Comments on: The Candidates On Climate Change

Katie Couric Asks The Candidates In "Primary Questions:" Is The Global Warming Threat Overblown?

[red1530]

clestes we plan to store the nuclear waste in Yucca Mountain.

[jabber40-2009]

We could reduce the amount of nuclear waste by over 90% by just reprocessing the spent fuel. France does this and they have the cleanest air of any industrialized nation and the cheapest electricity in Europe.

Whether or not you believe in global warming, it just makes good sense to reduce pollution and our dependency on oil.

[clestes-2009]

All the rep candidates talk about nuclear power!! That is no better than oil. We still have NO SOLUTION for the radioactive waste that is produced now. So we are going to create more??

Edwards win this one. His ideas are practical and will work, as long as there are no loop holes in the legislation that allow the companies to escape penalities.

Don''t let any lobbiest have input on the bill will solve that problem.

[jabber40-2009]

Claude Allhgre, geochemist, Institute of Geophysics (Paris): "The increase in the CO2 content of the atmosphere is an observed fact and mankind is most certainly responsible. In the long term, this increase will without doubt become harmful, but its exact role in the climate is less clear. Various parameters appear more important than CO2. Consider the water cycle and formation of various types of clouds, and the complex effects of industrial or agricultural dust. Or fluctuations of the intensity of the solar radiation on annual and century scale, which seem better correlated with heating effects than the variations of CO2 content."

Antonino Zichichi, emeritus professor of physics at the University of Bologna and president of the World Federation of Scientists : "models used by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) are incoherent and invalid from a scientific point of view".

[jabber40-2009]

Ian Clark, hydrogeologist, professor, Department of Earth Sciences, University of Ottawa: "That portion of the scientific community that attributes climate warming to CO2 relies on the hypothesis that increasing CO2, which is in fact a minor greenhouse gas, triggers a much larger water vapour response to warm the atmosphere. This mechanism has never been tested scientifically beyond the mathematical models that predict extensive warming, and are confounded by the complexity of cloud formation - which has a cooling effect. ... We know that [the sun] was responsible for climate change in the past, and so is clearly going to play the lead role in present and future climate change.

Tim Patterson, paleoclimatologist and Professor of Geology at Carleton University in Canada: "There is no meaningful correlation between CO2 levels and Earth''s temperature over this [geologic] time frame. In fact, when CO2 levels were over ten times higher than they are now, about 450 million years ago, the planet was in the depths of the absolute coldest period in the last half billion years. On the basis of this evidence, how could anyone still believe that the recent relatively small increase in CO2 levels would be the major cause of the past century''s modest warming?"

[usayesterday]

Posted by petalsnroots at 03:28 AM : Dec 12, 2007
...........

Not exactly to the level of a "snidegrass" post...

...but with a little practice, you''ll get there.

[usayesterday]

The only climate change our politicians should be concerned about will the the change of hearts of the citizens of the US overthrowing our useless and criminal government...

Posted by fitedafuture at 08:27 AM : Dec 12, 2007
.............

That''s the best climate change I have ever heard of!

[fitedafuture]

The only climate change our politicians should be concerned about will the the change of hearts of the citizens of the US overthrowing our useless and criminal government...

[realpatriot1]

CO2Max,

You deride the unanimous conclusion of the National Academies of Science of every developed nation because they don''t agree with your view. You''ve stated that you
have 30 years of experience in earth science. Are you possibly the employee or contractor of a firm involved in fossil fuel production or supply. I''m basing this contention on incomplete and flimsy evidence, much like you.

[pepperwood2]

The Inconvenient Truth:

IPCC - It exploits public ignorance over quantitative matters. It exploits what scientists can agree on, while ignoring disagreements, to support the global warming agenda. And it exaggerates scientific accuracy and certainty and the authority of undistinguished scientists.

Indeed, characterized the report as the work of 2,000 (3,000 in some instances) of the world''s leading climate scientists. IPCC''s emphasis, however, isn''t on getting qualified scientists, but on getting representatives from over 100 countries. The TRUTH is only a handful of countries do quality climate research. Most of the so-called experts served merely to pad the numbers.

It is no small matter,that routine weather service functionaries from New Zealand to Tanzania are referred to as ''the world''s leading climate scientists.'' It should come as no surprise that they will be determinedly supportive of the process.

The IPCC clearly uses the Summary for Policymakers to misrepresent what is in the report and that''s not funny.

The Sheep are Going BAAAA BAAAA BAAAA all the way to the bank predicting.......

WE predict the bad moon arising - WE predict trouble on the way.WE predict earthquakes and lightin. WE predict bad times today.

WE predict hurricanes ablowing. WE predict the end is coming soon. WE predict rivers over flowing. WE hear the voice of rage & ruin.

[ontheleft]

petalsnroots, you are a master of gibberish.

you should be a speech writer for Bush.

