1. Welcome Hearth.com Guests and Visitors - Please enjoy our forums!
    Hearth.com GOLD Sponsors who help bring the site content to you:
    Hearthstone Soapstone and Cast-Iron stoves( Wood, Gas or Pellet Stoves and Inserts)
    Caluwe - Passion for Fire and Water ( Pellet and Wood Hydronic and Space Heating)

Global Warming - Questions and other BS.

Post in 'The Green Room' started by webbie, Jan 24, 2007.

Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.
  1. begreen

    begreen Mooderator Staff Member

    Joined:
    Nov 18, 2005
    Messages:
    48,033
    Loc:
    South Puget Sound, WA
    Ah yes, Steven Milloy... wasn't he the one that got funding start by the tobacco industry?

    The rate of increase is the highest seen in 650,00 years and dramatically so. It is incredibly naive to think that this has little or no atmospheric influence. Scientists are by nature skeptical and should be. But as more data accumulates, more scientists are connecting the dots. It's good to question the data, to poke at it from all sides. That examination makes people think and gets us closer to the truth. However, Steven Milloy has not contributed much worthwhile to this dialog. The rapidity of increase of greenhouse gases overlaid and correltated with the corresponding rapid ice melt is a bit more than a geological coincidence. Denial isn't going to get us anywhere, but it will waste time in preparing for the economic and social consequences.

    A lot of what is being preported to be the final word just isn't. Junkscience.com is no authority and has plenty of errors. How about being skeptical there too? At http://www.junkscience.com/MSU_Temps/Model_Request.htm they ask "if anyone has managed to recreate say, Earth's global mean temperature track for the period 1880-2000 (we'd accept 1880-1979 or some reasonable facsimile) as GCM output". Oh really? Well if interested, you can try reading the TAR. Figure 12.7c: http://www.grida.no/climate/ipcc_tar/wg1/450.htm#fig127 has a nice picture (it even goes back to 1860), for example, and refers you to the appropriate papers.

    If one is going to be skeptical, one might start by asking - Who is funding junkscience.com? Read: http://info-pollution.com/milloy.htm (among many other) discrediting the idiot at junkscience.com. Milloy's junkscience is aptly named. That's just what it is. There may be a few good facts mingled in there, but that doesn't make the bulk of his spew true.

    Helpful Sponsor Ads!





  2. DonCT

    DonCT Minister of Fire

    Joined:
    Dec 9, 2005
    Messages:
    609
    Loc:
    Bristol, Connecticut
    Wow, a whole 600!!!! AND 113 goverment officials!!!!! IT MUST BE TRUE!!!

    Seriously Craig, for all your distrust of gov't, it's pretty funny that you would fall for this...... :roll:
  3. DonCT

    DonCT Minister of Fire

    Joined:
    Dec 9, 2005
    Messages:
    609
    Loc:
    Bristol, Connecticut
  4. begreen

    begreen Mooderator Staff Member

    Joined:
    Nov 18, 2005
    Messages:
    48,033
    Loc:
    South Puget Sound, WA
    Tee hee. Starts out by quoting a French Socialist. Boy have we changed our tune when it's convenient.

    Considering that many scientists working for this dept. the epa, etc. have been gagged by this administration it's hard to give them credibility. Also considering the source of this ex-majority "newsbyte" I'd say there is a very good chance it was written directly by a lobbyist. Exxon, I don't know. But if the shoe fits....

    fwiw - Marc Morano, ex reporter/producer for Rush Limpbag, is also known as Rush's man in Washington. Launched the swift boat attacks on Kerry. Not a very reputable source. He's a typical smear and run henchman.
  5. DonCT

    DonCT Minister of Fire

    Joined:
    Dec 9, 2005
    Messages:
    609
    Loc:
    Bristol, Connecticut
  6. begreen

    begreen Mooderator Staff Member

    Joined:
    Nov 18, 2005
    Messages:
    48,033
    Loc:
    South Puget Sound, WA
    CO2Science eh? Just cuz it has science in the url don't make it science. Oh, by the way .... site funded by Exxon/Mobil and the Sarah Scaife Foundation. Also it's suspected the Western Fuels Association a previous employer of the author is donating to the spew.

    Time to turn off the AM hate radio....

    http://www.mediatransparency.org/funderprofile.php?funderID=3
  7. DonCT

    DonCT Minister of Fire

    Joined:
    Dec 9, 2005
    Messages:
    609
    Loc:
    Bristol, Connecticut
  8. DonCT

    DonCT Minister of Fire

    Joined:
    Dec 9, 2005
    Messages:
    609
    Loc:
    Bristol, Connecticut
  9. DonCT

    DonCT Minister of Fire

    Joined:
    Dec 9, 2005
    Messages:
    609
    Loc:
    Bristol, Connecticut
  10. begreen

    begreen Mooderator Staff Member

    Joined:
    Nov 18, 2005
    Messages:
    48,033
    Loc:
    South Puget Sound, WA
    Pure Limbaughism Don. Sorry, this is just tripe. You seem to be unable to connect the dots or follow the money. All you're proving is how far Exxon et al have spread their influence with the mass profits they have made from us. Stephen McIntyre and Tom DeWeese are pretty transparent. I'm signing off on this thread. It is not really going anywhere intelligent and only proving the point.

    http://www.exxonsecrets.org/html/personfactsheet.php?id=1158
    http://info-pollution.com/mandm.htm
  11. DonCT

    DonCT Minister of Fire

    Joined:
    Dec 9, 2005
    Messages:
    609
    Loc:
    Bristol, Connecticut
    Good, point proven. Exxon has the duckets to influence everyone involved in opposing the IPCC conclusions.

