ARIZONA bans Global Warming legislation

[sgreger1]

The Earth has actually been cooling for the last several years.

Even people in this fight that hate Al Gore would tell you you are wrong. The earth is warming. The debate is whether it is caused by human beings and if we can do something about it.

If the Earth had been cooling we wouldn't be talking about being able to navigate through the northwest passage.

You are incorrect, it is fact that the globe has been cooling for some time now. try googling it.

www.isthereglobalcooling.com

[sgreger1]

Furthermore, even if the globe is warming it is irrelivant, because the ecosystem naturally changes over time. It is not man-made, and what little footprint we do have, it is not worth further wrecing the economy over by using this cap-and-trade tax that hasn't worked anywhere.

[justintempler]

You are incorrect, it is fact that the globe has been cooling for some time now. try googling it.

www.isthereglobalcooling.com

http://www.isthereglobalcooling.com/...global_cooling

(my credentials and purpose)


This website has no sponsors or financial supporters, it is entirely the creating of myself. While not a scientists I do have a degree in History (also a minor in Political Science) from a prestigious University. Perhaps this has facilitated my ability to research the topic and also my understanding of how important it is to our society. If someone wants to know I am an automobile dealer (Pohanka Automotive Group)....

http://www.wanada.org/dealers-news-pohanka-2005-06.html

http://www.pohanka.com/

No hidden agenda there right? This guy is a millionaire, his job is to sell cars, and we know the track record of honesty in car salesman.

I looked over his links, he cherry picks his data, no surprise there.

[Slydel]

Yup, global warming has occurred, yet I have read that it has maintained the same temperature since 2000. Ocean temperature data has been collected throughout the earths oceans, (though it may have been just the Atlantic). I vaguely remember this.... and I believe that it was through NASA that I saw (graphs)/read about this data: many scientist believe that ocean temperature is more indicative of Global Warming, I mean climate change, than land temperature because its ability to hold heat much better than the atmosphere. Also, if I remember correctly, wind changes and ocean currents will/has changed because of this warming. This may mean that the U.S continent will possibly be cooler during this traumatic change! Some argue that ocean temperatures are leveling off because of the increased rate of melting of the polar caps, yet the data of ocean temperature increase, up to this point, was used as a measure of global warming, I mean climate change, because ocean temperature had been increasing. I am not sure if I buy into this. What changed so abruptly? Did the earth get so warm that the ice started to melt to cause the massive cooling of the ocean as the earth got warmer? I say massive cooling because the ocean holds much more thermal energy than the air, yet we on the land are warming up so quickly!.... Maybe...but I think it would had been a little more gradual than this. Again, maybe the change in ocean temperature has been subtle, maybe even minute so I could be way off base, but should not the ocean temperatures continue to increase as our earth increases in temperature?

[SnusinUsa]

Half Way There

I also would have to agree that global temperature change is a natural cycle, however you cannot refute the scientific proof that Chlorofluorocarbons (CFCs), and Carbon Dioxide emissions are major contributors to it's escalation.

And I quote: "Until now, it has been difficult to estimate how much climate will warm in response to a given carbon dioxide emissions scenario because of the complex interactions between human emissions, carbon sinks, atmospheric concentrations and temperature change. Matthews and colleagues show that despite these uncertainties, each emission of carbon dioxide results in the same global temperature increase, regardless of when or over what period of time the emission occurs.

These findings mean that we can now say: if you emit that tonne of carbon dioxide, it will lead to 0.0000000000015 degrees of global temperature change. If we want to restrict global warming to no more than 2 degrees, we must restrict total carbon emissions – from now until forever – to little more than half a trillion tonnes of carbon, or about as much again as we have emitted since the beginning of the industrial revolution." Mathews, Damon "Carbon Emissions Linked To Global Warming In Simple Linear Relationship" ScienceDaily (June 11, 2009)

I like to think that we should do what we can to slow our pollution, I drive one of those Camry Hybrid cars and it saves me a ton of money on gas. If you are concerned with increased energy costs a way to circumvent them would be to install solar panels (for those who own their own homes), not only is it renewable, but you end up with more than you consume and you can sell it back to the power companies for profit, turning a liability into an asset.

