Global Warming?

[dragonrider]

Without any supporting documentation, your statements fall on deaf ears.
Please explaim how carbon credits will lower greenhouse emmisions?

Global Warming Solution Known as ââ?¬Ë?Carbon Creditsââ?¬â?¢ Collapses | NewsBusters.org
So who is it that benefits from all this?
Creators of carbon credit scheme cashing in on it

I'm not going to restate all my previous supporting evidence for you. Read my previous 20 or so posts in this thread. I'm pretty much done.

As for carbon credits --- I never brought it up, so I don't figure it's on me to explain it to you. Carbon credits and carbon offsets would not be my preferred way of dealing with this problem. However, similar cap-and-trade mechanisms did work for reducing acid rain --- they were very effective. Many industries prefer these kinds of market-oriented mechanisms for dealing with pollution.

[Rusty Trichome]

I'm not going to restate all my previous supporting evidence for you. Read my previous 20 or so posts in this thread. I'm pretty much done.

Below was the only link you provided. The rest of the 20 or so posts appear to be your suppositions.

I had to go look up this solar system warming thing because it was pretty much the first I had heard about it. This is the first article I found: Sun Blamed for Warming of Earth and Other Worlds | LiveScience

Also, using the first article you come across in researching for truth, is a lazy way to represent the truth. Is this a common practice, or just an isolated incidence?

[dragonrider]

Below was the only link you provided. The rest of the 20 or so posts appear to be your suppositions.


Also, using the first article you come across in researching for truth, is a lazy way to represent the truth. Is this a common practice, or just an isolated incidence?

I am a lazy moron with nothng but my own suppositions. You win. Climate change is not real.

[BlazinINthe617]

No one knows anything that they think they know about "Global Warming"....That being said the Earth is around 3.5 to 4.6 billion years old. BILLIONS!!! Of years, the "Expert Scientests" can get wonderful data from the glaciers and all but thats only Hundreds of thousands of years of data( NOT EVEN CLOSE TO THE 3.5 - 4.6 BILLION THAT THE EARTH HAS BEEN HERE) and there are still more billions of year to look at after that. So knowing that how can anyone in there rite mind say that they have the answer to this question of global warming. Everything is speculation. I mean, shit, its priddy fucking obvious that theres a fucking pattern of co2 build up and what not but, we are just making what we think is an educated guess about the situation. Theres no way that one can think they have the real answer to our problem( UNLESS THEY LEAVE OUT EVIDENCE THAT IS AGAINST THEIR ARGUMENT )
Because there is simply no know way to figure out if it ever happend before(global warming) or not.

So I say just like with religion, we are( as a world ) making up answers for what we do not know about.

[MadSativa]

^^ earth is older than that, 5.5 Billion is the current theroy. And the model is acurate so far, up until now.

[Aerow]

I haven't read the entire thread, I just wanted to post these videos. Anyone who hasn't seen the other side of the debate watch and listen.

It's important to be informed, regardless if it changes your mind or not.

Just click the play all button: http://www.youtube.com/user/GlobalWarmingFraud

Some people may not like some of te videos because they have hannity and glenn beck...if you really can't stand listening to them, you can go ahead and skip those videos the other ones will still provide you with most of the info.

I haven't taken sides on this issue, but I almost always argue it's not man-made to even out the debate. The people who believe global warming is not man-made get steam-rolled many times by people who refuse to listen and blame them for the downfall of humanity.

[8182KSKUSH]

WARINING!!
You are about to accidentally read right wing propoganda!


No, not really, but it is a good article, just read it and thought that it would fit in on this thread well, raises very good points, ACTUAL climate scientest are cited as well. Enjoy!

I can't believe how many people chimed in here! Obviously, if I am correct this thread will go on for a long time, since we will still be wondering if we are destroying the earth 50 years from now, and probably still only know a small fraction of all the relevant factors that impact our environment and to what extent that they do!

