an open doors immigration policy is a good thing. Such a policy is very inconvenient for agribusiness and the farmers but noone should be allowed to continue in an unsustainable industry by reason that they are there

I'm lost. I said nothing about volcanic steam. I said uranium, as in nuclear fission. Have you listened to the luddites so long that uranium is a strange word? As far as industrial water pollution, that's so easy it's shocking. Require all intakes to be proximally downstream from the outflow. The problem will solve itself in six years, maximum.

I am with you on ending subsidies. Cloaking a tariff is dishonest, and unfair to favored trade partners.