Many scientists and so-called skeptics and deniers (not funded by the government, mind you) have been saying "slow down" on the rush to destroy the economies of the world because of unsound and unproven science.
Now, one scientists from our good neighbor in the north has come out and said get ready for global cooling.
Solar scientists predict that, by 2020, the sun will be starting into its weakest Schwabe solar cycle of the past two centuries, likely leading to unusually cool conditions on Earth. Beginning to plan for adaptation to such a cool period, one which may continue well beyond one 11-year cycle, as did the Little Ice Age, should be a priority for governments. It is global cooling, not warming, that is the major climate threat to the world, especially Canada. As a country at the northern limit to agriculture in the world, it would take very little cooling to destroy much of our food crops, while a warming would only require that we adopt farming techniques practiced to the south of us.
rate
email
print
link to this page
Comments: 22
You mean like the thousands of INDEPENDENT scientists who are completely convinced that the planet is warming dramatically as a direct result of the significant increase in CO2 levels in the atmosphere, or do you mean like the tens of oil industry-funded "scientists," most of whose "qualifications" consist of a burning desire to be paid to produce what the oil industry wishes to see?
If I recall CO2 is PRECEEDED by warming, meaning warming occurs first, then the C02 level rises.
Evidence also shows that there's warming on Mars.
Bottom line: most of it can be attributed to solar activity. We couldn't warm the earth if we tried, which will be shown when the next Ice Age hits, which I hope is not anytime soon.
Also, how is it determined what the ideal temperature is?
Greenland is called Greenland for a reason and not because it's covered in ice. I don't see Mr. Kent calling for bringing the Vikings back, nor does Mr. Kent address that we were 3 degrees warmer before the Dark Ages hit (which was caused by global cooling).
Bottom line: the global warming argument is a proxy for attacking America and weakening her place in the world, a hatred of capitalism and hegemony. These are the same people that put China on a pedestal because they "address" C02 emmissions, though there output just exceeded ours.
Remember: when you see the leftists use global warming, what they're really saying is "down with America, down with capitalism".
The simple fact is, there has been a dramatic paradigm shift. The vast majority of this nation (and the world) recognizes that continuing to rely upon a finite resource for energy and economics is foolish, dangerous, and entirely unnecessary. We're moving away from your industry, and towards renewable, alternative, clean source of energy. Sorry. That's just the way it is. No amount of you clinging to this industry with no future will change that. No amount of you pushing forth an anti-earth, anti-human agenda from a foundation of false propaganda will ever sway the public from the new paradigm that has been fully accepted.
The entirety of your argument has been proven false, and the details of the "proof" that you bring forth have come from oil industry-funded sources that have zero credibility in this discussion, not only because of their agenda, but because the vast majority of them have no background whatsoever in climatology, meteorology, atmospheric science, or anything else related to the topic. Most of the "scientists" that offer published articles to support your industry views have been exposed as not being scientists at all, but rather individuals with an agenda, being paid by an industry with an agenda.
" Clark, you mean like the government funded scientists who produce the results that ensure increased funding for their livelihood?"
I'm talking about the fake ones who're paid by the oil industry to invent false reports to favor the oil industry.
"If I recall CO2 is PRECEEDED by warming, meaning warming occurs first, then the C02 level rises."
You recall incorrectly. Historically, warming periods have FOLLOWED increases in atmospheric CO2. You need to watch Gore's movie and learn something besides your oil industry propaganda.
"Evidence also shows that there's warming on Mars"
That's correct. There is NO evidence, however, that it is coming from increased solar output, and in fact, conclusive evidence that it is NOT due to solar activity.
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/uk/article1720024.ece
"Greenland is called Greenland for a reason and not because it's covered in ice. "
Does this have a point?
"nor does Mr. Kent address that we were 3 degrees warmer before the Dark Ages hit (which was caused by global cooling)."
This has been fully addressed. Watch the movie and you'll see.
"Bottom line: the global warming argument is a proxy for attacking America and weakening her place in the world, a hatred of capitalism and hegemony. "
Get a grip. See, this is the entire problem with you anti-earthers and your stance on this issue. You base your entire argument on utter bullshit. Luckily, it ain't selling. Perhaps, you might consider actually educating yourself on the FACTS, rather than forcing yourself public humiliation due to the fact that you rely solely upon ideological talking points and utter nonsense.
"These are the same people that put China on a pedestal because they "address" C02 emmissions, though there output just exceeded ours."
