Global Warming or Global Warning??

[Guest]

Maybe it's not a "global warming" or even a global warning. . . maybe it's a temperature readjusting back to what God wanted it to be. . . before we started abusing our atmosphere with hair spray!

I don't use hairspray. Does that mean I'm excluded.

Stop You Two!

My Sides Are Hurting!

[Guest Biblicist]

Maybe it's not a "global warming" or even a global warning. . . maybe it's a temperature readjusting back to what God wanted it to be. . . before we started abusing our atmosphere with hair spray!

I don't use hairspray. Does that mean I'm excluded.

Yes, if you have never used hairspray then you are not one of the ones who caused the "hole" in the ozone. Well done!

[Guest Biblicist]

Maybe it's not a "global warming" or even a global warning. . . maybe it's a temperature readjusting back to what God wanted it to be. . . before we started abusing our atmosphere with hair spray!

I don't use hairspray. Does that mean I'm excluded.

Stop You Two!

My Sides Are Hurting!

What?

Is it really so difficult to believe that the worlds temps have been WRONG and God is righting them?

If I read correctly, before the flood, the world was all the same temp. . . Genesis 2:6 But there went up a mist from the earth, and watered the whole face of the ground.

[Fraught]

This is just how theory of evolution became so widespread. Apparently all we need is about half the scientists to agree that it may be true and everything under the sun will start to be blamed on global warming.

the propaganda begins by an expert basing an opinion on an assumption. when more and more opinions become based on this same assumption, the assumption assumes the character of a truth and everyone forgets that it started out as a hypothesis.

[Guest Cudabob]

Found this bit of alarming news on the Internet when I woke up this morning, (Friday AM). Do you think this is a Warning for Man, Or a Warning from God?

Scientists Make Dire Forecast for Alaska

By DAN JOLING,AP

Posted: 2007-09-07 01:14:19

Filed Under: Science News

ANCHORAGE, Alaska (Sept. 7) - An analysis of 20 years' worth of real-life observations supports recent U.N. computer predictions that by 2050, summer sea ice off Alaska's north coast will probably shrink to nearly half the area it covered in the 1980s, federal scientists say.

It's definitly warming up. 20,000 years ago the US was covered in ice!

[forrestkc]

Found this bit of alarming news on the Internet when I woke up this morning, (Friday AM). Do you think this is a Warning for Man, Or a Warning from God?

Scientists Make Dire Forecast for Alaska

By DAN JOLING,AP

Posted: 2007-09-07 01:14:19

Filed Under: Science News

ANCHORAGE, Alaska (Sept. 7) - An analysis of 20 years' worth of real-life observations supports recent U.N. computer predictions that by 2050, summer sea ice off Alaska's north coast will probably shrink to nearly half the area it covered in the 1980s, federal scientists say.

It's definitly warming up. 20,000 years ago the US was covered in ice!

Actually, only the northern half. And that was not 20,000 years ago that glaciation extended that far south but rather 120,000 years ago. Temperatures at the time worldwide were 5c lower than the worldwide average of the twentieth century.

[kat8585]

So it's not what really is the truth, but what is politically important today and what gets the money and power to control others.

Plus, how do they know the earth warmed up 1 degree, or whatever it is, and how do they even know how many degrees? The temperature changes every day, everywhere. And where do they take the temperature?

[dakota190]

just a little tidbit i received from townhall.com about the alleged global warming.

Global Warming Insanity?

By Paul Driessen

Saturday, September 8, 2007

The object of life is not to be on the side of the majority,” Marcus Aurelius opined, “but to escape finding oneself in the ranks of the insane.” An even worse fate would be to end up in minority status and an asylum. Recent developments suggest that this might become the destiny of climate change alarmists.

