Noel Sheppard wrote this piece that I feel is so fitting considering the debate we have been having on the issue:
A wonderful thing is happening in the scientific world now that the United Nations has claimed that it is 90 percent certain anthropogenic global warming is real: scientists around the world are speaking out against this assertion.
Another such scientist, Canada’s Timothy Ball, wrote an article today addressing his view of the media hysteria which marvelously began (h/t QandO, emphasis mine throughout):
Global Warming, as we think we know it, doesn’t exist. And I am not the only one trying to make people open up their eyes and see the truth. But few listen, despite the fact that I was the first Canadian Ph.D. in Climatology and I have an extensive background in climatology, especially the reconstruction of past climates and the impact of climate change on human history and the human condition. Few listen, even though I have a Ph.D, (Doctor of Science) from the University of London, England and that for 32 years I was a Professor of Climatology at the University of Winnipeg. For some reason (actually for many), the World is not listening. Here is why.
Ball continued:
Believe it or not, Global Warming is not due to human contribution of Carbon Dioxide (CO2). This in fact is the greatest deception in the history of science. We are wasting time, energy and trillions of dollars while creating unnecessary fear and consternation over an issue with no scientific justification. For example, Environment Canada brags about spending $3.7 billion in the last five years dealing with climate change almost all on propaganda trying to defend an indefensible scientific position while at the same time closing weather stations and failing to meet legislated pollution targets.
No sensible person seeks conflict, especially with governments, but if we don’t pursue the truth, we are lost as individuals and as a society. That is why I insist on saying that there is no evidence that we are, or could ever cause global climate change. And, recently, Yuri A. Izrael, Vice President of the United Nations sponsored Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) confirmed this statement. So how has the world come to believe that something is wrong?
He continued:
Maybe for the same reason we believed, 30 years ago, that global cooling was the biggest threat: a matter of faith. “It is a cold fact: the Global Cooling presents humankind with the most important social, political, and adaptive challenge we have had to deal with for ten thousand years. Your stake in the decisions we make concerning it is of ultimate importance; the survival of ourselves, our children, our species,” wrote Lowell Ponte in 1976.
I was as opposed to the threats of impending doom global cooling engendered as I am to the threats made about Global Warming. Let me stress I am not denying the phenomenon has occurred. The world has warmed since 1680, the nadir of a cool period called the Little Ice Age (LIA) that has generally continued to the present. These climate changes are well within natural variability and explained quite easily by changes in the sun. But there is nothing unusual going on.
Ball then explained how he came to these conclusions:
Since I obtained my doctorate in climatology from the University of London, Queen Mary College, England my career has spanned two climate cycles. Temperatures declined from 1940 to 1980 and in the early 1970′s global cooling became the consensus. This proves that consensus is not a scientific fact. By the 1990′s temperatures appeared to have reversed and Global Warming became the consensus. It appears I’ll witness another cycle before retiring, as the major mechanisms and the global temperature trends now indicate a cooling.
Ball even addressed why many scientists go along with the charade:
No doubt passive acceptance yields less stress, fewer personal attacks and makes career progress easier. What I have experienced in my personal life during the last years makes me understand why most people choose not to speak out; job security and fear of reprisals. Even in University, where free speech and challenge to prevailing wisdoms are supposedly encouraged, academics remain silent.
I once received a three page letter that my lawyer defined as libellous, from an academic colleague, saying I had no right to say what I was saying, especially in public lectures. Sadly, my experience is that universities are the most dogmatic and oppressive places in our society. This becomes progressively worse as they receive more and more funding from governments that demand a particular viewpoint.
In another instance, I was accused by Canadian environmentalist David Suzuki of being paid by oil companies. That is a lie. Apparently he thinks if the fossil fuel companies pay you have an agenda. So if Greenpeace, Sierra Club or governments pay there is no agenda and only truth and enlightenment?
