Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
The same Time magazine also predicted another ice-age and Global Cooling in 1977. So consider the source.
...and the only reason why man-made global warming gathered steam and became an international sensation was because they found a way to make money, and politicians and despots found a way to gain power and control over the people.
They could never find a way to make a buck off global cooling, over population, natural resource shortages or the ozone hole.
This man-made global warming is a complete scam.
This scam has brought together many unlikely partners, environmentalists, politicians, corporations, and institutions of science, education, partisan democrats, race hustlers, socialists, Wall Street investment bankers, communists, fascists and despotic dictators. Its not every day all these unlikely partners will be locking elbows and dancing to the same tune.
that quote makes no sense, it is alarmist and provides no scientific support for its claim. Read it again:
Quote:
News Corp. announced its plan in May 2007 with a groundbreaking speech from chairman Rupert Murdoch. "Climate change poses clear, catastrophic threats," declared Murdoch. "We may not agree on the extent, but we certainly can't afford the risk of inaction."
Ok, in the blue he says it IS a threat and even proclaims the significance of the threat while pointing out that it is "CLEAR". Yet... he imediately follows this by saying "We may not agree on the extent", that is they do not agree as to what extent the climate is changing and its threats, but we need to act?
That statement is typical BS politics. It is fear mongering used to heard ignorant sheep.
that quote makes no sense, it is alarmist and provides no scientific support for its claim. Read it again:
I'm sure they wrote the title to show hypocrisy in his organization. $ > truth.
Quote:
Ok, in the blue he says it IS a threat and even proclaims the significance of the threat while pointing out that it is "CLEAR". Yet... he imediately follows this by saying "We may not agree on the extent", that is they do not agree as to what extent the climate is changing and its threats, but we need to act?
That statement is typical BS politics. It is fear mongering used to heard ignorant sheep.
News Corp. announced its plan in May 2007 with a groundbreaking speech from chairman Rupert Murdoch. "Climate change poses clear, catastrophic threats," declared Murdoch. "We may not agree on the extent, but we certainly can't afford the risk of inaction."
Look, I'm not in favor of radical cap and trade type legislation. But Murdoch is right on about climate change. It's happening, but we don't know exactly to what extent. His statements (red and blue) are pretty easy to understand. I guess he could be fear mongering to some. But I thought his speech (which you probably didn't read) wasn't over the top...it was allot of common sense.
Do you think he's wrong by reducing News Corp's carbon footprint? I think it's a good thing for the longevity of our planet. It's not radical.
I'm sure they wrote the title to show hypocrisy in his organization. $ > truth.
News Corp. announced its plan in May 2007 with a groundbreaking speech from chairman Rupert Murdoch. "Climate change poses clear, catastrophic threats," declared Murdoch. "We may not agree on the extent, but we certainly can't afford the risk of inaction."
Look, I'm not in favor of radical cap and trade type legislation. But Murdoch is right on about climate change. It's happening, but we don't know exactly to what extent. His statements (red and blue) are pretty easy to understand. I guess he could be fear mongering to some. But I thought his speech (which you probably didn't read) wasn't over the top...it was allot of common sense.
Do you think he's wrong by reducing News Corp's carbon footprint? I think it's a good thing for the longevity of our planet. It's not radical.
Climate change is happening, it has always happened. This would be absurd to think otherwise. The problem with his statement is it does not contest the fact that there are massive errors in the research, nor does it contest the fact that the changes may be significant or not.
They do not know. So... his demand for action makes no sense.
Folks, the sun rises each and every day, but... we noticed a lag over the course of the year and an increase as well. We are not sure such is evident of anything, but unless we act, the results could be catastrophic!!
Sorry, it is stupid, irresponsible, and fear mongering.
what about volcanos? sea-salt evaporation? sun-spots? wapasha (above), you are right on. its just another hoax for the politicians to get more control on our lives. btw- there is NO concensus by science, either way, on this topic.
If you want something real to be afraid of, the government is working on a bill to take over control of your IRA's and 401K's, while they keep you focused on red herrings like global warming. It is time to start worrying about the real dangers like the criminals in Washington DC selling out the people.
Do you have any proof on any of those statements or just unsubstantiated statements. Tell me do you think the coal industry has any interest in the debate, sure have put quite a bit of money into their lobby.
Point: the no.1 greenhouse gas is WATER VAPOR (about 1 - 2 % of the atmosphere). (Which may contribute 36 - 72% of the effect)
Point: there is no way to tax steam or evaporation.
Point: Carbon dioxide is roughly 350 parts per million (0.000350) or 0.04%). (Which may contribute 9-26% of the effect)
Point: More CO2 is released in one year from the ocean warming up than all of humanity's industry combined. (Outgassing of CO2 is a normal process of chemistry - just warm up your soda to see it happen.)
What is in dispute is the claim that HUMANS are the source of world wide climate change, warming or cooling.
Over the past year, anecdotal evidence for a cooling planet has exploded. China has its coldest winter in 100 years. Baghdad sees its first snow in all recorded history. North America has the most snowcover in 50 years, with places like Wisconsin the highest since record-keeping began. Record levels of Antarctic sea ice, record cold in Minnesota, Texas, Florida, Mexico, Australia, Iran, Greece, South Africa, Greenland, Argentina, Chile -- the list goes on and on. No more than anecdotal evidence, to be sure. But now, that evidence has been supplanted by hard scientific fact. All four major global temperature tracking outlets (Hadley, NASA's GISS, UAH, RSS) have released updated data. All show that over the past year, global temperatures have dropped precipitously.
The total amount of cooling ranges from 0.65C up to 0.75C -- a value large enough to wipe out most of the warming recorded over the past 100 years. All in one year's time. For all four sources, it's the single fastest temperature change ever recorded, either up or down.
This begs the question: by doing NOTHING, global warming has been eliminated, so what would have happened if we expended huge resources to "sequester carbon"?
I think the data refutes the assumption that computer models can accurately predict climate change. And that "humanity" is not to blame for the macroclimate.
However, efficiency and frugality in the use of resources is a wise course of action. But do not rush into the embrace of politicians and bureaucrats, for you may find your pocket picked.
more people in this country need to take Science 101 and stop listening to snake oil salesman Gore
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
its just another hoax for the politicians to get more control on our lives. btw- there is NO concensus by science, either way, on this topic.