More BS China has HUGE issues to deal with. IF we were to lead the way with providing alternative energy sources, they would GLADLY move away from coal and oil. They're literally choking to death on pollution right now, and it's only going to get worse for them.
Remember, when wacky wingnuts say "Drill more and burn more oil, ignore the planet's looming catastrophe, to hell with human survival," what they're really saying is "We strongly oppose the massive economic expansion and capitalism that would result from shifting to alternative sources of energy, because we really want to destroy America, not make her a world leader."
http://www.natlogic.com/resources/nbl/v14/n06.html
Not surprisingly, it too, is a fraud, as is every other argument against global warming. Go figure, huh?
http://www.durangobill.com/Swindle_Swindle.html
"It's obvious that he knows which scientists are telling the truth."
Most notably, those that are actually scientists, not those who only CLAIM to be scientists, in order to foist the fraudulant propaganda of an industry with no future.
Let's see...one group, comprised of actual scientists in the field of climatology, whose goal is to save humankind from its own self-destruction. The other group, comprised of ideologues, pundits, phony scientists with no credentials, and the oil industry itself, whose goal is to save an industry with no future, that seeks to continue shackling us, preventing economic growth, polluting us to death, raping us economically, and launching illegal wars for as long as possible...which one to believe...hmmm...now THAT's a toughie, isn't it?
"News flash! His source of wisdom was found in a grocery store, under its secret name, Kool-aid. I am sorry to report the shelf was empty. Some one must have bought it all."
The scientists have produced their documentation, your oil industry has produced their fraudulent documentation, let's see what you've got. Hopefully, it isn't the same shitty, baseless, fraudulant propaganda that the rest of you oil industry cheerleaders desperately cling to, because I'm getting a bit weary of refuting it.
::::::::::YAWN::::::::
There you go again with your usual attacks - all skeptics are funded by oil industry (false), CO2 comes first then warming (false), etc, ad nauseaum.
The government-funded scientists and the politically-based/non-scientific IPCC have but one goal: increase the amount of funding they receive. In their minds more money=more power.
Gore is a useful idiot for them and the scientists are useful idiots for him as they reinforce each other.
Gore's PowerPoint presentation was an emotion-based argument based on infantile science and scare tactics that have no basis on reality.
What's his latest? Ten years to save ourselves?
No different than 17 years ago Ted Danson saying we had 10 years to save the oceans or even 32 years ago we'd freeze from global cooling in 10 years.
If you believe some prophets, the world will end in 2012 and it will all be a moot point.
More importantly, Mr. Kent uses the usual fallacious arguments.
For example: red herrings - attack the scientists and their motives, as opposed to their science, methods, and conclusions.
Appeal to authority - use Al Gore as an authority on climate. As Mr. Kent points out about sources I use, Gore, too, is not a scientist but uses him as a crutch for the weakening argument.
Mr. Kent also proves my point on China. They hold China as an example of dealing with pollution and climate change because of their public statements, yet communist nations have the worst environmental records.
And, yes, CO2 does in fact succeed warming. Warming comes first, followed by the CO2. All the peer-reviewed scientific charts show this, not some PowerPoint presentation produced by a politician who uses 17 times more energy than the average American family.
Bottom line: the global warming has nothing to do with protecting the environment. It has everything to do with increasing government power and oversight over markets and individuals. It has everything to do with using the precautionary principle in place of cost/benefits analyses.
There you go again with your usual attacks - all skeptics are funded by oil industry (false), CO2 comes first then warming (false), etc, ad nauseaum."
Yes, facts are boring indeed, aren't they? Much more "exciting" to issue nonsensical hyperbolic attacks against those who favor economic growth and doing what's RIGHT over saving an industry with no future.
"The government-funded scientists and the politically-based/non-scientific IPCC have but one goal: increase the amount of funding they receive. In their minds more money=more power."
Luckily, the oil industry and the paid frauds that they get to publish their propaganda have no financial interest whatsoever, and therefore, only publish their utter nonsense for "good" purposes.
"Gore is a useful idiot for them and the scientists are useful idiots for him as they reinforce each other."
Gore is an idiot, huh? I guess I've never heard that one before. Can you back that statement up with some proof? I've always heard of him described by his detractors as being "too intellectual." I guess your propaganda ministers must've come out with this new attack against him because he happens to have been proven 100% correct on so many issues. It's far easier to simply brush aside a truth teller by "killing the messenger" than to actually produce any factual documentation to refute what they say. (this is another sign that you're firmly on the wrong side of this issue, btw)
"Gore's PowerPoint presentation was an emotion-based argument based on infantile science and scare tactics that have no basis on reality."
