What Do We Think About Climate Change

Figure it out, Genius.

 

there have been times in the past when people had to switch from one fuel to another and after a short time disruption it turned out to be long term monetarily beneficial.

 

Prepare for the cold. Warming is protecting us, not threatening us.

 

and on what authority do you have that?

 

Try growing wheat under an ice shield.

 

you mean where the glaciers are melting?

 

Your density approaches that of lead. Did you eat a lot of paint when you were young?

 

Mnnn nothing as sweet as revenge or Pb(NO3)2

 

Actually it's visible airborne polutants that are saving our bacon at the moment cause if it were not for global dimming we would be screwed. Maybe some of you recall the data I presented on the studies done in the days following 9/11 when there were no flights rolling and consequently no con trails.

the candles reaching the surface of the planet are significantly reduced these days because of various forms of pollutants

something that seldom gets discussed around here is that the warming would be even worse if not for these reflective pollutants. We have begun to mandate a reduction in visible airborne pollutants but have been slowed in our reduction of co2 and other invisible green house gasses by the religious right and the corporate oligarchy. This disparity is in some way responsible for the dramatic rise in temps were are seeing lately.

argue away but its a fairly simple reality

cheers
B

 

Hogwash.

 

shows what you know mate

try looking up "global dimming" and learning a few things before you post again

its a clear and obvious issue that is seldom mentioned because those in the know dont want to present the curbs on visible pollutants as part of the problem, there not. What is the problem is the worlds unregulated co2 emissions and that is where the focus lies, as it should.

but the simple truth is that by regulating one and not the other we have exacerbated the global warming issue significantly

love
B

G
Im really not interested in playing the "whats Guillermo got up his sleeve this time" game
you have been presented with adequate data to show that temp over the last whatever time frame right down to a 5 year period continues to increase. You are welcome to try and confuse the issue as you see fit but your going to have to do it yourself as I will simply continue to present the established data streams and continue to stand by the many thousands of dedicated scientists who have contributed to them. It seems that every one of your "questions" is laced with misrepresentation and your not going to be satisfied until one of them slips past us, which so far we have been able to unravel each and every one of the deceptions. What I dont understand is why, why the need if you honestly are not questioning the rise in temps or the rise in CO2 the billion to one odds that its a coincidence. If you went to Vegas and someone offered you a billion to one odds are you really telling us that you would take the long shot. Cause thats what you are doing her and by doing so placing the safety and well-being of the entire planet at risk, on a billion to one long shot that co2 has nothing to do with climate change.

 

Why? Nobody else does, Mr King of the Thread. Please stop posting garbage. You have already suffered from too much dimming.

 

Hypocrits and Glitteratti - AGW bedfellows

Seems as if a real debate is just too frightening for James Cameron. This letter from Ann McIlhenney came today. Like most libs, Cameron is only courageous in a room full of his own kind.

Friends,

Last March James Cameron sounded defiant.

The Avatar director was determined to expose journalists, such as myself, who thought it was important to ask questions about climate change orthodoxy and the radical "solutions" being proposed.

Cameron said was itching to debate the issue and show skeptical journalists and scientists that they were wrong.

“I want to call those deniers out into the street at high noon and shoot it out with those boneheads," he said in an interview.

Well, a few weeks ago Mr. Cameron seemed to honor his word.

His representatives contacted myself and two other well known skeptics, Marc Morano of the Climate Depot website and Andrew Breitbart, the new media entrepreneur.

Mr. Cameron was attending the AREDAY environmental conference in Aspen Colorado 19-22 August. He wanted the conference to end with a debate on climate change. Cameron would be flanked with two scientists. It would be 90 minutes long. It would be streamed live on the internet.

They hoped the debate would attract a lot of media coverage.

"We are delighted to have Fox News, Newsmax, The Washington Times and anyone else you'd like. The more the better," one of James Cameron's organizers said in an email.

It looked like James Cameron really was a man of his word who would get to take on the skeptics he felt were so endangering humanity.

Everyone on our side agreed with their conditions. The debate was even listed on the AREDAY agenda.

But then as the debate approached James Cameron's side started changing the rules.

They wanted to change their team. We agreed.

They wanted to change the format to less of a debate—to "a roundtable". We agreed.

Then they wanted to ban our cameras from the debate. We could have access to their footage. We agreed.

Bizarrely, for a brief while, the worlds most successful film maker suggested that no cameras should be allowed-that sound only should be recorded. We agreed

Then finally James Cameron, who so publicly announced that he "wanted to call those deniers out into the street at high noon and shoot it out," decided to ban the media from the shoot out.

He even wanted to ban the public. The debate/roundtable would only be open to those who attended the conference.

No media would be allowed and there would be no streaming on the internet. No one would be allowed to record it in any way.

We all agreed to that.

And then, yesterday, just one day before the debate, his representatives sent an email that Mr. "shoot it out " Cameron no longer wanted to take part. The debate was cancelled.

James Cameron's behavior raises some very important questions.

Does he genuinely believe in man made climate change? If he believes it is a danger to humanity surely he should be debating the issue every chance he gets ?

Or is it just a pose?

The man who called for an open and public debate at "high noon" suddenly doesn't want his policies open to serious scrutiny.

I was looking forward to debating with the film maker. I was looking forward to finding out where we agreed and disagreed and finding a way forward that would help the poorest people in the developing and developed world.

But that is not going to happen because somewhere along the way James Cameron, a great film maker, has moved from King of the World to being King of the Hypocrites.

- Ann McElhinney

 

Boston the Weasel strikes again.

Boston said.............

We have begun to mandate a reduction in visible airborne pollutants but have been slowed in our reduction of co2 and other invisible green house gasses by the religious right and the corporate oligarchy. This disparity is in some way responsible for the dramatic rise in temps were are seeing lately.


The Weasel is incredible. Now it is the religious right responsible for AGW. This nutcase will reach for any straw. There is no dramatic rise, it is called summer you dolt!

 

In French that is: Il n'y a aucune augmentation dramatique, elle est appelée vous été dolt !