Why is Global Warming a Hoax??

[TClaeys]

I will undoubtedly regret opening this thread.

OK. What we hear are two sides that seem to be screaming at each other. Interestingly they also seem to fall on party lines. The fact is opinion does not matter in the reality of this. It matters in the politics, but science is impervious to opinion.

Either global warming is happening or it is not.
Either we are causing it (To what degree is not known) or we are not.
Either CO2 is largely responsible or it is not.

The problem, of course, are the implications of this thing. Massive amounts of money are on the line. Otherwise no on would give a rats ass.

But why is this a hoax?? I don't get it. Don't like Gore, fine, I can't blame you. Don't like the IPCC, fine. Don't like the scientific consensus, fine. But what about literally every other scientific organization in the world endorsing AGW?? Are they all "in" on this hoax??

Look, it only takes one scientist to be right. Even if millions are wrong. I understand that. I'm also not a climatologist. So I have to take somebody's word for it. And those people seem to be telling me that we are causing it.

I don't really want any kind of drawn out fight. I can accept being wrong. I'm actually good at it. I want to know the truth. And I personally think the absolute truth in this matter is so complex that we might not even understand it in any kind of comprehensive way.

But I do think we treat our planet with little respect. I do think we can have an effect on the planet in numerous ways. We are too busy trying to dominate each other and make money than to critically reflect on the potential consequences of our current actions. We are largely an irresponsible and selfish species.

The consequences of acting and being wrong far outweigh doing nothing and dealing with the aftermath, whatever that might be. Not that we should act "just because", but imagine a scenario where we leave our children and their children in this huge mess because we failed to recognize and act as a species.

I wonder if someday we might be confronted with a global problem (not that this is it) that required global action. If we are ever to reach Kaku's Type I civilization, we may need to overcome certain planetary problems.

Keeping in mind I'm only trying to get at the truth here, .... start your bitching.

 

[Stillborn]

Is milk bad or good?

 

[Schuyler]

It's too late in the day to give this the attention it deserves, so I'll just post a couple of links for what it is worth. I'm not endorsing any viewpoint. I don't know if Global Warming is real or not.

For example, why did the MSM NOT cover this: http://www.cfif.org/htdocs/legislat...-Myth-Scientific-Consensus-Global-Warming.htm

http://www.climate-skeptic.com/2007/09/table-of-conten.html?gclid=CIuqlMTM8ZICFRGYggodt2E44Q

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/wor...petition-denying-man-made-global-warming.html

http://idw-online.de/pages/de/news256486

http://www.nationalpost.com/opinion/columnists/story.html?id=332289

I think what you can get from these links is one undeniable fact: There is no consensus on Climate Change. It is simply not true that "everyone agrees" on this issue. That begs the question of who is right, I realize.

I also notice that people say 'Global Warming' like it is a bad thing. What I mean is, someone will say, 'Global Warming will result in 20,000 more deaths in Europe from heat-related causes.' But they fail to say, '20,000 people will not die by being frozen to death.' See what I mean? Given that this issue is intensely political and big money is involved, including massive transfers of wealth and serious impacts on the global economy, I think everyone should be very skeptical about what anyone on any side says about the subject.

 

[CapnG]

Is milk bad or good?

Lewis Black FTW!

 

[Stillborn]

Lewis Black FTW!

Hey, you're right. I actually forgot about that.

 

[Schuyler]

I found this post on another forum where there is/was an ongoing argument. the interesting point here is that this guy is a meteorolgist working in the field. 'Maddog' in the post is a fervent believer in Global Warming who has been arguing the other side. I though y'all might find it interesting.