Knock yourself out. Which portion of his movie did you find "emotion-based," and devoid of facts? Can't wait for the response to this...
"What's his latest? Ten years to save ourselves?"
That's not the assessment of Gore. That's the assessment of those who actually know something about climate...you know...the ones that the oil industry is NOT buying off.
"No different than 17 years ago Ted Danson saying we had 10 years to save the oceans or even 32 years ago we'd freeze from global cooling in 10 years."
Great strides have been made in climatology over just the past 5 years. While scientists were correct in discovering global climate change back in the 70's, their early indications were that a COOLING was occurring, rather than a WARMING. We have since learned differently.
Btw, we've also made great advances in medicine. Would you care to rely upon a doctor who used nothing but 50 year old equipment and information to treat your illness? Help yourself.
"More importantly, Mr. Kent uses the usual fallacious arguments. "
Excuse me? WHO is using fallacious arguments? Time for a little reality check, bucko.
"For example: red herrings - attack the scientists and their motives, as opposed to their science, methods, and conclusions."
Excuse me, genius, but this is precisely what you've been doing all along. I have NOT attacked the scientists on this issue. I have attacked the FAKE scientists, ideologues, and pundits, all of whom have either been paid directly by the oil industry, or who have vested interests in keeping their misinformation alive. Time to wake up. The facts are in. Your side lost. Prepare for economic expansion and a move away from endless oil wars and pollution.
"Appeal to authority - use Al Gore as an authority on clima"
You're an idiot. Gore has not pretended to be the all-knowing expert on this topic. He's relied entirely upon SCIENTIFIC STUDY, conducted not by oil-industry-paid scientists or political hacks, not by one scientist here and there who may have specific agendas, but on the collective body of works of THOUSANDS of TRUE EXPERTS in the field of scientific climatology. Sorry, but the facts just do not support your mythical fantasy world o' delusion.
""Mr. Kent also proves my point on China. They hold China as an example of dealing with pollution and climate change because of their public statements, yet communist nations have the worst environmental records."
Which is precisely why, as I stated, they are poised to shift dramatically to alternative sources of energy, as soon as we can develop them and make them commercially viable. Why are you insisting upon holding back capitalism and economic expansion?
"And, yes, CO2 does in fact succeed warming. Warming comes first, followed by the CO2. All the peer-reviewed scientific charts show this, not some PowerPoint presentation produced by a politician who uses 17 times more energy than the average American family."
The relationship between atmospheric CO2 levels and warming is rather indisputable, except by your oil company "scientists."
http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2005/11/650000-years-of-
greenhouse-gas-concentrations/
"Bottom line: the global warming has nothing to do with protecting the environment."
You're right. Global warming is destroying our environment.
"It has everything to do with increasing government power and oversight over markets and individuals."
Who was it that was using fallacious arguments and fear mongering? I can't wait to see your documentation to support this absurd claim.
"It has everything to do with using the precautionary principle in place of cost/benefits analyses."
The FACT is, there is a trillions-of-dollars industry just waiting to be tapped, and it is YOU and your oil industry pals who're preventing this explosive economic expansion. Step aside and let progress through, will you? You may continue to worship your modern-day horse buggy whip, if you wish. The rest of us have made up our minds to move forward.
1. What is the ideal temperature?
2. What viable energy source is going to provide adequate energy without any kind of emmissions? You say your communist buds in China will sweepingly change their ways if we do first? Is that why they're building coal-powered plants at the rate of one every 7-10 days with hundreds more planned for the future?
3. Mr. Kent is representative of the usual environmental movement - attack, but not putting solutions out to be judged on their merits. Just very vague assertions of moving "forward."
4. What industries are waiting to be tapped? I'm all for new industries when they're cheaper and more efficient than what I have.
5. How can global warming be destroying the environment when it's a natural occurrence caused by the environment itself?
Even the History Channel, no friend of skeptics, had an episode this week talking about radical climate changes that occurred over time.
To make this into a political issue, as Al Gore and his extremist Leftist friends have done, and to use McCarthyite tactics of fear and intimidation against scientists who speak out against the "common wisdom" is a disgrace.
It depends upon if you care about sustaining life on the planet and preserving existing coastlines or not.
"2. What viable energy source is going to provide adequate energy without any kind of emmissions?"
There is enough solar energy in the SW to power the entire country. Additionally, there is enough wind energy in the northern plains to do the same. Those are two very viable, completely adequate energy sources right off the top of my head that are currently available and could replace coal and natural gas fired electrical plants within a few years. Aside from these simple solutions, there are numerous other viable energy sources that could easily be commercially developed, such as geothermal and tidal energy. Iceland is entirely powered by geothermal energy already.
