Global Warming Theorists Computers Hacked

[Guest Sundancefisher]

Too Funny!

 

Ya gotta watch...

 

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nEiLgbBGKVk

 

 

[calkid75]

I am so glad to see more evidence to plant doubt in peoples minds about the whole Global warming/climate change theory. I just wish this was getting a lot more press time. I really like the headline "Greatest Scientic Hoax of our time!" .... This seems to be a hard topic to argue against, how does one argue against protecting the environment. I just hate to see all the wasted efforts into trying to stop CO2 emmisions. There are so many things that will have a greater impact today (ie, clean water, stopping other toxic gas emmisions, ...) I am a sceptic, but I feel that most of the plans that people have to solve the so called problem are just wealth transfer schemes and that I am not interested in. Also if all the world is not involved, especially India and China it does not matter what we do. So I say lets take care of our back yard, fight for clean water and real harmful gases, not ones naturally used by plants and take care of preparing for change. Change is the only constant. Hopefully these emails will encourage many of the sceptics to speak up and stop our Governments from joining in on any international agreements. They can count me in, if they find a way to undermine any momentum towards anything like Kyoto.

[SupremeLeader]

Global warming deniers’ consistently raise the idea of 'trends'.

 

The 'trend' since 1998 is that the climate is actually cooling.

 

Do you know what a 'trend' is defined as in the scientific community (no matter what side you're on)?

 

A trend is something that doesn't have enough evidence /statistics behind it that in can be considered significant or of any considerable relevance.

 

Mention the word trend in any scientific journal, or to anyone in the scientific community (again- it does not matter what side you're on).....I promise you a lot of yawns.

 

 

 

[SupremeLeader]

I am so glad to see more evidence to plant doubt in peoples minds about the whole Global warming/climate change theory. I just wish this was getting a lot more press time. I really like the headline "Greatest Scientic Hoax of our time!" .... This seems to be a hard topic to argue against, how does one argue against protecting the environment. I just hate to see all the wasted efforts into trying to stop CO2 emmisions. There are so many things that will have a greater impact today (ie, clean water, stopping other toxic gas emmisions, ...) I am a sceptic, but I feel that most of the plans that people have to solve the so called problem are just wealth transfer schemes and that I am not interested in. Also if all the world is not involved, especially India and China it does not matter what we do. So I say lets take care of our back yard, fight for clean water and real harmful gases, not ones naturally used by plants and take care of preparing for change. Change is the only constant. Hopefully these emails will encourage many of the sceptics to speak up and stop our Governments from joining in on any international agreements. They can count me in, if they find a way to undermine any momentum towards anything like Kyoto.

 

 

For sure...our back yard is far more important than anyones elses.

[SupremeLeader]

Just like volcanoes and forest fires.

 

 

Humans produce 150 times more C02 than volcanoes do over the course of a year.

 

 

I'll show you my source if you show me yours.

[SupremeLeader]

So interesting how the denial side main tactic is to abuse and name call Gore and Suzuki.

 

Its as if Gore and Suzuki created the atmosphere proper. The climate was changing when these guys were kids. Suzuki and Gore did not create the physical and chemical properties of the atmosphere; somehow calling them names will prove that the Glaciers are not really shrinking and the Arctic is not really melting?

 

It's really sad how Exxon, and these recent 'hackers' have brainwashed so many people. Humanity will marvel at success of Big Oil propeganda in the future.

 

They must have studied Hitler........the bigger the lie; the easier it is for people to believe.

[rehsifylf]

Yes because Sarah Palin, Glenn Beck, Sean Hannity, and Rush Limbaugh are so much more credible and trustworthy.

 

Last I checked I didn't mention anything about suggesting that any politician would be trustworthy. This wasn't an attack of left leaning politicians - I just can't stand the guy. I don't like the others you list either. BTW - I have far more trust in Obama than many other politicians but in the end, he is just a politician and I don't trust any of them. They are like sales guys - they can seem really nice, but in the end, they're trying to sell you something and that is their primary motivation.