We input actual data (weather observation) and everyone does it (which we do HOURLY) and sometimes more often depending on the weather condtions (i.e., certain weather phenomena require special observations, versus only hourly observations). The models ingest this information. The information is actually (in most cases) typed in by a human being. Virtually every major and most small cities report weather observations, if just a few of those are typed incorrectly into the system, then the output is flawed. That is my problem with models that go out 25-35-50 years. If bad weather data is input to our current models, the model data you base your forecast on is off...sometimes a little (i.e., timing of weather systems or severity of system). I verify, use and track these models (and not just one, but numerous models) daily. From one 12-hour shift/to the next there are changes, sometimes small, sometimes huge. So if (and it is not unlikely) some small errors were input to the global warming models the resulting errors would be huge (granted, it could be the other way too). I am just using common sense here, no special training involved. In addition, I have worked with solar pysicists in Australia and they all (6 different ones) believe that the warming and cooling of the earth corresponds with the amount of sunspots during any particular year during a particular solar cycle.
There is no way you will convince maddog about anything else and I used this forum mainly for enjoyment and fun. However, when my tax dollars are being wasted, and not just for this shit, but anything, it is frustrating. When I was a young boy (say 10-15 years old)...the same hysteria surrounded Global Cooling, all the "leading scientists" stated that the earth was in a tremendous cool down period and we were headed towards the next ice age. They used scare tactics to convince people...back then, all they talked about were great shields of ice coming down from Canada and covering all of North American, crops wiped out, land unusable, economy wrecked...almost the same argument as now. Common sense again...that was in the 1970s...there is no way that we could have been headed for calamitous freezing and only 40 years later, we are in global warming that is going to result in catastrophic warming, oceans rising, etc. It's all about the money!!!
But let's say we are contributing to warming and in fact, we do warm over the years, the stuff that is so hard to predict for instance is cloud cover. We get warmer, oceans rise, more water is available to form additional cloud cover and in fact, the warmer, the better, thicker clouds form, storms, warmer weather means stronger warm frontal systems, clouds that go way into the atmosphere. You know, the kinda days were it rains steadily for hours or even a couple days at a time-a soaking rain. Additional cloud cover will act to keep the earth warmer (less heat making it to the surface of the earth), so what effect does that have on the earth's temperature overall? Nobody can predict anything like that, it is all guess work. If you are working on this project and are getting grants...which way would you lean? Ok...yes, more cloud cover could help cool, however more cloud cover at night also means, less radiational cooling, so now you have to decide which overrides the other? which way do you lean? There is a bias in all this research, to be blind to it is asinine.
With that said, I am all for clean air, not polluting the earth, etc etc...I don't leave lights on and usually am the one telling everyone to turn stuff off...I haven't driven more than 10,000 miles in the last 3 years...total!!! Which one of you can claim that? I have planted no fewer than 10 trees in my life (again, who can claim that?), I clean up after myself when outdoors, etc etc. What I hate is people like Al Gore telling me what I should do and shouldn't do, then himself doing the exact opposite. I don't know this for fact, but I read it and I admit I didn't do the research...but I heard that he went in and rennovated his house in TN because of all the negative attention about the energy useage and after he was done, the house used more energy. If that is true, how can anybody in their right mind believe anything he says...not to mention private jets, limoousines, etc etc.
http://www.tennesseepolicy.org/main/article.php?article_id=367
The way maddog supports his arguments are fine and I take no offense to it, but for every stat he comes up with and supporting evidence, there is the same type of stuff against it...it's just that the media will not show it as readily. Scientists against manmade global warming are ostracized, which is totally against what our nation should stand for...freedom (to state your opinions without being labeled).
http://tennesseepolicy.org/main/article.php?article_id=764
http://www.snopes.com/politics/bush/house.asp
Honestly maddog, just answer this question for me. If Al Gore was so concerned about global warming, wouldn't he be the shining example of how to live your life? He isn't and I don't think you can possibly argue about that? Take a look at the hollywood actor (Ed Begley Jr) who has given in and is actually living his life green. I disagree with him on global warming, but at least he is walking the walk, I respect this guy at least. I have zero respect for Al Gore...he is a phony and a hypocrite.
http://www.time.com/time/health/article/0,8599,1689569,00.html
http://planetgore.nationalreview.com/post/?q=ZDgwNDA3MDgyMjk3OWY4YzE3Yzg...
I am sure you can find links to dispute those above...you can always find differing views on everything. However, lastly the problem with this whole argument is that the side (your side) that has determined that Global warming is being pushed forward because of man refuse to hear the other side and shut them down as much as possible. It's very typical of the liberals...shout down, keep the other side quiet, repeat it as often as possible and dominate the argument.
PKato
I am tired of writing and I have to check the new model run and do my Southwest Asia and Udairi Five day forecast for tonight!!!