Ball then described how this supposed consensus came about:
I think it may be because most people don’t understand the scientific method which Thomas Kuhn so skillfully and briefly set out in his book “The Structure of Scientific Revolutions.” A scientist makes certain assumptions and then produces a theory which is only as valid as the assumptions. The theory of Global Warming assumes that CO2 is an atmospheric greenhouse gas and as it increases temperatures rise. It was then theorized that since humans were producing more CO2 than before, the temperature would inevitably rise. The theory was accepted before testing had started, and effectively became a law.
As [Richard] Lindzen said many years ago: “the consensus was reached before the research had even begun.” Now, any scientist who dares to question the prevailing wisdom is marginalized and called a sceptic, when in fact they are simply being good scientists. This has reached frightening levels with these scientists now being called climate change denier with all the holocaust connotations of that word. The normal scientific method is effectively being thwarted.
Meanwhile, politicians are being listened to, even though most of them have no knowledge or understanding of science, especially the science of climate and climate change. Hence, they are in no position to question a policy on climate change when it threatens the entire planet. Moreover, using fear and creating hysteria makes it very difficult to make calm rational decisions about issues needing attention.
Ball marvelously concluded:
Until you have challenged the prevailing wisdom you have no idea how nasty people can be. Until you have re-examined any issue in an attempt to find out all the information, you cannot know how much misinformation exists in the supposed age of information.
I was greatly influenced several years ago by Aaron Wildavsky’s book “Yes, but is it true?” The author taught political science at a New York University and realized how science was being influenced by and apparently misused by politics. He gave his graduate students an assignment to pursue the science behind a policy generated by a highly publicised environmental concern. To his and their surprise they found there was little scientific evidence, consensus and justification for the policy. You only realize the extent to which Wildavsky’s findings occur when you ask the question he posed. Wildavsky’s students did it in the safety of academia and with the excuse that it was an assignment. I have learned it is a difficult question to ask in the real world, however I firmly believe it is the most important question to ask if we are to advance in the right direction.
Amen, brother.
Â
I actually met Professor Ball a couple years ago (non-climate related circumstances) and he seemed like a good guy (citing Lindzen and the sloppy reading of Kuhn aside). I’m a little suspicious of him being placed on the scales next to 2,500 climatologists from 300 countries, though. He hasn’t been doing actual research for a while and seems to be happier sniping from the sidelines. The debate’s going to get a lot more interesting when a team of dissenting scientists actually goes over the IPCC’s data. If the data took half a decade to gather and process, however, a real response is going to be a long time coming. I assume that this is why Bush and Exxon aren’t holding their oily breath.
“He hasn’t been doing actual research for a while and seems to be happier sniping from the sidelines.”
It’s actually rather interesting that you mention this. Most people don’t realize it but the bureaucracy that science has become has forced a lot of “top scientists” into nothing but paper pushers constantly trying to garner funding instead of doing real science. You might be surprised how few of these “2,500 climatologists” you mention actually do anything other than PR.
I believe that he’s retired.
And as usial the left-wing liberal news media will ignore him while lavshing everything on AL GORES bit of malarkey there is no global warming only media lies and hystaria and lies from the socialists evil UN its time to lock gore up in the nut house:razz:
Professor Ball brings up what everybody should be asking in the global
warming arguement. Is it True? In the 70′s the predicitons being thrown out
by the climatologists have not come true. Will they come to pass? Maybe-maybe not.If they do or don’t is it because of man or some other factor. One of the biggest factors in the global warming arguement
is solar output and its effect on the earth. In all the arguements I have heard on global warming the solar factor is ignored. Why? Solar output is the biggest component in the global heat picture. Better yet what is the baseline global temperature? Turn the problem around and you see that there is a big disconnect between what we can do and what we should do. Decide on an optimal global temperature then ask these scientists to list all the factors that will give the earth its goal temperature. On That list however long it may be will have mankind and its contribution to the heat equation On a scale of 1 to 100 have them list where the earths heat comes from. Ask where man stands on this list as a contributing percentage. I won’t give you that figure go look it up for yourself. But clearly the sun is by far the largest contributer to the earths heat picture. Problem is we have no control over solar output- solar output fluctuates. That being said atmospheric content is the other side of the equation. We can try to control greenhouse gases but as a way of regulating global temperature it is a farcical discussion. Take mankind out of the global picture now(as in ala star trek -mankind no longer exists on planet earth). The question is
with mankind gone what will be the effect on the earth- tommorrow-next month-next year-10 years-100years from now. The answer you’ll get will open your eyes. They dont know and can’t give you an answer.
