Posted on 02/08/2007 5:59:23 AM PST by yoe
The return of arctic conditions to much of the U.S. has many people sympathizing with this (cartoon by Sam Ryskind:)
Unlike most cartoonists, Rysind writes, too:
"You don’t hear much about the ozone hole any more. Has it gone away? Nope. NOAA and NASA say in 2006 it was bigger and deeper than ever.
But wait, you say, we implemented the Montreal Protocols in 1989, eliminating ozone depleting CFCs. Kofi Annan called the Protocol, “Perhaps the most successful international agreement to date.” CFC concentrations have been falling since 1995. How can the ozone hole be worse?
It’s not worse, says NOAA, it’s better. It’s just that you can’t see how great the Protocol is working because colder than average temperatures in the Antarctic mask the benefit. Cold weather “result[s] in larger and deeper ozone holes, while warmer weather leads to smaller ones.”
Colder in Antarctica? Al Gore told me it was melting! Al Gore told me there was consensus. Consensus!"
Just because something is complicated, confusing and can't be printed on a bumper sticker doesn't mean it is wrong.
This article uses every trick around to debunk climate change expect bringing Mars into it. The stupidity of comparing weather to climate however is generally the give away that the person has no clue regardless of which point they are trying to make.
However, anthropogenic climate change is real. The right is dropping the ball and the left is running with it and will implement is resource-redistribution agenda on top of it.
There are conservative, market-oriented ways to solve this problem if the right would just remove its head from the sand and get to it. That is what reasonable people want.
Al Gore spoke here on January 23rd. Prior to his speech we were having one of the warmest winters on record with temperatures in the 50's. After Gore's speech temperatures have plummeted to the lowest in more than a decade ...it's a balmy -9 F as I write. Using the logic of the global warming cabal I must conclude that Al Gore is the cause of this climatic change.
ping
"There are conservative, market-oriented ways to solve this problem if the right would just remove its head from the sand and get to it. That is what reasonable people want."
I think it's come to the point where most of us understand the climate is changing. And the Mars thing you mention in passion is not just some conservative misdirection.
Here is how I, (and I'd bet many other people), see it:
Climate change is real. Climate change is happening. Climate change does happen, and has happened in the past. The is very little, if anything we can do about it. What we can do is adapt to the changes.
When I was in school in the 70s, an ice age was coming. The Cuyahoga river burned and was dead, and lake Erie was soon to follow.
Today: Global Warming. The Cuyahoga is dirty, but very much alive, thank you. Somehow, the river cleaned itself (nature has power beyond our estimation). Lake Erie is fine too.
Just because something is "real" does not mean it is significant enough to regulate. You need to learn more about this issue, as you appear to have been brainwashed by the enemies of a Free Republic; it is the most evil forces in the world, pushing for a global government, that are behind the global warming movement, and conservatives need to be discerning enough to pierce their propaganda.
A thorough, general introduction to the numerous other frauds pervading the field involved, by an amateur scientist and British Lord, appeared in a British newspaper last May:
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml?xml=/news/2006/11/05/nosplit/nwarm05.xml
The best reference I have explaining the intricate fraud used to produce the "hockey stick" graph--the cornerstone for the case that "it is different this time"--is here:
http://www.uoguelph.ca/~rmckitri/research/Climate_L.pdf
It's not about the climate. It's all the Kyoto Treaty and global socialism.
Did the river and the lake make itself dirty in the first place? Or was it human action? And did humans do something or cease to do something to allow natural processes to "clean" or did humans keep doing what they had been doing and everything worked out anyway?
ERF: Please provide evidential proof and the climatological science for CO2 generated "greenhouse effect" warming.
Specifically, I would request you prove that an infinitesimal increase (e.g., less than ppt concentrations) of the CO2 in the entirety of the atmosphere -absent all other dynamic factors- causes a registerable increase in worldwide temperature.
Your convincing argument above would indicate this assignment would be easy. I'll give you to the end of today.
1) What's the "problem," specifically?
2) What are some "solutions" that you propose, specifically?
"Did the river and the lake make itself dirty in the first place? Or was it human action? And did humans do something or cease to do something to allow natural processes to "clean" or did humans keep doing what they had been doing and everything worked out anyway?"
I can't make you think. If you've bought Algore's agenda, I tell you to enjoy, but there are no refunds on your purchase.
The river was obviously polluted by humans, a stupid question where you're trying to highlight the obvious to make anything else you have to say seem important, (and negate my points). Humans did slow down on the amount of pollution, but they did not stop. Many felt, the river is dead anyway, why not?
The point is: The "experts" of the time said the river was DEAD! Finished. Done. The "experts" said that without a MAJOR effort, the Cuyahoga would never support life again, it was dead. There was no major effort, and the birds and fish that I see on my weekend walks are just figments of my imagination. And the water my dog drinks out of that river killed her, I just don't know she's dead yet.
anthropogenic arrogance and ego is unstoppable, anthropogenic GW is a complete fantasy
To be more precise, I suggest we use "anthropogenic catastrophic climate change" or ACCC.
Still, it's junkscience.
There must be something to that global warming. Here in Central PA at 6:00 AM it was 2 above. Now at 10:00 AM it's 11 above. It's definitely getting warmer. WhoooHooo!
I have seen this graph and understand your point. But, this graph also indicates that there is a relationship between CO2 and temperature.
With that in mind, one might conclude that CO2 affects temperature or temperature affects CO2.
Thus there is probably at least a 50% chance that all of the CO2 we've been pumping into the atmosphere will raise the temperature.
For me, I personally am not inclined place a black or red bet on the planet. And you?
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.