 

[TClaeys]

Holy crap Schuyler. It will take some time for me to get through some of this. Thanks for chiming in though. I thought you might. And thanks for the info.

So here's a question: Who is it that we should look for accurate information regarding this topic?? What kind of confidence do we have from the various sciences?? Geologists? Climatologists? Meteorologists? Medical Doctors??

As far as the petition, I have seen this and it peaked my interest. If so many are signing this thing then it doesn't seem that there is any consensus as you've said. So I started to look into it. Turns out that a lot of the scientists aren't atmospheric people. Thats why I ask who do we need to rely on.

There are only 578 Atmospheric scientists that signed. On top of that, only 39 apparent climatologists. I also have to wonder how many of these petitions were sent out. I've seen figures in the millions but the organization doesn't seem to be willing to share that information. And whoever got one was able to get another easily for someone else. I have to be skeptical of their qualifications and ability to have pertinent information to even be able to comment on global climate.

Lets say there were one million sent out. 31,000 would be 3%. 31,000 sounds like a lot, but it depends on the number given out to some degree. And who is it that should even have any say on the matter?? I don't know, I'm not saying, but do we need the opinions of engineers and medical people and general science?? And I'm not saying there were a million sent out, but it could be right??

The next thing is this recent survey. It came out in Jan this year. It is a sample of about 3,000 active climatologists. This was a sample of over 10,000 sent out to only active people in climatology. So about a third replied. 97% said that humans play a role in global warming. 82% said humans play a significant role. If this is any representation of the scientific opinion, I would constitute this as consensus.

But we equally hear all the counter arguments. And even though there may be thousands of people and even scientists, when it comes to the people that actually study the specific science of climate, the overwhelming majority say, yes we are doing it. This is why I mentioned consensus earlier, even being aware of the Oregon Petition. And again, I would have to beg, "Who do we trust to weigh in on this issue??"

The politics of this is as troubling as the problem, if there is one. I have to wonder what the political affiliation of all involved is?? Something like this should not be a political one, but it is. And with politics we have this imperitive to persuade and that compounds the problems of looking at this scientifically and objectively. I don't have my mind made up and am persistent in learning the truth. But it seems many have already made up their mind on the issue which is another problem altogether.

And the beat goes on.

 

[pixelsmith]

use your common sense. CO2 levels have been much higher in the past, vegetation was far greener and animals much larger because of it. CO2 is GOOD! the earths climate gets very cold, very hot, very noxious, very mild over and over and over. this is normal. climate change is natural. volcanic events can spew more shit into the atmosphere than you can imagine. animal and plant species come and go continually. as i recall the cephalopod has survived about 8 near extinctions alone. man made harmful global warming is a total farce. we are not that important. we are nothing. earth can deny our existence with one blast from a volcano. we can be flicked off this planet like a booger, in an instant.

 

[Schuyler]

Frankly, I don't think we are getting good data, myself. As the weather guy I quoted above shows, it's really hard to get good data and weather is just about the most complex thing we've ever tried to model. As anyone who has tried to build a house knows, you've got to be exactly square on your foundation. A quarter inch error on the concrete leads to an error measured in feet at the second storey. I blame some of this on the false accuracy of spreadsheets. You can be accurate to 10 places past the decimal and be entirely wrong, but those ten places surely do look accurate. I was a pretty good spreadsheet guy at one time and built a multi-layered spreadsheet that did the budget for the business where I worked, about $10 million a year. The spreadsheet took years, literally, to perfect as I added new features. I quickly found out that one error in one cell could 'spread' throughout this 'predictive model,' which is what it was, and totally mess up your bottom line. As a result I put in some fail-safes and cross tabs to guard against this happening. But still, if one prediction was wrong for the year, you were in deep doo doo. I started over-predicting expenditures and under-predicting revenue so we'd always have unexpended revenue diring the year. The point is that computers can screw anything up, and do it very quickly.