Does anyone here really think that the Polar Bears aren’t pretty much screwed?
Honestly. Does anyone think that the polar bears are going to be doing well in 100 years??? That is my only question. Don’t bring all the other lies you’ve heard into this. How are the polar bears going to be doing in 100 years???
“Snowy egret…â€
I really would like to know more about this guy. What is his story?
6- Just fine, unless we displace them because of development as we have done to so many other animals…
I love Polar Bears..the exhibit at the Lincoln Park Zoo is wonderful…you can stand at the window of their pool and they swim up to you and it is incredible..I knew they were big, but it is something to see them that close. Beautiful animals.
7- I kinda like the unknown
This can’t be true. AKD and Matthias Roggenbuck have already teamed up to proclaim that all of the world’s scientists have reached consensus that GW is caused by humans. Matthias states it directly, AKD indirectly by disaparaging the thousands of scientists who do not agree as either not real scientists, not properly trained in the correct disciplines, and/or tainted by oil company money. Since these two luminaries have so decreed, who is anyone to say otherwise?
Hey AKD, your side has yet another huge visionary adding to the consensus: Hugo Chavez! Yes, it is reported in toady’s paper that Chavez has declared human caused GW to be a huge issue, he’s going to do something about it, and, (of course) ,most of it is the fault of the United Sattes, which is destroying the planet.
How do you like that, AKD? Your “consensus” has just gotten larger and even more comprehensive! Hugo Chavez, take your place right alongside Al Gore!
If I summarize Mr.Ball’s article, I read:
1) I have a real valuable college degree!!!! Yes, really- no kiddin’…
2) Nobody takes me serious!
(
3) Scientific mistakes (building a common view) have been made in the past, so it may happen at any time again. Don’t believe anything- you may even not be really here while you assume you are reading this!!
4) I accept that there I global warming, but it is not the result of human actions… but I don’t tell you where it comes from!
5) Nobody takes me serious!!
((
6) Nobody likes me… (Damn’ Lord, why did you make me a Canadian with my attitude!)
7) Please take me at least seriously enough to crucify me or let at least Mel Gibson create a movie about me, my life, how people misunderstand me and me!
Comment:
Yes Mr.Ball I agree, your contribution to global warming (=hot air) was not the result of CO2…
all of the world’s scientists have reached consensus that GW is caused by humans
Ask PCD for the entomology of “consensus,” moron.
Ferom Merriam-Webster online dictionary:
consensus
One entry found for consensus.
Main Entry: con·sen·sus
Pronunciation: k&n-’sen(t)-s&s
Function: noun
Usage: often attributive
Etymology: Latin, from consentire
1 a : general agreement : UNANIMITY b : the judgment arrived at by most of those concerned
2 : group solidarity in sentiment and belief
And NEITHER of those is true, you cretin. You should really do some checking before you spout.
btw I just talked with Professor Ball the other day and he confirmed that Another Koolaid Drinker (AKD) is indeed a charter member of the Church of Global Warming.
Now I know why Al Gore dropped out of divinity school: Why should he join some existing religion when he could start his own? WAY more money, recognition, and influence that way.
13- “…a charter member of the Church of Global Warming.. ..Al Gore dropped out of divinity school…”
Did you ever consider, that there are people outside the US that give a shit about Al Gore?
I mean, that is why the problem is called GLOBAL warming. The people of the Maldives, whose country will sink in some decades, the people in Switzerland whose glaciers are melting, the people in Indonesia who are drowning- what the fuck do they care about Republicans or Democrats???
