Advertisement

Archive for Thursday, August 23, 2007

Warming denial

August 23, 2007

Advertisement

To the editor:

Most of us like to continue our comfortable patterns of behavior. Understandably, Cal Thomas (Journal-World, Aug. 17) prefers to believe that global warming isn't a serious problem. We can continue driving our cars and burning coal for electricity.

Changes do occur - a grandparent gives up car keys for everyone's safety. Even large corporations, such as Exxon Mobil, want their "good times" to continue.

Who knows how they did it? Oil companies contributed money and convinced well over 100 groups and organizations to become their climate apologists. (See www.exxonsecrets.org. or "The Denial Industry" in George Monbiot's book "Heat"). Executives must have realized it would look self-serving and suspect for them to claim global warming was not human-induced from burning carbons. Instead reporters found these 100 and more "neutral" third parties, who raised questions about human genesis of global warming. Reporters wrote "balanced" stories giving "both sides" of the issue.

We've been "soft-soaped" into doubting the evidence from climate scientists. Despite the anomalies Exxon's climate apologists latched onto, the overall impact of scientific investigations show humans are heating the climate.

It is time for international agreements by which humans worldwide equitably cut back on releasing CO2 into Earth's atmosphere.

Mark Larson,

Lawrence

Comments

Mkh 6 years, 7 months ago

The Science Channel has a program on Peak Oil airing right now. One of the few instances of major media coverage.

0

Mkh 6 years, 7 months ago

http://www.energybulletin.net/33714.html

This is a great article on the 100mpg Electric Car. It goes into much detail regarding the technology available and why Peak Oil makes this technology imperative to implement immediately.

This enitre website is also an incredible source of energy information.

0

Tom Shewmon 6 years, 7 months ago

OriginalCA---good post and I tend to fall into that school of thought. There is merit to it, but not to the degree someone like (I don't want to say the name again) would try to whup up the American public into a freaked-out frenzy. It's a reality, not an agenda.

Sort of like Y2K, only on a much, much grander scale---it's a money maker.

0

max1 6 years, 7 months ago

"kmat you must really be smart, using newsweek as a source" -bisky1

Yeah, Opinion Editorials is a far better source than newsweek.

http://www2.ljworld.com/news/2006/jul... bisky1 (Anonymous) says: for look at the al gore i know look at this site http://www.opinioneditorials.com/guestcontributors/msheppard_20060630.html

http://www.opinioneditorials.com/guestcontributors/kgrogan_20050908.html Did it ever occur to people that the way they are living is bringing God's wrath upon the world? It's not like they haven't been warned of the very things going on today, forecast in the Bible thousands of years ago. In Matthew 24: 7 it reads: And there shall be great pestilence, and earthquakes in various places. Pestilence is great famines and strange diseases. So, no one can argue the fact these predictions are happening one by one. The Bible teaches before the end of the worldnatural disasters will be prevalent, and the preceding one will be more violent than the last. Before the world ended in the days of Noahpeople were living immorally, and eventually paid the price. Yes, many people have always lived immorally, but the difference today: immoral behavior is being accepted and tolerated more than ever, . . Nobody believed the ridiculous notion that a flood was going to destroy every living thingand a lot of people still ignore the prophecy in the Bible today. So, they will find out just like the people in the days of Noahthe truth the hard way. There is no way America is going to escape judgementespecially when this country was founded on God. Too many have turned their backs on God for a day of reckoning not to be in the near future. . . Was it just coincidental that most of the bars and casinos were leveled to the ground by Katrina?

http://www.opinioneditorials.com/guestcontributors.html Guest Writers typically start as Freedom Writers and have since developed relationships with Frontiers of Freedom Institute.

http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=Frontiers_of_Freedom Frontiers of Freedom Institute "Since our founding, Frontiers has grown from a start-up organization with big ideas to a preeminent think tank that is making a real and tangible difference advancing common sense ideas for government. . . Our efforts earned us a seat across the table, literally, from President Bush . . . In addition, we have both provided and received briefings from Vice President Dick Cheney, Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld, and his Deputy Paul Dundes Wolfowitz.

0

bisky1 6 years, 7 months ago

kmat you must really be smart, using newsweek as a source, and referring to ksn's as ignorant. can i come set at yer feet and listen to you expound?

0

TheOriginalCA 6 years, 7 months ago

I doubt that GW is as morbid as some scientists make it out to be. When I was majoring in Atmospheric Science in College, I had more than one instructor say during lecture that a lot of people are making a lot of money off of it and all of its propaganda. He also said, it is true that we are releasing more CO2 and methane into the atmosphere, but it is not on the scale that all of the militant GW's are making it out to be. I for one believe that we STILL need to do our part as individuals to not pollute and not waste and leave this place a little better than when we were born.

0

Mkh 6 years, 7 months ago

Das: "You say that there have not been ANY incredible finds of sweet light crude oil. Sure, none except this: http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/business/4563


First off, look up the definition of light sweet crude oil.

This is an off-shore oil well that will come online in 2011. This is exactly the type of oil find I was discussing in my first post. The oil is deep under the ocean and will cost a significant amount to get out (plus even more to ship and refine); also, it is not nearly enough to satisfy the thirst of Demand. Keep in mind only a small fraction of oil will be produced at a time.

Das: "Or the part where you say that the oil is so far in the ground that it costs more to get it out than it is worth: with the exception of these: http://www.ibtimes.com/articles/20060921:"


This well will only produce 5,800 barrels a day When it comes online. Are you Feaking Kidding Me? Yeah buddy better call of the alarm, problem solve! LOL.
Plus it's in Nigeria, obviously you haven't been reading the news lately (other than LJW), that is not exactly a reliable source.

http://www.nytimes.com/2006/09/05/business/05cnd-oil.html?ex=1315108800&en=f225e42715a383ca&ei=5088&partner=rssnyt&emc=rss

Again this is another far off-shore drilling project (like I discussed in my first post, you really should Read it). This well is located 28,175 feet below the surface of the ocean as is located over 200 miles off-shore. It will be Very Expensive to drill this oil out, and if you think it's going to be sold at $3 a gallon you are insane. Hence the entire argument of Peak Oil. Oil is not going away, it's just going to get Really Expensive, and when your entire Economy is based on Oil...well you got some problems.

http://english.people.com.cn/200610/13/eng20061013_311445.html This one, first of all is only going to produce 2,000 barrels a day...not exactly an Elephant field (see first post).
Second of all, it's an off shore well (see above) Third, it's in China, good luck seeing a drop of that.

http://www.arabicnews.com/ansub/Daily/Day/001207/2000120703.html This well, while larger than ones previously mentioned, is still relatively small. Plus this is from 7 years ago, if it didn't stop Peak Oil then, I don't think it's going to now. Nice try.

http://www.sudantribune.com/spip.php?article16903 This well is really the only one you have that was even worth mentioning. At 20,000 barrels a day it's fairly large (not nearly an Elephant field, see above)...however it's unfortunate that all of that oil is going directly to China (the 21st Century Superpower). And will not stop their Demand.