 

Turn it into a left-wing right-wing debate if you want, but the issue here is not about whether or not there is global warming, it is about the "righteous' side being caught red-handed intentionally deceiving the public, because, even though they can't prove it, they just 'know it to be true' - and they are lying for all the right reasons. As for Gore - it is not about money for him, it is about fame. His 15 minutes were just about up before this opportunity came along.

 

The prepondrance of evidence is NOT on his side, because there is NO evidence that man has impacted climate change and NO evidence that we ever can. The preponderance of evidence shows that throughout history on earth, the climate is constantly changing - warming and cooling. It cracks me up that we spend so much time debating whether it is warming or cooling - and what we can do about it - shows just how arrogant humans are.

 

BTW rickr - the whole popular vote thing. There are three other presidential candidates that won popular vote and didn't get to be presidient - its how your system works. In 1960 - JFK only got popular vote by .1% over Nixon - yet the victory was a landslide in electoral votes, no-one ever suggested the 1960 results were close. The fact that Al keeps harping on it is one of the reasons I can't stand the guy.

[rehsifylf]

Humans produce 150 times more C02 than volcanoes do over the course of a year.

 

 

I'll show you my source if you show me yours.

 

how about that big volcano in 1815? The largest volcanic eruption in recorded history is that out Mount Tambora on Sumbawa island, Indonesia. Taking place on 10 April 1815. About 100 km3 (38.6 mi3) of pyroclastic trachyandesite was ejected, enough to qualify as a 7 on the Volcanic Explosivity Index. All vegetation on the island was destroyed. 10,000 people were killed in the pyroclastic flows.

 

The eruption ejected enough ash into the upper atmosphere to block part of the light from the Sun for months on end. This caused 1816 to be called The Year Without a Summer, in which crops failed worldwide and at least 300,000 people starved or froze. On the plus side, the atmospheric dust from the volcanic explosion caused interesting optical effects, including the most spectacular sunsets in history.

 

Although the explosion of Mt. Tambora was large, it is not the largest volcanic eruption in all of human history — just recorded history. The largest volcanic eruption in all human history is that of the former Mt. Toba. This was about 28 times larger than the 1815 eruption, and it is believed that the global human population may have been reduced to as few as 1,000 breeding pairs in the aftermath of the event.

 

What isn't clear is how man could have caused the eruption, because certainly this couldn't have just happened by chance?

[Smitty]

What is the most destructive thing in this debate - by quite a large margin - is the lack of integrity, coherence, and data fudging - on both sides.

 

Never, in the history of humans, has science been so untrustworthy. Because of the scientists - on both sides.

 

I think I am like many Canadians who just want to give the finger to proponents - on both sides.

 

The debate just pisses me off in the end, because, for an issue so important, no one on both sides is willing to keep an open mind long enough to get to the point where a few people - on either side - might actually say "you know, you might have a point there. You might be right". Not going to happen though is it? If it did, I better check my meds, I might have accidentally swallowed the red pill.

 

Sad.

 

Smitty

[SupremeLeader]

how about that big volcano in 1815? The largest volcanic eruption in recorded history is that out Mount Tambora on Sumbawa island, Indonesia. Taking place on 10 April 1815. About 100 km3 (38.6 mi3) of pyroclastic trachyandesite was ejected, enough to qualify as a 7 on the Volcanic Explosivity Index. All vegetation on the island was destroyed. 10,000 people were killed in the pyroclastic flows.

 

The eruption ejected enough ash into the upper atmosphere to block part of the light from the Sun for months on end. This caused 1816 to be called The Year Without a Summer, in which crops failed worldwide and at least 300,000 people starved or froze. On the plus side, the atmospheric dust from the volcanic explosion caused interesting optical effects, including the most spectacular sunsets in history.