[co2max]

If the only way you can support your contentions about human causality of global warming is to deride the merits of credentialled scientists who disagree with you, then you have no valid argument at all. The reality of global warming/climate change is not in question here. Fred Singer, Chris Landsea, John Christy, Roy Spencer and a huge list of other qualified and respected specialists in scintific specialties which relate directly to climate have made it clear to rational people that climate is not influenced much, if at all, by human activity. Carbon dioxide is not NOT a pollutant. If you happen to believe that it is, you must advocate that breathing such be regulated or taxed in order to help the world. Of course, this is the odd-ball thinking that has lead some people to abort their children and recommend a birth tax. I hope that calm reason will win out in the end. It remains to be seen how intelligent humans really are. If we can resist reacting to a natural process like climate change in such a way that we don''t cut outselves off at the kneeds, perhaps we will pass the test after all.

[rheola-2009]

Posted by zuggerjack1 at 02:51 AM : Dec 12, 2007


Thank you I shall have a look.

Thanks for the support, some of these people can certainly be a laugh.

[zuggerjack1]

Rheola, the website on S. Fred Singer is called "The Destruction of Science by Organized Crime". And here''s the url:

http://ecosyn.us/adti/AdTI_Contents/AdTI_Contents.html

All the neocons who support him will read this and weep.

[zuggerjack1]

Rheola, you''re right again! Apparently everything written by S. Fred Singer is highly questionable according to this website on him and his alleged associations with Sun Myung Moon ("the moonies"), and his association with the Tobacco Institute''s "Whitecoats Project".

This site makes him out to be a "neocon" (neoconservative) to the max.
Bless you Rheola.

[rheola-2009]

We have to remember that the climate has always been changing ever since we have records," said S. Fred Singer, an author of the report. %u201CWe know that there have been huge climate changes on the earth long before human beings actually came into existence.%u201D

Posted by pepperwood2 at 12:09 AM : Dec 12, 2007

I am amazed that you are so uninformed, that you would even consider using any report published by this proven fraud.

[zuggerjack1]

Ubrew12 and Rheola, you are the voices of truth here, and are supporting every intelligent-thinking member of the human race. Keep it up. As we all know, accredited climatologists around the world, including the U.S. Climate Center in Boulder, Colorado, unanimously agree that global warming -- if unchecked -- will eventually cause the extinction of human life on our planet. For those who have doubts, just take a look at the Arctic ice pack and how it''s melting at a prodigious rate due to global warming. CBS is covering this crisis on a daily basis. Take a look at this:
http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2007/12/11/ap/tech/main3606898.shtml

All of us must join in a concerted effort to put a stop to global-warming climate changes by electing those candidates who promote alternative energy sources: wind energy, terrestrial solar power, space-based solar power using satellites to beam energy down as David Kagan wrote in his book Sunstroke, hydrogen fuel-cells, and we have to continue researching-and-developing other renewable energy sources.

[shingles1]

Fred Singer''s "science" is a joke.
He''s a paid shill for Phillip Morris who has denied the link between secondhand smoke and cancer and he''s a paid shill for Exxon. Dangle a few dollars in front of him and he''ll also tell you the moon is made of cheese.

He''s "Professor Emeritus" which in his case is code for being too old and too stupid to teach classes anymore.

[pepperwood2]

Mr.Ubrew you wrote:

I, in fact, blame you the messenger.

Mr.Ubrew - Please read on here as we have more bizarre, queer studies presenting just the facts. The inconvience truth for those in denial in need of help.

Humans Not to Blame for Global Warming, Study Says
A new study reveals that humans are not responsible for global warming and that the earth is not in a state of %u201Cplanetary emergency.%u201D

Climate scientists at the University of Rochester, University of Alabama and the University of Virginia reported in the International Journal of Climatology that atmospheric warming patterns over the last 30 years are not caused by greenhouse gas emissions. Rather, the current warming trend is most likely due to changes in the activity of the sun.

"We have to remember that the climate has always been changing ever since we have records," said S. Fred Singer, an author of the report. %u201CWe know that there have been huge climate changes on the earth long before human beings actually came into existence.%u201D

The report, which challenges claims made by the United Nations Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, also shows that carbon dioxide is not a pollutant and so current attempts to control CO2 emissions are ineffective, pointless and extremely costly.

The earth has been undergoing these transitions now for billions & billions of years. That''s another inconvenient truth.

[rheola-2009]

Australian Expert Suggests $5,000 Tax on Babies

An Australian obstetrician wants families to pay a $5,000 levy on the birth of a baby and up to $800 annually to offset the child%u2019s greenhouse gas emissions.
Posted by pepperwood2 at 11:08 PM : Dec 11, 2007

That is strange.

As an Australian, I can say categorically, that I have never heard this garbage before now.

Apparently Climate change deniers will sink to any level, or they would check the truth or otherwise of what they post

I must also add,obstitricians are no doubt the type of experts, the climate deniers take notice of.