Well, that was a nice attempt at a spin job. I'd disect the rest of your post, but it's clear you are wasting everyone's time. I've been around the oil industry my entire life. If you want to bluff me with some BS, you'd better come harder than that.

0

TheYetiSpeaks 6 years, 7 months ago

posted by Das Ubermine: "Given that much of "Jurassic Park" had little to no scientific accuracy, I would myself comfortably say that he oversteps his expertise for the sake of selling books."

Wow, I must have missed the part of the introduction where he presents Jurassic Park as fact. You see, Jurassic Park is fiction and average fiction at that.
As for your dismissal of Crichton's academic resume, the poster above beat me to it, but I am sure that now that your foot is wedged in your mouth firmly it can begin its downward journey for its meeting with your head somewhere in your ass. Crichton's academic resume makes a lot of the professors on campus look light.

0

max1 6 years, 7 months ago

"Max, your first reaction was clearly that you thought GDP and income had no relation at all." -kansas778

Your imagination is running wild. Follow the thread again. I didn't paste "something from the internet" -- I simply corrected your flawed thinking by saying: " 'per capita' Gross Domestic Product - not per capita income. " You had better hurry. I just heard a rumor from Republican headquarters saying "the speed of light" is going to increase dramatically next week.

0

kansas778 6 years, 7 months ago

Max, your first reaction was clearly that you thought GDP and income had no relation at all. Don't try and cover that up now. That you copyed and pasted something you found on the internet after I had exposed your lack of knowledge doesn't make up for your obvious shortcomings in the area.

0

Ceallach 6 years, 7 months ago

pace, if you are waiting for the boys, poor or otherwise, to do without something they want, or do something they do not want to do, in order to save the world from global warming or pretty much anything else, you might as well bend over and kiss your butt goodbye. It ain't gonna happen! I can't remember anything in human history that makes me think, even assuming the scientists convince the world that their research is valid, that mankind will step up and do the "right thing," in large enough numbers, to make any difference.

0

max1 6 years, 7 months ago

"When I mentioned income and GDP, you had no idea they were connected at all." -kansas778

I actually posted that connection myself, but it apparently drifted right over your head. I don't care what they say -- if you keep plodding along at your own pace you will learn what GDP is within your lifetime, but be sure to check in at Republican headquarters to see what the "speed of light" forecast is -- that might become a factor.

0

cynical 6 years, 7 months ago

Crichton's works of authorship are reason enough to dismiss any "facts" he publishes. I read one of his books, simply because it was a supposed good book. One dose of his garbage was enough.

0

pace 6 years, 7 months ago

My cynical guess is the poor boys moaning that global warming is a hoax will blame the scientists for not telling them about it before it was too late. When water and soil is too contaminated to be used for feeding the world they will blame the environmentalist for not warning them and when they are hit by lighting when they take shelter beneath the big tree they will just blame god.

0

kansas778 6 years, 7 months ago

EireishHawk, you can comfortably put Crichton's academic (and certainly professional) resume up against anyone on this board, because he has an outstanding resume. He graduated from Harvard Summa Cum Laude, graduated from Harvard Medical School, he was a visiting lecturer at Cambridge, and many other academic honors. Of course he has also won many honors for his works of authorship. So yes, you can comfortably say that Crichton's resume can stack up against anonymous users.

0

EireishHawk 6 years, 7 months ago

"I could comfortably say that I would put Crichton's academic resume up against anyone on this board."

You're kidding, right? How can you "comfortably say" anything about the academic resumes of anonymous users? Lawrence residents and KU staff have academic resumes ad nauseam. With such an "anyone who doesn't agree with me is stupid" mentality I would like to see your academic resume. Surely you have a website out there to extol your mental might. How about posting the URL.

0

Mkh 6 years, 7 months ago

"fact that some of the world's oil fields may actually be SLOWLY (shouting lest anyone think I am not aware that it is slow) refilling are oddly omitted from your paragraph."

This is not a fact, it's an outright lie put forth by nut cases that have been proven wrong repeatively. And yes those sites I sited are reputable sources of information on oil. I use peakoil.com everyday to find out the latest petrolum news.

In terms of huge discoveries, nothing I said was unfactual. We have not had tremendous oil finds on par with what was discovered in the early 80's "Elephant fields". Nothing even close. And the stuff we have found is generally more expensive to extract than before. That is a fact.

I'd love to discuss this further, but it's going to have to wait till tomorrow.

0

logicsound04 6 years, 7 months ago

"Does Mark Larson have a monopoly on Letters to the Editor? Why can he get multiple letters published while others are rejected? LJW, maybe try giving both sides the same amount of ink? Oh that's right, not in your vocabulary."


I have noticed that the LJWorld does this as well (continually publishing LTEs by certain repeat authors) but they do it on both sides of the political spectrum.

For example, I would say Tom Shewmon (another frequent LTE author) is on the opposet end of the spectrum from Mark Larsen.

Whenever someone accuses the LJWorld of having a leftist slant I have to laugh. Do you really think the Simons family would allow their paper to swing to the left. I'm not accusing them of slanting to the right--I think the LJWorld is pretty balanced most of the time--I'm just saying IF they did slant, it would be that way.

0

Das_Ubermime 6 years, 7 months ago

Mkh (Anonymous) says:

"Merrill, while I'm glad that you are waking up to the crisis of Peak Oil, you need to get your facts straight. There were massive Elephant fields discovered in the early '80s. Which is the only reason we got out of the small oil crisis of the late '70s. But since then there have not been any incredible finds of sweet, light crude oil. There are many discoveries happenning every year. But the oil is either so far in the ground or ocean that it costs a lot more to get it out than it's worth."