[sgreger1]

*According to the US National Climate Data Center 2008 temperatures in the USA were below the 115 year average for most of the country link.
Global temperatures according to the UAH for June 2009 were only .001 deg. C above the 30 year average, in other words "normal". Where is the global warming? link
*NASA announced that 2008 global temperatures were significantly cooler than 2007, the coolest since 2000 and below the average of the last 30 years link

*temperatures that were once rising are now falling rapidly according to the NOA link, 1998 was a warm year but the eleven years since have each been cooler, global temperatures have dropped an average of .6 degrees F in this period link. All four world agencies responsible for tracking global climate show temperature decreases since 2002 link

*Global temperatures cooled in five of the last seven decades even though CO2 levels increased steadily throughout this period. link

Polar ice extent is near normal

*Antarctica has 90% of the worlds ice and had the most sea ice ever recorded at the end of 2008, over one million square kilometers above the average maximum. The global sea ice extent today (combined sea ice at both Poles) is nearly the same as the average of the last 30 years. link link link View today's Antarctic sea ice extent compared to the 1979-2007 average (National Snow and Ice Data Center) link. View today's Arctic sea ice extent compared to the 1979-2007 average link , (Nansen) link

The oceans are cooling

*According to NOAA the earth's oceans have been cooling since 2003 and may be entering a 30 year long cooling period (La Nina). See ocean temperatures link. Then compare today's ocean temperatures to only a few years ago link

There are fewer violent storms

*Violent tornadoes are in decline in the US link. The global death rate from storms are in decline link. Global hurricane, typhoon, and cyclone activity are nearing 50 year lows according to Florida State University link

Solar activity is changing

So what has changed? CO2 concentrations continue to increase yet temperatures have been falling since 2002? Polar ice is growing. Violent storms are declining. One reason may be that solar activity is at the lowest level in almost a Century. link link See what the sun looks like with and without sunspots link View today's photo of the sun and note the continued lack of sunspots link In the past periods with fewer sunspots were ones with cooler temperatures.

[sgreger1]

After studying the past, scientists admit there is something that caused global warming in the past which they know is not carbon or anything we currently use in our equation of global warming contributors.

Only time its happened is because of some outside source.

Perhaps the sun?


http://in.reuters.com/article/worldN...41050320090715



Global warming is not worth tanking the economy over, and it is not something that urgently needs to be addressed and take all of our money to "combat"

[justintempler]

http://in.reuters.com/article/worldN...41050320090715

Do you even read your own links before you post them?

....
At present, CO2 levels have already risen from 280 parts per million to nearly 390 ppm since the Industrial Revolution and could exceed a 70 percent increase during this century, a rate much faster than the Palaeocene-Eocene event, Zeebe said.

While this would cause initial effects, much worse could follow in the coming decades and centuries as the oceans, land and atmosphere tried to deal with the higher CO2 levels, he said.

"The carbon that we put into the atmosphere right now is going to stay there for a very long time. Much of it will stay there for tens of thousands of years."

translation....
if you thought the global warming from the Palaeocene-Eocene warming was bad......you ain't seen nothing yet.

[gpp111]

global warming

I see that someone was quoting my website, www.isthereglobalwarming.com

I also see that the global warming alarmists reverted to their usual tactic of ad hoiminem attacks on me. Let the facts speak for themselves.

There were three ice ages with more CO2 than today, one had ten times more!

CO2 as a percent of the atmosphere has only increased 1/10,000th since the 1700s!

CO2 is about 3% of the greenhouse gases and man contributes about 3% of the CO2, so lets see, what is .03 X .03. Wow. Man only contibutes
.09% of all greenhouse gases!

How high will the oceans rise of all the floating ice in the world melts. NONE! But the sea level could go down, because ice has more volume than water.

Oh, yes, it is true that if the ice on land melts, the oceans will rise. Ok, where is the ice on land? 10% in Greenland and 90% in Antarctica.

Oh, did you know that Greenland has been mostly warmer than today the last 4,000 years and didnt melt then. guess it wont melt now either.

Ok, Antarctica, record amount of sea ice in 2008, over 1,000,000 square kilometers more ice than the average. The ice is growing in Antarctica. It has been cooling in most parts of Antarctica the last 50 years! In fact, there is no global warming in the southern hemisphere at all, none! Yes, it is true, a small part of antarctica is warmer, in the peninsula, but the other 90% is cooling.