Now that NASA has corrected its US temperature records, the hottest year on record is no longer 1998, but 1934. Five of the ten hottest years since 1880 were between 1920 and 1940 – and the 15 hottest years since 1880 are spread across seven decades. This suggests natural variation, not a warming trend. Plant and insect remains found at the base of Greenland’s ice sheet indicate that, just 400,000 years ago, the island was blanketed in forests and basking in temperatures perhaps 27 degrees F warmer than today.

Protestors march through the village of Sipson near Heathrow Airport in west London August 19, 2007. Hundreds of activists massed on Sunday and pledged a mix of peaceful protest and civil disobedience to draw attention to the impact of aviation on global warming. REUTERS/Luke MacGregor (BRITAIN)

Related Media:

VIDEO: Cut Your Grass And Reduce Global Warming

VIDEO: Our Changing Climate

Land area temperatures in South America, Africa and Australia have declined slightly over the last few years. Since 1998, sea surface temperatures over much of the world have decreased slightly, while globally averaged atmospheric temperatures have shown no change.

Many US temperature gauges are near air-conditioning exhausts, hot asphalt and other heat sources. Their readings are thus too high and must be revised downward – along with claims about rising temperatures.

Over the past 650,000 years, global temperatures almost always rose or fell first – followed centuries later by changes in atmospheric carbon dioxide levels, as warming oceans exhaled CO2 or cooling seas absorbed the gas. (This inconvenient fact is what Al Gore is referring to when he says the temperature-CO2 relationship “is actually very complicated.”)

More scientists are pointing to solar energy levels, cosmic rays and clouds as determinants of climate – and saying CO2 plays only a minor role. Thousands of scientists have questioned claims that humans are causing catastrophic climate change, and over the past year dozens have publicly switched from believers to skeptics about climate Armageddon theories. There is obviously no consensus on climate change.

Latvia and seven other eastern European countries are threatening legal action against EU decisions to restrict their emissions, as they work to grow their economies after decades of impoverishment under Communism. China and India refuse to sacrifice economic growth to concerns about climate chaos. China has surpassed the US as the world’s leading CO2 emitter – and EU carbon dioxide emissions have increased faster than those in the United States, where both population and economic growth have been substantially higher than in Western Europe.

During the just-concluded UN climate conference in Vienna, a number of industrialized countries rejected binding targets of 25-40% greenhouse gas reductions by 2020 – while a bloc of 77 developing nations said industrialized countries should reduce their emissions 80% by that date.

The response of climate alarmists is fodder for psychological textbooks. Greenpeace says cataclysm skeptics are “climate criminals.” NASA scientist James Hansen calls us “court jesters.” Grist magazine wants “Nuremberg-style war crimes trials.” Robert Kennedy, Jr. says we should be treated like “traitors.”

Phil Jones at the University of East Anglia’s Climate Research Unit refused to reveal the methodology for his dire-sounding temperature data. “Why should I make the data available,” he asked, “when your aim is to find something wrong with it?” And Senator Barbara Boxer turned climate hearings into inquisitions for catastrophe skeptics, while Congressman Jim Costa walked out on a witness who pointed out that proposed legislation would dramatically increase energy and food prices, cost millions of jobs, and severely hurt poor families – while doing nothing to stabilize global temperatures.

Newsweek said climate holocaust “deniers” had received $19 million from industry, to subvert the “consensus” it claims exists about global warming. It made no mention of the $50 BILLION that alarmists and other beneficiaries have received since 1990 from governments, foundations and corporations – or of its 1975 article, which declared that scientists are “almost unanimous” in believing that a major cooling trend would usher in reduced agricultural productivity, famines and perhaps even a new Little Ice Age.

(Newsweek contributing editor Robert Samuelson called the global warming "denial machine” article “highly contrived” and based on “discredited” accusations about industry funding.)