Now this is a great example of why I am skeptical of anyone who says that we are at or past peak oil. You say that there have not been ANY incredible finds of sweet light crude oil. Sure, none except this: http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/business/4563896.stm Or the part where you say that the oil is so far in the ground that it costs more to get it out than it is worth... with the exception of these: http://www.ibtimes.com/articles/20060921/new-oil-field-discovered-in-nigeria.htm http://www.nytimes.com/2006/09/05/business/05cnd-oil.html?ex=1315108800&en=f225e42715a383ca&ei=5088&partner=rssnyt&emc=rss http://english.people.com.cn/200610/13/eng20061013_311445.html http://www.arabicnews.com/ansub/Daily/Day/001207/2000120703.html http://www.sudantribune.com/spip.php?article16903

Of course, despite these discoveries (some of which are next to pre-existing oil fields), EVERY major oil field around the world is in decline as we learn from this paragraph:

"However, Peak Oil is certainly upon us. No one can say for sure if it's happened yet, but either it has or it will soon. All major oil fields in the world are in decline, including Saudi Arabia. But the real push for the peak is with Demand, which has been growing at an extreme rate and will now only get worse as China and India grow."

Of course, new technologies to increase the efficiency of extracting oil and the fact that some of the world's oil fields may actually be SLOWLY (shouting lest anyone think I am not aware that it is slow) refilling are oddly omitted from your paragraph.

"Here is a vast of information concerning the real Energy Crisis.

p>www.peakoil.com www.lifeafteroilcrash.net www.peakoil.net www.hubbertpeak.com www.theoildrum.com">

Have you looked at these sites? Do you really think that they provide an unbiased view? My favorite was this page which clearly shows that global oil production is in a free fall: http://www.theoildrum.com/tag/update

It is not that I necessarily disagree with the message. I'll be the first to admit that I know very little about this. It is the fact that I know so little about this and am still able to find clear counter-examples to these arguments that gets my goat.

0

kansas778 6 years, 7 months ago

Max1, there's nothing you can copy and paste to prove you know what you're talking about. When I mentioned income and GDP, you had no idea they were connected at all. So keep copying and pasting, but you'll never prove that you have any idea what GDP is.

0

Mkh 6 years, 7 months ago

Excellent points mtopiklar...again.

0

Das_Ubermime 6 years, 7 months ago

TheYetiSpeaks:

"I could comfortably say that I would put Crichton's academic resume up against anyone on this board."

Good for you. You should probably think twice about stacking his scientific resume against other people here, though. You should also think twice about overrating his grasp of different sciences. Given that much of "Jurassic Park" had little to no scientific accuracy, I would myself comfortably say that he oversteps his expertise for the sake of selling books.

mtopiklar,

I'm scratching my head to think of where I mentioned peak oil. Can you find it?

0

Mkh 6 years, 7 months ago

Merrill, while I'm glad that you are waking up to the crisis of Peak Oil, you need to get your facts straight. There were massive Elephant fields discovered in the early '80s. Which is the only reason we got out of the small oil crisis of the late '70s. But since then there have not been any incredible finds of sweet, light crude oil. There are many discoveries happenning every year. But the oil is either so far in the ground or ocean that it costs a lot more to get it out than it's worth.

However, Peak Oil is certainly upon us. No one can say for sure if it's happened yet, but either it has or it will soon. All major oil fields in the world are in decline, including Saudi Arabia. But the real push for the peak is with Demand, which has been growing at an extreme rate and will now only get worse as China and India grow.

The U.S. domestic oil peaked in 1971, which is why our foriegn policy has been dedicated to securing oil reserves.

Here is a vast of information concerning the real Energy Crisis.

p>www.peakoil.com www.lifeafteroilcrash.net www.peakoil.net www.hubbertpeak.com www.theoildrum.com>
0

Matt Toplikar 6 years, 7 months ago

Merrill, Actually there has been oil discovered since 1961. It's just that the number and size of discoveries peaked that year and has been in steady decline since. Oil companies are constantly on the search for new oil and they do find it--- they're just not finding it like they did 45 years ago.
Das_Ubermime, If every year the amount of oil we use goes up, and the amount of discoveries of oil goes down, you would figure that at some point there would be a time when the amount of oil extraction would not be able to meet consumption. This is what scientists call Peak Oil. It's a concept that's pretty easy to understand. It doesn't mean we're out of oil, it only means that our economy and development can't continue to grow at the same rates, without a form of energy that's as cheap as oil is. Unfortunately, almost all scientists believe that this will happen in the next 30 years. A majority of scientists believe that it will happen in the next 10 years, if it hasn't happened already. When it happens, we'll see that the price of oil will become more expensive each year, as less and less oil will be able to be extracted from the ground. What this means, is that we're going to have to change some very important factors in our lives very quickly to avoid serious economic problems.

0

situveux1 6 years, 7 months ago

Does Mark Larson have a monopoly on Letters to the Editor? Why can he get multiple letters published while others are rejected? LJW, maybe try giving both sides the same amount of ink? Oh that's right, not in your vocabulary.

0

max1 6 years, 7 months ago

"Max1, are you still holding on to that last thread of hope that you know what macroeconomics is?" -kansas778

"GDP equals total income, thusly per capita GDP equals per capita income." kansas778

Don't give up. Keep studying and maybe one of these days you'll understand the difference.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gross_do... The GDP of a country is defined as the market value of all final goods and services produced within a country in a given period of time. It is also considered the sum of value added at every stage of production of all final goods and services produced within a country in a given period of time.

http://www.bea.gov/regional/index.htm http://www.bea.gov/newsreleases/regional/gdp_state/gsp_newsrelease.htm income earned, usually referred to as gross domestic income (GDI), does not always equal what is spent (GDP).

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gross_st... Gross state product (or gross regional product) is a measurement of the economic output of a U.S. state or an Australian state. It is the sum of all value added by industries within the state

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Per_capi... When determining the per capita income of a community, however, it is not economic activity that is divided by the population, but the total personal income.

Gross State Product (per capita) http://www.statemaster.com/graph/eco_gdp_percap-product-current-dollars-per-capita State ranking: Kansas, 33rd

Personal income (per capita) http://www.statemaster.com/graph/eco_per_inc_percap-economy-personal-income-per-capita State ranking: Kansas, 26th

0

TheYetiSpeaks 6 years, 7 months ago

Das Ubermine-

I could comfortably say that I would put Crichton's academic resume up against anyone on this board.

preebo, logicsound, and their ilk- For probably the 5th time I will type these words: I believe we, as a people, should lower polution and CO2 emissions, however I believe human-induced global warming is fiction or, at best, a waste of time discussing as it is unproveable. If we want the same goal, why is it so important to you that I believe in your doomsday scenarios and theories?

0

Flap Doodle 6 years, 7 months ago

merrill, even for you that was a load of codswhallop.

0

Das_Ubermime 6 years, 7 months ago

"No new oil has been discovered since 1961 which puts the world on the down side of peak oil."