    Riiiiiiiight...... :-/
  12. DonCT

    DonCT Minister of Fire

    Joined:
    Dec 9, 2005
    Messages:
    609
    Loc:
    Bristol, Connecticut
  13. DonCT

    DonCT Minister of Fire

    Joined:
    Dec 9, 2005
    Messages:
    609
    Loc:
    Bristol, Connecticut
  14. DonCT

    DonCT Minister of Fire

    Joined:
    Dec 9, 2005
    Messages:
    609
    Loc:
    Bristol, Connecticut
  15. Firewoodguy.com

    Firewoodguy.com New Member

    Joined:
    Nov 11, 2006
    Messages:
    48
    Loc:
    Londonderry, NH
    The only thing I have to say is for those who still have their head in the sand, is to watch the movie (Global Warming) and be part of the solution to maintain life. :roll:
  16. webbie

    webbie Seasoned Moderator Staff Member

    Joined:
    Nov 17, 2005
    Messages:
    12,327
    Loc:
    Western Mass.
    "The amount spent on climate studies worldwide has now reached the astonishingly high level of about $5 billion per year.1 In the United States alone, more than $2 billion is spent annually for climate studies"

    Hmmm......5 billion a year for the entire planet - or, put another way, about 2 weeks of holing up in Iraq for the USA....and that is what the entire worldwide community of scientists spend on climate research? Sounds like a reasonable amount to me.

    When an article starts out with an OPINION like this, especially one based just on the fact that most people can't count, it is tough to read much further. Sure, now it's the "global warming conspiracy" - just like all those nuts who said radiation might cause cancer!

    So, if the USA is spending 2 billion a year, that means I am spending.....$7 - SEVEN DOLLARS. Two lattes at Starbucks (small).

    Well, Don, you can now rest. GW gave a speech today where he said HE is on the leading edge of fixing all of our environmental problems. He is proposing cutting back on our gasoline use by 20% by a certain date.....

    Wonder why he picked out gasoline, when oil in other forms is used for trains, planes, trucks, ships, power plants and much more? Well, the answer is that he does not want to hurt business for his dad and friends. Also, he does not mean that we will cut use of liquid car fuel by 20% - he intends to replace that with ethanol and other inefficient fuels...which also have their problems!

    In short, he thinks we are stupid and that the American people think a cut in gasoline use means something. As far as the stupid part, I must say he is probably right....people hear a sound bite like that and think "See, GW is an environmentalist". .....yeah, like Krupp was a pacifist.
  17. jjbaer

    jjbaer New Member

    Joined:
    Oct 24, 2006
    Messages:
    781
    Loc:
    OH
    Well folks, it finally came out today....Al Gore IS a HUGE hypocrite......it was revealed that "Mr Inconvienent truth" himslef, Al Gore, who chastises the rest of us for walking around leaving large carbon foot prints, that his Tennessee home uses 20 times the amount of electricity that the average household uses...... So...while Al Gore flies private jets spouting large amounts of greenhouse gases, and he and his entourage all drive HUGE greenhouse gas spouting SUV's and now his Tennessee home uses 20 times the electricity that an average home uses, he simultaneously demands of you and I that we do without and lessen OUR carbon footprint..........real lying filthy liberal hypocrite this one is........
  18. jjbaer

    jjbaer New Member

    Joined:
    Oct 24, 2006
    Messages:
    781
    Loc:
    OH
    Hey Firewoodguy,

    maybe you didn't read what I wrote down below....let me address it directly to you......

    Well folks, it finally came out today....Al Gore IS a HUGE hypocrite......it was revealed that “Mr Inconvienent truth” himslef (Al Gore who chastises the rest of us for walking around leaving large carbon foot prints), is a gross abuser of global warming and a leaves a MASSIVE carbon footprint himself ........seems that his Tennessee mansion uses 20 times the amount of electricity that the average household uses...... So...while Al Gore flies around in private jets spouting large amounts of greenhouse gases, and he and his entourage all drive HUGE greenhouse gas spouting SUV’s and now his Tennessee home uses 20 times the electricity that an average home uses, he simultaneously demands of you and I that we: 1) fly coach or don't fly at all, 2) that we dump OUR SUV's and 3) that we reduce our electrical consumption all to lessen OUR carbon footprint while HE increases his, dragging it around the globe like a huge oil slick while preaching to others what to do..........real lying filthy liberal hypocrite this one is........