I live in Germany and I see that the summers are getting hotter each year, I saw last year buildings in my country collapse due to the weight of snow and this winter there is no snow at all. I see floodings and unbelievable storms (“Kyrill” which created some nice bumps on my car’s roof from a crashed branch) and as I know about manmade trouble like acid rain, smog, Tchernobyl, polluted rivers, etc. I associate this crazy natural developments as something that is in the range of being manmade and scientists assert this suspicion!!!
I am not happy about rising fuel costs due to rising taxes and other expenses, but hey: this is the world my children and grandchildren are supposed to live in in the future!
I give a shit about politicians’ opinions, the oil lobby, scientist majorities or Greenpeace… I see what I see and believe what I believe!!
Again, a consensus is a political statement not real science. Real science thrives on debate regardless of what the “majority” believes.
14-so you believe that none of the these things have ever happened before? If you believe anthropogenic global warming advocates than the Earth was always paradise until we screwed it up. No hurricanes, no blizzards, no floods. Even no tsunami’s or earthquakes if you listen to some of the these wackos. Yet you wonder why they’re tough to take seriously?
“I see what I see and believe what I believe!!”
That much is obvious, though you don’t seem to understand why it’s not a good thing. Though coming from a socialist system it’s understandable how you have trouble thinking for yourself. By the way do you understand the term anecdotal evidence?
AKD, Retirement does not discredit Dr. Ball. You have pretty much discredited yourself. You can go back to Daily Crap and post with the other politics is hard science bunch.
15-What I really am having a bit of fun watching on this debate, is the very people that demonize a person with religious convictions are those that believe in this as if it were a religion….(no not those that sit by and don’t demonize religion and don’t believe)
18- “14-so you believe that none of the these things have ever happened before?”
Science and research consist of the observation of incidents and measurable facts. Of course natural disasters or extreme wheather conditions have happened before- but they are quite rare or limited to certain regions. And on the other side we have the stimulation done by mankind, which has been previously proven by various impacts (the ones I mentioned above) that it may influence the environment. So with the lack of another explanation (glaciers don’t grow “in the seventies” just to melt after the “nineties” just because climates change within 30 years), I take the one which is most likely… No religion- simple combination of probabilities!!
I mean, if you have tomorrow ice on the sidewalks and the figure of people with broken legs rises suddenly- you won’t say that there is a natural trend for people being “generally more incautious” and that there is no relation towards the ice, would you?
17- Peejz, looks like you rather follow Mr.Balls views… would you say, you “believe” in his attitude or what is the appropriate term that is used by a objective incorruptible “God bless America”-Republican?
18- did that stike a nerve with th religious comment? Good, it was meant to..let’s change the words Global Warming with Creation, and it looks like we have some believers…
“but they are quite rare or limited to certain regions.”
That’s simply not true, everything on this Earth runs in cycles. Those cycles can last longer than people lifetimes or a matter of a few years. How do you know we haven’t been living in a relatively calm period the last 100 years and a more chaotic climate isn’t the norm? Reading American history actually points out some interesting meteorological data. Washington’s encampment at in the horrific frozen conditions at Valley Forge, and his crossing the ice choked Delaware, that never happens today, do you think that was somehow better? In the war of 1812 the British were driven out of Washington by a powerful hurricane, when was the last time a huricane hit Washington DC?
“And on the other side we have the stimulation done by mankind, which has been previously proven by various impacts (the ones I mentioned above) that it may influence the environment. ”
The only thing proven is that man, like all other animals, can change his environment on the local level, urban heat islands for example. Do you blame the beavers for building a dam that floods and kills the forest he lives in? Global impacts have never been proven because we don’t understand the atmospheric systems, feedback cycles and the like. The system is just too complex.
“So with the lack of another explanation (glaciers don’t grow “in the seventies”just to melt after the “nineties”just because climates change within 30 years), I take the one which is most likely: No religion- simple combination of probabilities!!”
Actually more correctly it warmed from around 1900 to 1945 only to cool from 1945 to the mid 1970s? I guess mankind just didn’t exist during that time period or global warming was just “on a break”? Glaciers grow when the conditions permit and shrink when those conditions change. Today it is snowing and -2 degrees outside and it only gets colder farther north, do you think the glaciers in Canada are growing right now or shrinking? Do you think man was better off when the area where present day Chicago sits was under a mile of ice?