Oh come on! There have been new oil fields discovered in the Gulf of Mexico, Brazil, Sudan, Vietnam and Libya -- just to name a few -- all within the last decade! If you are going to post alarmist claptrap, at least make it so that debunking it takes more that 2 minutes.

0

Richard Heckler 6 years, 7 months ago

Consider this. No new oil has been discovered since 1961 which puts the world on the down side of peak oil. I say the oil industry here and abroad are saying nothing about this because they do not want consumers to begin purchasing all types of fuel efficient vehicles. They are wanting to drain consumers for as long as possible of expendable cash for their huge profit margins.

If americans with vehicles that average less than 30 mpg -36 mpg wait until the last minute to purchase high mpg vehicles they will cost an arm and a leg. Think about that.

0

kansas778 6 years, 7 months ago

Logicsound, I'm sorry, you seem confused. Where in my orginal post was I talking about big oil company profits? I was talking about funded research. So thanks for playing, better luck next time.

Max1, are you still holding on to that last thread of hope that you know what macroeconomics is?

0

Azure_Attitude 6 years, 7 months ago

Thanks, Ceal. You rock! :-)

I need to check OTS to see if Ms. C is posting. She told me about the Rush concert a few months back. My son has discovered them through Guitar Hero and if it weren't for her I may not have known to tell him the concert was coming and he may not be taking me to the conert tonight as an early birthday present otherwise.

0

Das_Ubermime 6 years, 7 months ago

Ceal, I wouldn't put much stock in what those woodchucks say as they are notorious liars. Heck, just look at how much that Phil guy in Pennsylvania lies about the weather.

0

Azure_Attitude 6 years, 7 months ago

Sounds reasonable, Das. We can't have any flacid saplings

Is it my wicked awesomeness, Kodiac?

0

Ceallach 6 years, 7 months ago

Das, guess I'll have to form my opinion after I hear from the woodchuck contingency. (Just in case their production has been under or over estimated.)

btw, I've met AA and IMHO she is indeed Wicked Awesome :)

0

Kodiac 6 years, 7 months ago

Ah finally some enlightenment from Das and Azure.

Now here is something we could all hang our hats onto....

(Stilll madly in love with you Azure)

0

geekin_topekan 6 years, 7 months ago

That's why you should talk to your plants!

0

Das_Ubermime 6 years, 7 months ago

I don't know about that Azure, but I have seen research which suggests that plants such as trees grow faster at higher levels of CO2. If a person finds that they are having a particularly hard time growing a sapling, they should place their mouth over it and blow really hard. You know, for the CO2 you exhale.

0

Azure_Attitude 6 years, 7 months ago

Big Wood, Das? I think I have seen TOB on TV pushing supplements with a rather different approch to growing, a-hem, wood apart from reforrestation.

0

Das_Ubermime 6 years, 7 months ago

I have it on good authority (his wife) that TOB is funded by the timber industry (Big Wood). Hence, I would posit that his numbers are actually underestimates and the true figure is 1.223 times 10 to the 9th power. Just another example of The Man trying to keep squirrels and their relatives down.

Power to the sciurids!

0

Ceallach 6 years, 7 months ago

TOB, then no doubt that is scientific fact . . . oh, wait . . . are you in anyway connected to the lumber industry?

0

Azure_Attitude 6 years, 7 months ago

Actually, Max, though I may have to look at your posts to be sure, I may be confusing you with someone else and I may have to apologize for assessing you as a Homer-know-nothing-schmuck. DOH!

0

geekin_topekan 6 years, 7 months ago

If we and as we continue to pimp our mother,the giver of all life and worship the dollar she will retaliate and violently if neccesary.Personally I can't wait for the next catastrophe.I sleep better knowing that our mother is alive and well.

0

The_Original_Bob 6 years, 7 months ago

"or how much wood would a woodchuck chuck if a woodchuck could chuck wood" Ceal

It's been scientifically proven that it is 1223 x 10 little 6. I actually did the research so there is no reason to doubt my upstanding reputation as the leading woodchuck researcher on this planet. You can believe what I say because I said it.

0

Azure_Attitude 6 years, 7 months ago

Oh, Max! HAHAHAHAHAHAHA!! That was so funny . . . NOT!

You don't know jack about me, Clyde. Those that do actually know me would not use the word wicked to describe me unless it was followed by awesome 'cuz, baby, I most defnitely am Wicked Awesome!!!

Why don't you try to expand your world view a little and get some edu-ma-cation. That way you won't come off so much like a know-nothing schmuck.

0

max1 6 years, 7 months ago

"Just a hard workin' Wiccan woman trying to take care of my family and survive in this world." -Azure_Attitude

You misspelled wicked.

0

Ceallach 6 years, 7 months ago

When I read the letter and the first few posts I was quite confused. As I read further I realized that the only logical conclusion one can reach is that research that supports my personal position is science, research that does not is pseudo-science. The beauty of it is that this truth goes far beyond global warming. The applications are endless, creation, intelligent design, evolution, abortion, homosexuality, global warming, nuclear winter, or how much wood would a woodchuck chuck if a woodchuck could chuck wood.

I'm with gogoplata, I don't trust either side (the same reason I'm registered Independent). However, since I know from my real life experiences (asthmatic in a polluted world) I try to do my part not to add to the problem. I'm also planting a tree and donating the credit to snap :)

0

max1 6 years, 7 months ago

"ask Max1 how embarrassing it can be to tangle with me." -kansas778

Yes, be careful. Don't tangle with the Kansas flat-earth society.

P.S. In 2006, Californians were 12% of the US population, but their GDP was 17% of the US GDP. Unlike Californians, cash-starved and backward Kansans find it necessary to tax food and clothing to run their government, and they still can't make ends meet.

0

Azure_Attitude 6 years, 7 months ago

Kansas778 and Max1 tangle and the outcome is Max being embarassed? That's like Homer and his buddy Barney in a steel cage and Barney comes out on top!!

You posts today make his look reasonable. Such moronic contensions are an embarrasment to humanity.

0

The_Original_Bob 6 years, 7 months ago

I read the letter and thought, "this has flame war written all over it." Keep it coming, folks. This is good times. Certain arguments can not be rehashed enough. Now I gotta go sell some carbon credits to Snap. He never seems to have enough.

Fire and Ice

You come on as the flame

Then you turn a cold shoulder

Fire and Ice

I wanna give you my love

But you'll just take a little piece of my heart

you'll just tear it apart

0

logicsound04 6 years, 7 months ago

"I never said they HAD less money, but that they SPENT less money on global warming research."


