Posted on 02/05/2007 8:53:45 PM PST by HarryCaul
I know you are joking, but in all seriousness, would global warming be bad? It HAS been warmer in the past and there was much more vegetation. From what I read, even the sahara was fruitful. I am getting the distinct impression that a warmer planet is a wetter planet.
This whole global warming thing is bad science on a number of levels.
buy all available credits.
Look into who heads the IPCC.
Rajendra K. Pachauri
was elected chief of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change in 2002. In 2001 he supported a consumer boycott of ExxonMobil for its stance on global warming, saying it was "a good way to put economic pressure on the US."
Vice chair Richard Odingo
Richard Odingo: We can't solve poverty until we stop climate change
There is no point in giving sacks of food every time drought wipes out crops - that's just not sustainable
Vice chair Mohan Munasinghe
Munasinghe Institute for Development (MIND), Sri Lanka
Sustainomics is a transdisciplinary meta-framework for making development more sustainable. It is designed to be balanced, heuristic, integrative and practical, and deals with the economic, social and environmental dimensions of sustainable development.
...and a drum roll is appropriate for this final one. He's a doozy, and has lied to the public before.
Vice chair Yuri A. Izrael
Mr. Medvedev also makes it clear that the haphazard, and often bungled, attempts to handle the Chernobyl disaster resulted not just from technical inadequacy but from a bureaucratic cover-up - of the accident itself and of its potential medical effects - that reached as high as the central ministerial level. Hundreds of thousands of Soviet people were exposed to dangerous levels of radioactivity because they were not evacuated, and even today many remain exposed as they eat food from and live in irradiated areas, mainly Byelorussia and the Ukraine. Many of these accusations, which were first made in the Soviet press last fall, point in the direction of Yuri A. Izrael, chairman of the State Committee on Hydrometeorology, which kept radiological data hidden from the public, and Yevgeny I. Chazov, the Minister of Health, who played down the biological impact of radiation.
Like I've said many times, there is a simple solution to global warming and to the environment in general: Reduce the size of the world's population by about 85%.
Are they kidding...unfortunately, the "game" is just beginning.
But I thought scientists have reached consensus on man made causes of global warming?
IPCC Fourth Assessment Report: AR4
The Working Group I report was published on February 2, 2007 [5]. Its key conclusions were that [6]:
*Global warming is occurring
*Hotter temperatures and rises in sea level "would continue for centuries" no matter how much humans control their pollution.[7]
*The probability that this is caused by natural climatic processes is less than 5%
*The probability that this is caused by human emissions of greenhouse gases is over 90%
*World temperatures will probably rise by 1.8 to 4°C (3.25 to 7.2°F) during the 21st century and that:
Sea levels will probably rise by 28 to 43cm (11 to 17 inches)
*It is more than 66% certain that there will be an increase in droughts, tropical cyclones and extreme high tides.
*Both past and future anthropogenic carbon dioxide emissions will continue to contribute to warming and sea level rise for more than a millennium.
*The atmospheric concentration of carbon dioxide in 2005 exceeds by far the natural range over the last 650,000 years.
*The atmospheric concentration of methane in 2005 exceeds by far the natural range over the last 650,000 years.
========================================
How do you explain these findings?
"Comrade, the Commissar of Mathematics wants it to equal 26."
That's the same gas as photo in post 14....
The only thing to do about global warming is enjoy it. It is a completely natural part of the earth's long term climate cycle (of ice ages followed by tropical weather).
All the hype is just a result of the socialists taking a completely natural but little understood and ambiguous natural phenomena and using it to sway opinion and push a socialist agenda. Kyoto is their manifesto and global redistribution of wealth is their goal. Everything else is just arguement and chaff.
If it gets warmer then there will be more evaporation. That makes more clouds. Clouds reflect sunlight. It gets cooler. That's how the cycle works.
Sea levels will rise some, but there will be musch more precipitation over land. This is good for growing things!
bump for later reading.
Most ot this talk implies that C02 is stable, but photosynthesis must break the carbon oxygen bonds. Does anything else?
Scientist Geoffrey Chaumers points out that there is nothing that can be done about this and that the consequences are sure to be disastrous. “Global Warming will seem like a picnic compared to the effect this will have on the world. Everything will be perceptively yellow to the human eye - even snow - the implications are staggering.”
"...it would be $12 trillion for absolutely nothing."
Exactly right!!
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.