 

Although the explosion of Mt. Tambora was large, it is not the largest volcanic eruption in all of human history — just recorded history. The largest volcanic eruption in all human history is that of the former Mt. Toba. This was about 28 times larger than the 1815 eruption, and it is believed that the global human population may have been reduced to as few as 1,000 breeding pairs in the aftermath of the event.

 

What isn't clear is how man could have caused the eruption, because certainly this couldn't have just happened by chance?

 

Your factoid is entirely irrelevant to the average I posted.

 

[SupremeLeader]

it is about the "righteous' side being caught red-handed intentionally deceiving the public, because, even though they can't prove it, they just 'know it to be true' - and they are lying for all the right reasons

 

The 'rightous' side? I guess that all depends on which side you pick.

 

In your case you pick the denial side....that has been caught far more times deceiving the public than the 'rightous' side ever has ie. Exxon's phony research.

[canadensis]

So interesting how the denial side main tactic is to abuse and name call Gore and Suzuki.

 

You do not have to agree with someone to respect them. I respect Suzuki.

 

 

[reevesr1]

Turn it into a left-wing right-wing debate if you want, but the issue here is not about whether or not there is global warming, it is about the "righteous' side being caught red-handed intentionally deceiving the public, because, even though they can't prove it, they just 'know it to be true' - and they are lying for all the right reasons. As for Gore - it is not about money for him, it is about fame. His 15 minutes were just about up before this opportunity came along.

This debate is almost exclusively right side vs left side. And I agree with Smitty-it's not hard to find instances where scientific integrity is lacking.

 

And 15 minutes? The man was in the public eye for what? 20 some odd years? How could you possibly know what his motivation is? Most of the "anti-Gore" stuff started in his presidential campaign (the one where he got the most votes, but somehow GW became president, again), driven by the right. Find anything you can and slag the guy method (practiced by the left as well). While I have not always agreed with his politics, I've always found him very well informed and very well intentioned.

[canadensis]

What is the most destructive thing in this debate - by quite a large margin - is the lack of integrity, coherence, and data fudging - on both sides.

 

Never, in the history of humans, has science been so untrustworthy. Because of the scientists - on both sides.

 

I think I am like many Canadians who just want to give the finger to proponents - on both sides.

 

The debate just pisses me off in the end, because, for an issue so important, no one on both sides is willing to keep an open mind long enough to get to the point where a few people - on either side - might actually say "you know, you might have a point there. You might be right". Not going to happen though is it? If it did, I better check my meds, I might have accidentally swallowed the red pill.

 

Sad.

 

Smitty

 

Great post.

 

Like most debates the truth likely lies somewhere in the middle. The thing is with this debate there is no way to quantify the data on either side. The one fact remains our climate is in a constant state of change, always has been and always will. There has been waaay more dramatic climate change in the history of the world when it was definately NOT caused by humans, this is fact.

 

Do Human actions accelerate this process? Can we stop or slow climate change? This will always be the debate as there is no definitive answer..

[rehsifylf]

So interesting how the denial side main tactic is to abuse and name call Gore and Suzuki.

......

They must have studied Hitler........the bigger the lie; the easier it is for people to believe.

 

There are many sides to this debate. "Denial Side" is a derrogatory term created by one group to refer to another - a form of propoganda.

 

I'd say there are at least four different camps here:

 

1) Don't believe we are in a Global Warming phase (i.e. believe we are cooling)

2) Believe we are in a global warming phase but phase not caused/significantly impacted by man

3) Believe we are in a global warming phase, believe man is the cuase of the warming, and believe we can change the outcome

4) Believe we might be in global warming, believe man might be a major contributer, but don't believe there is anything we can do to change it

 

There are probably more.

 

I have nothing against anyone who chooses to pick any camp (except AG - but my dislike for him has nothing to do with the climate change thing). I do have a problem with folks who attack others - calling them 'deniers' or 'studiers of Hitler' because they choose to believe something different, especially when the so-called 'facts' are dubious on all sides.

 

I also have an issue with those that make statements like, "The proof is irrefutable", when clearly it is refutable.