Neither did I. I said that there was more money "in" big oil than in global warming research. Meaning there are more opportunities to reap monetary gain in the oil industry. Your original argument was predicated upon the idea that the scientists' findings were untrustworthy because their true motivation was the money they recieve in grants. My counterpoint (which was expressed much more succinctly by mtoplikar) was that if you are worried money corrupting scientific findings, you may want to focus on the "scientific findings" that actually stand to gain by manipulating the data, rather than the findings of real scientists, whose only monetary concern is that they have enough to continue researching.

But since you bring it up, let me get this straight--you are arguing that Big Oil has BETTER information on Global Warming because they spent LESS money researching it?!?

What is wrong with you?

0

Kodiac 6 years, 7 months ago

"There's no SUVs on Mars, but the ice caps are shrinking there." -- kansas778

Uh uh uh....

ok you're right,

No need to tangle with you.

You are embarrasing.

0

aeroscout17 6 years, 7 months ago

Lets all think about this for a minute; whether or not global warming is actually happening, we are using fossil fuels at a far faster rate than they will ever be replaced. I have seen good scientific evidence for both sides of the argument. It is an undeniable fact that we are putting more CO into the atmosphere than ever before. That is something we all should give considerable thought to...

And yes, I know that in a free-market economy, the shortage will hypothetically lead to the substitute, generation, or use of another resource, blah, blah, blah. Still doesn't' make the obliteration of a resource valid.

0

RedwoodCoast 6 years, 7 months ago

2005: Exxon/Mobile reports profits greater than that of any corporation in the history of the world. 2006: Exxon/Mobile reports profits greater than that of any corporation in the history of the world, meaning that they broke their previous record. So if no one says there is no incentive for companies like that to bend science to favor their next record-breaking fiscal year, then there really is no hope for you. And no one speaks up and asks why the heck we're paying so much in gas.

Five-thousand years ago, North America was in the middle of a climatic episode referred to, depending upon the region, as the Altithermal or the Hypsithermal. During this time, grasslands stretched all the way into the Ozarks. The climate had become drier or hotter or both. No one is completely sure why this happened, but it began nearly 2000 years earlier and ended about 4000 years ago. Though the exact cause is uncertain, it appears as though volcanism or the massive draining of glacial lakes on the Laurentide ice sheet (causing massive disruption in North Atlantic ocean currents) was likely to blame.

There are 6 billion people on the planet and they aren't going anywhere. That number will continue to grow. So the question we need to be asking ourselves, is: are we to blame for the patterns we see in climate today? If there is any doubt that climate change is not a natural phenomenon, then we need to do something about it sooner than later. It will be easier (though not simple) to change the habits of 6 billion people than it will 12 billion people. Though the Altithermal/Hypsithermal did not happen overnight, we do not want to look back at our history one hot and/or dry day and ask ourselves why we didn't change when it could have made a difference. I guess we could look at this web forum and start pointing those fingers.

0

gogoplata 6 years, 7 months ago

Scare tactics. The libs want to scare us into trusting in the government to save us from global warming while the neocons want to scare us into trusting in the government to save us from weapons of mass destruction. I don't trust either side.

0

kansas778 6 years, 7 months ago

Oh logicsound, you discredit yourself when you show you can't read. I never said they HAD less money, but that they SPENT less money on global warming research. Read before you post. Thank you, and please try again.

Yourworst, don't even try to respond, ask Max1 how embarrassing it can be to tangle with me. You should stick to the name calling.

0

logicsound04 6 years, 7 months ago

"I think it's pretty hilarious that some of the people who post on this site find it more easy to believe that there is a vast conspiracy involving thousands upon thousands of scientists falsifying their data, than it is to believe that a small group of scientists that are working for oil companies might be influenced in some way."


This sums it up perfectly. Excellent post mtoplikar.

0

Roadkill_Rob 6 years, 7 months ago

Roadkill_Rob (Anonymous) says: "Leftists and scientists are out to get so much grant money that they want the country to collapse."

mtoplikar,

I was being sarcastic...someone actually used this argument against me once. I understand why you thought I was being serious since there are people on this board who actually think that that is true.

0

Flap Doodle 6 years, 7 months ago

Wow, this went straight to poo flinging.

0

Matt Toplikar 6 years, 7 months ago

kansas778 (Anonymous) says: "The biggest fraud pushed on humanity has been human enduced global warming. It's a multi-billion dollar industry people, wake up! If they admitted it was BS, what would happed to those billions of dollars?"

Pilgrim (Anonymous) says: "The thought never crossed your mind that a lot of those scientists who are leading the Chicken Little brigade had no agenda behind their studies? There's no chance they just want to keep the research grant gravy train rolling down the tracks? Where'd all that grant money come from, Mark?"

Roadkill_Rob (Anonymous) says: "Leftists and scientists are out to get so much grant money that they want the country to collapse."

I think it's pretty hilarious that some of the people who post on this site find it more easy to believe that there is a vast conspiracy involving thousands upon thousands of scientists falsifying their data, than it is to believe that a small group of scientists that are working for oil companies might be influenced in some way. I think this really crystalizes the fact that these people are in denial. They've chosen an opinion on this subject, and no fancy scientific consensus is going to change their mind on it.

The whole idea that "everyone has an agenda", only goes so far. Tell me now, is the majority of geologists' theories on plate tectonics all a bunch of hooey designed to further their own careers? How about astrophysicists? Are they making up all that stuff about black holes and supernovas just to get more grant money? Maybe you think paleontologists are really the ones who put the dinosaur bones in the ground. You know, now that I think of it, DNA sounds kinda fishy to me. I'm guessing it was a theory designed by some politician to justify taxing us more. It is a billion dollar industry, you know.

These arguments are stupid at best and deliberately misleading at worst. Do you really think that disproving Climate Change would automatically lead to a scientist losing his or her job? Actually if there was real data to disprove Climate Change, then scientists would be all over it. Scientists love to disprove old theories. If you ever talk to a scientist you'll realize that they're almost all looking for a way to challenge conventional wisdom, because if their data is correct then they become pioneers in the field and it furthers their career.

0

logicsound04 6 years, 7 months ago

"TheYetiSpeaks (Anonymous) says:

I believe what jmadison was trying to say is that there can be nothing proved when there is no control group."


Guess we can trash all the work we've done in astronomy, eh?

========================================

"kansas778 (Anonymous) says:

The amount of money spent by "evil polluters" like Exxon is only a fraction of the money that goes to the other side."


Thank you for discrediting yourself in your very first post. It makes it much easier for those of us who would like to concentrate on facts.

I can't believe you actually think there is more money in not-for-profit research on climate change than in the oil industry. Unlike the big oil, whose driving motivation is to make more money than they spend in refining, producing, and distributing oil, scientists are given finite amounts of money in the form of grants that must go to specific research. There is no real opportunity for these scientists to "turn a profit", because they aren't selling a product.

