Comments on: Cold Water on "Global Warming"

National Review Online: Skeptics To Gather In Gotham To Discuss The Cold, Hard Facts

[aremes-2009]

At one point in a very recent past EGOLOGY degenerated into ECOORGY

[mediapreachr]

Posted by LawyerTom1 at 06:24 PM : Mar 01, 2008
Are you by any chance an environmental lawyer?
I hear those guys make 300 bucks an hour...

[lawyertom1]

I love it when the deep-deniers try to downplay the unfortunately overwhelming evidence that global warming is occurring. One can certainly argue about the rate of increase, and the percentage attributable to CO2 versus methane (e.g., from rice fields, ruminants). However, the most recent data analysis has tossed in the waste basket the solar cycle thesis as causation. But, let''s face it, until Florida and Manhattan are under water, these idiots will say it is not happening. How truly sad. But, then, as they say, neurotics build castles in the sky, and psychotics live in them. Obviously, the NR and its fellow travelers are deep into the latter.

[doujoh101]

I want to jump on the man made global warming scam bandwagon. I will sell carbon credits to any of true believers who may need them (do the lights on your house come on when you flip the switch?) I will plant 10 additional carpathian walnut trees this spring. Send me 500 dollars for each tree and I will send you the carbon credits for that amount. As a bonus, I will remove my coal stove from my house two months early (but only till this fall) for only 1000 dollars. There''s no use in your high priests Al Gore and Maurice Strong getting all of your money.

[it_oldtimer]

It just boggles the mind to think that even the ignorant neanderthals at NRO could STILL be so utterly clueless on this entire subject that they''d actually write an article as dumb as this one, and dare to present it as anything other than satire.

If ignorance is bliss, then the NRO staff have got to be some of the most blissful people on the entire planet. They truly are a bunch of evolutionary throwbacks.

[sinibaldi1]

The silent sound of a waterfall.

Near the bush
where singing
blackbirds describe
a signal of care
I see the beautiful
darkness, and
also that sunset,
when my sound
fades away, discovers
a dream and a
tender idea.

Francesco Sinibaldi

[jcr103]

What this conference should really be called is the "head in the sand club." Thomas Sowell, naturally, can be the president.

[nodemotwit]

Some points:
While the consequences and causes of the earths''
most current warming trend ARE open for debate,
despite a group of left-leaning scientists that
have assumed the mantel of
''we are obviously mental giants and therefore
refuse to debate the mathematics behind
our findings'',
there are OTHER valid and pressing reasons to
reduce our carbon emissions,
such as:
. * With huge middle class populations coming
. on line in China and India,
. who are just as entitled to a middle-class
. lifestyle as the anyone in the West,
. the projections of the worlds remaining oil
. supplies have to be adjusted radically downward.
. Recently Dutch Oil revised peak world
. production to peak in the next 7 yrs.
. Rather that risk the apocalypse of a global
. war for the oil that''s left, why not just
. get off the oil teat?

. * The massive particulate-contamination
. (coal, carbon fuels, etc) of the air
. mass that moves from China into the
. Western US is just going to get worst.
. These particulates are known
. causers of lung cancer. Why not save
. lives just get off the oil teat?
(cont)

[nodemotwit]

(cont)
. * Don''t we owe it to next US generations
. the legacy of unspoiled National Parks
. and Wilderness areas ? They will not
. remain so if opened for oil exploration,
. so why not just get off the oil teat?

If the US will invest in newer technology,
like fast-neutron nuclear reactors, and convert
all vehicle to battery and/or fuel cell power,
the whole global warming debate, as least as
far as US contribution to same, becomes a mute
point. Further, this technology can recycle
OLD technology nuclear waste, and result
in a very significant (over 100X) reduction
in the 1/2 life of the resulting waste,
reaching safe levels in several 100 yrs instead
of the tens of thousands of years required
for old technology reactor waste.

Let''s get beyond the ''global warming'' debate
and find common ground to do what must
invariably be done.