[SupremeLeader]

There are many sides to this debate. "Denial Side" is a derrogatory term created by one group to refer to another - a form of propoganda.

 

I'd say there are at least four different camps here:

 

1) Don't believe we are in a Global Warming phase (i.e. believe we are cooling)

2) Believe we are in a global warming phase but phase not caused/significantly impacted by man

3) Believe we are in a global warming phase, believe man is the cuase of the warming, and believe we can change the outcome

4) Believe we might be in global warming, believe man might be a major contributer, but don't believe there is anything we can do to change it

 

There are probably more.

 

I have nothing against anyone who chooses to pick any camp (except AG - but my dislike for him has nothing to do with the climate change thing). I do have a problem with folks who attack others - calling them 'deniers' or 'studiers of Hitler' because they choose to believe something different, especially when the so-called 'facts' are dubious on all sides.

 

I also have an issue with those that make statements like, "The proof is irrefutable", when clearly it is refutable.

 

Denier is not derogatory term..... you deny global warming.

 

Every political scientist (and many politicians) study Hitler; it is not an attack and in this case, I thank the moderators for recognising this. Studying a dictator's tactic to sway public opinion has been occuring for thousands of years.

 

 

 

[SupremeLeader]

Why is that the majority-minority opinion in oil rich areas deny climate change? Is it some kind of aberration, or are people's views slanted because of the threat to their monetary stability?

 

Or is it because they view the science with neutrality? If so, do areas where people don’t have vested interest in oil slant their opinions against oil based economies?

 

[Guest Sundancefisher]

There are many sides to this debate. "Denial Side" is a derrogatory term created by one group to refer to another - a form of propoganda.

 

I'd say there are at least four different camps here:

 

1) Don't believe we are in a Global Warming phase (i.e. believe we are cooling)

2) Believe we are in a global warming phase but phase not caused/significantly impacted by man

3) Believe we are in a global warming phase, believe man is the cuase of the warming, and believe we can change the outcome

4) Believe we might be in global warming, believe man might be a major contributer, but don't believe there is anything we can do to change it

 

There are probably more.

 

I have nothing against anyone who chooses to pick any camp (except AG - but my dislike for him has nothing to do with the climate change thing). I do have a problem with folks who attack others - calling them 'deniers' or 'studiers of Hitler' because they choose to believe something different, especially when the so-called 'facts' are dubious on all sides.

 

I also have an issue with those that make statements like, "The proof is irrefutable", when clearly it is refutable.

 

X1

 

It is scary since guys like Supremeleader try to scare people INTO believing rather than discuss the points in question.

 

If the IPCC felt global warming was a fact and undisputable...why did they change the terminolgy to "climate change".

 

The hockey stick issue is a big concern. No more hockey stick. Fundamental problem.

 

This whole thing about control of the studies and trying to discredit those with opposing views and trying to keep research from being published is scary poor science.

 

Cherry picking data such as using tree rings from one tree but not tree rings from a tree right beside it discredits that data as being untrustworthy yet considered gold by some.

 

Emails about attempts to hid and manipulate data is frightening.

 

Fear sells news...and news is fully on board with supporting global warming. That biased approach is scary when dealing with public perception.

 

10 years ago...we were all going to die cause the temperatures had never been higher...now we know temperatures have dropped for 10 years...yet it means nothing. Supremeleader would say a 10 year trend is meaningless but he would also say a 100,000 year trend is meaningless. If the time frame does not fit the point...global warmers ignore it. Fact is that over the past 300 million years we have had warm periods (Alberta was a tropical oasis) with tons of CO2 in the atmosphere to periods with ice ages and glaciers (icy wasteland). Man did not cause those. Why did they occur? Global warmers would say past changes in Earth's climate is meaningless since the models show we are all going to die.