You are confusing the issue in more ways than one.

0

max1 6 years, 7 months ago

Just look at what those liberal scientists are saying now! They are saying this water creature lived 380 to 384 million years ago. Well, we at the Genesis Institute, which employs the best Republican minds available, have conducted our own study, and by using our sliding time scale, derived from the changes in the speed of light over time, we have determined this poor creature died on November 4, 1953, and not a day earlier.

http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2007/02/070212-fossil-tissue.html Australian scientists say they have found morsels of fossilized muscle-the oldest vertebrate tissue ever known-in the remains of two fish that lived 380 to 384 million years ago.

http://dir.salon.com/story/news/feature/2005/05/13/kansas/index.html [Kansas State School Board chairman and Republican gubernatorial candidate] Steve Abrams himself still publicly admits he is a so-called young-Earth creationist - one who believes Earth is as little as 5,000 years old, based on a reading of the Bible.

http://ib.berkeley.edu/courses/ib160/news/101099ka-creationism-edu.html Abrams also cited a theory that the speed of light was almost infinitely fast in the past, meaning that the light from extremely distant galaxies could have reached Earth quickly and would not be billions of years old.

0

yourworstnightmare 6 years, 7 months ago

Despite denials of human-induced global warming and despite calling the current warming just a part of the natural cycle, it is important to realize that we and our civilization evolved in the current climate.

The changes occuring now could have drastic and long-term effects on our civilization. Maybe the climate is not "the best" for the planet, but it is the climate in which we have built our civilization.

kansas778, I was going to respond to your ignorant and ludicrous posts, but you are an idiot, and I don't want to waste my time.

0

kansas778 6 years, 7 months ago

LOL, the only argument the left has is: There is no argument. Guess what leftist fundies, there is an argument, and there is no consensus among climatologists. Not even close. The problem is, politicians and beareucrats write up treatises on global warming, add scientists names on the bottom, and then use it as "proof" that the scientific community agrees with them. You've been had. Scientists have spoken out left and right about how they were never consulted and never signed off on these things. But the left has no problem with issues of fact when they get in the way of issues of "truth."

CO2 is NOT pollution. Humans are not the main source of CO2. CO2 increases have never precluded a warming period in the Earth's history, it always follows a warming period. There's no SUVs on Mars, but the ice caps are shrinking there. The warmest year on record was in the 1930s, not the 1990s. These are all facts, and by themselves put human caused global warming in doubt. There is an argument.

0

Das_Ubermime 6 years, 7 months ago

"'Consensus is the business of politics. If it's consensus, it isn't science. If it's science, it isn't consensus. Period.'"

This quote comes from Michael Crichton. I could spend my time de-bunking him and his 'scientific expertise', but I'll just save some time and say: "Jurassic Park".

0

unite2revolt 6 years, 7 months ago

I saw the movie. I sat through hours of extended footage. I think we should let Al come to the Leid Center and talk here and then put it on our cable TV. I don't really think the point is whether or not Al Gore and the scientists are right or wrong as only time will prove that. I think the point is that the Earth is changing for some reason, maybe is because of planetary wobble or solar flares, maybe its CO2. What we has humans should be doing is figuring how to survive the coming changes. Every sort of natural disaster you can think of is worse & more common now then it was 100 even 50 years ago. Our country seems to be half on fire and half under water. It's easy to sit inside and ignore problems the rest of the world is having. The stuff in the movie that has already happened is scary. Scarier still is what could happen, not a thousand years from now or even a hundred, but in the very near future. Personally I hoping to still be here in 50 years, and it would be nice if I didn't have to live in an ice cave and be telling my grandkids stories of what it was like to have electricity.

0

avoice 6 years, 7 months ago

When it's raining, do we stand around and debate the reasons, and whether or not it's going to continue or stop, whether or not this represents a long-term pattern? Or do we get an umbrella and close the windows? Whether global warming is a trend, a phenomenon or a blip on the earth's historical radar screen, there is no denying that in the present day we are suffering. In the present day we need to make changes that will limit the effects of the current cycle, whether it's for one year or a thousand years. Even if all this is temporary, the current worldwide effects are devastating, far-reaching, and long lasting. Resources are less abundant and the extremes of weather combined with the extremes of global human population put extra stress on the resources we have. If for no other reason than this: CONSERVE.

0

Flap Doodle 6 years, 7 months ago

"Why isn't Pat Benetar the spokesperson for global warming?" I kinda like Pat Benetar. That might be a good gig for her....... Get her back in the public's eye.

0

kmat 6 years, 7 months ago

Newsweek just did an article on you morons. Read this first, then visit the links below to try to educate yourselves, if you are even capable. http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/20122975/site/newsweek/

These postings amaze me. The ignorance that still exists is incredible. At least it reminds me that I'm still in KS and only the bible is correct, the world is only 5000 years old and if the planet really is heating up it's because god wants it to. Those that don't have a grasp of what the hell is going on with our climate should quit typing on these message boards and do some simple googling. I don't think I've encountered a more ignorant group of people in my life (except for the time I personally met Brownback and his clan).

Before any more of you post you idiotic OPINIONS on the subject, do everyone (including yourself) a favor and do some research on the subject. Your hatred of Gore is childish and your unwillingness to educate yourself about an issue shows that you don't care about facts. Why isn't Pat Benetar the spokesperson for global warming? Can you come up with a more stupid question?

Argghhh!!! Even my father who drinks the right wing, paid for by oil money kool aid understands that this is a real issue. But then again, he's an educated man. I don't think we can say that for most of you. If you were educated, you've have enough common sense to know you should do research before writing a paper. I think you're all too lazy, so here's a little help.

http://www.epa.gov/climatechange/ http://topics.nytimes.com/top/news/science/topics/globalwarming/index.html?inline=nyt-classifier http://www.globalwarming.net/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=13&Itemid=26 http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/oa/climate/globalwarming.html

You would think living in a college town there would be a lot more educated people, but once again, this is still KS after all.

Let me ask you this, if more than 90% of all scientist in the world agreed that you had cancer and it could be cured by a certain course of treatment, but less than 10% of other doctors (who were paid for by the industries that will be damaged by your health findings) didn't agree, who would you believe? Would you risk it really being cancer and sit and wait to see if you did die, or would you do something about it? Even if you don't agree with what scientist (who unlike you studied about these subjects and are experts), can't you understand that no matter what polution is bad and we need to reduce it and start cleaning up this planet? I would have thought when the Cuyahoga River caught on fire in the 60's you might have started to put the pieces together that polution is bad. I guess until god personally speaks to you and tells you pollution is bad, you'll keep living in your little bubble.