As to bad data, look at this:

Arctic Sea Ice Underestimated Due to Sensor Glitch
Climate change alarmists are quick to point to diminishing Arctic sea ice as an indicator of global warming. But a faulty sensor led scientists to underestimate the extent of the ice — by an area larger than California.
The error began in early January and persisted until mid-February, according to the National Snow and Ice Data Center (NSIDC) at the University of Colorado, which releases estimates of Arctic sea ice.
The problem was caused by the malfunction of a satellite sensor used for daily updates on the extent of Arctic sea ice.
The NSIDC explained on its Web site: “On February 16, 2009, as e-mails came in from puzzled readers, it became clear that there was a significant problem — sea-ice-covered regions were showing up as open ocean . . .
“Upon further investigation, we found that data quality had begun to degrade over the month preceding the catastrophic failure.
“As a result, our processes underestimated total sea ice extent for the affected period. Based on comparisons with sea ice extent derived from the NASA Earth Observing System Advanced Microwave Scanning Radiometer sensor, this underestimation grew from a negligible amount in early January to about 500,000 square kilometers (193,000 square miles) by mid-February.”
The area of California is about 163,700 square miles.
The NSIDC uses Department of Defense satellites to obtain its Arctic sea ice data, rather than more accurate National Aeronautics and Space Administration equipment, Bloomberg.com reported.
The Arctic ice cap retreated to its smallest extent on record in 2007, then posted its second-lowest annual minimum at the end of last year’s melt season, and the NSIDC said the recent error does not change its view that the ice is retreating.

 

[CapnG]

man made harmful global warming is a total farce.

The key element to the global warming issue is not temperature or chemistry it is TIME. If the data shows the earth growing hotter faster then it ever has before then there are only two possible answers: A) It's a freak occurance B) We're aggrivating the increase beyond it's normal cycle. That's it.

Of course the people who think scenario B is the more likely include most of the world's leading scientists while those who think it's A are such luminaries as David Icke, Alex Jones and about half the guest roster of C2C...

 

[Schuyler]

The key element to the global warming issue is not temperature or chemistry it is TIME. If the data shows the earth growing hotter faster then it ever has before then there are only two possible answers: A) It's a freak occurance B) We're aggrivating the increase beyond it's normal cycle. That's it.

Good point. I'm reminded of WWII when both the Germans and the Americans had the brains to build the bomb. The Germans decided not to because of time. They figured, rightly so, that if they were going to win, they had to win quickly. A prolonged war would see an Allied victory and they knew it, therefore they decided NOT to put the resources into making the bomb because they didn't have enough time to pull it off. It was the Blitzkrieg or nothing.

On the American side, scientists also knew we had the resources to pull it off, but they had to get the government to agree, namely Roosevelt, so what they did is enlisted Einstein's help, since Einstein was famous and Roosevelt might listen to him. They wrote a letter imploring Roosevelt to commit, and put Einstein's name on it. Recall that Einstein himself did not believe you could split the atom, but his NAME was used by OTHERS to get the USA to move forward, which, of course, they did. After their success these same scientists would laugh about what they were going to write in Einstein's next letter to Roosevelt.

This shows part of the problem here. Just because 'leading scientists' sign off on this does not mean they know anything about it. Further, what about the many thousands of scientists who think it is BS? The MSM does not give these folks a chance to even present their case. They have a big conference about it all, and the cameras don't show up. If Al Gore shows up they appear in droves, but if scientists, who are just as 'leading' as any others, put on an entire conference on the issue, no one from the media shows up. What's up with that? I gave you the links. You can't make this stuff up.

Now, I still don't know which way to go on this, but I do believe it is being ramrodded down our throats as a leftist political agenda. If it turns out they are right, fine, but meanwhile QUESTION the data and QUESTION the people. Why are these guys given a free ride on this? Any other time someone in a 'position of authority' tells you such and such is true people are quite quick to point out an 'argument from authority' is invalid. If 'the government' tells you UFOS are silly, does anyone else believe it here? The Condon report? The Robertson Panel? Project Blue Book? If Bush said Iraq had WMD did ANYONE believe it, even though every single Western Intelligence source (including France and Russia) agreed with it? Of course not. Bush lied. The government lied. Every intelligence agency in the world lied. They always lie to us; we know that. They aren't to be trusted.

But just have 'leading scientists' say "Global Warming is real," and everyone suddenly falls over backwards and says, 'Oh, yes, of course. It must be true.' It's like shooting fish in a barrel. What happened to 'Question Authority' here? Why does it suddenly disappear?