 

The models totally exclude the effects of clouds and cloud cover. They do not know if clouds warm the Earth, cool the Earth, alter climate globally or only locally. Therefore one (and there are many others) major factor that is ignored can change the data to determine if as Albertans we lose BILLIONS of DOLLARS to a farce or spend BILLIONS of Dollars for a real reason. The fear ticket gets played time and time again that if we don't spend it...if we wait another second...your children will die.

 

Powerful messages from a group that seems to be manipulating data and control contrary thinking based upon these emails.

 

Absolutely frightening since we as normal people would never ever give our bank accounts over to the most negative person in the neighbourhood but we are giving it all away to these people.

 

Absolutely frightening.

[SupremeLeader]

X1

 

It is scary since guys like Supremeleader try to scare people INTO believing rather than discuss the points in question.

 

If the IPCC felt global warming was a fact and undisputable...why did they change the terminolgy to "climate change".

 

The hockey stick issue is a big concern. No more hockey stick. Fundamental problem.

 

This whole thing about control of the studies and trying to discredit those with opposing views and trying to keep research from being published is scary poor science.

 

Cherry picking data such as using tree rings from one tree but not tree rings from a tree right beside it discredits that data as being untrustworthy yet considered gold by some.

 

Emails about attempts to hid and manipulate data is frightening.

 

Fear sells news...and news is fully on board with supporting global warming. That biased approach is scary when dealing with public perception.

 

10 years ago...we were all going to die cause the temperatures had never been higher...now we know temperatures have dropped for 10 years...yet it means nothing. Supremeleader would say a 10 year trend is meaningless but he would also say a 100,000 year trend is meaningless. If the time frame does not fit the point...global warmers ignore it. Fact is that over the past 300 million years we have had warm periods (Alberta was a tropical oasis) with tons of CO2 in the atmosphere to periods with ice ages and glaciers (icy wasteland). Man did not cause those. Why did they occur? Global warmers would say past changes in Earth's climate is meaningless since the models show we are all going to die.

 

The models totally exclude the effects of clouds and cloud cover. They do not know if clouds warm the Earth, cool the Earth, alter climate globally or only locally. Therefore one (and there are many others) major factor that is ignored can change the data to determine if as Albertans we lose BILLIONS of DOLLARS to a farce or spend BILLIONS of Dollars for a real reason. The fear ticket gets played time and time again that if we don't spend it...if we wait another second...your children will die.

 

Powerful messages from a group that seems to be manipulating data and control contrary thinking based upon these emails.

 

Absolutely frightening since we as normal people would never ever give our bank accounts over to the most negative person in the neighbourhood but we are giving it all away to these people.

 

Absolutely frightening.

 

MOD EDIT (BBT)

 

 

Your last sentence summed up your true intent regarding this topic. And for the record.......what have you given away so far?

 

Nuff said.

[Guest Sundancefisher]

MOD EDIT (BBT)

 

 

Your last sentence summed up your true intent regarding this topic. And for the record.......what have you given away so far?

 

Nuff said.

 

Ed Stelmach is planning on 1 billion in spending on carbon capture initiatives... That is a lot of money out of everyones pocket. Country wide carbon capture initiatives are looking at added tax on transportation, goods, services. It all amounts to taxes. Added taxes harms the economy...not improves it. The value added benefit here is not shown except that everyone can agree...temperatures fluctuate. We can't truly grasp that concept yet as humans are not smart enough to predict the climate 5 days from now let alone 50 years from now.

 

In case anyone cares...

 

Yes I work for an oil company (taxes on oil and gas hurts the consumer not the companies since as a commodity we are limited and all you do is slow consumption). In a growing economy and growing population...that slow down would only be a blip with the exception...all the other market sectors get hit way, way harder. Coal will be the first to go...long before clean burning natural gas... Energy is energy...you can not stop using it. You can't stop driving, heating your car, buying clothes, food etc. If anything...as Natural Gas is way more environmentally friendly than coal...this only aids to help energy companies.

 

Yes I am also trained in University as a biologist and know and understand research more than most. SL I am looking objectively at both sides. I look at these supposed studies to see how much substance there is. I am saddened by the lack of true science. We are in a phase of tabloid science right now...crank out another scary story on global warming...keep a number in reserve so that we can keep people shaking in their boots. That is just sad. Your average person...just doesn't get it without some serious reading. Many people honestly and somewhat fairly unfortunately put to much trust in these global warming zealots. I actually think people would get a second opinion from their doctors before actually reading a few studies themselves and asking someone knowledgeable if their is any serious holes in their assumptions.

 

Yes I hate spending money...anyones money...they drill that into us here...pardon the pun...

 

Sun

 

P.S. Trying to "out" me as working for the oil patch neither scares me or concerns me. As mentioned before...you will suffer...oil companies will not.

 

If you will address my points/questions rather than being concerned I can feed my family...that would be awesome.

 

If the IPCC felt global warming was a fact and undisputable...why did they change the terminolgy to "climate change"?

 

The hockey stick issue is a big concern. No more hockey stick. Fundamental problem. How come now that this hockey stick model is thrown out...this trigger of the problem is gone and yet there is still the propaganda that says...wait...some day the temperatures will rise again? Does not rising and falling and rising and falling temperatures just indicate a natural cycle of change?

 

This whole thing about control of the studies and trying to discredit those with opposing views and trying to keep research from being published is scary poor science. Do you agree with not allowing free thought on the issue?

 

Cherry picking data such as using tree rings from one tree but not tree rings from a tree right beside it discredits that data as being untrustworthy yet considered gold by some. Does cherry picking data concern you?

 

Emails about attempts to hid and manipulate data is frightening. Do you approve of this?

 

Fact is...10 years ago the IPCC said we were doomed and the hockey stick model proves it. The hockey model was false and now temperatures 10 years later are down... Trend or no trend what this tells me is that the information presented is not clear cut and concise and finalized... It says nobody know where we are in the climate cycle and nobody knows if we are meaningless to the equation or causing harm... Would you not agree?

 

[unclebuck]

This thread is moronic, the bottom line is would you like to breathe clean (er) air or not? To me it is a pollution issue more than anything a g;pba; warming issue. Anyone who says that co2 is not pollution has never breathed the smog of a large city. Maybe not but whatever is coming out the exhaust pipe is burning my throat worse than a shot of rubbing alcohol.lol

 

Yes Aberta used to be tropical - it also used to lie near the equator , It also used to be under the ocean - so what? (plate tectonics). Everyone gets so excited about this crap and I'm not sure what the point is. Just do what you can on your own make your self less of a burden to the Environment. Government and big industry are full of it, we are the pawns.

[Guest Sundancefisher]

This thread is moronic, the bottom line is would you like to breathe clean (er) air or not? To me it is a pollution issue more than anything a g;pba; warming issue. Anyone who says that co2 is not pollution has never breathed the smog of a large city. Maybe not but whatever is coming out the exhaust pipe is burning my throat worse than a shot of rubbing alcohol.lol

 

Yes Aberta used to be tropical - it also used to lie near the equator , It also used to be under the ocean - so what? (plate tectonics). Everyone gets so excited about this crap and I'm not sure what the point is. Just do what you can on your own make your self less of a burden to the Environment. Government and big industry are full of it, we are the pawns.

 

It is posts like this that need clarification such the wrong information is not believed to be correct...

 

Smog is not CO2... CO2 is always around. It is what makes plants grow. Also don't confuse CO2 with CO... Carbon Monoxide is a killer.

 

 

http://wiki.answers.com/Q/What_is_the_majo...l_found_in_smog

 

"Smog," a term coined in 1905 to describe the combination of smoke and fog rising from factory smokestacks during the Industrial Revolution, is mostly comprised of sulphur dioxide (sometimes called "SOX").

 

However, since the introduction of the automobile, vehicular emissions and the increased use of fossil fuels for heating and industry have introduced new chemicals to the atmosphere, changing the composition of smog. This is called "photochemical smog."

 

Along with sulphur dioxide, the primary pollutants of photochemical smog are volatile organic compounds (VOC) and nitrogen oxides (NOX). These primary pollutants interact with the heat of the sun to produce various hazardous chemicals known as "secondary pollutants," which include peroxyacetyl nitrates and tropospheric ozone.

 

http://oceanworld.tamu.edu/resources/ocean...atmosphere.html

 

 

[SupremeLeader]

Ed Stelmach is planning on 1 billion in spending on carbon capture initiatives... That is a lot of money out of everyones pocket. Country wide carbon capture initiatives are looking at added tax on transportation, goods, services. It all amounts to taxes. Added taxes harms the economy...not improves it. The value added benefit here is not shown except that everyone can agree...temperatures fluctuate. We can't truly grasp that concept yet as humans are not smart enough to predict the climate 5 days from now let alone 50 years from now.

 

Where do you get your facts? Stelmach is spending 495 million over 15 years......33 million a year; a drop in the bucket when one considers the environmental cost.

 

 

Yes I am also trained in University as a biologist and know and understand research more than most.

 

Perhaps, but in that case you're not showing it - first of all by using and pointing out fringe websites to support your facts, and in your most recent post- Wikipedia. If you used those sources in a post-secondary paper you would fail -that is a fact.

 

SL I am looking objectively at both sides. I look at these supposed studies to see how much substance there is. I am saddened by the lack of true science. We are in a phase of tabloid science right now...crank out another scary story on global warming...keep a number in reserve so that we can keep people shaking in their boots. That is just sad. Your average person...just doesn't get it without some serious reading. Many people honestly and somewhat fairly unfortunately put to much trust in these global warming zealots. I actually think people would get a second opinion from their doctors before actually reading a few studies themselves and asking someone knowledgeable if their is any serious holes in their assumptions.

 

I think you mean your saddened by the media sensationalization. In regards to getting second opinions, unfortunately, many of the second opinions have come from the largest contributers of C02 (Exxon). If you work in Education you'll support funding and protectionism, if your work in healthcare you'll support funding and expansion, if you work in the oil industry you'll resist critisism regarding climate change; it's called bias. And sorry Sun, you look at the studies to see how much substance there is? Maybe; if it suits your agenda. You should head down to the Maldives and tell people your thoughts, or a closer venue may be the Inuit on Baffin Island.

 

P.S. Trying to "out" me as working for the oil patch neither scares me or concerns me. As mentioned before...you will suffer...oil companies will not.

 

Wow, and I thought it was only the media that pumped out scare tactics?

 

If the IPCC felt global warming was a fact and undisputable...why did they change the terminolgy to "climate change"?

 

Climate change is a long-term change in the Earth's climate....they never changed their terminology; it's called the Intergovernmental Panal on Climate Change. It was created to address Global Warming which defined is: the increase in Earth’s average surface temperature due to rising levels of greenhouse gases.

[calkid75]

Sundance, this is what I tell people. The problem with this issue is so many people see Global warming as caring for the environment, but it is missing the target. People should be angry with our politicians that they are fighting CO2 when there are so many other things that directly/undisputably effect our lives and the lives of all living things. This is not just about our back yard .... looking around the world and the biggest issue might be clean fresh water, we are lucky to be blessed by nature here. I a lot of ways Canada's lack of population when compared to other areas of the world has helped us keep a clean envirnment around us. But getting to our backyard I just think that the best place to start is in our own back yard. (Kinda lead by example). I just don't like the fact people are trying to get us to chase the wrong boogie man (CO2 is natural and not the greatest risk to our existance or health). Water is just an easy example ... there are all the other harmful emmissions that we release. I just bothers me that we are WASTING so much money world wide that could be better used to fight real issues wether environmental or health related.

 

[TerryH]

More interesting reading -- a good dose of common sense in my view. Terry

 

Premature Policy

How zealotry came to pervert climate science