Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Looks like the government members of the IPCC are dong their best to misrepresent the scientists' views in the most alarmist way possible. Duh, whoda thunk it??
1 posted on 05/25/2009 5:32:27 AM PDT by libstripper
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies ]


To: libstripper
Human activity is NOT causing global warming. In fact, it's doubtful that we are experiencing any global warming at all. However, the IPCC is enjoying more than its share of human greed and vanity by hyping a natural planet cycles and is being rewarded $$$ for this fraud by the gullible.
2 posted on 05/25/2009 5:43:28 AM PDT by GBA
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]

To: libstripper

Obama’s cap & trade scheme which the Socialist Congress will pass is designed to increase the cost of electricity for every individual, family and business. it will result in more businesses closing and significantly higher unemployment, all in the name of “protecting” us from greenhouse gases. We do not need protection from greenhouse gases; we need protection from Obama and the Socialist Congress.

FACTS: 1) greenhouse gases are not evil, they are essential to keeping the earth warm enough for humans; 2) the most common greenhouse gas is water vapor; 3) CO2 is not pollution, it is essential for plants and humans; 4) CO2 is only a trace element in the atmosphere at 380 parts per million; 5) humans and their activities account for only 3% of CO2 emissions each year; 6) the earth has had cycles of cooling and warming about every 1,500 years due to variations in the sun’s activity and our orbit around the sun; 7) these cycles are beyond human control; 8) about 1,000 years ago, Greenland had vineyards; 9) the earth is cooling now, not warming relative to prior decades; and 10) a major reduction of sun spots in recent years suggests a coming mini ice age.

An excerpt from the March 2009 issue of The American Spectator: “All scientists agree that if man-made global warming is real, it would leave a fingerprint in the form of temperatures increasing with altitude in the tropical troposphere portion of the atmosphere up to a hotspot about 10 kilometers above the surface, reflecting the pattern of CO2 and other greenhouse gases in the atmosphere. Warming due to solar variations or other natural causes would not leave such a fingerprint pattern. Recently, higher-quality temperature data from balloons and satellites ... enables us to settle the man-made global warming debate definitively. The data from weather balloons shows the opposite pattern: no increasing warming with altitude, but rather a slight cooling with no hotspot. The satellite data shows the same result: no increasing temperature with altitude, no hotspot, no fingerprint, maybe again a slight cooling with altitude. Game over. QED. The global warming empire is rattling around but has not and cannot come up with an effective response. The data is the data. The science is the science. Man-made global warming is a hoax developed to serve powerful special interests.” (This was written by Peter Ferrara.)


3 posted on 05/25/2009 5:54:30 AM PDT by pleikumud
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]

To: libstripper

Here’s how the cap & trade legislation will adversely impact our entire economy and standard of living:
http://spectator.org/archives/2009/05/02/obamas-assault-on-the-middle-c


4 posted on 05/25/2009 5:57:04 AM PDT by pleikumud
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]

To: libstripper

“Looks like the government members of the IPCC are dong their best to misrepresent the scientists’ views in the most alarmist way possible. Duh, whoda thunk it??”

A good investigative reporter would look at the politicians who signed on to the sham and see what investments they have. My bet is either they are all invested in some green company, or they have a stake in a carbon offset ponzi scheme.


5 posted on 05/25/2009 6:11:44 AM PDT by EQAndyBuzz (Climate change alarmists are Warm-Mongers. Now that's funny right there. I don't care who you are.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]

To: libstripper
Global Warming Inquisition
6 posted on 05/25/2009 7:21:19 AM PDT by preacher (A government which robs from Peter to pay Paul will always have the support of Paul.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]

To: r-q-tek86

ping


7 posted on 05/25/2009 8:33:32 AM PDT by aflaak
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]

To: libstripper; Delacon; CygnusXI; Entrepreneur; Defendingliberty; WL-law; Genesis defender; ...
 


Beam me to Planet Gore !

8 posted on 05/25/2009 10:02:28 AM PDT by steelyourfaith ("The problem with socialism is that you eventually run out of other people's money" - Lady Thatcher)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]

To: libstripper
Some people haven't read the definitions of the terminology being used.

And, for example, these are not conflicting points:

The IPCC’s Feb. 2007 report stated: It is “very likely” that human activity is causing global warming. Why then, just two months later, did the Vice Chair of the IPCC, Yuri Izrael, write, “the panic over global warming is totally unjustified;” “there is no serious threat to the climate;” and humanity is “hypothetically … more threatened by cold than by global warming?”

9 posted on 05/25/2009 8:05:01 PM PDT by Gondring (Paul Revere would have been flamed as a naysayer troll and told to go back to Boston.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]

To: libstripper
"the panic over global warming is totally unjustified;"

That's the quote from from the Townhall author. The punctation is slightly different in Wikipedia.

"I think the panic over global warming is totally unjustified. There is no serious threat to the climate," and, "There is no need to dramatize the anthropogenic impact, because the climate has always been subject to change under Nature's influence, even when humanity did not even exist."[7]

Wikipedia cites the source in this link, but I can't find it in its text.

Climate change: not a global threat

Use Wikipedia with care.

If you listen to the moonbats, they say increased carbon dioxide causes a positive feedback, further increasing the temperature. If that's so, how did we have ice ages when the carbon dioxide concentration was well over ten times what it is now?

Estimates for the Middle Cretaceous (MK) have a range of >4000 ppm,which presents considerable uncertainty in understanding the possible causes of warmth for this interval.

Middle Cretaceous - The geologic epoch between the Upper and Lower Cretaceous, beginning approximately 120,000,000 years ago.

So how was there an ice age that ended about 12,000 years ago?

12 posted on 05/25/2009 9:04:10 PM PDT by neverdem (Xin loi minh oi)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article


FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson