Beam me to Planet Gore !
Posted on 04/28/2009 11:48:51 AM PDT by presidio9
In response to the many redundant, errant letters from Alan Journet, the following facts will be useful to your readers in making a wholly informed opinion on the subject of global warming. Our planet has warmed and cooled in countless cycles over the last four billion years, often at rates faster and more extreme than those recorded since the "explosion" of greenhouse gases.
The research of a significant number of renowned climate scientists strongly suggests that our human contribution is of much less significance than Mr. Journet and his ilk would have you believe.
Consider this: Mars and Earth are experiencing essentially identical cycles of global warming. Where are the industrial greenhouse gases on Mars?
There is no scientific consensus regarding the global warming debate. The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change has become so political in its stances that many relevant and highly regarded climate scientists have disavowed that organization, denouncing it inaccurate doomsday predictions.
Even Roger Revelle (Scripps Institution of Oceanography, Harvard University, University of San Diego), who was Al Gore's mentor at Harvard, has publicly refuted Gore's simplistic, incredulous conclusions regarding global warming.
Mr. Journet's opinions are misguided and naive. In truth, much of the dogma of the IPCC and "environmentalists" has been scientifically refuted and exposed as scientifically inaccurate.
A call to political action based on discredited theories will lead to misguided legislation that could irreparably harm this country and permanently disrupt our way of life.
Dr. RANDALL L. STAHLY, Neurological Consultants of Cape Girardeau
Facts have not slowed this idiotic movement up to now!
Best analysis of global warming issue I have seen:
http://home.comcast.net/~pdrallos131681/CO2/co2.html
Good then I don’t have to read anymore.
Actually, you might want to. The climatologist who wrote this was stating that the left doesn't have the facts to support their claims.
I was watching a program on (I think) History International last night about the Age of Insects that the earth experienced prior to the devolopment of vertebrates. At that time, there were dragonflys that were three feet long, and millipedes as big as a man. We have the fossils to document this. So, the scientist starts talking about the conditions that would support insects that large. They have very inefficient lungs, but the oxygen content of the atmosphere was a great deal higher. There was almost no CO2, because the entire landscape was covered with plants. There were no animals, except a few insects. This is the best part: The scientist went on about how added CO2 was “sequestered” into the soil, because there weren’t as many organisms breaking down dead plant materials. Sound familiar? They also believe they have the fossil records to show this.
If all of this was the case, please tell me Dr. Science-Guy. why wasn’t the average temperature of the planet something like 20 degrees cooler than it is right now. Obviously we’re talking about the exact opposite of a greenhouse gas problem, right? What’s that? You’re not sure? Well then, please feel to continue stating all sorts of opinions as facts. After all, you went to science-guy school...
When has the left ever let facts stand in their way?
No they’re not.
Remember, you’re not arguing science, you’re arguing religion.
“Facts are useful in ongoing debate over global warming”
I disagree. Facts have NOTHING to do with the debate over global warming; it’s all agenda-driven hysteria.
http://home.comcast.net/~pdrallos131681/CO2/co2.html
Good article, but he uses a quote I have seen others attribute to Einstien, but I can't find a solid reference for it. Does anyone know if this is an accurate quote and if so, what is the reference?
"A consensus of 100 scientists is undone by one fact."
It's a true enough sentiment, but did Einstein really say this?
al gore is a blowhard fool, on a planet where the temp can swing 100 degrees from day to night in some places, and where temps change day today month to month and season to season, a temp change of less that 1 degree over 100 years is insignificant, remeber it has nothing to do with global warming, it is all about what they will spend fighting global warming
While at the same time reducing world dependence on restricted national sources and thus disproportionately empowering those. (Regardless of where the US gets its petroleum, drawing a big load creates a world demand on the restricted national sources).
At the Suntrade Institute we endorse the latter motive, but that could of course be accomplished using the internal fossil resources of the US, of which there is plenty (although we endorse "renewables" also).
The Council on Foreign Relations is not dumb, but "they" are extremely bigoted. That is, scheming and agenda ridden.
Among the savvy there are always multiple reasons to pursue certain agenda's, to manufacture conditions, and to make decisions. That is, create a matrix. But the CFR is an arrogant elitist cabal, so much so that in terms of endowing human dignity (freedom) for the citizen-individual, they are lowlife.
The Suntrade Institute
It takes a bigger hammer to get their attention.
The cute news "readers" here in the valley south of Sacramento, Calif smile on teevee as they read the crap some jr high-schooler writes.
I have made it my mission to write them a letter that they must at least open, refuting their robo-reading of a discredited "theory."
Science it ain't.
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.