 

[cottonzway]

"In searching for a new enemy to unite us, we came up with the idea that pollution, the threat of global warming, water shortages, famine and the like would fit the bill.... All these dangers are caused by human intervention... The real enemy, then, is humanity itself."
"Richard Haass, 1991 Club of Rome think tank, "The First Global Revolution"

http://www.scribd.com/doc/2297152/A...t-Global-Revolution-Club-of-Rome-1993-Edition

Richard N. Haass is the current president on the Council on Foreign Relations.

/end thread (point IF global warming is a fraud, at least the SOLUTIONS, as they are based on carbon taxation and cap and trade taxation on the people)

 

[Schuyler]

One of the major arguments against Global Warming is the accusation that the proponents are cherry picking their data. The idea is that they have picked a start date for the data that is convenient to proving an increase, where if they had picked a start date a hundred years earlier, it would be more obvious that the data represent a more cyclic trend. In the same manner, the undeniable cooling temperatures of the last decade are seen not that the conclusions are wrong, but that it is just a ‘glitch’ in the data that will smooth out over time. It snowed today in Western Washington. I haven’t seen that happen in 30 years.

I’d like to sketch put a longer-term view with the goal of showing you that Global Warming is, indeed, true, but for reasons that are far different than Homo Sapiens pouring CO2 into the atmosphere. To do so you have to expand the concentration of the timeline here to tens of thousands of years instead of less than two hundred. The overall basic fact is this: We are coming off an Ice Age. It IS warming up, and this is because it HAS been warming up for the last 12,000 years. Go read about ice ages: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ice_age. Here’s just a very quick explanation from Wikipedia:

"The last glacial period was the most recent glacial period within the current ice age, occurring in the Pleistocene epoch. It began about 110,000 years ago and ended between 10,000 and 15,000 BP. During this period there were several changes between glacier advance and retreat. The maximum extent of glaciation was approximately 18,000 years ago. While the general pattern of global cooling and glacier advance was similar, local differences in the development of glacier advance and retreat make it difficult to compare the details from continent to continent (see picture of ice core data below for differences).

The last glacial period is sometimes colloquially referred to as the "last ice age", though this use is incorrect because an ice age is a longer period of cold temperature in which ice sheets cover large parts of the Earth, such as Antarctica. Glacials, on the other hand, refer to colder phases within an ice age that separate interglacials. Thus, the end of the last glacial period is not the end of the last ice age. The end of the last glacial period was about 12,500 years ago, while the end of the last ice age may not yet have come: little evidence points to a stop of the glacial-interglacial cycle of the last million years.”

The important point is the last sentence in this quote. Note the year: 12,500 B.P. (Before the Present). What do you think happened then? Canada was covered with a retreating Glacier. Hudson Bay (an old asteroid or meteor strike) was melting, but the land around it held an enormous ice dam. Have you ever seen the shores of Lake Michigan in January? I was stationed at Great Lakes Naval Base in 1971. We would go to the shore in January and discover the ice had built up probably a dozen feet on the beach through wave action. You could walk along the top of this dam and look at the frozen lake far below. The same thing happened on the shores of Hudson Bay.

And then, 12,500 years ago, the dam melted and released trillions of gallons of water into the world’s oceans. The sea level rose 60 feet. The Earth’s seashore civilizations in India, Japan, and the Mediterranean were wiped out in a day. Cities were flooded under water. They’re still there today, if you can dive on them. That was the origin of the Flood Myth. It wasn’t the while world, just every civilized part of it depending on the commerce of the sea. Read Graham Hancock’s ‘Underworld’ for a full accounting of it.

The same exact thing happened to eastern Washington State on a smaller scale. A lake in Canada was held back by a dam. It burst. The water took out all the top soil in the Columbia Basin as it chose that path to rush to the Pacific Ocean. It scoured the Earth. You can still see the results today. But though ‘scientists’ accept the reality of this later flood, they dismiss the reality of the former one. Thus ‘science’ advances ever slowly forward.