[dostojevskij-2009]

What if you held a conference, and no (real) scientists came?

http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2008/01/what-if-you-held-a-conference-and-no-real-scientists-came/

[heartlight3]

That''s right, just keep dragging your feet. By the time you figure out that it is really happening it will be too late to do anything about it. Then how will you feel about wasting all the time you could have done something, in arguing about whether or not it was real.

[jimfinster]

The only "joke" is the opinion of Thomas Sowell.

[imnho]

Making a lot of money does not buy you much if your dead. It would be better if we deal with global warming before it gets beyond are capabilty to resolve it in a sound manner. Today it will cost a lot of money. In the future if might mean giving up the automobile. I would rather spend money now, then give up driving to work(I would rather give up work, but there is the small problem called eating).Most people don''t live close emought to work to walk.

[ajmarine1]

So simple a caveman could do it.

Posted by ubrew12 at 02:15 PM : Mar 01, 2008


Where does the sun and solar flares fit in with this?

Don''t get me wrong less is better, but will it stop a natural event from happpening?

All I see is companies and politicans getting rich by putting the "Green" label on everything.

[nycprof]

This article is just one of the last gasps by the Exon funded groups of people who still have their heads buried in the sand.

I happen to be one of those climate scientists, who publishes in peer reviewed journals. Let me make one point clear: IT HAS BEEN SHOWN THAT EVERYONE ONE OF THE NAY SAYERS ARGUEMENTS HAS BEEN REBUTTED A LONG TIME AGO. PERIOD.

Of course there is still some uncertainty in the degree of warming and exactly what percent is humanity contributing to it, but that world is warming faster than the last 10,000 years and that humanity is the major cause of it obvious and the time for arguing is over. It is a sad fact that the USA is the only first-world country that still has a debate about global warming and its causes. We seem to have more in common when it comes to science education with the Taliban and Saudi Arabia than with other developed countries. Point in case is the author of this piece, who is either willfully ignorant and or reality challenged.

[zorlacskates]

shocking, an nro piece against global warming. 5 years ago this may have been worth reading.

and because al gore is on the board of directors at apple he''s accountable for everything apple does?

[ubrew12]

lowell3456 said: "Changing human industrial output drastically to decrease greenhouse gas emissions may make a difference but making changes ''as a start'' is silly without significant evidence that X strategy will produce Y result."

AJMarine1 said: "Watch yourself, know one wants to hear something that might make sense."

What in that comment makes sense? Reducing greenhouse emissions (and planting trees) IS the strategy. Reduce greenhouse gases and the amount in the atmosphere goes down. X leads to Y. So simple a caveman could do it.

[ajmarine1]

Changing human industrial output drastically to decrease greenhouse gas emissions may make a difference but making changes "as a start" is silly without significant evidence that X strategy will produce Y result.

Posted by lowell3456 at 12:32 PM : Mar 01, 2008


Watch yourself, know one wants to hear something that might make sense.

[ubrew12]

Conservatives
20 years ago: No such thing as Global Warming.
10 years ago: Maybe there''s global warming, but its not caused by man.
5 years ago: Maybe its caused by man, but its not of any consequence.
today: Maybe its cause by man, maybe it''ll have a consequence. But there''s no scientific CONSENSUS of either, so lets not do anything.

Its called foot-dragging. Their foot dragging will end up costing future generations a bucketload of money. But there''s been alot of foot dragging even among scientists, and this is scarier. They didn''t think to look in the Arctic till 10 years ago. Five years ago they got clear evidence the Arctic was melting. NOW, gravimetric measurements made by passing satellites show both poles are dumping 200,000-400,000 tons of ice into the oceans each year. As that ice melts, the ocean/land underneath it absorbs FOUR TIMES more of the suns light than it did before. What else haven''t they looked at???

doujoh101 said: "love American or leave it (please)." If ''patiotism is the last refuge of a scoundrel'', you must be home.

[hawksprings]

Now there''s info showing we''re actually headed into a colder period. And guess what''s causing it??
THE SUN!!
Who would have ever guessed the SUN has more impact on our weather than human beings do???

http://www.dailytech.com/Temperature+Monitors Report Worldwide Global Cooling/article10866.htm

http://ibdeditorial.com/IBDArticles.aspx?id=287279412587175