    Any comment Firewood guy....thought not....
  19. babalu87

    babalu87 New Member

    Joined:
    Nov 23, 2005
    Messages:
    1,440
    Loc:
    middleborough, ma.
    Castiron, please, join us in the Ashcan for the Al Gore goodness
  20. Firewoodguy.com

    Firewoodguy.com New Member

    Joined:
    Nov 11, 2006
    Messages:
    48
    Loc:
    Londonderry, NH
    Hi, Yes I read your post. When I posted my message, it was a general thought for the idiots and not attacking any one individual. If I recall, days before they attacked Pearl Harbor, the fleet commander only wanted "confirmation" "confirmation" confirmation" and didn't want to hear anything else or as in todays world as defined as "selective hearing" . Well, the Commander finally got his confirmation all right, but got his confirmation a little to late, don't you agree ?? It looks like some people will still only except Confirmation on Global Warming, then just wait for 10 or 20 years, then you will have all of your confirmation, it will be to late, but you will have your confirmation.
  21. jjbaer

    jjbaer New Member

    Joined:
    Oct 24, 2006
    Messages:
    781
    Loc:
    OH

    Firewood guy.......All I'm saying is please address the following for me: heating/cooling cycles of FAR GREATER MAGNITUDE have been occuring for tens of thousands of years and none of them were due to mankind....so....now that we see a 1 deg F or so rise, alarmists now say "the sky is falling" and that it's all due to mans activity when in fact, historically speaking, every previous temp fluctuation was due to mother nature. So.........why do people like you refuse to acknowledge historical data? Please answer the question.
  22. Firewoodguy.com

    Firewoodguy.com New Member

    Joined:
    Nov 11, 2006
    Messages:
    48
    Loc:
    Londonderry, NH
    True about "Natural" occurrences, But we are not referring todays GW as "Natural occurrences" . Furthermore, I don't think mankind was around 10 thousand years ago nor either was I. I think its more like ( TODAY'S GW refers to occurrences from MANKIND) and what future Global Warming effects from "TODAYS occurrences from MANKIND" (e.g todays man made pollution"
  23. jjbaer

    jjbaer New Member

    Joined:
    Oct 24, 2006
    Messages:
    781
    Loc:
    OH
    [quote author="Firewoodguy.com" date="1172663305
    True about "Natural" occurrences, But we are not referring todays GW as "Natural occurrences" . Furthermore, I don't think mankind was around 10 thousand years ago nor either was I. I think its more like ( TODAY'S GW refers to occurrences from MANKIND) and what future Global Warming effects from "TODAYS occurrences from MANKIND" (e.g todays man made pollution"[/quote]

    Firewoodguy.......you're not making any sense here.......read what you wrote above...it doesn't make sense.....

    I know you're not referring to todays GW as a natural occurance and my question is "why aren't you attributing it to natural cycles when historical data says you should be"? Based on historical evidence where HUGE temp fluctuations have been occuring for tens of thousands of years (which we KNOW were NOT manmade because we either weren't around then or weren't polluting then), why can't the current 1-2 deg F rise we now see ALSO be due to natural cycles?????
  24. Firewoodguy.com

    Firewoodguy.com New Member

    Joined:
    Nov 11, 2006
    Messages:
    48
    Loc:
    Londonderry, NH
    Firewoodguy.......you're not making any sense here.......read what you wrote above...it doesn't make sense.....

    I know you're not referring to todays GW as a natural occurance and my question is "why aren't you attributing it to natural cycles when historical data says you should be"? Based on historical evidence where HUGE temp fluctuations have been occuring for tens of thousands of years (which we KNOW were NOT manmade because we either weren't around then or weren't polluting then), why can't the current 1-2 deg F rise we now see ALSO be due to natural cycles?????[/quote]

    Yes, you are right too. Good Bye
  25. jjbaer

    jjbaer New Member

    Joined:
    Oct 24, 2006
    Messages:
    781
    Loc:
    OH
    Yes, you are right too. Good Bye[/quote]

    Firewoodguy,

    I was simply posing a question that begs to be asked. Your answer of "yes you are right too" means you still think you're correct about GW being caused by man. I disagree and think the historical data proves it. 100% of all previous temp rises were natural occurrances because they occurred before man industrialized...this is undisputable. Also 100% of these temp rises occurred when CO2 levels were lower than they are now. This is also indisputable. Also, many of these previous temp rises were FAR GREATER than the 1 deg F we're now seeing. All I'm saying is that with these massive CO2 levels they keep telling us that we now have, we've only seen a 1 deg F temp rise but it should be HUGE if CO2 is really the culprit..........so......all this points to the fact that CO2 is not as bad as they tell us and that the temp rise may well be natural....just like 100% of all previous temp rises......
Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.

Share This Page