“I mean, if you have tomorrow ice on the sidewalks and the figure of people with broken legs rises suddenly- you won’t say that there is a natural trend for people being “generally more incautious”and that there is no relation towards the ice, would you?”
So, every time I wash my truck it rains, does that mean that washing my truck makes it rain? Superstition is not good science.
On the website to which Mr.Ball probably has a great affinity to- the one of his “Friends of Science”- is a diagram. I can’t say if the allegation is right that this organisation is supported or funded by the oil lobby. Neither am I an expert on climate related science…
The diagram shows or wants to prove a relation between the climate changes and sun activities… if I was a scientist of the opposite side, I would probably say sth. like “maybe the measurement of the sun spots is influenced by the temperature on earth and for this reason the cause and the consequence are permuted”, but as I said I am a rookie on this topic.
But what do I see also in this diagram? I see that the CO2 concentration has been increasing exponentially and when I look up wikipedia or other sources for a description of “CO2″, I can see that is rather unhealthy to humans and the fauna… And so I have to ask: What gives mankind the right to pollute this/our planet??? What about those noble values that conservatives are preaching all the time? I don’t know what your parents told you about modesty, but mine told me to leave a place to which I come in good condition! So what is so fucking wrong in trying to preserve this world as beautiful and healthy as it (still) is?
And please, Peejz, don’t try to make comparisons between environmental awareness and religion- I bet you were the first one with wet eyes, when your president starts preaching again about “freedom” and “democracy” and how wonderful the world was if everything went his way… Republican politicians are the folks who can’t do a speech without finishing it with “God bless America”!
21- Gee Matthias, that really must smart:roll:
GLOBAL WARMING!!!
In Northern Kalifornia, we are in the longest sustained cold spell I can remember. The Midwest is struggling with wind chill as low as -37 degrees. Southern Kalifornia has 39 counties declared as disaster areas because the unseasonal cold destroyed the citrus crop.
GLOBAL WARMING!!! BRING IT ON!!! WE NEED IT!!!
Hey AKD: Here’s a question for you: Since it has now been declared that human activity is a significant cause of Global Warming, the debate’s over, the science is in, the consensus is reached, yada , yada, yada, is it true then that we can cut off all existing and future grant money to scientists and researchers studying Global Warming? The question has been answered, no need to spend any more money on that, right?
Just watch these roaches scurry and backpedal the minute an announcement like would be made! All of the sudden, the debate would be back on!
23-
A couple of weeks ago, a colleague of mine saw our warm winter wheather (no real snow yet) in Germany and said:”If it is that warm here, there must be some place on earth where it is f*cking cold, right?”…
I guess, we found it Robert, didn’t we?
21- Congratulations, that was the single most idiotic post I have ever seen on a scientific topic. I’m an just flabbergasted.
“Neither am I an expert on climate related science:”
Trust me, on this you can be sure, noone anywhere would ever make that mistake. Never.
“The diagram shows or wants to prove a relation between the climate changes and sun activities: if I was a scientist of the opposite side, I would probably say sth. like “maybe the measurement of the sun spots is influenced by the temperature on earth and for this reason the cause and the consequence are permutedâ€, but as I said I am a rookie on this topic.”
And you would be summarily laughed out of the room. My God do you even know what sunspots are? Are you one of those fools who thinks the universe still revolves around the Earth? I suppose the “global warming” observed on Mars recently is also just an illusion caused by too much co2? Absurd.
“But what do I see also in this diagram? I see that the CO2 concentration has been increasing exponentially and when I look up wikipedia or other sources for a description of “CO2″, I can see that is rather unhealthy to humans and the fauna: ”
Are you retarded? I’m not trying to be insulting here, seriously I just really don’t wnat to continue making fun of someone who is mentally disabled instead of just incredibly stupid.