Ok, more about CO2, CO2 has been rising, but temperatures are cooler in five of the last seven decades. 1934 was the warmest year in the usa. the 1930s the coolest decade. Gosh, there must be natural forces at work huh.

Ok, lets get some real data going here, 400,000 years of Vostok ice core samples. you know the ones Gore keeps showing in his presentation (ever wonder why Gore doesnt ever debate anyone or take questions?)
CO2 and temperature are not steady, have over this period gone up and down quite a bit, CO2 levels always changed, always, after temperature changed and not visa-versa. CO2 doesnt change temperature, temperature changes CO2. Cooler oceans absorb CO2, warming oceans release CO2.

So if you want to see more, go to my website, www.isthereglobalwarming.com

Some alarmists say my data is cherry picked. You decide if this is true or not. All the data at the top of the site are from official government agencies.

Bottom line:

Global temperatures are cooling (now at the avg of the last 30 years)
Global sea ice is at normal levels (adding both poles together)
Hurricanes are at a 50 year low
Sea temperatures are cooling
solar activity is changing, when this happened in the past temps cooled


GP

[gpp111]

global warming

If you want to see some great info on global warming take a look at this:

http://www.garagetv.be/video-galerij...tary_Film.aspx

read this article on sunspots

http://icecap.us/images/uploads/solarcyclestory.pdf

GP

[justintempler]

Re: global warming

I see that someone was quoting my website, www.isthereglobalwarming.com

I also see that the global warming alarmists reverted to their usual tactic of ad hoiminem attacks on me. Let the facts speak for themselves.

It's not an ad hominem to point out that you do have a conflict of interest, that you do cherry pick your data, and that you pretend to know more than the 1,000's of scientists who have spent their professional careers pursuing the truth.

If you want to see some great info on global warming take a look at this:

http://www.garagetv.be/video-galerij...tary_Film.aspx

read this article on sunspots

http://icecap.us/images/uploads/solarcyclestory.pdf

GP

I'm glad you reference Martin Durkin's The Great Global Warming Swindle.

E-mail exchange between Bob Ward and Martin Durkin (September 2007)

Five major misrepresentations of the scientific evidence in the DVD version of 'The Great Global Warming Swindle'

Open exchange of e-mail messages between Bob Ward and Martin Durkin (April 2007)

The Great Global Warming Swindle: open letter to Martin Durkin from 37 signatories (April 2007)

Letter to Ofcom

Complaint to Ofcom: Seven major misrepresentations of the scientific evidence in 'The Great Global Warming Swindle'

This is the Australian Broadcasting Corporations presentation and debate of Martin Durkins documentary, The Great Global Warming Swindle.

There are 9 parts to the debate, part 1/9 is here:

<embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/F25gZvmMJJM&hl=en&fs=1&rel=0" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" allowscriptaccess="always" allowfullscreen="true" width="425" height="344"></embed>

The playlist for the Intro and 9 debate segments are here

Australian Broadcastings Website for The Great Global Warming Swindle Movie

[gpp111]

global warming

I find the information in the film to be very accurate.

Here is a list of 700 internationally recognized scientists who have come out against the global warming theory and why.

http://epw.senate.gov/public/index.c...d-6e2d71db52d9

Now I know you will attack this list. It is true that Senator Inhofe put it together, and he is a well known Senator from Oklahoma who is a global warming skeptic, but besides that, stay focused on the scientists and what they say. This list alone proves the statement "scientific consensus to be false". I will enjoy seeing how you attack the list. I would invite anyone else to take a look at what the scientists are saying and you will quickly understand the truth about the myth of man made global warming.


But, you didnt address my other points.

1. There were at least three ice ages with more CO2 than today
2. There is about the same amount of polar ice today as the past 30 years
3. hurricane activity is at a 50 year low
4. global temperatures have been cooling since 2002
5. 400,000 years of vostok ice core samples show that CO2 did not once
change before temperature, temperature always changes first

GP

[gpp111]

report

Perhaps someone would like to read the recent EPA report written by Alan Carlin and John Davidson of the national center for environmental studies. These are both EPA career employees who wrote a report that says the endangerment finding for CO2 is without merit. The global warming alarmists at the EPA attempted to stop this report from getting out.

http://cei.org/cei_files/fm/active/0/DOC062509-004.pdf

GP

[justintempler]

Re: global warming

I find the information in the film to be very accurate.