Alarmists have blamed global warming for hurricanes, tornadoes, malaria, and even the Minneapolis bridge collapse, terrorism, Italian suicides, teenage drinking and “irritability” in mice. By combining far-fetched speculation with various computer-generated temperature projections and worst-case scenarios, they concoct even more ominous auguries, like this whopper from London’s Benfield UCL Hazard Research Centre:

If CO2 levels keep rising, global temperatures could soar, ice caps could melt, oceans could rise dozens of feet – and all that extra water pressure could destabilize Earth’s crust, squeeze out magma and cause volcanoes to erupt. The volcanic gases and dust could then cool the earth, and cause a new ice age.

A 1993 blockbuster movie used a similar what-if pyramid scheme to generate terrifying encounters with raptors and tyrannosaurs. But when the lights came up, people knew it was just a movie.

When it comes to climate change, however, many seem unable to separate science from science fiction – or even distinguish between headline-grabbing pronouncements, preposterous disaster flicks like “The Day After Tomorrow,” and pseudo-documentaries like “An Inconvenient Truth” and “The 11th Hour.” Instead of fostering rational discourse and responsible action, alarmists insist that we “do something” immediately to prevent climate cataclysm.

Al Gore is buying carbon offset indulgences. Leonardo DiCaprio is replacing his incandescent lightbulbs. Cheryl Crow promotes one square per trip to the ladies room. Cate Blanchett will wash her hair less often in her new $10-million Australian mansion. Cameron Diaz promotes “indigenous” lifestyles in Third World countries.

But they all support laws mandating greatly reduced energy use and economic growth – outside of Hollywood and Nashville’s Belle Meade area. In response, Congress has introduced a half-dozen “climate stabilization” bills – and state legislatures are reviewing 375 more – even as the scientific “consensus” fades, Europe’s united front on emissions trading collapses, and countries in the Asia-Pacific Partnership reject mandatory greenhouse gas cutbacks in favor of steady technological progress in pollution control and energy efficiency.

These bills would cost American consumers many billions of dollars a year. But they would reduce average global temperatures by a tiny fraction of the 0.2 degrees F that scientists say the Kyoto Protocol would accomplish by 2050 (assuming CO2 really is a primary cause of climate change).

It’s time to ask: At what point do symbolic gestures and political grandstanding become “doing something” about climate change? At what point do they amount to insanity?

Many suspect that anxiety about climate change was never really about preventing a global warming – or global cooling – catastrophe. Instead, they say, the real purpose is controlling energy use, economic growth and people’s lives. Alarmist efforts to intimidate climate catastrophe skeptics and legislate mandatory energy restrictions suggest that these suspicions are valid, and that climate doomsayers are becoming increasingly desperate.

Paul Driessen is senior policy advisor for the Congress of Racial Equality and Atlas Economic Research Foundation, and author of Eco-Imperialism: Green Power - Black Death. CORE will host a November 29 program at the United Nations on how climate change programs and policies might affect industrialization, families and communities in developing nations.

[MeCajunboy]

This is just how theory of evolution became so widespread. Apparently all we need is about half the scientists to agree that it may be true and everything under the sun will start to be blamed on global warming.

the propaganda begins by an expert basing an opinion on an assumption. when more and more opinions become based on this same assumption, the assumption assumes the character of a truth and everyone forgets that it started out as a hypothesis.

Cajun To Fraught:::: You don't have to "assume" that there is a serious problem that so many seem to ignore. And here is just one of hundreds of examples. take the Polar Ice Caps melting at a faster pace than they need be. Actually, there is no need for the Polar Ice Caps to be melting at all. But if you ever get to see the Huge Ice Bergs and Glaciers of Alaska breaking off at an alarming rate, you'll suddenly begin to realize tha tit's a lot more that "banning" hair aeiosol cans and the like.

[MeCajunboy]

Maybe it's not a "global warming" or even a global warning. . . maybe it's a temperature readjusting back to what God wanted it to be. . . before we started abusing our atmosphere with hair spray!

I don't use hairspray. Does that mean I'm excluded.

Yes, if you have never used hairspray then you are not one of the ones who caused the "hole" in the ozone. Well done!

I don't use hairspray either?.............But then again I have the hairstyle of "Howie Mandell!" lololol