Lorne Gunter, National Post Published: Monday, February 25, 2008

Snow cover over North America and much of Siberia, Mongolia and China is greater than at any time since 1966.
The U.S. National Climatic Data Center (NCDC) reported that many American cities and towns suffered record cold temperatures in January and early February. According to the NCDC, the average temperature in January "was -0.3 F cooler than the 1901-2000 (20th century) average."
China is surviving its most brutal winter in a century. Temperatures in the normally balmy south were so low for so long that some middle-sized cities went days and even weeks without electricity because once power lines had toppled it was too cold or too icy to repair them.
There have been so many snow and ice storms in Ontario and Quebec in the past two months that the real estate market has felt the pinch as home buyers have stayed home rather than venturing out looking for new houses.
In just the first two weeks of February, Toronto received 70 cm of snow, smashing the record of 66.6 cm for the entire month set back in the pre-SUV, pre-Kyoto, pre-carbon footprint days of 1950.
And remember the Arctic Sea ice? The ice we were told so hysterically last fall had melted to its "lowest levels on record? Never mind that those records only date back as far as 1972 and that there is anthropological and geological evidence of much greater melts in the past.
The ice is back.
Gilles Langis, a senior forecaster with the Canadian Ice Service in Ottawa, says the Arctic winter has been so severe the ice has not only recovered, it is actually 10 to 20 cm thicker in many places than at this time last year.
OK, so one winter does not a climate make. It would be premature to claim an Ice Age is looming just because we have had one of our most brutal winters in decades.
But if environmentalists and environment reporters can run around shrieking about the manmade destruction of the natural order every time a robin shows up on Georgian Bay two weeks early, then it is at least fair game to use this winter's weather stories to wonder whether the alarmist are being a tad premature.
And it's not just anecdotal evidence that is piling up against the climate-change dogma.
According to Robert Toggweiler of the Geophysical Fluid Dynamics Laboratory at Princeton University and Joellen Russell, assistant professor of biogeochemical dynamics at the University of Arizona -- two prominent climate modellers -- the computer models that show polar ice-melt cooling the oceans, stopping the circulation of warm equatorial water to northern latitudes and triggering another Ice Age (a la the movie The Day After Tomorrow) are all wrong.
"We missed what was right in front of our eyes," says Prof. Russell. It's not ice melt but rather wind circulation that drives ocean currents northward from the tropics. Climate models until now have not properly accounted for the wind's effects on ocean circulation, so researchers have compensated by over-emphasizing the role of manmade warming on polar ice melt.
But when Profs. Toggweiler and Russell rejigged their model to include the 40-year cycle of winds away from the equator (then back towards it again), the role of ocean currents bringing warm southern waters to the north was obvious in the current Arctic warming.
Last month, Oleg Sorokhtin, a fellow of the Russian Academy of Natural Sciences, shrugged off manmade climate change as "a drop in the bucket." Showing that solar activity has entered an inactive phase, Prof. Sorokhtin advised people to "stock up on fur coats."
He is not alone. Kenneth Tapping of our own National Research Council, who oversees a giant radio telescope focused on the sun, is convinced we are in for a long period of severely cold weather if sunspot activity does not pick up soon.
The last time the sun was this inactive, Earth suffered the Little Ice Age that lasted about five centuries and ended in 1850. Crops failed through killer frosts and drought. Famine, plague and war were widespread. Harbours froze, so did rivers, and trade ceased.
It's way too early to claim the same is about to happen again, but then it's way too early for the hysteria of the global warmers, too.
:thumbsup::jointsmile::thumbsup:
:jointsmile::thumbsup::jointsmile:
:thumbsup::jointsmile::thumbsup:
:jointsmile::thumbsup::jointsmile:
:thumbsup::jointsmile:

[MadSativa]

^^ haha this isnt the first thread like this bro, infact all of em in the past have gotten closed down or lost. But usualy the discusion turns toward bickering and name calling and thats, that, no more thread. So more than likely same will happen here. Not the first thread like this and not the last, and no I dont want any carbon filter inserts. it is a kinda biased thread though, but the problem has to be unignored, as we have ignored it for so long. Also at first I was with alot of you and thought the whole global warming was BS and if so definitly not man made, but after hearing and seeing the data facts and real debates, I had to change my thoughts on the subject, as I was wrong.

And I still have never seen the Al gore vid, I dont have much time to watch vids and to watch al gore seams like death.

[8182KSKUSH]

Right off the press.

TWC founder and global warming skeptic advocates suing Al Gore to expose 'the fraud of global warming.'

By Jeff Poor
Business & Media Institute
3/3/2008 6:11:04 PM



The Weather Channel has lost its way, according to John Coleman, who founded the channel in 1982.

Coleman told an audience at the 2008 International Conference on Climate Change on March 3 in New York that he is highly critical of global warming alarmism.

â??The Weather Channel had great promise, and thatâ??s all gone now because theyâ??ve made every mistake in the book on what theyâ??ve done and how theyâ??ve done it and itâ??s very sad,â?� Coleman said. â??Itâ??s now for sale and thereâ??s a new owner of The Weather Channel will be announced â?? several billion dollars having changed hands in the near future. Letâ??s hope the new owners can recapture the vision and stop reporting the traffic, telling us what to think and start giving us useful weather information.â?�


The Weather Channel has been an outlet for global warming alarmism. In December 2006, The Weather Channelâ??s Heidi Cullen argued on her blog that weathercasters who had doubts about human influence on global warming should be punished with decertification by the American Meteorological Society.

Coleman also told the audience his strategy for exposing what he called â??the fraud of global warming.â?� He advocated suing those who sell carbon credits, which would force global warming alarmists to give a more honest account of the policies they propose.

â??[I] have a feeling this is the opening,â?� Coleman said. â??If the lawyers will take the case â?? sue the people who sell carbon credits. That includes Al Gore. That lawsuit would get so much publicity, so much media attention. And as the experts went to the media stand to testify, I feel like that could become the vehicle to finally put some light on the fraud of global warming.â?�

Earlier at the conference Lord Christopher Monckton, a policy adviser to former Prime Minister Margaret Thatcher, told an audience that the science will eventually prevail and the â??scareâ?� of global warming will go away. He also said the courts were a good avenue to show the science.


Stuart James and Paul Detrick also contributed to this report.