"You say your communist buds in China will sweepingly change their ways if we do first?"
First of all, they're not "my buds," ass cookie. Secondly, they're literally choking to death on fossil fuel pollution, and would be more than happy to switch to cleaner fuels, if they were made accessible in a commercially viable form.
"Is that why they're building coal-powered plants at the rate of one every 7-10 days with hundreds more planned for the future?"
Duh. Maybe you're not as stupid as you act after all.
"
3. Mr. Kent is representative of the usual environmental movement - attack, but not putting solutions out to be judged on their merits. Just very vague assertions of moving "forward.""
Any solution other than "drill more and burn more" is a massive leap forward from anything you anti-earth whack jobs put forth.
"4. What industries are waiting to be tapped?"
Solar, wind, tidal, and geothermal energy are all willing and able to rise to the challenge. Care to put some money where your cheeseburger-stuffed mouth is for a change?
"I'm all for new industries when they're cheaper and more efficient than what I have."
Yeah, your gas is real cheap these days, isn't it? How about some Enron-delivered electricity, at 1200% higher costs? Sweet. Yeah, I can see how supporting your oil industry whores is saving you a WHOLE bunch.
And, why is it that you "capitalist-lovers" are so convinced that technological advancement can never, ever take place? Why is it that you have so little faith in American ingenuity and ability to overcome challenges? Why do you people hate America so much, and want so much for us to fail? Why is it that you want us to be put at great risk of national security threat by continuing to meddle in parts of the world that we don't belong?
The internal combustion virtually unchanged for well over 100 years now. Do you REALLY think that our brilliant minds are so stupid that they couldn't figure out another source of propulsion by now?
"5. How can global warming be destroying the environment when it's a natural occurrence caused by the environment itself?"
Because CO2 levels are directly proportional to global temperature increases, and CO2 levels have risen to nearly 400 ppm, far beyond what has ever been seen, even through 655,000 years of ice core samples. You need to do some actual reading on this subject, instead of just parroting the long-disproven lies told by your propaganda ministers and their oil industry pals. Start by actually watching Gore's movie. You might just learn something for a change, and not come off looking like such a baffoon in the future.
"Even the History Channel, no friend of skeptics, had an episode this week talking about radical climate changes that occurred over time."
The scientists have already covered this, and Gore brings it up in his movie. Pay attention.
"To make this into a political issue, as Al Gore and his extremist Leftist friends have done, and to use McCarthyite tactics of fear and intimidation against scientists who speak out against the "common wisdom" is a disgrace."
Actually, it was the "right" that has chosen to make this into a political issue. Mr. Gore is simply trying to awaken the public to the facts. It is YOUR side that is espousing lies and misinformation. Gee...I wonder why?
But, of course, as usual, this makes Gore the "bad guy" in this. If he was willing to lie outright, misinform, twist, spin, and ignore facts, he'd be your national hero. Sadly, because he has chosen to accept reality and discuss factual, documented information, he's eviscerated by those who refuse to acknowledge reality and facts.
Luckily, you kook jobs are alone on this one. Your are in the tiniest of tiny, radical, fringe, extremist minorities on this issue (among others). The science is in, the debate is over. You lost. Deal with it. Now, accept the economic explosion that will unfold as soon as we begin to move away from our obsession with an industry with no future, or get the hell out of the way while the rest of us move forward. Stop misinforming, stop clouding the facts, stop standing in the way of progress and economic advancement.
You can keep your horse buggy whips, keep your expensive, pollution-bearing, coal-fired electricity, keep your benzene-bearing, choking, expensive, war-inducing, FINITE gasoline. Keep your fossil fuel obsession, and go down in flames with it. The rest of us will move onward and upward.
And, why is it that none of you oil industry moonbats can never explain why it is that you're so resolutely against economic growth and technological advancement? What possible good can come from ignoring the reality that oil is a finite resource? What benefit is there to be had by waiting until it's either completely gone, or we're completely destroyed by our endless warring over oil, in order to recognize the writing on the wall? Will it be cheaper and easier to shift away from oil when it's all gone? I think not. You people need to start waking up.
Rhetorical right? I mean there IS a benefit to Uncle Exxon to drag his feet!
