ExxonMobil? Just like Big Tobacco before them, and their fervent funding of "think" tanks whose purpose it was to obfuscate the connection between smoking and a host of serious health problems. At least the procedural template has been established for Big Oil, eh? And what a remarkable coincidence that the fellow whom this thread is about, Christopher Monckton, whose exclusion from the hearing caused all this brouhaha (principally by the Monckton himself), is associated with a "think" tank funded by both Big Oil and Big Tobacco.
Nature already provides a solution (plants) for the largest component of GreenHouse Gases. Since CO2 represents just over 85% all of U.S. "GreenHouse Gas" emmissions, why not simply solve the problem by planting enough trees to handle such emissions. No need for a new 'global tax' on Carbon Emissions. - Spydertrader
...answer:what is oxymoron. Im sure you find yourself in that position quite a bit. Anyway thanks for the laugh. Are you flat-earth beleiver as well?Remember,it was scientists and doctors who had an agenda when they cited cigarettes as a cancer source.Tobacco companies had no vested interest in denying this assertion of course-besides profits.
Not only don't I believe in man created global warming-I dispute there's even a clear warming trend to begin with. Reliance on reports from barren outposts in the sub-Arctic remind me of Judas singing in JC Superstar: If you'd come today you could have reached a whole nation. Israel in 4 BC had no mass communication. Why if warming is caused by mans activity don't we just compare temperatures and precipitation rates from years past in places where man actually pollutes rather than unobservable from the masses anecdotes about diminished "ice caps and polar bears". I mean if the whole friggin universe is getting hot because of cars in L.A. or factories in Changchun then wouldn't it stand to reason that the climate of those cities would change? I know a fair amount about domestic temperature collection and the process has flaws. For example, over the years within cities the location of where the "official" temperature resides have changed. Some parts of the country have dramatic temperature differentials within just miles of each other. The West Coast in particular. Even Chicago's-and other Great Lake cities-"lake effect" causes data differentials. Chicago's site has gone from the Lakefront to Midway to O'Hare in the past 70 years. Ever compared a warm, sunny mid May day out by the airport to a chilly damp Michigan Avenue? Here's a pertinent article detailing the switch in L.A. from the Civic Center to USC. "WILL THE REAL LOS ANGELES STAND UP: IMPACTS OF A WEATHER STATIONâS RELOCATION ON CLIMATIC RECORDS (AND RECORD WEATHER)" http://ams.confex.com/ams/pdfpapers/119064.pdf Knowing that Kansas City has virtually zero divergence from one part of town to the next, knowing it's in the center of the country-almost literally-and knowing in a weird way K.C. has a "typical" American climate, it becomes a nice case study. Here's a century and a score of Kansas City. You'll see from the mid-90's to 2006 a rise from 51.2 to 58.5 degrees. Pretty dramatic. But look back and see how many similar moves were made. Perhaps a dozen. Buy 51's and sell 58's and you'd be rich. Now I know something none of you will learn from that last link. You'll notice the page was published prior to the inclusion of 2008. What do you think last years mean was? I'll post it later. http://www.crh.noaa.gov/eax/localclimate/seasrank/springtrank.php
4.5 Billion years the earth has existed and we have 50 years to go- just give them all your money now so they can save you! For those actually interested in hearing all sides, below is some good stuff. http://icecap.us/index.php/go/faqs-and-myths#4 "In his recent movie, former Vice President Al Gore, said: âIf you look at the ten hottest years ever measured, they all occurred in the last fourteen years, and the hottest of all was 2005.â The ten hottest years ever measured happened thousands of years ago and 2005 was not one of them. Gore must be using only temperature readings from the 125 year thermometer set, a very short time to look at when one is trying to understand Global Warming, but this period of time suits the environmentalists because it is a time in which temperatures happened to be wandering up. Alarmists refuse to look at the big picture because it shows what they refuse to believe. For the US, the recently revised NASA GISS Annual Mean temperatures show 6 of the 10 warmest years were from the 1920s to the 1950s and only 4 since 1990." "Gore lists ways the United States could reduce emissions of greenhouse gases back to the levels of 1970. Even if the US reduced greenhouse gas emissions to zero it would have no immediate impact on climate. China, India and many other countries are significantly increasing their emission levels, and global concentrations of CO2 may double this century. Even if the Kyoto Protocol could be fully implemented the globe would be spared no more than a few hundredths of a degree of warming. " "Gore claims that sea level rise could drown the Pacific islands, Florida, major cities the world over, and the 9/11 Memorial in New York City. Sea level has been rising at a rate of 1.8 mm per year for the past 8,000 years. The IPCC notes that âNo significant acceleration in the rate of sea level rise during the 20th century has been detected.â Unless there is another Little Ice Age, they will continue rising at roughly this rate for centuries to come. As to open water in the Arctic, it happens every year in late summerâfollowing weeks in the 40s and 50s."
You realize of course (probably not, judging from the idiocy of your previous posts) that most of the earth's land mass is currently uninhabitable because of sub arctic temperatures (Antarctica, Alaska, Canada, Siberia, Greenland, ect...). Among many other things, AGW koolaid drinkers ignore the fact that as the earth warms (if it does continue) more of the earth will be able to support CO2 consuming plant life, as well as human and animal life.
Youve failed to even read some of the references cited in the article which you post (such as that from the Canadian Nat Post by Peiser of 15 May 2005) that actually refute that portion of the article that you provided and say the exact opposite - that there is no consensus on man caused global warming: http://ff.org/centers/csspp/library/co2weekly/2005-06-09/dangers.htm Oreskes, a historian, wrote an article on 'consensus' that was refuted handily. The AAAS (Amer Association for the Advancement of Science) sat on the papers which answered & refuted Oreskes & only published her article. - - Grasshopper, there are political & business interests that benefit greatly from 'man made global warming'. Most scientific 'research' is funded by government sources nowadays so they know who butters their bread. Even if youre not trained in the physical sciences - - you should at least learn something about logical independent thinking and the use of propaganda. Start out easy with reading a story such as "1984" by George Orwell. With such mindless acceptance of any kind of b.s. democracy is in deep trouble. - - -