Here is a list of 700 internationally recognized scientists who have come out against the global warming theory and why.

http://epw.senate.gov/public/index.c...d-6e2d71db52d9

Now I know you will attack this list. It is true that Senator Inhofe put it together, and he is a well known Senator from Oklahoma who is a global warming skeptic, but besides that, stay focused on the scientists and what they say. This list alone proves the statement "scientific consensus to be false". I will enjoy seeing how you attack the list. I would invite anyone else to take a look at what the scientists are saying and you will quickly understand the truth about the myth of man made global warming.


But, you didnt address my other points.

1. There were at least three ice ages with more CO2 than today
2. There is about the same amount of polar ice today as the past 30 years
3. hurricane activity is at a 50 year low
4. global temperatures have been cooling since 2002
5. 400,000 years of vostok ice core samples show that CO2 did not once
change before temperature, temperature always changes first

GP

Only 700? I'm surprised you didn't use:

31,478 American scientists have signed this petition, including 9,029 with PhDs

and a small peek at the BS behind it:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Oregon_Petition

In a 2005 op-ed in the Hawaii Reporter, Todd Shelly wrote:

“ In less than 10 minutes of casual scanning, I found duplicate names (Did two Joe R. Eaglemans and two David Tompkins sign the petition, or were some individuals counted twice?), single names without even an initial (Biolchini), corporate names (Graybeal & Sayre, Inc. How does a business sign a petition?), and an apparently phony single name (Redwine, Ph.D.). These examples underscore a major weakness of the list: there is no way to check the authenticity of the names. Names are given, but no identifying information (e.g., institutional affiliation) is provided. Why the lack of transparency?[23]

In the scientific community you never get 100% consensus on anything. There are still scientists that don't believe HIV leads to aids. This is a snus board we are well aware scientists and doctors for years claimed that smoking didn't cause cancer. You can always find a portion of the science community to back up your point of view.

I'm not going to do a point by point refutation of your points.
I am not qualified and neither are you.
I leave science to the science community.

There's aprox. 80 minutes of debate showing the flaws of the film that you stand by. If people are really interested they will watch it and I'll let them make up their own minds.

[justintempler]

Re: report

Perhaps someone would like to read the recent EPA report written by Alan Carlin and John Davidson of the national center for environmental studies. These are both EPA career employees who wrote a report that says the endangerment finding for CO2 is without merit. The global warming alarmists at the EPA attempted to stop this report from getting out.

http://cei.org/cei_files/fm/active/0/DOC062509-004.pdf

GP

I'll help you out. Here's the revised version. It's not a photocopy, the text is searchable in this one.

http://wattsupwiththat.files.wordpre...mmentsv7b1.pdf

A revision has been made in the authorship.
Now Carlin is the sole author and the NCEE logos have been removed.

and this little tidbit:

....
Now further study reveals an even more shocking connection: the “suppressed” Carlin report appears to have been inspired by, and largely lifted from, an attack on the EPA published last November in climate science disinformation specialist Patrick Michaels’ World Climate Report. And all this came without any attribution of the large swathes of copied material to WCR or the original author (presumably either Michaels or sidekick Chip Knappenberger).
....

more details here:
http://deepclimate.org/2009/06/30/su...attack-on-epa/
and here:
http://deepclimate.org/2009/06/28/ep...ds-of-science/

So it wasn't a supressed EPA report afterall, but a paper that includes plagarized works from a web blog. No wonder John Davidson is no longer an author.

And let's get this straight Alan Carlin's expertise with the EPA was as an economist not a climate scientist.

And your buddy Alan Carlin is an advocate of geo-engineering. :roll:

"Recently some have begun to advocate engineered climate selection as a fallback or insurance policy, in case their preferred regulatory decarbonization approach does not solve the problem or an unforeseen event occurs that requires a rapid response. A more prudent and efficient strategy would appear to be to implement engineered climate selection first and then see what further needs to be done." --Alan Carlin, University of Pennsylvania Law Review, June 2007

We already have conspiracy theories about contrails and this nutjob is talking about advocating controlling the weather before global warming becomes a problem? Why would Alan Carlin advocate geo-engineering the climate if he didn't think climate change was real? :roll: :roll: :roll: :roll: