Global Warming, scientists speak

[Hakkola]

Interesting article.

http://epw.senate.gov/public/index.cfm?FuseAction=Minority.Blogs&ContentRecord_id=f80a6386-802a-23ad-40c8-3c63dc2d02cb

[DonJuan]

.... waiting patiently for somone to start writing in CAPS... :D

[mark4091]

^ lol.

Good read.

[3g4u]

Interesting.

[Tik-Tok]

Ok. If global warming isn't being effected by us, is it still really a bad thing to want cleaner air? I still don't understand the resistance (other than monetary).

[The Cosworth]

I like how this is on the senate webpage, garunteed to have a certain amount of spin

[syeve]

Originally posted by Tik-Tok
Ok. If global warming isn't being effected by us, is it still really a bad thing to want cleaner air? I still don't understand the resistance (other than monetary).

Couldn't have said it better.

Why is it our goal to constantly be the lowest denominator?

[Canmorite]

Originally posted by brendankharris
I like how this is on the senate webpage, garunteed to have a certain amount of spin

Ya, possibly. Too bad we'll never get an unbiased report out of either side.

[Toma]

It's another bupkess report hosted by the same old bupkess scientist, retired cooks with no knowledge of the subject etc (Dr. Antonio Zichichi, Tim Patterson, Tim Ball, Dr. Reid Bryson etc etc)

A quick scan of the "signatories" provides a who's who of nut jobs... and then we have social scientist, physicists, economists, biologists, virologists etc signing a paper on climate?!?!?!

Where are the actual current legitimate RESEARCH scientists on that list?

[DayGlow]

Originally posted by Tik-Tok
Ok. If global warming isn't being effected by us, is it still really a bad thing to want cleaner air? I still don't understand the resistance (other than monetary).

I don't think anyone is against cleaner air, but not at the cost of destroying our economies to reach it.

If the alarmism stops and progress is made at a steady rate to clean up emissions, everyone wins.

I read an interesting article a while ago, forget where, that suggested of instead of clamping down on fossil fuels that the money should be used to develop cheaper alternative energy sources. No point in making oil astronomical in cost when the alternatives are just as high. If we are able to develop other sources so they are as cheap as oil to produce, then it will be easier and make sense to use them.

[Toma]

And just watch when Inhofe and his propaganda machine in the Senate are replaced by Cox next year :thumbsup:

Might start to see some REAL presentations and reports coming from the Senate....

From a couple observers that were there for the presentation by the pseudo scientists, it was quite a gong show, I guess to the dismay of REAL scientists, they tried to "Debunk" Ice core data AGAIN, still not understanding that it clearly demonstrates positive feed back and is completely expected, AND that Ice cor data is not used in the modeling, but rather validation of certain aspect of certain models.

Fawking dumbasses lmao :poosie:

[Heff]

With annual profits approaching ~$50 Billion, and revenue approaching ~$400 billion, Exxon alone has significant interest in prolonging the dependence on fossil fuels.

Big Oil in total has a very vested interest in maintaining world-dependence on fossil fuels, and even more interest in maintaining some kind of hold on revenue streams of these magnitudes.

So, if they can keep the question "in-controversy" for even 24-36 months, they (Exxon alone) stand to reap $100 billion in profit and close to $1 Trillion in revenue. That chunk of change will buy enough spin-doctors to make us dizzy for a while.

(And before its brought up, no I don't have a problem with company profitability, but I do have a problem with profiteering on the health of consumers.)

With smog indexes providing "don't go outside" warnings to people in metropolitan centers, and athsma, bronchitis and other chronic respiratory challenges increasing dramatically, it might make sense to spend a fraction of that $1 Trillion to clean our air a little bit. Even if the net result is just a reduction in chronic respiratory disease in our children, it would probably be worth it.

[kaput]

.

[finboy]

Originally posted by Toma
It's another bupkess report hosted by the same old bupkess scientist, retired cooks with no knowledge of the subject etc (Dr. Antonio Zichichi, Tim Patterson, Tim Ball, Dr. Reid Bryson etc etc)

A quick scan of the "signatories" provides a who's who of nut jobs... and then we have social scientist, physicists, economists, biologists, virologists etc signing a paper on climate?!?!?!

Where are the actual current legitimate RESEARCH scientists on that list?

author of the article:

Marc Morano is communications director for the U.S. Senate Committee on Environment and Public Works. Morano commenced work with the committee under Senator James Inhofe, who was majority chairman of the committee until January 2007. In December 2006 Morano launched a blog on the committee's website that largely promotes the views of climate change sceptics.

Morano is a former journalist with Cybercast News Service (owned by the conservative Media Research Center). CNS and Morano were the first source in May 2004 of the Swift Boat Veterans for Truth claims against John Kerry in the 2004 presidential election [1] and in January 2006 of similar smears against Vietnam war veteran John Murtha.

Morano was "previously known as Rush Limbaugh's 'Man in Washington,' as reporter and producer for the Rush Limbaugh Television Show, as well as a former correspondent and producer for American Investigator, the nationally syndicated TV newsmagazine."

http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=Marc_Morano

[rage2]

Originally posted by Tik-Tok
Ok. If global warming isn't being effected by us, is it still really a bad thing to want cleaner air? I still don't understand the resistance (other than monetary).
Who's to say that less CO2 means cleaner? When the dinosaurs roamed the earth, our atmosphere had much more CO2 than we do today, the entire earth was warm, much more tropical areas. Oh ya, and they lived for over 160m years in this environment. Hell we've only been around for 200,000 years lol.

[Tik-Tok]

Originally posted by rage2

Who's to say that less CO2 means cleaner? When the dinosaurs roamed the earth, our atmosphere had much more CO2 than we do today, the entire earth was warm, much more tropical areas. Oh ya, and they lived for over 160m years in this environment. Hell we've only been around for 200,000 years lol.


The planet also had a HELL of a lot more plant life to use up the carbon, and I don't see us returning the amount of plant life to the same levels as required.

[rage2]

Originally posted by Tik-Tok
The planet also had a HELL of a lot more plant life to use up the carbon, and I don't see us returning the amount of plant life to the same levels as required.
There was a lot more plant life because the earth was much warmer. Majority of the earth was tropical at the time. If we slowly warm up again, natural or man-made, plant life with propser and we'll get lush tropical regions everywhere again.

[01RedDX]

.