Do an experiment - go stand behind a bus and breath in some fumes for a few minutes. Then tell me if you think polution is bad.

0

Agnostick 6 years, 7 months ago

The Truth in global warming is probably somewhere between the most extreme theories.

Agnostick agnostick@excite.com http://www.uscentrist.org

0

max1 6 years, 7 months ago

"The biggest fraud pushed on humanity has been human enduced global warming." -kansas778 kansas 778 is correct! This silly notion that human activity is the cause of atmospheric changes is just ridiculous beyond all imagination. Humans are tiny in comparison to our huge atmosphere, which reaches all the way to the stars -- anybody can see that! Oh sure we have pencil-pushing "scientists" drawing graphs and charts trying to alarm us, but that is just a scam of theirs to receive grant money. Some of those crackpots actually claim smog is man-made and that nearly half of the components of smog are created by cars and trucks alone. LA smog http://www.thewe.cc/thewei/&_/images6/environment/smog_los_angeles.jpe http://rustylopez.typepad.com/imagoarticulus/images/_mg_8132.jpg Houston smog http://p.vtourist.com/1193116-Houston_slyline_from_UH_Texas_pollution_included-Houston.jpg Denver smog http://ccc.atmos.colostate.edu/~hail/cool/polution/images/denver_smog2.jpg http://images.jupiterimages.com/common/detail/42/76/23057642.jpg

http://www.citymayors.com/environment/polluted_uscities.html The most polluted US cities in 2007 Rank Smog: 1 Los Angeles (CA) 2 Bakersfield (CA) 3 Visalia-Porterville (CA) 4 Fresno (CA) 5 Houston (TX) 6 Merced (CA) 7 Dallas (TX) 8 Sacramento (CA) 9 Baton Rouge (LA) 10 New York (NY) 11 Washington (DC), Baltimore (MD) 12 Philadelphia (PA) 13 Modesto (CA) 14 Hanford (CA) 15 Phoenix (AZ) 16 Charlotte (NC) 17 Las Vegas (NV) 18 Milwaukee (WI) 19 St Louis (MO) 20 El Centro (CA) 21 Kansas City (KS) 22 Beaumont (TX) 23 Chicago (IL) 24 Grand Rapids (MI) 25 Atlanta (GA) 26 Cleveland (OH)

Particles: 1 Los Angeles (CA) 2 Pittsburgh (PA) 3 Bakersfield (CA) 4 Birmingham (AL) 5 Detroit (MI) 6 Cleveland (OH) 7 Visalia (CA) 8 Cincinnati (OH) 9 Indianapolis (IN) 10 ST Louis (MO) 11 Chicago (IL) 12 Lancaster (PA) 13 Atlanta (GA) 14 York (PA) 15 Fresno (CA) 16 Weirton (WV) 17 Hanford (CA) 18 New York (NY) 19 Canton (OH) 20 Washington (DC) Baltimore (MD) 21 Charleston (WV) 22 Louisville (KY) 23 Huntington (WV) 24 Philadelphia (PA) 25 Hagerstown (MD) 26 Rome (GA)

0

americorps 6 years, 7 months ago

it is a fact that we are in a period of major climate change.

It is a fact that our pollution hase some effect on the climate

It is a fact that our pollution has other damaging results on the earth

it is a fact that fossil and coal and natural gas is a limited resource

It is a fact that reducing our pollution will lower disease and increase living conditions for billions of people.

Almost all scientists agree that reducing our polution will help the climate, they just disagree on how much.

Yet the neocons want to use that slim sliver of doubt as the golden key to continue destroying our earth.

They are simply monsters.

0

mick 6 years, 7 months ago

The American Enterprise Institute gets a lot of money from big oil. They were offering $10.000 to scientists and economists who would come out against evidence for climate change (The Guardian, Feb 2, 2007). So this puts the credibility at question of those who are denying the change.

0

preebo 6 years, 7 months ago

Yeti posted: "I just get so annoyed when some people come on here and talk about the "concensus" of scientists being in agreement."

Are you arguing that the MAJORITY of the Climatologists claim that Global Climate Change is real is in fact a farse? Or are you holding on to a waning MINORITY for your hypothesis that further study is needed? What in fact is your stance?

0

just_another_bozo_on_this_bus 6 years, 7 months ago

I'd say you don't know much about science, Yeti.

0

Roadkill_Rob 6 years, 7 months ago

Wake up, people. If you don't agree with me, please wake up.

Leftists and scientists are out to get so much grant money that they want the country to collapse. Wake up.

Al Gore invented global warming. Wake up.

Pollution isn't that bad. Come on people. Wake up.

0

TheYetiSpeaks 6 years, 7 months ago

Bozo-

At any rate, as I said before, I am for the lowering of emissions. I just get so annoyed when some people come on here and talk about the "concensus" of scientists being in agreement.

"Consensus is the business of politics. If it's consensus, it isn't science. If it's science, it isn't consensus. Period."

0

just_another_bozo_on_this_bus 6 years, 7 months ago

"He's probably one of the top ten loathesome public figures."

Really? Who is that is doing this "loathing" and what is the reason for it? Because he's a Democrat?

Are you a Gore-hater, R-T?

0

Tom Shewmon 6 years, 7 months ago

See, I'm not sitting here at my keyboard attempting to deny or argue directly against global warming, which somehow on some level, there probably is, I just have very strong feelings about Al Gore and global warming being nearly synonymous in virtually ever discussion or school of thought. He is a phoney-baloney and I do NOT feel that way just 'cause he's a Dem.......I actually respect some Dems. I don't like Trent Lott---I wouldn't like him bring the spokesperson either.

Why couldn't David Lee Roth or Pat Benatar or someone like that head it up?

Why can't I just whine without getting beat-up?

0

just_another_bozo_on_this_bus 6 years, 7 months ago

"Agenda" is a very broad term. Some agendas are very narrow and self-serving, such as those of the oil companies and the "scientists" they hire to promote their agenda. Other scientists are real scientists whose "agenda" is to conduct real science. There is no comparison between these two agendas, no matter how hard you try to assert it.

And, yes, Al Gore really does care. If he wanted to run for president, he could be doing so right now, and he'd likely get the nomination. Given the pitiful candidates the Republicans have to offer (Ron Paul is the only one with any integrity) he'd almost certainly be re-elected.