So is the earth warming? Sure it is; we’re coming off an ice age. And you know what? We better make sure it doesn’t start to cycle the other way because, folks, we’re due. Sunspots, a better indicator than Arctic sensors of future weather, have failed to appear in their normal 22 year cycle. This indicates a COOLING trend, and that is what we have experienced over the last decade and, incidentally, what scientists said we should expect just a few short years ago.

Now, if you think we should accept a cooling trend, bear in mind that the glacial advance will cover most of Canada, cause a land bridge to open up on the Bering Strait because of lower ocean levels (the path Native Americans used, by and large, to get here) and the ice will probably be 5,000 feet thick over Seattle, reaching from the Cascade Mountains to the Olympics, as it once did. The rest of North America will fare no better. Say good bye to Sweden, Norway, and Finland, probably the majority of Europe.

So, if I were a betting man, I’d start pumping CO2 (which is, after all, plant food) into the atmosphere as fast as I could. Otherwise, if the past is any indication of the present, it’s gonna get REALLY cold around here.

 

[CapnG]

Now, I still don't know which way to go on this, but I do believe it is being ramrodded down our throats as a leftist political agenda.

The counterpoint here is that global warming denial is a corporately motivated right-wing response because it sees anything "global" as a threat to things like sovereignty, capitalism, the oil/coal monopoly and most of all, profit. Certainly one of the leading voices against the man made origin, a group called "Friends of Science" has been shown to be founded, staffed and almost entirely funded by coporate energy interests (Exxon being the largest at 65% contribution).

The problem then becomes one of not just differing ideologies but dueling conspiracies and neither is good for humanity.

At this point I personally don't see any downside to the whole man-made claim even if it ultimately turns out to be false. We lower pollution, break the oil/coal monopoly and finally fully research a boatload of new technologies that would have otherwise remained shelved for decades. Plus if we need it, we have all that oil and coal in reserve (not that we'd ever be able to drop it completely anyway). Economic and industrial concerns are merely bumps in the road, to be replaced by newer industries as they always have. Business is, after all, business.

The ONLY downside I can percieve would be the implementation of a carbon tax, which does nothing but funnel monies away from taxpayers without reason or purpose.

 

[Blacknight]

There's still a good deal of debate about the impact mankind has had on what is otherwise a natural cycle. And the important question is why that debate is so rabid and irresolvable. And personally I think we can thank Al Gore for that. He opted to put a political spin on the topic, used bad science to create an industry (one in which he is a significant financial participant) and generally chose to put himself in a role he is uniquely unqualified for. In addition, the political ramifications of global warming have been pretty extreme, with debate being "punished" and solutions being proposed which are little more than thinly veiled efforts to redistribute wealth to the third world. At the end of the day, being better stewards of our resources would be a great objective. But unless and until it's done thoughtfully and honestly there will be a lot more heat than light.

 

[mike]

My take on it is similar to CapnG's, even if its a natural part of the cycle, and ive heard the whole solar system is "warmer" lately, mankind should none the less adopt "best practise" and try and reduce our "footprint" which is a nice way to say pollution by any and all means possible.
sadly i know someone whos in marketing, and i can tell you that the whole "green" thing is being used as a way to milk money, to add a premium to products, and as a means of capturing market share.

i do think moving to a carbon based accounting system is a good idea though and we are seeing it in the UK. products on the shelf have a rating based on the carbon that was used to create and more significantly transport the product to the point of sale.

so a bottle of red wine being sold in london has a larger carbon "cost" if its australian wine, than if it were french. the actual cost in "money", coming secondary to the carbon cost being the idea of carbon based accounting, ie choices.

 

[CapnG]

sadly i know someone whos in marketing, and i can tell you that the whole "green" thing is being used as a way to milk money, to add a premium to products, and as a means of capturing market share.

The "green" thing reminds me of all that "XTREEME" crap we had back in the early 90s. Fuck, that was annoying.

 

[AnnetteMarie]

And personally I think we can thank Al Gore for that... and generally chose to put himself in a role he is uniquely unqualified for. (1)

...solutions being proposed which are little more than thinly veiled efforts to redistribute wealth to the third world. (2)

...At the end of the day, being better stewards of our resources would be a great objective. But unless and until it's done thoughtfully and honestly there will be a lot more heat than light. (3)

1. Ya, and then he goes and flies around like he is exempt from belching out a carbon footprint, plus has a house bigger than my apartment building, which seems to be exempt from sweating out carbons (his house, not my building)...