Regards,
Doyle I <~~~~~
Oh, yes, there is plenty of solar energy to power the planet. But unless we cover virtually every square inch of Earth with solar panels, we don't have enough to collect and properly utilize. Windmills. Again, all for it but folks like Ted Kennedy get in the way when he fights it because it ruins his view from his island get away. Geothermal? Been to north Florida lately?
You prove my point most eloquently. The reason there's been little effort to move to alternative forms of energy is that it's not economically viable at this point.
Once it is, I'll be one of the first to jump. But I'm not going to pay $250 per month for a utility bill generated by windmills when I can get the same for $125 from a natural gas plant.
Let's see......Gore, a politician, uses a sensitive and infantile issue - climate change - to push his grow-government agenda and it's the right that makes it a political issue?
PUH-LEASE.
And the science is decided?
ROFL - I just posted more info today from one of the lead scientists....check it out.
The hate-America left you represent are collapsing daily as more and more holes are poked in your argument.
Soon you all will be like the grumbling uncle who shows up a the family reunion who walks around and mumbles and everyone ignores.
1. "[S]ince the last [IPCC] report it is also often stated that the science is settled or done and now is the time for action."
2. "In fact there are no predictions by IPCC at all. And there never have been."
3. "None of the models used by IPCC are initialized to the observed state and none of the climate states in the models correspond even remotely to the current observed climate."
4. "Moreover, the starting climate state in several of the models may depart significantly from the real climate owing to model errors. I postulate that regional climate change is impossible to deal with properly unless the models are initialized."
5. "The current projection method works to the extent it does because it utilizes differences from one time to another and the main model bias and systematic errors are thereby subtracted out. This assumes linearity. It works for global forced variations, but it can not work for many aspects of climate, especially those related to the water cycle."
6. "However, the science is not done because we do not have reliable or regional predictions of climate."
Wow.
No company has introduced anything that can compete with fossil fuels, if people switch to moon shine whiskey, to keep it simple for you ethanol, people will have sacrifice fuel economy. In a standard American vehicle that can burn ethanol and gas, it would take twice the amount of ethanol to get the same distance as if you filled the vehicle with gas. These little electric hybrids on the market are not little energizer bunnies, they are not efficient; the technology is to new to replace what we already have. We don't know what the reliability is goanna be with batteries that are no different than what is in you digital camera. Companies that make solar panels admit that the technology to make the panel economically viable is still in the works.
Finally, unless you been to Iraq, I just going to make this simple when it comes to the war, you don't know the difference between you ass and a hole in the ground. So unless you have picked up an M16 and walk the security line, get pop shots made at you by a sniper, watch a good buddy get his head blown off, know the joys of taking another's life. Just shut the hell up. It always freaking amazes me how you liberal ass pirates know so much about the war, but you never set foot in the county. Some info for you, even the village idiot is thought wise when he doesn't speak. Thank you.
P.S. CHRIS, if you are getting paid by the oil company, share the wealth.
Even though Clark is at the wide Left end of the spectrum and I'm at the Center-Right, I find his reactionary nature amusing. He always tends to find the most abrasive, and unprofitable way to solve EVERY problem. Solution #1 always involves shaking down the rich for more tax money. He doesn't even care about the fairness issue unless its his ox being goured. Read and watch, you'll see what I'm saying is true.
I could always start on how the weak minded like, himself, will cause a complete upheaval of government control; a complete vacuum will be created to drain anyone with other ideas out of existence. I can see him in charge of groups marching through cities pulling people from their homes like the Nazis did the Jews, executing them in the name of his perfect government. Anyone, including his followers, who ever have different idea will find their bodies like pizza, stuffed in a over and baked to death. Or I could be wrong, I need to consult my Klan brothers on their thoughts.
Clark, as you've found out, is a prime example of this kind of Leftie. In his world, the rich are all evil. Conservatives are misguided. The market economy is anti-middle class. Chuck Schumer is reasonable. All war is avoidable. Dictators can be reasoned with. Global Warming is all America's fault.
I could go on and on, but I'm sure you get the picture.........
"complete upheaval of government control""a complete vacuum will be created to drain anyone with other ideas out of existence""in charge of groups marching through cities pulling people from their homes like the Nazis did the Jews""find their bodies like pizza, stuffed in a over and baked to death""get pop shots made at you by a sniper, watch a good buddy get his head blown off, know the joys of taking another's life""McCarthyite tactics of fear and intimidation against scientists""more money=more power""a result of Margaret Thatcher trying to promote nuclear power because she hated her coal unions and didn't trust Middle East oil""a proxy for attacking America and weakening her place in the world""a hatred of capitalism"
wow,hysterical much?
what a bunch of chicken-littles