0

TheYetiSpeaks 6 years, 7 months ago

Here is a very good article about the danger of extreme thinking by BOTH sides of the debate: http://www.spiegel.de/international/spiegel/0,1518,342376,00.html

0

Tom Shewmon 6 years, 7 months ago

Again, I'm merely saying Al Gore is not the person to get max 'buy-in'. He's probably one of the top ten loathesome public figures.

0

TheYetiSpeaks 6 years, 7 months ago

"That's why they have resorted to claiming that anyone who studies climate science is corrupt, not just those sponsored by oil corporations"

Oh, come on...everyone has an agenda, everyone. You think Al Gore REALLY cares, or is being the spokesman for "global warming" a great political move for when he runs again.

0

just_another_bozo_on_this_bus 6 years, 7 months ago

Interesting. Apparently, even the deniers are now having to grudgingly admit that the evidence for human-induced global warming is pretty much undeniable. That's why they have resorted to claiming that anyone who studies climate science is corrupt, not just those sponsored by oil corporations, who have a very clear interest in debunking science, and replacing it with bought-and-paid-for psuedo-science.

0

Das_Ubermime 6 years, 7 months ago

No, no, no, right-thinker, you have got it all wrong. Liberals blame everything on Bush and conservatives blame everything on Clinton.

Blaming everything on Gore will require at least a 2/3 majority vote of the assembled conservatives. Have you gone through proper channels?

0

TheYetiSpeaks 6 years, 7 months ago

posted by preebo: "But leave the issues of fact and science to the professionals."

A curious statement, as any professional scientist will tell you that very, very little can be PROVEN by scientific method.

"There have been numerous papers written by numerous climatologists and they all come to the same conclusion"

So the Scientific Community is 100% on board with Global Warming Theory, eh? Now who's guilty of conjecture? By the way, did you notice that I am for lowering CO2 emissions and pollution? I just dont agree on the path to it. Yet you will still belittle someone who has professed to be comitted to the same outcome as you. Typical ultra-liberal...you only care about the argument, not the outcome.

0

scenebooster 6 years, 7 months ago

"set-up the government to even further commandeer our bank accounts and our freedoms. Wake up. "

Unintentional irony alert.

0

Tom Shewmon 6 years, 7 months ago

I didn't say that, das, I asked why of all people, is Al Gore heading this up----because he is an ultra-lib failure seeking to establish a legacy and set-up the government to even further commandeer our bank accounts and our freedoms. Wake up. Not buying it......I know there is a looney faction that has been peddling this theory for decades---hell I had lib teachers in elementary school trying to peddle this line of BS. I was very politically active at seven (now I'm kidding).

You guys are swell!

0

Das_Ubermime 6 years, 7 months ago

It is a mark of how little attention you pay to science that you think that scientists were not talking about it before Al Gore.

Perhaps it says something about you that you pay more attention to Al Gore than you do to scientists? Tell us, R-T, what are your secret feelings about Al Gore?

0

Flap Doodle 6 years, 7 months ago

I will sell myself some more carbon credits. That's make it all okay.

0

Tom Shewmon 6 years, 7 months ago

I'll concede this much to global warming/the global warming hysteria.

Of all people----of ALL PEOPLE------why in the hell is Albert Gore Jr. the spokesperson?

Of all people.

Why did not the science community themselves start screaming about it----why did it take Al Gore?

I think I know why, but that is my willfully ignorant, blind follower, neocon mind at work.

0

preebo 6 years, 7 months ago

Yeti,

Again here you are trying raise some type of conjecture regarding the issue of Global Climate Change, but yet you rely solely on your "opinion".

What you fail to understand is, that this issue is not subjective nor is there any conjecture. This is a scientific matter, which has stood up to an INTERNATIONAL test of validity. There have been numerous papers written by numerous climatologists and they all come to the same conclusion, and that is Global Climate Change is a real and Human causes are "most likely to blame."

So you want to throw your opinion around... choose a topic that needs it. But leave the issues of fact and science to the professionals.

0

Pilgrim 6 years, 7 months ago

Gee, Mark, and the thought never crossed your mind that a lot of those scientists who are leading the Chicken Little brigade had no agenda behind their studies? There's no chance they just want to keep the research grant gravy train rolling down the tracks? Where'd all that grant money come from, Mark? Hmmmmm?

0

Das_Ubermime 6 years, 7 months ago

FTA:

"It is time for international agreements by which humans worldwide equitably cut back on releasing CO2 into Earth's atmosphere."

Yeah, like that is a feasible goal which will accomplish much. Why not have international agreements on fighting corruption while you are at it.

Bringing up the normal gradual fluxuations in the Earth's climate is irrelevant to the topic of the conversation. That is, unless you think that our modern cities were built tens of thousands of years ago.

"It's a multi-billion dollar industry people, wake up! If they admitted it was BS, what would happed to those billions of dollars?"

Okay. Sure it is. You know what, there is an even larger amount of money spent on research that supports the idea that humans have DNA. If they admitted it was BS, what would happen to those trillions of dollars?

"there can be nothing proved when there is no control group."

You are only half right. Not only can nothing be proved when there is no control group, but nothing can be proved when there is a control group. Scientific hypotheses and theories can only be supported, not prooven. Further, experiments with controls are not the only way to find support.

0

TheYetiSpeaks 6 years, 7 months ago

I believe what jmadison was trying to say is that there can be nothing proved when there is no control group. I think we can all agree that Earth's climate has been an ever-changing phenomenon and therefore impossible to predict. With the absence of a norm it is impossible to say that Global Warming exists. I find it funny when the charge is brought up by one side of this debate that the other side has scientists that are bought and paid for. Folks, if you cant see that both sides have turned this into a money-making, people-controlling venture then maybe you too have been swindled My own opinion: There's no such thing as "Global Warming", but it couldn't hurt to lower CO2 emissions.

0

kansas778 6 years, 7 months ago

The biggest fraud pushed on humanity has been human enduced global warming. It's a multi-billion dollar industry people, wake up! If they admitted it was BS, what would happed to those billions of dollars? The amount of money spent by "evil polluters" like Exxon is only a fraction of the money that goes to the other side.

0

windex 6 years, 7 months ago

jmadison: Our understanding of long term secular changes in the climate is abysmal.

? As opposed to our understanding of long term sacred changes?

0

jmadison 6 years, 8 months ago

The Kansas Glaciation period 300000 years ago saw glaciation as far south as Northeast Kansas including Douglas County. One could argue that global warming has occurred since then. What is normal? Why has there been periodic episodes of ice ages since then, including most recently about 10000 yrs ago, although glaciation did not reach this far south on that occasion. Our understanding of long term secular changes in the climate is abysmal. Again, how should one define normal?

0

Commenting has been disabled for this item.