2. I always considered the third world as a part of our planet that desperately needed help. Although I would rather it be done openly...

3. If we went back to the 40s and 50s type of behaviour for our households, things would be better. Note I said households...

we composted, reused many of our household containers, many of our grocery items were bought and carried home in reusable bags, usually the breadwinner would take public transport because it was so convenient, kids rode bikes everywhere, moms hung laundry out to dry, almost every back yard had a garden and the harvest was canned or frozen, or shared amongst the neighbours...

but this is coming from a person who lived in a house without running water, although electricity was in. No heat other than an oil burner in the living area and a wood stove in the kitchen. Bathroom, what the heck was that?
We did have a grand garden. and I didn't miss running water one bit. except in the winter when you had to go....

Most of us could get by on less than half of what we have, and be happy. The more we have, the more we want, and I am so guilty of that syndrome.

Having been in a place where we had so little our belongings fit into the bed of a pickup, with room left over, and now where I have so much STUFF I am beginning to feel like a trapped rat, I vote for less, which in the end, works out to be more.

Stuff Al Gore - and the jet he rode in on.

 

[Poi]

Save all that stuff for sale on the black market! LOL (Seriously, why are we being told on TV in the US to clean our closets of clutter? I hear it all the time.)

When I was investigating the human-caused-carbon buildup several years ago there were many sites devoted to the other side of the argument. One in particular was a site devoted solely to the science of ice core investigation. The author explained that through studies conducted by NOAA, ice core data showed a repeated history of carbon buildup, usually following an 800 year lag behind the planet's warming. Carbon buildup lagged behind warming by eight hundred years, repeatedly.

I also watched NOAA's data reporting fall off on this matter. I have assumed that political pressure is the culprit. Afterall, if everyone in the frikkin' world is to be taxed on his carbon usage, how smart is it to announce carbon buildup, a rather insignificant spoiler if compared to perhaps the worst offender of global warming, atmospheric moisture, is a natural phenomenon hardly related to human populations?

Hey, we can tax carbon emissions! Can't tax the damn clouds.

 

[Anubis]

But why is this a hoax??

I do not buy the 'global warming' myth at all. As it stands, there is just as much evidence that we are headed into another ice age as we are that the surface of the planet is super-heating.

The data they are using to determine that the atmosphere is heating up has only been comprised from the last 80 years. Prior to that, there were no records kept about the ambient temperature of the Earth. Basing a theory about what will happen to the Earth on the last 80 years is the equivalent as predicting the outcome of a football game by watching 3 seconds of the action. There is plenty of anecdotal evidence that there were winters without snow and other such anomalies prior to the industrial revolution, yet these are never mentioned by the proponents of this theory.

I recall global warming proponents claiming that the pack ice is disappearing from the arctic, and this is causing polar bears to become extinct. They also claim the melting of this pack ice is going to cause the seas to rise to unprecedented levels. I visited Newfoundland two years ago and was told by a Newfoundlander who lived beside the ocean that he had never seen so much pack ice in the ast two years as he had seen over the last 50. As pack ice is frozen sea water that forms at the poles, how can one buy the global warming myth when the people who live around these regions do not believe it themselves? Additionally, there was a polar bear wandering around Bonavista Bay on the east coast of Newfoundland last winter, along with three others that were spotted on Newfoundland's northern penninsula. If there is minimal pack ice in the arctic as claimed by the global warming crowd, how did they get there? They definately did not swim from Labrador.

Additionally, I have a hard time believing that the same people that claim that the Earth is going to heat up over the next 50 years are the same people that cannot predict next week's weather with any accuracy whatsoever. I am sorry, but their cedibility is somewhat lacking.

Now, why would someone invent such a theory and pass it off as gospel truth to John Q. Public? There are a number of reasons. First of all, it is an easy way to generate revenue by inventing new environmental taxes. From these new taxes, research grants are given to scientists who have theories that perpetuate the myth. Have you ever wondered why the 'global warming deniers' always seem to be funded by oil companies? It is because they can't get funding from the government if their theories contradict the accepted story about the existance of global warming.