More Cracks in the "Consensus"

William Gray, a top hurricane analyst from Colorado State University, blames global ocean currents for the recent warming trends. He also sees a global cooling period coming in the next decade. I am sure that he will be discounted as a global warming skeptic and the personal attacks will follow.

Agreed

Nevermind the poor track record of those that hate on mankind. :)

Anybody who questions the religious apocalypse of the left will be accused of being pawns of big oil, corporate America, etc.... The good news is that facts, let alone objectivity and rational thinking, are showing the environmentalist kooks for the wide eyed hysterical wackos they really are.

While you nutbags continue to worship the voices of the oil industry, bear in mind that nothing but positive will come from shifting away from our dependence on fossil fuels, regardless of how you wish to feel about global warming. The fact is, the sooner we can wean ourselves from fossil fuel consumption, the sooner we'll free ourselves of unnecessary, illegal wars, threats of global terrorism, environmental destruction and pollution, and a raping of the economy by a whorish industry with no future. You're standing in the way of progress. Move, please. If you wish to continue to cling to the dying industry, find yourself a nifty little island somewhere to do so. The rest of us want no part of your addiction anymore.

Clark that is actually a pretty good point in terms of oil dependency. But why not stand behind that point alone instead of telling fairy tales of doom and gloom? By the way, nobody is forcing you or your religious leaders to consume so much of the evil monster (oil) but you all still do.

"But why not stand behind that point alone instead of telling fairy tales of doom and gloom? "

Who cares? What difference does it make what moves us away from the finite resource that nobody can argue is causing us so much trouble? If it takes doom and gloom to draw us away from the addiction, I'm all for it. I'm anxiously in anticipation of the massive economic explosion that a grandiose shift from fossil fuels will bring, and I can't for the life of me figure out why there are still some who insist upon standing in the way of this progress.

Seriously, what is the down side of shifting to alternative fuels at this point? I've been asking this question for years, and to date, not a single oil worshipper has been able to respond, let alone provide a rational, thoughtful, convincing case. Some people just choose to stand in the way because, for some unknown reason, they've decided that this issue is partisan, and since they cheerlead for the side that tells them to oppose progress, they willingly do so, as if they're some mindless robot. It gets old.

The fact is, there is simply no valid justification for continuing to ignore science and mock the obvious. None. If there were, I'd have seen it by now. For some, this is nothing more than their Alamo. An unwinnable battle that they just flat out insist upon waging, against all reason, against all logic, against all common sense, against national security, and against humanity. It just does not make sense to me.

"Who cares? What difference does it make what moves us away from the finite resource that nobody can argue is causing us so much trouble?"

That's rather Machiavellian.

Clark, my friend, no one is saying we shouldn't invest in other resources. We're simply saying that:

1. the doom and gloom ain't as predicted,
2. climate change is natural. IN the 1970s global cooling was all the rage, then is was overpopulation, then it was the seas, then it was mylar, now it's global warming.
3. Using the Precautionary Principle, we shouldn't cut off our ability for socioeconomic growth based on self-loathing science that blames man (i.e., Americans) for natural climate change.
4. I'm a big believer in nuclear energy and will be one of the first to invest in alternative fuels once they are as cost-effective as current energy sources.

I judge by your comments you may not by the global warming hype, yet it satisfies your political need to do away with fossil fuels.

"1. the doom and gloom ain't as predicted,"

You're right. It's beginning to look much worse. I just offered you a link to an article that suggests that the melting of the Arctic is 30 years ahead of schedule. Bye, bye polar bears. Bye, bye gulf stream. Hello, permanent winter for England.




"2. climate change is natural. IN the 1970s global cooling was all the rage, then is was overpopulation, then it was the seas, then it was mylar, now it's global warming."

Climate change has occurred regularly over the course of studied, ancient earth history, but never has there been the levels of CO2 in the atmosphere that we're currently seeing, and since the direct link between CO2 levels and global temperature have been established, there is reason for concern.

Btw, we don't even know yet how much methane is being released, as a result of permafrost thawing out. Methane is 20 times more potent as a greenhouse gas than CO2. Sleep well.





"3. Using the Precautionary Principle, we shouldn't cut off our ability for socioeconomic growth based on self-loathing science that blames man (i.e., Americans) for natural climate change."

How would a massive economic explosion resulting from a massive effort to move towards alternative energy sources "cut off our ability for socioeconomic growth?" And, how exactly is $3.00-$4.00/gallon gas expanding that growth?





"4. I'm a big believer in nuclear energy and will be one of the first to invest in alternative fuels once they are as cost-effective as current energy sources."

Of course you are. Everyone who cheerleads for the oil industry is a big proponent of nuclear energy, because it relies heavily upon the production of fossil fuels.

I know several people who're making money selling electricity that they generate with their own windmills to their utilities. What's holding you back?





"I judge by your comments you may not by the global warming hype, yet it satisfies your political need to do away with fossil fuels."

This isn't a political issue. That's another huge mistake that you oil worshippers have made. This is a HUMAN issue, not a political one. I brush aside the hyperbole because I don't need it to be convinced, and frankly, it appears that it frightens some people away from reality. If I can reduce the argument to discussions of mere common sense and logic, it's much more difficult for the opponents of progress to defend their stance, wouldn't you agree?

Permanent winter? I thought we were talking global warming.

Are we back on the global cooling kick?

Here's articles about the melting of the arctic ice cap. On Mars, but not here.

http://science.nasa.gov/headlines/y2003/07aug_southpole.htm
http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2007/02/070228-mars-warming.html
www.climateark.org/articles/2001/4th/stsumars.htm

This is indeed a political issue.

The folks pushing the global warming hoopla feed at the government trough and worry about having their funding cut off, thus the perpetual doom-and-gloom and the need for "more study" thus more funding.

What blows my mind is that government bureaucrats like to edit the reports before they're released so that that match official pronouncements. This will lead to other nations beating up on the US for its world leadership, while giving counties like India and China a free ride.

The truth is, should they be successful at reigning us in through higher taxes and regulations, it'll be the third world nations that suffer.

Truth is, I suspect, that's what some people want. The same people pushing global warming are the same ones who believe the earth is overpopulated. So any cut in development, they surmise, will lead to unneeded deaths in the poor counties and cut down on the human parasites sucking Mother Earth and Gaia dry.

But that's OK, because according to Mr. KEnts Machiavellian thinking, if it gets to where he wants to go, then so be it.