“And so I have to ask: What gives mankind the right to pollute this/our planet??? ”
what gives beavers the right to flood forests killing the trees and destroying the habitat of other non-aqueous creatures? I wonder if you have ever seen the news reports on the Viking farms that melted out of the glaciers. What does that tell you exactly? This wonderful steady state, consistent, unchanging natural environment you idiots believe in does not exist and never has existed. Nature is change, it has no sympathy for those who won’t change with it. Those who can adapt survive, those who can’t nature stomps out.
“What about those noble values that conservatives are preaching all the time? I don’t know what your parents told you about modesty, but mine told me to leave a place to which I come in good condition! So what is so fucking wrong in trying to preserve this world as beautiful and healthy as it (still) is?”
Let me guess, you live in an industrial city and have never once ventured out into the countryside?
“And please, Peejz, don’t try to make comparisons between environmental awareness and religion- when your president starts preaching again about “freedom”and “democracy”and how wonderful the world was if everything went his way: Republican politicians are the folks who can’t do a speech without finishing it with “God bless Americaâ€!
”
You forgot to end your sermon with Amen. Any good zealot should know better.
26 – “21- Congratulations, that was the single most idiotic post I have ever seen on a scientific topic.”
If I read stuff like “what gives beavers the right to flood forests killing the trees” I really take your post for serious- you seem to be an expert for idiotic posts…
…not to mention the complete denial of modesty…
PS: I espacially like “Those who can adapt survive, those who can’t nature stomps out.”… yes, let’s steamroll that silly stupid incapable plants and animals- mankind rules!!!
My God you are stupid. There’s just no other way to say it. So you think that mankind doesn’t have the right to change it’s environment, but beavers and other animals do? Not a climate scientist? You don’t even seem to understand your own arguments, much less those of others. Your ignorance is astounding!
“not to mention the complete denial of modesty”
One thing I can’t stand is stupidity, especially from someone like you who wears it like a badge of honor.
“PS: I espacially like “Those who can adapt survive, those who can’t nature stomps out.â€: yes, let’s steamroll that silly stupid incapable plants and animals- mankind rules!!! ”
So you’ve never heard of evolution, survival of the fittest? Does Darwin ring a bell or are you a creationist now too? Your stupidity is just boundless.
28- Drake, I would really enjoy your take on evolution vs. creation (seriously). I am of the belief in both theories actually…I do feel that things evolve, but we can not actually trace the beginning back to any one thing, there is where creation comes in…I really would like to hear what you have to say..
“6- Just fine,”
What can I say… We disagree…
I’m sure we do, but Polar Bears are able to adapt to their surroundings…In Alaska, there has been a decline, but the studies are only recent, within the past 15 years..as the ice has melted, the bears are moving inland..
Feed AL GORE and the rest of the eco-wackos to the polar bears:razz:
Well I see Another Koolaid Drinker (AKD) has bugged out. He was batting zero; his regurgitated propaganda wasn’t getting any traction here. Perhaps he has enrolled in another seminar to learn more persuasive skills. Or maybe he just went back to DU, Daily Pos, or michaelmoore dot com to lick his wounds.
He gave it a try, and I’m sure Al Gore will reward him with some sort of position in the Church of Global Warming. At least an Acolyte.
Hey Robert,
I’ve been out of town for a few days but I’m back and ready to learn a thing or two about science from an idiot who probably believes that Adam and Eve rode around on Dinosaur’s when God created the world 14,000 years ago.
C’mon loser, wow me with your stupidity…:grin:
Just wanted to send a little “Rant” about the ever growing pain, that seems to never go away, no matter how hard we try to ignore it, “Global Warming.”
It is strange how some of us can never admit we are wrong anymore. That it is just unacceptable to admit that we could actually change our minds.
Why, if you change your mind and maybe saw things in a different light, you might be branded as someone that is inconsistent, not to be trusted. But If you have new information, what are you supposed to do with it? Shoot the messenger? Maybe, Burn the Book? Or simply say that’s impossible, the Earth is flat. Or maybe we can revise our past interpretations. “Humility really can be a virtue.” I think it is called progress. “I could be wrong.”
Maybe Al Gore is not practicing what he preaches enough to satisfy us. But I don’t think anyone can really say, that his is a terrible message.
What I would really like to say is we have but one Earth to live on and to pass down to those that follow.
Is it really so hard to protect it? Or are jobs and profit really so important in the short term that we can’t see past it?
What if, just what if, for some unexplainable reason, that all the oil and coal in the world became unusable tomorrow. Say something strange just contaminated them. What would we do? Do you think we would all just give up? Sure, it would be a terrible time and many lives would be wasted, but do you think the human race would adapt? Would we simply say, “We must change the way we think?”
96% of the LEADING scientists world wide agree, without a doubt, that Global Warning is FACT. And the same 96% agree that human activity is a major contributor of global warming. If you can get such a group of professional doubters to agree as they have, then truly we have a miracle before our very eyes. Of that I have no doubt. So Stop the fuse and grow the hell up already!
Well as Forest says, “Thats all I have to say about that.”
Just wanted to send a little “Rant” about the ever growing pain, that seems to never go away, no matter how hard we try to ignore it, “Global Warming.”
It is strange how some of us can never admit we are wrong anymore. That it is just unacceptable to admit that we could actually change our minds.
Why, if you change your mind and maybe saw things in a different light, you might be branded as someone that is inconsistent, not to be trusted. But If you have new information, what are you supposed to do with it? Shoot the messenger? Maybe, Burn the Book? Or simply say that’s impossible, the Earth is flat. Or maybe we can revise our past interpretations. “Humility really can be a virtue.” I think it is called progress. “I could be wrong.”
Maybe Al Gore is not practicing what he preaches enough to satisfy us. But I don’t think anyone can really say, that his is a terrible message.
What I would really like to say is we have but one Earth to live on and to pass down to those that follow.
Is it really so hard to protect it? Or are jobs and profit really so important in the short term that we can’t see past it?
What if, just what if, for some unexplainable reason, that all the oil and coal in the world became unusable tomorrow. Say something strange just contaminated them. What would we do? Do you think we would all just give up? Sure, it would be a terrible time and many lives would be wasted, but do you think the human race would adapt? Would we simply roll over and die to let what ever beings populate what is left of this rock we call earth to dig us up and speculate on what kind of creatures we were. I vote New direction. hey but thats just me.
96% of the LEADING scientists world wide agree, without a doubt, that Global Warning is FACT. And the same 96% agree that human activity is a major contributor of global warming. If you can get such a group of professional doubters to agree as they have, then truly we have a miracle before our very eyes. Of that I have no doubt. HEY heres a strange Ideer. Maybe stop the fussing and grow the hell up already! Na strike that, makes to much sense, wrong reality. Guess I need watch my Meds more closely.
Well as Forest says, “Thats all I have to say about that.”
Sorry about the double post.. See what the wrong Meds can do.
96% of the LEADING scientists world wide agree, without a doubt, that Global Warning is FACT. And the same 96% agree that human activity is a major contributor of global warming.
BULLSHIT!
Yes I am afraid you are right BULLSHIT! Is also a major contributor to global warming. Plenty of Methane there. Good Point BoB!!!!
Hey Matthias, tell your friend we had snow in Phoenix. No real accumulation in my yard, but damn I moved here to get away from the white crap. BTW did anyone happen to notice that Al Gore only mentions the 10% of the Antarctic snow pac that is shrinking but completely ignores the other 90% that’s increasing?
BTW Matthias, 1000 years ago there were grapes growing in Nova Scotia and crops in the Scottish Highlands so I wouldn’t be too worried about Germany not having snow this one year.
FAO don’t you realize snow in Phoenix is caused by Global Warming? The terrible year of the hurricanes, including Katrina, that was caused by GW too! Hot summers? GW! The terrible cold this winter? Global Warming!
You see, Global Warming is anything they want it to be…
I love that the right thinks that it can refute actual scientific studies “just by a-lookin’ outside its window.”
Hey, I know the earth is flat; otherwise, I’d slide off, duh!
Just keep repeating the Big Lie over, and over, and over again, until it becomes part of the popular culture, right AKD?
Your Emperors HAVE NO CLOTHES…